As many already know, the necron ghost ark has the ability target a warrior unit and "add d3 models to the unit"

Repair barge ability states "...ghost ark can expend energy to repair fallen necrons...add d3 models to the unit...This can not take the unit above its starting size." (Posted relevant portions only to avoid breaking rules)

Rather than state "add d3 warriors", they said d3 models. The repair barge ability is changed in the FAQ, and again they chose "models" instead of "warriors" or "warrior models"

It's highly debatable if that wording means you can add only warriors, or if you can add any model from the unit that's been destroyed such as royal court members or IC's. Hopefully GW addresses the specifics in a future faq, but for now, HWYPI?

RAW anyone including ICs. However, if I play anyone who adds a 200+ point character just to exploit that poor choice of wording, I'll dreadsock them into oblivion.

It really is a poor choice of words for that rule...

I was convinced we would get a FAQ that only warriors could be added, but when the repair barge ability was addressed in the FAQ for a different rules clarification, the wording for the relevant part of the rule was replaced, and they used "models" instead of "warriors" again.

Not that necrons really need any more help, but I do run ghost arks in my necron list and I'm considering adding adding a lord with 2+ save to the front of a huge warrior blob that could be added back to the unit every time it dies as long as a single warrior remains.

We play it that royal court models can be repaired, as they are squad members just like a warrior, essentially the sgt of the squad.

To complicate things further, in the independent character rules on page 39 of the brb, it states; "While an independent character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters."

Yeah, there is no reason to assume that the wording used is anything other than deliberate.



Actually, there might be... (I don't have the Necron codex) Is there anything in the rule in question that limits the models added to models that have been destroyed? Or does it just say to add models to the unit without going above its starting size?

The beginning if the rule does say that the barge can expend energy to repair fallen models, and goes on to explain how in the same paragraph.

Yep, but given that it refers to 'adding' models to the unit, rather than 'returning' or 'replacing' them, if you go with the assumption that 'models' doesn't just mean 'warriors' then what is limiting it in any way?

Without anything specifying 'models that were originally in the unit' you could potentially add. say, D3 Monoliths to the unit...


So I'm going to go with 'warriors only'... as the alternative is just a little too silly for my taste.

If you were playing a Necron player and see they brought a few FW titans with there 1500pt Army, you might want to clarify this *before* you play

 insaniak wrote:
Yep, but given that it refers to 'adding' models to the unit, rather than 'returning' or 'replacing' them, if you go with the assumption that 'models' doesn't just mean 'warriors' then what is limiting it in any way?

Without anything specifying 'models that were originally in the unit' you could potentially add. say, D3 Monoliths to the unit...


So I'm going to go with 'warriors only'... as the alternative is just a little too silly for my taste.

I dunno, I see a clear distinction between adding models to the unit that are part of the unit and adding models to the unit that were never part of the unit.

We can all agree it is a terribly written rule, but it does have a clear description of what is actually happening (the unit is being repaired by the Ghost Ark). The whole Cryptek/Lord splitting off from the Royal Court to lead a unit is already a pretty nebulous rule, but assuming we can all agree to play it like the SW Wolf Guard FAQ, then those models once they are assigned to the unit are part of it for all purposes. Therefore I have no issues whatsoever about allowing a Ghost Ark to return Necron Lords/Crypteks that are part of that unit back to the unit. I also have no qualms about denying ICs the same luxury as they are only part of that unit while alive.

 BarBoBot wrote:
To complicate things further, in the independent character rules on page 39 of the brb, it states; "While an independent character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters."

I don't really see where this comes in. When the IC is killed, he's removed and no longer would count as part of the unit.
Non-IC characters (council) I would count as being able to come back.
It seems to work out fine this way; you're look out is limited to 4+, so you don't tank all that many hits. Only having 1 wound means that cheap lord (50 points, 2+ armor) will drop in a few plasma hits.
The expensive lord (95 points 2+/3++) can tank out a bit longer.
In both cases, it seems that just starting with more warriors is better than running a tanking lord.
If you're not running a tanking lord (ie, you've got a warscythe and scarabs) then you don't want to be way up front anyway.

 yakface wrote:
. Therefore I have no issues whatsoever about allowing a Ghost Ark to return Necron Lords/Crypteks that are part of that unit back to the unit. I also have no qualms about denying ICs the same luxury as they are only part of that unit while alive.

This was exactly my take on it to begin with. But that 'add D3 models' part made me stop and wonder just what was stopping you from adding D3 Lords in that case. With nothing defining that individual model types are limited to their starting quantities, I can only think that the intention was to go by the original unit composition, which makes the whole problem go away.

 insaniak wrote:

This was exactly my take on it to begin with. But that 'add D3 models' part made me stop and wonder just what was stopping you from adding D3 Lords in that case. With nothing defining that individual model types are limited to their starting quantities, I can only think that the intention was to go by the original unit composition, which makes the whole problem go away.

Right. We all agree that the rule is written completely idiotically and cannot be played 'as written' (or as you point out it allows you to add ANY type of model to the unit so long as the unit does not exceed its starting size).

However, when we're in this situation, it really does come down to outside factors to help people make decisions on how they *think* it is supposed to be played.

When it comes to the unit exceeding its starting size, the real question is: is a Lord/Cryptek attached at the start of the game before or after this starting size is calculated?

I think if you took this particular issue out of the equation and just asked people: does an attached Lord/Cyptek count towards the unit's 'starting size' their natural answer would be yes. Because say you had a 12-man warrior squad with a joined Cryptek (making it 13 strong) at what point would it be under 25% of its starting strength (and therefore need double 1's to regroup)? Is its 'starting size' 12 or 13? I'd wager that he vast majority would say 13 in this case.

So to keep things consistent, that means a Warrior unit with a joined Lord/Cryptek can use a Ghost Ark to return back to a max of 13 models. If you DON'T allow the Lord/Cryptek to be repaired and returned to the unit, you're basically saying that the unit can still gain an 'extra' Warrior that it never actually had in the unit to start with, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

IMHO, what makes the most sense based on the fluff and keeping the rules consistent in all situations is to allow Lords/Crypteks that are part of a unit to be repaired by a Ghost Ark. This lets the unit return to its actual 'starting size' which is the same starting size that people tend to play in all cases (counting the attached Lord/Cryptek towards the unit's starting size).

As Yak said, RAW it's utterly ridiculous, but the poll asks HIWPI, which for me is warriors only. If I was playing another Necron player and thought they might throw a hissy over limiting it to that, I'd go as far as allowing RC members, but I'd draw the line at ICs.

