Multiple Relics on a character?

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**

Hey guys, I can't believe this has only just popped up but I recently versed a Space Wolf player who had a wolf lord loaded with all the relics, the codex clearly states "may replace one weapon with one of the following" which I read as you can only take one relic per character and it must replace one of his weapons.... both my opponent and the Tournament Organiser ruled that multiples can be taken! Am I going crazy?

**SlaveToDorkness**

It's a one-for-one swap, not "only one".

**Happyjew**

If you take 2 did you abide by the one for one rule?

If it was a tournament and the TO said it was legal, than it is allowed.

**Ghaz**

SlaveToDorkness wrote:
It's a one-for-one swap, not "only one".

Incorrect. It is an "only one" swap.

**SlaveToDorkness**

You're adding the "only" part.

**Ghaz**

No, you're ignoring the "one" part. You're trying to read "one weapon for one relic" as "a weapon for a relic".

**SlaveToDorkness**

Oh, so there is an "only" in there somewhere?

**Ghaz**

"One" means just that, "one". You're trying to say that "one" can mean "two" or "three" or "four"...

**SlaveToDorkness**

I can have one can of Coke for one dollar.

I guess I'd better enjoy it if that's the only one I'll ever be able to buy, regardless of how many dollars I have...

**Ghaz**

SlaveToDorkness wrote:
I can have one can of Coke for one dollar.

At which point, you only have one can, not two or three or four. Your example proves my point.

"One" is a specific number and would be a definite article. "A" would be an indefinite article which would allow you to trade any number of weapons for relics on a one for one basis.

Rules are different in that they're permissive. They tell you what you are permitted to do. You're permitted to trade one weapon for one relic, no more. You are trying to change the wording of the rule to "a weapon for a relic". That is not what the rules say. They give a very specific quantity of "one".

**Eihnlazer**

The final and conclusive answer to this question is, we dont know.

GW didnt clearly right it out, and they haven't yet nor probably wont ever FAQ it.

**SlaveToDorkness**

One for one.

**JinxDragon**

The issue is 'cloudy' because it has been on-going through so many editions, no matter what the original and on-going Intent it has been played so many different ways that people always view their own way as official. Tournaments events have reinforced it by allowing multiple swaps while others have ruled the other way at times, making a obvious schism. Game Workshop has remained silent on the matter, which we all know is pretty much normal given the jokes about Editors in Name Only.

Needless to say, with such uncertainty it allows people to do whatever they want anyway so the answers this question will bring back are less then useful....

Personally, I fume over how they have used and/or in such a brutal way so I will be less then useful. Given the same Author likely penned both poorly written Rules, I can't say what they might of wanted to do with 'One for One.' I just want you to be fore-warned this is one of the 'spawns dozens of pages then locked' threads that comes to life every few months on sites like this one. Best to go into it knowing that nothing useful will be forth-coming so you can jump to discussing House Rules with your opponents, much more useful.

**Ghaz**

SlaveToDorkness wrote:
One for one.

And only one.

**ZebioLizard2**

Ghaz wrote:
SlaveToDorkness wrote:
One for one.

And only one.

Which isn't stated, and considering the language on other books it's typically able to stack.

Of course one could still by your logic, take a weapon for weapon, Helm of Durfast, Wulfen stone, and Armour of Russ, which would be silly if it's just a one per one only weapon trade.

**Ghaz**

It is stated by the use of the word "one". "More than one" is not "one", is it?

And no, relics which don't require an exchange wouldn't fall under the "one weapon for one relic" wording.

**rigeld2**

ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Ghaz wrote:
SlaveToDorkness wrote:
One for one.

And only one.

Which isn't stated, and considering the language on other books it's typically able to stack.

That's your (incorrect) assumptions. Other books are limited in the same way.

**SlaveToDorkness**

Ghaz wrote:
It is stated by the use of the word "one". "More than one" is not "one", is it?

And no, relics which don't require an exchange wouldn't fall under the "one weapon for one relic" wording.

But then it's "more than one". Your viewpoint cannot be shown in the rules without the addition of "only".

**Ghaz**

And again, where do the rules give you permission for more than one? They don't. "One" means just that, "one". You're trying to make "one" mean something other than "one".

I don't have to prove that "one" means "one". You have to prove that "one" means something other than "one" that you keep insisting.

**The World XEater**

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.

**Sinny!**

The whole Idea of relics is so you can "create your own unique character/fluff, its not op in game terms as a lot of the relics have fair or high points costs anyway and if someone wants to make a badass character they should be allowed. there are no "broken" combos available and quite a few named characters have multiple relics anyway. Also some books dont use the one for one rule you debate like the champions of fenris book. where is it fair sor some books to allow multiple relics and some dont?

**Kerrathyr**

"One relic for one weapon"...
As a curious side note, "a relic" and "one relic" both translate in italiana an the same way (so, for us, is even worse to interpretate).
Side note.. aside, I gave a look at another codex since, as someone stated, rules have (should have?) consistency among themselves.
So, I noticed that in GK Codex is written, for relics, "a model can take one", whereas for, say, special issue wargear it is written " a model can take one of each", making quite clear that GKs may not load a single model with all relics.
Then, again for the supposed consistency idea, it is not unreasonable thinking about extending this concept to other codices.

**Melevolence**

It would seem by book wording that it was intended to be set for 1 relic PER character that has access to them. I know the Ork book simply states that a model may take ONE of the items from the relic list, meaning my Warboss may not take the Lucky Stikk in addition to the Shiny Shoota, or Headwompa (As much as I'd love to try to reroll until I get the ID hit).

Some books may be designed to take multiple on a single model. It's difficult to make the call on this. Especially since most other books seem to set a swap system for relics, when Orks do not. We just take the relic, no need to swap items out.

**nosferatu1001**

SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Ghaz wrote:
It is stated by the use of the word "one". "More than one" is not "one", is it?

And no, relics which don't require an exchange wouldn't fall under the "one weapon for one relic" wording.

But then it's "more than one". Your viewpoint cannot be shown in the rules without the addition of "only".

If you take two items for two weapons, have you complied with the absolutely clear instruction to take one for one?

No.

**Matt.Kingsley**

It's a bit ambiguous in the way is worded, as technically both interpretations are correct in a sense, however as we can see in some of the latest codexes, like Codex: Orks, they intended it to be read as 'you can only have one relic'; that or the writers REALLY hate ork players.

EDIT: Though I will say that I have played it as 'only one' since the release of C: CSM as the first way I interpreted the rule was 'only one'. Everyone else, however, seemed to interpret it the other way.

**nosferatu1001**

It's only ambiguous of you treat the permission as having the words "any" or similar in front. As it is, if you have two for two, you cannot explain how that is one for one.

**FlingitNow**

This one has been going since the first codex of 6th. Some codexes strongly imply that it is 1 for 1 with sentences like takes items from the relics list (see Eldar codex) others are more ambiguous (takes items but have multiple lists) and some outright state 1 per model (Orks). GW has never clarified and to be honest we don't know and it is best to discuss with your opponent. Taking multiples certainly doesn't unbalance the game and gives more options but I'm not invested in either side as rarely do you really benefit from having multiples on a character (Orks ironically with their cheap and effective Relics are the best for this and unequivocally can't).

**pm713**

We had a thread about this and it wasn't resolved. IF the TO said that's what it means then that is the rule for that tournament.

**SlaveToDorkness**

nosferatu1001 wrote:
SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Ghaz wrote:
It is stated by the use of the word "one". "More than one" is not "one", is it?

And no, relics which don't require an exchange wouldn't fall under the "one weapon for one relic" wording.

But then it's "more than one". Your viewpoint cannot be shown in the rules without the addition of "only".

If you take two items for two weapons, have you complied with the absolutely clear instruction to take one for one?

Yes. You traded each one for another one. One-for-one. If you asked anyone else outside of this about a 1-to-1 exchange they wouldn't see it as a restrictive "only one time" phrase.

Saying it's "absolutely clear" is a terrible way to argue your point. Obviously from the thread (and others before it) it is not.

**Ghaz**

Nom you traded two for two. You're still trying to change the definition of the word "one" to "any number I want".