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.

Yes, because there are multiple lists. So you can indeed take items, plural, but only have permisison to exchange one weapon for one, when it comes to the specific list. Acting as a restriction.

To answer the question, I have to cry ignorance... is an SS refered to as a weapon. I'm 99% sure it's not.

If it is not a weapon there is only 1 permutation.

Term
Sword of omens
SS

In your example there is no limiting factor so the ratio is repeatable. Of course you do not meet the requirements of said ratio again since you only have 1 weapon now.

Furthermore there is a flaw in your posed problem, I don't believe GW has ever grouped wargear selections with two different ratios together. Assuming the option to take a (power sword or whatever) replaces one weapon as per usual.

They would split the selections up for clarity.




Now answer mine please. And all the other valid points that were made while I was crushing an eldar player today

rigeld2 wrote: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.

I've never said the statements at the beginning of the lists couldn't restrict you to a single permutation, I've only said that as they are written they don't. The unit option does not specify how may items per list, it gives permission for multiple items, and multiple lists. The only way to read that is permission for 0 or more items from each list.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yes, because there are multiple lists. So you can indeed take items, plural, but only have permission to exchange one weapon for one, when it comes to the specific list. Acting as a restriction.

But it does not act as a restriction, as I have pointed out numerous times "replace X with Y" does not prevent further further permission to replace a 2nd X with a 2nd Y. It only describes that to gain Y you must loose X. If the statements said "replace up to one X with Y" it WOULD be a restriction on further permissions.

Aijec wrote:To answer the question, I have to cry ignorance... is an SS refered to as a weapon. I'm 99% sure it's not.

If it is not a weapon there is only 1 permutation.

Term
Sword of omens
SS

In your example there is no limiting factor so the ratio is repeatable. Of course you do not meet the requirements of said ratio again since you only have 1 weapon now.

Furthermore there is a flaw in your posed problem, I don't believe GW has ever grouped wargear selections with two different ratios together. Assuming the option to take a (power sword or whatever) replaces one weapon as per usual.

They would split the selections up for clarity.




Now answer mine please. And all the other valid points that were made while I was crushing an eldar player today

Every single argument that "one weapon" is a limiting factor would also mean that "two weapons" is also a limiting factor but you were more then happy to allow more then happy to allow the model to replace more then two weapons if he had more then two weapons because you recognized "two weapons" only to be the direct object of the replacement action and that "two" was just the quantity of what was being replaced, Why would it be any different with any other number? Why do you feel "replace one X with one Y" is not a ratio but "replace two X with one Y" is?

GW has grouped different ratios together. Anytime a list uses the conjunction and/or in its statement that list has either a 2 for 1 or a 1 for 1 ratio. Outside of that, no other list has a statement with a ratio has been anything other then 1 for 1.

When GW only wants the unit to take a single item from a list it does split the options up to clarify. They have not done that here,

What question of yours do you feel I have not answered?

DJ - again, where is your permission to repeat the one for one? You have yet to show it.

It acts as a restriction; if they had wanted it to be "any" number then they could easily have written that. They didnt.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
DJ - again, where is your permission to repeat the one for one? You have yet to show it.

It acts as a restriction; if they had wanted it to be "any" number then they could easily have written that. They didnt.

Again, you have permission to take items from a set of lists. That is your permission to take more then one item from the same list; that is your permission to repeat one for one.

It does not act as a restriction. I understand you disagree but your opinion is not a valid counter argument if you don't support it with facts. Yes they could have used 'any' in place of 'one' and they probably should have, but if they intended you to take a single item from the list why did they not make a separate option for it like they did with other units? Why didn't they use "up to one" like they did with other lists?

DJ I can see how in can be interpreted both ways, I am disappointed that you don't see how it can be interpreted another way to your view. I also agree that your view has merit based on the way you have presented it.

However as I looked at my old 3rd ed codexes I affirmed that the wargear section in those was treated like an expansive unified options list with its own limitations. While, as I said, the format was different the the use was the same.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As with other lists? Which lists?

 Bausk wrote:
DJ I can see how in can be interpreted both ways, I am disappointed that you don't see how it can be interpreted another way to your view. I also agree that your view has merit based on the way you have presented it.

However as I looked at my old 3rd ed codexes I affirmed that the wargear section in those was treated like an expansive unified options list with its own limitations. While, as I said, the format was different the the use was the same.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As with other lists? Which lists?

I can see how it can be interpreted both ways, let me make that clear. It needs to be FAQ'd. I am arguing against the idea that it must be interpreted in a way that is counter to how I feel it should be interpreted.

Thank you for looking at the older codices. I'm not saying the war gear section here can't provide a limitation, and in fact it often does by limiting what types of things can be replaced. I just don't think the specific restriction some have claimed actually exists with the way these books have been written.

DJ - no, it does not state you may then repeat the action more than once. It just says in total you may have itemS, and then you are told exactly how to achieve that.

Your interpretation ends up swapping 2 for 2, when you only have explicit permission to swap 1 for 1

nosferatu1001 wrote:
DJ - no, it does not state you may then repeat the action more than once. It just says in total you may have itemS, and then you are told exactly how to achieve that.

Your interpretation ends up swapping 2 for 2, when you only have explicit permission to swap 1 for 1

The part highlighted in red keeps being tossed about like its a fact. Prove it.

Proven, repeatedly. You only have one instance where it states one for one. Do you have anything saying you can use that line more than once - anything EXPLICITLY stating that? No. Then you may not use it more than once.

Your 2 for 2 has no permission; it is not 1 for 1 twice, it is 2 for 2, and you only have been given permission for 1 for 1

Ehhh, no. It has been proven that for one chainsword, you can get one plasma pistol. For one bolt pistol, you can get a combi-melta. As examples.

That's what my codex says at least.

Not really proven for either side yet. We have two interpretations that are both valid. Even though I personally interpret it as a single swap now I did also originally view it as a ratio swap. This is why I view both sides as valid interpretations.

However the exact same syntax is used for Icons and I view the wargear section as a unified options list because I've played since 2nd ed. Also I believe that they would have used 'Any' in place of 'One' if they intended any amount of weapons may be swapped.

This is just my interpretation however.

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
Ehhh, no. It has been proven that for one chainsword, you can get one plasma pistol. For one bolt pistol, you can get a combi-melta. As examples.

That's what my codex says at least.

In a Chaos Space Marine unit the wargear options lists the following:
One Chaos Space marine may replace his bolt pistol with a plasma pistol.
According to you, this allows all CSM in the unit to swap for a plasma pistol.
Or replace his bolt gun with a (special weapon).
Special weapons for everyone!
There's more - in the CAM codex even - but that should be enough. 19 plasma guns in a CSM squad is an interesting interpretation.

If one is not a limit you break things.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Proven, repeatedly. You only have one instance where it states one for one. Do you have anything saying you can use that line more than once - anything EXPLICITLY stating that? No. Then you may not use it more than once.

Your 2 for 2 has no permission; it is not 1 for 1 twice, it is 2 for 2, and you only have been given permission for 1 for 1

No, it has not been proven at all. People keep saying it like its a thing, but not one single person has taken the time to explain how the rules of English could mean that. Repeatedly stating your opinion is not the same as providing proof.

Do you recognize the difference between "A model can replace one weapon" and "One weapon can be replaced"? How about "One veteran can replace his bolt pistol and/or chainsword with a plasma pistol for 20 points" and One veteran can replace his bolt pistol and/or a chainsword with a plasma pistol for 20 points each"

If a model had a bolt pistol, a boltgun, and a chainsword and was given permission to take items from the artifact list and the list had the following statement "A model can replace two weapons with one artifact." what are all the possible weapon/artifact load outs the model could end up with and why?

No, it has been proven. You have no permission to repeat the "one for one" action - being told you can take items does not *explicitly* state this, therefore you have no explicit permission.

Find the explicit permission.

You're not going to find explicit permission because we have a 5 page thread arguing about what two sentences mean. That kinda guarantees there is going to be confusion. What your saying is that the permission to take items from a set of lists is not clear permission to take more then from a single list? You do realize that mean you could never give a single model more then item on the special issue war gear list?

 DJGietzen wrote:
You're not going to find explicit permission because we have a 5 page thread arguing about what two sentences mean. That kinda guarantees there is going to be confusion. What your saying is that the permission to take items from a set of lists is not clear permission to take more then from a single list? You do realize that mean you could never give a single model more then item on the special issue war gear list?

I wonder what the Special Issue wargear list says...
Oh. A model can take up to one of each of the following. It's like that's permission to take more than one. Wow.

Edit: the Unit entry gives permission to take from a range of lists (plural because there's more than one list).
The list entry dictates the requirements for that individual list.

 DJGietzen wrote:
You're not going to find explicit permission because we have a 5 page thread arguing about what two sentences mean. That kinda guarantees there is going to be confusion. What your saying is that the permission to take items from a set of lists is not clear permission to take more then from a single list? You do realize that mean you could never give a single model more then item on the special issue war gear list?

No, it says in total you can get items from the lists.. It then tells you the rules for selecting from each list. Absent a rule saying how you select, you could indeed have whatever you want. Instead you have a rule saying 1 for 1 - and NO RULE saying you are allowed to repeat the 1 for 1 selection.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
You're not going to find explicit permission because we have a 5 page thread arguing about what two sentences mean. That kinda guarantees there is going to be confusion. What your saying is that the permission to take items from a set of lists is not clear permission to take more then from a single list? You do realize that mean you could never give a single model more then item on the special issue war gear list?

No, it says in total you can get items from the lists.. It then tells you the rules for selecting from each list. Absent a rule saying how you select, you could indeed have whatever you want. Instead you have a rule saying 1 for 1 - and NO RULE saying you are allowed to repeat the 1 for 1 selection.

You said it yourself. You can get items from the list. We have a rule saying its 1 for 1. What we don't have is a rule to limit us to just 1 for just 1 and we need that because we already have permission for more then one.

No, you can get items from the lists. Both works are plural and you're treating the latter as singular. You do not have permission for more than one.

