Switch Theme:

New Space Wolves Codex - how many relics can a HQ take?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in gb
Fresh-Faced New User




Hi all

This has been a really interesting discussion, my question is this

It appears there are 2 main points of argument
1 character can take only 1 relic
2 character can take as many relics as per each valid selection

If we take it as only one selection then previous comments saying you can have one weapon but as many of the non weapon options as you like on a model may be incorrect?
The only additional stipulation on the non weapon options is that they do not replace a weapon
So unit entry : may choose option from relic of the fang
Relic option: this selection does not replace the weapon

But the wording is different from the ork codex as noted previously as it is very specific with regards to a single selection
Really needs a specific official FAQ as it can easily be interpreted in a number of ways
   
Made in us
Powerful Phoenix Lord





Buffalo, NY

Kaliban, there are three viewpoints.

1. One Relic for One Weapon is a ratio. This means as long as you give up a weapon, you can have an equal number of relics, as well as any relic that does not require a swap.
2. One Relic for One Weapon is a limit. This means you have permission to trade one weapon only, as trading in a second weapon means you traded two weapons for two relics. It also means that you can only have 1 relic, as otherwise you traded 1 Weapon for 2+ relics (even though only one relic required a swap).
3. Similar to 2, except that the relics that do not require a weapon swap are effectively ignored when determining how many relics a model can have.


The Orks relics are restricted differently, as unlike everyone else (Tau excluded), their relics do not require a swap unless specified.

Greebo had spent an irritating two minutes in that box. Technically, a cat locked in a box may be alive or it may be dead. You never know until you look. In fact, the mere act of opening the box will determine the state of the cat, although in this case there were three determinate states the cat could be in: these being Alive, Dead, and Bloody Furious.
Orks always ride in single file to hide their strength and numbers.
Gozer the Gozerian, Gozer the Destructor, Volguus Zildrohar, Gozer the Traveler, and Lord of the Sebouillia 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Karlosovic - "and / or" totally changes what you do. If you swap one weapon, you get one weapon, 2 you get two

For Relics you are never told you can swap more than one weapon

Its fairly simple. Youre told you can swap one weapon, meaning you never have permission to swap for more than one.

You can insert made up gak all you like, pretending I've saidf the definition of "one" changes. It doesnt.
   
Made in gb
Fresh-Faced New User




Cheers happy

Yeah that's what was confusing me.

My own opinion is that you have to consider it a one item limit ( a one and only one whether a weapon or non weapon) or a free selection where in theory you could have all 6 on one guy (nothing stopping you taking an additional melee weapon and thens swoping it for the other relic, which is obviously silly but possible)
Reading the wargear list and the specific:
Only one of each relic of the fang may be taken per army. A model can replace one weapon with one of the following:
Can be interpreted either way has been argued , its the may take items from options in the unit entry that may be causing the problems, really relic option should have been a separate unit option, the fact it isn't but is treated like any other wargear table I would have to say I'd allow an opponent multiple relic selections. Just my 2 cents
   
Made in au
Stealthy Space Wolves Scout





Sydney

In both cases it says "one weapon"

- 10,000+ (since 1994)
- 5000 (since 1996)
Harlequins/Ynnari -2500
Empire - 3000 (Current build)
Dwarves - Old and desperately in need of updating 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Indiana

Except that is not what it says. separate it into two sentences

You may replace x and y for z
You may replace x or y for z

That is his point as that is what the sentence is currently saying.

It is not saying replace x for z and y for q

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/08/18 13:51:41


People who stopped buying GW but wont stop bitching about it are the vegans of warhammer

My Deathwatch army project thread  
   
Made in us
The Hive Mind





 karlosovic wrote:
In both cases it says "one weapon"

Yeah, if you ignore half the rule. When you don't ignore anything they're not comparable.
It's almost like you're purposely ignoring rules to attempt to prove your point. I wouldn't accuse you of such dishonesty, but that's what it seems like is happening.

