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.

Am I reading this wrong, or could you take one on both a Cryptek in the C'tan formation, and a separate Cryptek in the main detachment?

Or are relics one per army, rather than one per detachment? It doesn't clarify on the page that there are any limitations, so I assume the limits on relics are from the core rulebook somewhere? Can't find them.

Check to see if there's a generic reference in the book that's similar to "Any relics presented in this book are one per army/detachment/formation regardless of faction".

Otherwise looking at the scanned page there's nothing that says you couldn't take multiple relics even within the same detachment/formation.

Well that's just unpleasant.

A 30 point upgrade to turn a first turn deep striking C'tan and two Crypteks unit into majority toughness 10, S 10 and FNP on the C'tan?

Immune to S6 and even Lascannons wound it on a 5+. Yeah.

It does seem to imply that the relics are exclusive to the Mephrit dynasty, meaning that you would need at least one of the formations or the dynasty cohort detachment to take any of them, but I was wondering the same thing. 3 barge lords with re-rollable 2+, and a 3++ re-rolling 1's? Wow

luke1705 wrote:
It does seem to imply that the relics are exclusive to the Mephrit dynasty, meaning that you would need at least one of the formations or the dynasty cohort detachment to take any of them, but I was wondering the same thing. 3 barge lords with re-rollable 2+, and a 3++ re-rolling 1's? Wow

As if barge lords weren't already a gigantic point sink paying pretty much only for defence.

It looks legal to put 3 God Shackles on the C'tan Shard.

Optimal load out
Veiltek - Veil of Darkness, God Shackle 70 points
Stormtek - Voltaic Staff, Lightning Field, God Shackle 45 points
C'tan Shard - Pyre Shards, Transdimensional Thunderbolt 245 points

Stormtek - on the battleground somewhere, God Shackle 35 points

so you get an S7, T7, 4+, 4++, eternal warrior

with +3 S, and + 3 T, 5+ FNP and +2 W from crypteks (that are all ablative buffs)

deep stike each turn, template attack (from the veil), haywire attack (from the storm tek)

but all for a whopping 395 points! Seems at the level of Wraith Knights, Dreadknights, and Imperial Knights.

col_impact wrote:
deep stike each turn, template attack (from the veil), haywire attack (from the storm tek).

Remember of course to double check each turn you don't have a better target you can move six inches towards, since the only thing deadlier than all that shooting is following all that shooting up with 5 WS5 S5 AP2 attacks.

changemod wrote:

col_impact wrote:
deep stike each turn, template attack (from the veil), haywire attack (from the storm tek).

Remember of course to double check each turn you don't have a better target you can move six inches towards, since the only thing deadlier than all that shooting is following all that shooting up with 5 WS5 S5 AP2 attacks.

You mean 5 WS5 S10 AP2 attacks I think.

Sounds like GWs way of saying let the T. C'tan in boys. And just an FYI, upgrading the crypteks to harbingers is actually illegal assuming the new codex doesn't change the crypteks rules(which it probably will)

 NecronLord3 wrote:
Sounds like GWs way of saying let the T. C'tan in boys. And just an FYI, upgrading the crypteks to harbingers is actually illegal assuming the new codex doesn't change the crypteks rules(which it probably will)

Wait, what?

 NecronLord3 wrote:
And just an FYI, upgrading the crypteks to harbingers is actually illegal assuming the new codex doesn't change the crypteks rules(which it probably will)

I think you are right there. The crypteks in the formation are not part of any royal court, so they seemingly can only get relics.

So currently you can make an s10, t10 shard, but no go on deep strike from Veil and any other goodies like voltaic staff.

 SilverDevilfish wrote:

 NecronLord3 wrote:
Sounds like GWs way of saying let the T. C'tan in boys. And just an FYI, upgrading the crypteks to harbingers is actually illegal assuming the new codex doesn't change the crypteks rules(which it probably will)

Wait, what?

Only members of a a royal court can be upgraded to Harbingers. Are the crypteks from the formations members of a royal court?

col_impact wrote:

 NecronLord3 wrote:
And just an FYI, upgrading the crypteks to harbingers is actually illegal assuming the new codex doesn't change the crypteks rules(which it probably will)

I think you are right there. The crypteks in the formation are not part of any royal court, so they seemingly can only get relics.

So currently you can make an s10, t10 shard, but no go on deep strike from Veil and any other goodies like voltaic staff.

Something tells me the crypteks in the formation will be upgradeable. Otherwise, a footslogging c'tan with 8s/t is just as useless as our current incarnation.

We may have a problem with the God Shackle. If there's a good chance for anything, it would be that you can't stack two identical effects on the same target, ala blessings. Let's hope this isn't the case.

Relics are what 0-1 in every other book, so why would they be different here?

 NecronLord3 wrote:
Relics are what 0-1 in every other book, so why would they be different here?

Because it looks like GW left that wording out of the release.

The term relic itself does not imply 0-1. Look at "relic blade" for an example of something you can freely include 2+ in an army.

Also we know that it will be fine to stack them because of the modifiers rule on pg 8. And that it doesn't say there is a limit to how many times the c'tan can be effected.

Another thing is this, how many of these relics can a cryptek have? Why can't a single tek have more than one god shackle or even the Solar thermite (which will be pretty pricy at the end) yeah the re-roll will be re-dundent but those staffs of light for 75pts each become s8 ap3 assault 3 and if you really wanna go full throttle 250more points for s10 ap3 assault 3x2. Only downside is range 12.

How many points would one pay to have a unit that is t10 with six s10 ap3 shots, one S9 ap2, 8 S4 ap- shots with four S10 ap2 melee at I4 and two s9 ap- at I2?

This is total of 575 pts which is pretty heafty but at the amount of firepower it can deal as well as how tough it is would you guys say it's worth it?


Also as a side note what is the unit type of this formation....?


2nd edit: Also THAT guy strat have the crypteks that have god shackles buffing the c'tan be at the corner of the board with a monolith infront blocking LOS.

I can't find anything in the wording that would prevent you from stacking, though the cost doesn't have the same benefit as the God Shackle.

I wouldn't take all the God Shackles on a single Cryptek, even if it is in the back since a good deep striking can leave him out to dry. By spreading the God Shackles out, both through the formation and one hidden away in a unit, loosing one Cryptek won't deflate your C'tan Shard as much.

Stacking the same relic on a single model is legal RAW (e.g. purchasing God Shackles multiple times on the same Cryptek), though it definitely crosses into silly. And one should always keep an eye on rules that dip into silly. Multi-purchasing buffs is stepping into unprecedented.

I imagine the most sensible way to play it (HYWPI) is with one God Shackle per army and crypteks in the formation that can be Harbingers. That version is an okay unit for its cost and will be potentially playable.

I would however rather the rules held up on their own and not rely on me noting that God Shackles is too cheap to stack.

col_impact wrote:
The term relic itself does not imply 0-1. Look at "relic blade" for an example of something you can freely include 2+ in an army.

Is a relic blade in the space marines relic section? Or is this just a melee weapon option.. I don't have the sm codex handy.

Relic Blades aren't Space Marine Relics. They would be in the Melee Weapons section.

Ultimately, if there is no wording restricting the selection to one per army, there is no restriction. I find it very likely that the restriction was intended, but don't have the rulebook and so can't verify this. If it's legitimately missing, I would expect to see an FAQ at some point in the future.

 NecronLord3 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The term relic itself does not imply 0-1. Look at "relic blade" for an example of something you can freely include 2+ in an army.

Is a relic blade in the space marines relic section? Or is this just a melee weapon option.. I don't have the sm codex handy.

Relic as a word carries no rule weight.

For example, Blood Angel Relics





There is no ambiguity RAW. However, as Oberrron pointed out, there is also nothing restricting multi-purchasing the same relic on the same model. Not that OP on the C'Tan shard formation, but multiple Solar Thermasites on a bargeLord gets broken fast. So we look to be forced to House Rule it and treating them like Chapter Relics seems to be the most elegant solution that can be argued as RAI.

So Relics as in " special rare" weapons are 0-1 in every other book. A relic blade is no more a relic than a Stormlord tank is a Stormlord SC from codex:Necrons.

So again, the new Necron book comes out and says "relics are one per army". Like every other book.

There is no ambiguity RAW. However, as Oberrron pointed out, there is also nothing restricting multi-purchasing the same relic on the same model. Not that OP on the C'Tan shard formation, but multiple Solar Thermasites on a bargeLord gets broken fast. So we look to be forced to House Rule it and treating them like Chapter Relics seems to be the most elegant solution that can be argued as RAI.

75 points for S10 on an already so pricey as to only be useful in specific playstyles model?

That's not even a fraction as broken as T10 for 30 points.

 NecronLord3 wrote:
So Relics as in " special rare" weapons are 0-1 in every other book. A relic blade is no more a relic than a Stormlord tank is a Stormlord SC from codex:Necrons.

So again, the new Necron book comes out and says "relics are one per army". Like every other book.

Can you quote from the new Necron book?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

changemod wrote:

There is no ambiguity RAW. However, as Oberrron pointed out, there is also nothing restricting multi-purchasing the same relic on the same model. Not that OP on the C'Tan shard formation, but multiple Solar Thermasites on a bargeLord gets broken fast. So we look to be forced to House Rule it and treating them like Chapter Relics seems to be the most elegant solution that can be argued as RAI.

75 points for S10 on an already so pricey as to only be useful in specific playstyles model?

That's not even a fraction as broken as T10 for 30 points.

Lol. S10, ap 1, armourbane sweep attacks (that ignore cover) and melee attacks for 75 points is really powerful.

an S10, T10 shard attached to vanilla crypteks would be footslogging and not potent enough to be playable.

col_impact wrote:
Lol. S10, ap 1, armourbane sweep attacks (that ignore cover) and melee attacks for 75 points is really powerful.

Okay, so now you have a nearly 400 point model with a twelve inch threat range that offers itself up to tarpiting if it dares to get aggressive. Fantastic.

It does very little at S10 it can't do at S8.

an S10, T10 shard attached to vanilla crypteks would be footslogging and not potent enough to be playable.

Vanilla if you only read the first half of a sentence and take it out of context, yes.

And even then, you'd effectively have a Great Unclean One with permanent Iron Arm and shooting attacks before it charges.

col_impact wrote:


Can you quote from the new Necron book?

When it come out I sure will


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also page three of Exterminatus:the rules states "this book includes rules, unique wargear, warlord traits..."

 NecronLord3 wrote:

col_impact wrote:


Can you quote from the new Necron book?

When it come out I sure will


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also page three of Exterminatus:the rules states "this book includes rules, unique wargear, warlord traits..."

Unique also doesn't carry rule weight. It just strengthens a RAI argument.

You and are arguing toward the same conclusion. I agree with you that you need to treat it as Chapter Relics.

However, your argument is currently based on conjecture. You are likely correct but you are still just going off conjecture.

My argument follows the standards you have to apply across all the rules. Uphold RAW unless it leads to brokenness. If broken then switch to conservative HYWPI based on the most elegant RAI.

"Any number of Crypteks that are in a Royal Court can be upgraded to a single, specific type of Harbinger"

Two ways to read that as a full sentence I can see:

"You may take as many duplicate Harbingers of a type as you wish in a court"

Or the most blunt, reading it like a programming language interpretation: "You may only take harbingers of a single type in a court."

The sentence is granting permission to take duplicate harbingers, followed by a sentence prohibiting duplicate wargear beyond their staves. Only if you take a phrase within the sentence out of context does it prohibit becoming a harbinger when outside a court.

changemod wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Lol. S10, ap 1, armourbane sweep attacks (that ignore cover) and melee attacks for 75 points is really powerful.

Okay, so now you have a nearly 400 point model with a twelve inch threat range that offers itself up to tarpiting if it dares to get aggressive. Fantastic.

It does very little at S10 it can't do at S8.

an S10, T10 shard attached to vanilla crypteks would be footslogging and not potent enough to be playable.

Vanilla if you only read the first half of a sentence and take it out of context, yes.

And even then, you'd effectively have a Great Unclean One with permanent Iron Arm and shooting attacks before it charges.

S10 armourbane auto penetrates AV12 vehicles which helps you out against all sorts of targets (including Imperial Knights), ID kills most characters (unless they have Eternal Warrior) and wounds Wraith Knights on a 2+. Seems good for an additional 50 points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

changemod wrote:
"Any number of Crypteks that are in a Royal Court can be upgraded to a single, specific type of Harbinger"

Two ways to read that as a full sentence I can see:

"You may take as many duplicate Harbingers of a type as you wish in a court"

Or the most blunt, reading it like a programming language interpretation: "You may only take harbingers of a single type in a court."

The sentence is granting permission to take duplicate harbingers, followed by a sentence prohibiting duplicate wargear beyond their staves. Only if you take a phrase within the sentence out of context does it prohibit becoming a harbinger when outside a court.

You are conflating two rules.

"Any number of Crypteks can be upgraded to a single, specific type of Harbinger"

"Any number of Crypteks that are in a Royal Court can be upgraded to a single, specific type of Harbinger"

Check the codex for the rule that is actually in the codex.

Having an Overlord in a detachment is what grants the detachment the ability to have a Royal Court. The rules as they are right now would require the Shard formation having the ability to have a Royal Court. But the Formation doesn't.