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.

Naw wrote:

copper.talos wrote:
That's your opinion. A judge that has to make a call must use rules that are written, not opinions.

So when they decided that rerollable 2+ means the reroll is 4+ it follows RAW?!?

Oh come on! they overruled the rerollable 2+ because it's stupid and not in the nature of the game.

No need to bring that up!

Kangodo wrote:
"Before the battle, each member of the Royal Court has the option of being split off from his unit and assigned to lead a different unit from the following list..."

Could you bold the part that says it changes its Battlefield Role?

Done. A different unit means they aren't part of the Royal Court unit, meaning they are no longer bound by the restrictions on that unit. Only the unit they're a member of.

That's quite ironic because unlike a Cryptek, the IC-rule actually states that they are part of the unit for all rules purposes

Sure - because their unit membership can change. A Cryptek's can't (after assignment).

How about you cite permission to change his Battlefield Role from HQ to Troops?

Been there, done that. You even quoted it for me.

BRB: "Certain rules can alter a unit’s Battlefield Role, changing it, for example, from a Fast Attack unit to a Troops unit. If a unit changes its Battlefield Role due to such a rule, it maintains its new role for the entirety of the game."

Q: Does the Royal Court have a rule that alters his Battlefield Role when he joins a unit of Troops?
A: No.

The Cryptek is not a unit, but a model. So your rules quote from the BRB is irrelevant and should be ignored.

Am I daft? Yes. Am I smart as you guys? No. Does that make some of you guys better than me? NO. So to say I am not trying to learn and only proving a point is wrong.

I am not smart. I admit. I am slow to learn. Again, I am not perfect. I came here to learn and so this is why I asked.

Also someone said, they have proved their point, but no point has been proven because no page numbers were quoted. Shure I can say read the rule book it's in there. Read the codex it's in there. If I keep missing the part that some of you guys mean is not helping me now is it?

What is so wrong in quoting or saying what pages to read?

Davor wrote:
Am I daft? Yes. Am I smart as you guys? No.

This has nothing to do with being smart or not. Nobody in here said anything about your intelligence or even went down to a personal level. We're talking rules here.

What is not acceptable, however, and pretty offensive is that you purposefully skip a direct rules quote with page numbers for the second time. At this point, I have to assume that you're doing it on purpose and that's just disrespectful and highly unconstructive for the discussion as a whole.

We took our codex, looked the page up and gave you both a direct quote and a page number - and you choose to ignore it twice. That's a display of poor manners.

Davor wrote:
What is so wrong in quoting or saying what pages to read?

These have been provided. Multiple times now. No one is questioning your intelligence or willingness to learn.

Please read the posts.

I haven't seen an page numbers. I will go back and reread everything again, just in case when I clicked on first unread post skipped it for me.

 Sigvatr wrote:

Otherwise, they remain part of the Royal Court.

(Codex: Necrons (2011), p. 90)

 Sigvatr wrote:
Royal Court members automatically become Troops because they don't have the IC special rule.

According to what page of the BRB or Necron-codex?

rigeld2 wrote:
Done. A different unit means they aren't part of the Royal Court unit, meaning they are no longer bound by the restrictions on that unit. Only the unit they're a member of.

Except that being 'assigned to lead a different unit' doesn't mean they are no longer part of the old unit nor does it mean they belong to the new unit for all rules purposes.
Nor is it permission to change their Battlefield Role.

Which makes it a model from a unit with the HQ Battlefield Role that is attached to a unit with the Troops Battlefield Role, which he cannot leave.

The Cryptek is not a unit, but a model. So your rules quote from the BRB is irrelevant and should be ignored.

It's a model from a HQ-unit, therefore giving it the HQ Battlefield Role.
Nothing in its rule tells you that it changes its Battlefield Role.
"leading a different" unit is so vague and un-RAW that it's even laughable to use it as an argument.

Kangodo wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Done. A different unit means they aren't part of the Royal Court unit, meaning they are no longer bound by the restrictions on that unit. Only the unit they're a member of.

Except that being 'assigned to lead a different unit' doesn't mean they are no longer part of the old unit nor does it mean they belong to the new unit for all rules purposes.
Nor is it permission to change their Battlefield Role.

Battlefield Role is attached to a unit, not a model. Since the Cryptek is not a unit, it cannot have an HQ Battlefield Role.

The Cryptek is not a unit, but a model. So your rules quote from the BRB is irrelevant and should be ignored.

It's a model from a HQ-unit, therefore giving it the HQ Battlefield Role.
Nothing in its rule tells you that it changes its Battlefield Role.
"leading a different" unit is so vague and un-RAW that it's even laughable to use it as an argument.

Cite the definition of Battlefield Role and bold where it applies to models. It's laughable to use your argument without having done so.

Kangodo wrote:

Except that being 'assigned to lead a different unit' doesn't mean they are no longer part of the old unit nor does it mean they belong to the new unit for all rules purposes.

It is explicitely stated that they are no longer part of their old unit...I have quoted this thrice now. Guys. Please.

According to what page of the BRB?

There's an entire chapter on Characters...page 100...German BRB, I don't have the English one at hand since our FTP server is down for maintenance right now. Here's the quote, translated:

"Remember, a character that has joined a unit follows all the normal rules for being part of a unit."

/E: Added genuine English BRB quote.

 Sigvatr wrote:

Kangodo wrote:

Except that being 'assigned to lead a different unit' doesn't mean they are no longer part of the old unit nor does it mean they belong to the new unit for all rules purposes.

It is explicitely stated that they are no longer part of their old unit...I have quoted this thrice now. Guys. Please.

According to what page of the BRB?

There's an entire chapter on Characters...page 100...German BRB, I don't have the English one at hand since our FTP server is down for maintenance right now. Here's the quote, translated:

"Remember that a character that joined a unit is part of the unit and follows all regular rules that go along with this."

I'll back this one up with:

"They are effectively just another trooper in their unit, with enhanced characteristics and perhaps a wider selection of wargear choices. Other characters, such as Mephiston of the Blood Angels, fight as units on their own."
- page 100 Character Types

Note they specifically use an Independent Character as an example that tells you they are their own unit, rather than part of the unit they joined.

rigeld2 wrote:
Battlefield Role is attached to a unit, not a model. Since the Cryptek is not a unit, it cannot have an HQ Battlefield Role.

But the Royal Court is a unit with the HQ Battlefield Role.
Sadly for you, the Necron-codex tells you he is split off from his unit and assigned to lead a different unit.
Both of those are not addressed in the BRB to tell you what it actually means.

Cite the definition of Battlefield Role and bold where it applies to models. It's laughable to use your argument without having done so.

After you cite the part where being split off from his unit and assigned to lead a different unit means he is no longer considered part of the HQ-unit.
What Lords and Crypteks desperately need is a rule like this: "a Mek cannot leave his unit and is treated as part of it for the entire battle for all rules purposes."

 Sigvatr wrote:
There's an entire chapter on Characters...page 100...German BRB, I don't have the English one at hand since our FTP server is down for maintenance right now. Here's the quote, translated:

"Remember, a character that has joined a unit follows all the normal rules for being part of a unit."

/E: Added genuine English BRB quote.

Don't forget to include the rest of the rule:
If a character is in a unit that charges into close combat, the character charges too, as it is part of the unit. If the character’s unit is locked in close combat, he fights as part of the unit.
It explains how he is part of a unit, which is no permission to continue to treat him as Troops when the rest of the unit has been killed.

I'm glad this came up; I'd never heard of this being an issue before now.

I appreciate everyone's input on this, whether we agree on the interpretation or not.

 tydrace wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

Kangodo wrote:

Except that being 'assigned to lead a different unit' doesn't mean they are no longer part of the old unit nor does it mean they belong to the new unit for all rules purposes.

It is explicitely stated that they are no longer part of their old unit...I have quoted this thrice now. Guys. Please.

According to what page of the BRB?

There's an entire chapter on Characters...page 100...German BRB, I don't have the English one at hand since our FTP server is down for maintenance right now. Here's the quote, translated:

"Remember that a character that joined a unit is part of the unit and follows all regular rules that go along with this."

I'll back this one up with:

"They are effectively just another trooper in their unit, with enhanced characteristics and perhaps a wider selection of wargear choices. Other characters, such as Mephiston of the Blood Angels, fight as units on their own."
- page 100 Character Types

Note they specifically use an Independent Character as an example that tells you they are their own unit, rather than part of the unit they joined.

If you're referring to Mephiston, note that he is not an Independent Character.

Difference between a Cryptek and a Vet Sergeant is the Cryptek is taken as part of another unit and then divvied out, as opposed to being taken as part of the unit, in the actual entry. However, I still don't see the difference in terms of rules, just in terms of how it is set out in the Codex.

Kangodo wrote:

It explains how he is part of a unit, which is no permission to continue to treat him as Troops when the rest of the unit has been killed.

He joined the unit before the game, not during the game, just like a IC would. It always stays being a part of the unit because:

a) It is not allowed to be a unit on its own and

b) It no longer is part of the Royal Court.

A Cryptek that joined another unit no longer is part of the Royal Court. It loses all advantages gained by being a HQ because it is not a HQ.

Does a Space Marine Sergeant become a new unit if all Tactical Marines die?

Kangodo wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Battlefield Role is attached to a unit, not a model. Since the Cryptek is not a unit, it cannot have an HQ Battlefield Role.

But the Royal Court is a unit with the HQ Battlefield Role.

Irrelevant. Is the Cryptek a member of that unit? Or is he leading a different unit?
Sadly for you he's not a member of the Royal Court unit.

Using your argument a Cryptek that is allocated to a Warrior unit must:
Fire at the same target all other RC members do
Charge a unit all other RC members do
Cannot move if any RC member is locked in combat
Ditto for shooting
Cannot be shot if any RC member is locked in combat
... need I go on?

Cite the definition of Battlefield Role and bold where it applies to models. It's laughable to use your argument without having done so.

After you cite the part where being split off from his unit and assigned to lead a different unit means he is no longer considered part of the HQ-unit.
What Lords and Crypteks desperately need is a rule like this: "a Mek cannot leave his unit and is treated as part of it for the entire battle for all rules purposes."

So you're saying Crypteks can't be split off from the RC? By your assertion they can't end out of coherency, etc.

 Sigvatr wrote:
There's an entire chapter on Characters...page 100...German BRB, I don't have the English one at hand since our FTP server is down for maintenance right now. Here's the quote, translated:

"Remember, a character that has joined a unit follows all the normal rules for being part of a unit."

/E: Added genuine English BRB quote.

Don't forget to include the rest of the rule:
If a character is in a unit that charges into close combat, the character charges too, as it is part of the unit. If the character’s unit is locked in close combat, he fights as part of the unit.
It explains how he is part of a unit, which is no permission to continue to treat him as Troops when the rest of the unit has been killed.

Please, reread that sentence. He's part of a unit but that's not permission to treat him as part of the unit? Seriously?

Irrelevant. Is the Cryptek a member of that unit? Or is he leading a different unit?
Sadly for you he's not a member of the Royal Court unit.

Using your argument a Cryptek that is allocated to a Warrior unit must:
Fire at the same target all other RC members do
Charge a unit all other RC members do
Cannot move if any RC member is locked in combat
Ditto for shooting
Cannot be shot if any RC member is locked in combat
... need I go on?

So you're saying Crypteks can't be split off from the RC? By your assertion they can't end out of coherency, etc.

Please, reread that sentence. He's part of a unit but that's not permission to treat him as part of the unit? Seriously?

RAW? Yes.
Until they add "and is treated as part of it for the entire battle for all rules purposes." to the rule.

It's not my fault that it doesn't work like it should and that they are so casual in their rules that it creates these issues.
It's the big 'Invulnerable Save'-bs all over again.

Kangodo wrote:

Until they add "and is treated as part of it for the entire battle for all rules purposes." to the rule.

Fortunately, they did!

 Sigvatr wrote:

"Remember, a character that has joined a unit follows all the normal rules for being part of a unit."

I'm trying to see where your misunderstanding lies right now, so I'm taking a step back:

What unit is a split-off Cryptek part of?

Kangodo wrote:

Irrelevant. Is the Cryptek a member of that unit? Or is he leading a different unit?
Sadly for you he's not a member of the Royal Court unit.

Using your argument a Cryptek that is allocated to a Warrior unit must:
Fire at the same target all other RC members do
Charge a unit all other RC members do
Cannot move if any RC member is locked in combat
Ditto for shooting
Cannot be shot if any RC member is locked in combat
... need I go on?

So you're saying Crypteks can't be split off from the RC? By your assertion they can't end out of coherency, etc.

Please, reread that sentence. He's part of a unit but that's not permission to treat him as part of the unit? Seriously?

RAW? Yes.
Until they add "and is treated as part of it for the entire battle for all rules purposes." to the rule.

It's not my fault that it doesn't work like it should and that they are so casual in their rules that it creates these issues.
It's the big 'Invulnerable Save'-bs all over again.

So what does the rule in the Necron codex actually do? Please, explain it to me.

I don't have a Necron codex so can't really make a contribution, but I've been following this carefully because it sounds like the same issue for an AM Commissar.

The Commissar is a HQ choice that does not occupy an FOC slot. Prior to deployment, he must be assigned to one unit and can't leave that unit. He's not an IC, so can't join another unit if his dies.

He may be assigned to a Troop, Elite, or HQ unit. Nowhere in the codex or BRB does it actually say that this assignment changes his role from HQ to Troop/Elite/HQ - I think it's implied, but doesn't actually say so.

The Cryptek/Lord that is part of a RC cannot once Deployment has been completed ever leave the RC as Characters are not permitted to join or leave a unit As per the (BRB page 100)

The Cryptek/Lord that before deployment is joined to a Troop Unit (Warriors/Immortals) Cannot ever Leave the unit or join another unit even if the all other members of that unit are destroyed. However the Lord/Cryptek gains all the USR's of the unit it joins (Example: DeathMarks and a despair Tek wound on 2+ against the chosen unit)

So as the Lord/Cryptek (HQ) (Which are characters) are joined to a unit of Warriors (Troops), will gain Objective Secured as they are part of that unit, If the Warriors are wiped out but the Lord/Cryptek remain they still have Objective Secured, as they are still part of that unit (BRB page 100) and were purchased as a HQ choice, So they are an HQ choice that in certain cases will have Objective Secured depending on which unit they are joined to.

A Character is almost never a single model, (Assassins, Mepheston...Etc are some exceptions) and Characters that are part of a Unit (Troop,Elite,Fast...ETC) will always be part of that unit until every member of that unit including the Character is destroyed, There are exceptions to this such as Justicar Thawn in the Gk codex. But those exceptions are few and far between.

The one and only way to remove Objective Secured from a Character in a Troop unit is to cause the Model to gain the IC USR, and then wipe out the other non-characters from the unit.

I would like to cite the most recent example of this being Mek choices from the Ork codex that is almost exactly the same.

Meks' rules specifically address the fact that they are treated as part of that unit for ALL rules purposes until the end of the game.

Is this the case RAW currently for cryptek?

 Awfeel wrote:



Is this the case RAW currently for cryptek?

Yes.

rigeld2 wrote:

So what does the rule in the Necron codex actually do? Please, explain it to me.

"For each Necron overlord in your army (including [list of spec characters]), the army can also include a Royal Court. This unit does not take up an HQ choice

Composition
0-5 Necron Lords
0-5 Crypteks

Before the battle, each member of the Royal Court has the option of *being split off from his unit* and **assigned to lead** a different unit from the following list: Necron Warriors, [list of other units]. Only one member of the Royal Court can join each unit in this manner. Otherwise, they remain part of the Royal Court"

* indicates that they leave the original unit (the Royal Court)
** the phrasing of 'assigned to lead' is very nebulous/vague and is doubtless where the confusion lies.

Holy crap I am starting to lose patience here.

Is ANYONE reading the quotes in this thread? Seriously? Let me try again, just for some special guys out there.

The.
Codex.
Explicitely.
Tells.
You.
That.
The.
Split-off.
Cryptek.
Is.
No.
Longer.
Part.
Of.
The.
Royal Court.

Simple enough? I have quoted it THRICE now and I cannot believe that there seriously are people coming into the thread, wanting to make a point but:

a) did not read the codex in detail and
b) did not read the rest of the thread.

Next point:

wtnind wrote:


** the phrasing of 'assigned to lead' is very nebulous/vague and is doubtless where the confusion lies.

No, it's not. The very same term is used in the BRB when describing a Space Marine Sergeant. Read the Characters chapter. Thanks.

Kangodo wrote:
"Before the battle, each member of the Royal Court has the option of being split off from his unit and assigned to lead a different unit from the following list..."

Could you bold the part that says it changes its Battlefield Role?

 CrownAxe wrote:
He is specifically a part of the warrior squad. Crypteks can't even choose to leave like an IC can. They are a part of the unit for all rules purposes and that includes objective secured

That's quite ironic because unlike a Cryptek, the IC-rule actually states that they are part of the unit for all rules purposes

rigeld2 wrote:
The Cryptek joins the unit. It's part of the unit. Please cite permission to treat him as something other than part of the unit he joined.
If you think you have an argument based on rules, that's cool, but you should support it with actual, I don't know, rules. That's cool.

How about you cite permission to change his Battlefield Role from HQ to Troops?

BRB: "Certain rules can alter a unit’s Battlefield Role, changing it, for example, from a Fast Attack unit to a Troops unit. If a unit changes its Battlefield Role due to such a rule, it maintains its new role for the entirety of the game."

Q: Does the Royal Court have a rule that alters his Battlefield Role when he joins a unit of Troops?
A: No.

How about you cite a rule that gives a battlefield role to an individual model. Model's don't have a battlefield role, UNIT's do. A Royal Court unit has an HQ role, which applies to all the models in that unit. A necron warrior unit has a troops role, which applies to ALL models in that unit.

So, when you split off a Cryptek to a warrior squad, what unit is it in? The Warrior Unit, and what's the battlefield role of the warrior unit? Troops.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Ho

wtnind wrote:


** the phrasing of 'assigned to lead' is very nebulous/vague and is doubtless where the confusion lies.

No, it's not. The very same term is used in the BRB when describing a Space Marine Sergeant. Read the Characters chapter. Thanks.

Thanks for the pointer but you are incorrect, the exact phrase "assigned to lead" is nowhere in the characters section, the only reference to Space Marine [Veteran] Sargents is as follows:

"Most characters are fielded in units from the start of the game, and represent squad leaders*, such as a space marine veteran seargent. They have their own profile, but do not have a separate entry. They are effectively just another trooper in their unit, with enhanced characteristics and perhaps a wider selection of weapons and wargear choices. Other characters, such as mephiston [...]"

Saying that a model "represents a squad leader" and following a rule called Model X can be "assigned to lead" are not the same thing. I actually agree both with your interpretation (and therefore the BAO judge ruling) but somone asked for a quote of the relevant Necron passage and I happened to have the Necron Codex nearby so I provided it. No need to get frustrated.

wtnind wrote:


Saying that a model "represents a squad leader" and following a rule called Model X can be "assigned to lead" are not the same thing. I actually agree both with your interpretation (and therefore the BAO judge ruling) but somone asked for a quote of the relevant Necron passage and I happened to have the Necron Codex nearby so I provided it. No need to get frustrated.

The headline is called "Characters as Leaders" - to add on that. If your claim is that there is a rules difference between the beforementioned terms, then you have to point to rules evidence that supports said claim.

 Sigvatr wrote:

The headline is called "Characters as Leaders" - to add on that. If your claim is that there is a rules difference between the beforementioned terms, then you have to point to rules evidence that supports said claim.

No its not! the headline to the section I quoted is called Character Types. The NEXT section is called Characters as Leaders and describes how you can take leaderships with the highest leadership in the squad.

Whatever, I don't care enough to argue, I refer you to my first post in this thread.