Hello have been looking through a lot of the new lists that people are putting up and they are making captain and chapter masters with both the relics.

So reading the codex it states "A model can replace one weapon with one of the following"

So my question becomes can he replace two weapons for 2 relics.

If yes than good to be clear, but if no it will be good to point this out as a lot of people will want to run / are making lists with the above combination.

My current interpretation is that you get 1 or the other and not both.

delete

I'm not sure what Space Marine Codex you guys are reading but the one that we have here in the United States reads as such:

C:SM page 163 - A Chapter Master in power armour or artificer armour may take items from the Melee Weapons, Ranged Weapons, Special Issue Wargear, and/or Chapter Relics lists. It reads the same for a Chapter Master in Terminator armor and verbatim for a Captain.

No where does it read he may replace his weapon with a Chapter Relic. If I'm missing something do point me to the page please.

The armoury page where all the prices are listed, under the title for Chapter Relics.

Let me help.

C:SM pg. 159 "A model can replace one weapon with one of the following."

I read this as I replace a bolt pistol (one weapon) for one relic. Then I replace a chainsword (one weapon) for one more relic.

To back this up:
C:SM page 163 "A Chapter Master in power armour or artificer armour may take items from the Melee Weapons, Ranged Weapons, Special Issue Wargear, and/or Chapter Relics lists."
I highlighted items because it is plural. Multiple items from all of these lists.

I'm fairly certain multiple relics can be taken by one dude. If you can't, this would be the only 6th ed codex that has this restriction. That seems unlikely.

 Sothas wrote:
Let me help.

C:SM pg. 159 "A model can replace one weapon with one of the following."

I read this as I replace a bolt pistol (one weapon) for one relic. Then I replace a chainsword (one weapon) for one more relic.

To back this up:
C:SM page 163 "A Chapter Master in power armour or artificer armour may take items from the Melee Weapons, Ranged Weapons, Special Issue Wargear, and/or Chapter Relics lists."
I highlighted items because it is plural. Multiple items from all of these lists.

I'm fairly certain multiple relics can be taken by one dude. If you can't, this would be the only 6th ed codex that has this restriction. That seems unlikely.

All the others are worded exactly the same way. So if a Space Marine can't, neither can anyone else. It all boils down to if "one weapon" means one weapon full stop, or if it's supposed to mean "for each weapon you swap".

I also read it as one-for-one, not limited-to-one.

Chrysis wrote:

 Sothas wrote:
Let me help.

C:SM pg. 159 "A model can replace one weapon with one of the following."

I read this as I replace a bolt pistol (one weapon) for one relic. Then I replace a chainsword (one weapon) for one more relic.

To back this up:
C:SM page 163 "A Chapter Master in power armour or artificer armour may take items from the Melee Weapons, Ranged Weapons, Special Issue Wargear, and/or Chapter Relics lists."
I highlighted items because it is plural. Multiple items from all of these lists.

I'm fairly certain multiple relics can be taken by one dude. If you can't, this would be the only 6th ed codex that has this restriction. That seems unlikely.

All the others are worded exactly the same way. So if a Space Marine can't, neither can anyone else. It all boils down to if "one weapon" means one weapon full stop, or if it's supposed to mean "for each weapon you swap".

Chaos Daemons doesn't list it this way. I don't have DA or Tau, but in Eldar and CSM it does read this way. Still my argument for multiple remains, and everyone has been doing it this way since the start of 6th codexes.

 Sothas wrote:

Chrysis wrote:

 Sothas wrote:
Let me help.

C:SM pg. 159 "A model can replace one weapon with one of the following."

I read this as I replace a bolt pistol (one weapon) for one relic. Then I replace a chainsword (one weapon) for one more relic.

To back this up:
C:SM page 163 "A Chapter Master in power armour or artificer armour may take items from the Melee Weapons, Ranged Weapons, Special Issue Wargear, and/or Chapter Relics lists."
I highlighted items because it is plural. Multiple items from all of these lists.

I'm fairly certain multiple relics can be taken by one dude. If you can't, this would be the only 6th ed codex that has this restriction. That seems unlikely.

All the others are worded exactly the same way. So if a Space Marine can't, neither can anyone else. It all boils down to if "one weapon" means one weapon full stop, or if it's supposed to mean "for each weapon you swap".

Chaos Daemons doesn't list it this way. I don't have DA or Tau, but in Eldar and CSM it does read this way. Still my argument for multiple remains, and everyone has been doing it this way since the start of 6th codexes.

Daemons doesn't, but Daemons are somewhat unique in their wargear selection methods. And Daemons are very definitely limited to one Hellforged Artefact per model. Tau are very definitely allowed more than one Signature System per model, but none of their Signature Systems are weapons.

I, too, would go for it being a one-for-one swap done as many times as you have weapons. If only because the whole thing falls apart when you include the items that don't actually swap for weapons.

 Sothas wrote:
Let me help.

C:SM pg. 159 "A model can replace one weapon with one of the following."

I read this as I replace a bolt pistol (one weapon) for one relic. Then I replace a chainsword (one weapon) for one more relic.

So you've replaced 2 items with 2 relics. Is that what the rule allows?

To back this up:
C:SM page 163 "A Chapter Master in power armour or artificer armour may take items from the Melee Weapons, Ranged Weapons, Special Issue Wargear, and/or Chapter Relics lists."
I highlighted items because it is plural. Multiple items from all of these lists.

No, you're misapplying the plural. That word must be plural because there are multiple lists (and you are not required to pick a single list).
That has literally nothing to do with a restriction on the list itself.

I'm fairly certain multiple relics can be taken by one dude. If you can't, this would be the only 6th ed codex that has this restriction. That seems unlikely.

Um. No? Pretty sure the other codexes are similarly restricted.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Sothas wrote:
Let me help.

C:SM pg. 159 "A model can replace one weapon with one of the following."

I read this as I replace a bolt pistol (one weapon) for one relic. Then I replace a chainsword (one weapon) for one more relic.

So you've replaced 2 items with 2 relics. Is that what the rule allows?

It doesn't disallow it. The rule is ambiguous and needs clarification.

To back this up:
C:SM page 163 "A Chapter Master in power armour or artificer armour may take items from the Melee Weapons, Ranged Weapons, Special Issue Wargear, and/or Chapter Relics lists."
I highlighted items because it is plural. Multiple items from all of these lists.

No, you're misapplying the plural. That word must be plural because there are multiple lists (and you are not required to pick a single list).
That has literally nothing to do with a restriction on the list itself.

It needs to allow it. The rule allows for a one for one swap.
If you do a 2 for 2 swap you have not followed the rule.

Pretty clear. Also, learn how to use quotes.

I dunno why the last quote is messed up, I've double checked it. It's in their correctly. Anyway...

The rule allows for a one to one swap, but it doesn't specify how many times you can make that one to one swap.

I can swap pistol for relic. That's a one to one swap. Then chainsword for a relic. That's also a one to one swap. In my opinion, it is worded the way it is because you can swap any weapon you have (all other weapon sections list specific weapon i.e. boltgun, ccw, ect.) with a relic.

 Sothas wrote:
I dunno why the last quote is messed up, I've double checked it. It's in their correctly. Anyway...

The rule allows for a one to one swap, but it doesn't specify how many times you can make that one to one swap.

I can swap pistol for relic. That's a one to one swap. Then chainsword for a relic. That's also a one to one swap. In my opinion, it is worded the way it is because you can swap any weapon you have (all other weapon sections list specific weapon i.e. boltgun, ccw, ect.) with a relic.

It does specify by saying you can swap one (singular) item for another. It doesn't say any number for a like number, it says one.
This is important.

Honor Guard - how many banners can you have in one squad?
Command Squad - how many banners? How many apothecaries?
How many heavy weapons can you have in a 10 man tac squad?

Went over the eldar codex, has the same wording as one of these replaces one weapon.

Than went into the farseer entry and says can take items from remnants of glory.

Therefore they allow you to take multiple or they would say one.

So it gets a little more complicated.

They wouldn't say items if they intended that you couldn't take more than one.

The only way its only one weapon is if your allowed to take 1 weapon swap and any of the remnants that don't swap weapons.

Which is plausible but does add weight to the take as many as you can swap weapons for argument.

It says items because certain relics (and I use the term in general) do not require a weapon swap.

For example, A Farseer, can swap his pistol for the fire sword (trade 1 for 1), and then take the spirit stones and mask of the laughing god (which can be taken without swapping a weapon).

It's not exactly the same, but the other wargear lists themselves (Ranged, Melee etc) are worded differently allowing you to perform multiple swaps depending on your kit.
If it was supposed to allow you to take multiple Relics, it would've been much easier to word it thus:

"A model may swap any of his weapons for one of the following items each."

Chaos artefacts say the same thing one for one. You need permission to be taking 3 different relics for 3 different weapons.
One child may take one piece of fruit =/= every child gets one piece of fruit.

I don't have the codex in my hands atm, but the RAW makes it sound like no one is allowed to take the armor relic, unless you swap your weapon for it an carry around a spare suit.

Obviously that is not meant to be the case, so something is not quite right there.

DogofWar1 wrote:
I don't have the codex in my hands atm, but the RAW makes it sound like no one is allowed to take the armor relic, unless you swap your weapon for it an carry around a spare suit.

Obviously that is not meant to be the case, so something is not quite right there.

The Armour has a note attached saying that it doesn't actually need a weapon swap.

I, for one, see it both ways. I'd like GW to FAQ this one way or the other. HIWPI is just one for one, but I'd rather get it right than get it my way.

It says you can replace one weapon with one Relic.
Seems pretty clear: Only one upgrade.

I think you people are reading too much into the rules here. Picking options when list building is done sequentially. This allows you to take one option then take another option that was only possible after the first has been taken.

When selecting a captain, you pick your options one at a time.
1. Select Artificer Armor.
2. Take an item from the available lists. Go to Relics rules. It says you may exchange one weapon for a relic. You exchange bolt pistol for Burning Blade.
2 Take another Item from the available lists. Go to Relics rules. It still says you may exchange one weapon for a relic. You exchange chainsword for the Shield Eternal.

If the One weapon for One relic blurb was in the actual unit entry I would be inclined to agree with only 1 relic per HQ thing. As things stand currently, I lean the other way.

If the rule said 'a SM may swap any weapon for a Relic' then you could take the Burning Blade and the Shield Eternal, or whatever they're called (that's a scary combo).

But it says you may swap ONE weapon, not any, not all, not both, just one. Similarly, a Chaos Lord cannot have an Axe of Blind Fury AND a Burning Brand of Skalathrax, can he? Cuz if he can, please let me know, that would be pretty awesome!

But a Chaos Lord of Tzeentch could indeed have a Black Mace and Scrolls of Magnus, because the Scrolls specifically has a rule saying it doesn't replace a weapon. Do any of the SM relics have a little note like that?

 Thaylen wrote:

When selecting a captain, you pick your options one at a time.
1. Select Artificer Armor.
2. Take an item from the available lists. Go to Relics rules. It says you may exchange one weapon for a relic. You exchange bolt pistol for Burning Blade.
2 Take another Item from the available lists. Go to Relics rules. It still says you may exchange one weapon for a relic. You exchange chainsword for the Shield Eternal.

This is pretty convincing, I think, so long as you add the 4th step.

4. Go back to Relic rules. It says you may "replace one weapon with one of the following." But you've exchanged TWO weapons with TWO of the following. That's against the rule. Problem solved.

 Sothas wrote:
I dunno why the last quote is messed up, I've double checked it. It's in their correctly. Anyway...

The rule allows for a one to one swap, but it doesn't specify how many times you can make that one to one swap.

I can swap pistol for relic. That's a one to one swap. Then chainsword for a relic. That's also a one to one swap. In my opinion, it is worded the way it is because you can swap any weapon you have (all other weapon sections list specific weapon i.e. boltgun, ccw, ect.) with a relic.

Using this interpretation I can take a power weapon, a power fist, and a heavy weapon in each of my crusader squads. p. 168 "One initiate may take one of the following:" One takes a power fist, one takes a power weapon, and one takes a lascannon.

I don't think that is the correct interpretation...

Wargear section says you can only take one, so...

i guess i am missing where all the cunfusion is coming from. It may also be that i am applying common sense which may or may not be what the authors intended.

To me it sounds like I can trade my 2 chapter master weapons for 2 other hand held items from the relics list and then the chapter master or captain or whatever can also take the armor of indomitus(or whatever the artificer armor with relentless is called) because its not a weapon but he would be trading his armor for it.

If the points are paid I really couldnt care less how many relics are taken. i would get kind of concerned for the individual as a person if they were like buying extra wargear from the ranged or mellee weapons and then trading that for more relics it would not really effect the game as much as it would make me sad for them.

How do DA players do it? Theirs is worded the same way....




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Baldsmug wrote:
i guess i am missing where all the cunfusion is coming from. It may also be that i am applying common sense which may or may not be what the authors intended.

To me it sounds like I can trade my 2 chapter master weapons for 2 other hand held items from the relics list and then the chapter master or captain or whatever can also take the armor of indomitus(or whatever the artificer armor with relentless is called) because its not a weapon but he would be trading his armor for it.

If the points are paid I really couldnt care less how many relics are taken. i would get kind of concerned for the individual as a person if they were like buying extra wargear from the ranged or mellee weapons and then trading that for more relics it would not really effect the game as much as it would make me sad for them.

The armor has an exception allowing you to take it without replacing a weapon.

The confusion about the rest is because of the way it is written "one model may replace ONE weapon with ONE of the following"

It sounds like you can only ever replace ONE weapon. If you replace two weapons on the model, then you have replaced more than one correct?

rigeld2 wrote:
It needs to allow it. The rule allows for a one for one swap.
If you do a 2 for 2 swap you have not followed the rule.

Pretty clear. Also, learn how to use quotes.

I have to agree with rigel2d on this one,

it explicitly states one weapon for one relic,

going 2 for 2 needs a specific rule alowing it, because it is definetly not the same, and no where does it imply or explicitly state that the one for one is actually a ratio.

the quoted plural text for items, refers to multiple lists of wargear/relics/ect, and in no way over rides that "one" weapon may be swapped for "one" relic

no contention on this, that is RAW, and very much RAI from what I can gather from C:sm.

takes a special kind of reading to read "may replace one" as may replace all

as many ahve stated, when a rule says youcan swap one weapon for one _____

and you chose to swap two weapons for two _______'s, you are NOT following the rule.

otherwise I can equipt most of my troops with nothing but special/heavy weapons, as all those entries also state one model may replace ____ with ____,

you really think i can have have 10 special weapons in a 10 man guard squad so long as its a 1:1 ratio?

 Lord Krungharr wrote:
But it says you may swap ONE weapon, not any, not all, not both, just one. Similarly, a Chaos Lord cannot have an Axe of Blind Fury AND a Burning Brand of Skalathrax, can he? Cuz if he can, please let me know, that would be pretty awesome!

I've done exactly that at RTTs and small narrative events (thought I could). No one has ever called me on it. Anyone tried this or done this at a GT since the new CSM codex? Very curious if they allow this (I have no idea, I hope I don't need to apologize to any of my buddies on this one).

If they were trying to say that a model can only take one relic wouldn't they say that.... instead of one weapon for one relic which implies that to get a relic you trade a weapon, to say "______ model may replace only one weapon for a relic"- or anything to imply that a model may only take one relic. For CSM we have chaos artefacts that do not replace a weapon and so can take two so theres that fact where there is no limitation of strictly one artefact or relic

 NickTheButcher wrote:
How do DA players do it? Theirs is worded the same way....




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Baldsmug wrote:
i guess i am missing where all the cunfusion is coming from. It may also be that i am applying common sense which may or may not be what the authors intended.

To me it sounds like I can trade my 2 chapter master weapons for 2 other hand held items from the relics list and then the chapter master or captain or whatever can also take the armor of indomitus(or whatever the artificer armor with relentless is called) because its not a weapon but he would be trading his armor for it.

If the points are paid I really couldnt care less how many relics are taken. i would get kind of concerned for the individual as a person if they were like buying extra wargear from the ranged or mellee weapons and then trading that for more relics it would not really effect the game as much as it would make me sad for them.

The armor has an exception allowing you to take it without replacing a weapon.

The confusion about the rest is because of the way it is written "one model may replace ONE weapon with ONE of the following"

It sounds like you can only ever replace ONE weapon. If you replace two weapons on the model, then you have replaced more than one correct?

See now its getting confusing. How is it that we can agree that the armor is different and can be taken without trading a weapon even though we are arguing the wording above it that says 1 weapon for 1 relic?

To me it looks like like you can have as many relics as you have weapons/armor to trade as long as they are from your starting wargear.

 Baldsmug wrote:

 NickTheButcher wrote:
How do DA players do it? Theirs is worded the same way....




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Baldsmug wrote:
i guess i am missing where all the cunfusion is coming from. It may also be that i am applying common sense which may or may not be what the authors intended.

To me it sounds like I can trade my 2 chapter master weapons for 2 other hand held items from the relics list and then the chapter master or captain or whatever can also take the armor of indomitus(or whatever the artificer armor with relentless is called) because its not a weapon but he would be trading his armor for it.

If the points are paid I really couldnt care less how many relics are taken. i would get kind of concerned for the individual as a person if they were like buying extra wargear from the ranged or mellee weapons and then trading that for more relics it would not really effect the game as much as it would make me sad for them.

The armor has an exception allowing you to take it without replacing a weapon

The confusion about the rest is because of the way it is written "one model may replace ONE weapon with ONE of the following"

It sounds like you can only ever replace ONE weapon. If you replace two weapons on the model, then you have replaced more than one correct?

See now its getting confusing. How is it that we can agree that the armor is different and can be taken without trading a weapon even though we are arguing the wording above it that says 1 weapon for 1 relic?

To me it looks like like you can have as many relics as you have weapons/armor to trade as long as they are from your starting wargear.

