Just had a thought to reconsider the Doomsday Ark. Now that it has a 4+ jink and it doesn't have to move would you consider it? I've found the Ghost Arks to be far superior in this edition due to having jink and being obj. sec.
NecronLord3 wrote: Just had a thought to reconsider the Doomsday Ark. Now that it has a 4+ jink and it doesn't have to move would you consider it? I've found the Ghost Arks to be far superior in this edition due to having jink and being obj. sec.
It doesn't have to move to jink?
Are you sure that's right?
He's correct, but it does have to Jink, to Jink, which means it couldn't fire at all the following phase (it could snap fire it's Gauss Arrays...). If you run DA's you pretty much have to screen them with your GAs and the like to get them cover saves, because relying in Jink is pretty problematic.
I would like to see the secondary fire mode turn into 7 4 Heavy 3 or something. Something you wouldn't be entirely upset about having to snap shoot, particularly when re positioning or Jinking would critically change effect the unit.
NecronLord3 wrote: Just had a thought to reconsider the Doomsday Ark. Now that it has a 4+ jink and it doesn't have to move would you consider it? I've found the Ghost Arks to be far superior in this edition due to having jink and being obj. sec.
It doesn't have to move to jink?
Are you sure that's right?
Yep even immobilized skimmers get a jink in 7th. It's kinda dumb but mitigates the first turn advantage a bit since it can be presumed that your skimmers haven't just been parked there for a week waiting to be shot by the enemy before the battle began.
But upon further consideration the Doomsday Ark is still garbage because if you do jink you can only fire snaps and both firing modes are blast and large blast templates, which can't fire snap shots. Though being camped at 72" is still nice.
But upon further consideration the Doomsday Ark is still garbage because if you do jink you can only fire snaps and both firing modes are blast and large blast templates, which can't fire snap shots. Though being camped at 72" is still nice.
Yeah, it's pretty far from garbage, as those cove saves can certainly come elsewhere, and one parked in the corner will generally cause a severe amount of pain every turn. Also, with cover saves generally being lowered a bit, it's wounds will get through more consistently.
If you are going double CAD I would recommend one over more ABs. It diversifies your firepower, and with it's range they tend to hang around a bit longer then the ABs do.
Well, there's still the option to deploy it with a Skyshield to give it a firing platform with an inv save... but for that price you might as well be bringing a Tesseract Ark instead.
skoffs wrote: Well, there's still the option to deploy it with a Skyshield to give it a firing platform with an inv save... but for that price you might as well be bringing a Tesseract Ark instead.
If FW is allowed. But I like this already. I always liked the look of the doomsday ark but after painting one ghost ark and it being garbage compared to Nightscythes in 6th I never wanted to touch the kit again. Now that they have been improved in 7th, considerably, I painted a second one with a more reasonable paint job that I might do a Doomsday ark. The benefit of making it actually useful is gravy.
luke1705 wrote: I am trying out a combination of the AV 13 wall and wraith wing. Although I like the Barge Lord, he is SO EXPENSIVE. Taking a Destroyer Lord is, at least, 95 points cheaper, and more likely 125 points cheaper. Maybe I'm in the minority running 2+ wraith squads, but giving them a 2+ at the front to tank plus that war scythe hitting from the back, not to mention preferred enemy: everything makes keeping D Lord(s) in my list pretty attractive. I think I'll pick up another barge to try a Barge Lord at 1850 but I don't know if I can justify it at points values lower than that.
Well, I'm not running the barge Lord - too expensive for my liking.
I still prefer DLord, Wraiths, Night Scythes, and Annihilation Barges as in the 6th ed.
The bargeLord is the way to go unless or until the meta starts running fast armourbane CC or lots of good CCMCs with smash (e.g. Wraithknights). A good tactically flexible compromise is 1 bargeLord and 1 D Lord with 6 wraiths so you can try to force favorable matchups. A 1x bargeLord/1x D Lord mix is preferred over 2x D Lord since you will want to enable at least one Royal Court to unlock StormTeks which are really, really good in 7th ed. I like to run 4 x StormTek at least attached to my N Scythe cavalry troops to be able to delete opponent's dedicated transports.
So the viable HQ choices seem to be . . .
A) 2x bargeLord (maximum AV 13 pressure but watch out for fast armourbane CC)
B) 1x bargeLord and 1 D Lord (for shore up your weaknesses type list)
C) 1x bargeLord + 1 Nemesor Zandrekh + 1 Vargard Obyron (for an uber tactics list)
D) Vargard Obyron + Phaeron Overlord (for Sentry Pylon Star)
I think you're right that Storm Teks are very good, especially since everyone will be inclined to take objective: secured transports, or just more tanks in general. Out of curiosity, how many have you been running?
The Doomsday Ark is utter trash. It's the worst model in the entire codex and one of the worst models in the entire game.
It has a single actual weapon that forces you to not move and not jink in order to shoot, and all it brings is a S10 AP1 big blast template. And, of course, it's open-topped. And it comes at a huge price. In a slot that is heavily contested by MUCH superior choices.
Use the kit to build a Ghost Ark, an actually very good model in 7th, and use the extra parts from the Ghost Ark kit (read: the cannon) to build a scratch-built Sentry Pylon.
luke1705 wrote: I think you're right that Storm Teks are very good, especially since everyone will be inclined to take objective: secured transports, or just more tanks in general. Out of curiosity, how many have you been running?
Typically there are two ways to take Storm-teks:
"Storm-Scythe" - Attached to a unit of Warriors/Immortals inside a Nightscythe.
• Pro: Allows you to safely pinpoint insert them next to their target. Increases troop survivability thanks to Ever Living.
• Con: Only available from turn 2. Not so cheap, around 200 points.
"Storm-Court" - A Royal Court unit comprised of two Storm-teks and one Veil-tek.
• Pro: Can alpha strike your opponent's best vehicle on turn 1. Cheap.
• Con: Potential to mishap when deep strike/Veil-ing. Kamikaze unit.
You can put them inside of Ghost Arks, too, but with the reduced movement of the vehicle combined with the short range of their weapon, it doesn't usually work out as well (though, Destruct-teks are good for putting in Ghost Arks).
Sigvatr wrote: The Doomsday Ark is utter trash. It's the worst model in the entire codex and one of the worst models in the entire game.
It has a single actual weapon that forces you to not move and not jink in order to shoot, and all it brings is a S10 AP1 big blast template. And, of course, it's open-topped. And it comes at a huge price. In a slot that is heavily contested by MUCH superior choices.
Use the kit to build a Ghost Ark, an actually very good model in 7th, and use the extra parts from the Ghost Ark kit (read: the cannon) to build a scratch-built Sentry Pylon.
I take it you don't use them then ?
I think that Doomsday Arks with the right combo can be very effective. For example, a pair (or three!) of them, a couple of stalkers for TL, some scarabs for tarpitting and spyders to repair hull points would form a nasty firebase. Supplement with a Bargelord, maybe a GA or two and I think you'd have a workable list which would hand out a nasty surprise to anyone not expecting TL S9AP1 Large blast templates from across the board.
Just to clarify a couple of your points.:
The DA has the Doomsday Cannon, plus a pair of flayer arrays. So it has more weaponry than the GA.
The Doomsday Cannon has 2 profiles, the non moving S9AP1 72" one, plus a 24" S7AP4 Blast template. Granted, jinking is not a great idea with either of these profiles.
The DA has exactly the same AV as the GA All Necron skimmers are open topped, including the Anni Barges - I'm not sure what your point was with that.
For those of us without the desire to leap into forgeworld, the DA is a viable alternative which contributes very well in the right hands and with the right combos. For sure, anyone taking stalkers should definitely consider taking a DA.
Automatically Appended Next Post: PS, you can magnetise the GA/DA so you can get the best of both worlds!
I think that Doomsday Arks with the right combo can be very effective. For example, a pair (or three!) of them, a couple of stalkers for TL, some scarabs for tarpitting and spyders to repair hull points would form a nasty firebase.
So basically, you go into double CAD territory and just spent about 1100 points to fire 3 S9 AP1 big blast templates per turn. Take the bar minimum of HQ and troops and you have roughly 550 points to spend on anything that can capture objectives. You got 1100 points sitting on a single objective for the entire game. 60% of your points sitting around. Sounds great! To add on that, it's one of the easiest thing to counter in the entire game. Drop high S/AP templates and you will always hit at least 1 barge. Hell, I would have won the game by the end of turn 1 with my SP lasering straight into it. Hit a few scarabs, spyders and 1-2 barges and you're looking at 10+ S10 AP1 hits for each of the models. Game won turn 1
Supplement with a Bargelord, maybe a GA or two and I think you'd have a workable list which would hand out a nasty surprise to anyone not expecting TL S9AP1 Large blast templates from across the board.
List + Bargelord + 1 GA with 2 min. Warrior squads = 1600 points. 250 points left to be able to capture objectives. Not gonna happen.
The DA has the Doomsday Cannon, plus a pair of flayer arrays. So it has more weaponry than the GA.
I don't get your point. Are you saying that a dedicated shooting model is better than a dedicated transport?
The Doomsday Cannon has 2 profiles, the non moving S9AP1 72" one, plus a 24" S7AP4 Blast template. Granted, jinking is not a great idea with either of these profiles.
Great, it has one good profile and one utterly useless profile. Worth the points!
The DA has exactly the same AV as the GA
Again, not seeing the point...
All Necron skimmers are open topped, including the Anni Barges - I'm not sure what your point was with that.
AB has Tesla weaponry that still allows for good shooting when Jinking. How much shooting can you do when jinking with a Crap Ark? Zero.
For those of us without the desire to leap into forgeworld, the DA is a viable alternative which contributes very well in the right hands and with the right combos. For sure, anyone taking stalkers should definitely consider taking a DA.
For casual players against incompetent opponents, the DA is a great addition to a list, I give you that.
And to add injury to insult: check how much a Leman Russ tank is. A far superior weapons platform. With a superior fun. That can be taken in squads. Hint: cheaper.
@ Sigvatr, I posted an example list in the army list section - two DA fit fine. For the list, I ditched the spyders and scarabs for an extra bargelord, but people can season to taste.
Re your other comments, it's great you choose to play forgeworld, however, the fact that you choose to take sentry pylons doesn't make everything else other than AB, trash.
Given that some people may actually like the DDA model (I do for example) and want to use it, comments like "make sentry pylons" probably aren't overly helpful. Comparisons to units we can't take at all (unless you're suggesting that taking AM CotA allies is a tactical option) is definitely not helpful.
Tactically, if I were going to take DA, I wouldn't put them anywhere near an objective. I'd use them as bait to force the opponent to devote resources to the farthest flung corners of the board just to get rid of them. And I'd put them in cover so I didn't have to jink.
That might sound odd but that's because I've been trying to make GK work for 8 weeks using minimal henchmen, so sacrificing 150-175 points is becoming a norm. Crons have it sooooo much better it isn't funny.
Sigvatr wrote: The Doomsday Ark is utter trash. It's the worst model in the entire codex and one of the worst models in the entire game.
It has a single actual weapon that forces you to not move and not jink in order to shoot, and all it brings is a S10 AP1 big blast template. And, of course, it's open-topped. And it comes at a huge price. In a slot that is heavily contested by MUCH superior choices.
Use the kit to build a Ghost Ark, an actually very good model in 7th, and use the extra parts from the Ghost Ark kit (read: the cannon) to build a scratch-built Sentry Pylon.
Totally disagree with you. The Doomsday Ark has its place, and can be very deadly and/or useful if you know what you're doing with it. It's a distraction carnifex. I use it as bait that can still kill stuff, or deny areas of the board if they leave it.
I plonk him down on the opposite side of the board to my army, generally covering a side or giving him a good firing lane. If they leave him, he'll be a thorn in their side for the entire game and S10 AP1 Big blast is a pretty big thorn. Generally my opponents focus it, (it is the big beatstick after all), and every shot fired at him isn't going for my vulnerable/ important units. If the opponent uses for example a cheap melta drop pod etc. to take it out.., again they didn't use those meltas on my Spyders or Lychguard or other important units. If the opponent splits off some of his forces to go and try taking it out, I've split that force off from the rest of his army and I can teleport/ relocate over to obliterate it with minimal casualties of my own.
Otto Weston wrote: Totally disagree with you. The Doomsday Ark has its place, and can be very deadly and/or useful if you know what you're doing with it.
"Okay, I'll hear this guy out. Maybe he's got something valid to--"
Otto Weston wrote: Totally disagree with you. The Doomsday Ark has its place, and can be very deadly and/or useful if you know what you're doing with it.
"Okay, I'll hear this guy out. Maybe he's got something valid to--"
Lychguard
"... nope. Never mind."
I also use Flayed ones... so feel free to comment on that as well I like using units that others consider under-powered or inferior... and then winning.
Re your other comments, it's great you choose to play forgeworld, however, the fact that you choose to take sentry pylons doesn't make everything else other than AB, trash.
Given that some people may actually like the DDA model (I do for example) and want to use it, comments like "make sentry pylons" probably aren't overly helpful. Comparisons to units we can't take at all (unless you're suggesting that taking AM CotA allies is a tactical option) is definitely not helpful.
There is no choice to use FW, the choice is to not use FW - just to get that out of the way. Comparison to SP are fully valid as they are part of the Necron army and, as I might add, a far superior one. The comparison to the LR was made to illustrate the points cost difference.
Tactically, if I were going to take DA, I wouldn't put them anywhere near an objective. I'd use them as bait to force the opponent to devote resources to the farthest flung corners of the board just to get rid of them. And I'd put them in cover so I didn't have to jink.
Have you ever actually played with a DA? I am under the impression that this is not the case. First of all, you would have to be at least 25% obscured, as usual, with a very narrow front and, worse, the really weird gunpoint. "Weird" because it's rather low. So if you want it to be in cover, you have to find a cover that does not block the gun itself, not to mention that you heavily limit your own area of firing by finding a suitable cover.
How are you going to "split the enemy out"? Remember the DA do not ignore cover. Any decent enemy can outplay such a list extremely easily just by hogging objectives. You will not be able to get any far-field objectives and your troops are extremely light. By limiting yourself to GA, you can only realistically cover the mid-field. And pray your opponent does not have any template weapon. Hit the GA with 1 template weapon and you lose your entire squad of Necron Warriors.
Mind you, my point of view is different from yours. I play in a highly competitive environment and Doomsday Arks simply do not fit in here. They are extremely overcosted, immobile and their weapon is not even S10 (I still don't get this...). No ignore cover either. They might be fitting for your considerably more casual environment, but against decent opponents, they are a huge points sink.
I plonk him down on the opposite side of the board to my army, generally covering a side or giving him a good firing lane. If they leave him, he'll be a thorn in their side for the entire game and S10 AP1 Big blast is a pretty big thorn. Generally my opponents focus it, (it is the big beatstick after all), and every shot fired at him isn't going for my vulnerable/ important units. If the opponent uses for example a cheap melta drop pod etc. to take it out.., again they didn't use those meltas on my Spyders or Lychguard or other important units. If the opponent splits off some of his forces to go and try taking it out, I've split that force off from the rest of his army and I can teleport/ relocate over to obliterate it with minimal casualties of my own.
I've found it to be a very good model.
To sum it up: you play in a meta where enemies use Melta weaponry to fight Spyders and Lychguard and the latter are considered an "important unit". You, personally, found it a very good model. That's good for you, but against decent opponents or in another, competitive, meta, that opinion will change
..and I do hope you're not telling your opponents you hit them with S10AP1 weapons.
luke1705 wrote: I think you're right that Storm Teks are very good, especially since everyone will be inclined to take objective: secured transports, or just more tanks in general. Out of curiosity, how many have you been running?
Typically there are two ways to take Storm-teks:
"Storm-Scythe" - Attached to a unit of Warriors/Immortals inside a Nightscythe.
• Pro: Allows you to safely pinpoint insert them next to their target. Increases troop survivability thanks to Ever Living.
• Con: Only available from turn 2. Not so cheap, around 200 points.
"Storm-Court" - A Royal Court unit comprised of two Storm-teks and one Veil-tek.
• Pro: Can alpha strike your opponent's best vehicle on turn 1. Cheap.
• Con: Potential to mishap when deep strike/Veil-ing. Kamikaze unit.
You can put them inside of Ghost Arks, too, but with the reduced movement of the vehicle combined with the short range of their weapon, it doesn't usually work out as well (though, Destruct-teks are good for putting in Ghost Arks).
I agree with your points, but I think you're missing the biggest pro of putting them in a GA - they aren't a one-trick pony. With the Storm-Court, they will likely die. Immediately after they make their alpha strike. With the Storm-Scythe, you get the same thing. Sure, they're more resilient than the Storm-Court, but a 5 man squad with 4+ saves? Not exactly hardy. With a GA, they can shoot from the protection of a 4 HPAV 13-ish vehicle with 4+ cover wherever it goes. In my opinion, that's pretty significant. And while it's true that you can't pull that trick first turn, with some decent deployment and maximum ark movement, you should certainly be able to pull it off turn 2 just like the Storm-Scythe (although with a greater chance of getting immobilized/shot off the board before you get a chance). For 15 more points than a Scythe, you get an Objective: Secured open-topped transport, so they never have to disembark to put their full firepower out.
Re your other comments, it's great you choose to play forgeworld, however, the fact that you choose to take sentry pylons doesn't make everything else other than AB, trash.
Given that some people may actually like the DDA model (I do for example) and want to use it, comments like "make sentry pylons" probably aren't overly helpful. Comparisons to units we can't take at all (unless you're suggesting that taking AM CotA allies is a tactical option) is definitely not helpful.
There is no choice to use FW, the choice is to not use FW - just to get that out of the way. Comparison to SP are fully valid as they are part of the Necron army and, as I might add, a far superior one. The comparison to the LR was made to illustrate the points cost difference.
I have no problems with people using FW, my point was simply that not all people want to use it. And I also have no problems with comparisons to SP, as Cron players can, as you say, take SP.
Re the LR, usage of units from other codexes for comparison is commonplace, but generally irrelevant - unless the comparison unit can be effectively used by the Cron player. So, unless your point was to take LR in an ally detachment instead of a GA, the comparison wasn't helpful.
MarkCron wrote: Tactically, if I were going to take DA, I wouldn't put them anywhere near an objective. I'd use them as bait to force the opponent to devote resources to the farthest flung corners of the board just to get rid of them. And I'd put them in cover so I didn't have to jink.
Have you ever actually played with a DA? I am under the impression that this is not the case. First of all, you would have to be at least 25% obscured, as usual, with a very narrow front and, worse, the really weird gunpoint. "Weird" because it's rather low. So if you want it to be in cover, you have to find a cover that does not block the gun itself, not to mention that you heavily limit your own area of firing by finding a suitable cover.
How are you going to "split the enemy out"? Remember the DA do not ignore cover. Any decent enemy can outplay such a list extremely easily just by hogging objectives. You will not be able to get any far-field objectives and your troops are extremely light. By limiting yourself to GA, you can only realistically cover the mid-field. And pray your opponent does not have any template weapon. Hit the GA with 1 template weapon and you lose your entire squad of Necron Warriors.
Mind you, my point of view is different from yours. I play in a highly competitive environment and Doomsday Arks simply do not fit in here. They are extremely overcosted, immobile and their weapon is not even S10 (I still don't get this...). No ignore cover either. They might be fitting for your considerably more casual environment, but against decent opponents, they are a huge points sink.
Wow.... If you have finished leaping to conclusions about my competitive environment, the quality of my play and the quality of my opponents perhaps we could continue looking at the tactical advantages of DA.
In response to your comments:
a) I do play them - in fact 7e inspired me to drag out both the DA and my stalkers after a somewhat extended rest for much of 6e. So, when was the last time you played a game with them?
b) The ability to get cover for them is tricky, guess I'm lucky that I play on tables with lots of terrain. However, the most effective cover are the stalkers or the other GAs, because those things can move no problem.
c) Re "splitting the enemy out" - I don't need to do anything. The enemy will go to the DA anyway - it's just a case of waiting for them to come.
d) re Far-field objectives, I have a pair of Bargelords that should cover that pretty well.
e) I don't think you play "No Escape" correctly. Max *hits* is 6 with D6 and I had 7 bodies in each of the GA (5 warriors and 2 Lanceteks). I also had 6 ObSec units, 3 of them GA, which is not exactly "light". Also, remember that you can control two objectives from a GA with embarked warriors, providing they are close enough.
f) Apart from our flamers, there is nothing in the normal codex that has ignores cover, so not sure why you raised that. That's a disadvantage that applies to AB (I believe they are your preferred alternatives) as well, but AB are further penalised because they are only 24" and are AP-. AP4 isn't going to do anything against marines, but xenos and demons aren't going to be happy. Remember that DDA drop the templates from 72" away.
g) Camping objectives isn't a great idea with S9AP1 pie plates raining down, but I suppose if you had foolishly deployed your objectives behind cover where your opponent could get to them, that could take a little longer to kill them all.
In summary, I think DDA have a place in a correctly structured list. Sure, you have to play it way more carefully than moving wraiths forward and waiting for the NS to come in, but that doesn't make it trash. Take advantage of its strengths (long, long range) and high S/Low AP shots quickly and you can build up a sizeable advantage.
I agree with your points, but I think you're missing the biggest pro of putting them in a GA - they aren't a one-trick pony. With the Storm-Court, they will likely die. Immediately after they make their alpha strike. With the Storm-Scythe, you get the same thing. Sure, they're more resilient than the Storm-Court, but a 5 man squad with 4+ saves? Not exactly hardy. With a GA, they can shoot from the protection of a 4 HPAV 13-ish vehicle with 4+ cover wherever it goes. In my opinion, that's pretty significant. And while it's true that you can't pull that trick first turn, with some decent deployment and maximum ark movement, you should certainly be able to pull it off turn 2 just like the Storm-Scythe (although with a greater chance of getting immobilized/shot off the board before you get a chance). For 15 more points than a Scythe, you get an Objective: Secured open-topped transport, so they never have to disembark to put their full firepower out.
The 12" range is still negating them. With a night scythe you deploy them so that they can be effective. In a GA the opponent can avoid them with land raiders, imperial knight titans, Super heavies etc. Plus if you flat out the passengers fire snap shots making the max effective range 18".
If you want to make them more survivable you will have to attach a lord/overlord to tank shots on a 2+/3++ or attach them to Lychguard with dispersion shields( or both).
I agree with your points, but I think you're missing the biggest pro of putting them in a GA - they aren't a one-trick pony. With the Storm-Court, they will likely die. Immediately after they make their alpha strike. With the Storm-Scythe, you get the same thing. Sure, they're more resilient than the Storm-Court, but a 5 man squad with 4+ saves? Not exactly hardy. With a GA, they can shoot from the protection of a 4 HPAV 13-ish vehicle with 4+ cover wherever it goes. In my opinion, that's pretty significant. And while it's true that you can't pull that trick first turn, with some decent deployment and maximum ark movement, you should certainly be able to pull it off turn 2 just like the Storm-Scythe (although with a greater chance of getting immobilized/shot off the board before you get a chance). For 15 more points than a Scythe, you get an Objective: Secured open-topped transport, so they never have to disembark to put their full firepower out.
The 12" range is still negating them. With a night scythe you deploy them so that they can be effective. In a GA the opponent can avoid them with land raiders, imperial knight titans, Super heavies etc. Plus if you flat out the passengers fire snap shots making the max effective range 18".
If you want to make them more survivable you will have to attach a lord/overlord to tank shots on a 2+/3++ or attach them to Lychguard with dispersion shields( or both).
While running StormTeks, you need to understand the penetration level of the mobility platform you are attaching them to. GA are a midfield penetration platform, while NS and Veiltek/Obyron are deep level penetration. Since lots of target vehicles can be effectively parked in the opponent's deployment zone, the deep penetration platforms are preferred. A NS mobility platform can hit a midfield vehicle on the turn it comes from reserves and then suck back up into a NS the next turn and then hit a deep field target vehicle on the following turn. A veilTek platform can hit any vehicle anywhere each turn, but runs the risk of mishap each turn it teleports around. The NS squad is best run as cheaply as possible while having a solid chance of doing the job it was intended to do immediately out of the gate (5 warriors + 2 stormTek). However, there will be times you may want to be able to disembark the squad from the NS and have it stick and be extra survivable (pop the transport the turn it arrives, absorb the counterfire of the emergency disembarked troop on the opponent's turn, and then have enough remaining to wipe out the opponent on your turn and secure the objective). So maybe you want immortals and lords to boost up the survivability and maybe that fits into your game plan. I find though that running stuff cheap is more flexible since it means more playing pieces and that some other cheap unit from somewhere else can come in and mop up the situation rather than putting points out there into uber units that may or may not get a good return on those points. The veilTek mobility platform however definitely benefits from additional survivability from lords or immortals over warriors or a blob tactic, etc.
Putting stormTeks into a GA is nice hotsauce, but the stormTek on that platform is one that becomes active when the opponent pushes some vehicles in to contest the midfield. That happens often enough naturally, but its hard to force that to happen with the GA platform if the opponent doesn't want it to happen. Astute opponents will notice the stormTeks on your GA and plan out their moves accordingly.
....suck back up into a NS the next turn and then hit a deep field target vehicle on the following turn.
Can you tell me where this rule is? "reembarking in NS" Ive had this argued against me in tournaments and for the life of me, I cant ever seem to find the allowance.
....suck back up into a NS the next turn and then hit a deep field target vehicle on the following turn.
Can you tell me where this rule is? "reembarking in NS" Ive had this argued against me in tournaments and for the life of me, I cant ever seem to find the allowance.
The last page of the penultimate Necron FAQ had a Q and A that specifically allowed it.
....suck back up into a NS the next turn and then hit a deep field target vehicle on the following turn.
Can you tell me where this rule is? "reembarking in NS" Ive had this argued against me in tournaments and for the life of me, I cant ever seem to find the allowance.
The last page of the penultimate Necron FAQ had a Q and A that specifically allowed it.
It is NOT possible to re-embark in a NS by the current rules. Please re-check the FAQ.
....suck back up into a NS the next turn and then hit a deep field target vehicle on the following turn.
Can you tell me where this rule is? "reembarking in NS" Ive had this argued against me in tournaments and for the life of me, I cant ever seem to find the allowance.
The last page of the penultimate Necron FAQ had a Q and A that specifically allowed it.
It is NOT possible to re-embark in a NS by the current rules. Please re-check the FAQ.
The last page of the penultimate Necron FAQ had a Q and A that specifically allowed it.
a) I do play them - in fact 7e inspired me to drag out both the DA and my stalkers after a somewhat extended rest for much of 6e. So, when was the last time you played a game with them?
So, you agree with me?
c) Re "splitting the enemy out" - I don't need to do anything. The enemy will go to the DA anyway - it's just a case of waiting for them to come.
As above, meta, environment, etc.
d) re Far-field objectives, I have a pair of Bargelords that should cover that pretty well.
No OS, far-field objectives are mostly secured by OS.
e) I don't think you play "No Escape" correctly. Max *hits* is 6 with D6 and I had 7 bodies in each of the GA (5 warriors and 2 Lanceteks). I also had 6 ObSec units, 3 of them GA, which is not exactly "light". Also, remember that you can control two objectives from a GA with embarked warriors, providing they are close enough.
GA themselves cannot take out nearby units. You, on the other hand, obscure these units with your very own models and you have to position the blast templates in a less optimal spot in order not to hit your own models. Having two objectives so close together with you having a very vulnerable mid-field isn't a good idea. Against decent opponents. As above.
f) Apart from our flamers, there is nothing in the normal codex that has ignores cover, so not sure why you raised that. That's a disadvantage that applies to AB (I believe they are your preferred alternatives) as well, but AB are further penalised because they are only 24" and are AP-. AP4 isn't going to do anything against marines, but xenos and demons aren't going to be happy. Remember that DDA drop the templates from 72" away.
72'' is wasted range as you never need to shoot that far. Ignoring cover is a problem because the DA is priced as a heavy template thrower but has an inferior weapon and no special abilities. Necrons in general do not have many ignore cover weapons, the only thing that comes to my mind right now is the Deathshroud. Oh well, and the T-C'tan of course.
g) Camping objectives isn't a great idea with S9AP1 pie plates raining down, but I suppose if you had foolishly deployed your objectives behind cover where your opponent could get to them, that could take a little longer to kill them all.
"Raining" S9 AP1 templates down on units with a 4+. Sounds like an awesome plan.
In summary, I think DDA have a place in a correctly structured list. Sure, you have to play it way more carefully than moving wraiths forward and waiting for the NS to come in, but that doesn't make it trash. Take advantage of its strengths (long, long range) and high S/Low AP shots quickly and you can build up a sizeable advantage.
As stated above, they do have a place in certain lists. Casual lists against less experienced opponents. Against decent opponents, they are utter trash. Their best use is building Ghost Arks and using the rest as bits for conversions or scratch-builts.
Sigvatr wrote: Yes. That is why you cannot re-embark now - the current FAQ does not allow it
I see what you are saying. The codex line that would also specifically enable it has been FAQed away. Still, this is in TO territory since a conservative approach would allow units to continue to be able to embark on the Night Scythe. I have found that it is more important to predict the conservative TO approach than the RAW or RAI interpretation.
Here's the interesting thing. Nothing really has changed from the 6th edition version 1.4 to the current version, except for the dropping of the Q and A entry at the end of that FAQ that clarified that the Night Scythe can have people jump on it. Now, a Q and A entry doesn't specifically provide permission, it only clarifies what is provided elsewhere, i.e. it only clarifies intent. So strictly RAW, units couldn't jump onto a Night Scythe back in 6th edition either - since there wasn't a RAW basis for it and the ability to do so was sloppily provided and not legitimately provided based on a Q and A entry. So it is exceedingly clear in the 6th edition 1.4 what RAI was (the Q and A reveal intent and how we are to apply rules provided elsewhere), even though there wasn't any actual rules justification backing it up.
The Q and A section was chopped down from some 30 entries to 3 entries in some broad stroke of clearcutting the FAQ down to a smaller size.
Some notables that were casualties of the clearcutting were the clarification for Veil of Darkness being able to be used to move from reserve and the clarification that Wraiths don't get +1 attacks from adding a Particle Caster. Do VeilTeks now lose that ability and do Wraiths with particle casters now gain +1 A on the basis that the Q and A entries enforcing those got dropped?
A TO who is comfortable making a common sense judgement call is going to allow units to continue to embark on Night Scythes, since no pertinent FAQ information has changed for them, only a Q and A clarification has been dropped out along with 27 other entries. The editing out of that line has simply brought it to the community's attention that there never was a clear RAW for this to happen in the first place, only a very clear RAI. It's too easy to reconstruct what happened here (GW did too much clearcutting of the prior Q and A info) and very easy to decipher RAI - namely that GW intends for us to play Night Scythes same as always.
But as I said before, its all now in TO territory since it's basically a sloppy mess that needs a ruling.
Here's the interesting thing. Nothing really has changed from the 6th edition version 1.4 to the current version, except for the dropping of the Q and A entry at the end of that FAQ that clarified that the Night Scythe can have people jump on it. Now, a Q and A entry doesn't specifically provide permission, it only clarifies what is provided elsewhere, i.e. it only clarifies intent. So strictly RAW, units couldn't jump onto a Night Scythe back in 6th edition either - since there wasn't a RAW basis for it and the ability to do so was sloppily provided and not legitimately provided based on a Q and A entry. So it is exceedingly clear in the 6th edition 1.4 what RAI was (the Q and A reveal intent and how we are to apply rules provided elsewhere), even though there wasn't any actual rules justification backing it up.
The Q and A section was chopped down from some 30 entries to 3 entries in some broad stroke of clearcutting the FAQ down to a smaller size.
Some notables that were casualties of the clearcutting were the clarification for Veil of Darkness being able to be used to move from reserve and the clarification that Wraiths don't get +1 attacks from adding a Particle Caster. Do VeilTeks now lose that ability and do Wraiths with particle casters now gain +1 A on the basis that the Q and A entries enforcing those got dropped?
A TO who is comfortable making a common sense judgement call is going to allow units to continue to embark on Night Scythes, since no pertinent FAQ information has changed for them, only a Q and A clarification has been dropped out along with 27 other entries. The editing out of that line has simply brought it to the community's attention that there never was a clear RAW for this to happen in the first place, only a very clear RAI. It's too easy to reconstruct what happened here (GW did too much clearcutting of the prior Q and A info) and very easy to decipher RAI - namely that GW intends for us to play Night Scythes same as always.
But as I said before, its all now in TO territory since it's basically a sloppy mess that needs a ruling.
RAW-wise, they could never re-embark back onto the night scythe. The 6E FAQ was an exception rather than a clarification. It gave permission for necron warriors to "break the rules" and hop back onto their zooming flyer transports when no other army could. In the absence of this FAQ, they are once again denied permission by RAW. However, I do agree that you should check with a TO to see how he would rule it in his tournament.
Here's the interesting thing. Nothing really has changed from the 6th edition version 1.4 to the current version, except for the dropping of the Q and A entry at the end of that FAQ that clarified that the Night Scythe can have people jump on it. Now, a Q and A entry doesn't specifically provide permission, it only clarifies what is provided elsewhere, i.e. it only clarifies intent. So strictly RAW, units couldn't jump onto a Night Scythe back in 6th edition either - since there wasn't a RAW basis for it and the ability to do so was sloppily provided and not legitimately provided based on a Q and A entry. So it is exceedingly clear in the 6th edition 1.4 what RAI was (the Q and A reveal intent and how we are to apply rules provided elsewhere), even though there wasn't any actual rules justification backing it up.
The Q and A section was chopped down from some 30 entries to 3 entries in some broad stroke of clearcutting the FAQ down to a smaller size.
Some notables that were casualties of the clearcutting were the clarification for Veil of Darkness being able to be used to move from reserve and the clarification that Wraiths don't get +1 attacks from adding a Particle Caster. Do VeilTeks now lose that ability and do Wraiths with particle casters now gain +1 A on the basis that the Q and A entries enforcing those got dropped?
A TO who is comfortable making a common sense judgement call is going to allow units to continue to embark on Night Scythes, since no pertinent FAQ information has changed for them, only a Q and A clarification has been dropped out along with 27 other entries. The editing out of that line has simply brought it to the community's attention that there never was a clear RAW for this to happen in the first place, only a very clear RAI. It's too easy to reconstruct what happened here (GW did too much clearcutting of the prior Q and A info) and very easy to decipher RAI - namely that GW intends for us to play Night Scythes same as always.
But as I said before, its all now in TO territory since it's basically a sloppy mess that needs a ruling.
RAW-wise, they could never re-embark back onto the night scythe. The 6E FAQ was an exception rather than a clarification. It gave permission for necron warriors to "break the rules" and hop back onto their zooming flyer transports when no other army could. In the absence of this FAQ, they are once again denied permission by RAW. However, I do agree that you should check with a TO to see how he would rule it in his tournament.
Except the Q and A section is not a place where permission or exceptions are granted. It is the place where it clarifies how prior rules given elsewhere are supposed to be interpreted. Even if those Q and A entries were not there they would presumably still be answered the same way if nothing else changed that was backing their answer. When GW read their own rules, they read the Night Scythe as allowing for passengers to re-embark.
If the Q and A section carries rule forming weight (which someone could say and maybe that's what you are saying Jy2) then where does that leave the VeilTek and the Wraith who now have had their underlying abilities change? 5 points for +1 A on the Wraith seems juicy, not to mention the extra shot while charging in.
There's a bigger issue to articulate here with regards to how the Q and A section relates to the rest of the FAQ and what happens when some Q and A disappear. A lot the Q and A answers disappeared in the Necron FAQ and more stuff might be impacted IF we say that those carried rule forming weight.
Conservatively, I could just say that nothing changed between 6th and 7th that impacted the Night Scythe (or the VeilTek or the Wraith) and so the Q and A entry if included would be answered exactly the same. I would be 100% logically correct if the Q and A entry that was dropped between 6th and 7th carried no rule weight and only clarified rules. I am also confident that that is GWRAI. However, there is a bit of Talmudic level/archeological level interpretation to get there because the rules that GW print come nowhere close to legalistic precision that tournament level competition demands.
So basically if what I think you are saying is true, that the Q and A section actually carries rule-forming weight and is not just clarification, then we have to sort through the ramifications of the 27 or thereabouts Q and A entries that were dropped and see if they were forming rules (as it would seem in the case of Wraith and Veiltek and possibly others). All of the gremlins that were stamped out in the 27 Q and A entries of previous FAQs are now re-unleashed into the wild.
My approach, which comes from common sense, is that the Q and A carries no rule forming weight and only clarifies how we should interpret rules that GW thinks we are receiving. They reveal RAI. This means that . . .
1) all the Q and A from the penultimate 1.4 FAQ are still valid unless some relevant underpinning rule(s) actually changed. This is how I think most people would address this situation. Players don't want VeilTeks to lose their ability to veil of darkness from reserves. No underpinning rules changed for them from 6th to 7th so it doesn't make sense.
2) the Q and A for the Night Scythe in the 1.4 FAQ is clarifying some rule that GW thinks it delivered somewhere but doesn't seem to be there (unless we are to imply it from the presence of access points). We have a clear message of intent in the 1.4 FAQ but no clear rules to rest it on.
Awkward situation. Again, seems to rest on TO decision.
Except the Q and A section is not a place where permission or exceptions are granted. It is the place where it clarifies how prior rules given elsewhere are supposed to be interpreted. Even if those Q and A entries were not there they would presumably still be answered the same way if nothing else changed that was backing their answer. When GW read their own rules, they read the Night Scythe as allowing for passengers to re-embark.
If the Q and A section carries rule forming weight (which someone could say and maybe that's what you are saying Jy2) then where does that leave the VeilTek and the Wraith who now have had their underlying abilities change? 5 points for +1 A on the Wraith seems juicy, not to mention the extra shot while charging in.
There's a bigger issue to articulate here with regards to how the Q and A section relates to the rest of the FAQ and what happens when some Q and A disappear. A lot the Q and A answers disappeared in the Necron FAQ and more stuff might be impacted IF we say that those carried rule forming weight.
Conservatively, I could just say that nothing changed between 6th and 7th that impacted the Night Scythe (or the VeilTek or the Wraith) and so the Q and A entry if included would be answered exactly the same. I would be 100% logically correct if the Q and A entry that was dropped between 6th and 7th carried no rule weight and only clarified rules. I am also confident that that is GWRAI. However, there is a bit of Talmudic level/archeological level interpretation to get there because the rules that GW print come nowhere close to legalistic precision that tournament level competition demands.
I would certainly be interested to know how TO's are going to rule on things like this. Do they fall back on the answers from the 6e FAQ in lieu of new ones? Do they assume that non-inclusion of a particular FAQ means that the ruling has gone the other way? (Do we have any examples from the BAO/LVO?)
Really, we have no clear RAI for 7th edition, but we do know what the rules-as-FAQ'd were for 6th edition. I think that while it's reasonable to simply say "RAW" twelve times fast, the issue is that RAW are murky in many instances and the TO needs. To judge RAI or simply make a HIWPI call however they can. Though I'm not a TO, I think I might be of the train of thought that the 6e FAQ was RAI at one point, so to say that it's no longer RAI is jumping to conclusions. In fairness, one could make the same argument about using the old FAQ - I would just rather take some precedent over no precedent at all.
While on this topic, I wonder if GW would react if they were suddenly flooded with emails about a certain topic?
Surely if questions were asked frequently enough that would grounds for a FAQ update, no?
If only it were possible to start a email writing campaign...
I would certainly be interested to know how TO's are going to rule on things like this. Do they fall back on the answers from the 6e FAQ in lieu of new ones? Do they assume that non-inclusion of a particular FAQ means that the ruling has gone the other way? (Do we have any examples from the BAO/LVO?)
Just to get som input from a TO (nowhere near any major tournament, we're a crowd of 3-4 clubs with about 90 members): we disallow it, you cannot re-embark in a NS. It has been discussed in our rules council and the only argument brought up in favor of it was the old FAQ that has been amended. Right now, there simply isn't any rule that allows the NS to be re-embarked and referencing an old FAQ has been rejected as it's invalidated and the new FAQ changes a part about the NS that has not been changed before (Acess Points) along with the fact that the first 7th FAQ revisions have already been passed AND the documents have also been translated at this point, with no changes again.
Falling back to 6th would b unfair as this would cause precedence to falling back to an older FAQ in favor of one army whereas others have to use the most recent one.
Sigvatr wrote: the new FAQ changes a part about the NS that has not been changed before (Acess Points)
This is not correct. Nothing has changed for the NS except strictly the Q and A entry clarifying that the NS can have units re-embark. Check the version 1.4 FAQ which was active in 6th edition. The 'Access Points' bit was already in that FAQ, which is key, since that is presumably the whole basis of your argument. It's kinda bad you didn't have this straight before you discussed the issue. Before you discuss an issue with some rules council you should fully research it, since it looks like you spread around a bit of misinformation there.
The real issue is what happens when Q and A items drop from earlier FAQs.
Basically, what your argument is now is that the absence of this Q and A item . . .
Spoiler:
Q: Is there any way to embark back onto a Night Scythe?
A: Yes - follow the rules for Embarking on page 78, treating the Night Scythe's base as its Access Point. Note that this is possible despite the Night Scythe being a Zooming Flyer.
signifies that the NS no longer can have units re-embark.
This is extremely awkward argument for you to make here because this text is clarifying rules and not making rules. It suggests rules that support it elsewhere. Would't you agree?
Nothing else is changed for the NS. The same exact rules that support that Q and A item in 6th edition support it now.
Anyway, if you really are a TO, I suggest you correct the misinformation you sent around before and re-open the conversation about it. The 'Access Points' change was not new to the 7th edition FAQ. Of course you might all come up with the same conclusion. But at present your council of whatever came up with a conclusion based on bad, extremely pertinent information.
Sigvatr wrote: the new FAQ changes a part about the NS that has not been changed before (Acess Points)
This is not correct. Nothing has changed for the NS except strictly the Q and A entry clarifying that the NS can have units re-embark. Check the version 1.4 FAQ which was active in 6th edition. The 'Access Points' bit was already in that FAQ, which is key, since that is presumably the whole basis of your argument. It's kinda bad you didn't have this straight before you discussed the issue. Before you discuss an issue with some rules council you should fully research it, since it looks like you spread around a bit of misinformation there.
The real issue is what happens when Q and A items drop from earlier FAQs.
Hm? The basis for this decision is that there is no rules backup for re-embarking; in the contrary, re-embarking is explicitely disallowed by the rules. Not quite sure how you got to that wrong conclusion.
the new FAQ changes a part about the NS that has not been changed before (Acess Points)
This is not correct.
******
So basically what you presented to your council as a 7th edition change
Spoiler:
Page 51 - Night Scythes, Access Points Change to '1 (the base of the model)'
This was already there in the 6th edition FAQ. This is a big slip-up on your part to wrongly present it as new in 7th.
The change from 6th Edition to 7th Edition with regards to the NS was strictly the dropping of the Q and A item, which is not supposed to hold any rule making weight on it's own. So it is obviously very problematic that the NS loses the ability to have units re-embark strictly on the dropping of a Q and A item, since it raises up questions of RAI vs RAW.
In other words, what you presented to the council as a slam-dunk argument was all based on bad information. The situation is much much thornier than that. You all may wind up having to come to the same conclusion, but I think it's your responsibility to spread the correct information now. Seriously, read the 6th edition 1.4 FAQ for the Necrons and note that only the Q and A item got changed. Good, see it now? Yup, much thornier.
Ehm...you misunderstand how rules work. Rules are always played as they are now, at their current iteration. You don't look back at invalidated rules and say they're now to be used just because you so strongly wish to.
Point out, exactly, why you should be allowed to re-embark on a NS using valid rules and we can go on from that. Ther might be something that was overlooked, can always be the case, but if there is, point at it.
I take it now that you have checked and seen that the ONLY change is the dropping of the Q and A item. Is this correct?
And further, am I correct that you wrongly presented to some decision-making council some amount of misinformation that was extremely pertinent to their ability to decide fairly on an issue?
Did you specifically present this as new to the 7th edition FAQ?
Spoiler:
Page 51 - Night Scythes, Access Points Change to '1 (the base of the model)'
Since I am getting confused about your point, back to square one: do you think that you should be able to re-embark on a NS or not?
As stated, I am not pushing for one decision or another, only that you do your self-proclaimed job as a TO with due diligence.
Look, by your own admission, you presented something as new to the 7th edition FAQ which wasn't, and it was hugely significant to their capacity to make a fair decision. It was simply bad information. Own up to it. I can totally understand how you got confused by it. But since you are part of some decision-making body and not some isolated player you have to own up to it and correct it.
Sigvatr wrote: So basically, you fully agree with the decision based on the current iteration of the rules. I can live with that.
And just to add: it wasn't me who brought it up. I brought the RAW part up.
Are you seriously a TO? I asked you a straight question about whether you had bothered to re-familiarize yourself with the 6th edition 1.4 FAQ and you haven't provided a straight answer to it.
Sigvatr wrote: You agreed on it being disallowed to re-embark. Not seeing where you're going now.
Huh? to repeat
I asked you a straight question about whether you had bothered to re-familiarize yourself with the 6th edition 1.4 FAQ and you haven't provided a straight answer to it.
I have a question. Going with the mentality that FAQ clarifications from 6th edition become invalidated by new 7th edition would the Resurrection Orb not benefit Ever-Living rolls?
I think we all agree that it does, but I just wanted to bring this up as a point/clarification of what I think Col_Impact was saying.
Where do the rules specifically prohibit embarking upon a NS using it's Access Point (it's base)?
FettPrime wrote: I have a question. Going with the mentality that FAQ clarifications from 6th edition become invalidated by new 7th edition would the Resurrection Orb not benefit Ever-Living rolls?
I think we all agree that it does, but I just wanted to bring this up as a point/clarification of what I think Col_Impact was saying.
There's a difference between the two cases because the RO issue is a clarification whereas the NS case is an exception to the rules that has been amended in the current FAQ.
Where do the rules specifically prohibit embarking upon a NS using it's Access Point (it's base)?
You cannot embark on a Zooming flyer and the NS cannot hover, thus always has to zoom.
FettPrime wrote: I have a question. Going with the mentality that FAQ clarifications from 6th edition become invalidated by new 7th edition would the Resurrection Orb not benefit Ever-Living rolls?
I think we all agree that it does, but I just wanted to bring this up as a point/clarification of what I think Col_Impact was saying.
There's a difference between the two cases because the RO issue is a clarification whereas the NS case is an exception to the rules that has been amended in the current FAQ.
Where do the rules specifically prohibit embarking upon a NS using it's Access Point (it's base)?
You cannot embark on a Zooming flyer and the NS cannot hover, thus always has to zoom.
Sigvatr wrote: ...and I want you to tell me where you're going with this
Huh? Yes or no will suffice. It's not a trick question. If you have problem answering a straight question like this I seriously question your capacity as a self-proclaimed TO.
You made a statement above that some information was new to the 7th edition Necron FAQ. It's perfectly fair that I ask if you actually read the penultimate 6th edition 1.4 Necron FAQ, because if you indeed had not read that, then you would have no ability to know if something was new to the 7th edition FAQ. And once again we are faced with behavior that is not exactly TO worthy.
Your question was already answered in the reply to FettPrime - and about 90 people might disagree with you on the "self-proclaimed" part
Again, you lack any proper reasoning for your posts - you are wildly lashing around, not knowing yourself where you're getting at, making you look like a fool. If that's what you want...fine with me.
You agreed on our decision being fully correct, so again, you solely quack to..quack. Not really constructive now, is it
Sigvatr wrote: Your question was already answered in the reply to FettPrime - and about 90 people might disagree with you on the "self-proclaimed" part
Again, you lack any proper reasoning for your posts - you are wildly lashing around, not knowing yourself where you're getting at, making you look like a fool. If that's what you want...fine with me.
You agreed on our decision being fully correct, so again, you solely quack to..quack. Not really constructive now, is it
I didn't agree on your decision being fully correct.
Anyone following this thread is going to see an obvious problem on your part, not mine.
Simple question -- did you actually read the Necron FAQ that is the version before the current one?
I have restated a simple question that is extremely pertinent to the discussion at hand and proves as false claims that you have made and all you are doing is dodging the question?
a) You agree with not being able to re-embark on a NS:
Awesome, we agree!
b) You disagree with not being able to re-embark on a NS:
Okay, what are your (rules-based) reasons for assuming this?
Pick one of those.
...or go on with mindlessly rambling, verbally flailing your arms around.
I'm going to have dinner and eagerly await seeing your decision
Still dodging a simple question. I guess it's clear you have not read the penultimate FAQ and had no business stating what was new in the 7th edition FAQ
the new FAQ changes a part about the NS that has not been changed before (Acess Points)
This is incorrect and irresponsible bit of misinformation on your part. It's doubly irresponsible because you keep dodging a straight question about it in this very thread.
The rules issue is this. There have been NO actual rule changes that bear upon the NS since the penultimate 6th edition Necron FAQ and the current Necron 7th edition. So, why the change you are proposing?
The rules issue is this. There have been NO actual rule changes that bear upon the NS since the penultimate 6th edition Necron FAQ and the current Necron 7th edition. So, why the change you are proposing?
Ah, finally, I see where you were getting to and what your misunderstanding is based on:
FAQ 1.4 allowed the NS to be re-embarked as allowance was explicitely given in it. Now, check the current FAQ. This allowance has been removed. Without the explicit allowance, you cannot re-embark on the NS because it is a zooming flyer without hover.
Referencing an older FAQ is a void argument. For rules purposes, any previous FAQ version is no longer existent. You do not use the 6th BRB either, do you?
Simple misunderstaning, took you only 2 pages to get it across.
Sigvatr wrote: Most of the Q&A have been capped for the most current FAQ for reasons unknown, including the additional tidbit about the NS.
Since I am getting confused about your point, back to square one: do you think that you should be able to re-embark on a NS or not?
Have you bothered to re-familiarize yourself with the 6th edition 1.4 FAQ?
The 6th Ed. FAQ's are outdated. Currently, TO's will only follow 7E FAQ's. The only time you should bring RAI into the equation is if the RAW is unclear. In this case, the RAW is very clear. The BRB explicitly denies passengers from embarking/disembarking from a zooming flyer. The rules in the Necron codex is crap because it talks about embarking/disembarking from access point WITHOUT actually giving you explict permission to do so. Thus, the need for the FAQ to clarify it. However, the current 7E FAQ only allows you explicit permission to disembark from a night scythe. It doesn't give you permission to re-embark onto it. Yes, the previous 6E FAQ gave you permission (though not initially, I believe it was the 2nd iteration of the FAQ that gave you this permission). However, they took that portion of the FAQ out in 7E. THUS, you no longer have permission to re-embark onto the night scythe, only to disembark from it. As for the RAI, who knows what it is really. Maybe GW felt that being able to disembark and then re-embark was too strong and then changed their minds on how it worked in 7E? GW has been known to flip-flop on its own rules intepretations before.
BTW, the changes to the Invasion Beams is in the Errata section, not in the Q&A section. Thus, it is an actual rules change, not a clarification.
I would certainly be interested to know how TO's are going to rule on things like this. Do they fall back on the answers from the 6e FAQ in lieu of new ones? Do they assume that non-inclusion of a particular FAQ means that the ruling has gone the other way? (Do we have any examples from the BAO/LVO?)
Really, we have no clear RAI for 7th edition, but we do know what the rules-as-FAQ'd were for 6th edition. I think that while it's reasonable to simply say "RAW" twelve times fast, the issue is that RAW are murky in many instances and the TO needs. To judge RAI or simply make a HIWPI call however they can. Though I'm not a TO, I think I might be of the train of thought that the 6e FAQ was RAI at one point, so to say that it's no longer RAI is jumping to conclusions. In fairness, one could make the same argument about using the old FAQ - I would just rather take some precedent over no precedent at all.
You do not use old FAQ's, just like you do not use the rules for 6th Edition if the rules for 7th isn't clear. You also do not use old FAQ's as a basis for RAI. Those rules/FAQ's are no longer valid in any discussions about the current rules. What you can use as a basis for RAI are the current rules. Otherwise, if you want to use an older FAQ as a basis for your rules intepretations, why not use 5th Ed. FAQ's? How about 4th Ed. FAQ's? The past is the past. You need to refer to current rules as RAI/precedents for current rules debates/intepretaions.
Trying to use the 6th edition FAQ is a bit like telling Nid players they can't use quad guns because it use to say it in the 6th edition FAQ and no longer addresses the issue in the 7th edition ones?!
Furyou Miko wrote: Wait, since when are we back on the Wraiths get a bonus attack for the pistol option?
Has the FAQ mysteriously given them a close combat weapon as part of their basic gear now?
'cause the rulebook still says you only get a free close combat weapon if you don't have one already.
You have to look at this rules issue from a clean slate. You cannot use the 6E FAQ as a basis for this rules intepretation, only the current rules from the BRB.
In the case of wraiths, if you follow the current RAW, then yes, they will get the +1A for carrying particle casters. At least, until they get FAQ'd once again. Do I think that is the RAI? No. But according to current RAW, yes, they do get the +1A.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FettPrime wrote: I have a question. Going with the mentality that FAQ clarifications from 6th edition become invalidated by new 7th edition would the Resurrection Orb not benefit Ever-Living rolls?
I think we all agree that it does, but I just wanted to bring this up as a point/clarification of what I think Col_Impact was saying.
Where do the rules specifically prohibit embarking upon a NS using it's Access Point (it's base)?
You don't need a FAQ for that. Yes, Ever-living rolls do benefit from ResOrbs. That is because the Everliving rules uses the rules for RP to determine how the model gets back up. So whatever affects the rules for RP will also apply to Everliving as long as it doesn't conflict with the Everliving rules.
BTW, the rules prohibition for embarking onto a zooming flyer is on p.84 of the BRB (under Zoom, 3rd paragraph).
Yes, Ever-living rolls do benefit from ResOrbs. That is because the Everliving rules uses the rules for RP to determine how the model gets back up. So whatever affects the rules for RP will also apply to Everliving as long as it doesn't conflict with the Everliving rules.
Just to add on this excellent post: furthermore, the Regeneration Orb rules specifically mention the bearer that must be a model which has Ever-Living.
BTW, the changes to the Invasion Beams is in the Errata section, not in the Q&A section. Thus, it is an actual rules change, not a clarification.
This is not correct. This errata change was also in the 6th edition 1.4 FAQ.
To reiterate this is the only change between 6th edition 1.4 Necron FAQ and 7th edition Necron FAQ (as pertains to the NS). It dropped this item in the Q and A section.
Spoiler:
Q: Is there any way to embark back onto a Night Scythe?
A: Yes - follow the rules for Embarking on page 78, treating the Night Scythe's base as its Access Point. Note that this is possible despite the Night Scythe being a Zooming Flyer.
Q and A items themselves carry no rules weight and do not themselves make rules. They only clarify RAI. So no pertinent rules have changed for the NS between Necron 6th edition 1.4 FAQ and 7th edition Necron FAQ, correct? Are we on the same page here?
FAQ 1.4 allowed the NS to be re-embarked as allowance was explicitely given in it. Now, check the current FAQ. This allowance has been removed.
Where do you see this allowance being given in the Necron 1.4 FAQ? In the Q and A item noted above that in itself does not make any rules and only clarifies RAI? That's the only change.
Ok, so again, the first step here is that you guys double-check the FAQs in question and make a clear note of the plain fact that . . . .
Spoiler:
Q: Is there any way to embark back onto a Night Scythe?
A: Yes - follow the rules for Embarking on page 78, treating the Night Scythe's base as its Access Point. Note that this is possible despite the Night Scythe being a Zooming Flyer.
that this Q and A entry item is the only NS pertinent difference between the two FAQS that you are seeing here. Let's all first be on the same page here.
FAQ 1.4 has no bearings on the rules as they are now. It is a 6th Ed. FAQ that is now obsolete.
Anyways, this is getting way off-topic. Let's just say we can agree to disagree. If you want to further debate this topic, I suggest you open up a thread in YMDC and link it here for people to follow.
jy2 wrote: FAQ 1.4 has no bearings on the rules as they are now. It is a 6th Ed. FAQ that is now obsolete.
Anyways, this is getting way off-topic. Let's just say we can agree to disagree. If you want to further debate this topic, I suggest you open up a thread in YMDC and link it here for people to follow.
Well the real underlying issue is the shortening of a 27 item long Q and A list to a 3 item long Q and A list and seems very on topic for this thread. It impacts potentially more than just the NS (e.g. the Veil of Darkness).
A: Yes - follow the rules for Embarking on page 78, treating the Night Scythe's base as its Access Point. Note that this is possible despite the Night Scythe being a Zooming Flyer.[/spoiler]
that this Q and A entry item is the only NS pertinent difference between the two FAQS that you are seeing here. Let's all first be on the same page here.
Precisely. This allowed you to re-embark on the NS. Explicit allowance was given.
This entry, and therefore the allowance, was amended in the most recent FAQ. As a consequence, the NS has to follow all regular rules for flyer transports. Therefore, you are no longer allowed to re-embark on the NS.
So does this mean that a VeilTek now loses this ability?
Depends on your TO. The item itself says that it is used instead of moving normally, not defining normally any further. The most common understanding is that "normally" means "the normal way the unit would move" and in the case of units in reserve, this would mean moving on the board.
On the other hand, in 7th, there is a clear "At the start of the turn" phase that the "Arriving from reserves" rule references to. The Veil only refers to the Movement Phase, so could not be used in the Pre-Movement phase.
Two interpretations are possible, depends on your TO / group you play with.
A: Yes - follow the rules for Embarking on page 78, treating the Night Scythe's base as its Access Point. Note that this is possible despite the Night Scythe being a Zooming Flyer.[/spoiler]
that this Q and A entry item is the only NS pertinent difference between the two FAQS that you are seeing here. Let's all first be on the same page here.
Precisely. This allowed you to re-embark on the NS. Explicit allowance was given.
This entry, and therefore the allowance, was amended in the most recent FAQ. As a consequence, the NS has to follow all regular rules for flyer transports. Therefore, you are no longer allowed to re-embark on the NS.
So does this mean that a VeilTek now loses this ability?
Depends on your TO. The item itself says that it is used instead of moving normally, not defining normally any further. The most common understanding is that "normally" means "the normal way the unit would move" and in the case of units in reserve, this would mean moving on the board.
On the other hand, in 7th, there is a clear "At the start of the turn" phase that the "Arriving from reserves" rule references to. The Veil only refers to the Movement Phase, so could not be used in the Pre-Movement phase.
Two interpretations are possible, depends on your TO / group you play with.
This is good. At least we are the same page here . . . finally.
Finally we see collectively that the only change for the NS is the dropping of a Q and A item.
However, opinions I think are going to differ at this juncture point. In my opinion, Q and A items do not themselves carry rule forming weight and only clarify rules elsewhere (ie they offer a way for GW to directly communicate RAI).
So my specific question to you Sigvatr is do you indeed think that Q and A items carry rule forming weight, and if so, why do you think that?
So my specific question to you Sigvatr is do you indeed think that Q and A items carry rule forming weight, and if so, why do you think that?
Rules are rules. Referees need to always be able to pinpoint to the rules when players are confronted with a rules issue and the only go-to source are GW publications, be it BRB, Codex, FAQ or any other GW publication such as Forgeworld books. If GW says that you can re-embark on a NS, then that's the way it is. If the entry is removed, you now lack any rules for letting your models re-embark and therefore cannot hold the rule up anymore.
Imagine you were a player at a tournament. You want to re-embark on the NS. Your opponent disagrees and asks for a ref. I come to your table and listen to both of you. Your opponent points to the flyer transport section that says you cannot embark on a Zooming Flyer. What would you do? You cannot point to an old FAQ as they are no longer existent for any purposes. Since you have no rules to back your argumention up, your opponent would be correct and you would not be allowed to re-embark.
So my specific question to you Sigvatr is do you indeed think that Q and A items carry rule forming weight, and if so, why do you think that?
Rules are rules. Referees need to always be able to pinpoint to the rules when players are confronted with a rules issue and the only go-to source are GW publications, be it BRB, Codex or FAQ. If GW says that you can re-embark on a NS, then that's the way it is. If the entry is removed, you now lack any rules for letting your models re-embark and therefore cannot hold the rule up anymore.
Imagine you were a player at a tournament. You want to re-embark on the NS. Your opponent disagrees and asks for a ref. I come to your table and listen to both of you. Your opponent points to the flyer transport section that says you cannot embark on a Zooming Flyer. What would you do? You cannot point to an old FAQ as they are no longer existent for any purposes. Since you have no rules to back your argumention up, your opponent would be correct and you would not be allowed to re-embark.
This is fine and that is certainly a valid opinion. However, this is where people are going to differ. People can have an alternate opinion that the Q and A section does not carry any rule forming weight in itself and only clarify rules elsewhere. So the dropping of Q and A items is not the dropping of rules, only the dropping of clarifications. So a veil of darkness would function as before.
At any rate, welcome to the true thorniness of the problem. The Q and A section dropped 24 items.
If you disagree with a ruling, that is fine. The ruling has more value than your opinion, though, because it is based on the official rules.
A rules-based ruling is worth more than a mere opinion because it's fair to all players. There can be, in some cases, two different rules-based rulings and that's fine, in that case, both have to agree on a solution or ask the ref / TO.
The 1.4 FAQ does not exist anymore. Period. You cannot reference it. It's gone. Forever.
If you disagree with a ruling, that is fine. The ruling has more value than your opinion, though, because it is based on the official rules.
A rules-based ruling is worth more than a mere opinion because it's fair to all players.
The 1.4 FAQ does not exist anymore. Period. You cannot reference it. It's gone. Forever.
Well, its very awkward for you to maintain that a Q and A section has rule-formulating power. That may be a practical position you have been forced to fall back into, but that's a very awkward logical position. You do see the problem here, right? Q and A entries are being propped up wrongly as rules.
No, I don't see the problem. It's a GW publication and GW tells us what is possible or not. If any player in any case can point to anything GW states in a current rules publication, this player is right.
Furthermore, as far as I can see, I don't see any case where a FAQ (section) introduces new rules.
Furthermore, as far as I can see, I don't see any case where a FAQ (section) introduces new rules.
Huh? Did we not just exactly see this in the case of the NS? The granting of that ability to have units re-embark was entirely propped up on the Q and A entry. That's the only difference between the Necron 1.4 FAQ and the Necron 7th.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I think we all need to look closely at the list of 24 that were dropped out. There are items on there that we grew accustomed to playing that we may have no rule basis for.
For example, this Q and A entry was dropped.
Spoiler:
Q: If I have 2 Royal Courts, can one model from each be attached to the same unit?
A: Yes.
Did we now lose the ability to build lists this way?
Automatically Appended Next Post: It also now looks like the Death Ray can hit Flyers in Zooming mode now since that Q and A item was dropped. Checking BRB on that one to be sure . . . Nope, Hard to Hit keeps that one in check.
I'm confused as to why old FAQ rulings become irrelevant even though nothing has changed regarding those rulings, rules-wise, in the new edition. Otherwise, this problem should be popping up all over the place, in every codex, and the FAQ's should be carrying over as a consistent document.
Would it not be prudent to view the 6th ed document as clarifying specifically "6th ed" questions, and the new FAQ to address unqiuely"7th ed" rulings?
Why does one completely over-write the other when most of the rulings in the new one do not have anything to do with the new rulings?
Furthermore, as far as I can see, I don't see any case where a FAQ (section) introduces new rules.
Huh? Did we not just exactly see this in the case of the NS? The granting of that ability to have units re-embark was entirely propped up on the Q and A entry. That's the only difference between the Necron 1.4 FAQ and the Necron 7th.
What FAQ? I cannot find anything you mentioned in the Necron FAQ. You can get it here:
Q: If I have 2 Royal Courts, can one model from each be attached to the same unit?
A: Yes.
Did we now lose the ability to build lists this way?
Point to the rules where it disallows buildings lists that way.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
iGuy91 wrote: I'm confused as to why old FAQ rulings become irrelevant even though nothing has changed regarding those rulings, rules-wise, in the new edition.
It does if rules are changed. In the NS case, this is exactly what happened - an explicit allowance has been taken away.
Oh I get it. You guys are playing the "Let's pretend the Necron 6th edition FAQ never existed."
Automatically Appended Next Post: So do Abyssal Staff's Instant Death toughness 4 dudes now?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, I think they probably don't, but do Spyders and Wraiths now get +1 A if they upgrade to fabricator claws/pistols respectively?
I will post questions that relate to Necron stuff that may have changed from the clearcutting of 47 items from the Necron FAQ since its 100% revelant to a thread titled "Necrons in 7th".
I really dig the models...they definitely look awesome. What bothers me is the pretty high cost and the terrible gun position - hanging lower than Santa's ba....g of presents, you easily lose LOS to enemy units and limit your ability to get in cover (as cover threatens you losing LOS again).
Kit-wise, I'd always use the regular gun for TL awesomeness. They got a good buff in 7th so maybe they're worth it in some lists (well...mainly AV 13 wall I guess) and the Elite slot is never full anyway.
Sigvatr wrote: Triarch Stalkers - how do you guys use them?
I really dig the models...they definitely look awesome. What bothers me is the pretty high cost and the terrible gun position - hanging lower than Santa's ba....g of presents, you easily lose LOS to enemy units and limit your ability to get in cover (as cover threatens you losing LOS again).
Kit-wise, I'd always use the regular gun for TL awesomeness. They got a good buff in 7th so maybe they're worth it in some lists (well...mainly AV 13 wall I guess) and the Elite slot is never full anyway.
/e: No Doomsday Ark suggestions please
I use it with my AV 13 wall. =P Really useful when shooting a bunch of gauss at other vehicles. Also, use with Zandrahk to give a unit Tank Hunters as well. And I usually give him the TL Heavy Gauss Cannon, mainly for the range. Keep him on the back of the field and such.
True, the range certainly is an advantage. How well can you position them in cover in order to avoid getting shot? I'd assume that they quickly become a high priority target.
Interesting, Night Scythes now no longer have permission RAW to carry infantry. That Q and A item was lost. The codex entry specifies only jump infantry and jetbikes.
It isn't that they are pretending the 6th edition FAQ never existed. They are saying that it was for an edition that is no longer current no matter how similar the two editions are.
As for the abyssal staff we are told that "To wound rolls from the abyssal staff's shooting attacks are made against the target's Leadership, rather than toughness..." necron codex pg.84.
And for Instant death "Any wounds allocated to a model has the Instant Death special rule (see below) if the Strength value of that attack is at least double the Toughness value (after modifiers) of that model." pg 36
At face value yeah sure it insta-gibs T4 but under instant death it says "Strength of that ATTACK.." and in the necron codex we are told to treat the abyssal staff's attacks against Leadership and not toughness.
This is my interpretation of the rules using RAW as support. But i do feel like you have a point Col_impact to use 6th's faqs to help sort some messy instants, but that is just a simple compromise as a house rule.
Oberron wrote: It isn't that they are pretending the 6th edition FAQ never existed. They are saying that it was for an edition that is no longer current no matter how similar the two editions are.
As for the abyssal staff we are told that "To wound rolls from the abyssal staff's shooting attacks are made against the target's Leadership, rather than toughness..." necron codex pg.84.
And for Instant death "Any wounds allocated to a model has the Instant Death special rule (see below) if the Strength value of that attack is at least double the Toughness value (after modifiers) of that model." pg 36
At face value yeah sure it insta-gibs T4 but under instant death it says "Strength of that ATTACK.." and in the necron codex we are told to treat the abyssal staff's attacks against Leadership and not toughness.
This is my interpretation of the rules using RAW as support. But i do feel like you have a point Col_impact to use 6th's faqs to help sort some messy instants, but that is just a simple compromise as a house rule.
I agree with playing it the old way. But unless people have access to the old Q and A in the penultimate FAQ by a TO or a house rule, a strict RAW approach is going to let the staff Instant Death T4 units. Basically, the clearcutting reintroduced some old messes back into the mix since GW didn't do a clean job of updating the FAQ. If TOs are really going to start judging like Sigvatr proposes then you got to be prepared for the nerfs and buffs involved in the clearcutting.
And Sigvatr et al is literally pretending the 6th edition FAQ never existed. That's not necessarily a wrong choice, its just a painful awkward choice if it reintroduces messes that were cleaned out before. Sigvatr's approach certainly would be a lot more palatable if the FAQ was in better shape.
jy2 wrote: FAQ 1.4 has no bearings on the rules as they are now. It is a 6th Ed. FAQ that is now obsolete.
Anyways, this is getting way off-topic. Let's just say we can agree to disagree. If you want to further debate this topic, I suggest you open up a thread in YMDC and link it here for people to follow.
Well the real underlying issue is the shortening of a 27 item long Q and A list to a 3 item long Q and A list and seems very on topic for this thread. It impacts potentially more than just the NS (e.g. the Veil of Darkness).
Mind posting a link to the 1.4 FAQ online? I can't find it on GW's website anymore.
jy2 wrote: What's the issue with Veil of Darkness?
BTW, GW incorporated a lot of the FAQ issues into the 7th Ed. rulebook. Though from the looks of it, they didn't do a very good job.
This Q and A item was dropped
Spoiler:
Q: Can a veil of darkness be used instead of moving onto the board when a unit arrives from reserves? (p84)
A: Yes
So does this mean that a VeilTek now loses this ability?
So now you don't have permission to teleport them onto the table from Reserves. From the RAW, they have to be on the tabletop for you to be able to use them. Otherwise, how can you remove them from the tabletop during the Movement phase? At least that is my intepretation just from the rules and not relying on an old FAQ.
col_impact wrote: This is good. At least we are the same page here . . . finally.
Finally we see collectively that the only change for the NS is the dropping of a Q and A item.
That is not the only changes to the NS. Please post a link to the old FAQ and I will show you.
So my specific question to you Sigvatr is do you indeed think that Q and A items carry rule forming weight, and if so, why do you think that?
Rules are rules. Referees need to always be able to pinpoint to the rules when players are confronted with a rules issue and the only go-to source are GW publications, be it BRB, Codex, FAQ or any other GW publication such as Forgeworld books. If GW says that you can re-embark on a NS, then that's the way it is. If the entry is removed, you now lack any rules for letting your models re-embark and therefore cannot hold the rule up anymore.
Imagine you were a player at a tournament. You want to re-embark on the NS. Your opponent disagrees and asks for a ref. I come to your table and listen to both of you. Your opponent points to the flyer transport section that says you cannot embark on a Zooming Flyer. What would you do? You cannot point to an old FAQ as they are no longer existent for any purposes. Since you have no rules to back your argumention up, your opponent would be correct and you would not be allowed to re-embark.
Correct. You can not point out to an old FAQ that does not even exist anymore (at least not on GW's site) in a rules debate while in a tournament. You will lose that argument.
I think we all need to look closely at the list of 24 that were dropped out. There are items on there that we grew accustomed to playing that we may have no rule basis for.
For example, this Q and A entry was dropped.
Spoiler:
Q: If I have 2 Royal Courts, can one model from each be attached to the same unit?
A: Yes.
Did we now lose the ability to build lists this way?
This rule remains somewhat ambiguous. My intepretation of it was - and this was even before the Necron FAQ's came out in 6E - that each Royal Court can split off its members to join different units. Members of that Royal Court cannot join the same unit. However, members of a different Court can join the same unit as long as its members aren't the ones who are joined to the same unit. At least that was how I intepretated it from the context. Now that it is absent from the new FAQ's, I fall back to that same intepretation.
In short, that FAQ entry was just a clarification of the actual rules. Even without it, you would run it in this edition as you did previously.
iGuy91 wrote: I'm confused as to why old FAQ rulings become irrelevant even though nothing has changed regarding those rulings, rules-wise, in the new edition. Otherwise, this problem should be popping up all over the place, in every codex, and the FAQ's should be carrying over as a consistent document.
Would it not be prudent to view the 6th ed document as clarifying specifically "6th ed" questions, and the new FAQ to address unqiuely"7th ed" rulings?
Why does one completely over-write the other when most of the rulings in the new one do not have anything to do with the new rulings?
You can no more use FAQ's from 6th Ed. just as you can no more use the 6th Ed. BRB. That FAQ is obsolete. Unfortunately, the side effect is that rules that were made clear once now becomes ambiguous once again. Thank you very much GW. Of course, you can always houserule it to use the old FAQ's until the new ones come out, but this is only a houserule and not everyone will agree to it.
The problem is that GW is neither consistent nor do they care about a tight ruleset. Until they "patch up" their rules with newer FAQ's, we are left with trying to intepret their new ruleset as best as we can. We can use the 6th Ed. FAQ's as a basis, but in reality, all it is is a houserule until GW finally comes around to doing their jobs.
Not to beat a dead horse, but I emailed frontline gaming because I was curious about how they would rule the NS re-embarking issue as well as the wraith +1 attack for a particle caster issue. Got a reply from Reece saying that embarking back onto a Night Scythe will be allowed, but the wraith having an extra attack would not be, and that they plan to update the BAOFAQ sometime this week. This is interesting because it follows the line of thought of the 6e FAQ establishing precedent for RAI and flies directly in the face of RAW currently.
I can certainly see TO simply saying "RAW" and doing the exact opposite of both of these, but I have to say, if you don't allow re-embarking onto a night scythe on the basis of RAW, you then I think you also need to allow for wraiths to get their extra attack from the particle caster.
col_impact wrote: And Sigvatr et al is literally pretending the 6th edition FAQ never existed. That's not necessarily a wrong choice, its just a painful awkward choice if it reintroduces messes that were cleaned out before. Sigvatr's approach certainly would be a lot more palatable if the FAQ was in better shape.
False.
He is pretending as if the FAQ does not exist anymore at this moment.
And he is corrent in this, the 1.4 FAQ is no longer relevant and thus might as well not exist.
col_impact wrote: And Sigvatr et al is literally pretending the 6th edition FAQ never existed. That's not necessarily a wrong choice, its just a painful awkward choice if it reintroduces messes that were cleaned out before. Sigvatr's approach certainly would be a lot more palatable if the FAQ was in better shape.
False.
He is pretending as if the FAQ does not exist anymore at this moment.
And he is corrent in this, the 1.4 FAQ is no longer relevant and thus might as well not exist.
You guys are weird. I posted that because Jy2 requested and for people's reference. It's the version that was official before 7th edition. It's not going to destroy your soul if you look at it. Sheesh. Grow up.
Besides, you can't really tell what has changed from the penultimate FAQ to the current one unless you actually look at that one.
It seems Sigvatr thinks that every unit that isn't in one of the cookie cutter builds is "trash." Honest question, man, do you have any unique perspective to offer to these discussions other then "take what veryone else is taking, nothing else is worth looking at?" If that's how you are most comfortably playing, then cool, more power to you. But it's a little awkward discussing units that you personally have success with and having some one who never takes them themselves tell you that they are trash.
A 6' x 4' board is 80" from corner to corner. I promise you, being able to hit everything from one corner is quite useful.
I also love the universal 4+ cover save every single target on the board is receiving in your analysis. Seems realistic.
And, finally, since this thread is particularly focused on 7th edition, cover has become harder to come by in anything better then the 5+ variety, vehicles have become harder to destroy, and MSU seems to be creeping back into popularity. These are all things that benefit the DA (although the S9 AP 1 shot is diminished slightly against vehicles). This thing can simply wreck shop against light vehicles and elite infantry, and against weaker giblits it's "only" a pie plate that wounds a 2+, takes away FNP, etc.
Man, if only it were possible to have ShadarLogoth play against Sigvatr online, so he can finally prove all of these claims (eg. "Doomsday Arks/Monoliths/Flayed Ones/etc. are awesome, I use them all the time and plow through my opponents!").
ShadarLogoth wrote: It seems Sigvatr thinks that every unit that isn't in one of the cookie cutter builds is "trash."
Honest question, man, do you have any unique perspective to offer to these discussions other then "take what veryone else is taking, nothing else is worth looking at?" If that's how you are most comfortably playing, then cool, more power to you. But it's a little awkward discussing units that you personally have success with and having some one who never takes them themselves tell you that they are trash.
My usual list:
01001110 01011010 (Nemesor Zahndrekh) Destroyer Lord
Destrotek x5
20 Warriors w/ GA 10 Warriors w/ GA
3 Heavy Destroyers 6 Wraiths 2 AB 2 SP
Not even close to a competitive list and far from the usual netlists
Now, to the DA: it's trash because it's vastly overcosted. If it could move and shoot, it would be ok. If it was 30 pts cheaper, it would be ok. If it was S10 AP1 and had additional armor penetration, it would be good.
It's extremely expensive and offers so little while being vulnerable in return and taking up valuable HS slots. S9 AP1 is nice to have, no doubt, but not for this price and not on an immobile firing station that, additionally, has a 33% chance on a Weapon Destroyed result to be effectively destroyed. It's incredibly overpriced and until it gains any additional benefit or a severe cost reduction, it's bottom tier. Still better than th C'tan Shard (well...), but not as good as Flayed Ones and not as good as the monolith.
/r FO: My Maynarkh list consists of 60 Flayed Ones
Other peoples' opinions would be helpful. I think they would be a worthy investment in 7th edition if the meta shifts back to Mechanized Infantry and or Battle Tanks
One bigger unit is easier to hit, but more durable due to more bases. It can deal more damage to a vehicle and tarpit longer than two singular units, but on the other hand, the two single units are harder to take out as you have to target two units at once.
What's your take on night scythes in maelstrom missions? At first, they seem really good (due to great mobility), but after some testing I've found that the usual 5 warrior units die after disembarking (even moreso than they used to when doing it on turn 5), and when they are usually only getting me one VP, it doesn't seem worth it. Ghost arks are durable and have objective secured themselves, but on the other hand have nowhere near the mobility of scythes.
One answer would be to take both, but I'm currently preparing for a 1500 point tournament and I'm having trouble finding the points.
MLKTH wrote: What's your take on night scythes in maelstrom missions? At first, they seem really good (due to great mobility), but after some testing I've found that the usual 5 warrior units die after disembarking (even moreso than they used to when doing it on turn 5), and when they are usually only getting me one VP, it doesn't seem worth it. Ghost arks are durable and have objective secured themselves, but on the other hand have nowhere near the mobility of scythes.
One answer would be to take both, but I'm currently preparing for a 1500 point tournament and I'm having trouble finding the points.
Option C which is worth mentioning is a couple of veilTeks and/or Obyron for super-moblie troops (that risk mishaps).
Thanks for posting. Actually, I don't believe I saw this FAQ. I probably saw the one before this.
Regardless, using any of the FAQ's older than the current one is just a houserule. Now there is nothing wrong with that as it makes the game run smoother, but let's just say it is no where near a consensus on how the game works.
luke1705 wrote: Not to beat a dead horse, but I emailed frontline gaming because I was curious about how they would rule the NS re-embarking issue as well as the wraith +1 attack for a particle caster issue. Got a reply from Reece saying that embarking back onto a Night Scythe will be allowed, but the wraith having an extra attack would not be, and that they plan to update the BAOFAQ sometime this week. This is interesting because it follows the line of thought of the 6e FAQ establishing precedent for RAI and flies directly in the face of RAW currently.
I can certainly see TO simply saying "RAW" and doing the exact opposite of both of these, but I have to say, if you don't allow re-embarking onto a night scythe on the basis of RAW, you then I think you also need to allow for wraiths to get their extra attack from the particle caster.
That's great! Personally, I have no problems with tournaments using slightly older rules to "fill in the blanks" insofar as current ambiguities go. They just need to post it so that everyone that is going will know how certain rulings will go/work.
luke1705 wrote: This is interesting because it follows the line of thought of the 6e FAQ establishing precedent for RAI and flies directly in the face of RAW currently.
/sarcasm
TO's changing rules that are clearly defined in favor of their personal opinion? Shocking, how does such a thing happen...
luke1705 wrote: This is interesting because it follows the line of thought of the 6e FAQ establishing precedent for RAI and flies directly in the face of RAW currently.
/sarcasm TO's changing rules that are clearly defined in favor of their personal opinion? Shocking, how does such a thing happen...
Sigvatr wrote: I don't play Maelstrom, but I would vouch for the Veilteks too. Royal Court is underestimated anyway.
I wonder what would be better for scoring purposes: a Veil-tek or 3 Tomb Blades?
Well, of the 2, Tomb Blades, even though they don't have ObSec, have the advantage in a Maelstrom game, simply because it is way too uncertain trying to capture an objective with a veiling unit. In theory, if you put the veiltek on the objective, you should at least be able to run back within capture range after scatter (unless you roll really high on the scatter) but in practice that tends to be more difficult to achieve.
If you have the points, GA with warriors is better in a maelstrom game.
ShadarLogoth wrote: It seems Sigvatr thinks that every unit that isn't in one of the cookie cutter builds is "trash."
Honest question, man, do you have any unique perspective to offer to these discussions other then "take what veryone else is taking, nothing else is worth looking at?" If that's how you are most comfortably playing, then cool, more power to you. But it's a little awkward discussing units that you personally have success with and having some one who never takes them themselves tell you that they are trash.
My usual list:
01001110 01011010 (Nemesor Zahndrekh)
Destroyer Lord
Destrotek x5
20 Warriors w/ GA 10 Warriors w/ GA
3 Heavy Destroyers
6 Wraiths
2 AB 2 SP
Not even close to a competitive list and far from the usual netlists
Now, to the DA: it's trash because it's vastly overcosted. If it could move and shoot, it would be ok. If it was 30 pts cheaper, it would be ok. If it was S10 AP1 and had additional armor penetration, it would be good.
It's extremely expensive and offers so little while being vulnerable in return and taking up valuable HS slots. S9 AP1 is nice to have, no doubt, but not for this price and not on an immobile firing station that, additionally, has a 33% chance on a Weapon Destroyed result to be effectively destroyed. It's incredibly overpriced and until it gains any additional benefit or a severe cost reduction, it's bottom tier. Still better than th C'tan Shard (well...), but not as good as Flayed Ones and not as good as the monolith.
/r FO: My Maynarkh list consists of 60 Flayed Ones
That's awesome that you run those units man. I just don't understand why we don't spend more time talking about the tactics of the units we do run instead of the cliche'd netlist units everyone already knows about. There isn't a lot of nuance to AB's, you plop em on the field and they try to outshoot their targets until they are dead. I feel it makes us all better as players talking about how to maximize the units that aren't as straight forward. I'm sure in your Maynarkh list you've found that Flayed Ones offer a flexibility in the objective game that can be harder to come by with other units, for instance. I know even without scoring and shred I've used them consistently for 3 editions to muddle what my opponent was attempting to do.
ShadarLogoth wrote: It seems Sigvatr thinks that every unit that isn't in one of the cookie cutter builds is "trash."
Honest question, man, do you have any unique perspective to offer to these discussions other then "take what veryone else is taking, nothing else is worth looking at?" If that's how you are most comfortably playing, then cool, more power to you. But it's a little awkward discussing units that you personally have success with and having some one who never takes them themselves tell you that they are trash.
My usual list:
01001110 01011010 (Nemesor Zahndrekh)
Destroyer Lord
Destrotek x5
20 Warriors w/ GA 10 Warriors w/ GA
3 Heavy Destroyers
6 Wraiths
2 AB 2 SP
Not even close to a competitive list and far from the usual netlists
Now, to the DA: it's trash because it's vastly overcosted. If it could move and shoot, it would be ok. If it was 30 pts cheaper, it would be ok. If it was S10 AP1 and had additional armor penetration, it would be good.
It's extremely expensive and offers so little while being vulnerable in return and taking up valuable HS slots. S9 AP1 is nice to have, no doubt, but not for this price and not on an immobile firing station that, additionally, has a 33% chance on a Weapon Destroyed result to be effectively destroyed. It's incredibly overpriced and until it gains any additional benefit or a severe cost reduction, it's bottom tier. Still better than th C'tan Shard (well...), but not as good as Flayed Ones and not as good as the monolith.
/r FO: My Maynarkh list consists of 60 Flayed Ones
That's awesome that you run those units man. I just don't understand why we don't spend more time talking about the tactics of the units we do run instead of the cliche'd netlist units everyone already knows about. There isn't a lot of nuance to AB's, you plop em on the field and they try to outshoot their targets until they are dead. I feel it makes us all better as players talking about how to maximize the units that aren't as straight forward. I'm sure in your Maynarkh list you've found that Flayed Ones offer a flexibility in the objective game that can be harder to come by with other units, for instance. I know even without scoring and shred I've used them consistently for 3 editions to muddle what my opponent was attempting to do.
Don't listen to Sigvatr. Sure his input is very valuable but his personal shortcoming that Necron dakkites are well aware of is that he is overly dismissive and opinionated so you can edit out the dismissive and opinionated aspects of his replies. He needs to work on his communication style. If you want to make the Doomsday Ark your pet project then go for it. But you are going to have to be real crafty about it because the Doomsday Ark is overcosted and very lackluster in the typical list. You might think of pairing heavy fast assault (wraiths, scarabs, and bargeLord) with Doomsday Ark so the opponent can't afford to target the Doomsday Ark and you will get your points back for the Doomsday Ark before it bites the dust. Fast assault + backfield artillery punch. Anyway, that's essentially what you have to do. Very early on you have to give the opponent something much more pressing to worry about than the Doomsday Ark and you will enable the Doomsday Ark to hammer away for several turns.
Anyway, that's essentially what you have to do. Very early on you have to give the opponent something much more pressing to worry about than the Doomsday Ark and you will enable the Doomsday Ark to hammer away for several turns.
Both MarkCron and Virus have lists in the army section right now that exploit exactly this. You combine the DA with CC elements that can push the enemy back and away from engagement range of the DA. That great thing about that gun is that as long as it's alive it's got something to hit, and it has very few targets that are truly "bad" options. Keep it alive and fire efficiently with that thing and you'll start wondering why you never saw it's potential before.
That's awesome that you run those units man. I just don't understand why we don't spend more time talking about the tactics of the units we do run instead of the cliche'd netlist units everyone already knows about. There isn't a lot of nuance to AB's, you plop em on the field and they try to outshoot their targets until they are dead. I feel it makes us all better as players talking about how to maximize the units that aren't as straight forward. I'm sure in your Maynarkh list you've found that Flayed Ones offer a flexibility in the objective game that can be harder to come by with other units, for instance. I know even without scoring and shred I've used them consistently for 3 editions to muddle what my opponent was attempting to do.
When discussing about certain units on the forums, I mainly take the competitive point of view and measure each unit's value at that standard. The reason for this is that I think that every unit can be useful and potentially game-winning in a casual environment. You could easily win a game with a DA list against an opponent who fields a BA list, for example. On a casual level, there almost aren't bad units, although the C'Tan shard is so damn expensive that I'd even say that in a casual game, they suck The point is: what is the worth of discussing units on a casual level when almost every unit can then be considered good? The only answer to a discussion on said level would be "Yes, they can be a good addition to your army!". That's why I usually take the competitive point of view - it's a level where you can actually discuss a unit's worth. So, when I say that a unit is "trash", keep in mind that this means it can hardly succeed at a competitive level - but at the same time, it may do awesome at a less competitive standard
Same goes for my lists. My usual list has borderlin zero chances at winning any tournament. No flyers, Heavy Destroyers, 2 OS troops, no CCB - I could easily counter my list with most given armies. I play it because I would never field a flyer as I don't see it fit to Necrons and because I still prefer having actual models on the field. Sentry Pylons because they are scratch-builts. My Maynarkh list is absolutely horrible Lychguard, Flayed Ones, Scarabs Swarms, no AB, no GA, no flyers...it's a giant footslog. But it's a highly fluff-orientated and specifically themed list that looks awesome on the field. All models are converted and specifically painted to look damaged or "old". It's a love list
So, when I say that a unit is "trash", keep in mind that this means it can hardly succeed at a competitive level - but at the same time, it may do awesome at a less competitive standard
Right, I get that, I just don't think there are many units in the Necron Codex that can be considered that bad. I've used just about everything with regularlarity, and I simply don't think you have to take 3 ABs, or NSs, or Wraiths, or any of the other extremely popular units to be competitive.
From my experience the most popular units tend to be the most straight forward, but they certainly aren't our only competitive options.
If I take two Royal Courts, each with a Stormtek with a Lightning Field, and I join them both to the same unit would both Lightning Fields trigger when the unit is being assaulted?
I was thinking of joining the two Stormteks to a unit of warriors and then throwing them in a Nightscythe for the extra Tesla and precision deployment. I was thinking that AV 14 could potentially create an issue, and the typical Tesla Destructors won't be of any help. As this unit is very weak to CC I was figuring the Lightning Fields would act as a assault deterrent/assistance.
FettPrime wrote: I was thinking of joining the two Stormteks to a unit of warriors and then throwing them in a Nightscythe for the extra Tesla and precision deployment. I was thinking that AV 14 could potentially create an issue, and the typical Tesla Destructors won't be of any help. As this unit is very weak to CC I was figuring the Lightning Fields would act as a assault deterrent/assistance.
Honestly, from my experience, it doesn't really help much. 2d6 S8 hits that are only ap5 wouldn't actually do much, unless MAYBE you're fighting Eldar Wraith units or Tyranids.
And even then you're wounding on half (7 on average) and they save 66 percent of those. Not bad but hardly worth spending points for the express purpose of those hits.
What are people's opinions on allies in 7th? The general consensus in 6th was that Necrons are always stronger on their own, do we still feel the same?
Are people using the command barge much? I tried it the other night and yay, it did verrily smash face in.
With the sweep attacks, what can these attacks hit? they hit on a 4+ according to the codex, but as these aren't technically either close combat attacks or shooting attacks, can they hit invisible units?
On all the FAQ stuff above, the next tournament I am going to has stated that it'll be issuing an updated FAQ for the tournament that will be an amalgamation of 6th and 7th due to the large errata shaped hole in the 7th ed faq. Seems like BAO is doing the same thing. It sounds like GW have dropped the ball here.
And surely Necrons can get in and out of their transports? But now I better check with my TO first...
Yep you can poop on invisible units. What used to happen was that only battle brothers could embark on each others' transports, IIRC. I'm not sure if that has changed or not because my first love is Nids (although I do own a converted Squiggoth).
On the topic of allies, however, what do you feel that necrons are lacking in? Most of the time, allies require an HQ and a troop at minimum (unless you want a second CAD, where you need two troops). Finding a set that matches the army's specific needs without wasting points on the HQ, or the troop choice(s), or both, is tough to do. So typically, there needs to be a gap, something that your army can't do well for you to want to use allies. I don't know of anything that Necrons are lacking in. Deathstar? I have wraith sas a deathstar deterrent and can make a nasty deathstar of my own, even without Pylo-star. AV14? Hello Gauss. If I don't have enough gauss, there's always crypteks. Nasty MCs? Tie up with wraiths (or kill with wraiths and a D Lord) or just use deathmarks, or the cryptek that has the nasty flamer that can benefit from the deathmark rule. Hordes of infantry? How many tesla wounds did I just make with four dice? Light Mech? How many hull points did I strip with just four tesla dice? And have I mentioned gauss?
Although I'm newer to Necrons (notably losing a game because I mistakenly thought that the D Lord was T5 and had him get instagibbed turn 2), I still struggle to see the need. In fact, I would go so far as to say that you could take a sub-optimal ally and still be ok because of how strong necrons are if you wish to do so because of a cool model (Ang'grath I'm looking at you!) or just for fluff reasons (such as the planet of the apes army that I'm figuring out how to field)
Necrons do not need allies. You're better of buying more Necrons. CCB is awesome. Sweeping attacks are neither cc nor shooting attacks and ignore invisibility.
Necrons needed allies more so when assault was a greater threat or we needed stronger objective holding units. Now that we have arguably the best objective secured units in the game and armies are generally built for shooting allies aren't that neccessary. The other thing is a Necrons have zero defense against psychic powers, so we don't have to dedicate any points to try and counter psychic powers. We just have to build and spend the points assuming our opponents can or will have powers and we have to counter them in other ways.
I honestly don't think we need allies. In my opinion we don't really have a "weakness" that we cannot overcome with our own codex.
Things might be different in Tournament play, where a 'fix' isn't enough if it's not incredibly strong. But in my games I never felt as if I could use another army.
Sigvatr wrote: Necrons do not need allies. You're better of buying more Necrons. CCB is awesome. Sweeping attacks are neither cc nor shooting attacks and ignore invisibility.
You can never have enough Necrons! Today I bought around 3000 points for €250, bringing the total to 12000. Best part being that it includes 20 Flayed Ones, I cannot wait to use them
What do people think might be the most enjoyable way to test them out. As elite-units in a normal list, or maybe go Dark Harvest and have them as troops? And do I want to Deep Strike them, DS-them with Imothek, Infiltrate or have them joined by an IC?
NecronLord3 wrote: Necrons needed allies more so when assault was a greater threat or we needed stronger objective holding units. Now that we have arguably the best objective secured units in the game and armies are generally built for shooting allies aren't that neccessary. The other thing is a Necrons have zero defense against psychic powers, so we don't have to dedicate any points to try and counter psychic powers. We just have to build and spend the points assuming our opponents can or will have powers and we have to counter them in other ways.
Am I the only one not afraid of melee? And my to-go opponent plays Orks for crying out loud!
Uhm.. We have Gloom Prisms? Spyders are already awesome, having a small 4+ DtW-bubble makes them even juicier.
Well the main problem that Necrons had in the second half of 6th was firepower compared to Tau and Eldar. Best Heavy support option was (is?) annihilation barge which is really good value but not uber killy. It'll get you 3/4 str 7 hits. You aren't wiping enough out. And, whatever changes appear to have been made to the rules of 40k, most tournaments are still only allowing one FoC and one ally/formation.
Mobilities importance with everything scoring has boosted us massively. But wouldn't it be even better if we could just kill more stuff too?
Anyway. I'm taking a Firebase Support Cadre and it synergises awesomely. It self buffs, so doesn't need battle brothers, and allows me to still fit in all the great cheap mobile unit deleting Necron stuff I love. Including our shiny new CCB overlord.
Kholzerino wrote: Well the main problem that Necrons had in the second half of 6th was firepower compared to Tau and Eldar. Best Heavy support option was (is?) annihilation barge which is really good value but not uber killy. It'll get you 3/4 str 7 hits. You aren't wiping enough out. And, whatever changes appear to have been made to the rules of 40k, most tournaments are still only allowing one FoC and one ally/formation.
My calculations give you 5.33 S7 hits, with a chance to hit other models near it.
Apparently we'd get a lower average (5 hits), but a higher chance to go above that average if their BS was 3. Would be the first army in 40k that actually wants a nerf XD
I'm actually interested in the chance-distribution for the Tesla Destructor-hits (ignoring the Arc). Anyone might have that by hand, else I should ask my brother to do that.
Kangodo wrote: I honestly don't think we need allies.
In my opinion we don't really have a "weakness" that we cannot overcome with our own codex.
Things might be different in Tournament play, where a 'fix' isn't enough if it's not incredibly strong.
But in my games I never felt as if I could use another army.
Sigvatr wrote: Necrons do not need allies. You're better of buying more Necrons. CCB is awesome. Sweeping attacks are neither cc nor shooting attacks and ignore invisibility.
You can never have enough Necrons!
Today I bought around 3000 points for €250, bringing the total to 12000.
Best part being that it includes 20 Flayed Ones, I cannot wait to use them
What do people think might be the most enjoyable way to test them out.
As elite-units in a normal list, or maybe go Dark Harvest and have them as troops?
And do I want to Deep Strike them, DS-them with Imothek, Infiltrate or have them joined by an IC?
NecronLord3 wrote: Necrons needed allies more so when assault was a greater threat or we needed stronger objective holding units. Now that we have arguably the best objective secured units in the game and armies are generally built for shooting allies aren't that neccessary. The other thing is a Necrons have zero defense against psychic powers, so we don't have to dedicate any points to try and counter psychic powers. We just have to build and spend the points assuming our opponents can or will have powers and we have to counter them in other ways.
Am I the only one not afraid of melee? And my to-go opponent plays Orks for crying out loud!
Uhm.. We have Gloom Prisms?
Spyders are already awesome, having a small 4+ DtW-bubble makes them even juicier.
Gloom prisms are worth squat if you aren't targeted and any decent opponent will just not target Spyders with psychic powers, and besides why are you using heavy slots on Spyders when you can buy A barges and Doomscythesa? I'm guessing you are scarab farming against Orks, makes sense. Not meta busting just good for tarpitting assault squad that don't double out bases.
Kholzerino wrote: Well the main problem that Necrons had in the second half of 6th was firepower compared to Tau and Eldar. Best Heavy support option was (is?) annihilation barge which is really good value but not uber killy. It'll get you 3/4 str 7 hits. You aren't wiping enough out. And, whatever changes appear to have been made to the rules of 40k, most tournaments are still only allowing one FoC and one ally/formation.
My calculations give you 5.33 S7 hits, with a chance to hit other models near it.
Apparently we'd get a lower average (5 hits), but a higher chance to go above that average if their BS was 3.
Would be the first army in 40k that actually wants a nerf XD
I'm actually interested in the chance-distribution for the Tesla Destructor-hits (ignoring the Arc).
Anyone might have that by hand, else I should ask my brother to do that.
You're absolutely right on the math hammer. So if you max heavy support slots on A barges, you spend 270 points for 16 str 7 ap - hits. (assuming you moved a max of six)
195 points on one unit of broadsides gets you 9 str7 ap4 hits AND 9 str5 ap5 Ignores Cover Hits. (assuming you didn't move).
Obviously A Barges have other uses. They are much more mobile than broadsides. They can move 12" and still put out quite a lot of fire (especially if you are using them as anti air, which they are fine for) and they can score on things that they move onto. The broadsides become much less effective when you move them around.
But do Broadsides have a chance to get more and more? How do Broadsides work against flyers (probably good) and are they also AV13 fast skimmers? And let's not forget Arc!
My brother did the math on Tesla with MatLab:
He did not include the chance on 0 hits, but that's 1.14% I also have the numbers on BS3, and they are actually worse on almost every amount of hits. Only exception being 1 hit and 7 hit; 12 hits goes from a 0.09% to 0.10% when you lower your BS. In exchange you are much worse on every field and even terribly worse at 0 hits: 6.54%
I do think he made some mistakes, so I will let him take a look at it tomorrow and make a new graph.
NecronLord3 wrote: Gloom prisms are worth squat if you aren't targeted and any decent opponent will just not target Spyders with psychic powers, and besides why are you using heavy slots on Spyders when you can buy A barges and Doomscythesa? I'm guessing you are scarab farming against Orks, makes sense. Not meta busting just good for tarpitting assault squad that don't double out bases.
"The other thing is a Necrons have zero defense against psychic powers"
So what you are saying is: We do have defences against Psychic powers, apologies for making a false claim. I just think that unit isn't good enough compared to the other awesomeness we have in that slow and therefore acted as if we have nothing at all. Or something like that?
We have nothing to block the good psychic powers that people actually use, which are buffing powers, most often, to which we can only do the random d6 deny rolls. We have the most survivable units in the game(without having a 2+rerollable inv. save) being gak at isn't our problem, or at least not in a way any competitve army isn't already threating us. We have 24" range guns, little with ap1&2 weapons. What we can't do is stop summoning armies, or intercept drop pod armies. Luckily we handely take out super heavies, but we crumble agaisnt other armies that can do the same.
Kangodo wrote: But do Broadsides have a chance to get more and more?
How do Broadsides work against flyers (probably good) and are they also AV13 fast skimmers?
And let's not forget Arc!
Broadsides are twin linked and they lose their BS disadvantage (BS3) when snap shooting. You can buff them with skyfire if you pay the points (I don't) or for 5 points each you can take EWO (interceptor) on the group (I do). If you take a Firebase Support Cadre, they get Tank Hunter.
One important question: How good are Canoptek Acanthrites? And are they worth it to buy them second-hand at 50% discount?
Sigvatr wrote: My Maynarkh list now has 60 Flayed Ones. They are much better because of being able to OS, but don't expect to win games with such a list.
Ooh, but I do. I've never lost a game with my Necrons, no matter how hard I try to limit myself. They usually end with a remark on how OP Necrons are, followed by me explaining the 20 things they should and could've done otherwise.
Even with my Flayed Ones-less melee-list I won against Orks, though only barely. Why the hell would anyone allow Lychguard to get a charge on Boyz?
I actually WANT to lose, as long as I had fun playing my lists. Because that's one thing I refuse to do: Build a list that I won't enjoy.
Kholzerino wrote: Broadsides are twin linked and they lose their BS disadvantage (BS3) when snap shooting. You can buff them with skyfire if you pay the points (I don't) or for 5 points each you can take EWO (interceptor) on the group (I do). If you take a Firebase Support Cadre, they get Tank Hunter.
Hmm, I'm not too familiar with Tau. But from the lists I've seen they hardly get spammed as much as AB's.
AB's are still awesome, and next week I'll have 5 so I am happy
I've never lost a game with my Necrons, no matter how hard I try to limit myself.)
It really depends on your meta. In a highly competitive meta, where everyone runs competitive lists, a FO list has zero chance at winning the game. It looks awesome (they are conversions after all), but that's about it. And since I'm back to 4th now, I might just sell them off - or parts of it. But I guess I'll keep the little buggers. Lots of work went into them.
@monti14: Competitive on tournaments?
I think some warriors and Wraiths should be needed.
@Sigvatr:
It's a good thing and a bad thing, my meta.
On the one hand I don't feel forced to buy certain units (I really hate 'spamming' stuff).
But on the other hand they will call my crons OP no matter what I field.
I would probably leave a highly competitive meta.. You shouldn't have to be sober to play :(
We do have a very big meta just over the border, but my German sucks.
Not tournaments but don't wanna get my teeth punched in either. Not gonna rock tournaments because I need a decent amount of practice in 7th to catch up. So some regular warriors and give or say 6-8 wraiths? Maybe a destroyer lord?
I would probably leave a highly competitive meta.. You shouldn't have to be sober to play :(
We do have a very big meta just over the border, but my German sucks.
Don't get me wrong: most people aren't fielding min/max lists all the time and are far from TFG. Most will always be willing to play a "fun" game with unoriginal lists; it's just that normally, you will face competitive lists. The competitive part is reinforced by us, as well ;D
I organize 1 tournament per month with cash prizes (1st: 50€, 2nd: 30€, 3rd: 20€) and one big tournament every 6 months-ish (1st: 150€, 2nd: 100€, 3rd: 50€). Some special tournaments in between, like anniversaries, holidays etc. So yeah, people tend to stay competitive The atmosphere is very friendly, though, and we rarely have rules issues.
Hmm, you wouldn't happen to host those tournaments around Aachen? Since I live near Herzogenrath
I am actually quite interested to know what most people actually play against.
Talking about personal experiences with units is far more interesting than discussing the most competitive list, which can be easily be decided upon within one page of discussing it.
Example: I once had a gigantic success with Lychguard against Ork-Boyz.
It's one of those things people tend to overlook: S3 Boyz against T5 Lychguard are going to have a bad time.
Hmm, now that I think of it.
Didn't Defensive Grenades used to block Furious Charge in 6th?
monti14 wrote: Not tournaments but don't wanna get my teeth punched in either. Not gonna rock tournaments because I need a decent amount of practice in 7th to catch up. So some regular warriors and give or say 6-8 wraiths? Maybe a destroyer lord?
You could add a Destroyer Lord, but with two Command Barges, would you really want to?
Hold off for a bit.
Do get a unit of Wraiths for the time being, though. 6 should be good. If you like the way they play, THEN get a Destroyer Lord.
Also worth considering would be Scarabs. A good sized swarm or two (5 to 10 each) will work excellently at tying up units until your Barge Lords or Wraiths can get to them.
And you've already got a bunch of Immortals, with a few Nightscythes, so maybe you might be okay for troops? Perhaps a Ghost Ark + 5 or so Warriors might be good.
*insert obligatory pimp for Death & Despair Squad™*
I´m going to a tourney in a month or so and wondering about my Crones.
Have played mor or less a wraith wing but now I would like to try a AV 13 wall, but dont know how to form the list.
Can you help me form a 2K tourney list and a AV13 wall?
Belsibub wrote: I´m going to a tourney in a month or so and wondering about my Crones.
Have played mor or less a wraith wing but now I would like to try a AV 13 wall, but dont know how to form the list.
Can you help me form a 2K tourney list and a AV13 wall?
Do you know if it is single-CAD or dual-CAD?
Also, how competitive do you want to make your list? Mild, Competitive, Hardcore or Super-cheesy?
skoffs wrote: Congrats, jy2, nail biting game, that was a well earned shirt.
Too bad the Tomb Blade didn't last very long, I was hoping to see how handy it might have been. Do you think you'd change/fine tune that list any?
No, I like it the way it is. I don't really want to go 2x ghost arks because of all the fast deathstars in my meta - seer council, beaststar, teleporting centurionstars, Imperial Knights, Farsight-bomb and now hero-hammer wolfstars. Any more ghost arks may actually be a liability in my meta. Just 1 with troops inside and the tomb blade should be enough for Maelstrom objectives along with my bargelords and AB's.
If anything, I might downgrade my immortals to warriors in order to add in some crypteks (perhaps 1 lance-tek and 1 storm-tek).
Right guys I need some help refining and finishing off this list for a Tournament coming up in November, I'm new to Crons, and have only played a few small games with them. MarkCron has given me some solid advice to start off the army.
The tournament is 1650 points with the following basic comp..
The basic Force Organisation Chart remains the same but the options from there will be restricted. Please
choose 2 from the following. Alternative options such as that printed in Codex Orks may be used as a
replacement.
Additional FoC (counts as both choices)
A Lord of War (counts as both choices)
A Single Formation (may take a 2nd but would, count as both your choices, this must be a different formation)
Allies
Remove restriction on the number of units that can be taken (counts as both choices, see below)
Additional Detachment eg Codex Knights or Codex Inquisition
Fortification (If taking a network then it counts as both choices)
Compulsory Troops selections must be at least 75 points, this includes for any allies taken.
Forgeworld Experimental Rules are legal
HQ, Elite, Fast Attack and Heavy Support units are all considered 0-2 and Troop choices 0-4. This is taken
across the entire army on a. E.g a Space Marine player takes 2 Whirlwinds in one of his Detachments he may
no longer use purchase any more Whirlwinds for his army regardless of where they come from or how many
other detachments he has. (This restriction maybe removed see above)
Lords of War are points capped to 799 points
My Necron will also contain no Warriors, because of personal preference, so only Immortal troops.
Troops-
5 x Gauss Immortals, Night Scythe (Stormtek here)
5 x Gauss Immortals, Night Scythe
10 x Tesla Immortals, (VeilTek here)
10 x Tesla Immortals, (VeilTek here)
Fast Attack- Tomb Blade
Heavy Support -
Annihilation Barge, Tesla Cannon, Tesla Destructor
Annihilation Barge, Tesla Cannon, Tesla Destructor
At the moment this puts me at 1595 points, so I still have a little to spend. I'm thinking of using my two comp points to get rid of the restrictions on units and squeezing a third AnniBarge in, but I'll have to find 35points to do that.
My only concern is heavy armour, I have a lot of Knights in my meta,so will this be a problem for me?
monti14 wrote: Not tournaments but don't wanna get my teeth punched in either. Not gonna rock tournaments because I need a decent amount of practice in 7th to catch up. So some regular warriors and give or say 6-8 wraiths? Maybe a destroyer lord?
For a decent bundle of models to give you some fun:
2 ghost arks
2-3 annihilation barges (they come with necron lords and can be CCB if you want, really easy swap)
2 night scythes (magnets so it can be a doomscythe too, really easy to do)
6-8 wriaths sounds good
destroyer lord
Warriors to be inside the arks/scythes.
Add immortals/deathmarks if you prefer.
Spice with crypteks (you can make fun little units, like a cryptek of despair with deathmakrs in a nighscythe)
As for the AV13 wall.
I generally run something similar to this.
Lord
3 ghost arks with 5-10 inside
3 annihilation barges
death and despair scythe
haywire scythe (cryptek with the haywire gun and 5 or so warriors)
If you have leftover points, you could bring a CCB lord to try to take out wraithknights and whatnot. Or you could bring wraiths, but every gun that can't scratch AV13 will hit the wraiths. Riptides, wraithknights and dreadknights are a bit of a pain to take down thanks to lack of low AP.
CCB Lord w/scythe, armor, invul save, mindshackles
CCB Lord w/scythe, armor, invul save, mindshackles
Lots of units of 3 Scarabs
Lots of units of 1 Tomb Spyder
Destroyer Lord w/Mindshackles (Warlord)
C'tan shard w/Lord of Fire, Pyreshards
C'tan shard w/Spirit Shards, Writhing Worldscape
3 Annihilation Barges
The exact amount of scarabs/spyders and C'tan shards varies depending on the exact points of the games.
Talking about tactics:
I have an Apocalypse upcoming and my opponent is fielding at least three Baneblade-variants, demanding that we play with the old Destroyer-rules.
I am thinking of including a Red Harvest of Heavy Destroyers, do you think that would work?
And how good would it be to field three T-C'tans in my list?
I seriously have no idea how to fight against that, while at the same time having enough stuff to deal with his gigantic blob of Mortars and GK-Termies.
Right guys I need some help refining and finishing off this list for a Tournament coming up in November, I'm new to Crons, and have only played a few small games with them. MarkCron has given me some solid advice to start off the army.
The tournament is 1650 points with the following basic comp..
The basic Force Organisation Chart remains the same but the options from there will be restricted. Please
choose 2 from the following. Alternative options such as that printed in Codex Orks may be used as a
replacement.
Additional FoC (counts as both choices)
A Lord of War (counts as both choices)
A Single Formation (may take a 2nd but would, count as both your choices, this must be a different formation)
Allies
Remove restriction on the number of units that can be taken (counts as both choices, see below)
Additional Detachment eg Codex Knights or Codex Inquisition
Fortification (If taking a network then it counts as both choices)
Compulsory Troops selections must be at least 75 points, this includes for any allies taken.
Forgeworld Experimental Rules are legal
HQ, Elite, Fast Attack and Heavy Support units are all considered 0-2 and Troop choices 0-4. This is taken
across the entire army on a. E.g a Space Marine player takes 2 Whirlwinds in one of his Detachments he may
no longer use purchase any more Whirlwinds for his army regardless of where they come from or how many
other detachments he has. (This restriction maybe removed see above)
Lords of War are points capped to 799 points
My Necron will also contain no Warriors, because of personal preference, so only Immortal troops.
Troops-
5 x Gauss Immortals, Night Scythe (Stormtek here)
5 x Gauss Immortals, Night Scythe
10 x Tesla Immortals, (VeilTek here)
10 x Tesla Immortals, (VeilTek here)
Fast Attack- Tomb Blade
Heavy Support -
Annihilation Barge, Tesla Cannon, Tesla Destructor
Annihilation Barge, Tesla Cannon, Tesla Destructor
At the moment this puts me at 1595 points, so I still have a little to spend. I'm thinking of using my two comp points to get rid of the restrictions on units and squeezing a third AnniBarge in, but I'll have to find 35points to do that.
My only concern is heavy armour, I have a lot of Knights in my meta,so will this be a problem for me?
1. For your army, I'd give each Overlord sempitenal weave and then add another storm-tek and you should be good-to-go.
2. Either that or drop the storm-tek and the tomb blade and get the 3rd Annibarge.
Personally, I'd prefer Option #1. If you're going to run bargelords, you need to deck them out. The 2+ will help in close combat.
Belsibub wrote: Ohh the tourney limits is; 2K and dual-CAD.
I would like to run a competative AV 13 wall, so any help forming such list would be very helpfull.
Run the following units:
2 Bargelords (Overlord with 2+/3++, MSS, Warscythe, Command Barge with optional ResOrb)
Some crypteks, either with voltaic staff to join the troops in the flyers or eldritch lance to join the troops in ghost arks
1-2 troops in flyers (I recommend 2)
1-2 troops in ghost arks (I recommend 2)
As many annihilation barges as you can.
That is a template for an AV13-necron army.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kangodo wrote: Talking about tactics:
I have an Apocalypse upcoming and my opponent is fielding at least three Baneblade-variants, demanding that we play with the old Destroyer-rules.
I am thinking of including a Red Harvest of Heavy Destroyers, do you think that would work?
And how good would it be to field three T-C'tans in my list?
I seriously have no idea how to fight against that, while at the same time having enough stuff to deal with his gigantic blob of Mortars and GK-Termies.
And why should you give in to his demand, unless you are constantly pulverizing him and he needs the handicap? My suggestion is this. Don't give him the advantage unless he gives you something back in return. Either that or increase the points cost for his super-heavies that are using the old rules to help balance the game.
Apocalypse is all about fun. Field whatever you want and don't play it too competitively. Sometimes if you get too competitive, it kinda sucks the fun out for the other person if his army is getting manhandled. However, do add some void shield generators in your army if he is running the old Destroyer guns.
Because the two people that "organised" it decided so, the rest doesn't care because they probably didn't even know it changed and then there's me.
Aah, that's a good advice! I will definitely kitbash one of those.
Was actually hoping to stay within Necrons, killing those things ASAP and than have a leveled playing field.
It's not about being competitive.
Their argument was that it's more suitable for Apocalypse-sized games.
I really dislike the Apoc-part where the team that goes first annihilates the opponent on turn one with D-Blasts
This seems to be the starting optimal minimum for 7th edition Necrons.
2 GA with 5 warriors. 2 NS with 5 warriors. 1 Bargelord with MS, PS, SW, and WS. 2 Stormteks in the NS. 2 Annihilation Barges. That's 1175 points and a good chunk of a 1850 or 2000 point list.
One bargelord is always golden. Ghost arks are simply strong in 7th so 2 seems like a solid default. Also, 2 Night Scythes and 2 Annihilation Barges seem similarly always golden. 2 NS provides minimal AA and is almost an AA tax.
From there you can obviously go a 2nd Bargelord, a 3rd Annihilation Barge, and a 3rd Night Scythe for Spammy Crons.
Or you can diversify and play with scytheMarks, a mini-Scarab farm, or a Wraith/Arcanthrite Destroyer Lord Wraithwing.
Also you can play with Zandrekh and/or Obyron and/or VeilTeks for Tactic Crons.
You could also drop the BargeLord and fit a Sentry Pylon-star in there and make lots of friends.
Each of these variants has their pros and cons and applications. For maelstrom missions/metas for example, I like fitting Night Scythes and Obyron + VeilTeks + Tomb Blades in there. For Deathstar heavy missions/metas, I like fitting Zandrekh in there along with some tarpits (ie scarabs) because hit and run is crazy good ability for the opponent Deathstar to have and Zandrekh shuts it down and enables your tarpits to do their stuff.
Stormteks are really the stand-out cryptek. I think the bare minimum for any list is 2 while 4 is likely the optimal number. With drop pods, dedicated transports, and imperial knights on the rise, stormteks are silly good. Even against the occasional army with no vehicles the Stormtek still provides solid anti-infantry fire and is never dead points.
tldr; Stormteks are silly good, play 2 minimum and 4 optimally.
############
So what do you think? Is my minimum Necron list a good one? Am I forgetting something? Alternate opinions?
And how good would it be to field three T-C'tans in my list?
I seriously have no idea how to fight against that, while at the same time having enough stuff to deal with his gigantic blob of Mortars and GK-Termies.
I imagine 6 str d hellstorm templates per turn would convince them to never use the old rules for destroyer weapons again. Especially in Apoc where you can bring back dead ones.
GA have been buffed so much in 7th that you should feel compelled to take them. Permanent 4+ jink with no disadvantage and the effective -1 to the damage table.
Tekron wrote: You may be forgetting the completely legal in 7th LoW slot. Or more likely omitting it out of a sense of fair play.
True. Often LOW are not allowed in 7th edition tourneys and even when they are Transcendent C'tan are often put on the LOW ban list, so it fell off my personal radar, but I should mention it. Occasionally you will get a chance to throw one of those in and if you can throw one of those in you definitely should, so you can at least teach them a lesson the next time around to not allow the Transcendent C'tan.
At what point level do you think a Transcendant C'tan becomes a viable inclusion? Surely at 1850 or 2000 it's a solid inclusion. Do they also work for 1500? What's the lower limit?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sigvatr wrote: GA have been buffed so much in 7th that you should feel compelled to take them. Permanent 4+ jink with no disadvantage and the effective -1 to the damage table.
I think 2 GA is the standard default number for a 7th edition list. Do you agree with that number or do you think GA merit more or less inclusion for the typical 7th edition list?
Sigvatr wrote: GA have been buffed so much in 7th that you should feel compelled to take them. Permanent 4+ jink with no disadvantage and the effective -1 to the damage table.
The downside is your flayer arrays snap shot, but dudes inside don't, so full ghost arks are my preference. what is the -1 damage table on ghost arks? Its +1 for open topped.
I almost always end up with 2 arks in my lists. 3 at +1500pt games.
Snapfiring flayers arrays is a non-factor as they are terrible weapons to begin with. A 4++ is always superior imo.
Destrocourt in GA is quite a good means of protection.
The "effective -1" referred to the new vehicle damage chart that made vehicles more resilient by effectively increasing the necessary roll to destroy it by 1.
True. Often LOW are not allowed in 7th edition tourneys and even when they are Transcendent C'tan are often put on the LOW ban list, so it fell off my personal radar, but I should mention it. Occasionally you will get a chance to throw one of those in and if you can throw one of those in you definitely should, so you can at least teach them a lesson the next time around to not allow the Transcendent C'tan.
At what point level do you think a Transcendant C'tan becomes a viable inclusion? Surely at 1850 or 2000 it's a solid inclusion. Do they also work for 1500? What's the lower limit?
Unless playing unbound i would say the lower limit is a minimum CAD + the cost of the C'Tan. About 1000 points. At lower point levels you would likely be able to table your opponent with it by the end of the game, regardless of objectives.
The Tran C'Tan really not even worth mentioning. If he's legal, throw him in. Maybe even 2 if you're playing 2000 point double CAD. He's that much of an autotake.
Zandrehk can give powers to the Tran. C'tan . Tank hunters, and Hit and run being the most useful. Also counter attack and Stealth(rarely useful). Also Zandrehk can take a similar list of powers away from an opposing unit. It's the only buff a C'tan is capable of getting.
NecronLord3 wrote: Zandrehk can give powers to the Tran. C'tan . Tank hunters, and Hit and run being the most useful. Also counter attack and Stealth(rarely useful). Also Zandrehk can take a similar list of powers away from an opposing unit. It's the only buff a C'tan is capable of getting.
One way to lose the game with the Tranny is for it to get tarpitted by some unit that it can't destroy promptly, like an invisible unit or a rerollable invul save unit. Zandrekh buffing the Tranny with Hit and Run keeps that from happening. Any other Zandrekh buff is gravy.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, not sure if Tranny is an auto-include. It's a bit susceptible to grav spam since grav circumvents the 9 toughness and drop pod melta spam is also decently potent. Grav guns seem to be a solid way to fight GMC and LOW in general. Wouldn't be that big of a deal if everyone and their sister didn't play Space Marines.
Keep in mind that point-wise you have to compare Tranny to 3x bargeLord. 3 x bargeLord seems overall better. Differing opinions?
I know what Zahndrekh does, I'm just not sure it's worth including him/for him to give is abilities to the T.C'tan rather than something else in the army.
skoffs wrote: I know what Zahndrekh does, I'm just not sure it's worth including him/for him to give is abilities to the T.C'tan rather than something else in the army.
Let's say the C'Tan has 2 x Seismic Assault powers. Without tank hunters you would expect about 6 hull points vs AV 14 armor. With tank hunters that becomes 11. That's a dead warhound titan (including the void shields) in one turn without having to rely on lucky destroyer roles. It will also fairly easily melt a Revenant titan too with an expected 13.5 hull points vs AV 12 after 4+ holo-field save, as opposed to 9 without tank hunters.
Not sure whether it allows you to re-roll ones from the destroyer table. A 1 is no longer an auto-pen so you are kind of rolling to penetrate, but not vs AV like normal. Probably wouldn't be accepted by most people.
Hit and Run is very important on a 2x wave of withering C'Tan. Getting up into good hellstorm range is going to make you very vulnerable to assault in the next turn from mobile units. Anything fearless with lots of cheap wounds would tarpit him nicely. You don't want him fighting 'gaunts for most of the game. Especially if you didn't take the stomp power.
Also, not sure if Tranny is an auto-include. It's a bit susceptible to grav spam since grav circumvents the 9 toughness and drop pod melta spam is also decently potent. Grav guns seem to be a solid way to fight GMC and LOW in general. Wouldn't be that big of a deal if everyone and their sister didn't play Space Marines.
Keep in mind that point-wise you have to compare Tranny to 3x bargeLord. 3 x bargeLord seems overall better. Differing opinions?
Grav and Melta are both fairly short range though. I think they would struggle to do enough wounds to kill him, and you only get one chance before he wipes these expensive squads off the table. Hitting on 3s, wounding on 3s, beat 4++ invuln beat 5+FNP. That requires something like 40 shots for 6 wounds. And it's not like they are going to be firing salvos from stationary.
Bargelords have better mobility, but they can also be instant killed and exploded, and have nowhere near the destructive power. At best a handful of warscythe hits per turn + MSS, as opposed to Hellstorm Str D templates or 6D6 Str 8 shots. The cheapest C'Tan that still has 1 x Wave of Withering is merely 650 pts.
So how would you beat a triple wraithknight army without using LoW or anything outside of the combined arms formation at 1500pts?
Keeping in mind the rest of the Eldar army is jetbikes and trying to beef the wraithknights.
BrotherGecko wrote: So how would you beat a triple wraithknight army without using LoW or anything outside of the combined arms formation at 1500pts?
Keeping in mind the rest of the Eldar army is jetbikes and trying to beef the wraithknights.
Triple Death-Scythe, maybe?
Or just tie them up with Scarabs and/or Wraiths for the whole game while the rest of your army takes out his troops.
BrotherGecko wrote: So how would you beat a triple wraithknight army without using LoW or anything outside of the combined arms formation at 1500pts?
Keeping in mind the rest of the Eldar army is jetbikes and trying to beef the wraithknights.
Triple Death&Despair squads in scythes.
His army will be all but helpless against the Scythes and a full D&D squad will on average take down a Wraithknight in a single shooting phase.
The main issue would be making sure your minimal ground force survives the until the scythes come in, and the fact your list is basically tailor made against a tripknight list and would be all but useless against most others...
For Wraithknights - Run a Swiss Army set of tools in your list that are broadly applicable against all armies.
So if your Swiss Army list included a D&D squad, a Wraith squad, and a Scarab squad, those all could be tasked with handling the Wraithknights without sucking against the rest of the field.
Honorable Mention: Necron Monster Killer Squad: Obyron + Phaeron Overlord + 6 x Wraiths armed with TransD Beamers
Each six hits with the TransD gives you one insta-killed MC on average, since rolls of 6 auto-fail the strength test check. Since you are shooting to hit on 3s with 6 Wraiths that's 66% chance to off the WraithKnight per round of shooting with a full set of Wraiths.
You cripple the Wraiths' movement speed to 50% by doing so.
Furthermore, with the tiny range and not every shot hitting, it's a terrible choice. A unit that moves 6'' per turn and is designed to kill a specific target is a bad choice. Yes, you can teleport around, but you will not be in range for the guns in the same turn (unless you go full risk...which is a bad idea).
You essentially got yourself an insanely expensive deathstar with your Warlord in it to make matters worse.
If you face a lot of MC, get Kulakh. Ignore armor save, ID on each hit. CCB for extra lulz.
Alternatively, Sentry Pylons, Heavy Destroyers or Destroteks.
col_impact wrote: Each six hits with the TransD gives you one insta-killed MC on average, since rolls of 6 auto-fail the strength test check. Since you are shooting to hit on 3s with 6 Wraiths that's 66% chance to off the WraithKnight per round of shooting with a full set of Wraiths.
... you know, for the price involved versus chance of it actually succeeding, you might just be better off trying to get 3 Monoliths to do it.
(I do really hope they fix this crap in the next codex, though. It seems like a really cool weapon, but no one will ever use it because the neuters the best CC unit in our book)
skoffs wrote: It seems like a really cool weapon, but no one will ever use it because the neuters the best CC unit in our book
Which I still don't get... how do the mindless servant bots pack a bigger punch in combat than the ruling members of a trans-galactic alien race.
That's the problem when you don't know what you're doing yet still want to change the fluff.
It makes perfect sense in TruCron fluff as Necron Lords aren't "Lords" but mere "puppet generals", serving as energy foci for the Warriors whereas Wraiths are actual combat units. In NewCron fluff...not so much.
Sigvatr wrote: You cripple the Wraiths' movement speed to 50% by doing so.
Furthermore, with the tiny range and not every shot hitting, it's a terrible choice. A unit that moves 6'' per turn and is designed to kill a specific target is a bad choice. Yes, you can teleport around, but you will not be in range for the guns in the same turn (unless you go full risk...which is a bad idea).
You essentially got yourself an insanely expensive deathstar with your Warlord in it to make matters worse.
If you face a lot of MC, get Kulakh. Ignore armor save, ID on each hit. CCB for extra lulz.
Alternatively, Sentry Pylons, Heavy Destroyers or Destroteks.
Indeed, the Monster Killer squad was not a serious suggestion (note my use of "Honorable Mention"). It's obviously far too narrow but interesting to look at nonetheless. That's why I suggested using 1x D&D, 1 X 6 Wraiths, and 1 x 8-10 Scarabs as the real answer to Wraithknights as well as the rest of the field.
If I were to play it (for fun), I would deep strike aggressively since if you mishap you can simply try again next turn, and also I wouldn't forget that I can detach my ICs from the Wraiths if I need their speed. However, likely I would just keep aggressively teleporting with Obyron, because pushing your luck is fun.
If you face a lot of MC, get Kulakh. Ignore armor save, ID on each hit. CCB for extra lulz.
Would you care to elaborate how you are getting Kulakh onto a CCB when the 7th edition FAQ specifies the Necron Overlord as the rider and the CCB is no longer a dedicated transport? I imagine we would need FW 7th FAQs to get this to happen.
With 7th Edition that is no longer 'possible'.
He can still take a CCB, but he can't become its rider since that is now limited to Overlords only.
So you would end up with an empty CCB, not sure if that is legal (not sure why I would want that).
Also, could you care to elaborate on Sentry Pylons.
1500 points doesn't seem enough for a Pylon Star to be a serious TAC list so that seems out of the question, although I am sure you could rock some armies with it.
If you deploy the Pylons normally you seem to lack a great deal for range. And if you deep strike them in you can't shoot in the deep striking turn so that also seems too slow to be effective.
Hmm, that seems to be true.
I can't find anything that would give them Relentless.
And since the Death Ray doesn't roll to hit, it cannot snap shot at all.
Another thing I always wondered about was the special targetting.
I nominate a point within range and another one within 3D6 of the first.
But does that second one also need to be within 24"?
Kangodo wrote: Hmm, that seems to be true.
I can't find anything that would give them Relentless.
And since the Death Ray doesn't roll to hit, it cannot snap shot at all.
Another thing I always wondered about was the special targetting.
I nominate a point within range and another one within 3D6 of the first.
But does that second one also need to be within 24"?
Kangodo wrote: With 7th Edition that is no longer 'possible'.
He can still take a CCB, but he can't become its rider since that is now limited to Overlords only.
So you would end up with an empty CCB, not sure if that is legal (not sure why I would want that).
It's a very complicated case. It's not clear whether you'd treat it as being embarked on the CCB as a dedicated transport or if it'd be a rider. Technically, though, it would have to treat it as a dedicated transport. Which is weird. Sadly, FW is a bunch of lazies and refuses to update IA12.
Also, could you care to elaborate on Sentry Pylons.
1500 points doesn't seem enough for a Pylon Star to be a serious TAC list so that seems out of the question, although I am sure you could rock some armies with it.
If you deploy the Pylons normally you seem to lack a great deal for range. And if you deep strike them in you can't shoot in the deep striking turn so that also seems too slow to be effective.
I don't like the Sentrystar as it relies on SP too heavily. SP are a great addition to the Necron army and make for some of the most dangerous units in the entire game. The range isn't too shabby - 24'' for the first point, then another ~10" for the second one makes for a whopping 34" range - not too bad
I edit all of my posts a lot...see a minor typo, edit. Suddenly get a better idea on how to phrase a sentence...edit. I'm really OCD when it comes to it
/e: Or, as in this case, screw up with editing quotes and fix them...
Kutlakh and Maynarkh Overlords have permission to buy a CCB as a dedicated transport.
The BRB gives permission for the purchasing unit, and no other unit, to be deployed on a dedicated transport at the start of the game.
The BRB also states "A character mounted on a chariot is referred to as the rider."
Tricky one, but absent an amendment I'd say they have permission to deploy mounted on it and therefore to ride it. True, there's no "Rider: Necron Overlord" equivalent on the profile for the other units that can still buy one, but the BRB rules don't refer to this part of the profile or define what it means.
Tekron wrote: Kutlakh and Maynarkh Overlords have permission to buy a CCB as a dedicated transport.
The BRB gives permission for the purchasing unit, and no other unit, to be deployed on a dedicated transport at the start of the game.
The BRB also states "A character mounted on a chariot is referred to as the rider."
Tricky one, but absent an amendment I'd say they have permission to deploy mounted on it and therefore to ride it. True, there's no "Rider: Necron Overlord" equivalent on the profile for the other units that can still buy one, but the BRB rules don't refer to this part of the profile or define what it means.
No, what's missing is a FW update for 7th. The rules for chariots were completely changed between 6th and 7th and the FW stuff needs to be updated to reflect this before they can be allowed. You can't field a 6th edition CCB in a 7th edition game. The onus is on FW to update their info for 7th or on the TO to specifically allow it.
No, what's missing is a FW update for 7th. The rules for chariots were completely changed between 6th and 7th and the FW stuff needs to be updated to reflect this before they can be allowed. You can't field a 6th edition CCB in a 7th edition game. The onus is on FW to update their info for 7th or on the TO to specifically allow it.
Absolutely I completely agree it's down to FW, but as they don't seem to be bothering I was just speculating on what might be current RAW.
Here are the possibilities I can see:
1) Maynarkh lists may not purchase CCBs whatsoever.
2) Maynarkh Overlords and Kutlakh may purchase CCBs and ride on them exactly like current 7th ed Necron Overlords can.
3) Maynarkh Overlords and Kutlakh may purchase CCBs but they may not ride on them, so the CCB follows the 7th ed rules for an empty chariot.
4) (Ridiculous) Maynarkh Overlords and Kutlakh may purchase CCBs exactly as defined in Codex: Necrons + the FAQ, which includes a Necron Overlord as a rider.
5) (No RAW support whatsoever) Maynarkh Overlords can use CCBs, but Kutlakh can't, because that's what happened with the main codex and so that might be RAI and blablabla...
No, what's missing is a FW update for 7th. The rules for chariots were completely changed between 6th and 7th and the FW stuff needs to be updated to reflect this before they can be allowed. You can't field a 6th edition CCB in a 7th edition game. The onus is on FW to update their info for 7th or on the TO to specifically allow it.
Absolutely I completely agree it's down to FW, but as they don't seem to be bothering I was just speculating on what might be current RAW.
Here are the possibilities I can see:
1) Maynarkh lists may not purchase CCBs whatsoever.
2) Maynarkh Overlords and Kutlakh may purchase CCBs and ride on them exactly like current 7th ed Necron Overlords can.
3) Maynarkh Overlords and Kutlakh may purchase CCBs but they may not ride on them, so the CCB follows the 7th ed rules for an empty chariot.
4) (Ridiculous) Maynarkh Overlords and Kutlakh may purchase CCBs exactly as defined in Codex: Necrons + the FAQ, which includes a Necron Overlord as a rider.
5) (No RAW support whatsoever) Maynarkh Overlords can use CCBs, but Kutlakh can't, because that's what happened with the main codex and so that might be RAI and blablabla...
The answer is 3. If you look closely at the 7th edition Necron FAQ changes, the CCB replaced the "transport capacity: one Independent Character" line with "Rider: Necron Overlord". The CCB can no longer have anything on it except specifically a Necron Overlord that has been permanently fused with it as its rider.
The answer is 3. If you look closely at the 7th edition Necron FAQ changes, the CCB replaced the "transport capacity: one Independent Character" line with "Rider: Necron Overlord". The CCB can no longer have anything on it except specifically a Necron Overlord that has been permanently fused with it as its rider.
Yes but by that interpretation of the "Rider: Necron Overlord" part of the unit profile, there is no more permission to take an empty one than their is to mount up Kutlakh. An empty CCB still has "Rider: Necron Overlord" on the profile. So Option 3 is out.
The problem is that everything else on a units profile is defined in the rules (characteristics, wargear, unit type, weapons, transport capacity etc.) but the "Rider: xxxxx" part is not even mentioned in the rule book.
Both the Chaos Chariot and the Space Wolf Chariot include statements which explicitly take away IC status and the ability to join units from their chariots, whereas for the CCB no such statements exists.
However, take note that both the BAO and NOVA have added statements to their FAQs that prevent the CCB from joining units. This was done as a conservative thinking power-level nerfing based on faulty testing and faulty understandings. The decision was wrongly based on thinking that the bargeLord is able to Look Out Sir with the unit he was joined to. The bargeLord is not allowed to use Look Out Sir as it is against the rules in 7th to Look Out Sir.
My own testing indicates that the bargeLord joined to the unit is not OP and is very self-limiting. Per the rules, the bargeLord cannot use Look Out Sir and gives up critical mobility if he is used to shield a unit from small arms fire. Moreover no other IC can join the unit per the rules. Although the conservative decision by the BAO and NOVA was appreciated, the power-level nerfing by the BAO and NOVA should be re-assessed.
So yes, unless a TO takes away the ability, the bargeLord per RAW can join units.
Both the Chaos Chariot and the Space Wolf Chariot include statements which explicitly take away IC status and the ability to join units from their chariots, whereas for the CCB no such statements exists.
However, take note that both the BAO and NOVA have added statements to their FAQs that prevent the CCB from joining units. This was done as a conservative thinking power-level nerfing based on faulty testing and faulty understandings. The decision was wrongly based on thinking that the bargeLord is able to Look Out Sir with the unit he was joined to. The bargeLord is not allowed to use Look Out Sir as it is against the rules in 7th to Look Out Sir.
My own testing indicates that the bargeLord joined to the unit is not OP and is very self-limiting. Per the rules, the bargeLord cannot use Look Out Sir and gives up critical mobility if he is used to shield a unit from small arms fire. Moreover no other IC can join the unit per the rules. Although the conservative decision by the BAO and NOVA was appreciated, the power-level nerfing by the BAO and NOVA should be re-assessed.
So yes, unless a TO takes away the ability, the bargeLord per RAW can join units.
Good to know.
He joined his barge lord to a unit of scarabs hiding in a ruin, which let him assault my wraithknight. (the barge lord was out of range, scarabs were in) and when I tried to shoot at the unit, he tanked it with the barge.
Its nasty.
Both the Chaos Chariot and the Space Wolf Chariot include statements which explicitly take away IC status and the ability to join units from their chariots, whereas for the CCB no such statements exists.
However, take note that both the BAO and NOVA have added statements to their FAQs that prevent the CCB from joining units. This was done as a conservative thinking power-level nerfing based on faulty testing and faulty understandings. The decision was wrongly based on thinking that the bargeLord is able to Look Out Sir with the unit he was joined to. The bargeLord is not allowed to use Look Out Sir as it is against the rules in 7th to Look Out Sir.
My own testing indicates that the bargeLord joined to the unit is not OP and is very self-limiting. Per the rules, the bargeLord cannot use Look Out Sir and gives up critical mobility if he is used to shield a unit from small arms fire. Moreover no other IC can join the unit per the rules. Although the conservative decision by the BAO and NOVA was appreciated, the power-level nerfing by the BAO and NOVA should be re-assessed.
So yes, unless a TO takes away the ability, the bargeLord per RAW can join units.
Good to know.
He joined his barge lord to a unit of scarabs hiding in a ruin, which let him assault my wraithknight. (the barge lord was out of range, scarabs were in) and when I tried to shoot at the unit, he tanked it with the barge.
Its nasty.
Which is why TOs have been disallowing it.
Frankly, the whole thing could easily be cleared up with a simple FAQ update, but GW are being GW and dragging their feet.
Both the Chaos Chariot and the Space Wolf Chariot include statements which explicitly take away IC status and the ability to join units from their chariots, whereas for the CCB no such statements exists.
However, take note that both the BAO and NOVA have added statements to their FAQs that prevent the CCB from joining units. This was done as a conservative thinking power-level nerfing based on faulty testing and faulty understandings. The decision was wrongly based on thinking that the bargeLord is able to Look Out Sir with the unit he was joined to. The bargeLord is not allowed to use Look Out Sir as it is against the rules in 7th to Look Out Sir.
My own testing indicates that the bargeLord joined to the unit is not OP and is very self-limiting. Per the rules, the bargeLord cannot use Look Out Sir and gives up critical mobility if he is used to shield a unit from small arms fire. Moreover no other IC can join the unit per the rules. Although the conservative decision by the BAO and NOVA was appreciated, the power-level nerfing by the BAO and NOVA should be re-assessed.
So yes, unless a TO takes away the ability, the bargeLord per RAW can join units.
Good to know.
He joined his barge lord to a unit of scarabs hiding in a ruin, which let him assault my wraithknight. (the barge lord was out of range, scarabs were in) and when I tried to shoot at the unit, he tanked it with the barge.
Its nasty.
You will have to elaborate on what is going on here, since it's not clear. If the scarabs are closest to the WraithKnight he has to allocate the hits to the scarabs until the bargeLord is closest. You should also be able to jump to a flank with a Wraithknight and shoot the scarabs if the bargelord is out in front.
It was his turn. Barge lord was to far to the right to get into combat ( I know because I measured), but he moved the lord into the scarab squad which then jumped out of the ruins they were hiding in and assaulted my wraith knight, In one turn. If it had been over multiple turns sure I could have kept the wraith knight out of combat. But sense he was able to join them and assualt me on the same turn I wasnt able to shoot them. Then, after they ate my wraith knight, he was able to position the bargelord so my wave serpents werent able to get a shot on the scarabs. (I think I was able to kill one base)
ninjafiredragon wrote: It was his turn. Barge lord was to far to the right to get into combat ( I know because I measured), but he moved the lord into the scarab squad which then jumped out of the ruins they were hiding in and assaulted my wraith knight, In one turn. If it had been over multiple turns sure I could have kept the wraith knight out of combat. But sense he was able to join them and assualt me on the same turn I wasnt able to shoot them. Then, after they ate my wraith knight, he was able to position the bargelord so my wave serpents werent able to get a shot on the scarabs. (I think I was able to kill one base)
Tekron wrote: Presumably the bargelord's charge move got him close enough to be engaged, and then his warscythe did the job.
Except that he said "they ate my wraith knight." My guess is that the Necron player wrongly played out the scarabs as able to actually hurt the Wraithknight. The Wraithknight is favored in CC versus a bargeLord + scarabs since the Wraithknight can instant-kill the bargeLord and the scarabs cannot provide LOS. The combat will hinge mostly on the MSS rolls.
At any rate, this signifies nothing special added by the bargeLord. This could have easily been a destroyer lord joining a unit of scarabs, and in fact a destroyer lord is much worse for the Wraithknight to see in CC, since the scarabs can provide a meatshield in the form of LOS. Not seeing how this is a case of a bargeLord being especially nasty.
I don't suppose he was playing Zahndrekh in that list, was he?
If so, those Scarabs could have been given Furious Charge.
Wouldn't they be able to hurt the WK then?
skoffs wrote: I don't suppose he was playing Zahndrekh in that list, was he?
If so, those Scarabs could have been given Furious Charge.
Wouldn't they be able to hurt the WK then?
You need S5 to hurt T8.
But that all is besides the point. He was claiming that a bargeLord joined to a unit of scarabs was "nasty." I am not seeing how it is any more or less nasty than any other IC of comparable point value joined to a unit.
A bargeLord that can join a unit is no more or less nasty than a Chapter Master on a Bike joined to a unit. Sure a Chapter Master is nasty, but that's how many points are going into the bargeLord.
Tekron wrote: Presumably the bargelord's charge move got him close enough to be engaged, and then his warscythe did the job.
Except that he said "they ate my wraith knight." My guess is that the Necron player wrongly played out the scarabs as able to actually hurt the Wraithknight. The Wraithknight is favored in CC versus a bargeLord + scarabs since the Wraithknight can instant-kill the bargeLord and the scarabs cannot provide LOS. The combat will hinge mostly on the MSS rolls.
At any rate, this signifies nothing special added by the bargeLord. This could have easily been a destroyer lord joining a unit of scarabs, and in fact a destroyer lord is much worse for the Wraithknight to see in CC, since the scarabs can provide a meatshield in the form of LOS. Not seeing how this is a case of a bargeLord being especially nasty.
Sorry by they I mean the unit, including the bargelord. Mostly mind shackle scarabs...
skoffs wrote: I don't suppose he was playing Zahndrekh in that list, was he?
If so, those Scarabs could have been given Furious Charge.
Wouldn't they be able to hurt the WK then?
You need S5 to hurt T8.
But that all is besides the point. He was claiming that a bargeLord joined to a unit of scarabs was "nasty." I am not seeing how it is any more or less nasty than any other IC of comparable point value joined to a unit.
A bargeLord that can join a unit is no more or less nasty than a Chapter Master on a Bike joined to a unit. Sure a Chapter Master is nasty, but that's how many points are going into the bargeLord.
Only thing that was made it "nasty" for me was that the lord was other wise out of range of my wraith knight, and then after that bit the dust he had easy picking on the rest of my army.
Now if I had been playing my space marines, it would have been a different story.
skoffs wrote: I don't suppose he was playing Zahndrekh in that list, was he?
If so, those Scarabs could have been given Furious Charge.
Wouldn't they be able to hurt the WK then?
You need S5 to hurt T8.
But that all is besides the point. He was claiming that a bargeLord joined to a unit of scarabs was "nasty." I am not seeing how it is any more or less nasty than any other IC of comparable point value joined to a unit.
A bargeLord that can join a unit is no more or less nasty than a Chapter Master on a Bike joined to a unit. Sure a Chapter Master is nasty, but that's how many points are going into the bargeLord.
Well, he is "nasty" if he is able to get up front to tank all of the small-arms firepower. That's what usually killed my wraithstar (D-lord + wraiths) back in 6th - volume of fire (VoF). Tau and mechdar used to be tough matches for necrons because they could focus-fire down almost any Necron IC+unit combo that existed. But not if the bargelord is leading the unit. Nowadays, bargelord joining a unit would give us the upper-hand against a lot of these VoF builds.
skoffs wrote: I don't suppose he was playing Zahndrekh in that list, was he?
If so, those Scarabs could have been given Furious Charge.
Wouldn't they be able to hurt the WK then?
You need S5 to hurt T8.
But that all is besides the point. He was claiming that a bargeLord joined to a unit of scarabs was "nasty." I am not seeing how it is any more or less nasty than any other IC of comparable point value joined to a unit.
A bargeLord that can join a unit is no more or less nasty than a Chapter Master on a Bike joined to a unit. Sure a Chapter Master is nasty, but that's how many points are going into the bargeLord.
Well, he is "nasty" if he is able to get up front to tank all of the small-arms firepower. That's what usually killed my wraithstar (D-lord + wraiths) back in 6th - volume of fire (VoF). Tau and mechdar used to be tough matches for necrons because they could focus-fire down almost any Necron IC+unit combo that existed. But not if the bargelord is leading the unit. Nowadays, bargelord joining a unit would give us the upper-hand against a lot of these VoF builds.
Sure, a bargeLord can be used to deliver a unit of wraiths to the opponent's backfield. But so what? A good general will feed it a speed bump and/or position its AT to mow down the bargeLord that has no LOS protection from the wraiths. And they will get one to two extra rounds of shooting AT against the bargeLord since the bargeLord has volunteered to slow its movement down in order to babysit the wraiths. That's hardly OP. It's just an incremental gain. At most it will require Tau players to do a little retooling to regain their long-held upper-hand against the wraithWing strategy.
Investing 500 points to deliver a unit of wraiths to the opponent's backfield measures pretty low on the 40k power scale.
skoffs wrote: I don't suppose he was playing Zahndrekh in that list, was he?
If so, those Scarabs could have been given Furious Charge.
Wouldn't they be able to hurt the WK then?
You need S5 to hurt T8.
But that all is besides the point. He was claiming that a bargeLord joined to a unit of scarabs was "nasty." I am not seeing how it is any more or less nasty than any other IC of comparable point value joined to a unit.
A bargeLord that can join a unit is no more or less nasty than a Chapter Master on a Bike joined to a unit. Sure a Chapter Master is nasty, but that's how many points are going into the bargeLord.
Well, he is "nasty" if he is able to get up front to tank all of the small-arms firepower. That's what usually killed my wraithstar (D-lord + wraiths) back in 6th - volume of fire (VoF). Tau and mechdar used to be tough matches for necrons because they could focus-fire down almost any Necron IC+unit combo that existed. But not if the bargelord is leading the unit. Nowadays, bargelord joining a unit would give us the upper-hand against a lot of these VoF builds.
Sure, a bargeLord can be used to deliver a unit of wraiths to the opponent's backfield. But so what? A good general will feed it a speed bump and/or position its AT to mow down the bargeLord that has no LOS protection from the wraiths. And they will get one to two extra rounds of shooting AT against the bargeLord since the bargeLord has volunteered to slow its movement down in order to babysit the wraiths. That's hardly OP. It's just an incremental gain. At most it will require Tau players to do a little retooling to regain their long-held upper-hand against the wraithWing strategy.
Investing 500 points to deliver a unit of wraiths to the opponent's backfield measures pretty low on the 40k power scale.
I think you are truly under-estimating the viability of this "tactic" (of joining a bargelord to a unit of wraiths). Against screening units, the "bargestar" (bargelord + wraiths) have plenty of options:
1. They can potentially jump over the screening unit entirely.
2. Bargelord sweep attacks the unit. Against a vehicle he can potentially destroy it. Against infantry, he can potentially create a hole for the wraiths to fit through.
3. They can split up. Bargelord just turbos over the unit whereas wraiths assault it.
4. They can just assault it, wipe it out and then reposition so that the bargelord is in front again and tanking VoF shots again.
It isn't very easy to "mow down" the bargelord unless you are running massed S10 shots (i.e. 2-3 wraithknights). You bring meltas and the bargelord can allocate the shots onto the Overlord's 3++. I've had my bargelord survive a Farsight-bomb before with easily 10 meltas fired into him (by the F-bomb and nearby fusion troop suits). And even if he goes down, there is a 50% chance of him getting back up with ResOrbs. So all that firepower wasted on the bargelord and he isn't even dead. It is just ludicrous the amount of firepower a bargelord can absorb. Only shooting by triple wraithknights have been able to take down my bargelord with any kind of efficiency.
Most importantly, you use the bargelord to protect against the initial alpha-strikes of the VoF armies. Afterwards, you can split them up if you want. Let them shoot at your wraiths on T2 if they want, especially when you already have your bargelord in their deployment zone already. To you, it may be an "incremental gain", but in a competitive matchup against another highly-optimized army, that "incremental gain" can make a world of difference. And against one of our worse matchups, that difference is enough to spell victory or defeat.
skoffs wrote: I don't suppose he was playing Zahndrekh in that list, was he?
If so, those Scarabs could have been given Furious Charge.
Wouldn't they be able to hurt the WK then?
You need S5 to hurt T8.
But that all is besides the point. He was claiming that a bargeLord joined to a unit of scarabs was "nasty." I am not seeing how it is any more or less nasty than any other IC of comparable point value joined to a unit.
A bargeLord that can join a unit is no more or less nasty than a Chapter Master on a Bike joined to a unit. Sure a Chapter Master is nasty, but that's how many points are going into the bargeLord.
Well, he is "nasty" if he is able to get up front to tank all of the small-arms firepower. That's what usually killed my wraithstar (D-lord + wraiths) back in 6th - volume of fire (VoF). Tau and mechdar used to be tough matches for necrons because they could focus-fire down almost any Necron IC+unit combo that existed. But not if the bargelord is leading the unit. Nowadays, bargelord joining a unit would give us the upper-hand against a lot of these VoF builds.
Sure, a bargeLord can be used to deliver a unit of wraiths to the opponent's backfield. But so what? A good general will feed it a speed bump and/or position its AT to mow down the bargeLord that has no LOS protection from the wraiths. And they will get one to two extra rounds of shooting AT against the bargeLord since the bargeLord has volunteered to slow its movement down in order to babysit the wraiths. That's hardly OP. It's just an incremental gain. At most it will require Tau players to do a little retooling to regain their long-held upper-hand against the wraithWing strategy.
Investing 500 points to deliver a unit of wraiths to the opponent's backfield measures pretty low on the 40k power scale.
I think you are truly under-estimating the viability of this "tactic" (of joining a bargelord to a unit of wraiths). Against screening units, the "bargestar" (bargelord + wraiths) have plenty of options:
1. They can potentially jump over the screening unit entirely.
2. Bargelord sweep attacks the unit. Against a vehicle he can potentially destroy it. Against infantry, he can potentially create a hole for the wraiths to fit through.
3. They can split up. Bargelord just turbos over the unit whereas wraiths assault it.
4. They can just assault it, wipe it out and then reposition so that the bargelord is in front again and tanking VoF shots again.
It isn't very easy to "mow down" the bargelord unless you are running massed S10 shots (i.e. 2-3 wraithknights). You bring meltas and the bargelord can allocate the shots onto the Overlord's 3++. I've had my bargelord survive a Farsight-bomb before with easily 10 meltas fired into him (by the F-bomb and nearby fusion troop suits). And even if he goes down, there is a 50% chance of him getting back up with ResOrbs. So all that firepower wasted on the bargelord and he isn't even dead. It is just ludicrous the amount of firepower a bargelord can absorb. Only shooting by triple wraithknights have been able to take down my bargelord with any kind of efficiency.
Most importantly, you use the bargelord to protect against the initial alpha-strikes of the VoF armies. Afterwards, you can split them up if you want. Let them shoot at your wraiths on T2 if they want, especially when you already have your bargelord in their deployment zone already. To you, it may be an "incremental gain", but in a competitive matchup against another highly-optimized army, that "incremental gain" can make a world of difference. And against one of our worse matchups, that difference is enough to spell victory or defeat.
All of these points I am not disagreeing with. A bargeLord attached to a unit of wraiths is tactically useful and sure it could nudge the scales a bit. It may even be key in getting an upperhand against the old gunline style armies of 6th edition until they adjust. But, this power level is all on par with the amount of points being invested into it. My argument is that it is not OP and therefore does not need a power-level edit. RAW is clear that a bargeLord can join units.
You really have to show in your argument that it is OP since you are advocating going against RAW and taking the extraordinary step of a power-level edit.
I just assumed the TOs ruled against it being able to join units because it was more than likely never intended to be able to (ie. just another rules oversight/loophole that no one caught before it went to press).
It probably hasn't been addressed yet because they haven't been doing FAQs lately (except for books that have only just been released)
Though, for all I know, they analized it and decided it shouldn't be allowed on a power level basis. No idea, there.
skoffs wrote: I just assumed the TOs ruled against it being able to join units because it was more than likely never intended to be able to (ie. just another rules oversight/loophole that no one caught before it went to press).
It probably hasn't been addressed yet because they haven't been doing FAQs lately (except for books that have only just been released)
Though, for all I know, they analized it and decided it shouldn't be allowed on a power level basis. No idea, there.
BAOTOs analyzed it. They wrongly thought that the unit could provide LOS for the bargeLord and that other ICs could join the unit. If those things were true, the bargeLord would be OP. However, neither of those things are true. Quick conservative judgements were made without a thorough analysis of all the rules involved.
I'm probably in the minority, but personally, I hope they don't bring Pariahs back.
Not that the mechanic wouldn't be welcome, because it would, we definitely need some added psychic defense... I would just rather it come in the form of added wargear (ie. Lord/Harbinger options) than an individual unit.
But this is discussion better saved for the rumor thread than the tactics thread.
As far as current tactics go, how viable would running a Culexus in a 'Cron army be?
Is it even possible in competitive settings?
Culexus might be a good thing to include.
You can infiltrate him and just deny every psychic ability around him.
You shouldn't have to worry about him dying with 3W, having a permanent-Invisibility and a 4++
We never have to use our Warp Charges, so he always has a S5, AP1, Assault 3 weapon, even when not fighting Psykers.
He's quite a good tarpit ánd anti-Psyker.
The only issue would be: Are we really that terrified of Psykers and what would we remove for this?
As to the Pariah, I was thinking of him as a Royal Court-option But you're right, this belongs into General since it is a wishlist and not a tactic/rumour.
Culexus makes it possible to remove Invisibility from enemy LoW, something the Transcendant C'Tan cannot receive, so that's a big bonus to him in the power rankings.
Callidus gives Imotekh a re-rollable 4+ seize the initiative.
skoffs wrote: Any of the other Assassins worth considering?
Apart from anti-psyker, are there any gaps we have in our versatility/answer bag that they can fill?
Vindicare will be good in any army with his 72"(?) S10 AP2 shot that ignores cover and that can potentially take out Invuln saves.
Shield Eternal Chapter Master? Eat lead and die sucka!
skoffs wrote: Any of the other Assassins worth considering?
Apart from anti-psyker, are there any gaps we have in our versatility/answer bag that they can fill?
Mumblez had a great summary and I fully agree with him.
Mumblez wrote:The vindicare is great for taking out special/heavy weapons from squads and killing squad leaders.
The callidus is the bane of elite units that are packing 2+ saves.
The eversor is a one-man army who can go toe-to-toe with a horde of bugs or orks and come out on top.
The culexus is the ultimate badass who hard counters psykers.
Our characters lack good weaponry to use the Precision Shot-rule, so Vindicares could be a good way of taking down specific models.
I personally struggle with TEQ's so I want to try out Callidus, he seems to be a great tool against such units.
Eversor is probably not needed since Hordes aren't an issue to me, though I wish he had Hit & Run.
I hardly encounter Psykers and don't need some anti-Psyker model, so I won't be using Culexus.
Callidus and Vindicare are the two models I would really want to use.
So now I have to find a good-looking Necron model to use as a count-ass
skoffs wrote: Any of the other Assassins worth considering?
Apart from anti-psyker, are there any gaps we have in our versatility/answer bag that they can fill?
Vindicare will be good in any army with his 72"(?) S10 AP2 shot that ignores cover and that can potentially take out Invuln saves.
Shield Eternal Chapter Master? Eat lead and die sucka!
Eat lead and take one wound. Not counting feel no pain.
skoffs wrote: Any of the other Assassins worth considering?
Apart from anti-psyker, are there any gaps we have in our versatility/answer bag that they can fill?
Vindicare will be good in any army with his 72"(?) S10 AP2 shot that ignores cover and that can potentially take out Invuln saves.
Shield Eternal Chapter Master? Eat lead and die sucka!
Eat lead and take one wound. Not counting feel no pain.
1 wound is all it takes to make him feel the wrath of the warscythe. And BTW, no FNP to S10 shots for T5 guys.
That's not how it works. If a hit causes Instant Death, even if the target is immune to Instant Death (i.e. Eternal Warrior or some other special rules), then no FNP may be taken. I believe it is under FNP, though I don't have my book with me right now to check.
Vindicare in the meta means running the bargeLord is a serious liability unless there are large Line of Sight blocking terrain a'plenty.
Auto-precision hit means you can force assign the hit how you want. I imagine you want to force the bargeLord to assign the s10 turbo-penetrator hit to the vehicle profile to have a 50% chance of a penetrating hit that takes down Quantum Shielding and then a 33% of getting an instant death explosion. Alternatively you can force S10 hit against the rider but risk the invulnerability save. So a 33% chance of Instant Death. Since the bargeLord is always a vehicle the turbo-penetrator always resolves at s10.
Lists are going to have to run Vindicares in order to fight opposing Vindicares.
It also makes the Monolith Line of Sight blocking play a stronger play.
It also makes Necron Night Scythes better since they become the best place to put your HQ.
It also makes you deploy the Pylon Star in reserves so you can eliminate the Vindicare when you deep strike in with Obyron.
skoffs wrote: Any of the other Assassins worth considering?
Apart from anti-psyker, are there any gaps we have in our versatility/answer bag that they can fill?
Vindicare will be good in any army with his 72"(?) S10 AP2 shot that ignores cover and that can potentially take out Invuln saves.
Shield Eternal Chapter Master? Eat lead and die sucka!
Eat lead and take one wound. Not counting feel no pain.
1 wound is all it takes to make him feel the wrath of the warscythe. And BTW, no FNP to S10 shots for T5 guys.
Turbo-penetrating ammo is S10 only versus vehicles. Versus non-vehicles it does D3 wounds that can have invul saves and FNP applied.
Imperial assassins. They used to be in the Grey Knight book, but they are getting their own dataslate this weekend, if not the weekend gone.
Vindicares are Hollywood movie snipers, Callidus is like the predator from the movies, Eversor are raging monsters that leave a trail of bodies and destruction in their wake, and Culexus make psykers eat their own gak
col_impact wrote: Vindicare in the meta means running the bargeLord is a serious liability unless there are large Line of Sight blocking terrain a'plenty.
Auto-precision hit means you can force assign the hit how you want. I imagine you want to force the bargeLord to assign the s10 turbo-penetrator hit to the vehicle profile to have a 50% chance of a penetrating hit that takes down Quantum Shielding and then a 33% of getting an instant death explosion. Alternatively you can force S10 hit against the rider but risk the invulnerability save. So a 33% chance of Instant Death. Since the bargeLord is always a vehicle the turbo-penetrator always resolves at s10.
The rider has a non-vehicle profile, it would not be S10 if allocated to him.
BRB: "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."
So better to allocate to the chariot, unless playing that the phase shifter confers the invuln to the chariot, in which case it's better to use a shield-breaker round against the overlord.
col_impact wrote: Vindicare in the meta means running the bargeLord is a serious liability unless there are large Line of Sight blocking terrain a'plenty.
Auto-precision hit means you can force assign the hit how you want. I imagine you want to force the bargeLord to assign the s10 turbo-penetrator hit to the vehicle profile to have a 50% chance of a penetrating hit that takes down Quantum Shielding and then a 33% of getting an instant death explosion. Alternatively you can force S10 hit against the rider but risk the invulnerability save. So a 33% chance of Instant Death. Since the bargeLord is always a vehicle the turbo-penetrator always resolves at s10.
The rider has a non-vehicle profile, it would not be S10 if allocated to him.
BRB: "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."
So better to allocate to the chariot, unless playing that the phase shifter confers the invuln to the chariot, in which case it's better to use a shield-breaker round against the overlord.
The bargeLord is always a vehicle. It has two profiles for resolving certain things. But it's always a vehicle. It's unit type is vehicle (chariot).
Another interesting clarification that came to light in the Assassin's thread is that Vindicare does not automatically get a Precise shot. His shots will only be precise shots on a to hit roll of 6. That's a lot less powerful than people were originally reading him to be.
However, he will still be a potent tool against the bargeLord if the Vindicare player always chooses the turbo-penetrator shot (which is the only decent selection if you don't get the Precise shot), since that ammo selection can score an instant-kill no matter which profile you choose.
If the bargeLord is joined to a unit of scarabs or whatever, you can put the scarabs out in front to take the Vindicare hit.
I think that the shot is S10, because the target of the shot was the command barge. It's then the barge player's choice if it is resolved against the rider or not
The shot is always S10. As correctly stated above, the CCB is a Vehicle (Chariot). Technically, it doesn't have a rider and a vehicle part, it has a rider profle and a vehicle profile.
The bargeLord is always a vehicle. It has two profiles for resolving certain things. But it's always a vehicle. It's unit type is vehicle (chariot).
It has two profiles for resolving shooting attacks against it, and as the BRB says, the rider has a non-vehicle profile. Otherwise you would have to roll to penetrate against the rider if it's unit type was Vehicle. There is no rule anywhere that says the rider gains the chariots unit type.
According to the FAQ the Catacomb Command Barge is a Vehicle (Chariot, Fast, Open-Topped, Skimmer), and from the codex the Overlord is Infantry (Character). Neither of them lost their unit type, they are just combined into a dual profile on one model.
I think that the shot is S10, because the target of the shot was the command barge. It's then the barge player's choice if it is resolved against the rider or not
Read the Deadshot rule carefully. It gives Precision Shot special rule to hits. Then read Precision Shots special rule. It says "If a model with this special rule rolls a 6 To Hit with a shooting weapn, that shot is a 'Precision Shot'"
This seems to be a case of bad rule-writing. The roll of 6 is hard-coded into the Precision Shots USR, so when Deadshot re-applies it, the roll of 6 is still being required.
Sigvatr wrote: The shot is always S10. As correctly stated above, the CCB is a Vehicle (Chariot). Technically, it doesn't have a rider and a vehicle part, it has a rider profle and a vehicle profile.
It is not always S10. It "counts-as" S10 against vehicles:
Dataslate: "Turbo-penetrator: Against vehicles, shots from a turbo-penetrator round count as Strength 10."
Again, from the BRB: "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."
The rider has a non-vehicle profile, therefore the Turbo-penetrator does not count as S10.
Sigvatr wrote: The shot is always S10. As correctly stated above, the CCB is a Vehicle (Chariot). Technically, it doesn't have a rider and a vehicle part, it has a rider profle and a vehicle profile.
It is not always S10. It "counts-as" S10 against vehicles:
Dataslate: "Turbo-penetrator: Against vehicles, shots from a turbo-penetrator round count as Strength 10."
Again, from the BRB: "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."
The rider has a non-vehicle profile, therefore the Turbo-penetrator does not count as S10.
The ammo does not check profiles. It checks unit types. It is hitting a "vehicle (chariot)".
The ammo does not check profiles. It checks unit types. It is hitting a "vehicle (chariot)".
BRB: " unit type is essentially an extension of the characteristic profile".
If the rider did not maintain his unit type then he would no longer be a character, whereas the BRB is also clear that "A character mounted on a Chariot is referred to as the rider."
If the Necron Overlord loses his Infantry (Character) unit type and becomes Vehicle (Chariot, Fast, Open-Topped, Skimmer) then you lose all permission to roll to wound him, and instead have to roll to penetrate. There is no rules basis for anything you are saying, which is probably why I am the only one here who has quoted from the BRB or Dataslate.
The different types of vehicle are: Chariot, Fast, Flyer, Heavy, Hover, Open-topped, Skimmer, Tank, Transport, Walker, Super-heavy vehicle, Super-heavy Walker and Super-heavy Flyer. These types can be combined to define, for example, a Fast Skimmer or an Open-topped Walker, in which case, the vehicle has all of the rules for all of its types.
This is located near the beginning of the vehicle section. It flat out tells you that the chariot is a type of vehicle.
The ammo does not check profiles. It checks unit types. It is hitting a "vehicle (chariot)".
BRB: " unit type is essentially an extension of the characteristic profile".
If the rider did not maintain his unit type then he would no longer be a character, whereas the BRB is also clear that "A character mounted on a Chariot is referred to as the rider."
If the Necron Overlord loses his Infantry (Character) unit type and becomes Vehicle (Chariot, Fast, Open-Topped, Skimmer) then you lose all permission to roll to wound him, and instead have to roll to penetrate. There is no rules basis for anything you are saying, which is probably why I am the only one here who has quoted from the BRB or Dataslate.
You are correct that indeed you would lose all permission to wound the Necron Overlord and instead have to roll to penetrate, except that the Chariot rules include specific rules detailing the implementation of a rider profile and a chariot profile. Without those specific rules you would indeed be stuck and have to roll to penetrate because you are dealing with one model that is a vehicle.
The real question is what does the ammo check? The profile or the unit type? You are only given specific permission to use profiles, otherwise you don't have access to a notion of profile and are just checking "what is the thing I am hitting".
The different types of vehicle are: Chariot, Fast, Flyer, Heavy, Hover, Open-topped, Skimmer, Tank, Transport, Walker, Super-heavy vehicle, Super-heavy Walker and Super-heavy Flyer. These types can be combined to define, for example, a Fast Skimmer or an Open-topped Walker, in which case, the vehicle has all of the rules for all of its types.
This is located near the beginning of the vehicle section.
It flat out tells you that the chariot is a type of vehicle.
Obviously the chariot is a vehicle. It doesn't say anywhere in the rules that the rider is a vehicle. In fact is says very specifically that it has a "non-vehicle profile".
Arguing that the rider with a "non-vehicle profile" has a vehicle unit type is bizarre.
You are correct that indeed you would lose all permission to wound the Necron Overlord and instead have to roll to penetrate, except that the Chariot rules include specific rules detailing the implementation of a rider profile and a chariot profile. Without those specific rules you would indeed be stuck and have to roll to penetrate because you are dealing with one model that is a vehicle.
The real question is what does the ammo check? The profile or the unit type? You are only given specific permission to use profiles, otherwise you don't have access to a notion of profile and are just checking "what is the thing I am hitting".
The chariot rules are actually not very specific when resolving shooting attacks against it. It never gives specific permission to roll to wound against the rider.
BRB: "The player controlling the Chariot unit then allocates each hit pool either to the rider or the Chariot of the closest model in the unit. If several pools of hits need to be allocated, the player making the attacks must decide in which order they are resolved. All hits from a single pool must be allocated and resolved before moving on to the next pool of hits. Hit pools from Blast and Template weapons are always resolved against the Chariot. If the Chariot model is hit by a Precision Shot, that hit is allocated by the firer, not the owning player.
When resolving successful hits that have been assigned to a Chariot, work out which of its Armour Values to use as you would for any other vehicle, based on the position of the model compared to the model firing at it."
The only way you get permission to roll to wound against the rider is because of "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." You get to roll to wound against the "non-vehicle profile".
Speaking of assassins, I noticed that the callidus can ignore invulnerable saves again.
Hopefully this means crons will be able to next codex release.
Anyway, back on topic, So to clarify, are you saying that the S10 turboshot cannot applied to the chariot, or to the rider? Because one of those seems wrong.
The different types of vehicle are: Chariot, Fast, Flyer, Heavy, Hover, Open-topped, Skimmer, Tank, Transport, Walker, Super-heavy vehicle, Super-heavy Walker and Super-heavy Flyer. These types can be combined to define, for example, a Fast Skimmer or an Open-topped Walker, in which case, the vehicle has all of the rules for all of its types.
This is located near the beginning of the vehicle section.
It flat out tells you that the chariot is a type of vehicle.
Obviously the chariot is a vehicle. It doesn't say anywhere in the rules that the rider is a vehicle. In fact is says very specifically that it has a "non-vehicle profile".
Arguing that the rider with a "non-vehicle profile" has a vehicle unit type is bizarre.
You are correct that indeed you would lose all permission to wound the Necron Overlord and instead have to roll to penetrate, except that the Chariot rules include specific rules detailing the implementation of a rider profile and a chariot profile. Without those specific rules you would indeed be stuck and have to roll to penetrate because you are dealing with one model that is a vehicle.
The real question is what does the ammo check? The profile or the unit type? You are only given specific permission to use profiles, otherwise you don't have access to a notion of profile and are just checking "what is the thing I am hitting".
The chariot rules are actually not very specific when resolving shooting attacks against it. It never gives specific permission to roll to wound against the rider.
BRB: "The player controlling the Chariot unit then allocates each hit pool either to the rider or the Chariot of the closest model in the unit. If several pools of hits need to be allocated, the player making the attacks must decide in which order they are resolved. All hits from a single pool must be allocated and resolved before moving on to the next pool of hits. Hit pools from Blast and Template weapons are always resolved against the Chariot. If the Chariot model is hit by a Precision Shot, that hit is allocated by the firer, not the owning player.
When resolving successful hits that have been assigned to a Chariot, work out which of its Armour Values to use as you would for any other vehicle, based on the position of the model compared to the model firing at it."
The only way you get permission to roll to wound against the rider is because of "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." You get to roll to wound against the "non-vehicle profile".
In order for you to get what you want, there would have to be specific permission along the lines of "treat any special rules being triggered in the resolution of hits and wounds against the rider profle as being resolved against unit type infantry"
What you are advocating makes sense from a design perspective. The problem is there is missing logic. The ammo just checks what it is hitting.
Anyway, back on topic,
So to clarify, are you saying that the S10 turboshot cannot applied to the chariot, or to the rider? Because one of those seems wrong.
I'm saying against the chariot, it counts as S10. Against the rider, it is S:X Sniper, doing D3 wounds.
"Turbo-penetrator: Against vehicles, shots from a turbo-penetrator round count as Strength 10. Against all other targets, shots from a turbo-penetrator round inflict D3 Wounds, rather than just 1."
Anyway, back on topic,
So to clarify, are you saying that the S10 turboshot cannot applied to the chariot, or to the rider? Because one of those seems wrong.
I'm saying against the chariot, it counts as S10. Against the rider, it is S:X Sniper, doing D3 wounds.
"Turbo-penetrator: Against vehicles, shots from a turbo-penetrator round count as Strength 10. Against all other targets, shots from a turbo-penetrator round inflict D3 Wounds, rather than just 1."
In the case of chariot, you do not have two models or two units. You have one model and one unit. It is a vehicle (chariot).
The ammo checks the type of model it is hitting (is this thing I am hitting a vehicle?). It finds that it is a vehicle.
In order for you to get what you want, there would have to be specific permission along the lines of "treat any special rules being triggered in the resolution of hits and wounds against the rider profle as being resolved against unit type infantry"
For me to get what I want, the rider must maintain his non-vehicle characteristic profile, including unit type, i.e. Infantry (Character).
The chariot rules do not remove the unit type of the rider at any time. The rider is mounted on the chariot and unable to disembark. The chariot rules do say the model has a dual-profile. The rules also say unit type is an extension of the characteristic profile, therefore the model has dual unit types as part of the dual profile.
The rider must maintain Infantry (Character) otherwise it is unable to issue or accept challenges.
BRB: "Challenges
A rider who is a character can issue or accept a challenge as normal, but cannot perform a Glorious Intervention."
If the rider is still a character, then the rider is still infantry. You can't separate them.
Anyway, back on topic, So to clarify, are you saying that the S10 turboshot cannot applied to the chariot, or to the rider? Because one of those seems wrong.
I'm saying against the chariot, it counts as S10. Against the rider, it is S:X Sniper, doing D3 wounds.
"Turbo-penetrator: Against vehicles, shots from a turbo-penetrator round count as Strength 10. Against all other targets, shots from a turbo-penetrator round inflict D3 Wounds, rather than just 1."
In the case of chariot, you do not have two models or two units. You have one model and one unit. It is a vehicle (chariot).
The ammo checks the type of model it is hitting (is this thing I am hitting a vehicle?). It finds that it is a vehicle.
Yeah, as odd and counter-intuitive as it may seem, the chariot rules do not specify that there is a difference between the rider and chariot unit types.
You'd think that the rider would be infantry, but sadly, the rules do not make that distinction.
It's one of those things that could have been fixed if the Design team would have been arsed to add just one more sentence. Like, "The rider has unit type - Infantry, for the purposes of wound allocation. The chariot unit still consists of 1 model"
In order for you to get what you want, there would have to be specific permission along the lines of "treat any special rules being triggered in the resolution of hits and wounds against the rider profle as being resolved against unit type infantry"
For me to get what I want, the rider must maintain his non-vehicle characteristic profile, including unit type, i.e. Infantry (Character).
The chariot rules do not remove the unit type of the rider at any time. The rider is mounted on the chariot and unable to disembark. The chariot rules do say the model has a dual-profile. The rules also say unit type is an extension of the characteristic profile, therefore the model has dual unit types as part of the dual profile.
The rider must maintain Infantry (Character) otherwise it is unable to issue or accept challenges.
BRB: "Challenges
A rider who is a character can issue or accept a challenge as normal, but cannot perform a Glorious Intervention."
If the rider is still a character, then the rider is still infantry. You can't separate them.
There are vehicle characters. "Character" does not require "infantry".
Yeah, as odd and counter-intuitive as it may seem, the chariot rules do not specify that there is a difference between the rider and chariot unit types.
You'd think that the rider would be infantry, but sadly, the rules do not make that distinction.
It's one of those things that could have been fixed if the Design team would have been arsed to add just one more sentence.
Like, "The rider has unit type - Infantry, for the purposes of wound allocation. The chariot unit still consists of 1 model"
They wouldn't add that because there is nothing stopping them allowing a MC or anything else riding a chariot. A DP on a chariot for example would be fairly straightforward. The MC would still retain the MC unit type and all the rules associated with it (e.g. Smash).
col_impact wrote: In the case of chariot, you do not have two models or two units. You have one model and one unit. It is a vehicle (chariot).
The ammo checks the type of model it is hitting (is this thing I am hitting a vehicle?). It finds that it is a vehicle.
I wouldn't have any issue playing it like that.
I'd simply ask my opponent to roll his Armour Penetration against my Overlord and then laugh as it cannot lose a Hull Point.
col_impact wrote: In the case of chariot, you do not have two models or two units. You have one model and one unit. It is a vehicle (chariot).
The ammo checks the type of model it is hitting (is this thing I am hitting a vehicle?). It finds that it is a vehicle.
I wouldn't have any issue playing it like that.
I'd simply ask my opponent to roll his Armour Penetration against my Overlord and then laugh as it cannot lose a Hull Point.
You resolve the hits per the Chariot rules. The ammo just says its a S10 hit since it is hitting a vehicle.
In the case of chariot, you do not have two models or two units. You have one model and one unit. It is a vehicle (chariot).
The ammo checks the type of model it is hitting (is this thing I am hitting a vehicle?). It finds that it is a vehicle.
One model, one unit, two profiles, two unit types.
The ammo checks the characteristic profile, because BRB: "unit type is essentially an extension of the characteristic profile".
We are told that a Chariot is an unusual unit with a dual profile and that it is always treated as a single model.
Unit. Dual profile. Single model.
You don't shoot a model, you shoot a unit. The unit has a dual profile and therefore dual unit types because "unit type is essentially an extension of the characteristic profile".
The CCB does not have the "Character" unit type, only the Overlord does.
The overlord has the Independent Character special rule which it can exercise.
2 out of the 3 chariots specify that the rider loses the IC special rule. The CCB is not one of them.
If the Overlord retains his special rules and wargear then he maintains his unit type. Independent Character does not confer the Character unit type. The Character may have the IC special rule.
Look, I am not against what you guys are wanting. It's just clear that the ammo is only checking what it is hitting and is not given permission to check one of the two profiles. It probably should be allowed to. But it isn't allowed by the rules we are given. I am just pointing out RAW, not HYWPI.
The chariot is not one model with two unit types. It is an unusual unit with a dual profile that is treated as a single model.
Necrons do not even need to buy the Assassin models - just convert Deathmarks to look distinct from regular Deathmarks and you already got yourself some badass Assassins
I was thinking of that too.
But then I decided that it would be weird to have a Necron-looking model that is 'Come the Apocalypse' and has to deploy away from them.
I'm fairly sure that using Necron-models would make me forget that every single battle.
Kangodo wrote: I was thinking of that too. But then I decided that it would be weird to have a Necron-looking model that is 'Come the Apocalypse' and has to deploy away from them. I'm fairly sure that using Necron-models would make me forget that every single battle.
Just gotta make it look more distinct
I would totally take a anti-Psyker assassin though. Just because!
col_impact wrote: Look, I am not against what you guys are wanting. It's just clear that the ammo is only checking what it is hitting and is not given permission to check one of the two profiles. It probably should be allowed to. But it isn't allowed by the rules we are given. I am just pointing out RAW, not HYWPI.
The chariot is not one model with two unit types. It is an unusual unit with a dual profile that is treated as a single model.
I promise I am arguing RAW, it's why I keep quoting the rules.
A vehicle is a vehicle by virtue of its unit type. If we cannot check the profile then we cannot check the unit type (which is an extension of the profile), so we have no way of knowing what we are hitting.
The unit does have dual unit types because it has a dual profile, and the rider component does not lose it's unit type anywhere in the chariot rules.
Read the Deadshot rule carefully. It gives Precision Shot special rule to hits. Then read Precision Shots special rule. It says "If a model with this special rule rolls a 6 To Hit with a shooting weapn, that shot is a 'Precision Shot'"
This seems to be a case of bad rule-writing. The roll of 6 is hard-coded into the Precision Shots USR, so when Deadshot re-applies it, the roll of 6 is still being required.
I bolded the relevant counter-point. If the shot has already hit, as per Deadshot, then how does the hitting portion of the PS have any say?
I see it as:
>You fire
>you hit
>Deadshot executes, granting you the precision shot
>you resolve the wound against the model of your choice, as per PS, as you cannot roll to hit again
Read the Deadshot rule carefully. It gives Precision Shot special rule to hits. Then read Precision Shots special rule. It says "If a model with this special rule rolls a 6 To Hit with a shooting weapn, that shot is a 'Precision Shot'"
This seems to be a case of bad rule-writing. The roll of 6 is hard-coded into the Precision Shots USR, so when Deadshot re-applies it, the roll of 6 is still being required.
I bolded the relevant counter-point. If the shot has already hit, as per Deadshot, then how does the hitting portion of the PS have any say?
I see it as:
>You fire
>you hit
>Deadshot executes, granting you the precision shot
>you resolve the wound against the model of your choice, as per PS, as you cannot roll to hit again
There's a lot of bad rule-writing involved. But you and I can make out a RAI and I agree that Deadshot is intended to have those successful hits be considered as successful Precision Shots (and not just have the Precision Shots special rule)
jy2 wrote: That's not how it works. If a hit causes Instant Death, even if the target is immune to Instant Death (i.e. Eternal Warrior or some other special rules), then no FNP may be taken. I believe it is under FNP, though I don't have my book with me right now to check.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Speaking of assassins, I noticed that the callidus can ignore invulnerable saves again.
Hopefully this means crons will be able to next codex release.
... How did you make a logical jump from Callidus ignoring inv saves to the 'Cron codex coming out next?
(btw, there's been nothing remotely reliable to say Necrons are next. Check the rumor thread. It was shut down because it was nothing but idle speculation)
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Speaking of assassins, I noticed that the callidus can ignore invulnerable saves again.
Hopefully this means crons will be able to next codex release.
... How did you make a logical jump from Callidus ignoring inv saves to the 'Cron codex coming out next?
(btw, there's been nothing remotely reliable to say Necrons are next. Check the rumor thread. It was shut down because it was nothing but idle speculation)
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant their next codex release. Not that they are the next army to be updated. I was in a hurry. >.<
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Speaking of assassins, I noticed that the callidus can ignore invulnerable saves again.
Hopefully this means crons will be able to next codex release.
... How did you make a logical jump from Callidus ignoring inv saves to the 'Cron codex coming out next?
(btw, there's been nothing remotely reliable to say Necrons are next. Check the rumor thread. It was shut down because it was nothing but idle speculation)
Sorry, I wasn't clear.
I meant their next codex release. Not that they are the next army to be updated.
I was in a hurry. >.<
Ah, yes, I see it now. Sorry for the misinterpretation.
Now in regards to Assassin usage, obviously you're going to want the anti-psyker to get close to the psyker units as quick as he can... but how do you do so with Necrons? Obviously he can't use our means of quick transport.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Speaking of assassins, I noticed that the callidus can ignore invulnerable saves again.
Hopefully this means crons will be able to next codex release.
... How did you make a logical jump from Callidus ignoring inv saves to the 'Cron codex coming out next?
(btw, there's been nothing remotely reliable to say Necrons are next. Check the rumor thread. It was shut down because it was nothing but idle speculation)
I think he means that in the previous codex Warscythes ignored Invulns? I doubt that would ever happen, since we're not apart of the Imperium, and even though we field C'Tans, we don't get C'Tan phase blades. So no, we won't be getting anything that ignores invulns.
skoffs wrote: Now in regards to Assassin usage, obviously you're going to want the anti-psyker to get close to the psyker units as quick as he can... but how do you do so with Necrons? Obviously he can't use our means of quick transport.
Infiltrate I wouldn't be too afraid of first turn shooting, since they all fire at BS1
skoffs wrote: Now in regards to Assassin usage, obviously you're going to want the anti-psyker to get close to the psyker units as quick as he can... but how do you do so with Necrons? Obviously he can't use our means of quick transport.
Infiltrate I wouldn't be too afraid of first turn shooting, since they all fire at BS1
Okay, so realistically, what does he have to fear the most?
How would most people expect the first few turns to go down, using him?
skoffs wrote: Now in regards to Assassin usage, obviously you're going to want the anti-psyker to get close to the psyker units as quick as he can... but how do you do so with Necrons? Obviously he can't use our means of quick transport.
Infiltrate I wouldn't be too afraid of first turn shooting, since they all fire at BS1
Okay, so realistically, what does he have to fear the most?
How would most people expect the first few turns to go down, using him?
His biggest fears should be twin linked Tesla and Death Rays.
3W on T4 with 4++ and BS1. You would need 72 Bolter-shots to take him down. That are 108 if you hide him somewhere with 3+ cover. Anything with S8 would need 14.4 shots against his 4++ or 21.6 if you can use 3+ cover.
The 'funny' part is that Annihilation Barges are actually quite good against him. Two of them can (statistically) take him down in one turn of shooting. But most armies don't have Tesla and Twin-linked on 90-point units. And we wouldn't even care about him.
His biggest fear would probably be 'bad dice'. And if you infiltrate him you have to make sure that your opponent won't charge him in his first turn, that could be dangerous too. You always want the charge. You want to walk in, shoot 4-5 S5, AP1-shots and then you want to assault them with Culexus. That would cause so much problems for your opponent that the rest of your army can probably walk in safely and do their thing.
And what Galorian said, this guy is scared to death of Tesla Destructors. Two of them will put out 3.06 wounds because we don't care about his 4++ and we hardly care about the BS1.
I like using units that others consider under-powered or inferior... and then winning.
Of course, you can always houserule it to use the old 
