Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

In the wargear entry for the BA assault sergeant it states "the sergeant can replace his bolt pisto/chainsword with: hand flamer, pp, infernus pistols, pw, LC, SS, PF, TH"

In all other cases in the BA dex the sergeant entry reads as follows: the sergeant can replace his bolt gun and/or his chainsword with the following:



Does this mean that the assault sergeant can only replace one of his two weapons? Is this a typical GW editing/wording error, hence the assault sergeant CAN replace both bolt pistol AND chainsword?

My opinion is that he can replace both. How useless would a SS be if all you can take with it is a bolt pistol?

You can replace both if you wish.

I assure you it is the same as the rest just our spiritual liege made a typo that wasn't picked up by the editor.

Thanks, that saves me ripping off plastic glued in arms in painted marines.

Since it says bolt pistol/chainsword I say no. The "/" clearly means or. It does not mean and/or, which is something that is said in many of the entries around the book, such as in the Death Company entry above it...

I feel sorry for bringing up another problem for blood angels players in a different discussion - even if it is factual. You all have pretty rough right now and I'll let this slide in a game against you.

Actually, the slash can mean and/or in English - it's dependent on context. As to which applies here...well, the poll results appear to speak for themselves...

I disagree about your interpretation of what the slash means since it does not mean that in any other codex and just because people agree to something doesn't make them right. I would argue that the rest of the codex, which has examples of the proper and/or being used, serves as precident in this regard. That is RAW of course. People are welcome to house-rule as they please.

Edit: It could be a GW error, but to call it such would be RAI not RAW.

Can someone check the BA codex -specifically the section where they describe using the army list entries. I only have the Daemon codex on me but in this version it describes options as:

When an option states that you may exchange one weapon 'and/or' another, you may replace either, neither, or both provided you pay the points cost.

It specifically says "bolt pistol/chainsword" rather than "bolt pistol and/or chainsword" like it does for DC (as an example on the same page).

Ok, I've checked the Codex. Strict RAW, the argument holds true - page 81 only holds reference to "and/or" specifically, it doesn't mention just a single "/".
However - RAI wise, there's a convincing argument on page 73 where we're shown a Sergeant with a power axe and infernus pistol.

You can exchange both.

 Super Ready wrote:
Actually, the slash can mean and/or in English - it's dependent on context. As to which applies here...well, the poll results appear to speak for themselves...

The slash means either.. or not and.. or.

It depends on context. Though admittedly - the way the other Codex entries are written means context falls on the "either" side which I should have realised. :p

To be more specific, it can mean "and/or" when used in list format, and referring to terms that aren't mutually exclusive.
For instance:

"Before you board the aircraft, ensure you declare any liquids/sharp objects/narcotics/teddy bears/overgrown aubergines you may be carrying."
Declaring a teddy bear wouldn't exempt you from declaring any overgrown aubergines.