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.

And/or was brought up as a point of contention in the relic thread also, I believe someone mentioned an annotation that explained it listed in the codex. As I don't play space marines I can't reference it for you. However the phrasing and terminology is nearly identical in all cases to the chaos marine codex which I. can reference for you when I get home.

I will also rattle of a list of citations explaining the game term use of a/one compared to any/one seeing as you seem incapable of separating the failings of English with multiple meanings from 40ks use of phrasing for game terms.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
DJ - so when you replace 2 items, and I look at the explicit allowance to replace 1, you arent cheating because....

I replace them one at a time. A permison granted by the unit option to take items from the wargear section. Each time I replace one weapon with one of something else.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

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.

I have replaced one, then I have replaced another one. I could theoretically waste points continuing to replace the same weapon over and over and over again, but that would be silly. The permission to continue to replace additional weapons after the 1st is in the unit option, not the wargear section.

Did'nt mean to ignore the question, I just dusted off my IG codex. You are allowed one heavy weapons team per infantry squad. You only have permission to replace 2 guardsmen with one HWT.

This is not the same situation as the 'one weapon' statement however. If the option read "The unit may take formations from the infantry section of the Imperial Tactics list." And some where else in the book was a section called "Imperial Tactics" and it had a section called "Infantry" and that section had the fallowing statement "A unit can replace two guardsmen with one of the following" and then presented this list

Heavy Weapons Team armed with a Mortar ...Xpts

Heavy Weapons Team armed with an Autocannon or Heavy Bolter ...2Xpts

Heavy Weapons Team armed with a Missile Launcher ...3Xpts

Heavy Weapons Team armed with a Lascannon ...4Xpts

Written like this you could have more then one HWT per infantry squad.

To recreate the original option in the new style the option should have read "The unit may take a single formation from the infantry section of the Imperial Tactics list." And some where else in the book was a section called "Imperial Tactics" and it had a section called "Infantry" and that section had the fallowing statement "A unit can replace two guardsmen with one of the following" and then presented this list

Heavy Weapons Team armed with a Mortar ...Xpts

Heavy Weapons Team armed with an Autocannon or Heavy Bolter ...2Xpts

Heavy Weapons Team armed with a Missile Launcher ...3Xpts

Heavy Weapons Team armed with a Lascannon ...4Xpts

Written like this you could have only one HWT per infantry squad.

So you have replaced 2 weapons with 2 items, despite being explicitly only allowed to replace 1 weapon with 1 item.

Gneeral permission: take items
Specific restriction: one weapon for one item

Cite permission to use "one for one" twice, and not end up with "two for two", breaking the allowance.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So you have replaced 2 weapons with 2 items, despite being explicitly only allowed to replace 1 weapon with 1 item.

Gneeral permission: take items
Specific restriction: one weapon for one item

Cite permission to use "one for one" twice, and not end up with "two for two", breaking the allowance.

"one weapon" is NOT a specific restriction. I've already gone over WHY its not twice in this thread. Find my posts and explain, using the rules of the english language, why I am wrong. With out that your argument is worthless.

Hwt: replace two (fore limiting factor) guardsmen with a hwt armed with one (later limiting factor) of the following.

Relics and ranged weapons:
Replace one (fore limiting factor) weapon with one (later limiting factor) of the following.

veterans page 98 ig codex:
Any (fore limiting factor) veteran may replace his lasgun with a (later limiting factor) shotgun.

Chaos codex page 95 chaos space marines

one (fore limiting factor) model in the unit may purchase one (later limiting factor) of the following chaos icons.

Same page chaos cultists
Any (fore limiting factor) may exchange his autopistol for an (later limiting factor) autogun




Automatically Appended Next Post:
I can go on if you like.

DJ - yet it is. It is a specific limit on how many items you can have

If you replace 2 items, have you replaced 1? Yes or no.

This arugment isnt worthless, your explanation is just flat out wrong.

If we were to use DJs variation of what one for one means then every model in a chaos marine unit could have an icon. Is this true DJ, do we really have the ability to buy an icon of vengeance and an icon of wrath so the little chaos marines with the mark of khorne can be almost berzerkers?

While that sounds great to me I'm sure it's not possible.

Actually I like DJ's interpretation.

It means I can have a Chaos Lord with all 4 marks.
First I purchase 1 Mark of Khorne.
Then I purchase 1 Mark of Slaanesh
Next I purchase 1 Mark of Nurgle,
Finally I purchase 1 Mark of Tzeentch.

Each time I'm only taking one Mark, so it is all legal.

Nah, I think purchasing 10 Razorbacks for one Grey Knight squad in 5th edition would have been much more fun, no need to buy pesky troops choices for them anymore!

Aw, wait. I got it -
1 10-man Termagant unit
5 Tervigons

Plus 2 more Tervigons as HQs.

Hell yeah multimarked lord, the Dons not so special now. Then you could field bezerkers, plague marines and noise marines as troops all off one lord. Take the axe of blind fury, roll up on a palaquin, grab the burning brand and have a 3+ inv.

This is better than the old 3rd-4th ed codex for lord power gaming.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:
Aw, wait. I got it -
1 10-man Termagant unit
5 Tervigons

Plus 2 more Tervigons as HQs.

damn man, that's harsh. Gon'd and gaunted to death.

 Happyjew wrote:
Aw, wait. I got it -
1 10-man Termagant unit
5 Tervigons

Plus 2 more Tervigons as HQs.

5 squad guardsman blob; replace 2 guardsmen with 1 auto cannon, rinse repeat. now have 20 auto cannons, 5 guardsmen, 5 sgts, and a commissar to grant them all stubborn.

GK termie squad rinse repeat the 1 in 5; all termies have psycannons.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
5 squad guardsman blob; replace 2 guardsmen with 1 auto cannon, rinse repeat. now have 20 auto cannons, 5 guardsmen, 5 sgts, and a commissar to grant them all stubborn.s.

And they all have to shoot at the same target.

A wise man once said "There is no such thing as Over-kill. Only Enough-kill."

 DJGietzen wrote:

 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.

This is so wrong, if it is intended to be the same action why isn't it worded the same?

If I told you in real life that you may replace one apple with one orange, you'd attempt to do it 20 times? Of course not.

RAW this is so clear there is no point in delving any further. This kind of argument hurts the game, be critical on ambiguous rules to help support the game.

Aijec wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:

 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.

This is so wrong, if it is intended to be the same action why isn't it worded the same?

If I told you in real life that you may replace one apple with one orange, you'd attempt to do it 20 times? Of course not.

RAW this is so clear there is no point in delving any further. This kind of argument hurts the game, be critical on ambiguous rules to help support the game.

What would you do if I said "You may select actions from this list." and the first action was "You may replace one apple with one orange."?

Except you arent selecting actions, you are selecting items. You are then told how many items you can select, and under what condition.

-Shrike- wrote:

Aijec wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:

 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.

This is so wrong, if it is intended to be the same action why isn't it worded the same?

If I told you in real life that you may replace one apple with one orange, you'd attempt to do it 20 times? Of course not.

RAW this is so clear there is no point in delving any further. This kind of argument hurts the game, be critical on ambiguous rules to help support the game.

What would you do if I said "You may select actions from this list." and the first action was "You may replace one apple with one orange."?

I'd replace an apple with an orange. If I wanted to. Because that's what you allowed me to do.

Lets lay all this out AGAIN for the people having trouble staying caught up.

1) Permission to do ANYTHING comes from the unit options.

a)The options may only be taken once unless the language of the option tells us it may be taken several time.

b)If an option may be taken multiple times it may or may not be limited to a specific number of permutations by the language of the option.

2)The Wargear Section has statements that describe how a subject performs an action.

a)These statements do not grant permission to perform these actions.

b)These statements to not crreate a specific restriction on the number of times these actions may be performed.

c) Some of these statements, but not all, do restrict exactly how this action can be preformed if it is being performed more then once.

 Bausk wrote:
Hwt: replace two (fore limiting factor) guardsmen with a hwt armed with one (later limiting factor) of the following.

Relics and ranged weapons:
Replace one (fore limiting factor) weapon with one (later limiting factor) of the following.

Veterans page 98 ig codex:
Any (fore limiting factor) veteran may replace his lasgun with a (later limiting factor) shotgun.

Chaos codex page 95 chaos space marines

one (fore limiting factor) model in the unit may purchase one (later limiting factor) of the following chaos icons.

Same page chaos cultists
Any (fore limiting factor) may exchange his autopistol for an (later limiting factor) autogun

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I can go on if you like.

