Can I check artefactotum can be used if your warlord is not adeptus mechanicus - BS flags it as an error but I can't find any restriction against it only the vague line in the strategem "this must be a relic it can have" when none of the relics appear to have any restrictions?

First line of the relics page

If your army is led by an ADEPTUS MECHANICUS WARLORD, you can...

How is that a restriction?


Full quote not cherry pick
"If your army is led by an adeptus mechanicus warlord , you can when mustering your army, give one of the following arcana mechanicum to an adeptus mechanicus character model in your army. Named characters cannot be given the following relics."

Most of that paragraph is permissive

The only restriction I can see is the sentence named characters cannot be given the following relics but that wouldn't apply to artefactotum as it can't be used to give a relic to a named character.

In addition were it a restriction artefactotum would never work as it only gives permission to give a relic to characters and Artefactotum only refers to non characters

U02dah4 wrote:
How is that a restriction?

Because the Strat literally says:
"this must be a relic it can have"

It can not have a relic unless "your army is led by an adeptus mechanicus warlord"

But the full quote doesn't say that


How is that a restriction?

"If your army is led by an adeptus mechanicus warlord , you can when mustering your army, give one of the following arcana mechanicum to an adeptus mechanicus character model in your army. Named characters cannot be given the following relics."

you've just made up a line it cannot have relics unless and then put in quotes your army is lead by an adeptus mechanicus warlord. That's not actually a line of text in the book.

If there is a restriction your aware can you supply the full quote.

I mean if that quote existed you would be right but it doesn't .

Doesn't say what?

It exists, no matter how much you ignore it.

It literally says:
"If your army is led by an adeptus mechanicus warlord you can...give one of the following arcana mechanicum to an adeptus mechanicus character model in your army"

If your army is not led by an adeptus mechanicus warlord, can you give a arcana mechanicum to a adeptus mechanicus character?
Hint the answer is no, so that would not qualify as "this must be a relic it can have" because if the warlord is not an adeptus mechanicus warlord, then you can not have that relic...

U02dah4 wrote:
But the full quote doesn't say that


How is that a restriction?

"If your army is led by an adeptus mechanicus warlord , you can when mustering your army, give one of the following arcana mechanicum to an adeptus mechanicus character model in your army. Named characters cannot be given the following relics."

you've just made up a line it cannot have relics unless and then put in quotes your army is lead by an adeptus mechanicus warlord. That's not actually a line of text in the book.

If there is a restriction your aware can you supply the full quote.

I mean if that quote existed you would be right but it doesn't .

It is a restriction because it tells you that if your army meets a specific requirement (it is led by an adeptus mechanicus warlord) then you can do something (give one of the following arcana mechanicum to an adeptus mechanicus character). If you don't meet the specified requirement (having an adeptus mechanicus warlord), you cannot. Its an IF/THEN situation.

No there's no then

Just an if

If you meet A you can do B

There's no if you do not meet A you can't do B

Giving something permission is not saying something else can't also give permission to do that.

E.g. if a rule says my character can advance 6" that doesn't mean my troops can't advance if another rule gives them permission.

Plus specifically the permission being granted is not for the army to use arcana mechanicum but to give one to a character.


Artefactotum
Use this Stratagem before the battle, when you are mustering your army. Select one SKITARII model in your army that has the word ‘Alpha’ or ‘Princeps’ in their profile and give them one of the following Arcana Mechanicum (this must be a Relic they could have): The Cage of Varadimas; Temporcopia; The Omniscient Mask; The Skull of Elder Nikola."

Also gives permission.

(Subject to)
"Each Relic in your army must be unique, and you cannot use this Stratagem to give a model two Relics. You can only use this Stratagem once, unless you are playing a Strike Force battle (in which case, you can use this Stratagem twice) or an Onslaught battle (in which case, you can use this Stratagem three times"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Doesn't say what?

It exists, no matter how much you ignore it.

It literally says:
"If your army is led by an adeptus mechanicus warlord you can...give one of the following arcana mechanicum to an adeptus mechanicus character model in your army"

If your army is not led by an adeptus mechanicus warlord, can you give a arcana mechanicum to a adeptus mechanicus character?
Hint the answer is no, so that would not qualify as "this must be a relic it can have" because if the warlord is not an adeptus mechanicus warlord, then you can not have that relic...

No its not relevant if my army is adeptus mechanicus I can give one to a character for free great - I can't I don't qualify. However that only references giving a character a free relic and I am not trying to give a character a free relic

I am trying to use a strategem that gives me permission to give a non character a relic

That says nothing about the army useing arcana mechanicum by other means or non characters.

So even if i met its requirement it wouldn't grant permission.

U02dah4 wrote:
No there's no then

Just an if

If you meet A you can do B

There's no if you do not meet A you can't do B

The permissive ruleset says that...

"There's no if you do not meet A you can't do B" is the same as saying "It doesn't say I cant"

The rules don't say I can't place my models back on the board after you've killed them and use them next turn, but that doesn't mean I can do it. The rules system is permissive: this means you may only do things you are expressly allowed to do or that the rules imply you can do. You are not allowed to do anything else.

Well I have that that from

Artefactotum
Use this Stratagem before the battle, when you are mustering your army. Select one SKITARII model in your army that has the word ‘Alpha’ or ‘Princeps’ in their profile and give them one of the following Arcana Mechanicum.

Clear permission


Subject to
(this must be a Relic they could have)

With no rule yet provided saying they could not have it only one granting permission for a different type of unit to have 1

As I have permission and nothing says it can't I have permission in a permissive ruleset

Permission A = do B
does not equal restriction C can't do B
So When C gives permission to do B - C can do B.

And how do you get past the restriction of "If your army is led by an adeptus mechanicus warlord you can...give one of the following arcana mechanicum to an adeptus mechanicus character model in your army"

when the permission literally says "this must be a Relic they could have"

If If your army is not led by an adeptus mechanicus warlord, then those relics are not a Relic you can have.

Well it's not a restriction it's a permission so I don't need to

And a permission that does not apply to non characters in anyway so would not be relevant even if I met it

Unless you meet the "if" , there are no relics you can have.

We know this, because that's what the rule says.

Oh, and it literally is if, then. As that's how an if clause works.

I agree it's an if and a then

"If your army is led by an adeptus mechanicus warlord

Then " you can give one of the following arcana mechanicum to an adeptus mechanicus character model in your army"

However I disagree in that's all it says 1 Relic may be given to a character in your army

there are no restrictions on other sorces of arcana mechanicum just permission same as the ik codex doesn't prevent questoris knights taking a relic by Stratagem . It doesn't say if you don't meet this rule you can't take any arcana mechanicum, you just dont get the free one.

