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.

 Happyjew wrote:
Because you are not replacing one for one, you are replacing two for two.

Um, Yes I am . Two for two is a ratio, and 2:2 can be reduced to 1:1.

Two for two = one for one.

 DJGietzen wrote:
Two for two = one for one.

This is so wrong.
Assuming it's a ratio, what allows you to reduce it?

You can't just reduce any assumed ratio just because you feel like it.
If you're told you can exchange two things for two other things and you bring one, you get nothing.

 grendel083 wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
Two for two = one for one.

This is so wrong.
Assuming it's a ratio, what allows you to reduce it?

You can't just reduce any assumed ratio just because you feel like it.
If you're told you can exchange two things for two other things and you bring one, you get nothing.

Not sure I follow you. Ratios can be reduced. Its an inarguable fact. @ for 2 will always equal 1 for 1. In your example I can't exchange anything because I need two things to start the process. If I had two things I would in fact being exchanging them at a ratio of 1:1 because I would also be getting two things.

 DJGietzen wrote:
Not sure I follow you. Ratios can be reduced. Its an inarguable fact.

Cars can be crushed, and houses can be burned.
Doesn't mean you're allowed to do it.
Same is true of ratios. They cannot always be reduced. They commonly are, but there's no law.

Again, if you're told you can exchange two things for two other things, and you turn up with one... Then you're getting nothing in exchange.

DJGietzen does some good rules lawyering and i think technically is correct.

Having 2+ weapons on a model + we can replace one weapon with another one. One here is used to describe how many weapons need to be traded for the benefit of a new one weapon and does not limit from further application of the rule to other weapons on the model. And now ill repeat the process without breaking any grammar.

And now i will turn water into funk.

Written rules can be broken if you try hard enough. A AC with 2 plasma pistol is fine but if you take this approach to tabletop gaming with a WAAC attitude your doing it wrong and WH40k and tabletop gaming will be reallly unfun.

PS.

This bit about ratios is a bit of a stretch imo.

Ithani wrote:
DJGietzen does some good rules lawyering and i think technically is correct.

He's not technically or figuratively correct at all. He's produced no rule, probably because one doesn't exist, allowing you to take two options from a list that says you can take one option.

His argument is entirely that you can do something one at a time as many times as you want. If you want to do it his way, you end up with being able to take 19 plasma guns in CSM squad, and other nonsense.

There is utterly no rules to back up his position and he has offered no actual rules to defend it.

He's trying to confuse people with worthless and baseless rhetoric that simply doesn't exist.

 grendel083 wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
Not sure I follow you. Ratios can be reduced. Its an inarguable fact.

Cars can be crushed, and houses can be burned.
Doesn't mean you're allowed to do it.
Same is true of ratios. They cannot always be reduced. They commonly are, but there's no law.

Again, if you're told you can exchange two things for two other things, and you turn up with one... Then you're getting nothing in exchange.

Wrong ratios can always be reduced. Two for two is always 1 for 1 in its simplest form. In your example the ratio is 1:1. You are exchanging one set of two things for 1 set of two things.

 DJGietzen wrote:
Two for two is always 1 for 1 in its simplest form.

What's allowing you to use the simplest form?
There is no law saying any and all ratios can be reduced no matter what the circumstances. None at all.
If there's no reason to reduce a ratio, then it doesn't get reduced. There's no reason here.
Just because something can be done, doesn't mean you're allowed.

 DJGietzen wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
Not sure I follow you. Ratios can be reduced. Its an inarguable fact.

Cars can be crushed, and houses can be burned.
Doesn't mean you're allowed to do it.
Same is true of ratios. They cannot always be reduced. They commonly are, but there's no law.

Again, if you're told you can exchange two things for two other things, and you turn up with one... Then you're getting nothing in exchange.

Wrong ratios can always be reduced. Two for two is always 1 for 1 in its simplest form. In your example the ratio is 1:1. You are exchanging one set of two things for 1 set of two things.