EDIT: My opinion on the starting unit size: In Yak's example you have a unit that started with 12 warriors and 1 cryptek. You lose one warrior and one cryptek, both fail their RP rolls. Using the Repair ability of the Ark, you roll a 3 and get two models back. Disallowing crypteks because at the core of it, I think that was never intended originally, you can only place one warrior. The reason for this is I feel the model types matter for the original unit size. What models compose a unit is important in a hundred other areas from special rules to available wargear that can be purchased. It makes sense to me to maintain this for consistency. So the starting unit size for game terms is not 13 models, it's 12 warriors and a cryptek, thus disallowing you to repair a warrior in the cryptek's "slot".

If you really want to have some fun, start adding models from other armies. Soon you will have Terminators running around with Carnifexes led by a Farseer.

Those who believe it can add court members that were part of the squad how about thus situation:

5Warriors + Crytptek & Lord.

Cryptek and lord both die in a shooting phase warriors fail their morale check and fall back. Cryptek and Lord both pass Ever living. Now if memory serves me they are no longer attached to the unit as it fell back. Can the Ghost Ark add models to the unit? Would it add 2 warriors taking the unit back up to 7 models. Or would I get a free Lord and Cryptek. If so what equipment would they have?

 FlingitNow wrote:

Cryptek and lord both die in a shooting phase warriors fail their morale check and fall back. Cryptek and Lord both pass Ever living. Now if memory serves me they are no longer attached to the unit as it fell back. Can the Ghost Ark add models to the unit? Would it add 2 warriors taking the unit back up to 7 models. Or would I get a free Lord and Cryptek. If so what equipment would they have?

Not sure where you came up with the idea that if the unit falls back the Lord/Cryptek are suddenly no longer part of the unit. That doesn't happen.

Warriors get repaired.
Royal Court can get repaired too.
But no, I don't think it works on IC's.

I play it like this because RAW it is allowed and it's understandable in my opinion.
Royal Court are the Sergeants of the Necrons, they have the same role and just like Sgt's they are a part of the unit.

Yeah my mistake remembered RP doesn't work when you fell back so assumed that split of EL counters it doesn't.

So back to the example well just have the court members fail their EL rolls. So I get to add 2 models. Are they warriors, crypteks or Lords and how do we define what equipment they have?

Just add the original Cryptek or Lord back to the group, not that hard too figure out.

Why though. It does not restore models it adds them. If your adding a Lord or Cryptek where are you getting permission to upgrade them and if you can why not go all the way and give them literally everything?

 FlingitNow wrote:
Why though. It does not restore models it adds them. If your adding a Lord or Cryptek where are you getting permission to upgrade them and if you can why not go all the way and give them literally everything?

This. Your adding models to a warrior unit, not "restoring" or "returning" them. When you use the repair look at the warrior entry in the codex. What models can you add to a warrior unit. Warriors.

If you are bringing back royal court members then I will start bringing back d3 necron lords with warscythes and 2+ saves everytime. Let's see how people like that.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Why though. It does not restore models it adds them. If your adding a Lord or Cryptek where are you getting permission to upgrade them and if you can why not go all the way and give them literally everything?

Again, because as written you can add any model to the unit...an Imperator Titan, etc. There is no limit.

Obviously this is absurd, so it basically breaks down what logically is likely the rule supposed to be, with the 3 most logical answers listed in the poll.

There is no 'right' answer because the 'right' answer is an absurd one that makes no sense.

Given that the concept behind the rule is that the Ark is repairing the models from the unit, it makes no sense to generate Lord models with totally different equipment any more than it does to generate Titans to add to the unit.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Warfrog wrote:

This. Your adding models to a warrior unit, not "restoring" or "returning" them. When you use the repair look at the warrior entry in the codex. What models can you add to a warrior unit. Warriors.

If you are bringing back royal court members then I will start bringing back d3 necron lords with warscythes and 2+ saves everytime. Let's see how people like that.

So your Necron Warrior unit had 11 Warriors, a Lord & a Cryptek (13 total).

The Cryptek and Lord get killed (along with some Warriors).

Based on your interpretation, how many Warriors can be added back to the unit? Enough to take them back to 11 or 13? And why?


If your answer is 11, then do you advocate playing the unit like that in all cases (where the Lord & Cryptek do not count towards the unit's starting total for things like morale, etc)?

I would logically say you can add up to 11. But 40k doesn't work on logic. My argument for 11 is during list creation the royal court is its own unit and split off before battle. So according to your list the Warriors initial size is 11. But the unit as deployed is 13 total. Since the only thing you can add is warriors I would allow you to add upto 13. Even though I only go to 11 with mine.

I would not allow you to add your RC models back.

I think just adding Warriors up to the starting number of warriors is the best bet. Because adding court members causes other problems. Like if they have 1 use items do they get that item back?

I voted to add court members back but reading this thread has convinced me that it causes more problems than it solves. Just stick with warriors.

Voted to get RC back but not ICs. While RAW could be interpreted to allow ICs, I view them differently from RCs since ICs can leave while RCs can't.

As for a tachyon arrow being one use only, I would play it as it doesn't come back, focusing on a repair instead of an add or replace. I would also not allow ICs because of the issue of multiple wounds more than any other reason. You killed my overlord, then I'm going to repair it with all 3 wounds....that's a pretty dick move even if the rules could be interpreted that way.

Warfrog wrote:
I would logically say you can add up to 11. But 40k doesn't work on logic. My argument for 11 is during list creation the royal court is its own unit and split off before battle. So according to your list the Warriors initial size is 11. But the unit as deployed is 13 total. Since the only thing you can add is warriors I would allow you to add upto 13. Even though I only go to 11 with mine.

I would not allow you to add your RC models back.

But that is inconsistent. If you played by that concept it would mean a Royal Court that split some members off to go join other units would be 'losing' models. So if your Royal Court was 5 models and you split 4 off to go join units, the Royal Court (of 1 model) now starts the game counting as being under 25% starting strength?

The only consistent way to play is that Royal Court members that join other units count as being part of that unit for all intents and purposes, exactly as the SW Wolf Guard FAQ indicates (in the most similar situation we have in the game that has been FAQ'd).

Anyone who reads the description of what the Ghost Ark is doing is not at a loss as to what is happening. The models are being repaired. So there is no major issues or great confusion. If a model is added back to the unit, then they are added back to the unit. If they previously used their Tachyon Arrow, then they've used it.

"add d3 models to the unit" roll a 3, add the Swarmlord, Azrael and Imhotek.

 yakface wrote:

Warfrog wrote:
I would logically say you can add up to 11. But 40k doesn't work on logic. My argument for 11 is during list creation the royal court is its own unit and split off before battle. So according to your list the Warriors initial size is 11. But the unit as deployed is 13 total. Since the only thing you can add is warriors I would allow you to add upto 13. Even though I only go to 11 with mine.

I would not allow you to add your RC models back.

But that is inconsistent. If you played by that concept it would mean a Royal Court that split some members off to go join other units would be 'losing' models. So if your Royal Court was 5 models and you split 4 off to go join units, the Royal Court (of 1 model) now starts the game counting as being under 25% starting strength?

The only consistent way to play is that Royal Court members that join other units count as being part of that unit for all intents and purposes, exactly as the SW Wolf Guard FAQ indicates (in the most similar situation we have in the game that has been FAQ'd).

Anyone who reads the description of what the Ghost Ark is doing is not at a loss as to what is happening. The models are being repaired. So there is no major issues or great confusion. If a model is added back to the unit, then they are added back to the unit. If they previously used their Tachyon Arrow, then they've used it.

Good point on the Royal Court starting strength. So i agree that in your example above necron warrior unit with 11 warriors and 2 court members (presumably from different courts) lost both court members and a necron warrior they would be allowed to add upto a full 3 warriors. However that still does not change the fact that your are (from a rules point not a fluff point) creating new warriors not restoring models that was previously there. I see no wording that would allow you to add Royal Court members back to the unit.

Yakface you are claiming using the starting squad numbers as different things is being inconsistent yet adding models with their starting gear and then claiming they can't use 1 use items that a different model used is likewise just as inconsistent.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Why though. It does not restore models it adds them. If your adding a Lord or Cryptek where are you getting permission to upgrade them and if you can why not go all the way and give them literally everything?

Because the thread-title is "HIWPI", not "try to cheese the maximum out of an unclear rule".

 FlingitNow wrote:
Yakface you are claiming using the starting squad numbers as different things is being inconsistent yet adding models with their starting gear and then claiming they can't use 1 use items that a different model used is likewise just as inconsistent.

It's not that inconsistent. Necrolord Bob popped off his Tacheon Arrow just prior to taking a plasma cannon to his face. His internal teleporter takes his remains off to safety. The Ghost Arc speeds his repairs and puts him back on the table. The ghost ark is a Repair Barge, not an Ammo-Depot Barge, so when he comes back, he's still missing the Arrow that he popped off.

-Matt

The barge doesn't repair though it added new models. That is what the rules say it does. If you're allowing it to add court members and allowing them to have the same upgrades as any dead attached member. Then it should have the same wargear including any one use items. To do anything else is just as inconsistent as using 2 different starting number references.

 FlingitNow wrote:
The barge doesn't repair though it added new models. That is what the rules say it does. If you're allowing it to add court members and allowing them to have the same upgrades as any dead attached member. Then it should have the same wargear including any one use items. To do anything else is just as inconsistent as using 2 different starting number references.

No, the rules as written don't make any coherent sense.

No matter what argument is being made, it is under the basis of guessing how the rule is 'supposed' to be.

Adding models back to the unit is completely consistent in every regard.

HawaiiMatt wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Yakface you are claiming using the starting squad numbers as different things is being inconsistent yet adding models with their starting gear and then claiming they can't use 1 use items that a different model used is likewise just as inconsistent.

It's not that inconsistent. Necrolord Bob popped off his Tacheon Arrow just prior to taking a plasma cannon to his face. His internal teleporter takes his remains off to safety. The Ghost Arc speeds his repairs and puts him back on the table. The ghost ark is a Repair Barge, not an Ammo-Depot Barge, so when he comes back, he's still missing the Arrow that he popped off.

-Matt

But at no point does the Ark tell you to return models to play. It says add. Adding models would mean create new models. Compare this to the wording of RP and EL. In those ones the models are returned not added to the units/game(in regards to IC)

Example: I have a unit of 15 warriors and a cryptek with a VOD. 2 warriors and the crypetk die during my opponents turn failing their RP rolls. My ghost ark succeeds on its repair test and rolls a 6 for how many models I can add. I get to add 3 models.

Here are the possibilities

1. I add 3 necron warriors as my unit starting strength was 16 and i can "add models" up to my starting strength.

2. I add 3 necron Lychguard as my unit starting strength was 16 and i can "add models" up my starting strength.

3. I add 2 necron warriors and 1 cryptek with a VOD as my unit starting strength was 16 and I can "add models" up my starting strength.

If you stop me from doing 2 how can you justify me doing 3. 2 and 3 are the same. Repair Barge does not give you permission to "return models" that were previously in the unit only to "add models." So somewhere there is a precedent of what models can be added to a warrior unit and my argument is that its the unit entry of the back of the book.

Logically I believe the RAI only means warriors, but if we follow RAW (excluding ridiculous additions of farseers and titans) it does say to the unit.

Now, attached RC members, (and SW wolfguard) who join a unit become part of it. They can not leave, and do not count as separate units in any situation. (For example when calculating VP's or determining %50 for reserves). Therefore in game terms they are indistinguishable from the unit. Until it is FAQ'd I would say this allows them to be repaired by the barge.

The same rules can be used to determine that if an IC is killed whilst in a unit of warriors, they are NOT able to be repaired by the barge.
They are counted for reserves, award victory points, and may leave the unit at any time. By losing their last wound, they are removed from play completely. They are no longer the part of the unit.

Also, as the RAW stats that 'models' are added, as opposed to wounds, it is clear that the barge has no effect on wounded IC's who are currently part of the unit either.

Therefore: Raw - Warriors and RC members of the squad, but in no case ICs.

Warfrog wrote:

But at no point does the Ark tell you to return models to play. It says add. Adding models would mean create new models. Compare this to the wording of RP and EL. In those ones the models are returned not added to the units/game(in regards to IC)

Example: I have a unit of 15 warriors and a cryptek with a VOD. 2 warriors and the crypetk die during my opponents turn failing their RP rolls. My ghost ark succeeds on its repair test and rolls a 6 for how many models I can add. I get to add 3 models.

Here are the possibilities

1. I add 3 necron warriors as my unit starting strength was 16 and i can "add models" up to my starting strength.

2. I add 3 necron Lychguard as my unit starting strength was 16 and i can "add models" up my starting strength.

3. I add 2 necron warriors and 1 cryptek with a VOD as my unit starting strength was 16 and I can "add models" up my starting strength.

If you stop me from doing 2 how can you justify me doing 3. 2 and 3 are the same. Repair Barge does not give you permission to "return models" that were previously in the unit only to "add models." So somewhere there is a precedent of what models can be added to a warrior unit and my argument is that its the unit entry of the back of the book.

Again, we're not talking about a rule that has ANY clear logical way to be read that makes sense.

But yes, adding models to a unit could mean to add NEW models to the unit, but it can also be adding models BACK to the unit. It can absolutely be interpreted either way.


So as I've pointed out quite a few times in this thread now, if you're playing that it only allows you to 'add new' warriors, then you have a weird situation where you can add MORE warriors into the unit than it ever had. Something that makes no logical sense considering the background behind the rule.


The only way that makes logical sense and is consistent in all situations is to play that you're adding models back to the unit.

The largest point of contention now is over the wording of 'add', and if it should actually be interpreted as 'repair' or 'return' d3 units to the squad.

This would clarify the issue of RC wargear or adding additional warriors you didnt pay points for. (IMO if you are using the barge to add wargear to an RC member or adding warriors, instead of simply returning the points you paid for, then you know you are cheating.)

Something that makes no logical sense considering the background behind the rule.

But background does not equal rules. In the background of the Night Scythe it says the tesla destructor is turret mounted when the official models is hull mounted. Try using a Night Scythe with a turret conversion and see how far that goes.

I agree that it doesn't make logical sense that the Cryptek is rebuilt a warrior but as the rule goes that is best interpretation you can get otherwise prepare to see warriors being turned into Lychguard.

Warfrog wrote:

Something that makes no logical sense considering the background behind the rule.

But background does not equal rules. In the background of the Night Scythe it says the tesla destructor is turret mounted when the official models is hull mounted. Try using a Night Scythe with a turret conversion and see how far that goes.

I agree that it doesn't make logical sense that the Cryptek is rebuilt a warrior but as the rule goes that is best interpretation you can get otherwise prepare to see warriors being turned into Lychguard.

This isn't a case where I'm arguing that the background somehow trumps the rules, because that is nonsense. If the rules actually said that you could only add warriors, then everything would be clear and the small inconsistency about adding additional warriors instead of attached Royal Court members would just be a minor hiccup that we have to accept.

But the rules AREN'T clear, so yes, looking at things like background becomes necessary when attempting to guess what the rule is actually supposed to be saying.

I have presented a perfectly logical and consistent interpretation that does not suddenly allow Lychguard (or Titans) to be added into the unit.

All you have to do is assume that the interpretation is that you are adding models BACK to the unit and everything works perfectly. This means you're only allowed to add models back to the unit that were already there.

Using this interpretation, everything works, nothing breaks and it even matches the background of the unit (a repair barge).

Waaaghpower wrote:
RAW anyone including ICs. However, if I play anyone who adds a 200+ point character just to exploit that poor choice of wording, I'll dreadsock them into oblivion.

How do you figure IC's are included in RAW. Is an IC still a member of the squad when he is dead?

 yakface wrote:

This isn't a case where I'm arguing that the background somehow trumps the rules, because that is nonsense. If the rules actually said that you could only add warriors, then everything would be clear and the small inconsistency about adding additional warriors instead of attached Royal Court members would just be a minor hiccup that we have to accept.

But the rules AREN'T clear, so yes, looking at things like background becomes necessary when attempting to guess what the rule is actually supposed to be saying.

I have presented a perfectly logical and consistent interpretation that does not suddenly allow Lychguard (or Titans) to be added into the unit.

All you have to do is assume that the interpretation is that you are adding models BACK to the unit and everything works perfectly. This means you're only allowed to add models back to the unit that were already there.

Using this interpretation, everything works, nothing breaks and it even matches the background of the unit (a repair barge).

I as a count-point have provided an interpretation that does not require the assumption that words that are not written on the page are intended to be there. Add models to a warrior unit. What models can normally be part of a warrior unit? Warriors

Add models to a warrior unit. What models can normally be part of a warrior unit? Warriors

And Royal Council.

Big Blind Bill wrote:

Add models to a warrior unit. What models can normally be part of a warrior unit? Warriors

And Royal Council.

Check the Necron Warriors entry in the codex.

I could just reply "check royal council in the codex" but making a statement like this is pointless.

Can you argue with the logic and RAW in my previous post? That a RC model is not part of the unit it joins?

I agree with you, RAI should be just warriors. RAW however means RC too.

A RC member is part of the unit it joins that I agree. However in list building you cannot add the royal court member to the Warriors. Royal court members join of their own rule before battle but after you made the list. The ark does not allow you to return models only create new ones. So as far as adding models to a unit of warriors you can only add warriors.

Actually RaW means you can add d3 Imperator Titans to the unit as it simply states models. So you have to work out what the intention is because RaW is dumb...

Yeah, the RAW alternative is just stupid. There's no way they mean to allow you to add D3 Titans to the unit, or even D3 Wraiths or whatever.

But even if they changed "model" to "warrior", you could still add D3 Tyranid Warriors

I think we can skip the "you can add titans/baneblade/etc" nagging. We all know the rule is a mess.

I think the HoH rule of the Deathmarks creates a precedent regarding this issue. HoH is a rule that affects a deathmark unit and it has been faqed to affect attached RC members. Likewise a rule that affects a Warrior unit should affect attached RC members as well.

Your logic makes sense and I agree,I believe what you have said is what the authors wanted the RAI to be. However with the RAW, there is no mention of army list limitations or initiative steps at which a unit is calculated. This is where the questions about RC members, and also adding more models than the previous squad size, comes from.

RAW should be written IMO as: If a unit of warriors has had models removed due to lost wounds (Yes this would come into effect with things like JotWW), then the barge may attempt to repair the unit. Return d3 warriors to the squad. These models may not take a unit above its starting size.

However in the Current RAW we have the word models, and not warriors (Even after an FAQ). It does not state what these models should be. (despite it most obviously meaning warriors)

So with no clarification of when the unit is calculated (ie before or after RC are added), and nothing to suggest that the RC is not part of the squad. I would have to say, as it stands, the RC would legally be allowed to be 'added' to the squad again.

 The Shadow wrote:
Yeah, the RAW alternative is just stupid. There's no way they mean to allow you to add D3 Titans to the unit, or even D3 Wraiths or whatever.

But even if they changed "model" to "warrior", you could still add D3 Tyranid Warriors

Which is why my argument is that since the RAW says "nominate a necron warriors unit" you are only allowed to add models that you could add to the unit during list creation. Otherwise you get things like adding wraiths and in extreme cases titans.

The only restriction is the unit's starting size. And as has been said before, the cryptek is part of the unit's starting size for all other rules ie Morale.

Which is why my argument is that since the RAW says "nominate a necron warriors unit" you are only allowed to add models that you could add to the unit during list creation.

But a warrior squad can contain both warriors and RC models.

You are using logic in a RAW discussion. Logic here counts less than what is written.

What you have said is good logic, but at no point does it say "the unit at list creation", or alternatively "the unit after RC units have been assigned".