Because the armor has an exception that literally tells you "Does not replace one of the characters weapons", allowing you to take the armor and still trade a weapon for another relic.

I'm still curious how this hasn't come up with DA relics having the same wording.....

It has. DA Relics are the same way.

 NickTheButcher wrote:

 Baldsmug wrote:

 NickTheButcher wrote:
How do DA players do it? Theirs is worded the same way....




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Baldsmug wrote:
i guess i am missing where all the cunfusion is coming from. It may also be that i am applying common sense which may or may not be what the authors intended.

To me it sounds like I can trade my 2 chapter master weapons for 2 other hand held items from the relics list and then the chapter master or captain or whatever can also take the armor of indomitus(or whatever the artificer armor with relentless is called) because its not a weapon but he would be trading his armor for it.

If the points are paid I really couldnt care less how many relics are taken. i would get kind of concerned for the individual as a person if they were like buying extra wargear from the ranged or mellee weapons and then trading that for more relics it would not really effect the game as much as it would make me sad for them.

The armor has an exception allowing you to take it without replacing a weapon

The confusion about the rest is because of the way it is written "one model may replace ONE weapon with ONE of the following"

It sounds like you can only ever replace ONE weapon. If you replace two weapons on the model, then you have replaced more than one correct?

See now its getting confusing. How is it that we can agree that the armor is different and can be taken without trading a weapon even though we are arguing the wording above it that says 1 weapon for 1 relic?

To me it looks like like you can have as many relics as you have weapons/armor to trade as long as they are from your starting wargear.

Because the armor has an exception that literally tells you "Does not replace one of the characters weapons", allowing you to take the armor and still trade a weapon for another relic.

I'm still curious how this hasn't come up with DA relics having the same wording.....

Touche'

It probably hasnt come up before because people were too busy hating on DA to try to exploit their rules as far as relics go. That and DA relics arent that great to begin with.

Yeah, DA, CSM, and SM all follow the same syntax... we really do need a ruling on this

AFAIK GW usually differentiates between "one" and "any" where "one" typically imposes a limit of just that - "one"

If they were to allow you to take more than one, the wording would typically include "any" -- however, this is just a personal observation, and not necessarily proving anything.

again, one need look no farther then codex IG, GK or any codex that states "one model may replace ____ with special/heavy weapon"

one, means ONE in all those cases, why are people arguing that ONE means" any" or "at a one to one ratio" in this case,

you are literally arguing that I can take whole squads of heavy/special weapons......

which is OBS incorrect

 easysauce wrote:
again, one need look no farther then codex IG, GK or any codex that states "one model may replace ____ with special/heavy weapon"

one, means ONE in all those cases, why are people arguing that ONE means" any" or "at a one to one ratio" in this case,

you are literally arguing that I can take whole squads of heavy/special weapons......

which is OBS incorrect

where do people keep getting the "so your saying i can take as many heavy weapons as i want" from?

If you can only replace ONE weapon with ONE relic then you would also never be ableto take a second lightning claw because in the DA codex in the wargear section they both say exactly the same thing " A model can replace one weapon with one of the following".

 Baldsmug wrote:
If you can only replace ONE weapon with ONE relic then you would also never be ableto take a second lightning claw because in the DA codex in the wargear section they both say exactly the same thing " A model can replace one weapon with one of the following".

... and?

so you are saying that a captain with 2 lightning claws is just as illegal as a captain with 2 relic weapons?

 Baldsmug wrote:
so you are saying that a captain with 2 lightning claws is just as illegal as a captain with 2 relic weapons?

Yes, if that's the wording in the DA codex.

I think this reads pretty simple, and that people might want to lay off trying the cheese.

It reads

A model can replace one weapon (note it says one weapon, not both) with one of the following.

I fail to see where the argument that you are able to replace both weapons for any of the following.

Would it not be wiser to say one weapon trade out for a relic? If it say you may take two relics at the expense of two weapons that makes it seem that there is no way to only take one relic according to the semantics that the opposition has presented


Automatically Appended Next Post:
the way I see the rule is the meaning that the model must give up one of his weapons that is in his basic wargear to be able to take a relic. Instead of having all his basic wargear + relics

 Sasa0mg wrote:
I think this reads pretty simple, and that people might want to lay off trying the cheese.

It reads

A model can replace one weapon (note it says one weapon, not both) with one of the following.

I fail to see where the argument that you are able to replace both weapons for any of the following.

I fail to see things how you see them. If i have one chainsword and i swap it for some relic sword than i have traded ONE weapon for ONE relic, if i then want to trade my bolt pistol for some relic gun then i have traded ONE weapon for ONE relic.
the same for the mellee weapons. If i wanted to take 2 lightning claws i would trade ONE bolt pistol and ONE chainsword for one lightning and one lightning claw. If it wasn't for relics being slightly better than regular weapons i doubt this would even be an issue because no one would feel threatened. Plus if they didn't want you to take more than one relic why would there be items that dont replace weapons in the list?

 Baldsmug wrote:

 Sasa0mg wrote:
I think this reads pretty simple, and that people might want to lay off trying the cheese.

It reads

A model can replace one weapon (note it says one weapon, not both) with one of the following.

I fail to see where the argument that you are able to replace both weapons for any of the following.

I fail to see things how you see them. If i have one chainsword and i swap it for some relic sword than i have traded ONE weapon for ONE relic, if i then want to trade my bolt pistol for some relic gun then i have traded ONE weapon for ONE relic.
the same for the mellee weapons. If i wanted to take 2 lightning claws i would trade ONE bolt pistol and ONE chainsword for one lightning and one lightning claw. If it wasn't for relics being slightly better than regular weapons i doubt this would even be an issue because no one would feel threatened. Plus if they didn't want you to take more than one relic why would there be items that dont replace weapons in the list?

Because it simply says a model can replace one weapon? Taking the liberty to replace two weapons is not replacing one weapon is it? It really comes across as simple as that.

Interestingly then a DA captain cannot have two lightning claws?

MarkyMark wrote:
Interestingly then a DA captain cannot have two lightning claws?

If it is worded like that I would imagine not, I suppose its never been raised because two lightning claws (i.e a pair) aren't an uncommon sight compared to people stacking incredibly strong relics.

 Sasa0mg wrote:

 Baldsmug wrote:

 Sasa0mg wrote:
I think this reads pretty simple, and that people might want to lay off trying the cheese.

It reads

A model can replace one weapon (note it says one weapon, not both) with one of the following.

I fail to see where the argument that you are able to replace both weapons for any of the following.

I fail to see things how you see them. If i have one chainsword and i swap it for some relic sword than i have traded ONE weapon for ONE relic, if i then want to trade my bolt pistol for some relic gun then i have traded ONE weapon for ONE relic.
the same for the mellee weapons. If i wanted to take 2 lightning claws i would trade ONE bolt pistol and ONE chainsword for one lightning and one lightning claw. If it wasn't for relics being slightly better than regular weapons i doubt this would even be an issue because no one would feel threatened. Plus if they didn't want you to take more than one relic why would there be items that dont replace weapons in the list?

Because it simply says a model can replace one weapon? Taking the liberty to replace two weapons is not replacing one weapon is it? It really comes across as simple as that.

but you have multiple weapons!!!!! and you trade one for a relic or a mellee weapon and then you trade another. how does that not compute?? you cant take more weapons than you have weapons, thats all i am getting from it. If someone took like 3 relic weapons or 3 melee weapons then yes there would be a problem but if they have 2 weapons (1 weapon and 1 wepon) that they exchange for 2 mellee or relic (1 melee and 1 mellee or 1 relic and 1 relic) there is no problem.

as it stands "replace one weapon with one of the following"
makes this into: replace _____ weapon with one of the following. If we install "any" into this sentence, it would be the same as the original. If we place "both" into the gap it would make it where we are giving up two weapons to get one relic. if we took out weapons in general it would read ~ take one of the following~ which would just be more weapons stacked on to the original wargear. How would it be phrased so that a model can take multiple relics at the expense of a weapon for each relic

 Sasa0mg wrote:

MarkyMark wrote:
Interestingly then a DA captain cannot have two lightning claws?

If it is worded like that I would imagine not, I suppose its never been raised because two lightning claws (i.e a pair) aren't an uncommon sight compared to people stacking incredibly strong relics.

It is worded the same as chapter relics for DA funnily enough, it is different for CSM.

 Sasa0mg wrote:

MarkyMark wrote:
Interestingly then a DA captain cannot have two lightning claws?

If it is worded like that I would imagine not, I suppose its never been raised because two lightning claws (i.e a pair) aren't an uncommon sight compared to people stacking incredibly strong relics.

so its just the power level of the item that makes us care about wether the rules are worded in out favor or not, i get it. when it was normal stuff no one cared but now that it might be a little more powerful all of a sudden we have to break the wording down to the atomic level and scrutinize it. i get it.

chillis wrote:
as it stands "replace one weapon with one of the following"
makes this into: replace _____ weapon with one of the following. If we install "any" into this sentence, it would be the same as the original. If we place "both" into the gap it would make it where we are giving up two weapons to get one relic. if we took out weapons in general it would read ~ take one of the following~ which would just be more weapons stacked on to the original wargear. How would it be phrased so that a model can take multiple relics at the expense of a weapon for each relic

"a model may replace any weapon for any of the following"

 NickTheButcher wrote:

chillis wrote:
as it stands "replace one weapon with one of the following"
makes this into: replace _____ weapon with one of the following. If we install "any" into this sentence, it would be the same as the original. If we place "both" into the gap it would make it where we are giving up two weapons to get one relic. if we took out weapons in general it would read ~ take one of the following~ which would just be more weapons stacked on to the original wargear. How would it be phrased so that a model can take multiple relics at the expense of a weapon for each relic

"a model may replace any weapon for any of the following"

"a model may replace any number of weapons for a like number of the following:"

rigeld2 wrote:

 NickTheButcher wrote:

chillis wrote:
as it stands "replace one weapon with one of the following"
makes this into: replace _____ weapon with one of the following. If we install "any" into this sentence, it would be the same as the original. If we place "both" into the gap it would make it where we are giving up two weapons to get one relic. if we took out weapons in general it would read ~ take one of the following~ which would just be more weapons stacked on to the original wargear. How would it be phrased so that a model can take multiple relics at the expense of a weapon for each relic

"a model may replace any weapon for any of the following"

"a model may replace any number of weapons for a like number of the following:"

 Baldsmug wrote:
so its just the power level of the item that makes us care about wether the rules are worded in out favor or not, i get it. when it was normal stuff no one cared but now that it might be a little more powerful all of a sudden we have to break the wording down to the atomic level and scrutinize it. i get it.

No no, people do care. No matter what equipment you are getting.
We just didn't notice it before!
So either the DA-section is worded wrong or both the Relics and the DA-section is worded wrong.

Edit:
I love that they are putting it all into a Wargear List, it makes it much easier to put into Battlescribe and stuff.
But as a result this causes issues with squads since you are forcing multiple units/models into a single template.

"a model may replace weapons with different weapons provided he has weapons to replace"

That makes no sense, as going by the CSM dex, it actually says : a model may replace his Bolt Pistol and/or CCW for one of the following. Pg 91

So using that, id say one Relic only.

 IHateNids wrote:
That makes no sense, as going by the CSM dex, it actually says : a model may replace his Bolt Pistol and/or CCW for one of the following. Pg 91

So using that, id say one Relic only.

I see 2 relics there. there may be something wrong with me.

Is that the wording over the relic list?

 Baldsmug wrote:

 IHateNids wrote:
That makes no sense, as going by the CSM dex, it actually says : a model may replace his Bolt Pistol and/or CCW for one of the following. Pg 91

So using that, id say one Relic only.

I see 2 relics there. there may be something wrong with me.

Reason being, it gives you the option to trade out two weapons, rather than just the one.

And no, the wording on the Chaos artefacts says the exact thing that is being discussed...

Brainfart, ignore me completely...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Although, it could still mean the same thing, because the normal weapons explicitly have the option to trade out both. The Relics don't.

So, still one relic.

If you just look across the page too you have the regular weapons ranged, melee all say the same

A model can replace his bolt pistol and/ or melee weapon with one of the following

Compared to the relic which says

A model can replace one weapon with one of the following.

The nail in the coffin of being able to run more then one relic right there for me. If they had intended it to be like that they would have used the same wording used for Ranged weapons and melee weapons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To add to all other prior arguments I made earlier.

I'm sorry but i still disagree.

has anyone email games-workshop about this? odds are you would get 3 different answer.

i would love to be able to take two relics, but it seams that i can only take one

 Baldsmug wrote:

 Sasa0mg wrote:
I think this reads pretty simple, and that people might want to lay off trying the cheese.

It reads

A model can replace one weapon (note it says one weapon, not both) with one of the following.

I fail to see where the argument that you are able to replace both weapons for any of the following.

I fail to see things how you see them. If i have one chainsword and i swap it for some relic sword than i have traded ONE weapon for ONE relic, if i then want to trade my bolt pistol for some relic gun then i have traded ONE weapon for ONE relic.
?

you are certainly failing to see here,

you just swapped two weapons, for two relics,

when you take ONE weapon, you take one weapon, taking one weapon, twice, is still taking two weapons...

your example above, although you have traded weapons for relics at a 1-1 ratio, you have in fact traded TWO weapons, for TWO relics, that is a fact (unless you want to argue that your marine armed with 2 relics, doesnt have two relics)

does the rule say "a model can replace one weapon, with one relic"

or does it say "a model can replace any/two/all weapon(s), with any/and equal $ of/two relic(s)"

every single other codex says any, or either, in the place of ONE,

one means one, you are literally arguing that 1=/=1,

based on the arguement that you are not taking in fact taking two relics, because you are taking them one at a time... twice...

every other codex has the specific wording, of ANY/OR/AND/ONE/BOTH/ect in their weapon options and those words mean different things, if it says one, it means one, not two.

zasz wrote:
has anyone email games-workshop about this? odds are you would get 3 different answer.

i would love to be able to take two relics, but it seams that i can only take one

i emailed them. i'll post when/if i get an answer.

I was about to e-mail them to ask for an answer, and then I saw your post.

Apparently GW is pretty inconsistent e-mail to e-mail though, so maybe a few more of us should e-mail. If we all get the same answers, then we could probably say it's definitive, but if we get different ones...then I guess we all just play it however we feel.

People are getting hung up on RAW, which makes sense to a certain extent, but frankly RAW is, and always has been, RAGWI (rules as GW intended). What's on the page doesn't mean a whole lot, as GW can change it however they chose to. They added two options to two units through the FAQ. The bike one I will still argue that bolt pistols were melee weapons, though allowing a swap for chainswords makes it less contentious, but the no specials on command squads was pretty cut and dry, and BOOM they said "whoops" and changed it. If GW wants people to be able to stack relics, then that's what the written rules meant.

Hopefully we'll have a definitive answer soon enough.

 Sasa0mg wrote:
If you just look across the page too you have the regular weapons ranged, melee all say the same

A model can replace his bolt pistol and/ or melee weapon with one of the following

Compared to the relic which says

A model can replace one weapon with one of the following.

The nail in the coffin of being able to run more then one relic right there for me. If they had intended it to be like that they would have used the same wording used for Ranged weapons and melee weapons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To add to all other prior arguments I made earlier.

Does any model able to take relics come with a bolter or any other ranged weapon that's not a bolt pistol? If not, I think you you're really spot on with this.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Sasa0mg wrote:
If you just look across the page too you have the regular weapons ranged, melee all say the same

A model can replace his bolt pistol and/ or melee weapon with one of the following

Compared to the relic which says

A model can replace one weapon with one of the following.

The nail in the coffin of being able to run more then one relic right there for me. If they had intended it to be like that they would have used the same wording used for Ranged weapons and melee weapons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To add to all other prior arguments I made earlier.

Does any model able to take relics come with a bolter or any other ranged weapon that's not a bolt pistol? If not, I think you you're really spot on with this.

MoTF comes with a Bolt Pistol and a Boltgun listed on his wargear.

Terminator Captain comes only with a Stormbolter as well.

 easysauce wrote:

 Baldsmug wrote:

 Sasa0mg wrote:
I think this reads pretty simple, and that people might want to lay off trying the cheese.

It reads

A model can replace one weapon (note it says one weapon, not both) with one of the following.

I fail to see where the argument that you are able to replace both weapons for any of the following.

I fail to see things how you see them. If i have one chainsword and i swap it for some relic sword than i have traded ONE weapon for ONE relic, if i then want to trade my bolt pistol for some relic gun then i have traded ONE weapon for ONE relic.
?

you are certainly failing to see here,

you just swapped two weapons, for two relics,

when you take ONE weapon, you take one weapon, taking one weapon, twice, is still taking two weapons...

your example above, although you have traded weapons for relics at a 1-1 ratio, you have in fact traded TWO weapons, for TWO relics, that is a fact (unless you want to argue that your marine armed with 2 relics, doesnt have two relics)

does the rule say "a model can replace one weapon, with one relic"

or does it say "a model can replace any/two/all weapon(s), with any/and equal $ of/two relic(s)"

every single other codex says any, or either, in the place of ONE,

one means one, you are literally arguing that 1=/=1,

based on the arguement that you are not taking in fact taking two relics, because you are taking them one at a time... twice...

every other codex has the specific wording, of ANY/OR/AND/ONE/BOTH/ect in their weapon options and those words mean different things, if it says one, it means one, not two.

I think you guys are reading too much into it. If your were ONLY allowed to take one relic max then why does the armor not need a weapon swap? i dont know why you would need the rules to read any other way i think its crystal clear that one weapon equals one relic and you can do that as many times as you have weapons. I have read everyones arguements and i still stand firm that you can have as many relics as you can carry and afford points wise. I feel this is the RAI and will play it as such and encourage people i play with to play it as such until an official ruling is made. Thank you for the thoughts.

The armor doesn't need a wepon swap because you can keep both weapons and wear the armor......

Also no one said you couldn't take one weapon and the armor. Just like in the Eldar dex you can take 1 weapon and "others" that don't replace weapons.

Wish they would have put more clarification on this and a couple other things in the new FAQ.

The fact that people want to run this combo will drive them to basically take any reason why they can do it as fact.

I would have to agree with the camp that says only one for one, not multiple relics without the exception in the text.

From a rules as written perspective, the rule clearly states, you can trade one (and no more than) weapon, for one relic per model. The fact that HQs have an entry in the selection that says they can pick any item from the chapter relics section is irrelevent to the argument. There are clear instances in all the hardback codices where the quick references are missing key words from the full entry, hence why they give you a page reference.

For all you fluff lovers, myself included, I would propose that even rules as intended has a poor argument because both in the character fluff and in the character entries for 40K, usually the character only has one chapter relic now as a signature wargear that is outlined in a little box with a brief fluff description of what the weapon is and a statline to accompany it. I cannot recall any having two weapons. Also, fluff-wise, chapter relics are so sacred that it is almost foolish to use them in battle for fear of losing them to the enemy, and only because the chapters greatest heroes are using them is it allowed for them to be wielded. Why then would one character, unless he were god-like, be allowed to have so much power or that much responsibility? Even a termy character is pushing the limits with a crux and whatever else they carry.

food for thought... the fluff stuff is more opinion based, but the top explanation is my argument.

We don't need a lesson on English here kids.

You can have a max of one relic per model, and no duplicates per army (this includes allies)

Why? Special issue wargear states:

"A model can take up to one of each of the following:"

Were as the relic section states:

"A model can replace one weapon with one of the following:"

This is all on page 159 of the new SM codex, and it's all on the right hand side of the page.

Please stop trying to break the codex, you're not winning anyone over doing so. I understand the US' average english comprehension scores have gone down since I was in school, but the info is on the same page and in the same area, so lets try a little harder.

havent heard back from gw yet, but figured id ask this. if it is the case of only being able to take one weapon relic, do you think its still possible to take, for example, the bolter and the armor?

 hivetyrant765 wrote:
havent heard back from gw yet, but figured id ask this. if it is the case of only being able to take one weapon relic, do you think its still possible to take, for example, the bolter and the armor?

I think you can take the armor and any one of the rest for which you swap a weapon, because you aren't swapping a weapon for the armor, and therefore the "swap one weapon for one of the following" wording appears to not apply. No swapped weapon = not invoking the "one weapon for one relic" rule. They'd need a specific rule stating that you cannot take more than one relic per character.

In fact, considering how obvious and simple it would have been to say "max 1 relic per character" the fact that they opted to go with the more complicated wording concerning weapon swaps implies that the intent was to allow you to take the armor and another weapon swapped relic.

Problem is, the armor is darn expensive, and for fewer points you can get artificer armor and a bike. I guess if you really want to stick your HQ in a transport or drop pod it makes sense, but otherwise it's costlier for somewhat less of an effect.

Yes.

Bolter/Bolt Pistol/Chainsword as standard.

-> Take armour (none weapon replace)
so you have
Bolter/Bolt Pistol/Chainsword/Armour

-> swap Chainsword for Relic
so you have
Bolter/Bolt Pistol/Relic/Armour

and then in my personal case

-> swap bolter for Plasma Pistol
Plasma Pistol/Bolt Pistol/Burning Blade/Armour

->Swap Bolt Pistol for Storm Shield
Plasma Pistol/Storm Shield/Relic/Armour

Assuming GW wanted only a 1 for 1 weapon swap with relics, and disallows 2 for 2, here's another question.

Which do you think is more effective (assuming TAC circumstances), a regular Storm Shield w/ the burning blade, or Shield Eternal with a Powerfist or Relic Blade

Obviously, without a bike, he's ID by s8, so I think it weighs in favor of the shield without a bike, as a thunder hammer, while slower on turn one, is likely to bring whatever you're smacking to your initiative on the second round.

But with a bike he's only ID by s10 and ID/force weapons. An S7, AP2 at initiative (5) sword is incredibly awesome. With fewer things causing ID, you can likely avoid them for the most part (don't assault the ironclad dread) though GK would be very dangerous for him.

So I guess, if you put a CM on a bike w/ artificer amor, which is better, Burning Blade + regular storm shield, or Shield Eternal + powerfist/thunderhammer?

Despite my point above, I'll likely go shield eternal, based on the fact that my luck tends to suck, so survivability is key.

Im going Artificer, burning blade, storm shield, Jump Pack (Plasma pistol as well if possible. do they have Bolters and bolt Pistols?)

Personally I would prefer the eternal shield and a power fist with artificer armor, mostly because the shield keeps you in the fight and gives you +1 to your deny the witch rolls.

The blade just makes you more killy vs things that won't ID you.

for my CF captain, i like the idea of the bolter, chainsword, and armor. relentless, so gets max shots with bolter whether moving or not, 2+/4+ (iron halo), and the chainsword makes him good in CC as well.

Dragging this back up because of another thread. There they asked whether a captain could take two lightning claws (consensus was yes). The wording for the sections is similar, and I think bears taking another look at.

The pertinent wording for melee weapons is "A model can replace his bolt pistol and/or melee weapon with one of the following" while the pertinent wording for relics is "A model can replace one weapon with one of the following"

The logic for relics was that they said you could do a ONE for ONE swap and not anything further, such as TWO for TWO. The Melee weapons section seems to mirror that, in that you can swap EITHER for ONE melee weapon, or BOTH for ONE melee weapon. If you swapped two, you'd be swapping BOTH for TWO or ONE for ONE TWICE, which based on the logic of the debate thus far would be no good.

The one difference is in the "and/or" line versus "one weapon", but I don't see that as suddenly allowing two swaps to happen since you still run into the "with ONE of the following" line, the same line which supposedly restricts relic stacking. The whole "bolt pistol and/or melee weapon" thing just gives you the option of what you're swapping. Either you swap your bolt pistol for ONE of the following; your melee weapon for ONE of the following, or BOTH for ONE of the following (which, while it wouldn't make great sense, doesn't not make sense because Stormshields are simply taken, not set to replace wargear).

So what's the deal here? Was there an FAQ that dealt with "and/or" in relation to "one weapon" that explicitly mentions that it allows two swaps, while other wording received no such explicit permission?

Because the moment you run into that "with one of the following line" the logic in the relic debate was you're restricted. At the same time though, it's widely accepted that you can take two lightning claws on a captain, so the "with one of the following" line may not be restrictive.

I agree. If a shop sells bags of pretzels and tells you "buy one, get one free!", and you get three bags of pretzels, you would still get the another three bags for free. No one would ever tell you that you got three bags of pretzels and therefore aren't eligible for "buy ONE, get one free".

After having a quick look at the various HQs, the only reason for them to differentiate here from "bolt pistol and/or melee weapon" is, that HQ characters come with a variety of ranged weapons, so just "bolt pistol" doesn't cut it. Since "his ranged and/or melee weapon" covers all weapons possibly in existence, it is just the same as "one weapon".

On a side note, is a melta bomb considered a weapon? If so, can I trade it for a relic?
For example, you could buy a combi-melta and storm shield for your terminator captain and then trade the melta bomb for the burning blade, in order to get both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon.

So I know it's a stretch -- but why would Vulkan be able to have multiple relics (2 of which are weapons) but not a Chapter Master?

I see the argument from both sides though and am curious how this will play out....

 Jimsolo wrote:
I also read it as one-for-one, not limited-to-one.

I see it like this as well.

If not,why does it not say " may take ONE item from the Relics table ".Plus it invalidates every codex that has come out for 6th if the wording is confirmed as one for one and that's it.

Pedro Kantor wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
I also read it as one-for-one, not limited-to-one.

I see it like this as well.

If not,why does it not say " may take ONE item from the Relics table ".Plus it invalidates every codex that has come out for 6th if the wording is confirmed as one for one and that's it.

where is it confirmed? i would like to put this to rest one way or another

 NickTheButcher wrote:
So I know it's a stretch -- but why would Vulkan be able to have multiple relics (2 of which are weapons) but not a Chapter Master?

I see the argument from both sides though and am curious how this will play out....

Because GW gave him multiple Relics? Why does a character with set wargear matter?

zasz wrote:

Pedro Kantor wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
I also read it as one-for-one, not limited-to-one.

I see it like this as well.

If not,why does it not say " may take ONE item from the Relics table ".Plus it invalidates every codex that has come out for 6th if the wording is confirmed as one for one and that's it.

where is it confirmed? i would like to put this to rest one way or another

Nowhere yet.But that is the point.Never did i look at any of the relic tables in the new codex's and think that an IC could not swap out both his original weapons for a relic each.I am very confused.

zasz wrote:

Pedro Kantor wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
I also read it as one-for-one, not limited-to-one.

I see it like this as well.

If not,why does it not say " may take ONE item from the Relics table ".Plus it invalidates every codex that has come out for 6th if the wording is confirmed as one for one and that's it.

where is it confirmed? i would like to put this to rest one way or another

Well, this thread pretty much is your answer. There are two ways to read it, and both have arguments for and against them. Present those argument to your opponents and let them choose which one it is.

is the army builder in the app working, has anyone tried giving a character multiple relics?

rigeld2 wrote:

Because GW gave him multiple Relics? Why does a character with set wargear matter?

Well, it matters because they gave him multiple Relics, creating a fluff precedent if nothing else.

Looking at it that way is actually interesting. The wargear list is called "Chapter Relics".

Then looking at the individual pages for SCs, they too have "Chapter Relics." Four special characters have multiple "Chapter Relics" in their profiles, and two more appear to be able to be upgraded with a second "Chapter Relic."

Marneus Calgar: Gauntlets of Ultramar, Armour of Antilochus (upgrade)
Captain Sicarius: Mantle of the Suzerain, Talassarian Tempest Blade
Tigurius: Hood of Hellfire, Rod of Tigurius
Kor'sarro Khan: Moonfang, Moondrakkan (upgrade)
Vulkan He'stan: Gauntlet of the Forge, Kesare's Mantle, Spear of Vulkan
The Emperor's Champion: Armour of the Faith, Black Sword

It's just an interesting fact surrounding this debate that six SCs are capable of having multiple "Chapter Relics." It creates a definite fluff precedent, and I think the use of the same "Chapter Relics" phrase gives some credibility to the idea that you can take multiple.

DogofWar1 wrote:
Marneus Calgar: Gauntlets of Ultramar, Armour of Antilochus (upgrade)

Armor can be swapped in addition to weapon

Captain Sicarius: Mantle of the Suzerain, Talassarian Tempest Blade

So weapon and $other.

Tigurius: Hood of Hellfire, Rod of Tigurius

Weapon and $other

Kor'sarro Khan: Moonfang, Moondrakkan (upgrade)

Weapon and $other

Vulkan He'stan: Gauntlet of the Forge, Kesare's Mantle, Spear of Vulkan

Weapon and 2 $other

The Emperor's Champion: Armour of the Faith, Black Sword

Weapon and $other.

It's just an interesting fact surrounding this debate that six SCs are capable of having multiple "Chapter Relics." It creates a definite fluff precedent, and I think the use of the same "Chapter Relics" phrase gives some credibility to the idea that you can take multiple.

You can take a weapon and the armor from the relic table - because the armor doesn't require a swap. That's not what people are trying to do, however so your fluff precedent proves absolutely nothing.

I'll chime in here - I just skimmed the first page and didn't read the rest so forgive me if my opinion is less educated.

When I first read through the armory section of the new codex, i immediately though "hmm, only 1 relic per character". it does say swap 1 weapon for 1 of the following. The armor is the exception, as previously noted, but unless it's FAQ'd otherwise i wont' be equipping any chapter masters with a burning blade AND a shield eternal.

rigeld2 wrote:

Vulkan He'stan: Gauntlet of the Forge, Kesare's Mantle, Spear of Vulkan

Weapon and 2 $other

So...is the heavy flamer relic not a weapon or the spear not a weapon?

DogofWar1 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Vulkan He'stan: Gauntlet of the Forge, Kesare's Mantle, Spear of Vulkan

Weapon and 2 $other

So...is the heavy flamer relic not a weapon or the spear not a weapon?

I misremembered - sorry. So there's one - single - special character with 2 Chapter Relic weapons, and you assume that sets a precedent that proves people wrong?

Yeah, no. You need more than that. Special characters are special.

rigeld2 wrote:

DogofWar1 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Vulkan He'stan: Gauntlet of the Forge, Kesare's Mantle, Spear of Vulkan

Weapon and 2 $other

So...is the heavy flamer relic not a weapon or the spear not a weapon?

I misremembered - sorry. So there's one - single - special character with 2 Chapter Relic weapons, and you assume that sets a precedent that proves people wrong?

Yeah, no. You need more than that. Special characters are special.

^ this... and as a caveat, you could say the reason they are special, or Unique in this case is because they have so many relics. Unique characters are not the standard for other characters! they are fluff based heros designed to give a cinematic edge to the game by contributed one-of-a-kind rules and wargear into a neat, tidey, and sometimes cheese-sealed package... < this was intended obviously...

According to RAW, you cannot have more than one relic weapon per character... this adds to the game in great ways and keeps from creating ridiculous builds that many people like to exploit for turbo gaming.

and I HATE!!!!!! Turbo Gamers...

 WarlordRob117 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

DogofWar1 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Vulkan He'stan: Gauntlet of the Forge, Kesare's Mantle, Spear of Vulkan

Weapon and 2 $other

So...is the heavy flamer relic not a weapon or the spear not a weapon?

I misremembered - sorry. So there's one - single - special character with 2 Chapter Relic weapons, and you assume that sets a precedent that proves people wrong?

Yeah, no. You need more than that. Special characters are special.

^ this... and as a caveat, you could say the reason they are special, or Unique in this case is because they have so many relics. Unique characters are not the standard for other characters! they are fluff based heros designed to give a cinematic edge to the game by contributed one-of-a-kind rules and wargear into a neat, tidey, and sometimes cheese-sealed package... < this was intended obviously...

According to RAW, you cannot have more than one relic weapon per character... this adds to the game in great ways and keeps from creating ridiculous builds that many people like to exploit for turbo gaming.

and I HATE!!!!!! Turbo Gamers...

Rules as written it could go either way. thats why we are talking about it.

 WarlordRob117 wrote:
and I HATE!!!!!! Turbo Gamers...

This isn't about "turbo gaming" or "WAAC" or any other derogatory term you want to throw out there. Stop inserting bias where there is none.
It's about people discussing rules, preferably without bias. With your statements you've just proven that one of the reasons for your opinion is bias - so why should we give your opinion any weight?
(Rhetorical question - not meant as an insult, just pointing out why statements like this hurt more than help)

 WarlordRob117 wrote:


According to RAW, you cannot have more than one relic weapon per character... this adds to the game in great ways and keeps from creating ridiculous builds that many people like to exploit for turbo gaming.

Here's the problem, the wording is not definitive. You're acting like it is, but it's not. It mirrors other sections of the wargear list with the "with one of the following" line. The implication, if you can't take multiple relics, is that you can't take multiple weapons from ANY section of the wargear list that ends with "with one of the following."

The first part of the sentence does not matter because the sentence is two separate thoughts combined into one, with the second thought being the limiting phrase.

"May replace his bolt pistol and/or melee weapon..." --\
"May replace his ranged and/or melee weapon...." ----->"with one of the following."
"May replace one weapon..." ----------------------------------/

Based upon the logic being used, the way the sentence reads it:
1. Look at your wargear and choose one or multiple items from it you wish to replace
2. Replace with a single piece of wargear, as per the "one" descriptor.

The first part of the sentence, no matter what it reads, ultimately just tells you WHAT you can replace with ONE piece of wargear.

The debate here is whether you can perform that function multiple times. RAI has long been that you CAN replace your weapons with multiples. The most common use was for lightning claws, but you could technically replace them with two powerfists or thunderhammers in order to get the extra attack.

Simply put, if RAI is that you can take multiple of the melee list (or some of the other lists for that matter) then you are equally allowed to take multiple relics. Alternatively, if you aren't allowed to take multiple relics, then you aren't allowed to take multiple items from the melee/ranged/etc. lists. In the absence of an FAQ differentiating the two, that is the way it appears to want to be viewed.

If there is still debate concerning the "one weapon" with "one weapon" thing on the relic list, consider the fact that you aren't simply replacing bolt pistols or a ccw, you have to roll the terminator options in there too. It has been mentioned that one could simply have said "ranged and/or melee weapon," but there are two reasons that doesn't really work here. 1. It is more efficient, both from a space on the page perspective and a word count perspective, to just say "weapon," since you can replace any weapon with a relic. 2. You'd still run into the same limiting phrase in the second half of the sentence.

Compare the special wargear section with the relic, melee, ranged, and other sections where the second phrase is "with one of the following." The special wargear section says take "any of the following." That clearly allows for multiple pieces to be taken, and they include the exceptions (bikes and jump packs can't mix, etc) in the notes. If we want to draw distinctions, we need to draw them not between melee/ranged/etc. VS. relic, but melee/ranged/relic/etc., VS. special wargear.

So I guess the key question now is, has GW limited players to a single weapon from the melee/ranged/etc. list? Because that is the logical conclusion UNLESS we accept that looping purchasing is allowed, as it was in previous editions.

I am of the view that GW would not have limited looping purchases, especially on lightning claws, and in the absence of an FAQ somehow stating that looping purchases of lightning claws, powerfists, dual pistols, etc., are NOT allowed, or that they are allowed via separate justification from relics, the conclusion that makes sense to me based on long standing RAI is that you can loop purchases from melee/ranged/relic lists and thus take two from said list.

RAW, is one weapon, the only arguement you have for multiple relics is an inccorect assumption that it is a ratio, not a set limit.

otherwise yes, you do break the game.

Take the IG codex,
from guard squad rules:
"two guardsmen may form a heavy weapon team armed with one of the following:"*lists heavy weapons*

by the "take as many relics as I want" crowd, we can read this as guard can take more then one heavy weapon in a squad, so long as we maintain the 2 guard-1 H weapon ratio.

this is, of course, wrong, as the limiter (two guardsmen) is passed as soon as we have 4 guard making 2 H weapon teams.

when you are given the option, to do something once, or twice, that is all you can do.

you cannot swap 4 guardsmen into H weapons teams, because it says you can replace 2, not 4.

same with relics as weapons, you cannot take 2 relic weapons, because it says you can replace one, not two.

they are both the exact same wording, they state the # of models, the # of weapons, yet no one who argues for multiple relics would allow guards men squads with 4 heavy weapons teams.

rigeld2 wrote:

 WarlordRob117 wrote:
and I HATE!!!!!! Turbo Gamers...

This isn't about "turbo gaming" or "WAAC" or any other derogatory term you want to throw out there. Stop inserting bias where there is none.
It's about people discussing rules, preferably without bias. With your statements you've just proven that one of the reasons for your opinion is bias - so why should we give your opinion any weight?
(Rhetorical question - not meant as an insult, just pointing out why statements like this hurt more than help)

Dont really care whether accept my opinion... it is what it is... but you attacking a harmless comment is only going to make me presume that you yourself like to push things to the limit and squeeze whatever you can out of the rules to suit your own interest. I will presume this is not the case.

The counter argument for 1=1 simply exists because people want to be able to create these outrageous combinations to further their own agenda... that is all... everyone here knows that hence the frustration. That is why my comment is warranted. Because people are trying reason or read into something that doesnt exist. This isnt rules as Interpreted, this is rules as written and rules as written state one weapon for one relic, unless there is a footnote allowing the possession of multiple relic. (no insult intended or implied, but you should ease off the gas a tad).

 WarlordRob117 wrote:

The counter argument for 1=1 simply exists because people want to be able to create these outrageous combinations to further their own agenda... that is all... everyone here knows that hence the frustration.

No, they don't. I know no such thing. I'm reading this thread because I legitimately see both arguments as having merit to them. I understand being completely convinced of your point of view (it's happened to me in other threads) but on this issue, there are people who believe the other side has a rules-legal standing. It doesn't make them 'turbogamers' or 'waac players' for wanting to decipher the actual meaning of the rules.

So you aren't allowed to replace multiple items for multiple items from the melee or ranged lists? Because that is the implication.

I mean, if that's the result, fine, we'll deal with it, but that stands in opposition to longstanding precedent that you could take two of those weapons on your captains/CMs/etc. Heck, the CM picture is toting two thunder hammers. Perhaps that's what they intended, perhaps GW felt that dual wielding specialist weapons somehow broke the game.

DogofWar1 wrote:
So you aren't allowed to replace multiple items for multiple items from the melee or ranged lists? Because that is the implication.

I mean, if that's the result, fine, we'll deal with it, but that stands in opposition to longstanding precedent that you could take two of those weapons on your captains/CMs/etc. Heck, the CM picture is toting two thunder hammers. Perhaps that's what they intended, perhaps GW felt that dual wielding specialist weapons somehow broke the game.

You're refering to a specialist weapon combination that uses descriptive language to illustrate why a character can take mulptiple weapons. Chapter Relics are something else entirely making that argument invalid. In the unit entries it clearly states what you can and cannot take (i.e. missile launcher in a tac squad and criteria to do so). The same goes for wielding two lightning claws, where is describes "replace bolt pistol or CCW for (insert options here).

 WarlordRob117 wrote:

DogofWar1 wrote:
So you aren't allowed to replace multiple items for multiple items from the melee or ranged lists? Because that is the implication.

I mean, if that's the result, fine, we'll deal with it, but that stands in opposition to longstanding precedent that you could take two of those weapons on your captains/CMs/etc. Heck, the CM picture is toting two thunder hammers. Perhaps that's what they intended, perhaps GW felt that dual wielding specialist weapons somehow broke the game.

You're refering to a specialist weapon combination that uses descriptive language to illustrate why a character can take mulptiple weapons. Chapter Relics are something else entirely making that argument invalid. In the unit entries it clearly states what you can and cannot take (i.e. missile launcher in a tac squad and criteria to do so). The same goes for wielding two lightning claws, where is describes "replace bolt pistol or CCW for (insert options here).

Except you are leaving out the MOST IMPORTANT PHRASE in the section, and quite possibly the whole page.

"with ONE of the following."

It DOES NOT MATTER what comes before. The "bolt pistol and/or melee weapon" part simply states what you may replace with ONE item from the list.

Either I:
A) replace my bolt pistol with ONE weapon
B) replace my melee weapon with ONE weapon
or
C) replace both with ONE weapon

If you have lightning clawS you have replaced BOTH with TWO, which according to your own logic on the relic weapons, is not allowed.

The other alternative is that you are allowed to perform A and B as separate actions. HOWEVER, if that is allowed, then that similarly should apply to the relic section. In both situations you are replacing one weapon with another one weapon, the only difference is that the melee section is more restrictive than the relic section on what may be replaced.

I think the IG example can be used, but I would urge some caution there. First, it's in a book written for a previous edition, and the example does not come from a wargear list. If the language remains the same and the function remains the same in 6th, then perhaps it is the same. The other thing is that you are changing the statline of the unit, and creating a new model within the unit. That is slightly different from adding, subtracting, or replacing wargear from a single model.

However, if the IG example if persuasive, it only further illustrates that it is not allowed for a model to take two melee weapons, in addition to ranged and relic weapons. The "one of the following" line bars multiple replacements if the IG example stands. It may not be a totally accurate and up to date rule though, for the reasons I stated one paragraph up.

DogofWar1 wrote:

 WarlordRob117 wrote:

DogofWar1 wrote:
So you aren't allowed to replace multiple items for multiple items from the melee or ranged lists? Because that is the implication.

I mean, if that's the result, fine, we'll deal with it, but that stands in opposition to longstanding precedent that you could take two of those weapons on your captains/CMs/etc. Heck, the CM picture is toting two thunder hammers. Perhaps that's what they intended, perhaps GW felt that dual wielding specialist weapons somehow broke the game.

You're refering to a specialist weapon combination that uses descriptive language to illustrate why a character can take mulptiple weapons. Chapter Relics are something else entirely making that argument invalid. In the unit entries it clearly states what you can and cannot take (i.e. missile launcher in a tac squad and criteria to do so). The same goes for wielding two lightning claws, where is describes "replace bolt pistol or CCW for (insert options here).

Except you are leaving out the MOST IMPORTANT PHRASE in the section, and quite possibly the whole page.

"with ONE of the following."

It DOES NOT MATTER what comes before. The "bolt pistol and/or melee weapon" part simply states what you may replace with ONE item from the list.

Either I:
A) replace my bolt pistol with ONE weapon
B) replace my melee weapon with ONE weapon
or
C) replace both with ONE weapon

If you have lightning clawS you have replaced BOTH with TWO, which according to your own logic on the relic weapons, is not allowed.

The other alternative is that you are allowed to perform A and B as separate actions. HOWEVER, if that is allowed, then that similarly should apply to the relic section. In both situations you are replacing one weapon with another one weapon, the only difference is that the melee section is more restrictive than the relic section on what may be replaced.

I think the IG example can be used, but I would urge some caution there. First, it's in a book written for a previous edition, and the example does not come from a wargear list. If the language remains the same and the function remains the same in 6th, then perhaps it is the same. The other thing is that you are changing the statline of the unit, and creating a new model within the unit. That is slightly different from adding, subtracting, or replacing wargear from a single model.

However, if the IG example if persuasive, it only further illustrates that it is not allowed for a model to take two melee weapons, in addition to ranged and relic weapons. The "one of the following" line bars multiple replacements if the IG example stands. It may not be a totally accurate and up to date rule though, for the reasons I stated one paragraph up.

No Sir...

It DOES* MATTER what comes before. The "bolt pistol and/or melee weapon" part simply states what you may replace EACH OR ONE ITEM* with ANOTHER* item from the list.

Either I:
A) replace my bolt pistol with ONE weapon
B) replace my melee weapon with ONE weapon

(option c is unnecessary as options A and B combined fulfill the OR in the statement... You see how that is different? "Replace on weapon with one relic" as opposed to "replace bolter/bolt pistol and/or close combat weapon with one item"?

The and/or allows you multiple swaps, whereas only being able to swap one weapon means you can only ever swap for one. And/or allows multiple swaps, one weapon means one swap...

You guy are still discussing this? I wasn't aware there was anything more to it than was on page 159...

 WarlordRob117 wrote:


No Sir...

It DOES* MATTER what comes before. The "bolt pistol and/or melee weapon" part simply states what you may replace EACH OR ONE ITEM* with ANOTHER* item from the list.

Either I:
A) replace my bolt pistol with ONE weapon
B) replace my melee weapon with ONE weapon

(option c is unnecessary as options A and B combined fulfill the OR in the statement... You see how that is different? "Replace on weapon with one relic" as opposed to "replace bolter/bolt pistol and/or close combat weapon with one item"?

The and/or allows you multiple swaps, whereas only being able to swap one weapon means you can only ever swap for one. And/or allows multiple swaps, one weapon means one swap...

You are altering the RAW.

It doesn't say "replace bolt pistol and/or melee weapon with ANOTHER weapon/of the following" or "any weapon/of the following" it says ONE.

As in, you get ONE, and no others.

You're interpreting the sentence to mean "I can replace my bolt pistol with one weapon, and then I can replace my melee weapon with another." This is not how it reads.

Break the and/or up:

"replace bolt pistol and/or melee weapon with one of the following"
- replace bolt pistol and melee weapon with one of the following
- replace bolt pistol or melee weapon with one of the following

The first means both should be replaced with one as the "AND" connotes that two prerequisites must be met to fulfill the action after the "with." The second means either should be replaced with one, with no option for looping since you've already swapped for ONE. No where does it allow you to replace one, then replace another one.

The way you are interpreting it, it ought to have read "replace bolt pistol with one of the following and/or replace melee weapon with one of the following." If it did read that way, then you would be right, since you could replace your bolt pistol for one AND replace your melee weapon for another, but it does not read that way.

DogofWar1 wrote:

 WarlordRob117 wrote:


No Sir...

It DOES* MATTER what comes before. The "bolt pistol and/or melee weapon" part simply states what you may replace EACH OR ONE ITEM* with ANOTHER* item from the list.

Either I:
A) replace my bolt pistol with ONE weapon
B) replace my melee weapon with ONE weapon

(option c is unnecessary as options A and B combined fulfill the OR in the statement... You see how that is different? "Replace on weapon with one relic" as opposed to "replace bolter/bolt pistol and/or close combat weapon with one item"?

The and/or allows you multiple swaps, whereas only being able to swap one weapon means you can only ever swap for one. And/or allows multiple swaps, one weapon means one swap...

You are altering the RAW.

It doesn't say "replace bolt pistol and/or melee weapon with ANOTHER weapon/of the following" or "any weapon/of the following" it says ONE.

As in, you get ONE, and no others.

You're interpreting the sentence to mean "I can replace my bolt pistol with one weapon, and then I can replace my melee weapon with another." This is not how it reads.

Break the and/or up:

"replace bolt pistol and/or melee weapon with one of the following"
- replace bolt pistol and melee weapon with one of the following
- replace bolt pistol or melee weapon with one of the following

The first means both should be replaced with one as the "AND" connotes that two prerequisites must be met to fulfill the action after the "with." The second means either should be replaced with one, with no option for looping since you've already swapped for ONE. No where does it allow you to replace one, then replace another one.

The way you are interpreting it, it ought to have read "replace bolt pistol with one of the following and/or replace melee weapon with one of the following." If it did read that way, then you would be right, since you could replace your bolt pistol for one AND replace your melee weapon for another, but it does not read that way.

you just did the same thing! you cant break the sentence down because it takes the whole thing out of context... so now we are both wrong, huh?

the point of the and/or is so you dont have to switch your weapons if you dont want to, meaning if you wanted to change out just your bolt pistol and not your close combat weapon you could do it, thats what the or is for. The "and" is for if you want to replace both of them, as in you BP and CCW each for one item, as in your BP for one item and Your CCW for one item...

1. Select Chainsword. Go to Melee rules. "A model can replace his bolt pistol and/or melee weapon with one of the following:". Replace chainsword with Power weapon.
2. Select Bolt pistol. Go to Melee rules. "A model can replace his bolt pistol and/or melee weapon with one of the following:". Replace pistol with Power weapon.
3. Go back to Melee rules. It says you may "replace his pistol and/or melee weapon with one of the following." But you've exchanged pistol and/or melee weapon with TWO of the following. That's against the rule.
--Error--Rules not followed--Start Over--
1. Select Chainsword. Go to Melee rules. "A model can replace his bolt pistol and/or melee weapon with one of the following:". Replace chainsword with Power weapon.
2. Select Bolt pistol. Go to Ranged rules. "A model can replace his bolt pistol and/or melee weapon with one of the following:". Replace bolt pistol with Grav-pistol.
3. Go back to Melee rules. It says you may "replace his pistol and/or melee weapon with one of the following." Check.
4. Go back to Ranged rule. It says you may "replace his pistol and/or melee weapon with one of the following." Check.
--Yay!--

It's the same with the Relics.
1. Select Bolt pistol. Go to Relics rules. It says you can "replace one weapon with one of the following [relics]:". Replace bolt pistol for Burning Blade.
2. Select chainsword. Go to Relics rules. It says you can "replace one weapon with one of the following [relics]:". Replace chainsword for the Shield Eternal.
3. Go back to Relic rule. It says you may "replace one weapon with one of the following." But you've exchanged TWO weapons with TWO of the following. That's against the rule.
--Error--Rules not followed--Start Over--

*Edited for clarity*

 WarlordRob117 wrote:


you just did the same thing! you cant break the sentence down because it takes the whole thing out of context... so now we are both wrong, huh?

the point of the and/or is so you dont have to switch your weapons if you dont want to, meaning if you wanted to change out just your bolt pistol and not your close combat weapon you could do it, thats what the or is for. The "and" is for if you want to replace both of them, as in you BP and CCW each for one item, as in your BP for one item and Your CCW for one item...

Breaking the sentence down to read "and" and "or" doesn't take it out of context. The point of "and/or" in a sentence is to create two scenarios, one of which breaks into two further sub-scenarios. "X and/or Y" can have three results, only X, only Y, or X and Y. It effectively is shorthand for two longer sentences/phrases, "You may replace X and Y with Z, or you may replace X or Y with Z."

If you said "I can have pizza and/or wings for dinner," it means I can have pizza or wings or both.

But once you've added the second part of the sentence, you have to complete that first part of the sentence before moving on.

"I can have pizza and/or wings for one of the following: dinner or 4th meal." You can't have pizza for one meal and wings for another, that's against the grammatical rules.

What you keep doing, whether you realize it or not, is adding words.

You said "the 'and' is for if you want to replace both of them, as in your BP and CCW each for one item, as in your BP for one item and your ccw for one item."

Except you've added the word "each" into the ruling. The rule reads "replace BP and/or MW with one of the following" NOT "replace BP and/or MW with one of the following EACH." You are treating those two sentences as functionally the same. They are not.

Similarly, you previously said "the 'bolt pistol and/or melee weapon' part simply states what you may replace EACH OR ONE ITEM* with ANOTHER* item from the list."

Again though, you've added the word "each" and "another" into the RAI somewhere where it does not necessarily exist. You, again, are treating "replace BP and/or MW with one of the following" as equal to either "replace EACH of your BP and/or MW with one of the following" or "replace your BP with one of the following and/or another melee weapon with one of the following." In the first you're given explicit permission to replace them separately from the "and" while still replacing both, while in the second you're breaking it up sufficient to create two separate replacements.


Elric Greywolf, if he's saying what I think he's saying, has it right, assuming RAI is not set to allow replacement for two "melee/ranged/relic" items. You can't take two items from any one of the lists, but may mix and match between the melee, ranged, and relic lists.

 juraigamer wrote:
You guy are still discussing this? I wasn't aware there was anything more to it than was on page 159...

IKR!

Why would they write "A model can replace ONE weapon with ONE of the following." if it didn't, you know, mean one of the following. Had they said "... any of the following." there would be no debate if people could select multiple. The foot note for the armor indomitus could remain the exact same. However G-dubs went out of their way to say "ONE of the following"

So this is the exact same wording as in CSM, DA and Eldar codixes. Hasn't this question been asked and answered for any of them? (Can't be arsed to go though all the FAQs.)

 Crimson wrote:
So this is the exact same wording as in CSM, DA and Eldar codixes. Hasn't this question been asked and answered for any of them? (Can't be arsed to go though all the FAQs.)

I believe the wording is slightly different, but I know CSM can only take one.

From wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
So this is the exact same wording as in CSM, DA and Eldar codixes. Hasn't this question been asked and answered for any of them? (Can't be arsed to go though all the FAQs.)

I believe the wording is slightly different, but I know CSM can only take one.

Wording is the same, but I can't find this on CSM FAQ.

It has come up with every codex release except Daemons. GW either can't or won't clarify.

 Crimson wrote:

From wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
So this is the exact same wording as in CSM, DA and Eldar codixes. Hasn't this question been asked and answered for any of them? (Can't be arsed to go though all the FAQs.)

I believe the wording is slightly different, but I know CSM can only take one.

Wording is the same, but I can't find this on CSM FAQ.

Wording is the same, and it's not in the FAQ. I assume he's remembering that the majority consensus at the time seemed to be that because you can swap one weapon you can only swap one weapon. Of course, that was Chaos Space Marines rather than the poster boys.

