Switch Theme:

God Shackle 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 us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Gravmyr wrote:
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.


The formation simply makes it possible by asserting the contents of the formation with rule forming authority. The formation itself makes them a unit in the context of the formation if they weren't already. The formation has the power to define itself as a formation.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/26 12:35:43


 
   
Made in us
Discriminating Deathmark Assassin




Johnson City, NewYork

Please back that up with a rule quote.

ADD causes my posts to ramble from time to time. Please bear with me.

You're not a Time Lord stick with linear time.
Specific Vs General 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Gravmyr wrote:
Please back that up with a rule quote.


FORMATION: • 1 C’tan Shard • 2 Crypteks
   
Made in us
Discriminating Deathmark Assassin




Johnson City, NewYork

 Kriswall wrote:

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?


You needed to restate exactly what I already had in poor grammatical form, seriously? Is everything here posted solely to you or me? I hardly think so, that is what PM's are for.

It is a reminder to the three or four posters on this thread that without actual rules backing your stance up their post should be labeled as RAI. Making large sweeping statements such as this gives me permission or the like without a GW backing that states it so is either an opinion or RAI. It should be made clear as such in your post and every post should have a rule backing up any claim or directions to such rule. There are a number of people that come to this forum to learn the rules let's make sure we are not teaching them opinion or RAI interpretations as RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
col_impact wrote:


FORMATION: • 1 C’tan Shard • 2 Crypteks


What are the rules for this new unit you are claiming is created?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/26 12:43:05


ADD causes my posts to ramble from time to time. Please bear with me.

You're not a Time Lord stick with linear time.
Specific Vs General 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Gravmyr wrote:
 Kriswall wrote:

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?


You needed to restate exactly what I already had in poor grammatical form, seriously? Is everything here posted solely to you or me? I hardly think so, that is what PM's are for.

It is a reminder to the three or four posters on this thread that without actual rules backing your stance up their post should be labeled as RAI. Making large sweeping statements such as this gives me permission or the like without a GW backing that states it so is either an opinion or RAI. It should be made clear as such in your post and every post should have a rule backing up any claim or directions to such rule. There are a number of people that come to this forum to learn the rules let's make sure we are not teaching them opinion or RAI interpretations as RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
col_impact wrote:


FORMATION: • 1 C’tan Shard • 2 Crypteks


What are the rules for this new unit you are claiming is created?


I have shown permission in the rules to have Crypteks in the formation. I then adhere to the provided codex Cryptek entry and the formation designation.
   
Made in us
Prescient Cryptek of Eternity





East Coast, USA

Gravmyr wrote:
 Kriswall wrote:

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?


You needed to restate exactly what I already had in poor grammatical form, seriously? Is everything here posted solely to you or me? I hardly think so, that is what PM's are for.

It is a reminder to the three or four posters on this thread that without actual rules backing your stance up their post should be labeled as RAI. Making large sweeping statements such as this gives me permission or the like without a GW backing that states it so is either an opinion or RAI. It should be made clear as such in your post and every post should have a rule backing up any claim or directions to such rule. There are a number of people that come to this forum to learn the rules let's make sure we are not teaching them opinion or RAI interpretations as RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
col_impact wrote:


FORMATION: • 1 C’tan Shard • 2 Crypteks


What are the rules for this new unit you are claiming is created?


In the absence of a quote, I assume that most posters are responding to the poster immediately above them. Also, the comment fit.

We're not going to come to a consensus because the rules aren't there.

You can only have one God Shackle in your army. There is no such thing as a Cryptek Unit, so the Formation is strictly speaking impossible to field. This is likely to change when the update Necron Codex is released, so at most, the conclusion to this argument will be relevant for a couple of months if we're to believe the rumor mill's expected Codex release date.

Check out my website. Editorials! Tutorials! Fun Times To Be Had! - kriswallminis.com


https://www.thingiverse.com/KrisWall/about


Completed Trades With: ultraatma 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Kriswall wrote:
Gravmyr wrote:
 Kriswall wrote:

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?


You needed to restate exactly what I already had in poor grammatical form, seriously? Is everything here posted solely to you or me? I hardly think so, that is what PM's are for.

It is a reminder to the three or four posters on this thread that without actual rules backing your stance up their post should be labeled as RAI. Making large sweeping statements such as this gives me permission or the like without a GW backing that states it so is either an opinion or RAI. It should be made clear as such in your post and every post should have a rule backing up any claim or directions to such rule. There are a number of people that come to this forum to learn the rules let's make sure we are not teaching them opinion or RAI interpretations as RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
col_impact wrote:


FORMATION: • 1 C’tan Shard • 2 Crypteks


What are the rules for this new unit you are claiming is created?