My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
 
   
Made in au
Stealthy Space Wolves Scout





Sydney

nosferatu1001 wrote:
2 you get two
It doesn't say "two" or ""2" ANYWHERE in the whole wargear list
nosferatu1001 wrote:
For Relics you are never told you can swap more than one weapon
a) in all cases where a profile mentions Relics of the Fang it reads "may take itemsS...... plural means more than one
b) in all cases where a profile mentions Melee Weapons it reads "may take itemsS...... plural means more than one

So... Yes, you are told you can swap more than one (or else the wording would be singular e.g. "May make one choice from each of the following lists")


nosferatu1001 wrote:
You can insert made up gak all you like, pretending I've saidf the definition of "one" changes. It doesnt.
reported for rule 1 as you most certainly have said the definition of "one" is different in different situations

You said that a model may take TWO options from the melee list, even though RAW it says ONE
but on the relics list you said a model may only take ONE option from the relics list, when RAW says ONE
In both cases RAW says ONE... but in the first case you say that means TWO.

To me.... you've interpreted the word "one" as "two" in the first case, but "one" in the 2nd case..... which sounds like the definition of "one" has changed (from "two" to "one"

Therefore I stand behind my claim and report you for Rule 1 when you said I made up "gak" (whatever that is.... it sounds insulting) but clearly I was just telling the truth becuase your definition of "one" certainly does change

- 10,000+ (since 1994)
- 5000 (since 1996)
Harlequins/Ynnari -2500
Empire - 3000 (Current build)
Dwarves - Old and desperately in need of updating 
   
Made in us
The Hive Mind





 karlosovic wrote:
It doesn't say "two" or ""2" ANYWHERE in the whole wargear list

So you just want to pretend the "and/or" doesn't exist?
reported for rule 1 as you most certainly have said the definition of "one" is different in different situations

No, he hasn't.

You said that a model may take TWO options from the melee list, even though RAW it says ONE

No, it doesn't.

but on the relics list you said a model may only take ONE option from the relics list, when RAW says ONE
In both cases RAW says ONE... but in the first case you say that means TWO.

Incorrect.

Therefore I stand behind my claim and report you for Rule 1 when you said I made up "gak" (whatever that is.... it sounds insulting) but clearly I was just telling the truth becuase your definition of "one" certainly does change

Again, incorrect. Until you account for the entire rule in your arguments you can't claim to be correct.

How many Flamers can a C: SM Tactical Squad with 10 models (1 Sgt + 9 Space Marines) have?

My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
 
   
Made in au
Stealthy Space Wolves Scout





Sydney

 Leth wrote:
Except that is not what it says. separate it into two sentences

You may replace x and y for z
You may replace x or y for z

That is his point as that is what the sentence is currently saying.

It is not saying replace x for z and y for q


OK sure
So RAW we have an option:
And don't lie.... RAW. it says you get ONE OF THE FOLLOWING
1) We replace our Bolt Pistol for a Power Sword
2) we replace our Melee Weapon for a Power Sword
3 We replace both our Bolt pistol and Melee Weapon for a Power Sword

that's what "with ONE of the following" means.....RAW

Does it say you get a 2nd round of swaps???

Does it make any sense to swap BOTH our weapons for a single powersword? Well that doesn't matter either way, as we're all being massive "RAW" sticklers


So, does it say you get a 2nd round of swaps?

No, it doesn't


End of Story?

- 10,000+ (since 1994)
- 5000 (since 1996)
Harlequins/Ynnari -2500
Empire - 3000 (Current build)
Dwarves - Old and desperately in need of updating 
   
Made in us
Prescient Cryptek of Eternity





East Coast, USA

 karlosovic wrote:
 Leth wrote:
Except that is not what it says. separate it into two sentences

You may replace x and y for z
You may replace x or y for z

That is his point as that is what the sentence is currently saying.

It is not saying replace x for z and y for q


OK sure
So RAW we have an option:
And don't lie.... RAW. it says you get ONE OF THE FOLLOWING
1) We replace our Bolt Pistol for a Power Sword
2) we replace our Melee Weapon for a Power Sword
3 We replace both our Bolt pistol and Melee Weapon for a Power Sword

that's what "with ONE of the following" means.....RAW

Does it say you get a 2nd round of swaps???

Does it make any sense to swap BOTH our weapons for a single powersword? Well that doesn't matter either way, as we're all being massive "RAW" sticklers


So, does it say you get a 2nd round of swaps?

No, it doesn't


End of Story?


