Only one Artifact of Cruelty?

I was looking closely in the Dark Eldar codex today, and it said in the armoury that "a model may take one of the following". So taking multiple artifacts on an archon, such as the archangel of pain and armour of misery together, would be illegal?

Is this also the case for other codices? I haven't got my Tau codex around to double check it.

That's correct yes, only one. It's not consistent with all other codices (some, but not all), it's not even consistent with the coven supplement, but it is the case for that list, yes.

It is, in fact, consistent with Covens. The supplement says they "replace" the artifacts. There is nothing said about getting more than one, so by "replacing" one list for the other, you still have to follow the same restrictions.

I don't think I agree with that interpretation.

The word "replace" is never used. It says they can't select Artifacts of Cruelty, but can instead select Diabolical Playthings. The Artifacts say both one per model and one each per army, while the Playthings just say one each per army. I don't see a reason to apply the additional restriction from the one to the other.

'Instead' / 'Replace' = Same thing.

I've disagreed with Timatron's view on many of the things in the new codex and supplement, but I've got to agree with him on this: if you are applying the one per model limit on Artefacts, it has to be applied to Playthings. The Artefacts of Cruelty list on page 109 of the codex doesn't list the one per model limitation, much like the Diabolical Playthings list doesn't. That's only found in the wargear list summary on page 69, which the supplement doesn't have. Either both are limited to one per model, or neither are.

The Artefact's entry on page 69 ("A model may take one of the following:"), is worded somewhat ambiguously, and read in isolation could be interpretted to simply be a reiteration that only one of each Artefact can be taken; it's only when read in conjunction with other entries (those that state "A model may take one of each of the following") that the limitation become "apparent". It would be far more clear cut had the entry read: "A model may take only one of the following:"

Personally, I think both need a FAQ clarification.

Erebus wrote:

I've disagreed with Timatron's view on many of the things in the new codex and supplement, but I've got to agree with him on this: if you are applying the one per model limit on Artefacts, it has to be applied to Playthings.

Why? Unlike the Artefacts list there is no restriction shown so why would you artificially apply one?

Quote :

The Artefacts of Cruelty list on page 109 of the codex doesn't list the one per model limitation, much like the Diabolical Playthings list doesn't. That's only found in the wargear list summary on page 69, which the supplement doesn't have. Either both are limited to one per model, or neither are.

Again, there is no basis for that statement. One has a limitation. The other doesn't. There is no summary table because all the information needed is presented in the table on page 49, including points cost. And there is no mention of any limitation other than one per army.

Quote :

The Artefact's entry on page 69 ("A model may take one of the following:"), is worded somewhat ambiguously, and read in isolation could be interpretted to simply be a reiteration that only one of each Artefact can be taken; it's only when read in conjunction with other entries (those that state "A model may take one of each of the following") that the limitation become "apparent". It would be far more clear cut had the entry read: "A model may take only one of the following:"

It's really not ambiguous at all. It very clearly says "A model may take one of the following", as opposed to the Vehicle list directly above it which says "A model may take one of each of the following", as you have pointed out yourself. Different wording, different meaning. Attempting to argue that they mean the same thing seems somewhat bizarre.

Count Adhemar wrote:

It's really not ambiguous at all. It very clearly says "A model may take one of the following", as opposed to the Vehicle list directly above it which says "A model may take one of each of the following", as you have pointed out yourself. Different wording, different meaning. Attempting to argue that they mean the same thing seems somewhat bizarre.

My original reasoning was this:
As I said, it's only when that entry is read in conjunction with the others that a limitation seems to intended. Due to the ambiguous nature of the English language, read in isolation, it can be read to mean either a model can only take one Artefact full stop, or a model can only take one of any of the Artefact (as opposed to multiple of the same). At that point, it comes down to whether you believe individual entries should contain all the information you need, or if cross-referencing rules is acceptable. Personally, I lean more to the former - I don't believe I should have to look at numerous sources to be able to understand the intent, and the intent is not obvious from that entry on its own.

However, going back to it, given they've stated that only one can be taken per army, if the intention isn't to limit it to one Artefact per model, then they could have wrote either "each" as with the other entries, or more appropriately, "any".

Hopefully the above provides context for the previous post and my following answers:

Count Adhemar wrote:

Why? Unlike the Artefacts list there is no restriction shown so why would you artificially apply one?

Going by my original (now retracted) reasoning: The limitation only seems definitive when cross-referenced with the other entries on page 69 of the codex; if you are doing that, then you need to cross-reference Diabolical Playthings with Artefacts of Cruelty, where the limitation occurs, and thus apply it to Playthings.

With my new understanding, I'm torn. You're right that there isn't a restriction shown on the Diabolical Playthings, however neither the main entry for Diabolical Playthings or Artefacts of Cruelty mention a limitation of one per model, but both explicitly state that only one of each can be purchased per army. The limitation of one per model is equally important as one per army, yet is left out of the main entry for Artefacts. I have to wonder why the limitation is on the summary table only and not the main entry.

I still argue both need clarifying in a FAQ.

It's a supplement, not a stand-alone Codex. You need to apply the appropriate rules from the main book in every suitable instance, unless the supplement specifically states that it has a different ruling from the parent Codex.

Timatron wrote:

It's a supplement, not a stand-alone Codex. You need to apply the appropriate rules from the main book in every suitable instance, unless the supplement specifically states that it has a different ruling from the parent Codex.

Which it does, by not stating a restriction where one applies in the parent codex.

As for Erebus's argument that the codex can be read to mean either a model can only take one Artefact full stop, or a model can only take one of any of the Artefact (as opposed to multiple of the same), sorry but that is just not the case. The full wording is:

Quote :

Only one of each Artefact of Cruelty may be taken per army. A model may take one of the following

That is about as clear and unambiguous rule as GW have ever written and there really is no argument over what it means by any common usage of the English language. Given that the first part of that restriction also appears in the covens book but the second does not there is no valid reason to assume that the second restriction applies.

I'm firmly in agreement with Count here, there's no basis for thinking that the wording lets you take more than one - if you break the sentence down:

A model - so we're talking about a single model.
may take one of the following - one, not two, or three, or more, or one of each. The cross reference suggested to the other rule is not necessary because the sentence limits you to one. Only if you could take more than one do you need to qualify the statement with the reference to 'each'.

Count Adhemar wrote:

As for Erebus's argument that the codex can be read to mean either a model can only take one Artefact full stop, or a model can only take one of any of the Artefact (as opposed to multiple of the same), sorry but that is just not the case.

Yes, and as I said in my previous post (though not necessarily clearly), I've realised it was incorrect.

Count Adhemar wrote:

That is about as clear and unambiguous rule as GW have ever written and there really is no argument over what it means by any common usage of the English language.

I disagree. Including "only" in that sentence would have made it unambiguous.

Count Adhemar wrote:

Given that the first part of that restriction also appears in the covens book but the second does not there is no valid reason to assume that the second restriction applies.

But the second part of that restriction doesn't appear on the main entry for Artefacts, only the summary table. And the supplement doesn't have a summary table because it's supposed to be used in conjunction with the codex, so an argument could be made that it is to be cross-referenced with the Artefacts of Cruelty and the restriction applies.

This still begs the question why the second restriction from page 69 is not including on page 109 when the first is.

Erebus wrote:

But the second part of that restriction doesn't appear on the main entry for Artefacts, only the summary table. And the supplement doesn't have a summary table because it's supposed to be used in conjunction with the codex, so an argument could be made that it is to be cross-referenced with the Artefacts of Cruelty and the restriction applies.

Sorry but I simply don't buy that we're supposed to refer to a summary table in a different book for a category of wargear that we do not have access to when the rules for the wargear we do have access to are entirely contained within the supplement.

Quote :

This still begs the question why the second restriction from page 69 is not including on page 109 when the first is.

I would venture that the why is unimportant. The fact is, the restriction is not there. Therefore it does not apply.

Count Adhemar wrote:

I would venture that the why is unimportant. The fact is, the restriction is not there. Therefore it does not apply.

You're contradicting yourself now, Count. You say the summary table on page 69 limits us to one Artefact of Cruelty per model, but since that restriction doesn't appear in the main entry on page 109, we're not limited to one per model. Which is it?

Artefacts of Cruelty is a wargear list with certain stated restrictions. Coven armies don't use it. Coven armies use a different wargear list, with less stated restrictions. There is no reason to apply additional restrictions to the Coven list when they are not present in the rules. If it said: instead of using the wych cult weapons list, use the melee weapons list, you would not then apply the restrictions (giving up both close combat weapon and pistol) from the list you're not using to the melee weapons list.

It is sloppy writing on the part of GW that all the restrictions on Artefacts are not in the same place, but that doesn't change the fact that an additional restriction on Playthings is not anywhere.

Erebus wrote:

Count Adhemar wrote:

I would venture that the why is unimportant. The fact is, the restriction is not there. Therefore it does not apply.

You're contradicting yourself now, Count. You say the summary table on page 69 limits us to one Artefact of Cruelty per model, but since that restriction doesn't appear in the main entry on page 109, we're not limited to one per model. Which is it?

Oops, bit of a brainfart there. Mentally flipped between books.

Anyhoo, the datasheets for each entry tell us to use the relevant wargear list. The lists are on page 69. The section in the armoury does not contain point values so we cannot use it to make our list. We can see this from the fact that certain items, such as reaver jetbikes, appear in the armoury but not in any of the lists (more's the pity).

Also, the list section of the codex says:

Quote :

DARK ELDAR WARGEAR LIST
These lists detail the points values of various items of wargear available to units in your army. Many unit entries in the army list that follows may include wargear options from one or more of these lists – in each instance, the Army List Entry will tell you (in bold text) exactly which of these lists you may use.

Units from the Covens supplement cannot use the Artefacts of Cruelty list but "can instead select Diabolical Playthings, presented opposite, at the points costs shown.". At no stage is it stated, suggested, implied or even hinted that you take the Artefacts of Cruelty list, replace the heading with Diabolical Playthings, replace the list itself with the items from page 49 of the supplement but leave the two intervening sentences as is. So where's the justification for doing so? Who has decided which parts of the list to replace and which parts to leave?

It's logic and common sense. If you don't have an apple for lunch, but 'instead' have a banana, you still eat the banana by putting it in your mouth, not up your backside!

Timatron wrote:

It's logic and common sense. If you don't have an apple for lunch, but 'instead' have a banana, you still eat the banana by putting it in your mouth, not up your backside!

What an absolutely bizarre and inaccurate analogy!

Timatron wrote:

It's logic and common sense. If you don't have an apple for lunch, but 'instead' have a banana, you still eat the banana by putting it in your mouth, not up your backside!

This analogy doesn't really work, since it refers to the method of using something - applying it to the question you're still paying points for the diabolical playthings

The analogy would be better represented as you can replace your choice of fruit from this basket, which has a notice on saying 'one per customer', with your choice of fruit from another basket, which has no label, but only has one of each type of fruit.

Just for the record, I don't like fruit.

The_Burning_Eye wrote:

The analogy would be better represented as you can replace your choice of fruit from this basket, which has a notice on saying 'one per customer', with your choice of fruit from another basket, which has no label, but only has one of each type of fruit.

To refine it slightly, both baskets only have one of each type of fruit but one has a 'One per Customer' sign and the other doesn't. One is in Tesco and the other is in Harris & Hoole. Allegedly, because both shops are owned by Tesco, you can still only have one per customer from either basket. This is 'common sense' apparently.

At least the banana is the correct fruit for putting up your backside, if you're into that sort of thing. Getting the apple up there would be a problem.

Still better than a pineapple though!

Which is still better than a flesh gauntlet.

Any conclusions folks?

What does the TOs say in your respective gaming areas?