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.

#8 "Options: This section lists all of the upgrades you may add to the unit if you wish to do so, alongside the associated points costs for each. Where an option states that you may exchange one weapon "and/or" another, you may replace either or both, provided you pay the points cost for each."

So I will take an example of a random Space Marine Captain. Captain Bob of the Super Space Monkies Chapter.

Bob carries a Bolt gun and a chain sword.
He wants to replace his Bolt gun with his chapters revered Bolter..Primarchs Wrath. according to the rules he can for 20 points.
He decides he needs some protection from the mean traitor Imperial Guard he is going to be fighting today so he trades his Chain Sword for the Sheild Eternal. Paying the 35 (unsure of this cost) points. He could also don the most super spiffy armor his Chapter has, however that makes him rather expensive.

Now Captain Bob has obeyed the discription of the Options location on his Army List entry. Changed one or both weapons and payed the cost for them.

Wether or not the actual relic entry on his options page says and/or or not. The discription of the options box listed in the codex says you CAN change one OR both, as long as you pay for them.

That's incorrect. The relic requirements are more specific than the chapter master options.

Replacing 3 is not replacing 1. Bob has made illegal selections.

I can understand the arguement with the sheild, I do not agree, but I can see the issue. The armor, you replace your armor with it. Since it has been argeed that since it doesnt require a weapon swap it is a ok trade.

I am confused though. I would think that a section of the army rulebook thats states trading multiple weapons is OK as long as you pay for it would basicly mean if he decided to carry the Emperors Q-tip and Dorns toilet paper as weapons ok....As long as you pay to swap your Bolt gun (pistol, or Bolt gun) and Chain sword.

I mean its in the army RULEBOOK?! I admit I am new to the game so please please show me something that says disregard what army rulebook says. I am having a hard enough time figuring out all of the "this is the rule from the BRB" oh but this book says this so ignore the BRB...to add something that I THINK should be there. I believe, and no offense meant, I will follow the book but find a way to spend the points for the second relic should my opponent desire it only be one.

Alexi wrote:
I can understand the arguement with the sheild, I do not agree, but I can see the issue. The armor, you replace your armor with it. Since it has been argeed that since it doesnt require a weapon swap it is a ok trade.

I am confused though. I would think that a section of the army rulebook thats states trading multiple weapons is OK as long as you pay for it would basicly mean if he decided to carry the Emperors Q-tip and Dorns toilet paper as weapons ok....As long as you pay to swap your Bolt gun (pistol, or Bolt gun) and Chain sword.

I mean its in the army RULEBOOK?! I admit I am new to the game so please please show me something that says disregard what army rulebook says. I am having a hard enough time figuring out all of the "this is the rule from the BRB" oh but this book says this so ignore the BRB...to add something that I THINK should be there. I believe, and no offense meant, I will follow the book but find a way to spend the points for the second relic should my opponent desire it only be one.

You should actually read the rules for the relic section in your codex. Not just the chapter master options. You should understand the difference between the two.

umm I would seriously like to know where you are getting Chapter master? My example used a Captain and the rules section I quoted was ( am looking at the codex now for the page) page 158. Titled The Emperor's Sword.

The how to use the army list page. highlighted number 8.

as for the relics page. page 127. it states only one of EACH item may be choosen per army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So, please help me understand where the only 1 per character is. page number? FAQ? fortune cookie that i wouldnt get causse they are yuckie? please? I would rather NOT be TFG

Alexi wrote:
umm I would seriously like to know where you are getting Chapter master? My example used a Captain and the rules section I quoted was ( am looking at the codex now for the page) page 158. Titled The Emperor's Sword.

Sorry. Irrelevant difference - someone else used chapter master.

as for the relics page. page 127. it states only one of EACH item may be choosen per army.

Page 159 - your know, the actual rules for purchasing Chapter Relics (point costs and restrictions).

So the place it says one weapon with one of the following? Going off pg 158, I can replace 1 weapon with Primarchs Wrath, my bolt gun and one weapon with teeth of terra my chain sword

Alexi wrote:
So the place it says one weapon with one of the following? Going off pg 158, I can replace 1 weapon with Primarchs Wrath, my bolt gun and one weapon with teeth of terra my chain sword

So you've failed to read the thread.

If you've replaced 2 weapons, have you replaced one weapon?

