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.

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


This is a direct copy of the rule from above.

What "lists" are you talking about?

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


This is a direct copy of the rule from above.

What "lists" are you talking about?

I bolded the part that means it's plural. You treating it as a singular is a misinterpretation. You're (now) obviously doing it deliberately in an attempt to give your point more support.

edit: The word "items" must be plural even if you can only take one from each list (because of the and/or).

It is talking about multiple lists true, but that does not mean that you are limited to one item per list either.


It simply says take items, and refferences the lists you can take the item from. You then refference those lists and it tells you the ratio at which you can take items.


Are you saying that because it is saying 'items" from multiple lists that you can only take 1 from each?

Eihnlazer wrote:
It is talking about multiple lists true, but that does not mean that you are limited to one item per list either.


It simply says take items, and refferences the lists you can take the item from. You then refference those lists and it tells you the ratio at which you can take items.


Are you saying that because it is saying 'items" from multiple lists that you can only take 1 from each?

I'm saying that the unit list isn't an absolute determination.
You need to look at the lists invovled to see what's permitted.

rigeld2 wrote:

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.

"One weapon can be swapped" =/= "One weapon can be swapped for one thing"

A ratio demonstrates the relationship between two or more numerical values. By including "for one thing" in the statement you have done that. You are now showing the relationship between the number of 'weapons' and the number of 'things' in the swap action. When you did not include that you changed the meaning of your sentence. Without the "for one thing" clause the statement was only about a weapon and weather or not it can be swapped. Now its about what it can be swapped for.

"One CSM may replace" =/= One CSM may replace his boltgun

The 1st statement is not a complete though and is meaningless. The second statement is not a ratio. While we have an implicit quantity of one because you used 'his boltgun' and not 'his boltguns' there is no second quantitiy in the statement and as such there is no ratio. All this sentence is talking about is if a CSM can replace his boltgun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 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.

Where? When? Quote?

rigeld2 wrote:

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

Yes. If you are 20 years old, are you 10 years old? Yes.

If you swap two weapons for 2 things have you swapped only one weapon or up to one weapon? No. If you are 20 years old, are you only 10 years old or up to 10 years old. No.

 DJGietzen wrote:

"One CSM may replace" =/= One CSM may replace his boltgun

The 1st statement is not a complete though and is meaningless. The second statement is not a ratio. While we have an implicit quantity of one because you used 'his boltgun' and not 'his boltguns' there is no second quantitiy in the statement and as such there is no ratio. All this sentence is talking about is if a CSM can replace his boltgun.

Okay - I've been trying not to copy the entire sentence into the thread, but since it looks like I have to...

One CSM may replace his boltgun with a plasma gun. That's how the rule is worded.

Where? When? Quote?

Look down. Just the latest proof.

Yes. If you are 20 years old, are you 10 years old? Yes.

No. If you're 20 years old you are not 10 years old. Factually incorrect statement. You are at least 10 years old, but you are not 10 years old.

Dj - you appear now to be trolling. If you are 20, you are NOT 10; you WERE 10

You may swap.... Does not let you take two, it lets you take one. If you were able to take two it would say so. Or it would say any. But it doesn't, it says 1. You're taking two, which you have no permission for

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Dj - you appear now to be trolling. If you are 20, you are NOT 10; you WERE 10

you were 10 and you still are 10. You can gain additional qualities with out replaceing or removing previous ones. It would be correct, however inaccurate, to give your age as less then its current value. We do it all the time in both the US and the UK. Saying something like "you have to be 18 to buy cigarettes." does not exclude the 19 and older crowd from buying a smoke. They are still 18 in addition to being 19.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

You may swap.... Does not let you take two, it lets you take one. If you were able to take two it would say so. Or it would say any. But it doesn't, it says 1. You're taking two, which you have no permission for

You may take items lets you take more then one. If that is not true than no model may ever have more then one item from any list. It could say any, and that would be more accurate but that does not invalidate the meaning it currently has. Permission for more then one is granted. The list describes a relationship for replacing one thing with one other thing. This description does not stop or prevent the permission to take more then one item because 'one' is a determiner that is part of a ratio.

@rigeld2

1) "One CSM may replace his boltgun with a plasma gun." = A permission for one space marine to replace his boltgun with something specific. This permission is for a single item so while it is a ratio of 1:1 there is no permission to repeat it. This is not the the same situation however because this is bot the permission to replace an item and the description of how to do so. Unlike this, the situations we have been discussing have permission to take more then one item. To properly mirror what we have been dealing with this statement should read "One CSM may replace his boltguns with one plasma gun each."

2) Thats not proof. Care to point to where you already provided proof.

3) "at least" means at a minimum. You are always at least 1 years old. You can ask if some one is at least 10 years old. If they are 20 they can answer yes because you have asked if there age falls within the range of 10+.

