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.

Maybe the rule writers put it in for laughs? It sounds like you have an alternate take though.

To me, I think the writers put it in so it's clear that the strategem doesn't override any restrictions that may exist on the relics themselves.

Can you take any relics at all, if you don't have a AM warlord? The starting point in the relics is IF... so that suggests no.

As usual sloppy wording from GW.

Maybe a mistake copy and pasteing from another faction.

Maybe the original version of the strat just let them take any relic they changed it during design because raiment of the technomartyr was broken and they didn't properly update the strat before printing.

Maybe they wanted to future proof it encase they change something in a future supplement or faq. E.g. a new warzone supplement could be planned to add a relic taser goad takeable by the strat that not all targetable units have access to taser goads.

They could have planned but not announced a named character/unique squad like nitsch squad or gaunts ghosts with an alpha/princeps in it. This would prevent them accessing a relic. As there is a restriction on named characters


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Can you take any relics at all, if you don't have a AM warlord? The starting point in the relics is IF... so that suggests no.

only if the following then said something about not taking relics which it doesn't.

So it has no bearing.

E.g.

If every model in your army has the agent of the (imperium and unaligned keywords) has the adeptus mechanicus keyword and your warlord has the adeptus mechanicus keyword you can of you are playing a matched play battle that instructs you to take secondary objectives select one of them to be from the adeptus mechanicus secondary objectives listed below.

It also has an if clause however when you read the text following its just not relevant to the situation in the same way as when mustering your army you may give one of the following arcana mechanicum- which only refers to giving a relic.

So the answer yes if another rule e.g. a strat gives you permission and Artefactotum does

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Can you take any relics at all, if you don't have a AM warlord? The starting point in the relics is IF... so that suggests no.

Huh? How do you get to that conclusion?

All an "if" statement does is specify a condition before you can complete the consequence.

And if that is your only permission to take relics, by completing the if, yiur "else" becomes "you cannot take any relics"
That's pretty obvious as that's how if statements work,,,

nosferatu1001 wrote:
And if that is your only permission to take relics, by completing the if, yiur "else" becomes "you cannot take any relics"
That's pretty obvious as that's how if statements work,,,

Why are you assuming the negative of the statement? (Ie: "you cannot take any relics")

It says "If your warlord is Admech, you can take a relic on a character". This is different from it saying "you cannot take any relics". It would be a logical conclusion if it was the only permission to take relics in the book. However we also get permission to take relics for specific models from the Artefactotum strategem (if we chose to use the strategem).

Because that's the else?
If the then for meeting the condition is "yiu are now allowed to take relics", then the absence of an explicit else is by definition the negation of that statement, ie not (you are now allowed to take relics)

That's how if then else works...

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Because that's the else?
If the then for meeting the condition is "yiu are now allowed to take relics", then the absence of an explicit else is by definition the negation of that statement, ie not (you are now allowed to take relics)

That's how if then else works...

I'm sorry to break it to you, but that's not how they work. The absence of an explicit else means that, if you don't meet the conditions of the IF statement, nothing happens.

Anyway, the "then" that occurs is as follows: you can, when mustering your army, give one of the following Arcana Mechanicum to an Adeptus Mechanicus Character model in your army.
Assuming your "negation of that statement", the "then" statement becomes: you can't, when mustering your army, give one of the following Arcana Mechanicum to an Adeptus Mechanicus Character model in your army.

Given that Artefactotum doesn't give an Arcana Mechanicum to an Adeptus Mechanicus Character model in your army, there's no issue.

Yes it is...but sure.

It's that parens that makes it interesting. But whatever. Fodder for faq. I get bored with you said he said.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Which reminds me - I've asked about brutal but kunning, did you?

No reason to faq asside from you there's agreement and your argument is a joke that you can't substantiate

Else means X OK where does it say that quotes Y we say dude that says Y not X you say Y means X and we point out it doesn't X means X and Y means Y you need to show X means Y for your statement to be true and you have shown it doesn't or are unable to provide any quote to that effect - repeat

Repeating a wrong statement doesn't make it anymore correct

Jake siren does a very good description of it

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Because that's the else?
If the then for meeting the condition is "yiu are now allowed to take relics", then the absence of an explicit else is by definition the negation of that statement, ie not (you are now allowed to take relics)

That's how if then else works...

Actually no. You are equating "if A, then B" with "if B, then A". That is not how logic works.

No, I'm not. I'm saying if you don't meet the requirement for "then", you move to "else" and here there is no "else",meaning you lack permission. I'm not making the excluded middle fallacy.

U02 - sure, whatever. Your argument above is so great.

Everyone but you agrees with it

Me alextroy jakesiren have tried to explain to you all saying the same thing in different ways

As to the dunning kruger of excluded middle fallacy

That states either it is true or it is not

But we all agree it is not

However to everyone else it is not relevant

E.g. to take a wiki original example

Either socrates is mortal or it is not the case the secretes is mortal

we are saying he's mortal and that's all the statement says

your saying he's mortal therefore he can't be a human your adding extra inferences not in the statement socrates could be a horse

We can agree there is no warlord therefore there is no free relic.

That's where the arguments diverge

U02dah4 wrote:
Everyone but you agrees with it

Me alextroy jakesiren have tried to explain to you all saying the same thing in different ways

As to the dunning kruger of excluded middle fallacy

That states either it is true or it is not

But we all agree it is not

However to everyone else it is not relevant

E.g. to take a wiki original example

Either socrates is mortal or it is not the case the secretes is mortal

we are saying he's mortal and that's all the statement says

your saying he's mortal therefore he can't be a human your adding extra inferences not in the statement socrates could be a horse

We can agree there is no warlord therefore there is no free relic.

That's where the arguments diverge

I think you'll find that there are others that disagree with you on some issues.

Sure U02, nice straw man yiu have there.

As said, I'm bored with it. You seem not to be. Keep on.

What weak case have I built up then destroyed you raised the midpoint fallacy if your saying its weak that speaks to the strength or your argument.

The bottom line, and what you are ignoring is that it must be a relic they can have.

Without having a AM warlord there are 0 relics are available.

U02dah4 wrote:
What weak case have I built up then destroyed you raised the midpoint fallacy if your saying its weak that speaks to the strength or your argument.

No, a straw man is stating something I didn't state, then attacking that. It's also not the mid point fallacy, but excluded middle.

I'm sorry you don't seem to understand either.

 DeathReaper wrote:
The bottom line, and what you are ignoring is that it must be a relic they can have.

Without having a AM warlord there are 0 relics are available.

I feel like you are a bit mixed up.

Let's look at when your Warlord *is* Admech.

What do you think the restrictions are for "relic they can have" for Artefactotum?

When your Warlord is Admech, you can give a character a relic. However for Artefactotum gives a relic to a non-character model. If you are claiming that the stipulation "relic they can have" requires the warlord to be admech, then you also require Artefactotum to give the relic to a character, but that is in direct contradiction to what the strategem says to do!

JakeSiren wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The bottom line, and what you are ignoring is that it must be a relic they can have.

Without having a AM warlord there are 0 relics are available.

I feel like you are a bit mixed up.

Let's look at when your Warlord *is* Admech.

What do you think the restrictions are for "relic they can have" for Artefactotum?

When your Warlord is Admech, you can give a character a relic. However for Artefactotum gives a relic to a non-character model. If you are claiming that the stipulation "relic they can have" requires the warlord to be admech, then you also require Artefactotum to give the relic to a character, but that is in direct contradiction to what the strategem says to do!

Except the strat specifically over-rides the character part by explicitly naming "one SKITARII model in your army that has the word ‘Alpha’ or ‘Princeps’ in their profile".

It seems I am not mixed up.

 DeathReaper wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The bottom line, and what you are ignoring is that it must be a relic they can have.

Without having a AM warlord there are 0 relics are available.

I feel like you are a bit mixed up.

Let's look at when your Warlord *is* Admech.

What do you think the restrictions are for "relic they can have" for Artefactotum?

When your Warlord is Admech, you can give a character a relic. However for Artefactotum gives a relic to a non-character model. If you are claiming that the stipulation "relic they can have" requires the warlord to be admech, then you also require Artefactotum to give the relic to a character, but that is in direct contradiction to what the strategem says to do!

Except the strat specifically over-rides the character part by explicitly naming "one SKITARII model in your army that has the word ‘Alpha’ or ‘Princeps’ in their profile".

It seems I am not mixed up.

Last time I checked the strat didn't override any restrictions - what you have quoted is a permission to do something, not permission to ignore a restriction. If there were a "character" restriction in general (or requiring an admech warlord restriction), then the rule would need to use the words "instead of a character model" or something to such effect.

JakeSiren wrote:
Last time I checked the strat didn't override any restrictions - what you have quoted is a permission to do something, not permission to ignore a restriction. If there were a "character" restriction in general (or requiring an admech warlord restriction), then the rule would need to use the words "instead of a character model" or something to such effect.

It does when the Strat is more specific than those restrictions.

It specifically calls out who you can give it to, therefore over-rides the only characters restriction.

Had it been a general allowance it would not over-ride, but this is a specific allowance so it does over-ride.

 DeathReaper wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
Last time I checked the strat didn't override any restrictions - what you have quoted is a permission to do something, not permission to ignore a restriction. If there were a "character" restriction in general (or requiring an admech warlord restriction), then the rule would need to use the words "instead of a character model" or something to such effect.

It does when the Strat is more specific than those restrictions.

It specifically calls out who you can give it to, therefore over-rides the only characters restriction.

Had it been a general allowance it would not over-ride, but this is a specific allowance so it does over-ride.

If we follow that train of logic it also over-rides any warlord specific requirement, because it specifically calls out who you can give it to.

JakeSiren wrote:
If we follow that train of logic it also over-rides any warlord specific requirement, because it specifically calls out who you can give it to.

Except it explicitly says "this must be a relic it can have"

 DeathReaper wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
If we follow that train of logic it also over-rides any warlord specific requirement, because it specifically calls out who you can give it to.

Except it explicitly says "this must be a relic it can have"

How does that refute what I said?

JakeSiren wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
If we follow that train of logic it also over-rides any warlord specific requirement, because it specifically calls out who you can give it to.

Except it explicitly says "this must be a relic it can have"

How does that refute what I said?

Because the part about "this must be a relic it can have" has a meaning.

That meaning is that it must be a relic they can have.

Without having a AM warlord there are 0 relics they can have.

 DeathReaper wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
If we follow that train of logic it also over-rides any warlord specific requirement, because it specifically calls out who you can give it to.

Except it explicitly says "this must be a relic it can have"

How does that refute what I said?

Because the part about "this must be a relic it can have" has a meaning.

That meaning is that it must be a relic they can have.

Without having a AM warlord there are 0 relics they can have.

And by extension of that logic they can't have a relic because they aren't a character.

Except that’s clearly wrong - you invented restrictions that don't exist in the rules.

JakeSiren wrote:
And by extension of that logic they can't have a relic because they aren't a character.

Except that’s clearly wrong - you invented restrictions that don't exist in the rules.

your argument is false as I noted earlier about specific permission.

I did not invent anything.

 DeathReaper wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
And by extension of that logic they can't have a relic because they aren't a character.

Except that’s clearly wrong - you invented restrictions that don't exist in the rules.

your argument is false as I noted earlier about specific permission.

I did not invent anything.

Prove that you didn't invent your own restrictions by quoting the full rule that imposes the restriction.

Yes I second that you invented restrictions that don't exist in the rules so prove you you didn't by quoting the full rule that imposes the restriction