So you're also advocating 19 man plasma gun CSM squads?

rigeld2 wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
Not sure I follow you. Ratios can be reduced. Its an inarguable fact.

Cars can be crushed, and houses can be burned.
Doesn't mean you're allowed to do it.
Same is true of ratios. They cannot always be reduced. They commonly are, but there's no law.

Again, if you're told you can exchange two things for two other things, and you turn up with one... Then you're getting nothing in exchange.

Wrong ratios can always be reduced. Two for two is always 1 for 1 in its simplest form. In your example the ratio is 1:1. You are exchanging one set of two things for 1 set of two things.

So you're also advocating 19 man plasma gun CSM squads?

He absolutely is.
If a ratio can always be reduced, it can also always be enlarged.
The 1:1 ratio of plasma guns can simply be enlarged to a 19:19 ratio.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

His argument is entirely that you can do something one at a time as many times as you want. If you want to do it his way, you end up with being able to take 19 plasma guns in CSM squad, and other nonsense.

There is utterly no rules to back up his position and he has offered no actual rules to defend it.

He's trying to confuse people with worthless and baseless rhetoric that simply doesn't exist.

Id say its the wording thats creating confusion and hes debating a point of semantics. I wouldnt say hes set out to confuse or mislead people rather, create a discussion with the intention of learning more about the game.

I wouldnt say his arguments are worthless, baseless or rhetoric because that seems like a emotional and personal judgement rather than a discussion of op's content.

If the above arguments havent made you uncertain then nothing i say is going to register. I dont see any text that convinces me with certaintt that the "one" applies to the amount of swaps you can do. I read it as the nature of the swap itself- one for one.

Ithani wrote:

If the above arguments havent made you uncertain then nothing i say is going to register. I dont see any text that convinces me with certaintt that the "one" applies to the amount of swaps you can do. I read it as the nature of the swap itself- one for one.

I guess we'll put you in the 19 plasma gun squad camp then.

DJ - and, again, you have yet to show permission to repeat the restrictive one for one phrase. Absolutely none.

This has been explained. over and over, and you simply respond with "its a ratio"; true, it is also an action that you are being permitted to take. Nothing then permits you to repeat the action AT ALL, you cannot show this, and you refuse to see this restriction as being in force

We're back to were we were 5 pages ago, with no sign of moving on. I guess I'll take 19 plasma guns in one squad then, as you can "always" reduce a ratio, yes?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
DJ - and, again, you have yet to show permission to repeat the restrictive one for one phrase. Absolutely none.

No, I have shown you have permission to take multiple items. I have affirmed that to take those items you must meet a requirement. I have yet to see any proof that the requirement to take one item cannot be met multiple times.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
This has been explained. over and over, and you simply respond with "its a ratio"; true, it is also an action that you are being permitted to take. Nothing then permits you to repeat the action AT ALL, you cannot show this, and you refuse to see this restriction as being in force

The permission to take an unspecified number of items permits you to repeat this action. I have explained this both with grammar and syntax as well as with examples in the codex where this must be true. If you missed those posts you should proboboly re-read this thread. Of course I do not see a restriction. You have not provided proof of one. You simple say "its a restriction" and your opinion is not proof.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
We're back to were we were 5 pages ago, with no sign of moving on. I guess I'll take 19 plasma guns in one squad then, as you can "always" reduce a ratio, yes?

Yes, we are back to people ignoring 90% of what I post in this thread. No you cannot take 19 plasma guns. Nothing I have said should have ever given you the impression that is OK. Its an inglorious proposition that ignores the majority of what I have been saying.

"One model can replace his boltgun with a plasma gun" is not the same as "a model can replace his boltguns;replace one boltgun with one plasma gun."


Ratios CAN ALWAYS BE REDUCED. How many movies do you own that list the aspect ratio as 1920:1080? Here is a hint, its 0. They list it as a 16:9 aspect ratio because for every 16 pixels wide the movie is 9 pixels tall even though its a minimum of 1920 pixels wide for the resolution its shown in.

Ah yes, I see that people have begun spamming strawmen to ridicule DJGietzen again. What is it this time? 19 plasma guns? Really? If you want to ridicule him, at least do it in a way that is not blatantly obvious that he did not mean.

Get over yourselves already, this is getting annoying to read.

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:


Get over yourselves already, this is getting annoying to read.

Noone is forcing you to read. Its viable discussion strategy to show what impact certain rules interpretations have on other rules and point out how they would be absurd. Thats having an impact on the argument at hand.

Problem with all these exchange 1 for 1 sentences in the codices is that they can be misunderstood and therefor are misunderstood by a lot of people. Its a constant mistake GW makes when writing codices and apparently not enough people send in questions about that particular wording over the years to make them clarifiy the issue.

In the end i would advocate the max 1 item stance but cba.

 Mywik wrote:

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:


Get over yourselves already, this is getting annoying to read.

Noone is forcing you to read. Its viable discussion strategy to show what impact certain rules interpretations have on other rules and point out how they would be absurd. Thats having an impact on the argument at hand.

Problem with all these exchange 1 for 1 sentences in the codices is that they can be misunderstood and therefor are misunderstood by a lot of people. Its a constant mistake GW makes when writing codices and apparently not enough people send in questions about that particular wording over the years to make them clarifiy the issue.

In the end i would advocate the max 1 item stance but cba.

If DJGietzen says that the following:

Codex:CSM wrote:The Chosen Champion may take items from the
Melee Weapons and/ or Ranged Weapons sections
of the wargear list.

Together with

Codex:CSM wrote:A model can replace one weapon with
one of the following:
- Combi-bolter ................................................................... 3 pts
-Combi-flamer, -melta or -plasma .................................. 10 pts
-Plasma pistol... ............................................................... 15 pts

Means that one can take multiple items, then he is free to argue so. That does not make ludicrous strawmen a "viable discussion strategy". For example, those that proclaimed that DJGietzen's argument indicated that the following:

Codex:CSM wrote:One Chaos Space Marine may replace
his bolt pistol with a plasma pistol .................. 15 pts
Or replace his boltgun with a:
-Flamer ............................................................... 5 pts
- Meltagun ......................................................... 10 pts
- Plasma gun .... .............................. .................... 15 pts

Meant that you could take 19 plasma guns... Discussing is one thing, ridiculing is one another. I like the former, but when I see the later thrown around... Ugh.

Dj - so you have no permission you can point to, no permissive wording to repeat the action, just an assumption on your part that you can do so,.

Nothing new, one for one is not the same as two for two.

His argument is that "one" is not a limitation. He's repeatedly said so. It's not a Strawman to point out the consequences of that stance.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Dj - so you have no permission you can point to, no permissive wording to repeat the action, just an assumption on your part that you can do so,.

Nothing new, one for one is not the same as two for two.

Permission to take items is permission to take more then one item. This is not an assumption.

rigeld2 wrote:His argument is that "one" is not a limitation. He's repeatedly said so. It's not a Strawman to point out the consequences of that stance.

No, actually my argument is that the use of 'one' in the sentence "A model can replace one weapon with one of the following" is not a limitation while the use of one in "A model can take one plasma gun." is a limitation. Its the syntax and grammar of the sentence that shapes the value of the words and the overall meaning of the sentence.

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. Kinda like whats been going on in this thread.


I'd like to add, that I have REPEATEDLY explained why my position makes sense with the rules of the English language and not once have I heard a proper explanation as to why the counter argument should ever make sense.

 DJGietzen wrote:
No, actually my argument is that the use of 'one' in the sentence "A model can replace one weapon with one of the following" is not a limitation while the use of one in "A model can take one plasma gun." is a limitation. Its the syntax and grammar of the sentence that shapes the value of the words and the overall meaning of the sentence.

