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.

 Lobukia wrote:
Thanks OP, "because one codex says this about that, all other codicies should do the same even if they say something else... Cause reasons"

That helped.

So why can't my marines take relic armour and a relic shield or weapon again?

Your sarcasm isn't helpful, and you are misrepresenting me.

Your Space Marine Codex states "a model can replace one weapon with one of the following:" This is a stated limit of one weapon being exchanged, for one relic, and the wording does not permit this exchange to be performed multiple times. That is why you can't take both.

If GW had intended the model to take multilple relics, they would have written that "One or more weapons may each be exchanged for a Relic", or the slightly more ambiguous "May exchange x and/or y for : ".

I never said that all codexes have to abide by a limitation found in one codex as you trollishly claim. I was given one example of a supplement whose wording didn't limit it to one relic from the core codex, instead it banned the units from using that list of relics altogether and gave them a new list that didn't have the restrictions. That's the book, not me.

What I said was that that codex not having the expressed limitation, was not precedence to ignore the rules on the codexes that do have that expressed limitation. If you find other codexes that don't have that limitation, good for you, but that doesn't change the fact for the Grey Knights and Space Marines, for whom this thread was Started.

 SRSFACE wrote:
The reason it's ever worded "one" is because if it said "or more" afterwards, people would say it's legal to horde relics and only have to give up a single swapped item (say, bolt pistol.)

Not really. "One or more weapons may each be exchanged for a Relic" would present that each relic costs a weapon (and some points), and you can make as many exchanges as you want up to your maximum number of weapons.

 Bill1138 wrote:


Your Space Marine Codex states "a model can replace one weapon with one of the following:" This is a stated limit of one weapon being exchanged, for one relic, and the wording does not permit this exchange to be performed multiple times. That is why you can't take both.

That's the argument one side makes.
The other side say that by exchanging one weapon for one relic multiple times satisfies this, as they are replacing one weapon for one relic, then one other weapon for one other relic.

 Bill1138 wrote:

If GW had intended the model to take multilple relics, they would have written that "each weapon may be exchanged for a Relic", or the slightly more ambiguous "May exchange x and/or y for : ".

If Games Workshop wrote what they intended, we wouldn't need FAQs, just the errata.
An example that comes to mind is the old TWC FAQ saying they're S10 with fists/hammers. Now, since it's a new codex with new wording, the intent might be the same, but it might not. They didn't bother to include it in any FAQ or the codex itself for this edition.

There are plenty of ways they could have worded it, but comparing codices doesn't help. Space Wolves can choose to take a psychic hood. Does that mean that GW meant for the other Marine's Librarians to be able to choose to take a hood? Should I change my Vanilla Marine libby entry to match the more recent Space Wolves entry? No.

If Author A writes the Space Marine codex, intending for multiple relics, and Author B interprets it as singular and thinks "Wow, great wording!", he'll use it for his codex, meaning singular relic per model.
I'm just pointing out that one Marine 'dex is different to another.
That, and different authors mean that they could mean different things with the same wording.

The reason I believe RAI is 'one for one' instead of 'one only' is that DA codex use similar wording for their normal melee weapons, and there is no way that it was meant that DA cannot have pair of lightning claws.

That being case, RAW case for 'one only ' is strong enough, that I wouldn't give character multiple relics that replace weapons, unless I had confirmed that my opponent is OK with this.

 Ond Angel wrote:

 Bill1138 wrote:
Your Space Marine Codex states "a model can replace one weapon with one of the following:" This is a stated limit of one weapon being exchanged, for one relic, and the wording does not permit this exchange to be performed multiple times. That is why you can't take both.

That's the argument one side makes.
The other side say that by exchanging one weapon for one relic multiple times satisfies this, as they are replacing one weapon for one relic, then one other weapon for one other relic.

Bear with me... 1 + 1 = 2, and is no longer equal to 1. 1 weapon may be exchanged for 1 Relic. If you do that again, then you have exchanged 2 weapons for 2 Relics, and are not following the rule. What you are proposing as a RAI is contradictory to RAW.

 Ond Angel wrote:

 Bill1138 wrote:

If GW had intended the model to take multilple relics, they would have written that "each weapon may be exchanged for a Relic", or the slightly more ambiguous "May exchange x and/or y for : ".

If Games Workshop wrote what they intended, we wouldn't need FAQs, just the errata.
An example that comes to mind is the old TWC FAQ saying they're S10 with fists/hammers. Now, since it's a new codex with new wording, the intent might be the same, but it might not. They didn't bother to include it in any FAQ or the codex itself for this edition.

There are plenty of ways they could have worded it, but comparing codices doesn't help. Space Wolves can choose to take a psychic hood. Does that mean that GW meant for the other Marine's Librarians to be able to choose to take a hood? Should I change my Vanilla Marine libby entry to match the more recent Space Wolves entry? No.

If Author A writes the Space Marine codex, intending for multiple relics, and Author B interprets it as singular and thinks "Wow, great wording!", he'll use it for his codex, meaning singular relic per model.
I'm just pointing out that one Marine 'dex is different to another.
That, and different authors mean that they could mean different things with the same wording.

The purpose of an FAQ is to clerify what they meant. If they meant that line to mean something other than what it says, then that clarification should be in the FAQ or connected Errata, which it is not. And the FAQ will likely always be needed, because of whatever wording they chose, someone will pick it apart to try to make it say something it doesn't.

Your reference to giving your vanilla Librarian rules he doesn't have has no relevance to this discussion, as I am talking about rules that models do have. There is no evidence that any of the writers intended for the Space Marines or any other codex including the stated limitation to be able to take more than one.

To flip your argument on its head, A codex that doesn't limit the number of relics on a model no more allows you to ignore the limitation on other codexesthat do, than the limitation in those other codexes superimpose their limitations over the Codex that doesn't have them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
The reason I believe RAI is 'one for one' instead of 'one only' is that DA codex use similar wording for their normal melee weapons, and there is no way that it was meant that DA cannot have pair of lightning claws.

That being case, RAW case for 'one only ' is strong enough, that I wouldn't give character multiple relics that replace weapons, unless I had confirmed that my opponent is OK with this.

Would you mind providing the wording you're referring to?

And "not unless it is OK'd with opponent first" is a good position for when disagreements may arise. If I were asked I'd allow it though in my mind it is a house rule because I hold to RAW, but don't believe it would skiew the game's balance.

 Bill1138 wrote:

Would you mind providing the wording you're referring to?

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

And "not unless it is OK'd with opponent first" is a good position for when disagreements may arise. If I were asked I'd allow it though in my mind it is a house rule because I hold to RAW, but don't believe it would skiew the game's balance.

I'm inclined to to agree with you that RAW case for 'one only' is stronger than the alternative interpretation. However, this is one of those rules that is ambiguous enough, that there really is not a commonly accepted consensus (and still GW refuses to address it in the FAQs.) Personally I'd prefer they'd errata it to allow multiple relics, because then maybe relics other than Shield Eternal would see some use.

 Bill1138 wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:
Thanks OP, "because one codex says this about that, all other codicies should do the same even if they say something else... Cause reasons"

That helped.

So why can't my marines take relic armour and a relic shield or weapon again?

Your sarcasm isn't helpful, and you are misrepresenting me.

Your Space Marine Codex states "a model can replace one weapon with one of the following:" This is a stated limit of one weapon...

You are misreading both me and the codex. I know I can take two (as the armor isn't a weapon swap) and regardless of how you want to dig up a two year old argument, I'm sure I can take one weapon relic.

I never said anything about 2 weapon swaps... watch the knee jerk

 Lobukia wrote:

 Bill1138 wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:
Thanks OP, "because one codex says this about that, all other codicies should do the same even if they say something else... Cause reasons"

That helped.

So why can't my marines take relic armour and a relic shield or weapon again?

Your sarcasm isn't helpful, and you are misrepresenting me.

Your Space Marine Codex states "a model can replace one weapon with one of the following:" This is a stated limit of one weapon...

You are misreading both me and the codex. I know I can take two (as the armor isn't a weapon swap) and regardless of how you want to dig up a two year old argument, I'm sure I can take one weapon relic.

I never said anything about 2 weapon swaps... watch the knee jerk

To use the Space Marines as an example:
"Chapter Relics
Only one of each Chapter Relic may be taken per army. A model can replace one weapon with one of the following.
The Primarchs Wrath - ## pts
Teeth of Terra - ## pts
The Shield Eternal - ## pts
The Burning Blade - ## pts
The Armour Indomitus 1 - ## pts
1Does not replace one of the character's weapons. May not be chosen by models wearing Terminator Armour."

The rule states that you may make one swap, and that that swap involves giving up a weapon, unless you are trading your armor for the Armour Indomitus. In no way does this imply that the armor can be taken as a separate swap in addition to a weapon swap.

Now you can cut the sarcasm. You shouldn't expect new members to read up on however many thousands of threads are on this sight before posting. I checked the most recent pages and this topic wasn't to be seen, so I started a new thread, as per Dakkadakka's rules.

If you feel misrepresented, then don't crop your quotation of my post down to a couple lines. Show the whole thing and address what you think was wrong. If you think I misread the Codex, then provide the quotation with an explanation of why it means something other than what I said, not just saying I'm wrong and your way is right.