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.
mrhappyface wrote: So besides the one guy with a 3++ overlord, is anyone else going to actually abuse this? Personally, as a chaos player, I don't see much to actually take advantage of. Anyone else feel the same?
(In other words: I don't think most people will actually care to use this loop hole)
Eternal Warrior on a DP, maybe?
There are already eternal warrior relics for CSM, maybe in a Daemon army but would you take it over hellforged artifacts?
mrhappyface wrote: So besides the one guy with a 3++ overlord, is anyone else going to actually abuse this? Personally, as a chaos player, I don't see much to actually take advantage of. Anyone else feel the same?
(In other words: I don't think most people will actually care to use this loop hole)
Eternal Warrior on a DP, maybe?
Eternal Warrior on a squishy Farseer.
Well thank god the Eldar get to take advantage of the new relics.
Ghorros wrote: The moral of the story: Don't park your Imperial Knight in a field of Gretchin carrying power tools.
Marmatag wrote: All the while, my opponent is furious, throwing his codex on the floor, trying to slash his wrists with safety scissors.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Of course you can take more than one sig system per model. Two items even say they can be used together.
That doesn't actually contradict a "can only use a single SS per model" ruling implied by the FAQ, as that part of their description could merely apply to two separate models both using them in the same unit (as both of those items apply their benefit to the unit, not just the model).
The general FAQ states it as an absolute rule that must be explicitly overruled. Depending on how that text is interpreted, it may not be the explicit overruling needed.
I just think the topic deserves to be reconsidered in light of the the general trend of the FAQ rulings.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mrhappyface wrote: So besides the one guy with a 3++ overlord, is anyone else going to actually abuse this? Personally, as a chaos player, I don't see much to actually take advantage of. Anyone else feel the same?
(In other words: I don't think most people will actually care to use this loop hole)
How about a Tau Commander with the anti-deepstrike ecclesiarchy relic? 20 points for a Shield Generator effect, without requiring a hardpoint to mount that Shield Generator, with a 24" bubble of "F you, Assault-from-Deepstrike armies".
There's also that Overwatch at BS2 or Skyfire or Tank Hunter or Monster Hunter relic, all of which would be excellent benefits for joinable shooting units - as a Tau player, I'm looking at a serious point savings in Skyfire alone, while also having a backup/secondary PEN equivalent. Multiple Buffmanders!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/24 01:04:14
koooaei wrote: Didn't the whole set of rules specify that only imperium can use it?
Reading this at work, but I'll double check when I get home.
8th Overhaul!
Over 18,000 SM
Over 7000 Tyranids
About 3000 Genestealer cult
About 6000 IG
About 2500 Chaos
About 5000 Skitarii/Admech *Current focus
About 3000 Deamons
2 Imperial Knigts... Soon to be a third
koooaei wrote: Didn't the whole set of rules specify that only imperium can use it?
No it absolutely does not
It states any model in the army can take the relics , and does not require that model to be from IoM
To be more specific, the model must be a character and be able to purchase relics.
This means that a character IK cannot take a Fall of Cadia relic unless it can purchase relics on its datasheet (the Lord Baron in a Baronial Court can). Also, no Tau characters could take any of the Fall of Cadia relics.
But, a Big Mek could purchase a Fall of Cadia relic.
koooaei wrote: Didn't the whole set of rules specify that only imperium can use it?
No it absolutely does not
It states any model in the army can take the relics , and does not require that model to be from IoM
To be more specific, the model must be a character and be able to purchase relics.
This means that a character IK cannot take a Fall of Cadia relic unless it can purchase relics on its datasheet (the Lord Baron in a Baronial Court can). Also, no Tau characters could take any of the Fall of Cadia relics.
But, a Big Mek could purchase a Fall of Cadia relic.
I think it states "Relic (or equivalent)" and not merely "Relic", does it not?
If so, the question is whether the Tau Signature Systems (or, say, Eldar Remnants of Glory) are a Relic "equivalent".
Aside from the minor exceptions (being able to take more than one - something allowed for Relics and their equivalents in the FAQ, so not indicative of a failure to be a Relic or equivalent), they seem facially to be so, based on formatting and the overarching rules and availability.
koooaei wrote: Didn't the whole set of rules specify that only imperium can use it?
No it absolutely does not
It states any model in the army can take the relics , and does not require that model to be from IoM
To be more specific, the model must be a character and be able to purchase relics.
This means that a character IK cannot take a Fall of Cadia relic unless it can purchase relics on its datasheet (the Lord Baron in a Baronial Court can). Also, no Tau characters could take any of the Fall of Cadia relics.
But, a Big Mek could purchase a Fall of Cadia relic.
I think it states "Relic (or equivalent)" and not merely "Relic", does it not?
If so, the question is whether the Tau Signature Systems (or, say, Eldar Remnants of Glory) are a Relic "equivalent".
Aside from the minor exceptions (being able to take more than one - something allowed for Relics and their equivalents in the FAQ, so not indicative of a failure to be a Relic or equivalent), they seem facially to be so, based on formatting and the overarching rules and availability.
Where do you see in the Tau codex that Signature Systems count as relics?
koooaei wrote: Didn't the whole set of rules specify that only imperium can use it?
No it absolutely does not
It states any model in the army can take the relics , and does not require that model to be from IoM
To be more specific, the model must be a character and be able to purchase relics.
This means that a character IK cannot take a Fall of Cadia relic unless it can purchase relics on its datasheet (the Lord Baron in a Baronial Court can). Also, no Tau characters could take any of the Fall of Cadia relics.
But, a Big Mek could purchase a Fall of Cadia relic.
I think it states "Relic (or equivalent)" and not merely "Relic", does it not?
If so, the question is whether the Tau Signature Systems (or, say, Eldar Remnants of Glory) are a Relic "equivalent".
Aside from the minor exceptions (being able to take more than one - something allowed for Relics and their equivalents in the FAQ, so not indicative of a failure to be a Relic or equivalent), they seem facially to be so, based on formatting and the overarching rules and availability.
Where do you see in the Tau codex that Signature Systems count as relics?
A fair question, though one that I've answered already:
"they seem facially to be so, based on formatting and the overarching rules and availability."
But that isn't directly answering your question, because your question involves presumptions about the nature of relics themselves, while my answer has different presumptions.
I'm afraid, lacking my resources at the moment, I'll have to be arguing without the ability to actually look at the rules in question. You can either wait a good six hours for me to return home and correct/clarify my post, or make corrections as you go - simply understand that while the specific instances I refer to may be incorrect, the general thrust of my examples may still stand if other specific instances (which I can't recall off the cuff) can fill that void, and IIRC, that is the case here.
The term "Relic" is, as far as I can tell, undefined in the rules of WH40k. It is a part of the term used in some (but not all) codexes to represent items of exceptional rarity, uniqueness, or quality that distinguish it from the more widely available options, and is almost entirely exclusive to character models. For those codexes in which "Relic" is part of the name for that sort of list, as is the case in C:SMIIRC, the implication is nearly indisputable that that set of items counts as Relics for the purposes of the FAQ (though not entirely indisputable - I don't recall any text stating "Chapter Relics count as Relics" in C:SM, likely because that would seem blatantly redundant in the face of a plain reading).
Consequently, the meaning of the phrase "Relic (or equivalent)" is itself nebulous, placing the burden on players to interpret and understand the term as it is intended to apply.
(Edit) It is nebulous because IF the term Relic was defined by the use of the word "Relic" in the title of a list of items, then the addition of "(or equivalent)" to the phrase is meaningless where "X counts as a Relic" is required as your argument suggests - if it counts as a relic, it doesn't need to be an equivalent to qualify, and using ONLY the term "Relic" would suffice. One of the basic underlying principles of rules interpretation is that the reading of the text should not make text redundant (with the exception of examples, in which text is explicitly illustrative of a previous rule for explanatory purposes).
You've mentioned that a Mekboy would be able to take a Fall of Cadia Relic. Why? I was under the impression that Orks don't have "relics", they have Gifts of Gork & Mork. Is there anything in the rules text for the Gifts that state that they "count as relics"?
How about the Eldar Remnants of Glory? Are they given text stating they count as relics?
The Admech have something akin to "Arcana", right? Do they have text stating they count as relics?
There are lots of sets of items that behave almost exactly (or even exactly, to the letter) like Chapter Relics, and those that do give rise to the presumption that those sets of items are the "equivalents" of Relics - something you've done yourself, with the Ork Mekboy example. Was it something like my answer - the format, the layout, the rarity of availability, and the like - that lead you to your conclusion, or did you find explicit text stating that Ork Gifts count as Relics (or count as the equivalent of Relics)?
It is the very undefined nature of the term "Relic (or equivalent)" that makes your request seem an inappropriate approach here, though I understand the inclination towards the formalistic, RAW approach. I'm by no means certain that Tau Signature Systems are truly Relic "equivalents" for the purposes of Fall of Cadia, but I base that remaining uncertainty on the ill-defined and seemingly indeterminate nature of the RAW itself.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/07 00:16:07
You've mentioned that a Mekboy would be able to take a Fall of Cadia Relic. Why? I was under the impression that Orks don't have "relics", they have Gifts of Gork & Mork. Is there anything in the rules text for the Gifts that state that they "count as relics"?
the WAAAGH Ghazghkull supplement refers to the Ork items in question as relics.
You've mentioned that a Mekboy would be able to take a Fall of Cadia Relic. Why? I was under the impression that Orks don't have "relics", they have Gifts of Gork & Mork. Is there anything in the rules text for the Gifts that state that they "count as relics"?
the WAAAGH Ghazghkull supplement refers to the Ork items in question as relics.
Thanks for the correction.
Can you give precise language (in PM, if need be) where it does so?
Would you say that a Ghazghkull army could take the Fall of Cadia relic substitutes where a regular Ork army (with their Gifts of Gork and Mork) could not?
You've mentioned that a Mekboy would be able to take a Fall of Cadia Relic. Why? I was under the impression that Orks don't have "relics", they have Gifts of Gork & Mork. Is there anything in the rules text for the Gifts that state that they "count as relics"?
the WAAAGH Ghazghkull supplement refers to the Ork items in question as relics.
Thanks for the correction.
Can you give precise language (in PM, if need be) where it does so?
Would you say that a Ghazghkull army could take the Fall of Cadia relic substitutes where a regular Ork army (with their Gifts of Gork and Mork) could not?
Spoiler:
On these pages you will find additional special rules, Warlord Traits, Relics, a Detachment and Formations that reflect the composition and fighting style of Waaagh! Ghazghkull. You can add the Detachment and Formations from this section to an existing army, or use them to field an army from Waaagh! Ghazghkull itself.
Spoiler:
ORKIMEDE’S KUSTOM GUBBINZ
Any units from a Detachment or Formation presented in this book that can select Gifts of Gork and Mork cannot select from those listed in Codex: Orks, but can instead select from Orkimedes’ Kustom Gubbinz, presented opposite, at the points costs shown.
Spoiler:
Orkimedes’ Kustom Gubbinz are unique and incredible pieces of techno-wotnotz that have been forged or heavily kustomised by Ghazghkull’s ingenious Mekboss, Orkimedes. Only one of each of the following Kustom Gubbinz can be chosen per army – there is only one of each of these items in the entire galaxy!
Spoiler:
GIFTS OF GORK AND MORK
Gifts of Gork and Mork are items of such value and importance that entire tribes will go to war just to possess them. Believed by some to have been given to the Ork race by their careless, warring gods, each is unique. Only one of each of the
following artefacts may be chosen per army – there is only one of each of these items in the galaxy!
The latest Waaagh! Ghazghkull supplement allows you to use the Waaagh! Ghazghkull Relics in addition to the Gifts of Gork and Mork
As I mentioned in my initial response, I might be wrong on the particulars. And, as I mentioned in the same, I believe the thrust of my argument remains.
The Ork unique wargear lists clearly qualify as Relics (Ghaz's because it calls them out as additional Relics, and the baseline Orks' because it calls them out as additional relics, implying they had relics to begin with even without Ghaz's extra rules).
That is kind of a side point, though, and doesn't directly address my main (edit) questions:
Is a Relic defined anywhere? If not, does there need to be explicit language (as seen in the Ghaz entry) denoting the unique wargear list as a Relic, or is it sufficient to have the word "Relic" in the title for your unique wargear list? Was the Ork unique wargear list a "Relic" list before being clarified as such by the Ghaz supplement? If so, why?
Is a Relic "equivalent" defined anywhere? If not, what qualities do we use to distinguish a Relic "equivalent" from other wargear?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/07 05:01:54
As I mentioned in my initial response, I might be wrong on the particulars. And, as I mentioned in the same, I believe the thrust of my argument remains.
The Ork unique wargear lists clearly qualify as Relics (Ghaz's because it calls them out as additional Relics, and the baseline Orks' because it calls them out as additional relics, implying they had relics to begin with even without Ghaz's extra rules).
That is kind of a side point, though, and doesn't directly address my main (edit) questions:
Is a Relic defined anywhere? If not, does there need to be explicit language (as seen in the Ghaz entry) denoting the unique wargear list as a Relic, or is it sufficient to have the word "Relic" in the title for your unique wargear list? Was the Ork unique wargear list a "Relic" list before being clarified as such by the Ghaz supplement? If so, why?
Is a Relic "equivalent" defined anywhere? If not, what qualities do we use to distinguish a Relic "equivalent" from other wargear?
We know a few things for sure about Relics
Artefact is synonymous with Relic.
A Relic is a convergence of these two restrictions.
1) Only one of each of the following may be taken per army.
2) A model may take one of the following:
A Relic is a convergence of these two restrictions.
1) Only one of each of the following may be taken per army.
2) A model may take one of the following:
The first one I can agree with, but the second is problematic.
Why?
The FAQ has the following entry, under Army Lists:
Q: How many relics/artefacts can a single model be equipped with? A: A model can only be given a single relic or artefact unless specifically noted otherwise.
Unless specifically noted otherwise gives us the explicit possibility that a model can take MORE than one relic - it merely has to specifically note that to be the case. The FAQ thus explicitly recognizes that a model can take more than one relic and still be equipping a relic. The reverse is thus also true - relics need not be restricted to one per model to qualify as relics.
It is also fairly odd that you used that particular language for the second requirement, given the language used for, of all factions, the Codex: Space Marines for taking relics. Take a look at the Codex: Space Marines Captain datasheet:
A Captain or Chapter Master may take items from the Melee Weapons, Ranged Weapons, Special Issue Wargear and/or Chapter Relics lists.
Per your requirements, the Space Marine Captains apparently are not choosing relics from their Chapter Relics list. That strikes me as an absurd result. Ever more problematic is the entry for the Wolf Lord, which has almost exactly the same wording (substituting Relics of the Fang for Chapter Relics, of course), except the Relics of the Fang are also explicitly recognized as relics in the wargear section blurb.
...Only one of each of the following relics may be chosen per army
I think we could agree on the first restriction, however. That would include Signature Systems as relics (or at least their equivalent), of course...
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/07 07:44:48
No the reverse is not true. You haven't framed it correctly
If you can take more than one it isn't a relic unless explicitly stated to be so
You excluded the middle
nosferatu1001 wrote: No the reverse is not true. You haven't framed it correctly
If you can take more than one it isn't a relic unless explicitly stated to be so
You excluded the middle
True, I may have been overzealous in my statement, though the bolded/italicized portion does not follow from the logic either.
X unless Y
is equivalent to
If not X then Y
or (inclusive)
If not Y then X
Where X = A model can only be given a single relic or artefact
and Y = [the rules] specifically note otherwise
If a model can take more than one relic, then the rules specifically noted otherwise.
or
If the rules did not specifically note otherwise, a model can only be given a single relic or artefact
If a model can take more than one relic, the quality of a model only being able to take one is not a necessary condition for being a relic.
Models can take more than one relic, so long as the rules specifically note they can.
Thus, the second requirement I was discussing cannot be the case.
Edit: I think my main contention here is that the second requirement (that it must include language limiting taking to a single relic) is a quality of the model, and not really a quality of the relic itself - relics are perfectly fine being and remaining a relic, even if a model is taking more than one. Their nature as a relic is independent of the particular qualities of the model.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/02/07 08:29:10
Per your requirements, the Space Marine Captains apparently are not choosing relics from their Chapter Relics list. That strikes me as an absurd result. Ever more problematic is the entry for the Wolf Lord, which has almost exactly the same wording (substituting Relics of the Fang for Chapter Relics, of course), except the Relics of the Fang are also explicitly recognized as relics in the wargear section blurb.
