Quixus Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 Have I always missed that? The Book says about the ASM Sergeant: The Sergeant can replace his bolt pistol/chainsword with:Where as the Sergeant of the Sternguard Squad gets: The Space Marine Sergeant can replace his bolt pistol and/or his boltgun with:Does that mean the ASM Sgt cannot have for example a power weapon and an infernus pistol? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demoulius Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 and/or Underlined the anwser for you. It says AND... / or. You can swap one, or both for the options given. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quixus Posted June 6, 2014 Author Share Posted June 6, 2014 That is for the Sternguard Sergeant the ASM Sergent only gets the slash between bolt pistol and chainsword as per the fist quote (p. 89) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knife&fork Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 But they mean the same thing? It's just inconsistent phrasing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demoulius Posted June 6, 2014 Share Posted June 6, 2014 Im unsure.... I took a look at the FAQ and nowhere is it mentioned that you can swap both weapons so RAW its only 1 swap I think. Id personally wouldnt have a problem if youd take, say a pair of lightning claws but it seems for a RAS sarg thats an illegal option Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quixus Posted June 6, 2014 Author Share Posted June 6, 2014 But they mean the same thing? It's just inconsistent phrasing.or and and/or do not have the same meaning or does the slash sometimes mean and/or? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demoulius Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 The way its written its not inconsistent phrasing. There is no mention of and/or. His weapons are listed with a / in between. So you can sweep either of his weapons for 1 of the options. Not both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knife&fork Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 It's the same thing. Look on the line above for regular marines. There it's "one of the following". If you look at every other character entry the assault sergeant is the only one with that kind of phrasing. Clearly a simple formatting error. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demoulius Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 Most likely, but the FAQ doesent adress this so RAW its not the case. I personally wouldnt have a problem with someone taking 2 upgrades but tournament players or people who adhere to RAW alot might... Im not sure if the FAQ mentioned this before we got the 7th edition (rushed) FAQ? :unsure: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xmercx Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 Its a formatting issue. It should say and/or. Pg. 73 of the dex, top row of pictures, second from the left, Assault Sergeant with power weapon and infernus pistol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knife&fork Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 Most likely, but the FAQ doesent adress this so RAW its not the case. I personally wouldnt have a problem with someone taking 2 upgrades but tournament players or people who adhere to RAW alot might... Im not sure if the FAQ mentioned this before we got the 7th edition (rushed) FAQ? But RAW there's still nothing about this sentence that prevents you from doing the swap twice. Don't sweat it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quixus Posted June 7, 2014 Author Share Posted June 7, 2014 Most likely, but the FAQ doesent adress this so RAW its not the case. I personally wouldnt have a problem with someone taking 2 upgrades but tournament players or people who adhere to RAW alot might... Im not sure if the FAQ mentioned this before we got the 7th edition (rushed) FAQ? But RAW there's still nothing about this sentence that prevents you from doing the swap twice. Don't sweat it. If two swaps were allowed the rule should use and/or. /(=or) means you can do one (replace the bolt pistol) or the other (replace the chainsword). An exclusive "or" does not allow you to do both. If the authors however meant the inclusive or (allowing both replacements) all other mentions of and/or (which definitely is the inclusive or) would be superfluous and should be replaced with "or" as well. The whole permissive nature of the rule set makes the exclusive or much more likely. So either the authors intentionally used a different wording to produce a different result or they made a mistake in one place (ASM Sgt.) or used different and misleading wording in many other places (most other Sgts. etc.). Since most likely none of us can give an insight to the intentions of the authors we have to go with what's written. And that is that the slash is the exclusive or until an erratum (or new Codex) changes hat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knife&fork Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 Since most likely none of us can give an insight to the intentions of the authors we have to go with what's written. And that is that the slash is the exclusive or until an erratum (or new Codex) changes hat. But that the slash should mark a single and exclusive pick is purely speculation on your part. What it means, RAW, is that you can't replace the bolt pistol/chainsword in question with two or more options from the list. And that's due to the "-a X" in the list below. Nothing prevents you from using the entry twice, just like the entry below doesn't make you choose between a combat shield and melta bombs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spinsanity Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 To me, this looks simply like an ediing decision; the ASM box is already crowded with options and omitting the and/or allowed 'em to use one less line of text. Sure enough there's room for one more, it seems, but that might be result of some other changes that took place after the and/or was removed and they didn't bother (or thnk) to come back and edit it in... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xmercx Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 Most likely, but the FAQ doesent adress this so RAW its not the case. I personally wouldnt have a problem with someone taking 2 upgrades but tournament players or people who adhere to RAW alot might... Im not sure if the FAQ mentioned this before we got the 7th edition (rushed) FAQ? But RAW there's still nothing about this sentence that prevents you from doing the swap twice. Don't sweat it. If two swaps were allowed the rule should use and/or. /(=or) means you can do one (replace the bolt pistol) or the other (replace the chainsword). An exclusive "or" does not allow you to do both. If the authors however meant the inclusive or (allowing both replacements) all other mentions of and/or (which definitely is the inclusive or) would be superfluous and should be replaced with "or" as well. The whole permissive nature of the rule set makes the exclusive or much more likely. So either the authors intentionally used a different wording to produce a different result or they made a mistake in one place (ASM Sgt.) or used different and misleading wording in many other places (most other Sgts. etc.). Since most likely none of us can give an insight to the intentions of the authors we have to go with what's written. And that is that the slash is the exclusive or until an erratum (or new Codex) changes hat. Two swaps are allowed. Again, there is a picture on page 73 of the codex that shows two swaps on an assault sgt. People really need to stop nit-picking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slave to Darkness Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 just take two swaps, if opponent moans tell him to stop bein a cock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demoulius Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 Uh guys, seriously? If someone would point to him that hed have 2 options on an ASM sarge is illegal hed be perfectly valid to do so. Saying "well all the other sarges got the option so surely THIS one also does, right?" is not a good argument. Its wishfull thinking. Saying "theres pictures of ASM sergeants with mutliple options in the codex suddenly makes it legal to do so yourself" is also wishfull thinking. Telling someone that theyre a *censured* is very rude and not something id recommend. It makes you look one yourself and tbh I think we should be better then that. Honestly would you raise an eyebrow if an enemy with a tyranid prime showed up and had 4 sets of weapons, saying "well he had 4 scything talons so SURELY I can swap one each for one of the listed options, right?" is kinda the same... I really doubt anyone would make a huge fuss out of this, but RAW it can go either way..... Its just that unclear. I mean, this is the codex where a terminator SP suddenly has a chalice of blood instead of a blood chalice. Sure I think we ALL know whats it supposed to be but its written with unclear phrases and causes confusion as there are no rules for a chalice of blood. If you have a local club id ask how the people there think its supposed to work but if you go to a tourney it MIGHT mean you have an illegal model. I dont know how strict those guys are on this subject? :unsure: tbh I think its better to be on the safe side then get into trouble for assuming what most of us believe is how it is intended... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demus Ragnok Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 Yeah it could go either way. I think two upgrades should be allowed. However, I think less is more when equipping sergeants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ushtarador Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 Nobody ever said that ASM sarges were not allowed to swap both weapons for upgrades in any tournament I've ever been attended, not sure why this should be discussed now ;O Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quixus Posted June 8, 2014 Author Share Posted June 8, 2014 It was merely curiosity, why one sergeant gets the option to exchange one or the other of his default weapons whereas the sternguard sergeant gets the option to replace one and/or the other of his default weapons. I never claimed that any tournament organizer would or should rule that the ASM Sgt. cannot replace both weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spinsanity Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 If any opponent decided to be anal, they could also claim that there is no 'Sergeant' in the squad but rather a 'Space Marine Sergeant' (see wording on every other squad - except VVs - which says "The Space Marine Sergeant can replace his boltgun and/or bolt pistol..."). The more I look at it, the more I am convinced the editor was doing everything he could at one point to shorten the text to fit the entry into the page, and then forgot to re-edit the line when an option was taken out at some later time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demoulius Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 @Ushtrador: the OP asked if the ASM sarge cant take multiple weapons. Text can be taken in both ways.... How it has escaped notice for a few years though is beyond me :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xmercx Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 Uh guys, seriously? If someone would point to him that hed have 2 options on an ASM sarge is illegal hed be perfectly valid to do so. Saying "well all the other sarges got the option so surely THIS one also does, right?" is not a good argument. Its wishfull thinking. Saying "theres pictures of ASM sergeants with mutliple options in the codex suddenly makes it legal to do so yourself" is also wishfull thinking. Telling someone that theyre a *censured* is very rude and not something id recommend. It makes you look one yourself and tbh I think we should be better then that. Honestly would you raise an eyebrow if an enemy with a tyranid prime showed up and had 4 sets of weapons, saying "well he had 4 scything talons so SURELY I can swap one each for one of the listed options, right?" is kinda the same... I really doubt anyone would make a huge fuss out of this, but RAW it can go either way..... Its just that unclear. I mean, this is the codex where a terminator SP suddenly has a chalice of blood instead of a blood chalice. Sure I think we ALL know whats it supposed to be but its written with unclear phrases and causes confusion as there are no rules for a chalice of blood. If you have a local club id ask how the people there think its supposed to work but if you go to a tourney it MIGHT mean you have an illegal model. I dont know how strict those guys are on this subject? tbh I think its better to be on the safe side then get into trouble for assuming what most of us believe is how it is intended... They are not going to include a picture of a model who's weapon load out was illegal to take rules wise. Again, stop nit-picking the rules. Everyone knows what they mean, arguing RAW just makes people annoying, not correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quixus Posted June 8, 2014 Author Share Posted June 8, 2014 They are not going to include a picture of a model who's weapon load out was illegal to take rules wise.Why would the placing of images be less prone to errors than the text? Errata prove that at least the writing can be wrong. Again, stop nit-picking the rules. Everyone knows what they mean, arguing RAW just makes people annoying, not correct.Those two are not mutually exclusive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xmercx Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 They are not going to include a picture of a model who's weapon load out was illegal to take rules wise.Why would the placing of images be less prone to errors than the text? Errata prove that at least the writing can be wrong. Again, stop nit-picking the rules. Everyone knows what they mean, arguing RAW just makes people annoying, not correct.Those two are not mutually exclusive. When was the last time they errata'ed a picture to correct an error? Maybe the people that do the photo spreads are a little better getting things right then the copy editor that ends up cutting words to make things fit in the space allowed? And, from the new rule book (pg 376 of the digital version): "The Spirit of the Game: Warhammer 40,000 may be somewhat different to any other game you have played. Above all, it's important to remember that the rules are just the framework to support an enjoyable game. Whether a battle ends in victory or defeat, your goal should always be to enjoy the journey. What's more, Warhammer 40,000 calls on a lot from you, the player. Your responsibility isn't just to follow the rules, it's also to add your own ideas, drama and creativity to the game. Much of the appeal of this game lies in the freedom and open-endedness that this allows; it is in this spirit that the rules have been written." Arguing RAW to gain an advantage or cause your opponent to be at a disadvantage goes massively against the above quote. The POINT is to have a fun time, for BOTH players. You can read the rule book or codex and know exactly what was meant. The BA codex is 4 years old. If this issue is just being raised now then maybe it is actually a non issue cause everyone knows what they meant by the codex entry and moved on with their lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.