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.

I must be missing something somewhere..

How is it people are taking relics in a soup army from a faction that is not the same as their warlord? For example, people taking Cawl's wraith on a Castellan when the IG Commander is the warlord. Unless I have just missed something somewhere, relics can only be taken if the warlord is of that same faction. I have seen this so many times that I feel there must have been a clarification at some point that I missed.

 bullyboy wrote:
I must be missing something somewhere..

How is it people are taking relics in a soup army from a faction that is not the same as their warlord? For example, people taking Cawl's wraith on a Castellan when the IG Commander is the warlord. Unless I have just missed something somewhere, relics can only be taken if the warlord is of that same faction. I have seen this so many times that I feel there must have been a clarification at some point that I missed.

The extra relic stratagem that every codex has. If you have, for example, a Space Marines Detachment, a Astra Copywritum detachment with Astra Copywritum warlord, you have one free relic from your warlords faction, and access to both factions stratagems, so you can buy one or two Space Marine relics and one or two Astra Copywritum relics via their stratagems.

But those strategems all have the wording "can have one extra <insert name that represents the relics> for 1CP, ...." etc. This means you have to had taken at least one first before you can take an extra.

So let's say I take a harlequin relic (enigma of the black library) because my warlord is a Troupe Master, I then try to add a relic for my Craftworld detachment using the strategem. It states I can take an extra Remnant of Glory which is different to an enigma of the Black Library.

In the knight example, I've just noticed the wording is actually different which seems a bit "unfair" really. Not sure why knights get to take a relic if the warlord is from a different faction where every other army can only add relics that are the same as their warlord. hmmmm

 bullyboy wrote:
But those strategems all have the wording "can have one extra <insert name that represents the relics> for 1CP, ...." etc. This means you have to had taken at least one first before you can take an extra.

That isn't how English works. Furthermore, FAQ "precedent" reinforces what the RaW already says and states you may use those stratagems even if your warlord isn't from that faction.

Why ask a question if you're just going to dismiss the answer outright?

Eh, language isn't that rigid. 1 is 1 extra than 0.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
But those strategems all have the wording "can have one extra <insert name that represents the relics> for 1CP, ...." etc. This means you have to had taken at least one first before you can take an extra.

That isn't how English works. Furthermore, FAQ "precedent" reinforces what the RaW already says and states you may use those stratagems even if your warlord isn't from that faction.

Why ask a question if you're just going to dismiss the answer outright?

Eh?

How does "may take an extra Enigma from the Black Library" not translate to meaning that you have already taken one? From the dictionary "added to an existing or usual amount or number."
pretty sure my English is OK, but happy if this has been corrected/addressed in an FAQ.

Zero is a usual amount.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Zero is a usual amount.

OK, that's a pretty solid case

It's a weird way to word something, but that doesn't mean it's incorrect.

Thanks for the quick responses, it actually helps the army I'm planning.