Switch Theme:

CSM Aspiring Champs and Dual Plasma Pistol?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in be
Kelne





That way,then left

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

You might want to check the gunslinger special rule, in the weapon types part (P 52)
   
Made in us
Cultist of Nurgle with Open Sores




Ohio

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


Page 52, BRB, Gunslinger: A model with two pistols may fire both in the shooting phase.

Side effects of worshiping Papa Nurgle include (and are not limited to): Boils, scabs, internal bleeding, external bleeding, bleeding from the gums, eyes and ears, sweating, dehydration, furuncles, rash, pus-filled sores, nausea, vomiting, bloody vomit, black vomit, black & bloody vomit, sneezing, runny nose, dry nose, coughing, dry cough, wet cough, not-so-dry-but-still-raspy coughing, fever, hay fever, athlete's foot, athlete's arm, swimmer's ear, farmer's tongue, drowsiness, sleepiness, insomnia, mad cow disease, mad postal worker disease, loose bowels, constipation, anal leakage, and blood clotting. In most cases side effects were generally in the extreme and permanent. Consult your local cultist before worshiping Nurgle. 
   
Made in us
The Hive Mind





You should find and read the Gunslinger rules.
Edit: Missed the second page. :-x

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/30 19:35:19


My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






 DarknessEternal wrote:
 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.


Yes, I am serious. Both sentences use this sentence structure.

[SUBJECT][MODAL VERB][ACTION VERB][DIRECT OBJECT][PREPOSITION][PREPOSITIONAL OBJECT]
   
Made in us
Lieutenant General





Florence, KY

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

You might want to read the Gunslinger special rule.

'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents
cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable
defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'

- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty
Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 DJGietzen wrote:
Both sentences use this sentence structure.

What's that got to do with anything?

Words mean things. The words you think those sentences say do not exist. Their meanings are not identical.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/31 04:01:44


"'players must agree how they are going to select their armies, and if any restrictions apply to the number and type of models they can use."

This is an actual rule in the actual rulebook. Quit whining about how you can imagine someone's army touching you in a bad place and play by the actual rules.


Freelance Ontologist

When people ask, "What's the point in understanding everything?" they've just disqualified themselves from using questions and should disappear in a puff of paradox. But they don't understand and just continue existing, which are also their only two strategies for life. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






 DarknessEternal wrote:
 DJGietzen wrote:
Both sentences use this sentence structure.

What's that got to do with anything?

Only everything we have been talking about.
Spoiler:
 quote=DarknessEternal wrote:
Those two sentences are similar only in their subject matter, not their structure.

 DJGietzen wrote:
They are identical in structure.

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

 DJGietzen wrote:
Yes, I am serious. Both sentences use this sentence structure.

[SUBJECT][MODAL VERB][ACTION VERB][DIRECT OBJECT][PREPOSITION][PREPOSITIONAL OBJECT]


 DarknessEternal wrote:

Words mean things. The words you think those sentences say do not exist. Their meanings are not identical.

No, they are not identical in meaning but they are identical in structure. The difference is present only in the direct object (the one being replaced). This part of the sentence can only describe what is lost as part of the 'replace' action. The structure of the sentence does not limit the loss of the direct object to a single iteration and that is why you can replace both a bolt pistol and a melee weapon for two things.
"one weapon" is a simple noun with a numeral determiner. It has a single meaning.
  • more then zero and less then 2 weapons.
  • "his bolt pistol and/or melee weapon" is a complex noun phrase that can mean one of three things.
  • the model's bolt pistol
  • the model's melee weapon
  • the model's bolt pistol and melee weapon
  • If you choose the 'and' option you will loose two things and only gain one.

    'one weapon' does not mean 'only one weapon' or 'up to one weapon'. If either of those were part of the sentence you would be correct. They are not.
       
    Made in gb
    Decrepit Dakkanaut




    Actually the "and / or" results in the sentence being expanded out into:

    You may replace the bolt pistol OR chainsword OR bolt pistol [for one weapon] AND chainsword [for one weapon]

    Each of these expansions comes with permission to exchange to one weapon

    You are ignoring the and / or, and the implication it has on the sentence.