And yet, the How to use the army entry states that if it says and/or you may replace one or both. so since the How to use this book page says you can replace both, where are you getting that 2 isnt legal? Yes...1 isnt 2 cause 2 is more then one and the individual entry says 1. However....just please. read page 158. all of it. its one page. if then you still say no, please give me a page/rule from a book, or an faq. or heck even from some high muckity muck at GW works. Opinions are great....for just that. you opinion

rigeld2 wrote:

Alexi wrote:
So the place it says one weapon with one of the following? Going off pg 158, I can replace 1 weapon with Primarchs Wrath, my bolt gun and one weapon with teeth of terra my chain sword

So you've failed to read the thread.

If you've replaced 2 weapons, have you replaced one weapon?

Yeah twice. I'll admit though, its unclear. If they wanted just one, they'd have used the special issue wargear wording instead of the current one.... but if they wanted it the other way they could have used the ranged,melee,or special weapons rulings. We'll have to wait and see how tourneys handle it... and wait much much longer to see how an FAQ handles it.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Sothas wrote:
Let me help.

C:SM pg. 159 "A model can replace one weapon with one of the following."

I read this as I replace a bolt pistol (one weapon) for one relic. Then I replace a chainsword (one weapon) for one more relic.

So you've replaced 2 items with 2 relics. Is that what the rule allows?

It is only saying the model can replace one weapon for one relic. So you can't replace one weapon for two relics.

RAW it makes no additional restriction. You are using implied logic that you cannot use the list again with another weapon.

At best all you can argue is that its ambiguous. Because its perfectly logical to allow the model to place a weapon with a relic as long as he has one to replace.

To back this up:
C:SM page 163 "A Chapter Master in power armour or artificer armour may take items from the Melee Weapons, Ranged Weapons, Special Issue Wargear, and/or Chapter Relics lists."
I highlighted items because it is plural. Multiple items from all of these lists.

No, you're misapplying the plural. That word must be plural because there are multiple lists (and you are not required to pick a single list).
That has literally nothing to do with a restriction on the list itself.

And I would argue you are using similar logic. You are misapplying the use of the word 'one' in the armory rule. All it is saying is that selecting a relic is a one to one weapon for relic, and not two for one, one for two, etc. Implying it means anything more is arguing RAI.

 winterman wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Sothas wrote:
Let me help.

C:SM pg. 159 "A model can replace one weapon with one of the following."

I read this as I replace a bolt pistol (one weapon) for one relic. Then I replace a chainsword (one weapon) for one more relic.

So you've replaced 2 items with 2 relics. Is that what the rule allows?

It is only saying the model can replace one weapon for one relic. So you can't replace one weapon for two relics.

RAW it makes no additional restriction. You are using implied logic that you cannot use the list again with another weapon.

At best all you can argue is that its ambiguous. Because its perfectly logical to allow the model to place a weapon with a relic as long as he has one to replace.

To back this up:
C:SM page 163 "A Chapter Master in power armour or artificer armour may take items from the Melee Weapons, Ranged Weapons, Special Issue Wargear, and/or Chapter Relics lists."
I highlighted items because it is plural. Multiple items from all of these lists.

No, you're misapplying the plural. That word must be plural because there are multiple lists (and you are not required to pick a single list).
That has literally nothing to do with a restriction on the list itself.

And I would argue you are using similar logic. You are misapplying the use of the word 'one' in the armory rule. All it is saying is that selecting a relic is a one to one weapon for relic, and not two for one, one for two, etc. Implying it means anything more is arguing RAI.

right, so my 10 man guard squad can take] two guard, and arm them with one heavy weapon according to the rules,

acording to your, incorrect, assumption, I can then take another two guardsmen, and give them one heavy weapon as well, and ignore the fact that I have now taken 4 guard, and given them two heavy weapons.

you are ASSUMING that "may trade ONE weapon, for ONE relic" implies/intend a ratio, and that is incorrect RAW,

raw is one weapon, for one relic,

as soon as you have swapped two weapons, for two relics, you have broken the rules.



C:SM page 163 "A Chapter Master in power armour or artificer armour may take items from the Melee Weapons, Ranged Weapons, Special Issue Wargear, and/or Chapter Relics lists."
I highlighted items because it is plural. Multiple items from all of these lists.

is in fact, not your permission to take multiple relics... it says you can take items (plural) from multiple (plural) lists...

so your argument, is that it should rightly say ".....can take ITEM from the melee, ranged weapons, special issue wargear, ect ect" list?

that isnt proper english, that word ITEMS is pluralized because it HAS to be to be applied to MULTIPLE lists.... that is not even close to overriding the very specific RAW of "ONE weapon, for ONE relic"

if you end up, through any means, with having swapped 2 weapons, for two relics, you have broken the above rule.

And yet, by saying you CANT swap one for one twice breaks the RAW on pg 158. Where it says and/or means one OR both as long as you pay for both

It's ambiguous based on RAW, and as Happyjew mentioned a page ago, GW has either decided that it can't clarify, or chosen not to.

