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.

 DJGietzen wrote:

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.

I'd like to stress this point further by providing an example where you only receive permission for one item. Take a standard tactical squad: "[...] one Space Marine may take one item from the Special Weapons list". Note how here, it is "one item" rather than "items". This would have been the case with the relics as well if that was the intent.

I've provided examples of syntax from the imperial guard codex which is not a 6th ed codex. I will have to hunt around for my 2nd and 3rd ed codexes for your question but yes I can when I find them.

 Bausk wrote:
I've provided examples of syntax from the imperial guard codex which is not a 6th ed codex. I will have to hunt around for my 2nd and 3rd ed codexes for your question but yes I can when I find them.

Are you referring to the veterns option and/or the HWT option you refrenced earlier? Neither of those are examples of syntax where the option was to take items from a wargear section(or what ever name they chose to call it) of the codex.

 DJGietzen wrote:
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.

Items (plural) from multiple groups. There's no permission to select multiple items from a specific list - you have to look at the list for that.
How many items does the relic list allow?

It is ab example of syntax from edition to edition, I did not say it was a direct answer to your question. I did say, if you read the whole responce, that I can provide a direct answer but I will need to find my 2nd and 3rd ed codexes to find the exact refernces for you.

OK, so question.

Eldar have the same restriction on the Remnants of Glory (one weapon with one of the following). However, the Autarch, Fareser, and Spiritseer all say "May take items from the Remnants of Glory list."

Thoughts?

It is phased exactly as such with no additional lists mentioned? Also are there options in the list that don't require a weapon swap similar to some relics and artifacts?

 Happyjew wrote:
OK, so question.

Eldar have the same restriction on the Remnants of Glory (one weapon with one of the following). However, the Autarch, Fareser, and Spiritseer all say "May take items from the Remnants of Glory list."

Thoughts?

Uh, so your farseer can take Anaris and the supersniper if he wants?

No big deal.

I gather from Haraldus' reply there is at least one item that doesn't require a weapon swap.

40k is a permissive game, it allows us to do things and anything that it doesn't mention is not allowed. You cannot repeat wargear selections phrased in this structure more than once because it allows you to change ONE weapon for another.

RAW aside, how is taking a 2nd weapon that doesn't provide any beneficial effect to the game support the "spirit" of wargear selections? Care to explain that?

Care to explain why I can't slam multiple heavy weapons into a SM squad?

I'd love to see someone post a list in Army Lists and see what they have to say.




People are getting into semantics and quoting online dictionaries when the answer is to be found under their noses. You can take one. Why? Because it says one.

Let me re-phrase my apple question,

You can take one apple.

You'd grab 50? 100? 1,000,000?
I granted you a permission, now you can repeat it as many times as you want right? Wrong, don't be foolish.

The original poster just wanted a badass model and I love that but people are just playing devils advocate.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DJGietzen wrote:

 Bausk wrote:
I've provided examples of syntax from the imperial guard codex which is not a 6th ed codex. I will have to hunt around for my 2nd and 3rd ed codexes for your question but yes I can when I find them.

Are you referring to the veterns option and/or the HWT option you refrenced earlier? Neither of those are examples of syntax where the option was to take items from a wargear section(or what ever name they chose to call it) of the codex.

Why is that relevant? The structure of the permission is the same.

I know that but I will humour him and find what he wanted specifically. Provided I can find my old codexes...

rigeld2 wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
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.

Items (plural) from multiple groups. There's no permission to select multiple items from a specific list - you have to look at the list for that.
How many items does the relic list allow?

It neither allows or disallows a specified quantity. That's the point.

Bausk wrote:It is ab example of syntax from edition to edition, I did not say it was a direct answer to your question. I did say, if you read the whole responce, that I can provide a direct answer but I will need to find my 2nd and 3rd ed codexes to find the exact refernces for you.

I asked for a specific example of syntax. You responded that you already had provided syntax. I simply stated that what had already been provdid do was not what was asked for.

Happyjew wrote:OK, so question.

Eldar have the same restriction on the Remnants of Glory (one weapon with one of the following). However, the Autarch, Fareser, and Spiritseer all say "May take items from the Remnants of Glory list."

Thoughts?

I don't have an Eldar Codex right now. Is the statment in the rmnants of glory list also "A model can replace one weapon with one of the following"?

Aijec wrote:40k is a permissive game, it allows us to do things and anything that it doesn't mention is not allowed. You cannot repeat wargear selections phrased in this structure more than once because it allows you to change ONE weapon for another.

RAW aside, how is taking a 2nd weapon that doesn't provide any beneficial effect to the game support the "spirit" of wargear selections? Care to explain that?

Care to explain why I can't slam multiple heavy weapons into a SM squad?

I'd love to see someone post a list in Army Lists and see what they have to say.




People are getting into semantics and quoting online dictionaries when the answer is to be found under their noses. You can take one. Why? Because it says one.

Let me re-phrase my apple question,

You can take one apple.

You'd grab 50? 100? 1,000,000?
I granted you a permission, now you can repeat it as many times as you want right? Wrong, don't be foolish.

The original poster just wanted a badass model and I love that but people are just playing devils advocate.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DJGietzen wrote:

 Bausk wrote:
I've provided examples of syntax from the imperial guard codex which is not a 6th ed codex. I will have to hunt around for my 2nd and 3rd ed codexes for your question but yes I can when I find them.

Are you referring to the veterans option and/or the HWT option you refrenced earlier? Neither of those are examples of syntax where the option was to take items from a wargear section(or what ever name they chose to call it) of the codex.

Why is that relevant? The structure of the permission is the same.

The unit option grants permission for "items". That is your permission to take more then one. The statements in the war gear section describe how a model takes an item from that list. It does not allow a model to take an item from that list, if it did then a chaos cultist could have the black mace.

Taking a second plasma pistol as the OP described provides a benefit in the shooting phase. You might want to read the Gunslinger rule.

Are you referring to a tactical squad as a "SM squad"? If so its because the unit option says "one space marine may take one item" and the nature of this sentence does not allow for multiple permutations. The statement in the heavy weapons list also says that a model must replace his boltgun to take a heavy weapon. The tactical marines only have one boltgun. If however the unit option said "may take items" and the marine had two or more boltguns he could have two or more heavy weapons.

You can search that forum for "Burning blade shield eternal" and see plenty of threads with almost no reaction, but that is not the point. I know its confusing and not every one will agree but in my experience most players allow more then one relic. That is not to say you won't find plenty of reasonable players who feel the exact opposite. It needs an FAQ.

You are surprised people are getting into semantics? That's the purpose of this section of the forum. And it does not say you can take one. It says you can replace one with one.

You can take one apple? I'd grab one apple and acknowledge that I have hit the limit. But if I was told I could have apples and that to take an apple I need to replace one dollar with one apple I could give you 10 dollars and take 10 apples. And that is the problem right there. You can replace X with Y is a statement that sets up the equivalency of X to Y, better known as a ratio. The sentence would need to be written like "A model can replace up to one X with Y" for it to have the meaning so many people seem to think it has. Do you disagree that models in the Dark Angel codex that can take items from the melee wargear section can take a pair of lightning claws?

I'm not trying to play devils advocate, I do that some times on this forum but right now I'm trying to point out a common mistake.


The structure of the permission is not the same. Examples like the ones Bausk provided describe only two syntax structures. The 1st being when an option is clearly not repeatable (most options fall under this category) and when an option is clearly repeatable and the option describes how many times that option may be repeated. What I've asked for is a third syntax where the option can clearly be repeated but the number if times is not specified in the option.

Bausk wrote:I know that but I will humour him and find what he wanted specifically. Provided I can find my old codexes...

Thank you for looking.

 DJGietzen wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Items (plural) from multiple groups. There's no permission to select multiple items from a specific list - you have to look at the list for that.
How many items does the relic list allow?

It neither allows or disallows a specified quantity. That's the point.

It really does. Your refusal to accept that doesn't mean it doesn't.

The unit option grants permission for "items". That is your permission to take more then one. The statements in the war gear section describe how a model takes an item from that list. It does not allow a model to take an item from that list, if it did then a chaos cultist could have the black mace.

The unit option does not say you can take multiple items from the list. That is absolutely incorrect.

You can take one apple? I'd grab one apple and acknowledge that I have hit the limit. But if I was told I could have apples and that to take an apple I need to replace one dollar with one apple I could give you 10 dollars and take 10 apples. And that is the problem right there. You can replace X with Y is a statement that sets up the equivalency of X to Y, better known as a ratio. The sentence would need to be written like "A model can replace up to one X with Y" for it to have the meaning so many people seem to think it has. Do you disagree that models in the Dark Angel codex that can take items from the melee wargear section can take a pair of lightning claws?

The bolded is your incorrect summation if what the unit rules say.
You're allowed to take items from multiple lists. It must be plural since you're allowed to take something from the Melee list and something from the ranged list.

 Bausk wrote:
I gather from Haraldus' reply there is at least one item that doesn't require a weapon swap.

Correct. The Phoenix Gem (I think) does not require a weapon swap.

I see DJs point and accept it as a valid interpretation even if I disagree with it. I also agree that an FaQ would put it to bed one way or the other nicely, until then or until I, or anyone else who'd care to have a look, dig the old Dexs out from where ever I've put them I'd suggest discussing with your opponent or TO.

There is a specified number of items that the game allows you to take. One.

Like I said before there not only IS a specified # but even if you interpret the word one in some other ludicrous manner the game is permissive. You cannot slam a war gear option 20 times just because the rules of the game or rather how you interpret the rules doesn't say 'you cannot'.


Does anyone actually play like this? You'd be laughed at unfortunately if you brought it to even the most casual of LGS's in my area.


Edit: the burden of proof is on anyone arguing against this to quote codex's an defend their point against war gear selections that would break the game in half if their view was played out. I don't need to quote a SM codex because I know tac marines get x HW per 10. Not the permission to take as many as they like just because you have 10.

'You may take one apple'

You misunderstood his standpoint. The phasing is easily interpreted as a ratio, written as it is to save time and effort explaining the various weapon swaps from bolt pistols and ccws to force weapons and combibolters. Add to this no specific limitation on the options for the unit as we see with other items listed in the options for units.

Also update, found two early 3rd ed dex's and the layout for the wargear section was too different to compare. May have to find a 4th ed or dig deeper for the old 2nd ed dex. However 2nd ed was more bases on wargear cards...

I am not misunderstanding his viewpoint as my hypothetical question is clearly a ratio aswell IF viewed in the same manner.


They are not ratios however, they grant one weapon.

I always interpreted it as a ratio. If they'd wanted it to actually limit weapons to 1, they'd have said "A model may replace up to one X with Y."

So your saying you'd take 20 apples?

There interpretation of words has nothing to do with 40k. My posed question is just as relevant as a quote from a codex. Although I am getting close to pulling one out anyways just because I can't get a response from my orchards generosity.

Your hypothetical would be more accurate if it was; "one apple for one dollar" signed on the apple basket. "Swap your watch and/or belt for an orange" on the orange basket. Then tell the patron they may buy items from the baskets.

Shrike they use the same syntax for the Chaos icons that they use for Ranged weapons and as I said before they are not going to list the many weapons that could be swapped, this is just as true as they are unlikely to alter the syntax of a specific limitation in another section. Both interpretations are possible, it's just a matter of working out which one is correct.

-Shrike- wrote:
I always interpreted it as a ratio. If they'd wanted it to actually limit weapons to 1, they'd have said "A model may replace up to one X with Y."

Except htey only told you to replace one for one. Where does it say you can repeat this for a second time?

Aijec wrote:
So your saying you'd take 20 apples?

There interpretation of words has nothing to do with 40k. My posed question is just as relevant as a quote from a codex. Although I am getting close to pulling one out anyways just because I can't get a response from my orchards generosity.

Can you answer a hypothetical for me?
Let say we have an Independent character unit, and that model's default war gear is a

Wargear:

Terminator Armor

Storm Bolter

Power Sword

Storm Shield

In his unit entry he has this option.

May take items from the Ranged Weapons, Special weapons, Special Issue Wargear, and/or Chapter Relics lists.

The chapter relics list looks like this.

Chapter Relics
A model can replace two weapons with one of the following:

Sword of Omens

Hammer of Thundera

Claw Shield

What might the IC's wargear look like if the only change to its wargear was it took the sword of omens?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

-Shrike- wrote:
I always interpreted it as a ratio. If they'd wanted it to actually limit weapons to 1, they'd have said "A model may replace up to one X with Y."

Except htey only told you to replace one for one. Where does it say you can repeat this for a second time?

In the same place it gave you permission to take anything at all from the wargear section.

Ah, so nowhere then. As that doesnt tell you how many times you can use the "one for one" rule, at all. Ever.

The real question, and it might be already answered but din't see it, is what the hell is the point of having two plasma pistols?...

A model can only shoot with ONE weapon during the shooting phase anyway...

The only exceptions are MC's, Exo armors , vehicles and Centurions...

Maybe i've missed something in my chaos dex, but an CSM Asp Champ, isn't any of these above...

So i really don't see why are people arguing about this...

 Slayer le boucher wrote:
The real question, and it might be already answered but din't see it, is what the hell is the point of having two plasma pistols?...

A model can only shoot with ONE weapon during the shooting phase anyway...

The only exceptions are MC's, Exo armors , vehicles and Centurions...

Maybe i've missed something in my chaos dex, but an CSM Asp Champ, isn't any of these above...

So i really don't see why are people arguing about this...

See BRB, "Gunslinger"

Page 52

Well i'll be damned!

Its indeed interesting.

i really wonder why is it that i never saw anybody do this at our LGC.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Ah, so nowhere then. As that doesnt tell you how many times you can use the "one for one" rule, at all. Ever.

This is incorrect. The option says "may take items". This predicate is clear and complete.

'items' is the plural noun form of item. When a plural noun form is being used it refers to more then one.

'may' is a modal verb modifying the 'take' action to make it not required.

While not proper grammar, it is accepted grammar that the use of a modal verb in relation to a plural noun means the singular form of the noun is also correct.

This predicate gives subject permission to take one, none, or more then one item."

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Slayer le boucher wrote:
Well i'll be damned!

Its indeed interesting.

i really wonder why is it that i never saw anybody do this at our LGC.

Maybe because two plasma pistols is kinda expensive and doubles your chances of loosing a wound instead of shooting I've actually done it in one game, first time my guy shot he killed himself.

 DJGietzen wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Ah, so nowhere then. As that doesnt tell you how many times you can use the "one for one" rule, at all. Ever.

This is incorrect. The option says "may take items". This predicate is clear and complete.

'items' is the plural noun form of item. When a plural noun form is being used it refers to more then one.

'may' is a modal verb modifying the 'take' action to make it not required.

While not proper grammar, it is accepted grammar that the use of a modal verb in relation to a plural noun means the singular form of the noun is also correct.

This predicate gives subject permission to take one, none, or more then one item."

And, as you continue to ignore, that means literally nothing. Why? Because there are multiple lists in the statement you're referencing. You're allowed to take multiple items on some lists, only one item on others. You may take one, none, or more than one item from the following. Your implication is that those lists cannot further restrict your permission but that's absolutely false - in fact it shows a complete misunderstanding of how to read English in general and rules specifically.