RAW, this seems to be the case. I don't think this is intended, but it does seem to be the case.

According to the Rulebook, a Chariot has Dual Profiles, but is treated as a single model.

The wording for the Phase Shifter is "A model with a Phase Shifter has a 3+ Invulnerable Save"

So, RAWise the Chariot has a 3++.

Thoughts?

....Oooooh...

I like the way you think.

I'd rather slit my wrists than agree with you, but I guess I have to.

Is this more broken than mss for sure!

MY GOD! THE CHEESE!

THE TERRIBLE, MAGNIFICENT CHEESE!!!

Got an Apocalypse game coming up... Should I?

It is ridiculous yet beautiful at the same time.

So add in mss to the mix....it'll be like fondue

Yeah, it's still 45pts for the phase shifter remember.

For an OL with WS, mSS, and PS on a barge that comes in at 240 pts...

Don't get me wrong, I'm going to try it, but it's not something game breaking by any means IMHO.

bginer wrote:
Yeah, it's still 45pts for the phase shifter remember.

For an OL with WS, mSS, and PS on a barge that comes in at 240 pts...

Don't get me wrong, I'm going to try it, but it's not something game breaking by any means IMHO.

Don't forget the Reanimation Orb, if your spending that many points on a single model might as well give it that extra 17% chance of reanimating.

Ya, that guy's kinda really good.

Don't forget, dude has fleet and ignores cover. If he fails a dangerous terrain roll, he just takes a hull-point, as chariots can't be immobilized....

Kinda really good.

@ Jace, Very good point! If one is putting this many points into a unit...

So a Res Orb is 30pts which brings us up to 270pts for the unit.

With no great ranged weapon, and the opponent can still pick out the OL in CC.

Hmm, actually not looking as good as I thought...

LOL ..... still pick out the War Scythe, 3++ lord, resses 50% of the time, w a 2+ in combat ...... the poor vulnerable weak lord.

I want to know since they are 1 unit if the Phylactery will give the chariot a 1d3 back w/ the lord?



EDIT opps and he has MSSs too.

My thoughts?

You have just provided me with yet another reason to take the new beastly CCB!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mythra wrote:
I want to know since they are 1 unit if the Phylactery will give the chariot a 1d3 back w/ the lord?

My take on this issue is, no. Phylactery is specific about restoring Wounds, and doesn't say Hull Points. However, there was some disagreement about this on another board.

It can be read both ways imo.

On the one hand, the rules say that a chariot is treated as a single model.

On the other hand, it still mentions characters and the chariot being seperate models at the same time ([...]that model's chariot is also returned to play[...]).

RAW, i would argue for the former, though, because:

"[...]a Chariot is always treated as a single model."

Technically, it's not too broken, imo, as you would normally get a 4++ for the Chariot anyway due to Jink. It still is a good boost.

Phylactery, however, seems very clear to me. It explicitely speaks of restoring "wounds" and a Chariot does not have wounds, it has HP. Therefore, a Phylactery may only restore an Overlord's wounds and not the HP of its chariot.

So wait, why was MSS brought up? Is the chariot able to use MSS as well?

Of course. While the Overlord brings the MSS to the battlefield, it and the chariot are considered to be one single model. Technically, it's not the chariot using MSS, but the Overlord. On the battlefield, though, this doesn't matter.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Of course. While the Overlord brings the MSS to the battlefield, it and the chariot are considered to be one single model. Technically, it's not the chariot using MSS, but the Overlord. On the battlefield, though, this doesn't matter.

So it is no longer two models and when it is in base contact, there is only one thing in base contact now, not two like before.

So chariot and lord are counted as a single model, right? So what is the deal with independent character rule?
There is a rule that forbids independent character from joining to vehicle units, but there ain't no rule that forbids IC joining to units even he is in chariot?

So if im not understanding this wrong, CCB OL can join to units?

Fellstrom wrote:
So chariot and lord are counted as a single model, right? So what is the deal with independent character rule?
There is a rule that forbids independent character from joining to vehicle units, but there ain't no rule that forbids IC joining to units even he is in chariot?

So if im not understanding this wrong, CCB OL can join to units?

I almost did a spit take when I read this. And I though O'vesa caused rules problems, I can't find anything in the rules preventing this. Can you attached your Overlord on are CCB to your lychgaurd? Please tell me there is something to prevent this.

 Nilok wrote:

Fellstrom wrote:
So chariot and lord are counted as a single model, right? So what is the deal with independent character rule?
There is a rule that forbids independent character from joining to vehicle units, but there ain't no rule that forbids IC joining to units even he is in chariot?

So if im not understanding this wrong, CCB OL can join to units?

I almost did a spit take when I read this. And I though O'vesa caused rules problems, I can't find anything in the rules preventing this. Can you attached your Overlord on are CCB to your lychgaurd? Please tell me there is something to prevent this.

I suppose you could but your CCB would lose all it's mobility. A more dangerous suggestion would be attaching the CCB to scarabs, wraiths or destroyers.

bginer wrote:
@ Jace, Very good point! If one is putting this many points into a unit...

So a Res Orb is 30pts which brings us up to 270pts for the unit.

With no great ranged weapon, and the opponent can still pick out the OL in CC.

Hmm, actually not looking as good as I thought...

Regarding ranged weapon . . . .the Tesla or Gauss Cannon on it isn't too shabby.

This gives possibilites for Khorne Heralds on a Blood Throne joining, say, a squad of Bloodcrushers..

I'm all for it. Its RAW, hardly game breaking, and given the other ridiculous stuff out there, hardly the worst thing to deal with in the game. I'd love to the the Crons get a leg up on some of the other 'dexes this edition

From another board...

Doesn't this mean that a Sempiternal Weave will also extend a 2+ Armor Save to the CCB?

So let's say he has joined a unit and has the movement capability to move over the enemy and be 2" away from his unit at the end of the movement phase, does that mean he can be in the unit and do his sweep attack?

Daemon Heralds can get all sorts of funky rewards, which would, by extension, extend to the chariot as well. Even though some are useless (like FNP), some are awesome (re-roll invulnerable saves for instance..)

 jasper76 wrote:
From another board...

Doesn't this mean that a Sempiternal Weave will also extend a 2+ Armor Save to the CCB?

I suppose, but do vehicles take armor saves? I've only seen them have invul and cover saves.

 Lobukia wrote:
I'm all for it. Its RAW, hardly game breaking, and given the other ridiculous stuff out there, hardly the worst thing to deal with in the game. I'd love to the the Crons get a leg up on some of the other 'dexes this edition

I just love the idea of running a Berserkrons list and having my Overlord surf up to a Riptide and wreck its face.

Zimko wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
From another board...

Doesn't this mean that a Sempiternal Weave will also extend a 2+ Armor Save to the CCB?

I suppose, but do vehicles take armor saves? I've only seen them have invul and cover saves.

Dunno...uncharted territory???

 jasper76 wrote:
From another board...

Doesn't this mean that a Sempiternal Weave will also extend a 2+ Armor Save to the CCB?

Armour Saves are only permitted against shots that cause wounds. Invunereable saves are permitted against shots that will cause wounds or penetrating- and glancing hits. You can check this from pages 36 and 37 where this is explained.

I think this will be the change maker when you consider taking almost 300 points HQ choice in your army. Just hide it in unit of wraiths so it will get to CC for sure without taking damage.

Or another use what I see is using it to block anti infantry fire by putting it in front of some squishy unit, maybe warriors. With this you could even have a chance to walk unit of lychguard or preatorians to cc range.

Gosh this all sounds cheezy.

the rule book covers this does it not?

with regards to shooting, even tho the chariot counts as a single model, you decide where to allocate the hits, either the rider or the chariot.
with regards to close combat wounds, the opponent decides where to allocate his hits, either the rider or the chariot.

So in shooting you can always claim the 3+ invul if you like, but not in close combat.

Rakear wrote:
the rule book covers this does it not?

with regards to shooting, even tho the chariot counts as a single model, you decide where to allocate the hits, either the rider or the chariot.
with regards to close combat wounds, the opponent decides where to allocate his hits, either the rider or the chariot.

So in shooting you can always claim the 3+ invul if you like, but not in close combat.

Why not in close combat? They are considered the same model with two different profiles.

And the save is part of the profile... so if the vehicle doesn't have the save on its profile why are you trying to use it?

rigeld2 wrote:
And the save is part of the profile... so if the vehicle doesn't have the save on its profile why are you trying to use it?

Mainly because of how the rule is written.

PHASE SHIFTER wrote:A model with a phase shifter has a 3+ invulnerable save.

An Overlord's profile doesn't include a 3++, that is granted by the wargear.
If the Overlord and CCB are now the same model, it applied to both of them.

im just quoting the rulebook.

pg86 Shooting at Chariots, second paragraph
The player controlling the chariot then allocates each hit pool either to the rider or the chariot of the chosen model in the unit.

This clearly says that when shot at the controlling player decides if hes going to use the riders profile or the chariots so the shooting player can generate a wound pool, and then you would use that profile to take your saves.

pg87 Chariots and Assaults, paragraph 3(fighting against chariots) and paragraph 6
When fighting against a chariot model, the attacker must decide whether to attack the rider or the chariot with each model in the combat.

any hits assigned to the chariot roll for armor pen against front armor.

This specifically tells you in close combat, the attacking player decides to either hit the chariot or the rider, if hitting the chariot you use front armor, and if hitting the rider you use the rider.

Neither of which answer whether the chariot gets to use the wargear of the rider or not. there is nothing that says it does or doesnt.
the chariot rules are way better than 6th, but still a bit ambiguous

Edit: does the 3+ from the wargear count as a characteristic modifier? if it does then there is permission to use it, just not sure if its consdiered such

The characteristics profile only iincludes Armor Saves.

Thats really the question here then.
is an invul its own entity or is it just a type of armor save characteristic.

when models have both the rules tend to put both in the stat(characteristic) line of the models profile.

the armor save entry in the beginning of the book doesnt mention invul save. the invul save entry mentions armor saves.

some inferal here, but nothing clear cut.

Rakear wrote:
Thats really the question here then.
is an invul its own entity or is it just a type of armor save characteristic.

when models have both the rules tend to put both in the stat(characteristic) line of the models profile.

the armor save entry in the beginning of the book doesnt mention invul save. the invul save entry mentions armor saves.

some inferal here, but nothing clear cut.

Can invul saves be modified?
Please, cite rules allowing it. Cite the methodology.
You are not allowed to cite rules for modifying armor saves.

Invulnerable saves aren't a characteristic (since page 9 tells us what characteristics there are).

They are referred to on page 37 because they differ from the Armor Save on your profile. There's no inferral at all that they are a characteristic.

The paragraph above it (the first one) also tell us that it comes from wargear or abilities..

 Nilok wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
And the save is part of the profile... so if the vehicle doesn't have the save on its profile why are you trying to use it?

Mainly because of how the rule is written.

PHASE SHIFTER wrote:A model with a phase shifter has a 3+ invulnerable save.

An Overlord's profile doesn't include a 3++, that is granted by the wargear.
If the Overlord and CCB are now the same model, it applied to both of them.

They share wargear? So they both have the underslung gun? And it can fire twice?
And the chariot's attacks must be S7 AP2 because it uses a warscythe, right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shandara wrote:
Invulnerable saves aren't a characteristic (since page 9 tells us what characteristics there are).

They are referred to on page 37 because they differ from the Armor Save on your profile. There's no inferral at all that they are a characteristic.

The paragraph above it (the first one) also tell us that it comes from wargear or abilities..

Awesome, invuls can never be modified. Thanks for clearing that up.

Movement distance, charge distance, etc.. aren't a characteristic but we often get abilities or wargear that modify them.

We use this arcane art called math to do it then.

Without permission from the rules naturally.

 Shandara wrote:
Movement distance, charge distance, etc.. aren't a characteristic but we often get abilities or wargear that modify them.

We use this arcane art called math to do it then.

Without permission from the rules naturally.

Oh, great. So when you take +1 to an invul save that is 5++, you make it a 6++ right? Because that's how math works. Unless you have some new math.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Shandara wrote:
Movement distance, charge distance, etc.. aren't a characteristic but we often get abilities or wargear that modify them.

We use this arcane art called math to do it then.

Without permission from the rules naturally.

Oh, great. So when you take +1 to an invul save that is 5++, you make it a 6++ right? Because that's how math works. Unless you have some new math.

You are coming off as a bit snide, if you have any rules support to disarm this argument, please give it to us, this personally feels wrong to me but all I find are things that support that it can get a 3++.

CHARIOTS wrote:A Chariot is an unusual unit with a dual profile – a non-vehicle profile for the rider of the Chariot (see below), and a vehicle profile for the Chariot itself. However, a Chariot is always treated as a single model. For the purposes of characteristics tests, always use the rider’s profile. Furthermore, any characteristics modifiers that affect a Chariot model apply to both rider and Chariot.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Nilok wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
And the save is part of the profile... so if the vehicle doesn't have the save on its profile why are you trying to use it?

Mainly because of how the rule is written.

PHASE SHIFTER wrote:A model with a phase shifter has a 3+ invulnerable save.

An Overlord's profile doesn't include a 3++, that is granted by the wargear.
If the Overlord and CCB are now the same model, it applied to both of them.

They share wargear? So they both have the underslung gun? And it can fire twice?
And the chariot's attacks must be S7 AP2 because it uses a warscythe, right?

The Chariot cannot use the Warscythe because it does not have a weapons skill or an attack characteristic, thus it is exempt from attacking. The Overlord cannot use the weapons mounted on the Chariot because it is forbidden to.

SPECIAL RULES wrote:A rider can fire Overwatch if its Chariot is charged, but it cannot shoot any of the weapons mounted on the Chariot itself.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Shandara wrote:
Movement distance, charge distance, etc.. aren't a characteristic but we often get abilities or wargear that modify them.

We use this arcane art called math to do it then.

Without permission from the rules naturally.

Oh, great. So when you take +1 to an invul save that is 5++, you make it a 6++ right? Because that's how math works. Unless you have some new math.

Since you are having a bit of some problems understanding some arithmetic and algebra, I'd be happy to explain it to you.

Dice, work in both probabilities and number depending on what the desired outcome is to be. When it is numerical, the usage of the numbered faces (or sides of the die) can/will be used for their numerical value.
Example: Roll 3d6. Add the total for X result..

But the other aspect of dice is probability. As I'm sure you are aware, dice have a 1 in 6 probability of landing on any given face, otherwise known as a 1/6th chance. While the usage of numbers is often utilized in order to provide for such scenarios as provided in my example above, the faces do not necessarily need to be labeled as numbers 1 through 6. They could in fact be labeled as A, B, C, X, Y, Z to differentiate between each face.

As such, when it is stated in the rules that on a role of 6 an effect happens, it is referring to the 1/6 chance refereed to earlier. If using the letter designation above, this could be seen be stating:
Example: On a roll of C, a certain effect happens.

And this is where the wonderful aspect of using numbered faces of the dice come in. If lettering were used, every roll of a die would need to be accompanied by an explanation for effect.
Example: On a roll of C, B, Y, a certain effect happens.
Because of the usage of numerical values, everything is in a sequential. So instead of using a much more drawn out ruling, it is much easier to just state
Example: Any face including and greater than a value of 4, a certain effect happens.
This is where the 2+, 4+, 6+ etc. rules come from. Any face that is labeled with a value that fits into the presented value is terms that make it equal to or greater will have one effect, while anything face that is labeled with a value below the presented term will result in another.

So in taking all this information, we can look into your misunderstanding of the +1 to dice roles.
Because of the way dice use probabilities, the +1 does not refer to the numerical value. This is why it can be better to look at the printed values or labels on each face of the die not as a numerical value, but simply as a label to show how each side of the die is a different face. This is why I used to letters as examples earlier. Now, the +1 does not refer to the value printed on the face, but in fact refers to the addition of a viable die face that can be seen as either resulting on one effect, or another. It is taking the 1/6th probability and making it a 2/6th probability
Example: On a roll of C a certain effect happens. The roll receives +1 face to change the probabilities of effects. A roll of C, B now results in a certain effect.

This same effect can be applied to dice that use numerical values as labels on their faces.

I hope this has cleared up any misunderstandings you've been having with mathematics and probabilities.

RivenSkull wrote:

So in taking all this information, we can look into your misunderstanding of the +1 to dice roles.
Because of the way dice use probabilities, the +1 does not refer to the numerical value. This is why it can be better to look at the printed values or labels on each face of the die not as a numerical value, but simply as a label to show how each side of the die is a different face. This is why I used to letters as examples earlier. Now, the +1 does not refer to the value printed on the face, but in fact refers to the addition of a viable die face that can be seen as either resulting on one effect, or another. It is taking the 1/6th probability and making it a 2/6th probability
Example: On a roll of C a certain effect happens. The roll receives +1 face to change the probabilities of effects. A roll of C, B now results in a certain effect.

This same effect can be applied to dice that use numerical values as labels on their faces.

I hope this has cleared up any misunderstandings you've been having with mathematics and probabilities.

This is not true. +1 to an invul save changes the target number. It doesn't change the roll.

Perhaps you've heard of "rules"?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nilok wrote:

You are coming off as a bit snide, if you have any rules support to disarm this argument, please give it to us, this personally feels wrong to me but all I find are things that support that it can get a 3++.

I have. If you'd actually, maybe, read my posts?

CHARIOTS wrote:A Chariot is an unusual unit with a dual profile – a non-vehicle profile for the rider of the Chariot (see below), and a vehicle profile for the Chariot itself. However, a Chariot is always treated as a single model. For the purposes of characteristics tests, always use the rider’s profile. Furthermore, any characteristics modifiers that affect a Chariot model apply to both rider and Chariot.

I don't see where they share wargear. Maybe you could underline it for me?
Them being a single model doesn't mean one benefits when the others profile changes.

rigeld2 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nilok wrote:

You are coming off as a bit snide, if you have any rules support to disarm this argument, please give it to us, this personally feels wrong to me but all I find are things that support that it can get a 3++.

I have. If you'd actually, maybe, read my posts?

Perhaps it has been buried, but I didn't see a quote or a page reference.

rigeld2 wrote:

CHARIOTS wrote:A Chariot is an unusual unit with a dual profile – a non-vehicle profile for the rider of the Chariot (see below), and a vehicle profile for the Chariot itself. However, a Chariot is always treated as a single model. For the purposes of characteristics tests, always use the rider’s profile. Furthermore, any characteristics modifiers that affect a Chariot model apply to both rider and Chariot.

I don't see where they share wargear. Maybe you could underline it for me?
Them being a single model doesn't mean one benefits when the others profile changes.

Underlined for clarity.

The interesting thing is, once you purchase the Catacomb Command Barge, the Overlord becomes subsumed by the Chariot rule. There is no longer a difference between the Overlord and the Catacomb Command Barge unless listed in the Chariot rules, such at the rider not being able to fire the chariot's mounted weapons. If that rule wasn't there, your earlier statement about the Overlord being able to fire the weapons would be true.

You could argue that the 3++ should only apply to the Overlord as RAI, but since the Overlord and the Catacomb Command Barge are now the same model, it is hard to make that distinction with how the wargear and FAQ are currently written.

I think this is one of those instances where we don't need to comb through the rules to know what the decision on this needs to be.

It doesn't pass the stupid test for me so I would never consider using it in game.

rigeld2 wrote:

RivenSkull wrote:

So in taking all this information, we can look into your misunderstanding of the +1 to dice roles.
Because of the way dice use probabilities, the +1 does not refer to the numerical value. This is why it can be better to look at the printed values or labels on each face of the die not as a numerical value, but simply as a label to show how each side of the die is a different face. This is why I used to letters as examples earlier. Now, the +1 does not refer to the value printed on the face, but in fact refers to the addition of a viable die face that can be seen as either resulting on one effect, or another. It is taking the 1/6th probability and making it a 2/6th probability
Example: On a roll of C a certain effect happens. The roll receives +1 face to change the probabilities of effects. A roll of C, B now results in a certain effect.

This same effect can be applied to dice that use numerical values as labels on their faces.

I hope this has cleared up any misunderstandings you've been having with mathematics and probabilities.

This is not true. +1 to an invul save changes the target number. It doesn't change the roll.

Perhaps you've heard of "rules"?

As I stated earlier, the numerical value is insignificant when it comes to the +1 aspect of the dice, The numbers printed on each face of the die do not matter. The aspect of dice is in probabilities. Having a roll that passes on a 1, 3, 6 is the same probability of passing as a roll of 4, 5, 6. In the terms of probabilities, there is no difference to the chosen labels, only the number of faces, or the amount of total 1/6th chances totaled together.

The numerical values are simply a tool that make rules simpler to understand by having sequential numbers that allow for easier designations of pass/fail boundaries.

If you have any other basic algebra questions, feel free to ask.

RivenSkull wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

RivenSkull wrote:

So in taking all this information, we can look into your misunderstanding of the +1 to dice roles.
Because of the way dice use probabilities, the +1 does not refer to the numerical value. This is why it can be better to look at the printed values or labels on each face of the die not as a numerical value, but simply as a label to show how each side of the die is a different face. This is why I used to letters as examples earlier. Now, the +1 does not refer to the value printed on the face, but in fact refers to the addition of a viable die face that can be seen as either resulting on one effect, or another. It is taking the 1/6th probability and making it a 2/6th probability
Example: On a roll of C a certain effect happens. The roll receives +1 face to change the probabilities of effects. A roll of C, B now results in a certain effect.

This same effect can be applied to dice that use numerical values as labels on their faces.

I hope this has cleared up any misunderstandings you've been having with mathematics and probabilities.

This is not true. +1 to an invul save changes the target number. It doesn't change the roll.

Perhaps you've heard of "rules"?

As I stated earlier, the numerical value is insignificant when it comes to the +1 aspect of the dice, The numbers printed on each face of the die do not matter. The aspect of dice is in probabilities. Having a roll that passes on a 1, 3, 6 is the same probability of passing as a roll of 4, 5, 6. In the terms of probabilities, there is no difference to the chosen labels, only the number of faces, or the amount of total 1/6th chances totaled together.

The numerical values are simply a tool that make rules simpler to understand by having sequential numbers that allow for easier designations of pass/fail boundaries.

If you have any other basic algebra questions, feel free to ask.

So you're trolling then? Because while yes, those probabilities are the same that's explicitly not what the rules actually deal with and say. Perhaps you should try playing by the rules?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nilok wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nilok wrote:

You are coming off as a bit snide, if you have any rules support to disarm this argument, please give it to us, this personally feels wrong to me but all I find are things that support that it can get a 3++.

I have. If you'd actually, maybe, read my posts?

Perhaps it has been buried, but I didn't see a quote or a page reference.

rigeld2 wrote:

CHARIOTS wrote:A Chariot is an unusual unit with a dual profile – a non-vehicle profile for the rider of the Chariot (see below), and a vehicle profile for the Chariot itself. However, a Chariot is always treated as a single model. For the purposes of characteristics tests, always use the rider’s profile. Furthermore, any characteristics modifiers that affect a Chariot model apply to both rider and Chariot.

I don't see where they share wargear. Maybe you could underline it for me?
Them being a single model doesn't mean one benefits when the others profile changes.

Underlined for clarity.

The interesting thing is, once you purchase the Catacomb Command Barge, the Overlord becomes subsumed by the Chariot rule. There is no longer a difference between the Overlord and the Catacomb Command Barge unless listed in the Chariot rules, such at the rider not being able to fire the chariot's mounted weapons. If that rule wasn't there, your earlier statement about the Overlord being able to fire the weapons would be true.

You could argue that the 3++ should only apply to the Overlord, but since the Overlord and the Catacomb Command Barge are now the same model, it is hard to make that distinction with how the wargear and FAQ are currently written.

Nope, don't see anything in the underlined saying they share wargear. Please don't assume things that aren't actually stated.
You've said that invul isn't a characteristic. So why underline the sentence pertaining to characteristics?

rigeld2 wrote:

RivenSkull wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

RivenSkull wrote:

So in taking all this information, we can look into your misunderstanding of the +1 to dice roles.
Because of the way dice use probabilities, the +1 does not refer to the numerical value. This is why it can be better to look at the printed values or labels on each face of the die not as a numerical value, but simply as a label to show how each side of the die is a different face. This is why I used to letters as examples earlier. Now, the +1 does not refer to the value printed on the face, but in fact refers to the addition of a viable die face that can be seen as either resulting on one effect, or another. It is taking the 1/6th probability and making it a 2/6th probability
Example: On a roll of C a certain effect happens. The roll receives +1 face to change the probabilities of effects. A roll of C, B now results in a certain effect.

This same effect can be applied to dice that use numerical values as labels on their faces.

I hope this has cleared up any misunderstandings you've been having with mathematics and probabilities.

This is not true. +1 to an invul save changes the target number. It doesn't change the roll.

Perhaps you've heard of "rules"?

As I stated earlier, the numerical value is insignificant when it comes to the +1 aspect of the dice, The numbers printed on each face of the die do not matter. The aspect of dice is in probabilities. Having a roll that passes on a 1, 3, 6 is the same probability of passing as a roll of 4, 5, 6. In the terms of probabilities, there is no difference to the chosen labels, only the number of faces, or the amount of total 1/6th chances totaled together.

The numerical values are simply a tool that make rules simpler to understand by having sequential numbers that allow for easier designations of pass/fail boundaries.

If you have any other basic algebra questions, feel free to ask.

So you're trolling then? Because while yes, those probabilities are the same that's explicitly not what the rules actually deal with and say. Perhaps you should try playing by the rules?

You simply had a question earlier as to how the math of adding +1 to a 5++ does not equal a 6++, which is in fact a worse probability.

rigeld2 wrote:
Oh, great. So when you take +1 to an invul save that is 5++, you make it a 6++ right? Because that's how math works. Unless you have some new math.

You seemed to not understand the properties of probability based mathematics, so I illustrated them for you. And while yes the rules state that it drops a numerical value, I was showing you that due to the properties of probabilities, which is what all the rules involving dice are based upon, the +1 simply adds a face to the die that enables the probability of a pass to go from 2/6th (or 1/3rd) to a 3/6th chance (or 1/2).

As I have stated, the inclusion of a sequential numerical upon the die faces simply is there to help facilitate an easier boundary of pass/fail.

I hope this has been helpful to you and your ability to understand and debate rules, and my offer to help assist in any other mathematical question you may have still stands.

This is getting off topic.

Does anyone have any rules we may have overlooked regarding this?

Well, BRB states that the rider and chariot are considered one model.

Phase Shifter states "model" gets the 3++.

Then the question becomes does model extend to the CCB from the Overlord.

Considering how MSS does transfer over to having been in model contact with the CCB, I would only connect that the phase shifter would transfer over as well.

Perhaps another way of looking at is, do the Special Rules and Wargear for the Overlord turn off when he is riding the CCB?

I would say no since rules like Ever-Living are still working, through that just could be an exception instead of a clarification.

Yeah, the fact that the CCB comes back with EL rolls unlike in 6th where the OL started foot slogging adds to the pro 3++ camp.

That all being said, I'm fairly sure they will FAQ this to not include. Just another sign the rule designers and FAQ writers don't play the game.

RivenSkull wrote:
Well, BRB states that the rider and chariot are considered one model.

Phase Shifter states "model" gets the 3++.

Then the question becomes does model extend to the CCB from the Overlord.

Considering how MSS does transfer over to having been in model contact with the CCB, I would only connect that the phase shifter would transfer over as well.

This logic seems sound. The phase shifter refers to the 'model' as having the save and they both count as the same 'model' by virtue of the new chariot rules, so it is my opinion that your CCB is modified to have a 3++ save in that scenario.

Which is nice, but given it's in landraider-land for cost at that point, hardly game-breaking.

Has anyone posted anything which gives a compelling rules-specific reason to 'not' consider the phase shifter applying as above? Reading through the thread above I've missed it, it seems.

rigeld2 wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nilok wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nilok wrote:

You are coming off as a bit snide, if you have any rules support to disarm this argument, please give it to us, this personally feels wrong to me but all I find are things that support that it can get a 3++.

I have. If you'd actually, maybe, read my posts?

Perhaps it has been buried, but I didn't see a quote or a page reference.

rigeld2 wrote:

CHARIOTS wrote:A Chariot is an unusual unit with a dual profile – a non-vehicle profile for the rider of the Chariot (see below), and a vehicle profile for the Chariot itself. However, a Chariot is always treated as a single model. For the purposes of characteristics tests, always use the rider’s profile. Furthermore, any characteristics modifiers that affect a Chariot model apply to both rider and Chariot.

I don't see where they share wargear. Maybe you could underline it for me?
Them being a single model doesn't mean one benefits when the others profile changes.

Underlined for clarity.

The interesting thing is, once you purchase the Catacomb Command Barge, the Overlord becomes subsumed by the Chariot rule. There is no longer a difference between the Overlord and the Catacomb Command Barge unless listed in the Chariot rules, such at the rider not being able to fire the chariot's mounted weapons. If that rule wasn't there, your earlier statement about the Overlord being able to fire the weapons would be true.

You could argue that the 3++ should only apply to the Overlord, but since the Overlord and the Catacomb Command Barge are now the same model, it is hard to make that distinction with how the wargear and FAQ are currently written.

Nope, don't see anything in the underlined saying they share wargear. Please don't assume things that aren't actually stated.
You've said that invul isn't a characteristic. So why underline the sentence pertaining to characteristics?

I don't understand why you are saying they shouldn't "share" wargear. There isn't anyone to share with since there is only one model. If it was just like in 6e and the vehicle was just transporting the Overlord and was distinctly separate, that would be different. However, the only distinction is the Overlord's profile is referred to as a subsection of the Chariot; the rider.

Also, I never said anything about an invulnerable save being or not being a characteristic, that was an argument you were having with a different person.

It am seems pretty clear. Since it is one model, it will benefit for phase shifter which affects the model. After all, there are many examples of vehicles with invuln saves.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for joining units, I might try it with some tomb blades. If in a unit of tomb blades, can it make a sweep attack?

It says they are treated as one model and the Lord can't leave the chariot. I don't see why you can't use the 3++.

 milkboy wrote:
It am seems pretty clear. Since it is one model, it will benefit for phase shifter which affects the model. After all, there are many examples of vehicles with invuln saves.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for joining units, I might try it with some tomb blades. If in a unit of tomb blades, can it make a sweep attack?

There is nothing to stop you from using a sweep attack that I can find, all you have to do is move the Catacomb Command Barge (not the unit, just the model) over an enemy unit. Though with the Tomb Blades, everyone will have Hammer of Wrath which should be a devastating hit on the charge.

Just thinking out loud. For 270+60 you get a chariot with 3 body guards at T5 who come back on a 4+. Can have tesla and gauss. Does it qualify for star level? Catacomb blade star? Lol


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It's funny if it is because tomb blades are units which weren't much favored previously.

Given the fact that Ever Living works on the CCB and that roll can be modified by a Piece of wargear on the Ol (Rez Orb), I do not see why the Phase Shifter would not also effect the entire model.

As for joining units as a IC on a Chariot, they are considered one unit and thus benefit from both the Vehicle (Chariot) rules and the IC rules.

So Wraiths and CCB and a DL or Spyders/Scarabs and a CCB for giggles.

Wraiths are still probably better off with the destroyer lord I'd wager; Preferred Enemy is better since it lets you re-roll failed hit and wound rolls of 1 too.

Still, the thought of adding a your vehicle-HQ hybrid to a group of anything else sounds both hilarious and a good idea to try out.

 BLADERIKER wrote:
Given the fact that Ever Living works on the CCB and that roll can be modified by a Piece of wargear on the Ol (Rez Orb), I do not see why the Phase Shifter would not also effect the entire model.

As for joining units as a IC on a Chariot, they are considered one unit and thus benefit from both the Vehicle (Chariot) rules and the IC rules.

So Wraiths and CCB and a DL or Spyders/Scarabs and a CCB for giggles.

They changed the rule for what Independent Characters can join. An IC can't join a unit that contains a vehicle or MC, so you can't join Sypders, and currently it is unknown if you can join by having your CCB join a group last to try and side step the rule.

I would say no on that, hopefully we will get a definitive answer from GW soon.

 BLADERIKER wrote:
Given the fact that Ever Living works on the CCB and that roll can be modified by a Piece of wargear on the Ol (Rez Orb), I do not see why the Phase Shifter would not also effect the entire model.

As for joining units as a IC on a Chariot, they are considered one unit and thus benefit from both the Vehicle (Chariot) rules and the IC rules.

So Wraiths and CCB and a DL or Spyders/Scarabs and a CCB for giggles.

My god, CCB Wraith units. It not only improves the DLord Wraith combo, it opens up the RC for competitive play.

Ninja'd on that. Guess it doesn't work. Sad

what have y'all done!? two of my main opponents are cron players....

I'm calling in the black ships!!

The same thing as you'd do to handle what is essentially a death-star? field one of your own or stay out of it's way. It's a whole lot of points tied up in not so very many wounds/hull points.

In this case you'll need strength 8 fire in bulk it reliably handle it (which is pretty rare), or get into close combat with a melee death-star of your own (a bit more common/likely)

i agree, i think its great, i can't wait to tell them about it.

does this idea swing the other way??

khorne/tzeentch/slaanesh herald in thier respective chariots joining a unit from their god? bloodcrushers, screamers, fiends?

If they have the IC rule and they are not joining another IC, Vehicle, or MC, yes.

giggity

Where do you get the info from that an Overlord on a chariot is unit type Chariot (Character)? As far as I can see, the unit type is Chariot and it therefore cannot join any other units, on top of vehicles not being allowed to join units.

The "always treated as one model" rule wouldn't fit here as unit types cannot be shared and even if it did, it would conflict with there being two different unit types.

Is it in the new rulebook that a character with dedicated transport chariot becomes unit type chariot?

I haven't got my rule book yet. If it is not specified, seems open to different interpretation. Is it character/chariot/both?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Is o'vesa listed as monstrous creature, independant character or both? I can't think of a vehicle+character example.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It will suffer from the same problem of o'vesa cannot join any unit interpretation.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Where do you get the info from that an Overlord on a chariot is unit type Chariot (Character)? As far as I can see, the unit type is Chariot and it therefore cannot join any other units, on top of vehicles not being allowed to join units.

The "always treated as one model" rule wouldn't fit here as unit types cannot be shared and even if it did, it would conflict with there being two different unit types.

Vehicles/Chariots can't join other units because they (used to) lack the Independent Character special rule, not because of their type innately.

The Independent Character rules don't make any distinction between unit types. The only thing it says is that the IC can't join vehicles/MC himself.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Where do you get the info from that an Overlord on a chariot is unit type Chariot (Character)? As far as I can see, the unit type is Chariot and it therefore cannot join any other units, on top of vehicles not being allowed to join units.

The "always treated as one model" rule wouldn't fit here as unit types cannot be shared and even if it did, it would conflict with there being two different unit types.

You dont need to have unit type (character), just the IC special rule, which the overlord-model has, and presumably so does the combined model given nothing indicates this special rule is lost.

The question is what unit type the CCB has. According to the FAQ, it's Vehicle (Chariot) and it doesn't mention Individual Character. I don't see it gaining that rule from anywhere either as a CCB must be taken with a IC. You might argue that the Chariot gets it because of the "always treated as one model" ruling, but that seems really far-fetched. Hm.

Guess that's what happens if you don't playtest rules.

It's because the rules tell us that it's a single model with 2 profiles (1 for the 'vehicle', 1 for he 'character).

You can't just say the rules for the character don't apply.

I'm just trying to see both sides of this. I'd love to get my CCB some additional protection.

How would one compute the process of firing at a unit with a CCB in, though? Presumably you use majority toughness, and then the game implodes because you can't allocate wounds to a vehicle? IDK...

Even if the unit type of the Necron Overlord + CCB is in fact just 'chariot', it is still a model with the Independent Character USR; which confers the ability to leave and join units. (and a bunch of other stuff)

Joining him to units is fun but it does create some situations. If joined to a unit of tomb blades, can the bikes turbo boost and the chariot move flat out, as long as they are in coherence? And will coherence be 2 or 4 inches? It does make me wonder if gw has thought this out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wound allocation is still doable, since you do the same thing with vehicle squadrons.

 milkboy wrote:
Joining him to units is fun but it does create some situations. If joined to a unit of tomb blades, can the bikes turbo boost and the chariot move flat out, as long as they are in coherence? And will coherence be 2 or 4 inches? It does make me wonder if gw has thought this out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wound allocation is still doable, since you do the same thing with vehicle squadrons.

Except with vehicle squadrons everything is damaged in the same way...
With this you end up rolling to wound against an un-woundable model, or rolling to penetrate against a model with wounds...

Tactical_Genius wrote:
How would one compute the process of firing at a unit with a CCB in, though? Presumably you use majority toughness, and then the game implodes because you can't allocate wounds to a vehicle? IDK...

The model has a toughness characteristic, so you can use that just fine. That said when firing at a chariot unit you have to split up all your shots based on their effects after hitting, but before rolling to wound. At that point the chariot controlling player decides wether or not he wants them to hit the chariot or it's rider and you resolve the effects from there.

Essentially a chariot (and/or it's rider) soaks up 'all' the fire until such time as it is no longer in the unit.

Where the rules get a bit more funky is wether or not a unit is considered to be a chariot unit if only some (most probably one) of the models it is comprised of are chariots.

 Neorealist wrote:
Where the rules get a bit more funky is wether or not a unit is considered to be a chariot unit if only some (most probably one) of the models it is comprised of are chariots.

Yeah this is where my question was getting towards, really.

Mixed Units have always had problems related to them....
Personally; if the Unit contains even a single Model of the Unit Type in question then it will trigger any Restriction related to that Unit Type.

JinxDragon wrote:
Mixed Units have always had problems related to them....
Personally; if the Unit contains even a single Model of the Unit Type in question then it will trigger any Restriction related to that Unit Type.

Seems like the easiest way to play it. Although, that does make any unit with a chariot tanker entirely immune to small arms...

Tactical_Genius wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
Mixed Units have always had problems related to them....
Personally; if the Unit contains even a single Model of the Unit Type in question then it will trigger any Restriction related to that Unit Type.

Seems like the easiest way to play it. Although, that does make any unit with a chariot tanker entirely immune to small arms...

Wraiths with a CCB. I rest my case.

 milkboy wrote:
And will coherence be 2 or 4 inches?

2", as per the IC rules. If the IC is more than 2" away then he has left the unit.

Tactical Genius,
Not the first combination to do so, Void Shields shattered that benchmark a long time ago, but this time the 'immune to small arms' might not be intentional.
Does remind me to finish building that list with six Void Shields, the last test I did using the 'One Blast = One Hit' Rule was very informative as it rendered the army immune to damage for two to three turns against an enemy that could table them in two without.

Tactical_Genius wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
Mixed Units have always had problems related to them....
Personally; if the Unit contains even a single Model of the Unit Type in question then it will trigger any Restriction related to that Unit Type.

Seems like the easiest way to play it. Although, that does make any unit with a chariot tanker entirely immune to small arms...

If it is the closest model, wouldn't firing your melta/plasma first be the priority of choice? It's similar to how marines get transported in rhinos. While in rhinos, they are immune to small arms as well.

If I were to play this I would most likely put the wraiths/tomb blades in front to protect my chariot from meltas.

RivenSkull wrote:
You simply had a question earlier as to how the math of adding +1 to a 5++ does not equal a 6++, which is in fact a worse probability.

Why yes - yes it is! I already knew that, of course, but congratulations on figuring it out!

Now, I'll go a little slower this time because obviously my point flew right over your head last time.
We have rules for Armor Saves on how they're modified - when you get +1 to your AS, your target number goes down.
Please, cite the rule that allows the same for invul saves.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shandara wrote:
It's because the rules tell us that it's a single model with 2 profiles (1 for the 'vehicle', 1 for he 'character).

You can't just say the rules for the character don't apply.

You can, actually.

In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type, such as Infantry or Monstrous Creature, which we discuss in the Unit Types section. It might also have an additional save of some kind, representing any special armour or mystical protection it might have, it could be carrying one or more shooting or Melee weapons or might have one or more special rules.

A Chariot is an unusual unit with a dual profile – a non-vehicle profile for the rider of the Chariot (see below), and a vehicle profile for the Chariot itself.

While they're 1 model, there's 2 profiles. The profiles include a model's special rules, any wargear, and unit type.

So their wargear is entirely separate, as dictated by the chariot rules.

Could actually be a good way to tank for desroyers if you want to go shooty. Cheaper CCB too. Still quite a lot of points for 15 st5 ap3 shots.
Would the overlord still get LOS?

MilkBoy,
The Rule creates an interrupt within the Shooting sequences being resolved against Chariots. This interrupt requires us to allocate the Hit's being generated to either the Rider or the Chariot, allowing the Defending Player to allocate to whom would have the better chance of surviving. This normally will not create any issues as the only Model in the Unit, but these Rules do not just vanish when that Model manages to gain access to the Independent Character Special Rule. Now we have a Rule that must be evoked when Attacks are resolved against the Chariot, yet no method telling us how to determine if an Attack is being resolved against any individual Model until it is too late to do Hit Allocation like required.

In theory;
The Chariot doesn't even need to be the closest model, but that could be used against the Chariot's owner as well so firing the anti-light vehicle weapons first is a must.

The Chariot never has the IC rule. Special rules are part of a model's profile and the profiles are explicitly kept separate.

Hi JinxDragon, I don't have the latest rulebook here so I apologise if I misunderstand. Did you mean the IC rule must be evoked but not sure when it can be evoked? If so, what about the IC rule? If you could give an example it would be helpful.

While I was trying to understand your post, another thought came up. If the chariot was in the front, the defending player actually has 3 options. One, to tank the shot, two to allow the chariot chassis to tank the shot and three, Look Out Sir!

So if small arms, chassis takes it. If melta, pass it to the poor dude beside him. If everyone is dead, tank the wound and hope you've donated during the last Everliving charity ball.

It does sound kind of OP. Short of close combat, it might be hard to kill.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Shandara wrote:
It's because the rules tell us that it's a single model with 2 profiles (1 for the 'vehicle', 1 for he 'character).

You can't just say the rules for the character don't apply.

You can, actually.

In addition to its characteristics profile, each model will have a unit type, such as Infantry or Monstrous Creature, which we discuss in the Unit Types section. It might also have an additional save of some kind, representing any special armour or mystical protection it might have, it could be carrying one or more shooting or Melee weapons or might have one or more special rules.

A Chariot is an unusual unit with a dual profile – a non-vehicle profile for the rider of the Chariot (see below), and a vehicle profile for the Chariot itself.

While they're 1 model, there's 2 profiles. The profiles include a model's special rules, any wargear, and unit type.

So their wargear is entirely separate, as dictated by the chariot rules.

Except for the single line after that where it says they are ALWAYS treated as a single model.

This single, combined model is the Chariot.. not your arbitrary choice of one of the profiles.

Where does it say we only consider the vehicle portion of the profile for special rules for the Chariot unit type?

 Shandara wrote:
Where does it say we only consider the vehicle portion of the profile for special rules for the Chariot unit type?

It's treated as a single model. Show me the special rules associated with that single model. I can show you special rules that are part of two separate profiles, but I don't see special rules associated with the single model.

As stated above, I'm with Rigeld on this one.

What further backs this up in the rules is that they explicitely mention WBB (or rather Ever Living) working for the chariot if the rider comes with it.

If we assumed that every special rule / wargear etc. is transferred to the other part as well, why would GW specifically mention it?

MilkBoy,
The Rule which creates the timing issue is one on Chariots, not the Independent Character Special Rule itself. Containing instructions informing us to stop at the To Hit stage of any attack to be resolved against a Chariot, it requires us to know when a shooting sequence is being resolved against the Chariot. Normally this isn't an issue, thanks to the rule stating that both Rider and Chariot are one Model and a few others, but when that Chariot is hiding within a Unit of Infantry it raises a few questions to say the least. In this case, every Shot within the attack could be resolved against a non-Chariot Model before they make it to the Chariot, so what happens in those situations?

In the past, when it came to similar Special Rules, it seemed that Game Workshop was reluctant to issue such a statement that containing a single model of X would be enough to trigger all Rules related to shooting at X. Forgeworld went an additional step further and issued the exact opposite Rule when it came to one of their most unusual Preferred Enemies: Independent Characters. They Ruled that the Shot would have to have a Special Rule allowing it to single out the Independent Character, such as Precision Shot, or the Rule can not be evoked as it has passed the To Hit stage by the time the shot is actually resolved against the individual Model. The mixed messages, or complete lack of them, makes it impossible for us to state for certainty what Game Workshop intends to do with Mixed Units....

Following Forgeworld's logic creates even more questions here, as that would leave us with Wounds to allocate to a Vehicle Model by the time it is certain we are resolving a shot against the thing.....

rigeld2 wrote:

RivenSkull wrote:
You simply had a question earlier as to how the math of adding +1 to a 5++ does not equal a 6++, which is in fact a worse probability.

Why yes - yes it is! I already knew that, of course, but congratulations on figuring it out!

Now, I'll go a little slower this time because obviously my point flew right over your head last time.
We have rules for Armor Saves on how they're modified - when you get +1 to your AS, your target number goes down.
Please, cite the rule that allows the same for invul saves.

I'm confused. You seemed to not understand before, as shown with your question, but now you're claiming you do understand:

rigeld2 wrote:
Oh, great. So when you take +1 to an invul save that is 5++, you make it a 6++ right? Because that's how math works. Unless you have some new math.

I was never going into the aspect of invulnerable save or armor save or any other type of result to which ever rolls being made for that matter. All I simply was doing was showing you the mathematics of increasing probability of dice as you claimed to not understand it.

Why would you post you didn't understand the mathematics if you did understand them? To what end would that be?

If I have embarrassed you in some way by needing to explain the math, I am apologetic as this was not my intention and I was only trying to help you.

RivenSkull wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

RivenSkull wrote:
You simply had a question earlier as to how the math of adding +1 to a 5++ does not equal a 6++, which is in fact a worse probability.

Why yes - yes it is! I already knew that, of course, but congratulations on figuring it out!

Now, I'll go a little slower this time because obviously my point flew right over your head last time.
We have rules for Armor Saves on how they're modified - when you get +1 to your AS, your target number goes down.
Please, cite the rule that allows the same for invul saves.

I'm confused. You seemed to not understand before, as shown with your question, but now you're claiming you do understand:

rigeld2 wrote:
Oh, great. So when you take +1 to an invul save that is 5++, you make it a 6++ right? Because that's how math works. Unless you have some new math.

I was never going into the aspect of invulnerable save or armor save or any other type of result to which ever rolls being made for that matter. All I simply was doing was showing you the mathematics of increasing probability of dice as you claimed to not understand it.

Why would you post you didn't understand the mathematics if you did understand them? To what end would that be?

If I have embarrassed you in some way by needing to explain the math, I am apologetic as this was not my intention and I was only trying to help you.

Almost all of RigeId's posts are rhetorical questions. Don't take his questions seriously, ever.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
He was trying to demonstrate that by their reading of the rule (where invul saves are not part of the profile) then you can't apply +1 to the invul save in the same way that you do to armor saves because the BRB only describes how to apply +1 to saves in a profile.

Without the BRB's definition of applying +1 to save as meaning to increase the odds by 1, you have to assume it means to increase a 5+ save to a 6+ save. His rhetorical question demonstrated that this is obviously not the case and therefore an invul save would be part of the profile.

Or at least something like that... I shouldn't speak for him.

RivenSkull,
There is a group that believes that Invulnerability Saves are not a Characteristic because they are not found within the Characteristic section of the Rulebook. There is a group that believes that they are Characteristics regardless because we are informed to resolve them in the same fashion as an Armor Save, which involves treating them as Characteristics to do so. The group which believes they are characteristics always challenges the group which believes they are not in the same way: Asking how 1 added to 3 equals 2, when common math would conclude that it has to be 4.

This is because the Rules for Characteristics tell us that adding one to a Save Characteristic lowers it, so Invulnerability Saves would have to be Characteristics to function in the same way.

RivenSkull wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Oh, great. So when you take +1 to an invul save that is 5++, you make it a 6++ right? Because that's how math works. Unless you have some new math.

I was never going into the aspect of invulnerable save or armor save or any other type of result to which ever rolls being made for that matter. All I simply was doing was showing you the mathematics of increasing probability of dice as you claimed to not understand it.

Actually, that's not what I claimed to not understand.

Please read the thread. When you add one to an invul save, and that invul save is currently a 5+, normal math would take that to a 6+ - correct?
Note that I'm not addressing the probability of dice, I'm not addressing adding one to the roll - I'm simply addressing how the actual rules work. Your attempt to draw the thread off on an irrelevant tangent is noted and reported.
Have a great day.

rigeld2 wrote:
When you add one to an invul save, and that invul save is currently a 5+, normal math would take that to a 6+ - correct?

Technically, I think you are supposed to add one to the result of your die roll, rather than subtract 1 from your Invul Save.

6 to one, 1/2 dozen to the other.

rigeld2 wrote:

RivenSkull wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Oh, great. So when you take +1 to an invul save that is 5++, you make it a 6++ right? Because that's how math works. Unless you have some new math.

I was never going into the aspect of invulnerable save or armor save or any other type of result to which ever rolls being made for that matter. All I simply was doing was showing you the mathematics of increasing probability of dice as you claimed to not understand it.

Actually, that's not what I claimed to not understand.

Please read the thread. When you add one to an invul save, and that invul save is currently a 5+, normal math would take that to a 6+ - correct?
Note that I'm not addressing the probability of dice, I'm not addressing adding one to the roll - I'm simply addressing how the actual rules work. Your attempt to draw the thread off on an irrelevant tangent is noted and reported.
Have a great day.

It's not that I'm trying to derail the thread in any way, I'm simply trying to help you. If you are basing your argument off of unsound information, your argument itself becomes unsound, and your apparent current understanding of the dice probability mathematics is doing just that.

There is no such thing as "Normal math". Algebra is really the base level of math, in which probability is encompassed, and all dice games are based off of probability.

RivenSkull wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

RivenSkull wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Oh, great. So when you take +1 to an invul save that is 5++, you make it a 6++ right? Because that's how math works. Unless you have some new math.

I was never going into the aspect of invulnerable save or armor save or any other type of result to which ever rolls being made for that matter. All I simply was doing was showing you the mathematics of increasing probability of dice as you claimed to not understand it.

Actually, that's not what I claimed to not understand.

Please read the thread. When you add one to an invul save, and that invul save is currently a 5+, normal math would take that to a 6+ - correct?
Note that I'm not addressing the probability of dice, I'm not addressing adding one to the roll - I'm simply addressing how the actual rules work. Your attempt to draw the thread off on an irrelevant tangent is noted and reported.
Have a great day.

It's not that I'm trying to derail the thread in any way, I'm simply trying to help you. If you are basing your argument off of unsound information, your argument itself becomes unsound, and your apparent current understanding of the dice probability mathematics is doing just that.

There is no such thing as "Normal math". Algebra is really the base level of math, in which probability is encompassed, and all dice games are based off of probability.

Do you dispute that there is a difference between adding one to a roll, and adding one to the target number of a roll?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
When you add one to an invul save, and that invul save is currently a 5+, normal math would take that to a 6+ - correct?

Technically, I think you are supposed to add one to the result of your die roll, rather than subtract 1 from your Invul Save.

6 to one, 1/2 dozen to the other.

Since your save is distinctly not a roll, that's not correct.

Rigeld you are wandering rather far from the OP's question when you are following up on determining if the other posters understand 40k math.

To draw it back into the discussion at hand, How do (did?) you refute the fact that the phase shifter applies to the model which has it, and the chariot and rider are considered to be one model?

 Neorealist wrote:
Rigeld you are wandering rather far from the OP's question when you are following up on determining if the other posters understand 40k math.

Wow. *I'm* the one taking it on a tangent?
No, you're directing your comment to the wrong person.

To draw it back into the discussion at hand, How do (did?) you refute the fact that the phase shifter applies to the model which has it, and the chariot and rider are considered to be one model?

If you'd read the thread, you'd note that wargear is part of the profile, and while it is one model, each profile is distinct. Please prove that when using the Chariot's profile you have access to wargear from the other profile.

Because there is no specific (ie: rule) reason to presume that the wargear in question only applies to the overlords' profile when it (the wargears rules-text) explicitly tells us it applies to the overlords' model?

 Neorealist wrote:
Because there is no specific (ie: rule) reason to presume that the wargear in question only applies to the overlords' profile when it (the wargears rules-text) explicitly tells us it applies to the overlords' model?

...
So the chariot has access to reach into an entirely separate profile and gain access to wargear? I'm sure you can cite a rule for that, after making a statement like that.
The fact that the wargear modifies the model is irrelevant if the profile being used doesn't have access to the wargear.

I like that no one is defending the Chariot having the IC rule anymore - and this is the exact same situation.

 Neorealist wrote:
Because there is no specific (ie: rule) reason to presume that the wargear in question only applies to the overlords' profile when it (the wargears rules-text) explicitly tells us it applies to the overlords' model?

What is the exact rules text of the wargear? I don't think that has been quoted yet in the thread and it would be a key element.

"...a model with a phase shifter has a 3+ invulnerable save..." is the exact wording.

You have an interesting point, but if that is true, then nothing you buy for the Overlord would matter since it would all disappear when the Overlord becomes a subsection of the Chariot rule.

rigeld2 wrote:So the chariot has access to reach into an entirely separate profile and gain access to wargear? I'm sure you can cite a rule for that, after making a statement like that.
The fact that the wargear modifies the model is irrelevant if the profile being used doesn't have access to the wargear...

Yes in this instance. The CCB is a model with a phase shifter because it counts as both the overlord and the chariot. There is nothing that indicates the overlord loses it's wargear or that it stops being applicable, and the wargear itself never mentions the 'profile' it applies to, just the model.

There is lots of precedent for wargear that applies to a whole unit or even army without being explicitly written on every profile of every model within that group, why is it so mind-blowing that some wargear applies to the whole model? (a distinction that has never before been relevant, granted)

Question for the CCB benefiting. If an Overlord takes the Sempiternal Weave, does the CCB gain a 2+ Armour Save?

Given it is worded the same way as the phase shifter more or less (in that it refers to a model with the wargear), yes, it would in my interpretation of the relevant rules?

That said, the rules don't really currently allow a vehicle to benefit from an armor save since they only address taking an armor save vs. wounds. (similar to how invulnerable saves 'worked' on vehicles pre-faq in the last edition)

 Happyjew wrote:
Question for the CCB benefiting. If an Overlord takes the Sempiternal Weave, does the CCB gain a 2+ Armour Save?

It gets a 2+ armor save, but I don't think you can use an armor save against glancing or penetrating hits.

 Nilok wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Question for the CCB benefiting. If an Overlord takes the Sempiternal Weave, does the CCB gain a 2+ Armour Save?

It gets a 2+ armor save, but I don't think you can use an armor save against glancing or penetrating hits.

yup, armor saves only work against wounds.

I don't have the rulebook or FAQ handy, so I can't for sure recall how the wording of Chariots is,but when the Overlord is combined with a CCB, and it becomes a single model with unit type Chariot, would that not then exclude you from being able to take any wargear that is not a vehicle upgrade? I truly don't know how this will go if it every gets FAQed, but wouldn't you have to take into consideration the vehicle unit type when choosing wargear?

Nilok wrote:You have an interesting point, but if that is true, then nothing you buy for the Overlord would matter since it would all disappear when the Overlord becomes a subsection of the Chariot rule.

No, it wouldn't. If you're using the Overlord's profile for something, you can use his wargear. The rules do allow you to use the Overlord's profile.

Neorealist wrote:There is lots of precedent for wargear that applies to a whole unit or even army without being explicitly written on every profile of every model within that group, why is it so mind-blowing that some wargear applies to the whole model? (a distinction that has never before been relevant, granted)

So are you arguing intent? Because I don't see a rules argument in this post... Just some appeal to .. I don't even know.

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
I don't have the rulebook or FAQ handy, so I can't for sure recall how the wording of Chariots is,but when the Overlord is combined with a CCB, and it becomes a single model with unit type Chariot, would that not then exclude you from being able to take any wargear that is not a vehicle upgrade? I truly don't know how this will go if it every gets FAQed, but wouldn't you have to take into consideration the vehicle unit type when choosing wargear?

There is nothing in the Overlord, Catacomb Command Barge, or Chariot entries which explicitly forbids selecting non-vehicle wargear at this time.

rigeld2 wrote: So are you arguing intent? Because I don't see a rules argument in this post... Just some appeal to .. I don't even know.

You may wish to address the full content of the post you partially quoted. However: Yes, there is plenty of wargear with rules that obviously apply to models which do not directly contain said wargear in their respective profiles. I can quote you dozens of examples, but I'm sure your familiarity with the game is sufficient to take my statement as truth.

In other words, requiring the chariot's profile to contain a phase shifter in order to benefit from it's effects is not supported in the rules as written. That argument would result in any wargear which effects more than one profile from functioning as intended. Following the literal rules for the phase shifter and the chariot is.

 Neorealist wrote:

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
I don't have the rulebook or FAQ handy, so I can't for sure recall how the wording of Chariots is,but when the Overlord is combined with a CCB, and it becomes a single model with unit type Chariot, would that not then exclude you from being able to take any wargear that is not a vehicle upgrade? I truly don't know how this will go if it every gets FAQed, but wouldn't you have to take into consideration the vehicle unit type when choosing wargear?

There is nothing in the Overlord, Catacomb Command Barge, or Chariot entries which explicitly forbids selecting non-vehicle wargear at this time.

So you could take a phase shifter on, say, a Ghost Ark or Night Scythe? If the unit type becomes Chariot, and Chariot is a vehicle, wouldn't that restrict you to taking only vehicle upgrades? I'm just trying to get a handle on this, because I play against Necrons on a regular basis, and I know I'll be facing these things (my opponent loves him some power units). Its bad enough that it has 13 armour, 4+ Jink (3+ with nightfighting because Imhotekh is always there) and will be able to sweep attack Landraiders into oblivion, and then MSS any unit it charges.

 Neorealist wrote:
There is lots of precedent for wargear that applies to a whole unit or even army without being explicitly written on every profile of every model within that group

I'm pretty sure that every single one of those wargear specify that they affect the whole unit/army. Generally along the lines of "A unit that has X..." or "The bearer and his unit...".

ClassicCarraway wrote:So you could take a phase shifter on, say, a Ghost Ark or Night Scythe? If the unit type becomes Chariot, and Chariot is a vehicle, wouldn't that restrict you to taking only vehicle upgrades? I'm just trying to get a handle on this, because I play against Necrons on a regular basis, and I know I'll be facing these things (my opponent loves him some power units). Its bad enough that it has 13 armour, 4+ Jink (3+ with nightfighting because Imhotekh is always there) and will be able to sweep attack Landraiders into oblivion, and then MSS any unit it charges.

Sure you could, if any of those offered a phase shifter as an available option in it's unit entry. (none do currently, so no nightscythe or ghost ark with a 3++ for you at this time)

Happyjew wrote: I'm pretty sure that every single one of those wargear specify that they affect the whole unit/army. Generally along the lines of "A unit that has X..." or "The bearer and his unit...".

Yes they do. The Phase Shifter however just indicates it effects the model. What the model constitutes however is modified by the Chariot entry to include both the CCB and the Overlord.

Given how one rule explicitly states they count as one model, and no rules explicitly state that you need refer to a specific profile to determine what the phase shifter effects, well which option has the stronger rules support?

 Neorealist wrote:

ClassicCarraway wrote:So you could take a phase shifter on, say, a Ghost Ark or Night Scythe? If the unit type becomes Chariot, and Chariot is a vehicle, wouldn't that restrict you to taking only vehicle upgrades? I'm just trying to get a handle on this, because I play against Necrons on a regular basis, and I know I'll be facing these things (my opponent loves him some power units). Its bad enough that it has 13 armour, 4+ Jink (3+ with nightfighting because Imhotekh is always there) and will be able to sweep attack Landraiders into oblivion, and then MSS any unit it charges.

Sure you could, if any of those offered a phase shifter as an available option in it's unit entry. (none do currently, so no nightscythe or ghost ark with a 3++ for you at this time)

Ah, that's what I wasn't sure of, if the PS was listed under the unit itself or if it was like the newer codex entries (may take items from wargear section). Based on that, I'd say 3++ it is....oh well, time to go Unbound, put in a Vindicare Assassin and break the shield (since its only one wargear item providing the save, it doesn't matter who take the hit!)

 ClassicCarraway wrote:

 Neorealist wrote:

ClassicCarraway wrote:So you could take a phase shifter on, say, a Ghost Ark or Night Scythe? If the unit type becomes Chariot, and Chariot is a vehicle, wouldn't that restrict you to taking only vehicle upgrades? I'm just trying to get a handle on this, because I play against Necrons on a regular basis, and I know I'll be facing these things (my opponent loves him some power units). Its bad enough that it has 13 armour, 4+ Jink (3+ with nightfighting because Imhotekh is always there) and will be able to sweep attack Landraiders into oblivion, and then MSS any unit it charges.

Sure you could, if any of those offered a phase shifter as an available option in it's unit entry. (none do currently, so no nightscythe or ghost ark with a 3++ for you at this time)

Ah, that's what I wasn't sure of, if the PS was listed under the unit itself or if it was like the newer codex entries (may take items from wargear section). Based on that, I'd say 3++ it is....oh well, time to go Unbound, put in a Vindicare Assassin and break the shield (since its only one wargear item providing the save, it doesn't matter who take the hit!)

Vindicare won't work.
A *wound* has to be allocated to the model before the save is removed.
It is impossible to *wound* a vehicle, assuming the controlling player has half a brain cell and makes the hit go onto the chariot itself.

Sanctuary gives a +1 bonus to a models invulnerable save. It modifies it.

 Neorealist wrote:
Given how one rule explicitly states they count as one model, and no rules explicitly state that you need refer to a specific profile to determine what the phase shifter effects, well which option has the stronger rules support?

Man, again you forgot to quote the rule that allows a model to use a profile that it doesn't have.
I'm sure it was accidental - no big deal. Would you mind quoting it? That'd be great.

Rigeld:
With a phase shifter, the way it is worded can lead us to assign a boolean variable to the whole shebang.
If (model has a phase shifter) = true then
3++
else
meh
end if
Let's use this with the chariot.
The chariot is one model. Irrefutable. Does this model have a phase shifter?
Yes.
Ergo, 3++.

Tactical_Genius wrote:
Does this model have a phase shifter?
Yes.
Ergo, 3++.

Objection - not a yes or no answer.
The answer depends on which profile you're interacting with.

Does this model have a Toughness?
It depends.

Does this model have AV?
It depends.

Does this model have a gun?
It depends.

You can't simply say yes because of the dual profile and the fact that they're explicitly separate.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Neorealist wrote:
Given how one rule explicitly states they count as one model, and no rules explicitly state that you need refer to a specific profile to determine what the phase shifter effects, well which option has the stronger rules support?

Man, again you forgot to quote the rule that allows a model to use a profile that it doesn't have.
I'm sure it was accidental - no big deal. Would you mind quoting it? That'd be great.

Could you provide the restriction, quote or page, that the Chariot can not use the rider's wargear? The rider is explicitly prevented from using some of the chariots wargear, its weapons, can you find similar wording for the opposite?

Can you please show where we only apply rules to the profile instead of the model.
I can understand stand your argument as RAI, but I can't find the RAW to back it up.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Neorealist wrote:
Given how one rule explicitly states they count as one model, and no rules explicitly state that you need refer to a specific profile to determine what the phase shifter effects, well which option has the stronger rules support?

Man, again you forgot to quote the rule that allows a model to use a profile that it doesn't have.
I'm sure it was accidental - no big deal. Would you mind quoting it? That'd be great.

1) the model 'does' have the profile? (Since it has both)
However the above is irrelevant since:
2) You do not ordinarily refer to a models' profile to determine what wargear does. You refer to the wargears' rules-text. Its entirely possible for wargear to effect profiles other than the entry it is found in if it's rules text allows for such.

 Nilok wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Neorealist wrote:
Given how one rule explicitly states they count as one model, and no rules explicitly state that you need refer to a specific profile to determine what the phase shifter effects, well which option has the stronger rules support?

Man, again you forgot to quote the rule that allows a model to use a profile that it doesn't have.
I'm sure it was accidental - no big deal. Would you mind quoting it? That'd be great.

Could you provide the restriction that the Chariot can not use the rider's wargear? The rider is explicitly prevented from using some of the chariots wargear, its weapons, can you find similar wording for the opposite?

I've quoted it in this thread.

If the rider has a special rule that returns it to play after it has been removed as a casualty, such as a Necron’s Ever-living special rule, that model’s Chariot is also returned to play with a single Hull Point.

If the rider has a rule. Evidence that they do not share special rules.

A Chariot is an unusual unit with a dual profile – a non-vehicle profile for the rider of the Chariot (see below), and a vehicle profile for the Chariot itself.

One model, two profiles.

Furthermore, any characteristics modifiers that affect a Chariot model apply to both rider and Chariot.

Explicit permission for something that affects the chariot to affect both profiles.

How about you cite permission for the Chariot to use the rider's wargear? You have to show permission before looking for denial.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Neorealist wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Neorealist wrote:
Given how one rule explicitly states they count as one model, and no rules explicitly state that you need refer to a specific profile to determine what the phase shifter effects, well which option has the stronger rules support?

Man, again you forgot to quote the rule that allows a model to use a profile that it doesn't have.
I'm sure it was accidental - no big deal. Would you mind quoting it? That'd be great.

1) the model 'does' have the profile? (Since it has both)
However the above is irrelevant since:
2) You do not ordinarily refer to a models' profile to determine what wargear does. You refer to the wargears' rules-text. Its entirely possible for wargear to effect profiles other than the entry it is found in if it's rules text allows for such.

No, the Chariot explicitly does not share the rider's wargear. Until you cite a rule proving otherwise.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Nilok wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Neorealist wrote:
Given how one rule explicitly states they count as one model, and no rules explicitly state that you need refer to a specific profile to determine what the phase shifter effects, well which option has the stronger rules support?

Man, again you forgot to quote the rule that allows a model to use a profile that it doesn't have.
I'm sure it was accidental - no big deal. Would you mind quoting it? That'd be great.

Could you provide the restriction that the Chariot can not use the rider's wargear? The rider is explicitly prevented from using some of the chariots wargear, its weapons, can you find similar wording for the opposite?

I've quoted it in this thread.

If the rider has a special rule that returns it to play after it has been removed as a casualty, such as a Necron’s Ever-living special rule, that model’s Chariot is also returned to play with a single Hull Point.

If the rider has a rule. Evidence that they do not share special rules.

A Chariot is an unusual unit with a dual profile – a non-vehicle profile for the rider of the Chariot (see below), and a vehicle profile for the Chariot itself.

That makes sense if a rule refers to just the Overlord, but the wargear refers to the model, not the rider.

One model, two profiles.

Furthermore, any characteristics modifiers that affect a Chariot model apply to both rider and Chariot.

Explicit permission for something that affects the chariot to affect both profiles.

How about you cite permission for the Chariot to use the rider's wargear? You have to show permission before looking for denial.

You are asking me to find a rule that says I have permission to use a rule a piece of wargear is granting to the model. I'm not sure such a rule exists, if that is the case, can any piece of wargear that specifies the model and not the profile work?


Also, one of your quotes almost disproves your argument.

Furthermore, any characteristics modifiers that affect a Chariot model apply to both rider and Chariot.

This says is something modifies the rules characteristics for the model, it applies to both. I guess the real question becomes, is the invulnerable save a characteristic that is transferred to both of them.

rigeld2 wrote:No, the Chariot explicitly does not share the rider's wargear. Until you cite a rule proving otherwise.

The chariot is not 'sharing' the riders wargear. The chariot is being effected by the riders' wargear.

As to why this is happening? the reason has been repeatedly stated, but i'll quote it again here for reference:
Phase Shifter
"...a model with a phase shifter has a 3+ invulnerable save..."
Chariot Rules
"...However, a Chariot is always treated as a single model..."
Invulnerable save rules
"...Models with wargear or abilities like these are allowed an invulnerable saving throw..."
Wargear Rules
"... Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a model’s characteristics..."

You'll notice a common theme...

Now tell me, where does it say you have to refer to a profile for any of the above?

No, the Chariot explicitly does not share the rider's wargear. Until you cite a rule proving otherwise.

Rules explicate chariots profile like this (Pg. 86 BRB):

''Chariot is an unusual unit with dual profile... However, a chariot is always treated as a single model.''

So what taking CCB clearly does, is just simply adding second profile to use.

Phase Shifter pg. 82, cron codex:

''A model with a phase shifter has a 3+ invulnerable save.''

So how is exactly possible, that CCB is one model, but is restricted using its wargear because it has a two profiles?
Two profiles do not effect in any way to wargear.

Also there is stated (Pg. 86 also in BRB):

''When determinig the required To Hit roll for any weapon fired by a Chariot model, use the Ballistic Skill on the Chariot's profile for any weapons mounted on the Chariot itself, and the Ballistic Skill on the rider's profile for any weapons wielded by the rider.''

So they actually _share same wargear_ They are just ordered to use different BS for different weapons.
For a crazy example, Overlord has a Quantum shielding while riding chariot, but it just has no effects on him.

I think this is the most strongest expression, that the Chariot truly has a 3++ that it can really use.

This is really hard to turn over I think.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And what comes to special rules, yes, they share them too.
Rules do not state at any point that Ever-Living would be an exception. Chariot just needed rules for it, because necrons codex hasnt stated them.

Perhaps we should stop the feeding....

It's been fairly obvious for quite a few posts, but-

 Galorian wrote:
It's been fairly obvious for quite a few posts, but-

Your image doesn't like being linked or embedded, I recommend trying a different host/file type.

 milkboy wrote:
Perhaps we should stop the feeding....

Ah true that my friend, and so shall it be!

 Nilok wrote:

 Galorian wrote:
It's been fairly obvious for quite a few posts, but-

Your image doesn't like being linked or embedded, I recommend trying a different host/file type.

Just a Troll detected gif I got with a quick google search, odd that you can't see it...

The CCB is terribly OP at the moment being able to use all the OL's gear along side the crazy chariot rules to shuffle weapons damage around. I played a game yesterday against it and it invalidates most of what you throw at it, its insane.

I'll just give that Cron lord some D. Cron lords like a big D. Big D just ignore all yo' saves.

Fancy rule leaps you're making there buddy. Seems legit though.

 Zarrath wrote:
I'll just give that Cron lord some D. Cron lords like a big D. Big D just ignore all yo' saves.

Fancy rule leaps you're making there buddy. Seems legit though.

 Nilok wrote:

They changed the rule for what Independent Characters can join. An IC can't join a unit that contains a vehicle or MC, so you can't join Sypders, and currently it is unknown if you can join by having your CCB join a group last to try and side step the rule.

I would say no on that, hopefully we will get a definitive answer from GW soon.

I say yes to the 3++, makes sense to me. While it's tough, it's not unbeatable. Get in cc.

Also, MSS are kind of screwed now, as you don't ONLY count as btb against the character in the challenge, so some random scrub will probably get affected by it during the combat instead of the character you're challenging. Chariots can get locked in CC now, so get on the chariot, direct all your attacks to the just-as-squishy-as-before necron lord, and kill him. Then consolidate and spread way out. The lord comes up with the chariot, so if there's no room then it dies. Just surround the combat on your turn.

I say no to joining units, though. FAQ says IC can't be a part of a unit that contains MC or vehicles. Join a unit while on a chariot and now you're a unit consisting of a vehicle and other models. Only way for this to work out is for the lord to lose IC rule and not be an IC while riding on a chariot.

 Spellbound wrote:
I say yes to the 3++, makes sense to me. While it's tough, it's not unbeatable. Get in cc.

Also, MSS are kind of screwed now, as you don't ONLY count as btb against the character in the challenge, so some random scrub will probably get affected by it during the combat instead of the character you're challenging. Chariots can get locked in CC now, so get on the chariot, direct all your attacks to the just-as-squishy-as-before necron lord, and kill him. Then consolidate and spread way out. The lord comes up with the chariot, so if there's no room then it dies. Just surround the combat on your turn.

I say no to joining units, though. FAQ says IC can't be a part of a unit that contains MC or vehicles. Join a unit while on a chariot and now you're a unit consisting of a vehicle and other models. Only way for this to work out is for the lord to lose IC rule and not be an IC while riding on a chariot.

It is also interesting that O'Vesa is also and IC and a MC. Another great rules paradox. hopeful GW FAQ that soon.

If you want to comment further on O'Vesa, please do so in the O'Vesa thread so we dont throw this thead too off topic.

Looks to me an IC MC or Vehicle doesn't lose its IC statue and can join a unit with no Vehicles or MCs. That is RAW. I would hope they would faq it tho.

I think a Lord can use his 3++ RAW.

Well that would definitely make slaanesh chariots more survivable if they could be selected for a herald and join a unit of fiends or something.

How does wound allocation work though? If the chariot is the closest model, do you roll to wound and apply wounds to the chariot? Do you roll against armor value until the chariot dies (that would be broken as hell)? Do the wounds just go to the nearest woundable model?

The chariot rules state in shooting the chariot owner decides where the wounds go for each separate wound pool and in CC it states the attacker decides.

Yes, but how do you even do wounds? So if the chariot is in front, they'll make the unit immune to bolter wounds until the chariot dies?

This will be a way for four seeker or daemonette units to be completely immune to all small arms fire until the AV11 chariots are destroyed.

do khorne for av 12 with some crushers!!

 Spellbound wrote:
Well that would definitely make slaanesh chariots more survivable if they could be selected for a herald and join a unit of fiends or something.

How does wound allocation work though? If the chariot is the closest model, do you roll to wound and apply wounds to the chariot? Do you roll against armor value until the chariot dies (that would be broken as hell)? Do the wounds just go to the nearest woundable model?

When you purchase heralds, are they taken as a unit, or are they all separate but take up a single slot?

Unfortunately the daemon FAQ makes Heralds lose their IC status upon purchasing a Chariot, so no joining your AV12 Khorne Herald to a Bloodcrusher unit.

Oooh wow, the necron one will get nerfed too then I'm sure.

that sucks!!

 zachwho wrote:
Oooh wow, the necron one will get nerfed too then I'm sure.

that sucks!!

I wouldn't call removing something that obviously isn't RAI and has extremely debatable RAW a "nerf".

 Shandara wrote:
Unfortunately the daemon FAQ makes Heralds lose their IC status upon purchasing a Chariot, so no joining your AV12 Khorne Herald to a Bloodcrusher unit.

Well, that settles whether or not a CCB can join a non-MC/Vehicle unit at the moment. He retains his IC rule unlike the Heralds.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 zachwho wrote:
Oooh wow, the necron one will get nerfed too then I'm sure.

that sucks!!

I wouldn't call removing something that obviously isn't RAI and has extremely debatable RAW a "nerf".

Hard to say at this point what is RAI, it is possible that the CCB is now intended to join with units.
With the rate of FAQs at the moment, we should hopefully have an answer soon.

you're right, i shouldn't have called it a Nerf, but sucks none the less!!!

and I'm just going to throw a little mini fit in our group, if i can't do it, neither can you :p!!!

 Nilok wrote:

Hard to say at this point what is RAI, it is possible that the CCB is now intended to join with units.
With the rate of FAQs at the moment, we should hopefully have an answer soon.

It's not hard to say. Vehicles suddenly gaining armor saves? Vehicles jonining regular units? It's pretty darn sure that this is not RAI.

the vehicle isn't gaining an armor save, its gaining an invulnerable save. that's nothing new.

as far as joining units, i thought it was an awesome idea, but since i can't do it, its completely cheese rules lawyering, that's completely unintentional, against spirit of the game, not RAI, and no where supported by RAW!!!!

Point of order: Many of the same rules allowing the CCB to benefit from a phase shifter also allow it to benefit from sempiternal weave (a 2+ armor save). However, since vehicles don't interact with armor saves all that well yet, what that does in practical terms is pretty much nothing for the CCB specifically.

Neorealist wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:No, the Chariot explicitly does not share the rider's wargear. Until you cite a rule proving otherwise.

The chariot is not 'sharing' the riders wargear. The chariot is being effected by the riders' wargear.

As to why this is happening? the reason has been repeatedly stated, but i'll quote it again here for reference:
Phase Shifter
"...a model with a phase shifter has a 3+ invulnerable save..."
Chariot Rules
"...However, a Chariot is always treated as a single model..."
Invulnerable save rules
"...Models with wargear or abilities like these are allowed an invulnerable saving throw..."
Wargear Rules
"... Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a model’s characteristics..."

You'll notice a common theme...

Now tell me, where does it say you have to refer to a profile for any of the above?

I'll type slowly because I've said it before.
What gives permission to have the invul? Wargear.
Where is the wargear? On the Overlords profile.
If you're using the AV on the vehicle profile to defend against an attack (meaning the Overlord profile isn't being used) why are you using part of the Overlords profile?

Fellstrom wrote:No, the Chariot explicitly does not share the rider's wargear. Until you cite a rule proving otherwise.

Rules explicate chariots profile like this (Pg. 86 BRB):

''Chariot is an unusual unit with dual profile... However, a chariot is always treated as a single model.''

So what taking CCB clearly does, is just simply adding second profile to use.

Phase Shifter pg. 82, cron codex:

''A model with a phase shifter has a 3+ invulnerable save.''

So how is exactly possible, that CCB is one model, but is restricted using its wargear because it has a two profiles?
Two profiles do not effect in any way to wargear.

Also there is stated (Pg. 86 also in BRB):

''When determinig the required To Hit roll for any weapon fired by a Chariot model, use the Ballistic Skill on the Chariot's profile for any weapons mounted on the Chariot itself, and the Ballistic Skill on the rider's profile for any weapons wielded by the rider.''

So they actually _share same wargear_ They are just ordered to use different BS for different weapons.
For a crazy example, Overlord has a Quantum shielding while riding chariot, but it just has no effects on him.

I think this is the most strongest expression, that the Chariot truly has a 3++ that it can really use.

This is really hard to turn over I think.

And what comes to special rules, yes, they share them too.
Rules do not state at any point that Ever-Living would be an exception. Chariot just needed rules for it, because necrons codex hasnt stated them.

How does your quote suggest they share the same wargear? It even consistently describes that the wargear is separate (riders profile vs chariots profile). And it enforces that you don't cross the streams.

Two profiles explicitly affect wargear because wargear is part of your profile.

Oh, and the accusations of trolling are reported. It's not polite.

1. Does the Phase shifter give the model an Invuln Save? Yes.
- "...a model with a phase shifter has a 3+ invulnerable save..."
2. Are the Overlord and CCB one model? Yes.
- "...However, a Chariot is always treated as a single model..."
- The premise that abilities or wargear cannot overlap is not covered. I can find multiple instances where a instead of GW giving a blanket rule they gave exceptions. I can also find instances where GW posted multiple FAQs that supported an overriding view but never posted a blanket rule which would have cleared them all up. GW states in the Chariot section they are always treated as one model then to split up hits between chariot and rider. We can either conclude they are part of the same model or that they are two models, since the rules tell us they are the same model we have to assume that the former is how we should act.
- What is also unfortunate is that the rider's profile is looked at for characteristic tests. This means initiative tests and strength tests are now done off his stats.
3. Does the model as a whole have an Invuln Save then?
- RAW it looks like it, RAI we have no idea. Until it is faqed it looks like they do.

Opinion: Skyshield Command Barge..... Talk it over.
Edit: Removal of non-characteriatic test statement from that point.

Too much bickering.