This is the language used in the Space Marines codex.
Spoiler:
Only one of each Chapter Relic may be taken per army. A model may replace one weapon with one of the following.
Still the same one per army and one per model requirement.
Can you find any example of a model being allowed to have more than one relic or artefact in any codex?
Why do you think the FAQ chose language that deliberately did not include Signature Systems? Signature Systems are unique items but by no stretch of semantics are they relics or artefacts.
Do I have an incorrect/old copy of the Space Marine Codex? In my copy (copyright 2015) I only see the following:
Only one of each of the following items may be chosen per army.
Is my copy out of date? Am I looking in the wrong spot?
I also quoted the Space Marine Captain's option as they are found in my copy, which allows the Captain to take items from multiple lists, including the Chapter Relics list.
If i can take items from all the lists, I can take items from any one particular list, including the Chapter Relics list.
EDIT: Yeah, found out where I was missing it - the Wargear list. The above spoiler'd text is incorrect.
In terms of the FAQ language, we're discussing what qualities a relic or artefact has by necessity. A limitation on being one per model is not among them, per the FAQ, since a model could take more than one relic so long as the text allows it - models only being able to take one does not appear to be a necessary condition for something to be a relic.
That isn't to say that the "one relic per model" limitation isn't common for relics and artefacts, just that it isn't a necessary restriction if the FAQ has any purpose.
That really only leaves the quality of being unique (the 1 per army restriction), which the Signature Systems share, and the formatting/placement within the codex, which the Signature Systems also share. That seems like it should be enough to qualify as an equivalent of a relic, for the purposes of the game rules.
Your question on examples is sort of the issue that points indirectly towards Signature Systems being included as sufficiently relic-like, in that the FAQ's inclusion of language allowing for the possibility suggests there exists that possibility. To my knowledge, none of the "unique per army" lists except the Tau's Signature Systems specifically note an allowance to take more than one Signature System on a model, which implies that the FAQ need not be included unless Signature Systems are sufficiently relic-like to be relevant.
Otherwise, the FAQ answer would be "No, you can't take more than one relic on a model" rather than using a logical statement that is only necessary if Tau Signature Systems and their unique quality needs to be addressed.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/02/07 09:27:52
The FAQ would have stated 'unique wargear items' if it meant such.
By no stretch of the imagination is a Signature System a relic. A Signature System is categorically excluded from being a relic. The category of relic/artefact is not inclusive of Signature Systems.
That is why the burden of proof is on you to show that a Signature System is a relic or counts as a relic.
col_impact wrote: The FAQ would have stated 'unique wargear items' if it meant such.
By no stretch of the imagination is a Signature System a relic. A Signature System is categorically excluded from being a relic. The category of relic/artefact is not inclusive of Signature Systems.
That is why the burden of proof is on you to show that a Signature System is a relic or counts as a relic.
Those seem like assertions requiring just as much proof as any I am claiming - they somewhat beg the question.
My claim is that the term "relic" is not defined by the rules of 40k.Instead, we are forced to use other tools (format, presentation, unique qualities, FAQ entries) to provide insight into what is a relic or a relic equivalent.
The format, presentation, and unique quality is ubiquitous - all factions have at least one set of these, with the Signature Systems being the Tau's version.
The FAQ implies that the restriction to one-per-model, a quality that would otherwise be ubiquitous IF Signature Systems were excluded, is not a necessary quality to being a relic. If true, that would contradict the qualities you used for your definition of what constitutes a relic.
My argument is thus that the term "Relic (or equivalent)" is intended to cover the faction's list of one-per-army items, and I've provided the basis for why I believe that (the remaining ubiquitous qualities, to which we both agree are indicative of something being a relic). It seems like the burden is now on you to show an explicit definition of relic, or show why the FAQ implication is incorrect.
Edit: It really feels like we're talking in circles. If you'd like to get the last word in, feel free, but I think I've explained my position about as thoroughly as I possibly can.
It certainly appears I'm in the minority opinion, and I could certainly be wrong on this, but I do enjoy a good discussion, and I appreciate your patience with me.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/02/07 10:06:28
