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.

 The World XEater wrote:
This sort of thing comes up every single edition and (more often than not) with every new Codex.

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

If you replace two weapons, you haven't replaced one weapon.

If it said "a model can replace any weapon with one of the following" you would be able to argue that the model could take two (provided they had two weapons to trade). One ≠ any, however, so the limit is one per model.

Now if the TO rules that you can take more than one, fair enough and that's their prerogative as a TO. The rules are quite clear, however, that you cannot take more than one relic per character.

I'm Facebook famous!

DoW

But it's not "only" one.

This is my favorite rules argument. So much fun. So much refusal to admit ambiguity.

No individual is arguing that it isn't a one for one swap. The argument is whether or not you can choose multiple times from the Relics list.

The codex gives permission to select items (plural) from the various lists. The ambiguity is whether this means multiple items from each list, one item from each list or multiple from some lists and one from others. GW didn't specify, so this will continue to be a HIWPI issue until there is an FAQ.

My belief is that so long as I can fulfill the one weapon per relic requirement, I can keep choosing from the Relics list. Perhaps this is because I'm primarily a Tau player and a single Commander can take ALL of the "Relics". I believe this sets a RaI precedent as multiple relics are allowed in other, non SW 'Dexes.

Some Codices are ambiguous, some are not.

Astra Militarum, for example, simply says, "Only one of each heirloom may be taken per army." which doesn't seem to specify a limit of one heirloom per character at all.

Grey Knights says the same thing, but adds, "A model can take one of the following:" making the restriction very clear.

If the Codex says "A model can replace one weapon with one of the following:" it's also very clear that not only is it a one-for-one swap, but that it is limited to a single instance of one-for-one swap.

However, if the Codex says "A model can replace any weapon with one of the following:" then it's not restricting the number of weapons that can be swapped, one-for-one, with relics.

The problem isn't ambiguity, it's inconsistency between Codices and the fact that people can often be arguing for and against completely different wording of the rules.

A very, very simple solution would be for GW to release a FAQ that says "Regardless of the army, only one Relic can ever be taken per model (in addition to any other restrictions listed)."

DoW

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
But it's not "only" one.

And the rules are permissive. Your entire argument is "it doesn't say I can't, so I can". The answer to that can be found in this article.

Centurian 99 wrote:"The rules don't say I can't!"

This is the most annoying argument ever made. If you've been forced to resort to it, your argument is immediately false. 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.

So again, please actually provide a rule that says you can replace more than one weapon with a relic.

 Ghaz wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
But it's not "only" one.

And the rules are permissive. Your entire argument is "it doesn't say I can't, so I can". The answer to that can be found in this article.

Centurian 99 wrote:"The rules don't say I can't!"

This is the most annoying argument ever made. If you've been forced to resort to it, your argument is immediately false. 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.

So again, please actually provide a rule that says you can replace more than one weapon with a relic.

The codex says I can take items from the relics list. The relics list says taking an item involves exchanging one weapon. There is my permission. The codex gives me explicit permission to select items (plural) from the relics list. The wording on the relics list just tells me how to select AN item. I'll be doing this multiple times, as I have permission to do.

Now, you show me a rule that says I can only select from the relics list once. And I don't want to hear that choosing twice means I'm exchanging two weapons when the book says one. Selecting twice is clearly exchanging one weapon... twice.

 Kriswall wrote:
The codex says I can take items from the relics list.

No it doesn't. Codex Space Wolves (the codex in question) 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:

Nothing there comes close to indicating that a single model can take 'items' from the 'Relics of the Fang' list. The closest you would have is from the individual unit entries like this:

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

Multiple lists, but nothing says you can ignore the restrictions of the individual list. Plus, if it said 'item', you would only be able to take a single item from all the lists that the model was entitled to take items from.

Serious question, Kriswall:

Do you understand the difference between these two sentences?

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

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

I honestly don't mean to be rude, but I think it may be a problem with your grammar comprehension. Could you please explain what you think each of them means?

Again, I'm not trying to be unpleasant and I genuinely want to know.

