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.

No. You're playing games with semantics. One plus one is two. You've swapped two weapons which is not legal.

This thread is becoming pretty troll.

Under Relics of the Fang. "A model can replace one weapon with one of the following:"

As I read it, you can take one relic per model. One model can take one relic (singular), where three of them allow you to ignore the stipulation of replacing a weapon.

This thread is becoming pretty troll.

not only am I not certain whether or not that comment applies to the people who feel you are limited to one relic, or the people who feel you can get however many relics you want as long as you trade in a weapon for some, and don't take any more than once per army...

but it adds absolutely nothing to the discussion.

I agree with the above poster +1.

you can have all the relics in your army.

A character may take one, it replaces one weapon.

Some of them do not require you to replace a weapon, but this does not override that you may still only take one.

pm713 wrote:
ONE SPACE MARINE CAN replace his boltgun with one of the following:

The part in capitals is why only 1 Blood Angel gets the flamer.

If it said "A space marine can replace his boltgun with one of the following" or anything that implies they can all take flamers then they could all take the flamers.

A model can replace one weapon with one relic.
One space marine can replace his bolter with...

Why is "one" an absolute limit in the latter case, but not the former? You haven't answered that. Please do so, as that's literally your argument.

Every unit that can take relics specifically says "May take items from the ... Relics of the Fang list". In case it wasn't completely obvious when you use the word "items" it's referring to a plural which means multiple which means more than one of. Where are people getting this one and one only per model rule for Relics? It also says a model can replace one weapon with one of the following, since a model has two weapons that definitely sounds like it means they can have two Relics. Plus there are the ones that don't replace a weapon so you can just take them. The only stipulation is that you can only have one of each per army, not model, army.

Try looking at the 'Relics of the Fang' list in the Space Wolves Wargear List where it clearly states the following:

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

I am looking at the codex. When I select an item from the Relics list, I can take one relic for one weapon. And I can select items from the list. So each time I select from the list, I have to swap a weapon.

I think you are using the one for one when selecting somehow as a reason for not being able to select multiple times despite the codex clearly saying that I can select items and not item from the list.

Is there an option which states nothing more then 'may take items from Relics...' just by itself, and not as part of 'may take Items from X, Y, Z and Relic lists?'

blaktoof wrote:

This thread is becoming pretty troll.

not only am I not certain whether or not that comment applies to the people who feel you are limited to one relic, or the people who feel you can get however many relics you want as long as you trade in a weapon for some, and don't take any more than once per army...

but it adds absolutely nothing to the discussion.

I agree with the above poster +1.

you can have all the relics in your army.

A character may take one, it replaces one weapon.

Some of them do not require you to replace a weapon, but this does not override that you may still only take one.

You are 100% correct

Thorgrim Bloodcrow wrote:Every unit that can take relics specifically says "May take items from the ... Relics of the Fang list". In case it wasn't completely obvious when you use the word "items" it's referring to a plural which means multiple which means more than one of. Where are people getting this one and one only per model rule for Relics? It also says a model can replace one weapon with one of the following, since a model has two weapons that definitely sounds like it means they can have two Relics. Plus there are the ones that don't replace a weapon so you can just take them. The only stipulation is that you can only have one of each per army, not model, army.

You have intentionally left out a lot where that "..." is. Items is pluralized for the very simple reason that it is referencing multiple lists and therefore multiple items by default. The exact quote you trunciated is "May take items from the Melee Weapons, Ranged Weapons, Special Items, Wargear, and the Relics of the Fang lists." Multiple lists of items shockingly equal multiple items. One might, with a real stretch extend that to multiple items within each list, except for the fact:

Ghaz wrote:Try looking at the 'Relics of the Fang' list in the Space Wolves Wargear List where it clearly states the following:

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

I don't get why this has gone on 3 pages as it pretty clear. By the argument for multiple relics on this list I could take all the relics in the ork codex on one dude too, which I can't (and they would synergize really really well), or as that other example, give every marine in a squad a heavy weapon by doing it one at a time over and over again...

I left that part intentionally out because it has no bearing in regards to the topic at hand. You're making conspiracy theories out of things that don't exist. Nowhere at all does it say that you can't take multiple relics. Just because it might say something different in the Ork Codex means nothing to what it says in the Space Wolves Codex. The rule states one weapon for one relic. All of the models that can take from the Relics list have two weapons. So Weapon A can be traded for Relic A and then Weapon B can be traded for Weapon B. Then you can take the Relics that don't even replace a weapon. Unless you can find a specific rule that says one Relic per model, then I'm gonna go with what it says in the codex.

Wow, you really really really want one super decked out dude...

Exact quote from the Ork Codex: "Only one of each of the following may be taken per army. A model may take one of the following:"
I don't even have to swap a weapon, but by your logic, I could take one, then take one again, then a couple minutes later take one again. Yes?

 Amiricle wrote:
Wow, you really really really want one super decked out dude...

Exact quote from the Ork Codex: "Only one of each of the following may be taken per army. A model may take one of the following:"
I don't even have to swap a weapon, but by your logic, I could take one, then take one again, then a couple minutes later take one again. Yes?

No because that's the Ork Codex, that's not what it says in the Space Wolves Codex as has been stated multiple times.

The ork codex came out just before this one and uses the exact same format. I main space wolves and agree, it one relic per model. Thems the breaks.

 Kavish wrote:
The ork codex came out just before this one and uses the exact same format. I main space wolves and agree, it one relic per model. Thems the breaks.

Like I said, find the exact rule that says you're limited to one Relic and I'll agree. Until then there's no breaks.

RAW on weapon replacing seems clear enough: you can only do it once*. But how about items that do not replace weapons? Surely you can have any number of them?

(* I doubted this at some point as C:SM army builder apparently allowed it, but since then it is turned out that the army builder allows all sorts of illegal things and army builders to other codices with identical wording do not allow it, so it obviously it is not a reliable source.)

 Thorgrim Bloodcrow wrote:

 Kavish wrote:
The ork codex came out just before this one and uses the exact same format. I main space wolves and agree, it one relic per model. Thems the breaks.

Like I said, find the exact rule that says you're limited to one Relic and I'll agree. Until then there's no breaks.

Wrong. Find permission to swap more than one, as the rule states you may swap one for one

That is your permission to take one. Find permission to take two

Pm- you undeniably took two, when you have permission to take one, and no more.

You just said it, swap one for one. Models have two.

In which case you still haven't addressed what's stopping someone swapping one weapon with another and then taking a Relic that doesn't require a swap.

My permission to take items from the list is in the unit entry where it says I may take items from the list.

The fact that there are other lists present in the same sentence in no way, shape or form changes the fact that items is used. It potentially adds an element of ambiguity, but that's the best you have.

 Thorgrim Bloodcrow wrote:
Every unit that can take relics specifically says "May take items from the ... Relics of the Fang list". In case it wasn't completely obvious when you use the word "items" it's referring to a plural which means multiple which means more than one of. Where are people getting this one and one only per model rule for Relics? It also says a model can replace one weapon with one of the following, since a model has two weapons that definitely sounds like it means they can have two Relics. Plus there are the ones that don't replace a weapon so you can just take them. The only stipulation is that you can only have one of each per army, not model, army.

This is my understanding of it as well.

does this mean my warboss can take one relic, but do it several times with different relics? sweet!

rigeld2 wrote:

pm713 wrote:
ONE SPACE MARINE CAN replace his boltgun with one of the following:

The part in capitals is why only 1 Blood Angel gets the flamer.

If it said "A space marine can replace his boltgun with one of the following" or anything that implies they can all take flamers then they could all take the flamers.

A model can replace one weapon with one relic.
One space marine can replace his bolter with...

Why is "one" an absolute limit in the latter case, but not the former? You haven't answered that. Please do so, as that's literally your argument.

I've actually tried answering that several times but at this point I'm just going to stop trying.

 some bloke wrote:
does this mean my warboss can take one relic, but do it several times with different relics? sweet!

No.

While I'm on the fence, the Ork Codex specifically states that you may only have one relic per model (last time I looked, anyway).
Of course, if the two Codexes (Codices?) have different writers, this has no bearing on the argument. If they have the same writer, I feel it is a clear sign that when worded like the SW codex it is "swap them as much as you like".
I don't know who wrote Orks and Wolves for 7th, so if anybody does know (and can cite this information), I do believe we might come closer to an answer.

pm713 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

pm713 wrote:
ONE SPACE MARINE CAN replace his boltgun with one of the following:

The part in capitals is why only 1 Blood Angel gets the flamer.

If it said "A space marine can replace his boltgun with one of the following" or anything that implies they can all take flamers then they could all take the flamers.

A model can replace one weapon with one relic.
One space marine can replace his bolter with...

Why is "one" an absolute limit in the latter case, but not the former? You haven't answered that. Please do so, as that's literally your argument.

I've actually tried answering that several times but at this point I'm just going to stop trying.

No, you haven't. You've just said it's so. You've done so without any rules quoting (other than above which doesn't actually support your argument).
Your argument literally says that one is a hard limit, but only when you say it is. Inconsistency is evidence of an incorrect viewpoint.

pm713 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

pm713 wrote:
ONE SPACE MARINE CAN replace his boltgun with one of the following:

The part in capitals is why only 1 Blood Angel gets the flamer.

If it said "A space marine can replace his boltgun with one of the following" or anything that implies they can all take flamers then they could all take the flamers.

A model can replace one weapon with one relic.
One space marine can replace his bolter with...

Why is "one" an absolute limit in the latter case, but not the former? You haven't answered that. Please do so, as that's literally your argument.

I've actually tried answering that several times but at this point I'm just going to stop trying.

The one is referring to different things. In the Blood Angels case it is referring to one MODEL exchanging his boltgun for a flamer. In the Space Wolf case it is referring to one WEAPON being exchanged for a Relic... and we're told that we can take ITEMS from the lists. Our side of the argument is that since you are allowed to take ITEMS from the list and you do so by exchanging ONE weapon per Relic, you can take as many ITEMS as you have weapons to exchange.

 Thorgrim Bloodcrow wrote:
I left that part intentionally out because it has no bearing in regards to the topic at hand.

Wrong. It's absolutely relevant.
You may take items (plural) from <insert multiple lists>.
If it said "an item" it'd be limited to one no matter how many lists.
"an item from each of" would be limited to one from each, and some lists don't have that limit.
Meaning the only possible way to word it and allow the restrictions on the lists to apply is "items".

Just because it might say something different in the Ork Codex means nothing to what it says in the Space Wolves Codex.

It's absolutely relevant because a good argument will be consistent. Since the wording is similar the same argument should be applied - and if the answer is different, the argument is inconsistent.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Thorgrim Bloodcrow wrote:
I left that part intentionally out because it has no bearing in regards to the topic at hand.

Wrong. It's absolutely relevant.
You may take items (plural) from <insert multiple lists>.
If it said "an item" it'd be limited to one no matter how many lists.
"an item from each of" would be limited to one from each, and some lists don't have that limit.
Meaning the only possible way to word it and allow the restrictions on the lists to apply is "items".

Just because it might say something different in the Ork Codex means nothing to what it says in the Space Wolves Codex.

It's absolutely relevant because a good argument will be consistent. Since the wording is similar the same argument should be applied - and if the answer is different, the argument is inconsistent.

Ok, glad you agreed on the items part. Since you still haven't specified where it says one item off the Relic list I stand by my point. And the wording is not similar, Orks say a model can only take one, Space Wolves does not say that. That isn't similar wording, it's actually completely different.

 Kriswall wrote:

pm713 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

pm713 wrote:
ONE SPACE MARINE CAN replace his boltgun with one of the following:

The part in capitals is why only 1 Blood Angel gets the flamer.

If it said "A space marine can replace his boltgun with one of the following" or anything that implies they can all take flamers then they could all take the flamers.

A model can replace one weapon with one relic.
One space marine can replace his bolter with...

Why is "one" an absolute limit in the latter case, but not the former? You haven't answered that. Please do so, as that's literally your argument.

I've actually tried answering that several times but at this point I'm just going to stop trying.

The one is referring to different things. In the Blood Angels case it is referring to one MODEL exchanging his boltgun for a flamer. In the Space Wolf case it is referring to one WEAPON being exchanged for a Relic... and we're told that we can take ITEMS from the lists. Our side of the argument is that since you are allowed to take ITEMS from the list and you do so by exchanging ONE weapon per Relic, you can take as many ITEMS as you have weapons to exchange.

Yes - it's referring to different things. Why is that relevant? Why is one a limiter in one case and an enabler in another.
You're allowed to take multiple items from multiple lists. You haven't cited permission to take multiple items from a list that says you can exchange *one* thing.

Your method ignores the requirements on the lists and is inconsistent in its definition of "one". This is evidence the argument is incorrect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Thorgrim Bloodcrow wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Thorgrim Bloodcrow wrote:
I left that part intentionally out because it has no bearing in regards to the topic at hand.

Wrong. It's absolutely relevant.
You may take items (plural) from <insert multiple lists>.
If it said "an item" it'd be limited to one no matter how many lists.
"an item from each of" would be limited to one from each, and some lists don't have that limit.
Meaning the only possible way to word it and allow the restrictions on the lists to apply is "items".

Just because it might say something different in the Ork Codex means nothing to what it says in the Space Wolves Codex.

It's absolutely relevant because a good argument will be consistent. Since the wording is similar the same argument should be applied - and if the answer is different, the argument is inconsistent.

Ok, glad you agreed on the items part. Since you still haven't specified where it says one item off the Relic list I stand by my point. And the wording is not similar, Orks say a model can only take one, Space Wolves does not say that. That isn't similar wording, it's actually completely different.

I have specified - the list requirement that say "one item" restrict you to, I dunno, one item.
The ork list is eerily similar - don't ignore it.

Well when you, I dunno, give me a specific page that has this list requirement that says one item. Then maybe I'll agree.

 Thorgrim Bloodcrow wrote:
Well when you, I dunno, give me a specific page that has this list requirement that says one item. Then maybe I'll agree.

So you haven't read the thread?
Awesome. We're done here.