Chaos Artefacts

[Just_Me]

A quick couple of rules questions regarding the Chaos Artefacts in the new Codex. First, can a single character be equipped with two different Chaos Artefacts? The rules are very clear about multiples of the same item in a single army but the wording is ambiguous giving two different Artefacts on the same model. The entry says "can replace one weapon with one of the following" I can see equally valid arguments for assuming that this means only one may be selected by any given character, or that you must REPLACE a WEAPON to take one (and therefor may never have more than the number of eligible weapons) and that each replaced weapon only entitles you to one of the Artefacts. Admittedly the first interpretation has the benefit of simplicity, but the second one is far more interesting as it would permit for interesting conversions and powerful (if very expensive) models. Which brings me to the second question which is more open ended, do you think it would be acceptable to model the Artefacts in different ways from their descriptions or would that be too confusing?

[Nabterayl]

A quick couple of rules questions regarding the Chaos Artefacts in the new Codex. First, can a single character be equipped with two different Chaos Artefacts? The rules are very clear about multiples of the same item in a single army but the wording is ambiguous giving two different Artefacts on the same model. The entry says "can replace one weapon with one of the following" I can see equally valid arguments for assuming that this means only one may be selected by any given character, or that you must REPLACE a WEAPON to take one (and therefor may never have more than the number of eligible weapons) and that each replaced weapon only entitles you to one of the Artefacts. Admittedly the first interpretation has the benefit of simplicity, but the second one is far more interesting as it would permit for interesting conversions and powerful (if very expensive) models.
I believe "one" means "one, and not more than one" in this instance. The other instances of "one" on that page all seem to be used that way, so I'm inclined to interpret the artefact "ones" in the same manner.

Which brings me to the second question which is more open ended, do you think it would be acceptable to model the Artefacts in different ways from their descriptions or would that be too confusing?
Yes, I think that's totally fine. No matter what you model them as you have to explain anyway - is that a power maul, or The Black Mace? A power sword or The Murder Sword? Etc.

[DarkLink]

I love the name The Murder Sword.

[boestera]

At the top of the page for Chaos Artefacts all it states is that there is only ONE of each of these items. Meaning you cannot have two "The Murder Swords" in the same army, basically adding the "Unique" tag to it. If you are willing to pay the points...You could have a Chaos Lord with the Axe of Blind Fury & Burning Brand of Skalathrax for instance, or even a lord with The Black Mace and The Murder Sword, but you just have to allocate which attacks are using which weapon.

For your second point that is WYSIWYG argument, and I personally wouldn't have to much issue with it as long as you clearly state what it is before the start of the game, but I would always err on the side of caution.

[Just_Me]

Actually, after looking more closely at the wargear page it seems pretty clear to me that you can take two different Artefacts on one character. The wording used for Artefacts is "can replace one weapon with one of the following" but similar or identical wording is used for non-Artefact weapons as well, for instance "replace bolt pistol and/or close combat weapon with one of the following" for melee wargear and "can replace one weapon with one of the following" for ranged wargear. All of this seems to be intended to specify a one-for-one exchange. In cases where we are only allowed to make one replacement or choice from a category the writers very clearly used the wording "up to one." To me this implies that as long as I am not explicitly told I may do something "up to once (and not more than once)" I may continue to make choices/replacements as long as I meet the necessary criteria to make that replacement.

Special characters also set a precedent of sorts for multiple Artefacts, Abaddon, Lucius, and Fabius Bile all have at least 2 (Bile actually has 3). While special characters are by definition special this does imply that the designers never intended different Artefacts to be (simply by their nature as Artefacts) mutually exclusive.

[Nabterayl]

I don't think I agree. You're suggesting that the book says "may replace one weapon with one of the following" as opposed to, for instance, "may replace two weapons with one of the following." The alternative is that they mean "may replace one weapon with one of the following" as opposed to "may replace any weapon with one of the following." The latter sense seems more in keeping with the way GW designs; we've never seen any unit entry where you have to replace more than one piece of wargear to get one piece of wargear (except for terminator armor, which generally says something like "may replace all" to get terminator armor).

[inquisitorsog]

If you copied this text and pasted into the army list entry for each unit, I believe you'd come to the conclusion that you may only make one and only one such replacement.

Usually you see "may replace any xyz with one of the following" if they meant you could perform multiple replacements. For instance, the Helbrute is phrased as being able to "replace any power fist with one of the following".

The same question applies to ranged weapons as well, the same basic phrasing is used there.
In a perfect world, there's no reason to use both the "replace one of xyz" and "replace any of xyz" formula in the same book unless they have different meanings. "One and only one" therefore seems the most reasonable interpretation of this rule in my opinion. If that's wrong, then the only thing I'm missing out in is dumping a lot of points into a single model.

[Kirsten]

personally I read it as only one artefact per character

[apahllo]

I have a question about the black mace. If a prince has one is he attacking at ap2 or ap4? Smash says cc attacks are at ap2, but I'd like to hear some other interpretation.

[Nabterayl]

I don't think there is another interpretation, at least not another colorable one. Smash means the model's CC attacks are made at AP2 whether wielding a sword, a mace, or a broken fingernail. As long as TBM is used to make CC attacks, it falls under Smash.

EDIT: To expand on that, remember that a naked MC is still attacking with an AP- weapon. This isn't 5th edition where a model could (arguably at least) attack with no weapons at all. The whole point of Smash is that it overwrites the AP value of the MC's Melee weapons, unless the AP of those weapons is better than that conferred by Smash. Thus, Smash makes TBM AP2 instead of AP4 just like it makes the default imputed Melee weapon AP2 instead of AP-.

[Just_Me]

Well it seems the consensus is pretty clearly that a character may only have one Artefact and no more, so until and unless that gets FAQed I'm going to abide by that. Unfortunate as I converted my chaos lord in terminator armor to represent both the Black Mace (in the form of a flaming sword) and the Burning Brand of Scalathrax (something like a daemonic version of Huron Blackheart's cybernetic arm). The result looks really cool so I'm not inclined to convert it back, but now I'm not sure what to count them as...

Edit: Also, as cool as an AP2 Black Mace would be it annoys me a little that the Daemon Prince I have can no longer be a "plain" unaligned prince, given that I play Word Bearers I now find it a little hard to justify fielding an "aligned" prince. On the other hand I now have Black Apostles, so that's pretty nice.

[Nabterayl]

Well it seems the consensus is pretty clearly that a character may only have one Artefact and no more, so until and unless that gets FAQed I'm going to abide by that. Unfortunate as I converted my chaos lord in terminator armor to represent both the Black Mace (in the form of a flaming sword) and the Burning Brand of Scalathrax (something like a daemonic version of Huron Blackheart's cybernetic arm). The result looks really cool so I'm not inclined to convert it back, but now I'm not sure what to count them as...
Combi-flamer and mace?


Edit: Also, as cool as an AP2 Black Mace would be it annoys me a little that the Daemon Prince I have can no longer be a "plain" unaligned prince, given that I play Word Bearers I now find it a little hard to justify fielding an "aligned" prince. On the other hand I now have Black Apostles, so that's pretty nice.
... which Chaos god raised him to daemon?

[daboarder]

It's
one weapon per weapon you already have.

therefore you can take 2.

however because of the artefact rules allowing ONLY ONE of each in the army you cannot take the same one twice.

furthermore if they had meant you to only be able to take a single artefact they would have stipulated that they get a single choice from the list.

[Eberk]

It's
one weapon per weapon you already have.

therefore you can take 2.
I don't agree...

The codex states that "a model can replace ONE weapon with one of the following". Does it matter if he only has 1 weapon or 20 weapons ?? No, he can replace ONE weapon with one of the list.

