"Cripes, that's expensive for only 5 models!" I can hear you say.
But here's the thing,
Spoiler:
The Focused Deathray is a S10 AP1 beam weapon that deals double hits to anything underneath it's 3D6" line (so if you have a unit of 5 marines and the line touches 3 of them, the unit will take 6 S10 AP1 auto hits) [note: be aware that there is some RAW/RAI argument going on right now because the way the rule is currently written could loophole-allow you to generate a massive amount of hits if you manage to hit two separate units with the same line].
To make matters worse, because the Focused Deathray gets around targeting, it can be used against invisible units without penalty. [RAW also doesn't prevent it from hitting flyers. At least, until the end up FAQ'ing it]. Because the Deathray is not targeted Jink/cover saves are useless against it. It can also technically split fire 3 ways, giving you a 48+3d6" death bubble.
When you attach Obyron, he can, instead of moving normally, teleport-deepstrike them anywhere on the table in the movement phase (he can even deepstrike them out of combat and into range of new targets every turn).
The Pylons follow the Artillery rules and are fearless but with zero CC capability. Normally, because the weapon is heavy, they wouldn't be able to fire the same turn they deepstrike/move with Obyron. But with a Phaeron attached they gain relentless (plus he's there to tank for Obyron).
TL;DR-
• 5 models with 3 wounds each, majority toughness 7, and a 2+/3++ to tank
• 3x S10 AP1 3d6" splitfire beams (fired up to 24") that double all hits, which ignore invisibility and jink
• can teleport/deepstrike anywhere on the table, even when locked in combat
Now here's the killer:
As long as this unit is deployed on the table, come movement phase turn 1, Obyron can deepstrike them from your side of the table directly into your opponent's deployment zone. The Pylons can then start drawing lines over anything within their death bubble. If anything is castled/parking lotted up, these lines are going to be devastating.
...
This is one hell of an alpha strike.
To quote another poster:
col_impact wrote: it would shred up an Imperial Knight and most super-heavies in a turn. It will absolutely decimate other deathstars.
I'm just wondering, how would it fare against other competitive deathstars?
Luckily, because Sentry Pylons are Forge World, most tournaments don't allow them. But for those non-friendly games where this combo would be allowed, how much of a danger does it actually present?
Luckily, because Sentry Pylons are Forge World, most tournaments don't allow them. But for those non-friendly games where this combo would be allowed, how much of a danger does it actually present?
I don't want this to become a popular thing D: I am having an amazing time insta-gibbing pretty much all armies.
On top of that, Sentry Pylons are incredibly easy to scratch-build - small kids globe, the extra bits from the Ghost Ark model (Doomsday Cannon) and a few extra parts for the stand and ta-daaaa, your own Sentry Pylon with almost the exact same size.
Well, come on, man. If this is really as good as it seems it's probably only going to be a matter of time before we see it wide spread.
(at least until they FAQ it)
And, uh, I've got *ahem* other sources for FW things. Chinese sources.
...
*cough,cough*
But this might be a good method for people who just want to test it out.
I've been running 3 Pylons for a long time now but mostly used Gauss because FDR is batpoo-insane. After Gauss Sentry Pylons were removed from the game with 7th, I got back to using the FDR and now, our local comp house-ruled it to allow GSP to shoot at all targets with full BS, thus I returned to Gauss
GSP were so damn well-balanced. Filled a gap in an army but were still expensive to get. Removing them with 7th was a truly dumb decision.
The thing I'm trying to figure out, though, is how worth while this thing is.
I mean, 800-ish points is no minor deal.
For roughly similar price I could field,
• 2x D.Lord+Wraith-Wing
• 5x 5 Warriors in Nightscythes
• a Transcendent C'tan with double Wave of Withering and Trans.Stride
Compared with these options, does the Pyl-O-Star still stand up?
How would everyone rank it with those other options?
(I think the extreme alpha strike it's capable of pulling off would be the biggest deciding factor.)
Id get concerned with counter charges from something like GK and force weapons in CC as well rhino and vehicle protection wil negate a bit of the damage as you cant really target the guys inside till they pop out leaving them ready to charge you (IIRC)
Its a little risky as well as dont they have a decently big foot print? heavy terrain could mess you up (i think) and you are depending on 3d6 distance which iv seen fail horribly.
jy2 wrote: So tell me why again that you can't jink against it?
Something something you only allowed to jinx if you are "Targeted" which the beams do not as they target a "point on the table" something along those lines IIRC.
Honestly sounds like a whole lot of Bleh but (like being able to use the line against invisibiled units )
jy2 wrote: So tell me why again that you can't jink against it?
Based on the current wording of Jink a vehicle must be targeted in order to get a Jink.
The Focused Death Ray (as well as the Death Ray), doesn't actually target any units, it targets a point on the battle field and then draws a line 2D6' from that point and all units under the line automatically gets hit. Since the FDR never actually targets the vehicle they don't get to jink, RAW.
Arent units who can only be hit by Snspshots immune to weapons that don't roll to hit as well? That's the wording they used right? If so, doesn't work on invisibles
bodazoka wrote: What if I just reserve all of my stuff to counter deploy your alpha strike and then blow your pylons up?
Are Pylons AV11 rear? so drop pod melta?
Auto lose T1? then
Pylons are T7 models and all the incoming fire goes to the IC because of how artillery works. drowning it with a large quantity of poison shots will do well i think.
Does anyone know of a site that has paper plans like they have for the warhound? I have an escalation tournament in in three weeks and wouldn't mind trying this out. My buddy is already running a transcendent C'Tan. I don't want to be a me too army even though I play necrons pretty much all the time.
bodazoka wrote: What if I just reserve all of my stuff to counter deploy your alpha strike and then blow your pylons up?
Are Pylons AV11 rear? so drop pod melta?
Auto lose T1? then
Not an auto lose. You only lose if you have no models on the table at the end of a GAME turn. That's why null deployment drop pod lists work so well, because they can force you to essentially lose your first turn.
necron99 wrote: Does anyone know of a site that has paper plans like they have for the warhound? I have an escalation tournament in in three weeks and wouldn't mind trying this out. My buddy is already running a transcendent C'Tan. I don't want to be a me too army even though I play necrons pretty much all the time.
But if you just run this list aren't you also a "me too army?" Not that there's anything wrong with that!
I'm not familiar with the Pylons. Are they squadroned?
If so... I just really can't find myself being too afraid of this thing.
And I don't even see how it's a RAI/RAW issue. As described, the attack is clearly a template-type weapon, and therefore can't be used during snap-shots.If the line is considered "not targeting" the unit because you don' t roll to hit, then by that very same logic templates and blasts wouldn't count as "targeting" a unit either. The wording for how templates interact with units is almost verbatim with how line attacks are described:
The templates and blast markers are used as a way of determining how many models have been hit by an attack that has an area of effect or blast radius. When an attack uses a template or blast marker, it will explain how the template is positioned, including any kind of scatter that might occur (scatter is discussed more completely next in this section). To work out the number of hits, you normally need to hold the template or blast marker over an enemy unit or a particular point on the battlefield, and then look underneath (or through, if using a transparent template) to see how many models lie partially or completely underneath. A unit takes a hit for each model that is fully, or even partially, underneath the template or blast marker. Remember that a model’s base is counted as being part of the model itself, so all a template or blast marker has to do to cause a hit is to cover any part of the target’s base.
BlaxicanX wrote: I'm not familiar with the Pylons. Are they squadroned?
If so... I just really can't find myself being too afraid of this thing.
And I don't even see how it's a RAI/RAW issue. As described, the attack is clearly a template-type weapon, and therefore can't be used during snap-shots.If the line is considered "not targeting" the unit because you don' t roll to hit, then by that very same logic templates and blasts wouldn't count as "targeting" a unit either. The wording for how templates interact with units is almost verbatim with how line attacks are described:
The templates and blast markers are used as a way of determining how many models
have been hit by an attack that has an area of effect or blast radius. When an attack uses a
template or blast marker, it will explain how the template is positioned, including any
kind of scatter that might occur (scatter is discussed more completely next in this
section). To work out the number of hits, you normally need to hold the template or blast
marker over an enemy unit or a particular point on the battlefield, and then look
underneath (or through, if using a transparent template) to see how many models lie
partially or completely underneath. A unit takes a hit for each model that is fully,
or even partially, underneath the template or blast marker. Remember that a
model’s base is counted as being part of the model itself, so all a template or blast marker
has to do to cause a hit is to cover any part of the target’s base.
That is a template weapon gentlemen, RAW and RAI.
Luckily, until they FAQ it, Deathray and Focused Deathray have a method to get around that.
Observe:
• A Pylon, Unit A and B are on the table. They are all assumed to be within 24" of each other.
• Unit A is Invisible. Unit B is just a bunch of TAC marines.
• The Pylon wants to shoot at Unit A, but normally wouldn't be able to because of the "no template weapons against invisible units" snapfire restriction.
• So the Pylon designates Unit B as its "target".
[now here's where the tricky bullish*t comes in]
• The Pylon then nominates the starting point of the beam... next to unit A.
• Roll 3d6. (let's assume the roll comes back as 9.)
• Pylon's controller nominates the end point of the beam 9" away from the starting point... straight through Unit A (let's assume the line crosses 4 models. That's 8 S10 AP1 hits. Take into consideration that Pylons are artillery groups that are normally taken in 3s and you can see how bad this might turn out).
• Unit A might not have been targeted, but it was hit, similar to what might happen if a blast weapon was fired at Unit B but scattered and ended up hitting Unit A.
• Being the case, invisibility and jink, which rely on being the target of an attack, can be circumvented by Deathray style weapons.
All completely legal ... at least until they FAQ it, anyway.
(which hopefully comes sooner rather than later/never)
SHUPPET wrote: Wouldn't that still just make unit B one of multiple targets even if not the original unit the gun is fired at?
Assuming you mean Unit A, here (the invisible unit in question).
Well, if it was a blast weapon that had scattered onto them, that wouldn't make it one of multiple "targets", right?
Just the target of the weapon (Unit B) and what actually ended up being hit by the weapon (Unit A, the invisible unit). If that wasn't the case, your own units would be immune from scattered friendly fire blast templates because you can't "target" your own units.
From a RAW perspective there doesn't seem to be anything that would make Unit A suddenly become a "target" just because they happened to be hit.
(though if there is anything that would refute this, I'd gladly accept citation. I'm trying to make sure this thing is airtight).
It's like the old Jaws of the World Wolf. That's probably how I would best describe it. You target 1 unit. Then any other unit that is incidentally hit by the line after the 1st unit is fair game.
Except in this case, the Deathray doesn't even need to hit the initial target at all!
