In light of the new Necron release, we're seeing quite a few rules exemptions to the status quo of codices and supplements. With the release of the Exterminatus Campaign book only months before the major Necron re-haul, there's a possible discrepancy that needs to be addressed by GW in print regarding that as well.
In an effort to compile all our conflicts with the new rules, and to hopefully submit the queries together for FAQs rather than piece-meal (thereby increasing the chances that GW will write the comprehensive FAQ that we need), here is the place where we can collect our most detailed questions. Maybe once we're done we can submit en masse.
Please read the posts as they go, and only repeat a query if you can provide a better worded version of it.
Gaze of Death:
As per "Datasheet - C'tan Shard of the Nightbringer", can the special power "Gaze of Death", due to its unique wording as an ability, act in the following ways:
Target Swooping Monstrous Creatures
Target Enemy Units under the effects of the Psychic Power "Invisibility"
Be utilized when the C'tan Shard of the Nightbringer is locked in combat.
Be utilized upon enemy units locked in combat themselves.
Target a different enemy unit during the shooting phase than the Wargear shooting attack "Powers of the C'tan"
Still be used in the shooting phase after making a run move
Mephrit Dynasty
As per the "Forces of the Mehprit Dynasty" section in Campaign Supplement - Exterminatus, can the following be clarified in relation to Codex: Necrons:
Can a character from the five detailed Detachments and Formations under "The Mephrit Dynasty" select an item from the "Artefects of the Aeons" in Codex: Necrons in place of/in addition to selecting an item from "Relics from the War in Heaven" in Exterminatus?
Can a character from "The Mephrit Dynasty" detachments and formations select multiple different items from "Relics from the War in Heaven", following the rule of one type of item per army?
Under "Relics from the War in Heaven", how does the "Edge of Eternity" weapon type "Executioner (2+)" interact with the detailed "Executioner" rule?
Under the Formation "Zarathusa's Royal Decurion", can the listed Overlord unit be replaced with a Catacomb Command Barge unit?
From "Relics from the War in Heaven", does the C'tan Shard unit designator on the item "God Shackles" extend to the Transcendent C'tan unit?
Obelisk and Tesseract Vault Models
Regarding the Datasheets and Models for "Obelisk" & "Tesseract Vault":
What are the exact firing Arcs for the Wargear options "Four Tesla Spheres"?
Would Skimmers and Jetbikes (and by extension zooming flyers, which move "exactly like a skimmer", p.84) "ignore all [...] dangerous terrain tests" (p. 89) from an Obelisk's "Graviton Pulse" as long as they do not begin or end their move within 18" of the Obelisk?
Triarch Praetorians & Night Scythes
Despite being Jump Infantry, can Praetorians start embarked on a Night Scythe as per the Dedicated Transport option in "Datasheet - Triarch Praetorians"? The datasheet for the Night Scythe makes no allowance for Transporting Jump Infantry under the special rule "Invasion Beams".
Wraithflight and Immune to Natural Law
Regarding the Datasheets for "Canoptek Wraiths", "C'tan Shard of the Nightbringer/Deciever", & "Transcendent C'tan":
Are models with the "Wraithflight" and "Immune to Natural Law" special rules able to charge through buildings, as they are listed terrain?
Do models with the "Wraithflight" and "Immune to Natural Law" rule trigger any effects of buildings or other terrain (such as the unstable fuel core of a mysterious wreckage) when moving?
Do Canoptek Wraiths ignore the initiative 1 penalty when charging in, into or out from difficult terrain due to the "Wraithflight" special rule?
Cumulative Reanimation Protocols
In regards to the "Reanimation Protocols" special rule:
Are multiple bonuses to RP cumulative in respect to the the Instant Death negative modifier of -1? Example: should a unit rolling against an Instant Death wound, with a Cryptek "Technomancer" modifier as well as the "Ever-Living" special rule (from the Decurion Detachment Command Benefits section), pass its Reanimation Protocol roll on a +4?
Set Value Modifiers
"Quantum Shielding" Necron Vehicle Equipment:
Since both the "Quantum Shielding" special rule and the "Lance" universal special rule apply set value modifiers to Necron vehicles, which one applies?
Reclamation Legion
As per "Datasheet - Reclamation Legion", would the special rules granted therein work in the following way:
Dedicated Transport vehicles and/or Monoliths- that are chosen as part of a "Reclamation Legion"- benefit from the "Move Through Cover" universal special rule, and thus automatically pass dangerous terrain tests (such as from deep striking into or beginning/ending movement in difficult terrain).
Trazyn the Infinite and Illuminor Szeras
Regarding the Datasheets for "Trazyn the Infinite" and "Illuminor Szeras":
Are these characters missing their Wargear, or do they have none?
Can Triarch Praetorians embark on a Night Scythe purchased as a Dedicated Transport despite them being Jump Infantry and the Night Scythe normally not being allowed to Transport Jump Infantry?
Nilok wrote: Can a Canoptek Harvest take one Spyder or up to one unit of three?
Wording implies one, but the Decurion Poster from the collector's edition shows three (along with the max size of all other formations).
Looking at the codex, the formation requires 1 unit of Canoptek Spyders. The entry for Canoptek Spyders says you can take 1-3 of them as a unit, so that seems pretty straightforward.
Or did you mean can the formation take multiple units of single spyders? That I'm not sure of...
I would try to keep most questions as neutral as possible.
@Bojazz, I would add C'tan Shards to that question too since they have the same wording.
More questions:
-What are the firing Arcs of the Obelisk and Vault?
-How many Powers of the C'tan can a C'tan use per turn, one or two?
-Why can a Ghost Ark carry Characters if they can only carry 10 models and Warriors have a minimum of 10?
-How does Edge of Eternity's special weapon work?
-How many Spyders can I take in a Canoptek Harvest?
-Can you please rewrite Reanimation Protocol, because at the moment I can autopass it with four Crypteks because the current wording doesn't work.
Jambles wrote: Looking at the codex, the formation requires 1 unit of Canoptek Spyders. The entry for Canoptek Spyders says you can take 1-3 of them as a unit, so that seems pretty straightforward.
Actually it says "1 Canoptek Spyder" and not "1 unit of Canoptek Spyders".
Jambles wrote: Looking at the codex, the formation requires 1 unit of Canoptek Spyders. The entry for Canoptek Spyders says you can take 1-3 of them as a unit, so that seems pretty straightforward.
Actually it says "1 Canoptek Spyder" and not "1 unit of Canoptek Spyders".
In the fluff section of the codex, where is shows the breakout of the Decurian Detachment (which is also laid out a bit differently from the actual detachment), it shows "1 Unit of Spyders", but in the actual formation it the rules section, it states "1 Spyder". Given that it then uses "1 Unit...." for wraiths and scarabs in the rules for the formation, I think it can only be interpreted as 1 single Spyder until otherwise specified.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kangodo wrote: I would try to keep most questions as neutral as possible.
@Bojazz, I would add C'tan Shards to that question too since they have the same wording.
-Can you please rewrite Reanimation Protocol, because at the moment I can autopass it with four Crypteks because the current wording doesn't work.
I'm confused by this, the RP rule states it can never be improved to more than 4+. How can you autopass with four crypteks?
Now, for my question to add to the FAQ:
Is Nightbringer's Gaze of Death considered to be a shooting attack? We know its an attack, and its done in the Shooting phase, but that doesn't automatically equal "shooting attack" does it? Can it be used to target a different unit from the C'Tan Power attack?
I'm confused by this, the RP rule states it can never be improved to more than 4+. How can you autopass with four crypteks?
You normally need to roll 5 or higher to pass RP. If you have four Crypteks in the same unit, you get a +4 bonus to your roll. So if you roll a 1, it gets changed to 1+4 = 5 which is enough to pass RP.
Other formations have used "1 of x" and were comprised of multiple models. Furthermore the discrepancy between visual depiction in the codex and written is odd to say the least. It simply needs a FAQ.
Jambles wrote: Looking at the codex, the formation requires 1 unit of Canoptek Spyders. The entry for Canoptek Spyders says you can take 1-3 of them as a unit, so that seems pretty straightforward.
Actually it says "1 Canoptek Spyder" and not "1 unit of Canoptek Spyders".
In the fluff section of the codex, where is shows the breakout of the Decurian Detachment (which is also laid out a bit differently from the actual detachment), it shows "1 Unit of Spyders", but in the actual formation it the rules section, it states "1 Spyder". Given that it then uses "1 Unit...." for wraiths and scarabs in the rules for the formation, I think it can only be interpreted as 1 single Spyder until otherwise specified.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kangodo wrote: I would try to keep most questions as neutral as possible.
@Bojazz, I would add C'tan Shards to that question too since they have the same wording.
-Can you please rewrite Reanimation Protocol, because at the moment I can autopass it with four Crypteks because the current wording doesn't work.
I'm confused by this, the RP rule states it can never be improved to more than 4+. How can you autopass with four crypteks?
Now, for my question to add to the FAQ:
Is Nightbringer's Gaze of Death considered to be a shooting attack? We know its an attack, and its done in the Shooting phase, but that doesn't automatically equal "shooting attack" does it? Can it be used to target a different unit from the C'Tan Power attack?
Crypteks don't modify the roll needed. I.e., they don't change the 5+ needed to a 4+. What they do is let you add +1 to all of your rolls. So, if I roll a 4, I get to add +1 and can satisfy the 5+ requirement of RP. At no point is RP requiring a 4+ roll. It's semantic, but that's currently how RaW works. Now, I don't think you can stack 4 Crypteks as the unit wouldn't be able to benefit from the same special rule multiple times, but there is more than one special rule that grants +1 to the roll results. They are...
Necron Decurion Detachment Command Benefit "Ever-Living" grants a +1 bonus to RP rolls. (effective 4+ needed)
Cryptek "Technomancer" grants a +1 bonus to RP rolls. (effective 3+ needed)
Orikan the Diviner "Master Chronomancer" grants a +1 bonus to RP rolls. (effective 2+ needed)
On top of this, a Rez Orb allows you to re-roll misses. So, in practice you have a re-rollable 2+. On paper, the required dice roll is still a 5+ as the various special rules boost the roll itself and don't modify the required dice roll. In other words, even with Orikan and a Cryptek present in a Decurion Detachment, you'd still require a 5+ to activate RP. You'd just get +3 to all your rolls, so a roll of a 2 would satisfy the 5+ requirement.
Other formations have used "1 of x" and were comprised of multiple models. Furthermore the discrepancy between visual depiction in the codex and written is odd to say the least. It simply needs a FAQ.
What formations would those be? And artwork is usually done by the artists, not the rules authors.
Guys, I'd rehash old arguments in old threads. Or start new arguments in new threads. I like the idea of a thread for FAQ material, and that's going to get buried if we hijack it for rules arguments.
As always, I'd rather a rule be clarified and my reading of it be wrong, than there be ambiguity and room for confusion on the current RAW.
Jambles wrote: Looking at the codex, the formation requires 1 unit of Canoptek Spyders. The entry for Canoptek Spyders says you can take 1-3 of them as a unit, so that seems pretty straightforward.
Actually it says "1 Canoptek Spyder" and not "1 unit of Canoptek Spyders".
In the fluff section of the codex, where is shows the breakout of the Decurian Detachment (which is also laid out a bit differently from the actual detachment), it shows "1 Unit of Spyders", but in the actual formation it the rules section, it states "1 Spyder". Given that it then uses "1 Unit...." for wraiths and scarabs in the rules for the formation, I think it can only be interpreted as 1 single Spyder until otherwise specified.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kangodo wrote: I would try to keep most questions as neutral as possible.
@Bojazz, I would add C'tan Shards to that question too since they have the same wording.
-Can you please rewrite Reanimation Protocol, because at the moment I can autopass it with four Crypteks because the current wording doesn't work.
I'm confused by this, the RP rule states it can never be improved to more than 4+. How can you autopass with four crypteks?
Now, for my question to add to the FAQ:
Is Nightbringer's Gaze of Death considered to be a shooting attack? We know its an attack, and its done in the Shooting phase, but that doesn't automatically equal "shooting attack" does it? Can it be used to target a different unit from the C'Tan Power attack?
Crypteks don't modify the roll needed. I.e., they don't change the 5+ needed to a 4+. What they do is let you add +1 to all of your rolls. So, if I roll a 4, I get to add +1 and can satisfy the 5+ requirement of RP. At no point is RP requiring a 4+ roll. It's semantic, but that's currently how RaW works. Now, I don't think you can stack 4 Crypteks as the unit wouldn't be able to benefit from the same special rule multiple times, but there is more than one special rule that grants +1 to the roll results. They are...
Necron Decurion Detachment Command Benefit "Ever-Living" grants a +1 bonus to RP rolls. (effective 4+ needed)
Cryptek "Technomancer" grants a +1 bonus to RP rolls. (effective 3+ needed)
Orikan the Diviner "Master Chronomancer" grants a +1 bonus to RP rolls. (effective 2+ needed)
On top of this, a Rez Orb allows you to re-roll misses. So, in practice you have a re-rollable 2+. On paper, the required dice roll is still a 5+ as the various special rules boost the roll itself and don't modify the required dice roll. In other words, even with Orikan and a Cryptek present in a Decurion Detachment, you'd still require a 5+ to activate RP. You'd just get +3 to all your rolls, so a roll of a 2 would satisfy the 5+ requirement.
Thats slowed, and if that is true, then why would they even put the "Never modified more than 4+" in the rules at all if the only ways to improve it get around it.
Whenever someone has a question about an issue, it might be better to link the thread. Discussion and or further questions could be asked there, and if the thread is closed; well, it's closed for a reason.
Lobukia wrote: Guys, I'd rehash old arguments in old threads. Or start new arguments in new threads. I like the idea of a thread for FAQ material, and that's going to get buried if we hijack it for rules arguments.
Thank you. This thread isn't here to debate the issues, but to merely voice them in the most exact, formal, and simple manner.
Please carry these discussions on elsewhere, and help us rewrite the questions in the manner above. Thank you!
I'm going to try my hand at this myself. If you come up with a great way to phrase it, I'll put in the OP. Page numbers and all would be great.
Lobukia wrote: Guys, I'd rehash old arguments in old threads. Or start new arguments in new threads. I like the idea of a thread for FAQ material, and that's going to get buried if we hijack it for rules arguments.
Thank you. This thread isn't here to debate the issues, but to merely voice them in the most exact, formal, and simple manner.
Please carry these discussions on elsewhere, and help us rewrite the questions in the manner above. Thank you!
Indeed.
Let's keep this as uncluttered as possible please.
I updated the OP with examples. My approach was to leave as much up to the FAQ team, without trying to nudge them in a particular interpretation. Should we phrase this stuff more assertively, with our interpretations? If you come up with better ways to phase them, then post it.
I'm not familiar with the Spyder Formation debate, nor the Wraith Initiative discussion, maybe someone can step up and deliver and write the queries. *Nudge nudge*
The debate with the Canoptek Harvest is the rules say "1 Canoptek Spyder" instead of "1 unit of Canoptek Spyders" in the Formation Composition section (a unit of spyders is 1-3 models). Conversely there's no mention in the Formation Restrictions section where they detail specific unit sizes that the unit is restricted to 1 Canoptek Spyder. On top of that, there is artwork that shows three Canoptek Spyders in the formation while the rules as noted say "1 Canoptek Spyder".
Obelisk Gravity Pulse - Flying Monstrous Creatures must take a Dangerous Terrain test if thy move within 18" of an Obelisk. Flying Monstrous Creatures have Move Through Cover. Move Through Cover auto passes Dangerous Terrain.
What is the point of affecting FMCs, if they autopass?
Happyjew wrote: Obelisk Gravity Pulse - Flying Monstrous Creatures must take a Dangerous Terrain test if thy move within 18" of an Obelisk. Flying Monstrous Creatures have Move Through Cover. Move Through Cover auto passes Dangerous Terrain.
What is the point of affecting FMCs, if they autopass?
Happyjew wrote: Obelisk Gravity Pulse - Flying Monstrous Creatures must take a Dangerous Terrain test if thy move within 18" of an Obelisk. Flying Monstrous Creatures have Move Through Cover. Move Through Cover auto passes Dangerous Terrain.
What is the point of affecting FMCs, if they autopass?
Is there a thread on this?
It would cause them to strike at I1 in assault if they assault within 18" of the obelisk.
In addition to the penalties for charging through difficult terrain, if any model in a charging unit goes through dangerous terrain, that model must immediately take a Dangerous Terrain test.
so they would pass the dangerous terrain test but would still suffer the 'in addition to the penalties for charging through difficult terrain' which includes:
To represent this, if at least one model in the charging unit moved through difficult terrain as part of its charge move, all of the unit’s models must attack at Initiative step 1, regardless of other Initiative modifiers, even if the charging unit is not slowed by difficult terrain.
Happyjew wrote: Obelisk Gravity Pulse - Flying Monstrous Creatures must take a Dangerous Terrain test if thy move within 18" of an Obelisk. Flying Monstrous Creatures have Move Through Cover. Move Through Cover auto passes Dangerous Terrain.
What is the point of affecting FMCs, if they autopass?
