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:
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.

The cryptek entry list gives permission to Upgrade to the various harbingers.

The asterix clarifies that "ANY NUMBER ..."

The asterix does not restrict by saying "ONLY . . ."

You are failing to note the clear logical difference between these two statements

"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."

It does seem odd that the cryptek is being upgraded *to* something else, and is yet still a cryptek.

When an ork boy is upgraded with 'eavy armour, he's still an ork boy.
but when an ork boy is upgraded *to* a nob, he is no longer an ork boy.

Though in this case, it is backed up by a new, seperate statline in the codex, which they apparently didnt do for harbingers. You could argue its not necessary if they share the exact same statline, but still. I wouldn't be surprised if its something thats just happened due to the new codex being around the corner.

However the way it all reads so far, I would say the crypteks in the formation have to remain crypteks. They aren't in a royal court, and the formation declares cryteks, so thats two cases of "benefit of the doubt" you have to overcome. At that point you really should err in your opponents favour, unless you're planning to be "that guy" for the whole game.


edit: This is how I would play it, and how I interpret the rules as they seem to have been written. It's ambiguous at best, and with so much ambiguity I would rather not cheat my opponent.

Niiru wrote:
It does seem odd that the cryptek is being upgraded *to* something else, and is yet still a cryptek.

When an ork boy is upgraded with 'eavy armour, he's still an ork boy.
but when an ork boy is upgraded *to* a nob, he is no longer an ork boy.

Though in this case, it is backed up by a new, seperate statline in the codex, which they apparently didnt do for harbingers. You could argue its not necessary if they share the exact same statline, but still. I wouldn't be surprised if its something thats just happened due to the new codex being around the corner.

However the way it all reads so far, I would say the crypteks in the formation have to remain crypteks. They aren't in a royal court, and the formation declares cryteks, so thats two cases of "benefit of the doubt" you have to overcome. At that point you really should err in your opponents favour, unless you're planning to be "that guy" for the whole game.


edit: This is how I would play it, and how I interpret the rules as they seem to have been written. It's ambiguous at best, and with so much ambiguity I would rather not cheat my opponent.

Royal Courts are defined as 0-5 crypteks and 0-5 necron lords. Whether a cryptek has been upgraded to a Harbinger or not it is still unequivocally a cryptek. The same logic you are trying to use to prevent Harbingers in the formation would prevent Harbingers in Royal Courts.

A Cryptek that is upgraded remains a Cryptek because there is no mention of a different profile.
If he actually became a different model, they wouldn't have needed the line to say he can only pick one Harbinger-type.

An Ork Boy that becomes a Nob is no longer an Ork Boy because he gets a different profile and name.

The asterisk also says a Cryptek can only upgrade to a single type of Harbinger, luckily we have the Staff of Light-exchange to prevent us from upgrading to multiple Harbinger-types.

At that point you really should err in your opponents favour, unless you're planning to be "that guy" for the whole game.

In my opinion it would be more "that guy"-ing to claim he cannot upgrade because he is technically not in a Royal Court.
I'm just glad the RAW support the upgrade.

That's not RaW though. The Cryptek stays a Cryptek because his statline says so. Note how an Apothecary has the same statline in terms of numbers as a Veteran yet still has a separately titled one.

That rule with the asterisk has NOTHING to do with upgrades to Harbingers. Read the actual rule it is a redundant reminder that you have have multiples of the same Harbinger but the reason the rules exists is to limit the number of unique items per court. That is the only rule that is actually tied to Crypteks in a court. Hence for example in this formation you could have 2 Harbingers of Despair both with Veils of Darkness.

col_impact wrote:
Royal Courts are defined as 0-5 crypteks and 0-5 necron lords. Whether a cryptek has been upgraded to a Harbinger or not it is still unequivocally a cryptek. The same logic you are trying to use to prevent Harbingers in the formation would prevent Harbingers in Royal Courts.

Poor evidence for your argument. Nothing changes the Unit Composition when a model is upgraded to something else.

Ork Boyz Unit Comp isn't 0-1 Nobz and 10-29 Boyz (30 Boyz if 0 Nobz). It's 10-30 Boyz and one can upgrade to a Nob.

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Royal Courts are defined as 0-5 crypteks and 0-5 necron lords. Whether a cryptek has been upgraded to a Harbinger or not it is still unequivocally a cryptek. The same logic you are trying to use to prevent Harbingers in the formation would prevent Harbingers in Royal Courts.

Poor evidence for your argument. Nothing changes the Unit Composition when a model is upgraded to something else.

Ork Boyz Unit Comp isn't 0-1 Nobz and 10-29 Boyz (30 Boyz if 0 Nobz). It's 10-30 Boyz and one can upgrade to a Nob.

So the Formation as well will have 2 crypteks in it when they are upgraded to Harbingers.

The cryptek stays a cryptek because that's the statline it has and the upgrade did not involve a new statline.

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Royal Courts are defined as 0-5 crypteks and 0-5 necron lords. Whether a cryptek has been upgraded to a Harbinger or not it is still unequivocally a cryptek. The same logic you are trying to use to prevent Harbingers in the formation would prevent Harbingers in Royal Courts.

Poor evidence for your argument. Nothing changes the Unit Composition when a model is upgraded to something else.

Ork Boyz Unit Comp isn't 0-1 Nobz and 10-29 Boyz (30 Boyz if 0 Nobz). It's 10-30 Boyz and one can upgrade to a Nob.

So the Formation as well will have 2 crypteks in it when they are upgraded to Harbingers.

Not what I said at all, but feel free to make that argument.

Unless you're somehow saying that a Nob is a Boy even after he's been upgraded?

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Royal Courts are defined as 0-5 crypteks and 0-5 necron lords. Whether a cryptek has been upgraded to a Harbinger or not it is still unequivocally a cryptek. The same logic you are trying to use to prevent Harbingers in the formation would prevent Harbingers in Royal Courts.

Poor evidence for your argument. Nothing changes the Unit Composition when a model is upgraded to something else.

Ork Boyz Unit Comp isn't 0-1 Nobz and 10-29 Boyz (30 Boyz if 0 Nobz). It's 10-30 Boyz and one can upgrade to a Nob.

So the Formation as well will have 2 crypteks in it when they are upgraded to Harbingers.

Not what I said at all, but feel free to make that argument.

Unless you're somehow saying that a Nob is a Boy even after he's been upgraded?

A Nob is not a Boy. When he becomes a Nob he has a new statline.

When a cryptek is upgraded to a Harbinger he still has a statline that indicates he is a cryptek.

col_impact wrote:
A Nob is not a Boy because when becomes a Nob he has a new statline.

When a cryptek is upgraded to a Harbinger he still has a statline that indicates he is a cryptek.

So the model's name doesn't change? Name is part of the profile.

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
A Nob is not a Boy because when becomes a Nob he has a new statline.

When a cryptek is upgraded to a Harbinger he still has a statline that indicates he is a cryptek.

So the model's name doesn't change? Name is part of the profile.

A Harbinger of Despair is a Cryptek.

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
A Nob is not a Boy because when becomes a Nob he has a new statline.

When a cryptek is upgraded to a Harbinger he still has a statline that indicates he is a cryptek.

So the model's name doesn't change? Name is part of the profile.

A Harbinger of Despair is a Cryptek.

Wow, that's tons of evidence to support your point. Here, I'll use literally the exact same amount:

A Harbinger of Despair is not a Cryptek.

Wow! Excellent debate.
In case you're actually interested in discussion and not assertions, please support the quoted post with rules.
The model's name changes, but the rest of the Profile does not, so it doesn't need a second profile. This is proven by the fact that a) the Cryptek is upgraded *to* something (not with, as you previously asserted) and b) that there is no second profile.

Rigeld2 what is the statline for a Harbinger of Despair and where is it found?

And where exactly does it say the name changes?
Because the profile still says Cryptek.

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
A Nob is not a Boy because when becomes a Nob he has a new statline.

When a cryptek is upgraded to a Harbinger he still has a statline that indicates he is a cryptek.

So the model's name doesn't change? Name is part of the profile.

A Harbinger of Despair is a Cryptek.

Wow, that's tons of evidence to support your point. Here, I'll use literally the exact same amount:

A Harbinger of Despair is not a Cryptek.

Wow! Excellent debate.
In case you're actually interested in discussion and not assertions, please support the quoted post with rules.
The model's name changes, but the rest of the Profile does not, so it doesn't need a second profile. This is proven by the fact that a) the Cryptek is upgraded *to* something (not with, as you previously asserted) and b) that there is no second profile.

"Upgrade to" is not some key phrase that carries that power. If you feel otherwise show in the rules where "upgrade to" has that power explicitly defined for it. You are making it up.

Kangodo wrote:And where exactly does it say the name changes?
Because the profile still says Cryptek.

"Upgrade to".

col_impact wrote:"Upgrade to" is not some key phrase that carries that power. If you feel otherwise show in the rules where "upgrade to" has that power explicitly defined for it. You are making it up.

Please, using the rules, define "a".

If you upgrade to something, the thing you upgraded from isn't there anymore. Because it's now something else. Language - words mean things.

And where in the rulebooks does an 'upgrade to' change the name?

I will just leave you with this: "In case you're actually interested in discussion and not assertions, please support the quoted post with rules."

Kangodo wrote:
And where in the rulebooks does an 'upgrade to' change the name?

Please, using rules, define "upgrade". Instead of trolling or mocking, understand.

rigeld2 wrote:

Kangodo wrote:And where exactly does it say the name changes?
Because the profile still says Cryptek.

"Upgrade to".

col_impact wrote:"Upgrade to" is not some key phrase that carries that power. If you feel otherwise show in the rules where "upgrade to" has that power explicitly defined for it. You are making it up.

Please, using the rules, define "a".

If you upgrade to something, the thing you upgraded from isn't there anymore. Because it's now something else. Language - words mean things.

At the very last page of the codex it lists all the models of the Necron codex and their statlines. Cryptek is listed. I don't see a Harbinger of X model because there is no model named Harbinger of X.

Harbinger of X is just a designation for wargear packages that do not change the actual model's name, which is Cryptek. "Upgrade to" is an upgrade to a wargear package.

rigeld2 wrote:

Kangodo wrote:
And where in the rulebooks does an 'upgrade to' change the name?

Please, using rules, define "upgrade". Instead of trolling or mocking, understand.

Why should I?
You are saying that he is no longer a Cryptek due to his upgrade.

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Kangodo wrote:And where exactly does it say the name changes?
Because the profile still says Cryptek.

"Upgrade to".

col_impact wrote:"Upgrade to" is not some key phrase that carries that power. If you feel otherwise show in the rules where "upgrade to" has that power explicitly defined for it. You are making it up.

Please, using the rules, define "a".

If you upgrade to something, the thing you upgraded from isn't there anymore. Because it's now something else. Language - words mean things.

At the very last page of the codex it lists all the models of the Necron codex and their statlines. Cryptek is listed. I don't see a Harbinger of X model because there is no model named Harbinger of X.

Harbinger of X is just a designation for wargear packages that do not change the actual model's name, which is Cryptek. "Upgrade to" is an upgrade to a wargear package.

Use rules to define a wargear package. It doesn't say "upgrade the wargear to".
The Cryptek has options.
One of these options is to upgrade to a Harbinger of Despair.

I've added no words to the codex, every one of your arguments has. Please use actual rules in your arguments.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kangodo wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Kangodo wrote:
And where in the rulebooks does an 'upgrade to' change the name?

Please, using rules, define "upgrade". Instead of trolling or mocking, understand.

Why should I?
You are saying that he is no longer a Cryptek due to his upgrade.

You're demanding a rules definition for a word that doesn't need one. My request was to show evidence that not every word has a rules definition.

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Kangodo wrote:And where exactly does it say the name changes?
Because the profile still says Cryptek.

"Upgrade to".

col_impact wrote:"Upgrade to" is not some key phrase that carries that power. If you feel otherwise show in the rules where "upgrade to" has that power explicitly defined for it. You are making it up.

Please, using the rules, define "a".

If you upgrade to something, the thing you upgraded from isn't there anymore. Because it's now something else. Language - words mean things.

At the very last page of the codex it lists all the models of the Necron codex and their statlines. Cryptek is listed. I don't see a Harbinger of X model because there is no model named Harbinger of X.

Harbinger of X is just a designation for wargear packages that do not change the actual model's name, which is Cryptek. "Upgrade to" is an upgrade to a wargear package.

Use rules to define a wargear package. It doesn't say "upgrade the wargear to".
The Cryptek has options.
One of these options is to upgrade to a Harbinger of Despair.

I've added no words to the codex, every one of your arguments has. Please use actual rules in your arguments.

The very last page of the Necron codex which lists the models proves you are wrong. Harbinger of Despair is not listed because a model of that name does not exist.

rigeld2 wrote:

Kangodo wrote:And where exactly does it say the name changes?
Because the profile still says Cryptek.

"Upgrade to".

col_impact wrote:"Upgrade to" is not some key phrase that carries that power. If you feel otherwise show in the rules where "upgrade to" has that power explicitly defined for it. You are making it up.

Please, using the rules, define "a".

If you upgrade to something, the thing you upgraded from isn't there anymore. Because it's now something else. Language - words mean things.

Again I must ask where is the Harbinger of Despair's statline? If he is not a Cryptek he can't be using the Cryptek's statline.

Kangodo wrote:
And where in the rulebooks does an 'upgrade to' change the name?

I will just leave you with this: "In case you're actually interested in discussion and not assertions, please support the quoted post with rules."

Well in general, thats just the way it works. A specific rule isnt needed, as the english language does it by default.

HOWEVER, reading through the necron codex entry again, I'd have to say that the RAI does seem to imply the "Harbinger of despair" is more of a ... title, than a unit type. I guess to be more accurate, GW should have said: "Upgrade to a Cryptek:Harbinger of Despair" or a "Harbinger of Despair Cryptek". But yeh I would actually have to say in this case, the harbingers are meant to be crypteks. Even though the wording isn't really consistant with the rest of the 40k ruleset.

However, crypteks only appear under the HQ section of "Royal Court". It is all one section, which is why it is boxed. There are no rules for taking or upgrading a cryptek outside of a royal court. If the formation says you are allowed a cryptek, then you are allowed a cryptek, but you have no options for upgrading that cryptek as their are no standalone cryptek rules. Unless the formation says "you may upgrade these crypteks as if they were part of a royal court" or similar.

rigeld2 wrote:

You're demanding a rules definition for a word that doesn't need one. My request was to show evidence that not every word has a rules definition.

The burden of proof is on you. You are trying to ascribe special rule power to the phrase "upgrade to" when the BRB does not. If you feel otherwise you are the one that needs to prove it.

I am not claiming that "a" has special rule power. If I were to make such a claim, the burden would be on me to prove it.

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

You're demanding a rules definition for a word that doesn't need one. My request was to show evidence that not every word has a rules definition.

The burden of proof is on you. You are trying to ascribe special rule power to the phrase "upgrade to" when the BRB does not. If you feel otherwise you are the one that needs to prove it.

I am not claiming that "a" has special rule power. If I were to make such a claim, the burden would be on me to prove it.

I'm not ascribing special rule power to a word. I'm using the normal, English definition of it.
If you upgrade to something, you are no longer the old thing.

If you upgrade OS10 to OS10.1, you are no longer running OS10.
If you upgrade your iPhone4S to an iPhone5S, you no longer have an iPhone4S.

You've so far invented "wargear packages" (with no rules support) and refused to provide evidence. Perhaps actually supporting your argument would get things moving better?

Niiru wrote:

Kangodo wrote:
And where in the rulebooks does an 'upgrade to' change the name?

I will just leave you with this: "In case you're actually interested in discussion and not assertions, please support the quoted post with rules."

Well in general, thats just the way it works. A specific rule isnt needed, as the english language does it by default.

HOWEVER, reading through the necron codex entry again, I'd have to say that the RAI does seem to imply the "Harbinger of despair" is more of a ... title, than a unit type. I guess to be more accurate, GW should have said: "Upgrade to a Cryptek:Harbinger of Despair" or a "Harbinger of Despair Cryptek". But yeh I would actually have to say in this case, the harbingers are meant to be crypteks. Even though the wording isn't really consistant with the rest of the 40k ruleset.

However, crypteks only appear under the HQ section of "Royal Court". It is all one section, which is why it is boxed. There are no rules for taking or upgrading a cryptek outside of a royal court. If the formation says you are allowed a cryptek, then you are allowed a cryptek, but you have no options for upgrading that cryptek as their are no standalone cryptek rules. Unless the formation says "you may upgrade these crypteks as if they were part of a royal court" or similar.

When you are allowed a cryptek you get the army entry list which includes a statline, wargear, special rules, and options. The options provide broad permission to upgrade to Harbingers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

You're demanding a rules definition for a word that doesn't need one. My request was to show evidence that not every word has a rules definition.

The burden of proof is on you. You are trying to ascribe special rule power to the phrase "upgrade to" when the BRB does not. If you feel otherwise you are the one that needs to prove it.

I am not claiming that "a" has special rule power. If I were to make such a claim, the burden would be on me to prove it.

I'm not ascribing special rule power to a word. I'm using the normal, English definition of it.
If you upgrade to something, you are no longer the old thing.

If you upgrade OS10 to OS10.1, you are no longer running OS10.
If you upgrade your iPhone4S to an iPhone5S, you no longer have an iPhone4S.

You've so far invented "wargear packages" (with no rules support) and refused to provide evidence. Perhaps actually supporting your argument would get things moving better?

Look at the last page of the Necron codex. Look at the list of models. What do you see listed?

This thread has simply become a troll's circlejerk and in all honesty should be locked. There's an arguement that cannot be resolved due to 2 peoples opinions that that can both provide evidence to support. If it is a friendly game, talk to your opponent and at worst roll off for it. In a tourny take it up with your to. Otherwise, wait for the release.

col_impact wrote:
Look at the last page of the Necron codex. Look at the list of models. What do you see listed?

So no evidence to support your "wargear packages"?
I see a Cryptek. Nice the rules say the name changes ("Upgrade to") but don't mention the profile, the Harbingers must use the same characteristics as a Cryptek.

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

You're demanding a rules definition for a word that doesn't need one. My request was to show evidence that not every word has a rules definition.

The burden of proof is on you. You are trying to ascribe special rule power to the phrase "upgrade to" when the BRB does not. If you feel otherwise you are the one that needs to prove it.

I am not claiming that "a" has special rule power. If I were to make such a claim, the burden would be on me to prove it.

I'm not ascribing special rule power to a word. I'm using the normal, English definition of it.
If you upgrade to something, you are no longer the old thing.

If you upgrade OS10 to OS10.1, you are no longer running OS10.
If you upgrade your iPhone4S to an iPhone5S, you no longer have an iPhone4S.

You've so far invented "wargear packages" (with no rules support) and refused to provide evidence. Perhaps actually supporting your argument would get things moving better?

OED -> upgrade to = "to raise (something) to a higher standard, in particular improve (equipment or machinery) by adding or replacing components"

"Upgrade to" does not necessarily mean what you say it has to mean. You fail here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Look at the last page of the Necron codex. Look at the list of models. What do you see listed?

So no evidence to support your "wargear packages"?
I see a Cryptek. Nice the rules say the name changes ("Upgrade to") but don't mention the profile, the Harbingers must use the same characteristics as a Cryptek.

You have no evidence that the model's name changes. Absolutely none. You fail here as well.