(otherwise, blast templates that completely miss their chosen targets would be violating the rules).
I do think it should be FAQ'd this way (jy2's JotWW example, where it has to at least hit the initial target), to make it more fair, but at the moment, RAW has no problem with the Deathray line being drawn anywhere its controller wants within range of the model firing it.
OH, forgot something important!
They need to FAQ it so that Deathray weapons can not hit units engaged in combat!
(at the moment there is nothing preventing them from doing so (much like blast templates are able to scatter and hit units in combat) except for the good sportsmanship of their controller).
OH, forgot something important!
They need to FAQ it so that Deathray weapons can not hit units engaged in combat!
(at the moment there is nothing preventing them from doing so (much like blast templates are able to scatter and hit units in combat) except for the good sportsmanship of their controller).
Bonus points for sacrificing your own models to increase the number of hits generated by the FDR o/
What makes this uber-broken isn't the Death Ray weapon. It's the fact that you can set up a Jump-Shoot each turn deal on an artillery which is a gun emplacement that is not meant to be jumped shot each turn. If artillery rolled back to 6th ed wording where artillery are prohibited from becoming relentless, then nothing breaks.
skoffs wrote: They need to FAQ it so that Deathray weapons can not hit units engaged in combat!
(at the moment there is nothing preventing them from doing so (much like blast templates are able to scatter and hit units in combat) except for the good sportsmanship of their controller).
Bonus points for sacrificing your own models to increase the number of hits generated by the FDR o/
Well, we know won't be getting the good sportsmanship award in YOUR tournament...
I'll throw in my 2 cents having actually ran a very similar combination in 6th ed a couple of times.
I ran 3 Deathray pylons, Obyron and Zandrekh (giving the unit extra oomph or defenciveness in the form of stealth).
While the unit looks very impressive on paper it doesn't match up on the tabletop.
Good opponents immediately positioned their valuable units so that it was impossible to hit all their important stuff at the same time (or hit them enough if I targeted each pylon separately). Clever opponents also spread out, limiting the places where you can safely deepstrike.
Wraithknights and riptides laugh at this deathstar, as do greater daemons - you'll need to dedicate all your pylons to kill one of these creatures and you'll still probably not actually manage it.
The main problem is that the pylons will not actually do that much damage turn one unless the opponent has no clue what he's doing and bunches everything up.
On survivability.
Vs shooting T7 is nice, but remember that you are bunched up. Plasma blasts wreck your day. Also you'll have a total of 15 wounds, 9 of which are 3+, 1 is 2+ and 1 is 2+/3++. You CANNOT position your overlord so that they'll eat all the lascannon equivalent stuff thrown your way. Also anything S7 will pile wounds on you quickly (tesla, serpent shields).
The worst part is that unlike other deathstars as soon as you take 3 wounds you lose a LOT of your effectiveness (either a char or a pylon). If i remember correctly characters cannot pass wounds onto artillery, so that limits wound allocation shenanigans (might be wrong here, please take with salt).
In assault you are toast vs anything with proper assault capabilities. You'll only have 6 T5 wounds with 2+ and 2+/3++.
As I said before - the moment you start losing pylons (which will be the turn after you DS into the middle of enemy forces) you will start losing effectiveness very quickly.
My experience is that while its a good build in theory it doesn't work that well against a competent player in game.
But don't take my word for it, go take the build out for a game or two and see how it works for you.
JohnnyCage wrote: I'll throw in my 2 cents having actually ran a very similar combination in 6th ed a couple of times.
I ran 3 Deathray pylons, Obyron and Zandrekh (giving the unit extra oomph or defenciveness in the form of stealth).
While the unit looks very impressive on paper it doesn't match up on the tabletop.
Good opponents immediately positioned their valuable units so that it was impossible to hit all their important stuff at the same time (or hit them enough if I targeted each pylon separately). Clever opponents also spread out, limiting the places where you can safely deepstrike.
Wraithknights and riptides laugh at this deathstar, as do greater daemons - you'll need to dedicate all your pylons to kill one of these creatures and you'll still probably not actually manage it.
The main problem is that the pylons will not actually do that much damage turn one unless the opponent has no clue what he's doing and bunches everything up.
On survivability.
Vs shooting T7 is nice, but remember that you are bunched up. Plasma blasts wreck your day. Also you'll have a total of 15 wounds, 9 of which are 3+, 1 is 2+ and 1 is 2+/3++. You CANNOT position your overlord so that they'll eat all the lascannon equivalent stuff thrown your way. Also anything S7 will pile wounds on you quickly (tesla, serpent shields).
The worst part is that unlike other deathstars as soon as you take 3 wounds you lose a LOT of your effectiveness (either a char or a pylon). If i remember correctly characters cannot pass wounds onto artillery, so that limits wound allocation shenanigans (might be wrong here, please take with salt).
In assault you are toast vs anything with proper assault capabilities. You'll only have 6 T5 wounds with 2+ and 2+/3++.
As I said before - the moment you start losing pylons (which will be the turn after you DS into the middle of enemy forces) you will start losing effectiveness very quickly.
My experience is that while its a good build in theory it doesn't work that well against a competent player in game.
But don't take my word for it, go take the build out for a game or two and see how it works for you.
Excellent run down of its failing points.
How would you rank it against the other 800-ish point options I listed before?
(Double D.Lord Wraith-Star, 5x5 Warriors in Nightscythes, Transcendent C'tan with double Withering & Tran-Stride)
skoffs wrote: They need to FAQ it so that Deathray weapons can not hit units engaged in combat! (at the moment there is nothing preventing them from doing so (much like blast templates are able to scatter and hit units in combat) except for the good sportsmanship of their controller).
Bonus points for sacrificing your own models to increase the number of hits generated by the FDR o/
Well, we know won't be getting the good sportsmanship award in YOUR tournament...
It boils down to whether you play RAW or not. If you play RAI in this case, you'd have to play RAI in ALL cases that ever occur - and that has been turned down by our meta for pretty obvious reasons, mostly because of endless discussions on what RAI actually is in a lot of cases.
...and really, when facing those stupid re-rollable 2++, I'm barking up all kind of overpowered stuff I can get my hands on.
The thing with pylons is that they drastically change the way you would normally play a Necron army and against a prepared opponent you're up against a wall. The key to effectively using SP is to get as many models under your line as you possibly can, be it friendly or enemy models. Lists that are light on models will dramatically lower your unit's efficiency and you need to use really uncommon workarounds, e.g. deepstriking scarabs to increase the amount of hits. It's really awkward.
I don't think they make a good TAC list, Bargelord + Destroyer Lord seems to be the safer option to me. But yeah, against unprepared enemies, you will have won at the end of turn 2.
koooaei wrote: Deepstrike's not safe.
There are still lots of stupid 2++ rerollable guyz flying around in every competitive tournament.
For this, deepstrike should be fine if you can find a spot within 24" of your intended victim (you don't want to get too close, so it's normally not that hard).
If the guys with the rerollable 2++ are single model unit MCs, yeah, not so great (only capable of putting out 6 S10 AP1 hits on them).
But against anything with 3 models or more in the unit (eg. Seer Council), this thing will be devastating (so long as you can get the line to pass over at least three models, that will be 18 S10 AP1 hits. Increases by 6 hits for every additional model the line can touch. It might not wipe them out, but it will most probably cause them significant hurt).
necron99 wrote: Does anyone know of a site that has paper plans like they have for the warhound? I have an escalation tournament in in three weeks and wouldn't mind trying this out. My buddy is already running a transcendent C'Tan. I don't want to be a me too army even though I play necrons pretty much all the time.
But if you just run this list aren't you also a "me too army?" Not that there's anything wrong with that!
Uh, no I think it's ok to have multiple armies in the same tournament (otherwise it would be a crazy small tournament). I'm just saying I think it would look bad if two people from the same club showed up with Transcendent C'Tans.
JohnnyCage wrote: I'll throw in my 2 cents having actually ran a very similar combination in 6th ed a couple of times.
I ran 3 Deathray pylons, Obyron and Zandrekh (giving the unit extra oomph or defenciveness in the form of stealth).
While the unit looks very impressive on paper it doesn't match up on the tabletop.
Good opponents immediately positioned their valuable units so that it was impossible to hit all their important stuff at the same time (or hit them enough if I targeted each pylon separately). Clever opponents also spread out, limiting the places where you can safely deepstrike.
Wraithknights and riptides laugh at this deathstar, as do greater daemons - you'll need to dedicate all your pylons to kill one of these creatures and you'll still probably not actually manage it.
The main problem is that the pylons will not actually do that much damage turn one unless the opponent has no clue what he's doing and bunches everything up.
On survivability.
Vs shooting T7 is nice, but remember that you are bunched up. Plasma blasts wreck your day. Also you'll have a total of 15 wounds, 9 of which are 3+, 1 is 2+ and 1 is 2+/3++. You CANNOT position your overlord so that they'll eat all the lascannon equivalent stuff thrown your way. Also anything S7 will pile wounds on you quickly (tesla, serpent shields).
The worst part is that unlike other deathstars as soon as you take 3 wounds you lose a LOT of your effectiveness (either a char or a pylon). If i remember correctly characters cannot pass wounds onto artillery, so that limits wound allocation shenanigans (might be wrong here, please take with salt).
In assault you are toast vs anything with proper assault capabilities. You'll only have 6 T5 wounds with 2+ and 2+/3++.
As I said before - the moment you start losing pylons (which will be the turn after you DS into the middle of enemy forces) you will start losing effectiveness very quickly.
My experience is that while its a good build in theory it doesn't work that well against a competent player in game.
But don't take my word for it, go take the build out for a game or two and see how it works for you.
Thanks for sharing.
No doubt good players will find a way to play against it, just as they have done against the seer council, MSU, psychic-heavy armies, Imperial Knights and whatever else was thrown their way. Good players adapt to new power builds quite easily and the sentry....uh oh, wait for it, you know that term is coming back....sentry-"star" isn't without its points of failures.
However, the sentry-star will still be quite effective due to the shift in the meta to MSU parking lots. It's a strong build but no stronger than any of the other high-level tournament builds. It is also a deathstar build and there are many ways to fight against deathstar armies.
JohnnyCage wrote: I'll throw in my 2 cents having actually ran a very similar combination in 6th ed a couple of times.
I ran 3 Deathray pylons, Obyron and Zandrekh (giving the unit extra oomph or defenciveness in the form of stealth).
While the unit looks very impressive on paper it doesn't match up on the tabletop.
Good opponents immediately positioned their valuable units so that it was impossible to hit all their important stuff at the same time (or hit them enough if I targeted each pylon separately). Clever opponents also spread out, limiting the places where you can safely deepstrike.
Wraithknights and riptides laugh at this deathstar, as do greater daemons - you'll need to dedicate all your pylons to kill one of these creatures and you'll still probably not actually manage it.
The main problem is that the pylons will not actually do that much damage turn one unless the opponent has no clue what he's doing and bunches everything up.
On survivability.
Vs shooting T7 is nice, but remember that you are bunched up. Plasma blasts wreck your day. Also you'll have a total of 15 wounds, 9 of which are 3+, 1 is 2+ and 1 is 2+/3++. You CANNOT position your overlord so that they'll eat all the lascannon equivalent stuff thrown your way. Also anything S7 will pile wounds on you quickly (tesla, serpent shields).
The worst part is that unlike other deathstars as soon as you take 3 wounds you lose a LOT of your effectiveness (either a char or a pylon). If i remember correctly characters cannot pass wounds onto artillery, so that limits wound allocation shenanigans (might be wrong here, please take with salt).
In assault you are toast vs anything with proper assault capabilities. You'll only have 6 T5 wounds with 2+ and 2+/3++.
As I said before - the moment you start losing pylons (which will be the turn after you DS into the middle of enemy forces) you will start losing effectiveness very quickly.
My experience is that while its a good build in theory it doesn't work that well against a competent player in game.
But don't take my word for it, go take the build out for a game or two and see how it works for you.
In 6th edition, you weren't able to move or deep strike and shoot in the same turn. In 7th edition you can if you have an overlord with phaeron joined to the pylons. Seems like a big change since you were testing it out. Or were you playing it wrong back then?
koooaei wrote: Deepstrike's not safe.
There are still lots of stupid 2++ rerollable guyz flying around in every competitive tournament.
For this, deepstrike should be fine if you can find a spot within 24" of your intended victim (you don't want to get too close, so it's normally not that hard).
If the guys with the rerollable 2++ are single model unit MCs, yeah, not so great (only capable of putting out 6 S10 AP1 hits on them).
But against anything with 3 models or more in the unit (eg. Seer Council), this thing will be devastating (so long as you can get the line to pass over at least three models, that will be 18 S10 AP1 hits. Increases by 6 hits for every additional model the line can touch. It might not wipe them out, but it will most probably cause them significant hurt).
I think you may be mistaken about how the Focussed Death Ray works, or I may just be interpreting your post wrong.
The FDR his every unit underneath the line for a number of hits equal to twice the number of models underneath the line. Therefore passing the line over 3 models would yield 6 S10 AP1 hits (3 models * 2 hits per model = 6 hits). I'm not sure where you are getting 6 hits per model instead of 2 hits.
No offense meant, I just wanted to make sure I'm not missing something.
Your interpretation is the correct "RAW" version of playing it, thus "Rules as written", which means that you play it like it's written in the rules.
Skoffs refers to "RAI", which means "Rules as Intended", which is an interpretation of RAW. RAI is discussed when RAW seems unlikely. In this case, RAI is discussed because the regular Death Ray is worded differently than the Focussed Death Ray.
Situation: 3 models in unit A and 1 model in unit B are hit.
RAW:
FDR: 4 hits in total, that get doubled, thus EACH unit gets 8 hits.
DR: Unit A gets 3 hits, unit B gets 1 hit.
RAI (to some):
FDR: Unit A gets 6 hits, unit B gets 2 hits.
DR: Unit A gets 3 hits, unit B gets 1 hit.
Always assume RAW unless your TO / local group disagrees and develops an own house rule.
The major benefit to the star is that you get to exploit FW wording combined with beam weapon wording to ignore several RAI counters that don't count, like Jink and "targetting" etc.
That's not a deathstar that's an expliot, and it's a great example of why a lot of people don't allow FW. It's not that it's illegal, it's that it isn't and that's the problem. Powergaming isn't evil or anything, but i find Re-rollable 2++ to be WAAC but legal-shady, while this is douchey. Maybe it's me splitting hairs, I get that, but that is how I would interpret someone shoehorning FW glitch builds into a new ruleset. This build didn't "break the game", people who build list like this and play them "break the game". A list is just information until someone says "well, technically I'm targetting the ground huehuehue"
FettPrime wrote: I think you may be mistaken about how the Focussed Death Ray works, or I may just be interpreting your post wrong.
The FDR his every unit underneath the line for a number of hits equal to twice the number of models underneath the line. Therefore passing the line over 3 models would yield 6 S10 AP1 hits (3 models * 2 hits per model = 6 hits). I'm not sure where you are getting 6 hits per model instead of 2 hits.
Pylons tend to travel in threes (or at least, in this deathstar group, they do). If each of them draws their FDR line over the same model, that's 2 hits generated, times 3 Pylons... hence 6 hits for every one model all three lines touch.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cod3x wrote: The major benefit to the star is that you get to exploit FW wording combined with beam weapon wording to ignore several RAI counters that don't count, like Jink and "targetting" etc.
That's not a deathstar that's an expliot, and it's a great example of why a lot of people don't allow FW. It's not that it's illegal, it's that it isn't and that's the problem. Powergaming isn't evil or anything, but i find Re-rollable 2++ to be WAAC but legal-shady, while this is douchey. Maybe it's me splitting hairs, I get that, but that is how I would interpret someone shoehorning FW glitch builds into a new ruleset. This build didn't "break the game", people who build list like this and play them "break the game". A list is just information until someone says "well, technically I'm targetting the ground huehuehue"
Make no mistake, the only reason anyone would consider this thing is in a WAAC situation. If you've got people playing impossible to hit invisible 2++ rerolling deamon factories (an exaggeration, I know), most non-broken lists don't stand a chance. THAT'S when you pull out something like this.
(granted, fighting douchey with douchey is hardly the best solution, but it all comes down to what the stakes are and what cost you're willing to pay to win)
Had a friend run these against me last weekend. Luckily, I was running my Daemon Factory list, had 2 Bale Sword Nurgle Princes. He promptly died.
I wasn't much impressed lol =/
But I can see the appeal. The line mechanic makes for some very interesting (Arguably cheesy) RAI vs RAW shenanigans that both you and your opponent will NEED to discuss beforehand.
Re: Pylon Star. Do artillery units not all have to aim at the same unit? Meaning that you can only fire this unit at whatever units your opponent has lined up. I asked a TO (Timma who organised Caledonian Uprising here is the UK) about how he'd rule a unit of three Death Ray Pylons (the Doom Scythe already being somewhat contentious at tourneys) and he said that they would all need to pick the same spot on the battlefield and shoot along the same line.
Average number of inches rolled on 3d6? I guess it's 10.5? So let's say your beam is 10.5 inches long from the spot you've picked. There is a good chance that you will be deleting one unit at best (assuming your opponent knows what it does). Actually on average you won't even delete a Wraithknight (average of one failed to wound roll per 6). Next turn you take an army's worth of shooting. You have probably spent over 700pts on making a very clear priority target for your opponent. (In fact I just checked and the version outlined earlier is 865 points).
If your opponent sees this list on your army list he will deploy accordingly: spread out, reserve stuff, use backfield cover etc. O'Byron's deepstrike is not misshap free and the Pylons obviously still need line of sight.
Any unit that is only really effective against an opponent who doesn't understand it is of somewhat limited value at a tournament, I'd say.
865 gets you a fully kitted Transcendent C'Tan with the best loadout and and annihilation barge...
skoffs wrote: Pylons tend to travel in threes (or at least, in this deathstar group, they do). If each of them draws their FDR line over the same model, that's 2 hits generated, times 3 Pylons... hence 6 hits for every one model all three lines touch.
Ah, thanks for clarifying. I forgot about multiple FDRs.
Frankenberry wrote: As much as I am for a challenge, this doesn't seem remotely fun to play against.
As was mentioned already, simply spreading out or reserving take most of the threat away. Drop Pod melta squads will wreck havoc on it too. Its more of a fun gimmick than an actual threat.
Fragile wrote: Drop Pod melta squads will wreck havoc on it too.
If you're going first, maybe. But if the Necron player goes first you're not going to need to worry about drop pods to get to it, it will probably already be in your deployment zone.
Kholzerino wrote: Re: Pylon Star. Do artillery units not all have to aim at the same unit? Meaning that you can only fire this unit at whatever units your opponent has lined up. I asked a TO (Timma who organised Caledonian Uprising here is the UK) about how he'd rule a unit of three Death Ray Pylons (the Doom Scythe already being somewhat contentious at tourneys) and he said that they would all need to pick the same spot on the battlefield and shoot along the same line.
What says you have to draw all three lines in the same spot? How is it they can't just have three separate 3d6" lines drawn anywhere within 24" of them?
865 gets you a fully kitted Transcendent C'Tan with the best loadout and and annihilation barge...
No argument, there. That's why I'm still trying to figure out whether the 800+ points required for this thing (810 at cheapest) might be better spent elsewhere (eg. Two full units of Wraiths with attached D.Lords, 5x5 Nightscythes with Warriors inside, a T.C'tan with all the trimmings, etc.).
bodazoka wrote: What if I just reserve all of my stuff to counter deploy your alpha strike and then blow your pylons up?
Are Pylons AV11 rear? so drop pod melta?
Auto lose T1? then
Pylons are T7 models and all the incoming fire goes to the IC because of how artillery works. drowning it with a large quantity of poison shots will do well i think.
lol of course I would keep the number of units on the board minimum.
Also an MSU spam army that reserves itself like a drop pod army and deploy 1-2-3 min sized marine units apart from each other so the alpha strike of the pylons can only hit one unit? then counter deploy all your drop pods where the lord is not there to soak wounds.
People say this is cheese because they see the three FDRs. Even if the units of pylons doesn't get warped around by Obyron or a despairtek, it's still a perfectly legal unit. You have three FDRs in the middle of the board blasting your opponent's units off the table. Heck, you could have three units of these on the board destroying your opponent if you really wanted to.
If you wanted to really get crazy, don't even take Obyron, take two overlords with 2+/3++ with warscythes and MSS, add in a despairtek with veil and you can control the center of the table just as easily with two melee monsters that can take hits all day long.
This isn't any more cheesy than the eldar/dark eldar beast star non-sense or the centurion star with 4 special characters or a seer star with 2++ rerollable with invis and precog or Draigowing with allies. The only thing that makes this so controversial is that we never could do it before because it wasn't legal. Is it powerful? Yes, it's 800+ points, it better be powerful. Is it invincible? Not even close.
Would I use it? No, investing 40% of my points in 4-6 models is a recipe for disaster.
bodazoka wrote: What if I just reserve all of my stuff to counter deploy your alpha strike and then blow your pylons up?
Are Pylons AV11 rear? so drop pod melta?
Auto lose T1? then
Pylons are T7 models and all the incoming fire goes to the IC because of how artillery works. drowning it with a large quantity of poison shots will do well i think.
lol of course I would keep the number of units on the board minimum.
Also an MSU spam army that reserves itself like a drop pod army and deploy 1-2-3 min sized marine units apart from each other so the alpha strike of the pylons can only hit one unit? then counter deploy all your drop pods to the rear armour of the pylons and/or where the lord is not there to soak wounds.
Pylons do not have rear armor, but yes, if you got to a side of the unit where the Overlord was not, he wouldn't be able to tank for them.
The Pylon Deathstar is more of a counter-deathstar (much like the superheavy Pylon is a counter-superheavy unit). Against normal armies it won't work as well, but against anything trying to pull off shenanigans, this has got some counter shenanigans.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Warmonger2757 wrote: If you wanted to really get crazy, don't even take Obyron, take two overlords with 2+/3++ with warscythes and MSS, add in a despairtek with veil and you can control the center of the table just as easily with two melee monsters that can take hits all day long.
[...]
Would I use it? No, investing 40% of my points in 4-6 models is a recipe for disaster.
Well, if that's the case, there is another Necron Deathstar you might like that's been around since the codex dropped in 5th...
Royal Court Disco Inferno!
Skiffs - re same line or not - well this is unique rules to a multiple unit of Pylons. They have to target the same unit, that's for sure. So their lines have to be going towards the same unit (because they are a unit). Whether they have to start from the same point I the table or not is contentious because they shoot in a different manner to any other unit and the rules aren't spelled out. That is why I asked a TO - I was hoping they functioned the way others on here have fantasised - he said nay. Other TOs might say different.
SHUPPET wrote: Wouldn't that still just make unit B one of multiple targets even if not the original unit the gun is fired at?
Assuming you mean Unit A, here (the invisible unit in question).
Well, if it was a blast weapon that had scattered onto them, that wouldn't make it one of multiple "targets", right?
Just the target of the weapon (Unit B) and what actually ended up being hit by the weapon (Unit A, the invisible unit). If that wasn't the case, your own units would be immune from scattered friendly fire blast templates because you can't "target" your own units.
From a RAW perspective there doesn't seem to be anything that would make Unit A suddenly become a "target" just because they happened to be hit.
(though if there is anything that would refute this, I'd gladly accept citation. I'm trying to make sure this thing is airtight).
This makes sense. I see no other ways to hit invis units.
Automatically Appended Next Post: So does everyone play in their local tourneys that scattered Blasts and templates pointed at another unit can wound invis units caught in the AoE?? Or that templates pointed at a closeby unit can wound flyers?
This seems like a very liberal and bs "deciding it works like this because it benefits me" interpretation. Would never fly where I live.
SHUPPET wrote: So does everyone play in their local tourneys that scattered Blasts and templates pointed at another unit can wound invis units caught in the AoE?? Or that templates pointed at a closeby unit can wound flyers?
This seems like a very liberal and bs "deciding it works like this because it benefits me" interpretation. Would never fly where I live.
Why wouldn't scattered blasts be able to hurt invisible units? They weren't the target, there should be nothing preventing them from taking the accidental hit.
Flyers, though, I'm torn on: while I think (from a fluff perspective, anyway) that they shouobe hurt by your average blast, for something like an apocalyptic mega blast, it'd be kinda hard for a pilot to avoid that if he was right at the center of an explosion that big.
In general, I'd agree, flyers shouldn't be able to be hit by templates of any kind.
Kholzerino wrote: They have to target the same unit, that's for sure. So their lines have to be going towards the same unit (because they are a unit).
Okay, so they all have to select the same "target", I'm with you on that.
But in the example we're using, the unit they choose as target and the unit they actually hit are two separate units. The rules for firimng these things just say to measure a line when the Pylon shoots. It doesn't indicate anything about all of them having to draw the same line. (after all, if an artillery unit of mortars all fire at a unit, they're all going to have separate blast markers and scatter rolls, right? Similar situation here, only in our case it's "scattered lines" that go off target and hit a unit that wasn't their designated target).
SHUPPET wrote: Thank you for your response on what should work from a fluff/logical standpoint. Now, as far as the actual rules go - they both have the same wording.
If templates hit invisible units they can hit flyers
Nope.
Hard to hit:
Template and Blast weapons, and any other attacks that don’t roll To Hit, cannot hit Zooming Flyers.
For starters, you deliberately left out the ruling they share, that I was obviously referring to.. Secondly that rule you quoted reads as a clarification to the first rule (that you conveniently left out), to me and everybody else I know to read it, reinstating the obvious (blasts and templates that can't be fired as snapshots, obviously cannot hit a unit that cannot be shot at except for snapshots).
Deliberately leaving out critical rules text just hurts you more than it helps and shows how badly your argument needs to clutch at straws. Like seriously, you would have actually had to take longer to delete it from the middle of your copy-paste.
Sorry, I can see how hard you are going to clutch to this, and while this Deathstar is amazing, it cannot hit invis units. I'll be running it regardless when I get the models, but sheesh... Trying to push that this can hit invis units is deliberately scraping for a bad interpretation imo. This is already a great unit, trying to milk further dodginess out of it is just TFG.
Otherwise I don't think I'd build a list for any army without an allied Doomscythe. Believe me I want a good way to deal with invis - this ain't it.
Well the part where we aren't talking about Beams is a good start.
The part where the rules state this is a template attack, and the part where all that is irrelevant because weapons that don't roll to hit cannot be resolved against Invisible units would have to be another.
The rule you quoted is "clearly stating". Hence why it's a clarification/reminder of how these weapons play out in relation to units that must be snapfired at. It's already stated throughout the book - just because it isn't clearly stated next to each mention of snapfiring doesn't make it suddenly stop existing for the ones that don't clearly restate it.
SHUPPET wrote: The part where the rules state this is a template attack, and the part where all that is irrelevant because weapons that don't roll to hit cannot be resolved against Invisible units would have to be another.
No, it says it can't TARGET invisible units.
The flyer rule cited says templates can't HIT flyers.
If the invisible rule said invisible units could not be HIT by weapons that don't roll to hit, then you'd have a case.
As is, you don't.
Regardless, do as you like.
But as long as this is the only RAW legal way to adequately handle invisible units, it's gonna be used that way.
So long as GW refuses to correct their bad rule writing, the competitive scene is going to be a breeding ground for broken cheese combos, as well as the counter cheese combos that will have to be employed to stop them.
And if we want to play the "why does if matter game", the same could be said about the tactic - you might be able to use insistence and poor logic to convince your group, good luck pushing this past ANY T.O. - as such it will never be a consistent competitive strategy for dealing with invis.
This belongs in YMDC however.
Automatically Appended Next Post: RAW says it doesn't work, so that's not an issue here.
Also using it to kill invis units is the last thing I'd call cheesy if it worked - it's to counter one of the cheesiest things in the game lol
The only thing that makes it cheesy is that you know if someone is trying to push this forward, that they know well and truly themselves that it doesn't work and are just trying to interpret the rules as stupidly as possible - aka the guy everyone hates
Like I've said, this is a combo one does not play in a friendly game, just like other broken combos (2++ rerollable, daemon factory, invisible shenanigans, etc.).
SHUPPET wrote: Well the part where we aren't talking about Beams is a good start.
The part where the rules state this is a template attack, and the part where all that is irrelevant because weapons that don't roll to hit cannot be resolved against Invisible units would have to be another.
The rule you quoted is "clearly stating". Hence why it's a clarification/reminder of how these weapons play out in relation to units that must be snapfired at. It's already stated throughout the book - just because it isn't clearly stated next to each mention of snapfiring doesn't make it suddenly stop existing for the ones that don't clearly restate it.
Again: can you point out the same as above with any actual rules quote or are you just stating your opinion?
Actually RAW as posted in different parts of this thread states it doesn't work.
Your interpretation is relying on the fact that it isn't once again restated next to the Invisibility rules as it is for Flyers. If you will, a "Rules-As-NOT-Written" technicality.
What you fail to take into account is that the rest of the rules already cover this, and although the copypaste of the 6th ed to 7th ed Flyer rules restate this fact, it's aa moot point - you still wouldnt be able to hit Flyers with templates regardless if that second sentence wasn't there, due to the rules in the rest of the book, and not due to the reinstated clarification.
SHUPPET wrote: Well the part where we aren't talking about Beams is a good start.
The part where the rules state this is a template attack, and the part where all that is irrelevant because weapons that don't roll to hit cannot be resolved against Invisible units would have to be another.
The rule you quoted is "clearly stating". Hence why it's a clarification/reminder of how these weapons play out in relation to units that must be snapfired at. It's already stated throughout the book - just because it isn't clearly stated next to each mention of snapfiring doesn't make it suddenly stop existing for the ones that don't clearly restate it.
Again: can you point out the same as above with any actual rules quote or are you just stating your opinion?
Can you read this thread from page 1?
Which is easier, or do I actually have to quote a bunch of posts from the previous page?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Or does your local actually allow templates to wound Invis units not the direct target of it? Because I've never seen that allowed.
Sigvatr wrote: So, you don't have one. Glad to hear that we got that settled.
Don't go falsely claiming RAW then if all you do is constantly re-stating your rules-lacking HYWPI.
So because I'm typing on a mobile and have no way to copy paste from the PDF, there must be no rule in the BrB about templates not being able to be shot at snap fire units.
This is really good logic. Try this with your T.O., I bet he'll love you.
Automatically Appended Next Post: So I'm going to bring this up, for the 4th time, since you guys keep conveniently ignoring it:
SHUPPET wrote: Or does your local actually allow templates to wound Invis units not the direct target of it? Because I've never seen that allowed.
SHUPPET wrote: The part where the rules state this is a template attack, and the part where all that is irrelevant because weapons that don't roll to hit cannot be resolved against Invisible units would have to be another.
No, it says it can't TARGET invisible units. (clarification: can't fire snap shots AT TARGET, because template-esque weapon)
The flyer rule cited says templates can't HIT flyers.
If the invisible rule said invisible units could not be HIT by weapons that don't roll to hit, then you'd have a case.
As is, you don't.
And I will back my claim up by citing the rule (bold is my own emphasis):
Whilst the power [invisibility] is in effect, enemy units can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit
So once more,
1- Deathray targets any enemy unit in range apart from the invisible one
2- ignoring chosen target, draws line over invisible unit
3- did the Deathray TARGET the invisible unit? No. Did the Deathray HIT the invisible unit? Yes. Is there anything in the Invisibility rule that says they can not be HIT by shots that did not target them? No. Is there any other rule that would prevent it from being hit by the line? Possibly (flyers and templates). Is the invisible unit a flyer? If yes, the invisible unit is safe. If no, the invisible unit takes the hit.