DoW

 DogOfWar wrote:
Serious question, Kriswall:

Do you understand the difference between these two sentences?

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

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

I honestly don't mean to be rude, but I think it may be a problem with your grammar comprehension. Could you please explain what you think each of them means?

Again, I'm not trying to be unpleasant and I genuinely want to know.

DoW

I'm not here to debate sentences that aren't actually in the codex. I freely admit that choosing an item from the Relics of the Fang list involves replacing one weapon with "one of the following". I'm not arguing this point and never have. In the context of taking an item from the Relics of the Fang list, one clearly means one. This is not a problem with my grammar comprehension.

My point is as such. The actual wording in the Wolf Lord entry is "May take items from the Melee Weapons, Ranged Weapons, Special Issue Wargear and/or Relics of the Fang lists." Using the most commonly accepted definition of and/or to mean "X or Y or Both", it can be seen that the entry is telling me that I can take items (plural) from Melee Weapons OR Ranged Weapons OR Special Issue Wargear OR Relics of the Fang OR Melee and Ranged OR Melee and Special Issue OR Melee and Relics OR Ranged and Special Issue OR Ranged and Relics OR,,, You get the idea. You'll note that one of the ORs is simply Relics of the Fang. So, grammatically, the entry allows me to read it as "May take items from the Relics of the Fang list."

Now, imagine that I am equipping a Wolf Lord.

1. I wish to take an item from the Relics of the Fang list. Cool. I have specific permission to do so per the above. Now let me read the Relics of the Fang list to see how this works. "Only one of each Relic may be taken per army." No issue here. I have yet to take any Relics, so there will be no dupes. "A model can replace one weapon with one of the following." Cool, I'll replace my Bolt Pistol for The Bite of Fenris.

2. That worked out great. Now to make my Wolf Lord even more amazing. I want to give him the Fangsword of the Ice Wolf. Wait! Can I take more than one Relic per model? Let me check the text of my entry. Yup. Looks like I have specific permission to take items from the Relics of the Fangs list. Awesome, let me re-read the Relics of the Fang List as my memory is a little hazy. "Only one of each Relic may be taken per army." Ok, no issue here. I haven't taken the Fangsword for anyone yet. "A model can replace one weapon with one of the following." Cool, now what weapons do I have available at this point? I have a chainsword and The Bite of Fenris. Replacing the Bite would be pretty foolish, so I'll replace the chainsword instead. Awesome, now I have The Bite of Fenris and the Fangsword of the Ice Wolf.

3. I'm really enjoying equipping this Wolf Lord! I did notice a cool Helm on the Relics list. Let me see if I can equip it. Can I take another item from the Relics of the Fang List? Well, the Wolf Lord entry gives me specific permission to do so, so I can't see why not. Now, due to severe memory issues, let me again re-read the Relics of the Fang list. "Only one of each Relic may be taken per army." No issue here. I haven't taken the Helm for anyone yet. "A model can replace one weapon with one of the following." Cool, I have two weapons available at this point... The Bite of Fenris and the Fangsword of the Ice Wolf. But wait! There is little superscript next to the Helm of Durfast. "Does not replace one of the character's weapons." Awesome! I don't have to replace one of my weapons when I take the Helm. My Wolf Lord is a super pimp.

Now, snark aside, I'm using the actual wording in the Wolf Lord entry to tell me how many items I can take from the Relics of the Fang list. It doesn't say I can take AN item. It says I can take items. I'm using the wording in the Relics of the Fang list to tell me how to take AN item. I'm just taking AN item three times. Each time I take AN item from the list, I have to replace one weapon to receive a Relic (except in the instance of the Helm, the Armour or the Stone in which case I don't have to replace one weapon at all).

Now, I will freely admit that the authors may have intended to only allow one Relic per model. If this was the case, they should have written "May take one item from the Relics of the Fang list" as a seperate line item under options. What they actually wrote gives permission to take ITEMS from the list.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Please also note that at no point in the above equipping example did I replace two weapons with anything. In each of the three line items I replaced ONE weapon (except #3 where I was specifically told I didn't have to).

