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.

Having read the rules, the only conclusion I can reach is that people who claim a model can take multiple Relics is deliberately mis-reading the rules. I'm not talking about house ruling it for a more cinematic game, only the people who claim that doing so as legal via the official rules.

Example: Grey Knights (pg59):

"Relics of Titan... Only one of each Relic of Titan may be taken per army. A model can take one of the following."
It says one, not two, not several.

On the very same page, we also have, "Special Issue Wargear... A model can take up to one of each of the following."
This specific wording on the same page removes any validity for claims of vagueness on the part of the Relics of Titan list, whose category limits a model to taking only one of the following relics, while the Special issue wargear has the wording that has the meaning that people claim the Relics of Titan have.

The Librarian's profile states: "May take items from the Special Issue Wargear and/or Relics of Titan lists."
This wording does not provide precedence for taking more than one Relic on a model. It only states that the model may take multiple upgrades, selected from multiple categories, not that it can take multiple upgrades from any single category apart from the stated restrictions on the category. The same goes for the other HQs.

I believe this is exactly the same argument that has gone on with the Space Marines is it not?

 Bill1138 wrote:
Having read the rules, the only conclusion I can reach is that people who claim a model can take multiple Relics is deliberately mis-reading the rules. I'm not talking about house ruling it for a more cinematic game, only the people who claim that doing so as legal via the official rules.

Example: Grey Knights (pg59):

"Relics of Titan... Only one of each Relic of Titan may be taken per army. A model can take one of the following."
It says one, not two, not several.

On the very same page, we also have, "Special Issue Wargear... A model can take up to one of each of the following."
This specific wording on the same page removes any validity for claims of vagueness on the part of the Relics of Titan list, whose category limits a model to taking only one of the following relics, while the Special issue wargear has the wording that has the meaning that people claim the Relics of Titan have.

The Librarian's profile states: "May take items from the Special Issue Wargear and/or Relics of Titan lists."
This wording does not provide precedence for taking more than one Relic on a model. It only states that the model may take multiple upgrades, selected from multiple categories, not that it can take multiple upgrades from any single category apart from the stated restrictions on the category. The same goes for the other HQs.

I believe this is exactly the same argument that has gone on with the Space Marines is it not?

I'm not sure i understand what your question about this is?

The Rules say 1 relic, so it is 1 Relic?
Do you just need confirmation?

Yep. People cheat. Then they get belligerent and make up a reason why one does not equal one. Your only solution is not to play the cheater.

The issue stems from the fact that most relic lists have different wording when it comes to limitations. Some allows several choices and some do not. Some are more or less ambiguously written. I'm not going to argue either way on any list, I'm just saying that it's not always obvious.

EDIT - So my point is, you cannot make a general ruling on this and apply it to different armies, seeing as their rules differ even in this.

Agreed. Codex: Tau Empire allows multiple Signature Systems (Relics) on one model. Other Codexes may or may not. You need to look at the wording.

The most common issue is a unit entry saying "May take items (plural) from the Relics list" and then the Relics list saying "May take one of the following". Which do you follow? Do you follow the unit entry which says items (pural) or do you follow the Relic list which says item (singular)?

I'm also not going to get into it, but be warned... this has been argued many times across different armies and there is never a consensus. Work it out with your gaming group or ask a TO.

 Kriswall wrote:
The most common issue is a unit entry saying "May take items (plural) from the Relics list" and then the Relics list saying "May take one of the following". Which do you follow? Do you follow the unit entry which says items (pural) or do you follow the Relic list which says item (singular)?

Don't most (if not all) of those actually say "May take items (plural) from lists X, Y, and Z" in the unit entry instead of calling out any particular list?

 Ghaz wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
The most common issue is a unit entry saying "May take items (plural) from the Relics list" and then the Relics list saying "May take one of the following". Which do you follow? Do you follow the unit entry which says items (pural) or do you follow the Relic list which says item (singular)?

Don't most (if not all) of those actually say "May take items (plural) from lists X, Y, and Z" in the unit entry instead of calling out any particular list?

Not going to argue, but yes, part of the debate is how to interpret that sentence.

For the OP, this part of the debate generally goes like so. One side says the below and the other side disagrees.

"May take items from A and/or B" is grammatically equal to "May take items from A OR May take items from B OR May take items from A and B".
"May take items from A and/or B" is NOT grammatically equal to "May take items from A or May take one item from B OR may take items from A and one item from B".

Of course, we have no idea what GW intended. They habitually write inconsistent rules, so they may have intended one item only, but inadvertently gave permission to take items (plural) by using and/or terminology.

 Kriswall wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
The most common issue is a unit entry saying "May take items (plural) from the Relics list" and then the Relics list saying "May take one of the following". Which do you follow? Do you follow the unit entry which says items (pural) or do you follow the Relic list which says item (singular)?

Don't most (if not all) of those actually say "May take items (plural) from lists X, Y, and Z" in the unit entry instead of calling out any particular list?

Not going to argue, but yes, part of the debate is how to interpret that sentence.

For the OP, this part of the debate generally goes like so. One side says the below and the other side disagrees.

"May take items from A and/or B" is grammatically equal to "May take items from A OR May take items from B OR May take items from A and B".
"May take items from A and/or B" is NOT grammatically equal to "May take items from A or May take one item from B OR may take items from A and one item from B".

Of course, we have no idea what GW intended. They habitually write inconsistent rules, so they may have intended one item only, but inadvertently gave permission to take items (plural) by using and/or terminology.

Just to clarify, no one is saying the second one is correct.

The issue becomes you have general permission for the first, but the Relic list specifically limits you to one.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
The most common issue is a unit entry saying "May take items (plural) from the Relics list" and then the Relics list saying "May take one of the following". Which do you follow? Do you follow the unit entry which says items (pural) or do you follow the Relic list which says item (singular)?

Don't most (if not all) of those actually say "May take items (plural) from lists X, Y, and Z" in the unit entry instead of calling out any particular list?

Not going to argue, but yes, part of the debate is how to interpret that sentence.

For the OP, this part of the debate generally goes like so. One side says the below and the other side disagrees.

"May take items from A and/or B" is grammatically equal to "May take items from A OR May take items from B OR May take items from A and B".
"May take items from A and/or B" is NOT grammatically equal to "May take items from A or May take one item from B OR may take items from A and one item from B".

Of course, we have no idea what GW intended. They habitually write inconsistent rules, so they may have intended one item only, but inadvertently gave permission to take items (plural) by using and/or terminology.

Just to clarify, no one is saying the second one is correct.

The issue becomes you have general permission for the first, but the Relic list specifically limits you to one.

And the other side says the Relic list is a general restriction to one and the unit entry is a more specific permission to take multiple.

Honestly, the actual rules text is vague and ambiguous enough that I'm not sure there can be a real RaW answer.

I have noticed GW writing things like "May take one item from the Enigmas of the Black Library list" in recent books. No ambiguity there. That's what we need.

 Bill1138 wrote:
I believe this is exactly the same argument that has gone on with the Space Marines is it not?

It is not. At the time the space marines book came out all 6th edition codecs used the sentence "A model can replace one weapon with one of the following."

The multiple relic per model camp had the very valid argument that the model's options gave you permission to exchange more then one weapon through one ore more lists and that the relic shopping list could be be interpreted provide an exchange rate of weapons to relics. The counter argument was that this was no an exchange rate but a hard limit on the number of weapons that could be exchanged.

Grammatically both readings of the exact same words are valid. GW's complete lack of FAQ in an area where it was needed forced us to guess the RAI.

To my knowledge GK is the only MEQ codex to use the wording "A model can take one of the following." The Inquisition codex, while not being MEQ matches the GK codex. The necron codex allows for multiple copies of the same relic, just not on the same model.

Why is the GK codex different? Perhaps it shows the RAI for all MEQ books and we really should only put one relic per model, or maybe the GK just play by different rules the way the necrons do. Until GW issues a FAQ on the subject we won't know for sure but you've got a little more info to use when you make an educated guess.

And guess is all you can do right now.

 Kriswall wrote:
And the other side says the Relic list is a general restriction to one and the unit entry is a more specific permission to take multiple.

Which, of course, can't be true. When one rule gives a list of things it applies to, and one of those things has additional restrictions, those additional restrictions are more specific. A general list cannot be more specific than one of the things in that list.

If your statement were true, Infantry could move into and through Impassable Terrain.
Impassable Terrain says it can't be moved into or through, but Infantry have permission to move anywhere...

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
And the other side says the Relic list is a general restriction to one and the unit entry is a more specific permission to take multiple.

Which, of course, can't be true. When one rule gives a list of things it applies to, and one of those things has additional restrictions, those additional restrictions are more specific. A general list cannot be more specific than one of the things in that list.

If your statement were true, Infantry could move into and through Impassable Terrain.
Impassable Terrain says it can't be moved into or through, but Infantry have permission to move anywhere...

I'm not arguing this. I'm simply telling the OP what the inevitable discussion will devolve into. The reality of the situation is that the rules wording is poor enough that the YMDC community consistently and repeatedly fails to come to a conclusion. This thread will also not come to a consensus.

Also, your analogy is flawed. Infantry are told they can move 6". Impassable Terrain says it can't be moved through. This isn't really a conflict as Infantry are never told they can move 6" TO ANYWHERE. Relics issue... The Unit is told it has permission to take items from a list. The list itself has a more general permission that applies to everyone with permission to take one item only. Can take many versus can take one only is a clear conflict. My argument has always been that since the unit entry wording applies only to the one unit and the list wording applies to all units, that the unit entry wording is the more advanced rule. If a unit entry said "May select from the Relics list", you would rely on the more basic list wording to see how many you can take.

 Kriswall wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
And the other side says the Relic list is a general restriction to one and the unit entry is a more specific permission to take multiple.

Which, of course, can't be true. When one rule gives a list of things it applies to, and one of those things has additional restrictions, those additional restrictions are more specific. A general list cannot be more specific than one of the things in that list.

If your statement were true, Infantry could move into and through Impassable Terrain.
Impassable Terrain says it can't be moved into or through, but Infantry have permission to move anywhere...

I'm not arguing this. I'm simply telling the OP what the inevitable discussion will devolve into. The reality of the situation is that the rules wording is poor enough that the YMDC community consistently and repeatedly fails to come to a conclusion. This thread will also not come to a consensus.

Also, your analogy is flawed. Infantry are told they can move 6". Impassable Terrain says it can't be moved through. This isn't really a conflict as Infantry are never told they can move 6" TO ANYWHERE.

Really?

In your turn, you can move any of your units – all of them if you wish – up to their maximum movement distance.

Looks to me like they can.

Relics issue... The Unit is told it has permission to take items from a list. The list itself has a more general permission that applies to everyone with permission to take one item only. Can take many versus can take one only is a clear conflict. My argument has always been that since the unit entry wording applies only to the one unit and the list wording applies to all units, that the unit entry wording is the more advanced rule. If a unit entry said "May select from the Relics list", you would rely on the more basic list wording to see how many you can take.

So you're not arguing it, but your stance is the opposite of what I've said?
The Unit entry applies to that unit, but the list entry does not apply to all units. It only applies to units that can access that list. As such it's more specific than the unit entry.
Saying an item in a list is less specific than the list itself is ... I don't have a word to describe it.

 Kriswall wrote:
The Unit is told it has permission to take items from a list.

No. The unit is told it can take items (plural) from a number of lists (plural), not a list (singular). Without the language used, you would only be able to take a single item from all the lists available. So a unit can take items (plural) from multiple lists (plural), but one of the lists has a restriction that only allows him to take one item from that specific list.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
And the other side says the Relic list is a general restriction to one and the unit entry is a more specific permission to take multiple.

Which, of course, can't be true. When one rule gives a list of things it applies to, and one of those things has additional restrictions, those additional restrictions are more specific. A general list cannot be more specific than one of the things in that list.

If your statement were true, Infantry could move into and through Impassable Terrain.
Impassable Terrain says it can't be moved into or through, but Infantry have permission to move anywhere...

I'm not arguing this. I'm simply telling the OP what the inevitable discussion will devolve into. The reality of the situation is that the rules wording is poor enough that the YMDC community consistently and repeatedly fails to come to a conclusion. This thread will also not come to a consensus.

Also, your analogy is flawed. Infantry are told they can move 6". Impassable Terrain says it can't be moved through. This isn't really a conflict as Infantry are never told they can move 6" TO ANYWHERE.

Really?

In your turn, you can move any of your units – all of them if you wish – up to their maximum movement distance.

Looks to me like they can.

Relics issue... The Unit is told it has permission to take items from a list. The list itself has a more general permission that applies to everyone with permission to take one item only. Can take many versus can take one only is a clear conflict. My argument has always been that since the unit entry wording applies only to the one unit and the list wording applies to all units, that the unit entry wording is the more advanced rule. If a unit entry said "May select from the Relics list", you would rely on the more basic list wording to see how many you can take.

So you're not arguing it, but your stance is the opposite of what I've said?
The Unit entry applies to that unit, but the list entry does not apply to all units. It only applies to units that can access that list. As such it's more specific than the unit entry.
Saying an item in a list is less specific than the list itself is ... I don't have a word to describe it.

Devil's Advocate... I can move my infantry models 6" straight up into the air? Of course not. I can move my models 6". The Impassable Terrain rules help to clarify one where I can and can't move my models. It's perfectly possible to obey both rules without causing a conflict. It's not possible to both take multiple items and only take one item without causing a conflict. Hence, advanced versus basic could potentially come into play.

We disagree. That's fine. I think a list that is potentially available to all units is the more basic thing whereas wording in a single unit entry is the more advanced. You think the opposite. That's cool. We don't play together, so it's not likely to ever matter. It's possible to disagree without actively arguing. Not having the words to describe my opinion seems a little melodramatic. It's a simple difference in interpretation of a poorly written and fairly ambiguous bit of rules text.

And again, the wording isn't clear enough. There will be no consensus in this thread. This has been argued multiple times and there is never a consensus. Work out with your friends how to play. If you're playing in a tournament, ask the TO.

The argument for multiple relics is ignoring Limiting Factors.

If you found a chest of gold coins at the bottom of the ocean, and supposing you could know that it hasn't been tampered with since it sank, it could conceivably be any age, but if you found coins dated to 1742 AD, then it must have sunk no sooner than 1742 AD. That coin (restriction) is a limiting factor on how old the chest could be.

The same way if a unit's entry says you can take items from X, Y, Z, and Z has a restriction that you may only take one item from Z, then that is the limiting factor for Z, and the unit's entry's general statement can not supersede that limiting factor.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
(Right now I'm focusing on GK and SM, since I'm not familiar with the other factions' relics.

I would like to point out, that the Eldar codex does say (for 3 different unit entries):

Eldar Codex, pgs 94-95 wrote:May take items from the Remnants of Glory list.

Underline added for emphasis.

Remnants of Glory has the same restriction (one weapon for one item).

So it seems, that, possibly, there just might be a chance, although it is horribly written, that GW meant relics can be taken at a 1:1 ratio.

 Happyjew wrote:
I would like to point out, that the Eldar codex does say (for 3 different unit entries):

Eldar Codex, pgs 94-95 wrote:May take items from the Remnants of Glory list.

Underline added for emphasis.

Remnants of Glory has the same restriction (one weapon for one item).

So it seems, that, possibly, there just might be a chance, although it is horribly written, that GW meant relics can be taken at a 1:1 ratio.

Limiting Factors still apply. It is true that any of the Items (underlined for emphasis) are available to the unit, but the Remnants of Glory still limits the total a model can take to one. It's not so horribly written if you look at it as a whole, rather than trying to interpret one part to give an excuse to ignore another. Together the two add up to allow the model to take any one of the options he/she/it wishes.

 Bill1138 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
I would like to point out, that the Eldar codex does say (for 3 different unit entries):

Eldar Codex, pgs 94-95 wrote:May take items from the Remnants of Glory list.

Underline added for emphasis.

Remnants of Glory has the same restriction (one weapon for one item).

So it seems, that, possibly, there just might be a chance, although it is horribly written, that GW meant relics can be taken at a 1:1 ratio.

Limiting Factors still apply. It is true that any of the Items (underlined for emphasis) are available to the unit, but the Remnants of Glory still limits the total a model can take to one. It's not so horribly written if you look at it as a whole, rather than trying to interpret one part to give an excuse to ignore another. Together the two add up to allow the model to take any one of the options he/she/it wishes.

Actually, the Eldar Codex does not apply such a limitation on the remnants of glory. No weapon swaps, no pick one. It does state each relic only once per army, but that is it. Eldar clearly are allowed to take multiple relics, but each relic is treated as unique.

 Stephanius wrote:

 Bill1138 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
I would like to point out, that the Eldar codex does say (for 3 different unit entries):

Eldar Codex, pgs 94-95 wrote:May take items from the Remnants of Glory list.

Underline added for emphasis.

Remnants of Glory has the same restriction (one weapon for one item).

So it seems, that, possibly, there just might be a chance, although it is horribly written, that GW meant relics can be taken at a 1:1 ratio.

Limiting Factors still apply. It is true that any of the Items (underlined for emphasis) are available to the unit, but the Remnants of Glory still limits the total a model can take to one. It's not so horribly written if you look at it as a whole, rather than trying to interpret one part to give an excuse to ignore another. Together the two add up to allow the model to take any one of the options he/she/it wishes.

Actually, the Eldar Codex does not apply such a limitation on the remnants of glory. No weapon swaps, no pick one. It does state each relic only once per army, but that is it. Eldar clearly are allowed to take multiple relics, but each relic is treated as unique.

Re-read page 91, directly under Remnants of Glory. A model can replace one weapon with one of the following.

Yet three different models are given permission to take multiple items from the list.

 Happyjew wrote:
Re-read page 91, directly under Remnants of Glory. A model can replace one weapon with one of the following.

Yet three different models are given permission to take multiple items from the list.

"May take items from Remnants of Glory List" does not mean the model is given permission to take multiple Remnants in light of the restriction stated on page 91. What the passage is saying is that those "items" are available as options for an upgrade. The Remnants of Glory directly state that a model may exchange ONE weapon for ONE Remnant. So the model may choose any one from that list of options. All are options, but only one may be taken.

You can't ignore the limiting factor and still be claiming to follow the rules.

 Bill1138 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Re-read page 91, directly under Remnants of Glory. A model can replace one weapon with one of the following.

Yet three different models are given permission to take multiple items from the list.

"May take items from Remnants of Glory List" does not mean the model is given permission to take multiple Remnants in light of the restriction stated on page 91. What the passage is saying is that those "items" are available as options for an upgrade. The Remnants of Glory directly state that a model may exchange ONE weapon for ONE Remnant. So the model may choose any one from that list of options. All are options, but only one may be taken.

You can't ignore the limiting factor and still be claiming to follow the rules.

I'm not making a RAW argument. My first post was clearly a possible RAI. My second post was addressing Stephanius regarding how many items a model can take.

It's worth noting that the Covens relic list has no ambiguous wording: a Haemonculus can take all 6 if he likes.

Nids also have unambiguous wording - 1 relic for each set of Scything Talons.

 Happyjew wrote:
I'm not making a RAW argument. My first post was clearly a possible RAI. My second post was addressing Stephanius regarding how many items a model can take.

Rules as intended? If you were correct that GW intended that all of the Eldar capable of taking Remnants of Glory to be able to take multiple Remnants of Glory, then why did they directly state on the Remnants' page that only one may be taken per model?

I see RaI to be no different than RaW in this scenario. Only one relic may be taken per model.

 Jimsolo wrote:
It's worth noting that the Covens relic list has no ambiguous wording: a Haemonculus can take all 6 if he likes.

Would you mind providing this quotation?

 Bill1138 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
I'm not making a RAW argument. My first post was clearly a possible RAI. My second post was addressing Stephanius regarding how many items a model can take.

Rules as intended? If you were correct that GW intended that all of the Eldar capable of taking Remnants of Glory to be able to take multiple Remnants of Glory, then why did they directly state on the Remnants' page that only one may be taken per model?

I see RaI to be no different than RaW in this scenario. Only one relic may be taken per model.

 Jimsolo wrote:
It's worth noting that the Covens relic list has no ambiguous wording: a Haemonculus can take all 6 if he likes.

Would you mind providing this quotation?

In the supplement special rules...

"DIABOLICAL PLAYTHINGS
Any units from a Detachment or Formation presented in this book that can select Artefacts of Cruelty cannot select from those listed in Codex: Dark Eldar, but can instead select Diabolical Playthings, presented opposite, at the points costs shown."

And then the Diabolical Plaything list...

"Diabolical Playthings are unique and incredibly powerful artefacts of the Haemonculus Covens that have served the twisted masters of the Commorrite underworld for many millennia. Only one of each of the following relics can be chosen per army – there is only one of each these items in the entire galaxy!

SYNDRIQ’S SUMP…xx pts, etc, etc"

No reference to one per anywhere.

 Kriswall wrote:
In the supplement special rules...

"DIABOLICAL PLAYTHINGS
Any units from a Detachment or Formation presented in this book that can select Artefacts of Cruelty cannot select from those listed in Codex: Dark Eldar, but can instead select Diabolical Playthings, presented opposite, at the points costs shown."

And then the Diabolical Plaything list...

"Diabolical Playthings are unique and incredibly powerful artefacts of the Haemonculus Covens that have served the twisted masters of the Commorrite underworld for many millennia. Only one of each of the following relics can be chosen per army – there is only one of each these items in the entire galaxy!

SYNDRIQ’S SUMP…xx pts, etc, etc"

No reference to one per anywhere.

Your quotations says that the Dark Eldars' relics are off limits entirely to these units. They instead have substitute relics that do not have the same restriction placed on them. Specifically they can take multiple "relics" on a model because they have no rule that says otherwise. But the other factions do have a rule that says otherwise, which is why they clearly can not take more than one relic on a model.

Thank you for the quotation.

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?

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.)

And Captain Smash aside, is two relics really that crazy? I always interpreted it as being able to take 2 relics, for the obvious bolt pistol and melee weapon swap. (

That being said I usually just use one cuz I'm cheap!