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.

If an army consists of a Supreme Command detachment (Abaddon) plus a Battalion detachment that's also Black Legion, can characters in the Battalion take Black Legion relics?

I think so from looking at the rule:

If your army is led by a Traitoris Astartes <Legion> Warlord, you can give one relevant Legion Relic of Chaos to a Traitoris Astartes <Legion> Character model from your army instead of giving them a Relic of Chaos from pages 113-117.

But BattleScribe doesn't allow it. If there's a warlord in the Battalion (including Abaddon) then it's fine and characters in that Battalion can select Black Legion relics. But when Abaddon is the warlord in a separate detachment it only allows generic CSM relics in the Battalion. There's also this wording in the example that talks about the warlord being in the same detachment:

Example: A Battle-forged army includes a Chaos Space Marines Detachment in which every unit has the Black Legion keyword.
...
If your army's Warlord is selected from this Detachment and is from the Black Legion, the a Black Legion Character model from your army that could be given a Relic of Chaos can instead be given one of the Black Legion Relics of Chaos

It's just an example and not the rule, but I don't see why the example mentions "is selected from this Detachment" when the actual rule doesn't say anything about being in the same detachment.

The wording of the rule seems pretty clear to me, but BattleScribe plus the wording in the example are making me doubt myself. Is there some rule I'm missing?

That example isn't covering the situation, so doesn't tell you anything about your situation at all. Not even by inference.

The rule is clear. Scribe is wrong.

Yes, the data wasn't validating it correctly.

It has been fixed since the data release 2 days ago.

Update your data to the most recent version.

MadSpy wrote:
Yes, the data wasn't validating it correctly.

It has been fixed since the data release 2 days ago.

Update your data to the most recent version.

Thanks for the update!