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.

They are an HQ choice - that was FAQ'd against you previously

They are a choice that does not use up a selection - they are stil a selection, still a choice, and your assertion that FAQs never answer questions outside the specific question asked is still incorrect

I'm sorry? the Guard FAQ says the opposite of that (that they are 'not' valid HQ choices), so can you quote which FAQ you are referring to?
Q: Can Ministorum Priests or Techpriest Enginseers be taken as the mandatory HQ choice? (p93)
A: No. You will need to take another model to be your Warlord.

No, it says they cannot be the mandatory HQ choice. They are a valid HQ choice.

Dedicated Transports don't take a FOc slot, but are Troops/HS/ etc units.

rigeld2 wrote:
No, it says they cannot be the mandatory HQ choice. They are a valid HQ choice.

Dedicated Transports don't take a FOc slot, but are Troops/HS/ etc units.

Nope, they aren't 'valid' HQ choices either, since they cannot be taken as an HQ selection (aka: choice).

Funny that you'd mention Dedicated Transports since they aren't valid FOC (troop, elite, etc, depending on the unit you purchased them for) choices either in and of themselves, though they do count as a 'unit' of that type.

 Neorealist wrote:
I'm sorry? the Guard FAQ says the opposite of that (that they are 'not' valid HQ choices), so can you quote which FAQ you are referring to?
Q: Can Ministorum Priests or Techpriest Enginseers be taken as the mandatory HQ choice? (p93)
A: No. You will need to take another model to be your Warlord.

Luide wrote: Now you've managed to mix up mandatory and calid. They're not synonyms, even you should understand that.
According to your logic, only the Mandatory HQ choices are Valid HQ choices. If I take Grand Master as my Mandatory HQ selection and Librarian as my optional HQ selection, Librarian is not a Valid HQ choice and therefore I cannot choose Librarian to be my Warlord. See now how twisted your logic has become?

I'd appreciate it if you could stop paraphrasing my arguments, it causes unnecessary confusion and you appear to be startlingly unable to do so. Nowhere in my previous statements have i 'ever' stated the above (that only mandatory HQ choices are valid HQ choices), and i'm getting weary of correcting you on what i'm actually writing in addition to addressing your points.

Luide wrote: Priests are HQ selection. They do not use up the selection slot and (probably therefore) cannot be taken as the mandatory HQ choice, but that doesn't mean they aren't HQ selection. If they weren't HQ selection, how exactly would you select them for your army? Rules only allow you to make selections from FOC slots...

You can select them from your army because they are available for purchase from the Guard codex. This does not make them available for purchase 'As an HQ Choice', but nontheless allows you to field them in your army.

copper.talos wrote:
Actually lightning doesn't damage modern day aircraft at all. The lightning hits the aircraft and it continues its path to the ground as if nothing happened. The aircraft's outer shell just acts as a conductor. I guess at the distant future that would stay at least the same.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-happens-when-lightni

Tell this to guys working weekend duty fixing giant holes/melted hardware in aircraft where the electricity "escapes" from the airframe... Not to mention the overheating damage it causes to advanced composite structures... If you would like more info on this topic PM me and I can give you my first hand accounts of how "lightning doesn't damage modern day aircraft at all"...

On the 40K side, I would say it does hit (and it is not a template weapon) since you roll for each enemy unit. It's not a shooting attack since, it just happens. Everyone gets so finicky about their flyers... "How dare you destroy my flyer before I can up your day with it!" There is still the jink save...

 Neorealist wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
No, it says they cannot be the mandatory HQ choice. They are a valid HQ choice.

Dedicated Transports don't take a FOc slot, but are Troops/HS/ etc units.

Nope, they aren't 'valid' HQ choices either, since they cannot be taken as an HQ selection (aka: choice).

Funny that you'd mention Dedicated Transports since they aren't valid FOC (troop, elite, etc, depending on the unit you purchased them for) choices either in and of themselves, though they do count as a 'unit' of that type.

The IG Codex simply states that they don't use up a FOC selection, but are otherwise treated as separate HQ units. It makes absolutely no mention of any other way that they might be different from any other HQ choice.

The question in the FAQ specifically only asks if they can be used as the mandatory HQ choice. The answer goes beyond that question to address the warlord issue. Whether they count as a 'choice' or not is irrelevant and distracting. The fact is, this answer is clear evidence that answers in FAQs go beyond the specific questions being asked.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

strengthofthedragon2 wrote:

copper.talos wrote:
Actually lightning doesn't damage modern day aircraft at all. The lightning hits the aircraft and it continues its path to the ground as if nothing happened. The aircraft's outer shell just acts as a conductor. I guess at the distant future that would stay at least the same.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-happens-when-lightni

Tell this to guys working weekend duty fixing giant holes/melted hardware in aircraft where the electricity "escapes" from the airframe... Not to mention the overheating damage it causes to advanced composite structures... If you would like more info on this topic PM me and I can give you my first hand accounts of how "lightening doesn't damage modern day aircraft at all"...

On the 40K side, I would say it does hit (and it is not a template weapon) since you roll for each enemy unit. It's not a shooting attack since, it just happens. Everyone gets so finicky about their flyers... "How dare you destroy my flyer before I can up your day with it!"

It's not a snap shot, and it's not a roll using the model's ballistic skill. The D6 that is rolled is not a 'to hit' roll, it's a roll to see if the unit is affected. This has already been covered in this thread. Please read up before repeating arguments that have already been negated.

undertow wrote:
The question in the FAQ specifically only asks if they can be used as the mandatory HQ choice. The answer goes beyond that question to address the warlord issue. Whether they count as a 'choice' or not is irrelevant and distracting. The fact is, this answer is clear evidence that answers in FAQs go beyond the specific questions being asked.

On the contrary: Only an HQ choice (specifically, the one with the highest leadership) can be selected as a Warlord. Therefore if you cannot select a priest or engiseer as one of your HQ choices, you cannot nominate one of them as a warlord either.

I realized that soon after posting... I work night shift and fatigue got the best of me. Thank you for the correction!

 Neorealist wrote:

undertow wrote:
The question in the FAQ specifically only asks if they can be used as the mandatory HQ choice. The answer goes beyond that question to address the warlord issue. Whether they count as a 'choice' or not is irrelevant and distracting. The fact is, this answer is clear evidence that answers in FAQs go beyond the specific questions being asked.

On the contrary: Only an HQ choice (specifically, the one with the highest leadership) can be selected as a Warlord. Therefore if you cannot select a priest or engiseer as one of your HQ choices, you cannot nominate one of them as a warlord either.

I disagree with your logic. They are HQ choices that don't use up slots in the FOC. They are still HQ units.

Also, as I already said, this is irrelevant and distracting. The Warlord rule isn't mentioned in the FAQ question at all. Please tell me how this isn't evidence that the answer is goes beyond the scope of the question.

 Neorealist wrote:
What i'm saying is that the do not count as a 'HQ FOC selection', and therefore do not count as an 'HQ choice'. If something explicitly does not use up (fill, is, etc) any FOC selections, it cannot be said to 'be' an FOC selection regardless of it's type.

They are not an HQ unit you choose for your army?

Does one not choose to include a Ministorum Priest or Techpriest Enginseer in your army because they are automatically chosen for you and added into your army?

How about crusible of malediction on psykic FMC? Do they have to test?

 Neorealist wrote:

undertow wrote:
The question in the FAQ specifically only asks if they can be used as the mandatory HQ choice. The answer goes beyond that question to address the warlord issue. Whether they count as a 'choice' or not is irrelevant and distracting. The fact is, this answer is clear evidence that answers in FAQs go beyond the specific questions being asked.

On the contrary: Only an HQ choice (specifically, the one with the highest leadership) can be selected as a Warlord. Therefore if you cannot select a priest or engiseer as one of your HQ choices, you cannot nominate one of them as a warlord either.

You are conflating *mandatory* HQ choices with HQ choices
They are an HQ Choice. As in, you can choose them to be one of your HQ units. They cannot be one of you *mandatory* HQ choices, but that does not mean they are not HQ choices at all. Your logic is flawed, again, if you try to claim that

Again: you are still trying to distract tha your central premise, that FAQ answers never answer outside the scope of the question, has been found to be wrong. Repeatedly wrong. This means your entire argument about limitaitons of scope on the question is wrong.

nosferatu1001 wrote: You are conflating *mandatory* HQ choices with HQ choices
They are an HQ Choice. As in, you can choose them to be one of your HQ units. They cannot be one of you *mandatory* HQ choices, but that does not mean they are not HQ choices at all. Your logic is flawed, again, if you try to claim that

Again: you are still trying to distract tha your central premise, that FAQ answers never answer outside the scope of the question, has been found to be wrong. Repeatedly wrong. This means your entire argument about limitaitons of scope on the question is wrong.

I am not 'conflating' anything; as I have never claimed that there is no difference between an HQ choice and a 'mandatory' HQ choice. That unfortunate distinction was a result of a misinterpretation of my statements by a prior poster, which i've hopefully definitively addressed in a previous post. The difference i'm positing lies between a 'Valid' HQ choice and an 'Invalid' one. Appropriate use of the word 'conflate' though, i like that one. I've claimed that the engiseer and the priest cannot be selected as one of your HQ choices (even though you can choose to place them in your army list and they do count as HQ units) and are therefore ineligable to be selected as your Warlord.

I'm not trying to 'distract' anyone; i've been merely replying to other people's questions and comments in this thread. I resent the implication that i need to resort to distraction as a sort of verbal chicanery to validate my point and it should behoove you not to assume such.

It's simply really: the latter part of that FAQ question-and-answer confirms rules present in the 6th edition rulebook and the codex it is relevant to; it does not present an additional rule modification beyond the scope of the question asked.

Again, they are an HQ choice that does not take up an HQ selection. They are not a mandatory HQ Choice, but are still a choice - there is a difference there. Stating they are not a choice implies there is no choice made to include them in your army

The rulebook does not state that a non-selection taking HQ choice cannot be your Warlord, so again the answer goes well beyond the question asked. This is simply one example where the answer goes well beyond the questions SPECIFIC scope, and your continued denial that this happens is slightly bemusing.

GW change rules and add rules in FAQs all the time, they are incredibly lax about the definition of faq and errata

Take a look at IG options in the HQ:
Lord Commissar, LD10
Commissar Yarrik (LD10)
Company Command w/Creed (Ld10)
Company Command Squad with Ld9 character.
Primaris Psyker Ld9
Techpriest (Ld8)
Priest (Ld7)

The priest and the Tecpriest do not fill the required HQ slot, so you MUST take another HQ choice that does.
Any of the other options for HQ all have higher leaderships.

So, in a legal army, you are forced to take an HQ choice with an Ld9 or Ld10 character.
This prevents you from making the tech/priest the warlord.

The 2nd half of the IG FAQ is not changing anything.

-Matt

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Again, they are an HQ choice that does not take up an HQ selection. They are not a mandatory HQ Choice, but are still a choice - there is a difference there. Stating they are not a choice implies there is no choice made to include them in your army

By the english-language definition of 'choice'? sure, you have a valid point. By the rule-book specific definition of an 'HQ Choice' however? you do not. 'HQ Choice' is explicitly defined as one of the headquarters models you've selected to fill one of the HQ FOC positions within your army, a position that the engiseer and priest do not qualify for despite otherwise being treated as HQ units.

 Neorealist wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Using only the BRB, resolve the following situation.
SFMC moves half in, half out of terrain, directly in front of an infantry unit. Firing, assault phases don't matter.
Tank decides to tank shock infantry unit.
Tank is immobilized in a DoG, meaning it ends its move directly on the SFMCs base.

100% legal situation. If your assertion is true - that it does not create new rules only clarifies existing ones - please tell me what rules cover this situation.

Sure thing. (from the tank shock rules on page 85) "If some enemy models in the enemy unit would end up underneath the vehicle when it reaches its final position (it makes no difference whether the unit is falling back or not) these models must be moved out of the way by the shortest distance, leaving at least 1" between thern and the vehicle whilst maintaining unit coherency and staying on the board."

The FMC doesn't end up underneath the Vehicle. And that sentence talks about the target unit, which an FMC cannot be.

rigeld2 wrote: "Units on battlements are not Fearless like other embarked units." Last sentence 2nd paragraph, page 95. "Like other" implies that they are, in fact, embarked units - just with quite a few exceptions. A statement that they do not, in fact, count as embarked, is a change in the rules.

The only thing 'like other' implies there is that a unit on the battlements is not fearless like the other units in the building. The unit is embarked on the battlements, not inside the building and is therefore not fearless. (see the 'unshakeable' rule on page 94)

No, the FAQ specifically says the unit is not embarked.

rigeld2 wrote: How many victory points is a Warrior unit with 2 Crypteks attached worth?
Does that change if there's a unit of 5 unattached Lords hanging around too? Do I have to kill all the Lords and one of the Crypteks to get a victory point?
Does a cryptek count as scoring if you attach him to a warrior unit?
Remember, use only the Nexeon FAQ and codex to answer those questions.

1 victory point
no, the warrior unit with attached cryptek is still only worth one victory point. Your remaining royal court is worth a seperate point as a seperate unit of course.
yes
The royal court members can be joined to another unit (of the types listed in the necron codex) and becomes a part of that unit (for all intents and purposes). If they are not split off in this fashion, they remain a part of the royal court unit. (and count as it for all intents and purposes.)

The phrase "all intents and purposes" does not appear in the codex, you've created it. Please cite sources for your statements, because I can argue against all 3 points just fine.

Edit: Sorry I didn't reply to these earlier - they were edited in to a post that I had already read and I missed them.

rigeld2 wrote:The FMC doesn't end up underneath the Vehicle. And that sentence talks about the target unit, which an FMC cannot be.

It does not say 'target unit', i'd suggest reading it again.
Regarding wether or not the model can be said to be 'underneath' the vehicle? that is in reference to it's position on the board (ie: in the same place as the vehicle), not the flier models' vertical position relative to the vehicle model.

rigeld2 wrote: No, the FAQ specifically says the unit is not embarked.

You are missing the last half of the ruling, here, let me add it for you "...do not count as embarked inside the fortification..." It doesn't say they don't count as embarked at all, just not as embarked inside the fortification. (which they are not, they are on top of it.)

rigeld2 wrote: Please cite sources for your statements, because I can argue against all 3 points just fine.

Feel free to state your arguments then; when do you so, i'll respond to them.

 Neorealist wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Again, they are an HQ choice that does not take up an HQ selection. They are not a mandatory HQ Choice, but are still a choice - there is a difference there. Stating they are not a choice implies there is no choice made to include them in your army

By the english-language definition of 'choice'? sure, you have a valid point. By the rule-book specific definition of an 'HQ Choice' however? you do not. 'HQ Choice' is explicitly defined as one of the headquarters models you've selected to fill one of the HQ FOC positions within your army, a position that the engiseer and priest do not qualify for despite otherwise being treated as HQ units.

Please provide the location of this explicit definition of 'HQ choice'.

All I could find in the 'Choosing your Army' section of the BRB was that 'every army contains at least one Headquarters unit, and a character from one of the army's HQ units must be nominated as the army's Warlord'. In the Warlord section, it simply says 'this is always the HQ choice character with the highest Leadership'.

I see no explicit definition of HQ choice to be one that uses a FOC slot. Please validate your argument.

 Neorealist wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:The FMC doesn't end up underneath the Vehicle. And that sentence talks about the target unit, which an FMC cannot be.

It does not say 'target unit', i'd suggest reading it again.
Regarding wether or not the model can be said to be 'underneath' the vehicle? that is in reference to it's position on the board (ie: in the same place as the vehicle), not the flier models' vertical position relative to the vehicle model.

You're right - it doesn't say "target unit". "the unit" is explicitly referring to the Tank Shocked unit. As the FMC cannot be Tank Shocked, that sentence cannot ever apply to it.

rigeld2 wrote: Please cite sources for your statements, because I can argue against all 3 points just fine.

Feel free to state your arguments then; when do you so, i'll respond to them.

So by not citing sources, nor defending your choice of words, I'll take that as admission that you created them. Thank you.

"1 victory point" There's 2 units there, why is it only worth 1 victory point?
"no, the warrior unit with attached cryptek is still only worth one victory point. Your remaining royal court is worth a seperate point as a seperate unit of course. " Cite permission to be a separate unit - Why would I not have to kill all the Lords and the cryptek?
"The royal court members can be joined to another unit (of the types listed in the necron codex) and becomes a part of that unit (removed made up phrase). If they are not split off in this fashion, they remain a part of the royal court unit. (removed made up phrase)" So they're an HQ unit that is split off from another HQ unit that is joined to a Troop unit, but does not have the IC rule and therefore is not a member of the unit for all rules purposes.

Is that about right?

 Neorealist wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Again, they are an HQ choice that does not take up an HQ selection. They are not a mandatory HQ Choice, but are still a choice - there is a difference there. Stating they are not a choice implies there is no choice made to include them in your army

By the english-language definition of 'choice'? sure, you have a valid point. By the rule-book specific definition of an 'HQ Choice' however? you do not. 'HQ Choice' is explicitly defined as one of the headquarters models you've selected to fill one of the HQ FOC positions within your army, a position that the engiseer and priest do not qualify for despite otherwise being treated as HQ units.

No part of the BRB rules for Warlords requires the Warlord to be anything other than an HQ choice. This is a change in rules AND is outside of the scope of the quesiton.

Still wondering how, apart from pride, you are trying to argue otherwise. The evidence against your position is overwhelming.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Neorealist wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:The FMC doesn't end up underneath the Vehicle. And that sentence talks about the target unit, which an FMC cannot be.

It does not say 'target unit', i'd suggest reading it again.
Regarding wether or not the model can be said to be 'underneath' the vehicle? that is in reference to it's position on the board (ie: in the same place as the vehicle), not the flier models' vertical position relative to the vehicle model.

You're right - it doesn't say "target unit". "the unit" is explicitly referring to the Tank Shocked unit. As the FMC cannot be Tank Shocked, that sentence cannot ever apply to it.

rigeld2 wrote: Please cite sources for your statements, because I can argue against all 3 points just fine.

Feel free to state your arguments then; when do you so, i'll respond to them.

So by not citing sources, nor defending your choice of words, I'll take that as admission that you created them. Thank you.

"1 victory point" There's 2 units there, why is it only worth 1 victory point?
"no, the warrior unit with attached cryptek is still only worth one victory point. Your remaining royal court is worth a seperate point as a seperate unit of course. " Cite permission to be a separate unit - Why would I not have to kill all the Lords and the cryptek?
"The royal court members can be joined to another unit (of the types listed in the necron codex) and becomes a part of that unit (removed made up phrase). If they are not split off in this fashion, they remain a part of the royal court unit. (removed made up phrase)" So they're an HQ unit that is split off from another HQ unit that is joined to a Troop unit, but does not have the IC rule and therefore is not a member of the unit for all rules purposes.

Is that about right?

Members of the Royal Court aren't HQ choices, and lacking the IC rule means that they permanently become a part of their unit, behaving like Sergeants and Wolf Guard. A Unit of Warriors with an attached Cryptek is worth 1 VP, and a unit of Lords and Crypteks would also be worth 1 VP.

Drakmord wrote:
Members of the Royal Court aren't HQ choices,

From the Necron Codex:
"The unit does not take up an HQ choice."
But it is absolutely an HQ unit.

and lacking the IC rule means that they permanently become a part of their unit, behaving like Sergeants and Wolf Guard.

Rules citation required.

A Unit of Warriors with an attached Cryptek is worth 1 VP, and a unit of Lords and Crypteks would also be worth 1 VP.

Rules citation required.

rigeld2 wrote:

Drakmord wrote:
Members of the Royal Court aren't HQ choices,

From the Necron Codex:
"The unit does not take up an HQ choice."
But it is absolutely an HQ unit.

and lacking the IC rule means that they permanently become a part of their unit, behaving like Sergeants and Wolf Guard.

Rules citation required.

A Unit of Warriors with an attached Cryptek is worth 1 VP, and a unit of Lords and Crypteks would also be worth 1 VP.

Rules citation required.

"Character Types" on p. 63 defines the different types of characters, such as Veterans (which count as another member of their unit) and Mephiston (who can run around on his own). Mephiston is also an Independent Character, and since the Necrons and Crypteks are not, they would fall under the same heading as Veterans and Sergeants (and, again, Wolf Guard, since they do the same thing as the Royal Court, though I don't think they count as Characters when they're all together any more).

"Purge the Alien" on p. 127, under "Primary Objectives," says that Independent Characters and Dedicated Transports count as being their own unit, and will also award a Victory Point if destroyed. It does not say anything about Characters giving additional VPs, and I could not find anything alluding to it elsewhere in the book.

edit: "Characters and Assaults" also contains the following: "Remember, a character that has joined a unit follows all the normal rules for being part of a unit. If a character is in a unit
that charges into close combat, the character charges too, as it is part of the unit." and some other qualifying statements, but I don't want to get in trouble for posting too much straight from the book.

Drakmord wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Drakmord wrote:
Members of the Royal Court aren't HQ choices,

From the Necron Codex:
"The unit does not take up an HQ choice."
But it is absolutely an HQ unit.

and lacking the IC rule means that they permanently become a part of their unit, behaving like Sergeants and Wolf Guard.

Rules citation required.

A Unit of Warriors with an attached Cryptek is worth 1 VP, and a unit of Lords and Crypteks would also be worth 1 VP.

Rules citation required.

"Character Types" on p. 63 defines the different types of characters, such as Veterans (which count as another member of their unit) and Mephiston (who can run around on his own). Mephiston is also an Independent Character, and since the Necrons and Crypteks are not, they would fall under the same heading as Veterans and Sergeants (and, again, Wolf Guard, since they do the same thing as the Royal Court, though I don't think they count as Characters when they're all together any more).

Right - they are Characters. I haven't disputed that. Space Marine Sergeants are a bad example for you - lemme quote why.

BRB page 63 wrote: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.

Does a Royal Court have a separate entry from the Warriors? Oh - they do. But that sentence says "Most", not all so let's look at what else those rules say.

Other characters, such as Mephiston of the Blood Angels, fight as units on their own.

Also doesn't apply. Also, Mephston isn't an IC. You're 100% wrong about that.

Nope, nothing in the Character rules about how to treat a Character that originated in another unit selection.

"Purge the Alien" on p. 127, under "Primary Objectives," says that Independent Characters and Dedicated Transports count as being their own unit, and will also award a Victory Point if destroyed. It does not say anything about Characters giving additional VPs, and I could not find anything alluding to it elsewhere in the book.

PtA doesn't reference parts of a unit - cite the rule that allows me a VP for killing off part of a unit. (the Lords when all the Crypteks are attached, for example). Remember, this discussion exists because Neorealist claims that FAQs can never be taken and applied elsewhere. Using the Wolf Guard FAQ as a reference literally proves my point.

Oh, you're right, Meph isn't an IC! My apologies, I am unfamiliar with BA units and the Characters entry said all that. Neat! If a Court consisted of a single Lord or Cryptek it would behave in the same manner as Meph, then. That makes for a better example I guess.

Anyway, Royal Court members that are assigned to lead units start the game with them, as this is done "before the battle." All Characters become a part of the unit they join, regardless of where they come from, and the only exception for VPs is made for Independent Characters.

The IC clause is the rule that you're looking for as far as VP for partial destruction goes, since they count as being a part of their unit and also count as being their own unit for rewarding VPs. If a Royal Court of three Lords and one Cryptek lost its Lords to combat, you would not get any extra VP.

If instead you're asking about killing a Royal Court made up of Lords where the Crypteks are attached to other units, the Lords will give VP for being destroyed as the Crypteks are no longer part of the Court -- they are part of a squad of Warriors, or Immortals, or whatever they have been split off to join.

Drakmord wrote:
All Characters become a part of the unit they join, regardless of where they come from, and the only exception for VPs is made for Independent Characters.

Rules citation for the bolded? I know it exists for IC's...

The IC clause is the rule that you're looking for as far as VP for partial destruction goes, since they count as being a part of their unit and also count as being their own unit for rewarding VPs. If a Royal Court of three Lords and one Cryptek lost its Lords to combat, you would not get any extra VP.

Proof that an IC is worth a separate point is not proof that all other situations result in a single point.

If instead you're asking about killing a Royal Court made up of Lords where the Crypteks are attached to other units, the Lords will give VP for being destroyed as the Crypteks are no longer part of the Court -- they are part of a squad of Warriors, or Immortals, or whatever they have been split off to join.

Rules citation please.

rigeld2 wrote:

Drakmord wrote:
All Characters become a part of the unit they join, regardless of where they come from, and the only exception for VPs is made for Independent Characters.

Rules citation for the bolded? I know it exists for IC's...

The IC clause is the rule that you're looking for as far as VP for partial destruction goes, since they count as being a part of their unit and also count as being their own unit for rewarding VPs. If a Royal Court of three Lords and one Cryptek lost its Lords to combat, you would not get any extra VP.

Proof that an IC is worth a separate point is not proof that all other situations result in a single point.

If instead you're asking about killing a Royal Court made up of Lords where the Crypteks are attached to other units, the Lords will give VP for being destroyed as the Crypteks are no longer part of the Court -- they are part of a squad of Warriors, or Immortals, or whatever they have been split off to join.

Rules citation please.

"Characters and Assaults," p.63, says that Characters are a part of their unit a number of times. The actual "Characters" entry does too, but "Characters and Assaults" is more clear and reinforces it through repetition. What sets ICs apart from regular Characters is that they can join and leave units, have improved LoS! rolls, and some other special bits.

IC being a separate point is all the proof that exists, because there isn't a rule that says Characters give additional VP unless they are ICs.

"Royal Court," p. 90, second paragraph (beneath Composition).