Switch Theme:

Necron Dynastic Advisor Question  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in gb
Fresh-Faced New User




Hey, I was just wondering if a Dynastic Advisor (No Force Org Cryptek) is able to have a Bound Creation (No Force Org Cryptothralls) to go along with it?

The Dynastic Advisor rule says that this unit is "included in that Detachment", so I assume that this interaction will work as the Bound Creation rule is looking for a "Cryptek unit included in a Detachment".

Is there something that I am missing that will stop this interaction?
And if this is the case, then couldn't I have a Dynastic Advisor from a Dynastic Advisor? as they all say they are "Included in the detachment", and to add another it is looking for "each Cryptek unit included in a Detachment", same as the Cryptothralls, and then have up to 12 Crypteks in a detachment if I wanted?!

Just looking for some clarification on anything specific from the rule book to refute this. Is there perhaps something to do with no force orgs that I am not seeing?
Thanks in advance for replies.

   
Made in de
Prophetic Blood Angel Librarian






Germany

This bound creation and no force org is just a battlescribe thing. It doesn't exist in the 40k rules. You can give the cryptek cryptothralls. Simply treat the cryptek as part of your detachment. You can only have one dynastic advisor per detachment, if that detachment includes a cryptek and a noble.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/10 10:33:29


 
   
Made in gb
Fresh-Faced New User




It is my understanding that the rule reads:

"Dynastic Advisors: If your army is Battle-forged, then for each CRYPTEK unit (excluding DYNASTIC AGENTS units) included in a Detachment that also contains at least one NOBLE unit, a second CRYPTEK unit (excluding DYNASTIC AGENTS units) can be included in that Detachment without taking up an additional Battlefield Role slot."

Emphasis on the "for each CRYPTEK unit" I can't see anywhere that specifies a limit of Dynastic Advisors? Unless I am mistaken?

Thank you for the prompt reply, and sorry about the formatting, I'm new here.
   
Made in de
Prophetic Blood Angel Librarian






Germany

It says a second cryptek unit. There is only one second cryptek unit. If you add another it would be the third cryptek, which is not allowed.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 p5freak wrote:
It says a second cryptek unit. There is only one second cryptek unit. If you add another it would be the third cryptek, which is not allowed.


But there's a note for both the first and the second Cryptek stating "except DYNASTIC AGENTS", so that limit wouldn't apply to them.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/10 14:48:49


 
   
Made in gb
Fresh-Faced New User





So if I am able to have the Cryptothalls for a Dynastic Advisor Cryptek, surely I will be able to have a Dynastic Advisor for Dynastic Advisor, as they are all classified as "In the detachment" as it states that in the rule?
The Dynastic Advisor rule, and the Bound Creation rule is written the same:

Dynastic Advisors: If your army is Battle-forged, then for each CRYPTEK unit (excluding DYNASTIC AGENTS units) included in a Detachment that also contains at least one NOBLE unit, a second CRYPTEK unit (excluding DYNASTIC AGENTS units) can be included in that Detachment without taking up an additional Battlefield Role slot.


Bound Creation: If your army is Battle-forged, then for each CRYPTEK unit included in a Detachment, one CRYPTOTHRALLS unit can be included in that Detachment without taking up a Battlefield Role slot.


(I know Dynastic Advisor says "a second" and Bound Creation says "one", but it doesn't make a functional difference as I will explain)

My thought process Example:

Patrol Detachment-
Overlord (this is the noble)
Technomancer #1 (This is Cryptek is in the detachment, so can have a second one as a Dynastic Advisor)
Technomancer #2 (This is the "Second Cryptek" as a Dynastic Advisor from the first Cryptek, however the rule states that he is now "Part of the detachment")
Technomancer #3 (I look to see if there is a Cryptek in my detachment, that does not already have an Dynastic Advisor, and #2 meets both of those criteria! so this is a "Second Cryptek" for #2)
Plasmancer #4 (#3 is part of my detachment, and does not already have a Dynastic Agent, So I can take this as a second Cryptek, as a Dynastic Agent)
etc...
and each of these can have a Bound Creation Cryptothrall to go with it, as they are all in the detachment. as per the rule.

Rules as Written, this seems to be the case? right?
   
Made in us
Lieutenant General





Florence, KY

No. The defintion of 'Second' being used is "in addition to the first one". Therefore the rule would literally say the following:

If your army is Battle-forged, then for each CRYPTEK unit (excluding DYNASTIC AGENTS units) included in a Detachment that also contains at least one NOBLE unit, a CRYPTEK unit in addition to the first one (excluding DYNASTIC AGENTS units) can be included in that Detachment without taking up an additional Battlefield Role slot.

That would limit you to one CRYPTEK unit that would not take up a Battlefield Role slot for each CRYPTEK unit that takes up a Battlefield Role slot. It does not allow it for each CRYPTEK unit after the first in your army.

'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents
cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable
defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'

- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty
Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
 
   
Made in gb
Fresh-Faced New User




This makes sense to me now thank you Ghaz
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: