Is a Ghost Ark only limited to bring back necron warriors when it uses the repair barge ability?

You open the can of worms good sir. Dangerous territory.

sounddemon wrote:Is a Ghost Ark only limited to bring back necron warriors when it uses the repair barge ability?

Yes, but I suppose you need to be more clear on what you're actually getting at here.

Can a ghost ark ( in essence ) bring back immortals/crypteks/necron lords? Maybe even pushing it further to say any unit with reanimation protocol.

No, it can only bring back any Warriors and any attached Royal court members

I take it you were playing against or with Monasou, Sounddemon?

What about necron lords are they able to come back through repair barge; if they are part of the same unit?

Necron Lords, attached to the unit as part of the royal court, CAN be brought back.

sounddemon wrote:What about necron lords are they able to come back through repair barge; if they are part of the same unit?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Indeed I stomped that fool without any effort.

As Nos said, Lords and Crypteks but NOT overlords/destroyer lords (or any special HQ character).

Aye, only warriors and anything attached to them.

Really gets some use out of the 140 point Lord with the works.

Thanks for the responses, really appreciate it.

sorry to necro the thread, but rather than start a new one i thought i would add a question to this one.

Does the Repair barge ability still work if a Lord/Cryptek is the last member of his unit still standing? The rules for characters would seem to suggest that it would:

Pg 63
'They are effectively just another trooper in their unit, with enhanced characteristics and perhaps a wider selection of weapons and wargear choices'

My understanding of this rule is that the lord/cryptek would simply count as a necron warrior for most rules purposes, but have additional special rules. by extension allowing a lone surviving lord/cryptek to also count as a scoring unit in most situations.

Is this a correct interpretation?

I believe that is how people play it. If the barge can bring back crypteks/lords then it would stand reason to believe it could bring back warriors when only the lord/cryptek is standing.

Where are you seeing the rules to allow attached members of the royal court to be brought back by the Ghost Ark repair barge rule?

The rule says "nominate a unit of Necron Warriors..." and then add models based on the roll results.

Nowhere does it state or imply you can add a Lord or Cryptek to the unit. I didn't see anything in the FAQ either. It makes sense that if the Royal Court member was the last standing from the original unit of warriors you could make the rolls, but I don't see how it can bring back a Royal Court member.

fursphere wrote:
Where are you seeing the rules to allow attached members of the royal court?

The rule says "nominate a unit of Necron Warriors..." and then add models based on the roll results.

Nowhere does it state or imply you can add a Lord or Cryptek to the unit.

The lord/cryptek are a member of the unit of warriors. Where does the ghost ark say you have to bring only warriors back to life to a warrior unit?

fursphere wrote:
Where are you seeing the rules to allow attached members of the royal court?

The rule says "nominate a unit of Necron Warriors..." and then add models based on the roll results.

Nowhere does it state or imply you can add a Lord or Cryptek to the unit.

Right, nominate a unit of Necron Warriors. The Cryptek/Lord, is a normal member of the Warriors.
Add models, context tells us that this refers to Warriors, however, from a strict RAW reading, you can add ANY model, such as a Carnifex, a Land Raider, or an Ethereal.

fursphere wrote:
Where are you seeing the rules to allow attached members of the royal court to be brought back by the Ghost Ark repair barge rule?

The rule says "nominate a unit of Necron Warriors..." and then add models based on the roll results.

Nowhere does it state or imply you can add a Lord or Cryptek to the unit. I didn't see anything in the FAQ either. It makes sense that if the Royal Court member was the last standing from the original unit of warriors you could make the rolls, but I don't see how it can bring back a Royal Court member.

necron codex pg 90, royal court:

'Before the battle, each member of the royal court has the option of being split off from his unit (the royal court) and assigned to lead a different unit....'

Lords and crypteks are characters, and so follow the rules on Pg 63 of the rulebook, in effect your lord/cryptek becomes an upgrade for the unit, and so will count as a necron warrior if leading a unit of warriors, or a member of whatever unit he is leading. the doubt i had was whether he continued to be counted as a necron warrior if he was the last member standing, and whether my interpretation (he does) was the correct one.

Thanks everyone for answering me

Yes, this is another case of RAI gone wrong. Context says that Warriors are returned to the unit, however the rule just says models. So technically by RAW it can be anything attached to the unit. Even by that wording you could add d3 Lords to the unit.

The rule say that it cannot go above the unit's starting size. So in a unit with 9 warriors and 1 Lord, that's the limit of what you can have after the repair.

copper.talos wrote:
The rule say that it cannot go above the unit's starting size. So in a unit with 9 warriors and 1 Lord, that's the limit of what you can have after the repair.

Assuming you have 1 Warrior and 1 Lord left in your unit. What is to stop you from adding d3 Lords with Ghost ark?

Because you had 1 lord in the unit to begin with. 1 lord is the maximum.

Why is 1 lord the maximum ?

You started off with 1 lord. You cannot exceed the starting numbers. 1 is the limit. Ergo, no free lords for you, stop being a cheesy git.

And I call foul on being able to bring back court members to begin with. Unfortunately, that hasn't been FAQ'd yet, meaning there's nothing to stop WAAC asshats from trying it, which consequently will result in more people whining about necrons.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
You started off with 1 lord. You cannot exceed the starting numbers. 1 is the limit. Ergo, no free lords for you. stop being a cheesy git.

Cite some rule for this, because its not in the Ghost Ark Repair rule.

Consider this - Lords are characters. Characters count as part of a different unit when attached to warrior squad for the purpose of determining RP
> If, and I mean IF we let characters be eligible for the GA Repair rule, then for fairness sake the number of characters in that warrior unit should be maximum limit, otherwise you could spawn something like 9 necron lords wielding scythes and MSS

But, ok, fine, you can try doing it.
I hope you like having necron lords shoved into your nostrils.

Do you actually think paying 115 pts for a slow open topped transport that can carry only warriors and lacks any serious firepower is a good deal just to bring back 1 model?

I field one only because I love the model. Eventually I'll get another NS...

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Consider this - Lords are characters. Characters count as part of a different unit when attached to warrior squad for the purpose of determining RP

The character is part of that unit. Not a different unit. Perhaps your confused with Independent Characters.

But again you cite nothing to support your position.

I am on the position that your opponent may not take kindly to you spawning decked out lords due to a loop hole.

I would never do something like that. Do you know why? Because its 100% bullcrap, and that is not what the ark is meant to do! Its meant to bring back warriors, and nothing more. It even says "warrior unit," but thanks to poor wording every RAW fanatic is going to insist characters can benefit from it as well.

And reread what I said. For the purposes of determining RP. Those are in the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

copper.talos wrote:
Do you actually think paying 115 pts for a slow open topped transport that can carry only warriors and lacks any serious firepower is a good deal just to bring back 1 model?

Its an AV13 vehicle that allows soldiers to shoot out of it AT WILL (open top has its advantages), has living metal (which though not as effective as its predecessor, is still handy) and it allows you to resurrect up to 3 13 point models a turn. Yeah, I think its worth 115 points.
I never said it can only bring back 1 model. He can still bring back warriors.

Oh! And its a skimmer, meaning it gets jink whenever it moves.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
I am on the position that your opponent may not take kindly to you spawning decked out lords due to a loop hole.

I would never do something like that. Do you know why? Because its 100% bullcrap, and that is not what the ark is meant to do! Its meant to bring back warriors, and nothing more. It even says "warrior unit," but thanks to poor wording every RAW fanatic is going to insist characters can benefit from it as well.

And reread what I said. For the purposes of determining RP. Those are in the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

copper.talos wrote:
Do you actually think paying 115 pts for a slow open topped transport that can carry only warriors and lacks any serious firepower is a good deal just to bring back 1 model?

Its an AV13 vehicle that allows soldiers to shoot out of it AT WILL (open top has its advantages), has living metal (which though not as effective as its predecessor, is still handy) and it allows you to resurrect up to 3 13 point models a turn. Yeah, I think its worth 115 points.
I never said it can only bring back 1 model. He can still bring back warriors.

It's in the rules for RP, so what? Are you also going to contest that the lords/crypteks attached to Warrior and Immortal units don't count as scoring?

The rules for RP can not be used as a basis for anything else other than RP.

 Kevin949 wrote:


It's in the rules for RP, so what? Are you also going to contest that the lords/crypteks attached to Warrior and Immortal units don't count as scoring?

No, of course not. That's absurd.
As absurd as letting the Ghost Ark make squads of 9 lords and 1 warrior.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:


It's in the rules for RP, so what? Are you also going to contest that the lords/crypteks attached to Warrior and Immortal units don't count as scoring?

No, of course not. That's absurd.
As absurd as letting the Ghost Ark make squads of 9 lords and 1 warrior.

Well keep in mind, at least on my part, I don't agree with that aspect. Following the rules of the royal court you can only ever have 1 member of the court in a squad.

I do stand by the ark being able to bring back lords and crypteks though.

Also, I'm pretty sure no one actually DOES play it the way you mentioned, it's just exaggerated here as the RAW and the RAI are two very different things.

You can have up to 2 RC members in a warrior unit.

Anyway the rule fluff also talks about repairing fallen Necrons not just Warriors. So RAW and RAI you can bring back RC members. And since it is "repair", it's 100% RAI that you can add only the same RC members that was originally part of the unit.

I guess that's fair. I was worried that there was going to be cheese, like lord farming.

I still don't quite like the idea of lords coming back in general, but if the fluff supports it (too lazy to check atm) I guess its fine.

copper.talos wrote:
You can have up to 2 RC members in a warrior unit.

Anyway the rule fluff also talks about repairing fallen Necrons not just Warriors. So RAW and RAI you can bring back RC members. And since it is "repair", it's 100% RAI that you can add only the same RC members that was originally part of the unit.

That's 2 RC members per unit assuming you have two royal courts, which requires two overlords.

fursphere wrote:

copper.talos wrote:
You can have up to 2 RC members in a warrior unit.

Anyway the rule fluff also talks about repairing fallen Necrons not just Warriors. So RAW and RAI you can bring back RC members. And since it is "repair", it's 100% RAI that you can add only the same RC members that was originally part of the unit.

That's 2 RC members per unit assuming you have two royal courts, which requires two overlords.

Not necessarily, certain named characters also unlock courts.

 sounddemon wrote:

fursphere wrote:

copper.talos wrote:
You can have up to 2 RC members in a warrior unit.

Anyway the rule fluff also talks about repairing fallen Necrons not just Warriors. So RAW and RAI you can bring back RC members. And since it is "repair", it's 100% RAI that you can add only the same RC members that was originally part of the unit.

That's 2 RC members per unit assuming you have two royal courts, which requires two overlords.

Not necessarily, certain named characters also unlock courts.

Those named HQ units are still overlords.

Bringing back court members is bs and the first I've heard about this. It is so unbelievably cheesy, if you play like this there is no downside fully decking out a lord and putting it in front of the unit to have a 2+/3++/4+++ model tanking shots... And I play necrons and this is so cheesy and obviously unintended that I would never abuse this it just feels wrong. I can't believe people play like this, so what when you guys play the necron warrior squad becomes the strongest CC unit in the game? Yeah that sounds intentional... Just take 2 overlords add in 2 decked out lords in a warrior squad and now you can on average bring back 2 units a turn, the 2 lords if they die, and with 2 ever living rolls with a res orb odds are one of them gets back up if the squad is wiped and then the other is put back on due to a ghost ark.

This isn't intentional and it isn't how people play, otherwise ghost ark spam would be the most viable army list with the unkillable CC warrior-lord squads.

So you're a GW game dev? If not, how do you know what was and wasn't intentional?

And you're wrong that no one plays like that - FYI.

I actually think this may have been intentional. Why else would it not say add d3 warriors instead of d3 models. Not to mention that 2+/3++/4+++ lord costs what, 135/150 points for a 1 wound model? The wording is similar to HfH with a despairtek which was allowed. It needs an FAQ but yeah, I don't see why not.

Because the wording is messed up? By your logic, the Death Ray was intended to be used on flyers.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Because the wording is messed up? By your logic, the Death Ray was intended to be used on flyers.

How so? How on earth does the death ray having no real rules against hitting flyers as it was a crossover codex have ANY bearing on a rule functional in 5th and 6th with no core rules changing for its target unit? It doesn't, that's a strawman.

because its exploitation... by definition, this is called inclusion... you are implying that the RAW is RAI meaning GW wants the game to unfair and imbalanced (smart alec comments unecessary.... bottom line up front, you play like this and you can start kissing your opponents good-bye as it will be a sad lonely world for a necron player with no friends to play with. Maybe competition is your bag, and you want to play to win, but lets not forget why the game was made... in the beginning there was no Grand Tourny for people to go rules crazy for and read into everything... the only thing that makes the rules not work or make an army broken is us...

Ok, fine, what about the death ray being able to hit entire units, due to the poor wording of the rule? Or is that also a strawman?

The problem isn't bring back 1 lord. One lord, though irritating, is passable. Its using to the Ghost Ark to summon make 3 lords at a time out of mid air.

or something that wasnt in the unit to begin with... how do you determine what three models are placed? you cannot... this is not grab a marker and add stuff in there because you want cheese on your burger... the obvious intent was to make it to where WARRIORS were recreated, not characters. It does not require that much brain power to conclude this... this is the way its been played since the codex came out, it is the way it should be played, and if you play it any other way, you should be treated as someone who peed in the pool...

the death ray is entirely different matter... one could say that this argument is akin to whether or not imotehks lightning can hit fliers... another no brainer arguement

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Ok, fine, what about the death ray being able to hit entire units, due to the poor wording of the rule? Or is that also a strawman?

Except that's been shown to be an incorrect reading, and it has been explained in an FAQ.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 WarlordRob117 wrote:
or something that wasnt in the unit to begin with... how do you determine what three models are placed? you cannot... this is not grab a marker and add stuff in there because you want cheese on your burger... the obvious intent was to make it to where WARRIORS were recreated, not characters. It does not require that much brain power to conclude this... this is the way its been played since the codex came out, it is the way it should be played, and if you play it any other way, you should be treated as someone who peed in the pool...

It may be obvious to you, but I disagree that's the intent. And insulting people isn't the way to make your argument - as I said, you're incorrect that this is how it's been played and that no one plays it any other way.

the death ray is entirely different matter... one could say that this argument is akin to whether or not imotehks lightning can hit fliers... another no brainer arguement

I'm curious - which side of the Imotekh argument do you think was intended?

Yet the wording was still poor enough to confuse a lot of people.
Here's how I see it :

The rule mentions Warrior units. A model in this unit would therefore be a warrior, just as a Space Marine unit is composed of Space Marine models.

But for reasons of incompetency, whoever wrote the rule forgot that you can join characters to the warrior unit, just as same person forgot to specify what the death ray rule does exactly.

Shouldnt have to specify... the fact that people cant look at something nowadays without drawing ridiculous conclusions is absurd

I wasnt insulting anyone, I was making a statement that compares people with childish playstyles to people who cannot control their bodily functions... I wasnt directing towards anyone here...

I have helped judge multiple tournaments here in the states and I can tell this, had this come up, and found out that you had been playing this way the entire tournament? I dont care if you went undefeated, you would be disqualified on the spot.

your curiosity is better served elsewhere...

 WarlordRob117 wrote:
I have helped judge multiple tournaments here in the states and I can tell this, had this come up, and found out that you had been playing this way the entire tournament? I dont care if you went undefeated, you would be disqualified on the spot.

I'm glad you're so objective.

your curiosity is better served elsewhere...

Fair enough.

And really - you are insulting people. Because - wait for it - people do play this way. And yes they should specify it. Leaving glaring loopholes and assuming the reader can figure out your intent is an idiotic way to write a game. Absolutely stupid.

When you have alot of band-wagoners who jump on the latest and greatest army, and they all play the same way (warriors are the only models placed) you find yourself being very decisive... mainly because they take all the work out of making the "hard" decisions everyone seems to have on here... if your methodology is based solely on finding loopholes and trying to make conclusions based on loopholes then you should be a defense attorney for the criminally insane, not a miniature wargamer. That said, if you went to gamesday right now and popped this question to the editing team, trying to garnish their support, Id imagine you'd be very disappointed...

and really no I wasnt... unless you want to admit that you just insulted the entire GW staff with your last statement... so if I am insulting anyone you are as well... the kettle is mighty black, Sir.

 WarlordRob117 wrote:
That said, if you went to gamesday right now and popped this question to the editing team, trying to garnish their support, Id imagine you'd be very disappointed...

I've emailed the GW FAQ team. Have you? That's the right way to divine their intent. Trying to assume intent without rules support (some precedent somewhere, FAQ, etc.) leads to poor rules interpretation.

and really no I wasnt... unless you want to admit that you just insulted the entire GW staff with your last statement... so if I am insulting anyone you are as well... the kettle is mighty black, Sir.

Yes, I will insult the way they write rules. You insulted people. See the difference?

Regardless, I'm done with the thread.

If you think you weren't insulting because you didn't name drop then I have no words. At least be blunt instead of hiding behind ambiguity.

The death ray was unclear. However, the last under the line part would be redundant if it was meant to hit the entire unit. That should have been enough really. This says models. It doesn't say warriors. The fluff doesn't say warriors. There is no intent nor concrete rules to back up your stance. There's certainly no reason you should be so stubborn either. Is it broken? No. Is it even useful? Rarely.

Also lightning doesn't hit flyers and the warrior unit argument is plain wrong. See: hunters from hyperspace royal court faq.

This is all assumign your Av13 huge bullet magnet survives past turn 2.

Mine never has, so i have never actually been able to use the repair rule.

 WarlordRob117 wrote:
or something that wasnt in the unit to begin with... how do you determine what three models are placed? you cannot... this is not grab a marker and add stuff in there because you want cheese on your burger... the obvious intent was to make it to where WARRIORS were recreated, not characters. It does not require that much brain power to conclude this... this is the way its been played since the codex came out, it is the way it should be played, and if you play it any other way, you should be treated as someone who peed in the pool...

the death ray is entirely different matter... one could say that this argument is akin to whether or not imotehks lightning can hit fliers... another no brainer arguement

So, you *know* what their intent was? Maybe the exclusion of the specific model types allowed WAS intended. They have FAQ'd the codex a few times now and never changed it.

No no, you don't *know* what the intent was.

Also, if you don't want people to ask about your side of other debates, then don't bring up the debates at all when it's not relevant to the thread.

Let me also just say this....if they wanted it to work where it only brought back warriors then they would have used the exact wording for the Scarab Hive (with obvious unit-specific word changes). But they did not. This is the same argument I used for wraithflight and referencing the c'tan Immune to Natural Law.

rigeld2 wrote:

 WarlordRob117 wrote:
That said, if you went to gamesday right now and popped this question to the editing team, trying to garnish their support, Id imagine you'd be very disappointed...

I've emailed the GW FAQ team.

You can do that? I mean no offense, I am genuinely curious.
May we have a link?

Gamefaqs@gwplc.com

It's not a Q/A email, it's an inbox you can send questions to so that they may get answered in the next FAQ.

I've sent a number of emails to it as well.

 Kevin949 wrote:
Gamefaqs@gwplc.com

It's not a Q/A email, it's an inbox you can send questions to so that they may get answered in the next FAQ.

I've sent a number of emails to it as well.

Ok cool. Is it stickied somewhere? It seems to be sticky worthy.

 Praxiss wrote:
This is all assumign your Av13 huge bullet magnet survives past turn 2.

Mine never has, so i have never actually been able to use the repair rule.

Thats if you take 1, they are cheapish and if they bring back 1 lord then they pay for themselves so you can reasonably take more than 1. And at AV13 with 4HP they are about as survivable as a tank can be in 6th edition. Plus being a dedicated transport you can have up to 6 in your army, sure if you only have 1 its going to be a large fire magnet but having 2 or even 3 isn't unreasonable in a list even without exploiting this rule.

I wasnt hiding behind ambiguity I stated my opinion about a particular group of people... hiding behind ambiguity would be adding things like "unlike some people"... stop being so soft (this is directed towards Eyjio)...

"So, you *know* what their intent was? Maybe the exclusion of the specific model types allowed WAS intended. They have FAQ'd the codex a few times now and never changed it.
No no, you don't *know* what the intent was."

niether do you, or anyone on YMDC for that matter... if a rule has a loophole that can easily be exploited by more than one party, you know what to do? ban the unit from play or dont use the codex... simple fix... fair for everyone because it obvious that you and I have two seperate opinons based on intent (as you cannot argue with solid evidence that it was GW's intent to allow any particular model to be returned to play) that cannot be settled until a FAQ directly address' the issue...

I used Imotekhs lightning as an example as several others have done on this thread... you are going to tell me what I can and cannot respond to now? sic a DCM on me if you wish but Im well within my rights to answer or not answer someones question...

following your logic they should do that with every codex entry but they dont, because implication is used to alleviate excess writing and page use. Paraphrase, abreviate, foot note... these are all things used in codices to speed the writing process... it could also be said that someone forgot? or missed it? gasp! Imperfection is a human trait?

i would if i could afford more. I normally take at least 2 Anni Barges and a Nightscythe...sometimes even even a CCb to spread the fire around.

CCB's are meh now in my opinion... they put you in vulnerable positions more often than not... they can be great for harassment if you dont mind conceding STWL and FB lol

Oh definately, that's why i said sometimes. If it's a big game and i need to fill some points i'll use it.

 WarlordRob117 wrote:

I have helped judge multiple tournaments here in the states and I can tell this, had this come up, and found out that you had been playing this way the entire tournament? I dont care if you went undefeated, you would be disqualified on the spot.

your curiosity is better served elsewhere...

Then youre a bad judge / TO. T his isnt cheating, this is a perfectly 100% accurate reading of the rules. If you thought it was an issue, you should have included it in your FAQ, or made a ruling that goes forwards from that game on. Ex post facto rulings are a really, really bad idea

Especially when they in no way violate the rules.

Thats your opinion Nos... I have already emailed this issue to our gaming community where I live to see to it that silly interpretations like this dont make it to tables... the rule can be read either way and I will not have our head judges arguing with players over who is right and wrong... until a faq is released otherwise.

This is not a 100% accurate reading of the rules as it has already been implied that we do not know what "models" means... you've tried this before with me regarding chaos stuff so Im not going to waste my time explaining why...

and further more a faq hasnt been necessary till now as everyone is playing it that only warriors can be rezed by the barge. You show me where this has popped up before since the new codex has been released November 2011... because we have not run into this issue yet with players playing this way at our tourny... its mostly flier spam


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Leth wrote:
Especially when they in no way violate the rules.

So a dedicated transport for a unit of warriors , that can bring back D3 warrior models can rez crypteks/lords... tell me how thats accurate

 WarlordRob117 wrote:
I wasnt hiding behind ambiguity I stated my opinion about a particular group of people... hiding behind ambiguity would be adding things like "unlike some people"... stop being so soft (this is directed towards Eyjio)...

"So, you *know* what their intent was? Maybe the exclusion of the specific model types allowed WAS intended. They have FAQ'd the codex a few times now and never changed it.
No no, you don't *know* what the intent was."

niether do you, or anyone on YMDC for that matter... if a rule has a loophole that can easily be exploited by more than one party, you know what to do? ban the unit from play or dont use the codex... simple fix... fair for everyone because it obvious that you and I have two seperate opinons based on intent (as you cannot argue with solid evidence that it was GW's intent to allow any particular model to be returned to play) that cannot be settled until a FAQ directly address' the issue...

I used Imotekhs lightning as an example as several others have done on this thread... you are going to tell me what I can and cannot respond to now? sic a DCM on me if you wish but Im well within my rights to answer or not answer someones question...

following your logic they should do that with every codex entry but they dont, because implication is used to alleviate excess writing and page use. Paraphrase, abreviate, foot note... these are all things used in codices to speed the writing process... it could also be said that someone forgot? or missed it? gasp! Imperfection is a human trait?

See, the difference between your statements and mine is that I haven't stated I know the intention. I've followed the written rule and used comparable rules from the same codex as a barometer to measure this one by.

yes you have... the rule can be read either way... this makes it a discussion of intent rather than whats actually written... you think it says this, I think its says that... all you did was compare another models abilities with another... thats it... it does not prove or disprove anything...

 WarlordRob117 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Leth wrote:
Especially when they in no way violate the rules.

So a dedicated transport for a unit of warriors , that can bring back D3 warrior models can rez crypteks/lords... tell me how thats accurate

They're upgrade characters.

The same way that a sergeant is not the same as the rest of his squad but is still a part of the squad.

Warlordrob, where in the rule does it say d3 warrior models?

Instead of asking leth how he is accurate, please explain how that part of your post is "accurate".

I'd quote the actual part of your post, but am having phone issues.

but they are not warriors... a Ghost Ark is a DT for warriors and warriors alone... not crypteks, not lords, not wraiths, not monoliths, not anything but warriors

 WarlordRob117 wrote:
yes you have... the rule can be read either way... this makes it a discussion of intent rather than whats actually written... you think it says this, I think its says that... all you did was compare another models abilities with another... thats it... it does not prove or disprove anything...

Well, no, I know what it says. You want it to mean something else. Let me ask you this, if a lord/cryptek leading a warrior squad was within 3" of an objective but no other model was, would you be counted as scoring the objective?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 WarlordRob117 wrote:
but they are not warriors... a Ghost Ark is a DT for warriors and warriors alone... not crypteks, not lords, not wraiths, not monoliths, not anything but warriors

So then if I put a cryptek in a warrior unit I can't buy a ghost ark for them?

next your're going to tell me that a night scythe can bring any unit in reserve through it portal, not just the unit it is dedicated to

 WarlordRob117 wrote:
next your're going to tell me that a night scythe can bring any unit in reserve through it portal, not just the unit it is dedicated to

If the NS picks up the unit, it can. But obviously it can only start with the unit it was bought for in it.

you place the cryptek with the unit during deployment, not when you are buying the Ghost ark to accompany the warriors


Automatically Appended Next Post:
obviously you are going off of memory and are implying intent


Automatically Appended Next Post:
as we have also determined on previous threads that the models are not actually inside the craft...

But the Ghost Ark can repair units within 6" of itself (i think, i'm unsure of the exact distance).

So the question of what units the Ark can carry has no bearing in this discussion.

 WarlordRob117 wrote:
you place the cryptek with the unit during deployment, not when you are buying the Ghost ark to accompany the warriors


Automatically Appended Next Post:
obviously you are going off of memory and are implying intent


Automatically Appended Next Post:
as we have also determined on previous threads that the models are not actually inside the craft...

It's "before the battle", which is before deployment.

Sorry, what are you going on about with those next two statements?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Praxiss wrote:
But the Ghost Ark can repair units within 6" of itself (i think, i'm unsure of the exact distance).

So the question of what units the Ark can carry has no bearing in this discussion.

Even though it can carry Warriors, lords, crypteks, overlords, and special characters.

But yes, 6" as well as embarked.

 Praxiss wrote:
But the Ghost Ark can repair units within 6" of itself (i think, i'm unsure of the exact distance).

So the question of what units the Ark can carry has no bearing in this discussion.

oh but it does... it even says in its rules (I do believe you are right about the 6" thing) nominate a unit of "warriors", not a unit of "warriors (cryptek/lord included)", roll a D3 and replace that many models...



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Then I suggest you read the rules on upgrade characters, which is that they follow the unit rules. A unit of Warriors with a lord attached is still a unit of warriors.

It is an accurate reading of the rule, you just disagree despite having no rules basis for doing so. A number of tournaments around the UK have had players playing this way, and it is allowed in the rules.

Oh, and the models ARE inside the craft, as per the embarked rules. You may hjave made up rules otherwise, but theyve not been "decided" in other threads, not by a long shot.

Oh and "obviously" isnt intent - its in the rules for dedicated transports. You have read them, right?

 WarlordRob117 wrote:

 Praxiss wrote:
But the Ghost Ark can repair units within 6" of itself (i think, i'm unsure of the exact distance).

So the question of what units the Ark can carry has no bearing in this discussion.

oh but it does... it even says in its rules (I do believe you are right about the 6" thing) nominate a unit of "warriors", not a unit of "warriors (cryptek/lord included)", roll a D3 and replace that many models...



Automatically Appended Next Post:

If the NS picks up the unit, it can. But obviously it can only start with the unit it was bought for in it.

when you made the statement "but obviously" you are implying intent...

and I was refering to another thread where the general consensus was that the unit dedicated to the night scythe was not actually inside the night scythe but in reserve (hence why they come on the table from reserves should the NS be destroyed

I said "but obviously" because that is how dedicated transports work. I'm not implying intent at all there, it's literally how the rules work for them.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Then I suggest you read the rules on upgrade characters, which is that they follow the unit rules. A unit of Warriors with a lord attached is still a unit of warriors.

It is an accurate reading of the rule, you just disagree despite having no rules basis for doing so. A number of tournaments around the UK have had players playing this way, and it is allowed in the rules.

Oh, and the models ARE inside the craft, as per the embarked rules. You may hjave made up rules otherwise, but theyve not been "decided" in other threads, not by a long shot.

Oh and "obviously" isnt intent - its in the rules for dedicated transports. You have read them, right?

I have several times... it is not just a unit of warriors... it is a unit of warriors with lord/cryptek attached... would you just write unit of warriors in your list with the lord/cryptek points added in? this would imply cheating as you have not identified the addition to the unit

^this is my rule basis right here... tournies playing like that in the UK is UK... Im from America bub, there may be some cultural differences lol

uh no they arent... if that were the case than any old unit could just walk in on the table edge instead of appearing amongst the wreckage

Obviously is a word in the english language which means "easy to see or detect" its also a word associated with imply, which means "to strongly suggest the truth or existence of"
and yes I have read them a couple of times actually... thank you for reminding me that I've been playing for a little while now... it shows you care

and it doesnt say the unit has to start inside of the transport, it just says no other units can start the game inside of it... not so obvious is it?

So a unit of "Ork Boys" with shooters is no longer a unit of Ork Boys, but "Ork Boys with Shooters"
Upgrade characters are "effectively just another trooper in the unit" (page 63), they don't change what the unit is.

 grendel083 wrote:
So a unit of "Ork Boys" with shooters is no longer a unit of Ork Boys, but "Ork Boys with Shooters"
Upgrade characters are "effectively just another trooper in the unit" (page 63), they don't change what the unit is.

you'd be putting down on your list that they are ork boyz with shooters right? Ork boys implies pistol/close combat weapon... a better arguement to make would be adding a nob or upgrading a unit of commandos with snikrot

 WarlordRob117 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Then I suggest you read the rules on upgrade characters, which is that they follow the unit rules. A unit of Warriors with a lord attached is still a unit of warriors.

It is an accurate reading of the rule, you just disagree despite having no rules basis for doing so. A number of tournaments around the UK have had players playing this way, and it is allowed in the rules.

Oh, and the models ARE inside the craft, as per the embarked rules. You may hjave made up rules otherwise, but theyve not been "decided" in other threads, not by a long shot.

Oh and "obviously" isnt intent - its in the rules for dedicated transports. You have read them, right?

I have several times... it is not just a unit of warriors... it is a unit of warriors with lord/cryptek attached... would you just write unit of warriors in your list with the lord/cryptek points added in? this would imply cheating as you have not identified the addition to the unit

^this is my rule basis right here... tournies playing like that in the UK is UK... Im from America bub, there may be some cultural differences lol

uh no they arent... if that were the case than any old unit could just walk in on the table edge instead of appearing amongst the wreckage

Obviously is a word in the english language which means "easy to see or detect" its also a word associated with imply, which means "to strongly suggest the truth or existence of"
and yes I have read them a couple of times actually... thank you for reminding me that I've been playing for a little while now... it shows you care

and it doesnt say the unit has to start inside of the transport, it just says no other units can start the game inside of it... not so obvious is it?

Sorry, my statement about the NS earlier was a little confusing now that I re-read what I said.

its cool dude

 WarlordRob117 wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
So a unit of "Ork Boys" with shooters is no longer a unit of Ork Boys, but "Ork Boys with Shooters"
Upgrade characters are "effectively just another trooper in the unit" (page 63), they don't change what the unit is.

you'd be putting down on your list that they are ork boyz with shooters right? Ork boys implies pistol/close combat weapon... a better arguement to make would be adding a nob or upgrading a unit of commandos with snikrot

Fair enough.
A unit of Ork Boys is still a unit of Ork Boys even with a Nob Upgrade.
Both the Nob and Necron Lord are Upgrade Characters. They don't change what the unit is, they are still a unit of Ork Boys.
And writing a list I would indeed list it as a unit of Ork Boys, followed by all upgrades (which would include the Nob).

It think it is a misstatement to call a cryptek an "upgrade" to a Warriors unit.

You cannot buy or select a cryptek in the Warriors army list entry.

Cryptek are not purchased for any unit but the Royal Court, that they can be assigned to a warrior unit does not make them an "Upgrade" to that unit.

Anyway aside from that, i do agree that the "Repair Barge" can repair characters assigned to the warriors unit as they are members of that unit.

 WarlordRob117 wrote:
you place the cryptek with the unit during deployment, not when you are buying the Ghost ark to accompany the warriors

You do realize that the Ark specifically carries Warriors, Crypteks, Lords, Overlords, Immortals, and special characters - not just warriors right?
Also - are you trying to say that the Ghost Ark can only repair the unit it was bought for?

Please, show me the rule that differentiates between a unit and a unit with a character (independent or not) attached.
A Warrior unit with a Cryptek attached is still a Warrior unit.

as we have also determined on previous threads that the models are not actually inside the craft...

That's a demonstrably false statement. Fluff != rules.

40k-noob wrote:
It think it is a misstatement to call a cryptek an "upgrade" to a Warriors unit.

You cannot buy or select a cryptek in the Warriors army list entry.

Cryptek are not purchased for any unit but the Royal Court, that they can be assigned to a warrior unit does not make them an "Upgrade" to that unit.

Anyway aside from that, i do agree that the "Repair Barge" can repair characters assigned to the warriors unit as they are members of that unit.

Sorry, I was referring to the previous editions definition of Upgrade Character. The principle remains in his edition, but the name doesn't.

Were Royal Courts ever said to be exactly like Wolf Guard when they are joined to Grey Hunters, Blood Claws, etc, in that they become part of that unit? I have not read the Necron FAQ in forever.

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
Were Royal Courts ever said to be exactly like Wolf Guard when they are joined to Grey Hunters, Blood Claws, etc, in that they become part of that unit? I have not read the Necron FAQ in forever.

If a model is not an independent character but is part of a squad there is no other thing for them to be but part of the squad. Even IC attached to squads are part of the unit for all rules purposes, they just have permission to leave. Realistically there is little difference between Characters and Characters with the IC rule.

And as has been pointed out, the FAQ about crypteks/lords leading Deathmarks and getting to benefit from Hunters from Hyperspace should lend credence to this.

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
Were Royal Courts ever said to be exactly like Wolf Guard when they are joined to Grey Hunters, Blood Claws, etc, in that they become part of that unit? I have not read the Necron FAQ in forever.

No, they haven't.

If you don't treat them like Wolf Guard, then you run in to issues. You can try to hand wave them away, but there are issues.
In addition to the fact that there's literally no other way to consider them.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
Were Royal Courts ever said to be exactly like Wolf Guard when they are joined to Grey Hunters, Blood Claws, etc, in that they become part of that unit? I have not read the Necron FAQ in forever.

No, they haven't.

If you don't treat them like Wolf Guard, then you run in to issues. You can try to hand wave them away, but there are issues.
In addition to the fact that there's literally no other way to consider them.

Yea, I just read through both army's FAQ and there is no mention of Royal Courts actually becoming the unit they join. I then followed up in the BRB and nothing is mentioned there iirc about them becoming part of the unit either. The SW FAQ is pretty specific in that it is the Pack Leader special rule that makes WG become part of the unit they join, which of course is not in the Necron codex.

This does lead to a lot of issues. RAW Royal Courts are pretty broken once the unit they are with is wiped out.

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
Were Royal Courts ever said to be exactly like Wolf Guard when they are joined to Grey Hunters, Blood Claws, etc, in that they become part of that unit? I have not read the Necron FAQ in forever.

No, they haven't.

If you don't treat them like Wolf Guard, then you run in to issues. You can try to hand wave them away, but there are issues.
In addition to the fact that there's literally no other way to consider them.

Yea, I just read through both army's FAQ and there is no mention of Royal Courts actually becoming the unit they join. I then followed up in the BRB and nothing is mentioned there iirc about them becoming part of the unit either. The SW FAQ is pretty specific in that it is the Pack Leader special rule that makes WG become part of the unit they join, which of course is not in the Necron codex.

This does lead to a lot of issues. RAW Royal Courts are pretty broken once the unit they are with is wiped out.

Not surprisingly, the wording in the respective codices is exactly the same. As such, we can use the question in the SW FAQ as a precedent on how the ability works, otherwise the game halts.

Not true Sir... the lord/cryptek is an addition to the squad... you cannot buy a lord in the warrior squad entry... you can however add a nob in the unit entry for ork boyz...
You are correct, it would be a unit of ork boyz... with a nob... it is not just a unit of boyz as most people call them...

This is what Im trying to illustrate we cannot specifiy one way and not the other... Nominate a unit of warriors is nominating a unit of warriors. I got that characters are irrelevant, but the rule specifies by saying the warriors, not the warriors and attached characters... The correct way of writing the rule the two seperate ways would be as follows;

Nominate a unit of necron warriors within 6 inches and and roll a d3. On a roll of 1-2, a single necron warrior model is placed. On a roll of 3-4, three necron warrior models are placed. On a roll of 5-6, three necron warrior models are placed.

version 2: Nominate a unit of necron warriors within 6 inches and roll a D3. (insert previous stats for rolling results but include) Should the squad selected retain a royal court member, use a D6 to randomize if the cort member is ressurected (example: a score of 2 is rolled on the D3. on a 1-3, the court member is ressurected, on a 5-6, a necron warrior is ressurected.

 WarlordRob117 wrote:
Not true Sir... the lord/cryptek is an addition to the squad... you cannot buy a lord in the warrior squad entry... you can however add a nob in the unit entry for ork boyz...
You are correct, it would be a unit of ork boyz... with a nob... it is not just a unit of boyz as most people call them...

That's false of course - there's no unit entry for a unit of ork boyz with a nob.

This is what Im trying to illustrate we cannot specifiy one way and not the other... Nominate a unit of warriors is nominating a unit of warriors. I got that characters are irrelevant, but the rule specifies by saying the warriors, not the warriors and attached characters...

So you found a rule that allows you to treat a unit and a unit with attached character differently?
Could you cite it please?

The correct way of writing the rule the two seperate ways would be as follows;

Nominate a unit of necron warriors within 6 inches and and roll a d3. On a roll of 1-2, a single necron warrior model is placed. On a roll of 3-4, three necron warrior models are placed. On a roll of 5-6, three necron warrior models are placed.

version 2: Nominate a unit of necron warriors within 6 inches and roll a D3. (insert previous stats for rolling results but include) Should the squad selected retain a royal court member, use a D6 to randomize if the cort member is ressurected (example: a score of 2 is rolled on the D3. on a 1-3, the court member is ressurected, on a 5-6, a necron warrior is ressurected.

Those are two rules that are completely different from what's actually printed, so I have no idea what relevance they have.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
Were Royal Courts ever said to be exactly like Wolf Guard when they are joined to Grey Hunters, Blood Claws, etc, in that they become part of that unit? I have not read the Necron FAQ in forever.

No, they haven't.

If you don't treat them like Wolf Guard, then you run in to issues. You can try to hand wave them away, but there are issues.
In addition to the fact that there's literally no other way to consider them.

Yea, I just read through both army's FAQ and there is no mention of Royal Courts actually becoming the unit they join. I then followed up in the BRB and nothing is mentioned there iirc about them becoming part of the unit either. The SW FAQ is pretty specific in that it is the Pack Leader special rule that makes WG become part of the unit they join, which of course is not in the Necron codex.

This does lead to a lot of issues. RAW Royal Courts are pretty broken once the unit they are with is wiped out.

Not surprisingly, the wording in the respective codices is exactly the same. As such, we can use the question in the SW FAQ as a precedent on how the ability works, otherwise the game halts.

Except that the SW references a rule reference of, "Pack Leaders" that the SW FAQ then says is specifically the reason for how when they join a different pack they become part of that pack. There is no, "Robot Leaders" rule reference in the Necron codex nor is there any Necron FAQ that references such a rule.

As far as a precedent, it gets weaker and weaker as you delve into the differences as they far outnumber just the similiarity of being able to be split off and join other units.

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
As far as a precedent, it gets weaker and weaker as you delve into the differences as they far outnumber just the similiarity of being able to be split off and join other units.

How? What differences are there other than "Pack Leader" - which has a similarity to the Royal Court rules.

its not false... when you write down the unit on your list it should say Ork Boys w/shootas, Nob w/ powerklaw (x amount of points)

If you just put down ork boyz on your list with no mention of a nob, and then had a nob on the table? you would be cited for cheating... stop reading into things

uh yeah actually its what we've been talking about the whole time... are you able to single that character out in anyway? in 5th you couldnt but now you can...

"Those are two rules that are completely different from what's actually printed, so I have no idea what relevance they have"
Perhaps you missed the little snippit above my fabricated rules stating what they are there for... you shouldnt read so fast boss, might get a headache...

Seriously, they actually DO have an FAQ entry regarding repair barge and they did not change the wording from "model" to "warrior" or "Warrior model".

Tyr, both units say (roughly, I'm away from my books, at my lgs, waiting for the clerk to get back)

Before deploying, each model from the unit can be split off to lead a unit from the following list: A, B, C, etc. Only one model may join each unit in this manner.

Again not verbatim (also, Wolf Guard says "pack" instead of unit, but whatever).

 WarlordRob117 wrote:
its not false... when you write down the unit on your list it should say Ork Boys w/shootas, Nob w/ powerklaw (x amount of points)

What page is the unit entry for a Boys mob with Nob?

uh yeah actually its what we've been talking about the whole time... are you able to single that character out in anyway? in 5th you couldnt but now you can...

Cite the rule please - I've asked twice.

"Those are two rules that are completely different from what's actually printed, so I have no idea what relevance they have"
Perhaps you missed the little snippit above my fabricated rules stating what they are there for... you shouldnt read so fast boss, might get a headache...

No, I got that they're your interpretation of two possibilities... but neither are what's written nor what's FAQed, so they mean exactly nothing.

If necron lords and crypteks can be brought back how would you determine if the roll of a 2 brings back a warrior or a lord since there is not ONE rule that say how to determine the choice. The codex says warriors. Im confussed how they (crypteks,lords) got bundled into the fray there.

Lungpickle wrote:
If necron lords and crypteks can be brought back how would you determine if the roll of a 2 brings back a warrior or a lord since there is not ONE rule that say how to determine the choice. The codex says warriors. Im confussed how they (crypteks,lords) got bundled into the fray there.

The rule does not say "warriors". You select a unit of Warriors, and get d3 "models".

Lungpickle wrote:
If necron lords and crypteks can be brought back how would you determine if the roll of a 2 brings back a warrior or a lord since there is not ONE rule that say how to determine the choice. The codex says warriors. Im confussed how they (crypteks,lords) got bundled into the fray there.

The bolded is false.

 Happyjew wrote:
Tyr, both units say (roughly, I'm away from my books, at my lgs, waiting for the clerk to get back)

Before deploying, each model from the unit can be split off to lead a unit from the following list: A, B, C, etc. Only one model may join each unit in this manner.

Again not verbatim (also, Wolf Guard says "pack" instead of unit, but whatever).

I know exactly what the rules say for both HJ. However the first sentence of the FAQ says,

"When a Wolf Guard model joins another unit because of his Pack Leader special rule he becomes part of that unit to all intents and purposes."

It then goes on to explain exactly what it means, "to all intents and purposes" which is in directly because of the Wolf Guard model has the Pack Leader special rule. The similarity exists only in the wording, but ends once the FAQ references the Pack Leader rule making the Wolf Guard model part of the unit for all intents and purposes. The Royal Court entry has nothing to reference or relate to the Pack Leader special rule that the SW FAQ references.

@Rig

A Royal Court is:

Dependent on the inclusion of a Necron Overlord in your army.
They are a HQ choice that does not take up a HQ FOC slot.
They remain as unit type: Infantry (Character) if joined to a unit or remaining within the Royal Court.

Frankly the only similarity I find in common is that they can split off to go lead specific units like Wolf Guard. The difference is that Wolf Guard have it called a special rule and includes bonuses such as becoming part of the unit for all intents and purposes, unlike the lord and crypteks.

While I hate to bring it up, the differences do not just end with FOC slots, desginations, or FAQ answers. I just reread the fluff entries for all three and it even becomes more apparent why it appears significant that the Wolf Guard have a special rule called Pack Leaders with associcated FAQ clarification for it and the Royal Court does not have anything similar.

"

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
@Rig

A Royal Court is:

Dependent on the inclusion of a Necron Overlord in your army.

Irrelevant for determining how they lead a unit.

They are a HQ choice that does not take up a HQ FOC slot.

Irrelevant for determining how they lead a unit.

They remain as unit type: Infantry (Character) if joined to a unit or remaining within the Royal Court.

Irrelevant for determining how they lead a unit. And Wolf Guard never are Characters.

Frankly the only similarity I find in common is that they can split off to go lead specific units like Wolf Guard. The difference is that Wolf Guard have it called a special rule and includes bonuses such as becoming part of the unit for all intents and purposes, unlike the lord and crypteks.

That's the only relevant thing you've mentioned. And unless you treat them the same for these purposes, things break. Which is why the WG FAQ should be used as precedent.
Which was my original point.

While I hate to bring it up, the differences do not just end with FOC slots, desginations, or FAQ answers. I just reread the fluff entries for all three and it even becomes more apparent why it appears significant that the Wolf Guard have a special rule called Pack Leaders with associcated FAQ clarification for it and the Royal Court does not have anything similar.

Sigh... fine.
So Royal Court members do not become scoring?
So how to powers/etc that target unit members work? If the Court members aren't "part of that unit to all intents and purposes" (quote from the SW FAQ) how are they treated? Can I allocate wounds to them?
Since they aren't part of the unit, if I kill the 5 Warriors but not the Cryptek - do I get a VP in Purge the Alien?
There's more. Please answer these questions using anything but the Space Wolf FAQ.

BRB defines 3 kinds of characters (pg 63 character types)
i) those that "are effectively just another trooper in their unit"
ii) those that "fight as units on their own"
iii) ICs

It is more than obvious that attached RC members fit the first type.

copper.talos wrote:
BRB defines 3 kinds of characters (pg 63 character types)
i) those that "are effectively just another in their unit"
ii) those that "fight as units on their own"
iii) ICs

It is more than obvious that attached RC members fit the first type.

But a unit of Warriors is not a Cryptek's unit. That'd be the Royal Court he was purchased in.

A model can only belong to 1 unit. When the army is deployed the player decides each cryptek/lord's unit.

I'm going to put up some of the Necron codex/FAQ that should have been done in my comments earlier.

Repair barge:
Codex:
At the start of each Necron Movement phase, a Ghost Ark can expend energy to repair fallen Necrons. Nominate a unit of Necron Warriors within 6" (or embarked on) the Ghost Ark and roll a D6. If the score is 2 or more, add D3 models to the unit - the models can move and act normally this turn. This cannot take the unit beyond its starting size. If a model cannot be placed for any reason, it is destroyed. On a roll of a 1, place the models as described above, however the Ghost Ark is drained and suffers a glancing hit with no saves allowed.

FAQ Errata:
Change the third sentence to “if the result is 2 or more, add D3 models to the unit. These must be placed within unit coherency of at least one model that hasn’t been created this turn. They can move and act normally this turn.”

Full current rule:
At the start of each Necron Movement phase, a Ghost Ark can expend energy to repair fallen Necrons. Nominate a unit of Necron Warriors within 6" (or embarked on) the Ghost Ark and roll a D6. If the result is 2 or more, add D3 models to the unit. These must be placed within unit coherency of at least one model that hasn’t been created this turn. They can move and act normally this turn. This cannot take the unit beyond its starting size. If a model cannot be placed for any reason, it is destroyed. On a roll of a 1, place the models as described above, however the Ghost Ark is drained and suffers a glancing hit with no saves allowed.


Hunters from Hyperspace
Codex:
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 chosen unit to serve as a reminder. Any Deathmark unit that shoots at, or strikes blows against, a unit marked in this fashion will score a Wound on a roll of 2+.

FAQ Errata:
Add the following sentences at the end of the paragraph: “If an Independent Character is chosen as a target, any unit they are currently joined to is also wounded on rolls of 2+. If the chosen Independent Character leaves the unit, only the Independent Character continues to be wounded on a 2+.”

Full current rule:
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 chosen unit to serve as a reminder. Any Deathmark unit that shoots at, or strikes blows against, a unit marked in this fashion will score a Wound on a roll of 2+. If an Independent Character is chosen as a target, any unit they are currently joined to is also wounded on rolls of 2+. If the chosen Independent Character leaves the unit, only the Independent Character continues to be wounded on a 2+.

FAQ on Royal Court interactions with HfH:
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.



Let's put this together. First, let's bold all the Repair Barge bits referring to what is added:

At the start of each Necron Movement phase, a Ghost Ark can expend energy to repair fallen Necrons. Nominate a unit of Necron Warriors within 6" (or embarked on) the Ghost Ark and roll a D6. If the result is 2 or more, add D3 models to the unit. These must be placed within unit coherency of at least one model that hasn’t been created this turn. They can move and act normally this turn. This cannot take the unit beyond its starting size. If a model cannot be placed for any reason, it is destroyed. On a roll of a 1, place the models as described above, however the Ghost Ark is drained and suffers a glancing hit with no saves allowed.

There's one mention of Necron Warriors and that's to determine which units can have models added. Models. Not Warriors, that's quite explicit. Do you see all the places that if the word "Warriors" was used even ONCE it would not repair Royal Court attachments? In fact, it's very careful in the first sentence to say Necrons. It looks pretty cut and dry - if Cryptek+Warriors=Warrior unit, then it WILL work.

This is where Hunters from Hyperspace's precedent comes into play:

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 chosen unit to serve as a reminder. Any Deathmark unit that shoots at, or strikes blows against, a unit marked in this fashion will score a Wound on a roll of 2+. If an Independent Character is chosen as a target, any unit they are currently joined to is also wounded on rolls of 2+. If the chosen Independent Character leaves the unit, only the Independent Character continues to be wounded on a 2+.

The phrase "Deathmark unit" is key here. Then we have our FAQ:

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.

They gain the benefit from that rule. Therefore, we must conclude they are part of the "Deathmark unit", as otherwise Hunters from Hyperspace wouldn't apply. So, this means that Royal Court members attached to a unit are indeed part of the unit. So, any Royal Court member joining a unit of Necron Warriors is part of a "unit of Necron Warriors". With that, we're done.

I can also quote the rules for Royal Court members joining a unit, which states they lead the unit, which also lends credence to this argument. Any attached model to a unit from a Royal Court is part of that unit for all intents and purposes. This follows the Space Wolves FAQ for Wolf Guard, but instead of them having a special rule, it is written on p90 under unit composition.



That's HIWP and RAW, possibly even RAI if you read the fluff. I do not see the argument against this at all, as it's based off the false assumption that something from a Royal Court joined to a unit is not part of the unit itself.

copper.talos wrote:
A model can only belong to 1 unit.

Citation required.

When the army is deployed the player decides each cryptek/lord's unit.

No, that's not what the rule says. It says they're split off and assigned to lead a unit. It does not say they are now members of that unit - why are they not still members of the Royal Court unit?

Note that I'm only arguing this because of the resistance to using the SW FAQ as precedent.

What are you saying exactly? That 1 model can belong to unit A but move, act, shoot, take wounds, deal wounds as part of unit B? I'll take it as a joke. If you are serious, then it's you who needs to provide citation.

Tyr, I'm curious as to where in the codex it says that Wolf Guard are treated as normal members for all purposes, as I do not see it. Can I get a page number please?

The only place I see Pack leaders is under the Unit section that details point cost and eligible upgrades.

For anyone who is wondering (slight changes made, for example unit -> squad, Wolf Guard -> model) Here is a comparison of the two rules for comparison. Note there is an extra rule afterwards that is different but (IMO) does not apply to this discussion:

Before the battle, each model has the option of being split off from his squad and assigned to lead a different squad from the following list: [LIST]. Only one model may join each squad in this manner.

Before the battle, each model has the option of being split off from his squad and assigned to lead a different squad from the following list: [LIST]. Only one model can join each squad in this manner.

copper.talos wrote:
What are you saying exactly? That 1 model can belong to unit A but move, act, shoot, take wounds, deal wounds as part of unit B? I'll take it as a joke. If you are serious, then it's you who needs to provide citation.

No. I'm saying that unless you treat them as a single unit as the SW FAQ says to there will be unresolvable issues. Like the one you brought up.

Ah OK. We are in agreement then.

WarlordRob117 wrote:

I have several times... it is not just a unit of warriors... it is a unit of warriors with lord/cryptek attached... would you just write unit of warriors in your list with the lord/cryptek points added in? this would imply cheating as you have not identified the addition to the unit

Nope, you have stated something that is not rules. That unit is named "unit of warriors", not "unit of warriors with cryptek attached". Same as a unit of 29 boyz and 1 nob is still called a boyz unit. So when you are told to select a warriors unit to bring back a model, that is any model that was in that unit. Your interpretation adds a restriction that is not present in the text, aka making rules up.

WarlordRob117 wrote:^this is my rule basis right here... tournies playing like that in the UK is UK... Im from America bub, there may be some cultural differences lol

Your rules basis isnt based in rules. It isnt just UK tournies, either. Cultural differences do not explain additional restrictions being added not based on the UK US linguistic differences.

WarlordRob117 wrote:uh no they arent... if that were the case than any old unit could just walk in on the table edge instead of appearing amongst the wreckage

Not only do the embarked rules disagree with you, the FAQ even confirms that they are embarked. Rules wise you, yet again, have no argument that holds merit.

WarlordRob117 wrote:Obviously is a word in the english language which means "easy to see or detect" its also a word associated with imply, which means "to strongly suggest the truth or existence of"
and yes I have read them a couple of times actually... thank you for reminding me that I've been playing for a little while now... it shows you care

The context of a statement of precise truth value means it cannot have been implication. English tells you this.

WarlordRob117 wrote:and it doesnt say the unit has to start inside of the transport, it just says no other units can start the game inside of it... not so obvious is it?

That wasnt the statement - just the no other unit could start in it, "obviously", because that is a requirement of the DT rules. AGain, a tatement of utter truth, so no implication.

funny how "precedent" is cited here because of the similarity between WG and RC members yet when "similarity" exists in other parts of the Game all of sudden its a permissive rule set and if its not tin the rules you can't do it.

just an observation

40k-noob wrote:
funny how "precedent" is cited here because of the similarity between WG and RC members yet when "similarity" exists in other parts of the Game all of sudden its a permissive rule set and if its not tin the rules you can't do it.

just an observation

It's funny how people can observe things without context and think its relevant everywhere.

Edit: I try to always argue RAW. In this case, RAW is literally unworkable so it's an indefensible position.

I almost always argue with precedents if the wording is unclear. I cannot think of any example where, upon RAW being unclear, this forum hasn't accepted precedent. I'm willing to be proven wrong, but I can't come up with any examples.

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
funny how "precedent" is cited here because of the similarity between WG and RC members yet when "similarity" exists in other parts of the Game all of sudden its a permissive rule set and if its not tin the rules you can't do it.

just an observation

It's funny how people can observe things without context and think its relevant everywhere.

Edit: I try to always argue RAW. In this case, RAW is literally unworkable so it's an indefensible position.

so what is the "context" for using "precedent" in this discussion? Since i must have missed it.

Precedent is great in a HYWPI or RAI argument. It usually fails in a RAW argument unless the rules cannot work without it.

I hadn't realised this would be such a divisive issue...

Anyhow, the discussion seems to hinge on whether or not the lord/cryptek attached to the unit of necron warriors counts as a necron warrior.

Crypteks and lords have the Character rules as defined on pg 63 of the main rulebook. the problem is that characters are defined as upgrades to a unit without a seperate entry. Lords/crypteks are chosen as a member of a royal court (by definition a seperate entry) bur can be assigned to lead a variety of different units before deployment (necron codex pg 90: royal court)

If they are to be counted as a member of the unit for all rules purposes, then they would, do so as per the rules on Pg63, and therefore count as Necron warriors if they join a unit of warriors, immortals if they joined immortals etc.

the repair barge special rule says, target a unit of warriors, and add D3 models to the unit, it specifically does not say 'add D3 necron warriors' and since we can infer a lord/cryptek counts as a member of the unit, then they can be added if they are a casualty.
if the lord/cryptek does NOT count as a member of the unit, then the entire unit cannot embark a transport, since the transport rules state: Pg: 78

'a transport can carry a single infantry unit and/or any number of independent characters'

If you allow me to embark my unit of 9 warriors + Lord/cryptek on a ghost ark, or night scythe, or use the dimensional corridor on the monolith, or use the veil of darkness to to allow 'the cryptek and his unit...' (pg 84 wargear section necron codex) then that is just the same as saying that he is a member of the unit, and will benefit/suffer from any rules that affect the unit.

Now (another question) since my stance is that an attached lord/cryptek is RAW a member of whatever unit he has joined, will he recieve the benefits of Anrakyr's 'Pyrrhian Eternals' special rule, and Szeras' 'Mechanical augmentation' ? potentially giving him S9 on the charge (furious charge + enhanced servo motors + warscythe)

40k-noob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
funny how "precedent" is cited here because of the similarity between WG and RC members yet when "similarity" exists in other parts of the Game all of sudden its a permissive rule set and if its not tin the rules you can't do it.

just an observation

It's funny how people can observe things without context and think its relevant everywhere.

Edit: I try to always argue RAW. In this case, RAW is literally unworkable so it's an indefensible position.

so what is the "context" for using "precedent" in this discussion? Since i must have missed it.

Perhaps read the last few posts I've made.
Without using the precedent of the Wolf Guard Battle Leaders, a Royal Court "splitting off to lead other units" has zero rules support to define what that means. Unless you'd like to offer some?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

madtankbloke wrote:
Now (another question) since my stance is that an attached lord/cryptek is RAW a member of whatever unit he has joined, will he recieve the benefits of Anrakyr's 'Pyrrhian Eternals' special rule, and Szeras' 'Mechanical augmentation' ? potentially giving him S9 on the charge (furious charge + enhanced servo motors + warscythe)

It's unclear - Szeras' roll happens before deployment, Royal Courts attaching happens before the game with no delineation of when that is. (It could be during deployment for example)
Anrakyr's ability won't work because the Eternals are selected at list time, when you cannot have a Court member attached.

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
funny how "precedent" is cited here because of the similarity between WG and RC members yet when "similarity" exists in other parts of the Game all of sudden its a permissive rule set and if its not tin the rules you can't do it.

just an observation

It's funny how people can observe things without context and think its relevant everywhere.

Edit: I try to always argue RAW. In this case, RAW is literally unworkable so it's an indefensible position.

so what is the "context" for using "precedent" in this discussion? Since i must have missed it.

Perhaps read the last few posts I've made.
Without using the precedent of the Wolf Guard Battle Leaders, a Royal Court "splitting off to lead other units" has zero rules support to define what that means. Unless you'd like to offer some?

so again the similarities between WG and RC is the justification for using "precedent" to define the game play/mechanics for the RC members based on the game play/mechanics for WG.

I have no wish to detract from this thread any further.

It was just an observation.

40k-noob wrote:
so again the similarities between WG and RC is the justification for using "precedent" to define the game play/mechanics for the RC members based on the game play/mechanics for WG.

Yes. Because doing otherwise the game doesn't function.
Your observation implied you were ignoring the latter sentence when in fact it's perhaps the most important thing about this case.
Normally when the rules literally fail to function (not just not do anything, but actually break) precedent is used.

Edit: and if I remember who you are correctly - see you at FO Saturday :-)

rigeld2 wrote:

copper.talos wrote:
A model can only belong to 1 unit.

Citation required.

When the army is deployed the player decides each cryptek/lord's unit.

No, that's not what the rule says. It says they're split off and assigned to lead a unit. It does not say they are now members of that unit - why are they not still members of the Royal Court unit?

Note that I'm only arguing this because of the resistance to using the SW FAQ as precedent.

They are not members of the Royal Court unit because they were assigned to another unit. ""Only 1 member of the Royal Court can join a unit in this manner. Otherwise they remain part of the Royal Court."

If they are not in a unit, then they are part of the RC, hence if they join a unit, they are not part of the RC. (unit)

rigeld2 wrote:

Edit: and if I remember who you are correctly - see you at FO Saturday :-)

yup, see you on Sat.

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
funny how "precedent" is cited here because of the similarity between WG and RC members yet when "similarity" exists in other parts of the Game all of sudden its a permissive rule set and if its not tin the rules you can't do it.

just an observation

It's funny how people can observe things without context and think its relevant everywhere.

Edit: I try to always argue RAW. In this case, RAW is literally unworkable so it's an indefensible position.

so what is the "context" for using "precedent" in this discussion? Since i must have missed it.

Perhaps read the last few posts I've made.
Without using the precedent of the Wolf Guard Battle Leaders, a Royal Court "splitting off to lead other units" has zero rules support to define what that means. Unless you'd like to offer some?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

madtankbloke wrote:
Now (another question) since my stance is that an attached lord/cryptek is RAW a member of whatever unit he has joined, will he recieve the benefits of Anrakyr's 'Pyrrhian Eternals' special rule, and Szeras' 'Mechanical augmentation' ? potentially giving him S9 on the charge (furious charge + enhanced servo motors + warscythe)

It's unclear - Szeras' roll happens before deployment, Royal Courts attaching happens before the game with no delineation of when that is. (It could be during deployment for example)
Anrakyr's ability won't work because the Eternals are selected at list time, when you cannot have a Court member attached.

If going by the codex, the royal court rules say "before the battle" and the in the rulebook if you look at Fighting a Battle (somewhere in the early 100's), that starts with setting up terrain. So, to me, it seems that you choose where they go before even setting up the battlefield.

Great, you found a debate able link. Care to address the rest of the issues I brought up?

And even then - that lends support to the Ark bringing them back.

rigeld2 wrote:
Great, you found a debate able link. Care to address the rest of the issues I brought up?

And even then - that lends support to the Ark bringing them back.

If you're talking to me, I'm agreeing with (and trying to support) you.

Kevin949 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Great, you found a debate able link. Care to address the rest of the issues I brought up?

And even then - that lends support to the Ark bringing them back.

If you're talking to me, I'm agreeing with (and trying to support) you.

No, sorry - I type slow and missed it.

Fragile wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

copper.talos wrote:
A model can only belong to 1 unit.

Citation required.

When the army is deployed the player decides each cryptek/lord's unit.

No, that's not what the rule says. It says they're split off and assigned to lead a unit. It does not say they are now members of that unit - why are they not still members of the Royal Court unit?

Note that I'm only arguing this because of the resistance to using the SW FAQ as precedent.

They are not members of the Royal Court unit because they were assigned to another unit. ""Only 1 member of the Royal Court can join a unit in this manner. Otherwise they remain part of the Royal Court."

If they are not in a unit, then they are part of the RC, hence if they join a unit, they are not part of the RC. (unit)

rigeld2 wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Great, you found a debate able link. Care to address the rest of the issues I brought up?

And even then - that lends support to the Ark bringing them back.

If you're talking to me, I'm agreeing with (and trying to support) you.

No, sorry - I type slow and missed it.

No worries, things are little a confusing in here anyway, as far as who's responding to what and others jumping in without (seemingly) having read previous statements.

ah and another reason i will be running ghost arks over night scyths, or maybe splitting my troops between the two for objective games. Now to remake my list....


Automatically Appended Next Post:
i dont see the rage inducing cheesy as all get out here loophole. So what you can bring back the lord or cryptek with the barge. I agree, it says you cant break the original unit count, so one lord/cryptek it is if it only had one. Its not like you can take a trackyon arrow on a lord and get him killed every turn hopefully and get a semi-reusable arrow. A typical player doesnt fully kit out a lord to be placed in a warrior squad, arguably the worst unit in the codex for cc...itd be as illogical as putting <insert any SM codex CC Beast here> into a unit intended to be a "stay the hellz away from the enemy and shoot it to death" style of unit. Ud be wasting points. A Destruction cryptek is almost the only true blue awesome model to revive every turn to keep that 8S weapon alive even if a savy opp snipes him out.

The only purpose most people run lords in warriors is to give them MSS and a warscythe for challenges only. By then the repair function become moot as in most casses a warrior squad is going to be wiped out in a sweeping advance if not outright killed, so no RP or repair to be had in any case.

It doesn't break the game at all, if anything, its the only real reason to run a Ark over a NS....which is what ill be doing. Honestly, youd think people would be happy that the ghost ark is a more desirable option to the NS with all the complaining about "FLYER SPAM OP"going on everywhere

Kinda feel like the death mark point ended the argument IMO. But it says in the royal court that he joins the unit. How is he part of the unit and then not? Are you saying that if you targeted the unit with a ability it would not affect the cryptek? Or that you can target him separately?

It generates new warriors to replace old ones as the language reads.

It is very likely that it's legal to replace dead crypteks and lords (with warriors) to bring the unit back to it's full strength. Read the rule again and see if you can see it my way.

It just cannot take the unit above it's starting size, which tends to include upgrade characters. If it were say, a space marine unit that it influenced, instead of necron warriors, I could see the rules replacing your srg or plasma gunner with a normal marine. They really aren't getting back up. That isn't at all how the repair barge rule reads. It's making new ones.

You can also have dorks generated up till the point you only have crypteks or lords hanging about. It's still the same old necron warrior unit. it's not like it stopped being a unit if the 2 courtiers were still around and they could go about their courtly business as "not a necron warrior unit".

You can also have dorks generated up till the point you only have crypteks or lords hanging about. It's still the same old necron warrior unit. it's not like it stopped being a unit if the 2 courtiers were still around and they could go about their courtly business as "not a necron warrior unit".

that would be taking them beyond their starting strength.

a lord is added to the unit as an UPGRADE to the typical warrior as per BRB rules for characters. As such, he is still TECHNIcally a necron warrior, meaning the lord can be placed back into the unit vie the barge.

Also according to the codex, its repairing fallen models, not creating new ones, thus the restriction to the size and the dictation of what model to bring back, as you cant place 2 lords with every upgrade available for free instead of 2 warriors as they weren't apart of the original unit's setup. Please note it says Original Strength. If the original strength was 14 warriors and a lord with a warcythe, you can never place anything else but that in the unit.

With a game that's generally ruled based on the wording of the text, this seems to be completely intended by the devs as it specifically says "Models" instead of warriors. Some might argue that it needs to be FAQd, while I'd agree it needs to be clarified at the very least.

Sorry pal, but I think you should whip out the old codex. Starting strength might be an term worth debating but not whether or not the ark is dealing with new models in any sort of traking sense. the ark only checks after the fact vs starting strength of the unit. Clearly the court characters are considered part of the unit as it exists through the course of the game, it tells you to put down new dudes but says you can't put them down if you didn't have that many guys in the unit's starting strength, no mention to what sort they were, so long as they are the part of the necron warrior unit.

Leme dissuade you of any impression that the repair barge is interacting with necron warriors, as opposed to generating new warriors and then subjecting what it did to a series of checks and balances for game balance reasons:

...Nominate a unit of necron warriors with 6 (or embarked on the ghost ark) and roll a D6. If the score is 2 or more, add D3 models to the unit - the models can move and act normally this turn. This cannot take the unit beyond its starting size...

Yeah it never really talks about what models it is replacing, only that there were once models it is replacing in some sort of more broad universal sense. It also makes sure at the start that it is interacting with a warrior unit. Necrons seem to be like that. I do not question the ways of the ghost ark, I only obey it's rules to great satisfaction.

I'll put down all the necron warriors it will let me, starting size allowing. Too bad it doesn't know how to differentiate a lord or whatever the way I do, it might have been able to make one for me.

Right. So the arguement here is that the rules says the Ark can repair D3 models in a unit of "warriors" - but attached Cypteks/Lords are not warriors therefore shoudl nto count.

So would ask this. As a Cyptek/lord is made a part of the squad during deployment they work in a similar fashion to a space marine sergeant - part fo the squad but with different statline, gear etc.

If there was a rule saying that all space marines" within 6" of a Banner get FNP - would this include the sergeant in that squad? He's not technically a space marine, he's a space marine sergeant - different kind of model.

That's how I look at it anyway.

Fragile wrote:
Yes, this is another case of RAI gone wrong. Context says that Warriors are returned to the unit, however the rule just says models. So technically by RAW it can be anything attached to the unit. Even by that wording you could add d3 Lords to the unit.

But you can't add D3 lords. You could replace lost lords, but you can't add more.
Why? Because lords require each to come from a different court, and each court must be unlocked by an overlord.
You can argue the barg allows D3 lords, but those lords cannot be attached unless they each have an overlord to unlock them.

-Matt

the rule also says the unit can't be taken above its starting stregnth, whcih i woudl read to mean to cover unit composition as well.
if the unit started with 1 lord, then you can only repair it to include up to 1 Lord.

I couldn't find a place where it states that the lord and/or cryptek are removed from the RC but you have to consider what happens if you don't.

1. Tying one unit up in CC also ties the other if they are considered part of both. If you have multiple units broken up off a RC then you have more then two units tied up by CC. Even if you don't consider them taking part in the combat the Lord/Cryptek still can't move as a unit involved in CC can't move.
2. The removed and attached Lord/Cryptek is eligible/required to take wounds from shots fired or CC directed at either the warrior unit or RC.
3. If the Character is part of both units then he can target a unit that the RC fires at or that the Warriors fire at.
4. Wargear of the Cryptek that affect his unit like the Chronometron or Lightning Field would then apply to both units.

For these reasons alone I would say they are part of the warrior unit and no longer part of the RC. As written I have to agree you can bring back the Characters via the Ghost Ark.

 Praxiss wrote:
Right. So the arguement here is that the rules says the Ark can repair D3 models in a unit of "warriors" - but attached Cypteks/Lords are not warriors therefore shoudl nto count.

Is it not still a unit of warriors?

Nominate a unit of warriors. Check.
"Repair" d3 models. Is a Cryptek a model? Check.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Praxiss wrote:
Right. So the arguement here is that the rules says the Ark can repair D3 models in a unit of "warriors" - but attached Cypteks/Lords are not warriors therefore shoudl nto count.

Is it not still a unit of warriors?

Nominate a unit of warriors. Check.
"Repair" d3 models. Is a Cryptek a model? Check.

Ummm, i agree that it should work - i was merely stating an example and trying to clarify the main points of the issue (further down in my orignal post).

overlordweasel wrote:
ah and another reason i will be running ghost arks over night scyths, or maybe splitting my troops between the two for objective games. Now to remake my list....


Automatically Appended Next Post:
i dont see the rage inducing cheesy as all get out here loophole. So what you can bring back the lord or cryptek with the barge. I agree, it says you cant break the original unit count, so one lord/cryptek it is if it only had one. Its not like you can take a trackyon arrow on a lord and get him killed every turn hopefully and get a semi-reusable arrow. A typical player doesnt fully kit out a lord to be placed in a warrior squad, arguably the worst unit in the codex for cc...itd be as illogical as putting <insert any SM codex CC Beast here> into a unit intended to be a "stay the hellz away from the enemy and shoot it to death" style of unit. Ud be wasting points. A Destruction cryptek is almost the only true blue awesome model to revive every turn to keep that 8S weapon alive even if a savy opp snipes him out.

The only purpose most people run lords in warriors is to give them MSS and a warscythe for challenges only. By then the repair function become moot as in most casses a warrior squad is going to be wiped out in a sweeping advance if not outright killed, so no RP or repair to be had in any case.

It doesn't break the game at all, if anything, its the only real reason to run a Ark over a NS....which is what ill be doing. Honestly, youd think people would be happy that the ghost ark is a more desirable option to the NS with all the complaining about "FLYER SPAM OP"going on everywhere

The problem is that with 2 overlords you can have 2 lords with res.orbs in a unit of warriors, now when this unit dies with one of the 2 lords coming back on a 4+ odds are(75%) that at least 1 stands back up and then the ark just puts the other one back in. So now you have this squad that is for all intents and purposes is immortal until the ghost ark dies, at AV13 and 4HP the ark is pretty durable and if your abusing this you are probably taking more than 1 ark. And to top it all off the squad scores, plus as an added benefit if you have MSS on both of them they can effectively go toe to toe with any CC unit in the game(except maybe very large boy and nid squads, since they can effectively cover both tokens) since all they need to do is charge in MSS something, die, get revived, repeat. And that's what feels wrong about this ruling, it just feels like an exploit, for 340pts(all the lords need are MSS and an orb) you get a scoring unit with effectively infinite wounds(until the ark dies and any other arks you took) that can take out/delay opponents death stars and a transport for said unit. I mean maybe I'm wrong but this doesn't feel like the intended function of the ghost ark.

Anyway this thread is the first that I am hearing about this and I have been playing with and against newcrons since it's release and no one has ever interpreted it like this, which if it was intended you would think people would play that way more often. Would like to see a FAQ on the royal courts in general I mean people that I play with still grime about lone crypteks and lords scoring and if I brought this up they would probably stop playing me.

So the arguement here is that the rules says the Ark can repair D3 models in a unit of "warriors" - but attached Cypteks/Lords are not warriors therefore shoudl nto count.

see, in 5th edition this would be true, as the 6th edition rule set and more specifically the introduction to the "character" rule came into effect. As such, the BRB specifically considers them as an upgrade model with a different stat line, wargear, etc; while all the while counting as whatever they replaced as an upgraded from. The only reason people are callign foul is that the necron warrior/Lord cryptek entries don't follow the normal convention following character upgrades in their respective entires. As Lords and Crypteks are apart of a separate unit in the RC and then split p at the start to join and lead other squads as a character (using the character rules, which I explained above how they work).

Also, concerning the Ark, the codex entry specifically states "models" in a "unit of Necron Warriors". As it doesnt designate ONLY warrior models and Lords count as warriors as already explained above, so it is completely legal in RAW to bring back a Lord or Cryptek as long as you don't expand beyond the origional model count IE 14 warriors led by 1 Lord.

It's a neat trick that 6th edition gave the ghost ark, that we previously didn't have and by no means is game breaking. Essentially its a almost guaranteed reroll to a failed RP on a character that in my opinion should have been 2 wounds in the first place, but I can understand why not as it would make the royal court disco inferno deathstar unit utterly ridiculously hard to kill. Seriously if you had to pay to "upgrade" a single warrior model to a lord, ud be paying roughly 100 points to have +1 S, T, A, and the save of an immortal/ power armor. All of this to turn a shooty model into a...super slow meager CC model with a neat trick via MSS and a very situational AV option with a scythe; but as your playign necrons, ud be better of throwing 20+ gauss shots down the field and glance it to death instead of risking a explode result from the scythe and potentially loosing models for no reason. Crypteks are more worth their points as they rarely go over 75 points, and you have long range melta str weapon options, further boosting what the warrior squad was already doing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The problem is that with 2 overlords you can have 2 lords with res.orbs in a unit of warriors, now when this unit dies with one of the 2 lords coming back on a 4+ odds are(75%) that at least 1 stands back up and then the ark just puts the other one back in. So now you have this squad that is for all intents and purposes is immortal until the ghost ark dies, at AV13 and 4HP the ark is pretty durable and if your abusing this you are probably taking more than 1 ark. And to top it all off the squad scores, plus as an added benefit if you have MSS on both of them they can effectively go toe to toe with any CC unit in the game(except maybe very large boy and nid squads, since they can effectively cover both tokens) since all they need to do is charge in MSS something, die, get revived, repeat. And that's what feels wrong about this ruling, it just feels like an exploit, for 340pts(all the lords need are MSS and an orb) you get a scoring unit with effectively infinite wounds(until the ark dies and any other arks you took) that can take out/delay opponents death stars and a transport for said unit. I mean maybe I'm wrong but this doesn't feel like the intended function of the ghost ark.

Anyway this thread is the first that I am hearing about this and I have been playing with and against newcrons since it's release and no one has ever interpreted it like this, which if it was intended you would think people would play that way more often. Would like to see a FAQ on the royal courts in general I mean people that I play with still grime about lone crypteks and lords scoring and if I brought this up they would probably stop playing me.

sorry to point this out, but your scoring count is way off...assuming you take two over lords (going with the bare min of MSS and warscythe to make them even worthwhile, more if you want anything else like a CCB or other upgrades), only one ghost ark for the sake of argument, 2 necron lords kitted out the same as above in your post ( MSS and orb) and one full unit of 20 warriors (which if your going to pull this "exploit" you'd want to invest more than a small squad.

adding all the above comes to a cost of 765 points alone for 2 HQs on foot, 1 troop choice, a transport, and 2/5 of a RC which dont take a slot. So your saying roughly half of your army or more to pull this strategy off is broken? If some1 fielded the above list, id laugh as they could only hold 1-2 obj at all all game in a typical scenario. and with only 1 AV13 vehicle in that, its goign to be gone by turn 2, especially if its obviously the "exploit" you're intending to go and the opponent isnt a complete noob (no offense). Any list that focuses on this would be horribly weak. And being perfectly honest, the above list is only a bare minimum listing, the lords would take warscythes just for the MSS combo alone, and the Overlords would either have more upgrades or even a CCB for themselves (80 points a pop alone) so in complete honesty, youd be adding 100 or more points to that above listing easilly.

As I said in my previous posts, it by no means "game breaking" or "op". If it was the WAAC players would be going that instead fo flyer spam. Your trading any sort of versatility and almost all of your firepower (at least half in my case in how I build my lists) thats almost 1000 points with no shooting attack over S5......lolwut? and at the max 5/10(RF) from the ark, and 20/40(RF) from the warriors all of those being gauss flayers, the weakest shotting weapon in the codex. Also tack on the fact that the most targets you could fire at would be *drum roll for suspense* a massive TWO different units, and thats assuming you shoot the ark at a different target (o noes 5 shots of S4, im shakin).

In all seriousness, its a horrible tactic to "build a list around". I'd only field it as a way to keep my dectruction crypteks alive if they just so happen to be precision shot out of the unit. If it came down to CC, i doubt a necron warrior squad is goign to win combat and survive the sweeping advance (in2 is almost a guaranteed fail unless your playing tau or other crons, in which case youd actually have a good chance of winning combat assumign its warriors fighting warriors and not him beating your warrriors down with wraiths)

overlordweasel wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

The problem is that with 2 overlords you can have 2 lords with res.orbs in a unit of warriors, now when this unit dies with one of the 2 lords coming back on a 4+ odds are(75%) that at least 1 stands back up and then the ark just puts the other one back in. So now you have this squad that is for all intents and purposes is immortal until the ghost ark dies, at AV13 and 4HP the ark is pretty durable and if your abusing this you are probably taking more than 1 ark. And to top it all off the squad scores, plus as an added benefit if you have MSS on both of them they can effectively go toe to toe with any CC unit in the game(except maybe very large boy and nid squads, since they can effectively cover both tokens) since all they need to do is charge in MSS something, die, get revived, repeat. And that's what feels wrong about this ruling, it just feels like an exploit, for 340pts(all the lords need are MSS and an orb) you get a scoring unit with effectively infinite wounds(until the ark dies and any other arks you took) that can take out/delay opponents death stars and a transport for said unit. I mean maybe I'm wrong but this doesn't feel like the intended function of the ghost ark.

Anyway this thread is the first that I am hearing about this and I have been playing with and against newcrons since it's release and no one has ever interpreted it like this, which if it was intended you would think people would play that way more often. Would like to see a FAQ on the royal courts in general I mean people that I play with still grime about lone crypteks and lords scoring and if I brought this up they would probably stop playing me.

sorry to point this out, but your scoring count is way off...assuming you take two over lords (going with the bare min of MSS and warscythe to make them even worthwhile, more if you want anything else like a CCB or other upgrades), only one ghost ark for the sake of argument, 2 necron lords kitted out the same as above in your post ( MSS and orb) and one full unit of 20 warriors (which if your going to pull this "exploit" you'd want to invest more than a small squad.

adding all the above comes to a cost of 765 points alone for 2 HQs on foot, 1 troop choice, a transport, and 2/5 of a RC which dont take a slot. So your saying roughly half of your army or more to pull this strategy off is broken? If some1 fielded the above list, id laugh as they could only hold 1-2 obj at all all game in a typical scenario. and with only 1 AV13 vehicle in that, its goign to be gone by turn 2, especially if its obviously the "exploit" you're intending to go and the opponent isnt a complete noob (no offense). Any list that focuses on this would be horribly weak. And being perfectly honest, the above list is only a bare minimum listing, the lords would take warscythes just for the MSS combo alone, and the Overlords would either have more upgrades or even a CCB for themselves (80 points a pop alone) so in complete honesty, youd be adding 100 or more points to that above listing easilly.

As I said in my previous posts, it by no means "game breaking" or "op". If it was the WAAC players would be going that instead fo flyer spam. Your trading any sort of versatility and almost all of your firepower (at least half in my case in how I build my lists) thats almost 1000 points with no shooting attack over S5......lolwut? and at the max 5/10(RF) from the ark, and 20/40(RF) from the warriors all of those being gauss flayers, the weakest shotting weapon in the codex. Also tack on the fact that the most targets you could fire at would be *drum roll for suspense* a massive TWO different units, and thats assuming you shoot the ark at a different target (o noes 5 shots of S4, im shakin).

In all seriousness, its a horrible tactic to "build a list around". I'd only field it as a way to keep my dectruction crypteks alive if they just so happen to be precision shot out of the unit. If it came down to CC, i doubt a necron warrior squad is goign to win combat and survive the sweeping advance (in2 is almost a guaranteed fail unless your playing tau or other crons, in which case youd actually have a good chance of winning combat assumign its warriors fighting warriors and not him beating your warrriors down with wraiths)

Ok first the point cost I posted was just for the unit in the context because presumably the overlords are providing something for your list other than just unlocking the courts. Anyway you would only ever take 5 necrons warriors in the squad since it doesn't matter if they all die only the lords are important here. 20 warriors is just a complete waste of points, the point is it doesn't matter if the squad dies you still get your everliving rolls. Anyway the cost of that comes to 340 and yes you have to factor in the overlords sure but they are offering more than just this tactic part I mean one of them could be zhandrek who has a lot of uses and isn't just there to unlock the court. But for arguments sake lets say you were just purchasing overlords for the unlocking of the court purpose, so you took 2 foot lords(130 a pop warscythe,MSS,weave) it brings the cost up to 600pts thats not going to break your back when making a list considering it already gives you a really strong scoring unit. Anyway this is only part of a list, so your comments about only having weak shooting? Ummm.... you have 900 more points to spend in 1500, and over a 1000pts at levels above that, so not sure what your point is. Also with regards to your comment about being swept.. ok that's the point you get swept and then get back up due to everliving and then engage again, your opponent makes no progress in regards to killing your unit as whatever he assaults with slowly dies due to MSS or the 6 str5 ap3 shots a turn. Point is unless the ghost arc dies the unit is invincible and if there is a LOS blocking terrain and you place an objective around there, hid the ark, then your never going to be pushed off that objective. And like I've said its a small part of your army and if your army contains another ghost ark then that's 8HPs your opponent must remove before they can touch your scoring unit.

Ghost Arcs die turn 1. Maybe 2 if extremely lucky. AV13 isn't that tough to pen, and after the 1st pen IF the GA survives (don't forget it's open-topped) it becomes AV11. At that point str 6-7 is all you need to take it down. Even Str 5 can be used to make it lose it's last hull point.

So if you see a list built around a GA and you don't destroy it turn 1, it's your fault. Or you had extremely bad luck...

copper.talos wrote:
So if you see a list built around a GA and you don't destroy it turn 1, it's your fault. Or you had extremely bad luck...

Or you're a Tyranid. AV13 isn't trivial to pen, especially when it gets a 5+ cover save just by moving.

That said, there's nothing really cheesy about this - I've played against it and won, and played against it and lost.

A list based on GA should have plenty of I2 infantry walking around. So I think it might actually be good for tyranids to face such list.

Sure - like I said, I've won against them and it's not really cheesy.

Just saying that it's not just "your fault" if they're not dead on turn 1.

Anyway the cost of that comes to 340 and yes you have to factor in the overlords sure but they are offering more than just this tactic part I mean one of them could be zhandrek who has a lot of uses and isn't just there to unlock the court.

if you put in someone like zhandrek, your talking 185 points for him alone with no options to wargear, hes almost double the cost of one overlord. Again, I listed bare min in my post, the special characters are "upgrades" per say and are going to hike the price tag even higher. As for the Nemessor, typically if your going to run a list with the named guys, you build the list to amplify and focus on their specific SRs that they come with; that being said, he doesn't synergize well with the ghost ark tactic. Only thing he brings to the table for them is adaptive tactics for sub-par buffs other than maybe night vision or stealth in a game with NF rules. Better to give a unit of, say, wraiths FC.

Anyway you would only ever take 5 necrons warriors in the squad since it doesn't matter if they all die only the lords are important here. 20 warriors is just a complete waste of points, the point is it doesn't matter if the squad dies you still get your everliving rolls.

That is very highly situational and dependent on so many factors it would only change per game. For one thing, your assuming the Lord is going to make EVERY EL role. Even with the orb, its only a 50% chance hes coming back up. Two, why would you only place 5 warriors in the unit? If your going the MSU route, you might as well put 9 warriors and the lord in the ark itself and just cruise as itd be safer for the unit and you'd loose no firepower as its open topped, heck it'd be even better as you draw distance based on the hull, which depending on the facing, can add a couple inches of range to the warrior bases original arc. Don't get me wrong, if that's your playstyle, go for it, I see no reason why it wouldn't work well and be a cheaper alternative. However, that many points being spent to hold only one obj in a match? gratz, your opponent cant take one obj you hold , +1 for you, but now the rest of your army suffers being undermanned and potentially out gunned to hold the others as your opponent can almost ignore the "invincible" squad taking up 1/3 of your armies cost, if not more.

Also with regards to your comment about being swept.. ok that's the point you get swept and then get back up due to everliving and then engage again, your opponent makes no progress in regards to killing your unit as whatever he assaults with slowly dies due to MSS or the 6 str5 ap3 shots a turn.

okay, so your point is, the unit your spending 1/3 of your army on is a good tar-pitting unit, which will eventually loose to anything CC orientated. 200 points base for a 10 man of GK space marines(assuming no upgrades at all) would laugh in your face as you loose your unit over and over and over again until that lord fails his EL role (once again, only 50%) and if they get swept and the unit is wiped out, you loose all RP counters, then you'll be limited to only what the ark can revive and even that can fail on you on a roll of a 1 causing a glancing hit and taking away the repair function. Heck if the ooponent is smart, he can even get a hammer wielding GK, multi-charge the unit and the ark at the same and wipe out both the ark AND the unit all at once. so 200+ points just completely wiped out 1/3 or more of your army in one combat phase and all you did was MAYBE cause D3 instant death roles assuming they didn't use hammerhand and used their one warp charge. How long do you think a 5 man of warriors would deal with even worse, purifiers or a termie squad even from ANY SM codex? My point being, the ghost ark backed unit is not some "invicible squad that never dies, muahahahha" it can be wiped out in one turn by something half its point cost at least. THAT sounds like a waste of points to me.

Note: A roll of 1 doesn't take away the repair function. It just costs 1HP.

with slowly dies due to MSS or the 6 str5 ap3 shots a turn

Correct me if im wrong, but don't lords that come back from EL roles immediately pile back in to ongoing combat? Meaning there would be no recurring SoL shots outside of overwatch from the initial charge. Also, assuming the squad gets wiped out by a SA(soooooo very likely) and the lord can come back anywhere within 3 inches of the EL marker, a enemy unit gets to consolidate move after the unit is "gone", what's to say he cant just move his guys into a circle around the marker? If the lord cant be placed, hes gone for good, and that's another count for the "invincible" squad made of clay taking up 1/3 of the army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Note: A roll of 1 doesn't take away the repair function. It just costs 1HP.

True, but the point I was making, is that one roll of a one completely shatters the entire strategy as I've stated multiple times, realistically 1/3 of the armies points or MORE. And only to make a lackluster tar pitting unit that can hold only one obj? Not worth it, Scarabs do the tar pitting job better, they can also double duty in weakening or straight up killing vehicles if necessary, more wounds to go around, and can take away armor saves from multiwound models with termie level armor, making them easy pickings for even warriors.

Gravmyr wrote:
I couldn't find a place where it states that the lord and/or cryptek are removed from the RC but you have to consider what happens if you don't.

1. Tying one unit up in CC also ties the other if they are considered part of both. If you have multiple units broken up off a RC then you have more then two units tied up by CC. Even if you don't consider them taking part in the combat the Lord/Cryptek still can't move as a unit involved in CC can't move.
2. The removed and attached Lord/Cryptek is eligible/required to take wounds from shots fired or CC directed at either the warrior unit or RC.
3. If the Character is part of both units then he can target a unit that the RC fires at or that the Warriors fire at.
4. Wargear of the Cryptek that affect his unit like the Chronometron or Lightning Field would then apply to both units.

For these reasons alone I would say they are part of the warrior unit and no longer part of the RC. As written I have to agree you can bring back the Characters via the Ghost Ark.

Another thing to add to this, if a warrior unit with an attached RC member are two, different units, then wouldn't assaulting them automatically count as a multi-assault, which would mean that no unit could ever get the +1 charge bonus?

Punisher wrote:

The problem is that with 2 overlords you can have 2 lords with res.orbs in a unit of warriors, now when this unit dies with one of the 2 lords coming back on a 4+ odds are(75%) that at least 1 stands back up and then the ark just puts the other one back in. So now you have this squad that is for all intents and purposes is immortal until the ghost ark dies, at AV13 and 4HP the ark is pretty durable and if your abusing this you are probably taking more than 1 ark. And to top it all off the squad scores, plus as an added benefit if you have MSS on both of them they can effectively go toe to toe with any CC unit in the game(except maybe very large boy and nid squads, since they can effectively cover both tokens) since all they need to do is charge in MSS something, die, get revived, repeat.

So 25% of the time, they both stay dead. Followed by 16% of the time, nobody gets back up and the Ark loses a hull point. So now we are down to 62.5% chance of this trick working.
And please, charge me. If I drop you on your turn, then I can use my tun to park all over those markers, if you can't get up within 3", you can't get up at all.
You're looking at ~400 points + 2 over-lords to try this.
Finally, saying an Ark is AV13 is a little misleading. Once lucky hit and it's down to 11. They are tough to kill, but not that tough.
-Matt

Remember, EL requires 3" of the token. RP only requires coherency with the unit and a member that has not itself returned via RP this round.

overlordweasel wrote:

if you put in someone like zhandrek, your talking 185 points for him alone with no options to wargear, hes almost double the cost of one overlord. Again, I listed bare min in my post, the special characters are "upgrades" per say and are going to hike the price tag even higher. As for the Nemessor, typically if your going to run a list with the named guys, you build the list to amplify and focus on their specific SRs that they come with; that being said, he doesn't synergize well with the ghost ark tactic. Only thing he brings to the table for them is adaptive tactics for sub-par buffs other than maybe night vision or stealth in a game with NF rules. Better to give a unit of, say, wraiths FC.

My point about special characters was just that they could be doing something else for your army and not have to be linked to this unit. Used Zhandrek as an example because he has been proven to be effective for many units in many different lists, again that was just an example.

That is very highly situational and dependent on so many factors it would only change per game. For one thing, your assuming the Lord is going to make EVERY EL role. Even with the orb, its only a 50% chance hes coming back up. Two, why would you only place 5 warriors in the unit? If your going the MSU route, you might as well put 9 warriors and the lord in the ark itself and just cruise as itd be safer for the unit and you'd loose no firepower as its open topped, heck it'd be even better as you draw distance based on the hull, which depending on the facing, can add a couple inches of range to the warrior bases original arc. Don't get me wrong, if that's your playstyle, go for it, I see no reason why it wouldn't work well and be a cheaper alternative. However, that many points being spent to hold only one obj in a match? gratz, your opponent cant take one obj you hold , +1 for you, but now the rest of your army suffers being undermanned and potentially out gunned to hold the others as your opponent can almost ignore the "invincible" squad taking up 1/3 of your armies cost, if not more.

The point is you have 2 lords in the unit giving you a 75% chance of one of them getting up, I know I mentioned that in my post. As for why only 5? Because they literally don't matter for the unit, your better off with them all dead in fact because your toughness then goes to 5. Again with the objective holding, its just an example, you could also charge it up the field if you had multiple ghost arks and were worried about a loss in firepower, it depends on what the rest of your army looks like in how you would use it, my point is just that it's the most difficult unit to kill in the game until you kill all the ghost arks your opponent has. As for the loss in fire power being game breaking for you? Not quite sure what you mean, I usually field ghost arks and don't suffer from a tremendous loss in firepower because I took them, I also field warriors and don't suffer a tremendous loss in firepower. So the crippling loss in firepower you speak of must come from the 160pts invested in the Lords??? 160pts shouldn't make or break your list in regards to not having enough firepower, your necrons there is always lots of firepower.

okay, so your point is, the unit your spending 1/3 of your army on is a good tar-pitting unit, which will eventually loose to anything CC orientated. 200 points base for a 10 man of GK space marines(assuming no upgrades at all) would laugh in your face as you loose your unit over and over and over again until that lord fails his EL role (once again, only 50%) and if they get swept and the unit is wiped out, you loose all RP counters, then you'll be limited to only what the ark can revive and even that can fail on you on a roll of a 1 causing a glancing hit and taking away the repair function. Heck if the ooponent is smart, he can even get a hammer wielding GK, multi-charge the unit and the ark at the same and wipe out both the ark AND the unit all at once. so 200+ points just completely wiped out 1/3 or more of your army in one combat phase and all you did was MAYBE cause D3 instant death roles assuming they didn't use hammerhand and used their one warp charge. How long do you think a 5 man of warriors would deal with even worse, purifiers or a termie squad even from ANY SM codex? My point being, the ghost ark backed unit is not some "invicible squad that never dies, muahahahha" it can be wiped out in one turn by something half its point cost at least. THAT sounds like a waste of points to me.

Ok first it's 75% that one of the 2 lords come back, and that's a pretty damn good chance. Second the RP counters don't really matter the warriors are worthless to the squad. Third if you roll a 1 you still get to revive units with the ghost ark you just happen to take a HP in damage in return. In CC your opponents best unit only has a 25% chance at best to inflict any damage on it, because on your turn 75% of the time both lords are back and functioning at full capacity. So I don't know 75% of the time all the damage done to them being ignored seems pretty bloody good and hard for any other unit to top, plus in CC with 2 MSS odds are in your favour that at least 1 of your opponents models will be striking back at themselves. But your right the squad isn't invincible it can die to a 25% chance, but it looks pretty good and OP when 75% of the time nothing happened to it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

overlordweasel wrote:

Correct me if im wrong, but don't lords that come back from EL roles immediately pile back in to ongoing combat? Meaning there would be no recurring SoL shots outside of overwatch from the initial charge. Also, assuming the squad gets wiped out by a SA(soooooo very likely) and the lord can come back anywhere within 3 inches of the EL marker, a enemy unit gets to consolidate move after the unit is "gone", what's to say he cant just move his guys into a circle around the marker? If the lord cant be placed, hes gone for good, and that's another count for the "invincible" squad made of clay taking up 1/3 of the army.

Well if the lords go down it is very unlikely that the warriors survived the combat and are at a minimum swept so there is no combat to re-engage in. With consolidation true the unit can be wiped but with 2 lords and 2 separate EL markers that's a big foot print to cover, especially since you only need to be able to place 1 within 3" of one of them. If you have the lords not standing next to each other then pretty much only a mob of units can cover the ground required.

True, but the point I was making, is that one roll of a one completely shatters the entire strategy as I've stated multiple times, realistically 1/3 of the armies points or MORE. And only to make a lackluster tar pitting unit that can hold only one obj? Not worth it, Scarabs do the tar pitting job better, they can also double duty in weakening or straight up killing vehicles if necessary, more wounds to go around, and can take away armor saves from multiwound models with termie level armor, making them easy pickings for even warriors.

HawaiiMatt wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Yes, this is another case of RAI gone wrong. Context says that Warriors are returned to the unit, however the rule just says models. So technically by RAW it can be anything attached to the unit. Even by that wording you could add d3 Lords to the unit.

But you can't add D3 lords. You could replace lost lords, but you can't add more.
Why? Because lords require each to come from a different court, and each court must be unlocked by an overlord.
You can argue the barg allows D3 lords, but those lords cannot be attached unless they each have an overlord to unlock them.

-Matt

LOL, this started out as a humorous way to show how badly the rule was worded, but let's play with it a minute. Can you show a rule that states you cannot add D3 Lords? The Royal Court section doesnt have it.

Fragile wrote:

HawaiiMatt wrote:

Fragile wrote:
Yes, this is another case of RAI gone wrong. Context says that Warriors are returned to the unit, however the rule just says models. So technically by RAW it can be anything attached to the unit. Even by that wording you could add d3 Lords to the unit.

But you can't add D3 lords. You could replace lost lords, but you can't add more.
Why? Because lords require each to come from a different court, and each court must be unlocked by an overlord.
You can argue the barg allows D3 lords, but those lords cannot be attached unless they each have an overlord to unlock them.

-Matt

LOL, this started out as a humorous way to show how badly the rule was worded, but let's play with it a minute. Can you show a rule that states you cannot add D3 Lords? The Royal Court section doesnt have it.

lol, yep if your going to go ridiculous may as well go extremely ridiculous. The only limitation that the ghost ark rule gives is you can't go over the units starting size, starting size is a number so lets say it was a 5 man squad with 1 lord, then the starting size of the unit is 6 models. No where does it say that the composition of the models must stay the same, just that the models can't exceed the number that they started at which in this example was 6. I personally don't think you should be able to bring the lord back at all but if you can, then I am not really seeing why you can't bring a in a whole 6 of them in the same unit. Since the rule makes no distinction of model, if you believe you can bring back a lord/cryptek then theres no reason the whole squad can't become them using this exploit in the rules/reasoning, woot 20 man lord squads.........................................................................

20-man Lord squad? Is that Necron Lords or Chaos Lords?

Ok first it's 75% that one of the 2 lords come back, and that's a pretty damn good chance.

how is it a 75% chance? 3 out of 6 possible results pass and/or fail, meaning its 3/6th of a chance, or 1/2 ergo 50% on the roll. That's just simple math.

With consolidation true the unit can be wiped but with 2 lords and 2 separate EL markers that's a big foot print to cover, especially since you only need to be able to place 1 within 3" of one of them. If you have the lords not standing next to each other then pretty much only a mob of units can cover the ground required.

also note you cant have the models within 1(or 2? don't have my brb with me atm) of an enemy model. Also, remember that typically speaking the lords will be challenged as to minimize the damage of MSS and his warscythe (can only deal wounds in the challenge, no overflow) so even if you get both MSS and warscythe hits on the challenge your only talking about one model being taking down with the lord, if he even gets THAT off. As long as the consolidating unit rols anything above a 3 or maybe a 2 depending on the size of the models base, the 3 inch bubble is gone as is the lord. Thats pretty good odds to completely ruin the strategy completely.

The roll of the 1 doesn't shatter the strat the lord still gets placed. Though if you do get unlucky and roll poorly(25% chance) and both lords don't get up, then really all you've lost was 160pts in lords and 65pts in warriors, its not like the ghost ark suddenly becomes useless.

it shatters the strat because you don't get to revive any more after that one fail. Which is what the entire strat depends on, bringing back the lords with the ark. If that's gone, the lord unit falls apart in one phase or maybe 2 to completely wipe out the maybe off chance one of the lords got back up. Re-read what I wrote, nowhere did I say that you DON'T get the D3 models on a 1, just that the strat ends in flames after that roll. And yes, without the repair, the ghost ark is useless, In a normal game, I would just ignore it after that. It'd be like getting a weapon destroyed result on a razorback, taking out the LC and leaving it with only a storm bolter on top. No longer a threat and you'd be better off sending anti AV13 firepower elsewhere.

1d3 Overlords sounds about right no? The problem is, it doesn't explicitly indicate what the models that are brought back actually represent other than that they had been a part of a Necron Warrior unit. One can 'infer' they meant warrior models, but why should players have to make that sort of judgement call? I'd say bring on an FAQ update. Who knows, perhaps GW is fine with a ghost ark bringing back Crypteks and Lords along with the unit they are attached to?

Edit: Upon further review. they are saying exactly that. huh.

One question spawned in my mind through this discussion.

If an entire group, consisting of warriors and crypteks, is wiped out, can you make your EL rolls first and then do RP for the warriors or are the all rolls done at the same time allowing only for EL in this case?

Nope, the necron codex specifically states that models with everliving do not count for that specific purpose (ie: reanimation protocols) for the unit they are part of/attached to. (so if no more non-'everliving' models in that unit that have not been reanimated that phase are on the table at the time you'd roll for reanimation, you'd remove all the non-EL tokens and not get to roll for any of them).

 Neorealist wrote:
Nope, the necron codex specifically states that models with everliving do not count for that specific purpose (ie: reanimation protocols) for the unit they are part of/attached to. (so if no more non-'everliving' models in that unit that have not been reanimated that phase are on the table at the time you'd roll for reanimation, you'd remove all the non-EL tokens and not get to roll for any of them).

Thats what I figured.

The reason I asked is because if a lord/cryptek is the lone survivor of a unit. Then I would see no reason you wouldn't be able to use the repair barge effect on the sole character to bring back slain warriors, since he is part of the warrior unit.

overlordweasel wrote:

how is it a 75% chance? 3 out of 6 possible results pass and/or fail, meaning its 3/6th of a chance, or 1/2 ergo 50% on the roll. That's just simple math.

Dude don't go talking about simple math when you don't know what your talking about, it just doesn't make you look good. Each roll is 50% but you have 2 rolls, because you have 2 lords, so there is a 75% chance that one of the 2 lords will get back up.

also note you cant have the models within 1(or 2? don't have my brb with me atm) of an enemy model. Also, remember that typically speaking the lords will be challenged as to minimize the damage of MSS and his warscythe (can only deal wounds in the challenge, no overflow) so even if you get both MSS and warscythe hits on the challenge your only talking about one model being taking down with the lord, if he even gets THAT off. As long as the consolidating unit rols anything above a 3 or maybe a 2 depending on the size of the models base, the 3 inch bubble is gone as is the lord. Thats pretty good odds to completely ruin the strategy completely.

Ya it's within 1", so the footprint is roughly 1 squared inch smaller than stated. My point was that to cover both tokens it's a lot of ground to cover and it's hard to do without a lot of models.

Re-read what I wrote, nowhere did I say that you DON'T get the D3 models on a 1, just that the strat ends in flames after that roll.

Ok your not communicating something here clearly, after the ghost ark takes a glancing hit the strategy ends in flames? Really not following you there, maybe if the ghost ark is down to 1HP sure but normally its no skin off its back.

And yes, without the repair, the ghost ark is useless, In a normal game, I would just ignore it after that. It'd be like getting a weapon destroyed result on a razorback, taking out the LC and leaving it with only a storm bolter on top. No longer a threat and you'd be better off sending anti AV13 firepower elsewhere.

You almost never see a ghost ark in an army with only 1 warrior squad. Odds are theres another warrior squad to go support. Of course you could always have an "interesting" way to build a list in which there is no synergy .

Anyway this is starting to detract from the point of this thread which is can the RC members be brought back from this rule, and not the viability of them being brought back.

Ya it's within 1", so the footprint is roughly 1 squared inch smaller than stated. My point was that to cover both tokens it's a lot of ground to cover and it's hard to do without a lot of models.

so a roughly 2" bubble around the marker, not that hard to do, I can make a 5 man of 28mm models do that easily with the previously stated roll of anything higher than a 2, and thats only counting on if there basic infantry and not jump or anything with 2d6...Then it goes into the realm of impossible to NOT cover the circle regardless of the roll, but I digress...

Ok your not communicating something here clearly, after the ghost ark takes a glancing hit the strategy ends in flames? Really not following you there, maybe if the ghost ark is down to 1HP sure but normally its no skin off its back.

I explained why it goes down in flames in the previous post pretty clearly, what was I unclear with? roll a one = no more revives after that. without the ability to sustain the lords failing their own EL rolls,the unit looses any form of fragile immortality it had and it becomes a matter of cleaning up whatever is left in the unit.

You almost never see a ghost ark in an army with only 1 warrior squad. Odds are theres another warrior squad to go support. Of course you could always have an "interesting" way to build a list in which there is no synergy .

That's irrelevant to the situation, the entire strategy is based on placing 1-2 lords with orbs into a unit of X warriors being fueled by a ghost ark's repairs to hold an objective indefinitely or at the very least an amusing distraction for the opponent. Anything more than that is unnecessary for the strat to work effectively. Not to mention its common sense that you'd be forced to have more than one squad of warriors/Immortals as per the FoC requiring at least 2 troops. In any case, the point still its a gross misuse of points to hold a single objective and altogether way to easy to ruin by a savy player or any CC dedicated unit of typically 10 or more, especially something like a horde army would laugh as it sends ~180 points just to mulch 300+ in a turn or less. It's a neat trick, just too bad its not cost effective to field.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
also id agree, it needs a FAQ in every sense of the word. If only to clarify to discourage any shenanigans