Agree.

Rules as Written, there is no permission to exchange bolt pistol for one item and chainsword for another.

I have permission to replace Bolt Pistol OR Chainsword for one item. (This is a one for one swap)

I also have permission to replace Bolt Pistol AND Chainsword for one item. (This is a two for one swap)

Nowhere do I have permission to exchange Bolt Pistol for ONE item and Chainsword for a SECOND item. RaI seems clear, but the actual RaW prevents swapping Bolt Pistol and Chainsword for two different items.

If ONE always means ONE, even when you're told explicitly that you can take ITEMS, please explain how I can replace both Bolt Pistol and Chainsword for two items.

Check out my website. Editorials! Tutorials! Fun Times To Be Had! - kriswallminis.com


https://www.thingiverse.com/KrisWall/about


Completed Trades With: ultraatma 
   
Made in us
The Hive Mind





 karlosovic wrote:
that's what "with ONE of the following" means.....RAW

No, that's not how English works.

You can replace A and/or B with one of the following:

Can be rewritten, correctly, as:

You can replace A with one of the following and/or replace B with one of the following:

Your argument goes against how the English language works.

My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Karl - you seem to be on a little bit of a vendetta, given the personal attacks over the last couple of days.

What is 1 and 1? 2.

You are ignoring half a rule, and claiming that because "one" appears somewhere within the text that they are equal. Or that I am claiming that one is sometimes 2, which is a strict lie.

Secondly you are again failing to actually use words correctly. This might be frustrating you, but when I say you are nto told you can swap more than one weapon with relics, I am being precise - you are told you can *take* multiple items from various lists, but that is not the same thing as swapping items.

And when swapping items for relics you are told, explicitly, that you may swap one for one. When doing the same for melee weapons you have an "And / or" which results in two swaps being possible.

I have never said the definition of "one" changes. You have made that up, been corrected, and repeated it. That is therefore a bald faced lie.
   
Made in au
Stealthy Space Wolves Scout





Sydney






Says the same thing in both cases

No matter what you swap, you get "ONE of the following" (RAW)



Automatically Appended Next Post:
No matter how much you cry about some personal vendetta, it won't change the words printed on paper

For the record... my only aim is to bring forth the truth. I can't help who stands as a champion against it


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I also apologise for the blurry and poorly rotated images.

It's late where I am

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/08/18 14:42:27


- 10,000+ (since 1994)
- 5000 (since 1996)
Harlequins/Ynnari -2500
Empire - 3000 (Current build)
Dwarves - Old and desperately in need of updating 
   
Made in us
The Hive Mind





 karlosovic wrote:
Says the same thing in both cases

Again, only if you (incorrectly) focus on half the rule. Stop doing so.

My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
 
   
Made in au
Stealthy Space Wolves Scout





Sydney

I'd also hate to be labelled as a contributor to piracy which is why I scrubbed out the point values (which I believe is a forum rule?)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
rigeld2 wrote:
 karlosovic wrote:
Says the same thing in both cases

Again, only if you (incorrectly) focus on half the rule. Stop doing so.
It's not incorrect

Swap [one side] for [the other side] is the normally accepted practice

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/08/18 14:46:09


- 10,000+ (since 1994)
- 5000 (since 1996)
Harlequins/Ynnari -2500
Empire - 3000 (Current build)
Dwarves - Old and desperately in need of updating 
   
Made in nl
Loyal Necron Lychguard



Netherlands

You are partially correct. It does say 'with one of the following'.
But you ignore the first part where it says a Bolt Pistol and/or Melee weapon.
That means we can swap a Bolt Pistol with one of the following and a Melee weapon with one of the following.
   
Made in us
The Hive Mind





 karlosovic wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
 karlosovic wrote:
Says the same thing in both cases

Again, only if you (incorrectly) focus on half the rule. Stop doing so.
It's not incorrect

Swap [one side] for [the other side] is the normally accepted practice

And if you have an "and/or" clause you can't analyze the sentence like that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And/or
" For example, the sentence "He will eat cake, pie, and/or brownies" indicates that although the person may eat any of the three listed desserts, the choices are not exclusive; the person may eat one, two, or all three of the choices."

The way the rule is written, the choices are not exclusive. Both options are possible.

