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.

 Happyjew wrote:
We've started incorporating some of the FAQs into our games.

However, as an Eldar player I don't care what the FAQ says. Lance vs Quantum Shielding is AV12.

Seems strange that's what you get picky about.

pm713 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
We've started incorporating some of the FAQs into our games.

However, as an Eldar player I don't care what the FAQ says. Lance vs Quantum Shielding is AV12.

Seems strange that's what you get picky about.

Because it was a BS and random ruling that they chose to go with? One of the Eldar players in my group even agrees it doesn't make sense.

 krodarklorr wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
We've started incorporating some of the FAQs into our games.

However, as an Eldar player I don't care what the FAQ says. Lance vs Quantum Shielding is AV12.

Seems strange that's what you get picky about.

Because it was a BS and random ruling that they chose to go with? One of the Eldar players in my group even agrees it doesn't make sense.

Doesn't seem at all random from the FaQ's I've read, Two conflicting special rules cancel out.

tag8833 wrote:


What possible benefit is there to disregarding the wishes of GW, and using a clearly unfinished document in games of 40K, especially when you've developed and been using your own FAQ? It feels to me like it is just creating more trouble for TO's than it is worth, and waiting for one or two events until the FAQ's are finish is the obvious answer, but they must be seeing some other way. When I ask them, they become immediately defensive, and just give me a "My way or the Highway", but I feel like these aren't unreasonable people, and probably do have some logical thought process that I'm just not seeing.

Can someone explain the rush to me? Is it just the buffed armies looking to claim their advantages?

I'm not sure if you were made asware, but Games Workshop actually published the game. So their FAQ's would therefore be the most accurate representation of the games intent even if its a draft?. So that's why you might want to "rush" to use them? Just saying.

I guess?

Isn't that the entire point of them being first drafts?
Hate the ruling? Let em know. If enough people bring it up they'll probably take another look at it. Doesn't guarantee a change but does increase the odds.

PourSpelur wrote:
Isn't that the entire point of them being first drafts?
Hate the ruling? Let em know. If enough people bring it up they'll probably take another look at it. Doesn't guarantee a change but does increase the odds.

They say lover or hate is irrelevant, all they care about is clarity.

It's going to take a while for us to get used to all of these.

Better start now before they release them (probably without warning) and all of a sudden we're supposed to know them all.

I don't think the fact that they are drafts means we shouldn't use them. It's more an advisement that some of the rules may not be entirely worked out, and may need adjustment. And that's ok, there's a heck of a lot of stuff these FAQs DO clear up that needed to be answered, lots of things that people were already house ruling or fudging or simply getting wrong.

The things that don't make sense are easy to spot, discuss with your opponent and house rule again (drop pod door rule I'm looking at you)

Saying that, I'm looking forward to the official final draft. If someone wanted to play me without the FAQs I'd be more than happy to, but at the same time, I'm happy enough to play using the draft rules too.

I just hate it when players try to 'enforce' the Drafts as official, finished FAQ's (even more hate for the players that try to enforce it because it benefits them (I.E the grenades in combat change vs MC/Tank armies))
I usually run a character with 2 relics, and im not going to change my entire list just because someone is being selfish

commander dante wrote:
I just hate it when players try to 'enforce' the Drafts as official, finished FAQ's (even more hate for the players that try to enforce it because it benefits them (I.E the grenades in combat change vs MC/Tank armies))
I usually run a character with 2 relics, and im not going to change my entire list just because someone is being selfish

I totally respect that, and if I were to try to play the draft FAQs against you, I'd compromise on the character. But then I guess that's not me *enforcing* the draft-version FAQs lol.

On the flip side, that character's going to have to drop a relic eventually, unless you play with people who are okay with it, and in that case, no problem to be had anyway.

BossJakadakk wrote:

commander dante wrote:
I just hate it when players try to 'enforce' the Drafts as official, finished FAQ's (even more hate for the players that try to enforce it because it benefits them (I.E the grenades in combat change vs MC/Tank armies))
I usually run a character with 2 relics, and im not going to change my entire list just because someone is being selfish

I totally respect that, and if I were to try to play the draft FAQs against you, I'd compromise on the character. But then I guess that's not me *enforcing* the draft-version FAQs lol.

On the flip side, that character's going to have to drop a relic eventually, unless you play with people who are okay with it, and in that case, no problem to be had anyway.

They may change the relic thing though and technically speaking the drafts aren't official changes yet. So I suppose if the relic thing bothers you a lot you have a point saying not to use the FAQ.

BossJakadakk wrote:

commander dante wrote:
I just hate it when players try to 'enforce' the Drafts as official, finished FAQ's (even more hate for the players that try to enforce it because it benefits them (I.E the grenades in combat change vs MC/Tank armies))
I usually run a character with 2 relics, and im not going to change my entire list just because someone is being selfish

I totally respect that, and if I were to try to play the draft FAQs against you, I'd compromise on the character. But then I guess that's not me *enforcing* the draft-version FAQs lol.

On the flip side, that character's going to have to drop a relic eventually, unless you play with people who are okay with it, and in that case, no problem to be had anyway.

Putting it bluntly, the relic thing is pants on head idiotic.

It should have been:
"A character may take one of each type of Relic(weapon, armor, miscellaneous wargear) and unless otherwise noted may only pick from a single Relic list if they have access to multiple Relic lists. To use an example:

Captain Steve of the Raven Guard has the ability to take Relics. He has access to the Relics of the Ravenspire list or the Space Marine Chapter Relics list. Captain Steve cannot mix or match from both sources.

Captain Steve chooses to take Relics of the Ravenspire. Captain Steve chooses to take Raven's Fury(a Relic Jump Pack), Swiftstrike and Murder(a Relic pair of Lightning Claws), and the Armour of Shadows(a Relic set of armor).

Captain Dave, however, chooses to take his Relics from the Chapter Relics list.
Captain Dave wants to take The Burning Blade(Weapon), Teeth of Terra(Weapon), and Armour Indomitus(Armour). Captain Dave cannot do this as it would be two weapons that are not available as a matched pair like Swiftstrike and Murder are. Captain Dave, however, can instead take The Armour Indomitus(Armour), The Burning Blade(Weapon), and The Shield Eternal(Miscellaneous).

 Kanluwen wrote:

BossJakadakk wrote:

commander dante wrote:
I just hate it when players try to 'enforce' the Drafts as official, finished FAQ's (even more hate for the players that try to enforce it because it benefits them (I.E the grenades in combat change vs MC/Tank armies))
I usually run a character with 2 relics, and im not going to change my entire list just because someone is being selfish

I totally respect that, and if I were to try to play the draft FAQs against you, I'd compromise on the character. But then I guess that's not me *enforcing* the draft-version FAQs lol.

On the flip side, that character's going to have to drop a relic eventually, unless you play with people who are okay with it, and in that case, no problem to be had anyway.

Putting it bluntly, the relic thing is pants on head idiotic.

It should have been:
"A character may take one of each type of Relic(weapon, armor, miscellaneous wargear) and unless otherwise noted may only pick from a single Relic list if they have access to multiple Relic lists. To use an example:

Captain Steve of the Raven Guard has the ability to take Relics. He has access to the Relics of the Ravenspire list or the Space Marine Chapter Relics list. Captain Steve cannot mix or match from both sources.

Captain Steve chooses to take Relics of the Ravenspire. Captain Steve chooses to take Raven's Fury(a Relic Jump Pack), Swiftstrike and Murder(a Relic pair of Lightning Claws), and the Armour of Shadows(a Relic set of armor).

Captain Dave, however, chooses to take his Relics from the Chapter Relics list.
Captain Dave wants to take The Burning Blade(Weapon), Teeth of Terra(Weapon), and Armour Indomitus(Armour). Captain Dave cannot do this as it would be two weapons that are not available as a matched pair like Swiftstrike and Murder are. Captain Dave, however, can instead take The Armour Indomitus(Armour), The Burning Blade(Weapon), and The Shield Eternal(Miscellaneous).

commander dante wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

BossJakadakk wrote:

commander dante wrote:
I just hate it when players try to 'enforce' the Drafts as official, finished FAQ's (even more hate for the players that try to enforce it because it benefits them (I.E the grenades in combat change vs MC/Tank armies))
I usually run a character with 2 relics, and im not going to change my entire list just because someone is being selfish

I totally respect that, and if I were to try to play the draft FAQs against you, I'd compromise on the character. But then I guess that's not me *enforcing* the draft-version FAQs lol.

On the flip side, that character's going to have to drop a relic eventually, unless you play with people who are okay with it, and in that case, no problem to be had anyway.

Putting it bluntly, the relic thing is pants on head idiotic.

It should have been:
"A character may take one of each type of Relic(weapon, armor, miscellaneous wargear) and unless otherwise noted may only pick from a single Relic list if they have access to multiple Relic lists. To use an example:

Captain Steve of the Raven Guard has the ability to take Relics. He has access to the Relics of the Ravenspire list or the Space Marine Chapter Relics list. Captain Steve cannot mix or match from both sources.

Captain Steve chooses to take Relics of the Ravenspire. Captain Steve chooses to take Raven's Fury(a Relic Jump Pack), Swiftstrike and Murder(a Relic pair of Lightning Claws), and the Armour of Shadows(a Relic set of armor).

Captain Dave, however, chooses to take his Relics from the Chapter Relics list.
Captain Dave wants to take The Burning Blade(Weapon), Teeth of Terra(Weapon), and Armour Indomitus(Armour). Captain Dave cannot do this as it would be two weapons that are not available as a matched pair like Swiftstrike and Murder are. Captain Dave, however, can instead take The Armour Indomitus(Armour), The Burning Blade(Weapon), and The Shield Eternal(Miscellaneous).

Yeah, i first read the "only 1 relic" as that (one of each TYPE) until GW then published an FAQ draft after that (cant remember what army) saying that characters can only take 1 relic total

I really don't see why the relic thing is so idiotic. It's no worse than the alternative proposed.

OgreChubbs wrote:

commander dante wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

BossJakadakk wrote:

commander dante wrote:
I just hate it when players try to 'enforce' the Drafts as official, finished FAQ's (even more hate for the players that try to enforce it because it benefits them (I.E the grenades in combat change vs MC/Tank armies))
I usually run a character with 2 relics, and im not going to change my entire list just because someone is being selfish

I totally respect that, and if I were to try to play the draft FAQs against you, I'd compromise on the character. But then I guess that's not me *enforcing* the draft-version FAQs lol.

On the flip side, that character's going to have to drop a relic eventually, unless you play with people who are okay with it, and in that case, no problem to be had anyway.

Putting it bluntly, the relic thing is pants on head idiotic.

It should have been:

"A character may take one of each type of Relic(weapon, armor, miscellaneous wargear) and unless otherwise noted may only pick from a single Relic list if they have access to multiple Relic lists. To use an example:

Captain Steve of the Raven Guard has the ability to take Relics. He has access to the Relics of the Ravenspire list or the Space Marine Chapter Relics list. Captain Steve cannot mix or match from both sources.

Captain Steve chooses to take Relics of the Ravenspire. Captain Steve chooses to take Raven's Fury(a Relic Jump Pack), Swiftstrike and Murder(a Relic pair of Lightning Claws), and the Armour of Shadows(a Relic set of armor).

Captain Dave, however, chooses to take his Relics from the Chapter Relics list.
Captain Dave wants to take The Burning Blade(Weapon), Teeth of Terra(Weapon), and Armour Indomitus(Armour). Captain Dave cannot do this as it would be two weapons that are not available as a matched pair like Swiftstrike and Murder are. Captain Dave, however, can instead take The Armour Indomitus(Armour), The Burning Blade(Weapon), and The Shield Eternal(Miscellaneous).

Yeah, i first read the "only 1 relic" as that (one of each TYPE) until GW then published an FAQ draft after that (cant remember what army) saying that characters can only take 1 relic total

Not sure how it says pick 1.

It would be like owning a candy shop and telling a child you can have one piece of candy. Then he walks out with three bags saying there one piece from everythig you own, just like you said.

Codex: Space Marines page 115 wrote:Only one of each Chapter Relic may be taken per army. A model may replace one weapon with one of the following:<insert list of Relics here with a notation on The Armour Indomitus that it does not replace one of the character's weapons and may not be chosen by models wearing Terminator Armour.>

Codex: Space Marines page 198 wrote:The sacred artefacts of the Adeptus Astartes are items of incredible rarity, bestowing great power upon the Space marines that carry them. Only one of each of the following items may be chosen per army.

So, no. It does not say "pick 1". The only restriction is that you may only take one of each Relic and that it replaces a model's Relic. They ruled that way for any book which describes things as "relics", yet Experimental Systems for Tau can be stacked like nobody's business.

To use another example?

Codex: Astra Militarum page 89 wrote: Heirlooms of Conquest:
Only one of each heirloom may be taken per army.
<Insert list of Heirlooms with 3 notations> Lord Commissar only on Emperor's Benediction, Company Commander only on The Laurels of Command, the Tactical Auto-Reliquary of Tyberius, and Kurov's Aquila, and The Blade of Conquest replaces the character's close combat weapon.

Codex: Astra Militarum page 65 wrote: Heirlooms of Conquest
The sacred relics of the Imperial Guard are items of incredible rarity Only one of each of the following items may be chosen per army--there is only one of each of these items in the galaxy!

No. It is not a case of "You may only take one Relic per character", it is a case of them not understanding the reason why players are reading it the way they are. When the only restriction is that it "replaces a character's weapon" or a case of only certain characters can take it or "[b]only one of each relic may be taken per army"?

That doesn't mean that it's like telling a kid in a candy store to pick one kind of candy and they pick multiples. That's like telling a kid that they can pick certain kinds of candy, but only once.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pm713 wrote:
I really don't see why the relic thing is so idiotic. It's no worse than the alternative proposed.

That's not "the alternative proposed". That's the only way to read it without adding some kind of caveat to the wording in many codices.

No it's not. You added some rubbish about types. Of the three ways of playing it that's the only one that isn't supported by the rules.

We're talking at cross purposes here I think, however I also think you just don't actually read the books.

Yeah, I did definitely add a bit more classification with my example but guess what?

Kauyon page 51 wrote:Relics of the Ravenspire
Units in a Raven Guard Detachment that can normally take items from the Chapter Relics list in Codex: Space Marines can choose to take items from the Relics of the Ravenspire list (pg 52) at the points cost shown instead. You can take items from both lists in the Detachment. A single Scout Veteran Sergeant in your army may replace his boltgun with Nihilus

Kauyon page 52 wrote:Only one of each of the following items may be chosen per army.

Again, there is NOTHING saying heroes can only take one relic.

Does this include the part that says something like "A character may replace ONE weapon with ONE relic"?

The only one relic thing stems from some codexes actually saying "May take one".

Sorry Imperials. You've just been Orked!

pm713 wrote:
Does this include the part that says something like "A character may replace ONE weapon with ONE relic"?

Sure, and where it also includes a part that numbers things like the Armour Indomitable as not taking up a weapon slot or where Guard just say that a relic may be taken.

This doesn't change the fact that there is a limit. Or that what you came up with is literally made up.

pm713 wrote:
This doesn't change the fact that there is a limit.

Of one Relic per army, replacing a weapon on a character or just taking up no slot dependent upon the codex. It does not say anywhere in the majority of books that it is "only one Relic per character".

Or that what you came up with is literally made up.

Sure what I came up with is literally made up, but at least it's better than the idiotic "One Relic per character, period" garbage and it's not unreasonable based upon the actual phrasings of the codices aside from Orks or the like.

Give me a valid reason that one relic per character is stupid. It makes sense in background and makes all books consistent. It is an improvement both to your made up system and the existing unclear system.

pm713 wrote:
Give me a valid reason that one relic per character is stupid. It makes sense in background

Yeah, it really doesn't. Nowhere does it say that there is a specific number of Relics allowed per hero. Captain Steve is not told that Relics are "One per customer, so make your choice wisely".

and makes all books consistent.

It makes "all books consistent" by making them in line with the one book which had it as "one per character"...and still allows for Tau to take more than one of their Relic equivalent per character.

So no, it didn't make all books consistent--it just nerfed every non-Tau army

It is an improvement both to your made up system and the existing unclear system.

There was nothing "unclear" about the existing system.
You can take one of each Relic, per army. You cannot take a specific Relic more than once in your army. A character may choose from the list of Relics. Relics replace or supplement an item as listed--or in some cases, it just states "characters may take items from a Relic list" period.

"A model may take ONE of the following" If that isn't a specific number per model then what is?

Fine it made them a great deal more consistent which is still an improvement.

If there was nothing unclear why were there so many arguments?

 Kanluwen wrote:

pm713 wrote:
This doesn't change the fact that there is a limit.

Of one Relic per army, replacing a weapon on a character or just taking up no slot dependent upon the codex. It does not say anywhere in the majority of books that it is "only one Relic per character".

Or that what you came up with is literally made up.

Sure what I came up with is literally made up, but at least it's better than the idiotic "One Relic per character, period" garbage and it's not unreasonable based upon the actual phrasings of the codices aside from Orks or the like.

I wouldn't have any problem with you doing that.

I would do likewise and make up my own rule as well.

Well to be fair when it says you may take one of the following pistol bolter ect your whole unit can have it, after all I am only giving him 1 bolter and 1 pistol not two. So as per the rule 1 model gets 1 of everything if they want.

 Yarium wrote:
Personally, because it answers some questions that come up in my games. The Lance vs Quantum Shield rule, for example. Or the fact that my Harlequins no longer have to roll to-hit with Mirror of Minds. A lot of these are questions that are honest questions that people NEEDED answers for.

And really, what's the point in not adopting them? Yeah, they might change, but they also might stay the same. GW is never going to be done changing rules. It's also not for-sure that they will release a final version - they might just skip that and go straight to 8th edition. This process might take half a year to complete - and it's already been half that long!

Lastly, no, I am not a Marine or Eldar player (I do have Eldar, but they're not my main army). I play Orks, Chaos Space Marines, Tyranids, Harlequins, and Genestealer Cult. So it's not just a "they just like it 'cause it helps them" thing - a lot of us actually just appreciate the answers and are hungry for them.

i play eldar, what was the ruling on lances on shielding? seems obvious that it shoudl reduce the shield down to 12 just like it reduces any armour value over 12 to 12.

pm713 wrote:
"A model may take ONE of the following" If that isn't a specific number per model then what is?

The quotes I listed, with page numbers, did not actually state "a specific number per model". They state that there is a cap as to how many of a relic can be taken in an army.

Fine it made them a great deal more consistent which is still an improvement.

No, it didn't. If we have a number of books that say one thing("A model may take items from X list, and those items may be taken once per army") and one book which says another("A model may take one item from X list, and those items may be taken once per army")...you don't make things "more consistent" by going with the odd book out.

If there was nothing unclear why were there so many arguments?

Before the FAQ, I didn't see any arguments regarding wargear.