The Necron Decurion Detachment is made up of a number of formations. The units in each formation is listed right after the "FOC" specifying units required. Additionally, some of these formations can be taken as normal Formations (rules listed elsewhere). For the Command/Core/Auxiliary Formations, do you just use what is listed after the FOC (meaning there is no requirements, but no benefits), or do you use the "normal" formations (meaning you must meet any listed requirements, but gain the benefits)?
The Necron Decurion Detachment is made up of a number of formations. The units in each formation is listed right after the "FOC" specifying units required. Additionally, some of these formations can be taken as normal Formations (rules listed elsewhere). For the Command/Core/Auxiliary Formations, do you just use what is listed after the FOC (meaning there is no requirements, but no benefits), or do you use the "normal" formations (meaning you must meet any listed requirements, but gain the benefits)?
I'm confused. I thought we're pretty well sorted out on this issue. Can you point to a thread where this is raised?
The Necron Decurion Detachment is made up of a number of formations. The units in each formation is listed right after the "FOC" specifying units required. Additionally, some of these formations can be taken as normal Formations (rules listed elsewhere). For the Command/Core/Auxiliary Formations, do you just use what is listed after the FOC (meaning there is no requirements, but no benefits), or do you use the "normal" formations (meaning you must meet any listed requirements, but gain the benefits)?
I read this 5 times now and still dont get what your point is Oo
All these formations are "normal" formations and can be taken...
The Necron Decurion Detachment is made up of a number of formations. The units in each formation is listed right after the "FOC" specifying units required. Additionally, some of these formations can be taken as normal Formations (rules listed elsewhere). For the Command/Core/Auxiliary Formations, do you just use what is listed after the FOC (meaning there is no requirements, but no benefits), or do you use the "normal" formations (meaning you must meet any listed requirements, but gain the benefits)?
I'm confused. I thought we're pretty well sorted out on this issue. Can you point to a thread where this is raised?
I apologize. I thought this was a thread for Necron Codex questions. Did not realize it was a thread for hotly debated Necron codex questions.
The Necron Decurion Detachment is made up of a number of formations. The units in each formation is listed right after the "FOC" specifying units required. Additionally, some of these formations can be taken as normal Formations (rules listed elsewhere). For the Command/Core/Auxiliary Formations, do you just use what is listed after the FOC (meaning there is no requirements, but no benefits), or do you use the "normal" formations (meaning you must meet any listed requirements, but gain the benefits)?
I read this 5 times now and still dont get what your point is Oo
All these formations are "normal" formations and can be taken...
Most of the formations are listed twice. Once, right after detailing the "FOC" (0-1 Royal Court, 1+ Reclamation Legion, 1-10 Auxiliary Formations). The second place is with the various datasheets. The first location simply says that you must take A, B, C. The Datasheet version says you must take A, B, C and you get the following special rules.
For example, per the first location, the Destroyer Cult requires 1 Destroyer Lord, 3 units of Destroyers, 0-1 units of Heavy Destroyers. No restrictions, no special rules. The Datasheet version (later on) requires the same units, however, each unit of Destroyers must contain 3+ models, and the units have Move Through Cover, Fearsome Ruler, and Extermination Protocols.
I think Obelisk's Gravity Pulse should also belong in there.
They need to clarify the interaction between 'Automatically Pass' and the need to still roll, though they do not normally take it.
RobPro wrote: How does RP interact with the CCB now?
No longer an issue, because CCB does not get the "other FNP" roll. (-> RP has completely changed in mechanics)
I'm not following you, could you give a little more info? The main rulebook uses RP as an example of a rule that does confer to the chariot. The RP rule in the codex only talks about cancelling out wounds, not glances or pens.
Does this rule still flow through to the chariot (which means clarifying glances/pens, and if you RP'd a pen does the shield still go down), or should the rules in the chariot section of the rulebook be errata'd so this is no longer a grey area?
RobPro wrote: How does RP interact with the CCB now?
No longer an issue, because CCB does not get the "other FNP" roll. (-> RP has completely changed in mechanics)
I'm not following you, could you give a little more info? The main rulebook uses RP as an example of a rule that does confer to the chariot. The RP rule in the codex only talks about cancelling out wounds, not glances or pens.
Does this rule still flow through to the chariot (which means clarifying glances/pens, and if you RP'd a pen does the shield still go down), or should the rules in the chariot section of the rulebook be errata'd so this is no longer a grey area?
In the data sheet for the CCB, it says that the Overlord has Reanimation Protocol. The CCB itself does not, which makes sense because vehicles don't
So my conclusion is that wounds allocated on the lord can roll for RP, and wounds allocated on the CCB can not. Normally the owner of the CCB decides where the wound goes unless it is hit by blasts or templates etc.
The rule for CCB that says that both will be brought back when reanimating is not really applicable anymore because you don't roll for reanimation after you die as you used to, you roll before.
The main rulebook, in the Chariots section, it states that special rules increasing the survivability of the rider flow through to the chariot and specifically uses RP as an example of a special rule that flows from rider to chariot. It doesn't need to be listed in the CCBs rules because it is on the rider. This is what I'm asking about.
I don't have the main rulebook or codex on hand but I can edit this later with page/paragraph quotes.
RobPro wrote: The main rulebook, in the Chariots section, it states that special rules increasing the survivability of the rider flow through to the chariot and specifically uses RP as an example of a special rule that flows from rider to chariot. It doesn't need to be listed in the CCBs rules because it is on the rider. This is what I'm asking about.
I don't have the main rulebook or codex on hand but I can edit this later with page/paragraph quotes.
That rule was clearly written with the old codex in mind. But it would probably be obsolete now.
So your question is what happens if the CCB gets hit and gets wrecked. Can the lord still reanimate to keep the CCB in play, or can even the CCB reanimate itself?
-Well since RP specifically triggers on an unsaved wound, and not on lost hull points, it can't trigger. The lord does not get wounds when the CCB dies, it is removed from board as a casualty. And RP specifically says it does not trigger by that. Seems like we have the info we need to me, but if you want you can start a thread to discuss it further.
However it triggers on each wound on the overlord now, not only when he dies as before, so as long as he doesn't insta-die, your foe may have to get you through up to 3 failed RP rolls before it dies.
RobPro wrote: The main rulebook, in the Chariots section, it states that special rules increasing the survivability of the rider flow through to the chariot and specifically uses RP as an example of a special rule that flows from rider to chariot. It doesn't need to be listed in the CCBs rules because it is on the rider. This is what I'm asking about.
I don't have the main rulebook or codex on hand but I can edit this later with page/paragraph quotes.
"If the rider has a special rule that returns it to play after it has been removed as a casualty, such as a Necron’s Ever-living special rule,"
Completely obsolete rule. RP no longer happens after a model is removed from play.
If you have a copy of the Necron Codex? I'm surprised that has been missed?
Where does one submit the questions? Can someone supply the email/gateway?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kangodo wrote: I think Obelisk's Gravity Pulse should also belong in there.
They need to clarify the interaction between 'Automatically Pass' and the need to still roll, though they do not normally take it.
I took a look at the related thread, voiced my thoughts, but it still seems like an obstinate point of contention. If someone would provide/define the question, well referenced, I will put it up, though I'm not inclined enough to actually write it myself (as I personally see it as pretty clear, see thread). Again, I invite anyone to do so (well).
I feel the same way about wraithflight, but will also put it up if provided. I think we've got most of the major unanswerables though.
RobPro wrote: The main rulebook, in the Chariots section, it states that special rules increasing the survivability of the rider flow through to the chariot and specifically uses RP as an example of a special rule that flows from rider to chariot. It doesn't need to be listed in the CCBs rules because it is on the rider. This is what I'm asking about.
I don't have the main rulebook or codex on hand but I can edit this later with page/paragraph quotes.
"If the rider has a special rule that returns it to play after it has been removed as a casualty, such as a Necron’s Ever-living special rule,"
Thats the point, Necrons dont have such a rule anymore.
RP is now for Wounds only, if your CCB explodes your Lord is gone.
Can I ask about the ghost ark? It's super buffed now with Salvo 5/10 but I don't quite understand that rule on a vehicle. Vehicles are relentless. Relentless allows salvo, heavy and ordnance weapons to fire as if the mover was stationery. So the ghost ark always benefits from being able to fire 10 shots at maximum range... so what's the point in saying salvo 5/10? Why not just heavy 10? Am I missing something?
Conversely the doomsday ark being a vehicle also has relentless, so it always fires as if it were stationery. So I could easily argue that it always gets to fire the primary weapon as divert power always works...
Ffyllotek wrote: Conversely the doomsday ark being a vehicle also has relentless, so it always fires as if it were stationery. So I could easily argue that it always gets to fire the primary weapon as divert power always works...
'Basic versus Advanced' in the 'General Principles' section of the rulebook should answer your question.
You should probably make a new thread on this Though this can be fixed with one line: That is not what Relentless does. Re-read Relentless and then read the weapon type on the DD-Ark.
Kangodo wrote: You should probably make a new thread on this Though this can be fixed with one line: That is not what Relentless does. Re-read Relentless and then read the weapon type on the DD-Ark.
I will make a new thread
"Relentless models can shoot with Heavy, Salvo or Ordnance weapons, counting as stationary, even if they moved in the previous Movement phase."
Kangodo wrote: You should probably make a new thread on this Though this can be fixed with one line: That is not what Relentless does. Re-read Relentless and then read the weapon type on the DD-Ark.
I will make a new thread
"Relentless models can shoot with Heavy, Salvo or Ordnance weapons, counting as stationary, even if they moved in the previous Movement phase."
It's not one of those types though. It is a Primary weapon
Ffyllotek wrote: Can I ask about the ghost ark? It's super buffed now with Salvo 5/10 but I don't quite understand that rule on a vehicle. Vehicles are relentless. Relentless allows salvo, heavy and ordnance weapons to fire as if the mover was stationery. So the ghost ark always benefits from being able to fire 10 shots at maximum range... so what's the point in saying salvo 5/10? Why not just heavy 10? Am I missing something?
Your interpretation of the facts is correct. Best guess is either that salvo weapon might be or have been on option for a non-relentless platform or they are simply doing some future proofing and giving themselves the tools to write a new unit in a supplement at some point that will have that weapon but not necessarily be relentless.
Ffyllotek wrote: Conversely the doomsday ark being a vehicle also has relentless, so it always fires as if it were stationery. So I could easily argue that it always gets to fire the primary weapon as divert power always works...
The doomsday cannon has two profiles, depending on if its in high power or low power mode. One profile has interactions with relentless, the other does not.
No more contributors? What, would you all be content to argue on the YMDC til the end of time? Bumping for awareness; start submitting these to GW folks.
Victory wrote: No more contributors? What, would you all be content to argue on the YMDC til the end of time? Bumping for awareness; start submitting these to GW folks.
Could you update the top post with the questions that will be sent in? Or have you already?
I have seen 2 questions in this thread that I want an official statement on but which are not listen in the top post. I will try to phrase them in a specific manner here:
"Do Canoptek Wraiths ignore the initiative 1 penalty when charging in, into or out from difficult terrain due to the Wraithflight special rule?"
(majority seems to agree they do, but it turned out to be a tough topic arguing, and it will start again if we don't get an official statement)
"Does a unit in the Decurion Detachment containing a Cryptek pass a Reanimation Protocol roll of 4 even if the wound triggering the roll has the Instant Death special rule?"
If you take the destroyer cult as your primary detachement does it gain the command benefits of the decurion without using the reclamation legion.
(This isn't clear at all!!!)
I wrote several rules request to this with quotes of the decurion rules - they haven't been answered - before you think this is easily swapped aside read the last paragraphs of the decurion explanation in the book please.