As there is no clarification, there is no certainty that your argument does indeed only cause warriors to be added.

Both models can be 'added' to the unit before turn 1, as supported by the codex. The barge adds models to the unit, which can consist of both warriors and RC models.

So I still believe nothing has been said yet that opposes the RAW, that would allow RC models to be returned.

The only restriction is the unit's starting size.

Ok thanks copper

Big Blind Bill wrote:
RAW, that would allow RC models to be returned.

The thing is your are not returning models but creating new ones. Compare the wording to that of RP and EL. So if you allow RC members to be added then you would be able to make a new one with new wargear.

The difference between adding and repairing here is of no consequence if you can add up to the max number of the unit.

For example, lets take a unit of 9 warriors and 1 RC member (With X wargear) It has a unit size of 9 warriors and 1RC.

This is a unit. They work together for all intends and purposes. If the RC is removed, then the squad has lost a model, it is down to unit size 9.

The barge states that you may add models up to the starting size. The starting size was 9 warriors, and 1 RC model (with X wargear). If there is no RC model now, where does it say that he cannot be added?

Big Blind Bill wrote:
The difference between adding and repairing here is of no consequence if you can add up to the max number of the unit.

For example, lets take a unit of 9 warriors and 1 RC member (With X wargear) It has a unit size of 9 warriors and 1RC.

This is a unit. They work together for all intends and purposes. If the RC is removed, then the squad has lost a model, it is down to unit size 9.

The barge states that you may add models up to the starting size. The starting size was 9 warriors, and 1 RC model (with X wargear). If there is no RC model now, where does it say that he cannot be added?

Even if we broke down unit composition to 9 warriors and 1 cryptek the unit composition or size does not specify wargear so then you could arguably add models up till you are back to 9 warriors and 1 cryptek with any wargear. So now take a vanalla cryptek and when the barge returns him it comes back with a bunch of new gear for free.A space marine sergeant with a chain sword and a space marine sergeant with a power fist are still both space marine sergeants. The reason this doesn't matter with the warriors is that they have no options aside from taking more or adding dedicated transports.

Use the Ghost ark to add more ghostarks for infinite model win button?

True, you could technically give them more wargear (unless starting size of the unit is measured in points and models)
But then again many GW rules create loopholes, discrepancies or game breaking problems. Evidence from the lack of clarification doesn't hold much weight.
It is a very poorly written rule, and does not fully support either side of this debate.

As I've said before, I agree it should be warriors only. But the current Raw just doesn't support it, Despite some problems there is nothing in the rules that would stop a cryptek from being added to a unit (but only as many as were originally added).

I'll pose this question. When you pay your pints for the warrior and the ark is the ic, or cryptec in the equation at that point.

Hiwpi.... Warriors only.

The starting size of the unit is when your pointing your army up and buying the ark to begin with.

Yes Bill we agree that RaW you can add Crypteks, or Overlords, Ghostarks, Monoliths, Pylons or even Imperator Titans if you want to. The RaW says models and puts no restriction on that. We are trying to figure out what the actual rules are and create a HYWPI that is as close to RaI as we can get.

Also you are advocating cheating because you accept the rule is one thing yet are trying to argue you can do something else because it is RaW. Deliberately breaking RaI is by definition cheating.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Use the Ghost ark to add more ghostarks for infinite model win button?

Hell yes. Someone do this and film their opponent's reaction.

On topic, I voted for the wrong thing. I mean to say that RC members can be brought back, rather than IC. Yakface basically already summed up my line of reasoning.

Also you are advocating cheating because you accept the rule is one thing yet are trying to argue you can do something else because it is RaW. Deliberately breaking RaI is by definition cheating.

Are you serious? I think you have that the wrong way round. Breaking RAW is cheating. RAI is only speculation of an authors intent.

I play DA. The new FAQ says terminators can only change their SB and PF for additional weapons. This leaves out the sergeant and his powersword. This is RAW, you must follow it, or ask your opponent about it. I believe the RAI should allow them to change weapons. So I am cheating by removing the option from myself to arm my sergeants? Nice logic. Thanks for the insult.


Also where have I advocated adding any models? I believe as it stands RC models in a warrior unit could be added with whatever wargear they have had purchased for them, up to their starting number, as they are part of the units original size at the start of the game and are already able to be added to a squad of warriors. I stated there is a loophole with the RAW some people could try and exploit. Never did I say this is what I would do, but it is written. Nice straw man fallacy you are trying to use against me there.

Please argue the issue, if you have nothing decent to say then don't start attacking people.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Yes Bill we agree that RaW you can add Crypteks, or Overlords, Ghostarks, Monoliths, Pylons or even Imperator Titans if you want to. The RaW says models and puts no restriction on that. We are trying to figure out what the actual rules are and create a HYWPI that is as close to RaI as we can get.

Also you are advocating cheating because you accept the rule is one thing yet are trying to argue you can do something else because it is RaW. Deliberately breaking RaI is by definition cheating.

No, what you are doing is stating how you would play it, nothing more, nothing less. There will be no consensus here on how it "should" be played. This is a HIWPI post, not RAW.

Are you serious? I think you have that the wrong way round. Breaking RAW is cheating. RAI is only speculation of an authors intent

So deliberately breaking the rules isn't cheating? RaI is the authors intent. Our interpretation of RaI is speculation. But so is our interpretation of RaW. If you know beyond reasonable doubt what the RaI and choose to break those rules that absolutely is cheating. Whilst allowing a helmeted model to shoot is absolutely not cheating though clearly breaking RaW.

You haven't advocated adding any models you've advocated RaW and RaW is any model. This is the point being made to you. RaW doesn't work for this rule as it allows you to add any damn model you choose. Hence we are trying to work out what the actual rule is to get a HYWPI that is as close to the RaI as possible.

RAW is rules as written. Written, with no speculation.
RAI is rules as intended, normally meaning something is wrong with the RAW, and people are trying to work out what was originally meant to happen to improve their game.

Just thought I'd make this clear first.

So deliberately breaking the rules isn't cheating?

Rules are written correct? This would make following the RAW legal, and RAI homebrew alterations to the game technically illegal, and therefore cheating in a more competitive scene.
My points I have made so far based on trying to use the RAW in the correct way.
To say that following RAW to the letter is breaking the rules is just nonsensical, to accuse someone of cheating because he doesn't agree with your own interpretation is downright disgraceful. Manners please.

Now just to clear my stance up here, we have 3 categories:

RAW: Warriors and RC models. If it was serious play at a tourney, then I would have no problem with this, of course no additional wargear could be added.
RAI: Warriors only, if the rules were worded better, I believe this would be the outcome.
HIWPI: With friends, probably only warriors. In seriously play, as RAW, as I don't have strong enough evidence to prove otherwise.

RAW - any model.
HIWPI - Warriors only
How I would let my opponent play it (HIWLMOPI?)- Warriors and attached RC members.

I'd say at least RC models are also allowed to be revived as their rules specifically state that if you choose to let them join a unit, they effectively become a part of it. IC...hmm, that's difficult.

All of us can agree that RAI, ICs aren't allowed to be revived, but RAW-wise...hm. I'd have to look the exact wording for ICs joining a unit up.

Bill I don't think you understood what I said or indeed how the rules are created or the purpose of language.

I never said you were cheating for disagreeing with my interpretation of RaI. I would never say that. I stated that you were advocating deliberately breaks the RaI as you see them. This is cheating.

The Rules are created by the GW design team. The rules are a list of their ideas this is RaI. They communicate these rules to us with the rulebook. The rulebook itself is not capable of thought or creating rules. It I'd only a tool for communicating them. RaW is a method of interpreting that communication in the most literal sense from the written text.

So for instance the correct RaW answer if someone asked you "do you have the time?" Would be yes. However this would not be a helpful answer and it would be easy to understand what they actually meant rather than what they said.

So yes you can be cheating by following RaW. By telling your opponent none of his space marines can shoot or assault because they have helmets on and proceeding to blast him apart with your unhelmeted Marines. Would be cheating even though it would be following raw.

So when some one says "I realise the RaI is x but the RaW is y so I'm going to play y" they are telling you they are cheating. If they say "The RaW is x, the RaI may be y or z or x, so I'll play x" then that is not. If you believe the RaI is unclear and then choose to play by RaW that is fine though obviously you should let your opponent know you want to play by that house rule.

Here the RaW is clear. You can add any model you want to the unit. You say you play by the RaW but I doubt you'd let me add a Transcendent C'tan to my warriors unit from my Ghostark...

 FlingitNow wrote:
Yes Bill we agree that RaW you can add Crypteks, or Overlords, Ghostarks, Monoliths, Pylons or even Imperator Titans if you want to. The RaW says models and puts no restriction on that. We are trying to figure out what the actual rules are and create a HYWPI that is as close to RaI as we can get.

Are you sure you can add vehicles and stuff like that?
Because a vehicle cannot join a unit, so technically you cannot add it at all.

Bill I don't think you understood what I said or indeed how the rules are created or the purpose of language.

Again no, please if you would stop insulting and actually read the definitions and examples then you might understand.

Using my example of DA terminators, if I want to use SS/TH sergeants with my Deathwing, I would have to ask my opponents permission. This is because the RAW states that he needs a PF to swap with other weapons, and he doesn't have one.

I believe this is not what the RAI should be, and was simply an oversight of the author.

If I went into a game and declared my sergeants WILL have SS/TH, then I would be cheating. Even though you say this is the right thing to do.
In a serious game the RAW are the rules. RAI is just an opinion, unless enforced by a tournament organizer.

I'll clarify my opinion on the RAW of the necron barge, I believe that the unit strength limit (up to starting strength of the unit) on the USR, would disallow you from taking other models that were not included at the start of the game. This depends on the interpretation of unit strength: whether it is simply numbers, or the actual unit composition at the start of the game (This is where RAW becomes difficult). It would certainly prevent vehicles and titans etc anyhow as they are not single infantry models like the starting squad composition.)

So yes you can be cheating by following RaW. By telling your opponent none of his space marines can shoot or assault because they have helmets on and proceeding to blast him apart with your unhelmeted Marines. Would be cheating even though it would be following raw.

What are you even talking about?
what do you have against space marine helmets?

Any helmeted model can't shoot by RaW as you can't draw LoS from the models eyes (as it has none).

As for the DA example are you really sure beyond reasonable doubt that the RaI is that the Sergeant can be upgraded? If you feel the intent is clear. Then it is not cheating but you'd have to defend that intent.

If you want to discuss thus further please PM me as I don't want to side track the thread. With a discussion on whether GW or an inanimate object designed the rules.

Raw here is clear add models up to starting SIZE not strength. Starting size is defined elsewhere in the rules to be number of models. So you could add Ghost arks it would create a massive problem as you'd then have a mixed vehicle and non-vehicle unit. You could add fully upgraded lords, overlords or lycheguard with significantly fewer problems. But RaW all the above is allowed.

Siigh, are we really going to do that argument?
I don't know if you have ever worn a helmet in real life, but you can see through helmets.

And no, you cannot add Ghost Arks.
They are vehicles, they cannot join units.. So you cannot add them to a unit.

Kangodo wrote:
Siigh, are we really going to do that argument?
I don't know if you have ever worn a helmet in real life, but you can see through helmets.

And no, you cannot add Ghost Arks.
They are vehicles, they cannot join units.. So you cannot add them to a unit.

Where doe it say a model that cannot join a unit cannot be added? Page should be sufficient.

Permissive rule-set.
Unless stated otherwise, a vehicle cannot join a unit.

Kangodo wrote:
Permissive rule-set.
Unless stated otherwise, a vehicle cannot join a unit.

Well it wouldn't be joining a unit. It would already be joined when spawned. Therefore the conundrum.

Another affect of stating that a unit "starts" when purchased is any game that gives any option to split up the unit similar to Kill teams would allow ad nauseam additions as the unit you are targeting is a single model but was purchased as 6 models. The flip side is that is any special rule or artifact that could affect any unit, that provided a similar unit regrowth, being applied to units such as IG ones that can be split up on their own would also allow ad nauseam additions.

The best definition for the start of a game would be at the point you would start to time the game after deployment but before the first players actions have begun. Otherwise timed games end rather quickly if you say the start it when you select your units.

Kangodo wrote:
Permissive rule-set.
Unless stated otherwise, a vehicle cannot join a unit.

This interpretation would stop the ghost ark from bringing back anything that isn't an IC...

 insaniak wrote:
This interpretation would stop the ghost ark from bringing back anything that isn't an IC...

Hmm, that is true.
But can we please not make this thread about adding D3 Titans to a group of Warriors? =(

Kangodo wrote:
Siigh, are we really going to do that argument?
I don't know if you have ever worn a helmet in real life, but you can see through helmets.

1) Real life has no bearing on the rules of the game, and as such any model without eyes (This includes models with helmets) can not draw Line of Sight to anything.

2) The rules were not written to be "Modern day real world" logical.

The rules are an abstract system used to simulate a battle in the year 40,000.

What would happen in the modern day real world has nothing to do with the RAW, or the simulation of a battle fought 38,000 years from now.

As such they need to have some compromises/Abstract rules to make the game playable.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Any helmeted model can't shoot by RaW as you can't draw LoS from the models eyes (as it has none).allowed.

Could we please not start to troll? :/

I'm really interested in this.

Permissive rule-set.
Unless stated otherwise, a vehicle cannot join a unit

Vehicle is not joining a unit. Nothing has permission to join units other than ICs so by this logic you can ONLY add ICs to the unit.

Is the ghostark a model? If yes then I have permission to add it to my unit. It is not joining the unit as an IC it is simply being added to the unit. So you need to find a restriction to deny that. Page and paragraph please.

Though this does bring up another possible RaW interpretation that you can't add models to the unit that can't join them. Which would mean only ICs and RC could be added and no warriors.

Is that HYWPI flingitnow? It sure looks like your arguing RAW in a thread titled HWIPI.

If you wish to have a RAW rules arguement to discuss the piss poor wording on the rule, then I encourage you to start a thread on it.

This is a HWIPI thread and no one plays it that way.

A lot of people on this thread have been arguing RaW whilst I've been telling them RaW is broken and we need to sort out HYWPI. Please read all my comments before judging me based on a reply to a RaW argument.

Ok flingit, I will admit that if we read RAW as literally as we can then I was wrong. You may add any model, as you stated, due to the rule being a terrible piece of writting.

Though I suggest you learn some manners and present things in a less trolling way when posting in the future. I will leave it at that.

Back on topic as a HIWPI discussion: I would play the rule as brought back or 'repaired', instead of added. Certainly necron warriors, I would be ok with the Royal Court members too, (wargear remaining the same of course), but never allow IC's to be brought back.

I think suggesting RC models to squad Sergeants is a poor comparison, as RC are bought from a seperate entry (therefore not part of the original squad they're added to just like Wolf Guard and Warlocks), and attached later, during deployment. Sergeants/Sybarites/Aspiring Champions/etc. are bought as a squad upgrade, and therefore part of the original squad.

By that, Necron Warriors don't have an upgradable squad member, so, the Cryptek's/Lord's are not part of the squad, and should not benefit from it. Its absurdly worded, and as someone said, there's no end to the exploitation of it, go ahead and add Terminators, Carnifex and a Farseer.....or....take this as it was meant, only for Warriors, and go back to spamming your croissant shaped flyers and be content.

-CotW

They ARE a member of the squad at deployment. To say otherwise leads to an absurd set of situations, and the comparable Wolf Guard FAW stating otherwise

I didn't say there weren't at deployment, I'm saying they are NOT like sergeants and the like because they are not purchased as a squad upgrade, therefore, not part of the warrior unit, and not applicable to the rule in question. If you upgraded one warrior to a cryptek for Xpts then yeah, that would make sense, but since you purchase them from an entirely seperate unit and ADD them to the Warriors, they don't benefit. Mostly because there's no end to the misinterpretations. "Well, I started with 1 cryptek but now through a misunderstood and incorrectly utilized loophole of my own preference, I'm now eligable to gain D3 more crypteks"

How does that even sound right?

-CotW

People on the whole *are not* advocating that

They are advocating that, if you bought a cryptek, attached it to the squad, it dies it can then be *repaired*, like any *other* member of the unit. As it most assuredly IS part of the warrior unit.

I advocate the ability to add Imhotek and Trazyn via repairing.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I advocate the ability to add Imhotek and Trazyn via repairing.

To any squad or just ones that contained them before? Then why not add Ghost arks to the unit? Or Riptides? Or Reaver Titans?

 FlingitNow wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I advocate the ability to add Imhotek and Trazyn via repairing.

To any squad or just ones that contained them before? Then why not add Ghost arks to the unit? Or Riptides? Or Reaver Titans?

Any squad, don't pay points for expensive HQs, just add them via Ghost Arks. Unfortunately Riptides and Reaver titans aren't Necron independent characters.

Why would they need to be Necron ICs?

 FlingitNow wrote:
Why would they need to be Necron ICs?

To join the unit they're being added to, Warriors, Royal Court members and Necron ICs are the only things that can be in a Warrior unit.

Why only those things? Warriors can't join a unit mid game nor can RC members. If you're restricting based on what can be joined to a Warrior unit then you can ONLY add ICs. No warriors or RCs added just Overlords, Destroyer Lords and special characters...

 FlingitNow wrote:
Why only those things? Warriors can't join a unit mid game nor can RC members. If you're restricting based on what can be joined to a Warrior unit then you can ONLY add ICs. No warriors or RCs added just Overlords, Destroyer Lords and special characters...

Reanimation Protocols, Ghost Ark.

Cant we just use the official tournament FAQ for this, where it says you can revive royal court members?


http://www.dakkadakka.com/s/up/INATFAQv5.1.1.pdf

page 71

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Reanimation Protocols, Ghost Ark.

That is the topic of the thread, yes.

There's nothing new being added at this point, though. I would strongly recommend that you discuss how your Ghost Ark will work before any games with new opponents, until GW gets around to writing rules for them that aren't nonsense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 M0ff3l wrote:
Cant we just use the official tournament FAQ for this, where it says you can revive royal court members?

Which 'official tournament FAQ'...?

And why would it apply to anything other than that tournament?

http://www.dakkadakka.com/s/up/INATFAQv5.1.1.pdf

page 71, i forgot to link it in my original post..

and we should use it other than tournaments, because if it gets ruled like this in tournaments why shouldnt it in regular play?

It isnt an official tournament FAQ, that is a contradiction in terms

It is official for THAT tournament only

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Why only those things? Warriors can't join a unit mid game nor can RC members. If you're restricting based on what can be joined to a Warrior unit then you can ONLY add ICs. No warriors or RCs added just Overlords, Destroyer Lords and special characters...

Reanimation Protocols, Ghost Ark.

RP doesn't add models. Ghost Ark does add models but doesn't restrict it to warriors or RC members. Not sure what you're saying here.

Ok, for those too dense, I am joking, I do not think the Ghost Ark should repair anything apart from Warriors and was using the example of adding expensive HQs to mock the idea of adding anything apart from Warriors.

The INAT is not an 'official' tournament FAQ. It is the work of a committee of gamers, and is valid only for those events that choose to use it. Unless I've missed an announcement, it also hasn't been updated for 6th edition.

There is of course nothing stopping you from using it in friendly play if your opponent agrees, but it is not any sort of 'official' answer to a rules dispute.









Automatically Appended Next Post:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Ok, for those too dense, I am joking, I do not think the Ghost Ark should repair anything apart from Warriors and was using the example of adding expensive HQs to mock the idea of adding anything apart from Warriors.

Then you were a few pages too late, since the thread has already covered that. Including pointing out that there is nothing technically restricting it to Necron models.

 M0ff3l wrote:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/s/up/INATFAQv5.1.1.pdf

page 71, i forgot to link it in my original post..

and we should use it other than tournaments, because if it gets ruled like this in tournaments why shouldnt it in regular play?

Many Tournaments ban Special Characters, limit the number of flyers or put other restrictions on force selections does this mean we should use these rules too? The Tournament FaQ is exactly that a FAQ made up by the organiser(s) of that tournament. It is no more official than me creating my own FAQ where my army is all T10 with 2+ invun with infinite rerolls that I can use to reroll a reroll.

Doubt you'd advocate using that FAQ...

Agreed. Where does it end?

The side that says "any model" has taken a simple thing and blown it way out of context. Plain and simple.

Don't you necron players (who want this) have enough stuff to win? You can't do it with tons of flyers, wraiths all over and ridiculous cryptek abilities? You need to try including models not bought with the original squad to respawn? Make better placement choices if you're losing your models that easily.

There are also look out sir! rolls to make, so, lots of other ways to not lose them in the first place....

-CotW

Common sense say it would never be IC. It would explain such an important concept in the rules if that was the case, like how many wounds they return with after RP/EL it wound also allied IC being excluded as they can't simply be bolted back together, with so many of these rules discussions just use common sense. The rules say squad members, the rules don't explain all the in and outs needed if IC where involved so the obviously arnt included, just the warriors and the court members.
Again common sense say you wouldn't get your one use weapons back, again that would have been in the rules if it happend... People need to stop grabbing for unrealistic powerplays and play the game fair for the fun of everyone involved.

The rules say squad members

No they don't they say models.

 The Cry of the Wind wrote:
The side that says "any model" has taken a simple thing and blown it way out of context. Plain and simple.

The 'side' that says 'any model' acknowledged from the beginning that while this interpretation is how the rule currently reads, it's a ridiculous way to actually play it.

Don't you necron players (who want this) have enough stuff to win?

There is a common misapprehension on the internet that anyone arguing in favour of a given rules interpretation can only be doing so for their own benefit. Quite a lot of the time, this is not the case... particularly when those pointing out how the rule is written are also pointing out that they wouldn't actually play it as written.

For what it's worth, while I play Necrons, I don't have any Ghost Arks, and am not likely to any time soon. I don't have a horse in this race. Pointing out that the rule as written is broken isn't an attempt to gain an advantage for myself. It's an attempt to make people aware that the rule as written is broken, and so they're going to need to discuss the situation with their opponent if it's going to be an issue.

 The Cry of the Wind wrote:
Don't you necron players (who want this) have enough stuff to win? You can't do it with tons of flyers, wraiths all over and ridiculous cryptek abilities? You need to try including models not bought with the original squad to respawn? Make better placement choices if you're losing your models that easily.

Is that a new thing in this board?
Every Necron-discussion has to be ruled against Necrons because "they have enough stuff to win". What a stupid argument.

Newsflash: If other things were a little bit better, you wouldn't have to face the same 18 Wraiths, 4 Flyers and 3 Barges every tournament.
I'm so sick and tired of that anti-Necron attitude.

Ok, let's say it can repair court members, what are the limiting factors? Can you add a court member to a unit that wasn't deployed with one? can you add more than 1 court member? what upgrades does the court member have? And for all of the answers, why?

Same as the old one.
Why? Because I say so, that's how this thread works.
Because its a logical choice between any model and only warriors.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Ok, let's say it can repair court members, what are the limiting factors? Can you add a court member to a unit that wasn't deployed with one? can you add more than 1 court member? what upgrades does the court member have? And for all of the answers, why?

We've already been over all of this.

Once again - the rule as written is broken, and simply allows you to add whatever the hell models you want.

Anything beyond that is up to the players to decide, because GW haven't bothered to address it. The common options are -
- You can only bring back warriors, to the starting strength of the unit minus royal court
Or
- You can bring back any member of the unit that has been killed so far. They come back exactly as they were before they died.
-- this second option may or may not extend to attached ICs, depending on the players involved.

Either of those options though is a house rule. There are also a number of other ways you could play it... and they would also be house rules.

There is no 'correct' RAW answer on this one, because the RAW in this particular situation is absurd.

 insaniak wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Ok, let's say it can repair court members, what are the limiting factors? Can you add a court member to a unit that wasn't deployed with one? can you add more than 1 court member? what upgrades does the court member have? And for all of the answers, why?

We've already been over all of this.

Once again - the rule as written is broken, and simply allows you to add whatever the hell models you want.

Anything beyond that is up to the players to decide, because GW haven't bothered to address it. The common options are -
- You can only bring back warriors, to the starting strength of the unit minus royal court
Or
- You can bring back any member of the unit that has been killed so far. They come back exactly as they were before they died.
-- this second option may or may not extend to attached ICs, depending on the players involved.

Either of those options though is a house rule. There are also a number of other ways you could play it... and they would also be house rules.

There is no 'correct' RAW answer on this one, because the RAW in this particular situation is absurd.

Given that it seems to be clear that the RAW is gak, would it not be prudent to use the least advantageous of the options to add only Warrior models to the unit? At least until if/when GW gets around to addressing it.

There is already a precedent where a unit rule applies to attached RC members. So a Ghost Ark should add RC members to the unit. The least advantageous way to play this is to add RC members that were part of the unit in the first place and without any spent one-use items.

Ok, for those arguing that we can't bring back RC members, let me ask this:

The rule prevent the select unit from growing larger than its starting size. So let's say I have a unit of ten warriors with two RC members. My unit size would be twelve. Lets say you kill the two RC members, brining my unit down to ten.

Do you think I can then add two warrior models? Or am I not allowed to bring back anything thus not allowing me to bring my unit back to its starting size?

thedunator wrote:
Ok, for those arguing that we can't bring back RC members, let me ask this:

The rule prevent the select unit from growing larger than its starting size. So let's say I have a unit of ten warriors with two RC members. My unit size would be twelve. Lets say you kill the two RC members, brining my unit down to ten.

Do you think I can then add two warrior models? Or am I not allowed to bring back anything thus not allowing me to bring my unit back to its starting size?

Yes people saying you only add warriors would largely say in this situation you could not add any more models to the unit with the Ghost Ark. Until some warriors died.

"when an IC is joined to a unit it counts as being part of the unit for all rule purposes" pg 39.

from this entry I think it fairly easy to see that you would indeed be able to add him back when dead, however I rarely see and instance when this is going to be applied unless specifically agreed upon before the game. Most players need to read the first paragraph on pg 8.
Considering that there is obviously no clear an concise answer to the problem you would think the easiest solution should be to just come to this consensus at the start of your games.