It was my under standing you could take 1 weapon ,the armor , and the helm and wulfen stone possible 4. But can only take bite of fenris or black death or fang sword never more then one of these 3 on Any one character. But multple hq does not allow the same relic to be used twice. Because it says " only one of each relic can be taken per army". never says multiple relics Cannot be taken. Of you want a big pimp wolf lord on a mount for 1/5 your points go ahead it still a 2+ model with a 3++. 4 wound model That can die easy.

Fireraven wrote:
It was my under standing you could take 1 weapon ,the armor , and the helm and wulfen stone possible 4. But can only take bite of fenris or black death or fang sword never more then one of these 3 on Any one character. But multple hq does not allow the same relic to be used twice. Because it says " only one of each relic can be taken per army". never says multiple relics Cannot be taken. Of you want a big pimp wolf lord on a mount for 1/5 your points go ahead it still a 2+ model with a 3++. 4 wound model That can die easy.

We aren't debating tactics here. We're debating whether or not a Wolf Lord can equip multiple Relics.

What is your rules basis for allowing the Helm, the Armour, the Stone and one other weapon Relic on a Wolf Lord, but not two weapons? Both scenarios involve selecting from the Relics of the Fang list multiple times.

Kriswall, I would like to point out that the Ork codex, for Warbosses says "May take items from the Ranged Weapons, Melee Weapons, Runts & Squigs, Orky Know-wots and/or Gifts of Gork and Mork lists."

By your reading, one can read that sentence as "May take items from the Gifts of Gork and Mork list." which then specifically states "A model can take one of the following:".

The reason for saying can take items (plural) is simply grammatical. There are multiple lists you can take an item from, and as such, the collective would also be pluralized.

If that is how the Ork codex is worded, then I would argue that any model allowed to take Gifts can take multiples, so long as they select one at a time. The one wording is redundant in this case.

I acknowledge the ambiguity. I interpret it this way. The intention may be otherwise. We won't know until GW Faqs it, which may never happen.

its one for one. There are codices that specifically state a model cannot have more than one relic (looking at you orks >.< By this logic we can infer that they would word it this way for other codices if they so wished it.

you may take weapons from

is different from

you may take A weapon from.

one lets you take more than one. The other limits it to A, or one. The wording as Kriswell provided in quite A humorous way uses the former with absolutely no restrictions save for:
1. May not have more than one type of relic per army
2. Must swap out a weapon for a relic (May trade one weapon for one relic)

you are arguing this-
I have two dollars, I can trade one dollar, for one soda
so now I cannot trade two dollars for two sodas? Why?


If you play an army limited to one per model I feel for you, but that doesn't mean others are restricted in the same way. (also, Ghaz supplement has no restrictions as the ork dex.)

I'm also reading the wording within the list as only being relevant during the limited instance of selecting AN item from the list. As soon as I choose to take a second item from the same list, a new instance is created and I get to take again.

Perhaps this is because I'm a programmer and approach this process in a very logical and regimented way. I consider taking an item from the list as a sort of subroutine. The replace one item wording is only relevant to the subroutine of taking a Relic. The larger program (Wolf Lord entry) is worded such that I can call the take an item subroutine multiple times. This may not have been GW's intent, but I see no other logical explanation. Short of an FAQ that says "when we said you could take items from the Relics list, we meant you can take one item only", I'll keep reading list creation as a logical process

Also, does the ork dex not state -
A model may take only one of the following?

 Kriswall wrote:

 DogOfWar wrote:
Serious question, Kriswall:

Do you understand the difference between these two sentences?

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

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

I honestly don't mean to be rude, but I think it may be a problem with your grammar comprehension. Could you please explain what you think each of them means?

Again, I'm not trying to be unpleasant and I genuinely want to know.

DoW

I'm not here to debate sentences that aren't actually in the codex. I freely admit that choosing an item from the Relics of the Fang list involves replacing one weapon with "one of the following". I'm not arguing this point and never have. In the context of taking an item from the Relics of the Fang list, one clearly means one. This is not a problem with my grammar comprehension.

My point is that this sentence:

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

Means you can take any number of weapons and exchange them for relics (e.g. exchange two weapons for two relics, three weapons for three relics, etc.).

But this sentence:

"A model can replace one weapon with one of the following:" (as seen above in the excerpt from the Codex).

Means you can take a single weapon and exchange it for a single relic. Anywhere else in the book that talks about Relics and the exchanging thereof references that page and that rule. There's literally no way around it.

I really must stress that if you still believe that you can exchange two weapons for two relics, you are misunderstanding how a fairly fundamental aspect of English grammar works. Please don't take offense to this—I have certainly misunderstood plenty of grammar in the past—but I think this is why you are still arguing your point when many other people are not. This misunderstanding is the absolute crux of the matter.

DoW

 raiden wrote:
you are arguing this-
I have two dollars, I can trade one dollar, for one soda
so now I cannot trade two dollars for two sodas? Why?

Because you're only given permission to trade one dollar for one soda. Not to trade two dollars for two sodas.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kriswall wrote:
In the context of taking an item from the Relics of the Fang list, one clearly means one.

So why then is it only the second 'one' that 'clearly means one', rather than both of them?

 raiden wrote:

you are arguing this-
I have two dollars, I can trade one dollar, for one soda
so now I cannot trade two dollars for two sodas? Why?

This is easily debunked by thinking about parental consequences:

Your parents say, "You can get one soda with one dollar."

You come back with two sodas.

Your parents say, "Why do you have two sodas?"

You say, "You said I could get one soda with one dollar, so I got one... then I got another one for another dollar."

Even before you've finished explaining, you know you're already in trouble.

DoW

 DogOfWar wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 DogOfWar wrote:
Serious question, Kriswall:

Do you understand the difference between these two sentences?

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

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

I honestly don't mean to be rude, but I think it may be a problem with your grammar comprehension. Could you please explain what you think each of them means?

Again, I'm not trying to be unpleasant and I genuinely want to know.

DoW

I'm not here to debate sentences that aren't actually in the codex. I freely admit that choosing an item from the Relics of the Fang list involves replacing one weapon with "one of the following". I'm not arguing this point and never have. In the context of taking an item from the Relics of the Fang list, one clearly means one. This is not a problem with my grammar comprehension.

My point is that this sentence:

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

Means you can take any number of weapons and exchange them for relics (e.g. exchange two weapons for two relics, three weapons for three relics, etc.).

But this sentence:

"A model can replace one weapon with one of the following:" (as seen above in the excerpt from the Codex).

Means you can take a single weapon and exchange it for a single relic. Anywhere else in the book that talks about Relics and the exchanging thereof references that page and that rule. There's literally no way around it.

I really must stress that if you still believe that you can exchange two weapons for two relics, you are misunderstanding how a fairly fundamental aspect of English grammar works. Please don't take offense to this—I have certainly misunderstood plenty of grammar in the past—but I think this is why you are still arguing your point when many other people are not. This misunderstanding is the absolute crux of the matter.

DoW

I appreciate your statements, but I think we are arguing different points here. I agree that it is one weapon for one relic. Again, I have never contested that. Also, at no point am I arguing that you can replace two weapons for two relics. I'm not sure why this is being brought up. I'm very clearly arguing one weapon for one relic, but I'm arguing that it can happen multiple times as I'm allowed items from the list.

I'm not misunderstanding a fundamental aspect of English grammar. I believe you are misunderstanding a fundamental aspect of logical thinking. It can be established that options are selected sequentially and not concurrently. If we select options sequentially, and I'm given permission to select more than one item from the relics list, then it follows that each selection is treated as a separate action. You are taking the instructions for the first optional choice and applying them to all future optional choices. If I choose twice from the list, I am performing two actions. In each action, I am replacing one weapon for one relic, thereby fulfilling that requirement in each action. You are combining the actions and saying two weapons for two relics is a violation. We can't combine actions because option selection doesn't happen concurrently. You pick one option, then move on to the next option. I am fulfilling the requirement of EACH option.

 Kriswall wrote:
I appreciate your statements, but I think we are arguing different points here. I agree that it is one weapon for one relic. Again, I have never contested that. Also, at no point am I arguing that you can replace two weapons for two relics. I'm not sure why this is being brought up. I'm very clearly arguing one weapon for one relic, but I'm arguing that it can happen multiple times as I'm allowed items from the list.

I'm not misunderstanding a fundamental aspect of English grammar. I believe you are misunderstanding a fundamental aspect of logical thinking. It can be established that options are selected sequentially and not concurrently. If we select options sequentially, and I'm given permission to select more than one item from the relics list, then it follows that each selection is treated as a separate action. You are taking the instructions for the first optional choice and applying them to all future optional choices. If I choose twice from the list, I am performing two actions. In each action, I am replacing one weapon for one relic, thereby fulfilling that requirement in each action. You are combining the actions and saying two weapons for two relics is a violation. We can't combine actions because option selection doesn't happen concurrently. You pick one option, then move on to the next option. I am fulfilling the requirement of EACH option.

Except you have yet to show you have permission to choose items from the Relics multiple times.

Your argument appears to be "Can select items from...the relics of fang list", however, grammatically, items must be pluralized as it refers to multiple lists.

Now your argument would hold ground in regards to the Eldar Codex, as that does state "May take items from the Remnants of Glory list." which has the same one weapon for one relic wording.

 DogOfWar wrote:

 raiden wrote:

you are arguing this-
I have two dollars, I can trade one dollar, for one soda
so now I cannot trade two dollars for two sodas? Why?

This is easily debunked by thinking about parental consequences:

Your parents say, "You can get one soda with one dollar."

You come back with two sodas.

Your parents say, "Why do you have two sodas?"

You say, "You said I could get one soda with one dollar, so I got one... then I got another one for another dollar."

Even before you've finished explaining, you know you're already in trouble.

DoW

Let's call a duck a duck. If this scenario happened, my immediate response would be "because before you told me the price, you said I could pick out multiple sodas". You can't ignore the permission to take items. You're being selective about which rules you look at.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
I appreciate your statements, but I think we are arguing different points here. I agree that it is one weapon for one relic. Again, I have never contested that. Also, at no point am I arguing that you can replace two weapons for two relics. I'm not sure why this is being brought up. I'm very clearly arguing one weapon for one relic, but I'm arguing that it can happen multiple times as I'm allowed items from the list.

I'm not misunderstanding a fundamental aspect of English grammar. I believe you are misunderstanding a fundamental aspect of logical thinking. It can be established that options are selected sequentially and not concurrently. If we select options sequentially, and I'm given permission to select more than one item from the relics list, then it follows that each selection is treated as a separate action. You are taking the instructions for the first optional choice and applying them to all future optional choices. If I choose twice from the list, I am performing two actions. In each action, I am replacing one weapon for one relic, thereby fulfilling that requirement in each action. You are combining the actions and saying two weapons for two relics is a violation. We can't combine actions because option selection doesn't happen concurrently. You pick one option, then move on to the next option. I am fulfilling the requirement of EACH option.

Except you have yet to show you have permission to choose items from the Relics multiple times.

Your argument appears to be "Can select items from...the relics of fang list", however, grammatically, items must be pluralized as it refers to multiple lists.

Now your argument would hold ground in regards to the Eldar Codex, as that does state "May take items from the Remnants of Glory list." which has the same one weapon for one relic wording.

I agree that it must be pluralized in this sentence structure. My total confusion is that you are ignoring that it IS pluralized. If the authors wanted to communicate one item only, they could have just written two sentences. They didn't. Now, this may have been intentional to allow multiple items, or it may be unintentional and just sloppy writing. The fact remains that items IS pluralized and the sentence can be read, while adhering to all grammatical rules, as "Can select items from... The Relics of the Fang list."

 Kriswall wrote:
I appreciate your statements, but I think we are arguing different points here. I agree that it is one weapon for one relic. Again, I have never contested that. Also, at no point am I arguing that you can replace two weapons for two relics. I'm not sure why this is being brought up. I'm very clearly arguing one weapon for one relic, but I'm arguing that it can happen multiple times as I'm allowed items from the list.

I'm not misunderstanding a fundamental aspect of English grammar. I believe you are misunderstanding a fundamental aspect of logical thinking. It can be established that options are selected sequentially and not concurrently. If we select options sequentially, and I'm given permission to select more than one item from the relics list, then it follows that each selection is treated as a separate action. You are taking the instructions for the first optional choice and applying them to all future optional choices. If I choose twice from the list, I am performing two actions. In each action, I am replacing one weapon for one relic, thereby fulfilling that requirement in each action. You are combining the actions and saying two weapons for two relics is a violation. We can't combine actions because option selection doesn't happen concurrently. You pick one option, then move on to the next option. I am fulfilling the requirement of EACH option.

Thank you for explaining, that makes much more sense.

I believe you do have to look at the situation et al, however, because that's how 40k tends to function. It's why you can't iteratively select special weapons or heavy weapons (even in previous IG Codices where it didn't expressly forbid it) to have a 10-man squad of guardsmen with 4 Lascannons or 9 Plasma Guns.

The other issue is that you aren't afforded the opportunity to go back and sequence through the selection process a second time. If you were, this would open up all sorts of doors with regards to infinite numbers of Astropaths or Master of Ordnance in AM Company Command Squads:

"May add any of the following:
--------- One Astropath
--------- One Master of Ordnance
--------- One Officer of the Fleet"

So I can select One Astropath... and then select another One Astropath... and then select another One Astropath... ad infinitum!

I will go as far as to say that I don't believe there has ever been a rule that follows that sort of iterative, sequential logic in Unit Entry selection like that. I understand the rationale behind the programming mindset, but that's just not how this ruleset has ever (or is likely to ever) function. Partly because it makes for silly situations (as in the infinite Astropath fiasco above) and partly because that way of thinking is not normal for the average player. GW doesn't write rules for C++ experts and Java linguists, they write rules in English for average English speakers (or whatever other language). It's an interesting take on the verbiage, however, but I don't think it makes sense in the greater scheme of the game and how the rules have been written, at least for the last 4 editions I've been playing.

DoW

So you go to the Relics of the Fang list, and what does the sentence there say? "May replace one weapon with one of the following". You can't ignore the rules that govern selecting said items

The wording of relic selection is ambiguous enough that we are arguing about it here, but it's not the presence of 'items' that makes it so. As stated, precedent of GW's writing when it comes to item selection, "may replace any weapon with one" allows you to select multiple options while "one weapon" is just that, one; unless you're going to tell me that I can run dual plasma pistol Chaos Lords or similar.

 DogOfWar wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
I appreciate your statements, but I think we are arguing different points here. I agree that it is one weapon for one relic. Again, I have never contested that. Also, at no point am I arguing that you can replace two weapons for two relics. I'm not sure why this is being brought up. I'm very clearly arguing one weapon for one relic, but I'm arguing that it can happen multiple times as I'm allowed items from the list.

I'm not misunderstanding a fundamental aspect of English grammar. I believe you are misunderstanding a fundamental aspect of logical thinking. It can be established that options are selected sequentially and not concurrently. If we select options sequentially, and I'm given permission to select more than one item from the relics list, then it follows that each selection is treated as a separate action. You are taking the instructions for the first optional choice and applying them to all future optional choices. If I choose twice from the list, I am performing two actions. In each action, I am replacing one weapon for one relic, thereby fulfilling that requirement in each action. You are combining the actions and saying two weapons for two relics is a violation. We can't combine actions because option selection doesn't happen concurrently. You pick one option, then move on to the next option. I am fulfilling the requirement of EACH option.

Thank you for explaining, that makes much more sense.

I believe you do have to look at the situation et al, however, because that's how 40k tends to function. It's why you can't iteratively select special weapons or heavy weapons (even in previous IG Codices where it didn't expressly forbid it) to have a 10-man squad of guardsmen with 4 Lascannons or 9 Plasma Guns.

The other issue is that you aren't afforded the opportunity to go back and sequence through the selection process a second time. If you were, this would open up all sorts of doors with regards to infinite numbers of Astropaths or Master of Ordnance in AM Company Command Squads:

"May add any of the following:
--------- One Astropath
--------- One Master of Ordnance
--------- One Officer of the Fleet"

So I can select One Astropath... and then select another One Astropath... and then select another One Astropath... ad infinitum!

I will go as far as to say that I don't believe there has ever been a rule that follows that sort of iterative, sequential logic in Unit Entry selection like that. I understand the rationale behind the programming mindset, but that's just not how this ruleset has ever (or is likely to ever) function. Partly because it makes for silly situations (as in the infinite Astropath fiasco above) and partly because that way of thinking is not normal for the average player. GW doesn't write rules for C++ experts and Java linguists, they write rules in English for average English speakers (or whatever other language). It's an interesting take on the verbiage, however, but I don't think it makes sense in the greater scheme of the game and how the rules have been written, at least for the last 4 editions I've been playing.

DoW

Space Marine Bikers come with a Bolt Pistol, but no melee weapon. Per the FAQ an option was added to allow them to swap their Bolt Pistol for a Chainsword. Two Bikers may then exchange the melee weapon (Chainsword) for a Special Weapon. The option selection HAS to be sequential, or no biker would be able to take a Special Weapon.

There you go. There is an example of sequential logic in taking options in a unit entry.

Since the guy arguing only take one picture instead of both the sections that is required to make a logical conclusion. Here is the 2nd part. It says very clearly "May take Items" plural.

 Kriswall wrote:
..., at no point am I arguing that you can replace two weapons for two relics

 Kriswall wrote:
..., but I'm arguing that it can happen multiple times as I'm allowed items from the list.

One of these things doesn't belong...

If we select options sequentially, and I'm given permission to select more than one item from the relics list, then it follows that each selection is treated as a separate action.

Yes, it is. But that's not the issue.

You're given permission to select multiple relics for the army.

A model is given permission to select select one relic, by swapping one weapon.


There is no permission to take more than one relic per model... just per army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fireraven wrote:
Since the guy arguing only take one picture instead of both the sections that is required to make a logical conclusion. Here is the 2nd part. It says very clearly "May take Items" plural.

...because if it just said 'an item' you would be restricted to one single item total from all of those lists combined. It's not giving you specific permission to select multiple items from each list... just telling you that selections from any or all of those lists are possible. Any restrictions inherent to those individual lists still have to apply.

 insaniak wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
..., at no point am I arguing that you can replace two weapons for two relics

 Kriswall wrote:
..., but I'm arguing that it can happen multiple times as I'm allowed items from the list.

One of these things doesn't belong...

If we select options sequentially, and I'm given permission to select more than one item from the relics list, then it follows that each selection is treated as a separate action.

Yes, it is. But that's not the issue.

You're given permission to select multiple relics for the army.

A model is given permission to select select one relic, by swapping one weapon.


There is no permission to take more than one relic per model... just per army.

The codex literally tells me in the Wolf Lord entry that I can take items from the Relics list. How is that not permission to take multiple items?

 Kriswall wrote:
The codex literally tells me in the Wolf Lord entry that I can take items from the Relics list. How is that not permission to take multiple items?

No, it doesn't. It gives you permission to select items from a bunch of different lists, including the Relics list.

That doesn't inherently over-ride any restriction specific to any of those lists.

Then it could easily say Items from list a, b, c and one relic which it does not say. But people just look at the lord its actually the same for the priest and others as well. I have never seen someone other then on these furoms argue. It is clearly allowed except no 2 relics that are the same per army. If someone wants to pimp out there lord let them, its one model that gets ninjaed easily. When I see them I go please charge me biggest squad over watch will kill him with enough rolls easy. Before he even does his attacks.