C:SM Relics Burning Blade/Shield Eternal Combination

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Lobokai**

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

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

**chillis**

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

**Baldsmug**

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

Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**NickTheButcher**

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

Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**rigeld2**

It has. DA Relics are the same way.

**Baldsmug**

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

Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Touche'

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

**Lobokai**

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

**NickTheButcher**

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

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

**easysauce**

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

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

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

which is OBS incorrect

**Baldsmug**

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

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

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

which is OBS incorrect

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

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

**rigeld2**

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

... and?

**Baldsmug**

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

**rigeld2**

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

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

**Sasa0mg**

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

It reads

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

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

**chillis**

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

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

**Baldsmug**

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

It reads

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

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

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

**Sasa0mg**

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

It reads

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

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

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

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

**MarkyMark**

Interestingly then a DA captain cannot have two lightning claws?

**Sasa0mg**

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

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

**Baldsmug**

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

It reads

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

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

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

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

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

**chillis**

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

**MarkyMark**

Sasa0mg wrote:
MarkyMark wrote:
Interestingly then a DA captain cannot have two lightning claws?

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

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

**Baldsmug**

Sasa0mg wrote:
MarkyMark wrote:
Interestingly then a DA captain cannot have two lightning claws?

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

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

**NickTheButcher**

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

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

**rigeld2**

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

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

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

**NickTheButcher**

rigeld2 wrote:
NickTheButcher wrote:
chillis wrote:
as it stands "replace one weapon with one of the following"
makes this into: replace _____ weapon with one of the following. If we install "any" into this sentence, it would be the same as the original. If we place "both" into the gap it would make it where we are giving up two weapons to get one relic. if we took out weapons in general it would read ~ take one of the following~ which would just be more weapons stacked on to the original wargear. How would it be phrased so that a model can take multiple relics at the expense of a weapon for each relic

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

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

**Kangodo**

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

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

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

**Baldsmug**

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

**IHateNids**

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

So using that, id say one Relic only.

**Baldsmug**

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

So using that, id say one Relic only.

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