Artefacts: One of each or only one per army?

[Garlicson2]

I've seen this debate for quite a while now, and I just wanted to get my thoughts on the topic, and see what other opinions Btown may have. So far I own three 6th edition codices (DA,CD,Nids) so I suppose I qualify talking about this debate, not to mention the Nids book was recently released. Again, this is my opinion about the Army Artefacts, so my viewpoint may not be true unless GW update the FAQs and change the wording, or give an example so we can better understand it.

From taking a look at the text from the three Codex, they all state only one of "each" artefacts can be taken per an army. It's understandable how this confuse some people to think you can only take one item per a Codex: (Insert Here). Personally tho, I see it clear that it said only one of "each" can be taken, it states that, for example, you may only take one Foe Smiter in the Dark Angel codex, not two or above. One. However, no where does it say you can only take one artefact per the selected codex, from any of the books I own. This is especially true with Daemons, because I commonly see people take both the Grimore of True Names and Portaglyph, and I did the same in my local area. No one disagreed when I pointed out that you aren't limited to just one relic, but may only take one of each, so no multiple Grimores for your Screamerstar list!

If you were to be limited to just take one out of the list, the codex would state something like this: "Only one Artefact can be taken per an army. Bringing more than one of each relics would be risky, because there's only one of these items in the entire Galaxy!" This would be more clear, and they would add these wording in the upcoming codices. However, the wording stayed the same from what I've seen, IMO you can take each of the listed relics in the codex, but you can only give one Foe Smiter to just this model, while the other takes the Lion's Roar. As I've mentioned, if GW can fix the wording and make it more clear (Or provide us an example, just like they did with the Daemonic Alignment special rule), then we can all give this a rest, change our army list from the errors and call it a day.

If you agree/disagree, can think of a better way to fix the wording, or have any questions about the topic, let me know down below! Your codex may not have the same wording, and I like to keep 40k up to date as I'm not playing the game a whole lot due to life (We all have to take care of it). As always, thanks for reading, and may the Dice Gods be in your favor!

Johnny

[MagickalMemories]

I agree with you, my whole game group agrees with you, and I've never gamed against anyone who played with any other interpretation.

Eric

[3eland]

I am with MM and you. I didn't even know people thought the other way to begin with.