RobPro wrote: The main rulebook, in the Chariots section, it states that special rules increasing the survivability of the rider flow through to the chariot and specifically uses RP as an example of a special rule that flows from rider to chariot. It doesn't need to be listed in the CCBs rules because it is on the rider. This is what I'm asking about.
I don't have the main rulebook or codex on hand but I can edit this later with page/paragraph quotes.
"If the rider has a special rule that returns it to play after it has been removed as a casualty, such as a Necron’s Ever-living special rule,"
Thats the point, Necrons dont have such a rule anymore.
RP is now for Wounds only, if your CCB explodes your Lord is gone.
My question about the interaction seems pretty well answered, but I think it should go into any "big list" email to remind them they should errata that section to remove the reference. Ever-living is still a rule, and it could definitely be confusing.
- since both quantum shielding and weapons with the lance rule apply set value modifiers to necron vehicles, which one applies?
- do dedicated transport vehicles and/or monoliths that are chosen as part of a Reclamation Legion benefit from the move through coverUSR (thus automaticall passing dagerous terrain tests such as from deep striking into or beginning/ending movement in difficult terrain or from an enemy Obelisk's graviton pulse)?
- would skimmers and jetbikes (and by extension zooming flyers, which move "exactly like a skimmer", p.84) "ignore all [...] dangerous terrain tests" (p. 89) from an Obelisk's graviton pulse as long as they do not begin or end their move within 18"?
- are models with the wraithflight/immune to Natural Law rule able to charge buildings (since buildings are listed as terrain, which is treated as open ground during a charge move)?
- do models with the wraithflight/immune to Natural Law rule trigger any effects of buildings or other terrain (such as the unstable fuel core of a mysterious wreckage) when moving?
- are the Dataslates of Trazyn the Infinite and Illuminor Szeras missing their wargear or do they have none?
- why is there a tactical objective: harness the warp in the necron Datacards set?
- is the Monolith's particle whip a primary weapon instead of ordnance? (here's to hope for not snapshooting gauss flux arcs)
RobPro wrote: The main rulebook, in the Chariots section, it states that special rules increasing the survivability of the rider flow through to the chariot and specifically uses RP as an example of a special rule that flows from rider to chariot. It doesn't need to be listed in the CCBs rules because it is on the rider. This is what I'm asking about.
I don't have the main rulebook or codex on hand but I can edit this later with page/paragraph quotes.
"If the rider has a special rule that returns it to play after it has been removed as a casualty, such as a Necron’s Ever-living special rule,"
Thats the point, Necrons dont have such a rule anymore.
RP is now for Wounds only, if your CCB explodes your Lord is gone.
My question about the interaction seems pretty well answered, but I think it should go into any "big list" email to remind them they should errata that section to remove the reference. Ever-living is still a rule, and it could definitely be confusing.
Ever-living is still a rule? Where? It's not in the Necron codex, which only has Reanimation Protocols now.
Victory wrote: No more contributors? What, would you all be content to argue on the YMDC til the end of time? Bumping for awareness; start submitting these to GW folks.
Could you update the top post with the questions that will be sent in? Or have you already?
I have seen 2 questions in this thread that I want an official statement on but which are not listen in the top post. I will try to phrase them in a specific manner here:
"Do Canoptek Wraiths ignore the initiative 1 penalty when charging in, into or out from difficult terrain due to the Wraithflight special rule?"
(majority seems to agree they do, but it turned out to be a tough topic arguing, and it will start again if we don't get an official statement)
"Does a unit in the Decurion Detachment containing a Cryptek pass a Reanimation Protocol roll of 4 even if the wound triggering the roll has the Instant Death special rule?"
These I can work with. Added, though I changed up the last one a bit to make note of the relevant rules.
- since both quantum shielding and weapons with the lance rule apply set value modifiers to necron vehicles, which one applies?
- do dedicated transport vehicles and/or monoliths that are chosen as part of a Reclamation Legion benefit from the move through coverUSR (thus automaticall passing dagerous terrain tests such as from deep striking into or beginning/ending movement in difficult terrain or from an enemy Obelisk's graviton pulse)?
- would skimmers and jetbikes (and by extension zooming flyers, which move "exactly like a skimmer", p.84) "ignore all [...] dangerous terrain tests" (p. 89) from an Obelisk's graviton pulse as long as they do not begin or end their move within 18"?
- are models with the wraithflight/immune to Natural Law rule able to charge buildings (since buildings are listed as terrain, which is treated as open ground during a charge move)?
- do models with the wraithflight/immune to Natural Law rule trigger any effects of buildings or other terrain (such as the unstable fuel core of a mysterious wreckage) when moving?
- are the Dataslates of Trazyn the Infinite and Illuminor Szeras missing their wargear or do they have none?
- why is there a tactical objective: harness the warp in the necron Datacards set?
- is the Monolith's particle whip a primary weapon instead of ordnance? (here's to hope for not snapshooting gauss flux arcs)
These are great, though need some cleaning up. I have a question myself though: if the Wraithflight issue revolved around initiative, why doesn't the Immune to Natural Law have this issue?
Thanks for adding my input. A few comments on this one though:
In regards to the "Reanimation Protocols" special rule:
Are multiple bonuses to RP cumulative in respect to the the Instant Death negative modifier of -1? Example: should a unit rolling against an Instant Death hit, with a Cryptek "Technomancer" modifier as well as the "Ever-Living" special rule (from the Decurion Detachment Command Benefits section), count its Reanimation Protocol roll as +4 rather than +5?
* It should probably say "Instant Death wound" or as it is referred to in the RP rules, "wound with the Instant Death special rule". A hit can not have Instant Death.
(btw is there a difference between instant death wound and a wound with the instant death special rule? Or do a wound with double strength acquire the instant death special rule? The reason I ask is because the RP rules only mention the "instant death special rule")
* It is not a unit that is rolling RP, it is a model.
* I would suggest these changes to the question:
"Are multiple bonuses to RP cumulative in respect to the the Instant Death negative modifier of -1? Example: should a model that suffers an unsaved wound with the Instant Death special rule, rolling with a Cryptek "Technomancer" modifier as well as the "Ever-Living" special rule (from the Decurion Detachment Command Benefits section), pass its Reanimation Protocol roll on a 4?"
The reason I suggest phrasing the question based on what dice result you pass the roll on rather than 4+ / 5+ is that the roll WILL be a 4+ in either case, because that is where the limit is. The question is rather if the bonuses works the same way as the instant death penalty (which subtracts 1 from the actual roll).
- why is there a tactical objective: harness the warp in the necron Datacards set?
- is the Monolith's particle whip a primary weapon instead of ordnance? (here's to hope for not snapshooting gauss flux arcs)
Are these two relevant enough to warrant submission?
Also: please review all the proposed questions so far.
Victory wrote: if the Wraithflight issue revolved around initiative, why doesn't the Immune to Natural Law have this issue?
one minor related issue: Immune to natural Law is worded differently for the C'Tan Shards ("can move over all other models and terrain as if they were open ground", exactly like wraithflight) and the Transcendent C'Tan ("can move over all other models and terrain freely"), with potentially different implications for the Initiative penalty from charging through difficult terrain.
Victory wrote: if the Wraithflight issue revolved around initiative, why doesn't the Immune to Natural Law have this issue?
one minor related issue: Immune to natural Law is worded differently for the C'Tan Shards ("can move over all other models and terrain as if they were open ground", exactly like wraithflight) and the Transcendent C'Tan ("can move over all other models and terrain freely"), with potentially different implications for the Initiative penalty from charging through difficult terrain.
Oh Christ GW. And there I thought you had mastered copy and paste.
1.Pleas ask them if the monolith can make use of the "skimmer-cannot be forced to move over models rule" from the core rulebook - which would prevent him from deepstrike mishap!
2. Same thing: ask if it was intended for the monolith to fire all its weapons - you know the ordenance desaster rule problem from the core rulebook combined wih the monoliths shooting RAI from the rulebook!!!
Please ask that because no matter what the consensus here, a clear answer from GW would nail the RAI into the game again, or even depict a flawed mechanic.
1.Pleas ask them if the monolith can make use of the "skimmer-cannot be forced to move over models rule" from the core rulebook - which would prevent him from deepstrike mishap!
2. Same thing: ask if it was intended for the monolith to fire all its weapons - you know the ordenance desaster rule problem from the core rulebook combined wih the monoliths shooting RAI from the rulebook!!!
Please ask that because no matter what the consensus here, a clear answer from GW would nail the RAI into the game again, or even depict a flawed mechanic.
There's nothing that needs to be cleared up about the monolith. It's pretty clear how ti works. It's suppose to be limited by Ordnance, and the whole "skimmers not misshaping" is completely different thread, and the concensus was, yes, they do mishap.
1.Pleas ask them if the monolith can make use of the "skimmer-cannot be forced to move over models rule" from the core rulebook - which would prevent him from deepstrike mishap!
2. Same thing: ask if it was intended for the monolith to fire all its weapons - you know the ordenance desaster rule problem from the core rulebook combined wih the monoliths shooting RAI from the rulebook!!!
Please ask that because no matter what the consensus here, a clear answer from GW would nail the RAI into the game again, or even depict a flawed mechanic.
There's nothing that needs to be cleared up about the monolith. It's pretty clear how ti works. It's suppose to be limited by Ordnance, and the whole "skimmers not misshaping" is completely different thread, and the concensus was, yes, they do mishap.
1.Pleas ask them if the monolith can make use of the "skimmer-cannot be forced to move over models rule" from the core rulebook - which would prevent him from deepstrike mishap!
2. Same thing: ask if it was intended for the monolith to fire all its weapons - you know the ordenance desaster rule problem from the core rulebook combined wih the monoliths shooting RAI from the rulebook!!!
Please ask that because no matter what the consensus here, a clear answer from GW would nail the RAI into the game again, or even depict a flawed mechanic.
There's nothing that needs to be cleared up about the monolith. It's pretty clear how ti works. It's suppose to be limited by Ordnance, and the whole "skimmers not misshaping" is completely different thread, and the concensus was, yes, they do mishap.
If I (or any single other individual out there) have a question that needs to be cleared up, then there is something to be cleared up! RAI vs RAW is a big thing here and listen to consensus is like listening to a dictator. there are questions why this core rules even exist and why the monoliths differ so damn far from RAI as they do now - maybe there is an core rules oversight with the heavy rule - man, do not try to silence the ones, that try to find something out!!
Nilok wrote: Would it really hurt to add it to the FAQ?
If we would be dealing with any other company: No.
But since our FAQ's usually get three out of a dozen questions answered I would like those answer to go to actual rules-issues.
are you going to implement the monolith questions or not?
I think me and other necron players want this unit to be good! The last time a FAQ gave the monolith the ability to use the gate of eternity directly after deep striking - the same thing happened to the german rulebook: via FAQ deepstriking units would now only count as moving with combat speed before that there was an translation error where they moved at cruising speed which also was important for the monolith.
So please include those questions, maybe they even lead to an errata of the heavy or ordenance rule!
Might be a good idea to add a BRB inquiry regarding whether or not firing a dual profile weapon in the shooting phase precludes its use as a melee weapon in the assault phase.
While technically not a "Codex: Necrons" specific issue it does have a major affect on the Praetorians and is an issue that came up only recently and so never had the chance to be addressed.
1.Pleas ask them if the monolith can make use of the "skimmer-cannot be forced to move over models rule" from the core rulebook - which would prevent him from deepstrike mishap!