So i am looking at my C:SM at the moment. I have read most of this thread ( i admit its not every word). I am not seeing the one thing that, to me allows multiple relics.

pg.163 Chapter Master entry. Under the options heading it gives bullet points. We all know what they look like. The 5th one down reads "A Chapter master in power armour or artificer armour may take items from the Melee Weapons, Ranged Weapons, Special Issue Wargear (here is the key part imo) AND/OR Chapter Relics.

If you can only exchange 1 for 1 how can you have AND/OR?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Found another entry that clinches the argument for me.
pg.158 of the codex. Its the discription of the army list entries.
lots of circled numbers being described at the bottom of the page. Number 8 is the important one.

#8 "Options: This section lists all of the upgrades you may add to the unit if you wish to do so, alongside the associated points costs for each. 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."

It goes on to describe pts, ded transports and such. I just included the relavant part.

Because you can exchange for a ranged weapon and a relic.
That has literally nothing to do with exchanging for two relics.

The relic rules do not say and/or.

The presence of "and/or" in the Melee weapons implies that they want you to be able to take multiples from that list.

Relics have not got that and/or, so I would say that means they don't want you to take multiples.

#8 "Options: This section lists all of the upgrades you may add to the unit if you wish to do so, alongside the associated points costs for each. 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."

So I will take an example of a random Space Marine Captain. Captain Bob of the Super Space Monkies Chapter.

Bob carries a Bolt gun and a chain sword.
He wants to replace his Bolt gun with his chapters revered Bolter..Primarchs Wrath. according to the rules he can for 20 points.
He decides he needs some protection from the mean traitor Imperial Guard he is going to be fighting today so he trades his Chain Sword for the Sheild Eternal. Paying the 35 (unsure of this cost) points. He could also don the most super spiffy armor his Chapter has, however that makes him rather expensive.

Now Captain Bob has obeyed the discription of the Options location on his Army List entry. Changed one or both weapons and payed the cost for them.

Wether or not the actual relic entry on his options page says and/or or not. The discription of the options box listed in the codex says you CAN change one OR both, as long as you pay for them.

That's incorrect. The relic requirements are more specific than the chapter master options.

Replacing 3 is not replacing 1. Bob has made illegal selections.

I can understand the arguement with the sheild, I do not agree, but I can see the issue. The armor, you replace your armor with it. Since it has been argeed that since it doesnt require a weapon swap it is a ok trade.

I am confused though. I would think that a section of the army rulebook thats states trading multiple weapons is OK as long as you pay for it would basicly mean if he decided to carry the Emperors Q-tip and Dorns toilet paper as weapons ok....As long as you pay to swap your Bolt gun (pistol, or Bolt gun) and Chain sword.

I mean its in the army RULEBOOK?! I admit I am new to the game so please please show me something that says disregard what army rulebook says. I am having a hard enough time figuring out all of the "this is the rule from the BRB" oh but this book says this so ignore the BRB...to add something that I THINK should be there. I believe, and no offense meant, I will follow the book but find a way to spend the points for the second relic should my opponent desire it only be one.

Alexi wrote:
I can understand the arguement with the sheild, I do not agree, but I can see the issue. The armor, you replace your armor with it. Since it has been argeed that since it doesnt require a weapon swap it is a ok trade.

I am confused though. I would think that a section of the army rulebook thats states trading multiple weapons is OK as long as you pay for it would basicly mean if he decided to carry the Emperors Q-tip and Dorns toilet paper as weapons ok....As long as you pay to swap your Bolt gun (pistol, or Bolt gun) and Chain sword.

I mean its in the army RULEBOOK?! I admit I am new to the game so please please show me something that says disregard what army rulebook says. I am having a hard enough time figuring out all of the "this is the rule from the BRB" oh but this book says this so ignore the BRB...to add something that I THINK should be there. I believe, and no offense meant, I will follow the book but find a way to spend the points for the second relic should my opponent desire it only be one.

You should actually read the rules for the relic section in your codex. Not just the chapter master options. You should understand the difference between the two.

umm I would seriously like to know where you are getting Chapter master? My example used a Captain and the rules section I quoted was ( am looking at the codex now for the page) page 158. Titled The Emperor's Sword.

The how to use the army list page. highlighted number 8.

as for the relics page. page 127. it states only one of EACH item may be choosen per army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So, please help me understand where the only 1 per character is. page number? FAQ? fortune cookie that i wouldnt get causse they are yuckie? please? I would rather NOT be TFG

Alexi wrote:
umm I would seriously like to know where you are getting Chapter master? My example used a Captain and the rules section I quoted was ( am looking at the codex now for the page) page 158. Titled The Emperor's Sword.

Sorry. Irrelevant difference - someone else used chapter master.

as for the relics page. page 127. it states only one of EACH item may be choosen per army.

Page 159 - your know, the actual rules for purchasing Chapter Relics (point costs and restrictions).

So the place it says one weapon with one of the following? Going off pg 158, I can replace 1 weapon with Primarchs Wrath, my bolt gun and one weapon with teeth of terra my chain sword

Alexi wrote:
So the place it says one weapon with one of the following? Going off pg 158, I can replace 1 weapon with Primarchs Wrath, my bolt gun and one weapon with teeth of terra my chain sword

So you've failed to read the thread.

If you've replaced 2 weapons, have you replaced one weapon?

And yet, the How to use the army entry states that if it says and/or you may replace one or both. so since the How to use this book page says you can replace both, where are you getting that 2 isnt legal? Yes...1 isnt 2 cause 2 is more then one and the individual entry says 1. However....just please. read page 158. all of it. its one page. if then you still say no, please give me a page/rule from a book, or an faq. or heck even from some high muckity muck at GW works. Opinions are great....for just that. you opinion

rigeld2 wrote:

Alexi wrote:
So the place it says one weapon with one of the following? Going off pg 158, I can replace 1 weapon with Primarchs Wrath, my bolt gun and one weapon with teeth of terra my chain sword

So you've failed to read the thread.

If you've replaced 2 weapons, have you replaced one weapon?

Yeah twice. I'll admit though, its unclear. If they wanted just one, they'd have used the special issue wargear wording instead of the current one.... but if they wanted it the other way they could have used the ranged,melee,or special weapons rulings. We'll have to wait and see how tourneys handle it... and wait much much longer to see how an FAQ handles it.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Sothas wrote:
Let me help.

C:SM pg. 159 "A model can replace one weapon with one of the following."

I read this as I replace a bolt pistol (one weapon) for one relic. Then I replace a chainsword (one weapon) for one more relic.

So you've replaced 2 items with 2 relics. Is that what the rule allows?

It is only saying the model can replace one weapon for one relic. So you can't replace one weapon for two relics.

RAW it makes no additional restriction. You are using implied logic that you cannot use the list again with another weapon.

At best all you can argue is that its ambiguous. Because its perfectly logical to allow the model to place a weapon with a relic as long as he has one to replace.

To back this up:
C:SM page 163 "A Chapter Master in power armour or artificer armour may take items from the Melee Weapons, Ranged Weapons, Special Issue Wargear, and/or Chapter Relics lists."
I highlighted items because it is plural. Multiple items from all of these lists.

No, you're misapplying the plural. That word must be plural because there are multiple lists (and you are not required to pick a single list).
That has literally nothing to do with a restriction on the list itself.

And I would argue you are using similar logic. You are misapplying the use of the word 'one' in the armory rule. All it is saying is that selecting a relic is a one to one weapon for relic, and not two for one, one for two, etc. Implying it means anything more is arguing RAI.

 winterman wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Sothas wrote:
Let me help.

C:SM pg. 159 "A model can replace one weapon with one of the following."

I read this as I replace a bolt pistol (one weapon) for one relic. Then I replace a chainsword (one weapon) for one more relic.

So you've replaced 2 items with 2 relics. Is that what the rule allows?

It is only saying the model can replace one weapon for one relic. So you can't replace one weapon for two relics.

RAW it makes no additional restriction. You are using implied logic that you cannot use the list again with another weapon.

At best all you can argue is that its ambiguous. Because its perfectly logical to allow the model to place a weapon with a relic as long as he has one to replace.

To back this up:
C:SM page 163 "A Chapter Master in power armour or artificer armour may take items from the Melee Weapons, Ranged Weapons, Special Issue Wargear, and/or Chapter Relics lists."
I highlighted items because it is plural. Multiple items from all of these lists.

No, you're misapplying the plural. That word must be plural because there are multiple lists (and you are not required to pick a single list).
That has literally nothing to do with a restriction on the list itself.

And I would argue you are using similar logic. You are misapplying the use of the word 'one' in the armory rule. All it is saying is that selecting a relic is a one to one weapon for relic, and not two for one, one for two, etc. Implying it means anything more is arguing RAI.

right, so my 10 man guard squad can take] two guard, and arm them with one heavy weapon according to the rules,

acording to your, incorrect, assumption, I can then take another two guardsmen, and give them one heavy weapon as well, and ignore the fact that I have now taken 4 guard, and given them two heavy weapons.

you are ASSUMING that "may trade ONE weapon, for ONE relic" implies/intend a ratio, and that is incorrect RAW,

raw is one weapon, for one relic,

as soon as you have swapped two weapons, for two relics, you have broken the rules.



C:SM page 163 "A Chapter Master in power armour or artificer armour may take items from the Melee Weapons, Ranged Weapons, Special Issue Wargear, and/or Chapter Relics lists."
I highlighted items because it is plural. Multiple items from all of these lists.

is in fact, not your permission to take multiple relics... it says you can take items (plural) from multiple (plural) lists...

so your argument, is that it should rightly say ".....can take ITEM from the melee, ranged weapons, special issue wargear, ect ect" list?

that isnt proper english, that word ITEMS is pluralized because it HAS to be to be applied to MULTIPLE lists.... that is not even close to overriding the very specific RAW of "ONE weapon, for ONE relic"

if you end up, through any means, with having swapped 2 weapons, for two relics, you have broken the above rule.

And yet, by saying you CANT swap one for one twice breaks the RAW on pg 158. Where it says and/or means one OR both as long as you pay for both

It's ambiguous based on RAW, and as Happyjew mentioned a page ago, GW has either decided that it can't clarify, or chosen not to.

People are focusing on the "one weapon" for "one weapon" part, but it, grammatically, is functionally the same as "bolt pistol and/or melee weapon" since the phrase "with ONE of the following" follows it. That is how it is in terms of language. Now in terms of RAI, there may be a difference, but again, GW hasn't clarified.

It is widely agreed upon that you can take two melee weapons (such as lightning claws), and as such the language for relics, in the absence of an FAQ opposing it, should be interpreted the same as the language for melee/ranged weapons.

The only difference between "bolt pistol and/or melee weapon" for "one weapon" and "one weapon" for "one weapon" is that you can be in terminator armor when taking relics, and therefore you need to be able to replace more than bolt pistols and/or melee weapons for relics, you need to be able to replace any given weapon for any given relic.

Now, here's the thing, if it was widely agreed upon that you could not take more than one melee weapon, then perhaps it would make sense that you couldn't take more than one relic, but the consensus on melee weapons creates an opening on relic weapons.

Welcome to poor rule writing, your teacher today will be Game Workshop.....

I have addressed the and/or for 'pistol and/or melee' in the past because it is a good example of how not to write a rule. By a very logical and rule as written examination, the model exchanging a bolt pistol and melee weapon would only gain one of the listed weapons in return. After all even though, previously in the book, it has explained that and/or can exchange both as long as they pay costs for both, that doesn't over-ride the more specific rule found later telling you 'one of the following.' However this rule as written explanation can not be correct because it presents a choice that doesn't make any sense. There is no benefit for exchanging both, so why waste all this ink explaining how you go about exchanging both if there was never any intention to allow two items to be exchangeable for two items by the and/or clause.

In short: Whom in their right mind exchanges two weapons for one when the option to exchange one for one exists?

Now I will admit I have not consumed and digested the Space Marine codex, I have barely flicked through it. However, from what people have put here in relation to the relic, I can not say the same ambitious nature exists. There is nothing in the relic rule which states and/or nor is there anything which seems to grant permission to take the rule twice. While it is a situation of comparing oranges and lemons, seeing it is a little closer then apples, it still is two completely different wording so one can not be used as precedent for the other. We might be wrong and the intent might be to take multiple relics, but the rule as written does not create the same confusion as the inclusion of and/or before 'one of the following.'

But, if you can only trade for one relic, then you must only be able to trade for one melee weapon, as the relevant wording that controls the number of choices that you can make from each is identical.

Both say: You may trade x for one y. If the one relic interpretation really is correct, the the melee and/or language would serve only to allow players to trade two weapons for one. This is obviously not how the author meant the writing to be interpreted (unless the VV box with the twin lightning claw marine on the front was a taunt rather than a preview).

Rapture wrote:
But, if you can only trade for one relic, then you must only be able to trade for one melee weapon, as the relevant wording that controls the number of choices that you can make from each is identical.

Both say: You may trade x for one y. If the one relic interpretation really is correct, the the melee and/or language would serve only to allow players to trade two weapons for one. This is obviously not how the author meant the writing to be interpreted (unless the VV box with the twin lightning claw marine on the front was a taunt rather than a preview).

Except of course for the rule that says and/or allows two swaps (page 158).
Does the relic requirement say and/or?

rigeld2 wrote:

Except of course for the rule that says and/or allows two swaps (page 158).
Does the relic requirement say and/or?

Except of course that the conjunctions cannot change the effect of the rule because they are inside of a clause.

The two clauses for both the melee and relic rules are 'can replace x' and 'with y.' What the x and the y are cannot, in the English language, have any impact on the interaction of those two clauses.

If consistency in the Wargear List is important (which it is), then the number of selections that a model can make from the melee, ranged, and relic tables must all be the same. The and/or does not changes this as it is not capable of change it.

Rapture wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Except of course for the rule that says and/or allows two swaps (page 158).
Does the relic requirement say and/or?

Except of course that the conjunctions cannot change the effect of the rule because they are inside of a clause.

The two clauses for both the melee and relic rules are 'can replace x' and 'with y.' What the x and the y are cannot, in the English language, have any impact on the interaction of those two clauses.

If consistency in the Wargear List is important (which it is), then the number of selections that a model can make from the melee, ranged, and relic tables must all be the same. The and/or does not changes this as it is not capable of change it.

According to page 158, the and/or absolutely does change it.
It's like rules matter or something...

Are you suggesting that "you may exchange either or both" allows for something other than trading 'either or both?' Because that would be stupid. The language 'either or both' alone does not alter the interaction of the two clauses that are contained witin a number of the tables in the Wargear List. This is just simple English. Go look up clauses and conjunctions if you are still having trouble.

The rules are that you may exchange x for one y. The x could be 'a pastrami sandwich,' 'a tuna fish and/or your favorite book,' or 'a flute and a kazoo, and/or an egret' - none of these alternatives of varying complexity make any difference. Because the x is contained inside of it own clause, it has no impact on how many y's you can take. The only effect the 'and/or' has, using the RAW stance that would limit relic weapons to one selection per model is to allow a model to replace two of the weapons that it has for one selection from the relevant chart. You might be stamping your feet because no one would ever trade two when they can trade one, but that is why people should disagree with that RAW stance.

If models can only take one relic, then they can only take one melee weapon. The presence of a conjunction inside of one of the rule clauses is completely irrelevant with relation to how many selections can be made as a result of the two clauses interacting.

Rapture wrote:
Are you suggesting that "you may exchange either or both" allows for something other than trading 'either or both?' Because that would be stupid. The language 'either or both' alone does not alter the interaction of the two clauses that are contained witin a number of the tables in the Wargear List. This is just simple English. Go look up clauses and conjunctions if you are still having trouble.

You may replace either or both provided you pay the point cost for each. You really should address the entire rule and not just part of it.
Meaning you're getting something for both exchanges.

If models can only take one relic, then they can only take one melee weapon. The presence of a conjunction inside of one of the rule clauses is completely irrelevant with relation to how many selections can be made as a result of the two clauses interacting.

The actual rules disagree with you. Perhaps you'd like to address rules instead of pretending I'm somehow butchering English?

rigeld2 wrote:

Rapture wrote:
Are you suggesting that "you may exchange either or both" allows for something other than trading 'either or both?' Because that would be stupid. The language 'either or both' alone does not alter the interaction of the two clauses that are contained witin a number of the tables in the Wargear List. This is just simple English. Go look up clauses and conjunctions if you are still having trouble.

You may replace either or both provided you pay the point cost for each. You really should address the entire rule and not just part of it.
Meaning you're getting something for both exchanges.

If models can only take one relic, then they can only take one melee weapon. The presence of a conjunction inside of one of the rule clauses is completely irrelevant with relation to how many selections can be made as a result of the two clauses interacting.

The actual rules disagree with you. Perhaps you'd like to address rules instead of pretending I'm somehow butchering English?

That 'provided...' language is rendered ineffective by the rest of the rule. Sure, it indicates something, but a RAW approach that would limit the selection of relic weapons never allows what the 'provided...' language indicates to become effective. It is preceded by that fact that 'either or both' only means 'either or both' (aka 'and/or').

To slow it down for you, limiting the relic selections to one means that there is only ever one exchange under the rules for the Wargear List. So, what you are pointing out can never be given effect.

To make it really, really (like, 4th grade) simple for you:
[can replace its x and/or y] [with one z]
These must each be read and given effect independently and in their entirety. Therefore, your options are:
1) To trade x for one z
2) To trade y for one z
3) To trade x and y for one z

This is the only way that this can be read in English. Unless you start out with the presumption that there can be more than one exchange, which means that multiple relics and multiple melee selection can be taken. The two are inextricably tied.

Rapture wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Rapture wrote:
Are you suggesting that "you may exchange either or both" allows for something other than trading 'either or both?' Because that would be stupid. The language 'either or both' alone does not alter the interaction of the two clauses that are contained witin a number of the tables in the Wargear List. This is just simple English. Go look up clauses and conjunctions if you are still having trouble.

You may replace either or both provided you pay the point cost for each. You really should address the entire rule and not just part of it.
Meaning you're getting something for both exchanges.

If models can only take one relic, then they can only take one melee weapon. The presence of a conjunction inside of one of the rule clauses is completely irrelevant with relation to how many selections can be made as a result of the two clauses interacting.

The actual rules disagree with you. Perhaps you'd like to address rules instead of pretending I'm somehow butchering English?

That 'provided...' language is rendered ineffective by the rest of the rule. Sure, it indicates something, but a RAW approach that would limit the selection of relic weapons never allows what the 'provided...' language indicates to become effective. It is preceded by that fact that 'either or both' only means 'either or both' (aka 'and/or').

To slow it down for you, limiting the relic selections to one means that there is only ever one exchange under the rules for the Wargear List. So, what you are pointing out can never be given effect.

To make it really, really (like, 4th grade) simple for you:
[can replace its x and/or y] [with one z]
These must each be read and given effect independently and in their entirety. Therefore, your options are:
1) To trade x for one z
2) To trade y for one z
3) To trade x and y for one z

This is the only way that this can be read in English. Unless you start out with the presumption that there can be more than one exchange, which means that multiple relics and multiple melee selection can be taken. The two are inextricably tied.

Your opinion literally ignores the rules quoted on p158 and can therefore not be considered valid.
Your insulting is also noted and reported. Have a nice day.

rigeld2 wrote:
Your opinion literally ignores the rules quoted on p158 and can therefore not be considered valid.
Your insulting is also noted and reported. Have a nice day.

As stated, the rules on p158 do not come into effect because of the definite nature of the quoted rules from the Wargear List. If, however, multiple events/trades are possible and multiple melee and relic weapons can be taken, then this is not an issue.

Feel free to present a relevant argument against what I previously stated that is not superseded by the continuous application of the position that I am arguing against. Or, just threaten me with your petty tattling. I seriously doubt that the former will be more compelling than the latter, but If you think that you are right, I would still like to hear why.

rigeld is going by likely RAI, but not the english language RAW. On 158 it says you can replace either or both provided you pay the points cost. The thing is, what are you replacing items for? The second half of the sentence in the wargear section tells us, "for one of the following" meaning a single item.

Does it make sense that you'd pay twice to replace two items for one? No, not really, but that's how its written.

That, of course creates a problem if you want to interpret RAI to allow for 2 replacements, namely, what is the actual GW RAI for allowing two replacements. Some RAI interpretations would allow for two relic replacements, some do not.

Again, as happyjew said a page ago, GW hasn't clarified for one reason or another. I think that's probably the best answer this thread will get. Until we get a true answer from GW on the subject, the best thing to do is to discuss it with your friends and TOs, and agree to a set of rules, with the full understanding that those rulings may not be in line with GW intended RAI.

I personally tend to lean towards more liberal approaches. I am a proponent of allowing people to play how they please within the rules. If the rules are ambiguous IMO the best and friendliest thing to do is to not impose restrictions where GW might not have intended for them to exist.

Well said.

The problem is that people have preconceived notions based on snap-decisions about how the rule should work rather than how it does work. The result is twisting language and not-quite-conscious ignorance where the rules are adapted to fit opinions rather than the other way around.

The RAW is broken (in my opinion), but one of the RAI approaches lets the entire Wargear List function as it should, with multiple selections being allowed as if each potential swap of equipment works like an independent event that doesn't bar further swaps and no absurd results like trading two weapons for one weapon. This prevents picking and choosing when to apply RAW vs. RAI to a common group of rules, but the idea of a Captain with a salvo bolter and ap3 chainsword offends people for some reason.

DogofWar1 wrote:
rigeld is going by likely RAI, but not the english language RAW.

Have I specified that? Why would you think that?

On 158 it says you can replace either or both provided you pay the points cost. The thing is, what are you replacing items for? The second half of the sentence in the wargear section tells us, "for one of the following" meaning a single item.

No, it doesn't say that. Perhaps you should look at page 158 again? I don't think you're thinking of the correct page.
158 proves that GW uses and/or to allow 2 replacements. Proper English or not, it's GWs usage. Just like GW uses counts as to mean the same thing as treat as and the same thing as effectively, which all mean the same thing as "is".

rigeld2 wrote:

DogofWar1 wrote:
rigeld is going by likely RAI, but not the english language RAW.

Have I specified that? Why would you think that?

On 158 it says you can replace either or both provided you pay the points cost. The thing is, what are you replacing items for? The second half of the sentence in the wargear section tells us, "for one of the following" meaning a single item.

No, it doesn't say that. Perhaps you should look at page 158 again? I don't think you're thinking of the correct page.
158 proves that GW uses and/or to allow 2 replacements. Proper English or not, it's GWs usage. Just like GW uses counts as to mean the same thing as treat as and the same thing as effectively, which all mean the same thing as "is".

I think you are going by likely RAI and not RAW because RAW requires taking the limiting phrase of "one of the following" into account.

158 never says you can make 2 replacements. It says that you may replace either or both, provided you pay the points costs for each.

If all the wargear section said was "Replace X and/or Y for:" and that was it, then your interpretation would be fine by proper English. The problem is you have another phrase there in the wargear section which specifically states what you are replacing either or both for. That phrase says "one of the following."

Again, you have to add that limiting phrase into the mix or else you aren't getting the full RAW.

Keep it polite, folks. Thanks.

All I know is this same discussion came out when Chaos Marines got released consensus was only one weapon artifact per guy. Otherwise I'm giving my lord a Burning Brand and Black Mace and letting him go to town.

2x210 wrote:
All I know is this same discussion came out when Chaos Marines got released consensus was only one weapon artifact per guy. Otherwise I'm giving my lord a Burning Brand and Black Mace and letting him go to town.

the store i play at the chaos players use more then one relic weapon. odd that gw has not said something about this

DogofWar1 wrote:
I think you are going by likely RAI and not RAW because RAW requires taking the limiting phrase of "one of the following" into account.

Which I do.

158 never says you can make 2 replacements. It says that you may replace either or both, provided you pay the points costs for each.

Each what? It can only mean each replacement. Meaning you can replace either or both as long as you pay for each replacement. Under your interpretation that is not possible. Since the rules say its possible, your interpretation cannot be correct.

Again, you have to add that limiting phrase into the mix or else you aren't getting the full RAW.

I'm not sure why you think I'm ignoring it.

rigeld2 wrote:
Proper English or not, it's GWs usage.

If we had known that you were capable of overcoming the rules of English to divine the secret code used by GW rule writers, we probably wouldn't have bothered.

The reality of the situation is that there are two reasonable conclusions. I think that allowing all of the Wargear List table choices to essentially be done in multiple is the least invasive way to accomplish the obvious intent (such as using models as they are depicted on the box) and then what I believe is the RAI. Others believe that slightly altering the language of the rules on the Wargear List containing the 'and/or' language is the best way do accomplish the same thing, but this favors a different RAI.

Very few people believe that it is fine as is. Mostly likely because it is not.

rigeld2 wrote:

158 never says you can make 2 replacements. It says that you may replace either or both, provided you pay the points costs for each.

Each what? It can only mean each replacement. Meaning you can replace either or both as long as you pay for each replacement. Under your interpretation that is not possible. Since the rules say its possible, your interpretation cannot be correct.

Again, you have to add that limiting phrase into the mix or else you aren't getting the full RAW.

I'm not sure why you think I'm ignoring it.

What purpose does the phrase "with one of the following" serve, if not to serve as a limiting phrase for the first part of the sentence?

If you've made two replacements, you've gone beyond the limit imposed by the second part of the sentence. The phrasing on 158 never states that further limitations are ignored. It gives you the option of replacing both IF there aren't other limitations imposed. Adding the phrase "with ONE of the following" imposes such a limitation.

"May replace his bolt pistol and/or melee weapon with:" = can replace both for 2.

"May replace his bolt pistol and/or melee weapon with one of the following" = can replace however many you want, but only for 1.

Unless we're turning to RAI, which is somewhat ambiguous, in which case we open the floodgates to allowing multiple relics depending on how it's interpreted.

DogofWar1 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

158 never says you can make 2 replacements. It says that you may replace either or both, provided you pay the points costs for each.

Each what? It can only mean each replacement. Meaning you can replace either or both as long as you pay for each replacement. Under your interpretation that is not possible. Since the rules say its possible, your interpretation cannot be correct.

Again, you have to add that limiting phrase into the mix or else you aren't getting the full RAW.

I'm not sure why you think I'm ignoring it.

What purpose does the phrase "with one of the following" serve, if not to serve as a limiting phrase for the first part of the sentence?

Clarification that you replace one item with one item, not one item for many items.

If you've made two replacements, you've gone beyond the limit imposed by the second part of the sentence. The phrasing on 158 never states that further limitations are ignored. It gives you the option of replacing both IF there aren't other limitations imposed. Adding the phrase "with ONE of the following" imposes such a limitation.

It doesn't.

"May replace his bolt pistol and/or melee weapon with:" = can replace both for 2.

"May replace his bolt pistol and/or melee weapon with one of the following" = can replace however many you want, but only for 1.

Unless we're turning to RAI, which is somewhat ambiguous, in which case we open the floodgates to allowing multiple relics depending on how it's interpreted.

Page 158 proves you wrong - it's explicit in how GW uses the phrase and it absolutely disagrees with your interpretation.

I think that the fact that 'and/or' exists within some lists is implication that you should be able to take one of those for each one you swap out.

Relics do not have that.

rigeld2 wrote:

Page 158 proves you wrong - it's explicit in how GW uses the phrase and it absolutely disagrees with your interpretation.

Ok, let's look at the exact wording on the rules.

Page 158: "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."

This does NOT state for WHAT you are replacing either or both weapons. That is key.

Now let's look at the melee section: "A model can replace his bolt pistol and/or melee weapon with one of the following."

So basically you can replace either your bolt pistol or melee weapon, or you can replace both. But for WHAT are you replacing them for. You are replacing them for ONE of the following weapons. That IS explicit.

If you've replaced both, you've gone beyond that limitation of one. Combining 158's wording, the sentence in the wargear section essentially becomes "he may exchange either his bolt pistol or melee weapon or both, provided you pay the points cost for each, for one of the following." The "for one of the following" is there limiting.

Again, you're right about what 158 says by itself, in a vacuum, but the wording in the wargear section explicitly adds new limitations that disagrees with your interpretation.

I may have missed it - where did you prove it's a limitation?
I don't see it as one.

I am not sure that there is another way for someone to explain it to you. If you truly can't see why you are wrong, then you should have someone drive you to the optometrist.

rigeld2 wrote:
I may have missed it - where did you prove it's a limitation?
I don't see it as one.

Well, the phrase itself, by its wording is a limitation. It doesn't say "two of the following" or "any of the following" or anything like that, but "one of the following."

But if you say so, "for one of the following" is not a limitation.

That same logic means "one weapon" is not a limitation either. If the phrase "for one of the following" (the "following" being the weapons on the list) is not a limitation, then the "one weapon" phrase thus does not mean you are limited to one weapon. If "one" doesn't mean "only one," but rather "one at a time," then surely on the relic list it means that I may replace one weapon at a time for one relic at a time.

One weapon is a limitation.
You have permission to replace how many weapons with one of the following?

For Melee weapons you have two options, as p158 explains.
For Relics you have one option.

rigeld2 wrote:
One weapon is a limitation.
You have permission to replace how many weapons with one of the following?

For Melee weapons you have two options, as p158 explains.
For Relics you have one option.

Not the right question. How many weapons must you give up for one of the following? would be better

Some units that can take relics have a bolt pistol and a chainsword but some don't. Some have a bolter, some don't. So instead of naming the weapons possible, its one for one.

 Lobukia wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
One weapon is a limitation.
You have permission to replace how many weapons with one of the following?

For Melee weapons you have two options, as p158 explains.
For Relics you have one option.

Not the right question. How many weapons must you give up for one of the following? would be better

Some units that can take relics have a bolt pistol and a chainsword but some don't. Some have a bolter, some don't. So instead of naming the weapons possible, its one for one.

That would be "any" weapon. Are you allowed to replace any weapon?

Any would be still cause the same argument. "Replace any weapon with one of the following..." You would say that does allow one for one but think " one weapon with one" doesn't?

Fair enough. Note that we already covered how it could have been worded earlier in the thread, and its not really relevant here.

 Lobukia wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Alexi wrote:
So the place it says one weapon with one of the following? Going off pg 158, I can replace 1 weapon with Primarchs Wrath, my bolt gun and one weapon with teeth of terra my chain sword

So you've failed to read the thread.

If you've replaced 2 weapons, have you replaced one weapon?

Yeah twice. I'll admit though, its unclear. If they wanted just one, they'd have used the special issue wargear wording instead of the current one.... but if they wanted it the other way they could have used the ranged,melee,or special weapons rulings. We'll have to wait and see how tourneys handle it... and wait much much longer to see how an FAQ handles it.

They couldn't use the range, melee or special weapons wording, because some characters with access to to relics aren't equipped with a bolt pistol (all those in TDA, for example). My guess is that they replaced it with ranged and/or melee weapon first, and then realized that there aren't any other types of weapons. We're lucky enough they caught that and unlucky enough that they still managed to word it unclear.

Characters with multiple relics look like a place where points go to die though, so I'm not that bothered to play it as rigeld suggests.

Rapture wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Proper English or not, it's GWs usage.

If we had known that you were capable of overcoming the rules of English to divine the secret code used by GW rule writers, we probably wouldn't have bothered.

Firstly GW doesn't use the same English that other countries use, they use the English that they use in Britain which is actually different from USA English and even the English used in Ireland.
"The rules of English" is a load of crap when it is defined by use and in this case by GW's use. They have their own convention, so follow it or don't but don't be surprised when people disagree.

I think from the reading of these options in the C:SM digital version is clear. I'll explain.

Under melee/ranged weapons it states ranged and / or melee weapon can be exchanged. Under chapter relics it states one weapon. NO. And / or.

So the captain or chapter master can have 1 relic only. That sucks but its in simple plain text.

Lungpickle wrote:
I think from the reading of these options in the C:SM digital version is clear. I'll explain.

Under melee/ranged weapons it states ranged and / or melee weapon can be exchanged. Under chapter relics it states one weapon. NO. And / or.

So the captain or chapter master can have 1 relic only. That sucks but its in simple plain text.

Your conclusion might be the correct RAI, (it.s ambiguous) but you're making the same RAW mistake that was made earlier.

For what are you replacing your weapons? The wargear section says you are replacing it for "one of the following," not two, or any, but just one. Nothing on page 158 under the options section or on 159 on the page negates that limitation for the sections in which it appears. Whether you replace either or both, the result is that you can only end up with "one of the following".

There are two logical results. Either 1. You are only allowed one item from each wargear list with "one of the following" or 2. One of the following does not actually limit you to one.

If the result is 2. then the limit on relics is suspect. After all, what is "the following" that the "one of" refers to? They are weapons. The resulting sentence functionally becomes "replace his bolt pistol and/or melee weapon with one weapon."

Now if the second part of the sentence is not a limitation in that "one" in the melee section doesn't limit you to "one," then why should the one in the first half of the "relic" section limit you? If the "one" in the melee section simply means "one replacement at a time" then the same logic holds for all further "ones" on the page, except perhaps where they say something like "only one". However, the word "only" doesn't appear in either section.

As for whether they use British English, American English, or any other kind of English, it doesn't mean much unless someone can explain British grammatical conventions, how they differ, and how they are pertinent. Otherwise we come right back full circle with RAI being ambiguous.

Might be an interesting question: What does the builder in the digital edition allow?

DogofWar1 wrote:

For what are you replacing your weapons? The wargear section says you are replacing it for "one of the following," not two, or any, but just one. Nothing on page 158 under the options section or on 159 on the page negates that limitation for the sections in which it appears. Whether you replace either or both, the result is that you can only end up with "one of the following".

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.

It really does negate that "limitation" (that isn't one, but because you keep asserting that it is) by saying that 'and/or' refers to two allowable swaps.

If the result is 2. then the limit on relics is suspect. After all, what is "the following" that the "one of" refers to? They are weapons. The resulting sentence functionally becomes "replace his bolt pistol and/or melee weapon with one weapon."

And how is that "suspect"?

Now if the second part of the sentence is not a limitation in that "one" in the melee section doesn't limit you to "one," then why should the one in the first half of the "relic" section limit you? If the "one" in the melee section simply means "one replacement at a time" then the same logic holds for all further "ones" on the page, except perhaps where they say something like "only one". However, the word "only" doesn't appear in either section.

Because the same word can mean different things grammatically. And, knowing what we know from page 158 (that you ignore), we can prove that the melee section allows multiple replacements. There is nothing even hinting at that for Relics.

Your continuous assertion that it's ambiguous has no support besides (seemingly) you want it to be that way.

rigeld2 wrote:

It really does negate that "limitation" (that isn't one, but because you keep asserting that it is) by saying that 'and/or' refers to two allowable swaps.

Why do you believe it is not a limitation?

The wording of "with one of the following" has a meaning. It is a standalone phrase from the first part of the sentence, and exerts some force on the first part of the sentence. What is the meaning such that the result is that it is not a limitation?

The usual interpretation where someone says "with one of the following" is that it means just or only one. That is what those words, on their face, mean. Other interpretations can be added in if they are so stated and the scope so altered. Mind you, the book does NOT define the redefine the scope of "with one of the following" so we should assume they mean just one or only one, as per the RAW definition of "with one of the following," but we're launching into a RAI discussion, so we can entertain other possibilities.

Basically, in terms of meaning, "with one of the following" can mean;
1. with ONLY one of the following
2. with one of the following EACH, or with one EACH of the following
3. the phrase actually has no purpose, it's fluff wording that has no effect on the previous phrase.

You say it's not a limitation on the "and/or" phrase, which puts it under 2 or 3, and also say even if it is a limitation under 1, it doesn't matter because the "and/or" phrase negates the limitation.

First off, the "and/or" phrase negating the "with one of the following" phrase makes little to no sense. If you're negating a limitation, why even have those limiting words? The words could have easily been "a model may replace his bolt pistol and/or melee weapon with:" and ended it there. That would have served the purpose just fine, so why even add that phrase and take up ink and space and just generally increase clutter? It makes sense that it serves a purpose that the first phrase in the sentence doesn't negate, and heck, that's how subordinate clauses work. The phrase "with one of the following" on its face, has clear meaning, and as a phrase in the sentence it serves the duty of telling you what you are replacing your bolt pistol and/or melee weapon for. It resets the scope of what you're allowed to take. The first phrase "may replace his BP and/or MW" sets the scope of what can be replaced from your wargear, which is one or two items. The second phrase, "with one of the following" sets of scope of what you replace it with, which is one item.

Basically, #3 doesn't make sense, the phrase needs to have meaning, and the interpretation that the "and/or" phrase negates the "one of the following" limitation doesn't make sense either, from both a logical writing standpoint or a sentence structure standpoint.

We are left with two options. Either you can only take one weapon from each list, or the phrase "with one of the following" needs to be read so as to have a wider scope than simply "one."

This is how the supposed "only one for only one" interpretation for the relic section becomes suspect. The RAW sentence structure of the complex sentence demands that the "and/or" phrase is limited down to one replacement by "with one of the following." The only way around this for the melee section is to say that the "one" in one of the following doesn't actually mean one, but rather means "one each" resulting in a phrase more like "one of the following each."

What does this result in for the melee section?
- "A model may replace his bolt pistol and/or melee weapon with one of the following each."

That works quite nicely to allow two replacements.

Now let's apply that to the relic section. "A model may replace one weapon with one of the following each." The way that reads results in allowing multiple swaps, one for one each.

The result is simple. Either we can take only one weapon from each section with the phrase "with one of the following" or we can take multiple weapons from each such section. I don't really care personally which it is; RAW falls more in line with the first, but the consensus for the melee section is the latter. Whatever the result, I just want a consistent application.

But assuredly, you're just doing to harp on about how 158 gives you permission to make two swaps, and negates the limitation, or that it's not a limit. Never mind that that's purely your interpretation, not based on the actual writings or the way the sentence reads.

You accuse me of interpreting things in a way simply because I want them to be, but the opposite is true. I want a single fixed definition for the phrase "with one of the following" that applies to all entries on the wargear page and establishes a clear rule. The phrase "with one of the following" appears 7 times on the wargear page, in that exact wording. It is beneficial for us to have a single interpretation to use across the entire page.

We know - for a fact - that and/or the way GW is using allows two swaps. Agreed?

If you don't agree to what the rules say I'm not sure we can have a productive discussion.

Kangodo wrote:
Might be an interesting question: What does the builder in the digital edition allow?

This. Find this out, and the question is answered.

Not sure if this has been suggested, but why doesn't someone with the digital codex go into the army builder feature and try to do a one for one swap?

Edit: ah was beaten to it lol

Bobug wrote:

Kangodo wrote:
Might be an interesting question: What does the builder in the digital edition allow?

This. Find this out, and the question is answered.

And while they're at it they could try to upgrade a command squad veteran with weapon upgrades into an apotechary.

Actually I was answering the initial question I thought. Can a captain take two separate relics. That's all I was answering.

The other stuff that's been argued about is simply put a reading issue. Some read it one way others read it wrong, period.

In the context of , melee and ranged weapons sections its not ambiguous to me and others here that if my sgt exchanges his chain sword for a power weapon, and bolt pistol for a grav pistol, not only is it allowed its RAW.

Lock it and move on IMHO.

rigeld2 wrote:
We know - for a fact - that and/or the way GW is using allows two swaps. Agreed?

If you don't agree to what the rules say I'm not sure we can have a productive discussion.

Yes and no, since it depends on how the sentence is structured and modified.

Functionally, it allows for two swaps when the "and/or" is on its own, in a vacuum, without any clauses modifying it. For example, "A model may replace his bolt pistol and/or melee weapon with X" where X is the list of weapons. That would allow for two swaps.

But when we actually get to the wargear section, that's not the sentence as written. Instead, they add in "with one of the following," where the following are a set of weapons. What purpose does that phrase serve? "With" is a preposition, which leads the prepositional phrase "one of the following:" which serves the function of an adverb modifier of "replace." It explains what you are replacing your weapons with. There's a further prepositional phrase in there too, the "of" being the preposition modifying "one" with "the following."

So basically, you go like this:
- What do I have? "A model"
- Ok, what does that model do? Well it "can replace"
- What is it replacing? "His bolt pistol and/or melee weapon."
- And what is he replacing those with? "With one."
- One of what? "Of the following."
- What are the following? It's this list of weapons.

If you break down the clauses and phrases and how they modify the words around them you can see that the meaning of the sentence was modified away from the "and/or" phrase granting two weapon replacements, down to one from the added phrase "one of the following.

So yes, in a vacuum, the "and/or" could allow two weapon swaps. But, no, in light of the prepositional phrases that modify the verb, it does not allow that, at least not explicitly. If we want to allow that we must perform a certain level of interpretation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

Bobug wrote:

Kangodo wrote:
Might be an interesting question: What does the builder in the digital edition allow?

This. Find this out, and the question is answered.

And while they're at it they could try to upgrade a command squad veteran with weapon upgrades into an apotechary.

Does the digital addition even have the FAQ updates yet though? Veterans didn't even get the special weapons option until the FAQ dropped.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lungpickle wrote:

In the context of , melee and ranged weapons sections its not ambiguous to me and others here that if my sgt exchanges his chain sword for a power weapon, and bolt pistol for a grav pistol, not only is it allowed its RAW.

We're talking about taking two from the melee section or two from the ranged section, not one from each section. The ability to take one from each section has never been in doubt.

DogofWar1 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
We know - for a fact - that and/or the way GW is using allows two swaps. Agreed?

If you don't agree to what the rules say I'm not sure we can have a productive discussion.

Yes and no, since it depends on how the sentence is structured and modified.

Functionally, it allows for two swaps when the "and/or" is on its own, in a vacuum, without any clauses modifying it. For example, "A model may replace his bolt pistol and/or melee weapon with X" where X is the list of weapons. That would allow for two swaps.

But when we actually get to the wargear section, that's not the sentence as written. Instead, they add in "with one of the following," where the following are a set of weapons. What purpose does that phrase serve? "With" is a preposition, which leads the prepositional phrase "one of the following:" which serves the function of an adverb modifier of "replace." It explains what you are replacing your weapons with. There's a further prepositional phrase in there too, the "of" being the preposition modifying "one" with "the following."

So basically, you go like this:
- What do I have? "A model"
- Ok, what does that model do? Well it "can replace"
- What is it replacing? "His bolt pistol and/or melee weapon."
- And what is he replacing those with? "With one."
- One of what? "Of the following."
- What are the following? It's this list of weapons.

And by breaking it down like this you've, again, ignored that page 158 explicitly spells out that and/or means two swaps. Yes, it's poor English. That's irrelevant when discussing rules.

rigeld2 wrote:

And by breaking it down like this you've, again, ignored that page 158 explicitly spells out that and/or means two swaps. Yes, it's poor English. That's irrelevant when discussing rules.

Did it ever occur to you that when it says "replace either or both, provided you pay the points cost for each" it is an entirely valid interpretation that you can perform two swaps for a single item? That is an equally valid grammatical option based on the wording of 158.

The fact that it makes no sense that you'd pay twice to replace two items with one item doesn't make it any less of a grammatical option.

The point is, 158 doesn't give you the complete rules for a swap, you NEED to have the options for which you can swap included for the full rule, otherwise it's a stub. That is what we get on the next page in the wargear section, in addition to further modifying phrases. Page 158 gives you the option to perform two swaps in the absence of rules to the contrary, WHICH WE THEN GET ON THE NEXT PAGE.

But apparently prepositional phrases don't modify sentences. I guess I could have just slept through class.

Maybe GW's version of English works like that too, I don't know.

DogofWar1 wrote:

Does the digital addition even have the FAQ updates yet though? Veterans didn't even get the special weapons option until the FAQ dropped.

I don't know, but Veterans can take other weapons too, so if Apotechary can keep those we can safely assume that he can keep a special weapon as well.

I don't know if this has been stated by anyone else, but my speaking to GW personnel confirms that it specifically means one relic for one stock weapon (except for the Armor of Indomitus, which can be taken without eating up a weapons slot). You cannot, however, have multiple instances of the same relic in that army.

EDIT: I should have said one relic for EACH stock weapon. Sorry. I dunno about 'random GW employee', but whatevs.

Good thing the word from a random GW employee matters in a rules discussion.


I'm in the multiple items camp.

 hisdudeness wrote:
Good thing the word from a random GW employee matters in a rules discussion.


I'm in the multiple items camp.

...you realize I was agreeing with you, yeah?

Edited the above statement to be clear. Which I guess is the lesson we should take from GW in the first place.

Agreement doesn't matter. And I was just informing you about the error of thinking random GW employees/emails mean anything in rule disscussions. You can ask 8 different employees and get 8 different answers.

The books and the FAQ are the only things that matter. But thanks for the support!

 hisdudeness wrote:
Agreement does matter. And I was just informing you about the error of thinking random GW employees/emails mean anything in rule disscussions. You can ask 8 different employees and get 8 different answers.

The books and the FAQ are the only things that matter. But thanks for the support!

Yeah, that seriously needs FAQ'd. I forget sometimes - I know, I know - that GW rules questions are so bloody changeable depending on where they come from.

If you follow trend of how GW rules things; it will most likely be that you can only have one.

I'm curious why this is an issue now? I will admit that I don't wait with bated breath for every rule discussion thread that pops up. I have all the codices, and people have said the rule is worded the same in just about every codex. I have not seen this discussion come up before. Second, after 5 codices being out for months, GW has not FAQ this particular point, but took the time to clarify that a combat knife is a close combat weapon.

I'm in the camp that a player can take one weapon relic for each weapon his model has. The rules do state that you cannot have duplicate relics, so no 2 Burning Blades or 2 Mace of Redeptions. If there is any limitations, the unit entry will clearly state it (A Space Marine can exchange his bolter for one of the following...).

I'm just making an observation that other codices, Chaos Space Marines/Dark Angels, that are worded the same, have been out 9+ months, and now this particular point becomes a topic of debate.

Maybe because Codex: Space Marines is the first one to actually have two relics worth taking at once. Most relics so far were either not useful in combination (two CCW, CCW and a sniper rifle), or were not useful for the same type of character.

 bkiker wrote:
I'm curious why this is an issue now? I will admit that I don't wait with bated breath for every rule discussion thread that pops up. I have all the codices, and people have said the rule is worded the same in just about every codex. I have not seen this discussion come up before. Second, after 5 codices being out for months, GW has not FAQ this particular point, but took the time to clarify that a combat knife is a close combat weapon.

I'm in the camp that a player can take one weapon relic for each weapon his model has. The rules do state that you cannot have duplicate relics, so no 2 Burning Blades or 2 Mace of Redeptions. If there is any limitations, the unit entry will clearly state it (A Space Marine can exchange his bolter for one of the following...).

I'm just making an observation that other codices, Chaos Space Marines/Dark Angels, that are worded the same, have been out 9+ months, and now this particular point becomes a topic of debate.

Remember when the Tau codex came out and suddenly everybody and their brother got in heated debates regarding whether or not Multi-trackers allowed 2 weapons to fire during overwatch? Yet since 6th edition, Monstrous Creatures and Gunslingers had been able to fire 2 weapons all the while...and the old tau book actually did have a specific FAQ entry regarding multitrackers (yes they could fire 2 weapons in OW).

The point is, some rules are accepted with little resistance because they don't effect the game that often or that strongly - when suddenly an army comes out that maximizes the potential of that rule, the internet goes crazy with "WE NEED AN FAQ! WE HAVE DISSENTING OPINIONS ONLINE!!".

Personally, one of my armies is space marines and I read the entry as saying "one weapon" which means, one, and only one, weapon. Simple. Otherwise I could take a scout squad, give One model a missile launcher, then give another One model a missile launcher, et cetera, until i had 5-10 missile wielding scouts - that's clearly against the rules but the weapons entry is ambiguous? Please....

I'm still of the multiple choice camp and here is why.

First, there is no limit given on how many times we can us the "one for one" clause. This clause is nothing more then the rule defining how the list is used. The "and/or" clause does not work do to the units that have access are not armed the same.

Second, if the lists rule of "one for one" is limited to just a single use as soon as any model makes a choice no other model would be able to use the list. This is because the lists rule has been fulfilled with the first use. Any additional choices would also break the "one for one" clause just as a single model making multiple choices would break the rule. It does say "A model" can replace "one weapon" with "one of the following:"

 hisdudeness wrote:


Second, if the lists rule of "one for one" is limited to just a single use as soon as any model makes a choice no other model would be able to use the list. This is because the lists rule has been fulfilled with the first use. Any additional choices would also break the "one for one" clause just as a single model making multiple choices would break the rule. It does say "A model" can replace "one weapon" with "one of the following:"

This has no basis in the way the rules are played or read commonly.
A model can mean "one model only" or just the indefinite article, GW usually use one model only to hammer home a point or say one per army etc. .

I agree!

But if those claiming that the rule for the list (the "one for one" clause) do not allow for a single model to make two exchanges (because TWO for TWO is not ONE for ONE) then how can they claim that it allows two separate models to make a one for one exchange each? One model taking two (TWO for TWO) is the same as two models taking one (TWO for TWO) based on the wording and thus both would break the rule fro the list. The rule in question is a rule for how the list works and is independent of what makes the "one or one" exchange. So as soon as the second model make a choice, we have (as far as the rule for the list is concerned) TWO for TWO.

The rule does say "A model", not any model or multiple models or even modelS.

"A model may take 1 gun" allows for every valid model to take one gun but it doesn't allow for any models to take more than one gun.
That's what the indefinite article can allow, A model ~ any model or some theoretical model.

Yup, but it can also mean that only one model may " replace one weapon with one of the following:" Just like "replace one weapon with one of the following:" can be the rule for list use and not a limitation on the number of times the list can be used by a model.

My point is that those taking the "One means One" stance must also agree the if a second model taking a relic it breaks that "One means One" view because the rule is a rule fro the list not a rule on models. As soon as a second model takes a second relic the list rule sees a "Two for Two" just like a single model taking two relics makes the list rule to see "Two for Two".

 hisdudeness wrote:
Yup, but it can also mean that only one model may " replace one weapon with one of the following:" Just like "replace one weapon with one of the following:" can be the rule for list use and not a limitation on the number of times the list can be used by a model.

My point is that those taking the "One means One" stance must also agree the if a second model taking a relic it breaks that "One means One" view because the rule is a rule fro the list not a rule on models. As soon as a second model takes a second relic the list rule sees a "Two for Two" just like a single model taking two relics makes the list rule to see "Two for Two".

No - just wrong.
You understand the English language - I know you do because we know each other well. The same word in different places in a sentence can mean different things. You're trying to say that every reference to the word must mean the same thing - and that's factually incorrect.

The first part is just food for thought, which I don't believe is correct myself. The second part is my real point. The main argument that I believe has any real bite is the "One means One" view.

The problem being that as soon as someone asserts this view we encounter the problem with multiple models accessing the relic list. One model taking two relics is the same a two models taking one each as for as the "One means One" view of the rule.

We are not told we can ONLY switch one for. If GW wanted a limit there would have been a limit given. We are told that to receive something from this list we must replace a current weapon on a one for one basis. Given that every single unit that has access to the relic list is equipped differently they chose to shorten the clause because the "and/or" clause doesn't work. Otherwise it would have been, "A model can replace his bolt pistol, storm bolter, boltgun, power weapon, force weapon, and/or crozious arcanum with one of the following:" Then we would have people asking the stupid questions like "oh my! My captain doesn't have a force weapon! Should he have one? Screw GW writing crappy rules, now we have to wait for a FAQ because I think my Caption should have a force weapon!"

 hisdudeness wrote:
The problem being that as soon as someone asserts this view we encounter the problem with multiple models accessing the relic list. One model taking two relics is the same a two models taking one each as for as the "One means One" view of the rule.

That's simply not true. It's only true if you assume that all words mean the same thing no matter what. That is an incorrect assumption with regard to the English language.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm following the "One means One" view. I fail to see (by applying the idea as it has been described) how one model take two is any different from two taking one as far as the rule is concerned.

If the rule was on the models then there wouldn't be an issue, but the rule is on the list.

 hisdudeness wrote:
I'm not assuming anything. I'm following the "One means One" view. I fail to see (by applying the idea as it has been described) how one model take two is any different from two taking one as far as the rule is concerned.

Then you're failing to understand the English language.

I want to point you towards the tenets of You Make Da Call.
Stuff like that is unasked for.

rigeld2 wrote:

 hisdudeness wrote:
I'm not assuming anything. I'm following the "One means One" view. I fail to see (by applying the idea as it has been described) how one model take two is any different from two taking one as far as the rule is concerned.

Then you're failing to understand the English language.

So explain it to me. How am I misunderstanding?

Already solved this earlier in the topic really, tired of coming back seeing this being necro'd for the same questions and debates that have been answered in earlier posts.

When you exchange one item for one relic thats okay
when you exchange one item for one relic AGAIN that is not.

Notice how you did that twice. You have no longer exchanged one weapon for one relic you have exchanged TWO.

In addition if you look slightly across the page to say, melee weapons you will find the wording as follows:

A model can replace his bolt pistol and/ or melee weapon with one of the following

Now when you look at the relic it says

A model can replace one weapon with one of the following.

