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.

2x210 wrote:
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.

the store i play at the chaos players use more then one relic weapon. odd that gw has not said something about this

DogofWar1 wrote:
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.

Which I do.

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.

Each what? It can only mean each replacement. Meaning you can replace either or both as long as you pay for each replacement. Under your interpretation that is not possible. Since the rules say its possible, your interpretation cannot be correct.

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

I'm not sure why you think I'm ignoring it.

rigeld2 wrote:
Proper English or not, it's GWs usage.

If we had known that you were capable of overcoming the rules of English to divine the secret code used by GW rule writers, we probably wouldn't have bothered.

The reality of the situation is that there are two reasonable conclusions. I think that allowing all of the Wargear List table choices to essentially be done in multiple is the least invasive way to accomplish the obvious intent (such as using models as they are depicted on the box) and then what I believe is the RAI. Others believe that slightly altering the language of the rules on the Wargear List containing the 'and/or' language is the best way do accomplish the same thing, but this favors a different RAI.

Very few people believe that it is fine as is. Mostly likely because it is not.

rigeld2 wrote:

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.

Each what? It can only mean each replacement. Meaning you can replace either or both as long as you pay for each replacement. Under your interpretation that is not possible. Since the rules say its possible, your interpretation cannot be correct.

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

I'm not sure why you think I'm ignoring it.

What purpose does the phrase "with one of the following" serve, if not to serve as a limiting phrase for the first part of the sentence?

If you've made two replacements, you've gone beyond the limit imposed by the second part of the sentence. The phrasing on 158 never states that further limitations are ignored. It gives you the option of replacing both IF there aren't other limitations imposed. Adding the phrase "with ONE of the following" imposes such a limitation.

"May replace his bolt pistol and/or melee weapon with:" = can replace both for 2.

"May replace his bolt pistol and/or melee weapon with one of the following" = can replace however many you want, but only for 1.

Unless we're turning to RAI, which is somewhat ambiguous, in which case we open the floodgates to allowing multiple relics depending on how it's interpreted.

DogofWar1 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

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.

Each what? It can only mean each replacement. Meaning you can replace either or both as long as you pay for each replacement. Under your interpretation that is not possible. Since the rules say its possible, your interpretation cannot be correct.

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

I'm not sure why you think I'm ignoring it.

What purpose does the phrase "with one of the following" serve, if not to serve as a limiting phrase for the first part of the sentence?

Clarification that you replace one item with one item, not one item for many items.

If you've made two replacements, you've gone beyond the limit imposed by the second part of the sentence. The phrasing on 158 never states that further limitations are ignored. It gives you the option of replacing both IF there aren't other limitations imposed. Adding the phrase "with ONE of the following" imposes such a limitation.

It doesn't.

"May replace his bolt pistol and/or melee weapon with:" = can replace both for 2.

"May replace his bolt pistol and/or melee weapon with one of the following" = can replace however many you want, but only for 1.

Unless we're turning to RAI, which is somewhat ambiguous, in which case we open the floodgates to allowing multiple relics depending on how it's interpreted.

Page 158 proves you wrong - it's explicit in how GW uses the phrase and it absolutely disagrees with your interpretation.

I think that the fact that 'and/or' exists within some lists is implication that you should be able to take one of those for each one you swap out.

Relics do not have that.

rigeld2 wrote:

Page 158 proves you wrong - it's explicit in how GW uses the phrase and it absolutely disagrees with your interpretation.

Ok, let's look at the exact wording on the rules.

Page 158: "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."

This does NOT state for WHAT you are replacing either or both weapons. That is key.

Now let's look at the melee section: "A model can replace his bolt pistol and/or melee weapon with one of the following."

So basically you can replace either your bolt pistol or melee weapon, or you can replace both. But for WHAT are you replacing them for. You are replacing them for ONE of the following weapons. That IS explicit.

If you've replaced both, you've gone beyond that limitation of one. Combining 158's wording, the sentence in the wargear section essentially becomes "he may exchange either his bolt pistol or melee weapon or both, provided you pay the points cost for each, for one of the following." The "for one of the following" is there limiting.

Again, you're right about what 158 says by itself, in a vacuum, but the wording in the wargear section explicitly adds new limitations that disagrees with your interpretation.

I may have missed it - where did you prove it's a limitation?
I don't see it as one.

I am not sure that there is another way for someone to explain it to you. If you truly can't see why you are wrong, then you should have someone drive you to the optometrist.

rigeld2 wrote:
I may have missed it - where did you prove it's a limitation?
I don't see it as one.

Well, the phrase itself, by its wording is a limitation. It doesn't say "two of the following" or "any of the following" or anything like that, but "one of the following."

But if you say so, "for one of the following" is not a limitation.

That same logic means "one weapon" is not a limitation either. If the phrase "for one of the following" (the "following" being the weapons on the list) is not a limitation, then the "one weapon" phrase thus does not mean you are limited to one weapon. If "one" doesn't mean "only one," but rather "one at a time," then surely on the relic list it means that I may replace one weapon at a time for one relic at a time.

One weapon is a limitation.
You have permission to replace how many weapons with one of the following?

For Melee weapons you have two options, as p158 explains.
For Relics you have one option.

rigeld2 wrote:
One weapon is a limitation.
You have permission to replace how many weapons with one of the following?

For Melee weapons you have two options, as p158 explains.
For Relics you have one option.

Not the right question. How many weapons must you give up for one of the following? would be better

Some units that can take relics have a bolt pistol and a chainsword but some don't. Some have a bolter, some don't. So instead of naming the weapons possible, its one for one.

 Lobukia wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
One weapon is a limitation.
You have permission to replace how many weapons with one of the following?

For Melee weapons you have two options, as p158 explains.
For Relics you have one option.

Not the right question. How many weapons must you give up for one of the following? would be better

Some units that can take relics have a bolt pistol and a chainsword but some don't. Some have a bolter, some don't. So instead of naming the weapons possible, its one for one.

That would be "any" weapon. Are you allowed to replace any weapon?

Any would be still cause the same argument. "Replace any weapon with one of the following..." You would say that does allow one for one but think " one weapon with one" doesn't?

Fair enough. Note that we already covered how it could have been worded earlier in the thread, and its not really relevant here.

 Lobukia wrote:

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.

They couldn't use the range, melee or special weapons wording, because some characters with access to to relics aren't equipped with a bolt pistol (all those in TDA, for example). My guess is that they replaced it with ranged and/or melee weapon first, and then realized that there aren't any other types of weapons. We're lucky enough they caught that and unlucky enough that they still managed to word it unclear.

Characters with multiple relics look like a place where points go to die though, so I'm not that bothered to play it as rigeld suggests.

Rapture wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Proper English or not, it's GWs usage.

If we had known that you were capable of overcoming the rules of English to divine the secret code used by GW rule writers, we probably wouldn't have bothered.

Firstly GW doesn't use the same English that other countries use, they use the English that they use in Britain which is actually different from USA English and even the English used in Ireland.
"The rules of English" is a load of crap when it is defined by use and in this case by GW's use. They have their own convention, so follow it or don't but don't be surprised when people disagree.

I think from the reading of these options in the C:SM digital version is clear. I'll explain.

Under melee/ranged weapons it states ranged and / or melee weapon can be exchanged. Under chapter relics it states one weapon. NO. And / or.

So the captain or chapter master can have 1 relic only. That sucks but its in simple plain text.

Lungpickle wrote:
I think from the reading of these options in the C:SM digital version is clear. I'll explain.

Under melee/ranged weapons it states ranged and / or melee weapon can be exchanged. Under chapter relics it states one weapon. NO. And / or.

So the captain or chapter master can have 1 relic only. That sucks but its in simple plain text.

Your conclusion might be the correct RAI, (it.s ambiguous) but you're making the same RAW mistake that was made earlier.

For what are you replacing your weapons? The wargear section says you are replacing it for "one of the following," not two, or any, but just one. Nothing on page 158 under the options section or on 159 on the page negates that limitation for the sections in which it appears. Whether you replace either or both, the result is that you can only end up with "one of the following".

There are two logical results. Either 1. You are only allowed one item from each wargear list with "one of the following" or 2. One of the following does not actually limit you to one.

If the result is 2. then the limit on relics is suspect. After all, what is "the following" that the "one of" refers to? They are weapons. The resulting sentence functionally becomes "replace his bolt pistol and/or melee weapon with one weapon."

Now if the second part of the sentence is not a limitation in that "one" in the melee section doesn't limit you to "one," then why should the one in the first half of the "relic" section limit you? If the "one" in the melee section simply means "one replacement at a time" then the same logic holds for all further "ones" on the page, except perhaps where they say something like "only one". However, the word "only" doesn't appear in either section.

As for whether they use British English, American English, or any other kind of English, it doesn't mean much unless someone can explain British grammatical conventions, how they differ, and how they are pertinent. Otherwise we come right back full circle with RAI being ambiguous.

Might be an interesting question: What does the builder in the digital edition allow?

DogofWar1 wrote:

For what are you replacing your weapons? The wargear section says you are replacing it for "one of the following," not two, or any, but just one. Nothing on page 158 under the options section or on 159 on the page negates that limitation for the sections in which it appears. Whether you replace either or both, the result is that you can only end up with "one of the following".

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.

It really does negate that "limitation" (that isn't one, but because you keep asserting that it is) by saying that 'and/or' refers to two allowable swaps.

If the result is 2. then the limit on relics is suspect. After all, what is "the following" that the "one of" refers to? They are weapons. The resulting sentence functionally becomes "replace his bolt pistol and/or melee weapon with one weapon."

And how is that "suspect"?

Now if the second part of the sentence is not a limitation in that "one" in the melee section doesn't limit you to "one," then why should the one in the first half of the "relic" section limit you? If the "one" in the melee section simply means "one replacement at a time" then the same logic holds for all further "ones" on the page, except perhaps where they say something like "only one". However, the word "only" doesn't appear in either section.

Because the same word can mean different things grammatically. And, knowing what we know from page 158 (that you ignore), we can prove that the melee section allows multiple replacements. There is nothing even hinting at that for Relics.

Your continuous assertion that it's ambiguous has no support besides (seemingly) you want it to be that way.

rigeld2 wrote:

It really does negate that "limitation" (that isn't one, but because you keep asserting that it is) by saying that 'and/or' refers to two allowable swaps.

Why do you believe it is not a limitation?

The wording of "with one of the following" has a meaning. It is a standalone phrase from the first part of the sentence, and exerts some force on the first part of the sentence. What is the meaning such that the result is that it is not a limitation?

The usual interpretation where someone says "with one of the following" is that it means just or only one. That is what those words, on their face, mean. Other interpretations can be added in if they are so stated and the scope so altered. Mind you, the book does NOT define the redefine the scope of "with one of the following" so we should assume they mean just one or only one, as per the RAW definition of "with one of the following," but we're launching into a RAI discussion, so we can entertain other possibilities.

Basically, in terms of meaning, "with one of the following" can mean;
1. with ONLY one of the following
2. with one of the following EACH, or with one EACH of the following
3. the phrase actually has no purpose, it's fluff wording that has no effect on the previous phrase.

You say it's not a limitation on the "and/or" phrase, which puts it under 2 or 3, and also say even if it is a limitation under 1, it doesn't matter because the "and/or" phrase negates the limitation.

First off, the "and/or" phrase negating the "with one of the following" phrase makes little to no sense. If you're negating a limitation, why even have those limiting words? The words could have easily been "a model may replace his bolt pistol and/or melee weapon with:" and ended it there. That would have served the purpose just fine, so why even add that phrase and take up ink and space and just generally increase clutter? It makes sense that it serves a purpose that the first phrase in the sentence doesn't negate, and heck, that's how subordinate clauses work. The phrase "with one of the following" on its face, has clear meaning, and as a phrase in the sentence it serves the duty of telling you what you are replacing your bolt pistol and/or melee weapon for. It resets the scope of what you're allowed to take. The first phrase "may replace his BP and/or MW" sets the scope of what can be replaced from your wargear, which is one or two items. The second phrase, "with one of the following" sets of scope of what you replace it with, which is one item.

Basically, #3 doesn't make sense, the phrase needs to have meaning, and the interpretation that the "and/or" phrase negates the "one of the following" limitation doesn't make sense either, from both a logical writing standpoint or a sentence structure standpoint.

We are left with two options. Either you can only take one weapon from each list, or the phrase "with one of the following" needs to be read so as to have a wider scope than simply "one."

This is how the supposed "only one for only one" interpretation for the relic section becomes suspect. The RAW sentence structure of the complex sentence demands that the "and/or" phrase is limited down to one replacement by "with one of the following." The only way around this for the melee section is to say that the "one" in one of the following doesn't actually mean one, but rather means "one each" resulting in a phrase more like "one of the following each."

What does this result in for the melee section?
- "A model may replace his bolt pistol and/or melee weapon with one of the following each."

That works quite nicely to allow two replacements.

Now let's apply that to the relic section. "A model may replace one weapon with one of the following each." The way that reads results in allowing multiple swaps, one for one each.

The result is simple. Either we can take only one weapon from each section with the phrase "with one of the following" or we can take multiple weapons from each such section. I don't really care personally which it is; RAW falls more in line with the first, but the consensus for the melee section is the latter. Whatever the result, I just want a consistent application.

But assuredly, you're just doing to harp on about how 158 gives you permission to make two swaps, and negates the limitation, or that it's not a limit. Never mind that that's purely your interpretation, not based on the actual writings or the way the sentence reads.

You accuse me of interpreting things in a way simply because I want them to be, but the opposite is true. I want a single fixed definition for the phrase "with one of the following" that applies to all entries on the wargear page and establishes a clear rule. The phrase "with one of the following" appears 7 times on the wargear page, in that exact wording. It is beneficial for us to have a single interpretation to use across the entire page.

We know - for a fact - that and/or the way GW is using allows two swaps. Agreed?

If you don't agree to what the rules say I'm not sure we can have a productive discussion.

Kangodo wrote:
Might be an interesting question: What does the builder in the digital edition allow?

This. Find this out, and the question is answered.

Not sure if this has been suggested, but why doesn't someone with the digital codex go into the army builder feature and try to do a one for one swap?

Edit: ah was beaten to it lol

Bobug wrote:

Kangodo wrote:
Might be an interesting question: What does the builder in the digital edition allow?

This. Find this out, and the question is answered.

And while they're at it they could try to upgrade a command squad veteran with weapon upgrades into an apotechary.

Actually I was answering the initial question I thought. Can a captain take two separate relics. That's all I was answering.

The other stuff that's been argued about is simply put a reading issue. Some read it one way others read it wrong, period.

In the context of , melee and ranged weapons sections its not ambiguous to me and others here that if my sgt exchanges his chain sword for a power weapon, and bolt pistol for a grav pistol, not only is it allowed its RAW.

Lock it and move on IMHO.

rigeld2 wrote:
We know - for a fact - that and/or the way GW is using allows two swaps. Agreed?

If you don't agree to what the rules say I'm not sure we can have a productive discussion.

Yes and no, since it depends on how the sentence is structured and modified.

Functionally, it allows for two swaps when the "and/or" is on its own, in a vacuum, without any clauses modifying it. For example, "A model may replace his bolt pistol and/or melee weapon with X" where X is the list of weapons. That would allow for two swaps.

But when we actually get to the wargear section, that's not the sentence as written. Instead, they add in "with one of the following," where the following are a set of weapons. What purpose does that phrase serve? "With" is a preposition, which leads the prepositional phrase "one of the following:" which serves the function of an adverb modifier of "replace." It explains what you are replacing your weapons with. There's a further prepositional phrase in there too, the "of" being the preposition modifying "one" with "the following."

So basically, you go like this:
- What do I have? "A model"
- Ok, what does that model do? Well it "can replace"
- What is it replacing? "His bolt pistol and/or melee weapon."
- And what is he replacing those with? "With one."
- One of what? "Of the following."
- What are the following? It's this list of weapons.

If you break down the clauses and phrases and how they modify the words around them you can see that the meaning of the sentence was modified away from the "and/or" phrase granting two weapon replacements, down to one from the added phrase "one of the following.

So yes, in a vacuum, the "and/or" could allow two weapon swaps. But, no, in light of the prepositional phrases that modify the verb, it does not allow that, at least not explicitly. If we want to allow that we must perform a certain level of interpretation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

Bobug wrote:

Kangodo wrote:
Might be an interesting question: What does the builder in the digital edition allow?

This. Find this out, and the question is answered.

And while they're at it they could try to upgrade a command squad veteran with weapon upgrades into an apotechary.

Does the digital addition even have the FAQ updates yet though? Veterans didn't even get the special weapons option until the FAQ dropped.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lungpickle wrote:

In the context of , melee and ranged weapons sections its not ambiguous to me and others here that if my sgt exchanges his chain sword for a power weapon, and bolt pistol for a grav pistol, not only is it allowed its RAW.

We're talking about taking two from the melee section or two from the ranged section, not one from each section. The ability to take one from each section has never been in doubt.

DogofWar1 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
We know - for a fact - that and/or the way GW is using allows two swaps. Agreed?

If you don't agree to what the rules say I'm not sure we can have a productive discussion.

Yes and no, since it depends on how the sentence is structured and modified.

Functionally, it allows for two swaps when the "and/or" is on its own, in a vacuum, without any clauses modifying it. For example, "A model may replace his bolt pistol and/or melee weapon with X" where X is the list of weapons. That would allow for two swaps.

But when we actually get to the wargear section, that's not the sentence as written. Instead, they add in "with one of the following," where the following are a set of weapons. What purpose does that phrase serve? "With" is a preposition, which leads the prepositional phrase "one of the following:" which serves the function of an adverb modifier of "replace." It explains what you are replacing your weapons with. There's a further prepositional phrase in there too, the "of" being the preposition modifying "one" with "the following."

So basically, you go like this:
- What do I have? "A model"
- Ok, what does that model do? Well it "can replace"
- What is it replacing? "His bolt pistol and/or melee weapon."
- And what is he replacing those with? "With one."
- One of what? "Of the following."
- What are the following? It's this list of weapons.

And by breaking it down like this you've, again, ignored that page 158 explicitly spells out that and/or means two swaps. Yes, it's poor English. That's irrelevant when discussing rules.

rigeld2 wrote:

And by breaking it down like this you've, again, ignored that page 158 explicitly spells out that and/or means two swaps. Yes, it's poor English. That's irrelevant when discussing rules.

Did it ever occur to you that when it says "replace either or both, provided you pay the points cost for each" it is an entirely valid interpretation that you can perform two swaps for a single item? That is an equally valid grammatical option based on the wording of 158.

The fact that it makes no sense that you'd pay twice to replace two items with one item doesn't make it any less of a grammatical option.

The point is, 158 doesn't give you the complete rules for a swap, you NEED to have the options for which you can swap included for the full rule, otherwise it's a stub. That is what we get on the next page in the wargear section, in addition to further modifying phrases. Page 158 gives you the option to perform two swaps in the absence of rules to the contrary, WHICH WE THEN GET ON THE NEXT PAGE.

But apparently prepositional phrases don't modify sentences. I guess I could have just slept through class.

Maybe GW's version of English works like that too, I don't know.