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.

If you disagree with our points argue against them. That is how a debate works. We've debunked your points and shown permission in the rules you've failed to argue against the points raised. What we've told you is not our oppinion but factually what the RaW says. We've pointed out literally how the rules are written, hence our stance is RaW.

I disagree and RAW your wrong (wow that was pointless)

If you disagree point to the fault in my argument. Or you are not debating RaW.

So you are saying that the rule is redundant. But surely even arguing the rule is redundant itself is going against RAW. Because you are stating unequivocally that the permission to upgrade the staff of light to another weapon is merely being restated here, the value judgement is being made, by you, that the rule is redundant.

SmokeyJoe wrote:
So you are saying that the rule is redundant. But surely even arguing the rule is redundant itself is going against RAW. Because you are stating unequivocally that the permission to upgrade the staff of light to another weapon is merely being restated here, the value judgement is being made, by you, that the rule is redundant.

Redundant is not a value judgement. It's just descriptive. Restating things and being redundant can help make rules clearer and easier to follow. Keep in mind that you are jumping from entry list text in one section to an asterix down below so redundancy is a good overall strategy to make sure the reader follows.

So you are saying that the rule is redundant. But surely even arguing the rule is redundant itself is going against RAW.

Sorry but what? How is arguing a rule is redundant in any way contradicting RaW? The rules are littered with redundant reminders.

Because you are stating unequivocally that the permission to upgrade the staff of light to another weapon is merely being restated here, the value judgement is being made, by you, that the rule is redundant.

No it is not a value judgement. Do you disagree that the rules give permission for a Cryptek to upgrade? The rule proving this to be the case has been sighted. Does the rule in the asterisk also give permission to upgrade to a Harbinger? Again the posted rule proves this to be the case. 2 rules giving the same permission means one is a redundant reminder, it doesn't mean you're free to make up rules to make one of those rules mean something different.

So again if you disagree with what I'm saying point to the rules that prove me wrong.

No I'm saying that you are assuming that the only purpose of that rule is to pointlessly restate the upgrading of the staff of light to a Harbinger weapon is possible. That is an assumption. You are making the assumption that it is an error.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also I am saying that the permission is given to you in the entry and it is being 'qualified' in the asterisked paragraph.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It is not the same as a restatement. It is explaining the permission. Otherwise all rules would be granting permission. Some are not: they are restrictions with conditions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The first sentence in the paragraph itself is granting permission ("any number") within a restriction ("upgrade to a single specific type") with a greater restriction ("in a Court"), the last part you are all missing for some reason. Tagged onto this is another restriction ("no duplicate wargear"). Is this why?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
For some reason you are conflating aspects of the qualification with the restatement i.e. that the "any number" part of the quote does not refer to those "that are in a Court." There is no RAW reason for this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Any more than there is no RAW reason to expect that a Harbinger can be bought outside a Court.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Well that's me for the night.

SmokeyJoe wrote:
No I'm saying that you are assuming that the only purpose of that rule is to pointlessly restate the upgrading of the staff of light to a Harbinger weapon is possible. That is an assumption. You are making the assumption that it is an error.

It is not an assumption. It is literally all that rule tells us. You're assuming it must have another meaning hence are changing the meaning of the sentence. If you are changing the meaning of what is written you are not arguing RaW. Here's the rules again:

"Upgrade to a Harbinger of Despair, exchanging Staff of Light for Abyssal Staff . . . 5 points" 

This unequivocally gives us permission to upgrade a Cryptek to a Harbinger. As all such permissions require us to swap our Staff of Light this in effect also restricts us to upgrading a Cryptek to only 1 Harbinger.

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

This also gives us permission to upgrade a Cryptek to a Harbinger, however this permission only governs how we do that in a royal court and puts the restriction on of a single Harbinger as above though the 2nd part is more obvious in this sentence. Hence this is a redundant reminder as it is giving permission we already have. Why put in this reminder? Well the next sentence makes that clear:

"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." 

The actual point of the asterisk is to restrict the unique wargear. They wanted to make it clear that the restriction does not roll over to Harbingers and that you can have multiples of the same Harbinger in any given court.

So I have shown permission to upgrade any Cryptek to a Harbinger. You have to now show where that permission is revoked. Rigeld claimed that Harbingers are not Crypteks thus not eligible for the formation. Though the stat line disagrees with this interpretation as it states that Harbingers are indeed Crypteks (or they have no stat line). If you think the asterisk rule removes this permission you have to show it is a restriction. Which you can't as it is not a restriction. So do you have any rules at all that revoke the permission posted at the top of this post?

Again I refer you to the last post: you are conflating aspects of the qualification with the restatement i.e. that the "any number" part of the quote does not refer to those "that are in a Court."

SmokeyJoe wrote:
No I'm saying that you are assuming that the only purpose of that rule is to pointlessly restate the upgrading of the staff of light to a Harbinger weapon is possible. That is an assumption. You are making the assumption that it is an error.

That's not 100% what we (or at least me) mean with that.
I think the "single, specific type of Harbinger" is redundant because the SoL-exchange already limits you.
I also mentioned that this redundant line is important because it's only redundant from a RAW-point of view, it is still important to make it actually understandable to most players.

For some reason you are conflating aspects of the qualification with the restatement i.e. that the "any number" part of the quote does not refer to those "that are in a Court." There is no RAW reason for this.

It's just that I don't see it as a limitation or restriction.
Had it said: "Only Crypteks that are in a Royal Court can be upgraded.." than there wouldn't be a discussion because that clearly excludes Crypteks not in a Royal Court.
But the current wording is: "Any number of Crypteks that are in a Royal Court.." and that indeed explains the upgrade, but in my view it does not restrict it.

But I understand how you read it and that is important and probably as far as we will get until they either FAQ it or release the new Codex.
Have a good night!

SmokeyJoe wrote:
Again I refer you to the last post: you are conflating aspects of the qualification with the restatement i.e. that the "any number" part of the quote does not refer to those "that are in a Court."

Irrespective of that. I have shown permission in the Cryptek rules to upgrade to a Harbinger. What part of the asterisk rule removes that permission?

That the Cryptek must be in the Court to get the upgrade.

What rule states that?

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

"Any number of Crypteks that are in a Royal Court":  How many crypteks can you have in a Royal Court? Five. So that means out of that 5 vanilla crypteks, I can upgrade each of them to one of the Harbinger types.

"to a single, specific harbinger": this means any cryptek I decide to upgrade in a RC in question, can only be one type of Harbinger, not a hybrid. EG: I can't have one cryptek equipped with both with an eldritch lance and a Chronometron. It can only be a "single, specific harbinger". Because if you read the headline of the wargear description, it states that crypteks that mix harbinger disciplines can't be trusted.

"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." 

"Whilst you can have any harbingers of a specific type": meaning that you can take any number of despairteks in an army. This is not necessarily referencing a RC.

"each of the Harbinger's unique wargear options can only be chosen once in each Royal Court": this tells me I chose to be a specific harbinger, then I have wargear options listed under that specific harbinger type. Since my wargear is "unique", I can only choose 1 of each of the options. So I can't get 2 solar flares or say ether crystals. If I'm attached to a single, specific RC, that gear I just chose, can only be taken once by that harbinger in that court. Because to that specific RC, my purchased wargear is considered "unique". Two different RC's unlocked by two different Overlords can circumvent the last restriction because they have different origins. Meaning I can have 1 despairtek equipped with an abyssal staff and VOD in each RC I can produce in my army through CADs, allies, and formations.

Now the real question to ask is, how am I able to purchase a non special character cryptek in the 1st place ("pre- Exterminus")? Can I buy a cryptek or harbinger without having an Overlord? Can I purchase a cryptek without having any RC in my army? Even if I split off a cryptek to a troop unit, can this cryptek be bought without meeting any of the criteria I just mentioned?

The only way to purchase a cryptek in 5th edition, when the language was written, is through a Royal Court. No formations, no special cryptek strikeforce. Taking that into consideration, how can you justify multiples of any harbinger with the same optional wargear coming from the same court? Even if they are split off, you are technically still apart of that Overlord's court since it's where you originated from "before battle".

Now, it's pretty evident to me that we are limited to one of each of the 3 wargear options in a particular harbinger discipline (no buying 2 solar flares on one cryptek), and limited to one harbinger type per RC.





Automatically Appended Next Post:
I hope some of this makes sense.

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Any number of Crypteks can be upgraded to a single, specific type of Harbinger...that are in a Royal Court


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Otherwise it would say: "Any number of Crypteks from (or in) the Royal can be upgraded to..."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hence you must be in a Court

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Any number of Crypteks can be upgraded to a single, specific type of Harbinger...that are in a Royal Court

Rephrasing the sentence in such a way changes the meaning and makes it nonsensical. You've changed the subject of the Royal Court to point to the Harbinger, instead of the Cryptek.

If Nyghoma is correct in his interpretation, however, than this would actually open up more for Crypteks in the Conclave. Since they are not in a Royal Court, they don't need to be upgraded to a "single, specific type of Harbinger" and could mix and match Harbinger gear.

Yes because the rule is telling me how to upgrade to a Harbinger so of course it points to the Harbinger.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
There is no grammatical difference between these two sentences:

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:
They mean the same thing


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you are saying that the "any number" part of the quote does not refer to those being upgraded in the Court you are misreading it

To be complete, by adding the ellipsis, you are stating you are removing part of the sentence which in truth means the subject for the "that are in a Royal Court" is omitted entirely. The only remaining subject that is closest is the "Harbinger" itself, but the original sentence had the "Crypteks" as the subject for that line, which means you changed to subject of that part of the sentence. Unless you are stating the "Crypteks" and "Harbinger" is the same subject.

However, I noticed you have no disagreement with my substitution for the out of Royal Court Harbingers.

"English you speak it?"


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The Crypteks remain the subject


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The sentence is describing how to upgrade them to Harbingers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you are stating that the in the Court part refers only to those being upgraded to the single type you are misreading and making a basic grammatical error.

The method explaining how to upgrade a Cryptek is explained on page 90, by simply spending points. The rule being debated, if read in its entirety, explains that a single Royal Court can never have duplicates of the unique Harbinger Wargear. If the rule is read piecemeal, it purpose becomes muddied.

To state the rule in another way;
The rule is stating that even if you take all of your Crypteks as the same kind of Harbinger, they all cannot share the same unique Harbinger Wargear in a single Royal Court.

No because, if you are reading that rule to mean that is a restatement of the fact that you can upgrade Crypteks to the single type from the entry, which we know, you are assuming that it is muddled and you are applying the restriction on the Court from the muddling, without making the much more logical jump to the point that all this refers to Crypteks being in the Court to upgrade them.

You are assuming that the rule is partially redundant if you read it that way while also going on to extrapolate a non existent rule from the confusion. which you are partially assuming refers to Crypteks being in the Court only have the wargear restriction. The more logical grammatical interpretation is that the rule in its entirety is stating what the conditions, or permission, are for a Cryptek to be upgraded to a Harbinger: 1) any number can be 2) they exist in a unit known as a Court and 3) the 'any number' must be upgraded to a single type. This last part is needed cause it is giving me permission to upgrade a unit (Crypteks in a Court) in its entirety to a variety something different (i.e. not a Cryptek anymore). That is why the rule is needed. It is similar to how Chosen were upgraded in one of the last Chaos Space Marine Codexes. I need the reminder to give me the permission that the whole squad can be upgraded thus without restriction.

Lets be clear and no longer focus on only the just first sentence of the rule and read the whole thing.

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 (see page 84).

Now that we have the whole rule instead of the just first part of it, lets look at it.

It first tells us any number of Crypteks can be upgraded to a specific type of Harbinger in a Royal Court (all your Harbingers can be the same type). It then goes on to tell us of those specific type of Harbingers, that they cannot share the same wargear of that Harbinger type as seen on page 84 inside a single Royal Court.

On page 84 it does not list this restriction inside a Royal Court, so I don't see where this rule is redundant.

The first sentence of the rule is setting up the subject, all the Harbingers of a single type in Royal Court. It then explains that they can't have the same unique wargear found on page 84 in a single Royal Court. The first sentence isn't a redundant rule, it is just the rule setting up the subject for the next sentence.

"it does not list this restriction inside a Royal Court"

So are you saying that: "any number of Crypteks that are in a Royal Court can be upgraded to a Harbinger of a single specific type" does not mean that the restriction of a Harbinger of a single type is referring to those in the Court?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The first part of the rule is making a different point to the second sentence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The first part is saying any number can be upgraded to a single and specific type. The second part says no duplicate wargear, two separate partially related concepts (only related because of the Harbinger upgrade options, which need an explanation saying no duplicate wargear, however it does not say it that way because it has the preceding sentence). This is because the first sentence is setting up the conditions for upgrading to a Harbinger not setting up the idea that duplicate wargear cannot be taken. The second part does this, the first part helps me to understand that because I know I can have duplicate Harbingers just not wargear.

You shouldn't take quotes out of context.

I have already informed you that both sentences together are the rule. The first sentence tells us that all the Harbingers can be the same type in a Royal Court, the second explains the restriction.

The restriction rests in the second sentence, not the first. The first sentence at the most, provides a permission to take any number of same Harbingers.

No it doesn't there are two restrictions in the first sentence. One explicit one implicit.. Explicit: may upgrade to a single specific type. Implicit: must be in a Court.

Both readings can be correct for the explicit.

By saying a single, specific type, you can either be saying that all of them are the same type (single and specific), or all of the have to be a predefined type (specific and single).

However, with the following sentence talking about how multiple of the same specific type of Harbinger interact with wargear, I feel the first reading is closer to the truth.

OK so the single specific type means that you can't mix and match the upgrade type, or it means only one type in the unit: I believe the first because I've never seen anyone play it the other way. What makes the second part implicit is that the 'any number' portion refers to those in The Court being actively upgraded. If you don't read it grammatically this specific way it mean that you are either saying you have to upgrade the whole squad to a single type or, as others argued, that this restriction only applies to those actively upgraded in the Court, allowing Harbingers to exist outside the context for their existence in the original rule, creating in my mind an error that is dependent on misreading the sentence.

This thread has simply become a troll's circlejerk and in all honesty should be locked.

I agree

So to recap what is actually RAW.

The cryptek entry list grants these permissions.


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


There are no rules that take away those permissions.