"a model can replace ANY weapon with one of the following" would mean another thing. (a model with 20 weapons could take 20 Chaos Artefacts then)

I vote for 1 Chaos Artefact for a single character. (that's the way I read the rules)

[apahllo]

I don't think there is another interpretation, at least not another colorable one. Smash means the model's CC attacks are made at AP2 whether wielding a sword, a mace, or a broken fingernail. As long as TBM is used to make CC attacks, it falls under Smash.

EDIT: To expand on that, remember that a naked MC is still attacking with an AP- weapon. This isn't 5th edition where a model could (arguably at least) attack with no weapons at all. The whole point of Smash is that it overwrites the AP value of the MC's Melee weapons, unless the AP of those weapons is better than that conferred by Smash. Thus, Smash makes TBM AP2 instead of AP4 just like it makes the default imputed Melee weapon AP2 instead of AP-.my only concern is that to use the ability you have to use the weapon. It could be faq'd either way. In the fluffy sense the prince wields it with such strength that it would tear through any armor like it was paper.

It's an awesome combo if its ap2 otherwise if its ap4 your wasting a deamin prince.

[Denzark]

Well it seems the consensus is pretty clearly that a character may only have one Artefact and no more, so until and unless that gets FAQed I'm going to abide by that. Unfortunate as I converted my chaos lord in terminator armor to represent both the Black Mace (in the form of a flaming sword) and the Burning Brand of Scalathrax (something like a daemonic version of Huron Blackheart's cybernetic arm). The result looks really cool so I'm not inclined to convert it back, but now I'm not sure what to count them as...

Edit: Also, as cool as an AP2 Black Mace would be it annoys me a little that the Daemon Prince I have can no longer be a "plain" unaligned prince, given that I play Word Bearers I now find it a little hard to justify fielding an "aligned" prince. On the other hand I now have Black Apostles, so that's pretty nice.

Guy with funky looking, non-game effect arm and a black mace, or guy with a Burning Brnad of skalathrax and a black mace lookalike, non-game effect CCW?

[Just_Me]

Guy with funky looking, non-game effect arm and a black mace, or guy with a Burning Brnad of skalathrax and a black mace lookalike, non-game effect CCW?

Not sure, probably the Black Mace and something else to account for the arm. Characters do most of their damage in melee and The Black Mace is a nice melee boost. The AP sucks but the rest of its rules are awesome and I love Daemon weapons, having an additional 2-6 attacks every fight phase is great (alternatively it might try to eat your face, but he knew what he was signing up for when he joined Chaos...).

http://i252.photobucket.com/albums/hh16/Just_Me_Images/Chaos/P5310362.jpg

I was thinking of giving him a Gift of Mutation and having the arm represent that, but suggestions would be welcome.

[daboarder]

I don't agree...

The codex states that "a model can replace ONE weapon with one of the following". Does it matter if he only has 1 weapon or 20 weapons ?? No, he can replace ONE weapon with one of the list.

"a model can replace ANY weapon with one of the following" would mean another thing. (a model with 20 weapons could take 20 Chaos Artefacts then)

I vote for 1 Chaos Artefact for a single character. (that's the way I read the rules)

how many weapons do you have? 2 therefore you can "replace one weapon" twice

there are no "ANY weapon" lines in the codex (as far as I can remember.) the codex is very specific about what weapon you loose in every single case but this one. that's why its worded this way because its YOUR choice to loose the gun or the sword.

Again if it was ONLY one it would specify that you may only take ONE CHOICE from the following list.

Hopefully there will be an FAQ out sometime this week, then again given teh attitude GW has displayed I wouldn't hold my breath.

[Nabterayl]

If "a model can replace one weapon" doesn't mean "a model can replace one, and only one, weapon," then "A model can take one of the following" doesn't mean "a model can take one, and only one, of the following," right? And thus a model can take any marks it's willing to pay for.

