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.

Ok, so I have a BL legion Daemon prince, many may have seen him in the army list sections......many have also commented on my list and not picked up on this! However, someone has pointed something out, and I want clarification before I play today.....

We all know that artefacts are supposed to replace a CCW, and the prince only has one. In the CSM codex, items that aren't weapons (I.e the Dimensional key and the scroll of Magnus) have a side note stating that these DO NOT replace a weapon. And it would seem that only artefact weapons replace weapons!

However, as per usual, GW have released a supplement after doing a frankly half arsed job, and so I think there is a degree of confusion.

There are again 2 artefacts in the BL book that aren't weapons. Namely the crucible of lies, and the skull. Now following the CSM dex theme, I think that RAI these two artefacts wouldn't replace a weapon, and hence I could take the skull AND say the spineshiver blade. However, RAW I'm not sure, as there is NO clarification in the supplement as to how many may be taken........

Please help!

artifacts replace a CCW right?

.If so, and if " the prince only has one" then you can not take two artifacts.

RAW I'd probably agree, BUT comparing it to the CSM dex, then RAI I'm not so sure.

I believe the artefacts list replaces that in C:CSM but not the rules pertaining to them. The rules are an artefact not exempted replaces a weapon. None of the BL artefacts are exempted. RAW is only one per weapon exchanged. RAI you are probably right but it will need an FAQ. Friendly games: ask your opponent, Tourney: ask the tourney organizer.

Homer

The CSM artefact list is replaced by the the BL supplement. The rules are also different where a weapon does not have to be exchanged for an artefact in the BL supplement, unlike the CSM restrictions.

 chillis wrote:
The CSM artefact list is replaced by the the BL supplement. The rules are also different where a weapon does not have to be exchanged for an artefact in the BL supplement, unlike the CSM restrictions.

I wondered if this was the case - it kinda seemed to good to be true though?

eh its a liability sometimes putting all your eggs in one basket. But you're mainly using this combo for the spineshiver blade and skull. if we look at the CSM dex, the weapon artefacts replace weapons- the skull is not a weapon. I'm saying this if you decide just to go by the CSM rules (even though BL has different restrictions)

I was under the impression that the BL Artefacts do not require a weapon to be traded in, and that the best part of Spineshiver was that a Daemon Prince can pair it with his CCW and gain an extra attack for wielding 2 weapons?

Mozzamanx wrote:
I was under the impression that the BL Artefacts do not require a weapon to be traded in, and that the best part of Spineshiver was that a Daemon Prince can pair it with his CCW and gain an extra attack for wielding 2 weapons?

That's how I viewed it, it's awesome if you put hand of darkness on a sorc -extra attack with your force weapon for more chances to ID or just use the artefact to make mince meat of the guy.

The rules for bl artefacts do not require a weapon to be traded in. All it states is those allowed to select from the normal artefacts instead select from the bl ones, making no mention of how you select

An ew daemon prince with a daemon weapon? Yes please!

SWEET! So the general consensus is my BL winged DP with the skull and the spineshiver is legal?! Happy. With. That.

I think you almost answered your own question with the OP.

RAI, yes, the non-weapon Black Legion artefacts probably don't replace a weapon. It's HIWPI and I'd have no objection to someone doing that.

RAW however, the artefacts in question don't have specific exclusions from replacing a weapon as with the ones in the CSM main codex. As the Black Legion is a supplement (i.e. the rules in the CSM codex are still required) this means that technically they would replace a weapon and you couldn't take two. This is probably, as you have pointed out, due to GW doing a half arsed job.

The Black Legion supplement does a piss poor job of explaining how it's artifact section works. It functions in one of two ways, either replacing the entire artifact war gear section including the requirement to replace a weapon or just the items in the war gear section. If its the former then no weapon need be replaced for a black legion artifact, if its the latter (and how most people play it) then all black legion artifacts require you to replace a weapon.

Ton - the only requirement, RAW, is that you are able to take items from the chaos marine book. Absolutely nothing whatsoever about that statement states you follow the chaos marine rules for then taking the artifacts, so no, RAW you do not replace a weapon.

 Khaine's Wrath wrote:

However, as per usual, GW have released a supplement after doing a frankly half arsed job, and so I think there is a degree of confusion.

Something is half-assed because you don't like it?

Suck it up. It says it takes a CCW. Perhaps it actually means it takes a CCW.

Your opinion of the rules doesn't matter. The rules are clear.

Darkness - where in the BL update does it state that taking their artifacts requires swapping a weapon?

Page and para please, or preferably the complete rule.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Ton - the only requirement, RAW, is that you are able to take items from the chaos marine book.

Well no, if you're fielding a BL list/detachment, any artefacts you take for it must be from the BL supplement, not the CSM codex.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Absolutely nothing whatsoever about that statement states you follow the chaos marine rules for then taking the artifacts, so no, RAW you do not replace a weapon.

You can't just ignore the CSM codex rules for selecting wargear (or any other CSM rules for that matter unless specifically stated). However, I have looked again at the exact wording (p91) and the "replace one weapon with one of the following" does seem to specifically refer to the CSM ones i.e. the ones listed below this statement. It doesn't say "replace one weapon with the selected artefact" or similar. So yes I now agree you could legally take the Spineshiver blade and the Skull on one model. It's a tasty combo. You'd even keep your original CCW for a +1 Attack. I can't even see what would prevent you from taking all of the BL artefacts on one model (if you really wanted to).

Actually no, the requirement is that you have the ability to take items from cam, if so you instead take them from the bl supplement. That's the only requirement I could find

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Khaine's Wrath wrote:

However, as per usual, GW have released a supplement after doing a frankly half arsed job, and so I think there is a degree of confusion.

Something is half-assed because you don't like it?

Suck it up. It says it takes a CCW. Perhaps it actually means it takes a CCW.

Your opinion of the rules doesn't matter. The rules are clear.

You sir, are an arse.

It's half arsed, because it's half arsed. As with almost everything GW release. Hence the ridiculous number of FAQ's and errata's that they have to follow up with. We are on 6th edition for gods sake! You'd think they'd be used to writing rules by now.

I think you'll find also, that the BL supplement says NOTHING about a requirement to replace a CCW. Not a single mention of it. So, perhaps it does intend to replace a CCW. But not stating such is cause for confusion and debat. And if you read the full thread - there is in fact cause for debate, so it would seem the rules you state are clear, are actually not that clear.

In all honesty, this kind of forum reply infuriates me. It's not required, and is of absolutely no help at all.

Please do some research, some reading and actually engage your brain before you reply in future.