Further thats why the extra relic strat says

Use this Stratagem before the battle, when you are mustering your army, if your WARLORD has the ADEPTUS MECHANICUS keyword. Select one ADEPTUS MECHANICUS CHARACTER model in your army and give them one Relic (this must be a Relic they can have). Each Relic in your army must be unique, and you cannot use this Stratagem to give a model two Relics.

Why would it need the warlord clause if the other sentence was a restriction

It needs to reference the warlord because there is no restriction

Artefactotum
Use this Stratagem before the battle, when you are mustering your army. Select one SKITARII model in your army that has the word ‘Alpha’ or ‘Princeps’ in their profile and give them one of the following Arcana Mechanicum.this must be a Relic they could have

Has no warlord restriction and wouldn't be referred to by the first if clause because they are not an adeptus mechanicus character

Must be a relic they can have. Without having a AM warlord how many relics are available?

With an am warlord 0 are available to non characters same as without you need permission and the only permission is the strategem.

Ergo by that logic the strategem does nothing ever

So I would answer 4 the 4 specifically listed in the strategem giving you permission to take them given no restrictions have been cited except named characters.

U02dah4 wrote:
With an am warlord 0 are available to non characters same as without you need permission and the only permission is the strategem.

Ergo by that logic the strategem does nothing ever

It would allow giving an Arcana Mechanicum to a SKITARII character with "Alpha" or "Princeps" in their title.

Yes because the strategem gives permission

which points out your statement "Ergo by that logic the strategem does nothing ever" isn't true. Just because it does nothing for non-characters doesn't mean it does nothing.

 doctortom wrote:
which points out your statement "Ergo by that logic the strategem does nothing ever" isn't true. Just because it does nothing for non-characters doesn't mean it does nothing.

I don't follow

His logic seems to be that because you don't get a free relic on a character another source is not able to give permission to a non character

So he's asking how many relics can you take without an admech warlord so I answer 0 (so he can make the false claim that means the army can't take any relics). (When really they just don't get a free one)

I am pointing out that by the same logic he's using even with an am warlord 0 can go to non characters

So useing his logic that means the stratagem does nothing ever as nothing else gives permission for them to normally take them.

Which is clearly false ergo his argument is wrong

Because it is self evidently not intended to do nothing in all situations

Unless your saying the stratagem thats only purpose is to give relics to non characters does nothing for non characters but has another purpose- in which case please enlighten me because there is only one SKITARII character and it does not have princeps or alpha in the title it has marshal - princeps and alpha are the SKITARII terms for sgt. So the purpose of the strat by your logic would be to give a relic to a model that doesn't exist in the game.

U02dah4 wrote:
Well it's not a restriction it's a permission so I don't need to

And a permission that does not apply to non characters in anyway so would not be relevant even if I met it

Except you need permission, lack of permission means you can not do that thing.

I have permission the strat

U02dah4 wrote:
I have permission the strat

Except you don't have permission to take a relic because you can only take a relic "If your army is led by an ADEPTUS MECHANICUS WARLORD"

So you actually do not have permission because the Strat literally says: "this must be a relic it can have"

If you do not have a AM Warlord, you can't actually have any of those relics.

You have no way around this, your arguments are in bad faith.

You have shown no restriction and provided no quote stateing those words or words to that effect ergo it is not a requirement

It can have the relics as nothing says it cant and the strat gives permission

U02dah4 wrote:
"If your army is led by an Adeptus Mechanicus warlord, you can when mustering your army, give one of the following arcana mechanicum to an Adeptus Mechanicus character model in your army. Named characters cannot be given the following relics."

DeathReaper, nothing in this statement makes having a Adeptus Mechanicus warlord a requirement to have any arcana mechanicum. It just allows you to take one if you do have one. It in no way restricts you from having them via another source.

 alextroy wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
"If your army is led by an Adeptus Mechanicus warlord, you can when mustering your army, give one of the following arcana mechanicum to an Adeptus Mechanicus character model in your army. Named characters cannot be given the following relics."

DeathReaper, nothing in this statement makes having a Adeptus Mechanicus warlord a requirement to have any arcana mechanicum. It just allows you to take one if you do have one. It in no way restricts you from having them via another source.

False, because there is no permission to have a relic without an Adeptus Mechanicus warlord. Unless you have a quote stating otherwise.

There is no requirement to have an adeptus mechanicus warlord as alextroy says as you have not provided one

So what does "it must be a relic they can have" mean? If the only way to have any relic at all is to have a warlord...

 DeathReaper wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
"If your army is led by an Adeptus Mechanicus warlord, you can when mustering your army, give one of the following arcana mechanicum to an Adeptus Mechanicus character model in your army. Named characters cannot be given the following relics."

DeathReaper, nothing in this statement makes having a Adeptus Mechanicus warlord a requirement to have any arcana mechanicum. It just allows you to take one if you do have one. It in no way restricts you from having them via another source.

False, because there is no permission to have a relic without an Adeptus Mechanicus warlord. Unless you have a quote stating otherwise.

That's what the "Artefactotum" stratagem does though. It gives you permission to give a Skitarii model in the army (with the word Alpha or Princeps in their profile) one of the specified relics.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So what does "it must be a relic they can have" mean? If the only way to have any relic at all is to have a warlord...

Some relics replace wargear. For example the Phosphoenix can only be used by a model equiped with a phosphor serpenta and replaces it. If someone doesn't have that, then that's a relic they can't have because they don't meet the relic requirements.

I understand that is one possible explanation, but is it the only one?

Maybe the rule writers put it in for laughs? It sounds like you have an alternate take though.

To me, I think the writers put it in so it's clear that the strategem doesn't override any restrictions that may exist on the relics themselves.

Can you take any relics at all, if you don't have a AM warlord? The starting point in the relics is IF... so that suggests no.

As usual sloppy wording from GW.

Maybe a mistake copy and pasteing from another faction.

Maybe the original version of the strat just let them take any relic they changed it during design because raiment of the technomartyr was broken and they didn't properly update the strat before printing.

Maybe they wanted to future proof it encase they change something in a future supplement or faq. E.g. a new warzone supplement could be planned to add a relic taser goad takeable by the strat that not all targetable units have access to taser goads.

They could have planned but not announced a named character/unique squad like nitsch squad or gaunts ghosts with an alpha/princeps in it. This would prevent them accessing a relic. As there is a restriction on named characters


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Can you take any relics at all, if you don't have a AM warlord? The starting point in the relics is IF... so that suggests no.

only if the following then said something about not taking relics which it doesn't.

So it has no bearing.

E.g.

If every model in your army has the agent of the (imperium and unaligned keywords) has the adeptus mechanicus keyword and your warlord has the adeptus mechanicus keyword you can of you are playing a matched play battle that instructs you to take secondary objectives select one of them to be from the adeptus mechanicus secondary objectives listed below.

It also has an if clause however when you read the text following its just not relevant to the situation in the same way as when mustering your army you may give one of the following arcana mechanicum- which only refers to giving a relic.

So the answer yes if another rule e.g. a strat gives you permission and Artefactotum does

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Can you take any relics at all, if you don't have a AM warlord? The starting point in the relics is IF... so that suggests no.

Huh? How do you get to that conclusion?

All an "if" statement does is specify a condition before you can complete the consequence.

And if that is your only permission to take relics, by completing the if, yiur "else" becomes "you cannot take any relics"
That's pretty obvious as that's how if statements work,,,

nosferatu1001 wrote:
And if that is your only permission to take relics, by completing the if, yiur "else" becomes "you cannot take any relics"
That's pretty obvious as that's how if statements work,,,

Why are you assuming the negative of the statement? (Ie: "you cannot take any relics")

It says "If your warlord is Admech, you can take a relic on a character". This is different from it saying "you cannot take any relics". It would be a logical conclusion if it was the only permission to take relics in the book. However we also get permission to take relics for specific models from the Artefactotum strategem (if we chose to use the strategem).

Because that's the else?
If the then for meeting the condition is "yiu are now allowed to take relics", then the absence of an explicit else is by definition the negation of that statement, ie not (you are now allowed to take relics)

That's how if then else works...

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Because that's the else?
If the then for meeting the condition is "yiu are now allowed to take relics", then the absence of an explicit else is by definition the negation of that statement, ie not (you are now allowed to take relics)

That's how if then else works...

I'm sorry to break it to you, but that's not how they work. The absence of an explicit else means that, if you don't meet the conditions of the IF statement, nothing happens.

Anyway, the "then" that occurs is as follows: you can, when mustering your army, give one of the following Arcana Mechanicum to an Adeptus Mechanicus Character model in your army.
Assuming your "negation of that statement", the "then" statement becomes: you can't, when mustering your army, give one of the following Arcana Mechanicum to an Adeptus Mechanicus Character model in your army.

Given that Artefactotum doesn't give an Arcana Mechanicum to an Adeptus Mechanicus Character model in your army, there's no issue.

Yes it is...but sure.

It's that parens that makes it interesting. But whatever. Fodder for faq. I get bored with you said he said.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Which reminds me - I've asked about brutal but kunning, did you?

No reason to faq asside from you there's agreement and your argument is a joke that you can't substantiate

Else means X OK where does it say that quotes Y we say dude that says Y not X you say Y means X and we point out it doesn't X means X and Y means Y you need to show X means Y for your statement to be true and you have shown it doesn't or are unable to provide any quote to that effect - repeat

Repeating a wrong statement doesn't make it anymore correct

Jake siren does a very good description of it

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Because that's the else?
If the then for meeting the condition is "yiu are now allowed to take relics", then the absence of an explicit else is by definition the negation of that statement, ie not (you are now allowed to take relics)

That's how if then else works...

Actually no. You are equating "if A, then B" with "if B, then A". That is not how logic works.

No, I'm not. I'm saying if you don't meet the requirement for "then", you move to "else" and here there is no "else",meaning you lack permission. I'm not making the excluded middle fallacy.

U02 - sure, whatever. Your argument above is so great.

Everyone but you agrees with it

Me alextroy jakesiren have tried to explain to you all saying the same thing in different ways

As to the dunning kruger of excluded middle fallacy

That states either it is true or it is not

But we all agree it is not

However to everyone else it is not relevant

E.g. to take a wiki original example

Either socrates is mortal or it is not the case the secretes is mortal

we are saying he's mortal and that's all the statement says

your saying he's mortal therefore he can't be a human your adding extra inferences not in the statement socrates could be a horse

We can agree there is no warlord therefore there is no free relic.

That's where the arguments diverge

U02dah4 wrote:
Everyone but you agrees with it

Me alextroy jakesiren have tried to explain to you all saying the same thing in different ways

As to the dunning kruger of excluded middle fallacy

That states either it is true or it is not

But we all agree it is not

However to everyone else it is not relevant

E.g. to take a wiki original example

Either socrates is mortal or it is not the case the secretes is mortal

we are saying he's mortal and that's all the statement says

your saying he's mortal therefore he can't be a human your adding extra inferences not in the statement socrates could be a horse

We can agree there is no warlord therefore there is no free relic.

That's where the arguments diverge

I think you'll find that there are others that disagree with you on some issues.

Sure U02, nice straw man yiu have there.

As said, I'm bored with it. You seem not to be. Keep on.

What weak case have I built up then destroyed you raised the midpoint fallacy if your saying its weak that speaks to the strength or your argument.

The bottom line, and what you are ignoring is that it must be a relic they can have.

Without having a AM warlord there are 0 relics are available.

U02dah4 wrote:
What weak case have I built up then destroyed you raised the midpoint fallacy if your saying its weak that speaks to the strength or your argument.

No, a straw man is stating something I didn't state, then attacking that. It's also not the mid point fallacy, but excluded middle.

I'm sorry you don't seem to understand either.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The bottom line, and what you are ignoring is that it must be a relic they can have.

Without having a AM warlord there are 0 relics are available.

I feel like you are a bit mixed up.

Let's look at when your Warlord *is* Admech.

What do you think the restrictions are for "relic they can have" for Artefactotum?

When your Warlord is Admech, you can give a character a relic. However for Artefactotum gives a relic to a non-character model. If you are claiming that the stipulation "relic they can have" requires the warlord to be admech, then you also require Artefactotum to give the relic to a character, but that is in direct contradiction to what the strategem says to do!

JakeSiren wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The bottom line, and what you are ignoring is that it must be a relic they can have.

Without having a AM warlord there are 0 relics are available.

I feel like you are a bit mixed up.

Let's look at when your Warlord *is* Admech.

What do you think the restrictions are for "relic they can have" for Artefactotum?

When your Warlord is Admech, you can give a character a relic. However for Artefactotum gives a relic to a non-character model. If you are claiming that the stipulation "relic they can have" requires the warlord to be admech, then you also require Artefactotum to give the relic to a character, but that is in direct contradiction to what the strategem says to do!

Except the strat specifically over-rides the character part by explicitly naming "one SKITARII model in your army that has the word ‘Alpha’ or ‘Princeps’ in their profile".

It seems I am not mixed up.

 DeathReaper wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The bottom line, and what you are ignoring is that it must be a relic they can have.

Without having a AM warlord there are 0 relics are available.

I feel like you are a bit mixed up.

Let's look at when your Warlord *is* Admech.

What do you think the restrictions are for "relic they can have" for Artefactotum?

When your Warlord is Admech, you can give a character a relic. However for Artefactotum gives a relic to a non-character model. If you are claiming that the stipulation "relic they can have" requires the warlord to be admech, then you also require Artefactotum to give the relic to a character, but that is in direct contradiction to what the strategem says to do!

Except the strat specifically over-rides the character part by explicitly naming "one SKITARII model in your army that has the word ‘Alpha’ or ‘Princeps’ in their profile".

It seems I am not mixed up.

Last time I checked the strat didn't override any restrictions - what you have quoted is a permission to do something, not permission to ignore a restriction. If there were a "character" restriction in general (or requiring an admech warlord restriction), then the rule would need to use the words "instead of a character model" or something to such effect.

JakeSiren wrote:
Last time I checked the strat didn't override any restrictions - what you have quoted is a permission to do something, not permission to ignore a restriction. If there were a "character" restriction in general (or requiring an admech warlord restriction), then the rule would need to use the words "instead of a character model" or something to such effect.

It does when the Strat is more specific than those restrictions.

It specifically calls out who you can give it to, therefore over-rides the only characters restriction.

Had it been a general allowance it would not over-ride, but this is a specific allowance so it does over-ride.

 DeathReaper wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
Last time I checked the strat didn't override any restrictions - what you have quoted is a permission to do something, not permission to ignore a restriction. If there were a "character" restriction in general (or requiring an admech warlord restriction), then the rule would need to use the words "instead of a character model" or something to such effect.

It does when the Strat is more specific than those restrictions.

It specifically calls out who you can give it to, therefore over-rides the only characters restriction.

Had it been a general allowance it would not over-ride, but this is a specific allowance so it does over-ride.

If we follow that train of logic it also over-rides any warlord specific requirement, because it specifically calls out who you can give it to.

JakeSiren wrote:
If we follow that train of logic it also over-rides any warlord specific requirement, because it specifically calls out who you can give it to.

Except it explicitly says "this must be a relic it can have"

 DeathReaper wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
If we follow that train of logic it also over-rides any warlord specific requirement, because it specifically calls out who you can give it to.

Except it explicitly says "this must be a relic it can have"

How does that refute what I said?

JakeSiren wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
If we follow that train of logic it also over-rides any warlord specific requirement, because it specifically calls out who you can give it to.

Except it explicitly says "this must be a relic it can have"

How does that refute what I said?

Because the part about "this must be a relic it can have" has a meaning.

That meaning is that it must be a relic they can have.

Without having a AM warlord there are 0 relics they can have.

 DeathReaper wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
If we follow that train of logic it also over-rides any warlord specific requirement, because it specifically calls out who you can give it to.

Except it explicitly says "this must be a relic it can have"

How does that refute what I said?

Because the part about "this must be a relic it can have" has a meaning.

That meaning is that it must be a relic they can have.

Without having a AM warlord there are 0 relics they can have.

And by extension of that logic they can't have a relic because they aren't a character.

Except that’s clearly wrong - you invented restrictions that don't exist in the rules.

JakeSiren wrote:
And by extension of that logic they can't have a relic because they aren't a character.

Except that’s clearly wrong - you invented restrictions that don't exist in the rules.

your argument is false as I noted earlier about specific permission.

I did not invent anything.

 DeathReaper wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
And by extension of that logic they can't have a relic because they aren't a character.

Except that’s clearly wrong - you invented restrictions that don't exist in the rules.

your argument is false as I noted earlier about specific permission.

I did not invent anything.

Prove that you didn't invent your own restrictions by quoting the full rule that imposes the restriction.

Yes I second that you invented restrictions that don't exist in the rules so prove you you didn't by quoting the full rule that imposes the restriction

U02dah4 wrote:
Yes I second that you invented restrictions that don't exist in the rules so prove you you didn't by quoting the full rule that imposes the restriction

You are ignoring what the rule says if you think that.

 DeathReaper wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
Yes I second that you invented restrictions that don't exist in the rules so prove you you didn't by quoting the full rule that imposes the restriction

You are ignoring what the rule says if you think that.

Still waiting for that full rule quote that imposes the restrictions you claim. If you didn't invent restrictions then it's any easy request to fulfil.

JakeSiren wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
Yes I second that you invented restrictions that don't exist in the rules so prove you you didn't by quoting the full rule that imposes the restriction

You are ignoring what the rule says if you think that.

Still waiting for that full rule quote that imposes the restrictions you claim. If you didn't invent restrictions then it's any easy request to fulfil.

I already posted it.

The restriction is "If your army is led by an adeptus mechanicus warlord you can...give one of the following arcana mechanicum to an adeptus mechanicus character model in your army"

The permission literally says "this must be a Relic they could have"

If If your army is not led by an adeptus mechanicus warlord, then those relics are not a Relic you can have.

 DeathReaper wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
Yes I second that you invented restrictions that don't exist in the rules so prove you you didn't by quoting the full rule that imposes the restriction

You are ignoring what the rule says if you think that.

Still waiting for that full rule quote that imposes the restrictions you claim. If you didn't invent restrictions then it's any easy request to fulfil.

I already posted it.

The restriction is "If your army is led by an adeptus mechanicus warlord you can...give one of the following arcana mechanicum to an adeptus mechanicus character model in your army"

The permission literally says "this must be a Relic they could have"

If If your army is not led by an adeptus mechanicus warlord, then those relics are not a Relic you can have.

... that's not a restriction. Restrictions have phases like "can't", "can only", "must not", etc. What you have quoted is a conditional permission.

Yes you have quoted a permission that gives a free relic to a character This is not a restriction

This has no bearing on what relics the army may take in general only weather or not you can take a free relic

Therefore has no impact on the "must be a Relic they could have" as either answer would not effect the relics a non character or the army could take

It's the only permission to get any relics. If you don't meet the requirement, there are zero relics you can have.

It's not the only permission as we have a stratagem granting permission

And permission is not a restriction

I don't have permission to take a free relic means I don't have permission to take a free relic not therefore I cannot take any relics

Sure you can't do something you don't have permission to do but that is not the same as a rule saying you can't do that thing which is a restriction.

We also have other examples in other codexs eg IK where a stratagem can grant permission for relics when the model would not normally be able to take 1.

Not to mention having permission to take a free relic on a character has no impact on what's eligible for a non character its still 0.

The start gives you permission to have a non char take it
Doesn't give any more than that. And reminds yiu they must still have access to relics.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The start gives you permission to have a non char take it
Doesn't give any more than that. And reminds yiu they must still have access to relics.

What do you think "must be a Relic they could have" actually means? Keeping in mind that outside of that strategem that the unit in question could not have a relic regardless of if the Warlord is Admech or not.

They must have access to relics, and must meet the requirement for a specific relic. Self evident, no? If you don't have access to relics at all, there are no relics yiu can have. It's another prereq

their is no requirement for access to relics

As stated outside of the strat 0 are eligible regardless of having an admech warlord or not

Ergo it is not self evident - if it as a requirement the strat does nothing ever or it is not a requirement and the strat functions

I feel at this point we are trying to teach Baldrick to count.

U02dah4 wrote:
their is no requirement for access to relics

Interesting assertion backed up by zero rules and, in fact, going against the core concept of games design - which is you're told what yiu can do, it does not enumerate what you cannot do.

I feel at this point we are trying to teach Baldrick to count.

Says the fallacy machine...do you know the difference between excluded middle and straw man yet, or even what a straw man fallacy is?

No it follows core concept of the games design you are not told it is a restriction anywhere so it isn't.

You don't need any rules to support my position I only need you not to provide a straight quote statateing a specific requirement which you can't or you would have done.

Yes but you clearly don't a strawman is when you build up a seperate easy argument and defeat it rather than the opponent's- unfortunately you haven't made a logical argument yet you have just repeatedly made claims without any evidence to support your position .

U02dah4 wrote:
their is no requirement for access to relics

"must be a Relic they could have" sure sounds like a requirement.

It is - but only in so far as their are directly stated rules saying what they can't have.

So far in this thread the only stated restriction is not being a named character

With respect to relics in general you either get 0 as none are available to non characters if you use the interpretation that relics must be available to the model, which is clearly wrong as it makes the strat do nothing in all circumstances. Or you get all of them subject to a stated restriction and none have been presented (except named characters)

U02dah4 wrote:
It is - but only in so far as their are directly stated rules saying what they can't have.

When you state "their is no requirement for access to relics" then have you agree that their statement is a requirement, with limitations that you are trying to put on it, sounds like you are arguing in bad faith.

U02dah4 wrote:
So far in this thread the only stated restriction is not being a named character

"Named characters cannot be given the following relics" is a restriction." Specifying the SKITARII must has the word ‘Alpha’ or ‘Princeps’ in their profile" is a restriction. "this must be a Relic they could have" is a restriction.

U02dah4 wrote:
With respect to relics in general you either get 0 as none are available to non characters if you use the interpretation that relics must be available to the model, which is clearly wrong as it makes the strat do nothing in all circumstances. Or you get all of them subject to a stated restriction and none have been presented.

As they have it written you get 0. You assume that they get all of them, that does not mean that they do. GW wrote the rule sloppily. And, as I pointed out earler, the strat still works on named characters, not does no "do nothing in all circumstances"

 doctortom wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
It is - but only in so far as their are directly stated rules saying what they can't have.

When you state "their is no requirement for access to relics" then have you agree that their statement is a requirement, with limitations that you are trying to put on it, sounds like you are arguing in bad faith.

U02dah4 wrote:
So far in this thread the only stated restriction is not being a named character

"Named characters cannot be given the following relics" is a restriction." Specifying the SKITARII must has the word ‘Alpha’ or ‘Princeps’ in their profile" is a restriction. "this must be a Relic they could have" is a restriction.

U02dah4 wrote:
With respect to relics in general you either get 0 as none are available to non characters if you use the interpretation that relics must be available to the model, which is clearly wrong as it makes the strat do nothing in all circumstances. Or you get all of them subject to a stated restriction and none have been presented.

As they have it written you get 0. You assume that they get all of them, that does not mean that they do. GW wrote the rule sloppily. And, as I pointed out earler, the strat still works on named characters, not does no "do nothing in all circumstances"

Paragraph one their is no bad faith if there was a requirement for an admech warlord to access relics it would apply to them none has been stated - it is not bad faith to say no such requirement exists.

Paragraph 2 no 100% wrong not being a named character is a restriction

Being an alpha or a princeps is a permission the strategem grants it is not a restriction

This must be a Relic they can have is a restriction however as stated this ends up being all or 0 depending on your interpretation as their is no rule stateing non admech characters may have relics

Paragraph 3 I agree RAW as written you make a sound argument the rule does nothing in all circumstances in which case the rule doesn't work - this means we go to RAI- was it intended the rule does nothing in all circumstances- obviously no ergo we use the other interpretation that the ability for the specific model to access relics prior to the strat doesn't apply.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The start gives you permission to have a non char take it
Doesn't give any more than that. And reminds yiu[sic] they must still have access to relics.

100% this, and I don't understand how some people are not understanding this.

Because it doesn't say that at no point are the words "still must have access to relics" written anywhere

U02dah4 wrote:
Because it doesn't say that

It does, stop ignoring what the rules say.

I'm not please quote me the exact words stating explicitly that "it must still have access to relics"


All I can see is "this must be a Relic they could have" which is completely different

U02dah4 wrote:
I'm not please quote me the exact words stating explicitly that "it must still have access to relics"


All I can see is "this must be a Relic they could have" which is completely different

It is not completely different.

"this must be a Relic they could have" literally means you need access to those relics.

If you don't have access, then they can not be taken.

No it doesn't "this must be a Relic they can have means "this must be a Relic they could have"

As in they can take subject to any restrictions

It would only mean that if somewhere else that was a stated restriction


And noone has shown that

It says "could have" it means they still need to have access to relics in the first place.

There is no way they can have access to it the first place non characters cannot be given relics without the stratagem.

If you have an admech warlord it gives you a free relic not access to admec relics not access to admech relics

The army gets access to relics how?

It doesn't need to there's no limitation on access to admech relics you just need something to give you permission to take one

E.g.an admech warlord or a stratagem

nosferatu1001 wrote:
They must have access to relics, and must meet the requirement for a specific relic. Self evident, no? If you don't have access to relics at all, there are no relics yiu can have. It's another prereq

I agree that they must meet the requirement for a specific relic. But what do you mean by "They must have access to relics"? What pre-requisites do you think exist? Keeping in mind that outside of that strategem that the unit in question could not access a relic regardless of if the Warlord is Admech or not.

U02dah4 wrote:
It doesn't need to there's no limitation on access to admech relics you just need something to give you permission to take one

E.g.an admech warlord or a stratagem

That is not permission to take one...

That is permission to take one and it "must be a relic it can have"...

P.S. why did you ask the question if you are going to ignore the rules and do what you want anyway?

 DeathReaper wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
It doesn't need to there's no limitation on access to admech relics you just need something to give you permission to take one

E.g.an admech warlord or a stratagem

That is not permission to take one...

That is permission to take one and it "must be a relic it can have"...

P.S. why did you ask the question if you are going to ignore the rules and do what you want anyway?

Hmm, I'm curious about your line of argument DeathReaper. I want to try a collaborative approach to understand what might be overlooked. I'm going to write up what I think below using a numbering system, and in response I would like you to let me know which items you have issues with, why, and relevant rule backings. If I have overlooked a relevant rule, please mention it and why it is relevant.