My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Indiana

 karlosovic wrote:
 Leth wrote:
Except that is not what it says. separate it into two sentences

You may replace x and y for z
You may replace x or y for z

That is his point as that is what the sentence is currently saying.

It is not saying replace x for z and y for q


OK sure
So RAW we have an option:
And don't lie.... RAW. it says you get ONE OF THE FOLLOWING
1) We replace our Bolt Pistol for a Power Sword
2) we replace our Melee Weapon for a Power Sword
3 We replace both our Bolt pistol and Melee Weapon for a Power Sword

that's what "with ONE of the following" means.....RAW

Does it say you get a 2nd round of swaps???

Does it make any sense to swap BOTH our weapons for a single powersword? Well that doesn't matter either way, as we're all being massive "RAW" sticklers


So, does it say you get a 2nd round of swaps?

No, it doesn't


End of Story?


You do realize I was agreeing with you right.......

People who stopped buying GW but wont stop bitching about it are the vegans of warhammer

My Deathwatch army project thread  
   
Made in us
Prescient Cryptek of Eternity





East Coast, USA

rigeld2 wrote:
 karlosovic wrote:
rigeld2 wrote:
 karlosovic wrote:
Says the same thing in both cases

Again, only if you (incorrectly) focus on half the rule. Stop doing so.
It's not incorrect

Swap [one side] for [the other side] is the normally accepted practice

And if you have an "and/or" clause you can't analyze the sentence like that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And/or
" For example, the sentence "He will eat cake, pie, and/or brownies" indicates that although the person may eat any of the three listed desserts, the choices are not exclusive; the person may eat one, two, or all three of the choices."

The way the rule is written, the choices are not exclusive. Both options are possible.


So you're saying that per the commonly accepted usage of and/or, I may replace the one, two or both items for ONE item from the list? Because that is what the sentence says. GW is clearly using it wrong.




Check out my website. Editorials! Tutorials! Fun Times To Be Had! - kriswallminis.com


https://www.thingiverse.com/KrisWall/about


Completed Trades With: ultraatma 
   
Made in au
Stealthy Space Wolves Scout





Sydney

Mate, it says
you can swap (A and/or B) for "ONE of the following"

It DOESN'T SAY
you can A for one of the following and/or B for one of the following

Do you seriously not understand basic maths and English???

There's absolutely no other way to interpret it.

The wording allows for ONE swap for ONE of the following!

The only difference in wording is in what you swap

In the case of the melee weapons, a single selection allows you to swap either or both weapons for ONE single choice

in the case of the relics, a single selection allows you to swap either weapon for ONE single choice

Either way, a single selection allows you to take ONE single choice

It really is basic maths and basic English grammar

If you continue to argue against it, I can only conclude that you're either mal-educated or being deliberately deconstructive

Either way, you're wrong, and I'm done arguing

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/08/18 15:03:24


- 10,000+ (since 1994)
- 5000 (since 1996)
Harlequins/Ynnari -2500
Empire - 3000 (Current build)
Dwarves - Old and desperately in need of updating 
   
Made in us
The Hive Mind





Kriswall wrote:So you're saying that per the commonly accepted usage of and/or, I may replace the one, two or both items for ONE item from the list? Because that is what the sentence says. GW is clearly using it wrong.

No, that would be exclusive. and/or is by definition not exclusive.

karlosovic wrote:Mate, it says
you can swap (A and/or B) for "ONE of the following"

It DOESN'T SAY
you can A for one of the following and/or B for one of the following

Do you seriously not understand basic maths and English???

I do understand English. I've proven that it can be rewritten that way. You can deny it all you want, that doesn't make it true.

My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
 
   
Made in us
Prescient Cryptek of Eternity





East Coast, USA

"A model can swap bolt pistol and/or chainsword for one of the following" can be rewritten three ways:

1. A model can swap (bolt pistol) for ONE of the following.

2. A model can swap (chainsword) for ONE of the following.

3. A model can swap (bolt pistol and chainsword) for ONE of the following.

I believe you are misunderstanding how and/or works. In all three instances, only one swap is occurring and only one of the following is received. You are wanting to activate the selection process twice, and per your own arguments throughout the thread, this isn't allowed.

To allow a bolt pistol to be swapped for one item and then subsequently allow a chainsword to be swapped for one item creates a situation where two items have been swapped. Why can I do this on one list, but not the second list?

Check out my website. Editorials! Tutorials! Fun Times To Be Had! - kriswallminis.com


https://www.thingiverse.com/KrisWall/about


Completed Trades With: ultraatma 
   
Made in au
Stealthy Space Wolves Scout





Sydney

rigeld2 wrote:
karlosovic wrote:Mate, it says
you can swap (A and/or B) for "ONE of the following"

It DOESN'T SAY
you can A for one of the following and/or B for one of the following

Do you seriously not understand basic maths and English???

I do understand English. I've proven that it can be rewritten that way. You can deny it all you want, that doesn't make it true.
Wrong!

First of all a Wiki page is community based, not proven, but I'll grant the common interpretation of "and/or" as that's not actually being debated here (much as you might think it is)

That being said... you're still trying to prove one side of the equation (which Kriswall and I agree with), and ignoring the pertinent side of the equation.

It doesn't matter if you swap A or B or A AND B.... either way you only get "ONE choice from the following"

Honestly, didn't you ever do Algebra?
You can put anything you like on one side of the equation, but it doesn't change the other side

by the rule of simultaneous equations

(1) "Both Pistol and/or Melee Weapon = One selection"
and
(2) "One weapon = One Selection"

Therefore (1) = (2)
so
"Both Pistol and/or Melee Weapon" = "One Weapon" = THE SAME THING!!!!!

which means
[either case] = "One Selection"

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/08/18 15:21:59


- 10,000+ (since 1994)
- 5000 (since 1996)
Harlequins/Ynnari -2500
Empire - 3000 (Current build)
Dwarves - Old and desperately in need of updating 
   
Made in us
The Hive Mind





 Kriswall wrote:
Why can I do this on one list, but not the second list?

Because the and/or allows it. By definition it allows both to be swapped.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 karlosovic wrote:
First of all a Wiki page is community based, not proven, but I'll grant the common interpretation of "and/or" as that's not actually being debated here (much as you might think it is)

Except you are debating it.
You may do A, B, and/or C.
You may do A.
You may do B.
You may do C.
You may do A and B.
etc.

You may swap A for one.
You may swap B for one.
You may swap A for one and B for one.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/08/18 15:30:07


My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
 
   
Made in au
Stealthy Space Wolves Scout





Sydney

Nope.

You last clause is two separate actions.

- 10,000+ (since 1994)
- 5000 (since 1996)
Harlequins/Ynnari -2500
Empire - 3000 (Current build)
Dwarves - Old and desperately in need of updating 
   
Made in us
The Hive Mind





 karlosovic wrote:
Nope.

You last clause is two separate actions.

You may do A and B.

This is permitted by:
You may do A, B, and/or C

Agreed?

My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
 
   
Made in au
Stealthy Space Wolves Scout





Sydney

"and/or" means:

You can swap A for one
or
You can swap B for one
or
You can swap A AND B for one

in all case, you only get "one"

In your last clase, if you swapped A for one, and B for another,, then you'd have "TWO"
which nosferatu claims we can't have

- 10,000+ (since 1994)
- 5000 (since 1996)
Harlequins/Ynnari -2500
Empire - 3000 (Current build)
Dwarves - Old and desperately in need of updating 
   
Made in us
The Hive Mind





Please just answer my question instead of repeating what you've already said.

You may do A and B.

This is permitted by:
You may do A, B, and/or C

Agreed?

My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
 
   
Made in au
Stealthy Space Wolves Scout





Sydney

rigeld2 wrote:
You may do A and B.

This is permitted by:
You may do A, B, and/or C

Agreed?
Absolutely not!!!!!

You may "swap" A or B, in either case for "one"

you may also swap A AND B (call it "c" if you want), but still for only "ONE"

i.e.

You may swap A "and" B
or
you may swap A "or" B

in any case, whatever you swap is only ever for "one"

- 10,000+ (since 1994)
- 5000 (since 1996)
Harlequins/Ynnari -2500
Empire - 3000 (Current build)
Dwarves - Old and desperately in need of updating 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: