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.

Under the INAT FAQ, the ruling regarding Crypteks/Lords and the Ghost Ark's 'Repair Barge' ability allows them to be repaired back to their unit.

If the Cryptek/Lord and/or Warriors in a unit are taken out by JotWW, can the Ghost Ark still repair them back to the unit even though they were removed from play? Or does it not matter how they were removed for the repair to happen?

The Ghost Ark cannot repair them if the Cryptek and Warriors are removed from the game. If they are still in the game, then the Ghost Ark can repair the unit.

If your question is about whether JotWW prevents a model from getting a RP or EL roll, then that is a different issue and has nothing to do with Ghost Arks. There's another thread about that already.

"if the roll is 2 or more, add d3 models to the unit" Based on the wording I don't see why you couldn't use the repair barge ability to add models back to the unit(provided at least 1 model from the unit survived) after some are removed from play as it doesn't say anything about restricting the abilities use based on the manner in which they were killed or removed from the squad.

Nemesor Dave wrote:The Ghost Ark cannot repair them if the Cryptek and Warriors are removed from the game. If they are still in the game, then the Ghost Ark can repair the unit.

If your question is about whether JotWW prevents a model from getting a RP or EL roll, then that is a different issue and has nothing to do with Ghost Arks. There's another thread about that already.

The Ghost Ark adds models, it does not bring back models that have been removed as casualties or removed from play. Even though the fluff describes it as repairing the necrons, in game terms, the models that are being added to the unit are not the same models that were removed via whatever method they were removed. It uses the exact same language as the scarab hive, the exception being that the scarab hive can take the unit above it's starting total.

Maelstrom808 wrote:
The Ghost Ark adds models, it does not bring back models that have been removed as casualties or removed from play. Even though the fluff describes it as repairing the necrons, in game terms, the models that are being added to the unit are not the same models that were removed via whatever method they were removed. It uses the exact same language as the scarab hive, the exception being that the scarab hive can take the unit above it's starting total.

That's not true at all (it is quite different from Scarab Hive).

1) It only specifies models are added back to the unit, not just Warriors (so Crypteks and Lords that were part of the unit are fair game).

2) Unlike Scarab Hive, this rule does not allow more models to be added than the unit started with.


So it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the models returned to the unit are those that have been lost already as there is no reason to assume otherwise.

yakface wrote:

Maelstrom808 wrote:
The Ghost Ark adds models, it does not bring back models that have been removed as casualties or removed from play. Even though the fluff describes it as repairing the necrons, in game terms, the models that are being added to the unit are not the same models that were removed via whatever method they were removed. It uses the exact same language as the scarab hive, the exception being that the scarab hive can take the unit above it's starting total.

That's not true at all (it is quite different from Scarab Hive).

1) It only specifies models are added back to the unit, not just Warriors (so Crypteks and Lords that were part of the unit are fair game).

2) Unlike Scarab Hive, this rule does not allow more models to be added than the unit started with.


So it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the models returned to the unit are those that have been lost already as there is no reason to assume otherwise.

1) It's as perfectly reasonable to assume that they are not those that have been lost. It says "add D3 models" not "return D3 models". Until it specifies in some manner that they are the same models, or at least uses language that tells us directly that we are returning models to the unit, there is nothing prohibiting adding models to a unit that has lost some to a RFP ability. You are prohibited from adding models beyond the starting unit size, that's all.

2) I mentioned that in my original post, which again can insinuate whatever someone wants to make of it, but via RAW it doesn't change anything in regards to adding to a unit that has lost models via a RFP ability.

By this logic if in a warrior unit there is a harbinger of destruction who has used his solar pulse, and he "dies", can I add a "new" harbinger of destruction and of course a brand new solar pulse along with him? Or maybe a harbinger of transmorfigation instead?

The added model should be the same one that was removed to avoid cases as the above...

I Dont think the Ghost arc allows you to bring back anything other than warriors though?

so you cold not bring back a fresh solar pulse

The wording of the ark is "models" not "warriors", so you can bring back any model in the unit.

Well if you want to go by "should", it really shouldn't replace crypteks and lords at all. However, by RAW yes - the situation you outlined is a possibility...at least in the case of coming back with a new solar pulse. I don't know that you could change the cryptek to a different type than what was already in there. Technically, your example unit started out with x number of warriors, one cryptek of destruction with a solar pulse upgrade, and zero transmorfigation crypteks. Adding a HoT cryptek in place of the HoD Cryptek would be adding more HoT crypteks than the unit started with, which is prohibited...at least that would be my justification for disallowing the switch over.

IMHO I think RAW is pretty clear, at least in regards to casualties from RFP abilities. However, It is poorly written enough that it leaves gaping holes in regards to the shenanigans you mentioned. Personally, I just don't bring back Lords and Crypteks with it, but I think a satisfactory compromise would be to say that it returns the same models (in the condition they were removed), but allows models to come back from RFP. I mean as long as we are making up stuff to make the rule work with at least some attempt to keep things in line, it's as good as making up the rule saying RFP doesn't work, and at least my compromise leaves some meat on the bone.

copper.talos wrote:By this logic if in a warrior unit there is a harbinger of destruction who has used his solar pulse, and he "dies", can I add a "new" harbinger of destruction and of course a brand new solar pulse along with him? Or maybe a harbinger of transmorfigation instead?

The added model should be the same one that was removed to avoid cases as the above...

No, because you can only have one per court anyway and even if they did come back with it it's already been used up.

This post was meant as an argument to show that the ark should return the specific model that died, not the opposite.

You know I just realized, the rule says you add D3 models. It doesn't specify what kind of models you add, so theoretically, you can add ANY model to the unit. Of course if a Necron player tried this I would just go "Really? OK, you win." and go find someone else to play.

Happyjew wrote:You know I just realized, the rule says you add D3 models. It doesn't specify what kind of models you add, so theoretically, you can add ANY model to the unit. Of course if a Necron player tried this I would just go "Really? OK, you win." and go find someone else to play.

Exactly. If you're trying to play by some strict RAW standpoint in this particular case the Necron player can be like...'I add D3 C'Tan to the unit' (to give a ludicrous example).

In truth, there is no RAW here. If you want to say that the Ark is purely just adding new models to the unit then you have to take the leap of logic and assume they're just talking about Warriors (which is not what the rule says) or things get absurd pretty quickly as I pointed out above.

On the other had if you're assuming that the Ghost Ark is merely adding models back that have been previously lost then again you're having to make a small logical leap because the rules aren't intuitively clear that you are returning the actual models back to the unit which is why the question of whether or not Lords & Crypteks that are part of the unit is up in the air.


When you do have a situation like this where there is no clear way to play without making logical leaps then it does become important for each person to look at the other factors that go into the creation of the rule including the purpose (fluff) behind the rule and the absurdity of playing it one way or the other.


Looking at the fluff behind the rule, it is supposed to be actually repairing models in the unit, which is why the limit of how many models can be added back to the unit is there, IMHO. So with that context in mind I don't think its unreasonable to allow the Ghost Ark to return any model that was part of the unit back into it. It fits the fluff and it works within the confines of the presented rule with only a small logical leap needed (that 'adding models to the unit' means 'adding models back to the unit that were previously lost').


Now, whether or not this ability works on models removed by JotWW is really an entirely other question (of course its the point of the thread), but its an argument really centered around the question of whether there is some sub-set of models removed from the table by abilities that makes them not casualties and what exactly that means especially for abilities that allow models to come back into play.

The only ruling GW has made on this subject (to my knowledge) involves St. Celestine. She is able to return to play when removed as a casualty yet the FAQ has indeed ruled that this is allowed against any ability that removes her from play.

Now, if you want to believe that GW is making an exception just for Celestine that's your right, but in my mind an effect that just removes a model from play has always been nebulous. People have always made the assumption that models removed this way do not count as a casualty. The problem with this stance has always been that what is or is not exactly a casualty is not something strictly defined by GW. The word is used throughout the rules colloquially instead of being rigidly defined.

So this assumption made by some people has always rankled me because it leaves so many unanswered questions. What exactly is the status of a model removed from play if they aren't casualties? Does this not cause morale checks to be taken (as those models removed aren't casualties)? How exactly should that unit be treated for regrouping purposes if it has models that are out of play but not casualties?

Therefore IMHO, I've always treated any model removed from play by any kind of attack as being removed as a casualty. Although it is clear that some rules actually say 'removed from play as a casualty' and others just say 'removed from play' I see this as a case of sloppy writing rather than any kind of deliberate intent to create some sort of shadow realm of model removal.


So yes, I think Reanimation Protocols works fine against JotWW personally, and I also think a Ghost Ark can repair models to a Warrior unit after they're removed by JotWW. And I believe that the one and only (to my knowledge) GW FAQ ruling on a similar subject (Celestine) only helps to back this position.

@ Happyjew: That's part of the rediculous loopholing I addressed in my previous post. I would say you couldn't do that because as I outlined before, whatever model you tried to swap to was not part of the original unit size. Taking a 5 man warrior unit with a plain jane HoD cryptek, the number of starting models is 6, but to be more specific, the starting unit size was 5 Necron warriors , 1 HoD Cryptek with no upgrades, and 0 of every other type of model. Let's say the unit took some casualties and you realize that it would be to your benefit to have a HoT cryptek. You can't use the Ghost Ark to add a HoT cryptek because the starting size included 0 of that model. Even though you are not going over the original number of models in the unit, you are going over the original amount of that specific model in the unit, thus breaking the rule.

@Yakface: Well, like I just explained, I do think there is a clear reason why Happy's situation doesn't work. You do hit on why I'm defending this though. I think the RFP vs. RFPaC is a silly distinction that originally came about from sloppy writting, and was jumped on by loopholers and easter egg hunters, then GW FAQ writers decided to roll with it. I'm really hoping that when 6th hits, there is a similar line in there as was in the pancake rules, which said (paraphrased) removed from play, removed from play as a casualty, destroyed, or any other description of a model leaving the table top all mean and represent the same thing as they relate to the rules.

Nevermind, lol

yakface wrote:

Happyjew wrote:You know I just realized, the rule says you add D3 models. It doesn't specify what kind of models you add, so theoretically, you can add ANY model to the unit. Of course if a Necron player tried this I would just go "Really? OK, you win." and go find someone else to play.

Exactly. If you're trying to play by some strict RAW standpoint in this particular case the Necron player can be like...'I add D3 C'Tan to the unit' (to give a ludicrous example).

You guys think to small, I would add D3 Dragios! Followed by D3 Saint Celestine.

Maybe D3 Imhotek's? What about D3 Tyrannofex's?

Happyjew wrote:Maybe D3 Imhotek's? What about D3 Tyrannofex's?

D3 obyrons.

D3 Oberons...hmmm.....

I think this thread has gotten out of hand at least D3 times.

Id ad d3 ghost arks personally. That way, next turn, each ghost ark could each add d3 ctans to the unit.

For each of the D3 times this thread has gotten out of hand, I think maybe D3 MODs should each roll a D3 to see how many D3 times this thread should be copied. In every forum.