Hi,

I have a question regarding how many relics can a SW HQ take? For example - can it take Black Death and Helm of Durfast ? The Helm is said not to replace a weapon.

All best,

The only restrictions on the relics seem to be that you can only take one of each option per army.

Can't seem to find much else.

The Codex:SW for Ipad has an army builder app. It allows only one relic per hq.

The Army Builder App doesn't matter. Only the wording in the actual unit entries matters.

I have the eBook codex, so no page numbers, but per the Wolf Lord entry...

"- May take items from the Melee Weapons, Ranged Weapons, Special Issue Wargear and/or Relics of the Fang lists."

Per the Relics of the cigarette list...

"Only one of each Relic of the Fang may be taken per army. A model can replace one weapon with one of the following:"

Furthermore, the Helm of Durfast, The Armour of Russ and The Wulfen Stone have a note that says "Does not replace on of the Character's Weapons."

A Wolf Lord comes with two weapons. He may swap his bolt pistol and chainsword for two of the three Relics that require a weapon swap. He may then freely take the other three Relics without worry because there is no weapon swap requirement.

The "army builder app" - which, to be clear, isn't an army builder app at all, but a collection manager - is wrong.

It is very possible, as an example, to have a Wolf Lord swap his two base weapons for The Bite of Fenris and the Fangsword of the Ice Wolf in addition to taking the Helm of Durfast, The Armour of Russ and The Wulfen Stone. He would be expensive, but there is no reason you can't take this all together. He just wouldn't be able to take the Black Death in this example, because he doesn't have a 3rd weapon to swap.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
In all fairness though, it depends on how you're reading this. The wording tells me to replace one weapon, which can imply that you can only take an option once. However, there is nothing saying I can't choose from the Relics list twice.

For comparison, the Melee Weapons list says "a model may replace his bolt pistol and/or Melee weapons with one of the following." If we break it apart, I can either read it as "a model may replace his bolt pistol OR Melee weapons with one of the following" or "a model may replace his bolt pistol AND Melee weapons with one of the following".

The first reading lets me decide what to swap out. The second reading requires that I swap bolt pistol AND melee weapons at the same time, but only get one item in return. Neither reading specifies whether or not you can select multiple times from the list, but I think the intent is that you can. I think the intent is that I can swap a bolt pistol for one weapon and a melee weapon for a different weapon. To do so, I have to admit that I can select multiple times from the list. If I do so, I can also select multiple times from the Relics list, each time swapping one weapon.

This is the same issue that exists in pretty much all of the 6th and 7th edition codices; does 'replace one weapon..." mean 'only one' or 'one per one.' This topic has been extensively debated, and there is no definitive consensus on the matter; and despite this being a well known issue affecting several codices, GW has refused to FAQ this. Armybuilders unfortunately are not a reliable rules source, I'm pretty sure someone said that in SM builder you can take several relics on one character, and the wording is identical.

 Crimson wrote:
I'm pretty sure someone said that in SM builder you can take several relics on one character,

I'd be pretty interested in someone with it confirming.

If they were consistent then would probably play by the builder, if not to the wolves with it!

If you replace 2 weapons with 2 relics, have you complied with the allowance to replace 1 weapon with 1 relic?

yes or no.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
If you replace 2 weapons with 2 relics, have you complied with the allowance to replace 1 weapon with 1 relic?

yes or no.

Yes.

You've just done it twice. That's the real question. Can I do it twice? Since the codex says I may select items (plural) from the various lists, my reading is that I can select from the list multiple times so long as I fulfill the weapon swap requirement.

Main thing that leads me to believe that the intent is to allow multiple relics, is that the exact same wording is used in CA for normal melee weapons. If 'one' would mean 'only one' then DA characters would be unable to have two melee weapons, such as pair of lightning claws.

 Kriswall wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
If you replace 2 weapons with 2 relics, have you complied with the allowance to replace 1 weapon with 1 relic?

yes or no.

Yes.

You've just done it twice. That's the real question. Can I do it twice? Since the codex says I may select items (plural) from the various lists, my reading is that I can select from the list multiple times so long as I fulfill the weapon swap requirement.

So replacing two items is replacing one item? Not usually...

We are arguing semantics. I'm not replacing two items for two items. I'm replacing one for one and then a second time one for one. You are the one combining these two actions.

Yes, it's a rules debate, so semantics are important. You are, demonstrably, replacing two items for two items, which you have zero permission to do

Again, I have explicit permission to select items (plural) from the Relics list, but I must exchange a weapon per item to do so.

You are ignoring the permission to select items (plural).

And replacing one for one twice is most certainly not the same thing as replacing two for two once. The first is two actions, the second is one action. I agree that you can't replace two for two as one action. I am seeing I can replace one for one and then as I have permission to select items (plural), I can replace one for one a second time. I can keep doing this so long as I don't run out of weapons to exchange. As three of the Relics don't require an exchange, I can potentially equip up to five Relics on a Wolf Lord as he starts with two weapons.

No, I am not. You are ignoring that you can select items, plural, from all the lists mentioned. One from each is still plural.

Please cite permission to exchange such items sequentially, neatly loop holing the rules to avoid triggering the restriction imposed on you. Not at all Easter egging

And we come back to ambiguity. One from each is plural. Two from each is also plural.

And I'm not really exchanging items sequentially. If you prefer, perform all replacements at the same time.

And I have no idea what Easter egging means in the context of this debate. Are you implying that I'm hiding something for other people to find? This is the only meaning I know.

The only restriction I see is that when selecting an item (singular) from the Relics list, I must exchange one weapon for one Relic. I am not violating this restriction when selecting an item (singular) from the list. I don't see a restriction saying that I may only choose one item from the list. I do see a permission saying I can select items (plural) from this list and others.

There are three relics (armour, helm etc). that have a rule saying that they don't replace a weapon. So it looks legit to have a durfast helm, armour of russ and eg. black death on a model.

gausus wrote:
There are three relics (armour, helm etc). that have a rule saying that they don't replace a weapon. So it looks legit to have a durfast helm, armour of russ and eg. black death on a model.

That doesn't tell us much other than a model doesn't have to replace a weapon to take one of the following...

gausus wrote:
There are three relics (armour, helm etc). that have a rule saying that they don't replace a weapon. So it looks legit to have a durfast helm, armour of russ and eg. black death on a model.

I agree.

In this context "easter egg" meaning youre finding something hidden, i.e. by saying you are exchanging 2 for 2, but doing it 1 for 1 twice, you are getting round the fact you ONLY have permission to swap 1 for 1.

Have you swapped 2 for 2? Absolutely. Impossible to disregard that swapping one for one twice is also swapping two for two. 40k has no concept of "actions" either, so they ARE equivalent.

I respectfully disagree. Swapping one for one two times is not the same as swapping two for two once. Unless you can provide some new rules wording that hasn't been seen yet, the best I'm willing to concede is that GW may possibly have intended us to only have one Relic per model, but worded the ruling ambiguously by using the word items. Had they just said something like "may select from" instead of "may select items from" I would agree... but they didn't. They said items. A perfectly legitimate reading of the words presented could allow me to choose more than one Relic.

I know we don't care about fluff, but I'm also factoring in that other codexes allows more than one "Relic" and that it's strange to think a marine can't wear a helmet AND armour due to an ambiguous rules wording.

You have to show that swapping two for two is within the allowance of one for one, as the ruleset is permissive

As soon as you select the second item, even sequentially, you have broken the allowance to select ONE item. If you have more than one relic, you have broken the allowance to have one relic.

AGain, items refers to all the lists you can take from, not just relics, so is perfectly in context. And, again, which other codexes? BL has entirely separate wording, etc.

 Kriswall wrote:
The Army Builder App doesn't matter. Only the wording in the actual unit entries matters.

"Only one of each Relic of the Fang may be taken per army. A model can replace one weapon with one of the following:"

Furthermore, the Helm of Durfast, The Armour of Russ and The Wulfen Stone have a note that says "Does not replace on of the Character's Weapons."

2 things here:

1) AB is not sanctioned by GW and thereby is a collection done by those who try to do the best with the rules as they understand them.

2) The wording in the SW Codex specifically allows for a HQ to have multiple items that do not replace a weapon.

Until GW specifically comes out with a FAQ you have 2 options:

1) Allow the game to continue.
2) Tell your opponent "you win" and don't play them.

Bantering samantics back and forth on a web page doesn't prove your point.

Ah, but without the back and forth bantering of semantics, this forum would be super boring!

And I was actually talking about the "Force Requisition"/army builder thing from the interactive codex. If you didn't read the whole thread, I can see how that would be misinterpreted. In any case, I was agreeing that ANY army builder is worthless for rules purposes and only the wording in the unit entry can be trusted... and then only so far as ambiguity allows!

It might be worthless, but does give some credence to their intentions.

Well, strictly speaking, unless the rules writer also built the app, I don't think it really does.

It may give credence to the app builder's understanding of the rules, but unless the app builder is constantly talking to the rules guys, which I doubt, we don't gain any insight into the rules writer's intentions.

Lastly, we're not discussing RaI, we're discussing RaW and inferring intention from a secondary source isn't really good evidence for RaW.

If it's worth anything on the spanish version of the codex it says:

"Una miniatura puede elegir una de las siguientes:" Which translates to "One miniature may choose ONE of the following:"
Oddly enough it doesn't says that you must switch one of your weapons for it but still some of the items have the notation that they do not need the exchange.

At my LGS we use both english and spanish codexes we play it the 1 relic only way and when in doubt the spanish version would back this up

Actually, this is very compelling. It seems the spanish language codex is extremely clear on the issue. I'm inclined to take that as proof that the intent is one Relic per model.

Having said that, I'd allow someone to go either way in a gaming scenario as I still think the wording in the english codex is a little ambiguous.

Gracias amigo!

Did the French version not state Terminators had a 2+ Invulnerability save?
I bring it up because the poster whom mentioned the Spanish version of the Rules already raised some doubts to the translation, as there is nothing about having to swap out a weapon for a Relic in that version.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
If you replace 2 weapons with 2 relics, have you complied with the allowance to replace 1 weapon with 1 relic?
yes or no.

I agree with this.
The Codex says 'A model can replace one weapon with one of the following:"
It might be different if it said "..replace a weapon..", but it doesn't.

But I do agree that the RAW are very unclear and it's only normal that these discussions happen.
I would have thought that GW learned about this by now.

I think it's one per model. And I also believe that DA characters cannot have two lightning claws. I play both armies but it seems undeniable to me.

 Kriswall wrote:
I respectfully disagree. Swapping one for one two times is not the same as swapping two for two once. Unless you can provide some new rules wording that hasn't been seen yet, the best I'm willing to concede is that GW may possibly have intended us to only have one Relic per model, but worded the ruling ambiguously by using the word items. Had they just said something like "may select from" instead of "may select items from" I would agree... but they didn't. They said items. A perfectly legitimate reading of the words presented could allow me to choose more than one Relic.

I know we don't care about fluff, but I'm also factoring in that other codexes allows more than one "Relic" and that it's strange to think a marine can't wear a helmet AND armour due to an ambiguous rules wording.

codex orks model can take one of the following, no weapon swap specified. ghazz supplement no restriction on how many a model can take; so going on that the sw book would be 1 per and there supplement would be as many as you wanted; going off other books may not be the bast way to interpret anything that is army specific
as to may take items from (means open to take any item from)and replace 1 weapon with 1 relic (means you can choose which weapon you replace but you must replace 1 for the relic), i interpret as allowing you to take 1 relic as the amount of weapons you have does not have an affect on the amount of relics

I've read this thread as I'm still waiting on my codex to come in, and when it does I'll read through it and play the game accordingly.

A relic is suppose to be a super strong item so I kinda doubt it's legit to have a wolf lord on a TWM running around with multiple relics, but hey if I'm wrong then so be it and good luck to whoever I charge into!

Relics are supposed to be super strong. But in the same vein, they are super expensive (compared to most wargear). If you actually equipped a Wolf Lord on TWC with 5 Relics, he'd be super expensive and not particularly effective. I'd just avoid and shoot. Then again, as a Tau player, I love when people field expensive close combat units. They die to massed fire and achieve little to nothing.

 Kriswall wrote:
Relics are supposed to be super strong. But in the same vein, they are super expensive (compared to most wargear). If you actually equipped a Wolf Lord on TWC with 5 Relics, he'd be super expensive and not particularly effective. I'd just avoid and shoot. Then again, as a Tau player, I love when people field expensive close combat units. They die to massed fire and achieve little to nothing.

No offense to you but the idea of a Wolf Lord with 5 relics is just so comical to me that I'm not really even giving it much thought.

But hey, like I said, if its in the codex in a CLEAR manner where I do not have to argue to the moon and back with someone to allow me to play it that way then maybe I'll try it for the "lolz". I don't imagine it would be remotely cost efficient as you have stated but it may be fun.

Still - a wolf lord with two relics - let's say - black death and a helm is a good and affoedable combo. Question is - is it legit?

Is it legit?

Ultimately depends on how you and your opponent decide to play it, or how a TO rules it. To be safe, only taking one relic per model keeps everyone happy. Taking multiple on one model makes one side unhappy.

Only one of each Relic of the Fang may be taken per army. A model can replace one weapon
with one of the following:

is no tthe same as

"Only one of each Relic of the Fang may be taken per army. A model can replace one or more weapon(s) with any of the following"

or

"Only one of each Relic of the Fang may be taken per army. A model can replace a weapon with any of the following"

there is obviously the restriction of "one of the following"

additionally the items that do not replace a weapon are also restricted, as they do not ignore the "one of the following" but just allow you to not have to replace a weapon.

A TO, you and your opponent may rule it differently but that is the RAW.

 Kriswall wrote:
Relics are supposed to be super strong. But in the same vein, they are super expensive (compared to most wargear). If you actually equipped a Wolf Lord on TWC with 5 Relics, he'd be super expensive and not particularly effective. I'd just avoid and shoot. Then again, as a Tau player, I love when people field expensive close combat units. They die to massed fire and achieve little to nothing.

You mean until someone deep strikes/drop pods on top of them? lol.

To the OP- One of each Relic may be taken per army. Would hardly be rare if everyone in your army was armed with say, The Teeth of Terra.

blaktoof wrote:

Only one of each Relic of the Fang may be taken per army. A model can replace one weapon
with one of the following:

is no tthe same as

"Only one of each Relic of the Fang may be taken per army. A model can replace one or more weapon(s) with any of the following"

or

"Only one of each Relic of the Fang may be taken per army. A model can replace a weapon with any of the following"

there is obviously the restriction of "one of the following"

additionally the items that do not replace a weapon are also restricted, as they do not ignore the "one of the following" but just allow you to not have to replace a weapon.

A TO, you and your opponent may rule it differently but that is the RAW.

I've never contested that the swap occurs on a one for one basis. The wording is pretty clear that one weapon gets you one Relic. I'm contesting the wording in the unit entry that says I'm allowed to take items (plural) from the various lists. I'm interpreting that as being able to select multiple times from the lists so long as I am able to abide by any restrictions imposed in the various lists (specifically having to trade in existing pieces of wargear).

I'm saying that items allows me to pick an item from the Relics list and replace a weapon and then pick a second items from the Relics list and replace another weapon. Given that I have explicit permission to select ITEMS from the lists, I should be able to do this so long as I can meet the restrictions for each selection.

 Kriswall wrote:
Given that I have explicit permission to select ITEMS from the lists, I should be able to do this so long as I can meet the restrictions for each selection.

a) Items (plural) from lists (plural). Selecting one item from the Relic list and one item from the Ranged Weapon list satisfies this statement - so your "explicit" permission isn't.
b) You cannot meet the restriction of one weapon for one relic if you attempt to take swap two weapons for two relics.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
Given that I have explicit permission to select ITEMS from the lists, I should be able to do this so long as I can meet the restrictions for each selection.

a) Items (plural) from lists (plural). Selecting one item from the Relic list and one item from the Ranged Weapon list satisfies this statement - so your "explicit" permission isn't.
b) You cannot meet the restriction of one weapon for one relic if you attempt to take swap two weapons for two relics.

I would say it means that in exchange for one weapon you get one relic. So exchanging 2 weapons for 2 relics is legal. 1 weapon for 2 relics is not. Assuming you need to exchange anything for the relic in question.

pm713 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
Given that I have explicit permission to select ITEMS from the lists, I should be able to do this so long as I can meet the restrictions for each selection.

a) Items (plural) from lists (plural). Selecting one item from the Relic list and one item from the Ranged Weapon list satisfies this statement - so your "explicit" permission isn't.
b) You cannot meet the restriction of one weapon for one relic if you attempt to take swap two weapons for two relics.

I would say it means that in exchange for one weapon you get one relic. So exchanging 2 weapons for 2 relics is legal. 1 weapon for 2 relics is not. Assuming you need to exchange anything for the relic in question.

Let's apply that thinking to, say, Codex: Blood Angels (the closest one to hand).
Tactical Squad:

If the squad numbers ten models, one Space Marine can replace his boltgun with one of the following:

So all 9 Space Marines can wander around with Flamers - for free - because you're only swapping one for one.
Or are you selectively applying your logic? It's crazy how this argument literally only appeared with Relics and was never even considered with Tac Squads, etc.

No because one space marine gets a flamer therefore only one gets it.

pm713 wrote:
No because one space marine gets a flamer therefore only one gets it.

And you can swap one weapon. Not two.

The wording is the same and you're being inconsistent with your application of your argument. If that doesn't show that you should re-examine your argument I'm not sure what will.

rigeld2 wrote:

pm713 wrote:
No because one space marine gets a flamer therefore only one gets it.

And you can swap one weapon. Not two.

The wording is the same and you're being inconsistent with your application of your argument. If that doesn't show that you should re-examine your argument I'm not sure what will.

I can swap ONE weapon for ONE relic. If I lose 2 weapons and take 2 relics I'm still exchanging 1 weapon for 1 relic.
I'm not explaining myself well I'll admit.

pm713 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

pm713 wrote:
No because one space marine gets a flamer therefore only one gets it.

And you can swap one weapon. Not two.

The wording is the same and you're being inconsistent with your application of your argument. If that doesn't show that you should re-examine your argument I'm not sure what will.

I can swap ONE weapon for ONE relic. If I lose 2 weapons and take 2 relics I'm still exchanging 1 weapon for 1 relic.
I'm not explaining myself well I'll admit.

Correct, and if I have 2 Tac Marines take flamers, I'm still exchanging 1 Bolter for 1 Flamer.

 Happyjew wrote:

pm713 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

pm713 wrote:
No because one space marine gets a flamer therefore only one gets it.

And you can swap one weapon. Not two.

The wording is the same and you're being inconsistent with your application of your argument. If that doesn't show that you should re-examine your argument I'm not sure what will.

I can swap ONE weapon for ONE relic. If I lose 2 weapons and take 2 relics I'm still exchanging 1 weapon for 1 relic.
I'm not explaining myself well I'll admit.

Correct, and if I have 2 Tac Marines take flamers, I'm still exchanging 1 Bolter for 1 Flamer.

True but it says one space marine can replace his boltgun not a space marine therefore only one can exchange his bolter. If it said A space marine can exchange his boltgun for..... I would admit you are correct RAW.

And how is that different from saying a model may swap one weapon for one relic?

 Ghaz wrote:
And how is that different from saying a model may swap one weapon for one relic?

Apart from the bit where it says "one space marine may" it isn't. Unless I'm getting confused.

pm713 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
And how is that different from saying a model may swap one weapon for one relic?

Apart from the bit where it says "one space marine may" it isn't. Unless I'm getting confused.

You're saying that one doesn't mean it's restricted to one. (You're allowed to swap one weapon twice).
And yet you're restricting Blood Angels to only making the swap one time.

They're the same usage of language. In one occurrence you're applying a restriction. In the other you're not.
Are you saying you believe your argument to be entirely consistent?

pm73, you see the relic list as follows.

I swap Weapon A for Relic A (1:1)
I swap Weapon b for Relic B (1:1)

Using that logic, I could take a 10-man Tac squad and

Upgrade Space Marine A with Special Weapon A (1:1)
Upgrade Space Marine B with Special Weapon B (1:1)

It is the same ratio, 1 for 1.

ONE SPACE MARINE CAN replace his boltgun with one of the following:

The part in capitals is why only 1 Blood Angel gets the flamer.

If it said "A space marine can replace his boltgun with one of the following" or anything that implies they can all take flamers then they could all take the flamers.

And ONE WEAPON can be exchanged for one relic.

So again, what's the difference?

The flamer exchange is limited to one marine exchanging his weapon.

so one means just one marine out of the models in a squad

but one just doesn't mean one weapon out of the weapons a model has.

got it.

No

One model = One model can make this exchange.

One weapon for one relic = You lose a single weapon and gain a single relic.
You can then lose another SINGLE weapon and gain another SINGLE relic.

And the relic swap is limited to one weapon can be swapped for one relic. If you swap two for two you have cheated.

No because I still swapped ONE weapon for ONE relic.

It would be illegal if I swapped ONE weapon for TWO relics or TWO weapons for ONE relic.

No, you swapped TWO weapons for TWO relics. Absolutely. You have permission to swap one and you swapped two. This is cheating.

I swapped one. This is legal.

No. You're playing games with semantics. One plus one is two. You've swapped two weapons which is not legal.

This thread is becoming pretty troll.

Under Relics of the Fang. "A model can replace one weapon with one of the following:"

As I read it, you can take one relic per model. One model can take one relic (singular), where three of them allow you to ignore the stipulation of replacing a weapon.

This thread is becoming pretty troll.

not only am I not certain whether or not that comment applies to the people who feel you are limited to one relic, or the people who feel you can get however many relics you want as long as you trade in a weapon for some, and don't take any more than once per army...

but it adds absolutely nothing to the discussion.

I agree with the above poster +1.

you can have all the relics in your army.

A character may take one, it replaces one weapon.

Some of them do not require you to replace a weapon, but this does not override that you may still only take one.

pm713 wrote:
ONE SPACE MARINE CAN replace his boltgun with one of the following:

The part in capitals is why only 1 Blood Angel gets the flamer.

If it said "A space marine can replace his boltgun with one of the following" or anything that implies they can all take flamers then they could all take the flamers.

A model can replace one weapon with one relic.
One space marine can replace his bolter with...

Why is "one" an absolute limit in the latter case, but not the former? You haven't answered that. Please do so, as that's literally your argument.

Every unit that can take relics specifically says "May take items from the ... Relics of the Fang list". In case it wasn't completely obvious when you use the word "items" it's referring to a plural which means multiple which means more than one of. Where are people getting this one and one only per model rule for Relics? It also says a model can replace one weapon with one of the following, since a model has two weapons that definitely sounds like it means they can have two Relics. Plus there are the ones that don't replace a weapon so you can just take them. The only stipulation is that you can only have one of each per army, not model, army.