In the absence of a quote, I assume that most posters are responding to the poster immediately above them. Also, the comment fit.

We're not going to come to a consensus because the rules aren't there.

You can only have one God Shackle in your army. There is no such thing as a Cryptek Unit, so the Formation is strictly speaking impossible to field. This is likely to change when the update Necron Codex is released, so at most, the conclusion to this argument will be relevant for a couple of months if we're to believe the rumor mill's expected Codex release date.


Cryptek's are unit type Infantry, Character with composition 1 Cryptek. The formation provides permission to have 2 combine with an MC to form a unit.
   
Made in us
Prescient Cryptek of Eternity





East Coast, USA

Wait a second.

I just pulled out my Codex: Necrons to see exactly how the Cryptek unit is listed.

On Page, I'm seeing that we have three units listed...

1. Royal Court - which is composed of 0-5 Necron Lords and 0-5 Crypteks.
2. Necron Lord
3. Cryptek

The Cryptek entry uses the same font and layout as, say, the Necron Warriors Entry. It's definitely it's own unit entry.

In fact, I would argue that while it's probably against RaI, the current RaW provides me with...

1. a Royal Court that I can take so long as an Overlord is present and that doesn't take up a slot.
2. a 35 point Necron Lord that takes up an HQ slot
3. a 35 point Cryptek that takes up an HQ slot

There is no wording telling me that I can't take the Lord or Cryptek alone and fill an HQ slot as normal. They're in the HQ section, their unit entry is formatted similarly to other unit entries and they have the HQ battlefield role.

Thoughts?

Check out my website. Editorials! Tutorials! Fun Times To Be Had! - kriswallminis.com


https://www.thingiverse.com/KrisWall/about


Completed Trades With: ultraatma 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Kriswall wrote:
Wait a second.

I just pulled out my Codex: Necrons to see exactly how the Cryptek unit is listed.

On Page, I'm seeing that we have three units listed...

1. Royal Court - which is composed of 0-5 Necron Lords and 0-5 Crypteks.
2. Necron Lord
3. Cryptek

The Cryptek entry uses the same font and layout as, say, the Necron Warriors Entry. It's definitely it's own unit entry.

In fact, I would argue that while it's probably against RaI, the current RaW provides me with...

1. a Royal Court that I can take so long as an Overlord is present and that doesn't take up a slot.
2. a 35 point Necron Lord that takes up an HQ slot
3. a 35 point Cryptek that takes up an HQ slot

There is no wording telling me that I can't take the Lord or Cryptek alone and fill an HQ slot as normal. They're in the HQ section, their unit entry is formatted similarly to other unit entries and they have the HQ battlefield role.

Thoughts?


You could probably argue RAW that Cypteks could be purchased directly as HQ. Wasn't there an DE Archon discussion along the same lines?

However, undoubtedly Crypteks are a unit in the Necron codex.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/26 13:05:18


 
   
Made in us
Prescient Cryptek of Eternity





East Coast, USA

col_impact wrote:
 Kriswall wrote:
Wait a second.

I just pulled out my Codex: Necrons to see exactly how the Cryptek unit is listed.

On Page, I'm seeing that we have three units listed...

1. Royal Court - which is composed of 0-5 Necron Lords and 0-5 Crypteks.
2. Necron Lord
3. Cryptek

The Cryptek entry uses the same font and layout as, say, the Necron Warriors Entry. It's definitely it's own unit entry.

In fact, I would argue that while it's probably against RaI, the current RaW provides me with...

1. a Royal Court that I can take so long as an Overlord is present and that doesn't take up a slot.
2. a 35 point Necron Lord that takes up an HQ slot
3. a 35 point Cryptek that takes up an HQ slot

There is no wording telling me that I can't take the Lord or Cryptek alone and fill an HQ slot as normal. They're in the HQ section, their unit entry is formatted similarly to other unit entries and they have the HQ battlefield role.

Thoughts?


You could probably argue RAW that Cypteks could be purchased directly as HQ. Wasn't there an DE Archon discussion along the same lines?

However, undoubtedly Crypteks are a unit in the Necron codex.


It's almost exactly the same argument as the Court of the Archon. I just like the idea because it's more fluffy for my Canoptek themed list.

Check out my website. Editorials! Tutorials! Fun Times To Be Had! - kriswallminis.com


https://www.thingiverse.com/KrisWall/about


Completed Trades With: ultraatma 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Kriswall wrote:
col_impact wrote:
 Kriswall wrote:
Wait a second.

I just pulled out my Codex: Necrons to see exactly how the Cryptek unit is listed.

On Page, I'm seeing that we have three units listed...

1. Royal Court - which is composed of 0-5 Necron Lords and 0-5 Crypteks.
2. Necron Lord
3. Cryptek

The Cryptek entry uses the same font and layout as, say, the Necron Warriors Entry. It's definitely it's own unit entry.

In fact, I would argue that while it's probably against RaI, the current RaW provides me with...

1. a Royal Court that I can take so long as an Overlord is present and that doesn't take up a slot.
2. a 35 point Necron Lord that takes up an HQ slot
3. a 35 point Cryptek that takes up an HQ slot

There is no wording telling me that I can't take the Lord or Cryptek alone and fill an HQ slot as normal. They're in the HQ section, their unit entry is formatted similarly to other unit entries and they have the HQ battlefield role.

Thoughts?


You could probably argue RAW that Cypteks could be purchased directly as HQ. Wasn't there an DE Archon discussion along the same lines?

However, undoubtedly Crypteks are a unit in the Necron codex.


It's almost exactly the same argument as the Court of the Archon. I just like the idea because it's more fluffy for my Canoptek themed list.


Again, the rules would appear to allow it. Probably almost never gets discussed since people would not normally even think to do something along those lines.
   
Made in us
Prescient Cryptek of Eternity





East Coast, USA

col_impact wrote:
 Kriswall wrote:
col_impact wrote:
 Kriswall wrote:
Wait a second.

I just pulled out my Codex: Necrons to see exactly how the Cryptek unit is listed.

On Page, I'm seeing that we have three units listed...

1. Royal Court - which is composed of 0-5 Necron Lords and 0-5 Crypteks.
2. Necron Lord
3. Cryptek

The Cryptek entry uses the same font and layout as, say, the Necron Warriors Entry. It's definitely it's own unit entry.

In fact, I would argue that while it's probably against RaI, the current RaW provides me with...

1. a Royal Court that I can take so long as an Overlord is present and that doesn't take up a slot.
2. a 35 point Necron Lord that takes up an HQ slot
3. a 35 point Cryptek that takes up an HQ slot

There is no wording telling me that I can't take the Lord or Cryptek alone and fill an HQ slot as normal. They're in the HQ section, their unit entry is formatted similarly to other unit entries and they have the HQ battlefield role.

Thoughts?


You could probably argue RAW that Cypteks could be purchased directly as HQ. Wasn't there an DE Archon discussion along the same lines?

However, undoubtedly Crypteks are a unit in the Necron codex.


It's almost exactly the same argument as the Court of the Archon. I just like the idea because it's more fluffy for my Canoptek themed list.


Again, the rules would appear to allow it. Probably almost never gets discussed since people would not normally even think to do something along those lines.


Agreed. Under 6th Edition it was definitely not a thing. Under 7th... well, lots of things are different now in relation to list building.

Check out my website. Editorials! Tutorials! Fun Times To Be Had! - kriswallminis.com


https://www.thingiverse.com/KrisWall/about


Completed Trades With: ultraatma 
   
Made in ie
Fresh-Faced New User




The way I read is this its one of two ways. First you can field Crypteks in the formation. But they will be Crypteks with staffs of light no Harbinger equipment upgrade (being outside the Court entry). They can take the relics in the Mephrit dynasty armory which states they can be taken by Crypteks (i.e. God Shackle and Thermasite). You will have a Wraithlord style unit with access to stealth, some shooting attacks, 6 wounds at majority T8, MTC, a 4++ and fnp, which is still decent but not very mobile and would be consistent for the points cost.

The other way is to read that they can be upgraded to Harbingers and take all the stuff. I could see it being argued both ways. I would not suggest playing it in a serious game until the Codex comes out.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/26 13:55:02


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




SmokeyJoe wrote:
The way I read is this its one of two ways. First you can field Crypteks in the formation. But they will be Crypteks with staffs of light no Harbinger equipment upgrade (being outside the Court entry). They can take the relics in the Mephrit dynasty armory which states they can be taken by Crypteks (i.e. God Shackle and Thermasite). You will have a Wraithlord style unit with access to stealth, some shooting attacks, 6 wounds at majority T8, MTC, a 4++ and fnp, which is still decent but not very mobile and would be consistent for the points cost.

The other way is to read that they can be upgraded to Harbingers and take all the stuff. I could see it being argued both ways. I would not suggest playing it in a serious game until the Codex comes out.


It can only be argued RAW one way. You can have your own HYWPI argument. But RAW, the crypteks in the Shard formation can be upgraded to Harbingers. Their entry list in the Necron codex allows it. I would suggest playing it RAW until the new codex comes out.
   
Made in ie
Fresh-Faced New User




Sorry man I don't see it that clear cut.
   
Made in us
Prescient Cryptek of Eternity





East Coast, USA

col_impact wrote:
SmokeyJoe wrote:
The way I read is this its one of two ways. First you can field Crypteks in the formation. But they will be Crypteks with staffs of light no Harbinger equipment upgrade (being outside the Court entry). They can take the relics in the Mephrit dynasty armory which states they can be taken by Crypteks (i.e. God Shackle and Thermasite). You will have a Wraithlord style unit with access to stealth, some shooting attacks, 6 wounds at majority T8, MTC, a 4++ and fnp, which is still decent but not very mobile and would be consistent for the points cost.

The other way is to read that they can be upgraded to Harbingers and take all the stuff. I could see it being argued both ways. I would not suggest playing it in a serious game until the Codex comes out.


It can only be argued RAW one way. You can have your own HYWPI argument. But RAW, the crypteks in the Shard formation can be upgraded to Harbingers. Their entry list in the Necron codex allows it. I would suggest playing it RAW until the new codex comes out.


Did you mean CAN'T upgrade to Harbingers? The Codex has a pretty clear note requiring that the Crypteks be in a Royal Court to upgrade to a Harbinger. Are the Formation Crypteks in a Royal Court? Nope.

I'm totally ignoring the fact that UPGRADING from a Cryptek to a Harbinger of Whatever means you no longer have a Cryptek and wouldn't be fulfilling the Formation requirements. Also, the Harbingers don't have a statline, so by strict RaW, we don't even know what they are (although RaI is obvious).

Check out my website. Editorials! Tutorials! Fun Times To Be Had! - kriswallminis.com


https://www.thingiverse.com/KrisWall/about


Completed Trades With: ultraatma 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




SmokeyJoe wrote:
Sorry man I don't see it that clear cut.


You have to provide more of an argument than just "seeing" it differently. You need to provide rules support for your assertion that crypteks can't be upgraded to Harbingers when their entry list in the Necron codex clearly provides permission to do so.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Kriswall wrote:

Did you mean CAN'T upgrade to Harbingers? The Codex has a pretty clear note requiring that the Crypteks be in a Royal Court to upgrade to a Harbinger.


This has been discussed at length in this thread. What rule says that the Crypteks have to be in a Royal Court to upgrade to a Harbinger?

 Kriswall wrote:

I'm totally ignoring the fact that UPGRADING from a Cryptek to a Harbinger of Whatever means you no longer have a Cryptek and wouldn't be fulfilling the Formation requirements. Also, the Harbingers don't have a statline, so by strict RaW, we don't even know what they are (although RaI is obvious).


Crypteks that have been upgraded to Harbingers are still obviously Crypteks per the entry list. Why would you think otherwise?

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2014/12/26 14:59:13


 
   
Made in us
Prescient Cryptek of Eternity





East Coast, USA

col_impact wrote:
SmokeyJoe wrote:
Sorry man I don't see it that clear cut.


You have to provide more of an argument than just "seeing" it differently. You need to provide rules support for your assertion that crypteks can't be upgraded to Harbingers when their entry list in the Necron codex clearly provides permission to do so.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Kriswall wrote:

Did you mean CAN'T upgrade to Harbingers? The Codex has a pretty clear note requiring that the Crypteks be in a Royal Court to upgrade to a Harbinger.


This has been discussed at length in this thread. What rule says that the Crypteks have to be in a Royal Court to upgrade to a Harbinger?

Also, Crypteks that have been upgraded to Harbingers are still Crypteks.


Codex: Necrons, page 90. Harbinger of Despair option as an example...

"*Upgrade to a Harbinger of Despair, exchanging staff of light for abyssal staff" with the asterisk adding "Any number of Crypteks in a Royal Court can be upgraded to a single, specific type of Harbinger. Whildt you can have any number of Harbingers of a specific type, each of the Harbinger's unique wargear options can only be chosen once in each Royal Court (see page 84)."

Are we ignoring the asterisk because the Crypek isn't in a Royal Court? Does that mean if I take two Harbingers in the Formation that they can be equipped identically since they aren't in a Royal Court and the restriction wouldn't apply?

Check out my website. Editorials! Tutorials! Fun Times To Be Had! - kriswallminis.com


https://www.thingiverse.com/KrisWall/about


Completed Trades With: ultraatma 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Kriswall wrote:
col_impact wrote:
SmokeyJoe wrote:
Sorry man I don't see it that clear cut.


You have to provide more of an argument than just "seeing" it differently. You need to provide rules support for your assertion that crypteks can't be upgraded to Harbingers when their entry list in the Necron codex clearly provides permission to do so.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Kriswall wrote:

Did you mean CAN'T upgrade to Harbingers? The Codex has a pretty clear note requiring that the Crypteks be in a Royal Court to upgrade to a Harbinger.


This has been discussed at length in this thread. What rule says that the Crypteks have to be in a Royal Court to upgrade to a Harbinger?

Also, Crypteks that have been upgraded to Harbingers are still Crypteks.


Codex: Necrons, page 90. Harbinger of Despair option as an example...

"*Upgrade to a Harbinger of Despair, exchanging staff of light for abyssal staff" with the asterisk adding "Any number of Crypteks in a Royal Court can be upgraded to a single, specific type of Harbinger. Whildt you can have any number of Harbingers of a specific type, each of the Harbinger's unique wargear options can only be chosen once in each Royal Court (see page 84)."

Are we ignoring the asterisk because the Crypek isn't in a Royal Court? Does that mean if I take two Harbingers in the Formation that they can be equipped identically since they aren't in a Royal Court and the restriction wouldn't apply?


I am not ignoring the asterix. I am reading it correctly and not changing in my mind what it says.

The rule says

"ANY NUMBER of Crypteks in a Royal Court can be upgraded to a single, specific type of Harbinger."

It does not say

"Only Crypteks in a Royal Court can be upgraded to a single, specific type of Harbinger."

You are confusing those two statements. I am not.

And yes, the formation would allow for two of the same Harbingers. So you could have two veils of darkness in the C'tan formation. No rule prevents that.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/26 15:10:00


 
   
Made in us
Prescient Cryptek of Eternity





East Coast, USA

If you upgrade a Veteran to an Apothecary, is the model still a Veteran?

If you upgrade a Cryptek to a Harbinger of Despair, is the model still a Cryptek?

These two questions must necessarily have the same answer as they have the same wording - upgrade.

What is the answer?

Check out my website. Editorials! Tutorials! Fun Times To Be Had! - kriswallminis.com


https://www.thingiverse.com/KrisWall/about


Completed Trades With: ultraatma 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Kriswall wrote:
If you upgrade a Veteran to an Apothecary, is the model still a Veteran?

If you upgrade a Cryptek to a Harbinger of Despair, is the model still a Cryptek?

These two questions must necessarily have the same answer as they have the same wording - upgrade.

What is the answer?


The entry list does not specify a change in unit composition. The unit is still 1 cryptek per the entry list. So it is a Cryptek.
   
Made in gb
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare





 Kriswall wrote:
If you upgrade a Veteran to an Apothecary, is the model still a Veteran?

If you upgrade a Cryptek to a Harbinger of Despair, is the model still a Cryptek?

These two questions must necessarily have the same answer as they have the same wording - upgrade.

What is the answer?



Does an Apothecary have a separate statline? Is therea statline for a Harbinger or only for a Cryptek. If your statline says Cryptek you are a Cryptek. Are you really claiming that RaW the statline is a lie?

Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.

Yes my Colour is Black but not for the reasons stated mainly just because it's slimming... http://imperiusdominatus.blogspot.com 
   
Made in us
Prescient Cryptek of Eternity





East Coast, USA

 FlingitNow wrote:
 Kriswall wrote:
If you upgrade a Veteran to an Apothecary, is the model still a Veteran?

If you upgrade a Cryptek to a Harbinger of Despair, is the model still a Cryptek?

These two questions must necessarily have the same answer as they have the same wording - upgrade.

What is the answer?



Does an Apothecary have a separate statline? Is therea statline for a Harbinger or only for a Cryptek. If your statline says Cryptek you are a Cryptek. Are you really claiming that RaW the statline is a lie?


Lol... you guys are too tightly wound. I'm saying that historically, when GW has used the word upgrade in the sense of "Upgrade a Veteran to an Apothecary" you're dealing with a name change. I'm saying that they've used the exact same wording in this instance, but "forgot" to include the statline for the newly named model. A Harbinger used to be a Cryptek, but is now a Harbinger. Strictly speaking, we should be looking for a Harbinger of Whatever statline. There isn't one there. I'm not seriously arguing that the model isn't playable as it doesn't have a statline. I think any reasonable person would just use the Cryptek statline.

What I am saying is that this is yet another example of poor rule writing by GW. RaW, the Cryptek is being upgraded from a Cryptek to a Harbinger of Whatever. RaW, the Harbinger of Whatever is no longer a Cryptek in the same way an Apothecary is no longer a Veteran. RaW, there is no stat line for a Harbinger of Whatever. BOOM. We hit a wall. On this wall, someone has spray painted "poor writing". If you disagree, find me another example where GW has used the term upgrade and there isn't a stat line for what the model is being upgraded to.

Check out my website. Editorials! Tutorials! Fun Times To Be Had! - kriswallminis.com


https://www.thingiverse.com/KrisWall/about


Completed Trades With: ultraatma 
   
Made in ie
Fresh-Faced New User




In answer to the question of where it says that Crypteks have to be in a Court to be upgraded to Harbingers it clearly states in a Court in that sentence. Regardless of unit composition change etc it is very hard to even argue with that sentence from a logical point of view, I have to say. There really shouldn't even be an argument over it.

It is explicitly stating it there, even if we all know the intention was different. I don't really care about the Harbingers at all though. The reason why I am disputing with your argument now is that you are going on to use the line to state something along the lines of "Crypteks being outside the Court can take duplicate wargear." If I tried to make that point RAW with an opponent in a tournament they would probably counter it by pointing to asterisk and saying "sorry mate, no, following that logic the line says you have to be in a Court to upgrade to Harbingers at all." I believe it is a case of exploiting the rule to your own advantage. Someone else can just as easily exploit the rule to his advantage by reading it the opposite way.

My argument is that in this situation one can be accused of making up rules that are not there, to suit their agenda. I also don't understand what you mean being given "broad permission" to upgrade means, this is a very nebulous concept which is new to me, but you seem to be claiming that it settles the matter unequivocally. Can you use other examples to illustrate this?

I would also be interested in getting an objective view of this from someone outside the current discussion, as I am assuming that we are mostly Necron players?
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Kriswall wrote:
 FlingitNow wrote:
 Kriswall wrote:
If you upgrade a Veteran to an Apothecary, is the model still a Veteran?

If you upgrade a Cryptek to a Harbinger of Despair, is the model still a Cryptek?

These two questions must necessarily have the same answer as they have the same wording - upgrade.

What is the answer?



Does an Apothecary have a separate statline? Is therea statline for a Harbinger or only for a Cryptek. If your statline says Cryptek you are a Cryptek. Are you really claiming that RaW the statline is a lie?


Lol... you guys are too tightly wound. I'm saying that historically, when GW has used the word upgrade in the sense of "Upgrade a Veteran to an Apothecary" you're dealing with a name change. I'm saying that they've used the exact same wording in this instance, but "forgot" to include the statline for the newly named model. A Harbinger used to be a Cryptek, but is now a Harbinger. Strictly speaking, we should be looking for a Harbinger of Whatever statline. There isn't one there. I'm not seriously arguing that the model isn't playable as it doesn't have a statline. I think any reasonable person would just use the Cryptek statline.

What I am saying is that this is yet another example of poor rule writing by GW. RaW, the Cryptek is being upgraded from a Cryptek to a Harbinger of Whatever. RaW, the Harbinger of Whatever is no longer a Cryptek in the same way an Apothecary is no longer a Veteran. RaW, there is no stat line for a Harbinger of Whatever. BOOM. We hit a wall. On this wall, someone has spray painted "poor writing". If you disagree, find me another example where GW has used the term upgrade and there isn't a stat line for what the model is being upgraded to.


We don't have to provide anything. You are saying that upgrade by sheer use of the word "upgrade" forces a change in what the model is. When I upgrade a rhino with dozer blades the rhino does not become a dozer blade. A cryptek that is upgraded to a Harbinger of Despair is simply a cryptek that has a Harbinger of Despair upgrade.

Otherwise, you have to show where in the rules the term upgrade all by itself is empowered to redefine models. It does not have that power in the rules. You are making that up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
SmokeyJoe wrote:
In answer to the question of where it says that Crypteks have to be in a Court to be upgraded to Harbingers it clearly states in a Court in that sentence. Regardless of unit composition change etc it is very hard to even argue with that sentence from a logical point of view, I have to say. There really shouldn't even be an argument over it.

It is explicitly stating it there, even if we all know the intention was different. I don't really care about the Harbingers at all though. The reason why I am disputing with your argument now is that you are going on to use the line to state something along the lines of "Crypteks being outside the Court can take duplicate wargear." If I tried to make that point RAW with an opponent in a tournament they would probably counter it by pointing to asterisk and saying "sorry mate, no, following that logic the line says you have to be in a Court to upgrade to Harbingers at all." I believe it is a case of exploiting the rule to your own advantage. Someone else can just as easily exploit the rule to his advantage by reading it the opposite way.

My argument is that in this situation one can be accused of making up rules that are not there, to suit their agenda. I also don't understand what you mean being given "broad permission" to upgrade means, this is a very nebulous concept which is new to me, but you seem to be claiming that it settles the matter unequivocally. Can you use other examples to illustrate this?

I would also be interested in getting an objective view of this from someone outside the current discussion, as I am assuming that we are mostly Necron players?


SmokeyJoe, what is the difference between these two statements? Or are you saying that they mean logically the same thing?


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

"Only Crypteks in a Royal Court can be upgraded to a single, specific type of Harbinger."

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/26 16:11:00


 
   
Made in us
The Hive Mind





col_impact wrote:
We don't have to provide anything. You are saying that upgrade by sheer use of the word "upgrade" forces a change in what the model is. When I upgrade a rhino with dozer blades the rhino does not become a dozer blade.

How does that apple taste? Nothing like my orange I'm sure.

Line from a random marine codex:
Can take any of the following:
- a dozer blade

Line from the Necron codex:
*Upgrade to a Harbinger of blahblahblah

See a difference? I sure do.

A cryptek that is upgraded to a Harbinger of Despair is simply a cryptek that has a Harbinger of Despair upgrade.

False statement is false. It's been upgraded *to*, not with.

Otherwise, you have to show where in the rules the term upgrade all by itself is empowered to redefine models. It does not have that power in the rules. You are making that up.

He's not the one that made up something saying a Harbinger is something you upgrade a Cryptek with.

My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
 
   
Made in us
Prescient Cryptek of Eternity





East Coast, USA

col_impact wrote:
 Kriswall wrote:
 FlingitNow wrote:
 Kriswall wrote:
If you upgrade a Veteran to an Apothecary, is the model still a Veteran?

If you upgrade a Cryptek to a Harbinger of Despair, is the model still a Cryptek?

These two questions must necessarily have the same answer as they have the same wording - upgrade.

What is the answer?



Does an Apothecary have a separate statline? Is therea statline for a Harbinger or only for a Cryptek. If your statline says Cryptek you are a Cryptek. Are you really claiming that RaW the statline is a lie?


Lol... you guys are too tightly wound. I'm saying that historically, when GW has used the word upgrade in the sense of "Upgrade a Veteran to an Apothecary" you're dealing with a name change. I'm saying that they've used the exact same wording in this instance, but "forgot" to include the statline for the newly named model. A Harbinger used to be a Cryptek, but is now a Harbinger. Strictly speaking, we should be looking for a Harbinger of Whatever statline. There isn't one there. I'm not seriously arguing that the model isn't playable as it doesn't have a statline. I think any reasonable person would just use the Cryptek statline.

What I am saying is that this is yet another example of poor rule writing by GW. RaW, the Cryptek is being upgraded from a Cryptek to a Harbinger of Whatever. RaW, the Harbinger of Whatever is no longer a Cryptek in the same way an Apothecary is no longer a Veteran. RaW, there is no stat line for a Harbinger of Whatever. BOOM. We hit a wall. On this wall, someone has spray painted "poor writing". If you disagree, find me another example where GW has used the term upgrade and there isn't a stat line for what the model is being upgraded to.


We don't have to provide anything. You are saying that upgrade by sheer use of the word "upgrade" forces a change in what the model is. When I upgrade a rhino with dozer blades the rhino does not become a dozer blade. A cryptek that is upgraded to a Harbinger of Despair is simply a cryptek that has a Harbinger of Despair upgrade.

Otherwise, you have to show where in the rules the term upgrade all by itself is empowered to redefine models. It does not have that power in the rules. You are making that up.


I'm not going to argue with you past this post, but you don't upgrade a rhino to take dozer blades. You take items from a wargear list. The Rhino is still a model called "Rhino". When you UPGRADE an X to a Y, the new model is no longer an X. It is a Y. The Cryptek is no longer a Cryptek. It is a Harbinger of Whatever. Upgrading from a Veteran to an Apothecary absolutely forces a change in what the model is. Upgrading from a Cryptek to a Harbinger performs the same change.

Check out my website. Editorials! Tutorials! Fun Times To Be Had! - kriswallminis.com


https://www.thingiverse.com/KrisWall/about


Completed Trades With: ultraatma 
   
Made in nl
Loyal Necron Lychguard



Netherlands

 Kriswall wrote:
Are we ignoring the asterisk because the Crypek isn't in a Royal Court? Does that mean if I take two Harbingers in the Formation that they can be equipped identically since they aren't in a Royal Court and the restriction wouldn't apply?

We don't ignore the asterisk.
But the asterisk is not a permission to upgrade, it's a restriction on the special wargear.
Permission to upgrade is given in the rest of the Cryptek-entry and this permission can only be lifted when something says 'cannot upgrade..'.

And yes, you could have double equipment. But I've taken a look at the combinations and I don't see why I would take some items twice.
 Kriswall wrote:
If you upgrade a Veteran to an Apothecary, is the model still a Veteran?

No, since an Apothecary has a different profile and different name.
If you upgrade a Cryptek to a Harbinger of Despair, is the model still a Cryptek?
Yes.
These two questions must necessarily have the same answer as they have the same wording - upgrade.

They don't have the same wording, since an Apothecary has a different profile with different name.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Kriswall wrote:
col_impact wrote:
 Kriswall wrote:
 FlingitNow wrote:
 Kriswall wrote:
If you upgrade a Veteran to an Apothecary, is the model still a Veteran?

If you upgrade a Cryptek to a Harbinger of Despair, is the model still a Cryptek?

These two questions must necessarily have the same answer as they have the same wording - upgrade.

What is the answer?



Does an Apothecary have a separate statline? Is therea statline for a Harbinger or only for a Cryptek. If your statline says Cryptek you are a Cryptek. Are you really claiming that RaW the statline is a lie?


Lol... you guys are too tightly wound. I'm saying that historically, when GW has used the word upgrade in the sense of "Upgrade a Veteran to an Apothecary" you're dealing with a name change. I'm saying that they've used the exact same wording in this instance, but "forgot" to include the statline for the newly named model. A Harbinger used to be a Cryptek, but is now a Harbinger. Strictly speaking, we should be looking for a Harbinger of Whatever statline. There isn't one there. I'm not seriously arguing that the model isn't playable as it doesn't have a statline. I think any reasonable person would just use the Cryptek statline.

What I am saying is that this is yet another example of poor rule writing by GW. RaW, the Cryptek is being upgraded from a Cryptek to a Harbinger of Whatever. RaW, the Harbinger of Whatever is no longer a Cryptek in the same way an Apothecary is no longer a Veteran. RaW, there is no stat line for a Harbinger of Whatever. BOOM. We hit a wall. On this wall, someone has spray painted "poor writing". If you disagree, find me another example where GW has used the term upgrade and there isn't a stat line for what the model is being upgraded to.


We don't have to provide anything. You are saying that upgrade by sheer use of the word "upgrade" forces a change in what the model is. When I upgrade a rhino with dozer blades the rhino does not become a dozer blade. A cryptek that is upgraded to a Harbinger of Despair is simply a cryptek that has a Harbinger of Despair upgrade.

Otherwise, you have to show where in the rules the term upgrade all by itself is empowered to redefine models. It does not have that power in the rules. You are making that up.


I'm not going to argue with you past this post, but you don't upgrade a rhino to take dozer blades. You take items from a wargear list. The Rhino is still a model called "Rhino". When you UPGRADE an X to a Y, the new model is no longer an X. It is a Y. The Cryptek is no longer a Cryptek. It is a Harbinger of Whatever. Upgrading from a Veteran to an Apothecary absolutely forces a change in what the model is. Upgrading from a Cryptek to a Harbinger performs the same change.


Royal Courts are defined as 0-5 crypteks. Are you saying that when I upgrade a Cryptek to a Harbinger of Despair it no longer exists? Or are you saying that Harbingers cannot be in Royal Courts? Are you saying that Royal Courts can only have plain crypteks?

The Cryptek is always a Cryptek.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/26 16:21:15


 
   
Made in ie
Fresh-Faced New User




The reason why the upgrade is a change is because the asterisked rule outlines the total nature of the change and in it it uses the terms explicitly that Crytpeks in a Court can be upgraded to Harbingers. The logical extension of this if you want to upgrade Crypteks to Harbingers they must be in a Court. There is no context for Harbingers to exist outside a Court except as 'Crypteks' in the formation, without the upgrade defining them thus. This is different from regular upgrades for a squad like a sergeant or an apothecary precisely because of the presence of the asterisked rule. Otherwise as you state there be no need for the asterisk at all, it would be obvious that I could upgrade them however I want and the note would just need to say no duplicates of Harbinger wargear. However, the note is clearly not worded that way and therefore presents an opponent with the RAW argument that Harbingers cannot be taken outside the Court. There really is no other way of disputing what I am saying here: that RAW an opponent could argue this.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: