Agrab Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 can you reiterate why you think you can use it twice? Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/170687-legality-of-my-vet-sgt/page/2/#findComment-2018688 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolf Priest Haelaeif Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 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. :) Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/170687-legality-of-my-vet-sgt/page/2/#findComment-2018694 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agrab Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 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 Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/170687-legality-of-my-vet-sgt/page/2/#findComment-2018696 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.