4- invisible unit rolls for invulnerable saves.
Automatically Appended Next Post: TL;DR- "I'm not firing AT the invisible guys, I'm firing AT those other guys, but it's HITTING the invisible guys. Show me the rule that says they can not be HIT by anything except for what targeted them."
I'd check that with your TO before just deciding you can play it that way. Don't think most UK tournaments would allow this. But US ones tend to play the Doom Scythe different too so... maybe?
Automatically Appended Next Post: On a Tacitcs point of view, Twin Linked Tesla Destructors must be one of the best value point to wound weapons against invisible stuff. All those extra hits on sixes.
So is the target of a weapon the initial unit chosen, or the ones it hits? Because wound allocation wording doesn't allow you to even assign wounds to anything not part of "the target unit".
SHUPPET wrote: So is the target of a weapon the initial unit chosen, or the ones it hits? Because wound allocation wording doesn't allow you to even assign wounds to anything not part of "the target unit".
That's not true.
Say there are 2 enemy units right next to each other - Unit 1 and Unit 2. You then target Unit 1 with a flamer template. That template also happens to hit a few models from Unit 2. You can kill models in Unit 2 even though you didn't target them.
The wording could use a FAQ, but I would play it how skoffs described. Target Unit 1 (non-invisible unit) and then try to draw the line such that it hits Unit 1 and Unit 2 (the invisible unit). I look at it like the Jaws of the World Wolf of previous edition with regards to how it should work.
Roll to Wound specifies you do it to the target, as does Allocate Wounds & Remove Casualties, as does Multiple Toughness Values, as does Allocate Wounds (about 8 times), etc etc
Sorry, but if you are scoring hits on a unit with a weapon, it is one of the weapons targets. And weapons that don't roll to hit can't target invisible units. If you choose to argue that they aren't targets, then that means you can't allocate wounds to them.
By that logic you can not hit/wound your own models with scattered blast templates because you can not target and fire at them.
Do you think a TO would side with you if you tried to claim your own guys were immune to friendly fire from your own large blast that went awry?
(if your "only units that are targeted can be hit and wounded" way of looking at this was legit, those apocalyptic mega blasts would be pretty useless, in that they would ONLY be able to hurt the unit that was targeted, with ALL OF THE OTHER ENEMY UNITS UNDERNEATH THE GIGANTIC TEMPLATE BEING COMPLETELY SAFE)
SHUPPET wrote: Roll to Wound specifies you do it to the target, as does Allocate Wounds & Remove Casualties, as does Multiple Toughness Values, as does Allocate Wounds (about 8 times), etc etc
Sorry, but if you are scoring hits on a unit with a weapon, it is one of the weapons targets. And weapons that don't roll to hit can't target invisible units. If you choose to argue that they aren't targets, then that means you can't allocate wounds to them.
It's that easy.
As usual, you're talking opinion / your interpretation with zero rules backing you up. Where is the distinction in the BRB? Where does it state that you can only resolve hits against a unit that has been targetted?
So what you are saying is that Invisible units don't count as being targeted by a blast when it comes to determining whether or not it can score hits because this is in your benefit, but it DOES count as being targeted by the blast when it comes to determining whether or not it can wound, because this is also in your benefit?
Any T.O. I know would coolstorybro the feth out of that crap lol. This is probably the most WAAC word hurdle I think I've ever seen attempted.
You were the one arguing RAW. RAW, it doesn't work. Accept it. .
For the last time,
The invisible unit is NOT BEING TARGETED,
It is being hit.
Just because you are not the target of something does not mean you can avoid being hit and taking wounds.
SHUPPET wrote: Roll to Wound specifies you do it to the target, as does Allocate Wounds & Remove Casualties, as does Multiple Toughness Values, as does Allocate Wounds (about 8 times), etc etc
Sorry, but if you are scoring hits on a unit with a weapon, it is one of the weapons targets. And weapons that don't roll to hit can't target invisible units. If you choose to argue that they aren't targets, then that means you can't allocate wounds to them.
It's that easy.
As usual, you're talking opinion / your interpretation with zero rules backing you up. Where is the distinction in the BRB? Where does it state that you can only resolve hits against a unit that has been targetted?
So I literally have to type out the entire contents of each rule for it to count? I listed every single relevant rule by name, look it up and see where it describes all actions involved with wounding as done to the target, or target unit.
You know your argument is weak when you are relying on the opposition not to be willing to type out a page of explicit wording as the straw you are clutching at lol.
I'll paste it all off the PDF when I get the opportunity tomorrow if you insist, but no-one has to take my word for it, I did literally name all the rules that I made mention to lol.
Or you could just stop crying about the fact that RAW this doesn't work against invis, nor does it even get close to RAI
SHUPPET wrote: So what you are saying is that Invisible units don't count as being targeted by a blast when it comes to determining whether or not it can score hits because this is in your benefit, but it DOES count as being targeted by the blast when it comes to determining whether or not it can wound, because this is also in your benefit?
Any T.O. I know would coolstorybro the feth out of that crap lol. This is probably the most WAAC word hurdle I think I've ever seen attempted.
You were the one arguing RAW. RAW, it doesn't work. Accept it. .
Are you actually saying that you can't hit multiple units with a template weapon? If there are two units right next to each other, it is possible to hit them both with the same template. It wouldn't matter at all if one of the units was invisible as long as I hit the other unit as well because it was my target.
Are you also saying that if a blast weapon scatters onto a unit that wasn't targetted, it won't do damage to the unit that the blast template hits because it didn't target that unit to begin with? If I scatter a large blast template onto an adjacent unit, are you saying it won't get any hits on the adjacent unit because it wasn't the target of the original blast template?
That's what I am reading from what you are typing here and unless I am misinterpreting what you are saying, you are wrong about allocating hits using a template weapon.
skoffs wrote: For the last time,
The invisible unit is NOT BEING TARGETED,
It is being hit.
Just because you are not the target of something does not mean you can avoid being hit and taking wounds.
Cool so when it says you roll to wound against target unit, who exactly are you doing it to?
Using a deliberately restrictive interpretation of target unit doesn't work for you on this poor attempt at rules bending my friend.
Feel free to show me where it specifies that targeting a unit is specifically shooting at it, and not just hitting it with any sort of scatter or template, and you'll have a leg to stand on. Until then, RAW, T.O. laughs in your face.
... seriously?
• we've cited the relevant rules and given multiple clear examples of how they do and don't apply in this situation.
• several experienced players have chimed in on this, explaining how RAW favors the way this works.
• as far as I can see you are the only one arguing against it (and in the face off all the evidence, we can't even tell why anymore).
• when challenged to defend your position with relevant rules citation, all you come back with is "nope, I'm right, accept it."
Ok, you know what? At this point I'm pretty certain you're just a troll.
SHUPPET wrote: So what you are saying is that Invisible units don't count as being targeted by a blast when it comes to determining whether or not it can score hits because this is in your benefit, but it DOES count as being targeted by the blast when it comes to determining whether or not it can wound, because this is also in your benefit?
Any T.O. I know would coolstorybro the feth out of that crap lol. This is probably the most WAAC word hurdle I think I've ever seen attempted.
You were the one arguing RAW. RAW, it doesn't work. Accept it. .
Are you actually saying that you can't hit multiple units with a template weapon? If there are two units right next to each other, it is possible to hit them both with the same template. It wouldn't matter at all if one of the units was invisible as long as I hit the other unit as well because it was my target.
Are you also saying that if a blast weapon scatters onto a unit that wasn't targetted, it won't do damage to the unit that the blast template hits because it didn't target that unit to begin with? If I scatter a large blast template onto an adjacent unit, are you saying it won't get any hits on the adjacent unit because it wasn't the target of the original blast template?
That's what I am reading from what you are typing here and unless I am misinterpreting what you are saying, you are wrong about allocating hits using a template weapon.
No, I'm saying that you can, and the fact that you are hitting any of them make them a final target of the weapon, after deciding through decisions or luck exactly where that weapon is pointing.
I am pointing out how silly the counter argument is that multiple units caught in an AoE are not targets, as that would mean they couldn't have wounds allocated to them.
There are three units on the table, two enemy units and one friendly, all next to each other. One of the enemy units is invisible.
An apocalyptic mega blast targets the middle non-invisible enemy unit.
The blasts ends up covering all three units.
... what happens?
A) only the targeted unit is hit and wounded.
B) only the enemy units are hit and wounded.
C) only the targeted unit and the friendly unit are hit and wounded.
D) all of the units under the template are hit and wounded.
skoffs wrote: ... seriously?
• we've cited the relevant rules and given multiple clear examples of how they do and don't apply in this situation.
• several experienced players have chimed in on this, explaining how RAW favors the way this works.
• as far as I can see you are the only one arguing against it (and in the face off all the evidence, we can't even tell why anymore).
• when challenged to defend your position with relevant rules citation, all you come back with is "nope, I'm right, accept it."
Ok, you know what? At this point I'm pretty certain you're just a troll.
Wait relevant rules don't apply in this situation? Exactly why is that, I must have missed this bit.
I have literally CITED every rule by name. How is that not enough lol, it says word for word under the rules for Wound Allocation that wounds are allocated to the target units
Bro, I get that you want this to work. I feel you, I want it to work too. You and a couple of other people wanting this to work when it doesn't, does not mean almost every T.O isn't gonna throw this straight out.
You not being able to come up with a response to how come a unit is a target when it's bring wounded but not when it's being shot, or not being able to name the rule that says units caught under a blast are not treated as targets, does not make me a troll. You can keep skirting these questions and pretending you can't find Wound Allocation in your BRB because you know I'm unable to copy paste it ATM. Does not mean the T.O won't find it as soon as this comes up. Which it will. Every. Single. Time.
Not a valid competitive strategy, at the VERY best.
There are three units on the table, two enemy units and one friendly, all next to each other. One of the enemy units is invisible.
An apocalyptic mega blast targets the middle non-invisible enemy unit.
The blasts ends up covering all three units.
... what happens?
A) only the targeted unit is hit and wounded.
B) only the enemy units are hit and wounded.
C) only the targeted unit and the friendly unit are hit and wounded.
D) all of the units under the template are hit and wounded.
Nice so you have either serious trouble with comprehension, or you deliberately left out how I'm saying the rules work, just so you can try to drive your failing point home with a multiple choice of "skoffs option or a bunch of outlandish gak". Anyway, moving past the immature bs:
E) everything under the blast is hit and wounded, except for Invisible unit who cannot (at any stage) be a target of template or blast weapons.
Has anyone actually played this differently before this thread? Lol.
Wound allocation, you say?
Well, let's just look that up, shall we?
ALLOCATE WOUNDS & REMOVE CASUALTIES
Spoiler:
To determine how many casualties are caused, you will need to allocate the Wounds from the Wound pool and resolve any saving throws the target is allowed. If several pools of Wounds need to be allocated, the player making the attacks decides the order in which they are allocated. All of the Wounds from a single Wound pool must be allocated before moving on to the next Wounds pool.
[/b]Allocate Wounds[/b]
First, allocate a Wound from the Wound pool to the enemy model closest to the firing unit, regardless of which model caused that Wound.
Hmm, which part disallows the Deathray to hit an invisible unit?
skoffs wrote: Let's try a test:
There are three units on the table, two enemy units and one friendly, all next to each other. One of the enemy units is invisible.
An apocalyptic mega blast targets the middle non-invisible enemy unit.
The blasts ends up covering all three units.
... what happens?
A) only the targeted unit is hit and wounded.
B) only the enemy units are hit and wounded.
C) only the targeted unit and the friendly unit are hit and wounded.
D) all of the units under the template are hit and wounded.
D) everything under the blast is hit and wounded, except for Invisible unit who cannot (at any stage) be a target of template or blast weapons.
Has anyone actually played this differently before this thread? Lol.
...
Do you really think that's how it works, or has my troll detecting test just come back positive?
(no, that is most definitely NOT how it works. I challenge you to find a TO who would rule it otherwise. Your Logic failure seems to stem from the fact that you think "target" is both "what I'm firing at" and "what I hit". They are not the same thing.)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SHUPPET wrote: A) I specified multiple rules under wound allocation, please quote them all or your point is null
Okay, next one on your list? (If you were so keen on pointing them out before, surely you won't mind outlining them again.)
B) just to get started, in the very first sentence it refers to the invisible unit (or any unit you are Allocating Wounds to) as "the target".
Just because it has the word "target" in the paragraph does not mean you are automatically correct. Defend your position on how targets hit and dealt wounds and targets fired at are mutually exclusive (because your logic on how invisible units are somehow invulnerable to blasts that did not initially target, and yet, hit them is fundamentally wrong. That disconnect is the crux of your entire problem.)
SHUPPET wrote: Roll to Wound specifies you do it to the target, as does Allocate Wounds & Remove Casualties, as does Multiple Toughness Values, as does Allocate Wounds (about 8 times), etc etc
Sorry, but if you are scoring hits on a unit with a weapon, it is one of the weapons targets. And weapons that don't roll to hit can't target invisible units. If you choose to argue that they aren't targets, then that means you can't allocate wounds to them.
It's that easy.
I candidly await your quotation of the rules so that I can point out where it describes "targeted unit" under wound allocation rules multiple times and not just "target", even though that's one hell of a bendy excuse already
Blasts can hit friendly units and units locked in combat even though you cannot target those initially
From BRB Special Rule Appendix, Blast Entry
Spoiler:
Note that it is possible, and absolutely fine, for a shot to scatter beyond
the weapon’s maximum or minimum range and line of sight. This represents the chance
of ricochets, the missile blasting through cover and other random events. In these cases,
hits are worked out as normal and can hit and wound units out of range and line of sight
(or even your own units, or models locked in combat).
Never mind, arguments done - straight out of the FAQ:
Q: How do maelstroms, novas and beams – or indeed any weapon
that doesn’t need to roll To Hit or hits automatically – interact with
Zooming Flyers and Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures? (p13)
A: Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Swooping
Flying Monstrous Creatures. Therefore, any attacks that use
blast markers, templates, create a line of/area of effect or
otherwise don’t roll to hit cannot target them. This includes
weapons such as the Necron Doom Scythe’s death ray or the
Deathstrike missile of the Imperial Guard, and psychic
powers that follow the rule for maelstroms, beams, and
novas.
This explains the rule, and specifies that units who cannot be hit except by snapshots cannot be the target of Death ray. Does not specify only Flyers, it merely says units with the rule about SnapFire, and that because flyers have it, therefor this.
Argue this, I dare you. Look even more wrong. Find some turning wording hole to cry about and insist that Deathray and Blasts can hit units that can only be targeted by Snapshots. Because news flash - hitting a unit IS targeting it, thus you can't do it.
And no T.O. on the face of the planet with this presented to him is going to let a Deathray hit Invis units.
Accepted it yet?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
col_impact wrote: Blasts can hit friendly units and units locked in combat even though you cannot target those initially
From BRB Special Rule Appendix, Blast Entry
Spoiler:
Note that it is possible, and absolutely fine, for a shot to scatter beyond
the weapon’s maximum or minimum range and line of sight. This represents the chance
of ricochets, the missile blasting through cover and other random events. In these cases,
hits are worked out as normal and can hit and wound units out of range and line of sight
(or even your own units, or models locked in combat).
This is a special rule overwriting the Wound Allocation rules in a specific circumstance, hence why blasts can wound your own models, they wouldn't be able to without this rule. This does not set the precedent.
Death Ray: To Fire the death ray, nominate a point on the battlefield anywhere within the weapon's range, then nominate a second point within 3D6" of the first. Then draw a straight line between the two points. Every unit (friendly or enemy) underneath the line suffers a number of hits equal to the number of models in the unit underneath the line. If the vehicle's other weaponry is fired in the same shooting phase, it must be fired at one of the units hit by the death ray.
And I think after proving that GWs rules work the way I said they did, by their own explanation, that I'm going to unsubscribe this thread. Far too much obscene bias towards your own army, drowning out logical thought.
Just remember, you now know how it works (although, deep down I'm sure you always did). Trying to convince players at your local otherwise, without showing them GWs explanation in the FAQ is cheating. And the best part is that it's not even an errata, just an explanation of what I'm surprised even made it to FAQ it's so blatant.
Enjoy the powerful Deathstar - I will be. Don't try and bend/ignore a bunch of rules to your benefit though. Telling anyone otherwise at this point is just blatant cheating. Although I doubt anyone not playing Necrons would have let you get away with this nonsense anyway lol.
Death Ray: To Fire the death ray, nominate a point on the battlefield anywhere within the weapon's range, then nominate a second point within 3D6" of the first. Then draw a straight line between the two points. Every unit (friendly or enemy) underneath the line suffers a number of hits equal to the number of models in the unit underneath the line. If the vehicle's other weaponry is fired in the same shooting phase, it must be fired at one of the units hit by the death ray.
Breh... the FAQ even specifically named the Necron Death Ray, and explained how it works vs units who must be Snap Fired at - it doesn't.
They ain't gunna make another FAQ for the Death Ray with a word in front of it looool
I'm done, the will to deny facts is too much in this thread
SHUPPET wrote: And I think after proving that GWs rules work the way I said they did, by their own explanation, that I'm going to unsubscribe this thread. Far too much obscene bias towards your own army, drowning out logical thought.
Just remember, you now know how it works (although, deep down I'm sure you always did). Trying to convince players at your local otherwise, without showing them GWs explanation in the FAQ is cheating. And the best part is that it's not even an errata, just an explanation of what I'm surprised even made it to FAQ it's so blatant.
Enjoy the powerful Deathstar - I will be. Don't try and bend/ignore a bunch of rules to your benefit though. Telling anyone otherwise at this point is just blatant cheating. Although I doubt anyone not playing Necrons would have let you get away with this nonsense anyway lol.
Death Ray: To Fire the death ray, nominate a point on the battlefield anywhere within the weapon's range, then nominate a second point within 3D6" of the first. Then draw a straight line between the two points. Every unit (friendly or enemy) underneath the line suffers a number of hits equal to the number of models in the unit underneath the line. If the vehicle's other weaponry is fired in the same shooting phase, it must be fired at one of the units hit by the death ray.
Breh... the FAQ even specifically named the Necron Death Ray, and explained how it works vs units who must be Snap Fired at - it doesn't.
They ain't gunna make another FAQ for the Death Ray with a word in front of it looool
I'm done, the will to deny facts is too much in this thread
You keep confusing targeting something with hitting it. You can hit something you did not target.
Yeah, me and the guy who wrote the FAQ have it confused, your guys way (and not surprisingly, the most convenient way for you) is definitely the correct one.
If you get hit by something the weapon is targeting you and is still subject to targeting restrictions, whether it was originally aimed at you or not. As far as I can tell, all rules support this, hence the FAQ, hence the need for a special rule to overwrite this when landing a blast on your own units or in combat, hence special rules needed to allow you to hit units if your blast scatters out of range.
If one of these Cronbears can find where it describes targets as something more specific than "the units your weapon ends up hitting", I am more than willing to be proven wrong and would love for this to work. But it will have to be through PM, I won't be checking this thread any further after certain contributors decided to throw logic to the wind and just go with what helps them be top tier the most.
Desubot wrote: Wait so with that line of though i can target a unit next to a flyer and have a plasma blast scatter onto it and damage it?
They would be hit except this rule prevents it from being hit accidentally.
Hard to Hit
Spoiler:
Zooming Flyers are incredibly difficult targets for troops without suitably calibrated
weapons and scopes. Shots resolved at a Zooming Flyer can only be resolved as Snap
Shots (unless the model or weapon has the Skyfire special rule). Template and Blast
weapons, and any other attacks that don’t roll To Hit, cannot hit Zooming Flyers.
So basically if invisibility had Hard to Hit (or something worded like it) then blasts and beams could not hit it even accidentally. However invisibility does not have that special rule.
Q: How do maelstroms, novas and beams – or indeed any weapon
that doesn’t need to roll To Hit or hits automatically – interact with
Zooming Flyers and Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures? (p13)
A: Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Swooping
Flying Monstrous Creatures. Therefore, any attacks that use
blast markers, templates, create a line of/area of effect or
otherwise don’t roll to hit cannot target them. This includes
weapons such as the Necron Doom Scythe’s death ray or the
Deathstrike missile of the Imperial Guard, and psychic
powers that follow the rule for maelstroms, beams, and
novas.
This is what Shuppet wants it to say
Spoiler:
Q: How do maelstroms, novas and beams – or indeed any weapon
that doesn’t need to roll To Hit or hits automatically – interact with
Zooming Flyers and Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures? (p13)
A: Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Swooping
Flying Monstrous Creatures. Therefore, any attacks that use
blast markers, templates, create a line of/area of effect or
otherwise don’t roll to hit cannot hit them. This includes
weapons such as the Necron Doom Scythe’s death ray or the
Deathstrike missile of the Imperial Guard, and psychic
powers that follow the rule for maelstroms, beams, and
novas.
Yeah me and the guy who wrote that Games Workshop Official FAQ a few posts up saying that Deathrays cannot hit units that can't be shot at except by Snapshots just don't quite get the rules.
We aren't as smart at knowing how things work as Dakka user skoffs and the whole two other Necron players who hat constitute "everyone" that disagree with us.
Looool the lengths this guy will go to is hilarious
Plus, if it can't target it, it still can't hit it, that's the original point... My god you guys will argue anything to be right.
You original point is flawed. There is a difference between targeting something and being able to hit it. You can hit your own units but you are never allowed to target them.
Is it possible that the FAQ was not made for no purpose at all, and that targeting works how me and the FAQ guy think it does, and not how you want it to for killing Invis Stars in a shot?
Could it even be a POSSIBILITY to you??
Haha
Automatically Appended Next Post: You can hit your own units because there is a specific rule letting you do so and overwriting the standard Wound Allocation rules.. My word. Keep clutching at straws.
SHUPPET wrote: Is it possible that the FAQ was not made for no purpose at all, and that targeting works how me and the FAQ guy think it does, and not how you want it to for killing Invis Stars in a shot?
Could it even be a POSSIBILITY to you??
Haha
Automatically Appended Next Post: You can hit your own units because there is a specific rule letting you do so and overwriting the standard Wound Allocation rules.. My word. Keep clutching at straws.
I don't think the FAQ guy or anybody else reading this thread has problems differentiating the words 'target' and 'hit'.
There is nothing else to it... You pull this gak on a guy with an Invis star, he pulls out the FAQ.., who do you honestly think the T.O.will go with?
HONESTLY.
Even if it did work, which it doesn't, it will never be a reliably competitive tactic as 9/10 T.O.s will rule in favour of that FAQ, a the dumb one will fall for all this silly gak lol.
Give it up. You lose. Your insistence that you don't has ruined your thread. When you get to the point that you are saying the FAQ guy has the rules wrong to support a cheesy interpretation... You know you are strugglin an looking pretty darn TFG
SHUPPET wrote: There is nothing else to it... You pull this gak on a guy with an Invis star, he pulls out the FAQ.., who do you honestly think the T.O.will go with?
HONESTLY.
Even if it did work, which it doesn't, it will never be a reliably competitive tactic as 9/10 T.O.s will rule in favour of that FAQ, a the dumb one will fall for all this silly gak lol.
Give it up. You lose. Your insistence that you don't has ruined your thread. When you get to the point that you are saying the FAQ guy has the rules wrong to support a cheesy interpretation... You know you are strugglin an looking pretty darn TFG
The FAQ has it right and used the correct terms. You are struggling with the difference between 'target' and 'hit'. I don't think TOs or anyone will struggle with it like you do. It's in plain English.
SHUPPET wrote: Is it possible that the FAQ was not made for no purpose at all, and that targeting works how me and the FAQ guy think it does, and not how you want it to for killing Invis Stars in a shot?
Could it even be a POSSIBILITY to you??
Haha
Automatically Appended Next Post: You can hit your own units because there is a specific rule letting you do so and overwriting the standard Wound Allocation rules.. My word. Keep clutching at straws.
I don't think the FAQ guy or anybody else reading this thread has problems differentiating the words 'target' and 'hit'.
So assuming hit units don't become targets of the weapon... What exactly does that FAQ do? Enlighten me, show me how you got it right without the FAQ getting it wrong. If you can't do this, I'm gonna go ahead and assume the official FAQ is the ruling we will go off here, not the opinion of a disgruntled and massively bias Cron player haha
A: Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Swooping
Flying Monstrous Creatures. Therefore, any attacks that use
blast markers, templates, create a line of/area of effect or
otherwise don’t roll to hit cannot target them.
Well, so much for getting to sleep at a reasonable hour...
The FAQ is not wrong. It says exactly what we've all been saying the entire thread: you can not TARGET those units with the Deathray... but it does not say they can't be hit by it.
You seem to be the only one who can't make the distinction.
You repeatedly claim that TOs will side with your bizarre reasoning that invisible units can not be harmed by template weapons that might scatter onto them. How about we see if we can put that to the test.
jy2, you're pretty well acquainted with the pro scene. If you see this, do you know of any Dakka users who are judges/TOs that might be able to give us an off the record ruling on this one?
Well so far I've learned two things in this thread:
1) Death rays work on invisible units. Although it is convoluted and probably should be FAQed.
2)How to use the ignore feature to avoid reading posts of unreasonable and hostile users.
I'd accept Jy2's verdict on what he thinks would fly
Either way it ain't working where I play tho
I'd also like to point out that the FAQ says only snapshots can hit them whereas the BRB says only snapshots can target them, further supporting the thought that units hit by a weapon and units targeted are the same thing to GW as well
Automatically Appended Next Post: On top of this, RAW you still CANNOT ASSIGN WOUNDS TO A UNIT YOU DO NOT TARGET.
You refused to quote the rules I stated even though you are quite capable of doing so, why is that?
And before you say well RAW means you can't assign wounds to your own models - you can, they have their own rule stating it.
SHUPPET wrote: So is the target of a weapon the initial unit chosen, or the ones it hits? Because wound allocation wording doesn't allow you to even assign wounds to anything not part of "the target unit".
That's not true.
Say there are 2 enemy units right next to each other - Unit 1 and Unit 2. You then target Unit 1 with a flamer template. That template also happens to hit a few models from Unit 2. You can kill models in Unit 2 even though you didn't target them.
The wording could use a FAQ, but I would play it how skoffs described. Target Unit 1 (non-invisible unit) and then try to draw the line such that it hits Unit 1 and Unit 2 (the invisible unit). I look at it like the Jaws of the World Wolf of previous edition with regards to how it should work.
jy2, you're pretty well acquainted with the pro scene. If you see this, do you know of any Dakka users who are judges/TOs that might be able to give us an off the record ruling on this one?
My feeling and intepretation is that, although the rules for the FDR tells you how it works (i.e. by picking a point and then drawing a line), it is still a shooting attack. Since nothing in the rules explicitly tells you that you don't need a target, you still need to declare a target. Basically, this was the same kind of argument with Jaws of the World Wolf, where it was FAQ'd to be the first unit that was hit was the target. Thus, I wouldn't feel comfortable if people were to play it as pick a point just anywhere (on a non-unit) and then have that line hit an Invisible unit. To me, that is the same as targeting the Invisible unit. However, I'd have no problems if you pick a point on a valid, non-Invisible enemy unit. So that enemy unit then becomes the target. Then you could draw the line to hit other units (except zooming/swooping flyers).
That is how I feel it should work, and I will bring this up to Reece, the TO of the BAO and the LVO.
Sounds perfectly reasonable.
While you're at it, you might want to see what Reece thinks about that other FDR RAW point of contention Sigvatr raised (the one where, if the FDR's line crosses two units, hitting 3 models from the first and 1 model from the second, what the total hits would look like: 6 hits for the first unit and 2 hits for the second unit, or 8 hits both, for each unit).
I naturally assumed it would be seperate units/separate hits, like the old Doomscythe FAQ entry cleared up, but as FW haven't released a FAQ for the Sentry Pylons, it looks like (thanks to poor writing) it could technically go either way.
SHUPPET wrote: Never mind, arguments done - straight out of the FAQ:
Q: How do maelstroms, novas and beams – or indeed any weapon that doesn’t need to roll To Hit or hits automatically – interact with Zooming Flyers and Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures? (p13)
A: Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures. Therefore, any attacks that use blast markers, templates, create a line of/area of effect or otherwise don’t roll to hit cannot target them. This includes weapons such as the Necron Doom Scythe’s death ray or the Deathstrike missile of the Imperial Guard, and psychic powers that follow the rule for maelstroms, beams, and novas.
This explains the rule, and specifies that units who cannot be hit except by snapshots cannot be the target of Death ray. Does not specify only Flyers, it merely says units with the rule about SnapFire, and that because flyers have it, therefor this.
Does not specify only Flyers
A: Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures.Therefore, any attacks that use blast markers, templates, create a line of/area of effect or otherwise don’t roll to hit cannot target them.
I'm beginning to think that you are not purposefully trolling rules-savvy players, but that there's a severe lack of understanding of the English language on your part.
Also, that's 3 pages where you babble about RAW but did not provide a single (!) actual rules argument. Poor.
Dude, it's settled. No further need to bait him.
Let's put this one to bed.
In regards to the original point of this thread (determining how this deathstar would fare against other competitive deathstars):
• against single model unit MCs, this combo wouldn't do very well.
• against anything with units with several models in them, this combo ranges from good to devastating (the more models in the unit, the worse it is for them).
• against invisible units, works fine.
• against rerollable 2++, works okay, as long as there are enough models in the unit.
• against zooming/swooping flyers, doesn't work.
What other types of deathstar are there to factor in?
The most important factor is your opponent. Against someone who did not play against such a list before, you are highly likely to win the game by the end of turn 2.
Experienced opponents can, more or less, effectively counter the Deathstar although the counters are rather limited - the most effective being reserving most of your army or extremely downsizing the number of models on the field. Against footslogging armies, it's borderline autowin.
Being a hard counter to invisibility is another strong upside.
It does measure up against other Necron deathstars, but...well, it's very situational and depending on your opponent. Things like the T-C'Tan are more flexible and lack hard counters. Royal Disco Inferno might be similar as it also is a very situational army that fares well against MEQ but does terribly against a lot of other lists.
I think it would be advisable to wait for some feedback from TOs on this subject. Different tourneys have previously played Death Rays differently I believe so really nothing here has convinced me that TOs will allow it to hit invisible units. Some of them might?
Invisibility is pretty broken and I would love it to have a hard counter. But even if rules correctly, I'm not sure that this is such a thing.
Remember that even it's most positive advocate here is saying it has to target another unit, meaning that it has to hit another unit first, I would generally say. The beam has to hit another unit and the beam has to reach a significant number of the invisible unit to earn it's place. The average length of the beam is 12.5" - how much is it really going to do in it's one turn of shooting before the enemy either - shoots it off the table, or assaults the arse out of it.
It's not even like you can be very careful about how you place it. VO's deep strike is just as unpredictable as anyone else's with two thirds of the time scattering on what tend to be quite cover filled battlefields these days.
Too situational and way too expensive IMHO. The potential is vast, but too easy to mitigate against.
It's your best bet as they completely ignore Paradox (AP -), so basically, you're shooting at terminators. Tesla is the most efficient Necron tool in said case, at least from what I can think of right now.
Commander_Farsight wrote: Sure, but I doubt they will get through a 2+ armor, 5+ FnP, and the Paradox save.
Teslas are the best weapon against them as it is AP-. And the typical Necron Pylon-star should also include 2 annihilation barges and 3-4 night scythes, so that is plenty of teslas to go around.
BTW, just FYI, but you cannot join O'vesa to your unit, at least not if you are planning to join other IC's to the unit as well.
Commander_Farsight wrote: That's true on the Necron part. But on Tau, your actually incorrect. I'll explain before my revenge today
skoffs wrote: Yeah, you're gonna need to explain what you mean, there...
*waits patiently*
He's talking about a NEW Tau Deathstar revolving around Aun'vi (or the named Ethereal). He has a special rule called Duality of something-or-other that applies to his unit. Basically, it lets the unit ignore shots depending on AP. AP 1 is auto-ignored. AP2 is ignored on a 2+, etc. However, AP- means that he cannot ignore the shot. That is why the FDR does not work against it but that teslas are great against it.
In any case, he piles on as many Tau characters to Aun'vi as possible, including Farsight, Buffmander ally, O'vesa, a named broadside and the kitchen sink as well. Problem is, O'vesa is an MC as well as an IC. He can't join the unit if there are other IC's there (or other IC's cannot join the unit if O'vesa is there).
Posted this in another thread, pertinent here also . . .
I tend to agree with playing the Death Ray RAW. The rules for it are pretty straightforward and easy to follow.
People fear the Death Ray more than they should. This is understandable because it's underlying mechanic breaks a lot of rules. But, it's more threatening in theory than in reality. Doom Scythes have been around for a while and they haven't wrecked anyone's party. Proper positioning and deployment by the opponent can really make the Death Ray struggle to make its value in points.
I am all for making power level interventions if some unit proves unfair and bad for the game, but not before it proves to be bad and unfair for the game.
The new Sentry Pylon star is one to watch. But there, it's more that you have a deep-striking every turn relentless artillery unit that can't get locked in combat than the fact that its touting a Death Ray. If that Sentry Pyon star proved a problem it would probably be better to nerf its insane mobility (by rolling back to 6th edition which prevented artillery from getting relentless) than adding rules from out of the blue to fashion a Death Ray that bears little semblance. Other Deathstars pack centurions or broadsides which accomplish effectively the same thing as the Death Ray in damage output.
The FDR is miles ahead of the damage zone of similar deathstars vs. average armies. Against armies with very models, however, its damage starts to quickly fall off and you have to use some really weird ways to improve its damage again, e.g. by sacrificing your own units.
It has one of the highest damage outputs in the game, but can be countered by decent opponents familiar with it.
jy2 wrote: I've had a few games with my Sentrystar and in 2 of my games, it scattered into the assault range of my opponent's wraithknights.
BTW, we played it the non-cheesy way with each unit hit counting only by models in the unit, not by total overall models underneath the line.
Why did you play it the non-cheesy way? There is zero ambiguity in the RAW so this means you basically modified the rules out of a sense of fairness and played it that way (HYWPI). I would think there was plenty of Gouda in that Elder list to balance out your Cheddar anyway. So yeah, playing it HYWPI meant that you weren't able to kill those Wraithknights that were in assault range and that overall the Sentry Star is very weak against MC.
It's handy to know how the Sentry Star performs with your fairness edits, but its overall more beneficial to know how it performs RAW, in order to see among other things, if fairness edits are even required.
RAW: Each model takes 2 hits per each model under the line, even from a different unit.
HYWPI / suggested RAI: 2 hits per model hit per unit. Reasoning for this is that the regular Death Ray has been FAQ'd to work as this.
Except that the Doom Scythe Death Ray always worked per unit. Check the original wording in the codex. The way FW intends us to play the FDR is very clear.
jy2 wrote: I've had a few games with my Sentrystar and in 2 of my games, it scattered into the assault range of my opponent's wraithknights.
BTW, we played it the non-cheesy way with each unit hit counting only by models in the unit, not by total overall models underneath the line.
Why did you play it the non-cheesy way? There is zero ambiguity in the RAW so this means you basically modified the rules out of a sense of fairness and played it that way (HYWPI). I would think there was plenty of Gouda in that Elder list to balance out your Cheddar anyway. So yeah, playing it HYWPI meant that you weren't able to kill those Wraithknights that were in assault range and that overall the Sentry Star is very weak against MC.
It's handy to know how the Sentry Star performs with your fairness edits, but its overall more beneficial to know how it performs RAW, in order to see among other things, if fairness edits are even required.
True RAW is stupid broken. That's why I don't play it as RAW and any TO who advocates true RAW for this needs to have his head examined. True RAW is about as fun to play against as the re-rollable 2+, which in our meta got nerfed to 2+/4+.
jy2 wrote: I've had a few games with my Sentrystar and in 2 of my games, it scattered into the assault range of my opponent's wraithknights.
Ouch...
Did you remember that the Pylons can't be locked in combat?
If the WK didn't finish them off on the charge you could've gotten some more shooting out of them before the end...
The Pylons can be locked in combat if they are joined by an IC who can be locked in combat. Obyron can still teleport them away, though.
Don't have my codex with me, but I don't think Veil gives the user permission to teleport out of combat. Obyron, maybe, but the rest of the unit will stay if it was locked in combat.
Desubot wrote: Soooooooooooooooooooooooooo What happens when you tank shock the unit when it doesn't have a IC?
Nothing, it just moves out of the way (or can do a death-or-glory).
The unit is not immobile so it can move. It is also fearless.
The change between 6th and 7th that unlocked this deathstar was that artillery were no longer prohibited from becoming relentless in 7th like they were in 6th.
col_impact wrote: The change between 6th and 7th that unlocked this deathstar was that artillery were no longer prohibited from becoming relentless in 7th like they were in 6th.
But I believe that relentless does not confer over to the unit. Slow and Purposeful does, but I dont think relentless does. Please prove me wrong, but thats just how I was seeing it.
col_impact wrote: The change between 6th and 7th that unlocked this deathstar was that artillery were no longer prohibited from becoming relentless in 7th like they were in 6th.
But I believe that relentless does not confer over to the unit. Slow and Purposeful does, but I dont think relentless does. Please prove me wrong, but thats just how I was seeing it.
It's not that Relentless confers. It's the Necron special rule - Phaeron - which makes the entire unit Relentless. So if the Overlord takes this upgrade, then everyone in the unit he is in becomes Relentless.
col_impact wrote: The change between 6th and 7th that unlocked this deathstar was that artillery were no longer prohibited from becoming relentless in 7th like they were in 6th.
But I believe that relentless does not confer over to the unit. Slow and Purposeful does, but I dont think relentless does. Please prove me wrong, but thats just how I was seeing it.
It's not that Relentless confers. It's the Necron special rule - Phaeron - which makes the entire unit Relentless. So if the Overlord takes this upgrade, then everyone in the unit he is in becomes Relentless.
6th edition had statements in the artillery section that prevented artillery from ever being able to get relentless. So in 6th, even if you joined a Phaeron to a unit of artillery, the artillery still could not move and fire without snap-shooting. 7th edition removed those statements in the artillery section, meaning artillery could now become relentless.
So I'm going to try it in a couple of weeks. Playing a giant 5,000 pt game against a mate and I'm going to bring Zandrekh, O'Byron, Imotekh (should be good in a game with that many enemy units) three pylons. And a Tranny C'Tanny. Plus every necron warrior I can find I the garage. I anticipate Lols.
col_impact wrote: The change between 6th and 7th that unlocked this deathstar was that artillery were no longer prohibited from becoming relentless in 7th like they were in 6th.
But I believe that relentless does not confer over to the unit. Slow and Purposeful does, but I dont think relentless does. Please prove me wrong, but thats just how I was seeing it.
It's not that Relentless confers. It's the Necron special rule - Phaeron - which makes the entire unit Relentless. So if the Overlord takes this upgrade, then everyone in the unit he is in becomes Relentless.
SHUPPET wrote: Wouldn't that still just make unit B one of multiple targets even if not the original unit the gun is fired at?
Assuming you mean Unit A, here (the invisible unit in question).
Well, if it was a blast weapon that had scattered onto them, that wouldn't make it one of multiple "targets", right?
Just the target of the weapon (Unit B) and what actually ended up being hit by the weapon (Unit A, the invisible unit). If that wasn't the case, your own units would be immune from scattered friendly fire blast templates because you can't "target" your own units.
From a RAW perspective there doesn't seem to be anything that would make Unit A suddenly become a "target" just because they happened to be hit.
(though if there is anything that would refute this, I'd gladly accept citation. I'm trying to make sure this thing is airtight).
provided unit B is in range to be targeted. As I recall you cannot target things that are not in range, or something like that. Could not be the case in 7th
Yeah, of course. That's the linchpin in that way of playing it: unit B and unit A both have to be within range.
... but if you're playing it that OTHER way (where you're just targeting points on the table), then unit B doesn't even matter anymore.
(personally, I don't like THAT way, but it's RAW legal, so I guess people can play it)
Exergy wrote: provided unit B is in range to be targeted. As I recall you cannot target things that are not in range, or something like that. Could not be the case in 7th
Targeting a unit in 7th does not require it to be in range, merely in line of sight (makes sense since targeting is now done before selecting a weapon to fire).
Kholzerino wrote: So I'm going to try it in a couple of weeks. Playing a giant 5,000 pt game against a mate and I'm going to bring Zandrekh, O'Byron, Imotekh (should be good in a game with that many enemy units) three pylons. And a Tranny C'Tanny. Plus every necron warrior I can find I the garage. I anticipate Lols.
I had a 5,000pt Apocalypse battle myself recently (5,000pts of my Necrons vs two Imperial players and one Necron player totaling in 5,000pts, my first game in 7th edition). My list had a T'C'tan (Seismic Assault, Antimatter Meteor, large blast stomps power), a Vault (Seismic assault, Sky of Falling Stars), two Bargelords, two Doomscythes, Zandrekh with a bunch of Warriors in a Ghost Ark, two D&D squads (5 DMs and 2 Despairteks each), two full Immortal squads (one with a Veiltek and stormtek), a Wraithstar with a D Lord, a Gauss Sentry Pylon, a Tomb Stalker and a Tessaract Ark (probably an incomplete list, my memory isn't all that good).
Against me were lined up 3 IKs, an invisible Baneblade, a Warhound Titan, a Doomsday Ark, a Monolith, 2-3 Leman Russes, a Banewolf, 2 Basalisks, 2 Psykers, some guardsmen and a whole bunch of Warriors and Immortals with a sprinkling of Harbingers and a decked out Overlord.
)
