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.

rigeld2 wrote:

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

Well, it matters because they gave him multiple Relics, creating a fluff precedent if nothing else.

Looking at it that way is actually interesting. The wargear list is called "Chapter Relics".

Then looking at the individual pages for SCs, they too have "Chapter Relics." Four special characters have multiple "Chapter Relics" in their profiles, and two more appear to be able to be upgraded with a second "Chapter Relic."

Marneus Calgar: Gauntlets of Ultramar, Armour of Antilochus (upgrade)
Captain Sicarius: Mantle of the Suzerain, Talassarian Tempest Blade
Tigurius: Hood of Hellfire, Rod of Tigurius
Kor'sarro Khan: Moonfang, Moondrakkan (upgrade)
Vulkan He'stan: Gauntlet of the Forge, Kesare's Mantle, Spear of Vulkan
The Emperor's Champion: Armour of the Faith, Black Sword

It's just an interesting fact surrounding this debate that six SCs are capable of having multiple "Chapter Relics." It creates a definite fluff precedent, and I think the use of the same "Chapter Relics" phrase gives some credibility to the idea that you can take multiple.

DogofWar1 wrote:
Marneus Calgar: Gauntlets of Ultramar, Armour of Antilochus (upgrade)

Armor can be swapped in addition to weapon

Captain Sicarius: Mantle of the Suzerain, Talassarian Tempest Blade

So weapon and $other.

Tigurius: Hood of Hellfire, Rod of Tigurius

Weapon and $other

Kor'sarro Khan: Moonfang, Moondrakkan (upgrade)

Weapon and $other

Vulkan He'stan: Gauntlet of the Forge, Kesare's Mantle, Spear of Vulkan

Weapon and 2 $other

The Emperor's Champion: Armour of the Faith, Black Sword

Weapon and $other.

It's just an interesting fact surrounding this debate that six SCs are capable of having multiple "Chapter Relics." It creates a definite fluff precedent, and I think the use of the same "Chapter Relics" phrase gives some credibility to the idea that you can take multiple.

You can take a weapon and the armor from the relic table - because the armor doesn't require a swap. That's not what people are trying to do, however so your fluff precedent proves absolutely nothing.

I'll chime in here - I just skimmed the first page and didn't read the rest so forgive me if my opinion is less educated.

When I first read through the armory section of the new codex, i immediately though "hmm, only 1 relic per character". it does say swap 1 weapon for 1 of the following. The armor is the exception, as previously noted, but unless it's FAQ'd otherwise i wont' be equipping any chapter masters with a burning blade AND a shield eternal.

rigeld2 wrote:

Vulkan He'stan: Gauntlet of the Forge, Kesare's Mantle, Spear of Vulkan

Weapon and 2 $other

So...is the heavy flamer relic not a weapon or the spear not a weapon?

DogofWar1 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Vulkan He'stan: Gauntlet of the Forge, Kesare's Mantle, Spear of Vulkan

Weapon and 2 $other

So...is the heavy flamer relic not a weapon or the spear not a weapon?

I misremembered - sorry. So there's one - single - special character with 2 Chapter Relic weapons, and you assume that sets a precedent that proves people wrong?

Yeah, no. You need more than that. Special characters are special.

rigeld2 wrote:

DogofWar1 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Vulkan He'stan: Gauntlet of the Forge, Kesare's Mantle, Spear of Vulkan

Weapon and 2 $other

So...is the heavy flamer relic not a weapon or the spear not a weapon?

I misremembered - sorry. So there's one - single - special character with 2 Chapter Relic weapons, and you assume that sets a precedent that proves people wrong?

Yeah, no. You need more than that. Special characters are special.

^ this... and as a caveat, you could say the reason they are special, or Unique in this case is because they have so many relics. Unique characters are not the standard for other characters! they are fluff based heros designed to give a cinematic edge to the game by contributed one-of-a-kind rules and wargear into a neat, tidey, and sometimes cheese-sealed package... < this was intended obviously...

According to RAW, you cannot have more than one relic weapon per character... this adds to the game in great ways and keeps from creating ridiculous builds that many people like to exploit for turbo gaming.

and I HATE!!!!!! Turbo Gamers...

 WarlordRob117 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

DogofWar1 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Vulkan He'stan: Gauntlet of the Forge, Kesare's Mantle, Spear of Vulkan

Weapon and 2 $other

So...is the heavy flamer relic not a weapon or the spear not a weapon?

I misremembered - sorry. So there's one - single - special character with 2 Chapter Relic weapons, and you assume that sets a precedent that proves people wrong?

Yeah, no. You need more than that. Special characters are special.

^ this... and as a caveat, you could say the reason they are special, or Unique in this case is because they have so many relics. Unique characters are not the standard for other characters! they are fluff based heros designed to give a cinematic edge to the game by contributed one-of-a-kind rules and wargear into a neat, tidey, and sometimes cheese-sealed package... < this was intended obviously...

According to RAW, you cannot have more than one relic weapon per character... this adds to the game in great ways and keeps from creating ridiculous builds that many people like to exploit for turbo gaming.

and I HATE!!!!!! Turbo Gamers...

Rules as written it could go either way. thats why we are talking about it.

 WarlordRob117 wrote:
and I HATE!!!!!! Turbo Gamers...

This isn't about "turbo gaming" or "WAAC" or any other derogatory term you want to throw out there. Stop inserting bias where there is none.
It's about people discussing rules, preferably without bias. With your statements you've just proven that one of the reasons for your opinion is bias - so why should we give your opinion any weight?
(Rhetorical question - not meant as an insult, just pointing out why statements like this hurt more than help)

 WarlordRob117 wrote:


According to RAW, you cannot have more than one relic weapon per character... this adds to the game in great ways and keeps from creating ridiculous builds that many people like to exploit for turbo gaming.

Here's the problem, the wording is not definitive. You're acting like it is, but it's not. It mirrors other sections of the wargear list with the "with one of the following" line. The implication, if you can't take multiple relics, is that you can't take multiple weapons from ANY section of the wargear list that ends with "with one of the following."

The first part of the sentence does not matter because the sentence is two separate thoughts combined into one, with the second thought being the limiting phrase.

"May replace his bolt pistol and/or melee weapon..." --\
"May replace his ranged and/or melee weapon...." ----->"with one of the following."
"May replace one weapon..." ----------------------------------/

Based upon the logic being used, the way the sentence reads it:
1. Look at your wargear and choose one or multiple items from it you wish to replace
2. Replace with a single piece of wargear, as per the "one" descriptor.

The first part of the sentence, no matter what it reads, ultimately just tells you WHAT you can replace with ONE piece of wargear.

The debate here is whether you can perform that function multiple times. RAI has long been that you CAN replace your weapons with multiples. The most common use was for lightning claws, but you could technically replace them with two powerfists or thunderhammers in order to get the extra attack.

Simply put, if RAI is that you can take multiple of the melee list (or some of the other lists for that matter) then you are equally allowed to take multiple relics. Alternatively, if you aren't allowed to take multiple relics, then you aren't allowed to take multiple items from the melee/ranged/etc. lists. In the absence of an FAQ differentiating the two, that is the way it appears to want to be viewed.

If there is still debate concerning the "one weapon" with "one weapon" thing on the relic list, consider the fact that you aren't simply replacing bolt pistols or a ccw, you have to roll the terminator options in there too. It has been mentioned that one could simply have said "ranged and/or melee weapon," but there are two reasons that doesn't really work here. 1. It is more efficient, both from a space on the page perspective and a word count perspective, to just say "weapon," since you can replace any weapon with a relic. 2. You'd still run into the same limiting phrase in the second half of the sentence.

Compare the special wargear section with the relic, melee, ranged, and other sections where the second phrase is "with one of the following." The special wargear section says take "any of the following." That clearly allows for multiple pieces to be taken, and they include the exceptions (bikes and jump packs can't mix, etc) in the notes. If we want to draw distinctions, we need to draw them not between melee/ranged/etc. VS. relic, but melee/ranged/relic/etc., VS. special wargear.

So I guess the key question now is, has GW limited players to a single weapon from the melee/ranged/etc. list? Because that is the logical conclusion UNLESS we accept that looping purchasing is allowed, as it was in previous editions.

I am of the view that GW would not have limited looping purchases, especially on lightning claws, and in the absence of an FAQ somehow stating that looping purchases of lightning claws, powerfists, dual pistols, etc., are NOT allowed, or that they are allowed via separate justification from relics, the conclusion that makes sense to me based on long standing RAI is that you can loop purchases from melee/ranged/relic lists and thus take two from said list.

RAW, is one weapon, the only arguement you have for multiple relics is an inccorect assumption that it is a ratio, not a set limit.

otherwise yes, you do break the game.

Take the IG codex,
from guard squad rules:
"two guardsmen may form a heavy weapon team armed with one of the following:"*lists heavy weapons*

by the "take as many relics as I want" crowd, we can read this as guard can take more then one heavy weapon in a squad, so long as we maintain the 2 guard-1 H weapon ratio.

this is, of course, wrong, as the limiter (two guardsmen) is passed as soon as we have 4 guard making 2 H weapon teams.

when you are given the option, to do something once, or twice, that is all you can do.

you cannot swap 4 guardsmen into H weapons teams, because it says you can replace 2, not 4.

same with relics as weapons, you cannot take 2 relic weapons, because it says you can replace one, not two.

they are both the exact same wording, they state the # of models, the # of weapons, yet no one who argues for multiple relics would allow guards men squads with 4 heavy weapons teams.

rigeld2 wrote:

 WarlordRob117 wrote:
and I HATE!!!!!! Turbo Gamers...

This isn't about "turbo gaming" or "WAAC" or any other derogatory term you want to throw out there. Stop inserting bias where there is none.
It's about people discussing rules, preferably without bias. With your statements you've just proven that one of the reasons for your opinion is bias - so why should we give your opinion any weight?
(Rhetorical question - not meant as an insult, just pointing out why statements like this hurt more than help)

Dont really care whether accept my opinion... it is what it is... but you attacking a harmless comment is only going to make me presume that you yourself like to push things to the limit and squeeze whatever you can out of the rules to suit your own interest. I will presume this is not the case.

The counter argument for 1=1 simply exists because people want to be able to create these outrageous combinations to further their own agenda... that is all... everyone here knows that hence the frustration. That is why my comment is warranted. Because people are trying reason or read into something that doesnt exist. This isnt rules as Interpreted, this is rules as written and rules as written state one weapon for one relic, unless there is a footnote allowing the possession of multiple relic. (no insult intended or implied, but you should ease off the gas a tad).

 WarlordRob117 wrote:

The counter argument for 1=1 simply exists because people want to be able to create these outrageous combinations to further their own agenda... that is all... everyone here knows that hence the frustration.

No, they don't. I know no such thing. I'm reading this thread because I legitimately see both arguments as having merit to them. I understand being completely convinced of your point of view (it's happened to me in other threads) but on this issue, there are people who believe the other side has a rules-legal standing. It doesn't make them 'turbogamers' or 'waac players' for wanting to decipher the actual meaning of the rules.

So you aren't allowed to replace multiple items for multiple items from the melee or ranged lists? Because that is the implication.

I mean, if that's the result, fine, we'll deal with it, but that stands in opposition to longstanding precedent that you could take two of those weapons on your captains/CMs/etc. Heck, the CM picture is toting two thunder hammers. Perhaps that's what they intended, perhaps GW felt that dual wielding specialist weapons somehow broke the game.

DogofWar1 wrote:
So you aren't allowed to replace multiple items for multiple items from the melee or ranged lists? Because that is the implication.

I mean, if that's the result, fine, we'll deal with it, but that stands in opposition to longstanding precedent that you could take two of those weapons on your captains/CMs/etc. Heck, the CM picture is toting two thunder hammers. Perhaps that's what they intended, perhaps GW felt that dual wielding specialist weapons somehow broke the game.

You're refering to a specialist weapon combination that uses descriptive language to illustrate why a character can take mulptiple weapons. Chapter Relics are something else entirely making that argument invalid. In the unit entries it clearly states what you can and cannot take (i.e. missile launcher in a tac squad and criteria to do so). The same goes for wielding two lightning claws, where is describes "replace bolt pistol or CCW for (insert options here).

 WarlordRob117 wrote:

DogofWar1 wrote:
So you aren't allowed to replace multiple items for multiple items from the melee or ranged lists? Because that is the implication.

I mean, if that's the result, fine, we'll deal with it, but that stands in opposition to longstanding precedent that you could take two of those weapons on your captains/CMs/etc. Heck, the CM picture is toting two thunder hammers. Perhaps that's what they intended, perhaps GW felt that dual wielding specialist weapons somehow broke the game.

You're refering to a specialist weapon combination that uses descriptive language to illustrate why a character can take mulptiple weapons. Chapter Relics are something else entirely making that argument invalid. In the unit entries it clearly states what you can and cannot take (i.e. missile launcher in a tac squad and criteria to do so). The same goes for wielding two lightning claws, where is describes "replace bolt pistol or CCW for (insert options here).

Except you are leaving out the MOST IMPORTANT PHRASE in the section, and quite possibly the whole page.

"with ONE of the following."

It DOES NOT MATTER what comes before. The "bolt pistol and/or melee weapon" part simply states what you may replace with ONE item from the list.

Either I:
A) replace my bolt pistol with ONE weapon
B) replace my melee weapon with ONE weapon
or
C) replace both with ONE weapon

If you have lightning clawS you have replaced BOTH with TWO, which according to your own logic on the relic weapons, is not allowed.

The other alternative is that you are allowed to perform A and B as separate actions. HOWEVER, if that is allowed, then that similarly should apply to the relic section. In both situations you are replacing one weapon with another one weapon, the only difference is that the melee section is more restrictive than the relic section on what may be replaced.

I think the IG example can be used, but I would urge some caution there. First, it's in a book written for a previous edition, and the example does not come from a wargear list. If the language remains the same and the function remains the same in 6th, then perhaps it is the same. The other thing is that you are changing the statline of the unit, and creating a new model within the unit. That is slightly different from adding, subtracting, or replacing wargear from a single model.

However, if the IG example if persuasive, it only further illustrates that it is not allowed for a model to take two melee weapons, in addition to ranged and relic weapons. The "one of the following" line bars multiple replacements if the IG example stands. It may not be a totally accurate and up to date rule though, for the reasons I stated one paragraph up.

DogofWar1 wrote:

 WarlordRob117 wrote:

DogofWar1 wrote:
So you aren't allowed to replace multiple items for multiple items from the melee or ranged lists? Because that is the implication.

I mean, if that's the result, fine, we'll deal with it, but that stands in opposition to longstanding precedent that you could take two of those weapons on your captains/CMs/etc. Heck, the CM picture is toting two thunder hammers. Perhaps that's what they intended, perhaps GW felt that dual wielding specialist weapons somehow broke the game.

You're refering to a specialist weapon combination that uses descriptive language to illustrate why a character can take mulptiple weapons. Chapter Relics are something else entirely making that argument invalid. In the unit entries it clearly states what you can and cannot take (i.e. missile launcher in a tac squad and criteria to do so). The same goes for wielding two lightning claws, where is describes "replace bolt pistol or CCW for (insert options here).

Except you are leaving out the MOST IMPORTANT PHRASE in the section, and quite possibly the whole page.

"with ONE of the following."

It DOES NOT MATTER what comes before. The "bolt pistol and/or melee weapon" part simply states what you may replace with ONE item from the list.

Either I:
A) replace my bolt pistol with ONE weapon
B) replace my melee weapon with ONE weapon
or
C) replace both with ONE weapon

If you have lightning clawS you have replaced BOTH with TWO, which according to your own logic on the relic weapons, is not allowed.

The other alternative is that you are allowed to perform A and B as separate actions. HOWEVER, if that is allowed, then that similarly should apply to the relic section. In both situations you are replacing one weapon with another one weapon, the only difference is that the melee section is more restrictive than the relic section on what may be replaced.

I think the IG example can be used, but I would urge some caution there. First, it's in a book written for a previous edition, and the example does not come from a wargear list. If the language remains the same and the function remains the same in 6th, then perhaps it is the same. The other thing is that you are changing the statline of the unit, and creating a new model within the unit. That is slightly different from adding, subtracting, or replacing wargear from a single model.

However, if the IG example if persuasive, it only further illustrates that it is not allowed for a model to take two melee weapons, in addition to ranged and relic weapons. The "one of the following" line bars multiple replacements if the IG example stands. It may not be a totally accurate and up to date rule though, for the reasons I stated one paragraph up.

No Sir...

It DOES* MATTER what comes before. The "bolt pistol and/or melee weapon" part simply states what you may replace EACH OR ONE ITEM* with ANOTHER* item from the list.

Either I:
A) replace my bolt pistol with ONE weapon
B) replace my melee weapon with ONE weapon

(option c is unnecessary as options A and B combined fulfill the OR in the statement... You see how that is different? "Replace on weapon with one relic" as opposed to "replace bolter/bolt pistol and/or close combat weapon with one item"?

The and/or allows you multiple swaps, whereas only being able to swap one weapon means you can only ever swap for one. And/or allows multiple swaps, one weapon means one swap...

You guy are still discussing this? I wasn't aware there was anything more to it than was on page 159...

 WarlordRob117 wrote:


No Sir...

It DOES* MATTER what comes before. The "bolt pistol and/or melee weapon" part simply states what you may replace EACH OR ONE ITEM* with ANOTHER* item from the list.

Either I:
A) replace my bolt pistol with ONE weapon
B) replace my melee weapon with ONE weapon

(option c is unnecessary as options A and B combined fulfill the OR in the statement... You see how that is different? "Replace on weapon with one relic" as opposed to "replace bolter/bolt pistol and/or close combat weapon with one item"?

The and/or allows you multiple swaps, whereas only being able to swap one weapon means you can only ever swap for one. And/or allows multiple swaps, one weapon means one swap...

You are altering the RAW.

It doesn't say "replace bolt pistol and/or melee weapon with ANOTHER weapon/of the following" or "any weapon/of the following" it says ONE.

As in, you get ONE, and no others.

You're interpreting the sentence to mean "I can replace my bolt pistol with one weapon, and then I can replace my melee weapon with another." This is not how it reads.

Break the and/or up:

"replace bolt pistol and/or melee weapon with one of the following"
- replace bolt pistol and melee weapon with one of the following
- replace bolt pistol or melee weapon with one of the following

The first means both should be replaced with one as the "AND" connotes that two prerequisites must be met to fulfill the action after the "with." The second means either should be replaced with one, with no option for looping since you've already swapped for ONE. No where does it allow you to replace one, then replace another one.

The way you are interpreting it, it ought to have read "replace bolt pistol with one of the following and/or replace melee weapon with one of the following." If it did read that way, then you would be right, since you could replace your bolt pistol for one AND replace your melee weapon for another, but it does not read that way.

DogofWar1 wrote:

 WarlordRob117 wrote:


No Sir...

It DOES* MATTER what comes before. The "bolt pistol and/or melee weapon" part simply states what you may replace EACH OR ONE ITEM* with ANOTHER* item from the list.

Either I:
A) replace my bolt pistol with ONE weapon
B) replace my melee weapon with ONE weapon

(option c is unnecessary as options A and B combined fulfill the OR in the statement... You see how that is different? "Replace on weapon with one relic" as opposed to "replace bolter/bolt pistol and/or close combat weapon with one item"?

The and/or allows you multiple swaps, whereas only being able to swap one weapon means you can only ever swap for one. And/or allows multiple swaps, one weapon means one swap...

You are altering the RAW.

It doesn't say "replace bolt pistol and/or melee weapon with ANOTHER weapon/of the following" or "any weapon/of the following" it says ONE.

As in, you get ONE, and no others.

You're interpreting the sentence to mean "I can replace my bolt pistol with one weapon, and then I can replace my melee weapon with another." This is not how it reads.

Break the and/or up:

"replace bolt pistol and/or melee weapon with one of the following"
- replace bolt pistol and melee weapon with one of the following
- replace bolt pistol or melee weapon with one of the following

The first means both should be replaced with one as the "AND" connotes that two prerequisites must be met to fulfill the action after the "with." The second means either should be replaced with one, with no option for looping since you've already swapped for ONE. No where does it allow you to replace one, then replace another one.

The way you are interpreting it, it ought to have read "replace bolt pistol with one of the following and/or replace melee weapon with one of the following." If it did read that way, then you would be right, since you could replace your bolt pistol for one AND replace your melee weapon for another, but it does not read that way.

you just did the same thing! you cant break the sentence down because it takes the whole thing out of context... so now we are both wrong, huh?

the point of the and/or is so you dont have to switch your weapons if you dont want to, meaning if you wanted to change out just your bolt pistol and not your close combat weapon you could do it, thats what the or is for. The "and" is for if you want to replace both of them, as in you BP and CCW each for one item, as in your BP for one item and Your CCW for one item...

1. Select Chainsword. Go to Melee rules. "A model can replace his bolt pistol and/or melee weapon with one of the following:". Replace chainsword with Power weapon.
2. Select Bolt pistol. Go to Melee rules. "A model can replace his bolt pistol and/or melee weapon with one of the following:". Replace pistol with Power weapon.
3. Go back to Melee rules. It says you may "replace his pistol and/or melee weapon with one of the following." But you've exchanged pistol and/or melee weapon with TWO of the following. That's against the rule.
--Error--Rules not followed--Start Over--
1. Select Chainsword. Go to Melee rules. "A model can replace his bolt pistol and/or melee weapon with one of the following:". Replace chainsword with Power weapon.
2. Select Bolt pistol. Go to Ranged rules. "A model can replace his bolt pistol and/or melee weapon with one of the following:". Replace bolt pistol with Grav-pistol.
3. Go back to Melee rules. It says you may "replace his pistol and/or melee weapon with one of the following." Check.
4. Go back to Ranged rule. It says you may "replace his pistol and/or melee weapon with one of the following." Check.
--Yay!--

It's the same with the Relics.
1. Select Bolt pistol. Go to Relics rules. It says you can "replace one weapon with one of the following [relics]:". Replace bolt pistol for Burning Blade.
2. Select chainsword. Go to Relics rules. It says you can "replace one weapon with one of the following [relics]:". Replace chainsword for the Shield Eternal.
3. Go back to Relic rule. It says you may "replace one weapon with one of the following." But you've exchanged TWO weapons with TWO of the following. That's against the rule.
--Error--Rules not followed--Start Over--

*Edited for clarity*

 WarlordRob117 wrote:


you just did the same thing! you cant break the sentence down because it takes the whole thing out of context... so now we are both wrong, huh?

the point of the and/or is so you dont have to switch your weapons if you dont want to, meaning if you wanted to change out just your bolt pistol and not your close combat weapon you could do it, thats what the or is for. The "and" is for if you want to replace both of them, as in you BP and CCW each for one item, as in your BP for one item and Your CCW for one item...

Breaking the sentence down to read "and" and "or" doesn't take it out of context. The point of "and/or" in a sentence is to create two scenarios, one of which breaks into two further sub-scenarios. "X and/or Y" can have three results, only X, only Y, or X and Y. It effectively is shorthand for two longer sentences/phrases, "You may replace X and Y with Z, or you may replace X or Y with Z."

If you said "I can have pizza and/or wings for dinner," it means I can have pizza or wings or both.

But once you've added the second part of the sentence, you have to complete that first part of the sentence before moving on.

"I can have pizza and/or wings for one of the following: dinner or 4th meal." You can't have pizza for one meal and wings for another, that's against the grammatical rules.

What you keep doing, whether you realize it or not, is adding words.

You said "the 'and' is for if you want to replace both of them, as in your BP and CCW each for one item, as in your BP for one item and your ccw for one item."

Except you've added the word "each" into the ruling. The rule reads "replace BP and/or MW with one of the following" NOT "replace BP and/or MW with one of the following EACH." You are treating those two sentences as functionally the same. They are not.

Similarly, you previously said "the 'bolt pistol and/or melee weapon' part simply states what you may replace EACH OR ONE ITEM* with ANOTHER* item from the list."

Again though, you've added the word "each" and "another" into the RAI somewhere where it does not necessarily exist. You, again, are treating "replace BP and/or MW with one of the following" as equal to either "replace EACH of your BP and/or MW with one of the following" or "replace your BP with one of the following and/or another melee weapon with one of the following." In the first you're given explicit permission to replace them separately from the "and" while still replacing both, while in the second you're breaking it up sufficient to create two separate replacements.


Elric Greywolf, if he's saying what I think he's saying, has it right, assuming RAI is not set to allow replacement for two "melee/ranged/relic" items. You can't take two items from any one of the lists, but may mix and match between the melee, ranged, and relic lists.

 juraigamer wrote:
You guy are still discussing this? I wasn't aware there was anything more to it than was on page 159...

IKR!

Why would they write "A model can replace ONE weapon with ONE of the following." if it didn't, you know, mean one of the following. Had they said "... any of the following." there would be no debate if people could select multiple. The foot note for the armor indomitus could remain the exact same. However G-dubs went out of their way to say "ONE of the following"

So this is the exact same wording as in CSM, DA and Eldar codixes. Hasn't this question been asked and answered for any of them? (Can't be arsed to go though all the FAQs.)

 Crimson wrote:
So this is the exact same wording as in CSM, DA and Eldar codixes. Hasn't this question been asked and answered for any of them? (Can't be arsed to go though all the FAQs.)

I believe the wording is slightly different, but I know CSM can only take one.

From wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
So this is the exact same wording as in CSM, DA and Eldar codixes. Hasn't this question been asked and answered for any of them? (Can't be arsed to go though all the FAQs.)

I believe the wording is slightly different, but I know CSM can only take one.

Wording is the same, but I can't find this on CSM FAQ.

It has come up with every codex release except Daemons. GW either can't or won't clarify.

 Crimson wrote:

From wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
So this is the exact same wording as in CSM, DA and Eldar codixes. Hasn't this question been asked and answered for any of them? (Can't be arsed to go though all the FAQs.)

I believe the wording is slightly different, but I know CSM can only take one.

Wording is the same, but I can't find this on CSM FAQ.

Wording is the same, and it's not in the FAQ. I assume he's remembering that the majority consensus at the time seemed to be that because you can swap one weapon you can only swap one weapon. Of course, that was Chaos Space Marines rather than the poster boys.

So i am looking at my C:SM at the moment. I have read most of this thread ( i admit its not every word). I am not seeing the one thing that, to me allows multiple relics.

pg.163 Chapter Master entry. Under the options heading it gives bullet points. We all know what they look like. The 5th one down reads "A Chapter master in power armour or artificer armour may take items from the Melee Weapons, Ranged Weapons, Special Issue Wargear (here is the key part imo) AND/OR Chapter Relics.

If you can only exchange 1 for 1 how can you have AND/OR?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Found another entry that clinches the argument for me.
pg.158 of the codex. Its the discription of the army list entries.
lots of circled numbers being described at the bottom of the page. Number 8 is the important one.

#8 "Options: This section lists all of the upgrades you may add to the unit if you wish to do so, alongside the associated points costs for each. Where an option states that you may exchange one weapon "and/or" another, you may replace either or both, provided you pay the points cost for each."

It goes on to describe pts, ded transports and such. I just included the relavant part.

Because you can exchange for a ranged weapon and a relic.
That has literally nothing to do with exchanging for two relics.

The relic rules do not say and/or.

The presence of "and/or" in the Melee weapons implies that they want you to be able to take multiples from that list.

Relics have not got that and/or, so I would say that means they don't want you to take multiples.