 DJGietzen wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
You're not going to find explicit permission because we have a 5 page thread arguing about what two sentences mean. That kinda guarantees there is going to be confusion. What your saying is that the permission to take items from a set of lists is not clear permission to take more then from a single list? You do realize that mean you could never give a single model more then item on the special issue war gear list?

No, it says in total you can get items from the lists.. It then tells you the rules for selecting from each list. Absent a rule saying how you select, you could indeed have whatever you want. Instead you have a rule saying 1 for 1 - and NO RULE saying you are allowed to repeat the 1 for 1 selection.

You said it yourself. You can get items from the list. We have a rule saying its 1 for 1. What we don't have is a rule to limit us to just 1 for just 1 and we need that because we already have permission for more then one.

ListS , not list. You have NO PERMISSION to repeat the one for one action, absolutely none. If you disagree, prove it. Continuing failure to prove your assertion is going to be treated as concession you are not arguing RAW

Aside from the repeating 1 for 1, can you do the 1 for 1 and the none for 1?

Homer

nosferatu1001 wrote:
ListS , not list. You have NO PERMISSION to repeat the one for one action, absolutely none. If you disagree, prove it. Continuing failure to prove your assertion is going to be treated as concession you are not arguing RAW

"A Chapter Master in power armour or artificer armour may take items from the Melee Weapons, Ranged Weapons, Special Issue Wargear and/or Chapter Relics lists."

Weather it is 'list' or 'listS' it is still ITEMS. The unit may take "items". This is the permission to take more then one item. The use of the 'and' conjunction (part of the and/or conjunction) coupled with the modal verb 'may' allows the items to all come from a single list or any combination of lists. To deny this would mean to deny the unit, in this case a Chapter Master, could ever take more then one item from any one list.

With out these sentences the unit option enables us to take as many items as we want because 'items' is not quantified. These sentences instruct us on how to take an item. Our inability to follow these instructions is what prevents us from taking as many items as we want.

The sentence structure of "A model can replace one weapon with one of the following" only serves to set up a ratio. "one weapon" is the direct object of the replace action and can only describe what is being replaced as the unit takes an item from this list. As long as I have one weapon t replace I can follow the instructions to take an item from this list and because I have permission to take more then one item from this list I have permission to replace more then one item.

This is where the counter argument has its greatest flaw. I constantly hear that this sentence does provide a limit to the number of items because it uses the cardinal number 'one' in the unit description instead of the word 'any'. You need to prove there is a significant difference between the use of 'one' and the use of 'any' in this sentence. With out that proof you are not arguing RAW.

The permission to take more then one item and thus replace more then one item comes from the unit option. For this sentence to limit the model to replacing single weapon the sentence would require additional language. Other sentences do have this additional language. They use "up to" to limit the unit to a single item.

Sure - he has permission to take multiple items from multiple lists.

It's unfortunate for your argument that the lists further restrict your options.

rigeld2 wrote:
Sure - he has permission to take multiple items from multiple lists.

It's unfortunate for your argument that the lists further restrict your options.

I accidentally hit submit before I finished my post. I was in the midst of editing the post when you replied.

 DJGietzen wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Sure - he has permission to take multiple items from multiple lists.

It's unfortunate for your argument that the lists further restrict your options.

I accidentally hit submit before I finished my post. I was in the midst of editing the post when you replied.

And your edit doesn't change my statement.
If you've replaced 2 weapons with 2 items, have you followed the requirement of one for one?

rigeld2 wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Sure - he has permission to take multiple items from multiple lists.

It's unfortunate for your argument that the lists further restrict your options.

I accidentally hit submit before I finished my post. I was in the midst of editing the post when you replied.

And your edit doesn't change my statement.
If you've replaced 2 weapons with 2 items, have you followed the requirement of one for one?

yes. I am taking two of the following. I must replace one for one and thus must replace two weapons. Nothing restricts me from doing this.

 DJGietzen wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Sure - he has permission to take multiple items from multiple lists.

It's unfortunate for your argument that the lists further restrict your options.

I accidentally hit submit before I finished my post. I was in the midst of editing the post when you replied.

And your edit doesn't change my statement.
If you've replaced 2 weapons with 2 items, have you followed the requirement of one for one?

yes. I am taking two of the following. I must replace one for one and thus must replace two weapons. Nothing restricts me from doing this.

Except the rules for the specific list of course.

 Happyjew wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Sure - he has permission to take multiple items from multiple lists.

It's unfortunate for your argument that the lists further restrict your options.

I accidentally hit submit before I finished my post. I was in the midst of editing the post when you replied.

And your edit doesn't change my statement.
If you've replaced 2 weapons with 2 items, have you followed the requirement of one for one?

yes. I am taking two of the following. I must replace one for one and thus must replace two weapons. Nothing restricts me from doing this.

Except the rules for the specific list of course.

Care to explain that? How does the rule "A model can replace one weapon with one of the following" mean anything other that to take one of the following you must replace one weapon.

Because you are not replacing one for one, you are replacing two for two.