(Note: I have assumed we are using the strat at the appropriate time to keep this focused)
1. PERMISSION: One Skitarri 'Alpha' or 'Princeps' is given an Arcana Mechanicum
2. REQUIREMENT: This must be a relic they could have.
Note on 2: Without considering any restrictions yet, Item 1 allows the model to meet this requirement. Therefore, we ask what restrictions exist that may cause the model to fail this requirement?
3. RESTRICTION: The relic the model can be given is limited to a specific list.
4. RESTRICTION: Some relics have restrictions in their rules. For example, Phosphoenix requires the model to have a phosphor serpenta. The model must ensure it complies with the relics restrictions.

That's all of the relevant rules that I am aware of.

JakeSiren wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
It doesn't need to there's no limitation on access to admech relics you just need something to give you permission to take one

E.g.an admech warlord or a stratagem

That is not permission to take one...

That is permission to take one and it "must be a relic it can have"...

P.S. why did you ask the question if you are going to ignore the rules and do what you want anyway?

Hmm, I'm curious about your line of argument DeathReaper. I want to try a collaborative approach to understand what might be overlooked. I'm going to write up what I think below using a numbering system, and in response I would like you to let me know which items you have issues with, why, and relevant rule backings. If I have overlooked a relevant rule, please mention it and why it is relevant.

(Note: I have assumed we are using the strat at the appropriate time to keep this focused)
1. PERMISSION: One Skitarri 'Alpha' or 'Princeps' is given an Arcana Mechanicum
2. REQUIREMENT: This must be a relic they could have.
Note on 2: Without considering any restrictions yet, Item 1 allows the model to meet this requirement. Therefore, we ask what restrictions exist that may cause the model to fail this requirement?
3. RESTRICTION: The relic the model can be given is limited to a specific list.
4. RESTRICTION: Some relics have restrictions in their rules. For example, Phosphoenix requires the model to have a phosphor serpenta. The model must ensure it complies with the relics restrictions.

That's all of the relevant rules that I am aware of.

Why are you ignoring the part of the rules that say "If your army is led by an ADEPTUS MECHANICUS WARLORD, you can..."

 DeathReaper wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
It doesn't need to there's no limitation on access to admech relics you just need something to give you permission to take one

E.g.an admech warlord or a stratagem

That is not permission to take one...

That is permission to take one and it "must be a relic it can have"...

P.S. why did you ask the question if you are going to ignore the rules and do what you want anyway?

Hmm, I'm curious about your line of argument DeathReaper. I want to try a collaborative approach to understand what might be overlooked. I'm going to write up what I think below using a numbering system, and in response I would like you to let me know which items you have issues with, why, and relevant rule backings. If I have overlooked a relevant rule, please mention it and why it is relevant.

(Note: I have assumed we are using the strat at the appropriate time to keep this focused)
1. PERMISSION: One Skitarri 'Alpha' or 'Princeps' is given an Arcana Mechanicum
2. REQUIREMENT: This must be a relic they could have.
Note on 2: Without considering any restrictions yet, Item 1 allows the model to meet this requirement. Therefore, we ask what restrictions exist that may cause the model to fail this requirement?
3. RESTRICTION: The relic the model can be given is limited to a specific list.
4. RESTRICTION: Some relics have restrictions in their rules. For example, Phosphoenix requires the model to have a phosphor serpenta. The model must ensure it complies with the relics restrictions.

That's all of the relevant rules that I am aware of.

Why are you ignoring the part of the rules that say "If your army is led by an ADEPTUS MECHANICUS WARLORD, you can..."

What's the full quote? That phrase appears in multiple locations in the codex. Or are you talking about the conditional permission you quoted earlier? If you are talking about the conditional permission, it doesn't impose any restrictions, that's why I didn't include it.

Although the sentence after that permission does impose one that I forgot until now. So let's add:
5. RESTRICTION: Named characters can not take relics.

Read the full quote for yourself, you will see you need an ADEPTUS MECHANICUS WARLORD to have any relics at all.

Must be a relic they can have. Without having a AM warlord how many relics are available?

 DeathReaper wrote:
Read the full quote for yourself, you will see you need an ADEPTUS MECHANICUS WARLORD to have any relics at all.

Must be a relic they can have. Without having a AM warlord how many relics are available?

Your partial quote or the conditional permission? Your partial quote doesn't express a restriction, and neither does the conditional permission. Restrictions have phases like "can't", "can only", "must not", etc. You haven't yet demonstrated that a restriction of "you need an ADEPTUS MECHANICUS WARLORD to have any relics at all" exists.

In terms of your question "Without having a AM warlord how many relics are available?", that depends on game size. For strike force games, two AM relics, for onslaught three AM relics, and others one AM relics. That said, I haven't considered if other strats might grant relics, so that number may be higher.

U02dah4 wrote:No it follows core concept of the games design you are not told it is a restriction anywhere so it isn't.

You can't do anything unless you have permission. You've failed to show permission to access any relics at all, despite being asked.

You don't need any rules to support my position I only need you not to provide a straight quote statateing a specific requirement which you can't or you would have done.

you don't need rules to support your position? Hilarious. Bad faith again

Yes but you clearly don't a strawman is when you build up a seperate easy argument and defeat it rather than the opponent's- unfortunately you haven't made a logical argument yet you have just repeatedly made claims without any evidence to support your position .

So below, when you literally made a straw man argument, you weren't? Or you're lying? Or you don't remember what you typed? Any chance you can pick one?

U02dah4 wrote:E.g. to take a wiki original example

Either socrates is mortal or it is not the case the secretes is mortal

we are saying he's mortal and that's all the statement says

your saying he's mortal therefore he can't be a human your adding extra inferences not in the statement socrates could be a horse

We can agree there is no warlord therefore there is no free relic.

That's where the arguments diverge

Hi nosferatu1001, since you're active on this thread at the moment, I'm also interested in you collaborating. You would have seen that I've written up a list of permissions and restrictions using a numbering system. I would like you to review it and let me know if there are any items you have issues with, why, and relevant rule backings. If I have overlooked a relevant rule that should be included, please mention it and why it is relevant. I've put the updated list below for convenience.

1. PERMISSION: One Skitarri 'Alpha' or 'Princeps' is given an Arcana Mechanicum
2. REQUIREMENT: This must be a relic they could have.
Note on 2: Without considering any restrictions yet, Item 1 allows the model to meet this requirement. Therefore, we ask what restrictions exist that may cause the model to fail this requirement?
3. RESTRICTION: The relic the model can be given is limited to a specific list.
4. RESTRICTION: Some relics have restrictions in their rules. For example, Phosphoenix requires the model to have a phosphor serpenta. The model must ensure it complies with the relics restrictions.
5. RESTRICTION: Named characters can not take relics.

I'll do that later - off to Pride!

I concur with your list

As to the fool yes if you remove half my argument and take it out of context explaining why your argument is wrong it will sound odd. but it still defeats your argument.



The core of this argument is the same as the socrates one

If you have an admech warlord you may give an admech character an arcana mechanicum

Means

if you have an admech warlord

You may give an admech character a free arcana mechanicum

If you do not have an admech warlord

You may not give an admech character a free arcana mechanicum



It does not mean

If you do not have an admech warlord

You cannot take an arcana mechanicum from any source giving you permission



And the meaning of it must be a Relic it can take stems from this


Hence socrates is mortal or he is not

Where as your argument remains he is mortal therefore he is human because your argument relies on information not contained in the statement

(Which also shows that it is not a strawman it is an identical argument so if it were a strawman you have proven yourself wrong)

I present evidence that there is not a general restriction on access to Artefactotum:

ARCHEOTECH SPECIALISTS 1CP
Adeptus Mechanicus – Requisition Stratagem
Within the techno-vaults there lie many mechanised wonders that can be requisitioned during times of war.
Use this Stratagem before the battle, when you are mustering your army, if your WARLORD has the ADEPTUS MECHANICUS keyword. Select one ADEPTUS MECHANICUS CHARACTER model in your army and give them one Relic (this must be a Relic they can have). Each Relic in your army must be unique, and you cannot use this Stratagem to give a model two Relics. You can only use this Stratagem once, unless you are playing a Strike Force battle (in which case you can use this Stratagem twice), or an Onslaught battle (in which case you can use this Stratagem three times).

Note that this stratagem includes the requirement to have an Adeptus Mechanicus Warlord. This would be a redundant requirement if it was already a requirement.

Yes that has already been raised and I concur

U02 - you literally made a different argument to one I have presented. That's the definition of a straw man argument

You're done as being relevant to me, as you've shown you do not argue in good faith. Because I did not remove "half your argument", I quoted the bit where you made up an argument I never made and "defeated" it, as if you think that's what's happening here.

Bye bye

I'm glad you concede defeat

You have yet to present an argument just unsupported assertions therefore I cannot make a good case against it as one is not required

Alextroy

And jakesiren

Have made the rules explicit and you have failed to address any of mine or their points

If you don't want to address mine why not address theirs - because you can't

I'm glad you don't understand more words, it seems.

I'm not addressing you, is all. I'll get to theirs. But given you so hilariously claimed not to be making a straw man fallacy while literally doing that, it was worth pointing out.

I'll address the substantive posters arguing in good faith in my own time. Shockingly, your opinion on timeliness is of no importance.

You don't know what one is that is evident

Then get to addressing them it seems that you avoid all substantive arguments as you have no case

Sure, mr fallacy. You're the arbiter here.

Point made

U02dah4 wrote:
Point made

The point that you're not in control of someone else. Sure seems that way. Bye.

No the point that you are now at 6 post not addressing any of the substantive points raised by me alextroy or jakesiren because you can't.

I can't make you address the arguments but if you won't you are essentially yelling I'm right with your fingers in your ears

And that adds nothing to the discussion. Other than evidence you think we are right (because otherwise you would be able to address them)

Jake - I've looked through yiur list. The fallingodwn I see is the same one as before , that without having a. Warlord, you don't have any relics you could have, as no relics exist.

Hence why I think it's ambiguous, and I don't think it's intended to stop you, and hence why I think it's faq worthy.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Jake - I've looked through yiur list. The fallingodwn I see is the same one as before , that without having a. Warlord, you don't have any relics you could have, as no relics exist.

Hence why I think it's ambiguous, and I don't think it's intended to stop you, and hence why I think it's faq worthy.

Where do you get the concept that the relics don't exist until you have assigned the warlord? If you are able to quote the rule that you believe conveys this that would be appreciated.

To look at it in a different way, what you have expressed seems to be the idea of the relics being locked until your warlord has been assigned as Admech, at which point they are "unlocked". I don't see that idea supported in the rules.

I must agree with Jake. There is no rule that states you may not take AM relics if you don’t have a AM warlord. There are a number of rules that allow you to take relics. Two of those require you to have a AM warlord, but the third does not.

 alextroy wrote:
I must agree with Jake. There is no rule that states you may not take AM relics if you don’t have a AM warlord. There are a number of rules that allow you to take relics. Two of those require you to have a AM warlord, but the third does not.

"The rules don't say I can't!"
The rules don't say I can't place my models back on the board after you've killed them and use them next turn, but that doesn't mean I can do it. The rules system is permissive: this means you may only do things you are expressly allowed to do or that the rules imply you can do. You are not allowed to do anything else.

Is there some tiny difference in the text in this Codex making folk get so annoyingly odd about this iteration?

Because most Codexes say “hey if your general is from X army have a Relic” but we know “extra Relic” Strats aren’t locked to that faction.

What am I missing here after pages of Rule 1 breaches and bickering that illuminated nothing?

And who is even allying their AdMech making this even a problem in the first place???

 DeathReaper wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
I must agree with Jake. There is no rule that states you may not take AM relics if you don’t have a AM warlord. There are a number of rules that allow you to take relics. Two of those require you to have a AM warlord, but the third does not.

"The rules don't say I can't!"
The rules don't say I can't place my models back on the board after you've killed them and use them next turn, but that doesn't mean I can do it. The rules system is permissive: this means you may only do things you are expressly allowed to do or that the rules imply you can do. You are not allowed to do anything else.

Try reigning it in DeathReaper and re-read what Alextroy said. He's saying there's no restrictions regarding taking relics if you don't have an AM warlord, so we can use the permissive rules to give a model a relic.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Is there some tiny difference in the text in this Codex making folk get so annoyingly odd about this iteration?

Because most Codexes say “hey if your general is from X army have a Relic” but we know “extra Relic” Strats aren’t locked to that faction.

What am I missing here after pages of Rule 1 breaches and bickering that illuminated nothing?

And who is even allying their AdMech making this even a problem in the first place???

Anyone useing the raven/Metallica ik list for start which has had some passable tourney results (for IK). It might be one of the better ways to run knights at the moment.

Your not missing anything most factions have that and no it is entirely true that other codexs have the same wording and are not locked to a faction that's what the majority in this say.

The core argument is that 2 people seem to have invented a restriction from that stock phrase. Which they are unable to quote in anyway or support in anyway. They then apply that restriction to "it must be a Relic they can have" claiming you don't meet it if you don't have a warlord which would be true if that restriction existed but it doesn't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JakeSiren wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
I must agree with Jake. There is no rule that states you may not take AM relics if you don’t have a AM warlord. There are a number of rules that allow you to take relics. Two of those require you to have a AM warlord, but the third does not.

"The rules don't say I can't!"
The rules don't say I can't place my models back on the board after you've killed them and use them next turn, but that doesn't mean I can do it. The rules system is permissive: this means you may only do things you are expressly allowed to do or that the rules imply you can do. You are not allowed to do anything else.

Try reigning it in DeathReaper and re-read what Alextroy said. He's saying there's no restrictions regarding taking relics if you don't have an AM warlord, so we can use the permissive rules to give a model a relic.

Exactly as I repeatedly said ages ago that whole argument is predicated on that restriction existing and it either does or doesn't and noone has been able to quote it so it doesn't.

JakeSiren wrote:
Try reigning it in DeathReaper and re-read what Alextroy said. He's saying there's no restrictions regarding taking relics if you don't have an AM warlord, so we can use the permissive rules to give a model a relic.

There is nothing allowing an AM relic without an AM warlord. As the restriction is if you have an AM warlord you may etc...

 DeathReaper wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
Try reigning it in DeathReaper and re-read what Alextroy said. He's saying there's no restrictions regarding taking relics if you don't have an AM warlord, so we can use the permissive rules to give a model a relic.

There is nothing allowing an AM relic without an AM warlord. As the restriction is if you have an AM warlord you may etc...

...if you honestly believe that, I don't think there is any value continuing the conversation with you. You've been asked to show that such a restriction exists, but haven't. Remember how I've said, twice already, that restrictions have phases like "can't", "can only", "must not", etc. You have not addressed this. The only reason that I can presume is because you know that the quoted statement does not have any words or phrases that constitute a restrictive phrase.

JakeSiren wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
Try reigning it in DeathReaper and re-read what Alextroy said. He's saying there's no restrictions regarding taking relics if you don't have an AM warlord, so we can use the permissive rules to give a model a relic.

There is nothing allowing an AM relic without an AM warlord. As the restriction is if you have an AM warlord you may etc...

...if you honestly believe that, I don't think there is any value continuing the conversation with you. You've been asked to show that such a restriction exists, but haven't. Remember how I've said, twice already, that restrictions have phases like "can't", "can only", "must not", etc. You have not addressed this. The only reason that I can presume is because you know that the quoted statement does not have any words or phrases that constitute a restrictive phrase.

I have shown the rule...

Literally the first line of the relics page:

If your army is led by an ADEPTUS MECHANICUS WARLORD, you can...


(Literally the second post in this tread).

Which as multiple people have said is a permission not a restriction. And makes no mention of requiring an admech warlord to access relics

We are back to I can take a free relic not magically meaning something completely different

U02dah4 wrote:
Which as multiple people have said is a permission not a restriction. And makes no mention of requiring an admech warlord to access relics

We are back to I can take a free relic not magically meaning something completely different

Except you have not shown permission to take one without a AM warlord.

Why are you ignoring the part of the rules that say "If your army is led by an ADEPTUS MECHANICUS WARLORD, you can..." (This is explicitly how you get access to AM relics).

The Strat gives permission to take one and it "must be a relic it can have"...

You cant have one without having an Ad mech Warlord.



P.S. why did you ask the question if you are going to ignore the rules and do what you want anyway?

Because its not relevant

If you have an admech warlord You can take a free relic - I don't so it has no bearing. Even if I did it would have no bearing as it only gives permission for a character to take a relic. The exact wording of what comes after if you have an admech warlord matters

Permission is granted by the strat - which as discussed earlier is 0 with a strict raw reading as your warlord phrase only gives a character a relic and makes no mention of access to the factions relics. if your not useing a strict raw it means you can take it unless theirs a restriction you have shown no restriction.

Since me alex and jake all read the rules the same way we are clearly reading them

Let's not go down in circles with this again.

@DeathReaper, I'm disappointed that was your response to me. I had hoped you had evaluated and expressed why you thought the quoted rule is a restriction rather than repeat your refrain ad nauseam. I don't think there is anything further that I can say to you on this topic. Thank you for your time.

@U02dah4, it is evident that, for whatever reasons, DeathReaper does not see the issue with what he calls a "restriction". I don't think any additional conversation on this point will be productive.

It must be a relic they can have. Without having a AM warlord how many relics are available?

Exactly the same as not having an am warlord

All of them admech relics are not restricted

Even if they were it would be exactly the same none of them

U02dah4 wrote:
Exactly the same as not having an am warlord

All of them admech relics are not restricted

Even if they were it would be exactly the same none of them

You mean zero. Because if all of them are available then that would mean you could give one to every character in your army.

But we know that is not true, so your statement is not true.


But seriously answer this:

Why did you ask the question if you are going to ignore the rules and do what you want anyway?

No because whether or not you have an admech warlord only refers to the free relic going to a character it makes no reference to your army's access to relics in general or access for non characters

I'm not , I wanted to know if I had missed something me alex and jake have all read the rules we found nothing and came to the same conclusion

You invented stuff and have not supported it with any evidence so I'll ignore that (or more accurately quoted stuff that proves you wrong because it doesn't state what you claim it states). While doctorom seems to think it's broken and never works which while correct under strict raw is clearly not rai so I will ignore them.

U02dah4 wrote:


Your not missing anything most factions have that and no it is entirely true that other codexs have the same wording and are not locked to a faction that's what the majority in this say.

The core argument is that 2 people seem to have invented a restriction from that stock phrase. Which they are unable to quote in anyway or support in anyway. They then apply that restriction to "it must be a Relic they can have" claiming you don't meet it if you don't have a warlord which would be true if that restriction existed but it doesn't.

I suspected as much. So it’s the usual one rule grants Warlord free relic, a Strat allows [someone else] a Relic a different way, but someone is trying to muddy that for internet points? How silly.

Never change, YMDC. Well, actually, do. It would be great if this was a resource for players. It isn’t in its present state.

Yes I feel the same

 JohnnyHell wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:


Your not missing anything most factions have that and no it is entirely true that other codexs have the same wording and are not locked to a faction that's what the majority in this say.

The core argument is that 2 people seem to have invented a restriction from that stock phrase. Which they are unable to quote in anyway or support in anyway. They then apply that restriction to "it must be a Relic they can have" claiming you don't meet it if you don't have a warlord which would be true if that restriction existed but it doesn't.

I suspected as much. So it’s the usual one rule grants Warlord free relic, a Strat allows [someone else] a Relic a different way, but someone is trying to muddy that for internet points? How silly.

Never change, YMDC. Well, actually, do. It would be great if this was a resource for players. It isn’t in its present state.

My only regret is that I can exalt this only once. It really needs a lot more moderation to hold any value.