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.

U02dah4 wrote:
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

You are ignoring what the rule says if you think that.

 DeathReaper wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
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

You are ignoring what the rule says if you think that.

Still waiting for that full rule quote that imposes the restrictions you claim. If you didn't invent restrictions then it's any easy request to fulfil.

JakeSiren wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
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

You are ignoring what the rule says if you think that.

Still waiting for that full rule quote that imposes the restrictions you claim. If you didn't invent restrictions then it's any easy request to fulfil.

I already posted it.

The restriction is "If your army is led by an adeptus mechanicus warlord you can...give one of the following arcana mechanicum to an adeptus mechanicus character model in your army"

The permission literally says "this must be a Relic they could have"

If If your army is not led by an adeptus mechanicus warlord, then those relics are not a Relic you can have.

 DeathReaper wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
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

You are ignoring what the rule says if you think that.

Still waiting for that full rule quote that imposes the restrictions you claim. If you didn't invent restrictions then it's any easy request to fulfil.

I already posted it.

The restriction is "If your army is led by an adeptus mechanicus warlord you can...give one of the following arcana mechanicum to an adeptus mechanicus character model in your army"

The permission literally says "this must be a Relic they could have"

If If your army is not led by an adeptus mechanicus warlord, then those relics are not a Relic you can have.

... that's not a restriction. Restrictions have phases like "can't", "can only", "must not", etc. What you have quoted is a conditional permission.

Yes you have quoted a permission that gives a free relic to a character This is not a restriction

This has no bearing on what relics the army may take in general only weather or not you can take a free relic

Therefore has no impact on the "must be a Relic they could have" as either answer would not effect the relics a non character or the army could take

It's the only permission to get any relics. If you don't meet the requirement, there are zero relics you can have.

It's not the only permission as we have a stratagem granting permission

And permission is not a restriction

I don't have permission to take a free relic means I don't have permission to take a free relic not therefore I cannot take any relics

Sure you can't do something you don't have permission to do but that is not the same as a rule saying you can't do that thing which is a restriction.

We also have other examples in other codexs eg IK where a stratagem can grant permission for relics when the model would not normally be able to take 1.

Not to mention having permission to take a free relic on a character has no impact on what's eligible for a non character its still 0.

The start gives you permission to have a non char take it
Doesn't give any more than that. And reminds yiu they must still have access to relics.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The start gives you permission to have a non char take it
Doesn't give any more than that. And reminds yiu they must still have access to relics.

What do you think "must be a Relic they could have" actually means? Keeping in mind that outside of that strategem that the unit in question could not have a relic regardless of if the Warlord is Admech or not.

They must have access to relics, and must meet the requirement for a specific relic. Self evident, no? If you don't have access to relics at all, there are no relics yiu can have. It's another prereq

their is no requirement for access to relics

As stated outside of the strat 0 are eligible regardless of having an admech warlord or not

Ergo it is not self evident - if it as a requirement the strat does nothing ever or it is not a requirement and the strat functions

I feel at this point we are trying to teach Baldrick to count.

U02dah4 wrote:
their is no requirement for access to relics

Interesting assertion backed up by zero rules and, in fact, going against the core concept of games design - which is you're told what yiu can do, it does not enumerate what you cannot do.

I feel at this point we are trying to teach Baldrick to count.

Says the fallacy machine...do you know the difference between excluded middle and straw man yet, or even what a straw man fallacy is?

No it follows core concept of the games design you are not told it is a restriction anywhere so it isn't.

You don't need any rules to support my position I only need you not to provide a straight quote statateing a specific requirement which you can't or you would have done.

Yes but you clearly don't a strawman is when you build up a seperate easy argument and defeat it rather than the opponent's- unfortunately you haven't made a logical argument yet you have just repeatedly made claims without any evidence to support your position .

U02dah4 wrote:
their is no requirement for access to relics

"must be a Relic they could have" sure sounds like a requirement.

It is - but only in so far as their are directly stated rules saying what they can't have.

So far in this thread the only stated restriction is not being a named character

With respect to relics in general you either get 0 as none are available to non characters if you use the interpretation that relics must be available to the model, which is clearly wrong as it makes the strat do nothing in all circumstances. Or you get all of them subject to a stated restriction and none have been presented (except named characters)

U02dah4 wrote:
It is - but only in so far as their are directly stated rules saying what they can't have.

When you state "their is no requirement for access to relics" then have you agree that their statement is a requirement, with limitations that you are trying to put on it, sounds like you are arguing in bad faith.

U02dah4 wrote:
So far in this thread the only stated restriction is not being a named character

"Named characters cannot be given the following relics" is a restriction." Specifying the SKITARII must has the word ‘Alpha’ or ‘Princeps’ in their profile" is a restriction. "this must be a Relic they could have" is a restriction.

U02dah4 wrote:
With respect to relics in general you either get 0 as none are available to non characters if you use the interpretation that relics must be available to the model, which is clearly wrong as it makes the strat do nothing in all circumstances. Or you get all of them subject to a stated restriction and none have been presented.

As they have it written you get 0. You assume that they get all of them, that does not mean that they do. GW wrote the rule sloppily. And, as I pointed out earler, the strat still works on named characters, not does no "do nothing in all circumstances"

 doctortom wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
It is - but only in so far as their are directly stated rules saying what they can't have.

When you state "their is no requirement for access to relics" then have you agree that their statement is a requirement, with limitations that you are trying to put on it, sounds like you are arguing in bad faith.

U02dah4 wrote:
So far in this thread the only stated restriction is not being a named character

"Named characters cannot be given the following relics" is a restriction." Specifying the SKITARII must has the word ‘Alpha’ or ‘Princeps’ in their profile" is a restriction. "this must be a Relic they could have" is a restriction.

U02dah4 wrote:
With respect to relics in general you either get 0 as none are available to non characters if you use the interpretation that relics must be available to the model, which is clearly wrong as it makes the strat do nothing in all circumstances. Or you get all of them subject to a stated restriction and none have been presented.

As they have it written you get 0. You assume that they get all of them, that does not mean that they do. GW wrote the rule sloppily. And, as I pointed out earler, the strat still works on named characters, not does no "do nothing in all circumstances"

Paragraph one their is no bad faith if there was a requirement for an admech warlord to access relics it would apply to them none has been stated - it is not bad faith to say no such requirement exists.

Paragraph 2 no 100% wrong not being a named character is a restriction

Being an alpha or a princeps is a permission the strategem grants it is not a restriction

This must be a Relic they can have is a restriction however as stated this ends up being all or 0 depending on your interpretation as their is no rule stateing non admech characters may have relics

Paragraph 3 I agree RAW as written you make a sound argument the rule does nothing in all circumstances in which case the rule doesn't work - this means we go to RAI- was it intended the rule does nothing in all circumstances- obviously no ergo we use the other interpretation that the ability for the specific model to access relics prior to the strat doesn't apply.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The start gives you permission to have a non char take it
Doesn't give any more than that. And reminds yiu[sic] they must still have access to relics.

100% this, and I don't understand how some people are not understanding this.

Because it doesn't say that at no point are the words "still must have access to relics" written anywhere

U02dah4 wrote:
Because it doesn't say that

It does, stop ignoring what the rules say.

I'm not please quote me the exact words stating explicitly that "it must still have access to relics"


All I can see is "this must be a Relic they could have" which is completely different

U02dah4 wrote:
I'm not please quote me the exact words stating explicitly that "it must still have access to relics"


All I can see is "this must be a Relic they could have" which is completely different

It is not completely different.

"this must be a Relic they could have" literally means you need access to those relics.

If you don't have access, then they can not be taken.

No it doesn't "this must be a Relic they can have means "this must be a Relic they could have"

As in they can take subject to any restrictions

It would only mean that if somewhere else that was a stated restriction


And noone has shown that

It says "could have" it means they still need to have access to relics in the first place.

There is no way they can have access to it the first place non characters cannot be given relics without the stratagem.

If you have an admech warlord it gives you a free relic not access to admec relics not access to admech relics

The army gets access to relics how?

It doesn't need to there's no limitation on access to admech relics you just need something to give you permission to take one

E.g.an admech warlord or a stratagem

nosferatu1001 wrote:
They must have access to relics, and must meet the requirement for a specific relic. Self evident, no? If you don't have access to relics at all, there are no relics yiu can have. It's another prereq

I agree that they must meet the requirement for a specific relic. But what do you mean by "They must have access to relics"? What pre-requisites do you think exist? Keeping in mind that outside of that strategem that the unit in question could not access a relic regardless of if the Warlord is Admech or not.

U02dah4 wrote:
It doesn't need to there's no limitation on access to admech relics you just need something to give you permission to take one

E.g.an admech warlord or a stratagem

That is not permission to take one...

That is permission to take one and it "must be a relic it can have"...

P.S. why did you ask the question if you are going to ignore the rules and do what you want anyway?

 DeathReaper wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
It doesn't need to there's no limitation on access to admech relics you just need something to give you permission to take one

E.g.an admech warlord or a stratagem

That is not permission to take one...

That is permission to take one and it "must be a relic it can have"...

P.S. why did you ask the question if you are going to ignore the rules and do what you want anyway?

Hmm, I'm curious about your line of argument DeathReaper. I want to try a collaborative approach to understand what might be overlooked. I'm going to write up what I think below using a numbering system, and in response I would like you to let me know which items you have issues with, why, and relevant rule backings. If I have overlooked a relevant rule, please mention it and why it is relevant.

(Note: I have assumed we are using the strat at the appropriate time to keep this focused)
1. PERMISSION: One Skitarri 'Alpha' or 'Princeps' is given an Arcana Mechanicum
2. REQUIREMENT: This must be a relic they could have.
Note on 2: Without considering any restrictions yet, Item 1 allows the model to meet this requirement. Therefore, we ask what restrictions exist that may cause the model to fail this requirement?
3. RESTRICTION: The relic the model can be given is limited to a specific list.
4. RESTRICTION: Some relics have restrictions in their rules. For example, Phosphoenix requires the model to have a phosphor serpenta. The model must ensure it complies with the relics restrictions.

That's all of the relevant rules that I am aware of.