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.

Hello, I was reading the new necron unit Cryptek's rules, and i'm not sure that can you have many type of Harbingers in one court. What do you think? And can different kind of Harbingers exist in any other court?

You can have as many different types of Harbinger in each court as you want. You can, however, only have a Cryptek be one type of Harbinger. So you can have a Destruction, Transmogrification and Despair in one court, but a Cryptek can't be a cross of Despair and Destruction.

The above is wrong. You can have courts of, say, 3 harbingers of destruction, all with the thingy lances. However, only one of them can take the special Destruction-harbinger wargear bits at a time - so you could have a Harp (IIRC that's in destruction) on one Harbinger of Destruction, but not on any others.

Drachii wrote:The above is wrong. You can have courts of, say, 3 harbingers of destruction, all with the thingy lances. However, only one of them can take the special Destruction-harbinger wargear bits at a time - so you could have a Harp (IIRC that's in destruction) on one Harbinger of Destruction, but not on any others.

I never mentioned wargear, the question was simply whether you can have more than one type of Harbinger per court. You can have more than one type of Harbinger per court, but then you can only have one of each piece of special wargear per court. I just didn't mention that cos it wasn't relevant.

Dytalus wrote:

Drachii wrote:The above is wrong. You can have courts of, say, 3 harbingers of destruction, all with the thingy lances. However, only one of them can take the special Destruction-harbinger wargear bits at a time - so you could have a Harp (IIRC that's in destruction) on one Harbinger of Destruction, but not on any others.

I never mentioned wargear, the question was simply whether you can have more than one type of Harbinger per court. You can have more than one type of Harbinger per court, but then you can only have one of each piece of special wargear per court. I just didn't mention that cos it wasn't relevant.

yeah i thinks thats right, thanks!

"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..." (p. 90)

I hate to say it, because mixing and matching Harbingers is a huge boon...but I do read this as saying only one variation of Harbinger is allowed per court. This was just pointed out on an army list I was reading, and I had to go back and read it again to be sure.

That's not what it means. It's stating that a Cryptek can only be one type of Harbinger. The second part is simply stating that harbingers of a specific type (ie, the same type) cannot share wargear.

In the unlikely event the FAQ agrees with you, GW will have screwed up badly. Why would you want 5 crypteks of the same type in a court, when you could just take one and still have the same wargear availability?

If it was just clarifying that you can't have multiple specialties per Cryptek, I think it wouldn't be worded like that. More like "Each Cryptek may only choose one Harbinger upgrade" or something to that effect.

I wholeheartedly agree, GW would really be screwing up if the FAQ agreed with my literal interpretation...but that's never stopped them before.

I want to be wrong, believe me. It's just I can't read that first sentence any other way, and the following sentence (even though it's dealing with wargear) reiterates the sentiment of the prior.

firepower wrote:"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..." (p. 90)

I hate to say it, because mixing and matching Harbingers is a huge boon...but I do read this as saying only one variation of Harbinger is allowed per court. This was just pointed out on an army list I was reading, and I had to go back and read it again to be sure.

Look at the part I highlighted in red one more time. That says you can have multiple numbers of the same kind.

It does say you can have multiple numbers of the same kind, as in 3 Harbingers of Despair per Court. It does not say you can have multiple Crypteks of different kinds, as in a Harbinger of Transmogrification, Destruction, and Despair per court, which is the issue.

"you can have any number of Harbingers of a specific type." Singular. Not "any specific type" or "multiple types."

So with RAW:

1 Court w/ 3 Harbingers of Destruction, 3 Solar pulses = illegal

1 Court w/ 3 Harbingers of Destruction, 1 Solar pulse= legal

1 Court w/ 2 Harbingers of Destruction, 1 vanilla Cryptek= legal

1 Court w/ 2 Harbingers of Destruction, 1 Harbinger of Despair= illegal

Disappointing, but that's the literal translation . Here's hoping the FAQ says I'm wrong.

ToBeWilly wrote:

firepower wrote:"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..." (p. 90)

I hate to say it, because mixing and matching Harbingers is a huge boon...but I do read this as saying only one variation of Harbinger is allowed per court. This was just pointed out on an army list I was reading, and I had to go back and read it again to be sure.

Look at the part I highlighted in red one more time. That says you can have multiple numbers of the same kind.

No it doesn't. The part that you highlighted red just says "no matter how many harbingers of a single type you took, you can only take one of their unique wargear options once per Royal Court."

And why are you ignoring the first sentance that says? "...upgraded to a SINGLE, SPECIFIC TYPE of harbinger."

Shep wrote:

ToBeWilly wrote:

firepower wrote:"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..." (p. 90)

I hate to say it, because mixing and matching Harbingers is a huge boon...but I do read this as saying only one variation of Harbinger is allowed per court. This was just pointed out on an army list I was reading, and I had to go back and read it again to be sure.

Look at the part I highlighted in red one more time. That says you can have multiple numbers of the same kind.

No it doesn't. The part that you highlighted red just says "no matter how many harbingers of a single type you took, you can only take one of their unique wargear options once per Royal Court."

And why are you ignoring the first sentance that says? "...upgraded to a SINGLE, SPECIFIC TYPE of harbinger."

That line is to prevent people from taking more than one type of Harbinger on a single Cryptek.

The rest of the rule clearly states that you can take As many of any type of Harbinger as you want.

Shep: you cannot take a Harbinger of destruction's special gear on a Harbinger of transmutation now can you?

So how could you possibly take the option more than once in the same court if you cannot have ore than one of the same Harbinger?

The first sentence says: "Any number of crypteks may be upgraded to a single, specific type of harbinger." \

This means exactly what it says; any number may be of type X.

The second sentence says: "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."

This also means exactly what it says; it first reiterates that you can have multiples of the same Harbinger, but that you can only buy their special gear once/court.

Both sentences tell you that you can take 5 Harbingers of despair(as an example) in the same court. The second just tells you that you can only buy one of those Harbingers of despair a Veil of Darkness, and you can only buy one of those Harbingers(can be the same one that bought the Veil) a Nightmare Shroud.

Just because the snippet phrase "SINGLE, SPECIFIC TYPE of harbinger" exists in the rule does not negate the explicit permission to upgrade "ANY NUMBER OF CRYPTEKS in the court"

Stop looking for buzz words and start reading the whole sentences.

As above, KK is precisely correct. You can have as many different Harbingers as you like.

firepower wrote:It does say you can have multiple numbers of the same kind, as in 3 Harbingers of Despair per Court. It does not say you can have multiple Crypteks of different kinds, as in a Harbinger of Transmogrification, Destruction, and Despair per court, which is the issue.

"you can have any number of Harbingers of a specific type." Singular. Not "any specific type" or "multiple types."

So with RAW:

1 Court w/ 3 Harbingers of Destruction, 3 Solar pulses = illegal

1 Court w/ 3 Harbingers of Destruction, 1 Solar pulse= legal

1 Court w/ 2 Harbingers of Destruction, 1 vanilla Cryptek= legal

1 Court w/ 2 Harbingers of Destruction, 1 Harbinger of Despair= illegal

Disappointing, but that's the literal translation . Here's hoping the FAQ says I'm wrong.

I'll have to look at the WD Battle Report again, but I'm pretty sure that's not how it works.

If you can only take 1 type of Harbinger per royal court why state that they start off as a Cryptek ?

I mean whats the point in a Cryptek if you are not going to upgrade him ? come on a Warriors stats with a staff of light is worth 25 pts!!!!!

If then you can only have 1 Harbinger type per royal court they should have just called Crypteks Harbingers and stated that each court my include up to 5 harbingers of the same discipline But only one type of war gear is allow per court .

Unless GW are really trying to make themselves look stupid ,I truly believe the FAQ will dispel the, only one type per court theory

The statement that any Cryptek can be upgrade to any single specific type of harbinger is there to stop people trying to take a harbinger of destructi0on with solar pulse and a tremorstave

If it meant that you had to upgrade all to the same type why state you can take any number of the same type of harbinger when that would be obvious from the first statement ?

No, you can only take one of each OPTIONAL UPGRADE to each type of Harbinger.

So you can take as many with eldritch lances as you like, as that wargear is not optional, but you can only take 1 veil per court

Well, in WD, the battle report lists in Mat Ward's army list: "Imotekh's Royal Court" as a Necron Lord, a Harbinger of the Storm, and a Harbinger of Destruction. Case closed for me, and the people I play with. You may disagree, but, I would think the Writer of the Codex wouldn't bring an illegal army to the table for the flagship release.

Well, in WD, the battle report lists in Mat Ward's army list: "Imotekh's Royal Court" as a Necron Lord, a Harbinger of the Storm, and a Harbinger of Destruction. Case closed for me...

White Dwarf has been known to get the rules wrong in their battle reports, most notably they once allowed a model to fire a heavy weapon after disembarking from a transport.

Ghaz wrote:White Dwarf has been known to get the rules wrong in their battle reports, most notably they once allowed a model to fire a heavy weapon after disembarking from a transport.

I agree, however, accidentally firing a weapon seems like a lapse in memory on the player's parts. The rules on that one are written clearly (thank god.) I am not saying that the proof is definitive, I am just saying that the rule is ambiguous, and the writer clearly has an interpretation of how it should be played.

Its hardly s memory lapse when they have to write up the battle report as well after the game. And that's not the only error that's ever shown up in White Dwarf. There's a reason that one of the tenets of YMDC is that battle reports are not a valid source of rules.

Ghaz wrote:Its hardly s memory lapse when they have to write up the battle report as well after the game. And that's not the only error that's ever shown up in White Dwarf. There's a reason that one of the tenets of YMDC is that battle reports are not a valid source of rules.

It would not be WD making a mistake ,it would be the writer of the codex making a totally illegal list if the rule were as some people here suggest .

That fact Matt ward will have made his list to 1 include all the new models Available at the time and other factors just proves his list will have be thought out and double checked by himself .

The rule is as i and others read, it you can have 5 different harbingers in your royal court but if you take 2 of the same they both cant have the war gear (either 1 bit each or one with both and the other with none

snakel wrote:It would not be WD making a mistake ,it would be the writer of the codex making a totally illegal list if the rule were as some people here suggest .

It would be both making the mistake. The author for making it in the first place and the White Dwarf editor for allowing it in the magazine.

snakel wrote:That fact Matt ward will have made his list to 1 include all the new models Available at the time and other factors just proves his list will have be thought out and double checked by himself .

Which does not guarantee that it was legal. You can double and triple check a list and still miss something because you misremebered a rule. The author of a codex even more so if he forgets that he changed a rule somewhere during the development of the codex.

So while I do agree that you can take different Harbingers in a single Court, you can not use the White Dwarf battle report as proof. They have been clearly wrong on too many instances to provide any hard evidence.

I f you cant rely on the person that wrote the codex then there is no hope for this game.
Since every rule is open to different interpretations and a fact like a list made by the person who wrote the rule , being ignored would mean no matter what anyone says you may as well make up your own rules

snakel wrote:I f you cant rely on the person that wrote the codex then there is no hope for this game.
Since every rule is open to different interpretations and a fact like a list made by the person who wrote the rule , being ignored would mean no matter what anyone says you may as well make up your own rules

Yes, because you know for a fact that the rule didn't change during development of the codex. It's not possible that he made a change at some point and built the list not remembering that change.

rigeld2 wrote:

snakel wrote:I f you cant rely on the person that wrote the codex then there is no hope for this game.
Since every rule is open to different interpretations and a fact like a list made by the person who wrote the rule , being ignored would mean no matter what anyone says you may as well make up your own rules

Yes, because you know for a fact that the rule didn't change during development of the codex. It's not possible that he made a change at some point and built the list not remembering that change.

I have a job which over time procedures change and such but if i do not check my work base on the current procedure i am at fault so i check and double check , for him to make such a big mistake as this ,when he himself maked the rules, would in my work place be a sackable offense.

But my point is if we can not rely on a person who made the rules to get it right we may as well make up our own rule as we go along

And again, there have been many documented errors in the White Dwarf battle reports. That is why you can't trust them. No matter what you say, those errors still exist.

Ghaz wrote:And again, there have been many documented errors in the White Dwarf battle reports. That is why you can't trust them. No matter what you say, those errors still exist.

Then if you cant trust what is in essence the people who make the rule's why ask for an FAQ ? you may as well make up your own rules since you trust none but yourself .

If they them selves can not get there own rules correct then this game is worth no rule written and rules can be made up as you go along

A FAQ is contemporaneous; WD is not.

WD has a lead time of months

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.