    One weapon for one weapon twice has no such allowance, so nom they are not the same. You have replaced 2 weapons for 2 weapons, something explicitly not allowed. Or are you claiming guard can take 4 HWT per infantry / vet squad? How about units and dedicated transports , you can now take 10 razorbacks not 1?

    No, that isnt how the rules work. Your parsing is incorrect.

    This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/31 09:34:42


     
       
    Made in se
    Cultist of Nurgle with Open Sores




    Sweden

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


    6th ed. Gunslinger rule makes this possible. For sergeants/champions/HQs.

    This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/31 10:42:49


    1700pts
    1500pts  
       
    Made in gb
    Decrepit Dakkanaut




    No, for anyone. Any model with 2 pistols - such as seraphim.
       
    Made in us
    Fixture of Dakka





     DJGietzen wrote:

    'one weapon' does not mean 'only one weapon' or 'up to one weapon'.

    That's ridiculous. Your argument is so ludicrous that it's no longer worth mentioning.

    One weapon doesn't mean one weapon? Knock it off.

    This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/31 13:13:46


    "'players must agree how they are going to select their armies, and if any restrictions apply to the number and type of models they can use."

    This is an actual rule in the actual rulebook. Quit whining about how you can imagine someone's army touching you in a bad place and play by the actual rules.


    Freelance Ontologist

    When people ask, "What's the point in understanding everything?" they've just disqualified themselves from using questions and should disappear in a puff of paradox. But they don't understand and just continue existing, which are also their only two strategies for life. 
       
    Made in se
    Cultist of Nurgle with Open Sores




    Sweden

     DarknessEternal wrote:
     DJGietzen wrote:

    'one weapon' does not mean 'only one weapon' or 'up to one weapon'.

    That's ridiculous. Your argument is so ludicrous that it's no longer worth mentioning.

    One weapon doesn't mean one weapon? Knock it off.


    That's the point! "One weapon" DOES mean "one weapon". I.e you switch one weapon for one plasma pistol, then you switch the other one weapon for one plasma pistol. Thusly, one weapon replaces one weapon. 1-1+1=1

    What you are arguing is that "one" has another meaning than simply "one".

    1700pts
    1500pts  
       
    Made in us
    Lieutenant General





    Florence, KY

     ChaoticBob wrote:
     DarknessEternal wrote:
     DJGietzen wrote:

    'one weapon' does not mean 'only one weapon' or 'up to one weapon'.

    That's ridiculous. Your argument is so ludicrous that it's no longer worth mentioning.

    One weapon doesn't mean one weapon? Knock it off.


    That's the point! "One weapon" DOES mean "one weapon". I.e you switch one weapon for one plasma pistol, then you switch the other one weapon for one plasma pistol. Thusly, one weapon replaces one weapon. 1-1+1=1

    What you are arguing is that "one" has another meaning than simply "one".

    Except your 'definition' of one weapon is actually two weapons. 2-2+2=2.

    'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents
    cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable
    defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'

    - Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty
    Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
     
       
    Made in se
    Cultist of Nurgle with Open Sores




    Sweden

     Ghaz wrote:
     ChaoticBob wrote:
     DarknessEternal wrote:
     DJGietzen wrote:

    'one weapon' does not mean 'only one weapon' or 'up to one weapon'.

    That's ridiculous. Your argument is so ludicrous that it's no longer worth mentioning.

    One weapon doesn't mean one weapon? Knock it off.


    That's the point! "One weapon" DOES mean "one weapon". I.e you switch one weapon for one plasma pistol, then you switch the other one weapon for one plasma pistol. Thusly, one weapon replaces one weapon. 1-1+1=1

    What you are arguing is that "one" has another meaning than simply "one".

    Except your 'definition' of one weapon is actually two weapons. 2-2+2=2.


    No it isn't.

    This is how I read it.

    The model has 2 weapons. One for each hand, basically. Call them Weapon A and Weapon B.

    The model may replace weapon A with one of the following:
    - Chainaxe
    - Lightning Claw
    - Power Weapon
    - Power fist
    - Combi-bolter
    - Combi-flamer, -melta or -plasma
    - Plasma pistol

    The model may replace weapon B with one of the following:
    - Chainaxe
    - Lightning Claw
    - Power Weapon
    - Power fist
    - Combi-bolter
    - Combi-flamer, -melta or -plasma
    - Plasma pistol

    I have still only replaced ONE weapon with ONE of the following.