But of course that is not true, as page 30 makes clear. Since we know that a model can only purchase one mark, which the armory describes with the phrase "A model can take one," does it not follow that we should interpret "a model can replace one weapon" as meaning a model can do so but once?

[daboarder]

not quite

a model may take one of the following... the determining factor of the statement is set as the model itself. If you had nothing you could still take one of the following.

a model may replace one weapon with one of... In this statement the determining factor is the weapons a model has not the model itself. IE: If you only have one weapon you may only take one, if you have no weapons you may take none, if you have multiple weapons you may exchange each one for one of the weapons in the list. if it was to mean what you suggest it would require the use of "the model may replace only one of its weapons..." it does not and therefore we can determine that the limiting motion of the sentence if the number of weapons a model has.

its like a model may replace its Bolter and/or boltpistol....if you have both you are allowed to replace BOTH. (quote to come) the only difference is that the type of weapon swapped is not limited, if you wanted you could swap your power weapon for a chainfist and then swap that for an artifact.

[Eberk]

a model may take one of the following... the determining factor of the statement is set as the model itself. If you had nothing you could still take one of the following.

a model may replace one weapon with one of... In this statement the determining factor is the weapons a model has not the model itself. IE: If you only have one weapon you may only take one, if you have no weapons you may take none, if you have multiple weapons you may exchange each one for one of the weapons in the list. if it was to mean what you suggest it would require the use of "the model may replace only one of its weapons..." it does not and therefore we can determine that the limiting motion of the sentence if the number of weapons a model has.

its like a model may replace its Bolter and/or boltpistol....if you have both you are allowed to replace BOTH. (quote to come) the only difference is that the type of weapon swapped is not limited, if you wanted you could swap your power weapon for a chainfist and then swap that for an artifact.

Question: -Ranged weapons- a model can replace one weapon with one of the following.

I am an Aspiring champion from a Chaos Marine Troop choice and I have a Boltgun, Bolt pistol and a Close combat weapon.

How many plasma pistol can I take ?

[Kirsten]

how many weapons do you have? 2 therefore you can "replace one weapon" twice

Hopefully there will be an FAQ out sometime this week, then again given teh attitude GW has displayed I wouldn't hold my breath.

no, replace one weapon means you replace one weapon, you don't replace one weapon, then replace one more weapon.

what attitude?

[Nabterayl]

a model may take one of the following... the determining factor of the statement is set as the model itself. If you had nothing you could still take one of the following.

a model may replace one weapon with one of... In this statement the determining factor is the weapons a model has not the model itself. IE: If you only have one weapon you may only take one, if you have no weapons you may take none, if you have multiple weapons you may exchange each one for one of the weapons in the list. if it was to mean what you suggest it would require the use of "the model may replace only one of its weapons..." it does not and therefore we can determine that the limiting motion of the sentence if the number of weapons a model has.

its like a model may replace its Bolter and/or boltpistol....if you have both you are allowed to replace BOTH. (quote to come) the only difference is that the type of weapon swapped is not limited, if you wanted you could swap your power weapon for a chainfist and then swap that for an artifact.
The conditionals are approached whole each time. In the case of a mark, you ask if the model in question is a model, and then if it has taken one of the listed items. In the case of an unmarked model the answers are yes and no, allowing a purchase; in the case of a marked model the answers are yes and yes, so no purchase is allowed. Attracts operate the same way - if I tell you that you may replace one of your houses with a castle, the question is how many of your houses you have so replaced, not how many houses you have. In the case of the boltguns and/or bolt pistol, the question is simply forked - if it has not replaced its bolt pistol it may do so; if it has not replaced its boltgun it may do so.

[inquisitorsog]

no, replace one weapon means you replace one weapon, you don't replace one weapon, then replace one more weapon.

what attitude?
At least this one is more worthy of discussion than whether for some reason the AP on a weapon trumps a USR that says it trumps the AP on a weapon.

[Tynskel]

since I don't have the Chaos Codex (yet), does the wording follow wording in other codexes?

ie.

~you may exchange your bolt pistol/and or bolter with one of the following: power weapon, stormbolter, etc.

The conditional here states that the bolt pistol OR bolter, OR bolt pistol AND bolter may be exchanged. the 'one', in this case, is an exchange of one for one. (ie. you only get 1 weapon for exchanging 1 weapon, not 10 weapons for 1 weapon).

If the chaos codex does not state the "bolt pistol/and or bolter", then you can only take one artifact.

[inquisitorsog]

since I don't have the Chaos Codex (yet), does the wording follow wording in other codexes?

ie.

~you may exchange your bolt pistol/and or bolter with one of the following: power weapon, stormbolter, etc.

The conditional here states that the bolt pistol OR bolter, OR bolt pistol AND bolter may be exchanged. the 'one', in this case, is an exchange of one for one. (ie. you only get 1 weapon for exchanging 1 weapon, not 10 weapons for 1 weapon).

If the chaos codex does not state the "bolt pistol/and or bolter", then you can only take one artifact.


The problem arises because they took a short cut in the codex to not repeat the same text for chaos artefacts options for each eligible unit. Instead, they refer you to a list on another page that says " a model can replace one weapon with one of the following" (list of chaos artefacts follows). That's all. Usually, the remainder of the entries in a unit entry will make any ambiguity in this regard clear, but because this is on a different page and GW is still stuck in the 19th century, we're arguing about it.

[Nabterayl]

... I guess. If somebody told you "You may replace one politician with X," would people really interpret that as allowing all of Congress to be replaced by X? If you tell your kid, "You may replace one meal with cookies, jello, or ice-cream," and your kid said, "Great, I'll replace breakfast with cookies, lunch with jello, and dinner with ice-cream," would we really concede that our kids had a point?

[Wildcard]

would we really concede that our kids had a point?

Depends on the age of the kid.. If a 3 year old would kick me in the nuts like that.. then i'd let him (for one time atleast) :)

[Tynskel]

that's it? That's all the rule says? Then that is all you can do.
Replace 1 weapon. done.

why are we arguing again?

This isn't like we are arguing over strategic versus tactical use of deployment, changing throughout multiple pages of the rulebook.

We are talking about 1 sentence. 1 sentence that is crystal clear.

[daboarder]

Question: -Ranged weapons- a model can replace one weapon with one of the following.

I am an Aspiring champion from a Chaos Marine Troop choice and I have a Boltgun, Bolt pistol and a Close combat weapon.

How many plasma pistol can I take ?


I'd actually suggest that by that wording you could take 3. whether you would want too is another matter.

I do understand peoples arguments.


no, replace one weapon means you replace one weapon, you don't replace one weapon, then replace one more weapon.

what attitude?

I meant the fact that historically we could be looking at a FAQ answering this question any time from next week to never.

[Nabterayl]

that's it? That's all the rule says? Then that is all you can do.
Replace 1 weapon. done.

why are we arguing again?

This isn't like we are arguing over strategic versus tactical use of deployment, changing throughout multiple pages of the rulebook.

We are talking about 1 sentence. 1 sentence that is crystal clear.
I see what you did there. ;) But yes. That is all it says. And yes, I agree. You cannot replace two weapons on the grounds that it's only replacing one weapon, twice. That simply is not what "replace one weapon" means.

[Kirsten]

I meant the fact that historically we could be looking at a FAQ answering this question any time from next week to never.

aah, well they have been pretty good lately, they do have to wait and get some questions in first. So far I don't think there is anything that needs FAQing particularly, everything seems pretty clear to me.

[Tynskel]

I see what you did there. ;) But yes. That is all it says. And yes, I agree. You cannot replace two weapons on the grounds that it's only replacing one weapon, twice. That simply is not what "replace one weapon" means.

;)

[Lucius]

First, can a single character be equipped with two different Chaos Artefacts?

All non-named HQ choices have this under options:
"May take items from the Chaos Artefacts sections of the wargear list." - Yes, I can see no reference to "one weapon with one of the following", please point me to the exact location of this.


Do you think it would be acceptable to model the Artefacts in different ways from their descriptions or would that be too confusing?

You can take any item or character and make it in your own image as long as you use the same rules and points.*

This is important as not only would such restraints stifle conversion and creativity; it would mean many units would not be viable, such as the Space Wolf Thunder Wolves Cavalry as there were no models for this other than a HQ unit that would not suffice.

* This is referenced in many codex's.

[Kirsten]

All non-named HQ choices have this under options:
"May take items from the Chaos Artefacts sections of the wargear list." - Yes, I can see no reference to "one weapon with one of the following", please point me to the exact location of this.



You can take any item or character and make it in your own image as long as you use the same rules and points.*

This is important as not only would such restraints stifle conversion and creativity; it would mean many units would not be viable, such as the Space Wolf Thunder Wolves Cavalry as there were no models for this other than a HQ unit that would not suffice.

* This is referenced in many codex's.

not strictly true, it says 'may take items from the melee weapons, ranged weapons, chaos rewards, special issue wargear, and/or chaos artefacts' (under chaos lords, for example) it does not say you can take items from the chaos artefacts section

page 91, chaos artefacts, 'A model can replace one weapon with one of the following'

there are models for thunder wolf cavalry too ;)

[Kyban]

Some of the artifacts don't replace weapons though, do they count for the limit of one?

[Kirsten]

I would say so personally, I think you can have one artefact per model regardless of what it is.

[Lucius]

not strictly true, it says 'may take items from the melee weapons, ranged weapons, chaos rewards, special issue wargear, and/or chaos artefacts' (under chaos lords, for example) it does not say you can take items from the chaos artefacts section

I disagree:
http://oi45.tinypic.com/2jz9f5.jpg


page 91, chaos artefacts, 'A model can replace one weapon with one of the following'
Thank you for pointing this out, the wording is ambiguous, it would have been better if it been "A model can replace one of his weapons with one of the following items, models can only carry a single Chaos Artefact each.

I can see no reason why a Model could not own a Murder Sword and a Dimensional Key.
Lucius The Eternal has x2 Chaos Artefacts and Fabius Bile has x3.


there are models for thunder wolf cavalry too ;)

Thunder Wolves were released in Febuary 2012, the Codex came out in 2009- some of us didn't want to wait 2-3 years before using units from the Codex.

Games Workshop needs to hire an Assistant for Phil Kelly, I can understand the need for FAQ's covering rare circumstances and overlapping rules, but FAQ's to correct the language is just ridiculous.

At the very least a little Yes/No flowchart on his desk would sort this out.

[Kirsten]

I disagree:
http://oi45.tinypic.com/2jz9f5.jpg


Thank you for pointing this out, the wording is ambiguous, it would have been better if it been "A model can replace one of his weapons with one of the following items, models can only carry a single Chaos Artefact each.
Lucius has x2 Chaos Artefacts and Fabius Bile has x3.

Games Workshop needs to hire an Assistant for Phil Kelly, I can understand the need for FAQ's covering rare circumstances and overlapping rules, but FAQ's to correct the language is just ridiculous.

no, the bit you take taken a picture of says items because it refers to multiple lists of stuff, you had put 'may take items from the chaos artefacts' which is not true. Lucius and Fabius are special characters, you do not pick their items, so they have no bearing on generic characters you build. the fact that it says 'may swap one' is pretty clear, there is no need to correct the language, this codex so far has thrown up nothing that needs an FAQ.

[Nabterayl]

Thank you for pointing this out, the wording is ambiguous, it would have been better if it been "A model can replace one of his weapons with one of the following items, models can only carry a single Chaos Artefact each.

