Did I read that right......

[BugbugsDaddy]

That's how I read it (Brother Tyler) after going through dinking around with my demo of Army Builder and found that I could, according to AB, equip dual bolters.

[march10k]

~shrug~  I guess I'm outnumbered.  I still think it was NOT the intent that you be able to have a boltgun plus a flamer for half the cost of a combi-flamer.

[Cod]

Yes, I also thought it wasn't the intent. Anyway, we already had one faq didnt we? Hmm wonder if there will be others

[Interrogator Stobz]

~shrug~  I guess I'm outnumbered.  I still think it was NOT the intent that you be able to have a boltgun plus a flamer for half the cost of a combi-flamer.

I totally agree on that point, that's why you can't read GeeDub books with an educated mind and expect them to make sense. :P

[Brother Immolator]

I respectfully disagree; and/or means each one can be replaced for something on the list. Otherwise it would say may replace one weapon with one of the following... Essentially like Vets, or it would only have 'or' in the directions.

My choices are:

I may replace my boltpistol with a... from the list AND my chainsword with a... from the list.

I may replace my boltpistol with a... from the list OR my chainsword with a... from the list.

 

Unless my English learning fails me as well I agree with Bro Stobz here.

The and been the catalyst.

 

Another question (this is relevant though it may not appear so).

Do codex vanguard vets get twin lightning claws?

[Brother Tyler]

I have English learning, too, and it's not the "and" that is the differentiating factor; it's the inclusion of "/or" that spells out the difference. Yes, the "and" adds a level of confusion because it doesn't make sense from the perspective of logic (talking about "logic" in the sense of critical argumentation, and similarly digital logic). This is where the opposing argument is perfectly valid. However, the difference that is implemented by the "/or" has been demonstrated repeatedly by the models (that are intended to work hand in hand with the rules). So GW has used an imperfect method to articulate the intent with regard to the rules. Yes, there are some options that don't make sense and might not have been intended, but that's the risk GW has accepted in adopting this format for their rules writing.

 

Perhaps a better line of discussion would be making recommendations for how GW might clean this rule mechanic up a bit. For example, could the simple addition of a variation on the old one-handed/two-handed item limitations work? Or perhaps they need to break the options out a bit more, putting those options that require both weapons to be exchanged in one set, those that allow only one of the weapons to be exchanged into another, etc. There are probably a variety of alternate methods that GW might employ to more clearly provide for the intended outcomes, but each of these brings their own disadvantages (mostly in terms of increasing the amount of text, but potentially creating their own forms of confusion).

 

And this is all predicated on the assumption that GW didn't intend for the unlikely exchanges that have been posited so far. Since GW has already demonstrated that the and/or mechanic works with some of the weapons combinations (e.g., twin lightning claws, power sword and storm shield for Space Marine Captains, etc.), maybe they decided that most players simply wouldn't use the strange Rambo-esque combinations that have been used as examples for the counterargument so far, or that such instances would be so rare as to make the imperfect rules method acceptable.

[Bryan Blaire]

Why wouldn't the unlikely combinations be allowed? The only place I see that you can actually do that is on the Command Squad Veterans, so considering they are the best of the best with likely the highest access to the Company/Chapter's arsenal, it seems totally plausible that one of these guys really loves both plasma guns and Melta guns, so takes both into combat and has a hard time choosing which to use for any given shot. Aside from the making combi-weapons silly in this list, nothing you can do seems that outlandish. Guy slings/mag-clamps one gun while he uses the other. Now, I could totally see a house rule where you can only Overwatch/Snap Fire the weapon you used during your own shooting phase to represent that the "dual wielder" can't get to the second weapon while being charged, etc, which wouldn't be the case with a combi-weapon.

 

I think that they figured most players are going to want some kind of ranged weapon & CCW for their CS guys though and assumed you'd just work more outlandish stuff out with your opponent, after all, the game is about playing a narrative, not a tournament.

 

One thing I haven't seen brought up with the "and/or" concept that I think makes it clear its an "any option" type proposition: each of the "buildable" HQs: they all have "May take items from Melee Weapons, Ranged Weapons, Special Issue Wargear, and/or Chapter Relics" (except the Chaplain and Techmarine). No one argues that GW is specifically saying that you can only pick a single one of those categories to take things from or that you must take something from all and you would be seriously limited if you applied the idea that the "and/or" means a single selection from the list.

[Brother Immolator]

Brother Tyler , seems I forgotten to add the /or in there. Also I was referring to my English learning to emphasize the fact that I am not a native speaker and I might have it wrong, after all you cant learn something from books as well as someone who is born with it so to speak.

 

The wargear list section section my friend,  Bryan Blaire  pg 91 tells us exactly the same: That any model must exchange his bolt pistol and /or chainsword to get access to ranged weapons and one weapon of any type to get a melee one. So it is irrelevant and an oversight that it is not written as such in the H.Qs. They are referred to this section which has the aforementioned ruling at the beginning of the page. Therefore you are forced to take one melee and one

 

And lets face it: Having a chainsword on its own is useless, weather you model a chainsword on a model when you have replaced it with a flamer (using march10k s model as an example) has no bearing to the rules. The hole thing is weather you have the pistol or not. Who is gonna exchange the pistol for a melee weapon?

EDIT: According to the same page you need to replace a weapon too to take a relic, that means only two different relics per model.

[Bryan Blaire]

That's not what I was saying, what I was saying is no one argues that the "and/or" option limits you to a single choice from the list of Wargear lists, as was said the "and/or" in the internal replacement options would do, it's been widely used on this board that you can take a choice from the Ranged Weapons, Melee Weapons, several choices from the Special Issue Wargear and a Chapter Relic or two without anyone getting hung up on the "and/or" wording for those lists. You can also choose

 

They aren't writing a "how to use legalese" primer for these games. If it is unclear, work it out with your gaming group, house rules are great for this (I even suggested one).

 

I'm glad I don't play tournaments, the amount of rules lawyering we all get into in a single forum here is amazing, I can't imagine how horrible it would be in a WAAC environment.

[Brother Immolator]

That's not what I was saying, what I was saying is no one argues that the "and/or" option limits you to a single choice from the list of Wargear lists, as was said the "and/or" in the internal replacement options would do, it's been widely used on this board that you can take a choice from the Ranged Weapons, Melee Weapons, several choices from the Special Issue Wargear and a Chapter Relic or two without anyone getting hung up on the "and/or" wording for those lists. You can also choose

 

They aren't writing a "how to use legalese" primer for these games. If it is unclear, work it out with your gaming group, house rules are great for this (I even suggested one).

 

I'm glad I don't play tournaments, the amount of rules lawyering we all get into in a single forum here is amazing, I can't imagine how horrible it would be in a WAAC environment.

Honestly you lost me... Must be because its late rather than your post, so I will retry to read tomorrow.

 

Well I share your frustration though, but they don't even try to insulate their rules. Thats the half that causes this, the other half is 'enterprising use of words', which the 40k fan base has developed into a new hobby, more prominent than the tabletop I might add. They have a name for it even: RAI VS RAW. LOL

[pueriexdeus]

 

I respectfully disagree; and/or means each one can be replaced for something on the list. Otherwise it would say may replace one weapon with one of the following... Essentially like Vets, or it would only have 'or' in the directions.

My choices are:

I may replace my boltpistol with a... from the list AND my chainsword with a... from the list.

I may replace my boltpistol with a... from the list OR my chainsword with a... from the list.

 

Unless my English learning fails me as well I agree with Bro Stobz here.

The and been the catalyst.

 

Another question (this is relevant though it may not appear so).

Do codex vanguard vets get twin lightning claws?

Yaes they do get TLLC. Why. CDA Co Vets also get them.

 

An example;

Vanguard Vets X 5 all w/TLLC = 260

DA Co Vets  X 5 all w/TLCC = 240

 

Whoopie, were cheaper.

[Interrogator Stobz]

As Brother Tyler pointed out, there is a precedence for GeeDub's use of the awkward and/or term. March correctly pointed out that in standard english it would simply mean swap either one or both for one choice from the list. But due to GeeDub's interpretation (and many natural ones due to implication instead of literal meaning) the and/or pluralises (word?) the 'a' and gives two choices from the list if two weapons are swapped.

Whether or not the choices make sense is irrellevant, but page 33 of our dex mentions comd sqds access to the full arsenal of the Rock so there is fluff permission in a way.

As you say Bryan, each group will see it differently, this interweb discussion is merely food for thought for to OP.

 

:D

stobz

[Brother Immolator]

I respectfully disagree; and/or means each one can be replaced for something on the list. Otherwise it would say may replace one weapon with one of the following... Essentially like Vets, or it would only have 'or' in the directions.

My choices are:

I may replace my boltpistol with a... from the list AND my chainsword with a... from the list.

I may replace my boltpistol with a... from the list OR my chainsword with a... from the list.

Unless my English learning fails me as well I agree with Bro Stobz here.

The and been the catalyst.

Another question (this is relevant though it may not appear so).

Do codex vanguard vets get twin lightning claws?

Yaes they do get TLLC. Why. CDA Co Vets also get them.

An example;

Vanguard Vets X 5 all w/TLLC = 260

DA Co Vets X 5 all w/TLCC = 240

Whoopie, were cheaper.

I asked this as a rhetoric question to help our brothers contemplate a bit, I knew the answer. Nobody has questioned that fact in the marine codex before and it is printed in exactly the same wording (it might even be a copy paste). In any event thank you for helping brother .

That's not what I was saying, what I was saying is no one argues that the "and/or" option limits you to a single choice from the list of Wargear lists, as was said the "and/or" in the internal replacement options would do, it's been widely used on this board that you can take a choice from the Ranged Weapons, Melee Weapons, several choices from the Special Issue Wargear and a Chapter Relic or two without anyone getting hung up on the "and/or" wording for those lists. You can also choose

They aren't writing a "how to use legalese" primer for these games. If it is unclear, work it out with your gaming group, house rules are great for this (I even suggested one).

I'm glad I don't play tournaments, the amount of rules lawyering we all get into in a single forum here is amazing, I can't imagine how horrible it would be in a WAAC environment.

I think we are saying the same thing in other words.

[Spaced Hulk]

Just noticed that the codex actually specifically states which options are allowed.

Page 90: Using the army list:

7: Options: This section lists all of the upgrades you may add to the unit......

Where an option states that you may exchange one weapon 'and/or' another, you may replace either or both, provided you pay the points cost for each.

Case closed, methinks

[Aromir]

Yep. 

 

Well spotted Spaced Hulk.

[tomsev]

i dont know why every one is fussing on about this its written in the codex p90 option 7. reread it..

[Master Avoghai]

2 pages about the right of taking a pair of LCs or no...

 

*open my (french) codex*

*vet entry*

 

"Any model may replace its boltgun with :

 

(...)

A power weapon, or a single LC for +XXpts

(...)

(...)

A pair of lightning claw +XXpts/model"

 

Don't really see where the problem was...  (And btw it also means that a vet with LC keeps his bolt pistol)