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.

So, I've been trying to look at the Cryptek rules and such, trying to make heads and tails of it, and so far this thread is helping me out. Thank you guys.
Now, I had a question about taking wargear. For example, I want to take, let's say, three crypteks and upgrade them all to Harbingers of Despair. So far so good, right? But I also want to give them all veil of shadows and disperse them amongst the troops. According to you guys, it would be illegal to give all three crypteks VoS, correct?
If so, two questions:
1) Why couldn't the wording be something along the lines of: "Limit only one specific wargear option to one specific cryptek". Would be much easier to follow.
2) Any idea when an FAQ will be released?

It is illegal, as the OPTIONAL wargear is unique to that Royal Court.

2) who knows.

Ghaz wrote:A FAQ is an official document answering rules questions. That is its whole purpose.

A battle report is not an official document dos answering rules questions. Its purpose is to give an overview of a battle between two players. Its not meant to answer rules questions.

The point i am making is , if in what ever forum be it WD or other such none official rule making article, you can not trust the maker of an army's rules to get it right how can you then trust them in an FAQ?

The FAQ may be official but what's to stop him f*****g up the rules in that aswell Since he obviously cant do it right in an actual battle ????

Sorry it simple make your own rules up if writers of the codex cant stick to there own rules, why should you

snakel wrote:

Ghaz wrote:A FAQ is an official document answering rules questions. That is its whole purpose.

A battle report is not an official document dos answering rules questions. Its purpose is to give an overview of a battle between two players. Its not meant to answer rules questions.

The point i am making is , if in what ever forum be it WD or other such none official rule making article, you can not trust the maker of an army's rules to get it right how can you then trust them in an FAQ?

The FAQ may be official but what's to stop him f*****g up the rules in that aswell Since he obviously cant do it right in an actual battle ????

Sorry it simple make your own rules up if writers of the codex cant stick to there own rules, why should you

Its your game, make your own rules, however since in almost every codex cycle something is misremembered going by a FAQ is the only recourse for people who want some consistency in games and play sight unseen with other 40k players. Everyone wants things, you want things of this game yet adding literally nonconstructive posts such as this belie either; you have no clue how this process goes on, you being willfully obtuse, or you have emotional attachment to this that could and will be better served by walking away from it for a minute.

Dont be pedantic here. The WD article takes liberties from time to time and they dont always play a standard 40k game. Coupled with the face that there will never be a person who will always be 100% accurate in codex writing then you see how this happens.

The rules state X, we are discussing it, if it changes in a FAQ, you move on. Dont forget the forum and the nature of these posts.

lazarian wrote:

snakel wrote:

Ghaz wrote:A FAQ is an official document answering rules questions. That is its whole purpose.

A battle report is not an official document dos answering rules questions. Its purpose is to give an overview of a battle between two players. Its not meant to answer rules questions.

The point i am making is , if in what ever forum be it WD or other such none official rule making article, you can not trust the maker of an army's rules to get it right how can you then trust them in an FAQ?

The FAQ may be official but what's to stop him f*****g up the rules in that aswell Since he obviously cant do it right in an actual battle ????

Sorry it simple make your own rules up if writers of the codex cant stick to there own rules, why should you

Its your game, make your own rules, however since in almost every codex cycle something is misremembered going by a FAQ is the only recourse for people who want some consistency in games and play sight unseen with other 40k players. Everyone wants things, you want things of this game yet adding literally nonconstructive posts such as this belie either; you have no clue how this process goes on, you being willfully obtuse, or you have emotional attachment to this that could and will be better served by walking away from it for a minute.

Dont be pedantic here. The WD article takes liberties from time to time and they dont always play a standard 40k game. Coupled with the face that there will never be a person who will always be 100% accurate in codex writing then you see how this happens.

The rules state X, we are discussing it, if it changes in a FAQ, you move on. Dont forget the forum and the nature of these posts.

Thanks for the personal attack on this issue , since my point is that if you cant get something right when you made the rules for it (which to my mind is a moan about GW and its staffs lack of consistency ,not once were you singled out by me ) i can only assume your attack on me is because you know them personally!!!!

My post is my thoughts on this and many other rules issues and ,stating my post in none constructive is basically saying my view in irrelevant where as yours is, sorry but i thought a forum was where you could discuss and argue points about a subject .

I look forward to your next personal attack on me

The FAQ is an explicit rules document. WD is not.

THats the difference - yes they can and HAVE messed up rules in FAQs before (HE ASL vs ASL , SW Counter Attack and Furious charge, both lasted a few days) however there they can correct the mistakes.

A WD game represents an actual game in play, months prior to publication date and not necessarily with the final set of rules for the codex. OR, quite simply, the players get confused between the 10 different versions of the rules they will have seen during development. OR, you know -theyre human and forget things. Nobody plays a perfect game in real life.

This is why, on THIS forum, THE sources for rules are GW FAQ and dexes, nothing else.

Let's turn it down a notch please folks. Ta.


I feel it only pertinent to point out that Mr. Vetock seemingly made a mistake when showcasing the Ogres in their battle report ( something to do with Golfag and deployment IIRC ?), which he then 'fessed up to in the next issue.

from the FAQ errata....as it is you may have 5 cryptek with 5 mistic lances but only 1 solar pulse or/and 1 flaming gaze for the 5 of them, so you can only use 1 solar pulse en the hole game with the cryptek's abilities

Q: If a Royal Court contains more than one Cryptek
from the same Harbinger, will they all have the weapon
upgrade or can only one have it? (p90)
A: They must all have the weapon upgrade of their
harbinger. Only the optional wargear is unique

Yeah, I think you've actually dug up a thread from prior to the FAQs release, so this is all kind of redundant.