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.

There's a thread on things like this and Venomthropes, but it's from last June and I think there's rules against thread necromancy, so here goes:

Do Crypteks get cumulatively better the more I have on the board?

My guts says "no", because that would swiftly become ridiculous. But what I want to know is -why- they don't.

Technomancer says: Add 1 to all Reanimation Protocols rolls for models from <DYNASTY> units within 3" of any friendly <DYNASTY> CRYPTEKS.

This isn't a rule that is general to Necrons. This is a rule that is on -each- Cryptek.

So, I have Bob the Cryptek, Frank the Cryptek, and Susan the Cryptek.

Bob says "RP rolls are +1 if you're next to any 'tek". So anyone near Bob, Frank, or Susan gets +1 (though does not get more benefit from being near more than one of them).
Frank, yelling from across the battlefield, says "RP rolls are +1 if you're next to any 'tek". So anyone near Bob, Frank, or Susan gets +1, which, if we're keeping track, is +2 now.
Susan, also fairly remote from Frank and Bob, says "RP rolls are +1 if you're next to any 'tek". So anyone near Bob, Frank, or Susan gets +1 yet again, because Susan said so in addition to Bob and Frank saying so, for a total of +3.

Is this just a badly worded rule? Are people just house-ruling it to mean what they probably meant for it to mean but failed to make it mean? Am I misinterpreting somehow?

Badly worded, as the last word is the plural "CRYPTEKS" which makes it no matter how many crypteks are in range, only one of them actually applies.

It's poorly worded, but functional. You can have 1 CRYPTEK or 100 CRYPTEKS and you get only one bonus.

That being said, it's never explicitly defined that the plural of a keyword (either RaW or by FAQ) is the same as the actual Keyword, though there are multiple uses of it as such.

GW has some poorly worded rules, but this is not one of them. If the unit is within 3" of any friendly Crypteks with the same Dynastic Code, all models in the unit add one to all Reanimation Protocol rolls. It doesn't matter if it's one, five or a hundred or more Crypteks you get the exact same bonus.

 Draco765 wrote:
Badly worded, as the last word is the plural "CRYPTEKS" which makes it no matter how many crypteks are in range, only one of them actually applies.

It's not a question of how many are in range. In my example, they were all far away from each other. But EACH of them on the board is saying "while you're near any Cryptek you get plus 1", so that's three people all saying that.

It's like if I said "If you see The Last Jedi, I'll give you a dollar, but only once no matter how many times you see it." You see the movie and get a dollar.
But if two of your other friends also said "If you see The Last Jedi, I'll give you a dollar, but only once no matter how many times you see it.", how many dollars would you get?

 Nightbringer's Chosen wrote:

 Draco765 wrote:
Badly worded, as the last word is the plural "CRYPTEKS" which makes it no matter how many crypteks are in range, only one of them actually applies.

It's not a question of how many are in range. In my example, they were all far away from each other. But EACH of them on the board is saying "while you're near any Cryptek you get plus 1", so that's three people all saying that.

It's like if I said "If you see The Last Jedi, I'll give you a dollar, but only once no matter how many times you see it." You see the movie and get a dollar.
But if two of your other friends also said "If you see The Last Jedi, I'll give you a dollar, but only once no matter how many times you see it.", how many dollars would you get?

Your analogy is falty. A correct analogy would be "3 of your friends tell you they will give you a dollar if you go see a bad movie today." No matter how many times you see the movie today, you get 1 dollar. The next day you can go see the movie and get another dollar (the next time you do WBB rolls).

Your analogy is off as well. A better one is if your friend says he will give you a dollar if you've seen any movies this week. If it's zero, you do not get the dollar, if it's greater than zero, then you get the dollar. The number of movies seen does not matter whether you've seen one or five or a hundred movies. You only get one, single dollar.

 Ghaz wrote:
Your analogy is off as well. A better one is if your friend says he will give you a dollar if you've seen any movies this week. If it's zero, you do not get the dollar, if it's greater than zero, then you get the dollar. The number of movies seen does not matter whether you've seen one or five or a hundred movies. You only get one, single dollar.

But it's the number of friends (Crypteks) telling you this. "Seeing any movies this week" is analogous to "being near any Crypteks".

I do think I see what CatBug is trying to say, though. That it's a group of friends who are collectively telling you this. That "they", plural, will, from their communal money, give you a dollar if you see a bad movie. The problem comes in that they're not being clear that they're just the one handing it to you rather than the one supplying it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I also think I'm explaining it in a manner that isn't very clear.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/729717.page was the previous thread. The bit with the firehouse bounty is the relevant part.

 Nightbringer's Chosen wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Your analogy is off as well. A better one is if your friend says he will give you a dollar if you've seen any movies this week. If it's zero, you do not get the dollar, if it's greater than zero, then you get the dollar. The number of movies seen does not matter whether you've seen one or five or a hundred movies. You only get one, single dollar.

But it's the number of friends (Crypteks) telling you this. "Seeing any movies this week" is analogous to "being near any Crypteks".

I do think I see what CatBug is trying to say, though. That it's a group of friends who are collectively telling you this. That "they", plural, will, from their communal money, give you a dollar if you see a bad movie. The problem comes in that they're not being clear that they're just the one handing it to you rather than the one supplying it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I also think I'm explaining it in a manner that isn't very clear.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/729717.page was the previous thread. The bit with the firehouse bounty is the relevant part.

Again, your example is flawed. The key word in the rule is 'any'. Exchange that word with 'each' and you'll see that it completely changes the rule. This is the relevant post in the second thread you linked to

Three priests each say "Hey, show a puppy to any number of priests and I'll give you a dollar". I show a puppy to a priest and take a picture for proof. I then to go each priest that made that promise to me and collect a dollar, having only shown a puppy to one of them.

As shown here: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/729717.page#9446165
It's multiple priest promises, multiple firehouse bounties, multiple promises of aid from Crypteks.

Again that is not what your sentence says, just like it's not what the rule says. No atter how many priests you show the puppy to, you only get a single dollar.

 Ghaz wrote:
Again that is not what your sentence says, just like it's not what the rule says. No atter how many priests you show the puppy to, you only get a single dollar.

Why not? The sentence says exactly that. Three priests each made a promise to me. They each didn't care how many priests I showed the puppy to, but EACH OF THEM cared.

I think it's clearer if you divorce the promiser (the model the rule is on) from the condition (the model you need to be near).

If Crypteks said "Add 1 to all Reanimation Protocols rolls for models from <DYNASTY> units within 3" of any friendly <DYNASTY> Canoptek Giraffes. "

If I have 70 Canoptek Giraffes huddled around me, I still only get 1 bonus to my rolls, since it says "any".

If I have 70 Crypteks anywhere on the table, they are EACH providing me a bonus on my rolls for being near any number of Canoptek Giraffes. Because each one is saying "here, have a bonus, Giraffe lover".

The rule in the book just happens to use the same model for the thing providing the bonus and the thing you need to be near. Which should not matter.


You're at a super terrible party. 8 people all tell you "I'll punch you if you drink any of the beers in the fridge". No matter if you drink 1 beer or 50, you get 8 punches. They're not all telling you "you will get punched", they're EACH telling you "I will add one to the number of punches you will get", just like EACH Cryptek is telling you "I will add 1 to your RP rolls", in both cases because you fulfilled their requirement; being near any number of Crypteks or drinking any number of beers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Now, it would work how we tend to assume if:

a) It had a clause like "A unit may only benefit from one instance of Technomancy"

b) The base rulebook had a clause like "A particular rule does not stack with other instances of that same named rule". (I don't think that's in there, but admittedly I haven't scoured the book)

c) The rule was only stated once. For instance, where rules like Reanimation Protocols and Objective Secured are outlined. Rather than being stated on every Cryptek in your army. Then there would be only one 'offer' of a bonus: the offer being made by the rulebook, rather than the offers made by each and every Cryptek in your army.

But none of those are the case.

The rules are clear. This is an instance where RAW is actually done mostly well.

If there are any number of Crypteks of a matching Dynasty in range, you get the bonus. But you only ever get the bonus once.

 JNAProductions wrote:
The rules are clear. This is an instance where RAW is actually done mostly well.

If there are any number of Crypteks of a matching Dynasty in range, you get the bonus. But you only ever get the bonus once.

It's not about how many are in range. It's about how many are on the field.
It's not about getting the bonus more than once. It's about getting multiple identical bonuses. Each Cryptek creates an aura around ALL of your Crypteks, so that each of them is walking around with a buff aura from Bob, a buff aura from Frank, and a buff aura from Susan. The auras all just do identical things.

 Nightbringer's Chosen wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
The rules are clear. This is an instance where RAW is actually done mostly well.

If there are any number of Crypteks of a matching Dynasty in range, you get the bonus. But you only ever get the bonus once.

It's not about how many are in range. It's about how many are on the field.
It's not about getting the bonus more than once. It's about getting multiple identical bonuses. Each Cryptek creates an aura around ALL of your Crypteks, so that each of them is walking around with a buff aura from Bob, a buff aura from Frank, and a buff aura from Susan. The auras all just do identical things.

From the Index, since I don't own the codex. If the rules changed, please post the text here.

Technomancer-Add 1 to all Reanimation Protocol rolls for models from friendly <DYNASTY> units within 3" of any friendly <DYNASTY> Crypteks.

The key words here are "within 3" of ANY". So if you're within 3" of 1 Cryptek, you satisfy that requirement, same as if you're in range of 500.

 Nightbringer's Chosen wrote:

Technomancer-Add 1 to all Reanimation Protocol rolls for models from friendly <DYNASTY> units within 3" of any friendly <DYNASTY> Crypteks.

The key words here are "within 3" of ANY". So if you're within 3" of 1 Cryptek, you satisfy that requirement, same as if you're in range of 500.

Exactly. It's not how many you're NEAR. It's how many exist on the board. Being near one satisfies the requirement of the buff that Bobtek is putting onto all of your Crypteks, the "being near me gives +1 to RP". Being near that same one also satisfies the requirement of the buff that Franktek is also putting onto all of your Crypteks, which is ALSO "being near me gives +1 to RP". And, finally, being near still just that same Cryptek and not near any of the others, satisfies the requirement of the buff put onto the Cryptek by Susantek, which, surprise, is also "being near me gives +1 to RP".
So that one Cryptek's stat box basically says:
Any infantry within 3" of me gets +1 on RP
Any infantry within 3" of me gets +1 on RP
Any infantry within 3" of me gets +1 on RP
One of these he gave to himself, because he is a Cryptek in your army
One of these was given to him by Bob, because he is still a Cryptek in your army
One of these was given to him by Susan, yet again because he is a Cryptek in your army

“Get +1 if a unit is within X of any Ys” means you get the buff once per unit if they meet the condition, no matter how many buffers are in range. No stacking if multiples are nearby. No “I get it three times because 3 of these models are on the board somewhere” (that’s a particularly erroneous, stretching reading btw). Just once. That’s how it is across multiple special rules with similar wording. Arguing to the contrary isn’t supported by the RAW, English grammar or general consensus.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
“Get +1 if a unit is within X of any Ys” means you get the buff once per unit if they meet the condition, no matter how many buffers are in range. No stacking if multiples are nearby. No “I get it three times because 3 of these models are on the board somewhere” (that’s a particularly erroneous, stretching reading btw). Just once. That’s how it is across multiple special rules with similar wording. Arguing to the contrary isn’t supported by the RAW, English grammar or general consensus.

I've never claimed there is stacking for multiple buffers in range. That's explicitly shot down by "within 3" of any".

As I said, it's muddied because the model setting up the condition is also one of the models you need to be around to satisfy the condition. I thought the example above with the Canoptek Giraffes would've cleared that up. In looking at that example, would the unit near the Giraffe still only get +1, if I have 70 Crypteks on the board each saying that I get +1? If no, and that they would indeed get +70, why would it change if I change the clause to "standing near a Cryptek" from "standing near a Giraffe"? Keeping in mind that the unit is still only near a single one of the things.

The rule doesn’t say that, so that why that isn’t a thing.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
The rule doesn’t say that, so that why that isn’t a thing.

...yeah, which is why it is an exercise in rule interpretation intended to foster clarity. Didn't answer my question; would that unit get +70?

(by the way, cool scratch built tank in your sig!)

@nightbringer... As I read the rule from this thread, you seem to be correct. If i have 5 cryptecs in a corner and then one lonely cryptec in the other corner next to one unit of warriors, then the warriors get +6 rp. Same goes for venomthrope.

(5 cryptecs) - - 100" distance"---(one cryptec) - 1"distance--(warriors that gets +6rp)

Not how I would play the rule or even allow my opponent to use it like so

 Nightbringer's Chosen wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
The rule doesn’t say that, so that why that isn’t a thing.

...yeah, which is why it is an exercise in rule interpretation intended to foster clarity. Didn't answer my question; would that unit get +70?

(by the way, cool scratch built tank in your sig!)

Thanks dude!

I don’t understand how you’re reading the rule the way you are, tbh, Definitely no +70 on offer as I read it!

Yeah, I wouldn't play it that way either, Gitdakka, it'd be absurd.

Johnny, it's because the Crypteks aren't projecting an aura around themselves. They are EACH projecting an aura around EACH Cryptek on the board. So each one has an aura from each Cryptek (including themselves), and each of those auras gives +1 to RP.

So if I have four Poxbringers, my Plaguebears are S8?

 Nightbringer's Chosen wrote:
Yeah, I wouldn't play it that way either, Gitdakka, it'd be absurd.

Johnny, it's because the Crypteks aren't projecting an aura around themselves. They are EACH projecting an aura around EACH Cryptek on the board. So each one has an aura from each Cryptek (including themselves), and each of those auras gives +1 to RP.

In which case that’s just an incorrect parsing of the rule, sorry. Nothing says the rule works that way, so it doesn’t.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 Nightbringer's Chosen wrote:
Yeah, I wouldn't play it that way either, Gitdakka, it'd be absurd.

Johnny, it's because the Crypteks aren't projecting an aura around themselves. They are EACH projecting an aura around EACH Cryptek on the board. So each one has an aura from each Cryptek (including themselves), and each of those auras gives +1 to RP.

In which case that’s just an incorrect parsing of the rule, sorry. Nothing says the rule works that way, so it doesn’t.

The rule on EACH Cryptek says "anyone near any of your Crypteks gets +1 RP". So it's three instances of that rule on each one.

Correct, JNA. Again, I wouldn't play it this way, it's certainly not intended, but EACH of your Poxbringers is saying that your Plaguebearers are stronger when near any of them. And, like the Technomancer thing, it doesn't matter how many Poxbringers are near your Plaguebearers, only that each of them is saying "you're stronger when you're near a Locus".

It's specifically because it's a rule on the model, which you have multiple of, rather than a rule that's just a general army rule, which there can be only one instance of.
If there was a rule, in with Living Metal and Objective Secured and Reanimation Protocols and so forth, rules that are endemic to the army rather than printed on a particular model's datacard, that was "Technomancy: Add 1 to RP rolls for any infantry units near one or more of your Crypteks", that would work perfectly functionally. There is only one instance of that rule. But because Technomancer is being carried around by the individual models, there's that many models all bestowing instances of it on all of your Crypteks.

 Nightbringer's Chosen wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 Nightbringer's Chosen wrote:
Yeah, I wouldn't play it that way either, Gitdakka, it'd be absurd.

Johnny, it's because the Crypteks aren't projecting an aura around themselves. They are EACH projecting an aura around EACH Cryptek on the board. So each one has an aura from each Cryptek (including themselves), and each of those auras gives +1 to RP.

In which case that’s just an incorrect parsing of the rule, sorry. Nothing says the rule works that way, so it doesn’t.

The rule on EACH Cryptek says "anyone near any of your Crypteks gets +1 RP". So it's three instances of that rule on each one.

Correct, JNA. Again, I wouldn't play it this way, it's certainly not intended, but EACH of your Poxbringers is saying that your Plaguebearers are stronger when near any of them. And, like the Technomancer thing, it doesn't matter how many Poxbringers are near your Plaguebearers, only that each of them is saying "you're stronger when you're near a Locus".

It's specifically because it's a rule on the model, which you have multiple of, rather than a rule that's just a general army rule, which there can be only one instance of.
If there was a rule, in with Living Metal and Objective Secured and Reanimation Protocols and so forth, rules that are endemic to the army rather than printed on a particular model's datacard, that was "Technomancy: Add 1 to RP rolls for any infantry units near one or more of your Crypteks", that would work perfectly functionally. There is only one instance of that rule. But because Technomancer is being carried around by the individual models, there's that many models all bestowing instances of it on all of your Crypteks.

That makes no sense. The rules text could be exactly the same, but because it's listed at the start, suddenly it only applies once?

I'm trying to figure out how better to illustrate what I'm trying to say.

Okay, so the rule says "when near ANY of your Crypteks". So at the beginning of the game, Bob The Cryptek goes around to all the Crypteks on the board and hands them a badge that says "+1 RP if you're near me" (and keeps a badge for himself, since he's a Cryptek).
Frank the Cryptek also looks at his datasheet. ANY Cryptek, eh? Better let them all know. So Frank goes around and hands one of those badges to each of your Crypteks too.
Susan, late to work again, typical Susan, hurriedly checks her datasheet before the game starts. "when near ANY Cryptek"?! I better find all the Crypteks and let them know! So she runs around to each of the Crypteks and hands them a "+1 RP if you're near me" badge.
So now all three of your Crypteks have THREE "+1 RP if you're near me", because all three of your Crypteks are setting up the condition of being more reparable if you're near ANY Cryptek.

I see the intent in their wording, and they did succeed in making it so being near more than one Cryptek didn't help you more, but at the same time that same wording also made it so they start playing off of each other and making each more powerful, whether gathered together or isolated.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Nightbringer's Chosen wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 Nightbringer's Chosen wrote:
Yeah, I wouldn't play it that way either, Gitdakka, it'd be absurd.

Johnny, it's because the Crypteks aren't projecting an aura around themselves. They are EACH projecting an aura around EACH Cryptek on the board. So each one has an aura from each Cryptek (including themselves), and each of those auras gives +1 to RP.

In which case that’s just an incorrect parsing of the rule, sorry. Nothing says the rule works that way, so it doesn’t.

The rule on EACH Cryptek says "anyone near any of your Crypteks gets +1 RP". So it's three instances of that rule on each one.

Correct, JNA. Again, I wouldn't play it this way, it's certainly not intended, but EACH of your Poxbringers is saying that your Plaguebearers are stronger when near any of them. And, like the Technomancer thing, it doesn't matter how many Poxbringers are near your Plaguebearers, only that each of them is saying "you're stronger when you're near a Locus".

It's specifically because it's a rule on the model, which you have multiple of, rather than a rule that's just a general army rule, which there can be only one instance of.
If there was a rule, in with Living Metal and Objective Secured and Reanimation Protocols and so forth, rules that are endemic to the army rather than printed on a particular model's datacard, that was "Technomancy: Add 1 to RP rolls for any infantry units near one or more of your Crypteks", that would work perfectly functionally. There is only one instance of that rule. But because Technomancer is being carried around by the individual models, there's that many models all bestowing instances of it on all of your Crypteks.

That makes no sense. The rules text could be exactly the same, but because it's listed at the start, suddenly it only applies once?

It only gets applied once because it's only there once. But if it's on three models, each of them is enacting it.

Any of .. means 1-n crypteks can only trigger the rule once.

Except, for instance, each model has Reanimation Protocols. There are dozens of instances of that rule in a Necron Army.

Where the text is printed doesn't matter, the rule is the same.