This was a toss up to post in Tactics or Rules Questions

I found what I think is a cheesy combo.
Possibly it isn't points effective but I'm pretty sure it's legal by RAW.

Deploy second if at all possible so your opponent has some units on the board.
Deploy two units of Deathmarks and put out your HfH tokens. (The Deathmarks benefit from each others HfH tokens)
Use a Shard with Grand Illusion to put at least one Deathmark unit and possibly both into reserve.
When the Deathmarks deploy from reserve you get to put out new HfH tokens.

Combine this with a two overlord/ royal court list so you can attach double Crypteks with Tremorstaves to each Deathmark unit and you get double 36" range 2+ wounding blasts on HfH marked units.
Alternatively, go double tremorstaves in one court and veil in the other court so at least one Deathmark unit can to jump around the board.
Add Writhing Worldscape to the Shard and those Tremorstave blasts are causing dangerous terrain checks as well.

Attaching the Crypteks will make you lose Deepstrike and Ethereal Interception so maybe a Monolith would be nice to get your Deathmarks out of reserve

Anyway, do you think you can combine Grand Illusion and Hunters From Hyperspace in this way and does it make any sense to do so?

Thanks

That is a whole basket of Easter Eggs. Let's see, you may have something with multiple HfH tokens, as you specifically deploy during deployment (funny how that works), when you Deep Strike, and when you arrive from reserves via the table edge. However, 'disembarking' from the Monolith is not specifically stated as 'deploying', so getting them out of reserve that way would not garner these hypothetical 'extra' HfH tokens. It's too late to think about that other stuff.

Holy you just made my day.

RAW, it does work. They are deployed originally, which requires you to mark a unit. Then you use Grand Illusion to move them back into reserves, where they can be redeployed, triggering another opportunity to mark a unit. Since there is no provision stating that the mark is removed when the Deathmarks are, the original mark would stay.

I run two units of Harbinger of Despair & Deathmarks, and have been trying to find a reason to use a C'Tan with Writhing Worldscape and something else in the army.

You have seriously just given my army much more synergy.



For that, I give you a cookie.

I really wouldn't mind if thinking like this led to the Necrons being literally unbeatable by any other army. At least you would have combine things in a certain order and sequence that takes finesse and perhaps a little D6 luck. Unlike Gray Knights who just give you the extra S, I, A, T, etc.

Holy crap. It does work, RAW. Wow, if that doesn't get FAQ'd it's going to cause a ton of arguments.

So, 2 squads of deathmarks, a grand illusion c'tan, 2 royal courts (2 VoD) (or obyron)? Then troops and probably a scarab farm for tarpit and at?

[edited to fix my noob error]

*reads*

*dies*

You just made my day. RAW this can be done, but holy jesus I can already imagine the arguments it's going to cause. I want to run it solely to troll people, and if it gets accepted deliver delicious 2+ death to my enemies.

I wouldn't expect to ever play a second game against an opponent I used this tactic on, whether it's legal or not.

junk wrote:Holy crap. It does work, RAW. Wow, if that doesn't get FAQ'd it's going to cause a ton of arguments.

so, 3 squads of deathmarks, a grand illusion c'tan, 2 royal courts (2 VoD) and then what, obyron for a 3rd? Then troops and probably a scarab farm for tarpit and at?

Yep, except you can't run three deathmarks and a C'tan, Too many Elite slots. Also If you bring in the Scarabs you've got some options. If you go first you can do a spyder/scarab conga line. If you go second you can do your double deploy HfH trick.

You can also combo the tremorstave quake blasts to try and get your opponents vehicles to either hold still or get immobilized so the scarabs can eat them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ghenghis Jon wrote:That is a whole basket of Easter Eggs. Let's see, you may have something with multiple HfH tokens, as you specifically deploy during deployment (funny how that works), when you Deep Strike, and when you arrive from reserves via the table edge. However, 'disembarking' from the Monolith is not specifically stated as 'deploying', so getting them out of reserve that way would not garner these hypothetical 'extra' HfH tokens. It's too late to think about that other stuff.

Good call on the Monolith. That a shame though. This trick requires such a specific sequence of events and you're putting such a big chunk of your power off the table it would have been nice to have a reliable way to get them back when you need them. Orikan would help but he doesn't combo well with the list unless the FAQ confirms that Writhing Worldscape stacks with Temporal Snares. Current interpretations say no.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hey what if you put the Deathmark/Cryptek Unit in a Night Scythe to give them back deepstrike. Could you then couple it to Nemesor Zahndrekh's Phased Reinforcements rule? The wording for Phased Reinforcements is almost identical to Ethereal Interception so I'd say If you can place a HfH token using Ethereal Interception you should be able to place one when using Phased Reinforcements as well.

I do not think it works as per the rules.

The reason is redeploying with the C'tan means you never deployed there in the first place. That's the point of the illusion. Illusionary deathmarks cannot mark opponents with HtH.

If you try to use something so obviously against the spirit of the rules, you will quickly find your gaming choices limited to the few beardy gits that use such stuff. And they are usually no fun to play against, unless from time to time you get the twisted desire to make them cry by beating them at their own game. But that is like eating excrement just so that the other guy eats it too.

Necrontyr40k wrote:I do not think it works as per the rules.

The reason is redeploying with the C'tan means you never deployed there in the first place. That's the point of the illusion. Illusionary deathmarks cannot mark opponents with HtH.

If you try to use something so obviously against the spirit of the rules, you will quickly find your gaming choices limited to the few beardy gits that use such stuff. And they are usually no fun to play against, unless from time to time you get the twisted desire to make them cry by beating them at their own game. But that is like eating excrement just so that the other guy eats it too.

It may not be RAI but I do think it's RAW. I mostly play with friends and we don't mind a little face beating / nasty combos from time to time. I'd would never use this trick regularly but it might be fun to break out occasionally.

Here's a 2000 pt list

HQ
Nemesor Zahndrekh
Royal Court 2x T-mog Crypteks
w tremorstaves

Vargard Obyron

Overlord [Phaeron]
Royal Court 2x T-mog Crypteks
w tremorstaves

Troops
2 x 9 Warriors

Elites
C’tan Shard
w Grand Illusion and Writhing Worldscape

2x 7 Deathmarks
1 w a Night Scythe

Fast Atack
3x3 Canoptek Scarabs

Heavy Support
2x2 Canoptek Spyders
2 with Gloom cookies

Monolith

Double up T-mog Cyrpteks in each Deathmark unit and attach Obyron to one for Ghostwalk mantle-veiling. Zahndrekh or the Overlord can go either with the other squad of D-marks or with some warriors to give them either relentless or the res-orb. You've also got a small scarab farm and some anti-psychic Gloom. The Monolith and Night Scythe give you some mobility and flexibility. Zandrekh and the Monolith will make sure you can get the D-marks on the board in an emergency though you won't get your extra HfH tokens.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Something else awesome. You would NEVER do this on purpose, but If you happen to Deepstrike mishap with Obyron and the D-marks and get put in reserve you'd get to put out ANOTHER HfH token when you come back on the board!

Sure Seems to work RAW wise.

I personally don't think I could do this and feel comfortable in a game though.

Be careful people, you're treading TFG waters.

Let's say it does work, is it really that good?
Death Marks have to be so close to be effective, it doesn't seem like they are going to last long enough to take advantage of a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th marked unit.

-Matt

My question is, would this be any good against mech, GK, Orks, wolves or BA? Your sniper weapons dont have a great mathhammer chance of killing armor 11 and 12. You have a scarab squad but if they get hit in combat by a good CC unit (mephiston, Thrakka, THSS, GKs, Furioso, Cav etc etc) then theyre pretty much gone. Ive seen that this army doesnt have an over abundance of big tank killing guns and for me that seems to be a problem.

Cyrax wrote:Be careful people, you're treading TFG waters.

Even if all of these shenanigans worked at the highest possible success rate, the player would have units in reserve during his turn and not throwing dice. And who knows how all of this together would work out, or how competitive it would be. There is a difference between being TFG and just trying out combos. I try new stuff all the time that other players have never seen before, but that does not mean I am trying to create an unfair advantage, just having fun, you know, playing a game.

I think that guy status is earned when they try to rules lawyer the hell outta you and not be too concerned when he happens to "forget" one on his turn.

Necrontyr40k wrote:I do not think it works as per the rules.

The reason is redeploying with the C'tan means you never deployed there in the first place. That's the point of the illusion. Illusionary deathmarks cannot mark opponents with HtH.

If you try to use something so obviously against the spirit of the rules, you will quickly find your gaming choices limited to the few beardy gits that use such stuff. And they are usually no fun to play against, unless from time to time you get the twisted desire to make them cry by beating them at their own game. But that is like eating excrement just so that the other guy eats it too.

Yes, you did deploy. Grand Illusion takes place after scout moves have been made, which is well after deployment. So you deploy, there are scout moves, then you put the Deathmarks back into reserves, and eventually they will get redeployed again. That is two full deployments.