    1700pts
    1500pts  
       
    Made in us
    Lieutenant General





    Florence, KY

    Yes it is. 1-1+1(*2)=2. You have replaced TWO weapons, not one.

    'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents
    cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable
    defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'

    - Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty
    Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
     
       
    Made in us
    Lord Commander in a Plush Chair






    DJgietzen: And/or is very different from one weapon.

    And/Or allows for either or both, each for the one weapon.

    And while the permission to select "Items" from the list exists, yes there are several "Items" in the list. that allowance does not change the restriction in the list itself.

    This is my Rulebook. There are many Like it, but this one is mine. Without me, my rulebook is useless. Without my rulebook, I am useless.
    Stop looking for buzz words and start reading the whole sentences.



     
       
    Made in gb
    Decrepit Dakkanaut




    Chaotic - no, you have replaced 2 weapons for 2 weapons

    Using your argument I can replace 8 guardssmen with 4 autocannon team, as while I am told to do 2 for 1, 2 for 1 4 times is ok, yes?

    No, it isnt ok there, and it isnt ok here
       
    Made in us
    Longtime Dakkanaut






     DarknessEternal wrote:
     DJGietzen wrote:

    'one weapon' does not mean 'only one weapon' or 'up to one weapon'.

    That's ridiculous. Your argument is so ludicrous that it's no longer worth mentioning.

    One weapon doesn't mean one weapon? Knock it off.


    You need to read ALL the words.

    One weapon does not mean ONLY one weapon or UP TO one weapon. It means a number of weapons less then 2 and greater then 0. It has no greater meaning. Its just a cardinal number. The sentence it is in does not prohibit any additional replacements of items from that set

    .
    nosferatu1001 wrote:Actually the "and / or" results in the sentence being expanded out into:

    You may replace the bolt pistol OR chainsword OR bolt pistol [for one weapon] AND chainsword [for one weapon]

    Each of these expansions comes with permission to exchange to one weapon

    You are ignoring the and / or, and the implication it has on the sentence.

    One weapon for one weapon twice has no such allowance, so nom they are not the same. You have replaced 2 weapons for 2 weapons, something explicitly not allowed. Or are you claiming guard can take 4 HWT per infantry / vet squad? How about units and dedicated transports , you can now take 10 razorbacks not 1?

    No, that isnt how the rules work. Your parsing is incorrect.


    No, my parsing is fine, you've missed some key elements and made some erroneous assumptions.

    And/Or is an 'ugly' conjunction and it does not mean what you think it means. It means the sentence can be written using both the "or" conjunction or the "and" conjunction and be correct. Lets looks at what that would look like.
  • A model can replace his bolt pistol or melee weapon with one of the following.
  • A model can replace his bolt pistol and melee weapon with one of the following.

  • The use of 'and' is joining the two individual phrases "bolt pistol" and "melee weapon". What you think its doing is joining two independent clauses "A model can replace his bolt pistol with one of the fallowing." and "A model can replace his melee weapon with one of the following." Trouble is, you need to precede the conjunction with a comma if it connects two independent clauses, and both clauses need to be present (even if they are so similar).

    You can see what I mean if we move the 'and' conjunction from the direct object to the prepositional object.
  • Dave can replace his car with a bus pass and a bicycle.

  • You can see this does not mean Dave can replace his car with a bus pass then replace it again for a bicycle. The bus pass and the bicycle become the same object for the single replace action.

    The allowance to repeat the replacement does not come from the sentences we have been discussing. The allowance comes from the unit option to take items from the lists. The use of items allows us multiple goes at the list. The lack of a determiner gives infinite goes at the list. I don't have my guard book with me so I wont try and parse the HWT example but lets look at the dedicated transports used in codex Space Marines.
  • The unit may select a Drop Pod, Rhino or Razorback as a Dedicated Transport.
  • This option does not allow for multiple permutations. You can tell because it says "may select a". Now if the option said the unit may take items from the Dedicated Transport list and that list said "The unit may select one of the following as a dedicated transport." You would be able to have 10 razorbacks. To avoid the unit from having more then one transport in this example this the permission to access the list would not have been for "items" but for "a single item" or "one item" such as it is for heavy weapon choices in a tactical squad (there are many other times this is done). If the intent was to allow a unit one transport of each type, then the option would say "items" but the list would limit the selection by saying "The unit may select up to one of each of the following as a dedicated transport." The combined use of "up to" and "each" limits the unit to a single copy of the different transports while the use of "items" allows for more then one transport." Just like its done with vehicle options.
    This same permutation restriction can be achieved using just "up to" in the sentences we have been discussing but GW has not done that.

