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.

I can see no limitations on the number of chapter relics a character can take. They don't state weapon swapping and it only says they are unique items (so you can't have two shield externals in 1 army).

I'm confused where it's come from.

We've had this discussion with the Eldar codex, I don't know if there was ever a consensus.

the only limitation on how many Relics one character is that you must replace one weapon with a relic. So generally, two relics per character.

Because GW write hippy dippy poorly written rules where these misconceptions are commonplace?

What do I win?

Because it says "a model can replace ONE weapon with ONE of the following."

Traditionally, one means one and not several.

Personally, I'm inclined to believe they meant you can take more than one per character, but that's not what it says, is it? So, until it's FAQed, one still means one.

There was a huge thread about this in YMDC. For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure that someone said that in the Digital edition's army builder you can take several. I don't have it, so I cannot personally confirm. (There is this exact same issue with CSM, DA and Eldar codices.)

 Grimtuff wrote:
Because GW write hippy dippy poorly written rules where these misconceptions are commonplace?

What do I win?

or maybe GW writers take for granted that their readers are able to read the English language?

so you win nothing.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
Because GW write hippy dippy poorly written rules where these misconceptions are commonplace?

What do I win?

or maybe GW writers take for granted that their readers are able to read the English language?

so you win nothing.

I don't know nor care what the answer is as I don't own the SM codex. Does not make my statement any less valid. The sheer mass of threads in the YMDC forum makes that painfully obvious.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
Because GW write hippy dippy poorly written rules where these misconceptions are commonplace?

or maybe GW writers take for granted that their readers are able to read the English language?

The sad fact is English can be a pretty vague language, open to "creative" interpretation, unless you really make an effort to spell things out. I can certainly see both sides here, for example.

This is the thread where they already discussed this. The end consensus was the digital version lets you take more than one so until we get a solid FAQ that seems to be the closest we're gonna get to an answer. The thread stopped after that was found out so it seems like people are going with it. I would check with your TO in advance just incase though.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/550940.page