People are focusing on the "one weapon" for "one weapon" part, but it, grammatically, is functionally the same as "bolt pistol and/or melee weapon" since the phrase "with ONE of the following" follows it. That is how it is in terms of language. Now in terms of RAI, there may be a difference, but again, GW hasn't clarified.

It is widely agreed upon that you can take two melee weapons (such as lightning claws), and as such the language for relics, in the absence of an FAQ opposing it, should be interpreted the same as the language for melee/ranged weapons.

The only difference between "bolt pistol and/or melee weapon" for "one weapon" and "one weapon" for "one weapon" is that you can be in terminator armor when taking relics, and therefore you need to be able to replace more than bolt pistols and/or melee weapons for relics, you need to be able to replace any given weapon for any given relic.

Now, here's the thing, if it was widely agreed upon that you could not take more than one melee weapon, then perhaps it would make sense that you couldn't take more than one relic, but the consensus on melee weapons creates an opening on relic weapons.

Welcome to poor rule writing, your teacher today will be Game Workshop.....

I have addressed the and/or for 'pistol and/or melee' in the past because it is a good example of how not to write a rule. By a very logical and rule as written examination, the model exchanging a bolt pistol and melee weapon would only gain one of the listed weapons in return. After all even though, previously in the book, it has explained that and/or can exchange both as long as they pay costs for both, that doesn't over-ride the more specific rule found later telling you 'one of the following.' However this rule as written explanation can not be correct because it presents a choice that doesn't make any sense. There is no benefit for exchanging both, so why waste all this ink explaining how you go about exchanging both if there was never any intention to allow two items to be exchangeable for two items by the and/or clause.

In short: Whom in their right mind exchanges two weapons for one when the option to exchange one for one exists?

Now I will admit I have not consumed and digested the Space Marine codex, I have barely flicked through it. However, from what people have put here in relation to the relic, I can not say the same ambitious nature exists. There is nothing in the relic rule which states and/or nor is there anything which seems to grant permission to take the rule twice. While it is a situation of comparing oranges and lemons, seeing it is a little closer then apples, it still is two completely different wording so one can not be used as precedent for the other. We might be wrong and the intent might be to take multiple relics, but the rule as written does not create the same confusion as the inclusion of and/or before 'one of the following.'

But, if you can only trade for one relic, then you must only be able to trade for one melee weapon, as the relevant wording that controls the number of choices that you can make from each is identical.

Both say: You may trade x for one y. If the one relic interpretation really is correct, the the melee and/or language would serve only to allow players to trade two weapons for one. This is obviously not how the author meant the writing to be interpreted (unless the VV box with the twin lightning claw marine on the front was a taunt rather than a preview).

Rapture wrote:
But, if you can only trade for one relic, then you must only be able to trade for one melee weapon, as the relevant wording that controls the number of choices that you can make from each is identical.

Both say: You may trade x for one y. If the one relic interpretation really is correct, the the melee and/or language would serve only to allow players to trade two weapons for one. This is obviously not how the author meant the writing to be interpreted (unless the VV box with the twin lightning claw marine on the front was a taunt rather than a preview).

Except of course for the rule that says and/or allows two swaps (page 158).
Does the relic requirement say and/or?

rigeld2 wrote:

Except of course for the rule that says and/or allows two swaps (page 158).
Does the relic requirement say and/or?

Except of course that the conjunctions cannot change the effect of the rule because they are inside of a clause.

The two clauses for both the melee and relic rules are 'can replace x' and 'with y.' What the x and the y are cannot, in the English language, have any impact on the interaction of those two clauses.

If consistency in the Wargear List is important (which it is), then the number of selections that a model can make from the melee, ranged, and relic tables must all be the same. The and/or does not changes this as it is not capable of change it.

Rapture wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Except of course for the rule that says and/or allows two swaps (page 158).
Does the relic requirement say and/or?

Except of course that the conjunctions cannot change the effect of the rule because they are inside of a clause.

The two clauses for both the melee and relic rules are 'can replace x' and 'with y.' What the x and the y are cannot, in the English language, have any impact on the interaction of those two clauses.

If consistency in the Wargear List is important (which it is), then the number of selections that a model can make from the melee, ranged, and relic tables must all be the same. The and/or does not changes this as it is not capable of change it.

According to page 158, the and/or absolutely does change it.
It's like rules matter or something...