If the relic's had been intended for you to be swapping multiple weapons for multiple relics it would have been worded as melee weapons and ranged weapons have however it has not and states that in one instance you may replace one weapon for one relic.

Now I have to emphasize how important that one is

You trade ONE weapon for ONE relic.
You trade ONE more weapon for ONE more relic

Congratulations you have now traded TWO weapons for TWO relics which is not within the rules.

And the same thing when a second model comes along and uses the relic table. As soon as the second mode makes a trade the rule for the Relic list sees Two weapons for Two relics, thus breaking the rule.

 hisdudeness wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 hisdudeness wrote:
I'm not assuming anything. I'm following the "One means One" view. I fail to see (by applying the idea as it has been described) how one model take two is any different from two taking one as far as the rule is concerned.

Then you're failing to understand the English language.

So explain it to me. How am I misunderstanding?

I have explained it. You're asserting that "one" must always refer to the same thing. That's not how the English language works.

And claiming that " A model can replace one weapon with one of the following:" limits a model to a single use of the table is the same thing. If there was an "only" between replace and one I would completely agree. Additionally, I'm applying the "one means one" as it has been described in this thread.

 hisdudeness wrote:
And the same thing when a second model comes along and uses the relic table. As soon as the second mode makes a trade the rule for the Relic list sees Two weapons for Two relics, thus breaking the rule.

No, don't be deliberately bone-idle. It means a model, any model that is allowed to may only trade one weapon for one relic. So the next model that comes along may only trade one weapon for one relic. I don't understand how you can choose to argue this beyond that.

No it isn't the same thing, Model A is different than Model B, which is still different than Model C, they are all models and can be referred to as a Model, but each Model A, B and C can each only trade one weapon for one relic.

 Sasa0mg wrote:

 hisdudeness wrote:
And the same thing when a second model comes along and uses the relic table. As soon as the second mode makes a trade the rule for the Relic list sees Two weapons for Two relics, thus breaking the rule.

No, don't be deliberately bone-idle. It means a model, any model that is allowed to may only trade one weapon for one relic. So the next model that comes along may only trade one weapon for one relic. I don't understand how you can choose to argue this beyond that.

Because the rule is not tied to a model it is tied to the list. And as the "one means one" idea is laid out, when "A model" (as in an indeterminate number of models as per an above post) makes ONE trade for ONE relic we are good. But as soon as "A model" (remember indeterminate number of them) makes TWO trades for TWO relics we break the rules of the list as described above.

 CrashCanuck wrote:
No it isn't the same thing, Model A is different than Model B, which is still different than Model C, they are all models and can be referred to as a Model, but each Model A, B and C can each only trade one weapon for one relic.

Yes, the models are different. The problem is that the rule is not with the models, it is on the list. The models just tell us we have access to the list, then we must follow the rules on the list. When a second model or a single model makes two trades the rule on the list sees TWO for TWO, breaking the perceived "One means One" idea. As per:

 Sasa0mg wrote:

You trade ONE weapon for ONE relic.
You trade ONE more weapon for ONE more relic

Congratulations you have now traded TWO weapons for TWO relics which is not within the rules.

You are deliberately misusing the reading of the rule

A model may trade ONE weapon for ONE relic
as soon as the same model trades another weapon for another relic is is then trading TWO and is breaking the rule.

The only limitation on the taking of relics for the ARMY is that there cannot be two of THE SAME relic taken twice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It's terminology and print in the book is "A model can replace one weapon with one of the following."

I don't see why this needs breaking down any further

A model

The model in question with the ability to take items from the relic list.

replace one weapon for one of the following.

 Sasa0mg wrote:
You are deliberately misusing the reading of the rule

A model may trade ONE weapon for ONE relic
as soon as the same model trades another weapon for another relic is is then trading TWO and is breaking the rule.

The only limitation on the taking of relics for the ARMY is that there cannot be two of THE SAME relic taken twice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It's terminology and print in the book is "A model can replace one weapon with one of the following."

I don't see why this needs breaking down any further

A model

The model in question with the ability to take items from the relic list.

replace one weapon for one of the following.

And so is everyone claiming that "A model can replace one weapon with one of the following:" limits a model to a single use of the list!!!

There is not a single word that limits a single model from multiple uses, only the each use requires a one for one trade. If the rule had been, "A model can replace only one weapon with one of the following:" you would have a case. But there is no limiting factor in the Relic rule on the number of times a single model can use it.

Found something interesting in the Space Marine Codex that may aid this debate.

On page 159 under Chapter Relics the Armor Indomitus has a little 1, and next to the 1 it says "Does not replace ONE of the character's weapons...". This is interesting wording, if they had meant for the character to only be able to take one relic why not say something along the lines of "Does not replace the character's weapon...". Why put the "one" in there unless they are trying to tell you that it does not replace ONE of the characters weapons meaning you may now take another relic and swap out ONE weapon with ONE of the following and again and again. If they meant for you to only be able to take one relic they would have used the wording "Does not replace the characters weapon..." to show that you can only take one relic and this one that your taking doesn't replace the characters weapon so you can add further ranged or melee weapons in that slot.

 Sanguinis wrote:
Found something interesting in the Space Marine Codex that may aid this debate.

On page 159 under Chapter Relics the Armor Indomitus has a little 1, and next to the 1 it says "Does not replace ONE of the character's weapons...". This is interesting wording, if they had meant for the character to only be able to take one relic why not say something along the lines of "Does not replace the character's weapon...". Why put the "one" in there unless they are trying to tell you that it does not replace ONE of the characters weapons meaning you may now take another relic and swap out ONE weapon with ONE of the following and again and again. If they meant for you to only be able to take one relic they would have used the wording "Does not replace the characters weapon..." to show that you can only take one relic and this one that your taking doesn't replace the characters weapon so you can add further ranged or melee weapons in that slot.

It's the same as the dimensional key. It still doesn't allow you to either take a second chaos artefact nor to take a second key. The "does not replace" doesn't end the restriction of one relic, it only removes the restriction of must exchange a weapon.
Easter egging aside, I've no issue with two models taking relics as that's how I read the rules but there is nothing to say that you can take multiples on a single model.

That merely points out items that are an exception to the rule. Partially. You may replace one weapon for one relic. You go to replace an item for said relic but said relic does not actually replace your weapon.

and

@hisdudenessMade I'm afraid your wrong. Because the relic list clearly applies to characters on a character by character situation. Nowhere other then not being able to have multiple relics of the same type present in an army does it quote the army as a whole, i.e other characters.

In regards to the rest, I'm afraid thats just how the english language works until such point that GW corrects this trading "one weapon for one relic" is the limitation per character that I personally will abide and enforce with the people that play me personally because assuming the liberty to be able to take two relics for two weapons is specifically NOT what the rule states.

Now if you want to nit pick and take it further trying to say that in that case then only ONE character in the army can trade ONE weapon for ONE relic by all means go ahead. That's not what it is saying but feel free to self impose that limitation.

The evidence is right there as I quoted directly from the marine book on the previous page and step by step explained the use of context provided.

You're continued desire to question and debate the matter with such overwhelming evidence to the contrary leads me to believe that you are going to keep this threat kicking for as long as possible either through deliberation or trolling that or you have a real need to be running multi-relic chapter masters bringing them to about 300 points of cheese each because deathstar or nothing.

 Sasa0mg wrote:


If the relic's had been intended for you to be swapping multiple weapons for multiple relics it would have been worded as melee weapons and ranged weapons have however it has not and states that in one instance you may replace one weapon for one relic.

I was under the impression that "weapons" meant anything classified as a weapon..as in both melee and ranged. So why would GW need to list both out when they could just use the plural? Just like we can choose which weapon to trade and are not limited to a single weapon type. I'm not sure how this supports your view.

 Sasa0mg wrote:


When you exchange one item for one relic thats okay
when you exchange one item for one relic AGAIN that is not.

Notice how you did that twice. You have no longer exchanged one weapon for one relic you have exchanged TWO.

Strange, I see no where that we are told to "add" the uses of a list together, let alone the Relic list. All I see is a rule telling us that EACH use of the list requires a trade. Every other list in all the 6th codexes are very specific if there is a limit to the number of times the list can be used.


This is how I see it...STEP BY STEP...we can use the Captain (p164, BRB)
.
1) I want to upgrade my character with a relic...his entry tells use to go to the Chapter Relic list. We are given the limit of each being unique (one per Army). We are also told how to use the list (One for One). I chose to trade my Chainsword for the Burning Blade...I pay the cost and have met all requirements of the Chapter Relic list rules. (Only one and straight up trade)
2) I want to continue to up grade. And want to take an item from the Chapter Relics list. We go back to the list and see the same rules. This stops me from taking a second Burning Blade, but I can now trade my Bolt Pistol for The Teeth of Terra and pay the cost. I have met all the requirements of the Chapter Relic list... I did not duplicate a relic and I traded straight up.
3) Continue upgrading

At not time did I break a rule. If you claim (as you do) that the Chapter Relic list 'saves' my previous choices, you will need to provide some support for either:

1) where we are told the previous choice is saved.

and

2) why does this status not 'save' between models.

Looks like the answer is Yes. The Force Organization portion of the Digital Edition of the codex will allow both plus the armor if you wish.

davin1023 wrote:
Looks like the answer is Yes. The Force Organization portion of the Digital Edition of the codex will allow both plus the armor if you wish.

I think that's the most definitive answer we're going to get for the time being. Thank you for providing this.

And not a moment too soon, I was just about to get back involved in a debate about prepositions, which, while I'm not too fond of my English teachers through the years, would have made me hate them, and I try to reserve my hate for things that actually deserve it, like the owner of the Giants and hipsters.

DogofWar1 wrote:

davin1023 wrote:
Looks like the answer is Yes. The Force Organization portion of the Digital Edition of the codex will allow both plus the armor if you wish.

I think that's the most definitive answer we're going to get for the time being. Thank you for providing this.

And not a moment too soon, I was just about to get back involved in a debate about prepositions, which, while I'm not too fond of my English teachers through the years, would have made me hate them, and I try to reserve my hate for things that actually deserve it, like the owner of the Giants and hipsters.

HAHAHAHA!! Just wait....

davin1023 wrote:
Looks like the answer is Yes. The Force Organization portion of the Digital Edition of the codex will allow both plus the armor if you wish.

I'd love it if GW would release an FAQ/errata before calling it "done".
Ah well. Can't have everything.

Dude! It had to be you that let out the death-knell of a lost view point?!?

The wail of the "FAQ!!!!!!"'

 hisdudeness wrote:
Dude! It had to be you that let out the death-knell of a lost view point?!?

The wail of the "FAQ!!!!!!"'

No it's more of the point that anyone can claim that GW made this change with no way of proving it. Once it is in the FAQ, it's in black and white and anyone can verify it.

What change are you speaking of? From my stand point of RAW this how it has always been. GW made no changes that I can see.

It was also a joke, we've known each other since high school.

I'm not "wailing" anything.
I can accept a ruling either way - I was just saying I wish it had been in an FAQ rather than a digital product that isn't readily accessed.

Edit: and my Nids need to nom on some 30k wannabes again some time soon...

This thread is a little silly. The rule is worded ambiguously and there clearly needs to be a clarification from GW.

Everyone is really just saying how they read the rule, and that's not getting anyone anywhere. Without a clarification, there are really only 3 ways to sort out an issue like this: logic, evidence, and what feels right.

Here's an example of each:

Logic dictates you can take more than one artefact, otherwise there would be some artefacts you can never take. Look at the wording in the CSM codex: "a model can replace one weapon with one of the following." The dimensional key, however, does not replace a weapon. Ask yourself this question: if you must replace a weapon to take an artefact, but the weapon is not replaced, how could you take the replacement in the first place? The answer is either that you can't take the replacement (which makes no sense) or that you can take the replacement and you still have a weapon. There's nothing stating you can't replace a weapon that you have, which would mean you can take a second artefact - it's really just a matter of the order of operations.

Evidence dictates you can do this as well. In the WD where they introduced the new Chaos codex, there was a DP with a Dimensional Key and the Axe of Blind Fury. If GW does it, why can't people playing the game? Either they got the rules wrong (which is possible) or they got them right. Ask yourself what you think and proceed from there.

What feels right dictates that this would be up to the people playing the game. This means talking to your opponent and seeing how he feels about it. I have been running a BL list where I have a CL with the sword, the skull, the eye and the other thing that takes down your T but improves your invulnerable save. There are no footnotes about what does and does not replace a weapon in the supplement so I can only assume they meant to say non-weapon artefacts do not replace weapons (like in the standard Codex). This could be illegal, or it might not be, but there needs to be a clarification before I can really say. It's up to us as players to decide and if an opponent did have an issue with it when I showed them my list, I would just switch to a different list.

But I have to tell you, having more than 1 artefact on an IC leads to interesting games. I like having a CL who can not really be wounded, eats 2 - 3 units and ends up in my opponent's deployment zone every game to get me Linebreaker. One other thing to consider, when talking about what feels right, is the outcomes. It doesn't always feel fair that I have a single model that can score 4 - 7 VPs on his own plus Chosen with 4 flamers who can just camp out on VPs for the win. Just because you think something's right at the start doesn't mean you are going to think that way later.

 techsoldaten wrote:
This thread is a little silly. The rule is worded ambiguously and there clearly needs to be a clarification from GW.
.

Again, the Force Requisition tool in the enhanced digital edition allows you to replace multiple weapons with Chapter Relics (so you can take both the Blade and the Shield on the same character) AND you can get the Armor for a third relic. So while the wording is ambiguous, there's an official rules source that provides clarity for now.

Didn't we have this type of discussion with the Tau battlesuit weapons a while back.. IIRC the discussion then was whether we could use the chart multiple times for multiple hardpoints... Not exactly the same, obviously, but seems to be fairly similar as an indication of process....

But since when is that an official source of information?
There are cases where it contradicts the Codex

One weapon means 1 weapon, if you have exchanged two(2) weapons, hav e you followed the rules?

The Armour Indomitus is more grey, where it is technically allowable.

Beast: This is different, only 1 weapon may be exchanged for.

Kangodo wrote:
But since when is that an official source of information?
There are cases where it contradicts the Codex

Such as? There are clearly some errors in this early version (17 points to add additional Devastators anyone?), but outside of any clear errors this remains the best source for an official answer.

On the subject of "since when is that an official source" consider if someone comes with the electronic codex as their source and they use the force tool to build their army, how can you say that they are wrong? Codexes have clear errors in their printing...so the fact that the Force Req tool has errors doesn't make it any different. What is clear is that it allows this combination and it comes from GW. You might not like the answer or that this contradicts your interpretation, but it comes from the company and addresses the issue....any other argument is just playing at word interpretations on a bit of text that is poorly worded and unclear.

Additionally, the mentioned errors are direct contradiction. This is following an interpretation of wording, which make it not an error in the book/e-codex but an error in a players interpretation. I agree the official army builder would be at the bottom of the list for rules but it trumps a forum post any day of the week.

 Baldsmug wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
again, one need look no farther then codex IG, GK or any codex that states "one model may replace ____ with special/heavy weapon"

one, means ONE in all those cases, why are people arguing that ONE means" any" or "at a one to one ratio" in this case,

you are literally arguing that I can take whole squads of heavy/special weapons......

which is OBS incorrect

where do people keep getting the "so your saying i can take as many heavy weapons as i want" from?

If you can only replace ONE weapon with ONE relic then you would also never be ableto take a second lightning claw because in the DA codex in the wargear section they both say exactly the same thing " A model can replace one weapon with one of the following".

Damn this almost put me at ease on this subject but alas, after reviewing the SM, CSM and DA codex now i am forced to agree with the interpretation of only one weapon chapter relic per model. FAAAAAAAAAAK! I had so many combinations in my lists

The fact is that it seems that DA cannot! take dual lightning claws when using that list as written, they can only take 1 unless in that models specific entry it would say that they can take lightnign claw pairs.

However DA allows for multiple pistols and so can models from the SM dex as they allow multiple of melee and ranged weapons. The chaos space marine codex disallows multiple pistols but allows multiple melee special weps on a model

So using this as reference DA cannot indeed take dual lightning claws and chapter relic weapons are 1 per model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

davin1023 wrote:
Looks like the answer is Yes. The Force Organization portion of the Digital Edition of the codex will allow both plus the armor if you wish.

Wait there's an army builder funciton in the digital codex and it allows you to equip more than 1 weapon relic? wtf never heard of this

Digital team are not the same as game designers. You can see on the FB page they have up people report errors to them. Only takes 1 person to say 'Codex says I can do this' for them to change something that was never meant to be.

My bias is towards multiple as I would dig my chaos lord with the axe of blind fury and the burning brand. However no matter how much I'd like it to be multiple the raw is one for one.

And/or is universally known to allow all options listed as swaps. In game and english terms may swap bolt pistol and/or melee weapon for one is listing two options that may be swapped for a limit of one itsm per swap. one for one however is established contexually as one item may be swapped for one item. Cited many times in this thread.

As it says you may swap one weapon for one item the rule clearly states the limitation of how many weapons you may swap. If it said may swap any weapon for one item then no swap limitation applies and you would be permitted to swap as many weapons as you like for one item each.

These are all established game terms used by games workshop with contextual definitions of their own design. Arguing semantics and the definition of the words in question are generally redundant unless they are not game terms.

So we're all split on the interpretation of this rule, any tournament ruling precedents on this yet?

 TheLionOfTheForest wrote:
So we're all split on the interpretation of this rule, any tournament ruling precedents on this yet?

unless it's a gw tournie any ruling would be as subjective as our own.

Searching led me to this thread, but I can't seem to find...

Have we yet discussed the 1 per ARMY issue? I recently played a game where he allied in another space marine chapter, whose leader also took a burning blade and the shield.

What's the verdict on what comprises an "army"?

Army must mean the combination of detachments. Otherwise you cannot deploy properly when you "deploy your army".

No duplicated relics even with allies.