Ok, I just read this on another forum. Since names are mentioned I would like to hear the other side of the story before passing judgement. I feel I should read the other side of the story.
This is what I read.
Well it was Reece who said that was the final case. But after 10 minutes of arguing he certainly knew the context. Cryptek who started the game with warriors. That's why he said the cryptek counted as a troop.
So is this a screw up on BAO? Was the right call made? I know mistakes happen, but I just really like to know what people think. Right call or not.
How can a HQ unit be Objective Secured even if it's in a troop choice? I am learning the game, so I would like page numbers to read in my iPad. So if anyone knows what iPad page I should be reading, or what section because page numbers are different on iPads, I would appreciate it.
He is specifically a part of the warrior squad. Crypteks can't even choose to leave like an IC can. They are a part of the unit for all rules purposes and that includes objective secured
CrownAxe wrote: He is specifically a part of the warrior squad. Crypteks can't even choose to leave like an IC can. They are a part of the unit for all rules purposes and that includes objective secured
Just reread Objective Secured. It says for Troop Units. The Cryptex is not a Troop Unit. It's a HQ unit. So what am I missing here now? I understand he was part of the squad. So you telling me if an character or unit joins a Heavy Support Squad or Fast Attack Squad then they are considered HS or FA now?
So now all HQ units can join a troop choice for one turn then leave it and become Objective Secured units now? If not why not?
rules citation? the cryptek just attaches to a squad, there's nothing in their description that says otherwise, or that they change battlefield roles/FOC slot. or in the necron FAQ.
Automatically Appended Next Post: i checked the SWFAQ and book, looking for wolf guard pack leaders which are essentially the same thing. no FOC/role change.
CrownAxe wrote: He is specifically a part of the warrior squad. Crypteks can't even choose to leave like an IC can. They are a part of the unit for all rules purposes and that includes objective secured
Just reread Objective Secured. It says for Troop Units. The Cryptex is not a Troop Unit. It's a HQ unit. So what am I missing here now? I understand he was part of the squad. So you telling me if an character or unit joins a Heavy Support Squad or Fast Attack Squad then they are considered HS or FA now?
So now all HQ units can join a troop choice for one turn then leave it and become Objective Secured units now? If not why not?
If you leave the squad then you stop being part of that squad for rules purposes. That why this doesn't work for ICs
Crypteks can't leave the squad. That they they remain a troop even if the rest of the warriors die
CrownAxe wrote: He is specifically a part of the warrior squad. Crypteks can't even choose to leave like an IC can. They are a part of the unit for all rules purposes and that includes objective secured
Just reread Objective Secured. It says for Troop Units. The Cryptex is not a Troop Unit. It's a HQ unit. So what am I missing here now? I understand he was part of the squad. So you telling me if an character or unit joins a Heavy Support Squad or Fast Attack Squad then they are considered HS or FA now?
So now all HQ units can join a troop choice for one turn then leave it and become Objective Secured units now? If not why not?
If you leave the squad then you stop being part of that squad for rules purposes. That why this doesn't work for ICs
Crypteks can't leave the squad. That they they remain a troop even if the rest of the warriors die
Please direct me to the rules please. I am trying to relearn how to play 40K so I would like to know where I should be reading this. I believe 40K is a permissive rule set correct? It tells you what you can do, not what you can't do. So where does it say that because an HQ unit can't leave, it can still be considered an OS unit?
Eldar warlocks are the best analogy. Their rules are more clearly stated than Crypteks, but they too lack a specific phrase stating that they take on the battlefield role of the unit they permanently attach to.
HIWPI, they chenge roles since if they don't, it raises some very weird conflicts under certain scenarios.
Case 1: A Cryptek joins a squad of Warriors in a typical CAD. Everyone dies on the enemy's shooting phase, but the Cryptek alone returns to play with a 5+ ever living.
Is the Cryptek still considered a part of the unit of Warriors, therefore keeping the Objective Secured rule?
Case 2: The same unit above, except the Cryptek survives the shooting.
Characters do not count as a part of the unit for purposes of resurrection protocols, so the RP markers for the Warriors would be removed. However, is the Cryptek still considered a part of the original Warriors unit despite this specifically noted exception?
In either of these cases, is the Cryptek considered an HQ unit at any point?
From the character entry: "They are effectively just another trooper in their unit,...". So pack leaders and attached royal court members have objective secured just as every other trooper in their unit.
@Dilt In both cases the end result is a Necron Warrior unit with a cryptek as the only surviving member. The same as a Space Marine unit with the only surviving member a sergeant. They can capture objectives and have "objective secured".
copper.talos wrote: From the character entry: "They are effectively just another trooper in their unit,...". So pack leaders and attached royal court members have objective secured just as every other trooper in their unit.
IMO if everything else dies it is not a troop unit. There are no troop models to make it a troop unit - Assuming he is still placed in the HQ category of the FOC.
Can he take WL traits etc out of interest?
Do you not get a victory point for killing cryptec outside the rest of the unit?
Genuine questions relating to the same, I mean if he can and if you do the defiantly not Obsec after losing rest of the unit.
Killing the rest of the unit leaves the Cryp on his own, he hasn't 'left' but he is also no longer joined to something thats not there.
The crypteks you can purchase as part of a royal court are not an HQ unit. They are purchased as part of the Overlord's slot and have special rules that allow them to attatch to other units.
Since they are not IC's, when they attatch to a Troop unit, they become part of that unit "for all rules purouse's" and basically count as a vet sergeant for the unit.
They can never detatch from the unit during the game, effectivaly becoming just another member of the unit, and therefor also becoming whichever FO slot the unit is.
Eihnlazer wrote: The crypteks you can purchase as part of a royal court are not an HQ unit. They are purchased as part of the Overlord's slot and have special rules that allow them to attatch to other units.
Since they are not IC's, when they attatch to a Troop unit, they become part of that unit "for all rules purouse's" and basically count as a vet sergeant for the unit.
They can never detatch from the unit during the game, effectivaly becoming just another member of the unit, and therefor also becoming whichever FO slot the unit is.
So, assuming they are not joined like a IC then was played fine. Even if they are, probably intended to stay troop.
Yeah. Royal court do not attatch like an IC. They are distributed at the start of the game into whichever squads you want them in and have to remain part of that unit for the entire game.
Crypteks are not HQ choice, the Royal Court is. You can have one in the army list under specific conditions. If all members of a unit but the cryptek die he doesn't become a Royal Court by himself. He remains just another trooper, the last trooper, in that unit.
Kangodo wrote: But once all warriors are dead, he's just a HQ that doesn't take up a slot and therefore won't have ObSec.
No, he's not. He can't leave the Warrior unit so the Warrior unit is still around.
What you're saying is that killing a Cryptek attached to a Warrior unit will yield a VP at the end of a Purge the Alien mission even if the rest of the Warriors are around.
Or that if you attach a single Cryptek out to a Warrior unit and have the rest of the Royal Court get slaughtered, no VP is awarded at the end of PtA because that single Cryptek is alive.
copper.talos wrote: That's your opinion. A judge that has to make a call must use rules that are written, not opinions.
So when they decided that rerollable 2+ means the reroll is 4+ it follows RAW?!?
Good job comparing things that are completely different!
One was a call made for balance and announced beforehand, so people could play with the knowledge in advance.
The other was a call made during a game where one player was completely surprised when it contradicted the actual rules.
The 4+ on rerolls is part of the ruleset when you enter the tournament (at least it was in the FAQ last year, I assume that clause was there this year).
One thing I would add to the original discussion is that the FOC works on a unit level, not model level. ICs can still count as HQ units when they are attached to a troop, because they are distinct units. The Cryptek, on the other hand, is just a model - it's not it's own "unit" any longer, it's now part of the troop unit. The same goes for Farseers and Wolf Guard - they start life as HQ/Elite units, but when they are broken up they stop being units at all. Instead, they become models that are part of the unit they join.
Here's a question that might clarify everyone's thinking: if you have a royal court consisting of 4 crypteks, and break them up and join them to 4 warrior units, and by the end of the game the 4 warrior units are completely destroyed (crypteks and all), how many units count as being destroyed?
Naw wrote: I know that it was, but it also shows that a judge does not must follow the rules as written.
They do (should) for on the spot calls. Contradicting the written rules during an event a) could lead people to have played differently in prior games, and so be accused of "cheating" b) completely destroy a player's plan for dealing with something, meaning you do a disservice to the player.
gigasnail wrote: people keep quoting 'for all purposes' referencing the crypteks joining units. that's not actually in the rules, anywhere. or for SWWG units, either.
if folks have house ruled this in the past, that's cool, and if there was an old FAQ that addressed this, that's cool too except it's no longer valid.
The Cryptek joins the unit. It's part of the unit. Please cite permission to treat him as something other than part of the unit he joined.
If you think you have an argument based on rules, that's cool, but you should support it with actual, I don't know, rules. That's cool.
@gigasnail Well there is that quote I posted not so long ago. Can you quote a rule from the rulebook that supports your opinion? I don't think you'll find any. Nevertheless, until you do find one, treat crypteks/pack leaders/etc as a normal troopers in their units.
Crypteks are not an HQ choice and have no FoC slot that they take up.
You are required to buy certain HQ slots to unlock them, however they do not take up an HQ slot.
This means that they must be placed into units from their own detachment only, as per the section in the rulebook "army list entries that do not use force org slots"
from the rulebook:
CHARACTER TYPES Most characters are fielded in units from the start of the game, and represent squad leaders, such as a Space Marine Veteran Sergeant. They have their own profile, but do not have a separate entry. They are effectively just another trooper in their unit, with enhanced characteristics and perhaps a wider selection of weapons and wargear choices.
Crypteks are not IC, much like sgt characters, ork meks, they become part of the unit they join at the start of the game. They are part of the unit. They do not revert to another status when the unit dies, just like a mek that joined a boyz unit doesn't reverts to anything else.. . It does say that most characters are fielded in units with their own profile but do not have a separate entry. As we can see most does not mean ALL and obviously the crypteks are fielded as a character in a squad but from a separate entry, just like ork meks.
they also count as part of the squad for purposes of things like ghost ark adding more models to a squad.
Sounds like there's enough debate that either call could be argued. In such a case (to answer the OP) it is definetly not 'a screw up'.
I'm guessing the Judges have to make calls all day long and there's only so long you can spend discussing it. Except on the internet, on the internet you can discus it for 100 pages!
Or, given GWs inability (or reluctance) to do FAQs, the TO may have decided to use 6th ed FAQs (WHERE APPLICABLE). And there was a 6th ed FAQ on Wolf Guard Pack Leaders that said they became a Troop if they joined a Troop unit, a Heavy if they joined Long Fangs, etc etc.
copper.talos wrote: That's your opinion. A judge that has to make a call must use rules that are written, not opinions.
So when they decided that rerollable 2+ means the reroll is 4+ it follows RAW?!?
Good job comparing things that are completely different!
One was a call made for balance and announced beforehand, so people could play with the knowledge in advance.
The other was a call made during a game where one player was completely surprised when it contradicted the actual rules.
Another thing, the call was made AFTER the game was over. How can you have a game over, say the guy won, then 10 minutes later say, nope I made a mistake you lost then go to the judge to say that he should have won.
That is like saying, I made a mistake on turn 1, I get to do a redo. I thought once you made your move, you have to take it and accept it. This person who lost didn't take it, and then had to say Oh wait I still win, even AFTER the verdict was made and he agreed to he lost.
Automatically Appended Next Post: So the question I have now is, can An HQ join a troop choice, have OS, then leave it and still become OS? Why or why not?
So the question I have now is, can An HQ join a troop choice, have OS, then leave it and still become OS? Why or why not?
This is not a fair comparison. Normal HQIC's can join and leave a unit at will. In this case, the Cryptek, once joined to the unit, is stuck to the unit for the remainder of the game. Again, as has been noted by others:
- if the troops are killed and the cryptek isn't, have you earned a VP?
- if you kill the entire unit, do you get 2 VPs?
This is a unique situation the rules do not specifically address.
So the question I have now is, can An HQ join a troop choice, have OS, then leave it and still become OS? Why or why not?
Specific HQs that have a rule where they join a Troops unit for the entire game have OS and keep OS for the entire game because they do not have permission to leave that unit.
HQs that are Independent Characters who join a Troops unit also get OS while they're part of that unit. But once that unit is destroyed or once they leave the unit then they lose OS because the rules for Independent Characters tell you to treat them as their own unit once they're no longer attached to a unit.
You see, the IC rules give permission for the IC to leave a unit once it has been destroyed. Models like Crypteks and Warlocks do not have such a rule.
Normal HQs are ICs, they do not become part of the unit they are assigned to. IE they can opt to leave it.
but to answer your question, the slotless HQ "mek" from ork codex can join an troop unit and gain objective secured. They cannot choose to ever leave the unit [just like a cryptek] and if the unit is killed off, except for the mek somehow, still count as part of the unit, as they may not leave the unit.
Another thing, the call was made AFTER the game was over. How can you have a game over, say the guy won, then 10 minutes later say, nope I made a mistake you lost then go to the judge to say that he should have won.
Automatically Appended Next Post: So the question I have now is, can An HQ join a troop choice, have OS, then leave it and still become OS? Why or why not?
Heh, I did the reverse once at one of GWs US GTs. Went to the judges after the game was over and told them I screwed up on something and was forfeiting the game. I misplayed something (don't recall what any more) and it might have had enough impact to alter the game. So I forfeited after the results (with me winning) had been turned in.
On the other, as has already been pointed out, totally different situation. There are actually a number of these HQ or Elite units that become part of the unit and unable to leave it. Necron one under discussion, SW Wolf Guard, Ork Mek, IG Commissar, and I'm sure there are others.
A regular IC joins a unit and is pretty much a part of it, and still doesn't change his FOC slot or role. This isn't any different, except the model in question is just a character. It's still purchased as part of a slotless HQ, just like an honor guard.
No one's got anything else, pretty sure we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Out of curiosity, what makes the part of the faq that was not errata no longer valid? They're simply answering how they would play those rules, which is sometimes bizarre and contradictory, but if the language has not changed why would it cease to be correct?
RobPro wrote: Out of curiosity, what makes the part of the faq that was not errata no longer valid? They're simply answering how they would play those rules, which is sometimes bizarre and contradictory, but if the language has not changed why would it cease to be correct?
Only thing that would invalidate it is if the core rules changed so as to be in conflict (which is why I did the bolded 'where applicable' in my previous post). In this instance, that is not the case.
To the OP, would you apply your same reasoning to my Commissar in an IG blob? To the Wolf Guard in a a squad of Grey Hunters. To the Mek in a mob of Boyz? If not, why in this one? And if yes, well, sorry, but yeah, just gonna have to disagree.
gigasnail wrote: A regular IC joins a unit and is pretty much a part of it, and still doesn't change his FOC slot or role. This isn't any different, except the model in question is just a character. It's still purchased as part of a slotless HQ, just like an honor guard.
No one's got anything else, pretty sure we'll just have to agree to disagree.
This is actually entirely different. Independent characters have rules stating that they gain all the special rules of an unit they join, and lose them when they are no longer part of that unit. read the rules in the rulebook on Independent characters and ongoing effects. Crypteks, warlocks, Meks, and all the other similar units do not have the independent character special rule. They do not "join" units at all, they are assigned to a unit before the game starts and are a member of that unit for the entire game. This is fundamentally different from Independent Characters, who have rules allowing them to join/leave, and how to handle those situations. Crypteks simply become a member of the unit they are assigned to. As a member of that unit, Crypteks gain the special rules of that unit (such as objective secured). Also, Crypteks are not HQ units. They do not have an FOC slot, they are only taken as an upgrade to an HQ choice. That's a bit off topic, but it's just a misconception I noticed earlier.
I can see what a lot of people are saying now. Where in the rule book can I read this? Where are the page numbers that state since a unit can join Say HQ, Elite or what not joins a Troop choice and can't leave it, become OS even when all the troops are eliminated? If this ever comes up and I play it your way, I need to prove it. How can I prove this?
I have the iPad version. Page numbers are different from the paper version. If you can't give the iPad page number can you tell me what section and where to look for that rule?
I mean it has to say somewhere where an HQ choice behaves like a troop choice for what ever purposes.
Davor wrote: I can see what a lot of people are saying now. Where in the rule book can I read this? Where are the page numbers that state since a unit can join Say HQ, Elite or what not joins a Troop choice and can't leave it, become OS even when all the troops are eliminated? If this ever comes up and I play it your way, I need to prove it. How can I prove this?
I have the iPad version. Page numbers are different from the paper version. If you can't give the iPad page number can you tell me what section and where to look for that rule?
I mean it has to say somewhere where an HQ choice behaves like a troop choice for what ever purposes.
It's in the Necron codex. The Cryptek joins a Warrior unit. That's all you need to prove - for it to become anything but the Warrior unit after all the Warriors die would require a rule... that doesn't exist.
Yep, each codex covers the 'characters' in that army. And until GW gets around to doing FAQs again, point them at the old SWFAQ on Wolf Guard and ask what has changed.
We play this in the very same manner. We had discussions about it and with only one vote against it counting as troops, it was implemented in our ruleset.
A Royal Court is a HQ choice. A Cryptek joining another unit, however, is not part of the Royal Court as it no longer is part of said unit. It now is part of the unit it chose to join. The rules explicitely say that the Cryptek no longer is part of the Royal Court:
Otherwise, they remain part of the Royal Court.
(Codex: Necrons (2011), p. 90)
A Cryptek that joined another unit is not part of the Royal Court, it therefore is no longer a HQ choice. It belongs to the unit it chose to join and gains its status. Joining troops therefore gets them OS.
If their unit gets reduced to 1 single member, and it being the Cryptek, the unit is not destroyed as the Cryptek is the last living (well..."living"...it's a Necron after all) member. It is still allowed its Ever Living roll, as this is part of the model's profile and does not, in any way, relate to the HQ status it used to have.
A Cryptek that joined another unit is not part of the Royal Court, it therefore is no longer a HQ choice. It belongs to the unit it chose to join and gains its status. Joining troops therefore gets them OS.
The Cryptek is still a HQ choice. Why is it not a HQ choice anymore? Just because it's not part of the Royal Court, it is not "therefore is no longer a HQ choice". Again, I ask for page numbers. How am I going to learn when all someone says is "it's in the codex". Again nothing has been proven. I can't verify that anyone is saying. Not trying to be daft, trying to learn and if I am going to play this way, will need to prove it then.
Again, where in the BRB or codex does it say "A unit is no longer the choice of where it was originally and now becomes another choice of the unit it joined."? I am great full you guys are trying to help me out, but again, no proof has been provided. I believe 40K is a permissive rules set. It has to tell you that you can be able to do something so where does it say the Cryptek becomes troops when the codex says it belongs in the HQ slot but doesn't take up a slot. Where is the permissive rule that says, Cryptek looses it's HQ status and becomes troops?
What am I going to say? It's in the Necron codex and I am right, you are wrong? Page numbers and where to look please.
A Cryptek that joined another unit is not part of the Royal Court, it therefore is no longer a HQ choice. It belongs to the unit it chose to join and gains its status. Joining troops therefore gets them OS.
The Cryptek is still a HQ choice. Why is it not a HQ choice anymore? Just because it's not part of the Royal Court, it is not "therefore is no longer a HQ choice".
Because it's not part of the unit that is the HQ choice, it's part of the unit that is a Troop choice. How is it an HQ choice?
Again, I ask for page numbers. How am I going to learn when all someone says is "it's in the codex". Again nothing has been proven. I can't verify that anyone is saying. Not trying to be daft, trying to learn and if I am going to play this way, will need to prove it then.
We've quoted it. Repeatedly. At this point I have to assume you don't own the Codex: Necrons
Again, where in the BRB or codex does it say "A unit is no longer the choice of where it was originally and now becomes another choice of the unit it joined."? I am great full you guys are trying to help me out, but again, no proof has been provided. I believe 40K is a permissive rules set. It has to tell you that you can be able to do something so where does it say the Cryptek becomes troops when the codex says it belongs in the HQ slot but doesn't take up a slot. Where is the permissive rule that says, Cryptek looses it's HQ status and becomes troops?
What am I going to say? It's in the Necron codex and I am right, you are wrong? Page numbers and where to look please.
Royal Court entry in the Army List part of the Necron codex. I don't have a page number because my books are elsewhere.
A Cryptek that joined another unit is not part of the Royal Court, it therefore is no longer a HQ choice. It belongs to the unit it chose to join and gains its status. Joining troops therefore gets them OS.
The Cryptek is still a HQ choice. Why is it not a HQ choice anymore? Just because it's not part of the Royal Court, it is not "therefore is no longer a HQ choice".
How does picking units work in 40k? Do you buy a unit model-for-model or do you buy an entire unit? A Necron Warrior does not have OS. Its unit has OS. A Necron Warrior is not a Troops choice. A Necron Warrior unit is a Troops choice. A Crpytek is not a HQ choice. A Royal Court is a HQ choice. If you remove a Cryptek from the Royal Court, it no longer is part of the Royal Court and thus no longer is a HQ unit.
Again, I ask for page numbers. How am I going to learn when all someone says is "it's in the codex". Again nothing has been proven. I can't verify that anyone is saying. Not trying to be daft, trying to learn and if I am going to play this way, will need to prove it then.
You did not see the rules quote with an ACTUAL PAGE NUMBER in my previous post apparently...
Otherwise, they remain part of the Royal Court.
(Codex: Necrons (2011), p. 90)
I am great full you guys are trying to help me out, but again, no proof has been provided.
You are not looking for help, you are looking for affirmation for your very own personal view that interferes with the rules.
"Before the battle, each member of the Royal Court has the option of being split off from his unit and assigned to lead a different unit from the following list..."
Could you bold the part that says it changes its Battlefield Role?
CrownAxe wrote: He is specifically a part of the warrior squad. Crypteks can't even choose to leave like an IC can. They are a part of the unit for all rules purposes and that includes objective secured
That's quite ironic because unlike a Cryptek, the IC-rule actually states that they are part of the unit for all rules purposes
rigeld2 wrote: The Cryptek joins the unit. It's part of the unit. Please cite permission to treat him as something other than part of the unit he joined.
If you think you have an argument based on rules, that's cool, but you should support it with actual, I don't know, rules. That's cool.
How about you cite permission to change his Battlefield Role from HQ to Troops?
BRB: "Certain rules can alter a unit’s Battlefield Role, changing it, for example, from a Fast Attack unit to a Troops unit. If a unit changes its Battlefield Role due to such a rule, it maintains its new role for the entirety of the game."
Q: Does the Royal Court have a rule that alters his Battlefield Role when he joins a unit of Troops?
A: No.
Royal Court members automatically become Troops because they don't have the IC special rule. The ICUSR has a written exception in the rules because it is a unit on its own already due to being IC. Non-IC models are not allowed to form a unit on their own.
Kangodo wrote: "Before the battle, each member of the Royal Court has the option of being split off from his unit and assigned to lead a different unit from the following list..."
Could you bold the part that says it changes its Battlefield Role?
Done. A different unit means they aren't part of the Royal Court unit, meaning they are no longer bound by the restrictions on that unit. Only the unit they're a member of.
That's quite ironic because unlike a Cryptek, the IC-rule actually states that they are part of the unit for all rules purposes
Sure - because their unit membership can change. A Cryptek's can't (after assignment).
How about you cite permission to change his Battlefield Role from HQ to Troops?
Been there, done that. You even quoted it for me.
BRB: "Certain rules can alter a unit’s Battlefield Role, changing it, for example, from a Fast Attack unit to a Troops unit. If a unit changes its Battlefield Role due to such a rule, it maintains its new role for the entirety of the game."
Q: Does the Royal Court have a rule that alters his Battlefield Role when he joins a unit of Troops?
A: No.
The Cryptek is not a unit, but a model. So your rules quote from the BRB is irrelevant and should be ignored.
Am I daft? Yes. Am I smart as you guys? No. Does that make some of you guys better than me? NO. So to say I am not trying to learn and only proving a point is wrong.
I am not smart. I admit. I am slow to learn. Again, I am not perfect. I came here to learn and so this is why I asked.
Also someone said, they have proved their point, but no point has been proven because no page numbers were quoted. Shure I can say read the rule book it's in there. Read the codex it's in there. If I keep missing the part that some of you guys mean is not helping me now is it?
What is so wrong in quoting or saying what pages to read?
Davor wrote: Am I daft? Yes. Am I smart as you guys? No.
This has nothing to do with being smart or not. Nobody in here said anything about your intelligence or even went down to a personal level. We're talking rules here.
What is not acceptable, however, and pretty offensive is that you purposefully skip a direct rules quote with page numbers for the second time. At this point, I have to assume that you're doing it on purpose and that's just disrespectful and highly unconstructive for the discussion as a whole.
We took our codex, looked the page up and gave you both a direct quote and a page number - and you choose to ignore it twice. That's a display of poor manners.
Sigvatr wrote: Royal Court members automatically become Troops because they don't have the IC special rule.
According to what page of the BRB or Necron-codex?
rigeld2 wrote: Done. A different unit means they aren't part of the Royal Court unit, meaning they are no longer bound by the restrictions on that unit. Only the unit they're a member of.
Except that being 'assigned to lead a different unit' doesn't mean they are no longer part of the old unit nor does it mean they belong to the new unit for all rules purposes.
Nor is it permission to change their Battlefield Role.
Which makes it a model from a unit with the HQ Battlefield Role that is attached to a unit with the Troops Battlefield Role, which he cannot leave.
The Cryptek is not a unit, but a model. So your rules quote from the BRB is irrelevant and should be ignored.
It's a model from a HQ-unit, therefore giving it the HQ Battlefield Role.
Nothing in its rule tells you that it changes its Battlefield Role.
"leading a different" unit is so vague and un-RAW that it's even laughable to use it as an argument.
rigeld2 wrote: Done. A different unit means they aren't part of the Royal Court unit, meaning they are no longer bound by the restrictions on that unit. Only the unit they're a member of.
Except that being 'assigned to lead a different unit' doesn't mean they are no longer part of the old unit nor does it mean they belong to the new unit for all rules purposes.
Nor is it permission to change their Battlefield Role.
Battlefield Role is attached to a unit, not a model. Since the Cryptek is not a unit, it cannot have an HQ Battlefield Role.
The Cryptek is not a unit, but a model. So your rules quote from the BRB is irrelevant and should be ignored.
It's a model from a HQ-unit, therefore giving it the HQ Battlefield Role.
Nothing in its rule tells you that it changes its Battlefield Role.
"leading a different" unit is so vague and un-RAW that it's even laughable to use it as an argument.
Cite the definition of Battlefield Role and bold where it applies to models. It's laughable to use your argument without having done so.
Except that being 'assigned to lead a different unit' doesn't mean they are no longer part of the old unit nor does it mean they belong to the new unit for all rules purposes.
It is explicitely stated that they are no longer part of their old unit...I have quoted this thrice now. Guys. Please.
According to what page of the BRB?
There's an entire chapter on Characters...page 100...German BRB, I don't have the English one at hand since our FTP server is down for maintenance right now. Here's the quote, translated:
"Remember, a character that has joined a unit follows all the normal rules for being part of a unit."
Except that being 'assigned to lead a different unit' doesn't mean they are no longer part of the old unit nor does it mean they belong to the new unit for all rules purposes.
It is explicitely stated that they are no longer part of their old unit...I have quoted this thrice now. Guys. Please.
According to what page of the BRB?
There's an entire chapter on Characters...page 100...German BRB, I don't have the English one at hand since our FTP server is down for maintenance right now. Here's the quote, translated:
"Remember that a character that joined a unit is part of the unit and follows all regular rules that go along with this."
I'll back this one up with:
"They are effectively just another trooper in their unit, with enhanced characteristics and perhaps a wider selection of wargear choices. Other characters, such as Mephiston of the Blood Angels, fight as units on their own." - page 100 Character Types
Note they specifically use an Independent Character as an example that tells you they are their own unit, rather than part of the unit they joined.
rigeld2 wrote: Battlefield Role is attached to a unit, not a model. Since the Cryptek is not a unit, it cannot have an HQ Battlefield Role.
But the Royal Court is a unit with the HQ Battlefield Role. Sadly for you, the Necron-codex tells you he is split off from his unit and assigned to lead a different unit. Both of those are not addressed in the BRB to tell you what it actually means.
Cite the definition of Battlefield Role and bold where it applies to models. It's laughable to use your argument without having done so.
After you cite the part where being split off from his unit and assigned to lead a different unit means he is no longer considered part of the HQ-unit. What Lords and Crypteks desperately need is a rule like this: "a Mek cannot leave his unit and is treated as part of it for the entire battle for all rules purposes."
Sigvatr wrote: There's an entire chapter on Characters...page 100...German BRB, I don't have the English one at hand since our FTP server is down for maintenance right now. Here's the quote, translated:
"Remember, a character that has joined a unit follows all the normal rules for being part of a unit."
/E: Added genuine English BRB quote.
Don't forget to include the rest of the rule: If a character is in a unit that charges into close combat, the character charges too, as it is part of the unit. If the character’s unit is locked in close combat, he fights as part of the unit. It explains how he is part of a unit, which is no permission to continue to treat him as Troops when the rest of the unit has been killed.
Except that being 'assigned to lead a different unit' doesn't mean they are no longer part of the old unit nor does it mean they belong to the new unit for all rules purposes.
It is explicitely stated that they are no longer part of their old unit...I have quoted this thrice now. Guys. Please.
According to what page of the BRB?
There's an entire chapter on Characters...page 100...German BRB, I don't have the English one at hand since our FTP server is down for maintenance right now. Here's the quote, translated:
"Remember that a character that joined a unit is part of the unit and follows all regular rules that go along with this."
I'll back this one up with:
"They are effectively just another trooper in their unit, with enhanced characteristics and perhaps a wider selection of wargear choices. Other characters, such as Mephiston of the Blood Angels, fight as units on their own."
- page 100 Character Types
Note they specifically use an Independent Character as an example that tells you they are their own unit, rather than part of the unit they joined.
If you're referring to Mephiston, note that he is not an Independent Character.
Difference between a Cryptek and a Vet Sergeant is the Cryptek is taken as part of another unit and then divvied out, as opposed to being taken as part of the unit, in the actual entry. However, I still don't see the difference in terms of rules, just in terms of how it is set out in the Codex.
rigeld2 wrote: Battlefield Role is attached to a unit, not a model. Since the Cryptek is not a unit, it cannot have an HQ Battlefield Role.
But the Royal Court is a unit with the HQ Battlefield Role.
Irrelevant. Is the Cryptek a member of that unit? Or is he leading a different unit?
Sadly for you he's not a member of the Royal Court unit.
Using your argument a Cryptek that is allocated to a Warrior unit must:
Fire at the same target all other RC members do
Charge a unit all other RC members do
Cannot move if anyRC member is locked in combat
Ditto for shooting
Cannot be shot if any RC member is locked in combat
... need I go on?
Cite the definition of Battlefield Role and bold where it applies to models. It's laughable to use your argument without having done so.
After you cite the part where being split off from his unit and assigned to lead a different unit means he is no longer considered part of the HQ-unit.
What Lords and Crypteks desperately need is a rule like this: "a Mek cannot leave his unit and is treated as part of it for the entire battle for all rules purposes."
So you're saying Crypteks can't be split off from the RC? By your assertion they can't end out of coherency, etc.
Sigvatr wrote: There's an entire chapter on Characters...page 100...German BRB, I don't have the English one at hand since our FTP server is down for maintenance right now. Here's the quote, translated:
"Remember, a character that has joined a unit follows all the normal rules for being part of a unit."
/E: Added genuine English BRB quote.
Don't forget to include the rest of the rule:
If a character is in a unit that charges into close combat, the character charges too, as it is part of the unit. If the character’s unit is locked in close combat, he fights as part of the unit. It explains how he is part of a unit, which is no permission to continue to treat him as Troops when the rest of the unit has been killed.
Please, reread that sentence. He's part of a unit but that's not permission to treat him as part of the unit? Seriously?
Irrelevant. Is the Cryptek a member of that unit? Or is he leading a different unit?
Sadly for you he's not a member of the Royal Court unit.
Using your argument a Cryptek that is allocated to a Warrior unit must:
Fire at the same target all other RC members do
Charge a unit all other RC members do
Cannot move if any RC member is locked in combat
Ditto for shooting
Cannot be shot if any RC member is locked in combat
... need I go on?
So you're saying Crypteks can't be split off from the RC? By your assertion they can't end out of coherency, etc.
Please, reread that sentence. He's part of a unit but that's not permission to treat him as part of the unit? Seriously?
RAW? Yes.
Until they add "and is treated as part of it for the entire battle for all rules purposes." to the rule.
It's not my fault that it doesn't work like it should and that they are so casual in their rules that it creates these issues.
It's the big 'Invulnerable Save'-bs all over again.
Irrelevant. Is the Cryptek a member of that unit? Or is he leading a different unit?
Sadly for you he's not a member of the Royal Court unit.
Using your argument a Cryptek that is allocated to a Warrior unit must:
Fire at the same target all other RC members do
Charge a unit all other RC members do
Cannot move if any RC member is locked in combat
Ditto for shooting
Cannot be shot if any RC member is locked in combat
... need I go on?
So you're saying Crypteks can't be split off from the RC? By your assertion they can't end out of coherency, etc.
Please, reread that sentence. He's part of a unit but that's not permission to treat him as part of the unit? Seriously?
RAW? Yes.
Until they add "and is treated as part of it for the entire battle for all rules purposes." to the rule.
It's not my fault that it doesn't work like it should and that they are so casual in their rules that it creates these issues.
It's the big 'Invulnerable Save'-bs all over again.
So what does the rule in the Necron codex actually do? Please, explain it to me.
I don't have a Necron codex so can't really make a contribution, but I've been following this carefully because it sounds like the same issue for an AM Commissar.
The Commissar is a HQ choice that does not occupy an FOC slot. Prior to deployment, he must be assigned to one unit and can't leave that unit. He's not an IC, so can't join another unit if his dies.
He may be assigned to a Troop, Elite, or HQ unit. Nowhere in the codex or BRB does it actually say that this assignment changes his role from HQ to Troop/Elite/HQ - I think it's implied, but doesn't actually say so.
The Cryptek/Lord that is part of a RC cannot once Deployment has been completed ever leave the RC as Characters are not permitted to join or leave a unit As per the (BRB page 100)
The Cryptek/Lord that before deployment is joined to a Troop Unit (Warriors/Immortals) Cannot ever Leave the unit or join another unit even if the all other members of that unit are destroyed. However the Lord/Cryptek gains all the USR's of the unit it joins (Example: DeathMarks and a despair Tek wound on 2+ against the chosen unit)
So as the Lord/Cryptek (HQ) (Which are characters) are joined to a unit of Warriors (Troops), will gain Objective Secured as they are part of that unit, If the Warriors are wiped out but the Lord/Cryptek remain they still have Objective Secured, as they are still part of that unit (BRB page 100) and were purchased as a HQ choice, So they are an HQ choice that in certain cases will have Objective Secured depending on which unit they are joined to.
A Character is almost never a single model, (Assassins, Mepheston...Etc are some exceptions) and Characters that are part of a Unit (Troop,Elite,Fast...ETC) will always be part of that unit until every member of that unit including the Character is destroyed, There are exceptions to this such as Justicar Thawn in the Gk codex. But those exceptions are few and far between.
The one and only way to remove Objective Secured from a Character in a Troop unit is to cause the Model to gain the ICUSR, and then wipe out the other non-characters from the unit.
So what does the rule in the Necron codex actually do? Please, explain it to me.
"For each Necron overlord in your army (including [list of spec characters]), the army can also include a Royal Court. This unit does not take up an HQ choice
Composition
0-5 Necron Lords
0-5 Crypteks
Before the battle, each member of the Royal Court has the option of *being split off from his unit* and **assigned to lead** a different unit from the following list: Necron Warriors, [list of other units]. Only one member of the Royal Court can join each unit in this manner. Otherwise, they remain part of the Royal Court"
* indicates that they leave the original unit (the Royal Court)
** the phrasing of 'assigned to lead' is very nebulous/vague and is doubtless where the confusion lies.
Kangodo wrote: "Before the battle, each member of the Royal Court has the option of being split off from his unit and assigned to lead a different unit from the following list..."
Could you bold the part that says it changes its Battlefield Role?
CrownAxe wrote: He is specifically a part of the warrior squad. Crypteks can't even choose to leave like an IC can. They are a part of the unit for all rules purposes and that includes objective secured
That's quite ironic because unlike a Cryptek, the IC-rule actually states that they are part of the unit for all rules purposes
rigeld2 wrote: The Cryptek joins the unit. It's part of the unit. Please cite permission to treat him as something other than part of the unit he joined.
If you think you have an argument based on rules, that's cool, but you should support it with actual, I don't know, rules. That's cool.
How about you cite permission to change his Battlefield Role from HQ to Troops?
BRB: "Certain rules can alter a unit’s Battlefield Role, changing it, for example, from a Fast Attack unit to a Troops unit. If a unit changes its Battlefield Role due to such a rule, it maintains its new role for the entirety of the game."
Q: Does the Royal Court have a rule that alters his Battlefield Role when he joins a unit of Troops?
A: No.
How about you cite a rule that gives a battlefield role to an individual model. Model's don't have a battlefield role, UNIT's do. A Royal Court unit has an HQ role, which applies to all the models in that unit. A necron warrior unit has a troops role, which applies to ALL models in that unit.
So, when you split off a Cryptek to a warrior squad, what unit is it in? The Warrior Unit, and what's the battlefield role of the warrior unit? Troops.
** the phrasing of 'assigned to lead' is very nebulous/vague and is doubtless where the confusion lies.
No, it's not. The very same term is used in the BRB when describing a Space Marine Sergeant. Read the Characters chapter. Thanks.
Thanks for the pointer but you are incorrect, the exact phrase "assigned to lead" is nowhere in the characters section, the only reference to Space Marine [Veteran] Sargents is as follows:
"Most characters are fielded in units from the start of the game, and represent squad leaders*, such as a space marine veteran seargent. They have their own profile, but do not have a separate entry. They are effectively just another trooper in their unit, with enhanced characteristics and perhaps a wider selection of weapons and wargear choices. Other characters, such as mephiston [...]"
Saying that a model "represents a squad leader" and following a rule called Model X can be "assigned to lead" are not the same thing. I actually agree both with your interpretation (and therefore the BAO judge ruling) but somone asked for a quote of the relevant Necron passage and I happened to have the Necron Codex nearby so I provided it. No need to get frustrated.
Saying that a model "represents a squad leader" and following a rule called Model X can be "assigned to lead" are not the same thing. I actually agree both with your interpretation (and therefore the BAO judge ruling) but somone asked for a quote of the relevant Necron passage and I happened to have the Necron Codex nearby so I provided it. No need to get frustrated.
The headline is called "Characters as Leaders" - to add on that. If your claim is that there is a rules difference between the beforementioned terms, then you have to point to rules evidence that supports said claim.
The headline is called "Characters as Leaders" - to add on that. If your claim is that there is a rules difference between the beforementioned terms, then you have to point to rules evidence that supports said claim.
No its not! the headline to the section I quoted is called Character Types. The NEXT section is called Characters as Leaders and describes how you can take leaderships with the highest leadership in the squad.
Whatever, I don't care enough to argue, I refer you to my first post in this thread.
gigasnail wrote: I'm glad this came up; I'd never heard of this being an issue before now.
I appreciate everyone's input on this, whether we agree on the interpretation or not.
That's because in 6th it was covered by the FAQs that GW has pulled and replaced with their craptacular 7th ed 'FAQs' (ie minor errata to cover rules changes for 7th, but none of the previous errata or FAQs that still apply or need answers). Should they ever actually do FAQs, I'm pretty sure we know how this will be answered, but in the meantime people will argue about it.
In my opinion the cryptek definitely counts as a troops choice. They're characters, but they're not independent, and they're attached out like advisers.
Is a commissar attached to a guard unit not a troops choice?
Is a mekboy attached to a boyz mob not a troops choice?
These guys are PERMANENTLY attached to the squad and become members for all intents and purposes. They cant detach willingly, and if everyone else dies, they are still that unit. They do not become independent, they are the last man standing in whatever squad they were assigned to.
Sigvatr wrote: The case has been settled I guess with all naysayers no longer posting. Did we seriously have a discussion with a clear result in YMDC? Impossible.
Nay, not impossible. Highly improbable, but it does happen from time to time.
Sigvatr wrote: The case has been settled I guess with all naysayers no longer posting. Did we seriously have a discussion with a clear result in YMDC? Impossible.
Hasn't really beens settled, just tied of told I am being wrong or not knowing anything. I know I don't know anything, that is why I am asking for understanding. If this was in court the Pro sayers wouldn't win because nothing has been proven. Just guesses and what shoulds.
I would say you guys are correct on assumptions, but not correct on proof. Again, I have went through all the pages, and I see quotes, but I don't see page numbers. Problem with quoting and not giving page numbers, is sometimes, the person quoting something left something out and since no page number is given, it can't be verified or debunked.
So yes you guys are correct on assumptions, but not on proof.
Just because people are quiet doesn't mean they concede. If we are going to have an actual debate BOTH PARTIES have to acknowledge what the other party has said. What this basically turned into is, A says X, B says Y but A says he is correct because he also adds in Z without acknowledging what X.
So don't forget to address what someone else says and ignore it just to prove your point. So no, I will say nothing has been proven because everyone is just going on why they think they are right, and now why the other person has made a mistake in judgment.
Davor wrote: I have went through all the pages, and I see quotes, but I don't see page numbers. Problem with quoting and not giving page numbers, is sometimes, the person quoting something left something out and since no page number is given, it can't be verified or debunked.
I would say you guys are correct on assumptions, but not correct on proof. Again, I have went through all the pages, and I see quotes, but I don't see page numbers.
With all due respect, but if you seriously claim that there have not been given any direct quotes or page numbers, then you are not looking for any constructive discussion, but instead are clearly trying to provoke other users into making inflammantory responses. There have been multiple quotes, pages etc. given on anything that was asked for. Willingly ignoring those to make a point (which is not possible to begin with) is extremely poor behavior.
Davor wrote: Again, I have went through all the pages, and I see quotes, but I don't see page numbers.
You're either lying, trolling, or unable to read. They exist - your willful ignorance notwithstanding.
I'm truly not trying to be offensive, but I don't see any other alternatives. Unless you have a significant amount of people in this thread on ignore the page numbers are there.
Davor wrote: I have went through all the pages, and I see quotes, but I don't see page numbers. Problem with quoting and not giving page numbers, is sometimes, the person quoting something left something out and since no page number is given, it can't be verified or debunked.
I would say you guys are correct on assumptions, but not correct on proof. Again, I have went through all the pages, and I see quotes, but I don't see page numbers.
With all due respect, but if you seriously claim that there have not been given any direct quotes or page numbers, then you are not looking for any constructive discussion, but instead are clearly trying to provoke other users into making inflammantory responses. There have been multiple quotes, pages etc. given on anything that was asked for. Willingly ignoring those to make a point (which is not possible to begin with) is extremely poor behavior.
Again, I am not trying to provoke. Page numbers have been proven now that I see.(again we are all human I could have missed them but now they are shown to me) and I will concede, the correct call was made.
You know it would be nice though if people actually debated instead of trying to just prove their point. What ever happened to actually acknowledging what other people say instead of just saying they are wrong? That is what happened in this thread and could be a reason why some of these pages go on and on debating. People have to prove they are right instead of having an open mind for a real discussion.
That being said, I believe the correct call was made now.
Davor wrote: What ever happened to actually acknowledging what other people say instead of just saying they are wrong? That is what happened in this thread and could be a reason why some of these pages go on and on debating. People have to prove they are right instead of having an open mind for a real discussion.
It did happen. Pages were cited. Do I need to go quote every post with a page number to prove it?
Again, I am not trying to provoke. Page numbers have been proven now that I see.(again we are all human I could have missed them but now they are shown to me)
I quoted one quote thrice and you still refused to see it.
There's not anymore real discussion to be had; I don't agree with the points that have been raised. The FAQ's that cleared this up are no longer in use. If GW meant for it to continue to work the same, the FAQ's would have remained the same. I do not feel the lines from the character section of the BRB are applicable to characters that aren't bought as part of the unit; others disagree but there's not more we can do other than go around and around about it. There's no resolution on the issue, just agreeing to disagree.
I can't comment on the or mek/commisar issue, I don't own those codexes.
Omission of things from old FAQs in the current FAQs is not a reversal of the ruling. A reversal would be if they had the same FAQ question and changed the answer to be the opposite.
absolutely the right call was made on this issue from the OP.
Sigvatr wrote: The case has been settled I guess with all naysayers no longer posting. Did we seriously have a discussion with a clear result in YMDC? Impossible.
Really? Really? 'Declaring victory because people don't care enough to actually post.'
Do you want to know why I am no longer posting?
Because my interpretation of RAI is the same as your interpretation of RAW, I just believe that the wording is unclear because GW-rules are informally written.
We both played it the same way and we both continue to play it the same way and we both agree with the decision of the TO.
Instead of discussing for the sake of discussing I'd rather put my effort in genuine questions where people need help with a real issue.
This has nothing to do with "declaring victory". In this very case, I am genuinely interested in why people get this wrong and even asked one person who disagrees a simple question to understand why he got it wrong. Since noone answered, I just assumed that it's clear now.
RAW in this case is clear, and RAI should be clear as well as it goes along just fine with how the rules are written.
Up to this point, I have neither seen an actual argument in favor of a RAW nor RAI disagreeing with the obvious way how it's played. The only ones that have, so far, referred to rules is the "Troops" crowd.
Oh really? Please reread what you typed: "Did we seriously have a discussion with a clear result in YMDC? Impossible."
I am genuinely interested in why people get this wrong
Me too, can you explain to me why you are wrong? I really would like to know!
/sarcasm.
That's not a decent way to discuss stuff.
No, RAW is not clear!
RAI is clear, but not RAW as long as GW insists on using a dozen different words to describe stuff.
That's like saying that "he likes to chill out with his bro's" is the same as describing that a model joins a unit and leaves his old one.
Stuff like that will continue to happen until WotC buys out GW and writes their rules.
Obvious? Yes. But written so there can be no confusion or discussion.
Unlike GW that doesn't even tell you how to take Invulnerable Saves :')
They describe every single word and possible action.
They wouldn't even dream of using a word like "split off" or "assigned to lead a different unit" without fully explaining what impact that has on every possible question.
Before people state that the above would be too complicated for people to enjoy, I wonder how many have played Magic and ever glanced at their Rulebook with more then a passing interest? As a casual player at best, I was more then able to sit down at the table and quickly learn what made up one Turn, what each Phase within was used for and how to go about completing basic actions required during those Phases. The rest was all up to reading what was printed on the cards as that would inform us of modifications to occur after those point. That and loosing a few times till I learned that the secret was to take my friends broken decks along, as trying to build anything short around his players would be suicide at best. Warhammer already has a great deal of similarities, basic system of Rules with modifications found on Models and their kin instead of cards, they Publishers sadly devoted much of the book to being a marketing campaign instead of a dedicated Rule Lawyer glossary to go with it.
I know I would be thankful for one, I've applied a lot of the logical arguments people put forth here and found some very broken outcomes... so confusion definitely occurs. More bothersome is the Rule as Written interactions which lead to 'Black Holes' which can only be closed by ignoring them entirely and going about the rest of the game....
JinxDragon wrote: Before people state that the above would be too complicated for people to enjoy, I wonder how many have played Magic and ever glanced at their Rulebook with more then a passing interest?
As a casual player at best, I was more then able to sit down at the table and quickly learn what made up one Turn, what each Phase within was used for and how to go about completing basic actions required during those Phases. The rest was all up to reading what was printed on the cards as that would inform us of modifications to occur after those point. That and loosing a few times till I learned that the secret was to take my friends broken decks along, as trying to build anything short around his players would be suicide at best. Warhammer already has a great deal of similarities, basic system of Rules with modifications found on Models and their kin instead of cards, they Publishers sadly devoted much of the book to being a marketing campaign instead of a dedicated Rule Lawyer glossary to go with it.
I know I would be thankful for one, I've applied a lot of the logical arguments people put forth here and found some very broken outcomes... so confusion definitely occurs.
More bothersome is the Rule as Written interactions which lead to 'Black Holes' which can only be closed by ignoring them entirely and going about the rest of the game....
I agree with this.
It is very much possible to create a set of sound rules, but the time is usually not taken to do so. There are often little signs of the lack of care, like the space marines codex which lists the Word Bearers chapter founding as the world bearers, and just a lack of explanation in some areas where things are supposed to be assumed they work how the blokes at GWHQ would play it.
And here in lies the problems... the more complex the game the more lengthy and verbose a comprehensive rules discussion would have to be for it to lay out everything.
Magic is a relatively simple game to pick up the basics and be able to play, as such it has a 36 page basic rule book. But if you want a comprehensive break down of exactly how everything works and be confident in your ruling on the interactions of any two cards, you need to read and understand the 206 page comprehensive rules.
40K on the other hand is a much more complex game and requires a lot more information just to have a basic grasp. As evidenced by the approx 200 page basic rule book, not to mention the around 50 pages of rules for each codex.
Multiply that by the same ratio, and it would likely require more than 1000 pages of text just to break down and remove any confusion from the BRB, and another 250+ just to fully and precisely break down any codex. ANd if fact those numbers could very well be MUCH higher given that the function between number of basic and comprehensive pages needed is more likley to be exponential instead of simple linear function.
Most people do not have the time to try to unravel a document of such labyrinthine proportions... and I know no one at GW would have the time to create such a document.
Its not that magic is any more complicated that 40k. Its that Magic has a competitive base. 40k is designed to be a casual game between friendly players as the design team has declared many times. Once you take it to a competitive level rules need to be made much tighter. Our 200 page rulebook is as much fluff and color as it is rules. It is clearly written with the group think mentality. All the designers "know" what the rules mean so when they read the rule, it is clear to them what it meant. Unfortunately the writing doesnt translate outside that group very well.
The core problem here is you have a 5th edition codex, clarified by 6th edition FAQs that are now gone, being played in 7th edition. There is no direct rule that addresses the problem so interpretation has to be made. And that is where debate comes from.
MtG has a competitive ruleset. It is designed primarily for balance and gets a lot of playtesting.
GW has stated multiple times that they do NOT release a balanced ruleset. They do NOT playtest their rules. Their ruleset is an insult to any game designer out there.
Its -slightly- incorrect to say magic has a 36 page rulebook, and that 40k has a 200 page rulebook and then 50 p codexes.
As magic cards all contain rules the rulebook + any minirulebook for the current block of cards + cards rule text = a lot of rules.
Even looking past magic there is the now sadly defunct VTES which was originally jyhad put out out by WoTC as an advanced competitive card game. It had a ~150 page rulebook in addition to all the rules for the cards and there was no arguements about how what affects what, because order of operations was clearly laid out as well as the text of how it was affected/modified by the cards.
GW has a bad habit of having some things that are very loosely defined as to how they interact or when they happen during a turn, especially when it comes down to writing codex rules and they tend to put in something that modifies or goes against a core rule in the rulebook but do a poor job explaining how it works.
chanceafs wrote: Multiply that by the same ratio, and it would likely require more than 1000 pages of text just to break down and remove any confusion from the BRB, and another 250+ just to fully and precisely break down any codex. ANd if fact those numbers could very well be MUCH higher given that the function between number of basic and comprehensive pages needed is more likley to be exponential instead of simple linear function.
Most people do not have the time to try to unravel a document of such labyrinthine proportions... and I know no one at GW would have the time to create such a document.
Except you're calculating that based on poor assumptions - that rules cannot be made clearer by shortening them. There's a lot of fluff in the BRB, even in the rules portion. It's not that 40k rules are complex (they aren't). It's that GW sucks at writing rules.
How are Cryptecs not an HQ choice?
They are bought on page 90 of the necro codex, under the giant heading "HQ".
That would be like saying that Space Marine Veterans are not an HQ choice, because the unit is called "Command Squad".
While neither uses a force org slot, both are still clearly placed in the HQ role.
I don't have the new AM codex handy, but I'm going to bet you can say the same for tank commanders and command squads. Just because the guys inside have a different name than the unit, doesn't mean that aren't part of the HQ slot the unit is in.
As for the cryptek:
If a unit of warriors is wiped out, and all that remains is the attached cryptek, can a Ghost Ark replace the warriors?
To me, this will tell us the answer for objective secured cryptek.
When they join a unit they count as that unit for all purposes. If the unit is a Troops selection, they would count as troops as that falls under all purposes. They can never leave the unit so they may never count as something else. In fact the rules never give you permission if the cryptek is the sole remaining member of a unit after casualties to revert to another status or join another unit, or join up with a royal court if there is one.
so how could it count as anything other than the unit it is part of?
sidenote- crypteks have pretty weak stats, its not like they are going to survive past their unit for a long time. they are what, T4, 1 Wound, sv 4+? no inv save? Not sure why some people are acting like this RAW is game breaking.
HawaiiMatt wrote: How are Cryptecs not an HQ choice?
They are bought on page 90 of the necro codex, under the giant heading "HQ".
That would be like saying that Space Marine Veterans are not an HQ choice, because the unit is called "Command Squad".
While neither uses a force org slot, both are still clearly placed in the HQ role.
I don't have the new AM codex handy, but I'm going to bet you can say the same for tank commanders and command squads. Just because the guys inside have a different name than the unit, doesn't mean that aren't part of the HQ slot the unit is in.
As for the cryptek:
If a unit of warriors is wiped out, and all that remains is the attached cryptek, can a Ghost Ark replace the warriors?
To me, this will tell us the answer for objective secured cryptek.
-Matt
once again... a cryptek is not an HQ choice... a warrior is not a troop choice. individual models or not any type of choice. Only units have battlefield roles. A Royal Court as a unit is an HQ choice. And a unit of warriors is a troop choice. So once again, the question is, which unit is the cryptek a part of once it's placed on the field? And that will provide the answer to all future questions.
They have 5+ everliving which is probably why people are worrying about it. Shoot entire unit off of objective and on a 5+ the cryptek alone can come back and super contests the objective.
I would need to check the wording of the ghost ark bit it is a good point regarding resurrecting additional warriors.
Crypteks are not a HQ choice. The Royal Court is a HQ choice. It's an important difference because a split-off Cryptek that joined a unit of Necron Warriors is now part of a Troops unit (and therefore gains Troops but loses HQ status) whereas his former co-workers who remain part of the Royal Court are still part of a HQ unit.
As for the cryptek: If a unit of warriors is wiped out, and all that remains is the attached cryptek, can a Ghost Ark replace the warriors? To me, this will tell us the answer for objective secured cryptek.
Yes. Reasoning: the Cryptek and the Warriors are one unit. Unless the unit is wiped out, it is always possible to replenish Warriors.
The more interesting question is if you could revive a Cryptek with a Ghost Ark. RAW, you can, as Ghost Arks only specifiy "models" in the unit.
The more interesting question is if you could revive a Cryptek with a Ghost Ark. RAW, you can, as Ghost Arks only specifiy "models" in the unit.
Yeah... but that question leads to the much more slippery slope of since it doesn't specify a type of model is there any reason you couldn't add an immortal, or a Lord, or a carnifex for that matter. Again... poorly written GW loopholes, and the simplest solution is since it only targets a unit of warriors it can only add warriors to that unit.
The more interesting question is if you could revive a Cryptek with a Ghost Ark. RAW, you can, as Ghost Arks only specifiy "models" in the unit.
Yeah... but that question leads to the much more slippery slope of since it doesn't specify a type of model is there any reason you couldn't add an immortal, or a Lord, or a carnifex for that matter. Again... poorly written GW loopholes, and the simplest solution is since it only targets a unit of warriors it can only add warriors to that unit.
That's where RAI comes in. Restoring Warriors, Necron Lords and Crypteks is possible as those are the only choices that can be part of the unit at the start of the game. Anything else is just stupid.
The more interesting question is if you could revive a Cryptek with a Ghost Ark. RAW, you can, as Ghost Arks only specifiy "models" in the unit.
Yeah... but that question leads to the much more slippery slope of since it doesn't specify a type of model is there any reason you couldn't add an immortal, or a Lord, or a carnifex for that matter. Again... poorly written GW loopholes, and the simplest solution is since it only targets a unit of warriors it can only add warriors to that unit.
That's where RAI comes in. Restoring Warriors, Necron Lords and Crypteks is possible as those are the only choices that can be part of the unit at the start of the game. Anything else is just stupid.
And its just as safe to say that adding Lords and Crypteks are just as stupid. Its all a matter of interpretation, which all varies wildly
Doesn't the length of this thread speak to how horribly written GW's rules are? With a clear rule set the issue could be easily solved through the quoting of a few BRB pages.
The "pro Troops" side has provided tons of rules to back their arguments up.
The "pro stays HQ" side has nothing. Literally, nothing. If one side has nothing, that side has no meaning for the entire discussion and is better off withdrawing.
A large part of this thread was one poster stating they hadn't seen any quotes, despite them being repeated ad nauseum.
Nope. I didn't say quotes. I said page numbers where the quotes were referenced too. I seen lots of quotes but the page references have been done now. .
For me at least, I say I finally understand as to why. I agree the call is correct that was made. One thing I don't agree to, but that has nothing to do with the question I asked so won't bother mentioning it.
Just want to say thank you to everyone for giving your opinion, and thank you for making me understand as to why.
Sigvatr wrote: MtG has a competitive ruleset. It is designed primarily for balance and gets a lot of playtesting.
GW has stated multiple times that they do NOT release a balanced ruleset. They do NOT playtest their rules. Their ruleset is an insult to any game designer out there.
Huh. How do you ever manage to play a game of WH40k?
In the rules they advice to decide by dice if in argument. That itself should be a tell.
A large part of this thread was one poster stating they hadn't seen any quotes, despite them being repeated ad nauseum.
Nope. I didn't say quotes. I said page numbers where the quotes were referenced too. I seen lots of quotes but the page references have been done now. .
You do realize page numbers are impossible for some people to provide because of the new snook for at, right?
One of the most important quotes, below, is on page 575 for me. Someone with a different device will have a different page number. Someone with a physical book will have a different page number.
CHARACTER TYPES Most characters are fielded in units from the start of the game, and represent squad leaders, such as a Space Marine Veteran Sergeant. They have their own profile, but do not have a separate entry. They are effectively just another trooper in their unit, with enhanced characteristics and perhaps a wider selection of weapons and wargear choices.
We expect someone asking for references to be able to do at least a little work - with the heading in the actual quote it's not difficult to find the quote.
In addition,
Otherwise, they remain part of the Royal Court.
(Codex: Necrons (2011), p. 90)
Has a page number in it. Sigavtr quoted it to you twice and you still refuse to acknowledge it. That's the height of rudeness IMO.
In the rules they advice to decide by dice if in argument. That itself should be a tell.
Is this YMDC or an actual game?
You should PM yakface and ask him to have YMDC replaced by rolling dice as your preferred means of explaining rules. Do it, please.
This thread is done. One side has presented a lot of arguments, supported by actual rules and direct quotes (with page numbers) whereas the opposing side has neither. So, to round it up:
Q: Does a Cryptek get OS if it joins a unit of Necron Warriors?
A: A Cryptek that chooses to leave the Royal Court and join a unit of Necron Warriors before the game gets the Objective Secured USR as it now is fully part of the Warrior unit.
I will officially agree.
I seen lots of quotes but the page references have been done now.