Ghenghis Jon wrote:

Cyrax wrote:Be careful people, you're treading TFG waters.

Even if all of these shenanigans worked at the highest possible success rate, the player would have units in reserve during his turn and not throwing dice. And who knows how all of this together would work out, or how competitive it would be. There is a difference between being TFG and just trying out combos. I try new stuff all the time that other players have never seen before, but that does not mean I am trying to create an unfair advantage, just having fun, you know, playing a game.

Sorry did not mean to call anyone TFG. Just wanted to warn you that, you might get called one, because there is a false belief that all new codices are always the best and there are people who claim Necrons to be already OP.

Kemen'tep wrote:Something else awesome. You would NEVER do this on purpose, but If you happen to Deepstrike mishap with Obyron and the D-marks and get put in reserve you'd get to put out ANOTHER HfH token when you come back on the board!

This won't work, because the mishap'd unit never actually did deploy- they never made it to the board. Hence, the mishap. But I like where you're trying to go with this.

HawaiiMatt wrote:Let's say it does work, is it really that good?
Death Marks have to be so close to be effective, it doesn't seem like they are going to last long enough to take advantage of a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th marked unit.

-Matt

If you pick your targets carefully, I've found that they work great as infantry/elite sweepers. 1x Harbinger of Despair and 5x Deathmarks will usually take out 6-8 marines in one round of shooting.

Ghenghis Jon wrote:

Cyrax wrote:Be careful people, you're treading TFG waters.

Even if all of these shenanigans worked at the highest possible success rate, the player would have units in reserve during his turn and not throwing dice. And who knows how all of this together would work out, or how competitive it would be. There is a difference between being TFG and just trying out combos. I try new stuff all the time that other players have never seen before, but that does not mean I am trying to create an unfair advantage, just having fun, you know, playing a game.

I don't think it makes you TFG. It's more about what your play style is. The people I regularly play with know that I love to use crazy gambits and am willing to VoD into insane situations, so this suits my play style perfectly. I think TFG is more of a label for people that intentionally misread rules.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cyrax wrote:

Ghenghis Jon wrote:

Cyrax wrote:Be careful people, you're treading TFG waters.

Even if all of these shenanigans worked at the highest possible success rate, the player would have units in reserve during his turn and not throwing dice. And who knows how all of this together would work out, or how competitive it would be. There is a difference between being TFG and just trying out combos. I try new stuff all the time that other players have never seen before, but that does not mean I am trying to create an unfair advantage, just having fun, you know, playing a game.

Sorry did not mean to call anyone TFG. Just wanted to warn you that, you might get called one, because there is a false belief that all new codices are always the best and there are people who claim Necrons to be already OP.

No offense taken. I think the Necrons are becoming a lot more competitive than they were, but even with the synergy, I'm not really getting a sense of them being in any way OP, just because any given nasty trick the Necrons can come up with seems to be expensive enough that you have to build an army around it, and that will always make things much more situational than, say, GK or IG. I really do think that Necrons are going to be just slightly behind DE.

RAW, not RAI... and a serious chance at becoming TFG.

Though, this really makes me want to include Deathmarks in my army!

Wonder what'll happen when Darrell at Beasts of War hears about this?

azazel the cat wrote:

Yes, you did deploy. Grand Illusion takes place after scout moves have been made, which is well after deployment. So you deploy, there are scout moves, then you put the Deathmarks back into reserves, and eventually they will get redeployed again. That is two full deployments.

So, why is it called GRAND ILLUSION then? Why not say C'tan TELEPORTS them unerringly instead?

Regardless, if it does turn out to be RAW, but it so obviously is not RAI, the (ab)user becomes TFG. And I have no patience or game time for TFG. There are plenty of decent honorable players to have fun games with instead.

This sounds like the people who refused to play against anyone usinf JotWW. lol

HawaiiMatt wrote:Let's say it does work, is it really that good?
Death Marks have to be so close to be effective, it doesn't seem like they are going to last long enough to take advantage of a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th marked unit.

-Matt

True, but those tremorstave blasts from the attached Crypteks will be benefiting from the HfH tokens as well, so you've got some 36" range blasts that wound on a 2+. That's about as good as you can get range-wise with Necrons. On top of that they cause difficult terrain checks (dangerous if you add Wraithing Worldscape). You could always put the Phaeron Overlord in with the Deathmarks as well to make sure they're getting their full 24" range all the time with Relentless.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chosen Praetorian wrote:My question is, would this be any good against mech, GK, Orks, wolves or BA? Your sniper weapons dont have a great mathhammer chance of killing armor 11 and 12. You have a scarab squad but if they get hit in combat by a good CC unit (mephiston, Thrakka, THSS, GKs, Furioso, Cav etc etc) then theyre pretty much gone. Ive seen that this army doesnt have an over abundance of big tank killing guns and for me that seems to be a problem.

This is a gimmick list so you're not wrong but I don't think you're defenseless against tanks either. Hopefully some will get immobilized by the tremorstaves which would let the scarabs entropic strike them to death. Spyders and C'tan aren't too shabby at cracking tanks either, particularly ones that haven't moved. The particle whip aint what it used to be but it isn't terriible against tanks, also the Nemesor can give one friendly unit a turn tank hunter so you can get one more point on your pen roll. I suppose you could put Eldrich lances in the second court but they won't combo as well with HfH and you'd need to make some points room.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

azazel the cat wrote:

Kemen'tep wrote:Something else awesome. You would NEVER do this on purpose, but If you happen to Deepstrike mishap with Obyron and the D-marks and get put in reserve you'd get to put out ANOTHER HfH token when you come back on the board!

This won't work, because the mishap'd unit never actually did deploy- they never made it to the board. Hence, the mishap. But I like where you're trying to go with this.

Oh, I wasn't clear. I totally agree that if you mishap during deployment no token goes out, but if your Obyron unit is already on the board from a successful deployment and then you mishap into reserve during a veil move you would get to put out an extra HfH token when you deploy back out of reserve.

Kemen'tep wrote:Oh, I wasn't clear. I totally agree that if you mishap during deployment no token goes out, but if your Obyron unit is already on the board from a successful deployment and then you mishap into reserve during a veil move you would get to put out an extra HfH token when you deploy back out of reserve.

Oh, yeah, I get it now. Yeah, that would definitely work, and is very, very devious. And as I said, synergizes very nicely with my balls-to-the-wall VoD play style. (I love attempting to VoD onto CoD ledges. Direct hit or else mishap, no in-between!)

You are brilliant, and I think I am going to have to steal all your ideas and pretend that they are my own.

Necrontyr40k wrote:So, why is it called GRAND ILLUSION then? Why not say C'tan TELEPORTS them unerringly instead?

The motives of the C'Tan are beyond our understanding.

Necrontyr40k wrote:Regardless, if it does turn out to be RAW, but it so obviously is not RAI, the (ab)user becomes TFG. And I have no patience or game time for TFG. There are plenty of decent honorable players to have fun games with instead.

I find it very arrogant to believe that you alone possess the necessary insight to determine exactly what the intention behind a rule is. RAI, when not explicitly stated by GW, is merely your own subjective interpretation, and you have effectively just said that you will not play against anyone that does not share your narrow worldview. And that makes YOU TFG.

Seriously, it's not some major game breaking cheese; it's a clever exploit that requires a hefty investment and a favorable random outcome in order to take full advantage of. The benefit is negligible and not at all over powered.

It's a cool way to take advantage of some unforeseen synergy in the codex, if it happens to coincide with your game plan, then by all means use it; you get into dicey territory only because it's something that may not appear in the faq and people on the receiving end of it aren't going to be thrilled about it, so arguments will occur.

It's definitely cool and innovative, so +1 to the OP for coming up with it.

props to the OP for noticing that. RAW seems to support it.

I gotta say though...If I was gonna bet on it I would bet its not RAI.

It will probably get a FAQ.

I could see this being debated in my playgroup, but I dont think anyone I know wants to play it and be TFG...

Dear lord... Let the apocalypse begin...

The more I think about it, the more this isn't 'broken'. The RAW is pretty clear, but the RAI isn't. This may be intended! Tremorstaves makes it a little crazy. Sure, you are hitting on a 2+, but there are tactics that can be used to reduce the damage a blast can do. I can't think of an army that would be completely hosed by this (excepting maybe Dragiowing paladins)...

If I'm a space marine player, and I see that my opponent has Deathmarks and a C'Tan... you'd better believe that I'm going to combat squad in order to make the HfH less effective.

azazel the cat wrote:

Kemen'tep wrote:Oh, I wasn't clear. I totally agree that if you mishap during deployment no token goes out, but if your Obyron unit is already on the board from a successful deployment and then you mishap into reserve during a veil move you would get to put out an extra HfH token when you deploy back out of reserve.

Oh, yeah, I get it now. Yeah, that would definitely work, and is very, very devious. And as I said, synergizes very nicely with my balls-to-the-wall VoD play style. (I love attempting to VoD onto CoD ledges. Direct hit or else mishap, no in-between!)

You are brilliant, and I think I am going to have to steal all your ideas and pretend that they are my own.

Hey Azazel I've been thinking of a C'tan-less list variant based on your play style.

I'm calling it a "Hunting Accident" list.

So don't take a C'tan. This opens up that third elites slot for another unit of D-marks. This way you know you'll get to put out at least three HfH tokens. Take the Nemesor/Obyron/Overlord combo to get two courts and the Ghostwalk Mantle. For each court go triple Despair Crypteks with Abyssal Staffs and one with VoD. D-mark units one and two each get an Overlord or The Nemesor, an Abyssal staff Cryptek and a VoD Cryptek. Obyron goes with the third D-mark unit with the remaining two staff Crypteks. So all three units are veiling with two templates. You've got to be right in the other units face to get full use of the 2+ wounding, AP1 templates but that's to your advantage since you have an increased chance to mishap into reserve to get that extra HfH token when you re-deploy. Bring a few Night Scythes to load your D-mark units into to regain Deepstrike and combo with the Nemesor's "phased reinforcements"

You could always add something else to the courts if you want some close combat protection.

Just think if The Nemesor rolls up on a HfH marked unit Obyron can pin point Veil to any spot within 6 inches of him and bring FOUR 2+ wounding AP1 templates plus all the Deathmark shots and just annihilate the target.

At first I was thinking go small on the D-mark unit size since the tactic is so inherently risky but I say just go for it. Load em up with as many D-marks as you can afford.

I'm pretty sure the disembarking rules are phrased as deploy within 2" of a hatch. So you could possibly skip the mishap step and just keep embarking and disembarking from a Nightscythe.

Chrysis wrote:I'm pretty sure the disembarking rules are phrased as deploy within 2" of a hatch. So you could possibly skip the mishap step and just keep embarking and disembarking from a Nightscythe.

The wormhole gateway uses "embark and disembark" language rather than "deploy" language so that's a no go....BUT the Night Scythe transport rule says that If the Night Scythe is destroyed any embarked units go into reserve. That's a much safer way to get your D-marks back into reserve for an extra HfH token than a Deepstrike mishap.

Right, but don't the actual rules for disembarking use the deploy language? So when looking to find out how disembark works it tells you to deploy models? Or are the Nightscythe disembark rules comprehensive in the codex?

I don't have my books on hand, I'm just running off memory.

Chrysis wrote:Right, but don't the actual rules for disembarking use the deploy language? So when looking to find out how disembark works it tells you to deploy models? Or are the Nightscythe disembark rules comprehensive in the codex?

I don't have my books on hand, I'm just running off memory.

you're right! That's some dirty dirty pool

p 67 of the small rule book
"When a unit disembarks, each model is deployed within 2" of one of the vehicles access points, and within unit coherency"

p36 Necron Codex
Hunters from Hyperspace
"When a Deathmark unit deploys, choose a non-vehicle enemy unit on the battlefield (even a unit in a transport) to be their prey - place a counter next to the unit to serve as a reminder..."

Now is deploying models the same as deploying units?

Kemen'tep wrote:

Chrysis wrote:Right, but don't the actual rules for disembarking use the deploy language? So when looking to find out how disembark works it tells you to deploy models? Or are the Nightscythe disembark rules comprehensive in the codex?

I don't have my books on hand, I'm just running off memory.

you're right! That's some dirty dirty pool

p 67 of the small rule book
"When a unit disembarks, each model is deployed within 2" of one of the vehicles access points, and within unit coherency"

p36 Necron Codex
Hunters from Hyperspace
"When a Deathmark unit deploys, choose a non-vehicle enemy unit on the battlefield (even a unit in a transport) to be their prey - place a counter next to the unit to serve as a reminder..."

Now is deploying models the same as deploying units?

Holy jumpin Jeeeezus on a pogo stick!!!!
My game tomorrow just got REALLY interesting! lol

So run two or three units of Deathmarks and 1 nightscythe. Two of the Deathmark units stick relatively close, and each turn one disembarks from the Nightscythe while the other embarks. Thus 1 extra counter per turn, and a hard cover rulebook to the face for being a jammy git.

dang, that is intense

Cross-posted from the rule guys
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/417580.page

DeathReaper wrote:As above, But with a reason:

deploying models is not the same as deploying units.

You deploy units before the game starts. this is very specific language in the BRB

The disembarking rules tell you how the unit disembarks by deploying the models within etc...

Two totally different things.

Honestly it's for the best. The other HfH tricks, (Grand Illusion on deploy second, Deepstrike mishap into reserve, embarked in a destroyed Night Scythe) each require both luck and have an in game cost. The disembark=deploy would have been all benefit at no cost, but it doesn't look like it's RAW anyway so it's no bid deal.

Kemen'tep wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:

Kemen'tep wrote:Oh, I wasn't clear. I totally agree that if you mishap during deployment no token goes out, but if your Obyron unit is already on the board from a successful deployment and then you mishap into reserve during a veil move you would get to put out an extra HfH token when you deploy back out of reserve.

Oh, yeah, I get it now. Yeah, that would definitely work, and is very, very devious. And as I said, synergizes very nicely with my balls-to-the-wall VoD play style. (I love attempting to VoD onto CoD ledges. Direct hit or else mishap, no in-between!)

You are brilliant, and I think I am going to have to steal all your ideas and pretend that they are my own.

Hey Azazel I've been thinking of a C'tan-less list variant based on your play style.

I'm calling it a "Hunting Accident" list.

So don't take a C'tan. This opens up that third elites slot for another unit of D-marks. This way you know you'll get to put out at least three HfH tokens. Take the Nemesor/Obyron/Overlord combo to get two courts and the Ghostwalk Mantle. For each court go triple Despair Crypteks with Abyssal Staffs and one with VoD. D-mark units one and two each get an Overlord or The Nemesor, an Abyssal staff Cryptek and a VoD Cryptek. Obyron goes with the third D-mark unit with the remaining two staff Crypteks. So all three units are veiling with two templates. You've got to be right in the other units face to get full use of the 2+ wounding, AP1 templates but that's to your advantage since you have an increased chance to mishap into reserve to get that extra HfH token when you re-deploy. Bring a few Night Scythes to load your D-mark units into to regain Deepstrike and combo with the Nemesor's "phased reinforcements"

You could always add something else to the courts if you want some close combat protection.

Just think if The Nemesor rolls up on a HfH marked unit Obyron can pin point Veil to any spot within 6 inches of him and bring FOUR 2+ wounding AP1 templates plus all the Deathmark shots and just annihilate the target.

At first I was thinking go small on the D-mark unit size since the tactic is so inherently risky but I say just go for it. Load em up with as many D-marks as you can afford.

This was the first idea that came to my mind, too. But I tend to create very conservative lists, and just play them like a crazy person. And I actually prefer versatility rather than rocking out on a single combo like this. Currently the list I'm going to try out this weekend can be found here: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/417086.page#3685682

We'll have to see what kinda tweaks it takes. Currently I'm really looking forward to seeing what kind of synergy the C'Tan option will bring. I really like the idea of my opponent being stuck in the dark, slowed to a crawl and having to deal with the Deathmarks bouncing all over the place. I've been using the Deathmarks-Despair combo from the get-go and have had great success with it. (and when they get assaulted, they do just fine because the unit that assaults them is typically the marked unit that they just shot to pieces, so it's usually just a model or two against the full Deathmark unit, that still hits & wounds in CC on a 2+) I'm debating adding a Harbinger of Transmogrification to each Deathmark unit as well, just because it would lend a different kind of template and add even more synergy with the C'Tan.

I love the idea of using Zandrekh & Obyron in order to get a 3rd teleporter, but they're just too expensive and I would have to base the entire army around it. And as you can see, I'm quite attached to my Destroyer wings.

Kudos for discovering the tactic. Nice to see different tactics and ideas come out of codexes rather then the standard ideas done ad nausem.

The point of the token is to know who the deathmarks (and anyone with them) get to wound on a 2+ right? I dont see whats wrong with it. RAW seems fine to me. I do not think its cheese at all. Sternguard Veterans can wound any unit on a 2+ (hellfire rounds) no tokens needed.

This is not a "tactic", and does not deserve "kudos". This is an exploit in the RAW.

That being said, it is not a terribly overpowered exploit, so I wouldn't refuse to play against it.

Nate668 wrote:This is not a "tactic", and does not deserve "kudos". This is an exploit in the RAW.

That being said, it is not a terribly overpowered exploit, so I wouldn't refuse to play against it.

Do please share with me your definition of both "tactic" and "exploit".

I'm not saying that I fully disagree with you, I just don't make as much of a distinction between the two. For example, three units of Long Fangs are no more a tactic than an exploitation of an undercosted unit.

EDIT: But I do disagree with on the the 'kudos'. Kemen'Tep found a neat trick whose craftiness is on par with the Writhing Worldscape + Tremorstave combo. Which, under your definition, would also constitute an exploit rather than a tactic. So unless your definition of 'tactic' is simply getting a stronger unit to fight a weaker unit, then he most definitely DOES deserve some praise here. And if that is your definition of 'tactic', then any game more complex than War with a deck of playing cards is not the game for you.

Fair enough. I suppose exploiting the wording of RAW against the fluff of a rule and more than likely RAI could be considered a tactic.

Nate668 wrote:Fair enough. I suppose exploiting the wording of RAW against the fluff of a rule and more than likely RAI could be considered a tactic.

Only after you explain how this goes against the fluff of the rule, and then explain how you know that it's not as intended.

azazel the cat wrote:

Nate668 wrote:Fair enough. I suppose exploiting the wording of RAW against the fluff of a rule and more than likely RAI could be considered a tactic.

Only after you explain how this goes against the fluff of the rule, and then explain how you know that it's not as intended.

I don't know who you think you are, but I do not owe you an explanation. Read HfH and Grand Illusion and decide for yourself if this interaction of the rules makes any sense at all.

Nate668 wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:

Nate668 wrote:Fair enough. I suppose exploiting the wording of RAW against the fluff of a rule and more than likely RAI could be considered a tactic.

Only after you explain how this goes against the fluff of the rule, and then explain how you know that it's not as intended.

I don't know who you think you are, but I do not owe you an explanation. Read HfH and Grand Illusion and decide for yourself if this interaction of the rules makes any sense at all.

You made a statement, it requires an explanation if people are to take it seriously. For example:

You are wrong. I do not owe you an explanation.

For the record, I wouldn't use this tactic all the time, or even often. Maybe as a once off in a friendly game, because it can be fun to mess with people's heads and testing out imaginative tactical moves like this is part of the fun of the game.

Nate668 wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:

Nate668 wrote:Fair enough. I suppose exploiting the wording of RAW against the fluff of a rule and more than likely RAI could be considered a tactic.

Only after you explain how this goes against the fluff of the rule, and then explain how you know that it's not as intended.

I don't know who you think you are, but I do not owe you an explanation. Read HfH and Grand Illusion and decide for yourself if this interaction of the rules makes any sense at all.

I think I'm a guy that read the rules for HRH and Grand Illusion, and thinks it makes perfect sense.

I do apologize if my last comment came off as hostile, it really wasn't mean to be. However, if you're going to claim something is against RAI, then yes you do owe an explanation. Otherwise I can just claim that I know what the RAI are, and not you, and then we both fall into an argument that is nothing more than "uh-huh! vs. nuh-uh!"

Anyway, think of Grand Illusion as a magic trick: Ziegfried puts the lady in the cage and covers it. Then he removes the cover, and the lady is no longer in the cage. Instead, she appears sitting atop a tiger on a plinth. Just because she didn't end the trick in the cage, doesn't mean she was never there.

I guess my issue is that unlike most people who post on forums, I have no desire to argue with strangers, and am perfectly happy to state my opinion and be done with it. I also do not believe that any of you actually think this is RAI, so I do not feel that an explanation is necessary.

However, if you insist, these are my premises.

HfH represents the unit selecting a target for assassination.

Grand deception represents the shard either tricking the enemy into believing the unit is present on (or absent from) the battlefield, OR teleports the unit onto/off of the battlefield.

There is no logical explanation that i can come up with for how this action of the shard causes the deathmarks to suddenly choose multiple targets when they normally choose a single target.

Nate668 wrote:I guess my issue is that unlike most people who post on forums, I have no desire to argue with strangers, and am perfectly happy to state my opinion and be done with it. I also do not believe that any of you actually think this is RAI, so I do not feel that an explanation is necessary.

However, if you insist, these are my premises.

HfH represents the unit selecting a target for assassination.

Grand deception represents the shard either tricking the enemy into believing the unit is present on (or absent from) the battlefield, OR teleports the unit onto/off of the battlefield.

There is no logical explanation that i can come up with for how this action of the shard causes the deathmarks to suddenly choose multiple targets when they normally choose a single target.

"Deathmark! Go kill Mephiston!" Bellowed the Overlord, his eyes glowing sickly green as he addressed the squad of Deathmarks standing at attention before him.
"Yes sir." Replied the Deathmark squad leader. This was business as usual for the Deathmarks; just another day at the office. Except, when you're a Deathmark, all your days at the office smelled like cordite and sorrow. Not dwelling on his task any further, the Deathmark squad leader hefted the rifle in his hands and set off with his unit to find their prey. The battlefield was rough and craggy underfoot, and the squad leader knew that soon the pock-marked ground would be covered in small pools of Mephiston's blood. Suddenly, the battle-strewn world vanished in a flash of green, only to reappear again. It only took a moment for the squad leader to compute his location and triangulate his bearings again. He was off the battlefield, amongst the countless squads being held back from the opening of the soon-to-begin battle. This had happened before; each time the Overlords had changed their minds; revised their strategy.
"Deathmark!" Bellowed the Overlord, as he had done so many times before. "There is a new target for you. Go kill Lemartes and those jumping idiots that follow him around. You will deal with Mephiston later."
"Yes sir." Answered the Deathmark squad leader, as he once again set off with his unit to find their prey. Today would be a busy day.

azazel the cat wrote:

Nate668 wrote:I guess my issue is that unlike most people who post on forums, I have no desire to argue with strangers, and am perfectly happy to state my opinion and be done with it. I also do not believe that any of you actually think this is RAI, so I do not feel that an explanation is necessary.

However, if you insist, these are my premises.

HfH represents the unit selecting a target for assassination.

Grand deception represents the shard either tricking the enemy into believing the unit is present on (or absent from) the battlefield, OR teleports the unit onto/off of the battlefield.

There is no logical explanation that i can come up with for how this action of the shard causes the deathmarks to suddenly choose multiple targets when they normally choose a single target.

"Deathmark! Go kill Mephiston!" Bellowed the Overlord, his eyes glowing sickly green as he addressed the squad of Deathmarks standing at attention before him.
"Yes sir." Replied the Deathmark squad leader. This was business as usual for the Deathmarks; just another day at the office. Except, when you're a Deathmark, all your days at the office smelled like cordite and sorrow. Not dwelling on his task any further, the Deathmark squad leader hefted the rifle in his hands and set off with his unit to find their prey. The battlefield was rough and craggy underfoot, and the squad leader knew that soon the pock-marked ground would be covered in small pools of Mephiston's blood. Suddenly, the battle-strewn world vanished in a flash of green, only to reappear again. It only took a moment for the squad leader to compute his location and triangulate his bearings again. He was off the battlefield, amongst the countless squads being held back from the opening of the soon-to-begin battle. This had happened before; each time the Overlords had changed their minds; revised their strategy.
"Deathmark!" Bellowed the Overlord, as he had done so many times before. "There is a new target for you. Go kill Lemartes and those jumping idiots that follow him around. You will deal with Mephiston later."
"Yes sir." Answered the Deathmark squad leader, as he once again set off with his unit to find their prey. Today would be a busy day.

Nice. I approve.

Thank you.

Ignoring the terrible excuse for an explanation above.

Looked up the description for Grand Illusion. It says "The C'Tan Shard weaves a glamour of deception, preventing from seeing the true disposition of the Necron forces."

Seems to me "preventing from seeing the true disposition" does not equal "teleports onto/off of battlefield before combat" But it is pointless to argue fluff, as azazel has shown.

OP, this is all that I wanted you to take from my posts: I personally do not like this idea, I would like a person who tried to do this a little less than I otherwise would, and if you actually took the time to read the background information, I think you would agree that this is not RAI. If your friends enjoy this kind of stuff, more power to you.

Nate668 wrote:Ignoring the terrible excuse for an explanation above.

Looked up the description for Grand Illusion. It says "The C'Tan Shard weaves a glamour of deception, preventing from seeing the true disposition of the Necron forces."

Seems to me "preventing from seeing the true disposition" does not equal "teleports onto/off of battlefield before combat" But it is pointless to argue fluff, as azazel has shown.

OP, this is all that I wanted you to take from my posts: I personally do not like this idea, I would like a person who tried to do this a little less than I otherwise would, and if you actually took the time to read the background information, I think you would agree that this is not RAI. If your friends enjoy this kind of stuff, more power to you.

So exactly how does my Ziegfried & Roy explanation now suffice here? It seems to answer you perfectly.

azazel the cat wrote:

Nate668 wrote:Ignoring the terrible excuse for an explanation above.

Looked up the description for Grand Illusion. It says "The C'Tan Shard weaves a glamour of deception, preventing from seeing the true disposition of the Necron forces."

Seems to me "preventing from seeing the true disposition" does not equal "teleports onto/off of battlefield before combat" But it is pointless to argue fluff, as azazel has shown.

OP, this is all that I wanted you to take from my posts: I personally do not like this idea, I would like a person who tried to do this a little less than I otherwise would, and if you actually took the time to read the background information, I think you would agree that this is not RAI. If your friends enjoy this kind of stuff, more power to you.

So exactly how does my Ziegfried & Roy explanation now suffice here? It seems to answer you perfectly.

If your "fluff" fit into cannon, how would you explain that HfH can typically only mark a single target per battle? If all it takes is and overlord saying "Get 'em", then why not mark every enemy? Also, as my previous post states, the fluff behind the deceivers rule does not suggest teleporting units to or from the battlefield.

This argument is a waste of time and I won't participate in it any further.

Nate668 wrote:This argument is a waste of time and I won't participate in it any further.

Thank GOD!!!

Maybe the C'Tan confused the enemy long enough for the death marks to mark an additional target.

Really, to debate RAI, please explain to me how 10 death marks can only mark 1 unit, but if you take the same 10 guys, and have them stand in two groups of 5, you can mark 2 units.

I'm still not convinced death marks are worth 19 points, especially with a 100 point transport that you keep hopping into and out of for more marks.

Each turn jumping around is a turn you aren't firing.
-Matt

HawaiiMatt wrote:Maybe the C'Tan confused the enemy long enough for the death marks to mark an additional target.

Really, to debate RAI, please explain to me how 10 death marks can only mark 1 unit, but if you take the same 10 guys, and have them stand in two groups of 5, you can mark 2 units.

I'm still not convinced death marks are worth 19 points, especially with a 100 point transport that you keep hopping into and out of for more marks.

Each turn jumping around is a turn you aren't firing.
-Matt

I'm not a fan of the transport option, either. I'd prefer to field 2 Deathmark units, and then run Grand Illusion. That way I get to mark 2-4 units. And since I include a VoD in each unit, a mishap has the potential to mark yet more units. They're not the core element to my army; more like just one hard-hitting trick that works nicely with the rest.

couldnt you use a monolith. "Dimensional corridor" states "That unit immediately phases out from its current position and 'disembarks' from the monoliths portal".

Just constantly teleport them through the monolith

Xlotl,
HfHS says, "Deploy"... and the Monolith text isn't 'deploy', whereas the Night Scythe is.

While it works, I think you could use points more effectively elsewhere. I also prefer the Abysal staff over tremor with deathmarks if nothing for the pure joy of no cover, ap1 S8 wounds on a 2+ against the marked squad.

Has it been worked out whether or not the s8 of the abyssal staff counts towards Toughness for instant death purposes, even though it wounds on Ld?

There are other weapons that wound on LD instead of T, and they've been FAQed to ID based on LD.

I am not sure what FAQ weapon rigeld2 is talking about but Abysal staff does ID T4 models even though you roll to wound against LD. Pretty simple RAW. The HFH rule allows it to wound on 2+ against the marked squad which is nice with an AP1 flamer that IDs.

ooh quite beardy... "mind blown"

it shows the value of thinking laterally from a tactical standpoint...


the necron codex will need a lot of FAQ action before I commit to buying models at Australian prices

The Abyssal Staff is pretty straightforward RAW: It has a Strength of 8. That means it will ID anything with a Toughness of 4 or less, should the model take an unsaved wound.

The fact that it rolls to wound against Leadership rather than Toughness does not change the ID rule.

@Rigeld2: I have no idea what FAQ you are talking about.

So we have yet another counter to nob bikerz, obliterators, tyranid warriors, and all the other pesky multi-wound T4 units out there...given we can get a good scatter roll with our VOD deep strike that is.

3 FAQs that could screw deathmarks.

Does hunters from hyperspace apply to court characters or IC inside a squad of deathmarks?

Does Redeployment with grand illusion allow deathmarks to place another token?

Does the Abyssal staff ID based on Toughness or Leadership?

That being said going balls out on purchasing deathmarks and painting them to tournament levels runs the risk of severe disappointment when the FAQs come out. That and until the FAQs come out I'm not sure I would try running deathmarks in a tournament. When going up against TFG there are 3 FAQ rules he can debate, and who knows that the TO will decide. GW already FAQ'd that if rules contradict roll a 4+, so a busy or apathetic TO might just say roll off. If TFG knows what he is doing he will probably go right for the throat and contest that attached court characters are not deathmarks thus do not wound on a 2+. Is the arguement full of gak? Arguably yes it is full of gak, but it might work on a TO that is POd at Matt Ward.

My #1 point is arguing the rules here is pointless, because it doesn't change the fact that a rule has not been FAQ'd. As long as there is a debate there is a chance of loosing the debate even if your rules interpretation is the correct one.

schadenfreude wrote:3 FAQs that could screw deathmarks.

Does hunters from hyperspace apply to court characters or IC inside a squad of deathmarks?

Does Redeployment with grand illusion allow deathmarks to place another token?

Does the Abyssal staff ID based on Toughness or Leadership?

That being said going balls out on purchasing deathmarks and painting them to tournament levels runs the risk of severe disappointment when the FAQs come out. That and until the FAQs come out I'm not sure I would try running deathmarks in a tournament. When going up against TFG there are 3 FAQ rules he can debate, and who knows that the TO will decide. GW already FAQ'd that if rules contradict roll a 4+, so a busy or apathetic TO might just say roll off. If TFG knows what he is doing he will probably go right for the throat and contest that attached court characters are not deathmarks thus do not wound on a 2+. Is the arguement full of gak? Arguably yes it is full of gak, but it might work on a TO that is POd at Matt Ward.

My #1 point is arguing the rules here is pointless, because it doesn't change the fact that a rule has not been FAQ'd. As long as there is a debate there is a chance of loosing the debate even if your rules interpretation is the correct one.

1. Hunters From Hyperspace absolutely covers the entire unit, and since the Cryptek joins the unit, the Cryptek gains Hunters From Hyperspace. You can tell TFG to read the codex, it is exceptionally clear on pg. 36 & 90. RAW it is not debatable. I truly believe that there is no way in Hell that this will be FAQ'd away, simply based on how clear the rule actually is. So far, every debate about this rule has boiled down to one thing: someone doesn't like that fact that this works, and tries to muddy the waters by claiming that the Space Wolves codex has a special FAQ about Scout moves. At this point, that argument is so stupid it is making me physically tired, considering how irrelevant it is and how clear the rules are within the confines of the Necron codex.

2. RAW, yes. Again, read the actual rule on pg. 30 and you'll see that Deathmarks get to mark a unit when they are deployed. If they are deployed twice, then they can mark two units. If this gets FAQ's away, it would be only to prevent a clever trick from being exploited. This rule, I think has a 50-50 chance of being FAQ'd away. However, this shouldn't affect anything, as I've pulled this off and found that it takes too much time and effort to bother with it, as I prefer my Deathmarks to wipe units such as Devastators out before they can do an damage, which I cannot do if the Deathmarks are in reserve, as they cannot deep strike into play when a Cryptek is attached (that is in the BGB FAQ, plain as day).

3. It IDs on Toughness, just like everything else in the game. The Abyssal Staff specifies that it wounds against Leadership. However, the ID rule is not mentioned, and therefore not affected. Thus, when we read the unchallenged ID rule, we see that it says it works against the Toughness and makes no mention of anything else. Again, very clearly RAW. This one is also 50-50 about being FAQ'd away, but honestly the Deathmark strike is still viable without this element, as I seldom find multi-wound models in my marks.

However, you are right, there is no FAQ yet and these could all get FAQ's in favour of the people who are either mouth-breathers and unable to figure out these obvious rules or else who have all become TFG themselves and simply want to take away the Necron's toys out of spite. However, I seriously doubt that GW will wreck the Deathmark units, because if they were to do that, then nobody would buy the models. And as GW exists to sell models, and NOT rulebooks, I'm sure you can agree that it is unlikely to see the Deathmarks ruined to appease TFG at the expense of their profit margin.

schadenfreude wrote:
Does hunters from hyperspace apply to court characters or IC inside a squad of deathmarks?

Codex says the to wound bonus applies to all UNITS of deathmarks, if the court character is in the unit, it applies to the whole unit.

Not just the unit that placed the mark, not all deathmarks (as an individual soldier each), but all UNITS of deathmarks.

PS: can a court character deep strike with the deathmarks?

schadenfreude wrote:
Does Redeployment with grand illusion allow deathmarks to place another token?

This one is the dangerous one that could be FAQd

schadenfreude wrote:
Does the Abyssal staff ID based on Toughness or Leadership?

For once, RAI is pretty clear because, while it is STR8, the Abyssal staff cannot hurt vehicles.... as written in the codex...

so, if it can't damage vehicles, and it wounds based on leadership, why is it STR8??

STR8 would be redundant then. It should be Str X like some of the exotic DE weapons entries (like DE flyer missiles)

No, a court character cannot deep strike with the Deathmarks, as per the BGB FAQ.

However, saying that the Abyssal Staff cannot ID someone because it cannot hurt a tank is like comparing apples to cars.

What if the Court memeber had the VoD? Doesn't that confer the deepstrike rule to the member?

azazel the cat wrote:

Necrontyr40k wrote:I do not think it works as per the rules.

The reason is redeploying with the C'tan means you never deployed there in the first place. That's the point of the illusion. Illusionary deathmarks cannot mark opponents with HtH.

If you try to use something so obviously against the spirit of the rules, you will quickly find your gaming choices limited to the few beardy gits that use such stuff. And they are usually no fun to play against, unless from time to time you get the twisted desire to make them cry by beating them at their own game. But that is like eating excrement just so that the other guy eats it too.

Yes, you did deploy. Grand Illusion takes place after scout moves have been made, which is well after deployment. So you deploy, there are scout moves, then you put the Deathmarks back into reserves, and eventually they will get redeployed again. That is two full deployments.

Well, I'll eventually refuse to play against TFG.

azazel the cat wrote:No, a court character cannot deep strike with the Deathmarks, as per the BGB FAQ.

However, saying that the Abyssal Staff cannot ID someone because it cannot hurt a tank is like comparing apples to cars.

The BGB faq doesn't have anything to do with court characters deepstriking. The Space Wolves faq clearly states that when someone is added to a unit, they have all unit-wide special rules. If the court char can't deepstrike with the Deathmarks, he also can't use the +2 to wound against marked targets.

Irdiumstern wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:No, a court character cannot deep strike with the Deathmarks, as per the BGB FAQ.

However, saying that the Abyssal Staff cannot ID someone because it cannot hurt a tank is like comparing apples to cars.

The BGB faq doesn't have anything to do with court characters deepstriking. The Space Wolves faq clearly states that when someone is added to a unit, they have all unit-wide special rules. If the court char can't deepstrike with the Deathmarks, he also can't use the +2 to wound against marked targets.

Besides, I am pretty sure the 2+ to wound applies only to the synaptic disintergrater anyway, considering how it always wounds on a 4+

Irdiumstern wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:No, a court character cannot deep strike with the Deathmarks, as per the BGB FAQ.

However, saying that the Abyssal Staff cannot ID someone because it cannot hurt a tank is like comparing apples to cars.

The BGB faq doesn't have anything to do with court characters deepstriking. The Space Wolves faq clearly states that when someone is added to a unit, they have all unit-wide special rules. If the court char can't deepstrike with the Deathmarks, he also can't use the +2 to wound against marked targets.

Why do people keep using SW FAQ for an argument for/against a completely different army? Does it also say in the SW FAQ that it applies to all armies?

I'm confused.......

Here's what it says in the SW faq

Q. Can a Wolf Scout Pack with a Wolf Guard Pack Leader
assigned to it deploy as Infiltrators, make a move before
the game begins because of its Scouts special rule,
choose to outflank or use Behind Enemy Lines? (p86)

A. Yes, to all of the above, because the Wolf Guard Pack
Leader is not an Independent Character and therefore the
fact he does not have the Infiltrate or Scouts special rule
does not preclude the squad he has joined from using
those abilities.

Now from the reason given above, you could extrapolate that it's the same deal with the crypteks.

Dodgywop wrote:
I'm confused.......

Having read the SW FAQ text... one word, precedence.




What does the BGB FAQ say precisely? How is it worded?

Read the Deathmarks entry again. The Crytek is attached to the Deathmarks unit, the wording is that the UNIT wounds on a 2+, so ergo the Cryptek wounds on a 2+. It's not just "synaptic degenerators"

Well, I had thought that the RAI was that it affected only the synaptic rifles because of the weapon's SX...but then I read that it also affected CC attacks, which are resolved at S4, so I guess the cryptek could be affected. Question is though, will the abysmal staff be? Because an AP1 weapon that always wounds on a 2+ is pretty damn crazy.

DE FAQ, page 3, 4th question on the left.

Q: When using Asdrubael Vect's Obsidian Orbs or the Orbs of Despair, do you use the target's Toughness or Leadership for the purposes of working out if Instant Death applies? (p55)
A: You use the target's Leadership.

The orbs wound on Leadership, and models without a Leadership value are unaffected. The Abyssal Staff will likely be FAQed the same way.

rigeld2 wrote:DE FAQ, page 3, 4th question on the left.

Q: When using Asdrubael Vect's Obsidian Orbs or the Orbs of Despair, do you use the target's Toughness or Leadership for the purposes of working out if Instant Death applies? (p55)
A: You use the target's Leadership.

The orbs wound on Leadership, and models without a Leadership value are unaffected. The Abyssal Staff will likely be FAQed the same way.

Fair point.

I think I understand the RAI now. The STR value is used against leadership to determine the chance of wounding.


So the abyss staff is Str 8, so against a Ld 8 model, they wound on a 4+

Obsidian Orbs are Str 10, so against a Ld 10 model they wound on a 4+

In short, Toughness is substituted for Ld in the calculation




So yes, very high chance it will be FAQd away. Wouldn't it be better to use a Tremorstave on the Crytek because of the blast marker?

I still think the Abyssal staff is worth it - it's a template, right? So wounding on 2+ (vs marked units), ignoring cover... better than an attack that will scatter.

Irdiumstern wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:No, a court character cannot deep strike with the Deathmarks, as per the BGB FAQ.

However, saying that the Abyssal Staff cannot ID someone because it cannot hurt a tank is like comparing apples to cars.

The BGB faq doesn't have anything to do with court characters deepstriking. The Space Wolves faq clearly states that when someone is added to a unit, they have all unit-wide special rules. If the court char can't deepstrike with the Deathmarks, he also can't use the +2 to wound against marked targets.

You are obviously speaking without having read the BGB FAQ, as it directly contradicts you.

The BGB FAQ specifically states that a unit cannot deep strike unless all models in the unit have the deep strike rule.

However, the 2+ rule is just like any other unit ability, that DOES transfer to any model that would join the unit.

Why are they different rules? Because the latter is the standard rule, and the former is the exception, as specified by GW.

If you want to prove me wrong, then at least try to read the rules that I am talking about first. The entirety of the Deathmark rules can be determined very clearly from the Necron codex and the BGB, and their associated FAQs. There is absolutely no need to cite the Space Wolves or Dark Eldar codices, as they are completely irrelevant. If using the Space Wolves codex is your plan, then you may as well also quote Bible verses, as it is equally relevant and necessary.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

severedblue wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:DE FAQ, page 3, 4th question on the left.

Q: When using Asdrubael Vect's Obsidian Orbs or the Orbs of Despair, do you use the target's Toughness or Leadership for the purposes of working out if Instant Death applies? (p55)
A: You use the target's Leadership.

The orbs wound on Leadership, and models without a Leadership value are unaffected. The Abyssal Staff will likely be FAQed the same way.

Fair point.

I think I understand the RAI now. The STR value is used against leadership to determine the chance of wounding.


So the abyss staff is Str 8, so against a Ld 8 model, they wound on a 4+

Obsidian Orbs are Str 10, so against a Ld 10 model they wound on a 4+

In short, Toughness is substituted for Ld in the calculation




So yes, very high chance it will be FAQd away. Wouldn't it be better to use a Tremorstave on the Crytek because of the blast marker?

Two things: First I personally prefer to use the Abyssal Staff because it's wielded by the same guy that brings the VoD, and because it is an AP1 template, and so it ignores cover and all armour saves. Far more powerful, though its range is shorter as the tradeoff.

Second, the DE FAQ does specify that you use the Ld to determine ID with that weapon, but until a FAQ specifically says otherwise, RAW the Abyssal Staff hits ID against Str, as that is what the current ID rule says. You'll also note that the ID rule appears to be independent of how the wound is determined; it is only concerned with if there is an unsaved wound or not, and if so what the math is between the two stated values: Weapon Strength vs. model Toughness. I recognize that RAI may be otherwise, and this may get FAQ'd away, but at present RAI must take a backseat to RAW, because RAW are indisputable, whereas RAI is subjective.

azazel the cat wrote:\I recognize that RAI may be otherwise, and this may get FAQ'd away, but at present RAI must take a backseat to RAW, because RAW are indisputable, whereas RAI is subjective.

Agree on all points, except this observation

RAW or not

I wouldn't drop money into Deathmarks if this would be FAQd away because I pay Australian prices for models (esp since they closed maelstrom's sales outside the EU)

severedblue wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:\I recognize that RAI may be otherwise, and this may get FAQ'd away, but at present RAI must take a backseat to RAW, because RAW are indisputable, whereas RAI is subjective.

Agree on all points, except this observation

RAW or not

I wouldn't drop money into Deathmarks if this would be FAQd away because I pay Australian prices for models (esp since they closed maelstrom's sales outside the EU)

Totally understandable. I always feel bad when I start whining about Canadian prices, considering the comparison.

However, even if the ID element gets FAQ'd away, I seriously doubt that the 2+ rule will not apply to any other units, considering just how clear it has been written to do so. Honestly, every person that has actually read the rule and still thinks it is a misprint or just shouldn't apply is just being TFG and intentionally misreading it, because it is as clear as day. In the other 2 threads about this rule, and probably this one as well, I've even presented the rule verbatim from the codex, and no logical counterargument ever pops up.

That being said, even without the ID ability being iron-clad, the Deathmarks + Cryptek combo is still worth it. (But you might wanna find someone on the Swap Shop to purchase from anyway)

Read the wording on the SW faq. It suggests that it applies in all cases, and not just to the SW.

The Cron FAQ is almost certain to follow the DE FAQ and say that ID is based on LD not T, then even after the Cron FAQ comes out chaos legions will get a weapon that does the same thing and people will argue again that the chaos legion new toy IDs on T not LD because it's "RAW".

I'm also not sure if cypteks can deep strike, and I could see that one getting FAQ'd either way. Regardless of how it's FAQ'd I'm not sold that deep striking is the best way to go. It's risky and scatter is a bitch. Close enough to flame template=high risk of mishap. Far enough not to risk a mishap means the target has time to response before eating the template. Buzzing around in a supersonic night scythe 4+ cover save until it's time to unload and flame template doesn't seem like a bad idea. If it gets shot down the death marks redeploy, and the cron player gets to mark another unit. The other problem I see with a C'tan as a deathmark buffer is it will cost the about same as 2 night scythes.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:Read the wording on the SW faq. It suggests that it applies in all cases, and not just to the SW.

The SW FAQ no more applies to the Necrons as does the SW codex.

schadenfreude wrote:I'm also not sure if cypteks can deep strike

I am sure they can't. Here's why: (oh, and CthuluIsSpy, unlike the Space Wolves FAQ, the BGB FAQ actually does apply to all cases)

BGB FAQ http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1830600a_40k_Rulebook_version_1_4.pdf
Q: Can a unit Deep Strike if only some of the models in it have the deep strike special rule? (p95) A: No.

Q. Can a Wolf Scout Pack with a Wolf Guard Pack Leader
assigned to it deploy as Infiltrators, make a move before
the game begins because of its Scouts special rule,
choose to outflank or use Behind Enemy Lines? (p86)

A. Yes, to all of the above, because the Wolf Guard Pack
Leader is not an Independent Character and therefore the
fact he does not have the Infiltrate or Scouts special rule
does not preclude the squad he has joined from using
those abilities.

Crypteks are not IC (like Wolf Guards) and can attached to squads (like wolf guards) and therefore could benefit from the the same rules.

Now if the reason why the wolf guard could use the squad's abilities was specified that it could only be applied to Wolf Guard, then yes the BGB would take priority. However, it states that

is [The wolf guard] not an Independent Character and therefore the
fact he does not have the Infiltrate or Scouts special rule
does not preclude the squad he has joined from using
those abilities.

You could just as easily substitute cryptek in place of wolf guard, and it would still be valid.

Nevermind. Turns out this logic does not apply to DS.

Deepstrike is not a USR, like Scouts and Infiltrate. The BGB specifies that models cannot deepstrike without the special rule, it makes no difference IC or not.

Sasori wrote:Deepstrike is not a USR, like Scouts and Infiltrate. The BGB specifies that models cannot deepstrike without the special rule, it makes no difference IC or not.

Oh really? Well, that kills my reasoning.
So what is DS then if not an USR?

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Sasori wrote:Deepstrike is not a USR, like Scouts and Infiltrate. The BGB specifies that models cannot deepstrike without the special rule, it makes no difference IC or not.

Oh really? Well, that kills my reasoning.
So what is DS then if not an USR?

Deepstriking is just Deepstriking, as far as I know. I'll double check again, but I don't believe it's referred to as USR anywhere, and I know it's not in the USR section of the rulebook.

azazel the cat wrote:Second, the DE FAQ does specify that you use the Ld to determine ID with that weapon, but until a FAQ specifically says otherwise, RAW the Abyssal Staff hits ID against Str, as that is what the current ID rule says. You'll also note that the ID rule appears to be independent of how the wound is determined; it is only concerned with if there is an unsaved wound or not, and if so what the math is between the two stated values: Weapon Strength vs. model Toughness. I recognize that RAI may be otherwise, and this may get FAQ'd away, but at present RAI must take a backseat to RAW, because RAW are indisputable, whereas RAI is subjective.

Sure, great idea. Build tactics on something that is essentially guaranteed to change...

rigeld2 wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:Second, the DE FAQ does specify that you use the Ld to determine ID with that weapon, but until a FAQ specifically says otherwise, RAW the Abyssal Staff hits ID against Str, as that is what the current ID rule says. You'll also note that the ID rule appears to be independent of how the wound is determined; it is only concerned with if there is an unsaved wound or not, and if so what the math is between the two stated values: Weapon Strength vs. model Toughness. I recognize that RAI may be otherwise, and this may get FAQ'd away, but at present RAI must take a backseat to RAW, because RAW are indisputable, whereas RAI is subjective.

Sure, great idea. Build tactics on something that is essentially guaranteed to change...

No, the tactic is still the same: VoD nearby and shoot things dead. I usually target Dev squads, etc. so the ID issue rarely ever comes up to being with.

Seems the Necron FAQ cleared the air on this.

Q: Do models from a Royal Court that are attached to a
Deathmark Squad benefit from the Hunters from
Hyperspace special rule? (p90)
A: Yes.

So we can clarify they wound on 2+ with the Abyssal Staff

Q: When using an abyssal staff, do you use the target’s
Toughness or Leadership for the purposes of working
out if Instant Death applies? (p84)
A: You use the target’s Leadership.

Glad that got cleared up.

Q: Can a unit of Deathmarks with an attached model
from a Royal Court Deep Strike? (p90)
A: No. Every model in a unit must have the Deep Strike
special rule for it to do so.

Q: Can a veil of darkness be used instead of moving
onto the board when a unit arrives from reserve? (p84)
A: Yes.

So even though they don't get Deepstrike with the Deathmarks, it seems they can still Veil to almost the same effect.

The Necron FAQ filled me with endless joy. Orikan works with Worldscape? A 2+ AP1 flamer? Mwaa ha ha ha ha.

The FAQ makes me happy. The necrons are full of wonderful, tasty tasty cheese.

Dytalus wrote:The Necron FAQ filled me with endless joy. Orikan works with Worldscape? A 2+ AP1 flamer? Mwaa ha ha ha ha.

I'm sure I missed it, but which FAQ stated the deathmarks give the 2+ wound to the IC's/teks?

I saw it say that if your mark an IC, you also mark any unit the y attach to, at least while they are attached, but somehow I missed anything concerning giving their 2+ to veilteks.

ShadarLogoth wrote:I'm sure I missed it, but which FAQ stated the deathmarks give the 2+ wound to the IC's/teks?

I saw it say that if your mark an IC, you also mark any unit the y attach to, at least while they are attached, but somehow I missed anything concerning giving their 2+ to veilteks.

Q: Do models from a Royal Court that are attached to a
Deathmark Squad benefit from the Hunters from
Hyperspace special rule? (p90)
A: Yes.

ShadarLogoth wrote:

Dytalus wrote:The Necron FAQ filled me with endless joy. Orikan works with Worldscape? A 2+ AP1 flamer? Mwaa ha ha ha ha.

I'm sure I missed it, but which FAQ stated the deathmarks give the 2+ wound to the IC's/teks?

I saw it say that if your mark an IC, you also mark any unit the y attach to, at least while they are attached, but somehow I missed anything concerning giving their 2+ to veilteks.

FAQ wrote:Q: Do models from a Royal Court that are attached to a
Deathmark Squad benefit from the Hunters from
Hyperspace special rule? (p90)
A: Yes.

Damn ninja....you never see them coming. <__<

Gavin Thorne wrote:

ShadarLogoth wrote:I'm sure I missed it, but which FAQ stated the deathmarks give the 2+ wound to the IC's/teks?

I saw it say that if your mark an IC, you also mark any unit the y attach to, at least while they are attached, but somehow I missed anything concerning giving their 2+ to veilteks.

Q: Do models from a Royal Court that are attached to a
Deathmark Squad benefit from the Hunters from
Hyperspace special rule? (p90)
A: Yes.

Aha!

Now that you mention it, I did read that yesterday.

That's pretty nails, veilteks+deathmarks are just nasty (especially now that you can for sure for sure attach a scythe lord or gauntlet lord).

I was a little disappointed with the lack of ruling on using chrono's on DSing, but other then that very pleased with the FAQ.


Ew:

10 Deathmarks 190
Veil Tek 65
Lord w/Gaunts/MSS/RO 85

^^^Very nasty unit.

Let me understand this. If I attach Trazyn and a res orb lord to a squad of deathmarks, I can come in from reserve and then Veil anywhere on the board. I cannot DS into play though as my ICs do not have that ability.

felixcat wrote:
Let me understand this. If I attach Trazyn and a res orb lord to a squad of deathmarks, I can come in from reserve and then Veil anywhere on the board. I cannot DS into play though as my ICs do not have that ability.

You can only use Veil of Darkness if you have a Harbinger of Despair attached, as they are the only models to carry that piece of wargear.

If you attach any model lacking the ability to deep strike to a unit that otherwise would deep strike, then the entire unit can no longer deep strike.

However, if you attach a Cryptek w/ VoD to a Deathmark squad, you may not deep strike, but you can VoD into play, which is in practice the same thing, though different in name only.

azazel the cat wrote:

felixcat wrote:
Let me understand this. If I attach Trazyn and a res orb lord to a squad of deathmarks, I can come in from reserve and then Veil anywhere on the board. I cannot DS into play though as my ICs do not have that ability.

You can only use Veil of Darkness if you have a Harbinger of Despair attached, as they are the only models to carry that piece of wargear.

If you attach any model lacking the ability to deep strike to a unit that otherwise would deep strike, then the entire unit can no longer deep strike.

However, if you attach a Cryptek w/ VoD to a Deathmark squad, you may not deep strike, but you can VoD into play, which is in practice the same thing, though different in name only.

You would also be able to use Vanguard Oberyon because his wargear is a specialized VoD.

When you VoD to the table do you get any tokens?

I would think so, as that unit is being deployed. Otherwise, the VoD creates a way for a unit to arrive onto the table having never been deployed, which is in itself a contradiction.

Ok, then do they get another one when they VoD again?

Cyrax wrote:Ok, then do they get another one when they VoD again?

That is the million dollar question. I would say yes, because it says 'redeploy' which literally means 'deploy again' in the rules for deep strike.

Anpu-adom wrote:

Cyrax wrote:Ok, then do they get another one when they VoD again?

That is the million dollar question. I would say yes, because it says 'redeploy' which literally means 'deploy again' in the rules for deep strike.

The first paragraph for Deep Strike says "Roll for arrival of these special units as specified in the rules for reserves and then deploy them as follows"

It also uses the deploying verbiage in the deep strike mishap explanation.

I would say it counts as deploying them.

I don't play Necrons. In Fact, I'm an Ork player and this would suck having it done to me, but it seems legit.

By that logic, Space Marines could choose to combat squad after any use of Gate of Infinity or The Summoning.

I'm not saying that's how it'd work or not, because I bet no one even considered it before.

It'd be a nice, biased way to try and sneakily convince people this would work for Deathmarks though.

DarknessEternal wrote:By that logic, Space Marines could choose to combat squad after any use of Gate of Infinity or The Summoning.

I'm not saying that's how it'd work or not, because I bet no one even considered it before.

It'd be a nice, biased way to try and sneakily convince people this would work for Deathmarks though.

I like it!

I would be fine with that, but what would the benefit be for the space marines? They could split up and try and hold 2 objectives and they could shoot at separate targets. They'd still be coming down in the same place thought.

ShadarLogoth wrote:
Ew:

10 Deathmarks 190
Veil Tek 65
Lord w/Gaunts/MSS/RO 85

^^^Very nasty unit.

Is the abyssal staff still useful?

FAQ:

Q: When using an abyssal staff, do you use the target’s
Toughness or Leadership for the purposes of working
out if Instant Death applies? (p84)
A: You use the target’s Leadership.

Yes. It's a template weapon that wounds a marked unit on a 2+.

All 'tek's aside. I have found that the Deathmarks seldom last more than one turn. There's something about slapping down a "wounds on +2" marker that makes them a HIGH PRIORITY TARGET!!!

lol

However; if you need a "red herring" unit, these fit the bill nicely.

gregor_xenos wrote:All 'tek's aside. I have found that the Deathmarks seldom last more than one turn. There's something about slapping down a "wounds on +2" marker that makes them a HIGH PRIORITY TARGET!!!

lol

However; if you need a "red herring" unit, these fit the bill nicely.

Well, they are a suicide unit, lol. Generally between the template and rapidfiring Deathmarks, it's enough to kill whatever unit you target at.

Sasori wrote:

gregor_xenos wrote:All 'tek's aside. I have found that the Deathmarks seldom last more than one turn. There's something about slapping down a "wounds on +2" marker that makes them a HIGH PRIORITY TARGET!!!

lol

However; if you need a "red herring" unit, these fit the bill nicely.

Well, they are a suicide unit, lol. Generally between the template and rapidfiring Deathmarks, it's enough to kill whatever unit you target at.

Yeah 2+ with AP1 is silly good. Use them aggressively and they will melt things.

In all honesty, I use two squads as suicide units, and about as aggressively as possible (the ongoing joke in my gaming group is placing bets to see what insane place I'll VoD 'em to next...) but the squads usually end up surviving. They've stolen a lot of games for me, just because you can still use them to VoD in the final turn to contest another objective.

The fact that they only ID against Ld means nothing, as they almost never go up against multi-wound models. Devs & troops is what I send them after.

Hang on before this topic closes, I disagree with EVERYONE in this thread

-Too me the logic in RAW doesn't pan out because the deathmarks have already deployed and as such have chosen their target (note, singular). You are then making a special and I believe unique move, at the very end of the deployment phase, called a redeployment. They have made their 'deployment' move already, you are now bypassing the normal rules to place them back into reserve, or change their position on the battlefield. This is not deathmarks being deployed, but redeployed (RaW) and they only get a counter when they are deployed.-

Both of the logics work in my mind however this logic has more going for it; RAI - More likely to be FAQ'd and would cause less headaches.

Don't get me wrong I want my deathmarks to be dead killy and if my opponents want I will allow this but, this is my point of view. (should this be in YMTC?)

Anyway back onto tactics, deathmarks would kickass and you could have them popping in and out of nightsyths for fun but even if the FAQ supports this, for cost is it worth it?
2+ staves with deathmarks in a WW list seems very delicious, but the cost would be high for this mega combo and would potentially leave holes in your list.

Klawjaw wrote:Hang on before this topic closes, I disagree with EVERYONE in this thread

-Too me the logic in RAW doesn't pan out because the deathmarks have already deployed and as such have chosen their target (note, singular). You are then making a special and I believe unique move, at the very end of the deployment phase, called a redeployment. They have made their 'deployment' move already, you are now bypassing the normal rules to place them back into reserve, or change their position on the battlefield. This is not deathmarks being deployed, but redeployed (RaW) and they only get a counter when they are deployed.-

Both of the logics work in my mind however this logic has more going for it; RAI - More likely to be FAQ'd and would cause less headaches.

Don't get me wrong I want my deathmarks to be dead killy and if my opponents want I will allow this but, this is my point of view. (should this be in YMTC?)

Anyway back onto tactics, deathmarks would kickass and you could have them popping in and out of nightsyths for fun but even if the FAQ supports this, for cost is it worth it?
2+ staves with deathmarks in a WW list seems very delicious, but the cost would be high for this mega combo and would potentially leave holes in your list.

It's only 155 points, for a unit that makes footsloggers melt, I was say they are worth every penny...er...point.

I have had plenty of people refuse to play me some before they had even played me once i am TFG. I have been trying to not be but when i got my new codex i let out a evil laugh and said screw it. 10 years of necrons you wil learn how to abuse your rules but it is up to you to decide what is to far and when it is ok to put that old cheese hat on. I just happen to have a beard attached to my cheese hat.

Local Necron Menace 78729 wrote:I have had plenty of people refuse to play me some before they had even played me once i am TFG. I have been trying to not be but when i got my new codex i let out a evil laugh and said screw it. 10 years of necrons you wil learn how to abuse your rules but it is up to you to decide what is to far and when it is ok to put that old cheese hat on. I just happen to have a beard attached to my cheese hat.

*hug*

Eventually after having to put up with people who assume rules, you will find gamers who occasionally want to have cheese wars for fun, this is when you can publicly show your smile of contempt for those arrogant inferiors.

As someone who sucked it up playing necrons by the old codex I found deathmarks extremely interesting. This, however, seems pretty broken. I haven't even had a chance to buy the models yet, and people have found loopholes. This is so cruel that it is going to be fixed as an errata. Really, it's worded all wrong, but you know that's not what was intended. Don't be TFG, unless you are trying to play in the forementioned (and completely fictional) cheese league.

Munga wrote:As someone who sucked it up playing necrons by the old codex I found deathmarks extremely interesting. This, however, seems pretty broken. I haven't even had a chance to buy the models yet, and people have found loopholes. This is so cruel that it is going to be fixed as an errata. Really, it's worded all wrong, but you know that's not what was intended. Don't be TFG, unless you are trying to play in the forementioned (and completely fictional) cheese league.

This is legal, because it was not mentioned in the very recent Necron FAQ update.

There were many nerfs in the recent FAQ updates for all armies, but this one was not mentioned. They even mentioned ID with the abyssal staff, and whether characters without DS can DS with Deathmarks (they can't). But they did not mention the interaction between Grand Illusion and HTH.



They are the RAW, and neither you are I are capable of telepathy or have a patch in to the mind of the designer. If you wish to play like a scrub, that is your choice.