Am I reading this wrong, or could you take one on both a Cryptek in the C'tan formation, and a separate Cryptek in the main detachment?

Or are relics one per army, rather than one per detachment? It doesn't clarify on the page that there are any limitations, so I assume the limits on relics are from the core rulebook somewhere? Can't find them.

Check to see if there's a generic reference in the book that's similar to "Any relics presented in this book are one per army/detachment/formation regardless of faction".

Otherwise looking at the scanned page there's nothing that says you couldn't take multiple relics even within the same detachment/formation.

Well that's just unpleasant.

A 30 point upgrade to turn a first turn deep striking C'tan and two Crypteks unit into majority toughness 10, S 10 and FNP on the C'tan?

Immune to S6 and even Lascannons wound it on a 5+. Yeah.

It does seem to imply that the relics are exclusive to the Mephrit dynasty, meaning that you would need at least one of the formations or the dynasty cohort detachment to take any of them, but I was wondering the same thing. 3 barge lords with re-rollable 2+, and a 3++ re-rolling 1's? Wow

luke1705 wrote:
It does seem to imply that the relics are exclusive to the Mephrit dynasty, meaning that you would need at least one of the formations or the dynasty cohort detachment to take any of them, but I was wondering the same thing. 3 barge lords with re-rollable 2+, and a 3++ re-rolling 1's? Wow

As if barge lords weren't already a gigantic point sink paying pretty much only for defence.

It looks legal to put 3 God Shackles on the C'tan Shard.

Optimal load out
Veiltek - Veil of Darkness, God Shackle 70 points
Stormtek - Voltaic Staff, Lightning Field, God Shackle 45 points
C'tan Shard - Pyre Shards, Transdimensional Thunderbolt 245 points

Stormtek - on the battleground somewhere, God Shackle 35 points

so you get an S7, T7, 4+, 4++, eternal warrior

with +3 S, and + 3 T, 5+ FNP and +2 W from crypteks (that are all ablative buffs)

deep stike each turn, template attack (from the veil), haywire attack (from the storm tek)

but all for a whopping 395 points! Seems at the level of Wraith Knights, Dreadknights, and Imperial Knights.

col_impact wrote:
deep stike each turn, template attack (from the veil), haywire attack (from the storm tek).

Remember of course to double check each turn you don't have a better target you can move six inches towards, since the only thing deadlier than all that shooting is following all that shooting up with 5 WS5 S5 AP2 attacks.

changemod wrote:

col_impact wrote:
deep stike each turn, template attack (from the veil), haywire attack (from the storm tek).

Remember of course to double check each turn you don't have a better target you can move six inches towards, since the only thing deadlier than all that shooting is following all that shooting up with 5 WS5 S5 AP2 attacks.

You mean 5 WS5 S10 AP2 attacks I think.

Sounds like GWs way of saying let the T. C'tan in boys. And just an FYI, upgrading the crypteks to harbingers is actually illegal assuming the new codex doesn't change the crypteks rules(which it probably will)

 NecronLord3 wrote:
Sounds like GWs way of saying let the T. C'tan in boys. And just an FYI, upgrading the crypteks to harbingers is actually illegal assuming the new codex doesn't change the crypteks rules(which it probably will)

Wait, what?

 NecronLord3 wrote:
And just an FYI, upgrading the crypteks to harbingers is actually illegal assuming the new codex doesn't change the crypteks rules(which it probably will)

I think you are right there. The crypteks in the formation are not part of any royal court, so they seemingly can only get relics.

So currently you can make an s10, t10 shard, but no go on deep strike from Veil and any other goodies like voltaic staff.

 SilverDevilfish wrote:

 NecronLord3 wrote:
Sounds like GWs way of saying let the T. C'tan in boys. And just an FYI, upgrading the crypteks to harbingers is actually illegal assuming the new codex doesn't change the crypteks rules(which it probably will)

Wait, what?

Only members of a a royal court can be upgraded to Harbingers. Are the crypteks from the formations members of a royal court?

col_impact wrote:

 NecronLord3 wrote:
And just an FYI, upgrading the crypteks to harbingers is actually illegal assuming the new codex doesn't change the crypteks rules(which it probably will)

I think you are right there. The crypteks in the formation are not part of any royal court, so they seemingly can only get relics.

So currently you can make an s10, t10 shard, but no go on deep strike from Veil and any other goodies like voltaic staff.

Something tells me the crypteks in the formation will be upgradeable. Otherwise, a footslogging c'tan with 8s/t is just as useless as our current incarnation.

We may have a problem with the God Shackle. If there's a good chance for anything, it would be that you can't stack two identical effects on the same target, ala blessings. Let's hope this isn't the case.

Relics are what 0-1 in every other book, so why would they be different here?

 NecronLord3 wrote:
Relics are what 0-1 in every other book, so why would they be different here?

Because it looks like GW left that wording out of the release.

The term relic itself does not imply 0-1. Look at "relic blade" for an example of something you can freely include 2+ in an army.

Also we know that it will be fine to stack them because of the modifiers rule on pg 8. And that it doesn't say there is a limit to how many times the c'tan can be effected.

Another thing is this, how many of these relics can a cryptek have? Why can't a single tek have more than one god shackle or even the Solar thermite (which will be pretty pricy at the end) yeah the re-roll will be re-dundent but those staffs of light for 75pts each become s8 ap3 assault 3 and if you really wanna go full throttle 250more points for s10 ap3 assault 3x2. Only downside is range 12.

How many points would one pay to have a unit that is t10 with six s10 ap3 shots, one S9 ap2, 8 S4 ap- shots with four S10 ap2 melee at I4 and two s9 ap- at I2?

This is total of 575 pts which is pretty heafty but at the amount of firepower it can deal as well as how tough it is would you guys say it's worth it?


Also as a side note what is the unit type of this formation....?


2nd edit: Also THAT guy strat have the crypteks that have god shackles buffing the c'tan be at the corner of the board with a monolith infront blocking LOS.

I can't find anything in the wording that would prevent you from stacking, though the cost doesn't have the same benefit as the God Shackle.

I wouldn't take all the God Shackles on a single Cryptek, even if it is in the back since a good deep striking can leave him out to dry. By spreading the God Shackles out, both through the formation and one hidden away in a unit, loosing one Cryptek won't deflate your C'tan Shard as much.

Stacking the same relic on a single model is legal RAW (e.g. purchasing God Shackles multiple times on the same Cryptek), though it definitely crosses into silly. And one should always keep an eye on rules that dip into silly. Multi-purchasing buffs is stepping into unprecedented.

I imagine the most sensible way to play it (HYWPI) is with one God Shackle per army and crypteks in the formation that can be Harbingers. That version is an okay unit for its cost and will be potentially playable.

I would however rather the rules held up on their own and not rely on me noting that God Shackles is too cheap to stack.

col_impact wrote:
The term relic itself does not imply 0-1. Look at "relic blade" for an example of something you can freely include 2+ in an army.

Is a relic blade in the space marines relic section? Or is this just a melee weapon option.. I don't have the sm codex handy.

Relic Blades aren't Space Marine Relics. They would be in the Melee Weapons section.

Ultimately, if there is no wording restricting the selection to one per army, there is no restriction. I find it very likely that the restriction was intended, but don't have the rulebook and so can't verify this. If it's legitimately missing, I would expect to see an FAQ at some point in the future.

 NecronLord3 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The term relic itself does not imply 0-1. Look at "relic blade" for an example of something you can freely include 2+ in an army.

Is a relic blade in the space marines relic section? Or is this just a melee weapon option.. I don't have the sm codex handy.

Relic as a word carries no rule weight.

For example, Blood Angel Relics





There is no ambiguity RAW. However, as Oberrron pointed out, there is also nothing restricting multi-purchasing the same relic on the same model. Not that OP on the C'Tan shard formation, but multiple Solar Thermasites on a bargeLord gets broken fast. So we look to be forced to House Rule it and treating them like Chapter Relics seems to be the most elegant solution that can be argued as RAI.

So Relics as in " special rare" weapons are 0-1 in every other book. A relic blade is no more a relic than a Stormlord tank is a Stormlord SC from codex:Necrons.

So again, the new Necron book comes out and says "relics are one per army". Like every other book.

There is no ambiguity RAW. However, as Oberrron pointed out, there is also nothing restricting multi-purchasing the same relic on the same model. Not that OP on the C'Tan shard formation, but multiple Solar Thermasites on a bargeLord gets broken fast. So we look to be forced to House Rule it and treating them like Chapter Relics seems to be the most elegant solution that can be argued as RAI.

75 points for S10 on an already so pricey as to only be useful in specific playstyles model?

That's not even a fraction as broken as T10 for 30 points.

 NecronLord3 wrote:
So Relics as in " special rare" weapons are 0-1 in every other book. A relic blade is no more a relic than a Stormlord tank is a Stormlord SC from codex:Necrons.

So again, the new Necron book comes out and says "relics are one per army". Like every other book.

Can you quote from the new Necron book?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

changemod wrote:

There is no ambiguity RAW. However, as Oberrron pointed out, there is also nothing restricting multi-purchasing the same relic on the same model. Not that OP on the C'Tan shard formation, but multiple Solar Thermasites on a bargeLord gets broken fast. So we look to be forced to House Rule it and treating them like Chapter Relics seems to be the most elegant solution that can be argued as RAI.

75 points for S10 on an already so pricey as to only be useful in specific playstyles model?

That's not even a fraction as broken as T10 for 30 points.

Lol. S10, ap 1, armourbane sweep attacks (that ignore cover) and melee attacks for 75 points is really powerful.

an S10, T10 shard attached to vanilla crypteks would be footslogging and not potent enough to be playable.

col_impact wrote:
Lol. S10, ap 1, armourbane sweep attacks (that ignore cover) and melee attacks for 75 points is really powerful.

Okay, so now you have a nearly 400 point model with a twelve inch threat range that offers itself up to tarpiting if it dares to get aggressive. Fantastic.

It does very little at S10 it can't do at S8.

an S10, T10 shard attached to vanilla crypteks would be footslogging and not potent enough to be playable.

Vanilla if you only read the first half of a sentence and take it out of context, yes.

And even then, you'd effectively have a Great Unclean One with permanent Iron Arm and shooting attacks before it charges.

col_impact wrote:


Can you quote from the new Necron book?

When it come out I sure will


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also page three of Exterminatus:the rules states "this book includes rules, unique wargear, warlord traits..."

 NecronLord3 wrote:

col_impact wrote:


Can you quote from the new Necron book?

When it come out I sure will


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also page three of Exterminatus:the rules states "this book includes rules, unique wargear, warlord traits..."

Unique also doesn't carry rule weight. It just strengthens a RAI argument.

You and are arguing toward the same conclusion. I agree with you that you need to treat it as Chapter Relics.

However, your argument is currently based on conjecture. You are likely correct but you are still just going off conjecture.

My argument follows the standards you have to apply across all the rules. Uphold RAW unless it leads to brokenness. If broken then switch to conservative HYWPI based on the most elegant RAI.

"Any number of Crypteks that are in a Royal Court can be upgraded to a single, specific type of Harbinger"

Two ways to read that as a full sentence I can see:

"You may take as many duplicate Harbingers of a type as you wish in a court"

Or the most blunt, reading it like a programming language interpretation: "You may only take harbingers of a single type in a court."

The sentence is granting permission to take duplicate harbingers, followed by a sentence prohibiting duplicate wargear beyond their staves. Only if you take a phrase within the sentence out of context does it prohibit becoming a harbinger when outside a court.

changemod wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Lol. S10, ap 1, armourbane sweep attacks (that ignore cover) and melee attacks for 75 points is really powerful.

Okay, so now you have a nearly 400 point model with a twelve inch threat range that offers itself up to tarpiting if it dares to get aggressive. Fantastic.

It does very little at S10 it can't do at S8.

an S10, T10 shard attached to vanilla crypteks would be footslogging and not potent enough to be playable.

Vanilla if you only read the first half of a sentence and take it out of context, yes.

And even then, you'd effectively have a Great Unclean One with permanent Iron Arm and shooting attacks before it charges.

S10 armourbane auto penetrates AV12 vehicles which helps you out against all sorts of targets (including Imperial Knights), ID kills most characters (unless they have Eternal Warrior) and wounds Wraith Knights on a 2+. Seems good for an additional 50 points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

changemod wrote:
"Any number of Crypteks that are in a Royal Court can be upgraded to a single, specific type of Harbinger"

Two ways to read that as a full sentence I can see:

"You may take as many duplicate Harbingers of a type as you wish in a court"

Or the most blunt, reading it like a programming language interpretation: "You may only take harbingers of a single type in a court."

The sentence is granting permission to take duplicate harbingers, followed by a sentence prohibiting duplicate wargear beyond their staves. Only if you take a phrase within the sentence out of context does it prohibit becoming a harbinger when outside a court.

You are conflating two rules.

"Any number of Crypteks can be upgraded to a single, specific type of Harbinger"

"Any number of Crypteks that are in a Royal Court can be upgraded to a single, specific type of Harbinger"

Check the codex for the rule that is actually in the codex.

Having an Overlord in a detachment is what grants the detachment the ability to have a Royal Court. The rules as they are right now would require the Shard formation having the ability to have a Royal Court. But the Formation doesn't.

col_impact wrote:
S10 armourbane auto penetrates AV12 vehicles which helps you out against all sorts of targets (including Imperial Knights), ID kills most characters (unless they have Eternal Warrior) and wounds Wraith Knights on a 2+. Seems good for an additional 50 points.

First is okay, but still costs a lot more than just taking scarabs and is in an army that never really struggles with vehicles. Second requires you to roll a six to precision shot then your enemy to roll a 1 to look out sir, then fail their invulnerable save. Third... Well yes, it is indeed an excellent anti knight or Eldar Wraith army unit. Isn't that getting into catering to specific opponents though?

It's a bonus, but it still falls into the same trap the Barge Lord always falls into. One with nothing but a Scythe isn't pricier than a combat lord, but has a lot of vulnerabilities. One kitted up as a combat lord is so expensive that it starts eating into the rest of your army, and has low damage potential for cost. A combat lord with triple Thermecite has no remaining weaknesses beyond a few types of tarpit, but is now running Lord of War prices for a unit that lacks the range or number of attacks a comparable LoW would have.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:
You are conflating two rules.

"Any number of Crypteks can be upgraded to a single, specific type of Harbinger"

"Any number of Crypteks that are in a Royal Court can be upgraded to a single, specific type of Harbinger"

Check the codex for the rule that is actually in the codex.

Having an Overlord in a detachment is what grants the detachment the ability to have a Royal Court. The rules as they are right now would require the Shard formation having the ability to have a Royal Court. But the Formation doesn't.

And I'm telling you, you've misread it completely by focusing on a term within the sentence rather than the totality.

The rule is granting permission to duplicate harbingers within a court, which is important because otherwise the following sentence about not duplicating wargear would mean only one of each harbinger type per court, as they would all have the same staff.

It says nothing about needing to be in a court to become a harbinger.

Actually I see something else that might get what you want.

The Cryptek entry list itself grants broad permission to upgrade to a Harbinger by exchanging staff of light for a Harbinger weapon. The asterix then clarifies "Any number of Crypteks that are in a Royal Court can be upgraded to a single, specific type of Harbinger"

So the logical conflation that I was doing was conflating these two rules

"Any number of Crypteks that are in a Royal Court can be upgraded to a single, specific type of Harbinger"

"Crypteks that are in a Royal Court can be upgraded to a single, specific type of Harbinger"

col_impact wrote:
Actually I see something else that might get what you want.

The Cryptek entry list itself grants broad permission to upgrade to a Harbinger by exchanging staff of light for a Harbinger weapon. The asterix then clarifies "Any number of Crypteks that are in a Royal Court can be upgraded to a single, specific type of Harbinger"

So the logical conflation that I was doing was conflating these two rules

"Any number of Crypteks that are in a Royal Court can be upgraded to a single, specific type of Harbinger"

"Crypteks that are in a Royal Court can be upgraded to a single, specific type of Harbinger"

That's what I was trying to point out.

The sentence about courts and specific Harbingers is part of a paragraph that, with unnecessarily clunky wording, says that two Crypteks can have the same staff, but can't take the same additional wargear. It isn't granting the permission to upgrade to harbinger in the first place, which preexists.

You are wrong about S10 warscythe not being a big deal here. He can challenge and wipe HQs and ID kill things like TWC by going to s10. He basically jumps to the top of the combat monsters and even have a solid chance of taking out something like a T. C'tan all on his lonesome. Keep in mind that he will be reanimating 58% of the time (from the Mephrit Dynasty buff) and therewith getting "hit and run" on top of re-rolling his 2+ and rolls of one on his 3++.


So the optimal load out seems to be

Veiltek - Veil of Darkness, God shackle 70 points
Stormtek - Voltaic Staff, Lightning Field 35 points
C'tan Shard - Pyre Shards, Transdimensional Thunderbolt 245 points

350 points!

so you get an S7, T7, 4+, 4++, eternal warrior

with +1 S, and + 1 T, 5+ FNP and +2 W from crypteks (that are all ablative yet reanimating buffs)

deep stike each turn, template attack (from the veil), haywire attack (from the storm tek)

col_impact wrote:
. Keep in mind that he will be reanimating 58% of the time (from the Mephrit Dynasty buff) and therewith getting "hit and run" on top of re-rolling his 2+ and rolls of one on his 3++.

Specific to troops, the Dynasty buff.

As for a Tran C'tan...

Six wounds, 4 invul followed by FNP...

He'll hurt it, but he's getting stomped in return. Can't reanimate from that.

It creates a solid unit, but it's specific. Strength 8 and rerolling 1s on saves is a much bigger deal that those extra two strength points are.

changemod wrote:

col_impact wrote:
. Keep in mind that he will be reanimating 58% of the time (from the Mephrit Dynasty buff) and therewith getting "hit and run" on top of re-rolling his 2+ and rolls of one on his 3++.

Specific to troops, the Dynasty buff.

As for a Tran C'tan...

Six wounds, 4 invul followed by FNP...

He'll hurt it, but he's getting stomped in return. Can't reanimate from that.

It creates a solid unit, but it's specific. Strength 8 and rerolling 1s on saves is a much bigger deal that those extra two strength points are.

You can reanimate from Stomp. What makes you think you can't?

Also keep in mind that half the time the T. C'tan is going to be hitting himself.

People focussing on the S10 warscythes are missing that you also get S9 Tesla with him with 24" range which is not to be sniffed at! Though for me I'll play with 1 of each relic as that seems to be the clear intent so no reason to play otherwise. However it would open up some serious units.

col_impact wrote:
You can reanimate from Stomp. What makes you think you can't?

The fact that it flat out removes everything under it on a 6?

Also keep in mind that half the time the T. C'tan is going to be hitting himself.

You're just determined to sink as many points into this as you can, aren't you?

Yes, the more points you sink into a Command barge the more of it's weaknesses you plug... But you're still sinking more and more and more points into it. Constantly.

changemod wrote:

col_impact wrote:
You can reanimate from Stomp. What makes you think you can't?

The fact that it flat out removes everything under it on a 6?

Ever living rules trigger on being removed as a casualty, which Stomp triggers.


With regards to your comments on the bargeLord, I just don't think you have the right perspective on it. Sure against horde armies or casual armies its dumb, but against the best decks of the tourney track those points spent are golden, since they defeat the Dread Knight, Wraith Knight, and Imperial Knights, and Demons that rule the field.

The fact that it flat out removes everything under it on a 6? 

You get RP against removed effects.

You're just determined to sink as many points into this as you can, aren't you? 

Yes, the more points you sink into a Command barge the more of it's weaknesses you plug... But you're still sinking more and more and more points into it. Constantly.

Taking MSS is not sinking points into a Barge Lord it is absolutely mandatory equipment that everyone would ever take.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Taking MSS is not sinking points into a Barge Lord it is absolutely mandatory equipment that everyone would ever take.

Yes, because it's your "I don't have Eternal Warrior" insurance.

Mephrit has rerollable saves and a warlord table with EW on it. Suddenly it stops looking so urgent.

No MSS is your Ws4 & I2 insurance. If you could pick to have EW then yes MSS isn't as important but an 11:36 chance at EW isn't making the fairly small 15 point investment not mandatory. Ignoring ID for a second (as anything worth fighting will have EW or be T5+) MSS is still mandatory as Ws4 means you're not killing in a single round whilst an enemy hitting on 3s has a real chance to take you out in a couple of rounds. MSS should mean even if you strike after your opponent you should get 2 rounds at him for everyone 1 he gets at you plus you get some extra hits. It is absolutely worth the 15 point investment. As others have pointed out this helps make him the combat beast in the game which is great when playing against top tier lists.

changemod wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Taking MSS is not sinking points into a Barge Lord it is absolutely mandatory equipment that everyone would ever take.

Yes, because it's your "I don't have Eternal Warrior" insurance.

Mephrit has rerollable saves and a warlord table with EW on it. Suddenly it stops looking so urgent.

But if you don't take it, you can't mock your opponent to stop hitting themselves. Also the extra attacks from your opponent can help take down larger units that try and tar pit you.

 FlingitNow wrote:
No MSS is your Ws4 & I2 insurance. If you could pick to have EW then yes MSS isn't as important but an 11:36 chance at EW isn't making the fairly small 15 point investment not mandatory. Ignoring ID for a second (as anything worth fighting will have EW or be T5+) MSS is still mandatory as Ws4 means you're not killing in a single round whilst an enemy hitting on 3s has a real chance to take you out in a couple of rounds. MSS should mean even if you strike after your opponent you should get 2 rounds at him for everyone 1 he gets at you plus you get some extra hits. It is absolutely worth the 15 point investment. As others have pointed out this helps make him the combat beast in the game which is great when playing against top tier lists.

I defend MSS against the people who say it's not fun to play against because if a force weapon shows up, I'm probably dead before I can strike back. It's a weak solution too. Just turns it into a coin flip as to whether I'll be force-shivved or not.

The Thermicite is actually a better solution. The majority of force weapons aren't AP2, so I'm pretty much safe unless I roll two 1s in a row, equivalent to losing two wounds without the Thermicite. Even if it is AP2, I've got a roughly terminator save against it.

Taking MSS on top of that would just be mean. Their key role is filled.

As for not doing enough wounds in one round? Well yes, that's why I don't take solo Lords. Immunity to the shooting phase isn't a cure to low damage output in the assault phase.

I typed up a bit of a rant after this, but there's not a lot of a point to actually posting it. Boiled down to complaining about the attitudes of netlisters.

Where are the Mephrit dynasty rules at ?

Shield of Baal: Exterminatus Book 2

Someone leaked the rules before the release on their Facebook page.

col_impact wrote:

 NecronLord3 wrote:

col_impact wrote:


Can you quote from the new Necron book?

When it come out I sure will


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also page three of Exterminatus:the rules states "this book includes rules, unique wargear, warlord traits..."

Unique also doesn't carry rule weight. It just strengthens a RAI argument.

You and are arguing toward the same conclusion. I agree with you that you need to treat it as Chapter Relics.

However, your argument is currently based on conjecture. You are likely correct but you are still just going off conjecture.

My argument follows the standards you have to apply across all the rules. Uphold RAW unless it leads to brokenness. If broken then switch to conservative HYWPI based on the most elegant RAI.

Well since you are ignoring the rules on page 3 then don't bother with anythg from Exterminatus, since the only permission you have to use anything in that book in campaign or non campaign games, comes from that page and the same section dictating that the wargear is Unique.

 NecronLord3 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 NecronLord3 wrote:

col_impact wrote:


Can you quote from the new Necron book?

When it come out I sure will


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also page three of Exterminatus:the rules states "this book includes rules, unique wargear, warlord traits..."

Unique also doesn't carry rule weight. It just strengthens a RAI argument.

You and are arguing toward the same conclusion. I agree with you that you need to treat it as Chapter Relics.

However, your argument is currently based on conjecture. You are likely correct but you are still just going off conjecture.

My argument follows the standards you have to apply across all the rules. Uphold RAW unless it leads to brokenness. If broken then switch to conservative HYWPI based on the most elegant RAI.

Well since you are ignoring the rules on page 3 then don't bother with anythg from Exterminatus, since the only permission you have to use anything in that book in campaign or non campaign games, comes from that page and the same section dictating that the wargear is Unique.

Show in the rules where unique carries any rules weight.

I defend MSS against the people who say it's not fun to play against because if a force weapon shows up, I'm probably dead before I can strike back. It's a weak solution too. Just turns it into a coin flip as to whether I'll be force-shivved or not. 

The Thermicite is actually a better solution. The majority of force weapons aren't AP2, so I'm pretty much safe unless I roll two 1s in a row, equivalent to losing two wounds without the Thermicite. Even if it is AP2, I've got a roughly terminator save against it. 

Taking MSS on top of that would just be mean. Their key role is filled. 

The underlined line is the important thing here. You're essentially saying yes MSS and Thermite together are very good. So why continue arguing against it?

Page 26 of 'Exterminatus - The Rules'

Unique Wargear

"[Blood Angels bit]. Characters with the Necrons Faction that are part of a Detachment or Formation presented in this book can select an item from the Relics of the War in Heaven list at the points cost shown. Only one of each of the relics may be chosen per army -- there is only one of each of these items in the galaxy."

And this is why we don't discuss unreleased rules in YMDC. Especially when they degenerate into tactics.

 MoonlightSonata wrote:
Page 26 of 'Exterminatus - The Rules'

Unique Wargear

"[Blood Angels bit]. Characters with the Necrons Faction that are part of a Detachment or Formation presented in this book can select an item from the Relics of the War in Heaven list at the points cost shown. Only one of each of the relics may be chosen per army -- there is only one of each of these items in the galaxy."

Cool. That RAW quote fully settles the issue. So good spot on that.

The resolution of this thread is . . .

one God Shackle per army
the crypteks attached to the C'tan Shard in the formation can be upgraded to Harbingers

rigeld2 wrote:
And this is why we don't discuss unreleased rules in YMDC. Especially when they degenerate into tactics.

I had the book in my hands when I asked, actually. They appear to have placed that line nowhere near the Mephrit section.

But yeah, that's good. Simplifies the issue a great deal.

I look forwards to making allied Necron lists, once the codex is out. Already tried my hand at making an assaulty horde by combining Kutlakh, a Destroyer Lord and a Mephrit Lord with the Solar Thermecite into a forty troop and a scarab farm horde.

So I was correct in all my assumptions...

Anywho, unless we have revamped c'tan shards in the upcoming codex, the formation and relic are just another fluff ball to be back shot into the pay no mind bin.

 SilverDevilfish wrote:
Check to see if there's a generic reference in the book that's similar to "Any relics presented in this book are one per army/detachment/formation regardless of faction".

Otherwise looking at the scanned page there's nothing that says you couldn't take multiple relics even within the same detachment/formation.

First, damn thing I said in the thread.

 Nyghoma wrote:
So I was correct in all my assumptions...

Anywho, unless we have revamped c'tan shards in the upcoming codex, the formation and relic are just another fluff ball to be back shot into the pay no mind bin.

Dunno, a S8, T8, 6 W 4+, 4++, 5+++, Eternal Warrior monster that can deep strike each turn and pump out 4 separate shooting attacks (one of those a 4 shot Haywire attack!) is not to be shelved away without testing. Mobility + Haywire is good.

I see the RAW assumption allowing Crypteks in the C'Tan formation to be upgraded to harbingers being somewhat contentious. RAW the point could be made for stating the opposite. My reading of the sentence:

Another way of looking at it is that The cryptek can turn into the Harbringers because those are upgrades available to them period. The * is just talking about crypteks that are in the royal court and the limits of the weapons crypteks can take in the royal court. Could this mean that crypteks outside of the RC can not only upgrade but also take multiples of the special wargear like two chronoteks both with 3++ and the re-rolls? Not saying this is a good thing to do just a thought experiment.

Oberron wrote:
Another way of looking at it is that The cryptek can turn into the Harbringers because those are upgrades available to them period. The * is just talking about crypteks that are in the royal court and the limits of the weapons crypteks can take in the royal court. Could this mean that crypteks outside of the RC can not only upgrade but also take multiples of the special wargear like two chronoteks both with 3++ and the re-rolls? Not saying this is a good thing to do just a thought experiment.

Yes, that's also what I noticed.
The Wargear-restriction is only for Royal Courts and this is not a Royal Court.

Not that it really matters, because you really want at least one Veil of Darkness and another one.
My second Cryptek will most likely be an Eternity, so I can have T8 with a 3++ and a reroll that I can use on the Veil of Darkness.

I'm still struggling to get over the literal reading of "any number of Crypteks in a Royal Court" meaning no harbinger upgrade outside of the Court. The asterisked rule was not written under the assumption that a Cryptek would ever be taken outside a Court and the formation lists the unit type as Cryptek rather than as Harbinger, while units in formations are still upgradeable generally my belief is that the formation was designed with the asterisk in the original Necron Codex in mind but of course I could be completely wrong. Hopefully the new Codex will state explicitly that they can be upgraded or will have a new set of relics for them, like the Haemonculi in the Dark Eldar Codex. Otherwise I feel that RAW an opponent could argue that they are not upgradeable.

SmokeyJoe wrote:
I'm still struggling to get over the literal reading of "any number of Crypteks in a Royal Court" meaning no harbinger upgrade outside of the Court. The asterisked rule was not written under the assumption that a Cryptek would ever be taken outside a Court and the formation lists the unit type as Cryptek rather than as Harbinger, while units in formations are still upgradeable generally my belief is that the formation was designed with the asterisk in the original Necron Codex in mind but of course I could be completely wrong. Hopefully the new Codex will state explicitly that they can be upgraded or will have a new set of relics for them, like the Haemonculi in the Dark Eldar Codex. Otherwise I feel that RAW an opponent could argue that they are not upgradeable.

First, read the cryptek entry list without reading the asterixed portion. Notice that broad permission is granted to upgrade a cryptek to a harbinger.

Then read it again with the asterixed portion and note the logical differences between these two statements.

"Any number of Crypteks that are in a Royal Court can be upgraded to a single, specific type of Harbinger"

"Crypteks that are in a Royal Court can be upgraded to Harbingers"

As far as I know there are no squad upgrades currently that are not worded in that particular way i.e. any number of X can take Y when permission is being given to upgrade specific members of a squad rather than just one; therefore implying that the whole squad does not have to be upgraded this way but can be. There are none that just say X may be upgraded to Y. My argument is that you are taking an a phrase that is out of context out-of-context to prove your point.

Another person could just as easily argue the opposite by taking the asterisked passage out of context. You often seen GW take old rules and update them in such a way that they can be interpreted differently under the new edition in streamlining the transition between 6th and 7th, my belief is that the formation is probably along these lines until the Codex comes out there is no way of knowing for definite. Thus in the meantime I would advise not playing it this way and expecting your opponent to agree. Btw Merry Christmas all .


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The reason why it is worded specifically with the Court (the second line after the first) is that there are several different options that the Court can take but you will only ever have one type of Harbinger to upgrade to and the extra verbage concerning the wargear options just adds to the confusion. It would be like giving the option to a space marine tactical squad to take as many flamers as it wants but just flamers (as opposed to mixing) whilst also allowing some members to not be upgraded. This is why the asterisked paragraph seems more convoluted then it should be.

SmokeyJoe wrote:
As far as I know there are no squad upgrades currently that are not worded in that particular way i.e. any number of X can take Y when permission is being given to upgrade specific members of a squad rather than just one; therefore implying that the whole squad does not have to be upgraded this way but can be. There are none that just say X may be upgraded to Y. My argument is that you are taking an a phrase that is out of context out-of-context to prove your point.

Another person could just as easily argue the opposite by taking the asterisked passage out of context. You often seen GW take old rules and update them in such a way that they can be interpreted differently under the new edition in streamlining the transition between 6th and 7th, my belief is that the formation is probably along these lines until the Codex comes out there is no way of knowing for definite. Thus in the meantime I would advise not playing it this way and expecting your opponent to agree. Btw Merry Christmas all .


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The reason why it is worded specifically with the Court (the second line after the first) is that there are several different options that the Court can take but you will only ever have one type of Harbinger to upgrade to and the extra verbage concerning the wargear options just adds to the confusion. It would be like giving the option to a space marine tactical squad to take as many flamers as it wants but just flamers (as opposed to mixing) whilst also allowing some members to not be upgraded. This is why the asterisked paragraph seems more convoluted then it should be.

You are just misreading it. It's got clunky wording and its easy to get confused, but you are misreading it.

The Cryptek entry list says for example "Upgrade to a Harbinger of Despair, exchanging Staff of Light for Abyssal Staff . . . 5 points" This grants broad permission to upgrade Cryptek's to Harbinger's. This line means I can make a cryptek in the C'tan Shard formation into a Harbinger of Despair. This line gives me permission to do so.

The asterix portion . . .

"Any number of Crypteks that are in a Royal Court can be upgraded to a single, specific type of Harbinger"

. . . merely clarifies that you can have any number of Harbingers of a specific type in a Royal Court.

It further goes on to restrict that the unique wargear options for each Harbinger can only be bought once per Royal Court.

It does not say that a Cryptek has to be in a Royal Court to upgrade into a Harbinger.

This statement does not exist . . .

"only Crypteks that are in a Royal Court can be upgraded to Harbingers"

Of course that statement does not exist, the Harbingers were never intended to be taken outside a Court. But RAW it does say that they must be in a Court to be upgraded and that statement does exist. There is no statement to the contrary saying Harbingers can be bought outside a Court which is what I would expect my opponent to argue if I tried to make that point to them.

SmokeyJoe wrote:
Of course that statement does not exist, the Harbingers were never intended to be taken outside a Court. But RAW it does say that they must be in a Court to be upgraded and that statement does exist. There is no statement to the contrary saying Harbingers can be bought outside a Court which is what I would expect my opponent to argue if I tried to make that point to them.

Where does it say that the Cryptek must be in a court to be upgraded? Please quote the line.

The codex says this

Options:
Upgrade to a Harbinger of Despair exachanging staff of light for abyssal stadd
Upgrade to a Harbinger of Destruction exchanging staff of light for eldritch lance
Upgrade to a Harbinger of Eternity exchanging staff of light for aeonstave
Upgrade to a Harbinger of the Storm exchanging staff of light for voltaic staff
Upgrade to a Harbinger of Transmogrificaion exchanging staff of light for termorstave

These statements say that Crypteks on a train or on a bus or anywhere (which would include Royal Courts) can be upgraded to Harbingers. Broad permission is granted.

"Any number of Crypteks that are in a Royal Court can be upgraded to a single, specific type of Harbinger"

In the italicized portion of the quote it states what the conditions are for a cryptek to be upgraded. First 'any number' may be upgraded. Second 'that are in a Court.' Third they 'can be upgraded' means that some can but you don't have to upgrade all. I believe you are misinterpreting the last clause here to mean that all Crypteks can be upgraded to Harbingers in absolute terms i.e. outside the Court by inferring this rule (RE the single type of Harbinger) refers to those to whom it applies being in the Court. You are actually arguing in a circular fashion and someone could more easily using this logic say that what this rule means is that only those in the Court can be upgraded. Otherwise (they would say) why have the Court entry at all?

I would not read it that way, rather that I would read it that you do not have to upgrade all in the Court but you can if you wish. This extra clause is needed because Crypteks can be upgraded to a single type but it does not force you to upgrade the whole squad. The above sentence is the shortest way of saying that. It is not a sentence with a single clause i.e. that any number of Crypteks (clause) in the Court may be upgraded to a single type. Rather it is making three points concurrently: 1) that any number of Crypteks in the Court can be upgraded 2) that they are in a Court and 3) they may be upgraded to a single specific type of Harbinger. This to me seems the most logical interpretation of the sentence particularly in the above context and the context of the line which follows describing the wargear limitation on duplicate Harbingers. I believe a TO would probably interpret i this way.

Going on to use this rule to claim that Crypteks of the same type being bought outside of the Court can take duplicate wargear seems to me to be more like making up rules that aren't there.

Not being a smart ass here just playing Devil's Advocate.

You guys are trying to translate language, that during its inception had no solid universal definitions. C'tan powers, wraith flight, deathrays, etc are all very ambiguous when attempting to decrypt them with 7th edition rules. Personally I think it's irresponsible of GW not to tie up these loose end neater. I suspect they secretly relish in our squirming...

SmokeyJoe wrote:
"Any number of Crypteks that are in a Royal Court can be upgraded to a single, specific type of Harbinger"

In the italicized portion of the quote it states what the conditions are for a cryptek to be upgraded. First 'any number' may be upgraded. Second 'that are in a Court.' Third they 'can be upgraded' means that some can but you don't have to upgrade all. I believe you are misinterpreting the last clause here to mean that all Crypteks can be upgraded to Harbingers in absolute terms i.e. outside the Court by inferring this rule (RE the single type of Harbinger) refers to those to whom it applies being in the Court. You are actually arguing in a circular fashion and someone could more easily using this logic say that what this rule means is that only those in the Court can be upgraded. Otherwise (they would say) why have the Court entry at all?

I would not read it that way, rather that I would read it that you do not have to upgrade all in the Court but you can if you wish. This extra clause is needed because Crypteks can be upgraded to a single type but it does not force you to upgrade the whole squad. The above sentence is the shortest way of saying that. It is not a sentence with a single clause i.e. that any number of Crypteks (clause) in the Court may be upgraded to a single type. Rather it is making three points concurrently: 1) that any number of Crypteks in the Court can be upgraded 2) that they are in a Court and 3) they may be upgraded to a single specific type of Harbinger. This to me seems the most logical interpretation of the sentence particularly in the above context and the context of the line which follows describing the wargear limitation on duplicate Harbingers. I believe a TO would probably interpret i this way.

Going on to use this rule to claim that Crypteks of the same type being bought outside of the Court can take duplicate wargear seems to me to be more like making up rules that aren't there.

Not being a smart ass here just playing Devil's Advocate.

You are reading the line in isolation and misreading it.

Broad permission to upgrade a Cryptek to a Harbinger is granted in the entry list in the options panel

for example

"Upgrade to a Harbinger of Despair exchanging staff of light for abyssal staff." This grants permission. I can turn vanilla crypteks into Harbingers broadly.

The asterix adds

"Any number of Crypteks that are in a Royal Court can be upgraded to a single, specific type of Harbinger"

which clarifies that you can have ANY NUMBER of single specific types of Harbingers in a Royal Court (and later restricts that you can only have one unique wargear purchased per Royal Court).

It does not say "Only Crypteks that are in Royal Courts can be upgraded to Harbingers"

The weird part is that the strictest reading of that line, with "single, specific" is that you can only pick one harbinger type per court.

Never seen anyone even suggest it would be played that way, but that's the robotic, programming language interpretation.

changemod wrote:
The weird part is that the strictest reading of that line, with "single, specific" is that you can only pick one harbinger type per court.

Never seen anyone even suggest it would be played that way, but that's the robotic, programming language interpretation.

No, then the line would read . . .

"Crypteks that are in a Royal Court can only be upgraded to a single, specific type of Harbinger"

Rule statements have to use restrictive language (only, etc.) to actually restrict permission provided elsewhere.

col_impact wrote:

changemod wrote:
The weird part is that the strictest reading of that line, with "single, specific" is that you can only pick one harbinger type per court.

Never seen anyone even suggest it would be played that way, but that's the robotic, programming language interpretation.

No, then the line would read . . .

"Crypteks that are in a Royal Court can only be upgraded to a single, specific type of Harbinger"

Rule statements have to use restrictive language (only, etc.) to actually restrict permission provided elsewhere.

"Single, specific" is restrictive language, if you read it in the strictest light possible. That's my point.

So the correct interpretation of the paragraph is that it is telling me that I can have any number of different types of Crypteks in the Court just no duplicate wargear?

changemod wrote:

col_impact wrote:

changemod wrote:
The weird part is that the strictest reading of that line, with "single, specific" is that you can only pick one harbinger type per court.

Never seen anyone even suggest it would be played that way, but that's the robotic, programming language interpretation.

No, then the line would read . . .

"Crypteks that are in a Royal Court can only be upgraded to a single, specific type of Harbinger"

Rule statements have to use restrictive language (only, etc.) to actually restrict permission provided elsewhere.

"Single, specific" is restrictive language, if you read it in the strictest light possible. That's my point.

Its not actually restrictive though. I can have 3 storm teks and 2 despair teks in a royal court and still satisfy that rule ("Any number of Crypteks that are in a Royal Court can be upgraded to a single, specific type of Harbinger") in the tightest read possible. There has to be "can only" or equivalent to modify the permission granted elsewhere.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SmokeyJoe wrote:
So the correct interpretation of the paragraph is that it is telling me that I can have any number of different types of Crypteks in the Court just no duplicate wargear?

Correct, but more exactly it is telling you that you can have any number of different specific Harbingers in a Court just no duplicate of their special wargear options.

While that is the case I do not feel that it makes the inside outside the Court distinction any clearer. I may be misreading it but I can't see how an argument can be made one way or the other RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
P.S. I should have said Harbingers not Crypteks

SmokeyJoe wrote:
While that is the case I do not feel that it makes the inside outside the Court distinction any clearer. I may be misreading it but I can't see how an argument can be made one way or the other RAW.

Except that RAW broad permission to upgrade Crypteks is unequivocally granted.

For example

"Upgrade to a Harbinger of Despair exchanging staff of light for abyssal staff"

So why have the asterisked rule and why even have the Court Entry at all? Just make them 1-5 per slot with the wargear upgrades presented being unique?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unless the intention was for the Court to be a 'unit' in some other sense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Which is why I believe the formation works (or doesn't work) this way.

Basically, you can have any number of a cryptek types with their corresponding staves (ie 5 Despairteks all w/ abyssal staves), but you can't have 2 harbingers of despair with identical VoD upgrades coming from the same Overlord's royal court (eg Imotehk's court). For another VoD upgrade you require another Overlord's court.

Yep I understand that but it still doesn't iron out the in and out of Court issue for me just saying.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Merry Christmas for Real

The only way you can take a cryptek in the codex is through a royal court, but that's under the original foc, and wouldn't really apply to this formation. The only reason each of those sentences says 'royal court' is because that's the only way you could take a cryptek (or a lord) in the codex. Unbound and formations change all that. That formation has no restrictions, therefor you can give them any upgrades in there army entry.

Codex restrictions would only apply if you were using the foc/cad. Formations have their own restrictions/requirements, and unbound has none, take as many stormteks with lightning fields as you want. Simply use models you want:-)

So the only entry for Cryptek is under "Royal Court". The only argument that really works against them taking gear is that the asterix comes before the actual line saying "Upgrade to x of x"...

I could see a lot of people having an issue with it RAW.

The question about the formation is what rules does it give concerning the crypteks. Without a set of rules to take the 2 crypteks outside of a Royal Court you have to give a way to do so. It is arguable that you can take two Royal Courts to fulfill the requirement of two Crypteks or that you can take a single Royal Court that contains two. Either way without a actual rule about costs outside of the Royal Court the rules are not given in any context except for in the Court. In the end discuss it with your opponent....

Gravmyr wrote:
The question about the formation is what rules does it give concerning the crypteks. Without a set of rules to take the 2 crypteks outside of a Royal Court you have to give a way to do so. It is arguable that you can take two Royal Courts to fulfill the requirement of two Crypteks or that you can take a single Royal Court that contains two. Either way without a actual rule about costs outside of the Royal Court the rules are not given in any context except for in the Court. In the end discuss it with your opponent....

The formation is the permission to take the teks out of a RC. And we know the cost of what a tek is it list it right by it's name in the codex, it also list the options right under the cryptek on what they can take, the only thing the * does is tell you the limits of what a tek can take in a RC. Everything seems pretty straight forward in those regards.

Oberron wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
The question about the formation is what rules does it give concerning the crypteks. Without a set of rules to take the 2 crypteks outside of a Royal Court you have to give a way to do so. It is arguable that you can take two Royal Courts to fulfill the requirement of two Crypteks or that you can take a single Royal Court that contains two. Either way without a actual rule about costs outside of the Royal Court the rules are not given in any context except for in the Court. In the end discuss it with your opponent....

The formation is the permission to take the teks out of a RC. And we know the cost of what a tek is it list it right by it's name in the codex, it also list the options right under the cryptek on what they can take, the only thing the * does is tell you the limits of what a tek can take in a RC. Everything seems pretty straight forward in those regards.

Yes, there really aren't any issues with upgrading the Cryptek's to Harbingers. The Codex grants broad permission to upgrade them in their entry list. The Formation allows you to have Crypteks outside a Royal Court. The only issue is some people misreading the clunky worded bit in the asterixed text.

I suggest rereading the info about formation in the Baal book. You are not given permission to take them outside the RC. You are told the formation is made up of two units of Crypteks, which does not exist. I agree that it's the RAI that you can take them but there is no actual rule stating you can do this which is why, as I pointed out above, discuss it with your opponent. As some else pointed out earlier we are also assuming they are not going to be printed up some other way in the new codex which may make this moot.

Gravmyr wrote:
I suggest rereading the info about formation in the Baal book. You are not given permission to take them outside the RC. You are told the formation is made up of two units of Crypteks, which does not exist. I agree that it's the RAI that you can take them but there is no actual rule stating you can do this which is why, as I pointed out above, discuss it with your opponent. As some else pointed out earlier we are also assuming they are not going to be printed up some other way in the new codex which may make this moot.

The Formation grants permission to take 2 Crypteks outside of the RC by including 2 Crypteks on the Formation list.

It says the words outside of a RC then? I point you to both the wording explaining how formations are spelled out and the wording of the formation itself which refers to them as units. Please quote a page # from the Necron codex for the unit labeled as Crypteks.

I would expect this will all clear itself up when the 7th edition Necron Codex is released. The Cryptek is almost certainly going to have its own unit entry.

In the meantime...

Is there a Cryptek unit in the 5th edition codex? Technically no.

Is it painfully obvious what the authors intended? Overwhelming yes.

Which isn't RAW though now is it? It's RAI. We have to mark our posts discussing it as so, forum rules.

Gravmyr wrote:
Which isn't RAW though now is it? It's RAI. We have to mark our posts discussing it as so, forum rules.

I apologize for using the phrase "what the authors intended" instead of the obviously more easily understood acronym "RAI", or "Rules as Intended". I recognize my failing and shall endeavor to correct it in the future.

Also, seriously?

Gravmyr wrote:
It says the words outside of a RC then? I point you to both the wording explaining how formations are spelled out and the wording of the formation itself which refers to them as units. Please quote a page # from the Necron codex for the unit labeled as Crypteks.

The formation simply makes it possible by asserting the contents of the formation with rule forming authority. The formation itself makes them a unit in the context of the formation if they weren't already. The formation has the power to define itself as a formation.

Please back that up with a rule quote.

Gravmyr wrote:
Please back that up with a rule quote.

FORMATION: • 1 C’tan Shard • 2 Crypteks

 Kriswall wrote:

I apologize for using the phrase "what the authors intended" instead of the obviously more easily understood acronym "RAI", or "Rules as Intended". I recognize my failing and shall endeavor to correct it in the future.

Also, seriously?

You needed to restate exactly what I already had in poor grammatical form, seriously? Is everything here posted solely to you or me? I hardly think so, that is what PM's are for.

It is a reminder to the three or four posters on this thread that without actual rules backing your stance up their post should be labeled as RAI. Making large sweeping statements such as this gives me permission or the like without a GW backing that states it so is either an opinion or RAI. It should be made clear as such in your post and every post should have a rule backing up any claim or directions to such rule. There are a number of people that come to this forum to learn the rules let's make sure we are not teaching them opinion or RAI interpretations as RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:


FORMATION: • 1 C’tan Shard • 2 Crypteks

What are the rules for this new unit you are claiming is created?

Gravmyr wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

I apologize for using the phrase "what the authors intended" instead of the obviously more easily understood acronym "RAI", or "Rules as Intended". I recognize my failing and shall endeavor to correct it in the future.

Also, seriously?

You needed to restate exactly what I already had in poor grammatical form, seriously? Is everything here posted solely to you or me? I hardly think so, that is what PM's are for.

It is a reminder to the three or four posters on this thread that without actual rules backing your stance up their post should be labeled as RAI. Making large sweeping statements such as this gives me permission or the like without a GW backing that states it so is either an opinion or RAI. It should be made clear as such in your post and every post should have a rule backing up any claim or directions to such rule. There are a number of people that come to this forum to learn the rules let's make sure we are not teaching them opinion or RAI interpretations as RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:


FORMATION: • 1 C’tan Shard • 2 Crypteks

What are the rules for this new unit you are claiming is created?

I have shown permission in the rules to have Crypteks in the formation. I then adhere to the provided codex Cryptek entry and the formation designation.

Gravmyr wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

I apologize for using the phrase "what the authors intended" instead of the obviously more easily understood acronym "RAI", or "Rules as Intended". I recognize my failing and shall endeavor to correct it in the future.

Also, seriously?

You needed to restate exactly what I already had in poor grammatical form, seriously? Is everything here posted solely to you or me? I hardly think so, that is what PM's are for.

It is a reminder to the three or four posters on this thread that without actual rules backing your stance up their post should be labeled as RAI. Making large sweeping statements such as this gives me permission or the like without a GW backing that states it so is either an opinion or RAI. It should be made clear as such in your post and every post should have a rule backing up any claim or directions to such rule. There are a number of people that come to this forum to learn the rules let's make sure we are not teaching them opinion or RAI interpretations as RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:


FORMATION: • 1 C’tan Shard • 2 Crypteks

What are the rules for this new unit you are claiming is created?

In the absence of a quote, I assume that most posters are responding to the poster immediately above them. Also, the comment fit.

We're not going to come to a consensus because the rules aren't there.

You can only have one God Shackle in your army. There is no such thing as a Cryptek Unit, so the Formation is strictly speaking impossible to field. This is likely to change when the update Necron Codex is released, so at most, the conclusion to this argument will be relevant for a couple of months if we're to believe the rumor mill's expected Codex release date.

 Kriswall wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

I apologize for using the phrase "what the authors intended" instead of the obviously more easily understood acronym "RAI", or "Rules as Intended". I recognize my failing and shall endeavor to correct it in the future.

Also, seriously?

You needed to restate exactly what I already had in poor grammatical form, seriously? Is everything here posted solely to you or me? I hardly think so, that is what PM's are for.

It is a reminder to the three or four posters on this thread that without actual rules backing your stance up their post should be labeled as RAI. Making large sweeping statements such as this gives me permission or the like without a GW backing that states it so is either an opinion or RAI. It should be made clear as such in your post and every post should have a rule backing up any claim or directions to such rule. There are a number of people that come to this forum to learn the rules let's make sure we are not teaching them opinion or RAI interpretations as RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:


FORMATION: • 1 C’tan Shard • 2 Crypteks

What are the rules for this new unit you are claiming is created?

In the absence of a quote, I assume that most posters are responding to the poster immediately above them. Also, the comment fit.

We're not going to come to a consensus because the rules aren't there.

You can only have one God Shackle in your army. There is no such thing as a Cryptek Unit, so the Formation is strictly speaking impossible to field. This is likely to change when the update Necron Codex is released, so at most, the conclusion to this argument will be relevant for a couple of months if we're to believe the rumor mill's expected Codex release date.

Cryptek's are unit type Infantry, Character with composition 1 Cryptek. The formation provides permission to have 2 combine with an MC to form a unit.

Wait a second.

I just pulled out my Codex: Necrons to see exactly how the Cryptek unit is listed.

On Page, I'm seeing that we have three units listed...

1. Royal Court - which is composed of 0-5 Necron Lords and 0-5 Crypteks.
2. Necron Lord
3. Cryptek

The Cryptek entry uses the same font and layout as, say, the Necron Warriors Entry. It's definitely it's own unit entry.

In fact, I would argue that while it's probably against RaI, the current RaW provides me with...

1. a Royal Court that I can take so long as an Overlord is present and that doesn't take up a slot.
2. a 35 point Necron Lord that takes up an HQ slot
3. a 35 point Cryptek that takes up an HQ slot

There is no wording telling me that I can't take the Lord or Cryptek alone and fill an HQ slot as normal. They're in the HQ section, their unit entry is formatted similarly to other unit entries and they have the HQ battlefield role.

Thoughts?

 Kriswall wrote:
Wait a second.

I just pulled out my Codex: Necrons to see exactly how the Cryptek unit is listed.

On Page, I'm seeing that we have three units listed...

1. Royal Court - which is composed of 0-5 Necron Lords and 0-5 Crypteks.
2. Necron Lord
3. Cryptek

The Cryptek entry uses the same font and layout as, say, the Necron Warriors Entry. It's definitely it's own unit entry.

In fact, I would argue that while it's probably against RaI, the current RaW provides me with...

1. a Royal Court that I can take so long as an Overlord is present and that doesn't take up a slot.
2. a 35 point Necron Lord that takes up an HQ slot
3. a 35 point Cryptek that takes up an HQ slot

There is no wording telling me that I can't take the Lord or Cryptek alone and fill an HQ slot as normal. They're in the HQ section, their unit entry is formatted similarly to other unit entries and they have the HQ battlefield role.

Thoughts?

You could probably argue RAW that Cypteks could be purchased directly as HQ. Wasn't there an DE Archon discussion along the same lines?

However, undoubtedly Crypteks are a unit in the Necron codex.

col_impact wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
Wait a second.

I just pulled out my Codex: Necrons to see exactly how the Cryptek unit is listed.

On Page, I'm seeing that we have three units listed...

1. Royal Court - which is composed of 0-5 Necron Lords and 0-5 Crypteks.
2. Necron Lord
3. Cryptek

The Cryptek entry uses the same font and layout as, say, the Necron Warriors Entry. It's definitely it's own unit entry.

In fact, I would argue that while it's probably against RaI, the current RaW provides me with...

1. a Royal Court that I can take so long as an Overlord is present and that doesn't take up a slot.
2. a 35 point Necron Lord that takes up an HQ slot
3. a 35 point Cryptek that takes up an HQ slot

There is no wording telling me that I can't take the Lord or Cryptek alone and fill an HQ slot as normal. They're in the HQ section, their unit entry is formatted similarly to other unit entries and they have the HQ battlefield role.

Thoughts?

You could probably argue RAW that Cypteks could be purchased directly as HQ. Wasn't there an DE Archon discussion along the same lines?

However, undoubtedly Crypteks are a unit in the Necron codex.

It's almost exactly the same argument as the Court of the Archon. I just like the idea because it's more fluffy for my Canoptek themed list.

 Kriswall wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
Wait a second.

I just pulled out my Codex: Necrons to see exactly how the Cryptek unit is listed.

On Page, I'm seeing that we have three units listed...

1. Royal Court - which is composed of 0-5 Necron Lords and 0-5 Crypteks.
2. Necron Lord
3. Cryptek

The Cryptek entry uses the same font and layout as, say, the Necron Warriors Entry. It's definitely it's own unit entry.

In fact, I would argue that while it's probably against RaI, the current RaW provides me with...

1. a Royal Court that I can take so long as an Overlord is present and that doesn't take up a slot.
2. a 35 point Necron Lord that takes up an HQ slot
3. a 35 point Cryptek that takes up an HQ slot

There is no wording telling me that I can't take the Lord or Cryptek alone and fill an HQ slot as normal. They're in the HQ section, their unit entry is formatted similarly to other unit entries and they have the HQ battlefield role.

Thoughts?

You could probably argue RAW that Cypteks could be purchased directly as HQ. Wasn't there an DE Archon discussion along the same lines?

However, undoubtedly Crypteks are a unit in the Necron codex.

It's almost exactly the same argument as the Court of the Archon. I just like the idea because it's more fluffy for my Canoptek themed list.

Again, the rules would appear to allow it. Probably almost never gets discussed since people would not normally even think to do something along those lines.

col_impact wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
Wait a second.

I just pulled out my Codex: Necrons to see exactly how the Cryptek unit is listed.

On Page, I'm seeing that we have three units listed...

1. Royal Court - which is composed of 0-5 Necron Lords and 0-5 Crypteks.
2. Necron Lord
3. Cryptek

The Cryptek entry uses the same font and layout as, say, the Necron Warriors Entry. It's definitely it's own unit entry.

In fact, I would argue that while it's probably against RaI, the current RaW provides me with...

1. a Royal Court that I can take so long as an Overlord is present and that doesn't take up a slot.
2. a 35 point Necron Lord that takes up an HQ slot
3. a 35 point Cryptek that takes up an HQ slot

There is no wording telling me that I can't take the Lord or Cryptek alone and fill an HQ slot as normal. They're in the HQ section, their unit entry is formatted similarly to other unit entries and they have the HQ battlefield role.

Thoughts?

You could probably argue RAW that Cypteks could be purchased directly as HQ. Wasn't there an DE Archon discussion along the same lines?

However, undoubtedly Crypteks are a unit in the Necron codex.

It's almost exactly the same argument as the Court of the Archon. I just like the idea because it's more fluffy for my Canoptek themed list.

Again, the rules would appear to allow it. Probably almost never gets discussed since people would not normally even think to do something along those lines.

Agreed. Under 6th Edition it was definitely not a thing. Under 7th... well, lots of things are different now in relation to list building.

The way I read is this its one of two ways. First you can field Crypteks in the formation. But they will be Crypteks with staffs of light no Harbinger equipment upgrade (being outside the Court entry). They can take the relics in the Mephrit dynasty armory which states they can be taken by Crypteks (i.e. God Shackle and Thermasite). You will have a Wraithlord style unit with access to stealth, some shooting attacks, 6 wounds at majority T8, MTC, a 4++ and fnp, which is still decent but not very mobile and would be consistent for the points cost.

The other way is to read that they can be upgraded to Harbingers and take all the stuff. I could see it being argued both ways. I would not suggest playing it in a serious game until the Codex comes out.

SmokeyJoe wrote:
The way I read is this its one of two ways. First you can field Crypteks in the formation. But they will be Crypteks with staffs of light no Harbinger equipment upgrade (being outside the Court entry). They can take the relics in the Mephrit dynasty armory which states they can be taken by Crypteks (i.e. God Shackle and Thermasite). You will have a Wraithlord style unit with access to stealth, some shooting attacks, 6 wounds at majority T8, MTC, a 4++ and fnp, which is still decent but not very mobile and would be consistent for the points cost.

The other way is to read that they can be upgraded to Harbingers and take all the stuff. I could see it being argued both ways. I would not suggest playing it in a serious game until the Codex comes out.

It can only be argued RAW one way. You can have your own HYWPI argument. But RAW, the crypteks in the Shard formation can be upgraded to Harbingers. Their entry list in the Necron codex allows it. I would suggest playing it RAW until the new codex comes out.

Sorry man I don't see it that clear cut.

col_impact wrote:

SmokeyJoe wrote:
The way I read is this its one of two ways. First you can field Crypteks in the formation. But they will be Crypteks with staffs of light no Harbinger equipment upgrade (being outside the Court entry). They can take the relics in the Mephrit dynasty armory which states they can be taken by Crypteks (i.e. God Shackle and Thermasite). You will have a Wraithlord style unit with access to stealth, some shooting attacks, 6 wounds at majority T8, MTC, a 4++ and fnp, which is still decent but not very mobile and would be consistent for the points cost.

The other way is to read that they can be upgraded to Harbingers and take all the stuff. I could see it being argued both ways. I would not suggest playing it in a serious game until the Codex comes out.

It can only be argued RAW one way. You can have your own HYWPI argument. But RAW, the crypteks in the Shard formation can be upgraded to Harbingers. Their entry list in the Necron codex allows it. I would suggest playing it RAW until the new codex comes out.

Did you mean CAN'T upgrade to Harbingers? The Codex has a pretty clear note requiring that the Crypteks be in a Royal Court to upgrade to a Harbinger. Are the Formation Crypteks in a Royal Court? Nope.

I'm totally ignoring the fact that UPGRADING from a Cryptek to a Harbinger of Whatever means you no longer have a Cryptek and wouldn't be fulfilling the Formation requirements. Also, the Harbingers don't have a statline, so by strict RaW, we don't even know what they are (although RaI is obvious).

SmokeyJoe wrote:
Sorry man I don't see it that clear cut.

You have to provide more of an argument than just "seeing" it differently. You need to provide rules support for your assertion that crypteks can't be upgraded to Harbingers when their entry list in the Necron codex clearly provides permission to do so.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kriswall wrote:

Did you mean CAN'T upgrade to Harbingers? The Codex has a pretty clear note requiring that the Crypteks be in a Royal Court to upgrade to a Harbinger.

This has been discussed at length in this thread. What rule says that the Crypteks have to be in a Royal Court to upgrade to a Harbinger?

 Kriswall wrote:

I'm totally ignoring the fact that UPGRADING from a Cryptek to a Harbinger of Whatever means you no longer have a Cryptek and wouldn't be fulfilling the Formation requirements. Also, the Harbingers don't have a statline, so by strict RaW, we don't even know what they are (although RaI is obvious).

Crypteks that have been upgraded to Harbingers are still obviously Crypteks per the entry list. Why would you think otherwise?

col_impact wrote:

SmokeyJoe wrote:
Sorry man I don't see it that clear cut.

You have to provide more of an argument than just "seeing" it differently. You need to provide rules support for your assertion that crypteks can't be upgraded to Harbingers when their entry list in the Necron codex clearly provides permission to do so.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kriswall wrote:

Did you mean CAN'T upgrade to Harbingers? The Codex has a pretty clear note requiring that the Crypteks be in a Royal Court to upgrade to a Harbinger.

This has been discussed at length in this thread. What rule says that the Crypteks have to be in a Royal Court to upgrade to a Harbinger?

Also, Crypteks that have been upgraded to Harbingers are still Crypteks.

Codex: Necrons, page 90. Harbinger of Despair option as an example...

"*Upgrade to a Harbinger of Despair, exchanging staff of light for abyssal staff" with the asterisk adding "Any number of Crypteks in a Royal Court can be upgraded to a single, specific type of Harbinger. Whildt you can have any number of Harbingers of a specific type, each of the Harbinger's unique wargear options can only be chosen once in each Royal Court (see page 84)."

Are we ignoring the asterisk because the Crypek isn't in a Royal Court? Does that mean if I take two Harbingers in the Formation that they can be equipped identically since they aren't in a Royal Court and the restriction wouldn't apply?

 Kriswall wrote:

col_impact wrote:

SmokeyJoe wrote:
Sorry man I don't see it that clear cut.

You have to provide more of an argument than just "seeing" it differently. You need to provide rules support for your assertion that crypteks can't be upgraded to Harbingers when their entry list in the Necron codex clearly provides permission to do so.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kriswall wrote:

Did you mean CAN'T upgrade to Harbingers? The Codex has a pretty clear note requiring that the Crypteks be in a Royal Court to upgrade to a Harbinger.

This has been discussed at length in this thread. What rule says that the Crypteks have to be in a Royal Court to upgrade to a Harbinger?

Also, Crypteks that have been upgraded to Harbingers are still Crypteks.

Codex: Necrons, page 90. Harbinger of Despair option as an example...

"*Upgrade to a Harbinger of Despair, exchanging staff of light for abyssal staff" with the asterisk adding "Any number of Crypteks in a Royal Court can be upgraded to a single, specific type of Harbinger. Whildt you can have any number of Harbingers of a specific type, each of the Harbinger's unique wargear options can only be chosen once in each Royal Court (see page 84)."

Are we ignoring the asterisk because the Crypek isn't in a Royal Court? Does that mean if I take two Harbingers in the Formation that they can be equipped identically since they aren't in a Royal Court and the restriction wouldn't apply?

I am not ignoring the asterix. I am reading it correctly and not changing in my mind what it says.

The rule says

"ANY NUMBER of Crypteks in a Royal Court can be upgraded to a single, specific type of Harbinger."

It does not say

"Only Crypteks in a Royal Court can be upgraded to a single, specific type of Harbinger."

You are confusing those two statements. I am not.

And yes, the formation would allow for two of the same Harbingers. So you could have two veils of darkness in the C'tan formation. No rule prevents that.

If you upgrade a Veteran to an Apothecary, is the model still a Veteran?

If you upgrade a Cryptek to a Harbinger of Despair, is the model still a Cryptek?

These two questions must necessarily have the same answer as they have the same wording - upgrade.

What is the answer?

 Kriswall wrote:
If you upgrade a Veteran to an Apothecary, is the model still a Veteran?

If you upgrade a Cryptek to a Harbinger of Despair, is the model still a Cryptek?

These two questions must necessarily have the same answer as they have the same wording - upgrade.

What is the answer?

The entry list does not specify a change in unit composition. The unit is still 1 cryptek per the entry list. So it is a Cryptek.

 Kriswall wrote:
If you upgrade a Veteran to an Apothecary, is the model still a Veteran?

If you upgrade a Cryptek to a Harbinger of Despair, is the model still a Cryptek?

These two questions must necessarily have the same answer as they have the same wording - upgrade.

What is the answer?

Does an Apothecary have a separate statline? Is therea statline for a Harbinger or only for a Cryptek. If your statline says Cryptek you are a Cryptek. Are you really claiming that RaW the statline is a lie?

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
If you upgrade a Veteran to an Apothecary, is the model still a Veteran?

If you upgrade a Cryptek to a Harbinger of Despair, is the model still a Cryptek?

These two questions must necessarily have the same answer as they have the same wording - upgrade.

What is the answer?

Does an Apothecary have a separate statline? Is therea statline for a Harbinger or only for a Cryptek. If your statline says Cryptek you are a Cryptek. Are you really claiming that RaW the statline is a lie?

Lol... you guys are too tightly wound. I'm saying that historically, when GW has used the word upgrade in the sense of "Upgrade a Veteran to an Apothecary" you're dealing with a name change. I'm saying that they've used the exact same wording in this instance, but "forgot" to include the statline for the newly named model. A Harbinger used to be a Cryptek, but is now a Harbinger. Strictly speaking, we should be looking for a Harbinger of Whatever statline. There isn't one there. I'm not seriously arguing that the model isn't playable as it doesn't have a statline. I think any reasonable person would just use the Cryptek statline.

What I am saying is that this is yet another example of poor rule writing by GW. RaW, the Cryptek is being upgraded from a Cryptek to a Harbinger of Whatever. RaW, the Harbinger of Whatever is no longer a Cryptek in the same way an Apothecary is no longer a Veteran. RaW, there is no stat line for a Harbinger of Whatever. BOOM. We hit a wall. On this wall, someone has spray painted "poor writing". If you disagree, find me another example where GW has used the term upgrade and there isn't a stat line for what the model is being upgraded to.

In answer to the question of where it says that Crypteks have to be in a Court to be upgraded to Harbingers it clearly states in a Court in that sentence. Regardless of unit composition change etc it is very hard to even argue with that sentence from a logical point of view, I have to say. There really shouldn't even be an argument over it.

It is explicitly stating it there, even if we all know the intention was different. I don't really care about the Harbingers at all though. The reason why I am disputing with your argument now is that you are going on to use the line to state something along the lines of "Crypteks being outside the Court can take duplicate wargear." If I tried to make that point RAW with an opponent in a tournament they would probably counter it by pointing to asterisk and saying "sorry mate, no, following that logic the line says you have to be in a Court to upgrade to Harbingers at all." I believe it is a case of exploiting the rule to your own advantage. Someone else can just as easily exploit the rule to his advantage by reading it the opposite way.

My argument is that in this situation one can be accused of making up rules that are not there, to suit their agenda. I also don't understand what you mean being given "broad permission" to upgrade means, this is a very nebulous concept which is new to me, but you seem to be claiming that it settles the matter unequivocally. Can you use other examples to illustrate this?

I would also be interested in getting an objective view of this from someone outside the current discussion, as I am assuming that we are mostly Necron players?

 Kriswall wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
If you upgrade a Veteran to an Apothecary, is the model still a Veteran?

If you upgrade a Cryptek to a Harbinger of Despair, is the model still a Cryptek?

These two questions must necessarily have the same answer as they have the same wording - upgrade.

What is the answer?

Does an Apothecary have a separate statline? Is therea statline for a Harbinger or only for a Cryptek. If your statline says Cryptek you are a Cryptek. Are you really claiming that RaW the statline is a lie?

Lol... you guys are too tightly wound. I'm saying that historically, when GW has used the word upgrade in the sense of "Upgrade a Veteran to an Apothecary" you're dealing with a name change. I'm saying that they've used the exact same wording in this instance, but "forgot" to include the statline for the newly named model. A Harbinger used to be a Cryptek, but is now a Harbinger. Strictly speaking, we should be looking for a Harbinger of Whatever statline. There isn't one there. I'm not seriously arguing that the model isn't playable as it doesn't have a statline. I think any reasonable person would just use the Cryptek statline.

What I am saying is that this is yet another example of poor rule writing by GW. RaW, the Cryptek is being upgraded from a Cryptek to a Harbinger of Whatever. RaW, the Harbinger of Whatever is no longer a Cryptek in the same way an Apothecary is no longer a Veteran. RaW, there is no stat line for a Harbinger of Whatever. BOOM. We hit a wall. On this wall, someone has spray painted "poor writing". If you disagree, find me another example where GW has used the term upgrade and there isn't a stat line for what the model is being upgraded to.

We don't have to provide anything. You are saying that upgrade by sheer use of the word "upgrade" forces a change in what the model is. When I upgrade a rhino with dozer blades the rhino does not become a dozer blade. A cryptek that is upgraded to a Harbinger of Despair is simply a cryptek that has a Harbinger of Despair upgrade.

Otherwise, you have to show where in the rules the term upgrade all by itself is empowered to redefine models. It does not have that power in the rules. You are making that up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SmokeyJoe wrote:
In answer to the question of where it says that Crypteks have to be in a Court to be upgraded to Harbingers it clearly states in a Court in that sentence. Regardless of unit composition change etc it is very hard to even argue with that sentence from a logical point of view, I have to say. There really shouldn't even be an argument over it.

It is explicitly stating it there, even if we all know the intention was different. I don't really care about the Harbingers at all though. The reason why I am disputing with your argument now is that you are going on to use the line to state something along the lines of "Crypteks being outside the Court can take duplicate wargear." If I tried to make that point RAW with an opponent in a tournament they would probably counter it by pointing to asterisk and saying "sorry mate, no, following that logic the line says you have to be in a Court to upgrade to Harbingers at all." I believe it is a case of exploiting the rule to your own advantage. Someone else can just as easily exploit the rule to his advantage by reading it the opposite way.

My argument is that in this situation one can be accused of making up rules that are not there, to suit their agenda. I also don't understand what you mean being given "broad permission" to upgrade means, this is a very nebulous concept which is new to me, but you seem to be claiming that it settles the matter unequivocally. Can you use other examples to illustrate this?

I would also be interested in getting an objective view of this from someone outside the current discussion, as I am assuming that we are mostly Necron players?

SmokeyJoe, what is the difference between these two statements? Or are you saying that they mean logically the same thing?


"Any number of Crypteks in a Royal Court can be upgraded to a single, specific type of Harbinger."

"Only Crypteks in a Royal Court can be upgraded to a single, specific type of Harbinger."

col_impact wrote:
We don't have to provide anything. You are saying that upgrade by sheer use of the word "upgrade" forces a change in what the model is. When I upgrade a rhino with dozer blades the rhino does not become a dozer blade.

How does that apple taste? Nothing like my orange I'm sure.

Line from a random marine codex:
Can take any of the following:
- a dozer blade

Line from the Necron codex:
*Upgrade to a Harbinger of blahblahblah

See a difference? I sure do.

A cryptek that is upgraded to a Harbinger of Despair is simply a cryptek that has a Harbinger of Despair upgrade.

False statement is false. It's been upgraded *to*, not with.

Otherwise, you have to show where in the rules the term upgrade all by itself is empowered to redefine models. It does not have that power in the rules. You are making that up.

He's not the one that made up something saying a Harbinger is something you upgrade a Cryptek with.

col_impact wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
If you upgrade a Veteran to an Apothecary, is the model still a Veteran?

If you upgrade a Cryptek to a Harbinger of Despair, is the model still a Cryptek?

These two questions must necessarily have the same answer as they have the same wording - upgrade.

What is the answer?

Does an Apothecary have a separate statline? Is therea statline for a Harbinger or only for a Cryptek. If your statline says Cryptek you are a Cryptek. Are you really claiming that RaW the statline is a lie?

Lol... you guys are too tightly wound. I'm saying that historically, when GW has used the word upgrade in the sense of "Upgrade a Veteran to an Apothecary" you're dealing with a name change. I'm saying that they've used the exact same wording in this instance, but "forgot" to include the statline for the newly named model. A Harbinger used to be a Cryptek, but is now a Harbinger. Strictly speaking, we should be looking for a Harbinger of Whatever statline. There isn't one there. I'm not seriously arguing that the model isn't playable as it doesn't have a statline. I think any reasonable person would just use the Cryptek statline.

What I am saying is that this is yet another example of poor rule writing by GW. RaW, the Cryptek is being upgraded from a Cryptek to a Harbinger of Whatever. RaW, the Harbinger of Whatever is no longer a Cryptek in the same way an Apothecary is no longer a Veteran. RaW, there is no stat line for a Harbinger of Whatever. BOOM. We hit a wall. On this wall, someone has spray painted "poor writing". If you disagree, find me another example where GW has used the term upgrade and there isn't a stat line for what the model is being upgraded to.

We don't have to provide anything. You are saying that upgrade by sheer use of the word "upgrade" forces a change in what the model is. When I upgrade a rhino with dozer blades the rhino does not become a dozer blade. A cryptek that is upgraded to a Harbinger of Despair is simply a cryptek that has a Harbinger of Despair upgrade.

Otherwise, you have to show where in the rules the term upgrade all by itself is empowered to redefine models. It does not have that power in the rules. You are making that up.

I'm not going to argue with you past this post, but you don't upgrade a rhino to take dozer blades. You take items from a wargear list. The Rhino is still a model called "Rhino". When you UPGRADE an X to a Y, the new model is no longer an X. It is a Y. The Cryptek is no longer a Cryptek. It is a Harbinger of Whatever. Upgrading from a Veteran to an Apothecary absolutely forces a change in what the model is. Upgrading from a Cryptek to a Harbinger performs the same change.

 Kriswall wrote:
Are we ignoring the asterisk because the Crypek isn't in a Royal Court? Does that mean if I take two Harbingers in the Formation that they can be equipped identically since they aren't in a Royal Court and the restriction wouldn't apply?

We don't ignore the asterisk.
But the asterisk is not a permission to upgrade, it's a restriction on the special wargear.
Permission to upgrade is given in the rest of the Cryptek-entry and this permission can only be lifted when something says 'cannot upgrade..'.

And yes, you could have double equipment. But I've taken a look at the combinations and I don't see why I would take some items twice.

 Kriswall wrote:
If you upgrade a Veteran to an Apothecary, is the model still a Veteran?

No, since an Apothecary has a different profile and different name.

If you upgrade a Cryptek to a Harbinger of Despair, is the model still a Cryptek?

Yes.

These two questions must necessarily have the same answer as they have the same wording - upgrade.

They don't have the same wording, since an Apothecary has a different profile with different name.

 Kriswall wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
If you upgrade a Veteran to an Apothecary, is the model still a Veteran?

If you upgrade a Cryptek to a Harbinger of Despair, is the model still a Cryptek?

These two questions must necessarily have the same answer as they have the same wording - upgrade.

What is the answer?

Does an Apothecary have a separate statline? Is therea statline for a Harbinger or only for a Cryptek. If your statline says Cryptek you are a Cryptek. Are you really claiming that RaW the statline is a lie?

Lol... you guys are too tightly wound. I'm saying that historically, when GW has used the word upgrade in the sense of "Upgrade a Veteran to an Apothecary" you're dealing with a name change. I'm saying that they've used the exact same wording in this instance, but "forgot" to include the statline for the newly named model. A Harbinger used to be a Cryptek, but is now a Harbinger. Strictly speaking, we should be looking for a Harbinger of Whatever statline. There isn't one there. I'm not seriously arguing that the model isn't playable as it doesn't have a statline. I think any reasonable person would just use the Cryptek statline.

What I am saying is that this is yet another example of poor rule writing by GW. RaW, the Cryptek is being upgraded from a Cryptek to a Harbinger of Whatever. RaW, the Harbinger of Whatever is no longer a Cryptek in the same way an Apothecary is no longer a Veteran. RaW, there is no stat line for a Harbinger of Whatever. BOOM. We hit a wall. On this wall, someone has spray painted "poor writing". If you disagree, find me another example where GW has used the term upgrade and there isn't a stat line for what the model is being upgraded to.

We don't have to provide anything. You are saying that upgrade by sheer use of the word "upgrade" forces a change in what the model is. When I upgrade a rhino with dozer blades the rhino does not become a dozer blade. A cryptek that is upgraded to a Harbinger of Despair is simply a cryptek that has a Harbinger of Despair upgrade.

Otherwise, you have to show where in the rules the term upgrade all by itself is empowered to redefine models. It does not have that power in the rules. You are making that up.

I'm not going to argue with you past this post, but you don't upgrade a rhino to take dozer blades. You take items from a wargear list. The Rhino is still a model called "Rhino". When you UPGRADE an X to a Y, the new model is no longer an X. It is a Y. The Cryptek is no longer a Cryptek. It is a Harbinger of Whatever. Upgrading from a Veteran to an Apothecary absolutely forces a change in what the model is. Upgrading from a Cryptek to a Harbinger performs the same change.

Royal Courts are defined as 0-5 crypteks. Are you saying that when I upgrade a Cryptek to a Harbinger of Despair it no longer exists? Or are you saying that Harbingers cannot be in Royal Courts? Are you saying that Royal Courts can only have plain crypteks?

The Cryptek is always a Cryptek.

The reason why the upgrade is a change is because the asterisked rule outlines the total nature of the change and in it it uses the terms explicitly that Crytpeks in a Court can be upgraded to Harbingers. The logical extension of this if you want to upgrade Crypteks to Harbingers they must be in a Court. There is no context for Harbingers to exist outside a Court except as 'Crypteks' in the formation, without the upgrade defining them thus. This is different from regular upgrades for a squad like a sergeant or an apothecary precisely because of the presence of the asterisked rule. Otherwise as you state there be no need for the asterisk at all, it would be obvious that I could upgrade them however I want and the note would just need to say no duplicates of Harbinger wargear. However, the note is clearly not worded that way and therefore presents an opponent with the RAW argument that Harbingers cannot be taken outside the Court. There really is no other way of disputing what I am saying here: that RAW an opponent could argue this.

SmokeyJoe wrote:
The reason why the upgrade is a change is because the asterisked rule outlines the total nature of the change and in it it uses the terms explicitly that Crytpeks in a Court can be upgraded to Harbingers. The logical extension of this if you want to upgrade Crypteks to Harbingers they must be in a Court. There is no context for Harbingers to exist outside a Court except as 'Crypteks' in the formation, without the upgrade defining them thus. This is different from regular upgrades for a squad like a sergeant or an apothecary precisely because of the presence of the asterisked rule. Otherwise as you state there be no need for the asterisk at all, it would be obvious that I could upgrade them however I want and the note would just need to say no duplicates of Harbinger wargear. However, the note is clearly not worded that way and therefore presents an opponent with the RAW argument that Harbingers cannot be taken outside the Court. There really is no other way of disputing what I am saying here: that RAW an opponent could argue this.

The cryptek entry list gives permission to Upgrade to the various harbingers.

The asterix clarifies that "ANY NUMBER ..."

The asterix does not restrict by saying "ONLY . . ."

You are failing to note the clear logical difference between these two statements

"Any number of Crypteks in a Royal Court can be upgraded to a single, specific type of Harbinger."

"Only Crypteks in a Royal Court can be upgraded to a single, specific type of Harbinger."

It does seem odd that the cryptek is being upgraded *to* something else, and is yet still a cryptek.

When an ork boy is upgraded with 'eavy armour, he's still an ork boy.
but when an ork boy is upgraded *to* a nob, he is no longer an ork boy.

Though in this case, it is backed up by a new, seperate statline in the codex, which they apparently didnt do for harbingers. You could argue its not necessary if they share the exact same statline, but still. I wouldn't be surprised if its something thats just happened due to the new codex being around the corner.

However the way it all reads so far, I would say the crypteks in the formation have to remain crypteks. They aren't in a royal court, and the formation declares cryteks, so thats two cases of "benefit of the doubt" you have to overcome. At that point you really should err in your opponents favour, unless you're planning to be "that guy" for the whole game.


edit: This is how I would play it, and how I interpret the rules as they seem to have been written. It's ambiguous at best, and with so much ambiguity I would rather not cheat my opponent.

Niiru wrote:
It does seem odd that the cryptek is being upgraded *to* something else, and is yet still a cryptek.

When an ork boy is upgraded with 'eavy armour, he's still an ork boy.
but when an ork boy is upgraded *to* a nob, he is no longer an ork boy.

Though in this case, it is backed up by a new, seperate statline in the codex, which they apparently didnt do for harbingers. You could argue its not necessary if they share the exact same statline, but still. I wouldn't be surprised if its something thats just happened due to the new codex being around the corner.

However the way it all reads so far, I would say the crypteks in the formation have to remain crypteks. They aren't in a royal court, and the formation declares cryteks, so thats two cases of "benefit of the doubt" you have to overcome. At that point you really should err in your opponents favour, unless you're planning to be "that guy" for the whole game.


edit: This is how I would play it, and how I interpret the rules as they seem to have been written. It's ambiguous at best, and with so much ambiguity I would rather not cheat my opponent.

Royal Courts are defined as 0-5 crypteks and 0-5 necron lords. Whether a cryptek has been upgraded to a Harbinger or not it is still unequivocally a cryptek. The same logic you are trying to use to prevent Harbingers in the formation would prevent Harbingers in Royal Courts.

A Cryptek that is upgraded remains a Cryptek because there is no mention of a different profile.
If he actually became a different model, they wouldn't have needed the line to say he can only pick one Harbinger-type.

An Ork Boy that becomes a Nob is no longer an Ork Boy because he gets a different profile and name.

The asterisk also says a Cryptek can only upgrade to a single type of Harbinger, luckily we have the Staff of Light-exchange to prevent us from upgrading to multiple Harbinger-types.

At that point you really should err in your opponents favour, unless you're planning to be "that guy" for the whole game.

In my opinion it would be more "that guy"-ing to claim he cannot upgrade because he is technically not in a Royal Court.
I'm just glad the RAW support the upgrade.

That's not RaW though. The Cryptek stays a Cryptek because his statline says so. Note how an Apothecary has the same statline in terms of numbers as a Veteran yet still has a separately titled one.

That rule with the asterisk has NOTHING to do with upgrades to Harbingers. Read the actual rule it is a redundant reminder that you have have multiples of the same Harbinger but the reason the rules exists is to limit the number of unique items per court. That is the only rule that is actually tied to Crypteks in a court. Hence for example in this formation you could have 2 Harbingers of Despair both with Veils of Darkness.

col_impact wrote:
Royal Courts are defined as 0-5 crypteks and 0-5 necron lords. Whether a cryptek has been upgraded to a Harbinger or not it is still unequivocally a cryptek. The same logic you are trying to use to prevent Harbingers in the formation would prevent Harbingers in Royal Courts.

Poor evidence for your argument. Nothing changes the Unit Composition when a model is upgraded to something else.

Ork Boyz Unit Comp isn't 0-1 Nobz and 10-29 Boyz (30 Boyz if 0 Nobz). It's 10-30 Boyz and one can upgrade to a Nob.

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Royal Courts are defined as 0-5 crypteks and 0-5 necron lords. Whether a cryptek has been upgraded to a Harbinger or not it is still unequivocally a cryptek. The same logic you are trying to use to prevent Harbingers in the formation would prevent Harbingers in Royal Courts.

Poor evidence for your argument. Nothing changes the Unit Composition when a model is upgraded to something else.

Ork Boyz Unit Comp isn't 0-1 Nobz and 10-29 Boyz (30 Boyz if 0 Nobz). It's 10-30 Boyz and one can upgrade to a Nob.

So the Formation as well will have 2 crypteks in it when they are upgraded to Harbingers.

The cryptek stays a cryptek because that's the statline it has and the upgrade did not involve a new statline.

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Royal Courts are defined as 0-5 crypteks and 0-5 necron lords. Whether a cryptek has been upgraded to a Harbinger or not it is still unequivocally a cryptek. The same logic you are trying to use to prevent Harbingers in the formation would prevent Harbingers in Royal Courts.

Poor evidence for your argument. Nothing changes the Unit Composition when a model is upgraded to something else.

Ork Boyz Unit Comp isn't 0-1 Nobz and 10-29 Boyz (30 Boyz if 0 Nobz). It's 10-30 Boyz and one can upgrade to a Nob.

So the Formation as well will have 2 crypteks in it when they are upgraded to Harbingers.

Not what I said at all, but feel free to make that argument.

Unless you're somehow saying that a Nob is a Boy even after he's been upgraded?

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Royal Courts are defined as 0-5 crypteks and 0-5 necron lords. Whether a cryptek has been upgraded to a Harbinger or not it is still unequivocally a cryptek. The same logic you are trying to use to prevent Harbingers in the formation would prevent Harbingers in Royal Courts.

Poor evidence for your argument. Nothing changes the Unit Composition when a model is upgraded to something else.

Ork Boyz Unit Comp isn't 0-1 Nobz and 10-29 Boyz (30 Boyz if 0 Nobz). It's 10-30 Boyz and one can upgrade to a Nob.

So the Formation as well will have 2 crypteks in it when they are upgraded to Harbingers.

Not what I said at all, but feel free to make that argument.

Unless you're somehow saying that a Nob is a Boy even after he's been upgraded?

A Nob is not a Boy. When he becomes a Nob he has a new statline.

When a cryptek is upgraded to a Harbinger he still has a statline that indicates he is a cryptek.

col_impact wrote:
A Nob is not a Boy because when becomes a Nob he has a new statline.

When a cryptek is upgraded to a Harbinger he still has a statline that indicates he is a cryptek.

So the model's name doesn't change? Name is part of the profile.

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
A Nob is not a Boy because when becomes a Nob he has a new statline.

When a cryptek is upgraded to a Harbinger he still has a statline that indicates he is a cryptek.

So the model's name doesn't change? Name is part of the profile.

A Harbinger of Despair is a Cryptek.

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
A Nob is not a Boy because when becomes a Nob he has a new statline.

When a cryptek is upgraded to a Harbinger he still has a statline that indicates he is a cryptek.

So the model's name doesn't change? Name is part of the profile.

A Harbinger of Despair is a Cryptek.

Wow, that's tons of evidence to support your point. Here, I'll use literally the exact same amount:

A Harbinger of Despair is not a Cryptek.

Wow! Excellent debate.
In case you're actually interested in discussion and not assertions, please support the quoted post with rules.
The model's name changes, but the rest of the Profile does not, so it doesn't need a second profile. This is proven by the fact that a) the Cryptek is upgraded *to* something (not with, as you previously asserted) and b) that there is no second profile.

Rigeld2 what is the statline for a Harbinger of Despair and where is it found?

And where exactly does it say the name changes?
Because the profile still says Cryptek.

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
A Nob is not a Boy because when becomes a Nob he has a new statline.

When a cryptek is upgraded to a Harbinger he still has a statline that indicates he is a cryptek.

So the model's name doesn't change? Name is part of the profile.

A Harbinger of Despair is a Cryptek.

Wow, that's tons of evidence to support your point. Here, I'll use literally the exact same amount:

A Harbinger of Despair is not a Cryptek.

Wow! Excellent debate.
In case you're actually interested in discussion and not assertions, please support the quoted post with rules.
The model's name changes, but the rest of the Profile does not, so it doesn't need a second profile. This is proven by the fact that a) the Cryptek is upgraded *to* something (not with, as you previously asserted) and b) that there is no second profile.

"Upgrade to" is not some key phrase that carries that power. If you feel otherwise show in the rules where "upgrade to" has that power explicitly defined for it. You are making it up.

Kangodo wrote:And where exactly does it say the name changes?
Because the profile still says Cryptek.

"Upgrade to".

col_impact wrote:"Upgrade to" is not some key phrase that carries that power. If you feel otherwise show in the rules where "upgrade to" has that power explicitly defined for it. You are making it up.

Please, using the rules, define "a".

If you upgrade to something, the thing you upgraded from isn't there anymore. Because it's now something else. Language - words mean things.

And where in the rulebooks does an 'upgrade to' change the name?

I will just leave you with this: "In case you're actually interested in discussion and not assertions, please support the quoted post with rules."

Kangodo wrote:
And where in the rulebooks does an 'upgrade to' change the name?

Please, using rules, define "upgrade". Instead of trolling or mocking, understand.

rigeld2 wrote:

Kangodo wrote:And where exactly does it say the name changes?
Because the profile still says Cryptek.

"Upgrade to".

col_impact wrote:"Upgrade to" is not some key phrase that carries that power. If you feel otherwise show in the rules where "upgrade to" has that power explicitly defined for it. You are making it up.

Please, using the rules, define "a".

If you upgrade to something, the thing you upgraded from isn't there anymore. Because it's now something else. Language - words mean things.

At the very last page of the codex it lists all the models of the Necron codex and their statlines. Cryptek is listed. I don't see a Harbinger of X model because there is no model named Harbinger of X.

Harbinger of X is just a designation for wargear packages that do not change the actual model's name, which is Cryptek. "Upgrade to" is an upgrade to a wargear package.

rigeld2 wrote:

Kangodo wrote:
And where in the rulebooks does an 'upgrade to' change the name?

Please, using rules, define "upgrade". Instead of trolling or mocking, understand.

Why should I?
You are saying that he is no longer a Cryptek due to his upgrade.

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Kangodo wrote:And where exactly does it say the name changes?
Because the profile still says Cryptek.

"Upgrade to".

col_impact wrote:"Upgrade to" is not some key phrase that carries that power. If you feel otherwise show in the rules where "upgrade to" has that power explicitly defined for it. You are making it up.

Please, using the rules, define "a".

If you upgrade to something, the thing you upgraded from isn't there anymore. Because it's now something else. Language - words mean things.

At the very last page of the codex it lists all the models of the Necron codex and their statlines. Cryptek is listed. I don't see a Harbinger of X model because there is no model named Harbinger of X.

Harbinger of X is just a designation for wargear packages that do not change the actual model's name, which is Cryptek. "Upgrade to" is an upgrade to a wargear package.

Use rules to define a wargear package. It doesn't say "upgrade the wargear to".
The Cryptek has options.
One of these options is to upgrade to a Harbinger of Despair.

I've added no words to the codex, every one of your arguments has. Please use actual rules in your arguments.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kangodo wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Kangodo wrote:
And where in the rulebooks does an 'upgrade to' change the name?

Please, using rules, define "upgrade". Instead of trolling or mocking, understand.

Why should I?
You are saying that he is no longer a Cryptek due to his upgrade.

You're demanding a rules definition for a word that doesn't need one. My request was to show evidence that not every word has a rules definition.

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Kangodo wrote:And where exactly does it say the name changes?
Because the profile still says Cryptek.

"Upgrade to".

col_impact wrote:"Upgrade to" is not some key phrase that carries that power. If you feel otherwise show in the rules where "upgrade to" has that power explicitly defined for it. You are making it up.

Please, using the rules, define "a".

If you upgrade to something, the thing you upgraded from isn't there anymore. Because it's now something else. Language - words mean things.

At the very last page of the codex it lists all the models of the Necron codex and their statlines. Cryptek is listed. I don't see a Harbinger of X model because there is no model named Harbinger of X.

Harbinger of X is just a designation for wargear packages that do not change the actual model's name, which is Cryptek. "Upgrade to" is an upgrade to a wargear package.

Use rules to define a wargear package. It doesn't say "upgrade the wargear to".
The Cryptek has options.
One of these options is to upgrade to a Harbinger of Despair.

I've added no words to the codex, every one of your arguments has. Please use actual rules in your arguments.

The very last page of the Necron codex which lists the models proves you are wrong. Harbinger of Despair is not listed because a model of that name does not exist.

rigeld2 wrote:

Kangodo wrote:And where exactly does it say the name changes?
Because the profile still says Cryptek.

"Upgrade to".

col_impact wrote:"Upgrade to" is not some key phrase that carries that power. If you feel otherwise show in the rules where "upgrade to" has that power explicitly defined for it. You are making it up.

Please, using the rules, define "a".

If you upgrade to something, the thing you upgraded from isn't there anymore. Because it's now something else. Language - words mean things.

Again I must ask where is the Harbinger of Despair's statline? If he is not a Cryptek he can't be using the Cryptek's statline.

Kangodo wrote:
And where in the rulebooks does an 'upgrade to' change the name?

I will just leave you with this: "In case you're actually interested in discussion and not assertions, please support the quoted post with rules."

Well in general, thats just the way it works. A specific rule isnt needed, as the english language does it by default.

HOWEVER, reading through the necron codex entry again, I'd have to say that the RAI does seem to imply the "Harbinger of despair" is more of a ... title, than a unit type. I guess to be more accurate, GW should have said: "Upgrade to a Cryptek:Harbinger of Despair" or a "Harbinger of Despair Cryptek". But yeh I would actually have to say in this case, the harbingers are meant to be crypteks. Even though the wording isn't really consistant with the rest of the 40k ruleset.

However, crypteks only appear under the HQ section of "Royal Court". It is all one section, which is why it is boxed. There are no rules for taking or upgrading a cryptek outside of a royal court. If the formation says you are allowed a cryptek, then you are allowed a cryptek, but you have no options for upgrading that cryptek as their are no standalone cryptek rules. Unless the formation says "you may upgrade these crypteks as if they were part of a royal court" or similar.

rigeld2 wrote:

You're demanding a rules definition for a word that doesn't need one. My request was to show evidence that not every word has a rules definition.

The burden of proof is on you. You are trying to ascribe special rule power to the phrase "upgrade to" when the BRB does not. If you feel otherwise you are the one that needs to prove it.

I am not claiming that "a" has special rule power. If I were to make such a claim, the burden would be on me to prove it.

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

You're demanding a rules definition for a word that doesn't need one. My request was to show evidence that not every word has a rules definition.

The burden of proof is on you. You are trying to ascribe special rule power to the phrase "upgrade to" when the BRB does not. If you feel otherwise you are the one that needs to prove it.

I am not claiming that "a" has special rule power. If I were to make such a claim, the burden would be on me to prove it.

I'm not ascribing special rule power to a word. I'm using the normal, English definition of it.
If you upgrade to something, you are no longer the old thing.

If you upgrade OS10 to OS10.1, you are no longer running OS10.
If you upgrade your iPhone4S to an iPhone5S, you no longer have an iPhone4S.

You've so far invented "wargear packages" (with no rules support) and refused to provide evidence. Perhaps actually supporting your argument would get things moving better?

Niiru wrote:

Kangodo wrote:
And where in the rulebooks does an 'upgrade to' change the name?

I will just leave you with this: "In case you're actually interested in discussion and not assertions, please support the quoted post with rules."

Well in general, thats just the way it works. A specific rule isnt needed, as the english language does it by default.

HOWEVER, reading through the necron codex entry again, I'd have to say that the RAI does seem to imply the "Harbinger of despair" is more of a ... title, than a unit type. I guess to be more accurate, GW should have said: "Upgrade to a Cryptek:Harbinger of Despair" or a "Harbinger of Despair Cryptek". But yeh I would actually have to say in this case, the harbingers are meant to be crypteks. Even though the wording isn't really consistant with the rest of the 40k ruleset.

However, crypteks only appear under the HQ section of "Royal Court". It is all one section, which is why it is boxed. There are no rules for taking or upgrading a cryptek outside of a royal court. If the formation says you are allowed a cryptek, then you are allowed a cryptek, but you have no options for upgrading that cryptek as their are no standalone cryptek rules. Unless the formation says "you may upgrade these crypteks as if they were part of a royal court" or similar.

When you are allowed a cryptek you get the army entry list which includes a statline, wargear, special rules, and options. The options provide broad permission to upgrade to Harbingers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

You're demanding a rules definition for a word that doesn't need one. My request was to show evidence that not every word has a rules definition.

The burden of proof is on you. You are trying to ascribe special rule power to the phrase "upgrade to" when the BRB does not. If you feel otherwise you are the one that needs to prove it.

I am not claiming that "a" has special rule power. If I were to make such a claim, the burden would be on me to prove it.

I'm not ascribing special rule power to a word. I'm using the normal, English definition of it.
If you upgrade to something, you are no longer the old thing.

If you upgrade OS10 to OS10.1, you are no longer running OS10.
If you upgrade your iPhone4S to an iPhone5S, you no longer have an iPhone4S.

You've so far invented "wargear packages" (with no rules support) and refused to provide evidence. Perhaps actually supporting your argument would get things moving better?

Look at the last page of the Necron codex. Look at the list of models. What do you see listed?

This thread has simply become a troll's circlejerk and in all honesty should be locked. There's an arguement that cannot be resolved due to 2 peoples opinions that that can both provide evidence to support. If it is a friendly game, talk to your opponent and at worst roll off for it. In a tourny take it up with your to. Otherwise, wait for the release.

col_impact wrote:
Look at the last page of the Necron codex. Look at the list of models. What do you see listed?

So no evidence to support your "wargear packages"?
I see a Cryptek. Nice the rules say the name changes ("Upgrade to") but don't mention the profile, the Harbingers must use the same characteristics as a Cryptek.

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

You're demanding a rules definition for a word that doesn't need one. My request was to show evidence that not every word has a rules definition.

The burden of proof is on you. You are trying to ascribe special rule power to the phrase "upgrade to" when the BRB does not. If you feel otherwise you are the one that needs to prove it.

I am not claiming that "a" has special rule power. If I were to make such a claim, the burden would be on me to prove it.

I'm not ascribing special rule power to a word. I'm using the normal, English definition of it.
If you upgrade to something, you are no longer the old thing.

If you upgrade OS10 to OS10.1, you are no longer running OS10.
If you upgrade your iPhone4S to an iPhone5S, you no longer have an iPhone4S.

You've so far invented "wargear packages" (with no rules support) and refused to provide evidence. Perhaps actually supporting your argument would get things moving better?

OED -> upgrade to = "to raise (something) to a higher standard, in particular improve (equipment or machinery) by adding or replacing components"

"Upgrade to" does not necessarily mean what you say it has to mean. You fail here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Look at the last page of the Necron codex. Look at the list of models. What do you see listed?

So no evidence to support your "wargear packages"?
I see a Cryptek. Nice the rules say the name changes ("Upgrade to") but don't mention the profile, the Harbingers must use the same characteristics as a Cryptek.

You have no evidence that the model's name changes. Absolutely none. You fail here as well.

Here is my rules based evidence...

In order to see what GW means when they use the term "upgrade" in relation to unit entries, we need to look at examples of where they've used it in the past and derive the meaning. We have to do this because they don't explicitly define most terms.

Codex: Blood Angels, Tactical Squad Entry
"May upgrade the Space Marine Sergeant to a Veteran Sergeant ...XXpts"
Both Space Marine Sergeant and Veteran Sergeant have a profile. Upgrade has the effect of "rename the model from X to Y. This will necessitate a new profile, which we have provided for you."

Codex: Blood Angels, Scout Squad Entry
"May upgrade the Scout Sergeant to a Veteran Scout Sergeant ...XXpts"
Both Scout Sergeant and Veteran Scout Sergeant have a profile. Upgrade has the effect of "rename the model from X to Y. This will necessitate a new profile, which we have provided for you."

Codex: Tau Empire, XV88 Broadside Team Entry
"May upgrade one Broadside Shas'ui to a Broadside Shas'vre ...XXpts"
Both Broadside Shas'ui and Broadside Shas'vre have a profile. Upgrade has the effect of "rename the model from X to Y. This will necessitate a new profile, which we have provided for you."

I could go on, but I don't feel like typing. The overwhelming majority of examples of "upgrade" being used result in a new stat line.

The exception is Codex: Necrons.

Overlords may be upgraded to Phaerons.
Crypteks may be upgraded to various types of Harbinger.
Anrakyr can upgrade one unit of Immortals to Pyrrhian Eternals.

Phaerons don't have stat lines. We can probably mark this off the list because there is a rule telling us exactly what being upgraded to Phaeron does... it grants Relentless.
Harbingers don't have stat lines.
Pyrrhian Eternals don't have stat lines. For the Eternals, there is a rule telling us to treat them exactly as a unit of Immortals with some extra abilities. Presumably that includes the stat line, so we can probably cross them off the list.

But... Codex: Necrons also uses upgrade to imply a stat line change.

Codex Necrons, Necron Destroyers Entry
"May upgrade up to three Necron Destroyers to a Heavy Destroyer, exchanging gauss cannon for heavy gauss cannon ...XX points per model"
Both Necron Destroyers and Heavy Destroyers have a profile. Upgrade has the effect of "rename the model from X to Y. This will necessitate a new profile, which we have provided for you." In addition, we are explicitly told to swap a weapon. Incidentally, I think this one most closely resembles the Cryptek/Harbinger issue as you're told to both upgrade to a new name and swap wargear in the same sentence.

Now for the Harbinger wording...
Codex: Necrons, Cryptek Entry
"*Upgrade to a Harbinger of Despair, exchanging staff of light for abyssal staff ...XXpts"
Cryptek has a stat line. Harbinger of Despair doesn't. There is no rule telling me what it means to be a Harbinger of Despair. It has a side effect of impacting wargear selection, but that's a side effect of how the unit entry is set up and not an effect of being a Harbinger.

So... what does upgrade mean?
In every instance I've found, the use of upgrade has either involved a name and stat change OR has had an explicit rule telling me what the upgrade means. Since there is no rule telling me what it means to be a Harbinger, I'm forced to assume the "name and stat change" meaning is being used.

Ergo, the most reasonable expectation is that there should be a "Harbinger of Despair" stat line. There isn't. Hence, the rules break. A reasonable person will just use the Cryptek stat line in the absence of a Harbinger stat line OR rule telling me to treat a Harbinger the same as a Cryptek (as in the case of the Pyrrhian Eternals).

To be perfectly honest, I have no stake in this argument. I just think that in a strict rules as written sense, a Cryptek that has been upgraded to a Harbinger is now a model called "Harbinger of Despair" in much the same way that a Destroyer upgraded to a Heavy Destroyer is now a model called "Heavy Destoyer". I genuinely believe the reason that there is no "Harbinger of Despair" stat line is a result of GW's sloppy and inconsistent writing.

 Kriswall wrote:

So... what does upgrade mean?
In every instance I've found, the use of upgrade has either involved a name and stat change OR has had an explicit rule telling me what the upgrade means. Since there is no rule telling me what it means to be a Harbinger, I'm forced to assume the "name and stat change" meaning is being used.

You are not forced to assume anything. In the absence of an actual model name change, Harbinger of Despair is simply a title or some designation that does not involve a change in the model name.

The name of the model obviously does not change or else the Necron codex would indicate such.

The game does not break. "Upgrade to" can easily designate a suite of options selected or a "wargear package."

Kriswall notice how every single example of a name change includes a new statline even when the stats don't change. If you are saying that a Harbinger of Despair is not a Cryptek then you need to show us a statline that says Harbinger of Despair. If he is using the Cryptek statline then he is a Cryptek. That is literally the definition of a Cryptek.

The definition of upgrade is not needed here. The line reads: "Any number of Crypteks that are in a Royal Court can be upgraded to Harbingers of a single specific type." As I have said this sentence is clearly not saying that only Crypteks in the Court can be upgraded to a single type of Harbinger. It is saying that Crypteks (who are in a Royal Court) can be upgraded to Harbingers (and) any number of these can be upgraded to Harbingers of a single type. Any other interpretation of this sentence is meaningless, because there is no other context for Crypteks to exist in the original Codex.

In other words you are implying a meaning that is not there. This is hardly worse than someone saying the original sentence means no Harbingers outside a Court, which is more meaningful even though it is not a perfect interpretation of the sentence either. The above sentence is a shorter and more grammatically correct way of saying it (what I have put in the parentheses). The difficulty may be arising from the understanding of the written (English) English which is always looking to economize sentences with multiple clauses leading into each other, as opposed to American English, which tends to separate clauses into distinct sentences.

However, I don't want this thread to degenerate into language hate. I find the arguments being made by rigeld2 are quite clear. On the other hand you at one point were claiming that you should have multiple God Shackles which seems on principle ridiculous to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
On an unrelated note: do Maledictions stack?

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

You're demanding a rules definition for a word that doesn't need one. My request was to show evidence that not every word has a rules definition.

The burden of proof is on you. You are trying to ascribe special rule power to the phrase "upgrade to" when the BRB does not. If you feel otherwise you are the one that needs to prove it.

I am not claiming that "a" has special rule power. If I were to make such a claim, the burden would be on me to prove it.

I'm not ascribing special rule power to a word. I'm using the normal, English definition of it.
If you upgrade to something, you are no longer the old thing.

If you upgrade OS10 to OS10.1, you are no longer running OS10.
If you upgrade your iPhone4S to an iPhone5S, you no longer have an iPhone4S.

You've so far invented "wargear packages" (with no rules support) and refused to provide evidence. Perhaps actually supporting your argument would get things moving better?

OED -> upgrade to = "to raise (something) to a higher standard, in particular improve (equipment or machinery) by adding or replacing components"

"Upgrade to" does not necessarily mean what you say it has to mean. You fail here.

I love when people quote only a single definition, ignoring all others.
I'm sorry, how is that a failure? Please elaborate instead of insulting.

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Look at the last page of the Necron codex. Look at the list of models. What do you see listed?

So no evidence to support your "wargear packages"?
I see a Cryptek. Nice the rules say the name changes ("Upgrade to") but don't mention the profile, the Harbingers must use the same characteristics as a Cryptek.

You have no evidence that the model's name changes. Absolutely none. You fail here as well.

None? Really? Are you sure?

Any evidence of a "wargear package" yet? Or are you stringing me along for a reason? Or is that something else you just made up?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

So... what does upgrade mean?
In every instance I've found, the use of upgrade has either involved a name and stat change OR has had an explicit rule telling me what the upgrade means. Since there is no rule telling me what it means to be a Harbinger, I'm forced to assume the "name and stat change" meaning is being used.

You are not forced to assume anything. In the absence of an actual model name change, Harbinger of Despair is simply a title or some designation that does not involve a change in the model name.

The name of the model obviously does not change or else the Necron codex would indicate such.

The game does not break. "Upgrade to" can easily designate a suite of options selected or a "wargear package."

It does indicate such. By saying the Cryptek is upgraded to something else - meaning it isn't the old thing anymore.

And please differentiate your phrase "wargear package" from a rules quote ("Upgrade to") when using quotes in the same sentence. An unobservant reader might not realize the latter isn't actually rules but something you invented out of whole cloth.

None? Really? Are you sure?

Any evidence of a "wargear package" yet? Or are you stringing me along for a reason? Or is that something else you just made up?

If there is evidence of a name please provide it along with the statline for this new entity.


Evidence that the upgrade is simply a wargear package is the rules tell us it by telling us the name remains Cryptek (as this is the name on the models profile) and that the only changes are to wargear. Any evidence at all that the upgrade changes anything beyond what the rules tell us they change?

Please mark all further posts that claim the Harbinger=/=Cryptek as HYWPI as there is literally no rules support for that claim.

As stated before, no need to talk about upgrades or profiles. End of discussion. There is no rule to support the argument: "the rule that I can upgrade any number of Crypteks in my Court to a Harbinger of a single specific type only" means "only those Harbingers in the Court need to be upgraded to a single specific type."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cause that is how you guys are reading it.

SmokeyJoe wrote:
As stated before, no need to talk about upgrades or profiles. End of discussion. There is no rule to support the argument: "the rule that I can upgrade any number of Crypteks in my Court to a Harbinger of a single specific type only" means "only those Harbingers in the Court need to be upgraded to a single specific type."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cause that is how you guys are reading it.

The Cryptek entry list says for example "Upgrade to a Harbinger of Despair, exchanging Staff of Light for Abyssal Staff . . . 5 points" This grants broad permission to upgrade Cryptek's to Harbinger's. This line means I can make a cryptek in the C'tan Shard formation into a Harbinger of Despair. This line gives me permission to do so.

The asterix portion . . .

"Any number of Crypteks that are in a Royal Court can be upgraded to a single, specific type of Harbinger"

. . . merely clarifies that you can have any number of Harbingers of a specific type in a Royal Court.

It further goes on to restrict that the unique wargear options for each Harbinger can only be bought once per Royal Court.

It does not say that a Cryptek has to be in a Royal Court to upgrade into a Harbinger.

This statement does not exist . . .

"only Crypteks that are in a Royal Court can be upgraded to Harbingers"


You are failing to note the clear logical difference between these two statements

"Any number of Crypteks in a Royal Court can be upgraded to a single, specific type of Harbinger."

"Only Crypteks in a Royal Court can be upgraded to Harbingers."

Broad permission


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You are failing to see that I am saying that the corollary of your interpretation of the rule means only Harbingers in the Court need to be upgraded to a single specific type. For the last time: what would be the point in having a rule stating that? If you are saying that it just means I can have any number of a specific type that is obvious from the entry. There would be no need for that rule, just a note saying no duplicate wargear. It doesn't just say that.

SmokeyJoe wrote:
Broad permission


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You are failing to see that I am saying that your interpretation of the rule means only Harbingers in the Court need to be upgraded to a single specific type. For the last time: what would be the point in having a rule stating that?

Read the following sentence along with it.

Not really broad permission, but more of a: You already have permission.
The only thing the Asterisk seems to do is allow Crypteks to only upgrade into a single Harbinger (which is redundant) and it makes sure no two can have the same wargear.

Again what would be the point of telling the player that?

SmokeyJoe wrote:
Again what would be the point of telling the player that?

To make sure that the player understands that they can have any number of specific Harbingers in a Court but only one copy of each unique wargear per Royal Court.

SmokeyJoe wrote:
Broad permission


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You are failing to see that I am saying that the corollary of your interpretation of the rule means only Harbingers in the Court need to be upgraded to a single specific type. For the last time: what would be the point in having a rule stating that? If you are saying that it just means I can have any number of a specific type that is obvious from the entry. There would be no need for that rule, just a note saying no duplicate wargear. It doesn't just say that.

Yes that rule is a redundant reminder as is clear from what it says. The reason the rule is there is for the next part. This has been pointed out 3 or 4 times now.

SmokeyJoe wrote:
Again what would be the point of telling the player that?

Because a line that says only one Harbinger is better than letting people find it out by themselves that they cannot swap their weapon more than once.
Rules are intended to be clear, they tell you what you can or cannot do. You shouldn't find out by a detour.

That is also why I am sure that the RAI is that Crypteks can upgrade, they would have made it much clearer if you couldn't do that.

So what you are saying is that the rule is redundant, but who are you to say that it is redundant and do you know for sure? And because of this redundant rule perhaps this was the intention of whoever came up with the formation that we would remember the asterisk and not take Harbingers in the formation, until the new Codex comes out and it finally clears the matter up? This seems more likely to me than the implicit meaning that only a Cryptek taken as part of a Court need adhere to the asterisked rule. This is what all of you are implying by extension and my suggestion has been from the beginning that overseen or redundant rules are being used by the rules writers as a way to streamline the transition from 6th to 7th edition codexes, without people making things up and breaking the game in the meantime.

SmokeyJoe wrote:
So what you are saying is that the rule is redundant, but who are you to say that it is redundant and do you know for sure?

The rules are full of redundant reminders. I know for sure because I've read what the rule says and my interpretation does not involve changing the meaning of the sentence, unlike yours. So don't think it as me saying this think it as the rules literally telling us this as that is what they say.

And because of this redundant rule perhaps this was the intention of whoever came up with the formation that we would remember the asterisk and not take Harbingers in the formation, until the new Codex comes out and it finally clears the matter up?

Why would the writer expect us to "know" that we have to make up rules? A good pattern for intent is that the rules are written to be as clear as possible and will tell you when to change and existing process if involving that process. They have put no further restrictions on how to select a Cryptek so why assume that the process is changed?

This seems more likely to me than the implicit meaning that only a Cryptek taken as part of a Court need adhere to the asterisked rule. This is what all of you are implying by extension and my suggestion has been from the beginning that overseen or redundant rules are being used by the rules writers as a way to streamline the transition from 6th to 7th edition codexes, without people making things up and breaking the game in the meantime.

The asterisk rule can only apply to a court as all it does is restrict how many times you can take the unique wargear. That is the entire function of the rule RaW. If you want to discuss RaI my guess is that the 2 Crypteks count as a court and you can only take 1 veil of Darkness for instance between them. However this is not the RaW and is unlikely to impact how the Formation is ever taken and will become irrelevant in a month's time so why bother discussing beyond the RaW?

It's redundant because it makes a ruling that could also be made indirectly.
But because GW at least tries to be user-friendly, stuff like this needs more direct and clearer rulings.

Just for the record: All Crypteks need to adhere to the asterisked rule.
But as I read it, it tells us three things:
1. Crypteks in a Royal Court can upgrade to a Harbinger.
2. But they can only upgrade to a single type of Harbinger.
3. Two models in a Royal Court cannot take the same Wargear.

These three points don't take into consideration what happens when you have a Cryptek that is not part of a Royal Court.
Point #1 is already covered by the Cryptek entry itself.
Point #2 is covered by the fact that you can replace Staff of Light only once.
Point #3 is the big difference, but hardly matters.

It seems like people are not reading what we are saying, everyone agrees that the asterisked ruling gives permission.
But permission is also received from the Cryptek-entry itself, so it doesn't matter whether we are in a Royal Court or not!
The big difference is that the asterisked ruling tells us about the unique wargear and that they can only take a single Harbinger-upgrade.

Because RAW you can argue that the existence of the asterisked rule restricts Harbingers to the Court.

SmokeyJoe wrote:
Because RAW you can argue that the existence of the asterisked rule restricts Harbingers to the Court.

Okay, let's start again.
Does the asterisked rule give a permission or restriction?

A more interesting and logically absurd corollary of your argument goes like this. If the rule only applies to the Crypteks in the Court and is as you say redundant, because it is telling me that I only have one Harbinger to upgrade to (which as said before is obvious from the entry), then Crypteks outside the Court not only can have duplicate wargear but could be upgraded to multiple types of Harbinger simultaneously RAW.

But RAW that is not how the asterisked paragraph reads as we know this from the entry saying 'upgrade to a:'! it is telling me the conditions for upgrading a Cryptek to a Harbinger 1) Any number can be 2) they are in a Court and 3) they are upgradeable to a single type of Harbinger. The purpose of that sentence is not to remind me just to upgrade to a single type and that I cannot duplicate wargear: that would have no meaning in the current context.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As said before it is explaining what the conditions are for upgrading Crypteks to Harbingers lol


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Therefore QED to upgrade to a Harbinger I must be in a Court RAW...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Furthermore following someone else's definition here of what broad permission means: it is granted to upgrade Crypteks to Harbingers of a single type, they must be in a Court, they must not duplicate wargear and any number of them can be upgraded thus. That is the broad permission granted guys RAW.

SmokeyJoe wrote:
Because RAW you can argue that the existence of the asterisked rule restricts Harbingers to the Court.

No you can't that is not what the RAW says at all as has been explained in detail to you over the last few pages.

Oh no, Crypteks outside a RC can still only upgrade to one type of Harbinger.
Upgrading requires a swap of their SoL, which they have only one off.

It might not have meaning to you or me, but it has meaning to the 98 other players out of the 100 who do not see that since he has only a single SoL, he can take only a single Harbinger-upgrade.
That is why I called it redundant! He cannot upgrade to multiple Harbingers because of his staff, but they still had to write it down because most people would not see that 'indirect' limitation.

You can basically read it like:

May upgrade to Harbinger 1 *

* A Cryptek in a Royal Court can upgrade to a single Harbinger.

Notice how we have two permissions to upgrade the Cryptek? The second line does not overrule or change the first one.
That is different from how you seem to read it:

* Only a Cryptek in a Royal Court can upgrade to a single Harbinger.

By using the word "only" it suddenly becomes a restriction instead of a second permission.
But the original text doesn't have the word "only", nothing in that piece of text puts any kind of limitation or change on the original entry.

Yes I put the only in there myself I admit. However, that does not change the argument. By the way (not to you; the previous poster) arguing that RAW I'm wrong and your right and me doing the same thing is just dumb. A few people have agreed with me, a few agree with your POV and both sides have been explaining RAW essentially the same thing to the other over the past four pages repeatedly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Don't single me out

SmokeyJoe wrote:
A more interesting and logically absurd corollary of your argument goes like this. If the rule only applies to the Crypteks in the Court and is as you say redundant, because it is telling me that I only have one Harbinger to upgrade to (which as said before is obvious from the entry), then Crypteks outside the Court not only can have duplicate wargear but could be upgraded to multiple types of Harbinger simultaneously RAW.

But RAW that is not how the asterisked paragraph reads as we know this from the entry saying 'upgrade to a:'! it is telling me the conditions for upgrading a Cryptek to a Harbinger 1) Any number can be 2) they are in a Court and 3) they are upgradeable to a single type of Harbinger. The purpose of that sentence is not to remind me just to upgrade to a single type and that I cannot duplicate wargear: that would have no meaning in the current context.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As said before it is explaining what the conditions are for upgrading Crypteks to Harbingers lol


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Therefore QED to upgrade to a Harbinger I must be in a Court RAW...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Furthermore following someone else's definition here of what broad permission means: it is granted to upgrade Crypteks to Harbingers of a single type, they must be in a Court, they must not duplicate wargear and any number of them can be upgraded thus. That is the broad permission granted guys RAW.

You need to read the actual text.

This is what the codex says.

"Upgrade to a Harbinger of Despair, exchanging Staff of Light for Abyssal Staff . . . 5 points"
"Any number of Crypteks that are in a Royal Court can be upgraded to a single, specific type of Harbinger. Whilst you can have any number of Harbingers of a specific type, each of the Harbinger's unique wargear options can only be chosen once in each Royal Court."

You keep adding restrictions in your reading. You aren't allowed to add stuff you make up.

The codex does not say this

"Only Crypteks that are in a Royal Court can be upgraded to Harbingers"
"Crypteks must be in a Royal Court to be able to be upgraded to Harbingers."

You keep adding stuff to the rules. You aren't allowed. We are talking RAW here. If the statement was meant to be restrictive it would indeed use restrictive language. It doesn't. So it isn't. Read the rules as they actually are!

RaW you can only be upgraded to 1 Harbinger as you have to swap your staff of light to do so and you only have one SoL. So that part of the rule is also a redundant reminder. Saying a rule has to mean something different to what is written because following what is written makes the rule redundant is not following RaW. You are trying to make an intent argument and labelling it RaW.

RAW "That are in a Court..."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That is all

So just that 1 part of a sentence has no meaning. RaW you can upgrade Crypteks regardless of whether they are in a court or not. RaW that asterisk rule contains 2 redundant reminders and 1 extra rule. The rule is that you can only have one unique item per court. The reminders are that you can upgrade Crypteks to Harbingers and that a Cryptek can only be upgraded to a single Harbinger. That is RaW because the Cryptek entry gives us permission to upgrade to Harbingers by swapping the SoL. Nothing in the asterisk rule removes that permission or restricts that permission. Unless you'd like to post the rule that does so?

SmokeyJoe wrote:
RAW "That are in a Court..."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That is all

You are not permitted to pull phrases out of contexts.

Here is the context.

"Upgrade to a Harbinger of Despair, exchanging Staff of Light for Abyssal Staff . . . 5 points"
"Any number of Crypteks that are in a Royal Court can be upgraded to a single, specific type of Harbinger. Whilst you can have any number of Harbingers of a specific type, each of the Harbinger's unique wargear options can only be chosen once in each Royal Court."

Is there a way of doing this so that both sides just disagree and there is a record if someone wants to pick it up again? We can make the same points over and over if you like but it is becoming tedious for me, unless the point is to have the last word? Anyone else want to join in?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
By the way a great way of settling this would be for us all to place bets on what the Crypteks will be like in the next Codex: that way we can see who was closer to what the designers intended. The beauty of that approach is that we only have to wait a month

If you disagree with our points argue against them. That is how a debate works. We've debunked your points and shown permission in the rules you've failed to argue against the points raised. What we've told you is not our oppinion but factually what the RaW says. We've pointed out literally how the rules are written, hence our stance is RaW.

I disagree and RAW your wrong (wow that was pointless)

If you disagree point to the fault in my argument. Or you are not debating RaW.

So you are saying that the rule is redundant. But surely even arguing the rule is redundant itself is going against RAW. Because you are stating unequivocally that the permission to upgrade the staff of light to another weapon is merely being restated here, the value judgement is being made, by you, that the rule is redundant.

SmokeyJoe wrote:
So you are saying that the rule is redundant. But surely even arguing the rule is redundant itself is going against RAW. Because you are stating unequivocally that the permission to upgrade the staff of light to another weapon is merely being restated here, the value judgement is being made, by you, that the rule is redundant.

Redundant is not a value judgement. It's just descriptive. Restating things and being redundant can help make rules clearer and easier to follow. Keep in mind that you are jumping from entry list text in one section to an asterix down below so redundancy is a good overall strategy to make sure the reader follows.

So you are saying that the rule is redundant. But surely even arguing the rule is redundant itself is going against RAW.

Sorry but what? How is arguing a rule is redundant in any way contradicting RaW? The rules are littered with redundant reminders.

Because you are stating unequivocally that the permission to upgrade the staff of light to another weapon is merely being restated here, the value judgement is being made, by you, that the rule is redundant.

No it is not a value judgement. Do you disagree that the rules give permission for a Cryptek to upgrade? The rule proving this to be the case has been sighted. Does the rule in the asterisk also give permission to upgrade to a Harbinger? Again the posted rule proves this to be the case. 2 rules giving the same permission means one is a redundant reminder, it doesn't mean you're free to make up rules to make one of those rules mean something different.

So again if you disagree with what I'm saying point to the rules that prove me wrong.

No I'm saying that you are assuming that the only purpose of that rule is to pointlessly restate the upgrading of the staff of light to a Harbinger weapon is possible. That is an assumption. You are making the assumption that it is an error.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also I am saying that the permission is given to you in the entry and it is being 'qualified' in the asterisked paragraph.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It is not the same as a restatement. It is explaining the permission. Otherwise all rules would be granting permission. Some are not: they are restrictions with conditions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The first sentence in the paragraph itself is granting permission ("any number") within a restriction ("upgrade to a single specific type") with a greater restriction ("in a Court"), the last part you are all missing for some reason. Tagged onto this is another restriction ("no duplicate wargear"). Is this why?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
For some reason you are conflating aspects of the qualification with the restatement i.e. that the "any number" part of the quote does not refer to those "that are in a Court." There is no RAW reason for this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Any more than there is no RAW reason to expect that a Harbinger can be bought outside a Court.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Well that's me for the night.

SmokeyJoe wrote:
No I'm saying that you are assuming that the only purpose of that rule is to pointlessly restate the upgrading of the staff of light to a Harbinger weapon is possible. That is an assumption. You are making the assumption that it is an error.

It is not an assumption. It is literally all that rule tells us. You're assuming it must have another meaning hence are changing the meaning of the sentence. If you are changing the meaning of what is written you are not arguing RaW. Here's the rules again:

"Upgrade to a Harbinger of Despair, exchanging Staff of Light for Abyssal Staff . . . 5 points" 

This unequivocally gives us permission to upgrade a Cryptek to a Harbinger. As all such permissions require us to swap our Staff of Light this in effect also restricts us to upgrading a Cryptek to only 1 Harbinger.

"Any number of Crypteks that are in a Royal Court can be upgraded to a single, specific type of Harbinger."

This also gives us permission to upgrade a Cryptek to a Harbinger, however this permission only governs how we do that in a royal court and puts the restriction on of a single Harbinger as above though the 2nd part is more obvious in this sentence. Hence this is a redundant reminder as it is giving permission we already have. Why put in this reminder? Well the next sentence makes that clear:

"Whilst you can have any number of Harbingers of a specific type, each of the Harbinger's unique wargear options can only be chosen once in each Royal Court." 

The actual point of the asterisk is to restrict the unique wargear. They wanted to make it clear that the restriction does not roll over to Harbingers and that you can have multiples of the same Harbinger in any given court.

So I have shown permission to upgrade any Cryptek to a Harbinger. You have to now show where that permission is revoked. Rigeld claimed that Harbingers are not Crypteks thus not eligible for the formation. Though the stat line disagrees with this interpretation as it states that Harbingers are indeed Crypteks (or they have no stat line). If you think the asterisk rule removes this permission you have to show it is a restriction. Which you can't as it is not a restriction. So do you have any rules at all that revoke the permission posted at the top of this post?

Again I refer you to the last post: you are conflating aspects of the qualification with the restatement i.e. that the "any number" part of the quote does not refer to those "that are in a Court."

SmokeyJoe wrote:
No I'm saying that you are assuming that the only purpose of that rule is to pointlessly restate the upgrading of the staff of light to a Harbinger weapon is possible. That is an assumption. You are making the assumption that it is an error.

That's not 100% what we (or at least me) mean with that.
I think the "single, specific type of Harbinger" is redundant because the SoL-exchange already limits you.
I also mentioned that this redundant line is important because it's only redundant from a RAW-point of view, it is still important to make it actually understandable to most players.

For some reason you are conflating aspects of the qualification with the restatement i.e. that the "any number" part of the quote does not refer to those "that are in a Court." There is no RAW reason for this.

It's just that I don't see it as a limitation or restriction.
Had it said: "Only Crypteks that are in a Royal Court can be upgraded.." than there wouldn't be a discussion because that clearly excludes Crypteks not in a Royal Court.
But the current wording is: "Any number of Crypteks that are in a Royal Court.." and that indeed explains the upgrade, but in my view it does not restrict it.

But I understand how you read it and that is important and probably as far as we will get until they either FAQ it or release the new Codex.
Have a good night!

SmokeyJoe wrote:
Again I refer you to the last post: you are conflating aspects of the qualification with the restatement i.e. that the "any number" part of the quote does not refer to those "that are in a Court."

Irrespective of that. I have shown permission in the Cryptek rules to upgrade to a Harbinger. What part of the asterisk rule removes that permission?

That the Cryptek must be in the Court to get the upgrade.

What rule states that?

"Any number of Crypteks that are in a Royal Court can be upgraded to a single, specific type of Harbinger."

"Any number of Crypteks that are in a Royal Court":  How many crypteks can you have in a Royal Court? Five. So that means out of that 5 vanilla crypteks, I can upgrade each of them to one of the Harbinger types.

"to a single, specific harbinger": this means any cryptek I decide to upgrade in a RC in question, can only be one type of Harbinger, not a hybrid. EG: I can't have one cryptek equipped with both with an eldritch lance and a Chronometron. It can only be a "single, specific harbinger". Because if you read the headline of the wargear description, it states that crypteks that mix harbinger disciplines can't be trusted.

"Whilst you can have any number of Harbingers of a specific type, each of the Harbinger's unique wargear options can only be chosen once in each Royal Court." 

"Whilst you can have any harbingers of a specific type": meaning that you can take any number of despairteks in an army. This is not necessarily referencing a RC.

"each of the Harbinger's unique wargear options can only be chosen once in each Royal Court": this tells me I chose to be a specific harbinger, then I have wargear options listed under that specific harbinger type. Since my wargear is "unique", I can only choose 1 of each of the options. So I can't get 2 solar flares or say ether crystals. If I'm attached to a single, specific RC, that gear I just chose, can only be taken once by that harbinger in that court. Because to that specific RC, my purchased wargear is considered "unique". Two different RC's unlocked by two different Overlords can circumvent the last restriction because they have different origins. Meaning I can have 1 despairtek equipped with an abyssal staff and VOD in each RC I can produce in my army through CADs, allies, and formations.

Now the real question to ask is, how am I able to purchase a non special character cryptek in the 1st place ("pre- Exterminus")? Can I buy a cryptek or harbinger without having an Overlord? Can I purchase a cryptek without having any RC in my army? Even if I split off a cryptek to a troop unit, can this cryptek be bought without meeting any of the criteria I just mentioned?

The only way to purchase a cryptek in 5th edition, when the language was written, is through a Royal Court. No formations, no special cryptek strikeforce. Taking that into consideration, how can you justify multiples of any harbinger with the same optional wargear coming from the same court? Even if they are split off, you are technically still apart of that Overlord's court since it's where you originated from "before battle".

Now, it's pretty evident to me that we are limited to one of each of the 3 wargear options in a particular harbinger discipline (no buying 2 solar flares on one cryptek), and limited to one harbinger type per RC.





Automatically Appended Next Post:
I hope some of this makes sense.

"Any number of Crypteks that are in a Royal Court can be upgraded to a single, specific type of Harbinger"


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Any number of Crypteks can be upgraded to a single, specific type of Harbinger...that are in a Royal Court


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Otherwise it would say: "Any number of Crypteks from (or in) the Royal can be upgraded to..."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hence you must be in a Court

SmokeyJoe wrote:
"Any number of Crypteks that are in a Royal Court can be upgraded to a single, specific type of Harbinger"


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Any number of Crypteks can be upgraded to a single, specific type of Harbinger...that are in a Royal Court

Rephrasing the sentence in such a way changes the meaning and makes it nonsensical. You've changed the subject of the Royal Court to point to the Harbinger, instead of the Cryptek.

If Nyghoma is correct in his interpretation, however, than this would actually open up more for Crypteks in the Conclave. Since they are not in a Royal Court, they don't need to be upgraded to a "single, specific type of Harbinger" and could mix and match Harbinger gear.

Yes because the rule is telling me how to upgrade to a Harbinger so of course it points to the Harbinger.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
There is no grammatical difference between these two sentences:

"Any number of Crypteks that are in a Royal Court can be upgraded to a single, specific type of Harbinger"

"Any number of Crypteks can be upgraded to a single, specific type of Harbinger...that are in a Royal Cou


Automatically Appended Next Post:
They mean the same thing


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you are saying that the "any number" part of the quote does not refer to those being upgraded in the Court you are misreading it

To be complete, by adding the ellipsis, you are stating you are removing part of the sentence which in truth means the subject for the "that are in a Royal Court" is omitted entirely. The only remaining subject that is closest is the "Harbinger" itself, but the original sentence had the "Crypteks" as the subject for that line, which means you changed to subject of that part of the sentence. Unless you are stating the "Crypteks" and "Harbinger" is the same subject.

However, I noticed you have no disagreement with my substitution for the out of Royal Court Harbingers.

"English you speak it?"


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The Crypteks remain the subject


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The sentence is describing how to upgrade them to Harbingers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you are stating that the in the Court part refers only to those being upgraded to the single type you are misreading and making a basic grammatical error.

The method explaining how to upgrade a Cryptek is explained on page 90, by simply spending points. The rule being debated, if read in its entirety, explains that a single Royal Court can never have duplicates of the unique Harbinger Wargear. If the rule is read piecemeal, it purpose becomes muddied.

To state the rule in another way;
The rule is stating that even if you take all of your Crypteks as the same kind of Harbinger, they all cannot share the same unique Harbinger Wargear in a single Royal Court.

No because, if you are reading that rule to mean that is a restatement of the fact that you can upgrade Crypteks to the single type from the entry, which we know, you are assuming that it is muddled and you are applying the restriction on the Court from the muddling, without making the much more logical jump to the point that all this refers to Crypteks being in the Court to upgrade them.

You are assuming that the rule is partially redundant if you read it that way while also going on to extrapolate a non existent rule from the confusion. which you are partially assuming refers to Crypteks being in the Court only have the wargear restriction. The more logical grammatical interpretation is that the rule in its entirety is stating what the conditions, or permission, are for a Cryptek to be upgraded to a Harbinger: 1) any number can be 2) they exist in a unit known as a Court and 3) the 'any number' must be upgraded to a single type. This last part is needed cause it is giving me permission to upgrade a unit (Crypteks in a Court) in its entirety to a variety something different (i.e. not a Cryptek anymore). That is why the rule is needed. It is similar to how Chosen were upgraded in one of the last Chaos Space Marine Codexes. I need the reminder to give me the permission that the whole squad can be upgraded thus without restriction.

Lets be clear and no longer focus on only the just first sentence of the rule and read the whole thing.

Any number of Crypteks that are in a Royal Court can be upgraded to a single, specific type of Harbinger. Whilst you can have any number of Harbingers of a specific type, each of the Harbinger's unique wargear options can only be chosen once in each Royal Court (see page 84).

Now that we have the whole rule instead of the just first part of it, lets look at it.

It first tells us any number of Crypteks can be upgraded to a specific type of Harbinger in a Royal Court (all your Harbingers can be the same type). It then goes on to tell us of those specific type of Harbingers, that they cannot share the same wargear of that Harbinger type as seen on page 84 inside a single Royal Court.

On page 84 it does not list this restriction inside a Royal Court, so I don't see where this rule is redundant.

The first sentence of the rule is setting up the subject, all the Harbingers of a single type in Royal Court. It then explains that they can't have the same unique wargear found on page 84 in a single Royal Court. The first sentence isn't a redundant rule, it is just the rule setting up the subject for the next sentence.

"it does not list this restriction inside a Royal Court"

So are you saying that: "any number of Crypteks that are in a Royal Court can be upgraded to a Harbinger of a single specific type" does not mean that the restriction of a Harbinger of a single type is referring to those in the Court?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The first part of the rule is making a different point to the second sentence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The first part is saying any number can be upgraded to a single and specific type. The second part says no duplicate wargear, two separate partially related concepts (only related because of the Harbinger upgrade options, which need an explanation saying no duplicate wargear, however it does not say it that way because it has the preceding sentence). This is because the first sentence is setting up the conditions for upgrading to a Harbinger not setting up the idea that duplicate wargear cannot be taken. The second part does this, the first part helps me to understand that because I know I can have duplicate Harbingers just not wargear.

You shouldn't take quotes out of context.

I have already informed you that both sentences together are the rule. The first sentence tells us that all the Harbingers can be the same type in a Royal Court, the second explains the restriction.

The restriction rests in the second sentence, not the first. The first sentence at the most, provides a permission to take any number of same Harbingers.

No it doesn't there are two restrictions in the first sentence. One explicit one implicit.. Explicit: may upgrade to a single specific type. Implicit: must be in a Court.

Both readings can be correct for the explicit.

By saying a single, specific type, you can either be saying that all of them are the same type (single and specific), or all of the have to be a predefined type (specific and single).

However, with the following sentence talking about how multiple of the same specific type of Harbinger interact with wargear, I feel the first reading is closer to the truth.

OK so the single specific type means that you can't mix and match the upgrade type, or it means only one type in the unit: I believe the first because I've never seen anyone play it the other way. What makes the second part implicit is that the 'any number' portion refers to those in The Court being actively upgraded. If you don't read it grammatically this specific way it mean that you are either saying you have to upgrade the whole squad to a single type or, as others argued, that this restriction only applies to those actively upgraded in the Court, allowing Harbingers to exist outside the context for their existence in the original rule, creating in my mind an error that is dependent on misreading the sentence.

This thread has simply become a troll's circlejerk and in all honesty should be locked.

I agree

So to recap what is actually RAW.

The cryptek entry list grants these permissions.


Upgrade to a Harbinger of Despair exachanging staff of light for abyssal staff
Upgrade to a Harbinger of Destruction exchanging staff of light for eldritch lance
Upgrade to a Harbinger of Eternity exchanging staff of light for aeonstave
Upgrade to a Harbinger of the Storm exchanging staff of light for voltaic staff
Upgrade to a Harbinger of Transmogrificaion exchanging staff of light for tremorstave


There are no rules that take away those permissions.

I think the biggest mix ups folks are making is this. "Any number of Crypteks can be upgraded" means when I 1st spend the points to buy a cryptek how does he come? Obviously he comes with nothing but a staff of light and no title. He is just a simple, vanilla cryptek. So when the rule is referring to any number of "Cryptek", they are referencing the plain cryptek I just described. Permission is granted to any number of vanilla Cryptek in my royal court to be upgraded to a single harbinger type. Not that all 5 cryptek can be a despairtek, but that all 5 vanilla cryptek have a choice to become it's own unique harbinger for this particular court if you wanted, since there are 5 Harbinger types. I don't think this is an accident or coincidence in any way whatsoever. Once you are upgraded with a unique piece of wargear of any kind ( yes staves are included) from that harbinger entry you've selected, you now are classified as a "harbinger", in essence changing the definition of the model for purposes of the following rules.

The other mix up, is that statement " Whilst you can have any number of Harbingers of a specific type". This piece is slightly ambiguous. But if I fall back on the information I just read, I can put it I to context. I know that I can have more than 1 RC. If 5th edition rules were similar to today's Battleforged design, then technically I can have any number of Harbingers as long as I have enough points to buy Overlord with compulsory troops, to provided RC's from multiple detachments. That statement is just a reminder of this fact, so you don't limit yourself in case you have multiple RCs.

The only way to have ever purchased a cryptek or its harbinger incarnation is if you have a Royal court. Did GW ever conceive another way to have crypteks in your army, before Exterminus? No. There was no such thing as a cryptek or harbinger without a court, for purposes of adding one to your army list( excluding ICs). So you can't just make up rules about a creature that did not exist during 5th edition.

So, this doesn't seem to be going anywhere at this point.

Moving on.