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.

Is that the wording over the relic list?

 Baldsmug wrote:

 IHateNids wrote:
That makes no sense, as going by the CSM dex, it actually says : a model may replace his Bolt Pistol and/or CCW for one of the following. Pg 91

So using that, id say one Relic only.

I see 2 relics there. there may be something wrong with me.

Reason being, it gives you the option to trade out two weapons, rather than just the one.

And no, the wording on the Chaos artefacts says the exact thing that is being discussed...

Brainfart, ignore me completely...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Although, it could still mean the same thing, because the normal weapons explicitly have the option to trade out both. The Relics don't.

So, still one relic.

If you just look across the page too you have the regular weapons ranged, melee all say the same

A model can replace his bolt pistol and/ or melee weapon with one of the following

Compared to the relic which says

A model can replace one weapon with one of the following.

The nail in the coffin of being able to run more then one relic right there for me. If they had intended it to be like that they would have used the same wording used for Ranged weapons and melee weapons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To add to all other prior arguments I made earlier.

I'm sorry but i still disagree.

has anyone email games-workshop about this? odds are you would get 3 different answer.

i would love to be able to take two relics, but it seams that i can only take one

 Baldsmug wrote:

 Sasa0mg wrote:
I think this reads pretty simple, and that people might want to lay off trying the cheese.

It reads

A model can replace one weapon (note it says one weapon, not both) with one of the following.

I fail to see where the argument that you are able to replace both weapons for any of the following.

I fail to see things how you see them. If i have one chainsword and i swap it for some relic sword than i have traded ONE weapon for ONE relic, if i then want to trade my bolt pistol for some relic gun then i have traded ONE weapon for ONE relic.
?

you are certainly failing to see here,

you just swapped two weapons, for two relics,

when you take ONE weapon, you take one weapon, taking one weapon, twice, is still taking two weapons...

your example above, although you have traded weapons for relics at a 1-1 ratio, you have in fact traded TWO weapons, for TWO relics, that is a fact (unless you want to argue that your marine armed with 2 relics, doesnt have two relics)

does the rule say "a model can replace one weapon, with one relic"

or does it say "a model can replace any/two/all weapon(s), with any/and equal $ of/two relic(s)"

every single other codex says any, or either, in the place of ONE,

one means one, you are literally arguing that 1=/=1,

based on the arguement that you are not taking in fact taking two relics, because you are taking them one at a time... twice...

every other codex has the specific wording, of ANY/OR/AND/ONE/BOTH/ect in their weapon options and those words mean different things, if it says one, it means one, not two.

zasz wrote:
has anyone email games-workshop about this? odds are you would get 3 different answer.

i would love to be able to take two relics, but it seams that i can only take one

i emailed them. i'll post when/if i get an answer.

I was about to e-mail them to ask for an answer, and then I saw your post.

Apparently GW is pretty inconsistent e-mail to e-mail though, so maybe a few more of us should e-mail. If we all get the same answers, then we could probably say it's definitive, but if we get different ones...then I guess we all just play it however we feel.

People are getting hung up on RAW, which makes sense to a certain extent, but frankly RAW is, and always has been, RAGWI (rules as GW intended). What's on the page doesn't mean a whole lot, as GW can change it however they chose to. They added two options to two units through the FAQ. The bike one I will still argue that bolt pistols were melee weapons, though allowing a swap for chainswords makes it less contentious, but the no specials on command squads was pretty cut and dry, and BOOM they said "whoops" and changed it. If GW wants people to be able to stack relics, then that's what the written rules meant.

Hopefully we'll have a definitive answer soon enough.

 Sasa0mg wrote:
If you just look across the page too you have the regular weapons ranged, melee all say the same

A model can replace his bolt pistol and/ or melee weapon with one of the following

Compared to the relic which says

A model can replace one weapon with one of the following.

The nail in the coffin of being able to run more then one relic right there for me. If they had intended it to be like that they would have used the same wording used for Ranged weapons and melee weapons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To add to all other prior arguments I made earlier.

Does any model able to take relics come with a bolter or any other ranged weapon that's not a bolt pistol? If not, I think you you're really spot on with this.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Sasa0mg wrote:
If you just look across the page too you have the regular weapons ranged, melee all say the same

A model can replace his bolt pistol and/ or melee weapon with one of the following

Compared to the relic which says

A model can replace one weapon with one of the following.

The nail in the coffin of being able to run more then one relic right there for me. If they had intended it to be like that they would have used the same wording used for Ranged weapons and melee weapons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To add to all other prior arguments I made earlier.

Does any model able to take relics come with a bolter or any other ranged weapon that's not a bolt pistol? If not, I think you you're really spot on with this.

MoTF comes with a Bolt Pistol and a Boltgun listed on his wargear.

Terminator Captain comes only with a Stormbolter as well.

 easysauce wrote:

 Baldsmug wrote:

 Sasa0mg wrote:
I think this reads pretty simple, and that people might want to lay off trying the cheese.

It reads

A model can replace one weapon (note it says one weapon, not both) with one of the following.

I fail to see where the argument that you are able to replace both weapons for any of the following.

I fail to see things how you see them. If i have one chainsword and i swap it for some relic sword than i have traded ONE weapon for ONE relic, if i then want to trade my bolt pistol for some relic gun then i have traded ONE weapon for ONE relic.
?

you are certainly failing to see here,

you just swapped two weapons, for two relics,

when you take ONE weapon, you take one weapon, taking one weapon, twice, is still taking two weapons...

your example above, although you have traded weapons for relics at a 1-1 ratio, you have in fact traded TWO weapons, for TWO relics, that is a fact (unless you want to argue that your marine armed with 2 relics, doesnt have two relics)

does the rule say "a model can replace one weapon, with one relic"

or does it say "a model can replace any/two/all weapon(s), with any/and equal $ of/two relic(s)"

every single other codex says any, or either, in the place of ONE,

one means one, you are literally arguing that 1=/=1,

based on the arguement that you are not taking in fact taking two relics, because you are taking them one at a time... twice...

every other codex has the specific wording, of ANY/OR/AND/ONE/BOTH/ect in their weapon options and those words mean different things, if it says one, it means one, not two.

I think you guys are reading too much into it. If your were ONLY allowed to take one relic max then why does the armor not need a weapon swap? i dont know why you would need the rules to read any other way i think its crystal clear that one weapon equals one relic and you can do that as many times as you have weapons. I have read everyones arguements and i still stand firm that you can have as many relics as you can carry and afford points wise. I feel this is the RAI and will play it as such and encourage people i play with to play it as such until an official ruling is made. Thank you for the thoughts.

The armor doesn't need a wepon swap because you can keep both weapons and wear the armor......

Also no one said you couldn't take one weapon and the armor. Just like in the Eldar dex you can take 1 weapon and "others" that don't replace weapons.

Wish they would have put more clarification on this and a couple other things in the new FAQ.

The fact that people want to run this combo will drive them to basically take any reason why they can do it as fact.

I would have to agree with the camp that says only one for one, not multiple relics without the exception in the text.

From a rules as written perspective, the rule clearly states, you can trade one (and no more than) weapon, for one relic per model. The fact that HQs have an entry in the selection that says they can pick any item from the chapter relics section is irrelevent to the argument. There are clear instances in all the hardback codices where the quick references are missing key words from the full entry, hence why they give you a page reference.

For all you fluff lovers, myself included, I would propose that even rules as intended has a poor argument because both in the character fluff and in the character entries for 40K, usually the character only has one chapter relic now as a signature wargear that is outlined in a little box with a brief fluff description of what the weapon is and a statline to accompany it. I cannot recall any having two weapons. Also, fluff-wise, chapter relics are so sacred that it is almost foolish to use them in battle for fear of losing them to the enemy, and only because the chapters greatest heroes are using them is it allowed for them to be wielded. Why then would one character, unless he were god-like, be allowed to have so much power or that much responsibility? Even a termy character is pushing the limits with a crux and whatever else they carry.

food for thought... the fluff stuff is more opinion based, but the top explanation is my argument.

We don't need a lesson on English here kids.

You can have a max of one relic per model, and no duplicates per army (this includes allies)

Why? Special issue wargear states:

"A model can take up to one of each of the following:"

Were as the relic section states:

"A model can replace one weapon with one of the following:"

This is all on page 159 of the new SM codex, and it's all on the right hand side of the page.

Please stop trying to break the codex, you're not winning anyone over doing so. I understand the US' average english comprehension scores have gone down since I was in school, but the info is on the same page and in the same area, so lets try a little harder.

havent heard back from gw yet, but figured id ask this. if it is the case of only being able to take one weapon relic, do you think its still possible to take, for example, the bolter and the armor?

 hivetyrant765 wrote:
havent heard back from gw yet, but figured id ask this. if it is the case of only being able to take one weapon relic, do you think its still possible to take, for example, the bolter and the armor?

I think you can take the armor and any one of the rest for which you swap a weapon, because you aren't swapping a weapon for the armor, and therefore the "swap one weapon for one of the following" wording appears to not apply. No swapped weapon = not invoking the "one weapon for one relic" rule. They'd need a specific rule stating that you cannot take more than one relic per character.

In fact, considering how obvious and simple it would have been to say "max 1 relic per character" the fact that they opted to go with the more complicated wording concerning weapon swaps implies that the intent was to allow you to take the armor and another weapon swapped relic.

Problem is, the armor is darn expensive, and for fewer points you can get artificer armor and a bike. I guess if you really want to stick your HQ in a transport or drop pod it makes sense, but otherwise it's costlier for somewhat less of an effect.

Yes.

Bolter/Bolt Pistol/Chainsword as standard.

-> Take armour (none weapon replace)
so you have
Bolter/Bolt Pistol/Chainsword/Armour

-> swap Chainsword for Relic
so you have
Bolter/Bolt Pistol/Relic/Armour

and then in my personal case

-> swap bolter for Plasma Pistol
Plasma Pistol/Bolt Pistol/Burning Blade/Armour

->Swap Bolt Pistol for Storm Shield
Plasma Pistol/Storm Shield/Relic/Armour

Assuming GW wanted only a 1 for 1 weapon swap with relics, and disallows 2 for 2, here's another question.

Which do you think is more effective (assuming TAC circumstances), a regular Storm Shield w/ the burning blade, or Shield Eternal with a Powerfist or Relic Blade

Obviously, without a bike, he's ID by s8, so I think it weighs in favor of the shield without a bike, as a thunder hammer, while slower on turn one, is likely to bring whatever you're smacking to your initiative on the second round.

But with a bike he's only ID by s10 and ID/force weapons. An S7, AP2 at initiative (5) sword is incredibly awesome. With fewer things causing ID, you can likely avoid them for the most part (don't assault the ironclad dread) though GK would be very dangerous for him.

So I guess, if you put a CM on a bike w/ artificer amor, which is better, Burning Blade + regular storm shield, or Shield Eternal + powerfist/thunderhammer?

Despite my point above, I'll likely go shield eternal, based on the fact that my luck tends to suck, so survivability is key.

Im going Artificer, burning blade, storm shield, Jump Pack (Plasma pistol as well if possible. do they have Bolters and bolt Pistols?)

Personally I would prefer the eternal shield and a power fist with artificer armor, mostly because the shield keeps you in the fight and gives you +1 to your deny the witch rolls.

The blade just makes you more killy vs things that won't ID you.

for my CF captain, i like the idea of the bolter, chainsword, and armor. relentless, so gets max shots with bolter whether moving or not, 2+/4+ (iron halo), and the chainsword makes him good in CC as well.

Dragging this back up because of another thread. There they asked whether a captain could take two lightning claws (consensus was yes). The wording for the sections is similar, and I think bears taking another look at.

The pertinent wording for melee weapons is "A model can replace his bolt pistol and/or melee weapon with one of the following" while the pertinent wording for relics is "A model can replace one weapon with one of the following"

The logic for relics was that they said you could do a ONE for ONE swap and not anything further, such as TWO for TWO. The Melee weapons section seems to mirror that, in that you can swap EITHER for ONE melee weapon, or BOTH for ONE melee weapon. If you swapped two, you'd be swapping BOTH for TWO or ONE for ONE TWICE, which based on the logic of the debate thus far would be no good.

The one difference is in the "and/or" line versus "one weapon", but I don't see that as suddenly allowing two swaps to happen since you still run into the "with ONE of the following" line, the same line which supposedly restricts relic stacking. The whole "bolt pistol and/or melee weapon" thing just gives you the option of what you're swapping. Either you swap your bolt pistol for ONE of the following; your melee weapon for ONE of the following, or BOTH for ONE of the following (which, while it wouldn't make great sense, doesn't not make sense because Stormshields are simply taken, not set to replace wargear).

So what's the deal here? Was there an FAQ that dealt with "and/or" in relation to "one weapon" that explicitly mentions that it allows two swaps, while other wording received no such explicit permission?

Because the moment you run into that "with one of the following line" the logic in the relic debate was you're restricted. At the same time though, it's widely accepted that you can take two lightning claws on a captain, so the "with one of the following" line may not be restrictive.

I agree. If a shop sells bags of pretzels and tells you "buy one, get one free!", and you get three bags of pretzels, you would still get the another three bags for free. No one would ever tell you that you got three bags of pretzels and therefore aren't eligible for "buy ONE, get one free".

After having a quick look at the various HQs, the only reason for them to differentiate here from "bolt pistol and/or melee weapon" is, that HQ characters come with a variety of ranged weapons, so just "bolt pistol" doesn't cut it. Since "his ranged and/or melee weapon" covers all weapons possibly in existence, it is just the same as "one weapon".

On a side note, is a melta bomb considered a weapon? If so, can I trade it for a relic?
For example, you could buy a combi-melta and storm shield for your terminator captain and then trade the melta bomb for the burning blade, in order to get both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon.

So I know it's a stretch -- but why would Vulkan be able to have multiple relics (2 of which are weapons) but not a Chapter Master?

I see the argument from both sides though and am curious how this will play out....

 Jimsolo wrote:
I also read it as one-for-one, not limited-to-one.

I see it like this as well.

If not,why does it not say " may take ONE item from the Relics table ".Plus it invalidates every codex that has come out for 6th if the wording is confirmed as one for one and that's it.

Pedro Kantor wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
I also read it as one-for-one, not limited-to-one.

I see it like this as well.

If not,why does it not say " may take ONE item from the Relics table ".Plus it invalidates every codex that has come out for 6th if the wording is confirmed as one for one and that's it.

where is it confirmed? i would like to put this to rest one way or another

 NickTheButcher wrote:
So I know it's a stretch -- but why would Vulkan be able to have multiple relics (2 of which are weapons) but not a Chapter Master?

I see the argument from both sides though and am curious how this will play out....

Because GW gave him multiple Relics? Why does a character with set wargear matter?

zasz wrote:

Pedro Kantor wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
I also read it as one-for-one, not limited-to-one.

I see it like this as well.

If not,why does it not say " may take ONE item from the Relics table ".Plus it invalidates every codex that has come out for 6th if the wording is confirmed as one for one and that's it.

where is it confirmed? i would like to put this to rest one way or another

Nowhere yet.But that is the point.Never did i look at any of the relic tables in the new codex's and think that an IC could not swap out both his original weapons for a relic each.I am very confused.

zasz wrote:

Pedro Kantor wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
I also read it as one-for-one, not limited-to-one.

I see it like this as well.

If not,why does it not say " may take ONE item from the Relics table ".Plus it invalidates every codex that has come out for 6th if the wording is confirmed as one for one and that's it.

where is it confirmed? i would like to put this to rest one way or another

Well, this thread pretty much is your answer. There are two ways to read it, and both have arguments for and against them. Present those argument to your opponents and let them choose which one it is.

is the army builder in the app working, has anyone tried giving a character multiple relics?