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.

 Kriswall wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Does anybody else find it interesting that despite requiring a C'tan Shard, the model used is a Transcendent C'tan?

How else would you represent "The Burning One"? It's interesting, but has no real bearing on the rules. Fluff and photos can frequently be incorrect as relates to the rules.

With a C'tan Shard. Please note that I'm not using the photo as evidence of proof. I just find it interesting that GW would use a Transcendent C'tan as opposed to a C'tan Shard.

Of course originally, a Transcendent C'tan was still a C'tan Shard...

 Happyjew wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Does anybody else find it interesting that despite requiring a C'tan Shard, the model used is a Transcendent C'tan?

How else would you represent "The Burning One"? It's interesting, but has no real bearing on the rules. Fluff and photos can frequently be incorrect as relates to the rules.

With a C'tan Shard. Please note that I'm not using the photo as evidence of proof. I just find it interesting that GW would use a Transcendent C'tan as opposed to a C'tan Shard.

Of course originally, a Transcendent C'tan was still a C'tan Shard...

Yup. Remember, the Conclave of the Burning One is a Formation released for the 5th Edition Codex: Necrons. Given that there has been no FAQ/Errata to update it, it's hardly surprising that there are issues with the new Codex.

Seems to me that an army list entry does not have a name. Its a collection of data that describes a unit, including the units name. The C'Tan Shard of the Nightbringer army and the C'Tan shard of the Deceiver are both C'Tan shard army list entries and would both be valid to fill composition requirements of a formation. I'm also comfortable allowing named characters that special versions of other units fill the riles of those units for this reason. I believe the army list entry for Brotherhood captain stern is a brotherhood captain army list entry. I also feel a precedent was set by GW for this sort of thing with the StormRaven's transport capacity and the command squad inclusion requirements.

 DJGietzen wrote:
Seems to me that an army list entry does not have a name. Its a collection of data that describes a unit, including the units name. The C'Tan Shard of the Nightbringer army and the C'Tan shard of the Deceiver are both C'Tan shard army list entries and would both be valid to fill composition requirements of a formation. I'm also comfortable allowing named characters that special versions of other units fill the riles of those units for this reason. I believe the army list entry for Brotherhood captain stern is a brotherhood captain army list entry. I also feel a precedent was set by GW for this sort of thing with the StormRaven's transport capacity and the command squad inclusion requirements.

That's how you would play it, but has no backing in the rules. Unit entries most certainly have a name.

Actually, they don't. Units have names. Units have army list entries. Army list entries include the unit's name but a units name is not necessarily the army list entries name. Unless you have a rule saying otherwise I missed.

Things get more complicated when you read the champions of fenris book. There the formation datasheets are described as listing "the number and type of units" in the formation. Not the army list entries.

 DJGietzen wrote:
Actually, they don't. Units have names. Units have army list entries. Army list entries include the unit's name but a units name is not necessarily the army list entries name. Unless you have a rule saying otherwise I missed.

Things get more complicated when you read the champions of fenris book. There the formation datasheets are described as listing "the number and type of units" in the formation. Not the army list entries.

Jesus H. Christ. Nitpick. Fine. Army List Entries don't have names. Army List Entries describe Units and Units have names. Besides, if you're going to be that particular, I don't see anything anywhere with a UNIT TYPE "C'tan Shard". Exterminatus has the same wording as Champions of Fenris. The UNIT TYPE of the "C'tan Shard of the Nightbringer" is "Monstrous Creature (Character)", so it clearly can't fulfill the requirement for a "C'tan Shard" UNIT TYPE. [/sarcasm]

Doesn't change the fact that there is no current Army List Entry in any currently published GW source that describes a Unit named "C'tan Shard", which is what Conclave of the Burning One calls for.

We all know how this is likely intended to be played. Reality of the situation is that GW screwed up. They took the "C'tan Shard" unit out of the game when they updated Codex: Necrons and replaced it with two Unique, named Characters. This broke the Conclave of the Burning One. The "C'tan Shard of the Nightbringer" is no more a "C'tan Shard" than "Heavy Destroyers" are "Destroyers". Sharing a few words doesn't make the two interchangeable. If you think it does, can I field a Destroyer Cult using only Heavy Destroyers?

As I pointed out, there is no unit named "Grand Master", yet a Grand Master is required to field a GK Brotherhood Formation. However, we do know what a Grand Master is, and we know which unit can be a Grand Master via an upgrade. This also applies to Brother-Captain Stern, who is a GK Brother-Captain despite being a named character.

The Stormraven example is perfect: is an Ironclade or a Furioso a "Dreadnought"? Back when the SR came out, we had this exact same argument, and before that it was the Dread in a Drop Pod argument. We even had the "is a Contemptor Dreadnought a Dreadnought" argument. Now we have the C'Tan Shard argument. It's the same argument.

Thankfully, time and time again it's been shown that a unit which is obviously of a type is that type, while a unit that is not obviously the same is not the same. This is why a simple yes or no does not cover the issue at all, because there are examples where "yes" is obviously wrong, while in other examples "no" is obviously wrong. The only correct answer is take each unit on a case by case basis, and talk it out with your opponent or TO.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
As I pointed out, there is no unit named "Grand Master", yet a Grand Master is required to field a GK Brotherhood Formation. However, we do know what a Grand Master is, and we know which unit can be a Grand Master via an upgrade. This also applies to Brother-Captain Stern, who is a GK Brother-Captain despite being a named character.

The Stormraven example is perfect: is an Ironclade or a Furioso a "Dreadnought"? Back when the SR came out, we had this exact same argument, and before that it was the Dread in a Drop Pod argument. We even had the "is a Contemptor Dreadnought a Dreadnought" argument. Now we have the C'Tan Shard argument. It's the same argument.

Thankfully, time and time again it's been shown that a unit which is obviously of a type is that type, while a unit that is not obviously the same is not the same. This is why a simple yes or no does not cover the issue at all, because there are examples where "yes" is obviously wrong, while in other examples "no" is obviously wrong. The only correct answer is take each unit on a case by case basis, and talk it out with your opponent or TO.

SJ

I will 100% agree with you that this is a RaW issue that comes up over and over again due to bad rules writing and that each time the community decides to implement the same HIWPI.

Is a "C'tan Shard of the Nightbringer" the same thing as a "C'tan Shard" from a RaW standpoint? Nope.
Is a "C'tan Shard of the Nightbringer" the same thing as a "C'tan Shard" from a general community HIWPI standpoint? Generally speaking, yes.

At its core, this issue can't be resolved following only the rules as written. There is no unit called "C'tan Shard", just as there is no unit called "Grand Master". HIWPI and agreement between two players is required. Fortunately, GW's intent is generally seen as being clear in both instances, so the average player's HIWPI tends to be "yes, I'd allow it".

Can a unit called "Brother-Captain Stern" fulfill the requirement to take a unit called "Brother Captain"? Again, HIWPI and agreement between two players is required for an answer of yes. This tends to be less straightforward and you can't rely on the average player to say "yes, I'd allow it".

Can a unit called "Heavy Destroyers" fulfill the requirement to take a unit called "Destroyers"? This is usually on the opposite end of the spectrum and it seems the average player would say no. You're unlikely to find someone who says "yes, I'd allow it".

So, RaW... NO to all of these scenarios. In an actual game setting and versus an actual player? Ask and work out HIWPI between yourselves.