Try looking at the 'Relics of the Fang' list in the Space Wolves Wargear List where it clearly states the following:

Only one of each Relic of the Fang may be taken per army. A model can replace one weapon with one of the following:

I am looking at the codex. When I select an item from the Relics list, I can take one relic for one weapon. And I can select items from the list. So each time I select from the list, I have to swap a weapon.

I think you are using the one for one when selecting somehow as a reason for not being able to select multiple times despite the codex clearly saying that I can select items and not item from the list.

Is there an option which states nothing more then 'may take items from Relics...' just by itself, and not as part of 'may take Items from X, Y, Z and Relic lists?'

blaktoof wrote:

This thread is becoming pretty troll.

not only am I not certain whether or not that comment applies to the people who feel you are limited to one relic, or the people who feel you can get however many relics you want as long as you trade in a weapon for some, and don't take any more than once per army...

but it adds absolutely nothing to the discussion.

I agree with the above poster +1.

you can have all the relics in your army.

A character may take one, it replaces one weapon.

Some of them do not require you to replace a weapon, but this does not override that you may still only take one.

You are 100% correct

Thorgrim Bloodcrow wrote:Every unit that can take relics specifically says "May take items from the ... Relics of the Fang list". In case it wasn't completely obvious when you use the word "items" it's referring to a plural which means multiple which means more than one of. Where are people getting this one and one only per model rule for Relics? It also says a model can replace one weapon with one of the following, since a model has two weapons that definitely sounds like it means they can have two Relics. Plus there are the ones that don't replace a weapon so you can just take them. The only stipulation is that you can only have one of each per army, not model, army.

You have intentionally left out a lot where that "..." is. Items is pluralized for the very simple reason that it is referencing multiple lists and therefore multiple items by default. The exact quote you trunciated is "May take items from the Melee Weapons, Ranged Weapons, Special Items, Wargear, and the Relics of the Fang lists." Multiple lists of items shockingly equal multiple items. One might, with a real stretch extend that to multiple items within each list, except for the fact:

Ghaz wrote:Try looking at the 'Relics of the Fang' list in the Space Wolves Wargear List where it clearly states the following:

Only one of each Relic of the Fang may be taken per army. A model can replace one weapon with one of the following:

I don't get why this has gone on 3 pages as it pretty clear. By the argument for multiple relics on this list I could take all the relics in the ork codex on one dude too, which I can't (and they would synergize really really well), or as that other example, give every marine in a squad a heavy weapon by doing it one at a time over and over again...

I left that part intentionally out because it has no bearing in regards to the topic at hand. You're making conspiracy theories out of things that don't exist. Nowhere at all does it say that you can't take multiple relics. Just because it might say something different in the Ork Codex means nothing to what it says in the Space Wolves Codex. The rule states one weapon for one relic. All of the models that can take from the Relics list have two weapons. So Weapon A can be traded for Relic A and then Weapon B can be traded for Weapon B. Then you can take the Relics that don't even replace a weapon. Unless you can find a specific rule that says one Relic per model, then I'm gonna go with what it says in the codex.

Wow, you really really really want one super decked out dude...

Exact quote from the Ork Codex: "Only one of each of the following may be taken per army. A model may take one of the following:"
I don't even have to swap a weapon, but by your logic, I could take one, then take one again, then a couple minutes later take one again. Yes?

 Amiricle wrote:
Wow, you really really really want one super decked out dude...

Exact quote from the Ork Codex: "Only one of each of the following may be taken per army. A model may take one of the following:"
I don't even have to swap a weapon, but by your logic, I could take one, then take one again, then a couple minutes later take one again. Yes?

No because that's the Ork Codex, that's not what it says in the Space Wolves Codex as has been stated multiple times.

The ork codex came out just before this one and uses the exact same format. I main space wolves and agree, it one relic per model. Thems the breaks.

 Kavish wrote:
The ork codex came out just before this one and uses the exact same format. I main space wolves and agree, it one relic per model. Thems the breaks.

Like I said, find the exact rule that says you're limited to one Relic and I'll agree. Until then there's no breaks.

RAW on weapon replacing seems clear enough: you can only do it once*. But how about items that do not replace weapons? Surely you can have any number of them?

(* I doubted this at some point as C:SM army builder apparently allowed it, but since then it is turned out that the army builder allows all sorts of illegal things and army builders to other codices with identical wording do not allow it, so it obviously it is not a reliable source.)

 Thorgrim Bloodcrow wrote:

 Kavish wrote:
The ork codex came out just before this one and uses the exact same format. I main space wolves and agree, it one relic per model. Thems the breaks.

Like I said, find the exact rule that says you're limited to one Relic and I'll agree. Until then there's no breaks.

Wrong. Find permission to swap more than one, as the rule states you may swap one for one

That is your permission to take one. Find permission to take two

Pm- you undeniably took two, when you have permission to take one, and no more.

You just said it, swap one for one. Models have two.

In which case you still haven't addressed what's stopping someone swapping one weapon with another and then taking a Relic that doesn't require a swap.

My permission to take items from the list is in the unit entry where it says I may take items from the list.

The fact that there are other lists present in the same sentence in no way, shape or form changes the fact that items is used. It potentially adds an element of ambiguity, but that's the best you have.

 Thorgrim Bloodcrow wrote:
Every unit that can take relics specifically says "May take items from the ... Relics of the Fang list". In case it wasn't completely obvious when you use the word "items" it's referring to a plural which means multiple which means more than one of. Where are people getting this one and one only per model rule for Relics? It also says a model can replace one weapon with one of the following, since a model has two weapons that definitely sounds like it means they can have two Relics. Plus there are the ones that don't replace a weapon so you can just take them. The only stipulation is that you can only have one of each per army, not model, army.

This is my understanding of it as well.

does this mean my warboss can take one relic, but do it several times with different relics? sweet!

rigeld2 wrote:

pm713 wrote:
ONE SPACE MARINE CAN replace his boltgun with one of the following:

The part in capitals is why only 1 Blood Angel gets the flamer.

If it said "A space marine can replace his boltgun with one of the following" or anything that implies they can all take flamers then they could all take the flamers.

A model can replace one weapon with one relic.
One space marine can replace his bolter with...

Why is "one" an absolute limit in the latter case, but not the former? You haven't answered that. Please do so, as that's literally your argument.

I've actually tried answering that several times but at this point I'm just going to stop trying.

 some bloke wrote:
does this mean my warboss can take one relic, but do it several times with different relics? sweet!

No.

While I'm on the fence, the Ork Codex specifically states that you may only have one relic per model (last time I looked, anyway).
Of course, if the two Codexes (Codices?) have different writers, this has no bearing on the argument. If they have the same writer, I feel it is a clear sign that when worded like the SW codex it is "swap them as much as you like".
I don't know who wrote Orks and Wolves for 7th, so if anybody does know (and can cite this information), I do believe we might come closer to an answer.

pm713 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

pm713 wrote:
ONE SPACE MARINE CAN replace his boltgun with one of the following:

The part in capitals is why only 1 Blood Angel gets the flamer.

If it said "A space marine can replace his boltgun with one of the following" or anything that implies they can all take flamers then they could all take the flamers.

A model can replace one weapon with one relic.
One space marine can replace his bolter with...

Why is "one" an absolute limit in the latter case, but not the former? You haven't answered that. Please do so, as that's literally your argument.

I've actually tried answering that several times but at this point I'm just going to stop trying.

No, you haven't. You've just said it's so. You've done so without any rules quoting (other than above which doesn't actually support your argument).
Your argument literally says that one is a hard limit, but only when you say it is. Inconsistency is evidence of an incorrect viewpoint.

pm713 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

pm713 wrote:
ONE SPACE MARINE CAN replace his boltgun with one of the following:

The part in capitals is why only 1 Blood Angel gets the flamer.

If it said "A space marine can replace his boltgun with one of the following" or anything that implies they can all take flamers then they could all take the flamers.

A model can replace one weapon with one relic.
One space marine can replace his bolter with...

Why is "one" an absolute limit in the latter case, but not the former? You haven't answered that. Please do so, as that's literally your argument.

I've actually tried answering that several times but at this point I'm just going to stop trying.

The one is referring to different things. In the Blood Angels case it is referring to one MODEL exchanging his boltgun for a flamer. In the Space Wolf case it is referring to one WEAPON being exchanged for a Relic... and we're told that we can take ITEMS from the lists. Our side of the argument is that since you are allowed to take ITEMS from the list and you do so by exchanging ONE weapon per Relic, you can take as many ITEMS as you have weapons to exchange.

 Thorgrim Bloodcrow wrote:
I left that part intentionally out because it has no bearing in regards to the topic at hand.

Wrong. It's absolutely relevant.
You may take items (plural) from <insert multiple lists>.
If it said "an item" it'd be limited to one no matter how many lists.
"an item from each of" would be limited to one from each, and some lists don't have that limit.
Meaning the only possible way to word it and allow the restrictions on the lists to apply is "items".

Just because it might say something different in the Ork Codex means nothing to what it says in the Space Wolves Codex.

It's absolutely relevant because a good argument will be consistent. Since the wording is similar the same argument should be applied - and if the answer is different, the argument is inconsistent.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Thorgrim Bloodcrow wrote:
I left that part intentionally out because it has no bearing in regards to the topic at hand.

Wrong. It's absolutely relevant.
You may take items (plural) from <insert multiple lists>.
If it said "an item" it'd be limited to one no matter how many lists.
"an item from each of" would be limited to one from each, and some lists don't have that limit.
Meaning the only possible way to word it and allow the restrictions on the lists to apply is "items".

Just because it might say something different in the Ork Codex means nothing to what it says in the Space Wolves Codex.

It's absolutely relevant because a good argument will be consistent. Since the wording is similar the same argument should be applied - and if the answer is different, the argument is inconsistent.

Ok, glad you agreed on the items part. Since you still haven't specified where it says one item off the Relic list I stand by my point. And the wording is not similar, Orks say a model can only take one, Space Wolves does not say that. That isn't similar wording, it's actually completely different.

 Kriswall wrote:

pm713 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

pm713 wrote:
ONE SPACE MARINE CAN replace his boltgun with one of the following:

The part in capitals is why only 1 Blood Angel gets the flamer.

If it said "A space marine can replace his boltgun with one of the following" or anything that implies they can all take flamers then they could all take the flamers.

A model can replace one weapon with one relic.
One space marine can replace his bolter with...

Why is "one" an absolute limit in the latter case, but not the former? You haven't answered that. Please do so, as that's literally your argument.

I've actually tried answering that several times but at this point I'm just going to stop trying.

The one is referring to different things. In the Blood Angels case it is referring to one MODEL exchanging his boltgun for a flamer. In the Space Wolf case it is referring to one WEAPON being exchanged for a Relic... and we're told that we can take ITEMS from the lists. Our side of the argument is that since you are allowed to take ITEMS from the list and you do so by exchanging ONE weapon per Relic, you can take as many ITEMS as you have weapons to exchange.

Yes - it's referring to different things. Why is that relevant? Why is one a limiter in one case and an enabler in another.
You're allowed to take multiple items from multiple lists. You haven't cited permission to take multiple items from a list that says you can exchange *one* thing.

Your method ignores the requirements on the lists and is inconsistent in its definition of "one". This is evidence the argument is incorrect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Thorgrim Bloodcrow wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Thorgrim Bloodcrow wrote:
I left that part intentionally out because it has no bearing in regards to the topic at hand.

Wrong. It's absolutely relevant.
You may take items (plural) from <insert multiple lists>.
If it said "an item" it'd be limited to one no matter how many lists.
"an item from each of" would be limited to one from each, and some lists don't have that limit.
Meaning the only possible way to word it and allow the restrictions on the lists to apply is "items".

Just because it might say something different in the Ork Codex means nothing to what it says in the Space Wolves Codex.

It's absolutely relevant because a good argument will be consistent. Since the wording is similar the same argument should be applied - and if the answer is different, the argument is inconsistent.

Ok, glad you agreed on the items part. Since you still haven't specified where it says one item off the Relic list I stand by my point. And the wording is not similar, Orks say a model can only take one, Space Wolves does not say that. That isn't similar wording, it's actually completely different.

I have specified - the list requirement that say "one item" restrict you to, I dunno, one item.
The ork list is eerily similar - don't ignore it.

Well when you, I dunno, give me a specific page that has this list requirement that says one item. Then maybe I'll agree.

 Thorgrim Bloodcrow wrote:
Well when you, I dunno, give me a specific page that has this list requirement that says one item. Then maybe I'll agree.

So you haven't read the thread?
Awesome. We're done here.

The thing is, I have read the thread and I have actually submitted specific quotes that support my statements but that's fine to ignore. Instead of wasting people's time with mature responses like that, there is an option to ignore a member's posts. I suggest using that rather than getting completely off topic.

You have been shown, multiple times. One relic means just that. One. You're playing semantics trying to make more than one mean one.

Yes, one means on but that only applies to replacing a weapon with a Relic. That argument hasn't done anything to explain the Relics that don't require a trade.

No, it doesn't. One means one and only one. You're trying to read it as follows:

Only one of each Relic of the Fang may be taken per army. A model can replace a weapon with one of the following:

That would allow you to exchange more than what the rules allow, and that is "one weapon".

All that does is remove the requirement to swap a weapon. Exaplin where it means you can now have more than one relic.

The list allows you to have ONE relic in exchange for ONE weapon. If you exchange TWO weapons for TWO relics, or one weapon (plus no weapon) for TWO relics, you have NOT complied with this perrmission

You have permission to swap one weapon for one relic. You need to find a rule giving you permission to swap two weapons for two relics, or you are cheating by doing so.

Yes, it is cheating, as the rule states one relic. Not "for every weapon you swap you can take one relic", which is what you need to show.

 Thorgrim Bloodcrow wrote:
Yes, one means on but that only applies to replacing a weapon with a Relic. That argument hasn't done anything to explain the Relics that don't require a trade.

Thanks for moving the goalposts.
Relics that don't require swapping weapons just remove the "one weapon" part of the rule, not the "one item".

The ork codex isn't just similar, it uses literally the exact same wording with the only difference being that an ork doesn't have to swap a weapon for a relic weapon. Even in the unit entry, it says may take items from the following lists, the exact same sentence as used in the space wolf HQ entry.

rigeld2 wrote:

Relics that don't require swapping weapons just remove the "one weapon" part of the rule, not the "one item".

I am not at all convinced about that. The disclaimer really cannot remove just half of the sentence.

I feel bad for the people who have to deal with all of you in real life while playing 40k that are trying to stack these relics on your models...

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Relics that don't require swapping weapons just remove the "one weapon" part of the rule, not the "one item".

I am not at all convinced about that. The disclaimer really cannot remove just half of the sentence.

Why not? It only contradicts half the rule, so we ignore all of it? Really?

 JusticarGames wrote:
I feel bad for the people who have to deal with all of you in real life while playing 40k that are trying to stack these relics on your models...

This is not helpful and is actually an underhanded attack on the characters of fellow forum members, which I believe is most likely against the rules here.

At the end of the day, the actual wording tells us that we can take ITEMS from the Relics List. The wording further tells us that taking AN ITEM from the Relics List involves replacing ONE WEAPON with ONE RELIC. If I take two ITEMS from the Relics List, and each time I replace ONE WEAPON with ONE RELIC, I have obeyed the permission to take ITEMS and I've obeyed the restriction to replace ONE WEAPON with ONE RELIC when I take AN ITEM from the list.

I see NOTHING that prevents me from selecting multiple times from the list so long as I obey the one weapon/one relic requirement each time. The wording tells me I can take ITEMS, and that when I take an ITEM I have to replace. Nowehere does it tells me I can only take from the list once per model. I believe the other side of the argument is trying to apply the ONE WEAPON per RELIC logic to the may select ITEMS from the list sentence. These are seperate sentences.

rigeld2 wrote:

Why not? It only contradicts half the rule, so we ignore all of it? Really?

Really. (Maybe...)

The rule is 'may replace one weapon with one of the following.' Without 'replace one weapon' part you have a broken half sentence, and you literally have to make up a rule by replacing 'may replace one weapon' with 'may take one weapon'. That seems a bit far fetched extrapolation to me.

 Crimson wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Why not? It only contradicts half the rule, so we ignore all of it? Really?

Really. (Maybe...)

The rule is 'may replace one weapon with one of the following.' Without 'replace one weapon' part you have a broken half sentence, and you literally have to make up a rule by replacing 'may replace one weapon' with 'may take one weapon'. That seems a bit far fetched extrapolation to me.

No, it changes from "May replace one weapon with one of the following:" to "May take one of the following:". Only change is from "with" to "take" because you've removed the requirement to replace with - so you can just take it.
It still says "one" not "Meh, do whatever you want - I don't care."

I'm not sure why this irks me so much and I know feeding internet trolls is a complete and total waste of time, but here goes.

This is a forum whose sole purpose seems to be to argue minor and generally ambiguous points of rule. This is not a place to have a fun game. If I'm in a store and a genuine argument comes up, my community ALWAYS rolls a die and moves on with the game. I've actually stated several times that in a gaming scenario I would allow this issue to go in either direction.

You need to learn the difference between someone who enjoys a lively debate with someone playing an actual game and understand that the same person can have very different behaviors in those two contexts.

I could just as easily say "OMG, I feel sorry for people who have to deal with all of you in the real world who won't let people equip their models as allowed in the rules.", but I don't because it's not very friendly and is also most likely inaccurate. I'm hoping most of the people on this forum are a little more tolerant in a gaming situation than they would be on an anonymous gaming forum where they aren't worried about alienating a group or coming off as an unrelenting rules stickler.

a model may replace one weapon with one relic.

he replaces 2 weapons with 2 relics.

this is the same as:

one space marine may replace his bolter with a flamer

2 marines replace their bolters with flamers.

if someone has a bowl of sweets with a sign saying "please take only one", you're not obeying the sign by taking them all one at a time. you still took more than one.

with regard to the "does not replace the models weapons" argument, i turn it back on you:

Nowhere does it say that a model can take a relic without swapping it for a weapon. it only says a model can swap a weapon for a relic. if a relic does not require a weapon to be swapped for it, then no-one can take it. unless it is through the "may replace ONE weapon with ONE of the following" statement, in which case we're back to only ONE relic per model.

we're done here.

 Kriswall wrote:



I'm not sure why this irks me so much and I know feeding internet trolls is a complete and total waste of time, but here goes.

So you think I'm the troll when you're the one that keeps coming back on here trying to validate your twisted interpretation of this rule?

Seems legit.

 some bloke wrote:
a with regard to the "does not replace the models weapons" argument, i turn it back on you:

Nowhere does it say that a model can take a relic without swapping it for a weapon.

Note that the Helm of Durfast, The Armour of Russ and The Wulfen Stone are all marked with a superscript "6" in their listings. Note what that means:

6 Does not replace one of the character’s weapons.

 JusticarGames wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:



I'm not sure why this irks me so much and I know feeding internet trolls is a complete and total waste of time, but here goes.

So you think I'm the troll when you're the one that keeps coming back on here trying to validate your twisted interpretation of this rule?

Seems legit.

He's contributing to the thread. You're actively insulting and mocking people.

 some bloke wrote:


if someone has a bowl of sweets with a sign saying "please take only one", you're not obeying the sign by taking them all one at a time. you still took more than one.

Hmmm, but what if that bowl of sweets said to trade one dollar for one sweet? Could you take one, turn in a dollar. And then do it again for a second sweet?

Anyways, don't play puppies so don't really care and if my opponent wants to pile it onto one character, makes it easier to get rid of everything by just killing one model. I can see it going either way based on the rules quotes posted (as I have yet to acquire my SW codex - yes, I'm still one of those lunatics that buys all of them).

 don_mondo wrote:
Hmmm, but what if that bowl of sweets said to trade one dollar for one sweet? Could you take one, turn in a dollar. And then do it again for a second sweet?

The problem with your example is you're not looking at it by way of a permissive rules set.

rigeld2 wrote:

 JusticarGames wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:



I'm not sure why this irks me so much and I know feeding internet trolls is a complete and total waste of time, but here goes.

So you think I'm the troll when you're the one that keeps coming back on here trying to validate your twisted interpretation of this rule?

Seems legit.

He's contributing to the thread. You're actively insulting and mocking people.

Clearly our opinions of "contributing" are way different.

All I've done here is shared my opinions on how terrible it must be to play against or be around individuals who misinterpret things so badly.

It's honestly rather comical at this point.

Read the Tenets of YMDC stickied at the top of the forum and you'll see why you're not contributing to the discussion.

 Ghaz wrote:
Read the Tenets of YMDC stickied at the top of the forum and you'll see why you're not contributing to the discussion.

Got it, have fun fellas.

 Kriswall wrote:

pm713 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

pm713 wrote:
ONE SPACE MARINE CAN replace his boltgun with one of the following:

The part in capitals is why only 1 Blood Angel gets the flamer.

If it said "A space marine can replace his boltgun with one of the following" or anything that implies they can all take flamers then they could all take the flamers.

A model can replace one weapon with one relic.
One space marine can replace his bolter with...

Why is "one" an absolute limit in the latter case, but not the former? You haven't answered that. Please do so, as that's literally your argument.

I've actually tried answering that several times but at this point I'm just going to stop trying.

The one is referring to different things. In the Blood Angels case it is referring to one MODEL exchanging his boltgun for a flamer. In the Space Wolf case it is referring to one WEAPON being exchanged for a Relic... and we're told that we can take ITEMS from the lists. Our side of the argument is that since you are allowed to take ITEMS from the list and you do so by exchanging ONE weapon per Relic, you can take as many ITEMS as you have weapons to exchange.

I agree with you. I would also like to point out that nowhere does it say that a model may only take ONE relic. I can't remember what codex/book says it (think it is a Chaos Space Marines book), but the book uses an example where the HQ has two relics. That seems to support the more than one relic theory. Not that I personally would suggest multiple relics one one model. You are just asking to draw hate to that model doing that. But so long as you can make the exchanges I don't see anything rules wise preventing you from doing so.

That isn't how a permissive system works. You have permission to swap one for one. Find permission to swap more than one. Page and para

 some bloke wrote:


if someone has a bowl of sweets with a sign saying "please take only one", you're not obeying the sign by taking them all one at a time. you still took more than one.

If someone had a series of bowls with a sign that read "You may take sweets from the following bowls" and then another sign on the red bowl that read "You may take take one sweet by placing one dollar in the bowl", how many sweets are you allowed to take from the red bowl? I would argue that so long as you're paying your dollar, you can keep taking sweets.

One, otherwise you have taken two, and the restriction on the howl allows you to take jussi one

Essentially your fabrication of "one, then another one" ips just that. Made it, with zero rules support.
otherwise I'm taking all flamer tactical squads.

So let's review how you select wargear for a model.

"- May take items from the Melee Weapons, Ranged Weapons, Special Issue Wargear and/or Relics of the Fang lists."

You have permission to select items from the above lists. So from there we need restrictions or further instructions in order to limit the number of items we can take for a given model.

"Only one of each Relic of the Fang may be taken per army. A model can replace one weapon with one of the following:"

This gives further instructions on how to select items from the Relic of the Fang list. It says a model can replace 1 weapon with 1 relic. This is a restriction placed upon a model selecting wargear from this list. If you replace 2 weapons with 2 relics then you've broken the restriction no matter when or how you do it.

The permission on the bowl actually tells me that I can take a sweet by exchanging a dollar. I read this as "If you want a sweet, you must give the bowl a dollar". The larger permission tells me I can take sweets. I'm reading this as "you can take multiple sweets (it does say sweets and not sweet), so long as you are fulfilling the requirement for each sweet you take".

Nowhere does it say I can ONLY take one sweet from the red bowl. I'm just told that I can take one sweet by exchanging a one dollar. If I take multiple sweets, then I would be required to exchange one sweet for one dollar multiple times.

"You may take 1 sweet for 1 dollar"

"I took 2 sweets for 2 dollars"

I did not follow instructions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
At the end of the day, you have an army list with a set of wargear. If there are 2 relics on your sheet for a single model that you swapped for the 2 weapons, and I look at the section on selecting relics and I see "A model can replace one weapon with one of the following:" then I'm going to wonder how you managed to replace 2 weapons with 2 relics.

I really did. I took 1 sweet for 1 dollar and then I took 1 sweet for 1 dollar. I can do this because I was told I can take sweets from the bowl. You have to prove to me that I can't take things sequentially.

My evidence that I can is the SM Biker FAQ allowing me to swap Pistol for Chainsword and then Chainsword for other weapons. The system HAS to work sequentially or the FAQ is false. And we all build lists the same way. It doesn't change from 'dex to 'dex.

Hmmm, I didn't think army list selection was sequential. That FAQ says you can swap a pistol for a chainsword but it doesn't say anything about then being able to swap that chainsword for something else.

 Kriswall wrote:
The permission on the bowl actually tells me that I can take a sweet by exchanging a dollar. I read this as "If you want a sweet, you must give the bowl a dollar". The larger permission tells me I can take sweets. I'm reading this as "you can take multiple sweets (it does say sweets and not sweet), so long as you are fulfilling the requirement for each sweet you take".

Nowhere does it say I can ONLY take one sweet from the red bowl. I'm just told that I can take one sweet by exchanging a one dollar. If I take multiple sweets, then I would be required to exchange one sweet for one dollar multiple times.

You're reading something entirely different from what's actually written though. And you're not applying that reading consistently.

If you have to restate the rule in a more permissive way to make your argument work, then your argument cannot be correct.

Zimko wrote:

"- May take items from the Melee Weapons, Ranged Weapons, Special Issue Wargear and/or Relics of the Fang lists."

You have permission to select items from the above lists. So from there we need restrictions or further instructions in order to limit the number of items we can take for a given model.

"Only one of each Relic of the Fang may be taken per army. A model can replace one weapon with one of the following:"

This gives further instructions on how to select items from the Relic of the Fang list. It says a model can replace 1 weapon with 1 relic. This is a restriction placed upon a model selecting wargear from this list. If you replace 2 weapons with 2 relics then you've broken the restriction no matter when or how you do it.

I disagree here. Based on the first line, it is pluralized. I take this to mean I may take items from the same category multiple times. The only stipulation is that when I do so, it is on a 1 for 1 basis. My interpretation is that each time I take an item from the above list, I do so following the restrictions laid out above. Can someone with the rulebook let me know what it says about how you swap out for the other categories? Is it worded the same? (What I am wondering is what is the wording for getting a pair of wolf claws? Does melee weapons have the one for one wording?)

 Green is Best! wrote:
I disagree here. Based on the first line, it is pluralized. I take this to mean I may take items from the same category multiple times. The only stipulation is that when I do so, it is on a 1 for 1 basis. My interpretation is that each time I take an item from the above list, I do so following the restrictions laid out above. Can someone with the rulebook let me know what it says about how you swap out for the other categories? Is it worded the same? (What I am wondering is what is the wording for getting a pair of wolf claws? Does melee weapons have the one for one wording?)

The underlined has no basis in fact. It's plural because there are multiple lists.
You have to abide by the restrictions of each list to use them. If you've already selected one item from the Relic table, cite permission to select another.

OK. How are the other categories worded for replacing weapons? (Codex is at home)

 Green is Best! wrote:

Zimko wrote:

"- May take items from the Melee Weapons, Ranged Weapons, Special Issue Wargear and/or Relics of the Fang lists."

You have permission to select items from the above lists. So from there we need restrictions or further instructions in order to limit the number of items we can take for a given model.

"Only one of each Relic of the Fang may be taken per army. A model can replace one weapon with one of the following:"

This gives further instructions on how to select items from the Relic of the Fang list. It says a model can replace 1 weapon with 1 relic. This is a restriction placed upon a model selecting wargear from this list. If you replace 2 weapons with 2 relics then you've broken the restriction no matter when or how you do it.

I disagree here. Based on the first line, it is pluralized. I take this to mean I may take items from the same category multiple times. The only stipulation is that when I do so, it is on a 1 for 1 basis. My interpretation is that each time I take an item from the above list, I do so following the restrictions laid out above. Can someone with the rulebook let me know what it says about how you swap out for the other categories? Is it worded the same? (What I am wondering is what is the wording for getting a pair of wolf claws? Does melee weapons have the one for one wording?)

its plural because saying "may take item from.."

is 1- improper english

2- would possibly mean you can only take 1 item total, but who knows?

 Kriswall wrote:
The permission on the bowl actually tells me that I can take a sweet by exchanging a dollar. I read this as "If you want a sweet, you must give the bowl a dollar". The larger permission tells me I can take sweets. I'm reading this as "you can take multiple sweets (it does say sweets and not sweet), so long as you are fulfilling the requirement for each sweet you take".

Nowhere does it say I can ONLY take one sweet from the red bowl. I'm just told that I can take one sweet by exchanging a one dollar. If I take multiple sweets, then I would be required to exchange one sweet for one dollar multiple times.

Your reading is totally different to what you're told though. It's the same as the rewrite of rules you're attempting with relics.

Have you taken two relics? Yes. Then you have broken th rules. Proven

Just checked the codex. It is pretty clear you can only take one relic. Otherwise, it would be written like the melee weapons:

A model may exchange his bolt pistol and/or chainsword for one of the following.

The fact that they are written so plainly within the same codex implies that is what they meant.

 Green is Best! wrote:
Just checked the codex. It is pretty clear you can only take one relic. Otherwise, it would be written like the melee weapons:

A model may exchange his bolt pistol and/or chainsword for one of the following.

The fact that they are written so plainly within the same codex implies that is what they meant.

If it was written that way Then a Wolf lord couldn't take terminator armor and a relic, because he doesn't have a chainsword or bolt pistol. A wolf lord in terminator armor has weapons just like one with out terminator armor has weapons.

Well theoretically you could take items from the Relics list.

It depends on whether or not you think taking more than 1 Relic is legal as long as you abide by the 1 Weapon swap rule. So for example,
Swap Weapon A for "Super Cool Relic Weapon A"
Take "Super Awesome Relic Armour B" (no swap)
Take "Relic Shield That is Pretty Sweet But not as Awesome as The Super Awesome Relic Armour But Still Makes Your Character Look Really Sweet C" (no swap)

As you can see I'm not very good with Relic names. However, the model in question has indeed taken items from the Relics list and has followed the rule of 1 Weapon for 1 Relic.


And personally I think this is the intent as it is how every tournament (not RAW and tourneys do get things wrong) has ruled it (the taking multiple no swap relics).

Nothing changes the fact that One = 1, as in singular. You get to this step in the sequence of outfitting your HQ. You choose 1 weapon to swap, then 1 relic. Now in the case of armour or equipment, there is a sub-rule that tells you you get the weapon back. There is no sub-rule that tells you that you can then go back and repeat this step as many times as you like.
If you are arguing that you may repeat a step like this as many times as you want then you reopen the ork discussion allowing a warboss to do the same (and possibly the heavy weapon thing mentioned earlier). You cannot be 'for' one and 'against' the other. It's either for both, or against both since both use the exact same wording, organization & layout.
I would personally love to be able to apply as many of the ork codex relics as I wanted on a boss since many of them seem fun but can't compare to the few really good ones but One, is singular.
If it's any consolation, it's quite likely wolves will be able to take multiple relics from the list in the supplement (I am assuming there is another list in that book like the Ghaz one for orks) if the ork one is any indication (which I'm inclined to believe it is since the codices are the exact same format and use the same wording). Anyone have that book yet?

Seems like everyone's best bet is just come to an agreement with your gaming group. I don't care what someone from England or wherever thinks. I understand finding out a rule meaning here but any debate that has lasted for 5 pages isn't going to be solved. Good luck people.

Yellowfever,
It is also a debate that occurs with every Edition, so I too don't think an answer will be forth coming this time...

However it was only ever a debate with Relics. Despite the situations being functionally identical, no one has ever tried to claim that all their Tac marines can get a free flamer.

Personally, I think the way the special issue wargear is worded (making it very clear you can take multiple items) is decisive. If they had meant to allow multiple relics per character the relics could have been worded the same way.

 Happyjew wrote:
Well theoretically you could take items from the Relics list.

It depends on whether or not you think taking more than 1 Relic is legal as long as you abide by the 1 Weapon swap rule. So for example,
Swap Weapon A for "Super Cool Relic Weapon A"
Take "Super Awesome Relic Armour B" (no swap)
Take "Relic Shield That is Pretty Sweet But not as Awesome as The Super Awesome Relic Armour But Still Makes Your Character Look Really Sweet C" (no swap)

As you can see I'm not very good with Relic names. However, the model in question has indeed taken items from the Relics list and has followed the rule of 1 Weapon for 1 Relic.


And personally I think this is the intent as it is how every tournament (not RAW and tourneys do get things wrong) has ruled it (the taking multiple no swap relics).

I'm on this side: Indeed, "A model can replace one weapon with one of the following:"
Single model, single "one weapon with one": can't take The Bite with Black Death

Note 6: "Does not replace one of the character's weapons" - ie disregard the second line.
Black Death + Wulfen stone + Helm is perfectly legal as you only have One per army and that is the single requirement.

Mavnas wrote:
Personally, I think the way the special issue wargear is worded (making it very clear you can take multiple items) is decisive. If they had meant to allow multiple relics per character the relics could have been worded the same way.

This is what sold me. Also, if you want to cross compare with other codexes, the only one that I am aware of where you can take multiple relics is Crimson Slaughter. The relics portion is worded as:

"Any character in your Crimson Slaughter detachment....can instead select from the Relics of the Crimson Slaughter...."

*Additionally, they even reference Kranon having multiple relics earlier in the book.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
No, I am not. You are ignoring that you can select items, plural, from all the lists mentioned. One from each is still plural.

Please cite permission to exchange such items sequentially, neatly loop holing the rules to avoid triggering the restriction imposed on you. Not at all Easter egging

Obvious Troll is obvious

pg 35 has an example of "Wolf Guard with Thunder Hammer and Storm Shield"
but the "Melee Weapons" list says "one of the following"

pg43 has an example of a TWC wielding a Thunder Hammer and Storm Shield
but the "Melee Weapons" list says "one of the following"

pg68 again shows a Wolf Guard wielding a Thunder Hammer and Storm Shield
but the "Melee Weapons" list says "one of the following"

None of these units have access to a single (TH & SS) option, like WG Terminators do

So are you saying that no Space Wolf model other than Wolf Guard Terminators may simultaneously wield a Thunder Hammer and Storm Shield, on the basis that the Melee Weapons entry says
"A model may replace his bolt pistol and/or Melee weapon with one of the following:" ????

Because I don't think you'll find much support for that argument

GW themselves have shown many models with what you would argue is an illegal wargear combination

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kriswall wrote:My permission to take items from the list is in the unit entry where it says I may take items from the list.

The fact that there are other lists present in the same sentence in no way, shape or form changes the fact that items is used. It potentially adds an element of ambiguity, but that's the best you have.

QFT

1) reported for rule 1
2) yes, that's what "and / or" means. Wording that the relics list does not have.

Meaning your argument fails

If you think someone is trolling it is best to click the Yellow Triangle to alert moderators rather than directly accusing them in the thread.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
1) reported for rule 1
2) yes, that's what "and / or" means. Wording that the relics list does not have.

Meaning your argument fails

Sorry... what?!?!

What do you mean by "2) yes" ?!?!!

Are you trying to say a Wolf Lord can't have both a Frost Sword AND Storm Shield because he can only replace his weapons with *one* optional choice?!?!?!?!

Because accusing someone of trolling is not a way to have a discussion. A mod already said something of it, so drop it.

As for 2).
That entry clearly says you swap a bolt pistol AND/OR a melee weapon, which allows you to swap the bolt pistol and allows you to swap the melee weapon.

Mate I hadn't made any further mention of the trolling thing (which was only ever a casual comment in the first place)

As far as your comment on the so-called "2)"....

yes, it allows you to swap either one, the other, or both -

but only for "one of the following"

If you even TRY to say that's somehow different from the wording on the relics...... well I wouldn't know how to respond.... but certainly there's no way I could ever take you seriously

It doesn't matter if you swap "one weapon", "bolt pistol", "and/or", "melee weapon"....
BOTH rules clearly say you get the same thing in return

"one of the following"


Automatically Appended Next Post:
so if that's how you interpret it.....
let's just say there aren't any valid lists in the Army List forum

Edited by insaniak. Stick to the topic.

I am afraid that you are confused by the definition of the word "Troll", and should probably look up "Lurker" instead. One is always negative, the other can be a bit of both.

As to the difference your are talking about, one says:
"may replace his bolt pistol and/or Melee weapon with one of the following"
the other "A model can replace one weapon with one of the following"

If you take the "and" from the first you get "replace bolt pistol with XxxX and replace Melee weapon with YyyY"
so 2 from the list.

For relics, you can only trade 1 weapon. Never 2.

As Wulfen stone, Helm, etc don't replace anything, you can have as many of those (1 per army).

Again, reported for rule 1

2 yes, the fact the written rule is very different, means the result is different.

 BlackTalos wrote:
I am afraid that you are confused by the definition of the word "Troll", and should probably look up "Lurker" instead. One is always negative, the other can be a bit of both.

As to the difference your are talking about, one says:
"may replace his bolt pistol and/or Melee weapon with one of the following"
the other "A model can replace one weapon with one of the following"

If you take the "and" from the first you get "replace bolt pistol with XxxX and replace Melee weapon with YyyY"
so 2 from the list.

For relics, you can only trade 1 weapon. Never 2.

As Wulfen stone, Helm, etc don't replace anything, you can have as many of those (1 per army).

I think his point is that the and/or is saying that you can replace both weapons or 1 of the weapons for one of the following.

There is no reason you would, but that is the way it is technically worded.

The sentence is set up to give you two chances to replace, giving:

replace bolt pistol with... AND
replace chainsword with

So no, theyre not right, at all.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Again, reported for rule 1

2 yes, the fact the written rule is very different, means the result is different.

So what you're saying is...
"A model may replace his bolt pistol and/or Melee weapon with ONE of the following:"
"A model can replace ONE weapon with ONE of the following"
[What a model can replace] / [what the model gets in return]

I see.... so the definition of ONE all depends upon which side of the equation it's written in!!!

so if it's ONE then it means one thing, but if it's ONE then it means another?

It's all so clear now
....
....
except.... why then is the "what the model gets in return" exactly the same in both cases?

Well, it's actually quite simple.

What can he replace?
1) ONE weapon
2) Bolt Pistol and/or Melee Weapon.

So how many can he replace?
1) One weapon.
2) One or two weapons.

Hi all

This has been a really interesting discussion, my question is this

It appears there are 2 main points of argument
1 character can take only 1 relic
2 character can take as many relics as per each valid selection

If we take it as only one selection then previous comments saying you can have one weapon but as many of the non weapon options as you like on a model may be incorrect?
The only additional stipulation on the non weapon options is that they do not replace a weapon
So unit entry : may choose option from relic of the fang
Relic option: this selection does not replace the weapon

But the wording is different from the ork codex as noted previously as it is very specific with regards to a single selection
Really needs a specific official FAQ as it can easily be interpreted in a number of ways

Kaliban, there are three viewpoints.

1. One Relic for One Weapon is a ratio. This means as long as you give up a weapon, you can have an equal number of relics, as well as any relic that does not require a swap.
2. One Relic for One Weapon is a limit. This means you have permission to trade one weapon only, as trading in a second weapon means you traded two weapons for two relics. It also means that you can only have 1 relic, as otherwise you traded 1 Weapon for 2+ relics (even though only one relic required a swap).
3. Similar to 2, except that the relics that do not require a weapon swap are effectively ignored when determining how many relics a model can have.


The Orks relics are restricted differently, as unlike everyone else (Tau excluded), their relics do not require a swap unless specified.

Karlosovic - "and / or" totally changes what you do. If you swap one weapon, you get one weapon, 2 you get two

For Relics you are never told you can swap more than one weapon

Its fairly simple. Youre told you can swap one weapon, meaning you never have permission to swap for more than one.

You can insert made up gak all you like, pretending I've saidf the definition of "one" changes. It doesnt.

Cheers happy

Yeah that's what was confusing me.

My own opinion is that you have to consider it a one item limit ( a one and only one whether a weapon or non weapon) or a free selection where in theory you could have all 6 on one guy (nothing stopping you taking an additional melee weapon and thens swoping it for the other relic, which is obviously silly but possible)
Reading the wargear list and the specific:
Only one of each relic of the fang may be taken per army. A model can replace one weapon with one of the following:
Can be interpreted either way has been argued , its the may take items from options in the unit entry that may be causing the problems, really relic option should have been a separate unit option, the fact it isn't but is treated like any other wargear table I would have to say I'd allow an opponent multiple relic selections. Just my 2 cents

In both cases it says "one weapon"

Except that is not what it says. separate it into two sentences

You may replace x and y for z
You may replace x or y for z

That is his point as that is what the sentence is currently saying.

It is not saying replace x for z and y for q

 karlosovic wrote:
In both cases it says "one weapon"

Yeah, if you ignore half the rule. When you don't ignore anything they're not comparable.
It's almost like you're purposely ignoring rules to attempt to prove your point. I wouldn't accuse you of such dishonesty, but that's what it seems like is happening.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
2 you get two

It doesn't say "two" or ""2" ANYWHERE in the whole wargear list

nosferatu1001 wrote:
For Relics you are never told you can swap more than one weapon

a) in all cases where a profile mentions Relics of the Fang it reads "may take itemsS...... plural means more than one
b) in all cases where a profile mentions Melee Weapons it reads "may take itemsS...... plural means more than one

So... Yes, you are told you can swap more than one (or else the wording would be singular e.g. "May make one choice from each of the following lists")

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You can insert made up gak all you like, pretending I've saidf the definition of "one" changes. It doesnt.

reported for rule 1 as you most certainly have said the definition of "one" is different in different situations

You said that a model may take TWO options from the melee list, even though RAW it says ONE
but on the relics list you said a model may only take ONE option from the relics list, when RAW says ONE
In both cases RAW says ONE... but in the first case you say that means TWO.

To me.... you've interpreted the word "one" as "two" in the first case, but "one" in the 2nd case..... which sounds like the definition of "one" has changed (from "two" to "one"

Therefore I stand behind my claim and report you for Rule 1 when you said I made up "gak" (whatever that is.... it sounds insulting) but clearly I was just telling the truth becuase your definition of "one" certainly does change

 karlosovic wrote:
It doesn't say "two" or ""2" ANYWHERE in the whole wargear list

So you just want to pretend the "and/or" doesn't exist?

reported for rule 1 as you most certainly have said the definition of "one" is different in different situations

No, he hasn't.

You said that a model may take TWO options from the melee list, even though RAW it says ONE

No, it doesn't.

but on the relics list you said a model may only take ONE option from the relics list, when RAW says ONE
In both cases RAW says ONE... but in the first case you say that means TWO.

Incorrect.

Therefore I stand behind my claim and report you for Rule 1 when you said I made up "gak" (whatever that is.... it sounds insulting) but clearly I was just telling the truth becuase your definition of "one" certainly does change

Again, incorrect. Until you account for the entire rule in your arguments you can't claim to be correct.

How many Flamers can a C: SM Tactical Squad with 10 models (1 Sgt + 9 Space Marines) have?

 Leth wrote:
Except that is not what it says. separate it into two sentences

You may replace x and y for z
You may replace x or y for z

That is his point as that is what the sentence is currently saying.

It is not saying replace x for z and y for q

OK sure
So RAW we have an option:
And don't lie.... RAW. it says you get ONE OF THE FOLLOWING
1) We replace our Bolt Pistol for a Power Sword
2) we replace our Melee Weapon for a Power Sword
3 We replace both our Bolt pistol and Melee Weapon for a Power Sword

that's what "with ONE of the following" means.....RAW

Does it say you get a 2nd round of swaps???

Does it make any sense to swap BOTH our weapons for a single powersword? Well that doesn't matter either way, as we're all being massive "RAW" sticklers


So, does it say you get a 2nd round of swaps?

No, it doesn't


End of Story?

 karlosovic wrote:

 Leth wrote:
Except that is not what it says. separate it into two sentences

You may replace x and y for z
You may replace x or y for z

That is his point as that is what the sentence is currently saying.

It is not saying replace x for z and y for q

OK sure
So RAW we have an option:
And don't lie.... RAW. it says you get ONE OF THE FOLLOWING
1) We replace our Bolt Pistol for a Power Sword
2) we replace our Melee Weapon for a Power Sword
3 We replace both our Bolt pistol and Melee Weapon for a Power Sword

that's what "with ONE of the following" means.....RAW

Does it say you get a 2nd round of swaps???

Does it make any sense to swap BOTH our weapons for a single powersword? Well that doesn't matter either way, as we're all being massive "RAW" sticklers


So, does it say you get a 2nd round of swaps?

No, it doesn't


End of Story?

Agree.

Rules as Written, there is no permission to exchange bolt pistol for one item and chainsword for another.

I have permission to replace Bolt Pistol OR Chainsword for one item. (This is a one for one swap)

I also have permission to replace Bolt Pistol AND Chainsword for one item. (This is a two for one swap)

Nowhere do I have permission to exchange Bolt Pistol for ONE item and Chainsword for a SECOND item. RaI seems clear, but the actual RaW prevents swapping Bolt Pistol and Chainsword for two different items.

If ONE always means ONE, even when you're told explicitly that you can take ITEMS, please explain how I can replace both Bolt Pistol and Chainsword for two items.

 karlosovic wrote:
that's what "with ONE of the following" means.....RAW

No, that's not how English works.

You can replace A and/or B with one of the following:

Can be rewritten, correctly, as:

You can replace A with one of the following and/or replace B with one of the following:

Your argument goes against how the English language works.

Karl - you seem to be on a little bit of a vendetta, given the personal attacks over the last couple of days.

What is 1 and 1? 2.

You are ignoring half a rule, and claiming that because "one" appears somewhere within the text that they are equal. Or that I am claiming that one is sometimes 2, which is a strict lie.

Secondly you are again failing to actually use words correctly. This might be frustrating you, but when I say you are nto told you can swap more than one weapon with relics, I am being precise - you are told you can *take* multiple items from various lists, but that is not the same thing as swapping items.

And when swapping items for relics you are told, explicitly, that you may swap one for one. When doing the same for melee weapons you have an "And / or" which results in two swaps being possible.

I have never said the definition of "one" changes. You have made that up, been corrected, and repeated it. That is therefore a bald faced lie.

Says the same thing in both cases

No matter what you swap, you get "ONE of the following" (RAW)



Automatically Appended Next Post:
No matter how much you cry about some personal vendetta, it won't change the words printed on paper

For the record... my only aim is to bring forth the truth. I can't help who stands as a champion against it


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I also apologise for the blurry and poorly rotated images.

It's late where I am

 karlosovic wrote:
Says the same thing in both cases

Again, only if you (incorrectly) focus on half the rule. Stop doing so.

I'd also hate to be labelled as a contributor to piracy which is why I scrubbed out the point values (which I believe is a forum rule?)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 karlosovic wrote:
Says the same thing in both cases

Again, only if you (incorrectly) focus on half the rule. Stop doing so.

It's not incorrect

Swap [one side] for [the other side] is the normally accepted practice

You are partially correct. It does say 'with one of the following'.
But you ignore the first part where it says a Bolt Pistol and/or Melee weapon.
That means we can swap a Bolt Pistol with one of the following and a Melee weapon with one of the following.

 karlosovic wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 karlosovic wrote:
Says the same thing in both cases

Again, only if you (incorrectly) focus on half the rule. Stop doing so.

It's not incorrect

Swap [one side] for [the other side] is the normally accepted practice

And if you have an "and/or" clause you can't analyze the sentence like that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And/or
" For example, the sentence "He will eat cake, pie, and/or brownies" indicates that although the person may eat any of the three listed desserts, the choices are not exclusive; the person may eat one, two, or all three of the choices."

The way the rule is written, the choices are not exclusive. Both options are possible.

 karlosovic wrote:

 Leth wrote:
Except that is not what it says. separate it into two sentences

You may replace x and y for z
You may replace x or y for z

That is his point as that is what the sentence is currently saying.

It is not saying replace x for z and y for q

OK sure
So RAW we have an option:
And don't lie.... RAW. it says you get ONE OF THE FOLLOWING
1) We replace our Bolt Pistol for a Power Sword
2) we replace our Melee Weapon for a Power Sword
3 We replace both our Bolt pistol and Melee Weapon for a Power Sword

that's what "with ONE of the following" means.....RAW

Does it say you get a 2nd round of swaps???

Does it make any sense to swap BOTH our weapons for a single powersword? Well that doesn't matter either way, as we're all being massive "RAW" sticklers


So, does it say you get a 2nd round of swaps?

No, it doesn't


End of Story?

You do realize I was agreeing with you right.......

rigeld2 wrote:

 karlosovic wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 karlosovic wrote:
Says the same thing in both cases

Again, only if you (incorrectly) focus on half the rule. Stop doing so.

It's not incorrect

Swap [one side] for [the other side] is the normally accepted practice

And if you have an "and/or" clause you can't analyze the sentence like that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And/or
" For example, the sentence "He will eat cake, pie, and/or brownies" indicates that although the person may eat any of the three listed desserts, the choices are not exclusive; the person may eat one, two, or all three of the choices."

The way the rule is written, the choices are not exclusive. Both options are possible.

So you're saying that per the commonly accepted usage of and/or, I may replace the one, two or both items for ONE item from the list? Because that is what the sentence says. GW is clearly using it wrong.

Mate, it says
you can swap (A and/or B) for "ONE of the following"

It DOESN'T SAY
you can A for one of the following and/or B for one of the following

Do you seriously not understand basic maths and English???

There's absolutely no other way to interpret it.

The wording allows for ONE swap for ONE of the following!

The only difference in wording is in what you swap

In the case of the melee weapons, a single selection allows you to swap either or both weapons for ONE single choice

in the case of the relics, a single selection allows you to swap either weapon for ONE single choice

Either way, a single selection allows you to take ONE single choice

It really is basic maths and basic English grammar

If you continue to argue against it, I can only conclude that you're either mal-educated or being deliberately deconstructive

Either way, you're wrong, and I'm done arguing

Kriswall wrote:So you're saying that per the commonly accepted usage of and/or, I may replace the one, two or both items for ONE item from the list? Because that is what the sentence says. GW is clearly using it wrong.

No, that would be exclusive. and/or is by definition not exclusive.

karlosovic wrote:Mate, it says
you can swap (A and/or B) for "ONE of the following"

It DOESN'T SAY
you can A for one of the following and/or B for one of the following

Do you seriously not understand basic maths and English???

I do understand English. I've proven that it can be rewritten that way. You can deny it all you want, that doesn't make it true.

"A model can swap bolt pistol and/or chainsword for one of the following" can be rewritten three ways:

1. A model can swap (bolt pistol) for ONE of the following.

2. A model can swap (chainsword) for ONE of the following.

3. A model can swap (bolt pistol and chainsword) for ONE of the following.

I believe you are misunderstanding how and/or works. In all three instances, only one swap is occurring and only one of the following is received. You are wanting to activate the selection process twice, and per your own arguments throughout the thread, this isn't allowed.

To allow a bolt pistol to be swapped for one item and then subsequently allow a chainsword to be swapped for one item creates a situation where two items have been swapped. Why can I do this on one list, but not the second list?

rigeld2 wrote:

karlosovic wrote:Mate, it says
you can swap (A and/or B) for "ONE of the following"

It DOESN'T SAY
you can A for one of the following and/or B for one of the following

Do you seriously not understand basic maths and English???

I do understand English. I've proven that it can be rewritten that way. You can deny it all you want, that doesn't make it true.

Wrong!

First of all a Wiki page is community based, not proven, but I'll grant the common interpretation of "and/or" as that's not actually being debated here (much as you might think it is)

That being said... you're still trying to prove one side of the equation (which Kriswall and I agree with), and ignoring the pertinent side of the equation.

It doesn't matter if you swap A or B or A AND B.... either way you only get "ONE choice from the following"

Honestly, didn't you ever do Algebra?
You can put anything you like on one side of the equation, but it doesn't change the other side

by the rule of simultaneous equations

(1) "Both Pistol and/or Melee Weapon = One selection"
and
(2) "One weapon = One Selection"

Therefore (1) = (2)
so
"Both Pistol and/or Melee Weapon" = "One Weapon" = THE SAME THING!!!!!

which means
[either case] = "One Selection"

 Kriswall wrote:
Why can I do this on one list, but not the second list?

Because the and/or allows it. By definition it allows both to be swapped.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 karlosovic wrote:
First of all a Wiki page is community based, not proven, but I'll grant the common interpretation of "and/or" as that's not actually being debated here (much as you might think it is)

Except you are debating it.
You may do A, B, and/or C.
You may do A.
You may do B.
You may do C.
You may do A and B.
etc.

You may swap A for one.
You may swap B for one.
You may swap A for one and B for one.

Nope.

You last clause is two separate actions.

 karlosovic wrote:
Nope.

You last clause is two separate actions.

You may do A and B.

This is permitted by:
You may do A, B, and/or C

Agreed?

"and/or" means:

You can swap A for one
or
You can swap B for one
or
You can swap A AND B for one

in all case, you only get "one"

In your last clase, if you swapped A for one, and B for another,, then you'd have "TWO"
which nosferatu claims we can't have

Please just answer my question instead of repeating what you've already said.

You may do A and B.

This is permitted by:
You may do A, B, and/or C

Agreed?

rigeld2 wrote:
You may do A and B.

This is permitted by:
You may do A, B, and/or C

Agreed?

Absolutely not!!!!!

You may "swap" A or B, in either case for "one"

you may also swap A AND B (call it "c" if you want), but still for only "ONE"

i.e.

You may swap A "and" B
or
you may swap A "or" B

in any case, whatever you swap is only ever for "one"

 karlosovic wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
You may do A and B.

This is permitted by:
You may do A, B, and/or C

Agreed?

Absolutely not!!!!!

Then you have failed to understand how and/or works and you can't debate this in good faith. Have a good day.

Disagree.

You may swap (something) for one of the following.

What is something? It is bolt pistol and/or chainsword.

I'm only given permission to perform the swap action once. I'm then told what I can give as a part of the swap. I'm then told what I receive as a part of the swap (one of the following).

Where is your permission to perform the swap action twice? It's not in the and/or wording. That tells me what I can swap as the and/or items are the direct objects of the swap action.

We may as well give up on them, Kriswall, as they seem resolutely determined to misunderstand plain English

 Kriswall wrote:
Disagree.

Another fundamental failure to understand and/or.

The example I gave had nothing to do with the "one of the following". At all. It's the first part in a multi part question to discover where our understandings differ.
If you disagree with the scenario I proposed you have failed to understand how and/or works and therefore can't continue the discussion in good faith. Have a nice day.

My question is is there a rule that prevents multiple selection? I've always thought that each selection from the units wargear/equipment choice was an independent selection dependent on meeting the criteria and paying the points
Just wondering if is a specific rule regarding this? I can find sod all in this 7th rulebook rules appear to be all over the place
Cheers

 karlosovic wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
You may do A and B.

This is permitted by:
You may do A, B, and/or C

Agreed?

Absolutely not!!!!!

You may "swap" A or B, in either case for "one"

you may also swap A AND B (call it "c" if you want), but still for only "ONE"

i.e.

You may swap A "and" B
or
you may swap A "or" B

in any case, whatever you swap is only ever for "one"

"One", not the "same one". You can swap A for one item on the list or you can swap B for one item on the list or you can swap A and B for one item on the list each. It never says it has to be the same item.

Kaliban101 wrote:
My question is is there a rule that prevents multiple selection? I've always thought that each selection from the units wargear/equipment choice was an independent selection dependent on meeting the criteria and paying the points
Just wondering if is a specific rule regarding this? I can find sod all in this 7th rulebook rules appear to be all over the place
Cheers

It's inherent in the rule allowing the swap. You're allowed to swap one item for one item.
Just like Tactical Squad special weapons - you're allowed to have one marine swap his boltgun for one weapon.

Dear god this post is still going..I said I was going to stay away but now that I have received my codex and gone over this section here are my thoughts and how I'll play it.

The line that states "items". I interpret this as plural because they are talking about multiple different items, just not Relics, with that being said I feel like "items" is NOT being directed at the multiple use of relics. Again, I agree that it is plural in the way that's its worded but only because it's talking about multiple items and I believe it's not to be directed towards the use of relics.

For me this is clear enough, I'll be playing my HQs with one relic until a FAQ comes out clearly stating the use of multiple relics..

For what it's worth, the guys at BattleScribe coded their program to let you know your unit has too many relics when you try to equip them with two. Seems like the wording in the codex was clear enough for them as well.

rigeld2 wrote:

Kaliban101 wrote:
My question is is there a rule that prevents multiple selection? I've always thought that each selection from the units wargear/equipment choice was an independent selection dependent on meeting the criteria and paying the points
Just wondering if is a specific rule regarding this? I can find sod all in this 7th rulebook rules appear to be all over the place
Cheers

It's inherent in the rule allowing the swap. You're allowed to swap one item for one item.
Just like Tactical Squad special weapons - you're allowed to have one marine swap his boltgun for one weapon.

Thanks rigeldt, yeah that's what I meant by criteria, for grey hunters for example you need 5 models to get a special and then pay the points for that weapon I can't select this option again until I have a further 5 models to meet the criteria
But I can't see any restriction on a wolf lords unit entry that would prevent me taking multiple relics, the only restriction I can see are one unique relic per army and replacement of one weapon
Sorry I'm probably not being very clear, what I'm trying to get at is there anything preventing me from selecting a relic as an individual choice then selecting another relic as a second individual choice?
Just to be clear, I'm returning to the game after a long break of 3 editions and am struggling to try to make sense of a lot of these rather ambitious rules they have written
Cheers

Kaliban101 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Kaliban101 wrote:
My question is is there a rule that prevents multiple selection? I've always thought that each selection from the units wargear/equipment choice was an independent selection dependent on meeting the criteria and paying the points
Just wondering if is a specific rule regarding this? I can find sod all in this 7th rulebook rules appear to be all over the place
Cheers

It's inherent in the rule allowing the swap. You're allowed to swap one item for one item.
Just like Tactical Squad special weapons - you're allowed to have one marine swap his boltgun for one weapon.

Thanks rigeldt, yeah that's what I meant by criteria, for grey hunters for example you need 5 models to get a special and then pay the points for that weapon I can't select this option again until I have a further 5 models to meet the criteria
But I can't see any restriction on a wolf lords unit entry that would prevent me taking multiple relics, the only restriction I can see are one unique relic per army and replacement of one weapon
Sorry I'm probably not being very clear, what I'm trying to get at is there anything preventing me from selecting a relic as an individual choice then selecting another relic as a second individual choice?
Just to be clear, I'm returning to the game after a long break of 3 editions and am struggling to try to make sense of a lot of these rather ambitious rules they have written
Cheers

If you look at the ork relics we're told "a model can take one of the following" for relics. If you do not have such a rule there is no limit, the only limit is the number of weapons you have *cough*grenades*cough*

sirlynchmob wrote:

If you look at the ork relics we're told "a model can take one of the following" for relics. If you do not have such a rule there is no limit, the only limit is the number of weapons you have *cough*grenades*cough*

I thought grenades were wargear, not weapons.

 Green is Best! wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

If you look at the ork relics we're told "a model can take one of the following" for relics. If you do not have such a rule there is no limit, the only limit is the number of weapons you have *cough*grenades*cough*

I thought grenades were wargear, not weapons.

pg 180, Weapons
Grenades of the 41st millennium

discuss it with your group before doing it though. it's is a debated topic.

 Kriswall wrote:
"A model can swap bolt pistol and/or chainsword for one of the following" can be rewritten three ways:

1. A model can swap (bolt pistol) for ONE of the following.

2. A model can swap (chainsword) for ONE of the following.

3. A model can swap (bolt pistol and chainsword) for ONE of the following.

Exactly. There is no "4. A model can swap bolt pistol for one of the following and chainsword for one of the following."

Kaliban101 wrote:
Sorry I'm probably not being very clear, what I'm trying to get at is there anything preventing me from selecting a relic as an individual choice then selecting another relic as a second individual choice?

If you do so, have you swapped one weapon for one relic?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Naw wrote:
Exactly. There is no "4. A model can swap bolt pistol for one of the following and chainsword for one of the following."

There is if you understand English. Because that's a perfectly valid rewrite of the sentence.

Actually, the and/or thing is notorious for being ambiguous. There are numerous instances of judges asking lawyers not to use it because it adds confusion to what could be an otherwise straightforward scenario.

In this instance we have a sentence telling us we can swap [something] for one of the following. The and/or tells us the something can be either bolt pistol, chainsword or bolt pistol and chainsword. This is using the most common interpretation of "inclusive or". Using the bolt pistol and chainsword option, we're given "A model may swap his [bolt pistol and chainsword] for one of the following." You still only get one of the following.

I think you guys are putting the and in a different place to support your argument.

Incorrect:
A model may swap his bolt pistol with one of the following and may swap his chainsword with one of the following.

Correct:
A model may swap his bolt pistol and chainsword with one of the following.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
On a side note, I obviously don't think this is the intention. But you can't have it both ways. You can't point at the word ONE in the Relics list and say you can only pick once while overlooking the word ONE in the other list and say you can pick twice. You can't have it both ways.

Pick one and run with it.

Explain to me how you can swap bolt pistol and chainsword for TWO of the following when the wording clearly states bolt pistol and/or chainsword for ONE of the following. To use your own argument...

ONE means ONE. ONE doesn't mean TWO. ONE means ONE. PROVEN. PROVEN. PROVEN.

 Kriswall wrote:
Incorrect:
A model may swap his bolt pistol with one of the following and may swap his chainsword with one of the following.

This is not incorrect.

You may send an email or make a phone call to contact him.
Same as
You may send an email to contact him or make a phone call to contact him.

Rigeld, I'm afraid that if we are being anally-literal on this (as is the honoured, age old custom on this forum), then you're wrong.

You may exchange your hat or your sunglasses for one monkey. -> lose one item, gain one monkey.
You may exchange your hat and your sunglasses for one monkey. -> lose both items, gain one monkey.

In neither case is gaining two monkeys an option (but then again, one monkey is quite a handful already.)

So, If I'm incorrect, then you are getting two items when the wording specifically states ONE? That means you are violating the permission and can't take two items. ONE means ONE. You'd know that if you'd read the thread! Proven! Proven!

This is fun. One just has to keep repeating the same position and saying proven. I can't wait to practice these new debate skills when I go home and talk to my wife.

In all seriousness, GW is consistently using vague and ambiguous terms within their rules. This is a prime example. We are both correct. I'm willing to admit the ambiguity whereas others aren't. This will probably never be addressed in an FAQ until the Wolf Time when Russ comes back and hires a copy editor or community manager.

In the interval, house rule it.

Crimson wrote:Rigeld, I'm afraid that if we are being anally-literal on this (as is the honoured, age old custom on this forum), then you're wrong.

You may exchange your hat or your sunglasses for one monkey. -> lose one item, gain one monkey.
You may exchange your hat and your sunglasses for one monkey. -> lose both items, gain one monkey.

In neither case is gaining two monkeys an option (but then again, one monkey is quite a handful already.)

Except, as my example shows, you can rewrite the sentence as
You may exchange your hat for one monkey or your sunglasses for one monkey.
And with an and/or in there, the following is perfectly valid as well
You may exchange your hat for one monkey and your sunglasses for one monkey.

Kriswall wrote:So, If I'm incorrect, then you are getting two items when the wording specifically states ONE? That means you are violating the permission and can't take two items. ONE means ONE. You'd know that if you'd read the thread! Proven! Proven!

Um. No. I'm getting one item from one item swap. The and/or gives permission to make multiple swaps.
You have failed to show how the two rules are similar where it matters.

This is fun. One just has to keep repeating the same position and saying proven. I can't wait to practice these new debate skills when I go home and talk to my wife.

Well, don't blame me when your wife decides to hit you with a frying pan for ignoring half of what she says (as you're doing here).

So just out of curiosity, what does GW mean by this:

Space Wolves Codex wrote: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.

 Crimson wrote:
Rigeld, I'm afraid that if we are being anally-literal on this (as is the honoured, age old custom on this forum), then you're wrong.

You may exchange your hat or your sunglasses for one monkey. -> lose one item, gain one monkey.
You may exchange your hat and your sunglasses for one monkey. -> lose both items, gain one monkey.

In neither case is gaining two monkeys an option (but then again, one monkey is quite a handful already.)

That could also mean...

You may exchange your hat and your sunglasses for one monkey. -> exchange each item (hat and sunglasses) for a monkey, thus getting 2 monkeys.

 Happyjew wrote:
So just out of curiosity, what does GW mean by this:

Space Wolves Codex wrote: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.

Where is that in the codex?

Not sure on the exact page number (digi-dex doesn't have them), but it's right before the wargear lists (the ones with point values), in the "Forces of the Space Wolves" section. Specifically number 11 (Options) when describing the stuff on a datasheet.

Good catch!! I wouldnt think to look there.

Unfortunately, that doesn't really help. We all agree that you can replace either or both. It doesn't tell us how many things we get in return. Depending on your interpretation, it could be one or two.

GW needs to be more explicit. Their rules are just awful and full of ambiguous wording.

 Kriswall wrote:
"A model can swap bolt pistol and/or chainsword for one of the following" can be rewritten three ways:

1. A model can swap (bolt pistol) for ONE of the following.

2. A model can swap (chainsword) for ONE of the following.

3. A model can swap (bolt pistol and chainsword) for ONE of the following.

I believe you are misunderstanding how and/or works. In all three instances, only one swap is occurring and only one of the following is received. You are wanting to activate the selection process twice, and per your own arguments throughout the thread, this isn't allowed.

To allow a bolt pistol to be swapped for one item and then subsequently allow a chainsword to be swapped for one item creates a situation where two items have been swapped. Why can I do this on one list, but not the second list?

3. is wrong. The And/Or clause combines actions 1. and 2. - it does not create a third one.

You can do 1. or 2. or both, 3. does not exist.

If i do 1. or 2., i have performed 1 swap.
If i do 1. and 2., i have performed 2 swaps.

Notice how i exchanged the word "or", with "and", but did not create an imaginary "3rd" option....

Remove the /or.

A model may swap bolt pictol and chainsword for one of the following.

The and/or specifically refers to the collection of bolt pistol, chainsword or both.

A model / may swap / his bolt pistol and/or chainsword / for / one of the following.

Who is performing the action? - A model
What action is he performing? - swap
What is he swapping? - one of these three (his bolt pistol, his chainsword, or both)
But wait, there's more. When he swaps, is there a result? - yes, whatever he swapped, in return he gets one of the following.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
At the end of the day, if I agree that I can replace bolt pistol with an item and chainsword with an item, why won't you agree that I can replace one weapon with an item and one weapon with an item? I'm told I can take items from the Relics list, and I'm told how that occurs. It occurs by swapping one weapon for one item. I still don't see any restriction keeping me at one item. You have argued that the word ONE doesn't matter as you're fervently trying to demonstrate that one only means one in the context of a single swap.

I agree. One means one in the context of a single swap. I am performing multiple swaps... at a result of one per swap.

 Kriswall wrote:
Unfortunately, that doesn't really help. We all agree that you can replace either or both. It doesn't tell us how many things we get in return. Depending on your interpretation, it could be one or two.

"provided you pay the points cost for each" doesn't mean you can get 2 things?
In what universe? Why are you still only looking at half of the rule? Or are you saying you pay for 2 but only get one? That'd be an interesting argument...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kriswall wrote:
At the end of the day, if I agree that I can replace bolt pistol with an item and chainsword with an item, why won't you agree that I can replace one weapon with an item and one weapon with an item?

Because you continue to compare two rules that aren't comparable. Seriously.
The and/or and GWs explicit statement that it means more than one thing shows that it's a different situation.

How many Flamers can a 10 man Tac Squad have, according to you? I've asked before but you've avoided it and I really want an answer.

This thread would have been far more constructive without all the snark and snide remarks about understanding English from both 'sides' of the discussion.

For future reference, your 'opponent' will be far more inclined to actually listen to the point you are making if you say it in a way that promotes discussion rather than insulting their intelligence.