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.

 Sasa0mg wrote:
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.

And so is everyone claiming that "A model can replace one weapon with one of the following:" limits a model to a single use of the list!!!

There is not a single word that limits a single model from multiple uses, only the each use requires a one for one trade. If the rule had been, "A model can replace only one weapon with one of the following:" you would have a case. But there is no limiting factor in the Relic rule on the number of times a single model can use it.

Found something interesting in the Space Marine Codex that may aid this debate.

On page 159 under Chapter Relics the Armor Indomitus has a little 1, and next to the 1 it says "Does not replace ONE of the character's weapons...". This is interesting wording, if they had meant for the character to only be able to take one relic why not say something along the lines of "Does not replace the character's weapon...". Why put the "one" in there unless they are trying to tell you that it does not replace ONE of the characters weapons meaning you may now take another relic and swap out ONE weapon with ONE of the following and again and again. If they meant for you to only be able to take one relic they would have used the wording "Does not replace the characters weapon..." to show that you can only take one relic and this one that your taking doesn't replace the characters weapon so you can add further ranged or melee weapons in that slot.

 Sanguinis wrote:
Found something interesting in the Space Marine Codex that may aid this debate.

On page 159 under Chapter Relics the Armor Indomitus has a little 1, and next to the 1 it says "Does not replace ONE of the character's weapons...". This is interesting wording, if they had meant for the character to only be able to take one relic why not say something along the lines of "Does not replace the character's weapon...". Why put the "one" in there unless they are trying to tell you that it does not replace ONE of the characters weapons meaning you may now take another relic and swap out ONE weapon with ONE of the following and again and again. If they meant for you to only be able to take one relic they would have used the wording "Does not replace the characters weapon..." to show that you can only take one relic and this one that your taking doesn't replace the characters weapon so you can add further ranged or melee weapons in that slot.

It's the same as the dimensional key. It still doesn't allow you to either take a second chaos artefact nor to take a second key. The "does not replace" doesn't end the restriction of one relic, it only removes the restriction of must exchange a weapon.
Easter egging aside, I've no issue with two models taking relics as that's how I read the rules but there is nothing to say that you can take multiples on a single model.

That merely points out items that are an exception to the rule. Partially. You may replace one weapon for one relic. You go to replace an item for said relic but said relic does not actually replace your weapon.

and

@hisdudenessMade I'm afraid your wrong. Because the relic list clearly applies to characters on a character by character situation. Nowhere other then not being able to have multiple relics of the same type present in an army does it quote the army as a whole, i.e other characters.

In regards to the rest, I'm afraid thats just how the english language works until such point that GW corrects this trading "one weapon for one relic" is the limitation per character that I personally will abide and enforce with the people that play me personally because assuming the liberty to be able to take two relics for two weapons is specifically NOT what the rule states.

Now if you want to nit pick and take it further trying to say that in that case then only ONE character in the army can trade ONE weapon for ONE relic by all means go ahead. That's not what it is saying but feel free to self impose that limitation.

The evidence is right there as I quoted directly from the marine book on the previous page and step by step explained the use of context provided.

You're continued desire to question and debate the matter with such overwhelming evidence to the contrary leads me to believe that you are going to keep this threat kicking for as long as possible either through deliberation or trolling that or you have a real need to be running multi-relic chapter masters bringing them to about 300 points of cheese each because deathstar or nothing.

 Sasa0mg wrote:


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.

I was under the impression that "weapons" meant anything classified as a weapon..as in both melee and ranged. So why would GW need to list both out when they could just use the plural? Just like we can choose which weapon to trade and are not limited to a single weapon type. I'm not sure how this supports your view.

 Sasa0mg wrote:


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.

Strange, I see no where that we are told to "add" the uses of a list together, let alone the Relic list. All I see is a rule telling us that EACH use of the list requires a trade. Every other list in all the 6th codexes are very specific if there is a limit to the number of times the list can be used.


This is how I see it...STEP BY STEP...we can use the Captain (p164, BRB)
.
1) I want to upgrade my character with a relic...his entry tells use to go to the Chapter Relic list. We are given the limit of each being unique (one per Army). We are also told how to use the list (One for One). I chose to trade my Chainsword for the Burning Blade...I pay the cost and have met all requirements of the Chapter Relic list rules. (Only one and straight up trade)
2) I want to continue to up grade. And want to take an item from the Chapter Relics list. We go back to the list and see the same rules. This stops me from taking a second Burning Blade, but I can now trade my Bolt Pistol for The Teeth of Terra and pay the cost. I have met all the requirements of the Chapter Relic list... I did not duplicate a relic and I traded straight up.
3) Continue upgrading

At not time did I break a rule. If you claim (as you do) that the Chapter Relic list 'saves' my previous choices, you will need to provide some support for either:

1) where we are told the previous choice is saved.

and

2) why does this status not 'save' between models.

Looks like the answer is Yes. The Force Organization portion of the Digital Edition of the codex will allow both plus the armor if you wish.

davin1023 wrote:
Looks like the answer is Yes. The Force Organization portion of the Digital Edition of the codex will allow both plus the armor if you wish.

I think that's the most definitive answer we're going to get for the time being. Thank you for providing this.

And not a moment too soon, I was just about to get back involved in a debate about prepositions, which, while I'm not too fond of my English teachers through the years, would have made me hate them, and I try to reserve my hate for things that actually deserve it, like the owner of the Giants and hipsters.

DogofWar1 wrote:

davin1023 wrote:
Looks like the answer is Yes. The Force Organization portion of the Digital Edition of the codex will allow both plus the armor if you wish.

I think that's the most definitive answer we're going to get for the time being. Thank you for providing this.

And not a moment too soon, I was just about to get back involved in a debate about prepositions, which, while I'm not too fond of my English teachers through the years, would have made me hate them, and I try to reserve my hate for things that actually deserve it, like the owner of the Giants and hipsters.

HAHAHAHA!! Just wait....

davin1023 wrote:
Looks like the answer is Yes. The Force Organization portion of the Digital Edition of the codex will allow both plus the armor if you wish.

I'd love it if GW would release an FAQ/errata before calling it "done".
Ah well. Can't have everything.

Dude! It had to be you that let out the death-knell of a lost view point?!?

The wail of the "FAQ!!!!!!"'

 hisdudeness wrote:
Dude! It had to be you that let out the death-knell of a lost view point?!?

The wail of the "FAQ!!!!!!"'

No it's more of the point that anyone can claim that GW made this change with no way of proving it. Once it is in the FAQ, it's in black and white and anyone can verify it.

What change are you speaking of? From my stand point of RAW this how it has always been. GW made no changes that I can see.

It was also a joke, we've known each other since high school.

I'm not "wailing" anything.
I can accept a ruling either way - I was just saying I wish it had been in an FAQ rather than a digital product that isn't readily accessed.

Edit: and my Nids need to nom on some 30k wannabes again some time soon...

This thread is a little silly. The rule is worded ambiguously and there clearly needs to be a clarification from GW.

Everyone is really just saying how they read the rule, and that's not getting anyone anywhere. Without a clarification, there are really only 3 ways to sort out an issue like this: logic, evidence, and what feels right.

Here's an example of each:

Logic dictates you can take more than one artefact, otherwise there would be some artefacts you can never take. Look at the wording in the CSM codex: "a model can replace one weapon with one of the following." The dimensional key, however, does not replace a weapon. Ask yourself this question: if you must replace a weapon to take an artefact, but the weapon is not replaced, how could you take the replacement in the first place? The answer is either that you can't take the replacement (which makes no sense) or that you can take the replacement and you still have a weapon. There's nothing stating you can't replace a weapon that you have, which would mean you can take a second artefact - it's really just a matter of the order of operations.

Evidence dictates you can do this as well. In the WD where they introduced the new Chaos codex, there was a DP with a Dimensional Key and the Axe of Blind Fury. If GW does it, why can't people playing the game? Either they got the rules wrong (which is possible) or they got them right. Ask yourself what you think and proceed from there.

What feels right dictates that this would be up to the people playing the game. This means talking to your opponent and seeing how he feels about it. I have been running a BL list where I have a CL with the sword, the skull, the eye and the other thing that takes down your T but improves your invulnerable save. There are no footnotes about what does and does not replace a weapon in the supplement so I can only assume they meant to say non-weapon artefacts do not replace weapons (like in the standard Codex). This could be illegal, or it might not be, but there needs to be a clarification before I can really say. It's up to us as players to decide and if an opponent did have an issue with it when I showed them my list, I would just switch to a different list.

But I have to tell you, having more than 1 artefact on an IC leads to interesting games. I like having a CL who can not really be wounded, eats 2 - 3 units and ends up in my opponent's deployment zone every game to get me Linebreaker. One other thing to consider, when talking about what feels right, is the outcomes. It doesn't always feel fair that I have a single model that can score 4 - 7 VPs on his own plus Chosen with 4 flamers who can just camp out on VPs for the win. Just because you think something's right at the start doesn't mean you are going to think that way later.

 techsoldaten wrote:
This thread is a little silly. The rule is worded ambiguously and there clearly needs to be a clarification from GW.
.

Again, the Force Requisition tool in the enhanced digital edition allows you to replace multiple weapons with Chapter Relics (so you can take both the Blade and the Shield on the same character) AND you can get the Armor for a third relic. So while the wording is ambiguous, there's an official rules source that provides clarity for now.

Didn't we have this type of discussion with the Tau battlesuit weapons a while back.. IIRC the discussion then was whether we could use the chart multiple times for multiple hardpoints... Not exactly the same, obviously, but seems to be fairly similar as an indication of process....

But since when is that an official source of information?
There are cases where it contradicts the Codex

One weapon means 1 weapon, if you have exchanged two(2) weapons, hav e you followed the rules?

The Armour Indomitus is more grey, where it is technically allowable.

Beast: This is different, only 1 weapon may be exchanged for.

Kangodo wrote:
But since when is that an official source of information?
There are cases where it contradicts the Codex

Such as? There are clearly some errors in this early version (17 points to add additional Devastators anyone?), but outside of any clear errors this remains the best source for an official answer.

On the subject of "since when is that an official source" consider if someone comes with the electronic codex as their source and they use the force tool to build their army, how can you say that they are wrong? Codexes have clear errors in their printing...so the fact that the Force Req tool has errors doesn't make it any different. What is clear is that it allows this combination and it comes from GW. You might not like the answer or that this contradicts your interpretation, but it comes from the company and addresses the issue....any other argument is just playing at word interpretations on a bit of text that is poorly worded and unclear.

Additionally, the mentioned errors are direct contradiction. This is following an interpretation of wording, which make it not an error in the book/e-codex but an error in a players interpretation. I agree the official army builder would be at the bottom of the list for rules but it trumps a forum post any day of the week.

 Baldsmug wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
again, one need look no farther then codex IG, GK or any codex that states "one model may replace ____ with special/heavy weapon"

one, means ONE in all those cases, why are people arguing that ONE means" any" or "at a one to one ratio" in this case,

you are literally arguing that I can take whole squads of heavy/special weapons......

which is OBS incorrect

where do people keep getting the "so your saying i can take as many heavy weapons as i want" from?

If you can only replace ONE weapon with ONE relic then you would also never be ableto take a second lightning claw because in the DA codex in the wargear section they both say exactly the same thing " A model can replace one weapon with one of the following".

Damn this almost put me at ease on this subject but alas, after reviewing the SM, CSM and DA codex now i am forced to agree with the interpretation of only one weapon chapter relic per model. FAAAAAAAAAAK! I had so many combinations in my lists

The fact is that it seems that DA cannot! take dual lightning claws when using that list as written, they can only take 1 unless in that models specific entry it would say that they can take lightnign claw pairs.

However DA allows for multiple pistols and so can models from the SM dex as they allow multiple of melee and ranged weapons. The chaos space marine codex disallows multiple pistols but allows multiple melee special weps on a model

So using this as reference DA cannot indeed take dual lightning claws and chapter relic weapons are 1 per model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

davin1023 wrote:
Looks like the answer is Yes. The Force Organization portion of the Digital Edition of the codex will allow both plus the armor if you wish.

Wait there's an army builder funciton in the digital codex and it allows you to equip more than 1 weapon relic? wtf never heard of this

Digital team are not the same as game designers. You can see on the FB page they have up people report errors to them. Only takes 1 person to say 'Codex says I can do this' for them to change something that was never meant to be.

My bias is towards multiple as I would dig my chaos lord with the axe of blind fury and the burning brand. However no matter how much I'd like it to be multiple the raw is one for one.

And/or is universally known to allow all options listed as swaps. In game and english terms may swap bolt pistol and/or melee weapon for one is listing two options that may be swapped for a limit of one itsm per swap. one for one however is established contexually as one item may be swapped for one item. Cited many times in this thread.

As it says you may swap one weapon for one item the rule clearly states the limitation of how many weapons you may swap. If it said may swap any weapon for one item then no swap limitation applies and you would be permitted to swap as many weapons as you like for one item each.

These are all established game terms used by games workshop with contextual definitions of their own design. Arguing semantics and the definition of the words in question are generally redundant unless they are not game terms.

So we're all split on the interpretation of this rule, any tournament ruling precedents on this yet?

 TheLionOfTheForest wrote:
So we're all split on the interpretation of this rule, any tournament ruling precedents on this yet?

unless it's a gw tournie any ruling would be as subjective as our own.

Searching led me to this thread, but I can't seem to find...

Have we yet discussed the 1 per ARMY issue? I recently played a game where he allied in another space marine chapter, whose leader also took a burning blade and the shield.

What's the verdict on what comprises an "army"?

Army must mean the combination of detachments. Otherwise you cannot deploy properly when you "deploy your army".

No duplicated relics even with allies.