Are you suggesting that "you may exchange either or both" allows for something other than trading 'either or both?' Because that would be stupid. The language 'either or both' alone does not alter the interaction of the two clauses that are contained witin a number of the tables in the Wargear List. This is just simple English. Go look up clauses and conjunctions if you are still having trouble.

The rules are that you may exchange x for one y. The x could be 'a pastrami sandwich,' 'a tuna fish and/or your favorite book,' or 'a flute and a kazoo, and/or an egret' - none of these alternatives of varying complexity make any difference. Because the x is contained inside of it own clause, it has no impact on how many y's you can take. The only effect the 'and/or' has, using the RAW stance that would limit relic weapons to one selection per model is to allow a model to replace two of the weapons that it has for one selection from the relevant chart. You might be stamping your feet because no one would ever trade two when they can trade one, but that is why people should disagree with that RAW stance.

If models can only take one relic, then they can only take one melee weapon. The presence of a conjunction inside of one of the rule clauses is completely irrelevant with relation to how many selections can be made as a result of the two clauses interacting.

Rapture wrote:
Are you suggesting that "you may exchange either or both" allows for something other than trading 'either or both?' Because that would be stupid. The language 'either or both' alone does not alter the interaction of the two clauses that are contained witin a number of the tables in the Wargear List. This is just simple English. Go look up clauses and conjunctions if you are still having trouble.

You may replace either or both provided you pay the point cost for each. You really should address the entire rule and not just part of it.
Meaning you're getting something for both exchanges.

If models can only take one relic, then they can only take one melee weapon. The presence of a conjunction inside of one of the rule clauses is completely irrelevant with relation to how many selections can be made as a result of the two clauses interacting.

The actual rules disagree with you. Perhaps you'd like to address rules instead of pretending I'm somehow butchering English?

rigeld2 wrote:

Rapture wrote:
Are you suggesting that "you may exchange either or both" allows for something other than trading 'either or both?' Because that would be stupid. The language 'either or both' alone does not alter the interaction of the two clauses that are contained witin a number of the tables in the Wargear List. This is just simple English. Go look up clauses and conjunctions if you are still having trouble.

You may replace either or both provided you pay the point cost for each. You really should address the entire rule and not just part of it.
Meaning you're getting something for both exchanges.

If models can only take one relic, then they can only take one melee weapon. The presence of a conjunction inside of one of the rule clauses is completely irrelevant with relation to how many selections can be made as a result of the two clauses interacting.

The actual rules disagree with you. Perhaps you'd like to address rules instead of pretending I'm somehow butchering English?

That 'provided...' language is rendered ineffective by the rest of the rule. Sure, it indicates something, but a RAW approach that would limit the selection of relic weapons never allows what the 'provided...' language indicates to become effective. It is preceded by that fact that 'either or both' only means 'either or both' (aka 'and/or').

To slow it down for you, limiting the relic selections to one means that there is only ever one exchange under the rules for the Wargear List. So, what you are pointing out can never be given effect.

To make it really, really (like, 4th grade) simple for you:
[can replace its x and/or y] [with one z]
These must each be read and given effect independently and in their entirety. Therefore, your options are:
1) To trade x for one z
2) To trade y for one z
3) To trade x and y for one z

This is the only way that this can be read in English. Unless you start out with the presumption that there can be more than one exchange, which means that multiple relics and multiple melee selection can be taken. The two are inextricably tied.

Rapture wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Rapture wrote:
Are you suggesting that "you may exchange either or both" allows for something other than trading 'either or both?' Because that would be stupid. The language 'either or both' alone does not alter the interaction of the two clauses that are contained witin a number of the tables in the Wargear List. This is just simple English. Go look up clauses and conjunctions if you are still having trouble.

You may replace either or both provided you pay the point cost for each. You really should address the entire rule and not just part of it.
Meaning you're getting something for both exchanges.

If models can only take one relic, then they can only take one melee weapon. The presence of a conjunction inside of one of the rule clauses is completely irrelevant with relation to how many selections can be made as a result of the two clauses interacting.

The actual rules disagree with you. Perhaps you'd like to address rules instead of pretending I'm somehow butchering English?

That 'provided...' language is rendered ineffective by the rest of the rule. Sure, it indicates something, but a RAW approach that would limit the selection of relic weapons never allows what the 'provided...' language indicates to become effective. It is preceded by that fact that 'either or both' only means 'either or both' (aka 'and/or').

To slow it down for you, limiting the relic selections to one means that there is only ever one exchange under the rules for the Wargear List. So, what you are pointing out can never be given effect.

To make it really, really (like, 4th grade) simple for you:
[can replace its x and/or y] [with one z]
These must each be read and given effect independently and in their entirety. Therefore, your options are:
1) To trade x for one z
2) To trade y for one z
3) To trade x and y for one z

This is the only way that this can be read in English. Unless you start out with the presumption that there can be more than one exchange, which means that multiple relics and multiple melee selection can be taken. The two are inextricably tied.

Your opinion literally ignores the rules quoted on p158 and can therefore not be considered valid.
Your insulting is also noted and reported. Have a nice day.

rigeld2 wrote:
Your opinion literally ignores the rules quoted on p158 and can therefore not be considered valid.
Your insulting is also noted and reported. Have a nice day.

As stated, the rules on p158 do not come into effect because of the definite nature of the quoted rules from the Wargear List. If, however, multiple events/trades are possible and multiple melee and relic weapons can be taken, then this is not an issue.

Feel free to present a relevant argument against what I previously stated that is not superseded by the continuous application of the position that I am arguing against. Or, just threaten me with your petty tattling. I seriously doubt that the former will be more compelling than the latter, but If you think that you are right, I would still like to hear why.

rigeld is going by likely RAI, but not the english language RAW. On 158 it says you can replace either or both provided you pay the points cost. The thing is, what are you replacing items for? The second half of the sentence in the wargear section tells us, "for one of the following" meaning a single item.

Does it make sense that you'd pay twice to replace two items for one? No, not really, but that's how its written.

That, of course creates a problem if you want to interpret RAI to allow for 2 replacements, namely, what is the actual GW RAI for allowing two replacements. Some RAI interpretations would allow for two relic replacements, some do not.

Again, as happyjew said a page ago, GW hasn't clarified for one reason or another. I think that's probably the best answer this thread will get. Until we get a true answer from GW on the subject, the best thing to do is to discuss it with your friends and TOs, and agree to a set of rules, with the full understanding that those rulings may not be in line with GW intended RAI.

I personally tend to lean towards more liberal approaches. I am a proponent of allowing people to play how they please within the rules. If the rules are ambiguous IMO the best and friendliest thing to do is to not impose restrictions where GW might not have intended for them to exist.

Well said.

The problem is that people have preconceived notions based on snap-decisions about how the rule should work rather than how it does work. The result is twisting language and not-quite-conscious ignorance where the rules are adapted to fit opinions rather than the other way around.

The RAW is broken (in my opinion), but one of the RAI approaches lets the entire Wargear List function as it should, with multiple selections being allowed as if each potential swap of equipment works like an independent event that doesn't bar further swaps and no absurd results like trading two weapons for one weapon. This prevents picking and choosing when to apply RAW vs. RAI to a common group of rules, but the idea of a Captain with a salvo bolter and ap3 chainsword offends people for some reason.

DogofWar1 wrote:
rigeld is going by likely RAI, but not the english language RAW.

Have I specified that? Why would you think that?

On 158 it says you can replace either or both provided you pay the points cost. The thing is, what are you replacing items for? The second half of the sentence in the wargear section tells us, "for one of the following" meaning a single item.

No, it doesn't say that. Perhaps you should look at page 158 again? I don't think you're thinking of the correct page.
158 proves that GW uses and/or to allow 2 replacements. Proper English or not, it's GWs usage. Just like GW uses counts as to mean the same thing as treat as and the same thing as effectively, which all mean the same thing as "is".

rigeld2 wrote:

DogofWar1 wrote:
rigeld is going by likely RAI, but not the english language RAW.

Have I specified that? Why would you think that?

On 158 it says you can replace either or both provided you pay the points cost. The thing is, what are you replacing items for? The second half of the sentence in the wargear section tells us, "for one of the following" meaning a single item.

No, it doesn't say that. Perhaps you should look at page 158 again? I don't think you're thinking of the correct page.
158 proves that GW uses and/or to allow 2 replacements. Proper English or not, it's GWs usage. Just like GW uses counts as to mean the same thing as treat as and the same thing as effectively, which all mean the same thing as "is".

I think you are going by likely RAI and not RAW because RAW requires taking the limiting phrase of "one of the following" into account.

158 never says you can make 2 replacements. It says that you may replace either or both, provided you pay the points costs for each.

If all the wargear section said was "Replace X and/or Y for:" and that was it, then your interpretation would be fine by proper English. The problem is you have another phrase there in the wargear section which specifically states what you are replacing either or both for. That phrase says "one of the following."

Again, you have to add that limiting phrase into the mix or else you aren't getting the full RAW.

Keep it polite, folks. Thanks.

All I know is this same discussion came out when Chaos Marines got released consensus was only one weapon artifact per guy. Otherwise I'm giving my lord a Burning Brand and Black Mace and letting him go to town.