 DJGietzen wrote:
1) "One CSM may replace his boltgun with a plasma gun." = A permission for one space marine to replace his boltgun with something specific. This permission is for a single item so while it is a ratio of 1:1 there is no permission to repeat it. This is not the the same situation however because this is bot the permission to replace an item and the description of how to do so. Unlike this, the situations we have been discussing have permission to take more then one item. To properly mirror what we have been dealing with this statement should read "One CSM may replace his boltguns with one plasma gun each."

So you're cherry picking part of how ratios work?
If, as you say, ratios can always be reduced, then they can also always be enlarged.
A 1:1 ratio can also be a 12:12
So by your own logic, if there is permission to exchange one Bolter, there permission to exchange a hundred.
This isn't repeating, simply enlarging the ratio.

And you are still to prove that this is even a ratio, and not a simple exchange. There's quite a difference.
Again, if you're told you can exchange two things for two more things, and you bring one...
Then you'll get nothing.
You've failed to meet the requirements of the exchange, no one said this was a ratio that could be reduced. That is pure assumption.

grendel083 wrote:72 6233596 So you're cherry picking part of how ratios work?
If, as you say, ratios can always be reduced, then they can also always be enlarged.
A 1:1 ratio can also be a 12:12

That is an interesting assertion you've made in my name. It also just demonstrates you've missed the point. There is no such thing as 12:12, it will always be reduced to 1:1. If you can get rid of 12 of something you can gt 12 of something ls because of the 1:1 ratio. It is not a 12:12 ratio.

grendel083 wrote:So by your own logic, if there is permission to exchange one Bolter, there permission to exchange a hundred.
This isn't repeating, simply enlarging the ratio.

Not by my logic.. If you can't exchange more then one thing then the ratio can only get you one thing.

grendel083 wrote:
And you are still to prove that this is even a ratio, and not a simple exchange. There's quite a difference.
Again, if you're told you can exchange two things for two more things, and you bring one...
Then you'll get nothing.
You've failed to meet the requirements of the exchange, no one said this was a ratio that could be reduced. That is pure assumption.

OK, if you can exchange two things for two different things that is a 1:1 ratio. Just because the minimum you can exchange is 2 does not change the ratio you are working in. If I am selling apples by the dozen for $6 then I am selling them at an apple to dollar ratio of 2:1 but you only have permission to get 12 apples.

"A model can replace one weapon with one of the following." This sentence has the subject of "A model" and the action of "replace". Replace requires a direct object, in this case "one weapon" to be a complete predicate. Because the sentence also contains the "with one of the following" clause that includes a preposition (with) and prepositional object (one of the following) the sentence serves to establish a relationship between the two objects. Because both object contain a numerical determiner (one) the relationship is a ratio. The presence of a ratio is itself not permission to repeat the replacement action repeatedly. However this sentence is preceded by the permission to take multiple object from a set of lists. That permission not only allows you to take one object from any list it also allows you to take multiple object from the same list. Because we have an open ended permission to take objects from this list the sentence with the ratio does not need to provide it.

So again you cannot show explicit permission, just permission you have inferred.

Your argument is conceded.

 DJGietzen wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Dj - you appear now to be trolling. If you are 20, you are NOT 10; you WERE 10

you were 10 and you still are 10. You can gain additional qualities with out replaceing or removing previous ones. It would be correct, however inaccurate, to give your age as less then its current value. We do it all the time in both the US and the UK. Saying something like "you have to be 18 to buy cigarettes." does not exclude the 19 and older crowd from buying a smoke. They are still 18 in addition to being 19.

No, really - context is important when discussing how people talk. In the cigarette context everyone know the words "at least" are implied. It's not because of some funky understanding that a 36 year old is 18.

1) "One CSM may replace his boltgun with a plasma gun." = A permission for one space marine to replace his boltgun with something specific. This permission is for a single item so while it is a ratio of 1:1 there is no permission to repeat it. This is not the the same situation however because this is bot the permission to replace an item and the description of how to do so. Unlike this, the situations we have been discussing have permission to take more then one item. To properly mirror what we have been dealing with this statement should read "One CSM may replace his boltguns with one plasma gun each."

No permission to repeat it? And yet you're asserting you have permission to repeat it? Are you serious?
Where's your permission? You have permission to take items from lists. This means that to take multiple items you must choose from multiple lists.

2) Thats not proof. Care to point to where you already provided proof.

Your lack of acceptance doesn't mean it's not proof.

3) "at least" means at a minimum. You are always at least 1 years old. You can ask if some one is at least 10 years old. If they are 20 they can answer yes because you have asked if there age falls within the range of 10+.

Correct - you understand "at least". Now, do you understand why your statement was false? A 20 year old is not 10. I know that because he's 20.

The point DJ is arguing originates from separating the units options list from the wargear section. Where the limitation, or lack there of from his interpretation, is in the units options.

This is a valid interpretation however I disagree and view the wargear section as a unified options list. For example Devestators use the Heavy Weapons list ( what is the swap for a heavy weapon?) Which to me seems to be a validation of the wargear section being a unifies options list.