One of these things is not like the others. Every example you posted except the one highlighted in red are unit options. I agree with those example 100%. But the one highlighted in red is a statement in the war gear section and not an option.

 Bausk wrote:
If we were to use DJs variation of what one for one means then every model in a chaos marine unit could have an icon. Is this true DJ, do we really have the ability to buy an icon of vengeance and an icon of wrath so the little chaos marines with the mark of khorne can be almost berzerkers?

How has what I've said lead you to come to such a conclusion?

 Happyjew wrote:
Actually I like DJ's interpretation. It means I can have a Chaos Lord with all 4 marks....Each time I'm only taking one Mark, so it is all legal.

Except the unit option only given permission to take a "single mark" form the wargear section, not permission to take "marks" from the war gear section. By taking the same unit option twice with out the language of that option indicating it may have multiple permutations you have cheated.

Aijec wrote:

This is so wrong, if it is intended to be the same action why isn't it worded the same?

If I told you in real life that you may replace one apple with one orange, you'd attempt to do it 20 times? Of course not.

RAW this is so clear there is no point in delving any further. This kind of argument hurts the game, be critical on ambiguous rules to help support the game.

1) It actually is worded the same. The only difference is the direct object.

2) What your describing is a unit option, and no I would not attempt to do that 20 times. However if you gave me 20 tickets and each ticket allowed me to replace one apple with one orange and I already had 20 apples I could easily walk away with 20 oranges instead. In this example the ticket represents the unit option and that option can be repeated. Each time I repeat the option I loose one apple and gain one orange.

3)This question and this debate pops up all the time all over the internet. RAW is not clear at all. The language is misleading to say the least. No matter what the authors intent was there was a better way to say it.

Aijec wrote:

-Shrike- wrote:

Aijec wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:

 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.

This is so wrong, if it is intended to be the same action why isn't it worded the same?

If I told you in real life that you may replace one apple with one orange, you'd attempt to do it 20 times? Of course not.

RAW this is so clear there is no point in delving any further. This kind of argument hurts the game, be critical on ambiguous rules to help support the game.

What would you do if I said "You may select actions from this list." and the first action was "You may replace one apple with one orange."?

I'd replace an apple with an orange. If I wanted to. Because that's what you allowed me to do.

But at the same time you have permission to perform that said action repeatedly, because you have nothing limiting this in the clause granting the permission.

I'm amazed of how several YMDC posters I usually share an opinion with fail to comprehend how much weight grammar and semantics carry when it comes to rules interpretation. Quite frankly, DJGietzen's explanation is bullet proof unless you decide to attribute characteristics to the sentence that don't exist. It's even supported by the iDex. Would people please provide quotes and page numbers for the part of the rules that explicitly tells us to replace English grammar with Games Workshop's own imaginary set of lingual rules? Otherwise, DJGietzen's clarification stands.

Just as a player has to follow the permissive ruleset of 40K, a writer (and reader when it comes to interpretation) has to follow the rules laid out by the linguistics of the language written in. As it stands, you may select several items from the wargear lists in both the specific cases, and each one selected item replaces one current item.

 DJGietzen wrote:
Lets lay all this out AGAIN for the people having trouble staying caught up. [...]

Just wanted to chip out some support, you're doing an excellent job explaining the reasoning behind the process. Linguistics matter.

DJ did you notice the phrasing of relics and ranged weapons is identical to that of chaos icons? Where the phrasing is doesn't matter, only its contextual influence on what you can and cannot do.

I listed two examples of what phrasing they would have used if the intention was for multiple unspecified item swaps; Any for one.

the statment of may select items refers to the fact you may take one for one relic (an item) and one for one ranged weapon (another item, making items collectively). It is not permission to by pass the limitations of the lists available.

I find myself agreeing with DJGietzen here. Not that the result matters all that much, double plasma pistol would be cool but quite bad tactics wise. But word for word, he is correct. The fact that people use obviously incorrect and ludicrous strawmen just to ridicule him does rustle my jimmies a fair bit as well.

 Bausk wrote:


the statment of may select items refers to the fact you may take one for one relic (an item) and one for one ranged weapon (another item, making items collectively). It is not permission to by pass the limitations of the lists available.

False. For this to be true, it would have had to be phrased "[...] may take items from the Melee Weapons and/or Ranged Weapons lists as well as an item from the chapter relics list.". As it stands, you have permission to take items from the Chapter Relics lists. Each time you wish to do so, you exchange one weapon for one relic. Repeating the process will net you several items from the Chapter Relics. Following proper English grammar, it can only be interpreted this way as has been clearly explained by DJGietzen. The rules written by Games Workshop must be interpreted using the proper linguistic rules of the English language.

TompiQ wrote:
Repeating the process will net you several items from the Chapter Relics.

Where does it say that you can repeat this process? Game rules are permissive, telling you what you are permitted to do. So where do the rules for the question at hand allow you to repeat the process and allow you to replace more than one weapon when the rules clearly only permit you to replace one weapon?

Edited by AgeOfEgos Grammatically both interpretations of the army list is correct, this is a failing of English and not the author. As the listing is a broad statement encompassing all available options the simplest way to write it is as they have, leaving specifics of exactly how many items may be taken from each section available to the wording of each section of the wargear list.

Futher more as GW use specific syntax to denote everything in the game this carries over from section to section and book to book. Specifically we refer to this as game terminology, where the wording of rules is grammatically the same the meaning, permission or denial is the same.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also I'm going to take a guess that DJ has not neen playing 40k long enough to remeber wargear lists actually existed a couple of editions ago. Functionally a wargear list operates as an expanded but universal options list. The reason such wargear lists exist is it saves space and unnecessary duplicated listings in the army list section.

TompiQ wrote:

 Bausk wrote:


the statment of may select items refers to the fact you may take one for one relic (an item) and one for one ranged weapon (another item, making items collectively). It is not permission to by pass the limitations of the lists available.

False. For this to be true, it would have had to be phrased "[...] may take items from the Melee Weapons and/or Ranged Weapons lists as well as an item from the chapter relics list.". As it stands, you have permission to take items from the Chapter Relics lists. Each time you wish to do so, you exchange one weapon for one relic. Repeating the process will net you several items from the Chapter Relics. Following proper English grammar, it can only be interpreted this way as has been clearly explained by DJGietzen. The rules written by Games Workshop must be interpreted using the proper linguistic rules of the English language.

You have permission to change 1 for 1. Now find permission to do the one for one swap again. page and para.

 Ghaz wrote:

TompiQ wrote:
Repeating the process will net you several items from the Chapter Relics.

Where does it say that you can repeat this process? Game rules are permissive, telling you what you are permitted to do. So where do the rules for the question at hand allow you to repeat the process and allow you to replace more than one weapon when the rules clearly only permit you to replace one weapon?

You have been given permission to select several items from the chapter relics list. Permission is granted in the unit entry. DJGietzen has explained as of why this allows for several selections already.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

You have permission to change 1 for 1. Now find permission to do the one for one swap again. page and para.

As said, DJGietzen has explained the reasoning as of why this is possible. The digital codex's army builder also allows for several weapons to be replaced by several relics.

The digital codex army builder didn't allow it at one point. Forgive me if I take it with a grain of salt.

And that's incorrect - you're never given permission to select several items for the Relic list. Ever.

rigeld2 wrote:
The digital codex army builder didn't allow it at one point. Forgive me if I take it with a grain of salt.

And that's incorrect - you're never given permission to select several items for the Relic list. Ever.

Edit: Checked my SM codex. The above is incorrect. You may take several items from Chapter Relics, as many as you have weapons to replace. I'm sorry, but regarding the digital army builder... This only makes me take it with a grain of salt, if it indeed only allows one relic.

As the subject of the thread is plasma pistols and not Chapter Relics, my question still stands.

rigeld2 wrote:
The digital codex army builder didn't allow it at one point. Forgive me if I take it with a grain of salt.

And that's incorrect - you're never given permission to select several items for the Relic list. Ever.

Agree to the grain of salt. It needs to be in an FAQ, but until we get one it is the best way to settle arguments that are about intent.

And you are always giver permission to take items from the relics/artifacts section. Not one codex that uses a wargear section has given permission to take a single item. They all give permission to take items.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bausk wrote:


Futher more as GW use specific syntax to denote everything in the game this carries over from section to section and book to book. Specifically we refer to this as game terminology, where the wording of rules is grammatically the same the meaning, permission or denial is the same.

Can you provide us with some examples of the syntax used to allow a model/unit to take items from a war gear section that did not specify the number of items you can take but did specify that number in the wargear section that are not from a 6th edition codex?