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.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
Were Royal Courts ever said to be exactly like Wolf Guard when they are joined to Grey Hunters, Blood Claws, etc, in that they become part of that unit? I have not read the Necron FAQ in forever.

No, they haven't.

If you don't treat them like Wolf Guard, then you run in to issues. You can try to hand wave them away, but there are issues.
In addition to the fact that there's literally no other way to consider them.

Yea, I just read through both army's FAQ and there is no mention of Royal Courts actually becoming the unit they join. I then followed up in the BRB and nothing is mentioned there iirc about them becoming part of the unit either. The SW FAQ is pretty specific in that it is the Pack Leader special rule that makes WG become part of the unit they join, which of course is not in the Necron codex.

This does lead to a lot of issues. RAW Royal Courts are pretty broken once the unit they are with is wiped out.

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
Were Royal Courts ever said to be exactly like Wolf Guard when they are joined to Grey Hunters, Blood Claws, etc, in that they become part of that unit? I have not read the Necron FAQ in forever.

No, they haven't.

If you don't treat them like Wolf Guard, then you run in to issues. You can try to hand wave them away, but there are issues.
In addition to the fact that there's literally no other way to consider them.

Yea, I just read through both army's FAQ and there is no mention of Royal Courts actually becoming the unit they join. I then followed up in the BRB and nothing is mentioned there iirc about them becoming part of the unit either. The SW FAQ is pretty specific in that it is the Pack Leader special rule that makes WG become part of the unit they join, which of course is not in the Necron codex.

This does lead to a lot of issues. RAW Royal Courts are pretty broken once the unit they are with is wiped out.

Not surprisingly, the wording in the respective codices is exactly the same. As such, we can use the question in the SW FAQ as a precedent on how the ability works, otherwise the game halts.

Not true Sir... the lord/cryptek is an addition to the squad... you cannot buy a lord in the warrior squad entry... you can however add a nob in the unit entry for ork boyz...
You are correct, it would be a unit of ork boyz... with a nob... it is not just a unit of boyz as most people call them...

This is what Im trying to illustrate we cannot specifiy one way and not the other... Nominate a unit of warriors is nominating a unit of warriors. I got that characters are irrelevant, but the rule specifies by saying the warriors, not the warriors and attached characters... The correct way of writing the rule the two seperate ways would be as follows;

Nominate a unit of necron warriors within 6 inches and and roll a d3. On a roll of 1-2, a single necron warrior model is placed. On a roll of 3-4, three necron warrior models are placed. On a roll of 5-6, three necron warrior models are placed.

version 2: Nominate a unit of necron warriors within 6 inches and roll a D3. (insert previous stats for rolling results but include) Should the squad selected retain a royal court member, use a D6 to randomize if the cort member is ressurected (example: a score of 2 is rolled on the D3. on a 1-3, the court member is ressurected, on a 5-6, a necron warrior is ressurected.

 WarlordRob117 wrote:
Not true Sir... the lord/cryptek is an addition to the squad... you cannot buy a lord in the warrior squad entry... you can however add a nob in the unit entry for ork boyz...
You are correct, it would be a unit of ork boyz... with a nob... it is not just a unit of boyz as most people call them...

That's false of course - there's no unit entry for a unit of ork boyz with a nob.

This is what Im trying to illustrate we cannot specifiy one way and not the other... Nominate a unit of warriors is nominating a unit of warriors. I got that characters are irrelevant, but the rule specifies by saying the warriors, not the warriors and attached characters...

So you found a rule that allows you to treat a unit and a unit with attached character differently?
Could you cite it please?

The correct way of writing the rule the two seperate ways would be as follows;

Nominate a unit of necron warriors within 6 inches and and roll a d3. On a roll of 1-2, a single necron warrior model is placed. On a roll of 3-4, three necron warrior models are placed. On a roll of 5-6, three necron warrior models are placed.

version 2: Nominate a unit of necron warriors within 6 inches and roll a D3. (insert previous stats for rolling results but include) Should the squad selected retain a royal court member, use a D6 to randomize if the cort member is ressurected (example: a score of 2 is rolled on the D3. on a 1-3, the court member is ressurected, on a 5-6, a necron warrior is ressurected.

Those are two rules that are completely different from what's actually printed, so I have no idea what relevance they have.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
Were Royal Courts ever said to be exactly like Wolf Guard when they are joined to Grey Hunters, Blood Claws, etc, in that they become part of that unit? I have not read the Necron FAQ in forever.

No, they haven't.

If you don't treat them like Wolf Guard, then you run in to issues. You can try to hand wave them away, but there are issues.
In addition to the fact that there's literally no other way to consider them.

Yea, I just read through both army's FAQ and there is no mention of Royal Courts actually becoming the unit they join. I then followed up in the BRB and nothing is mentioned there iirc about them becoming part of the unit either. The SW FAQ is pretty specific in that it is the Pack Leader special rule that makes WG become part of the unit they join, which of course is not in the Necron codex.

This does lead to a lot of issues. RAW Royal Courts are pretty broken once the unit they are with is wiped out.

Not surprisingly, the wording in the respective codices is exactly the same. As such, we can use the question in the SW FAQ as a precedent on how the ability works, otherwise the game halts.

Except that the SW references a rule reference of, "Pack Leaders" that the SW FAQ then says is specifically the reason for how when they join a different pack they become part of that pack. There is no, "Robot Leaders" rule reference in the Necron codex nor is there any Necron FAQ that references such a rule.

As far as a precedent, it gets weaker and weaker as you delve into the differences as they far outnumber just the similiarity of being able to be split off and join other units.

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
As far as a precedent, it gets weaker and weaker as you delve into the differences as they far outnumber just the similiarity of being able to be split off and join other units.

How? What differences are there other than "Pack Leader" - which has a similarity to the Royal Court rules.

its not false... when you write down the unit on your list it should say Ork Boys w/shootas, Nob w/ powerklaw (x amount of points)

If you just put down ork boyz on your list with no mention of a nob, and then had a nob on the table? you would be cited for cheating... stop reading into things

uh yeah actually its what we've been talking about the whole time... are you able to single that character out in anyway? in 5th you couldnt but now you can...

"Those are two rules that are completely different from what's actually printed, so I have no idea what relevance they have"
Perhaps you missed the little snippit above my fabricated rules stating what they are there for... you shouldnt read so fast boss, might get a headache...

Seriously, they actually DO have an FAQ entry regarding repair barge and they did not change the wording from "model" to "warrior" or "Warrior model".

Tyr, both units say (roughly, I'm away from my books, at my lgs, waiting for the clerk to get back)

Before deploying, each model from the unit can be split off to lead a unit from the following list: A, B, C, etc. Only one model may join each unit in this manner.

Again not verbatim (also, Wolf Guard says "pack" instead of unit, but whatever).

 WarlordRob117 wrote:
its not false... when you write down the unit on your list it should say Ork Boys w/shootas, Nob w/ powerklaw (x amount of points)

What page is the unit entry for a Boys mob with Nob?

uh yeah actually its what we've been talking about the whole time... are you able to single that character out in anyway? in 5th you couldnt but now you can...

Cite the rule please - I've asked twice.

"Those are two rules that are completely different from what's actually printed, so I have no idea what relevance they have"
Perhaps you missed the little snippit above my fabricated rules stating what they are there for... you shouldnt read so fast boss, might get a headache...

No, I got that they're your interpretation of two possibilities... but neither are what's written nor what's FAQed, so they mean exactly nothing.

If necron lords and crypteks can be brought back how would you determine if the roll of a 2 brings back a warrior or a lord since there is not ONE rule that say how to determine the choice. The codex says warriors. Im confussed how they (crypteks,lords) got bundled into the fray there.

Lungpickle wrote:
If necron lords and crypteks can be brought back how would you determine if the roll of a 2 brings back a warrior or a lord since there is not ONE rule that say how to determine the choice. The codex says warriors. Im confussed how they (crypteks,lords) got bundled into the fray there.

The rule does not say "warriors". You select a unit of Warriors, and get d3 "models".

Lungpickle wrote:
If necron lords and crypteks can be brought back how would you determine if the roll of a 2 brings back a warrior or a lord since there is not ONE rule that say how to determine the choice. The codex says warriors. Im confussed how they (crypteks,lords) got bundled into the fray there.

The bolded is false.

 Happyjew wrote:
Tyr, both units say (roughly, I'm away from my books, at my lgs, waiting for the clerk to get back)

Before deploying, each model from the unit can be split off to lead a unit from the following list: A, B, C, etc. Only one model may join each unit in this manner.

Again not verbatim (also, Wolf Guard says "pack" instead of unit, but whatever).

I know exactly what the rules say for both HJ. However the first sentence of the FAQ says,

"When a Wolf Guard model joins another unit because of his Pack Leader special rule he becomes part of that unit to all intents and purposes."

It then goes on to explain exactly what it means, "to all intents and purposes" which is in directly because of the Wolf Guard model has the Pack Leader special rule. The similarity exists only in the wording, but ends once the FAQ references the Pack Leader rule making the Wolf Guard model part of the unit for all intents and purposes. The Royal Court entry has nothing to reference or relate to the Pack Leader special rule that the SW FAQ references.

@Rig

A Royal Court is:

Dependent on the inclusion of a Necron Overlord in your army.
They are a HQ choice that does not take up a HQ FOC slot.
They remain as unit type: Infantry (Character) if joined to a unit or remaining within the Royal Court.

Frankly the only similarity I find in common is that they can split off to go lead specific units like Wolf Guard. The difference is that Wolf Guard have it called a special rule and includes bonuses such as becoming part of the unit for all intents and purposes, unlike the lord and crypteks.

While I hate to bring it up, the differences do not just end with FOC slots, desginations, or FAQ answers. I just reread the fluff entries for all three and it even becomes more apparent why it appears significant that the Wolf Guard have a special rule called Pack Leaders with associcated FAQ clarification for it and the Royal Court does not have anything similar.

"

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
@Rig

A Royal Court is:

Dependent on the inclusion of a Necron Overlord in your army.

Irrelevant for determining how they lead a unit.

They are a HQ choice that does not take up a HQ FOC slot.

Irrelevant for determining how they lead a unit.

They remain as unit type: Infantry (Character) if joined to a unit or remaining within the Royal Court.

Irrelevant for determining how they lead a unit. And Wolf Guard never are Characters.

Frankly the only similarity I find in common is that they can split off to go lead specific units like Wolf Guard. The difference is that Wolf Guard have it called a special rule and includes bonuses such as becoming part of the unit for all intents and purposes, unlike the lord and crypteks.

That's the only relevant thing you've mentioned. And unless you treat them the same for these purposes, things break. Which is why the WG FAQ should be used as precedent.
Which was my original point.

While I hate to bring it up, the differences do not just end with FOC slots, desginations, or FAQ answers. I just reread the fluff entries for all three and it even becomes more apparent why it appears significant that the Wolf Guard have a special rule called Pack Leaders with associcated FAQ clarification for it and the Royal Court does not have anything similar.

Sigh... fine.
So Royal Court members do not become scoring?
So how to powers/etc that target unit members work? If the Court members aren't "part of that unit to all intents and purposes" (quote from the SW FAQ) how are they treated? Can I allocate wounds to them?
Since they aren't part of the unit, if I kill the 5 Warriors but not the Cryptek - do I get a VP in Purge the Alien?
There's more. Please answer these questions using anything but the Space Wolf FAQ.

BRB defines 3 kinds of characters (pg 63 character types)
i) those that "are effectively just another trooper in their unit"
ii) those that "fight as units on their own"
iii) ICs

It is more than obvious that attached RC members fit the first type.

copper.talos wrote:
BRB defines 3 kinds of characters (pg 63 character types)
i) those that "are effectively just another in their unit"
ii) those that "fight as units on their own"
iii) ICs

It is more than obvious that attached RC members fit the first type.

But a unit of Warriors is not a Cryptek's unit. That'd be the Royal Court he was purchased in.

A model can only belong to 1 unit. When the army is deployed the player decides each cryptek/lord's unit.

I'm going to put up some of the Necron codex/FAQ that should have been done in my comments earlier.

Repair barge:
Codex:
At the start of each Necron Movement phase, a Ghost Ark can expend energy to repair fallen Necrons. Nominate a unit of Necron Warriors within 6" (or embarked on) the Ghost Ark and roll a D6. If the score is 2 or more, add D3 models to the unit - the models can move and act normally this turn. This cannot take the unit beyond its starting size. If a model cannot be placed for any reason, it is destroyed. On a roll of a 1, place the models as described above, however the Ghost Ark is drained and suffers a glancing hit with no saves allowed.

FAQ Errata:
Change the third sentence to “if the result is 2 or more, add D3 models to the unit. These must be placed within unit coherency of at least one model that hasn’t been created this turn. They can move and act normally this turn.”

Full current rule:
At the start of each Necron Movement phase, a Ghost Ark can expend energy to repair fallen Necrons. Nominate a unit of Necron Warriors within 6" (or embarked on) the Ghost Ark and roll a D6. If the result is 2 or more, add D3 models to the unit. These must be placed within unit coherency of at least one model that hasn’t been created this turn. They can move and act normally this turn. This cannot take the unit beyond its starting size. If a model cannot be placed for any reason, it is destroyed. On a roll of a 1, place the models as described above, however the Ghost Ark is drained and suffers a glancing hit with no saves allowed.


Hunters from Hyperspace
Codex:
When a Deathmark unit deploys, choose a non-vehicle enemy unit on the battlefield (even a unit in a transport) to be their prey - place a counter next to the chosen unit to serve as a reminder. Any Deathmark unit that shoots at, or strikes blows against, a unit marked in this fashion will score a Wound on a roll of 2+.

FAQ Errata:
Add the following sentences at the end of the paragraph: “If an Independent Character is chosen as a target, any unit they are currently joined to is also wounded on rolls of 2+. If the chosen Independent Character leaves the unit, only the Independent Character continues to be wounded on a 2+.”

Full current rule:
When a Deathmark unit deploys, choose a non-vehicle enemy unit on the battlefield (even a unit in a transport) to be their prey - place a counter next to the chosen unit to serve as a reminder. Any Deathmark unit that shoots at, or strikes blows against, a unit marked in this fashion will score a Wound on a roll of 2+. If an Independent Character is chosen as a target, any unit they are currently joined to is also wounded on rolls of 2+. If the chosen Independent Character leaves the unit, only the Independent Character continues to be wounded on a 2+.

FAQ on Royal Court interactions with HfH:
Q: Do models from a Royal Court that are attached to a Deathmark Squad benefit from the Hunters from Hyperspace special rule? (p90)
A: Yes.



Let's put this together. First, let's bold all the Repair Barge bits referring to what is added:

At the start of each Necron Movement phase, a Ghost Ark can expend energy to repair fallen Necrons. Nominate a unit of Necron Warriors within 6" (or embarked on) the Ghost Ark and roll a D6. If the result is 2 or more, add D3 models to the unit. These must be placed within unit coherency of at least one model that hasn’t been created this turn. They can move and act normally this turn. This cannot take the unit beyond its starting size. If a model cannot be placed for any reason, it is destroyed. On a roll of a 1, place the models as described above, however the Ghost Ark is drained and suffers a glancing hit with no saves allowed.

There's one mention of Necron Warriors and that's to determine which units can have models added. Models. Not Warriors, that's quite explicit. Do you see all the places that if the word "Warriors" was used even ONCE it would not repair Royal Court attachments? In fact, it's very careful in the first sentence to say Necrons. It looks pretty cut and dry - if Cryptek+Warriors=Warrior unit, then it WILL work.

This is where Hunters from Hyperspace's precedent comes into play:

When a Deathmark unit deploys, choose a non-vehicle enemy unit on the battlefield (even a unit in a transport) to be their prey - place a counter next to the chosen unit to serve as a reminder. Any Deathmark unit that shoots at, or strikes blows against, a unit marked in this fashion will score a Wound on a roll of 2+. If an Independent Character is chosen as a target, any unit they are currently joined to is also wounded on rolls of 2+. If the chosen Independent Character leaves the unit, only the Independent Character continues to be wounded on a 2+.

The phrase "Deathmark unit" is key here. Then we have our FAQ:

Q: Do models from a Royal Court that are attached to a Deathmark Squad benefit from the Hunters from Hyperspace special rule? (p90)
A: Yes.

They gain the benefit from that rule. Therefore, we must conclude they are part of the "Deathmark unit", as otherwise Hunters from Hyperspace wouldn't apply. So, this means that Royal Court members attached to a unit are indeed part of the unit. So, any Royal Court member joining a unit of Necron Warriors is part of a "unit of Necron Warriors". With that, we're done.

I can also quote the rules for Royal Court members joining a unit, which states they lead the unit, which also lends credence to this argument. Any attached model to a unit from a Royal Court is part of that unit for all intents and purposes. This follows the Space Wolves FAQ for Wolf Guard, but instead of them having a special rule, it is written on p90 under unit composition.



That's HIWP and RAW, possibly even RAI if you read the fluff. I do not see the argument against this at all, as it's based off the false assumption that something from a Royal Court joined to a unit is not part of the unit itself.

copper.talos wrote:
A model can only belong to 1 unit.

Citation required.

When the army is deployed the player decides each cryptek/lord's unit.

No, that's not what the rule says. It says they're split off and assigned to lead a unit. It does not say they are now members of that unit - why are they not still members of the Royal Court unit?

Note that I'm only arguing this because of the resistance to using the SW FAQ as precedent.

What are you saying exactly? That 1 model can belong to unit A but move, act, shoot, take wounds, deal wounds as part of unit B? I'll take it as a joke. If you are serious, then it's you who needs to provide citation.

Tyr, I'm curious as to where in the codex it says that Wolf Guard are treated as normal members for all purposes, as I do not see it. Can I get a page number please?

The only place I see Pack leaders is under the Unit section that details point cost and eligible upgrades.

For anyone who is wondering (slight changes made, for example unit -> squad, Wolf Guard -> model) Here is a comparison of the two rules for comparison. Note there is an extra rule afterwards that is different but (IMO) does not apply to this discussion:

Before the battle, each model has the option of being split off from his squad and assigned to lead a different squad from the following list: [LIST]. Only one model may join each squad in this manner.

Before the battle, each model has the option of being split off from his squad and assigned to lead a different squad from the following list: [LIST]. Only one model can join each squad in this manner.

copper.talos wrote:
What are you saying exactly? That 1 model can belong to unit A but move, act, shoot, take wounds, deal wounds as part of unit B? I'll take it as a joke. If you are serious, then it's you who needs to provide citation.

No. I'm saying that unless you treat them as a single unit as the SW FAQ says to there will be unresolvable issues. Like the one you brought up.

Ah OK. We are in agreement then.

WarlordRob117 wrote:

I have several times... it is not just a unit of warriors... it is a unit of warriors with lord/cryptek attached... would you just write unit of warriors in your list with the lord/cryptek points added in? this would imply cheating as you have not identified the addition to the unit

Nope, you have stated something that is not rules. That unit is named "unit of warriors", not "unit of warriors with cryptek attached". Same as a unit of 29 boyz and 1 nob is still called a boyz unit. So when you are told to select a warriors unit to bring back a model, that is any model that was in that unit. Your interpretation adds a restriction that is not present in the text, aka making rules up.

WarlordRob117 wrote:^this is my rule basis right here... tournies playing like that in the UK is UK... Im from America bub, there may be some cultural differences lol

Your rules basis isnt based in rules. It isnt just UK tournies, either. Cultural differences do not explain additional restrictions being added not based on the UK US linguistic differences.

WarlordRob117 wrote:uh no they arent... if that were the case than any old unit could just walk in on the table edge instead of appearing amongst the wreckage

Not only do the embarked rules disagree with you, the FAQ even confirms that they are embarked. Rules wise you, yet again, have no argument that holds merit.

WarlordRob117 wrote:Obviously is a word in the english language which means "easy to see or detect" its also a word associated with imply, which means "to strongly suggest the truth or existence of"
and yes I have read them a couple of times actually... thank you for reminding me that I've been playing for a little while now... it shows you care

The context of a statement of precise truth value means it cannot have been implication. English tells you this.

WarlordRob117 wrote:and it doesnt say the unit has to start inside of the transport, it just says no other units can start the game inside of it... not so obvious is it?

That wasnt the statement - just the no other unit could start in it, "obviously", because that is a requirement of the DT rules. AGain, a tatement of utter truth, so no implication.

funny how "precedent" is cited here because of the similarity between WG and RC members yet when "similarity" exists in other parts of the Game all of sudden its a permissive rule set and if its not tin the rules you can't do it.

just an observation

40k-noob wrote:
funny how "precedent" is cited here because of the similarity between WG and RC members yet when "similarity" exists in other parts of the Game all of sudden its a permissive rule set and if its not tin the rules you can't do it.

just an observation

It's funny how people can observe things without context and think its relevant everywhere.

Edit: I try to always argue RAW. In this case, RAW is literally unworkable so it's an indefensible position.

I almost always argue with precedents if the wording is unclear. I cannot think of any example where, upon RAW being unclear, this forum hasn't accepted precedent. I'm willing to be proven wrong, but I can't come up with any examples.

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
funny how "precedent" is cited here because of the similarity between WG and RC members yet when "similarity" exists in other parts of the Game all of sudden its a permissive rule set and if its not tin the rules you can't do it.

just an observation

It's funny how people can observe things without context and think its relevant everywhere.

Edit: I try to always argue RAW. In this case, RAW is literally unworkable so it's an indefensible position.

so what is the "context" for using "precedent" in this discussion? Since i must have missed it.

Precedent is great in a HYWPI or RAI argument. It usually fails in a RAW argument unless the rules cannot work without it.