    Unit options that do not use a cosponsoring list are all single iteration options unless the cost of that option contains an adverbial like "/model" (per model) or "each". These little nuances change the meaning of the option to include multiple permutations.

    This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2013/10/31 22:11:55


     
       
    Made in us
    Lieutenant General





    Florence, KY

    Wrong. One weapon means just that, one. To read it the way you want it would have to say 'a weapon'. It does not.

    'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents
    cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable
    defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'

    - Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty
    Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
     
       
    Made in us
    Longtime Dakkanaut






     Ghaz wrote:
    Wrong. One weapon means just that, one. To read it the way you want it would have to say 'a weapon'. It does not.


    'one weapon' and 'a weapon' have the same grammatical meaning.

    "A" is a determiner used to refer to something for the 1st time. Something is singular, meaning one.

    "a thing" = "one thing" grammatically.
       
    Made in us
    Lieutenant General





    Florence, KY

    No they don't have the same grammatical meaning as can be seen in this definition of the word 'an'

    http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/an?view=uk

    'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents
    cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable
    defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'

    - Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty
    Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
     
       
    Made in us
    Longtime Dakkanaut






     Ghaz wrote:
    No they don't have the same grammatical meaning as can be seen in this definition of the word 'an'

    http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/an?view=uk


    Yes, they do, for the reason I have just explained. See the definition of the determiner A

    Try using "A" as a determiner for more then one one object. "You can have a pieces of candy." Is grammatically incorrect.


    You can have a piece of candy. = You can have one piece of candy.

    You can have a piece of candy.=/= You can have several pieces of candy.
       
    Made in au
    Hoary Long Fang with Lascannon




    Armageddon, Pry System, Armageddon Sector, Armageddon Sub-sector, Segmentum Solar.

    Ok the first one is the limiting factor of amount of swaps the second one is the limiting factor of what you get for the swap. Just as and/or is the limiting factor for the amount of swaps, being one, the other or both (2) for one item for either or one item per item swaped.

    this is demontrated repeatedly throughout 40k with fore mentioned limiting facors that are traded for later mentioned limiting factors.

    If the intent was for you to be able to swap more than one (fore mentioned limiting factor) then it would say any as a fore mentuoned limited factor.
       
    Made in us
    Longtime Dakkanaut






     Bausk wrote:
    Ok the first one is the limiting factor of amount of swaps the second one is the limiting factor of what you get for the swap. Just as and/or is the limiting factor for the amount of swaps, being one, the other or both (2) for one item for either or one item per item swaped.

    this is demontrated repeatedly throughout 40k with fore mentioned limiting facors that are traded for later mentioned limiting factors.

    If the intent was for you to be able to swap more than one (fore mentioned limiting factor) then it would say any as a fore mentioned limited factor.


    Explain the rules of the English language that support what you have said. Address the explanations I have put forth that contradict almost everything you have said but do not contradict the books.
       
    Made in us
    Lieutenant General





    Florence, KY

     DJGietzen wrote:
     Ghaz wrote:
    No they don't have the same grammatical meaning as can be seen in this definition of the word 'an'

    http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/an?view=uk


    Yes, they do, for the reason I have just explained. See the definition of the determiner A

    Try using "A" as a determiner for more then one one object. "You can have a pieces of candy." Is grammatically incorrect.


    You can have a piece of candy. = You can have one piece of candy.

    You can have a piece of candy.=/= You can have several pieces of candy.

    So now you're contradicting yourself. First of all you say that it allows you to take multiple plasma pistols, not just one and now you're saying just the opposite.

    'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents
    cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable
    defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'

    - Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty
    Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
     
       
    Made in us
    Longtime Dakkanaut






     Ghaz wrote:
     DJGietzen wrote:
     Ghaz wrote:
    No they don't have the same grammatical meaning as can be seen in this definition of the word 'an'

    http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/an?view=uk


    Yes, they do, for the reason I have just explained. See the definition of the determiner A

    Try using "A" as a determiner for more then one one object. "You can have a pieces of candy." Is grammatically incorrect.


    You can have a piece of candy. = You can have one piece of candy.

    You can have a piece of candy.=/= You can have several pieces of candy.

    So now you're contradicting yourself. First of all you say that it allows you to take multiple plasma pistols, not just one and now you're saying just the opposite.


    No, I'm saying a model can take multiple plasma pistols, not because the sentence "A model can replace one weapon with one of the following." allows it but because the sentence "The Aspiring Champions may take items from the Melee Weapons and/or Ranged Weapons lists." gives permission for more then one item and the previous sentence is insufficient to limit the model to a single item.
       
    Made in au
    Hoary Long Fang with Lascannon




    Armageddon, Pry System, Armageddon Sector, Armageddon Sub-sector, Segmentum Solar.

    I explained it in game terms which is more relevant than the failings of English as a language. Anf as for "The Aspiring Champion may take items" is not a qualifier when the game context is he may take as many as possible and as few as none from the available lists and not that he may by pass the lists restrictions. As each list in the wargear section has it's own limitations and rules for use the Army list entry, again give the gane context, has no authority over those limitations.
       
    Made in us
    Longtime Dakkanaut






    You are wrong, The sentence structure of the list provides no limitation. It only describes what will be lost and what will be gained. Can you explain why, using more then your opinion, how the list is a restriction?

    Lets talk about game terms.
  • This option, "May take a single Mark of Chaos from the wargear list." specifically states that you are limited to a single item from the list. That section has says "A model can take one of the following."

  • While this option, "May take items from the Ranged Weapons, Chaos Rewards (except daemonic steeds) and/ or Chaos Artefacts sections of the wargear list.", states you can take zero or more items from one or more sections. Those sections say "A model can replace one weapon with one of the following", "A model can take up to one of each of the following", and "A model can replace one weapon with one of the following" respectively.


  • Why are these two separate options? If "one" was sufficient to mean "only one" would these not all be given as a single option that reads "May take items from the Ranged Weapons, Chaos Rewards (except daemonic steeds), Chaos Artefacts and/ or Marks of Chaos sections of the wargear list."

    If the intentions are to limit you to a single chaos artifact or ranged weapon replacement why are those options not given individually using the "single item" terms?

    If you think "and/or" allows an option to be taken more then once, find a single use of "and/or" that is not in a section of the war gear list (as those will all have separate permission statements) and does not have an adverbial as part of the cost. I'm willing to be you will be hard pressed to find one. The adverbial is what tells us the sentence allows for multiple permutations not the "and/or" conjunction.

    Edit: I've just heard a rumor I cannot confirm. The rumor is that the force builder portion of the space marine ipad codex allows a single model to replace two weapons with two different relics. If some one with and ipad and a digidex could ensure they have the most up to date version and verify or debunk this rumor I would appreciate it. I'd especially like to know if a model can have both the Burning Blade and the Teeth of Terra.

    While the force builder app thingy is not as good a source for clarification as an FAQ, it is significantly better then some random guys on the internet Considering this issue has been around for a year now I don't think GW feels it needs clarification (and to that I say they are WRONG) so its not likely to be in an FAQ.

    This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/11/01 07:34:33


     
       
    Made in ca
    Ambitious Marauder





    AB, Canada

    The ibooks version 2.1 (released October 04 2013) has the following description of Chapter Relics:

    "Only one of each Chapter Relic may be taken per army. A model can replace one weapon with one of the following: ..."

    The Force Requistion (army builder) in the ibook allows for Chapter Masters, Captains, Terminator Captains, Librarians, Chaplains and Masters of the Forge to purchase The Teeth of Terra and The Burning Blade on a single model. To clarify, any single of the forementioned HQ choices -are- able to take both the Teeth of Terra and the Burning Blade.
    Sorry for the long-windedness.
       
    Made in gb
    Decrepit Dakkanaut




    DJ - so when you replace 2 items, and I look at the explicit allowance to replace 1, you arent cheating because....

    One means One. You have replaced 2. You are explicitly arguing that I can have 4 HWT per Infantry Squad - yes or no? You have been asked this a few times now, and failed to confirm you are arguing that.
       
     
    Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
    Go to: