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.

DogofWar1 wrote:

Does the digital addition even have the FAQ updates yet though? Veterans didn't even get the special weapons option until the FAQ dropped.

I don't know, but Veterans can take other weapons too, so if Apotechary can keep those we can safely assume that he can keep a special weapon as well.

I don't know if this has been stated by anyone else, but my speaking to GW personnel confirms that it specifically means one relic for one stock weapon (except for the Armor of Indomitus, which can be taken without eating up a weapons slot). You cannot, however, have multiple instances of the same relic in that army.

EDIT: I should have said one relic for EACH stock weapon. Sorry. I dunno about 'random GW employee', but whatevs.

Good thing the word from a random GW employee matters in a rules discussion.


I'm in the multiple items camp.

 hisdudeness wrote:
Good thing the word from a random GW employee matters in a rules discussion.


I'm in the multiple items camp.

...you realize I was agreeing with you, yeah?

Edited the above statement to be clear. Which I guess is the lesson we should take from GW in the first place.

Agreement doesn't matter. And I was just informing you about the error of thinking random GW employees/emails mean anything in rule disscussions. You can ask 8 different employees and get 8 different answers.

The books and the FAQ are the only things that matter. But thanks for the support!

 hisdudeness wrote:
Agreement does matter. And I was just informing you about the error of thinking random GW employees/emails mean anything in rule disscussions. You can ask 8 different employees and get 8 different answers.

The books and the FAQ are the only things that matter. But thanks for the support!

Yeah, that seriously needs FAQ'd. I forget sometimes - I know, I know - that GW rules questions are so bloody changeable depending on where they come from.

If you follow trend of how GW rules things; it will most likely be that you can only have one.

I'm curious why this is an issue now? I will admit that I don't wait with bated breath for every rule discussion thread that pops up. I have all the codices, and people have said the rule is worded the same in just about every codex. I have not seen this discussion come up before. Second, after 5 codices being out for months, GW has not FAQ this particular point, but took the time to clarify that a combat knife is a close combat weapon.

I'm in the camp that a player can take one weapon relic for each weapon his model has. The rules do state that you cannot have duplicate relics, so no 2 Burning Blades or 2 Mace of Redeptions. If there is any limitations, the unit entry will clearly state it (A Space Marine can exchange his bolter for one of the following...).

I'm just making an observation that other codices, Chaos Space Marines/Dark Angels, that are worded the same, have been out 9+ months, and now this particular point becomes a topic of debate.

Maybe because Codex: Space Marines is the first one to actually have two relics worth taking at once. Most relics so far were either not useful in combination (two CCW, CCW and a sniper rifle), or were not useful for the same type of character.

 bkiker wrote:
I'm curious why this is an issue now? I will admit that I don't wait with bated breath for every rule discussion thread that pops up. I have all the codices, and people have said the rule is worded the same in just about every codex. I have not seen this discussion come up before. Second, after 5 codices being out for months, GW has not FAQ this particular point, but took the time to clarify that a combat knife is a close combat weapon.

I'm in the camp that a player can take one weapon relic for each weapon his model has. The rules do state that you cannot have duplicate relics, so no 2 Burning Blades or 2 Mace of Redeptions. If there is any limitations, the unit entry will clearly state it (A Space Marine can exchange his bolter for one of the following...).

I'm just making an observation that other codices, Chaos Space Marines/Dark Angels, that are worded the same, have been out 9+ months, and now this particular point becomes a topic of debate.

Remember when the Tau codex came out and suddenly everybody and their brother got in heated debates regarding whether or not Multi-trackers allowed 2 weapons to fire during overwatch? Yet since 6th edition, Monstrous Creatures and Gunslingers had been able to fire 2 weapons all the while...and the old tau book actually did have a specific FAQ entry regarding multitrackers (yes they could fire 2 weapons in OW).

The point is, some rules are accepted with little resistance because they don't effect the game that often or that strongly - when suddenly an army comes out that maximizes the potential of that rule, the internet goes crazy with "WE NEED AN FAQ! WE HAVE DISSENTING OPINIONS ONLINE!!".

Personally, one of my armies is space marines and I read the entry as saying "one weapon" which means, one, and only one, weapon. Simple. Otherwise I could take a scout squad, give One model a missile launcher, then give another One model a missile launcher, et cetera, until i had 5-10 missile wielding scouts - that's clearly against the rules but the weapons entry is ambiguous? Please....

I'm still of the multiple choice camp and here is why.

First, there is no limit given on how many times we can us the "one for one" clause. This clause is nothing more then the rule defining how the list is used. The "and/or" clause does not work do to the units that have access are not armed the same.

Second, if the lists rule of "one for one" is limited to just a single use as soon as any model makes a choice no other model would be able to use the list. This is because the lists rule has been fulfilled with the first use. Any additional choices would also break the "one for one" clause just as a single model making multiple choices would break the rule. It does say "A model" can replace "one weapon" with "one of the following:"

 hisdudeness wrote:


Second, if the lists rule of "one for one" is limited to just a single use as soon as any model makes a choice no other model would be able to use the list. This is because the lists rule has been fulfilled with the first use. Any additional choices would also break the "one for one" clause just as a single model making multiple choices would break the rule. It does say "A model" can replace "one weapon" with "one of the following:"

This has no basis in the way the rules are played or read commonly.
A model can mean "one model only" or just the indefinite article, GW usually use one model only to hammer home a point or say one per army etc. .

I agree!

But if those claiming that the rule for the list (the "one for one" clause) do not allow for a single model to make two exchanges (because TWO for TWO is not ONE for ONE) then how can they claim that it allows two separate models to make a one for one exchange each? One model taking two (TWO for TWO) is the same as two models taking one (TWO for TWO) based on the wording and thus both would break the rule fro the list. The rule in question is a rule for how the list works and is independent of what makes the "one or one" exchange. So as soon as the second model make a choice, we have (as far as the rule for the list is concerned) TWO for TWO.

The rule does say "A model", not any model or multiple models or even modelS.

"A model may take 1 gun" allows for every valid model to take one gun but it doesn't allow for any models to take more than one gun.
That's what the indefinite article can allow, A model ~ any model or some theoretical model.

Yup, but it can also mean that only one model may " replace one weapon with one of the following:" Just like "replace one weapon with one of the following:" can be the rule for list use and not a limitation on the number of times the list can be used by a model.

My point is that those taking the "One means One" stance must also agree the if a second model taking a relic it breaks that "One means One" view because the rule is a rule fro the list not a rule on models. As soon as a second model takes a second relic the list rule sees a "Two for Two" just like a single model taking two relics makes the list rule to see "Two for Two".

 hisdudeness wrote:
Yup, but it can also mean that only one model may " replace one weapon with one of the following:" Just like "replace one weapon with one of the following:" can be the rule for list use and not a limitation on the number of times the list can be used by a model.

My point is that those taking the "One means One" stance must also agree the if a second model taking a relic it breaks that "One means One" view because the rule is a rule fro the list not a rule on models. As soon as a second model takes a second relic the list rule sees a "Two for Two" just like a single model taking two relics makes the list rule to see "Two for Two".

No - just wrong.
You understand the English language - I know you do because we know each other well. The same word in different places in a sentence can mean different things. You're trying to say that every reference to the word must mean the same thing - and that's factually incorrect.

The first part is just food for thought, which I don't believe is correct myself. The second part is my real point. The main argument that I believe has any real bite is the "One means One" view.

The problem being that as soon as someone asserts this view we encounter the problem with multiple models accessing the relic list. One model taking two relics is the same a two models taking one each as for as the "One means One" view of the rule.

We are not told we can ONLY switch one for. If GW wanted a limit there would have been a limit given. We are told that to receive something from this list we must replace a current weapon on a one for one basis. Given that every single unit that has access to the relic list is equipped differently they chose to shorten the clause because the "and/or" clause doesn't work. Otherwise it would have been, "A model can replace his bolt pistol, storm bolter, boltgun, power weapon, force weapon, and/or crozious arcanum with one of the following:" Then we would have people asking the stupid questions like "oh my! My captain doesn't have a force weapon! Should he have one? Screw GW writing crappy rules, now we have to wait for a FAQ because I think my Caption should have a force weapon!"

 hisdudeness wrote:
The problem being that as soon as someone asserts this view we encounter the problem with multiple models accessing the relic list. One model taking two relics is the same a two models taking one each as for as the "One means One" view of the rule.

That's simply not true. It's only true if you assume that all words mean the same thing no matter what. That is an incorrect assumption with regard to the English language.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm following the "One means One" view. I fail to see (by applying the idea as it has been described) how one model take two is any different from two taking one as far as the rule is concerned.

If the rule was on the models then there wouldn't be an issue, but the rule is on the list.

 hisdudeness wrote:
I'm not assuming anything. I'm following the "One means One" view. I fail to see (by applying the idea as it has been described) how one model take two is any different from two taking one as far as the rule is concerned.

Then you're failing to understand the English language.

I want to point you towards the tenets of You Make Da Call.
Stuff like that is unasked for.

rigeld2 wrote:

 hisdudeness wrote:
I'm not assuming anything. I'm following the "One means One" view. I fail to see (by applying the idea as it has been described) how one model take two is any different from two taking one as far as the rule is concerned.

Then you're failing to understand the English language.

So explain it to me. How am I misunderstanding?

Already solved this earlier in the topic really, tired of coming back seeing this being necro'd for the same questions and debates that have been answered in earlier posts.

When you exchange one item for one relic thats okay
when you exchange one item for one relic AGAIN that is not.

Notice how you did that twice. You have no longer exchanged one weapon for one relic you have exchanged TWO.

In addition if you look slightly across the page to say, melee weapons you will find the wording as follows:

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

Now when you look at the relic it says

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

If the relic's had been intended for you to be swapping multiple weapons for multiple relics it would have been worded as melee weapons and ranged weapons have however it has not and states that in one instance you may replace one weapon for one relic.

Now I have to emphasize how important that one is

You trade ONE weapon for ONE relic.
You trade ONE more weapon for ONE more relic

Congratulations you have now traded TWO weapons for TWO relics which is not within the rules.

And the same thing when a second model comes along and uses the relic table. As soon as the second mode makes a trade the rule for the Relic list sees Two weapons for Two relics, thus breaking the rule.

 hisdudeness wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 hisdudeness wrote:
I'm not assuming anything. I'm following the "One means One" view. I fail to see (by applying the idea as it has been described) how one model take two is any different from two taking one as far as the rule is concerned.

Then you're failing to understand the English language.

So explain it to me. How am I misunderstanding?

I have explained it. You're asserting that "one" must always refer to the same thing. That's not how the English language works.

And claiming that " A model can replace one weapon with one of the following:" limits a model to a single use of the table is the same thing. If there was an "only" between replace and one I would completely agree. Additionally, I'm applying the "one means one" as it has been described in this thread.

 hisdudeness wrote:
And the same thing when a second model comes along and uses the relic table. As soon as the second mode makes a trade the rule for the Relic list sees Two weapons for Two relics, thus breaking the rule.

No, don't be deliberately bone-idle. It means a model, any model that is allowed to may only trade one weapon for one relic. So the next model that comes along may only trade one weapon for one relic. I don't understand how you can choose to argue this beyond that.

No it isn't the same thing, Model A is different than Model B, which is still different than Model C, they are all models and can be referred to as a Model, but each Model A, B and C can each only trade one weapon for one relic.

 Sasa0mg wrote:

 hisdudeness wrote:
And the same thing when a second model comes along and uses the relic table. As soon as the second mode makes a trade the rule for the Relic list sees Two weapons for Two relics, thus breaking the rule.

No, don't be deliberately bone-idle. It means a model, any model that is allowed to may only trade one weapon for one relic. So the next model that comes along may only trade one weapon for one relic. I don't understand how you can choose to argue this beyond that.

Because the rule is not tied to a model it is tied to the list. And as the "one means one" idea is laid out, when "A model" (as in an indeterminate number of models as per an above post) makes ONE trade for ONE relic we are good. But as soon as "A model" (remember indeterminate number of them) makes TWO trades for TWO relics we break the rules of the list as described above.

 CrashCanuck wrote:
No it isn't the same thing, Model A is different than Model B, which is still different than Model C, they are all models and can be referred to as a Model, but each Model A, B and C can each only trade one weapon for one relic.

Yes, the models are different. The problem is that the rule is not with the models, it is on the list. The models just tell us we have access to the list, then we must follow the rules on the list. When a second model or a single model makes two trades the rule on the list sees TWO for TWO, breaking the perceived "One means One" idea. As per:

 Sasa0mg wrote:

You trade ONE weapon for ONE relic.
You trade ONE more weapon for ONE more relic

Congratulations you have now traded TWO weapons for TWO relics which is not within the rules.

You are deliberately misusing the reading of the rule

A model may trade ONE weapon for ONE relic
as soon as the same model trades another weapon for another relic is is then trading TWO and is breaking the rule.

The only limitation on the taking of relics for the ARMY is that there cannot be two of THE SAME relic taken twice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It's terminology and print in the book is "A model can replace one weapon with one of the following."

I don't see why this needs breaking down any further

A model

The model in question with the ability to take items from the relic list.

replace one weapon for one of the following.