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.

SmokeyJoe wrote:
I'm still struggling to get over the literal reading of "any number of Crypteks in a Royal Court" meaning no harbinger upgrade outside of the Court. The asterisked rule was not written under the assumption that a Cryptek would ever be taken outside a Court and the formation lists the unit type as Cryptek rather than as Harbinger, while units in formations are still upgradeable generally my belief is that the formation was designed with the asterisk in the original Necron Codex in mind but of course I could be completely wrong. Hopefully the new Codex will state explicitly that they can be upgraded or will have a new set of relics for them, like the Haemonculi in the Dark Eldar Codex. Otherwise I feel that RAW an opponent could argue that they are not upgradeable.

First, read the cryptek entry list without reading the asterixed portion. Notice that broad permission is granted to upgrade a cryptek to a harbinger.

Then read it again with the asterixed portion and note the logical differences between these two statements.

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

"Crypteks that are in a Royal Court can be upgraded to Harbingers"

As far as I know there are no squad upgrades currently that are not worded in that particular way i.e. any number of X can take Y when permission is being given to upgrade specific members of a squad rather than just one; therefore implying that the whole squad does not have to be upgraded this way but can be. There are none that just say X may be upgraded to Y. My argument is that you are taking an a phrase that is out of context out-of-context to prove your point.

Another person could just as easily argue the opposite by taking the asterisked passage out of context. You often seen GW take old rules and update them in such a way that they can be interpreted differently under the new edition in streamlining the transition between 6th and 7th, my belief is that the formation is probably along these lines until the Codex comes out there is no way of knowing for definite. Thus in the meantime I would advise not playing it this way and expecting your opponent to agree. Btw Merry Christmas all .


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The reason why it is worded specifically with the Court (the second line after the first) is that there are several different options that the Court can take but you will only ever have one type of Harbinger to upgrade to and the extra verbage concerning the wargear options just adds to the confusion. It would be like giving the option to a space marine tactical squad to take as many flamers as it wants but just flamers (as opposed to mixing) whilst also allowing some members to not be upgraded. This is why the asterisked paragraph seems more convoluted then it should be.

SmokeyJoe wrote:
As far as I know there are no squad upgrades currently that are not worded in that particular way i.e. any number of X can take Y when permission is being given to upgrade specific members of a squad rather than just one; therefore implying that the whole squad does not have to be upgraded this way but can be. There are none that just say X may be upgraded to Y. My argument is that you are taking an a phrase that is out of context out-of-context to prove your point.

Another person could just as easily argue the opposite by taking the asterisked passage out of context. You often seen GW take old rules and update them in such a way that they can be interpreted differently under the new edition in streamlining the transition between 6th and 7th, my belief is that the formation is probably along these lines until the Codex comes out there is no way of knowing for definite. Thus in the meantime I would advise not playing it this way and expecting your opponent to agree. Btw Merry Christmas all .


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The reason why it is worded specifically with the Court (the second line after the first) is that there are several different options that the Court can take but you will only ever have one type of Harbinger to upgrade to and the extra verbage concerning the wargear options just adds to the confusion. It would be like giving the option to a space marine tactical squad to take as many flamers as it wants but just flamers (as opposed to mixing) whilst also allowing some members to not be upgraded. This is why the asterisked paragraph seems more convoluted then it should be.

You are just misreading it. It's got clunky wording and its easy to get confused, but you are misreading it.

The Cryptek entry list says for example "Upgrade to a Harbinger of Despair, exchanging Staff of Light for Abyssal Staff . . . 5 points" This grants broad permission to upgrade Cryptek's to Harbinger's. This line means I can make a cryptek in the C'tan Shard formation into a Harbinger of Despair. This line gives me permission to do so.

The asterix portion . . .

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

. . . merely clarifies that you can have any number of Harbingers of a specific type in a Royal Court.

It further goes on to restrict that the unique wargear options for each Harbinger can only be bought once per Royal Court.

It does not say that a Cryptek has to be in a Royal Court to upgrade into a Harbinger.

This statement does not exist . . .

"only Crypteks that are in a Royal Court can be upgraded to Harbingers"

Of course that statement does not exist, the Harbingers were never intended to be taken outside a Court. But RAW it does say that they must be in a Court to be upgraded and that statement does exist. There is no statement to the contrary saying Harbingers can be bought outside a Court which is what I would expect my opponent to argue if I tried to make that point to them.

SmokeyJoe wrote:
Of course that statement does not exist, the Harbingers were never intended to be taken outside a Court. But RAW it does say that they must be in a Court to be upgraded and that statement does exist. There is no statement to the contrary saying Harbingers can be bought outside a Court which is what I would expect my opponent to argue if I tried to make that point to them.

Where does it say that the Cryptek must be in a court to be upgraded? Please quote the line.

The codex says this

Options:
Upgrade to a Harbinger of Despair exachanging staff of light for abyssal stadd
Upgrade to a Harbinger of Destruction exchanging staff of light for eldritch lance
Upgrade to a Harbinger of Eternity exchanging staff of light for aeonstave
Upgrade to a Harbinger of the Storm exchanging staff of light for voltaic staff
Upgrade to a Harbinger of Transmogrificaion exchanging staff of light for termorstave

These statements say that Crypteks on a train or on a bus or anywhere (which would include Royal Courts) can be upgraded to Harbingers. Broad permission is granted.

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

In the italicized portion of the quote it states what the conditions are for a cryptek to be upgraded. First 'any number' may be upgraded. Second 'that are in a Court.' Third they 'can be upgraded' means that some can but you don't have to upgrade all. I believe you are misinterpreting the last clause here to mean that all Crypteks can be upgraded to Harbingers in absolute terms i.e. outside the Court by inferring this rule (RE the single type of Harbinger) refers to those to whom it applies being in the Court. You are actually arguing in a circular fashion and someone could more easily using this logic say that what this rule means is that only those in the Court can be upgraded. Otherwise (they would say) why have the Court entry at all?

I would not read it that way, rather that I would read it that you do not have to upgrade all in the Court but you can if you wish. This extra clause is needed because Crypteks can be upgraded to a single type but it does not force you to upgrade the whole squad. The above sentence is the shortest way of saying that. It is not a sentence with a single clause i.e. that any number of Crypteks (clause) in the Court may be upgraded to a single type. Rather it is making three points concurrently: 1) that any number of Crypteks in the Court can be upgraded 2) that they are in a Court and 3) they may be upgraded to a single specific type of Harbinger. This to me seems the most logical interpretation of the sentence particularly in the above context and the context of the line which follows describing the wargear limitation on duplicate Harbingers. I believe a TO would probably interpret i this way.

Going on to use this rule to claim that Crypteks of the same type being bought outside of the Court can take duplicate wargear seems to me to be more like making up rules that aren't there.

Not being a smart ass here just playing Devil's Advocate.

You guys are trying to translate language, that during its inception had no solid universal definitions. C'tan powers, wraith flight, deathrays, etc are all very ambiguous when attempting to decrypt them with 7th edition rules. Personally I think it's irresponsible of GW not to tie up these loose end neater. I suspect they secretly relish in our squirming...

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

In the italicized portion of the quote it states what the conditions are for a cryptek to be upgraded. First 'any number' may be upgraded. Second 'that are in a Court.' Third they 'can be upgraded' means that some can but you don't have to upgrade all. I believe you are misinterpreting the last clause here to mean that all Crypteks can be upgraded to Harbingers in absolute terms i.e. outside the Court by inferring this rule (RE the single type of Harbinger) refers to those to whom it applies being in the Court. You are actually arguing in a circular fashion and someone could more easily using this logic say that what this rule means is that only those in the Court can be upgraded. Otherwise (they would say) why have the Court entry at all?

I would not read it that way, rather that I would read it that you do not have to upgrade all in the Court but you can if you wish. This extra clause is needed because Crypteks can be upgraded to a single type but it does not force you to upgrade the whole squad. The above sentence is the shortest way of saying that. It is not a sentence with a single clause i.e. that any number of Crypteks (clause) in the Court may be upgraded to a single type. Rather it is making three points concurrently: 1) that any number of Crypteks in the Court can be upgraded 2) that they are in a Court and 3) they may be upgraded to a single specific type of Harbinger. This to me seems the most logical interpretation of the sentence particularly in the above context and the context of the line which follows describing the wargear limitation on duplicate Harbingers. I believe a TO would probably interpret i this way.

Going on to use this rule to claim that Crypteks of the same type being bought outside of the Court can take duplicate wargear seems to me to be more like making up rules that aren't there.

Not being a smart ass here just playing Devil's Advocate.

You are reading the line in isolation and misreading it.

Broad permission to upgrade a Cryptek to a Harbinger is granted in the entry list in the options panel

for example

"Upgrade to a Harbinger of Despair exchanging staff of light for abyssal staff." This grants permission. I can turn vanilla crypteks into Harbingers broadly.

The asterix adds

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

which clarifies that you can have ANY NUMBER of single specific types of Harbingers in a Royal Court (and later restricts that you can only have one unique wargear purchased per Royal Court).

It does not say "Only Crypteks that are in Royal Courts can be upgraded to Harbingers"

The weird part is that the strictest reading of that line, with "single, specific" is that you can only pick one harbinger type per court.

Never seen anyone even suggest it would be played that way, but that's the robotic, programming language interpretation.

changemod wrote:
The weird part is that the strictest reading of that line, with "single, specific" is that you can only pick one harbinger type per court.

Never seen anyone even suggest it would be played that way, but that's the robotic, programming language interpretation.

No, then the line would read . . .

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

Rule statements have to use restrictive language (only, etc.) to actually restrict permission provided elsewhere.

col_impact wrote:

changemod wrote:
The weird part is that the strictest reading of that line, with "single, specific" is that you can only pick one harbinger type per court.

Never seen anyone even suggest it would be played that way, but that's the robotic, programming language interpretation.

No, then the line would read . . .

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

Rule statements have to use restrictive language (only, etc.) to actually restrict permission provided elsewhere.

"Single, specific" is restrictive language, if you read it in the strictest light possible. That's my point.

So the correct interpretation of the paragraph is that it is telling me that I can have any number of different types of Crypteks in the Court just no duplicate wargear?

changemod wrote:

col_impact wrote:

changemod wrote:
The weird part is that the strictest reading of that line, with "single, specific" is that you can only pick one harbinger type per court.

Never seen anyone even suggest it would be played that way, but that's the robotic, programming language interpretation.

No, then the line would read . . .

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

Rule statements have to use restrictive language (only, etc.) to actually restrict permission provided elsewhere.

"Single, specific" is restrictive language, if you read it in the strictest light possible. That's my point.

Its not actually restrictive though. I can have 3 storm teks and 2 despair teks in a royal court and still satisfy that rule ("Any number of Crypteks that are in a Royal Court can be upgraded to a single, specific type of Harbinger") in the tightest read possible. There has to be "can only" or equivalent to modify the permission granted elsewhere.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SmokeyJoe wrote:
So the correct interpretation of the paragraph is that it is telling me that I can have any number of different types of Crypteks in the Court just no duplicate wargear?

Correct, but more exactly it is telling you that you can have any number of different specific Harbingers in a Court just no duplicate of their special wargear options.

While that is the case I do not feel that it makes the inside outside the Court distinction any clearer. I may be misreading it but I can't see how an argument can be made one way or the other RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
P.S. I should have said Harbingers not Crypteks

SmokeyJoe wrote:
While that is the case I do not feel that it makes the inside outside the Court distinction any clearer. I may be misreading it but I can't see how an argument can be made one way or the other RAW.

Except that RAW broad permission to upgrade Crypteks is unequivocally granted.

For example

"Upgrade to a Harbinger of Despair exchanging staff of light for abyssal staff"

So why have the asterisked rule and why even have the Court Entry at all? Just make them 1-5 per slot with the wargear upgrades presented being unique?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unless the intention was for the Court to be a 'unit' in some other sense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Which is why I believe the formation works (or doesn't work) this way.

Basically, you can have any number of a cryptek types with their corresponding staves (ie 5 Despairteks all w/ abyssal staves), but you can't have 2 harbingers of despair with identical VoD upgrades coming from the same Overlord's royal court (eg Imotehk's court). For another VoD upgrade you require another Overlord's court.

Yep I understand that but it still doesn't iron out the in and out of Court issue for me just saying.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Merry Christmas for Real

The only way you can take a cryptek in the codex is through a royal court, but that's under the original foc, and wouldn't really apply to this formation. The only reason each of those sentences says 'royal court' is because that's the only way you could take a cryptek (or a lord) in the codex. Unbound and formations change all that. That formation has no restrictions, therefor you can give them any upgrades in there army entry.

Codex restrictions would only apply if you were using the foc/cad. Formations have their own restrictions/requirements, and unbound has none, take as many stormteks with lightning fields as you want. Simply use models you want:-)

So the only entry for Cryptek is under "Royal Court". The only argument that really works against them taking gear is that the asterix comes before the actual line saying "Upgrade to x of x"...

I could see a lot of people having an issue with it RAW.

The question about the formation is what rules does it give concerning the crypteks. Without a set of rules to take the 2 crypteks outside of a Royal Court you have to give a way to do so. It is arguable that you can take two Royal Courts to fulfill the requirement of two Crypteks or that you can take a single Royal Court that contains two. Either way without a actual rule about costs outside of the Royal Court the rules are not given in any context except for in the Court. In the end discuss it with your opponent....

Gravmyr wrote:
The question about the formation is what rules does it give concerning the crypteks. Without a set of rules to take the 2 crypteks outside of a Royal Court you have to give a way to do so. It is arguable that you can take two Royal Courts to fulfill the requirement of two Crypteks or that you can take a single Royal Court that contains two. Either way without a actual rule about costs outside of the Royal Court the rules are not given in any context except for in the Court. In the end discuss it with your opponent....

The formation is the permission to take the teks out of a RC. And we know the cost of what a tek is it list it right by it's name in the codex, it also list the options right under the cryptek on what they can take, the only thing the * does is tell you the limits of what a tek can take in a RC. Everything seems pretty straight forward in those regards.

Oberron wrote:

Gravmyr wrote:
The question about the formation is what rules does it give concerning the crypteks. Without a set of rules to take the 2 crypteks outside of a Royal Court you have to give a way to do so. It is arguable that you can take two Royal Courts to fulfill the requirement of two Crypteks or that you can take a single Royal Court that contains two. Either way without a actual rule about costs outside of the Royal Court the rules are not given in any context except for in the Court. In the end discuss it with your opponent....

The formation is the permission to take the teks out of a RC. And we know the cost of what a tek is it list it right by it's name in the codex, it also list the options right under the cryptek on what they can take, the only thing the * does is tell you the limits of what a tek can take in a RC. Everything seems pretty straight forward in those regards.

Yes, there really aren't any issues with upgrading the Cryptek's to Harbingers. The Codex grants broad permission to upgrade them in their entry list. The Formation allows you to have Crypteks outside a Royal Court. The only issue is some people misreading the clunky worded bit in the asterixed text.

I suggest rereading the info about formation in the Baal book. You are not given permission to take them outside the RC. You are told the formation is made up of two units of Crypteks, which does not exist. I agree that it's the RAI that you can take them but there is no actual rule stating you can do this which is why, as I pointed out above, discuss it with your opponent. As some else pointed out earlier we are also assuming they are not going to be printed up some other way in the new codex which may make this moot.

Gravmyr wrote:
I suggest rereading the info about formation in the Baal book. You are not given permission to take them outside the RC. You are told the formation is made up of two units of Crypteks, which does not exist. I agree that it's the RAI that you can take them but there is no actual rule stating you can do this which is why, as I pointed out above, discuss it with your opponent. As some else pointed out earlier we are also assuming they are not going to be printed up some other way in the new codex which may make this moot.

The Formation grants permission to take 2 Crypteks outside of the RC by including 2 Crypteks on the Formation list.

It says the words outside of a RC then? I point you to both the wording explaining how formations are spelled out and the wording of the formation itself which refers to them as units. Please quote a page # from the Necron codex for the unit labeled as Crypteks.

I would expect this will all clear itself up when the 7th edition Necron Codex is released. The Cryptek is almost certainly going to have its own unit entry.

In the meantime...

Is there a Cryptek unit in the 5th edition codex? Technically no.

Is it painfully obvious what the authors intended? Overwhelming yes.

Which isn't RAW though now is it? It's RAI. We have to mark our posts discussing it as so, forum rules.

Gravmyr wrote:
Which isn't RAW though now is it? It's RAI. We have to mark our posts discussing it as so, forum rules.

I apologize for using the phrase "what the authors intended" instead of the obviously more easily understood acronym "RAI", or "Rules as Intended". I recognize my failing and shall endeavor to correct it in the future.

Also, seriously?