BAO Screw up? Mistake or correct call?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**chanceafs**

HawaiiMatt wrote:
How are Cryptecs not an HQ choice?
They are bought on page 90 of the necro codex, under the giant heading "HQ".
That would be like saying that Space Marine Veterans are not an HQ choice, because the unit is called "Command Squad".
While neither uses a force org slot, both are still clearly placed in the HQ role.
I don't have the new AM codex handy, but I'm going to bet you can say the same for tank commanders and command squads. Just because the guys inside have a different name than the unit, doesn't mean that aren't part of the HQ slot the unit is in.

As for the cryptek:
If a unit of warriors is wiped out, and all that remains is the attached cryptek, can a Ghost Ark replace the warriors?
To me, this will tell us the answer for objective secured cryptek.

-Matt

once again... a cryptek is not an HQ choice... a warrior is not a troop choice. individual models or not any type of choice. Only units have battlefield roles. A Royal Court as a unit is an HQ choice. And a unit of warriors is a troop choice. So once again, the question is, which unit is the cryptek a part of once it's placed on the field? And that will provide the answer to all future questions.

**wtnind**

They have 5+ everliving which is probably why people are worrying about it. Shoot entire unit off of objective and on a 5+ the cryptek alone can come back and super contests the objective.

I would need to check the wording of the ghost ark bit it is a good point regarding resurrecting additional warriors.

**Sigvatr**

HawaiiMatt wrote:
How are Cryptecs not an HQ choice?

Crypteks are not a HQ choice. The Royal Court is a HQ choice. It's an important difference because a split-off Cryptek that joined a unit of Necron Warriors is now part of a Troops unit (and therefore gains Troops but loses HQ status) whereas his former co-workers who remain part of the Royal Court are still part of a HQ unit.

As for the cryptek:
If a unit of warriors is wiped out, and all that remains is the attached cryptek, can a Ghost Ark replace the warriors?
To me, this will tell us the answer for objective secured cryptek.

Yes. Reasoning: the Cryptek and the Warriors are one unit. Unless the unit is wiped out, it is always possible to replenish Warriors.

The more interesting question is if you could revive a Cryptek with a Ghost Ark. RAW, you can, as Ghost Arks only specifiy "models" in the unit.

**chanceafs**

Sigvatr wrote:

The more interesting question is if you could revive a Cryptek with a Ghost Ark. RAW, you can, as Ghost Arks only specifiy "models" in the unit.

Yeah... but that question leads to the much more slippery slope of since it doesn't specify a type of model is there any reason you couldn't add an immortal, or a Lord, or a carnifex for that matter. Again... poorly written GW loopholes, and the simplest solution is since it only targets a unit of warriors it can only add warriors to that unit.

**Sigvatr**

chanceafs wrote:
Sigvatr wrote:

The more interesting question is if you could revive a Cryptek with a Ghost Ark. RAW, you can, as Ghost Arks only specifiy "models" in the unit.

Yeah... but that question leads to the much more slippery slope of since it doesn't specify a type of model is there any reason you couldn't add an immortal, or a Lord, or a carnifex for that matter. Again... poorly written GW loopholes, and the simplest solution is since it only targets a unit of warriors it can only add warriors to that unit.

That's where RAI comes in. Restoring Warriors, Necron Lords and Crypteks is possible as those are the only choices that can be part of the unit at the start of the game. Anything else is just stupid.

**Fragile**

Sigvatr wrote:
chanceafs wrote:
Sigvatr wrote:

The more interesting question is if you could revive a Cryptek with a Ghost Ark. RAW, you can, as Ghost Arks only specifiy "models" in the unit.

Yeah... but that question leads to the much more slippery slope of since it doesn't specify a type of model is there any reason you couldn't add an immortal, or a Lord, or a carnifex for that matter. Again... poorly written GW loopholes, and the simplest solution is since it only targets a unit of warriors it can only add warriors to that unit.

That's where RAI comes in. Restoring Warriors, Necron Lords and Crypteks is possible as those are the only choices that can be part of the unit at the start of the game. Anything else is just stupid.

And its just as safe to say that adding Lords and Crypteks are just as stupid. Its all a matter of interpretation, which all varies wildly

**Sigvatr**

Fragile wrote:

And its just as safe to say that adding Lords and Crypteks are just as stupid. Its all a matter of interpretation, which all varies wildly

Lords and Crypteks are 100% part of the unit. Any other model is not. Tell me how this is stupid please. With rules preferably.

**Random Dude**

Doesn't the length of this thread speak to how horribly written GW's rules are? With a clear rule set the issue could be easily solved through the quoting of a few BRB pages.

**Sigvatr**

It has been done and both RAW and RAI are clear

**Fragile**

Sigvatr wrote:
Fragile wrote:

And its just as safe to say that adding Lords and Crypteks are just as stupid. Its all a matter of interpretation, which all varies wildly

Lords and Crypteks are 100% part of the unit. Any other model is not. Tell me how this is stupid please. With rules preferably.

That is your interpretation. RAW it states add "models". There is no other restriction on that rule.

**Sigvatr**

I'm not getting back in there again, we had at least 2 thread on this already (search it). Consensus is what I stated above.

**Kangodo**

Sigvatr wrote:
It has been done and both RAW and RAI are clear

No, not really. That's why this thread has reached five pages unlike many threads that are clear and answered within five posts.

**Sigvatr**

The "pro Troops" side has provided tons of rules to back their arguments up.

The "pro stays HQ" side has nothing. Literally, nothing. If one side has nothing, that side has no meaning for the entire discussion and is better off withdrawing.

**nosferatu1001**

Kangodo wrote:
Sigvatr wrote:
It has been done and both RAW and RAI are clear

No, not really. That's why this thread has reached five pages unlike many threads that are clear and answered within five posts.

A large part of this thread was one poster stating they hadn't seen any quotes, despite them being repeated ad nauseum.

The pro hq side has no single rule whatsoever. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

**Kangodo**

Yeah.. Whatever.. We've been over that multiple times.

I'm out of this thread.
Like I said before: Not worth my time because I agree with your 'hywpi'.

**Davor**

nosferatu1001 wrote:

A large part of this thread was one poster stating they hadn't seen any quotes, despite them being repeated ad nauseum.

Nope. I didn't say quotes. I said page numbers where the quotes were referenced too.

I seen lots of quotes but the page references have been done now.

.

For me at least, I say I finally understand as to why. I agree the call is correct that was made. One thing I don't agree to, but that has nothing to do with the question I asked so won't bother mentioning it.

Just want to say thank you to everyone for giving your opinion, and thank you for making me understand as to why.

**Naw**

Sigvatr wrote:
MtG has a competitive ruleset. It is designed primarily for balance and gets a lot of playtesting.

GW has stated multiple times that they do NOT release a balanced ruleset. They do NOT playtest their rules. Their ruleset is an insult to any game designer out there.

Huh. How do you ever manage to play a game of WH40k?

In the rules they advice to decide by dice if in argument. That itself should be a tell.

**rigeld2**

Davor wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:

A large part of this thread was one poster stating they hadn't seen any quotes, despite them being repeated ad nauseum.

Nope. I didn't say quotes. I said page numbers where the quotes were referenced too. I seen lots of quotes but the page references have been done now. .

You do realize page numbers are impossible for some people to provide because of the new snook for at, right?
One of the most important quotes, below, is on page 575 for me. Someone with a different device will have a different page number. Someone with a physical book will have a different page number.

CHARACTER TYPES Most characters are fielded in units from the start of the game, and represent squad leaders, such as a Space Marine Veteran Sergeant. They have their own profile, but do not have a separate entry. They are effectively just another trooper in their unit, with enhanced characteristics and perhaps a wider selection of weapons and wargear choices.

We expect someone asking for references to be able to do at least a little work - with the heading in the actual quote it's not difficult to find the quote.

In addition,

Otherwise, they remain part of the Royal Court.

(Codex: Necrons (2011), p. 90)

Has a page number in it. Sigavtr quoted it to you twice and you still refuse to acknowledge it. That's the height of rudeness IMO.

**Sigvatr**

Naw wrote:

In the rules they advice to decide by dice if in argument. That itself should be a tell.

Is this YMDC or an actual game?

You should PM yakface and ask him to have YMDC replaced by rolling dice as your preferred means of explaining rules. Do it, please.

This thread is done. One side has presented a lot of arguments, supported by actual rules and direct quotes (with page numbers) whereas the opposing side has neither. So, to round it up:

Q: Does a Cryptek get OS if it joins a unit of Necron Warriors?

A: A Cryptek that chooses to leave the Royal Court and join a unit of Necron Warriors before the game gets the Objective Secured USR as it now is fully part of the Warrior unit.

**reds8n**

Sigvatr wrote:

This thread is done.

Indeed.

I think the general consensus is clear enough.