It's almost like that's not what the rules we're talking about says. No, wait - that's exactly what it's like.
Using your argument, "One CSM may replace..." means there's no inherent limitation.

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. Kinda like whats been going on in this thread.

If I ignored your position and substituted a different version that would be correct. I'm not. I'm using your exact stance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DJGietzen wrote:
I'd like to add, that I have REPEATEDLY explained why my position makes sense with the rules of the English language and not once have I heard a proper explanation as to why the counter argument should ever make sense.

Because I'm not an English major and don't feel like breaking the sentence down like that.
But in the classes I took your method and definition was incorrect.

There is a huge difference between a limitation on how many models can purchase wargear and a ratio on how many wargear a single model may swap out.


If you cant understand that then there isnt a whole lot anyone can tell you to satisfy your questioning.

Eihnlazer wrote:
There is a huge difference between a limitation on how many models can purchase wargear and a ratio on how many wargear a single model may swap out.

Please - enlighten me.

One CSM may replace...
One weapon can be swapped...

How are those different? You're asserting they are. Explain.

rigeld2 wrote:

Please - enlighten me.

One CSM may replace...
One weapon can be swapped...

How are those different? You're asserting they are. Explain.

I've highlighted in red the problem with your logic. That statement does not represent a ratio.

One marine may replace.....

Thats it. One guy. You have no confusion on this issue right?

This is a flat out limitation on the unit.

On the other side we have:

Seargent may take "weapon's" from the following list:
Swaping one weapon for one weapon, then swap one weapon for one weapon breaks no rules.

This is a ratio of trade for using the wargear list. It places no limitation on the model or unit except that he cannot trade 1 weapon for 2 weapons, or 2 weapons for 1 weapon. He has to trade them 1 for 1.

Dj - again, you cannot show permission to repeat the one for one. Concession accepted, please mark your posts also hywpi to follow the forum tenets, thank you

Eihnlazer wrote:
One marine may replace.....

Thats it. One guy. You have no confusion on this issue right?

This is a flat out limitation on the unit.

Good!

On the other side we have:

Seargent may take "weapon's" from the following list:
Swaping one weapon for one weapon, then swap one weapon for one weapon breaks no rules.

The bolded is not what the rules say at all. Perhaps you'd like to use actual rules instead of making things up to try and prove your point?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DJGietzen wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Please - enlighten me.

One CSM may replace...
One weapon can be swapped...

How are those different? You're asserting they are. Explain.

I've highlighted in red the problem with your logic. That statement does not represent a ratio.

One CSM may replace his boltgun...
One weapon can be swapped for one thing...

Both are ratios. You're asserting only one of them is repeatable. Please explain why.

um, im sorry i said weapons instead of items, but in this context they mean the exact same thing.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Dj - again, you cannot show permission to repeat the one for one. Concession accepted, please mark your posts also hywpi to follow the forum tenets, thank you

I am demonstrating how the RAW should be read. I have shown this permission numerous times.

DJGietzen wrote: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.

DJGietzen wrote: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.

DJGietzen wrote: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."

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.

DJGietzen wrote: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...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.

The only reply I've gotten is "one weapon is a limitation". I ask for proof and I am ignored or told "no".

1. Don't make a statement without backing it up. - You have to give premises for a conclusive statement; without this, there can be no debate.

"One weapon is a limitation" has no premise after 6 pages of argument. It is, at this point in the debate, an unsubstantiated opinion. Please abide by the tenets of this forum and back that opinion up.

Eihnlazer wrote:
um, im sorry i said weapons instead of items, but in this context they mean the exact same thing.

You also used the singular "list" instead of "lists" which is what the rule actually says. And that changes the meaning of the phrase significantly.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DJGietzen wrote:
"One weapon is a limitation" has no premise after 6 pages of argument. It is, at this point in the debate, an unsubstantiated opinion. Please abide by the tenets of this forum and back that opinion up.

It has been backed up.

If you swap two weapons for 2 things, have you swapped one weapon?