Switch Theme:

Artefactotum  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

JakeSiren wrote:
 DeathReaper wrote:
U02dah4 wrote:
It doesn't need to there's no limitation on access to admech relics you just need something to give you permission to take one

E.g.an admech warlord or a stratagem
That is not permission to take one...

That is permission to take one and it "must be a relic it can have"...

P.S. why did you ask the question if you are going to ignore the rules and do what you want anyway?

Hmm, I'm curious about your line of argument DeathReaper. I want to try a collaborative approach to understand what might be overlooked. I'm going to write up what I think below using a numbering system, and in response I would like you to let me know which items you have issues with, why, and relevant rule backings. If I have overlooked a relevant rule, please mention it and why it is relevant.

(Note: I have assumed we are using the strat at the appropriate time to keep this focused)
1. PERMISSION: One Skitarri 'Alpha' or 'Princeps' is given an Arcana Mechanicum
2. REQUIREMENT: This must be a relic they could have.
Note on 2: Without considering any restrictions yet, Item 1 allows the model to meet this requirement. Therefore, we ask what restrictions exist that may cause the model to fail this requirement?
3. RESTRICTION: The relic the model can be given is limited to a specific list.
4. RESTRICTION: Some relics have restrictions in their rules. For example, Phosphoenix requires the model to have a phosphor serpenta. The model must ensure it complies with the relics restrictions.

That's all of the relevant rules that I am aware of.
Why are you ignoring the part of the rules that say "If your army is led by an ADEPTUS MECHANICUS WARLORD, you can..."

"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




 DeathReaper wrote:
JakeSiren wrote:
 DeathReaper wrote:
U02dah4 wrote:
It doesn't need to there's no limitation on access to admech relics you just need something to give you permission to take one

E.g.an admech warlord or a stratagem
That is not permission to take one...

That is permission to take one and it "must be a relic it can have"...

P.S. why did you ask the question if you are going to ignore the rules and do what you want anyway?

Hmm, I'm curious about your line of argument DeathReaper. I want to try a collaborative approach to understand what might be overlooked. I'm going to write up what I think below using a numbering system, and in response I would like you to let me know which items you have issues with, why, and relevant rule backings. If I have overlooked a relevant rule, please mention it and why it is relevant.

(Note: I have assumed we are using the strat at the appropriate time to keep this focused)
1. PERMISSION: One Skitarri 'Alpha' or 'Princeps' is given an Arcana Mechanicum
2. REQUIREMENT: This must be a relic they could have.
Note on 2: Without considering any restrictions yet, Item 1 allows the model to meet this requirement. Therefore, we ask what restrictions exist that may cause the model to fail this requirement?
3. RESTRICTION: The relic the model can be given is limited to a specific list.
4. RESTRICTION: Some relics have restrictions in their rules. For example, Phosphoenix requires the model to have a phosphor serpenta. The model must ensure it complies with the relics restrictions.

That's all of the relevant rules that I am aware of.
Why are you ignoring the part of the rules that say "If your army is led by an ADEPTUS MECHANICUS WARLORD, you can..."
What's the full quote? That phrase appears in multiple locations in the codex. Or are you talking about the conditional permission you quoted earlier? If you are talking about the conditional permission, it doesn't impose any restrictions, that's why I didn't include it.

Although the sentence after that permission does impose one that I forgot until now. So let's add:
5. RESTRICTION: Named characters can not take relics.
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

Read the full quote for yourself, you will see you need an ADEPTUS MECHANICUS WARLORD to have any relics at all.

Must be a relic they can have. Without having a AM warlord how many relics are available?

"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




 DeathReaper wrote:
Read the full quote for yourself, you will see you need an ADEPTUS MECHANICUS WARLORD to have any relics at all.

Must be a relic they can have. Without having a AM warlord how many relics are available?
Your partial quote or the conditional permission? Your partial quote doesn't express a restriction, and neither does the conditional permission. Restrictions have phases like "can't", "can only", "must not", etc. You haven't yet demonstrated that a restriction of "you need an ADEPTUS MECHANICUS WARLORD to have any relics at all" exists.

In terms of your question "Without having a AM warlord how many relics are available?", that depends on game size. For strike force games, two AM relics, for onslaught three AM relics, and others one AM relics. That said, I haven't considered if other strats might grant relics, so that number may be higher.
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




U02dah4 wrote:No it follows core concept of the games design you are not told it is a restriction anywhere so it isn't.

You can't do anything unless you have permission. You've failed to show permission to access any relics at all, despite being asked.

You don't need any rules to support my position I only need you not to provide a straight quote statateing a specific requirement which you can't or you would have done.
you don't need rules to support your position? Hilarious. Bad faith again

Yes but you clearly don't a strawman is when you build up a seperate easy argument and defeat it rather than the opponent's- unfortunately you haven't made a logical argument yet you have just repeatedly made claims without any evidence to support your position .

So below, when you literally made a straw man argument, you weren't? Or you're lying? Or you don't remember what you typed? Any chance you can pick one?

U02dah4 wrote:E.g. to take a wiki original example

Either socrates is mortal or it is not the case the secretes is mortal

we are saying he's mortal and that's all the statement says

your saying he's mortal therefore he can't be a human your adding extra inferences not in the statement socrates could be a horse

We can agree there is no warlord therefore there is no free relic.

That's where the arguments diverge

   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




Hi nosferatu1001, since you're active on this thread at the moment, I'm also interested in you collaborating. You would have seen that I've written up a list of permissions and restrictions using a numbering system. I would like you to review it and let me know if there are any items you have issues with, why, and relevant rule backings. If I have overlooked a relevant rule that should be included, please mention it and why it is relevant. I've put the updated list below for convenience.

1. PERMISSION: One Skitarri 'Alpha' or 'Princeps' is given an Arcana Mechanicum
2. REQUIREMENT: This must be a relic they could have.
Note on 2: Without considering any restrictions yet, Item 1 allows the model to meet this requirement. Therefore, we ask what restrictions exist that may cause the model to fail this requirement?
3. RESTRICTION: The relic the model can be given is limited to a specific list.
4. RESTRICTION: Some relics have restrictions in their rules. For example, Phosphoenix requires the model to have a phosphor serpenta. The model must ensure it complies with the relics restrictions.
5. RESTRICTION: Named characters can not take relics.
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




I'll do that later - off to Pride!
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



Glasgow

I concur with your list

As to the fool yes if you remove half my argument and take it out of context explaining why your argument is wrong it will sound odd. but it still defeats your argument.



The core of this argument is the same as the socrates one

If you have an admech warlord you may give an admech character an arcana mechanicum

Means

if you have an admech warlord

You may give an admech character a free arcana mechanicum

If you do not have an admech warlord

You may not give an admech character a free arcana mechanicum



It does not mean

If you do not have an admech warlord

You cannot take an arcana mechanicum from any source giving you permission



And the meaning of it must be a Relic it can take stems from this


Hence socrates is mortal or he is not

Where as your argument remains he is mortal therefore he is human because your argument relies on information not contained in the statement

(Which also shows that it is not a strawman it is an identical argument so if it were a strawman you have proven yourself wrong)

This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2021/09/04 10:07:33


 
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




Tacoma, WA, USA

I present evidence that there is not a general restriction on access to Artefactotum:
ARCHEOTECH SPECIALISTS 1CP
Adeptus Mechanicus – Requisition Stratagem
Within the techno-vaults there lie many mechanised wonders that can be requisitioned during times of war.
Use this Stratagem before the battle, when you are mustering your army, if your WARLORD has the ADEPTUS MECHANICUS keyword. Select one ADEPTUS MECHANICUS CHARACTER model in your army and give them one Relic (this must be a Relic they can have). Each Relic in your army must be unique, and you cannot use this Stratagem to give a model two Relics. You can only use this Stratagem once, unless you are playing a Strike Force battle (in which case you can use this Stratagem twice), or an Onslaught battle (in which case you can use this Stratagem three times).
Note that this stratagem includes the requirement to have an Adeptus Mechanicus Warlord. This would be a redundant requirement if it was already a requirement.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



Glasgow

Yes that has already been raised and I concur
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




U02 - you literally made a different argument to one I have presented. That's the definition of a straw man argument

You're done as being relevant to me, as you've shown you do not argue in good faith. Because I did not remove "half your argument", I quoted the bit where you made up an argument I never made and "defeated" it, as if you think that's what's happening here.

Bye bye
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



Glasgow

I'm glad you concede defeat

You have yet to present an argument just unsupported assertions therefore I cannot make a good case against it as one is not required

Alextroy

And jakesiren

Have made the rules explicit and you have failed to address any of mine or their points

If you don't want to address mine why not address theirs - because you can't

This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2021/09/04 23:43:28


 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




I'm glad you don't understand more words, it seems.

I'm not addressing you, is all. I'll get to theirs. But given you so hilariously claimed not to be making a straw man fallacy while literally doing that, it was worth pointing out.

I'll address the substantive posters arguing in good faith in my own time. Shockingly, your opinion on timeliness is of no importance.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



Glasgow

You don't know what one is that is evident

Then get to addressing them it seems that you avoid all substantive arguments as you have no case

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/04 22:32:03


 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Sure, mr fallacy. You're the arbiter here.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



Glasgow

Point made
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




U02dah4 wrote:
Point made

The point that you're not in control of someone else. Sure seems that way. Bye.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



Glasgow

No the point that you are now at 6 post not addressing any of the substantive points raised by me alextroy or jakesiren because you can't.

I can't make you address the arguments but if you won't you are essentially yelling I'm right with your fingers in your ears

And that adds nothing to the discussion. Other than evidence you think we are right (because otherwise you would be able to address them)

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/04 23:41:51


 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Jake - I've looked through yiur list. The fallingodwn I see is the same one as before , that without having a. Warlord, you don't have any relics you could have, as no relics exist.

Hence why I think it's ambiguous, and I don't think it's intended to stop you, and hence why I think it's faq worthy.
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




nosferatu1001 wrote:
Jake - I've looked through yiur list. The fallingodwn I see is the same one as before , that without having a. Warlord, you don't have any relics you could have, as no relics exist.

Hence why I think it's ambiguous, and I don't think it's intended to stop you, and hence why I think it's faq worthy.
Where do you get the concept that the relics don't exist until you have assigned the warlord? If you are able to quote the rule that you believe conveys this that would be appreciated.

To look at it in a different way, what you have expressed seems to be the idea of the relics being locked until your warlord has been assigned as Admech, at which point they are "unlocked". I don't see that idea supported in the rules.
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




Tacoma, WA, USA

I must agree with Jake. There is no rule that states you may not take AM relics if you don’t have a AM warlord. There are a number of rules that allow you to take relics. Two of those require you to have a AM warlord, but the third does not.
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

 alextroy wrote:
I must agree with Jake. There is no rule that states you may not take AM relics if you don’t have a AM warlord. There are a number of rules that allow you to take relics. Two of those require you to have a AM warlord, but the third does not.
"The rules don't say I can't!"
The rules don't say I can't place my models back on the board after you've killed them and use them next turn, but that doesn't mean I can do it. The rules system is permissive: this means you may only do things you are expressly allowed to do or that the rules imply you can do. You are not allowed to do anything else.

"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Cardiff

Is there some tiny difference in the text in this Codex making folk get so annoyingly odd about this iteration?

Because most Codexes say “hey if your general is from X army have a Relic” but we know “extra Relic” Strats aren’t locked to that faction.

What am I missing here after pages of Rule 1 breaches and bickering that illuminated nothing?

And who is even allying their AdMech making this even a problem in the first place???

 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




 DeathReaper wrote:
 alextroy wrote:
I must agree with Jake. There is no rule that states you may not take AM relics if you don’t have a AM warlord. There are a number of rules that allow you to take relics. Two of those require you to have a AM warlord, but the third does not.
"The rules don't say I can't!"
The rules don't say I can't place my models back on the board after you've killed them and use them next turn, but that doesn't mean I can do it. The rules system is permissive: this means you may only do things you are expressly allowed to do or that the rules imply you can do. You are not allowed to do anything else.
Try reigning it in DeathReaper and re-read what Alextroy said. He's saying there's no restrictions regarding taking relics if you don't have an AM warlord, so we can use the permissive rules to give a model a relic.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



Glasgow

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Is there some tiny difference in the text in this Codex making folk get so annoyingly odd about this iteration?

Because most Codexes say “hey if your general is from X army have a Relic” but we know “extra Relic” Strats aren’t locked to that faction.

What am I missing here after pages of Rule 1 breaches and bickering that illuminated nothing?

And who is even allying their AdMech making this even a problem in the first place???



Anyone useing the raven/Metallica ik list for start which has had some passable tourney results (for IK). It might be one of the better ways to run knights at the moment.

Your not missing anything most factions have that and no it is entirely true that other codexs have the same wording and are not locked to a faction that's what the majority in this say.

The core argument is that 2 people seem to have invented a restriction from that stock phrase. Which they are unable to quote in anyway or support in anyway. They then apply that restriction to "it must be a Relic they can have" claiming you don't meet it if you don't have a warlord which would be true if that restriction existed but it doesn't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
JakeSiren wrote:
 DeathReaper wrote:
 alextroy wrote:
I must agree with Jake. There is no rule that states you may not take AM relics if you don’t have a AM warlord. There are a number of rules that allow you to take relics. Two of those require you to have a AM warlord, but the third does not.
"The rules don't say I can't!"
The rules don't say I can't place my models back on the board after you've killed them and use them next turn, but that doesn't mean I can do it. The rules system is permissive: this means you may only do things you are expressly allowed to do or that the rules imply you can do. You are not allowed to do anything else.
Try reigning it in DeathReaper and re-read what Alextroy said. He's saying there's no restrictions regarding taking relics if you don't have an AM warlord, so we can use the permissive rules to give a model a relic.


Exactly as I repeatedly said ages ago that whole argument is predicated on that restriction existing and it either does or doesn't and noone has been able to quote it so it doesn't.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/09/06 00:01:05


 
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

JakeSiren wrote:
Try reigning it in DeathReaper and re-read what Alextroy said. He's saying there's no restrictions regarding taking relics if you don't have an AM warlord, so we can use the permissive rules to give a model a relic.

There is nothing allowing an AM relic without an AM warlord. As the restriction is if you have an AM warlord you may etc...

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/09/06 00:51:09


"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




 DeathReaper wrote:
JakeSiren wrote:
Try reigning it in DeathReaper and re-read what Alextroy said. He's saying there's no restrictions regarding taking relics if you don't have an AM warlord, so we can use the permissive rules to give a model a relic.

There is nothing allowing an AM relic without an AM warlord. As the restriction is if you have an AM warlord you may etc...
...if you honestly believe that, I don't think there is any value continuing the conversation with you. You've been asked to show that such a restriction exists, but haven't. Remember how I've said, twice already, that restrictions have phases like "can't", "can only", "must not", etc. You have not addressed this. The only reason that I can presume is because you know that the quoted statement does not have any words or phrases that constitute a restrictive phrase.
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

JakeSiren wrote:
 DeathReaper wrote:
JakeSiren wrote:
Try reigning it in DeathReaper and re-read what Alextroy said. He's saying there's no restrictions regarding taking relics if you don't have an AM warlord, so we can use the permissive rules to give a model a relic.

There is nothing allowing an AM relic without an AM warlord. As the restriction is if you have an AM warlord you may etc...
...if you honestly believe that, I don't think there is any value continuing the conversation with you. You've been asked to show that such a restriction exists, but haven't. Remember how I've said, twice already, that restrictions have phases like "can't", "can only", "must not", etc. You have not addressed this. The only reason that I can presume is because you know that the quoted statement does not have any words or phrases that constitute a restrictive phrase.
I have shown the rule...

Literally the first line of the relics page:

If your army is led by an ADEPTUS MECHANICUS WARLORD, you can...


(Literally the second post in this tread).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/06 01:56:17


"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



Glasgow

Which as multiple people have said is a permission not a restriction. And makes no mention of requiring an admech warlord to access relics

We are back to I can take a free relic not magically meaning something completely different

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/09/06 06:53:07


 
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

U02dah4 wrote:
Which as multiple people have said is a permission not a restriction. And makes no mention of requiring an admech warlord to access relics

We are back to I can take a free relic not magically meaning something completely different
Except you have not shown permission to take one without a AM warlord.

Why are you ignoring the part of the rules that say "If your army is led by an ADEPTUS MECHANICUS WARLORD, you can..." (This is explicitly how you get access to AM relics).

The Strat gives permission to take one and it "must be a relic it can have"...

You cant have one without having an Ad mech Warlord.



P.S. why did you ask the question if you are going to ignore the rules and do what you want anyway?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/09/06 07:14:59


"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: