Legality of my Vet Sgt

[Agrab]

can you reiterate why you think you can use it twice?

[Wolf Priest Haelaeif]

Yes, I can.

 

1. It says "may exchange his X and/or Y for:" which is the same as "may exchange his X or his Y or his X and his Y for:". This can mean that he may exchange both for one choice, and it can also mean that he may exchange his X for one, his Y for another. And while GW is known for slightly ambiguous wording, they are not morons, and this would be a way too obvious mistake.

 

2. Because it does not make sense to exchange bolt pistol and chainsword for a storm shield and nothing else. While there are always options that are not efficient, there are very, very rarely options that do not make sense at all, such as this.

 

I know you will probably say this is not enough, I have no indisputable evidence that my interpretation is correct. That is true, I do not. But I do not need any, either. :)

[Agrab]

Yes, I can.

 

1. It says "may exchange his X and/or Y for:" which is the same as "may exchange his X or his Y or his X and his Y for:". This can mean that he may exchange both for one choice, and it can also mean that he may exchange his X for one, his Y for another. And while GW is known for slightly ambiguous wording, they are not morons, and this would be a way too obvious mistake.

 

2. Because it does not make sense to exchange bolt pistol and chainsword for a storm shield and nothing else. While there are always options that are not efficient, there are very, very rarely options that do not make sense at all, such as this.

 

I know you will probably say this is not enough, I have no indisputable evidence that my interpretation is correct. That is true, I do not. But I do not need any, either. :)

 

hmmm

normally, i think that RAMS (i like your term and am stealing it) is a good concept, i think that RAW matters when it comes to something like this which is borderline. However, your logic is pretty solid, so i am going to have to agree with you

and use this now