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.

Here is my rules based evidence...

In order to see what GW means when they use the term "upgrade" in relation to unit entries, we need to look at examples of where they've used it in the past and derive the meaning. We have to do this because they don't explicitly define most terms.

Codex: Blood Angels, Tactical Squad Entry
"May upgrade the Space Marine Sergeant to a Veteran Sergeant ...XXpts"
Both Space Marine Sergeant and Veteran Sergeant have a profile. Upgrade has the effect of "rename the model from X to Y. This will necessitate a new profile, which we have provided for you."

Codex: Blood Angels, Scout Squad Entry
"May upgrade the Scout Sergeant to a Veteran Scout Sergeant ...XXpts"
Both Scout Sergeant and Veteran Scout Sergeant have a profile. Upgrade has the effect of "rename the model from X to Y. This will necessitate a new profile, which we have provided for you."

Codex: Tau Empire, XV88 Broadside Team Entry
"May upgrade one Broadside Shas'ui to a Broadside Shas'vre ...XXpts"
Both Broadside Shas'ui and Broadside Shas'vre have a profile. Upgrade has the effect of "rename the model from X to Y. This will necessitate a new profile, which we have provided for you."

I could go on, but I don't feel like typing. The overwhelming majority of examples of "upgrade" being used result in a new stat line.

The exception is Codex: Necrons.

Overlords may be upgraded to Phaerons.
Crypteks may be upgraded to various types of Harbinger.
Anrakyr can upgrade one unit of Immortals to Pyrrhian Eternals.

Phaerons don't have stat lines. We can probably mark this off the list because there is a rule telling us exactly what being upgraded to Phaeron does... it grants Relentless.
Harbingers don't have stat lines.
Pyrrhian Eternals don't have stat lines. For the Eternals, there is a rule telling us to treat them exactly as a unit of Immortals with some extra abilities. Presumably that includes the stat line, so we can probably cross them off the list.

But... Codex: Necrons also uses upgrade to imply a stat line change.

Codex Necrons, Necron Destroyers Entry
"May upgrade up to three Necron Destroyers to a Heavy Destroyer, exchanging gauss cannon for heavy gauss cannon ...XX points per model"
Both Necron Destroyers and Heavy Destroyers have a profile. Upgrade has the effect of "rename the model from X to Y. This will necessitate a new profile, which we have provided for you." In addition, we are explicitly told to swap a weapon. Incidentally, I think this one most closely resembles the Cryptek/Harbinger issue as you're told to both upgrade to a new name and swap wargear in the same sentence.

Now for the Harbinger wording...
Codex: Necrons, Cryptek Entry
"*Upgrade to a Harbinger of Despair, exchanging staff of light for abyssal staff ...XXpts"
Cryptek has a stat line. Harbinger of Despair doesn't. There is no rule telling me what it means to be a Harbinger of Despair. It has a side effect of impacting wargear selection, but that's a side effect of how the unit entry is set up and not an effect of being a Harbinger.

So... what does upgrade mean?
In every instance I've found, the use of upgrade has either involved a name and stat change OR has had an explicit rule telling me what the upgrade means. Since there is no rule telling me what it means to be a Harbinger, I'm forced to assume the "name and stat change" meaning is being used.

Ergo, the most reasonable expectation is that there should be a "Harbinger of Despair" stat line. There isn't. Hence, the rules break. A reasonable person will just use the Cryptek stat line in the absence of a Harbinger stat line OR rule telling me to treat a Harbinger the same as a Cryptek (as in the case of the Pyrrhian Eternals).

To be perfectly honest, I have no stake in this argument. I just think that in a strict rules as written sense, a Cryptek that has been upgraded to a Harbinger is now a model called "Harbinger of Despair" in much the same way that a Destroyer upgraded to a Heavy Destroyer is now a model called "Heavy Destoyer". I genuinely believe the reason that there is no "Harbinger of Despair" stat line is a result of GW's sloppy and inconsistent writing.

 Kriswall wrote:

So... what does upgrade mean?
In every instance I've found, the use of upgrade has either involved a name and stat change OR has had an explicit rule telling me what the upgrade means. Since there is no rule telling me what it means to be a Harbinger, I'm forced to assume the "name and stat change" meaning is being used.

You are not forced to assume anything. In the absence of an actual model name change, Harbinger of Despair is simply a title or some designation that does not involve a change in the model name.

The name of the model obviously does not change or else the Necron codex would indicate such.

The game does not break. "Upgrade to" can easily designate a suite of options selected or a "wargear package."

Kriswall notice how every single example of a name change includes a new statline even when the stats don't change. If you are saying that a Harbinger of Despair is not a Cryptek then you need to show us a statline that says Harbinger of Despair. If he is using the Cryptek statline then he is a Cryptek. That is literally the definition of a Cryptek.

The definition of upgrade is not needed here. The line reads: "Any number of Crypteks that are in a Royal Court can be upgraded to Harbingers of a single specific type." As I have said this sentence is clearly not saying that only Crypteks in the Court can be upgraded to a single type of Harbinger. It is saying that Crypteks (who are in a Royal Court) can be upgraded to Harbingers (and) any number of these can be upgraded to Harbingers of a single type. Any other interpretation of this sentence is meaningless, because there is no other context for Crypteks to exist in the original Codex.

In other words you are implying a meaning that is not there. This is hardly worse than someone saying the original sentence means no Harbingers outside a Court, which is more meaningful even though it is not a perfect interpretation of the sentence either. The above sentence is a shorter and more grammatically correct way of saying it (what I have put in the parentheses). The difficulty may be arising from the understanding of the written (English) English which is always looking to economize sentences with multiple clauses leading into each other, as opposed to American English, which tends to separate clauses into distinct sentences.

However, I don't want this thread to degenerate into language hate. I find the arguments being made by rigeld2 are quite clear. On the other hand you at one point were claiming that you should have multiple God Shackles which seems on principle ridiculous to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
On an unrelated note: do Maledictions stack?

col_impact wrote:

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.

I love when people quote only a single definition, ignoring all others.
I'm sorry, how is that a failure? Please elaborate instead of insulting.

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.

None? Really? Are you sure?

Any evidence of a "wargear package" yet? Or are you stringing me along for a reason? Or is that something else you just made up?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

So... what does upgrade mean?
In every instance I've found, the use of upgrade has either involved a name and stat change OR has had an explicit rule telling me what the upgrade means. Since there is no rule telling me what it means to be a Harbinger, I'm forced to assume the "name and stat change" meaning is being used.

You are not forced to assume anything. In the absence of an actual model name change, Harbinger of Despair is simply a title or some designation that does not involve a change in the model name.

The name of the model obviously does not change or else the Necron codex would indicate such.

The game does not break. "Upgrade to" can easily designate a suite of options selected or a "wargear package."

It does indicate such. By saying the Cryptek is upgraded to something else - meaning it isn't the old thing anymore.

And please differentiate your phrase "wargear package" from a rules quote ("Upgrade to") when using quotes in the same sentence. An unobservant reader might not realize the latter isn't actually rules but something you invented out of whole cloth.

None? Really? Are you sure?

Any evidence of a "wargear package" yet? Or are you stringing me along for a reason? Or is that something else you just made up?

If there is evidence of a name please provide it along with the statline for this new entity.


Evidence that the upgrade is simply a wargear package is the rules tell us it by telling us the name remains Cryptek (as this is the name on the models profile) and that the only changes are to wargear. Any evidence at all that the upgrade changes anything beyond what the rules tell us they change?

Please mark all further posts that claim the Harbinger=/=Cryptek as HYWPI as there is literally no rules support for that claim.

As stated before, no need to talk about upgrades or profiles. End of discussion. There is no rule to support the argument: "the rule that I can upgrade any number of Crypteks in my Court to a Harbinger of a single specific type only" means "only those Harbingers in the Court need to be upgraded to a single specific type."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cause that is how you guys are reading it.

SmokeyJoe wrote:
As stated before, no need to talk about upgrades or profiles. End of discussion. There is no rule to support the argument: "the rule that I can upgrade any number of Crypteks in my Court to a Harbinger of a single specific type only" means "only those Harbingers in the Court need to be upgraded to a single specific type."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cause that is how you guys are reading 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"


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 Harbingers."

Broad permission


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You are failing to see that I am saying that the corollary of your interpretation of the rule means only Harbingers in the Court need to be upgraded to a single specific type. For the last time: what would be the point in having a rule stating that? If you are saying that it just means I can have any number of a specific type that is obvious from the entry. There would be no need for that rule, just a note saying no duplicate wargear. It doesn't just say that.

SmokeyJoe wrote:
Broad permission


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You are failing to see that I am saying that your interpretation of the rule means only Harbingers in the Court need to be upgraded to a single specific type. For the last time: what would be the point in having a rule stating that?

Read the following sentence along with it.

Not really broad permission, but more of a: You already have permission.
The only thing the Asterisk seems to do is allow Crypteks to only upgrade into a single Harbinger (which is redundant) and it makes sure no two can have the same wargear.

Again what would be the point of telling the player that?

SmokeyJoe wrote:
Again what would be the point of telling the player that?

To make sure that the player understands that they can have any number of specific Harbingers in a Court but only one copy of each unique wargear per Royal Court.

SmokeyJoe wrote:
Broad permission


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You are failing to see that I am saying that the corollary of your interpretation of the rule means only Harbingers in the Court need to be upgraded to a single specific type. For the last time: what would be the point in having a rule stating that? If you are saying that it just means I can have any number of a specific type that is obvious from the entry. There would be no need for that rule, just a note saying no duplicate wargear. It doesn't just say that.

Yes that rule is a redundant reminder as is clear from what it says. The reason the rule is there is for the next part. This has been pointed out 3 or 4 times now.

SmokeyJoe wrote:
Again what would be the point of telling the player that?

Because a line that says only one Harbinger is better than letting people find it out by themselves that they cannot swap their weapon more than once.
Rules are intended to be clear, they tell you what you can or cannot do. You shouldn't find out by a detour.

That is also why I am sure that the RAI is that Crypteks can upgrade, they would have made it much clearer if you couldn't do that.

So what you are saying is that the rule is redundant, but who are you to say that it is redundant and do you know for sure? And because of this redundant rule perhaps this was the intention of whoever came up with the formation that we would remember the asterisk and not take Harbingers in the formation, until the new Codex comes out and it finally clears the matter up? This seems more likely to me than the implicit meaning that only a Cryptek taken as part of a Court need adhere to the asterisked rule. This is what all of you are implying by extension and my suggestion has been from the beginning that overseen or redundant rules are being used by the rules writers as a way to streamline the transition from 6th to 7th edition codexes, without people making things up and breaking the game in the meantime.

SmokeyJoe wrote:
So what you are saying is that the rule is redundant, but who are you to say that it is redundant and do you know for sure?

The rules are full of redundant reminders. I know for sure because I've read what the rule says and my interpretation does not involve changing the meaning of the sentence, unlike yours. So don't think it as me saying this think it as the rules literally telling us this as that is what they say.

And because of this redundant rule perhaps this was the intention of whoever came up with the formation that we would remember the asterisk and not take Harbingers in the formation, until the new Codex comes out and it finally clears the matter up?

Why would the writer expect us to "know" that we have to make up rules? A good pattern for intent is that the rules are written to be as clear as possible and will tell you when to change and existing process if involving that process. They have put no further restrictions on how to select a Cryptek so why assume that the process is changed?

This seems more likely to me than the implicit meaning that only a Cryptek taken as part of a Court need adhere to the asterisked rule. This is what all of you are implying by extension and my suggestion has been from the beginning that overseen or redundant rules are being used by the rules writers as a way to streamline the transition from 6th to 7th edition codexes, without people making things up and breaking the game in the meantime.

The asterisk rule can only apply to a court as all it does is restrict how many times you can take the unique wargear. That is the entire function of the rule RaW. If you want to discuss RaI my guess is that the 2 Crypteks count as a court and you can only take 1 veil of Darkness for instance between them. However this is not the RaW and is unlikely to impact how the Formation is ever taken and will become irrelevant in a month's time so why bother discussing beyond the RaW?

It's redundant because it makes a ruling that could also be made indirectly.
But because GW at least tries to be user-friendly, stuff like this needs more direct and clearer rulings.

Just for the record: All Crypteks need to adhere to the asterisked rule.
But as I read it, it tells us three things:
1. Crypteks in a Royal Court can upgrade to a Harbinger.
2. But they can only upgrade to a single type of Harbinger.
3. Two models in a Royal Court cannot take the same Wargear.

These three points don't take into consideration what happens when you have a Cryptek that is not part of a Royal Court.
Point #1 is already covered by the Cryptek entry itself.
Point #2 is covered by the fact that you can replace Staff of Light only once.
Point #3 is the big difference, but hardly matters.

It seems like people are not reading what we are saying, everyone agrees that the asterisked ruling gives permission.
But permission is also received from the Cryptek-entry itself, so it doesn't matter whether we are in a Royal Court or not!
The big difference is that the asterisked ruling tells us about the unique wargear and that they can only take a single Harbinger-upgrade.

Because RAW you can argue that the existence of the asterisked rule restricts Harbingers to the Court.

SmokeyJoe wrote:
Because RAW you can argue that the existence of the asterisked rule restricts Harbingers to the Court.

Okay, let's start again.
Does the asterisked rule give a permission or restriction?

A more interesting and logically absurd corollary of your argument goes like this. If the rule only applies to the Crypteks in the Court and is as you say redundant, because it is telling me that I only have one Harbinger to upgrade to (which as said before is obvious from the entry), then Crypteks outside the Court not only can have duplicate wargear but could be upgraded to multiple types of Harbinger simultaneously RAW.

But RAW that is not how the asterisked paragraph reads as we know this from the entry saying 'upgrade to a:'! it is telling me the conditions for upgrading a Cryptek to a Harbinger 1) Any number can be 2) they are in a Court and 3) they are upgradeable to a single type of Harbinger. The purpose of that sentence is not to remind me just to upgrade to a single type and that I cannot duplicate wargear: that would have no meaning in the current context.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As said before it is explaining what the conditions are for upgrading Crypteks to Harbingers lol


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Therefore QED to upgrade to a Harbinger I must be in a Court RAW...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Furthermore following someone else's definition here of what broad permission means: it is granted to upgrade Crypteks to Harbingers of a single type, they must be in a Court, they must not duplicate wargear and any number of them can be upgraded thus. That is the broad permission granted guys RAW.

SmokeyJoe wrote:
Because RAW you can argue that the existence of the asterisked rule restricts Harbingers to the Court.

No you can't that is not what the RAW says at all as has been explained in detail to you over the last few pages.

Oh no, Crypteks outside a RC can still only upgrade to one type of Harbinger.
Upgrading requires a swap of their SoL, which they have only one off.

It might not have meaning to you or me, but it has meaning to the 98 other players out of the 100 who do not see that since he has only a single SoL, he can take only a single Harbinger-upgrade.
That is why I called it redundant! He cannot upgrade to multiple Harbingers because of his staff, but they still had to write it down because most people would not see that 'indirect' limitation.

You can basically read it like:

May upgrade to Harbinger 1 *

* A Cryptek in a Royal Court can upgrade to a single Harbinger.

Notice how we have two permissions to upgrade the Cryptek? The second line does not overrule or change the first one.
That is different from how you seem to read it:

* Only a Cryptek in a Royal Court can upgrade to a single Harbinger.

By using the word "only" it suddenly becomes a restriction instead of a second permission.
But the original text doesn't have the word "only", nothing in that piece of text puts any kind of limitation or change on the original entry.

Yes I put the only in there myself I admit. However, that does not change the argument. By the way (not to you; the previous poster) arguing that RAW I'm wrong and your right and me doing the same thing is just dumb. A few people have agreed with me, a few agree with your POV and both sides have been explaining RAW essentially the same thing to the other over the past four pages repeatedly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Don't single me out

SmokeyJoe wrote:
A more interesting and logically absurd corollary of your argument goes like this. If the rule only applies to the Crypteks in the Court and is as you say redundant, because it is telling me that I only have one Harbinger to upgrade to (which as said before is obvious from the entry), then Crypteks outside the Court not only can have duplicate wargear but could be upgraded to multiple types of Harbinger simultaneously RAW.

But RAW that is not how the asterisked paragraph reads as we know this from the entry saying 'upgrade to a:'! it is telling me the conditions for upgrading a Cryptek to a Harbinger 1) Any number can be 2) they are in a Court and 3) they are upgradeable to a single type of Harbinger. The purpose of that sentence is not to remind me just to upgrade to a single type and that I cannot duplicate wargear: that would have no meaning in the current context.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As said before it is explaining what the conditions are for upgrading Crypteks to Harbingers lol


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Therefore QED to upgrade to a Harbinger I must be in a Court RAW...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Furthermore following someone else's definition here of what broad permission means: it is granted to upgrade Crypteks to Harbingers of a single type, they must be in a Court, they must not duplicate wargear and any number of them can be upgraded thus. That is the broad permission granted guys RAW.

You need to read the actual text.

This is what the codex says.

"Upgrade to a Harbinger of Despair, exchanging Staff of Light for Abyssal Staff . . . 5 points"
"Any number of Crypteks that are in a Royal Court can be upgraded to a single, specific type of Harbinger. Whilst 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."

You keep adding restrictions in your reading. You aren't allowed to add stuff you make up.

The codex does not say this

"Only Crypteks that are in a Royal Court can be upgraded to Harbingers"
"Crypteks must be in a Royal Court to be able to be upgraded to Harbingers."

You keep adding stuff to the rules. You aren't allowed. We are talking RAW here. If the statement was meant to be restrictive it would indeed use restrictive language. It doesn't. So it isn't. Read the rules as they actually are!

RaW you can only be upgraded to 1 Harbinger as you have to swap your staff of light to do so and you only have one SoL. So that part of the rule is also a redundant reminder. Saying a rule has to mean something different to what is written because following what is written makes the rule redundant is not following RaW. You are trying to make an intent argument and labelling it RaW.

RAW "That are in a Court..."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That is all

So just that 1 part of a sentence has no meaning. RaW you can upgrade Crypteks regardless of whether they are in a court or not. RaW that asterisk rule contains 2 redundant reminders and 1 extra rule. The rule is that you can only have one unique item per court. The reminders are that you can upgrade Crypteks to Harbingers and that a Cryptek can only be upgraded to a single Harbinger. That is RaW because the Cryptek entry gives us permission to upgrade to Harbingers by swapping the SoL. Nothing in the asterisk rule removes that permission or restricts that permission. Unless you'd like to post the rule that does so?

SmokeyJoe wrote:
RAW "That are in a Court..."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That is all

You are not permitted to pull phrases out of contexts.

Here is the context.

"Upgrade to a Harbinger of Despair, exchanging Staff of Light for Abyssal Staff . . . 5 points"
"Any number of Crypteks that are in a Royal Court can be upgraded to a single, specific type of Harbinger. Whilst 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."

Is there a way of doing this so that both sides just disagree and there is a record if someone wants to pick it up again? We can make the same points over and over if you like but it is becoming tedious for me, unless the point is to have the last word? Anyone else want to join in?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
By the way a great way of settling this would be for us all to place bets on what the Crypteks will be like in the next Codex: that way we can see who was closer to what the designers intended. The beauty of that approach is that we only have to wait a month