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.

Is it allowable?
Codex seems to indicate so, but I haven't ever seen it and Army Builder won't let me (yes I know dumb reason I just want to know before I glue this guy together)

It says "A model may replace one weapon with one of the following", so it's debatable, similar to the Chapter Relic argument in the new SM Codex. Personally, I'd say no, you're not allowed as the Ranged Weapon section uses different wording from the Melee Weapon bit, implying that this slightly ambigious wording was deliberate.

The answer is no.
The option says "One Chaos Space Marine may replace his bolt pistol with a plasma pistol". A "Chaos Space Marine" is not an "Aspiring Champion". The Aspiring Champion, however, may take items from the Ranged Weapon wargear list, giving him the opportunity to exchange ONE weapon with a Plasma Pistol. Thus, you can have 2 Plasma Pistols in the unit, but not on the same guy.

If you want 2 Plasma Pistols, you'll have to take a unit of Chosen. The Chosen Champion has the same options as the Aspiring Champion, but the Options wording for the rest of the unit says "Up to four MODELS may choose one of the following". One model could in this case be the Chosen Champion.

What's the debate here?

Aspirng Champions are allowed to take "items" from Melee and/or Ranged weapons. It does not say may replace 1 item or may replace an item from the list. It says "items", which means more than one. If I could take a power weapon (replacing the close combat weapon that only the camption has included in profile) and a plasma pistol (replacing the bolt pistol), then why can I not replace my close combat weapon with a plasma pistol and my bolt pistol with a plasma pistol or the boltgun. Sure, its 30 points, but allows you to shoot 2 pistols (gunslinger rule) and still charge.

spaztacus wrote:
What's the debate here?

Aspirng Champions are allowed to take "items" from Melee and/or Ranged weapons. It does not say may replace 1 item or may replace an item from the list. It says "items", which means more than one. If I could take a power weapon (replacing the close combat weapon that only the camption has included in profile) and a plasma pistol (replacing the bolt pistol), then why can I not replace my close combat weapon with a plasma pistol and my bolt pistol with a plasma pistol or the boltgun. Sure, its 30 points, but allows you to shoot 2 pistols (gunslinger rule) and still charge.

Right, you can take one item from Ranged, and one or two "items" from Melee. If it had said they are allowed to take items from Ranged weapons (with no mention of other lists) it might be different story.

spaztacus wrote:
What's the debate here?

Aspirng Champions are allowed to take "items" from Melee and/or Ranged weapons. It does not say may replace 1 item or may replace an item from the list. It says "items", which means more than one. If I could take a power weapon (replacing the close combat weapon that only the camption has included in profile) and a plasma pistol (replacing the bolt pistol), then why can I not replace my close combat weapon with a plasma pistol and my bolt pistol with a plasma pistol or the boltgun. Sure, its 30 points, but allows you to shoot 2 pistols (gunslinger rule) and still charge.

CSM dex, p. 91:

Ranged Weapons
A model can replace one weapon with one of the following:

 Valkyrie wrote:
It says "A model may replace one weapon with one of the following", so it's debatable,

No it isn't. There is no logical debate possible.

It says one. One is the integer between zero and two.

Also from this codex:
"One Chaos Space marine may replace his...boltgun with a : flamer 5 pts, meltagun 10 pts, plasma gun 15 pts."

If you really think you can take more than one of something when it says one, why aren't you championing Chaos Space Marine troop squads where everyone has a plasma gun?

Let me ask you a few questions. If the intention was to limit the number of items taken to two, how would they have written that? If the intention was to not limit it at all, how would they have written that?

This exact same wording shows up in the Dark Angels book. It is used in the melee weapon section. If the interpretation that it is a limit then no Dark Angel model that uses this table may have a pair of lighting claws and while that in itself proves nothing it does sour the argument a bit as dual lighting claws is a 40k staple. The issue that different text is used for different lists can be explained. In the dark angels book not all the characters eligible to use these lists are equipped with bolt pistols and chainswords (the weapons specified in the other lists) and re-using that language would prevent models like chaplains from from wielding anything other then its default melee weapon.

This is a RAI debate, and in the case of the DA book I believe the intent is clear. It stands to reason that this intent would be the same when the identical text is used in other books.

 DJGietzen wrote:
Let me ask you a few questions. If the intention was to limit the number of items taken to two, how would they have written that? If the intention was to not limit it at all, how would they have written that?

"A model may replace any weapon with one of the following" instead of "A model may replace one weapon with one of the following".

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
Let me ask you a few questions. If the intention was to limit the number of items taken to two, how would they have written that? If the intention was to not limit it at all, how would they have written that?

"A model may replace any weapon with one of the following" instead of "A model may replace one weapon with one of the following".

How does that not limit me to 'one of the the following'? Your version allows me to replace one weapon or all my weapons, but I still only get 'one of the following' in place of what was lost.

It's the first part of that sentence which is limiting you to one relic, not the second.

You can replace one weapon with one relic. If you can replace any weapon with one relic, you could replace as many weapons you have with one relic each.

OK, lets creak down the structure of this sentence.

A model can replace one weapon with one of the following.

We have a complete subject for our sentence and a complete predicate.

The Sentence wrote:A model can replace one weapon with one of the following.

The indefinite (a) simple subject (model) cab refer to 'any model' and does not refer to any model in particular.

The predicate is modal (can) and the action (replace) is not required.

Our action (replace) require an object (one weapon). In this case one weapon is what is being replaced.

Our sentence also has a prepositional phrase (with) which requires a second object (one of the following). In this case one of the following will be substituted for one weapon.

The first object (one weapon) contains an adjective (one). This adjective is a determiner in the form of a quantifier and sets a numerical value to the noun. A single weapon in this case.

The second object (one of the following) also contains an adjective (one) and that modifies the prepositional phrase (of the following) which is a definite noun and refers only to 'the following'.
-----------------------------------------

The object being replaced (one weapon) could be any noun and the function of the sentence would not change. The sentence remains "A model can replace X with Y."

X is what is lost, Y is what is gained.

Replacing the adjective "one" with "any" does not change the function of the sentence, it only changes how the 1st object is being modified. In this case 'one' set a quantity limiting the number of weapons being replaced to one. The use of 'any' would be as a determiner and would mean one of something or a number of things. i.e One object = Any object.

To indicate the maximum number of things a model can replace we would need to use a modifier that indicate a limit in addition to a quantity. Such as "A model can replace only one weapon with one of the the following". or "A model can replace up to one weapon with one of the following."

It's baffling to anyone who speaks English that you think "one" and "any" are synonymous.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
It's baffling to anyone who speaks English that you think "one" and "any" are synonymous.

The Oxford English dictionary would not be baffled.

ANY wrote:
1 [usually with negative or in questions] used to refer to one or some of a thing or number of things, no matter how much or many: [as determiner]:

2 whichever of a specified class might be chosen: [as determiner]:

Its the second definition that applies to our sentence. and whichever is used to emphasize a lack of restriction in selecting one of a definite set of alternatives

So 'any weapon' means one selected with out restriction of the specified class weapon.

You do not get to go backwards in definitions; just because Any can mean 1 does not mean 1 means any.

Go ahead and look up the definition of "one" see if it is synonymous with Any.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
You do not get to go backwards in definitions; just because Any can mean 1 does not mean 1 means any.

Go ahead and look up the definition of "one" see if it is synonymous with Any.

In this use they are synonymous because 'any weapon' literally 'means any one weapon'. The one may be dropped because in this use any may only refer to a selection of one. Because we are not eliminating any sub-classes of the the weapon class 'one weapon' also literally means any 'one weapon' and the any may be dropped because it is superfluous in this use.

'One' in this use determines the quantity of what is being replaced. Lets look at what happens if we change the number.

A model can replace two weapons with one of the following.

This does not mean the model may replace a single weapon twice, it means a model can loose two weapons and gain one of something else.

The rules of the English language are clear. This sentence is insufficient impose the kind of restrictions you think it does.

I'd say no, however you can have an AC with a Bolt Pistol and a Plasma Pistol.

 DJGietzen wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
You do not get to go backwards in definitions; just because Any can mean 1 does not mean 1 means any.

Go ahead and look up the definition of "one" see if it is synonymous with Any.

In this use they are synonymous because 'any weapon' literally 'means any one weapon'. The one may be dropped because in this use any may only refer to a selection of one. Because we are not eliminating any sub-classes of the the weapon class 'one weapon' also literally means any 'one weapon' and the any may be dropped because it is superfluous in this use.

'One' in this use determines the quantity of what is being replaced. Lets look at what happens if we change the number.

I was going off your colourful reversion breakdown, in which 1 means 1 in both cases.

Chaos Artifacts are one for one. Once you have replaced 1 weapon for one of the following you have satisfied the permission.

Chaos Ranged weapons are the same; you are only given permission to exchange 1 weapon for one on the list.

Chaos Melee weapons allow for both weapons to be exchanged.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
You do not get to go backwards in definitions; just because Any can mean 1 does not mean 1 means any.

Go ahead and look up the definition of "one" see if it is synonymous with Any.

In this use they are synonymous because 'any weapon' literally 'means any one weapon'. The one may be dropped because in this use any may only refer to a selection of one. Because we are not eliminating any sub-classes of the the weapon class 'one weapon' also literally means any 'one weapon' and the any may be dropped because it is superfluous in this use.

'One' in this use determines the quantity of what is being replaced. Lets look at what happens if we change the number.

I was going off your colourful reversion breakdown, in which 1 means 1 in both cases.

Chaos Artifacts are one for one. Once you have replaced 1 weapon for one of the following you have satisfied the permission.

Chaos Ranged weapons are the same; you are only given permission to exchange 1 weapon for one on the list.

Chaos Melee weapons allow for both weapons to be exchanged.

The permission is for you to take items from the list, not a single item. The permission comes from the the option in the for the unit. The war gear section does not grant any permissions, it only describes how to take items from the list.

In fact that brings up an excellent point. If they wanted to limit you to a single item from the list they most likely would have done it when they allowed you to take items from the list as they did with a Chaos Lord and the Marks of Chaos. Instead they gave you permission to take multiple items from the list.

Hate to veer off a little, but in regards to the chosen troops, it says you may take up to four of the following weapons...

Does it mean I could have 4 power glove guys or I have to take a power glove, a double lightning claw, etc. If I take any at all?

Take 4 of the same weapon, no problem there.

Thanks!

I hate to put fuel on the fire, but I am of the opinion that you MAY have two plasma pistols if you wish. Based on how the codex is written, or perhaps how it is not written. I don't know, but here is my take.

In the unit profile (p. 95) it says "The AC may take items from the Melee Weapons and/or Ranged Weapons sections of the wargear list."
Right there it doesn't even say what weapons the AC has to begin with, other than 1 CCW. For us with some experience it is natural to assume he starts out with a bolt pistol and CCW because that's how it was written in the 5th ededition codex, but it doesn't really say in this edition. Reading the unit profile it actually looks like he has 3 weapons in total; a boltgun, bolt pistol and CCW. So that makes 3 "slots" if you read the codex as it is. This is not relevant to the actual question, I suppose, but it does bring more ambiguity to the codex. However you want to interpret that, it doesn't say which weapons may be replaced with which.

On p. 91 it does indeed say "A model may replace one weapon with one of the following:"
But to me this is just to say you can't "replace ONE weapon with TWO of the following:" or something like that. One weapon is removed, one weapon is put in its place. So, you can replace one bolt pistol with one plasma pistol, AND replace one CCW with one plasma pistol. That is how I read it.

The wording is similar on the Melle Weapons list. "A model can replace his bolt pistol and/or CCW with one of the following:"
If the rule indeed means that you can only have ONE OF EACH weapon listed, then you wouldn't be able to have a pair of lightning claws. But you can, so to me, that's not what the authors mean by "one of the following".
In the Melee Weapon list it says which weapons you may replace (CCW and/or bolt pistol), but for Ranged Weapons it only says "one weapon" which to me means you may choose which that "one" weapon is.

To compare, on the same page (91) regarding the Special Issue Wargear it says "A model can take UP TO ONE OF EACH of the following:"
Here it is clear that you can only take one of a certain item. If you could only take one of each Ranged/Melee weapon i think they would have stated it in the same way.

I admit that I might be biased, being a CSM player myself, but I also agree with many people that this codex has a couple of "holes" in it when it comes to rules like this. Whether intentional or not it does seem more liberal as to how many of each weapon you can have and which weapon you want to replace.

So, the way I see it you can mix it up in a bunch of ways. You may take 2 plasma pistols, 2 chainaxes, 2 lightning claws, 1 combi-plasma and 1 plasma pistol, or whatever.

 ChaoticBob wrote:

On p. 91 it does indeed say "A model may replace one weapon with one of the following:"

The wording is similar on the Melle Weapons list. "A model can replace his bolt pistol and/or CCW with one of the following:"

Those two sentences are similar only in their subject matter, not their structure. The second one explicitly gives permission to replace either or both of those two weapons with one weapon each. The first one offers no such explicit permission; it states one weapon. When you're allowed to take more than one of a thing, 40k always will tell you.

So I think my go to plan is just bring him along, he has a sword sheathed on his side so if my Opponent gets butthurt over the dual plasma he will be a plasma with powersword.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 ChaoticBob wrote:

On p. 91 it does indeed say "A model may replace one weapon with one of the following:"

The wording is similar on the Melle Weapons list. "A model can replace his bolt pistol and/or CCW with one of the following:"

Those two sentences are similar only in their subject matter, not their structure. The second one explicitly gives permission to replace either or both of those two weapons with one weapon each. The first one offers no such explicit permission; it states one weapon. When you're allowed to take more than one of a thing, 40k always will tell you.

Then that would imply that you may not carry a pair of lightning claws anymore. Because 40k doesn't tell me that I can, any more than the other weapons. They fall under the same rule, being in the same list., so if you can still take a pair of lightning claws (which you can), the same rule should apply for all the weapons, at least Melee ones.

I am fairly certain that you may wield two bolt pistols, but 40k doesn't tell you that specifically anywhere. (Gunslinger rule and all that).

I am an advocate for The Rule of Cool, so if your opponent is careless enough to put two plasma pistols on the same guy (because it's not a very good idea in the first place), why not just let him? It's cool! Wasting a perfectly good CCW to instead have two weapons that are likely to explode in your face before you get within range is a pretty unorthodox tactic, but I say kudos to those who try it!

 ChaoticBob wrote:

Then that would imply that you may not carry a pair of lightning claws anymore.

Incorrect.

"A model can replace his bolt pistol and/or CCW with one of the following:" has several permutations including replacing each with a separate thing.

But that's exactly what was pointed out in the post you quoted, so I guess you don't actually care.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

Those two sentences are similar only in their subject matter, not their structure. The second one explicitly gives permission to replace either or both of those two weapons with one weapon each. The first one offers no such explicit permission; it states one weapon. When you're allowed to take more than one of a thing, 40k always will tell you.

They are identical in structure.

A model can replace his bolt pistol and/or Close Combat Weapon with one of the following.

A model can replace one weapon with one of the following.

The subject is the same, the action is the same, the modal nature is the same and the secondary object (what is gained) is the same. The only difference is the primary object. "one weapon" is just a description of what is lost. The permission to replace more then one item comes from the option under the units description.

 DJGietzen wrote:

They are identical in structure.

his bolt pistol and/or Close Combat Weapon

one weapon

Are you serious? In case you are, click on that. In no interpretation are those identical.

One says one weapon, or another weapon, or both weapons, the other says exactly and only one.

Considering a model can only fire one weapon it doesn't even matter, their is no point in taking two