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.

Hi,

I have a question regarding how many relics can a SW HQ take? For example - can it take Black Death and Helm of Durfast ? The Helm is said not to replace a weapon.

All best,

The only restrictions on the relics seem to be that you can only take one of each option per army.

Can't seem to find much else.

The Codex:SW for Ipad has an army builder app. It allows only one relic per hq.

The Army Builder App doesn't matter. Only the wording in the actual unit entries matters.

I have the eBook codex, so no page numbers, but per the Wolf Lord entry...

"- May take items from the Melee Weapons, Ranged Weapons, Special Issue Wargear and/or Relics of the Fang lists."

Per the Relics of the cigarette list...

"Only one of each Relic of the Fang may be taken per army. A model can replace one weapon with one of the following:"

Furthermore, the Helm of Durfast, The Armour of Russ and The Wulfen Stone have a note that says "Does not replace on of the Character's Weapons."

A Wolf Lord comes with two weapons. He may swap his bolt pistol and chainsword for two of the three Relics that require a weapon swap. He may then freely take the other three Relics without worry because there is no weapon swap requirement.

The "army builder app" - which, to be clear, isn't an army builder app at all, but a collection manager - is wrong.

It is very possible, as an example, to have a Wolf Lord swap his two base weapons for The Bite of Fenris and the Fangsword of the Ice Wolf in addition to taking the Helm of Durfast, The Armour of Russ and The Wulfen Stone. He would be expensive, but there is no reason you can't take this all together. He just wouldn't be able to take the Black Death in this example, because he doesn't have a 3rd weapon to swap.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
In all fairness though, it depends on how you're reading this. The wording tells me to replace one weapon, which can imply that you can only take an option once. However, there is nothing saying I can't choose from the Relics list twice.

For comparison, the Melee Weapons list says "a model may replace his bolt pistol and/or Melee weapons with one of the following." If we break it apart, I can either read it as "a model may replace his bolt pistol OR Melee weapons with one of the following" or "a model may replace his bolt pistol AND Melee weapons with one of the following".

The first reading lets me decide what to swap out. The second reading requires that I swap bolt pistol AND melee weapons at the same time, but only get one item in return. Neither reading specifies whether or not you can select multiple times from the list, but I think the intent is that you can. I think the intent is that I can swap a bolt pistol for one weapon and a melee weapon for a different weapon. To do so, I have to admit that I can select multiple times from the list. If I do so, I can also select multiple times from the Relics list, each time swapping one weapon.

This is the same issue that exists in pretty much all of the 6th and 7th edition codices; does 'replace one weapon..." mean 'only one' or 'one per one.' This topic has been extensively debated, and there is no definitive consensus on the matter; and despite this being a well known issue affecting several codices, GW has refused to FAQ this. Armybuilders unfortunately are not a reliable rules source, I'm pretty sure someone said that in SM builder you can take several relics on one character, and the wording is identical.

 Crimson wrote:
I'm pretty sure someone said that in SM builder you can take several relics on one character,

I'd be pretty interested in someone with it confirming.

If they were consistent then would probably play by the builder, if not to the wolves with it!

If you replace 2 weapons with 2 relics, have you complied with the allowance to replace 1 weapon with 1 relic?

yes or no.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
If you replace 2 weapons with 2 relics, have you complied with the allowance to replace 1 weapon with 1 relic?

yes or no.

Yes.

You've just done it twice. That's the real question. Can I do it twice? Since the codex says I may select items (plural) from the various lists, my reading is that I can select from the list multiple times so long as I fulfill the weapon swap requirement.

Main thing that leads me to believe that the intent is to allow multiple relics, is that the exact same wording is used in CA for normal melee weapons. If 'one' would mean 'only one' then DA characters would be unable to have two melee weapons, such as pair of lightning claws.

 Kriswall wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
If you replace 2 weapons with 2 relics, have you complied with the allowance to replace 1 weapon with 1 relic?

yes or no.

Yes.

You've just done it twice. That's the real question. Can I do it twice? Since the codex says I may select items (plural) from the various lists, my reading is that I can select from the list multiple times so long as I fulfill the weapon swap requirement.

So replacing two items is replacing one item? Not usually...

We are arguing semantics. I'm not replacing two items for two items. I'm replacing one for one and then a second time one for one. You are the one combining these two actions.

Yes, it's a rules debate, so semantics are important. You are, demonstrably, replacing two items for two items, which you have zero permission to do

Again, I have explicit permission to select items (plural) from the Relics list, but I must exchange a weapon per item to do so.

You are ignoring the permission to select items (plural).

And replacing one for one twice is most certainly not the same thing as replacing two for two once. The first is two actions, the second is one action. I agree that you can't replace two for two as one action. I am seeing I can replace one for one and then as I have permission to select items (plural), I can replace one for one a second time. I can keep doing this so long as I don't run out of weapons to exchange. As three of the Relics don't require an exchange, I can potentially equip up to five Relics on a Wolf Lord as he starts with two weapons.

No, I am not. You are ignoring that you can select items, plural, from all the lists mentioned. One from each is still plural.

Please cite permission to exchange such items sequentially, neatly loop holing the rules to avoid triggering the restriction imposed on you. Not at all Easter egging

And we come back to ambiguity. One from each is plural. Two from each is also plural.

And I'm not really exchanging items sequentially. If you prefer, perform all replacements at the same time.

And I have no idea what Easter egging means in the context of this debate. Are you implying that I'm hiding something for other people to find? This is the only meaning I know.

The only restriction I see is that when selecting an item (singular) from the Relics list, I must exchange one weapon for one Relic. I am not violating this restriction when selecting an item (singular) from the list. I don't see a restriction saying that I may only choose one item from the list. I do see a permission saying I can select items (plural) from this list and others.

There are three relics (armour, helm etc). that have a rule saying that they don't replace a weapon. So it looks legit to have a durfast helm, armour of russ and eg. black death on a model.

gausus wrote:
There are three relics (armour, helm etc). that have a rule saying that they don't replace a weapon. So it looks legit to have a durfast helm, armour of russ and eg. black death on a model.

That doesn't tell us much other than a model doesn't have to replace a weapon to take one of the following...

gausus wrote:
There are three relics (armour, helm etc). that have a rule saying that they don't replace a weapon. So it looks legit to have a durfast helm, armour of russ and eg. black death on a model.

I agree.

In this context "easter egg" meaning youre finding something hidden, i.e. by saying you are exchanging 2 for 2, but doing it 1 for 1 twice, you are getting round the fact you ONLY have permission to swap 1 for 1.

Have you swapped 2 for 2? Absolutely. Impossible to disregard that swapping one for one twice is also swapping two for two. 40k has no concept of "actions" either, so they ARE equivalent.

I respectfully disagree. Swapping one for one two times is not the same as swapping two for two once. Unless you can provide some new rules wording that hasn't been seen yet, the best I'm willing to concede is that GW may possibly have intended us to only have one Relic per model, but worded the ruling ambiguously by using the word items. Had they just said something like "may select from" instead of "may select items from" I would agree... but they didn't. They said items. A perfectly legitimate reading of the words presented could allow me to choose more than one Relic.

I know we don't care about fluff, but I'm also factoring in that other codexes allows more than one "Relic" and that it's strange to think a marine can't wear a helmet AND armour due to an ambiguous rules wording.

You have to show that swapping two for two is within the allowance of one for one, as the ruleset is permissive

As soon as you select the second item, even sequentially, you have broken the allowance to select ONE item. If you have more than one relic, you have broken the allowance to have one relic.

AGain, items refers to all the lists you can take from, not just relics, so is perfectly in context. And, again, which other codexes? BL has entirely separate wording, etc.

 Kriswall wrote:
The Army Builder App doesn't matter. Only the wording in the actual unit entries matters.

"Only one of each Relic of the Fang may be taken per army. A model can replace one weapon with one of the following:"

Furthermore, the Helm of Durfast, The Armour of Russ and The Wulfen Stone have a note that says "Does not replace on of the Character's Weapons."

2 things here:

1) AB is not sanctioned by GW and thereby is a collection done by those who try to do the best with the rules as they understand them.

2) The wording in the SW Codex specifically allows for a HQ to have multiple items that do not replace a weapon.

Until GW specifically comes out with a FAQ you have 2 options:

1) Allow the game to continue.
2) Tell your opponent "you win" and don't play them.

Bantering samantics back and forth on a web page doesn't prove your point.

Ah, but without the back and forth bantering of semantics, this forum would be super boring!

And I was actually talking about the "Force Requisition"/army builder thing from the interactive codex. If you didn't read the whole thread, I can see how that would be misinterpreted. In any case, I was agreeing that ANY army builder is worthless for rules purposes and only the wording in the unit entry can be trusted... and then only so far as ambiguity allows!

It might be worthless, but does give some credence to their intentions.

Well, strictly speaking, unless the rules writer also built the app, I don't think it really does.

It may give credence to the app builder's understanding of the rules, but unless the app builder is constantly talking to the rules guys, which I doubt, we don't gain any insight into the rules writer's intentions.

Lastly, we're not discussing RaI, we're discussing RaW and inferring intention from a secondary source isn't really good evidence for RaW.

If it's worth anything on the spanish version of the codex it says:

"Una miniatura puede elegir una de las siguientes:" Which translates to "One miniature may choose ONE of the following:"
Oddly enough it doesn't says that you must switch one of your weapons for it but still some of the items have the notation that they do not need the exchange.

At my LGS we use both english and spanish codexes we play it the 1 relic only way and when in doubt the spanish version would back this up

Actually, this is very compelling. It seems the spanish language codex is extremely clear on the issue. I'm inclined to take that as proof that the intent is one Relic per model.

Having said that, I'd allow someone to go either way in a gaming scenario as I still think the wording in the english codex is a little ambiguous.

Gracias amigo!

Did the French version not state Terminators had a 2+ Invulnerability save?
I bring it up because the poster whom mentioned the Spanish version of the Rules already raised some doubts to the translation, as there is nothing about having to swap out a weapon for a Relic in that version.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
If you replace 2 weapons with 2 relics, have you complied with the allowance to replace 1 weapon with 1 relic?
yes or no.

I agree with this.
The Codex says 'A model can replace one weapon with one of the following:"
It might be different if it said "..replace a weapon..", but it doesn't.

But I do agree that the RAW are very unclear and it's only normal that these discussions happen.
I would have thought that GW learned about this by now.

I think it's one per model. And I also believe that DA characters cannot have two lightning claws. I play both armies but it seems undeniable to me.