Substitute that exact form for another scenario:

... can replace one senator with one of the following:
* A truth-telling sitar
* Chuck Norris
* A vampire
You really think that allows for replacing all 100 senators, on the grounds that you're only replacing one at a time?

[Lucius]

no, the bit you take taken a picture of says items because it refers to multiple lists of stuff, you had put 'may take items from the chaos artefacts' which is not true.

Could you point me to the part of that picture that limits it to a single item from the wording?


Lucius and Fabius are special characters, you do not pick their items, so they have no bearing on generic characters you build.

I'm well aware of their status, I was using them to illustrate the point that some characters have multiple Chaos Artefacts.


the fact that it says 'may swap one' is pretty clear, there is no need to correct the language, this codex so far has thrown up nothing that needs an FAQ.

Many people on these boards and others disagree.

[Kirsten]

well then many people are wrong, it is pretty simple. The rules are straightforward in plain english, the only 'confusion' is wishful thinking by people wanting 35 zombis etc.

[Lucius]

The rules are straightforward in plain english, the only 'confusion' is wishful thinking by people wanting 35 zombis etc.

I play a Slaanesh themed army, Typhus and his rules have no bearing on my wishful thinking.

I have every confidence that this will be corrected in the FAQ.

[Nabterayl]

Could you point me to the part of that picture that limits it to a single item from the wording?
You seem to be reading the phrase as if "May take items from X, Y, and Z" entitled you to take items from X, items from Y, and items from Z. That is simply not the way lists work in English. That phrase only authorizes you take multiple items from the pool of items comprised of X, Y, and Z. It says nothing one way or the other about how many items you may take from X, Y, or Z individually, or how many items are even in X, Y, or Z. As a result, there is nothing in the phrase you cited that contradicts the wargear page's instruction that a model may swap a weapon for an artefact once.

[Kirsten]

there is nothing to correct, you can swap one weapon for one artefact, not one or more weapons, not each weapon, not one weapon for one or more artefacts. All of the queries that have arisen so far from this codex are nonsense and just misreading the very straightforward rules.

[Eberk]

Could you point me to the part of that picture that limits it to a single item from the wording?
There is no part of your picture that limits it to a single item from this wording.

BUT more importantly, there is also NO part of your picture that says you can take multiple items from EACH list. (only multiple items from ALL the lists combined)

That's why each list/section has specific rules : change this or that in ..., change one weapon ..., replace...

[Tynskel]

T
since I don't have the Chaos Codex (yet), does the wording follow wording in other codexes?

ie.

~you may exchange your bolt pistol/and or bolter with one of the following: power weapon, stormbolter, etc.

The conditional here states that the bolt pistol OR bolter, OR bolt pistol AND bolter may be exchanged. the 'one', in this case, is an exchange of one for one. (ie. you only get 1 weapon for exchanging 1 weapon, not 10 weapons for 1 weapon).

If the chaos codex does not state the "bolt pistol/and or bolter", then you can only take one artifact.

Maybe I wasn't clear.

1 sentence... Uh...

It says one weapon.


Omg it says everything in plural! It meas we can take 1x10e1456 artifacts.


You guys need to read the kings English? All of that is plural because each category has more than one option. You need to break down what the plurality is being applied to!


Oi!

[daboarder]

Tynskel don't be rude.

You've made your argumen and he's made his. Sarcasm the first time is understandable but don't continually berate someone for reading something differently to you. It's English a language that is inherently unclear due to it's barstidization, dialects, historical roots and inclusion off words made up by society on a whim.

Not to mention the rampant contradictions in it's formal structuring

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

Tynskel, I've warned you before about this kind of thing.

And Lucius, you're being rude too.

If you both continue then I will have to take further action.

[Tynskel]

Tynskel, I've warned you before about this kind of thing.

And Lucius, you're being rude too.

If you both continue then I will have to take further action.

hmmmm...
Maybe I was too clear.

The sentence is constructed such that the plural items are plural form. However, swap 1≠ x>1.