2. Same thing: ask if it was intended for the monolith to fire all its weapons - you know the ordenance desaster rule problem from the core rulebook combined wih the monoliths shooting RAI from the rulebook!!!
Please ask that because no matter what the consensus here, a clear answer from GW would nail the RAI into the game again, or even depict a flawed mechanic.
There's nothing that needs to be cleared up about the monolith. It's pretty clear how ti works. It's suppose to be limited by Ordnance, and the whole "skimmers not misshaping" is completely different thread, and the concensus was, yes, they do mishap.
If I (or any single other individual out there) have a question that needs to be cleared up, then there is something to be cleared up! RAI vs RAW is a big thing here and listen to consensus is like listening to a dictator. there are questions why this core rules even exist and why the monoliths differ so damn far from RAI as they do now - maybe there is an core rules oversight with the heavy rule - man, do not try to silence the ones, that try to find something out!!
I mean, I myself would love to see GW add in something, or add a reason why Skimmers even have that rule, truly I do. But I've looked over the book, Ordnance works how it works. So that should be pretty obvious. But, I dunno. I personally could see the argument of how DS is a movement, otherwise why have the rule? But, other arguments are just as valid. So, we'll see. I wasn't meaning to sound like a jerk, I just feel there isn't much grey area with the monolith in particular.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Henker-Kind wrote: How many powers of the C'tan can be used per model in the shooting phase.
(I know consensus thinks it has the answer but it is a dubious and strange weapon profile that needs proper adressing)
Well, I won't really comment on that, but I will add that I hope they make it clear that the Nightbringer can target a different unit then his shooting target wit his Gaze of Death, as well as use it in and out of combat.
With the wraithflight issue, if wraiths suffer the initiative penalty to 1 for charging into difficult terrain do whiplash coils initiative boost come before penalty (meaning still I1) or after (I4)?
- why is there a tactical objective: harness the warp in the necron Datacards set?
Because each of the faction specific ones replace the 1d6 objectives from the book... and Harness The Warp is a later option. We still get it, and we still have to pitch it. Not worth asking GW about, IMHO.
The main argument is that deployed within is not the same as "embarking" and all restrictions are based on "embarking" during the game.
To be Embarked, one has to Embark (because of the former being a past tense version of the latter).
Since one is Embarked (per a combination of Deployment and Reserves rules), one has followed the rules TO Embark. And so we look back at the requirements for Transport Capacity...
Since one is Embarked (per a combination of Deployment and Reserves rules), one has followed the rules TO Embark.
Gonna need a rules quote page and paragraph for that there. Saying in order to be embarked/carried on a vehicle you have to Embark means nothing can EVER be placed on a flyer or on ANY vehicle in reserve.
"Embarking" pg 80 "A unit can embark onto a vehicle by moving each model to within 2" of its Access Points in the Movement phase - Difficult and Dangerous Terrain tests should be taken as normal. The whole unit must be able to embark - if some models are out of range, the entire unit must stay outside. When the unit embarks, remove it from the table and place it aside, making a note that the unit is being transported....."
How do you do the underlined before the game begins and before any Movement phase?
As for other problems from this thread people have posted. Transport Capacity pg 80 "Each Transport vehicle has a maximum passenger capacity that can never be exceeded." Never is never is never if the TC of a vehicle is 15 you can't put 20 into it because that capacity is now exceeded something that per raw can -never- be exceeded. During the game, in the deployment phase, at Thanksgiving, during Yaksmear Day, never.
As for what can a Transport carry next line and it is in bold in the book as well "A Transport can carry a single Infantry unit and/or any number of Independent Characters (as long as they are also Infantry), up to a total number of models equal to the vehicle's Transport Capacity." Now this rule is an Advance rule because it talks about specific types of models "Infantry" and "Independent Characters" (that are also Infantry). Transport Capacity on most Vehicles just state "X number of models". Meaning that rule is basic. This is one of the few times where the rule book trumps the codex. Drop pods (like in the Blood angels book) say Ten models OR one Dreadnought of any type. This part gets a little tricky, that line is part basic and part advanced, in a way, because of the "OR" choice. The reason I say this is because of pg 13 Basic Versus Advanced 2nd paragraph "Advanced rules apply to specific types of models,..... or because they are not normal infantry models (a bike, a swarm or even a tank)." The specific model type here is Dreadnought which makes it advance BUT the first part is still basic since it does not state a model type, Basic versus Advanced first sentence "Basic rules apply to all the models in the game, unless stated otherwise." For the people that are saying "If the preatoriens can be on a Transport then I can put 20 warhound titans in a drop pod because of same reason ho ho ho!" You are saying that the Transport Capacity is a basic rule applying to all models and we have an advance rule that trumps it
"But wait how can the Preatoriens be on a Transport because they can't embark as it says on pg 80 "Only Infantry models can embark upon transports (this does not include Jump or Jet Pack Infantry, unless specifically stated otherwise." then because that is an advance rule too!" You say Mr. Devil's advocate! And here is my answer. They can't. I'll agree that Jump Infantry and Jet Pack Infantry can not embark on a Transport without a rule saying that can. But what is "Embarking" the rule? Well I posted it up above and it clearly states per RAW that Embarking is the process of a unit embarks on a vehicle by getting 2" near the Access points during the movement phase. That is it. Jump Infantry and Jet pack Infantry can't do that unless they have permission to. I agree with that statement.
"But how are you saying they can be on a transport then if they can't do that?" Well, simply, we look at the "Combined Reserve Units" rules on page 135 ".... Similarly, you must specify if any units in Reserve are embarked upon any Transport vehicles in Reserve, in which case they will arrive together..." This rule here gives us permission to have a unit already embarked on a Transport in reserve during deployment. Yes in normal English Embarked is the past tense of the word embark. But embarked is not the past tense of the rule "Embarking" which tells us the only way to embark is to do it during the movement phase. This rule skips the "Embarking" rule, the unit is already on the Transport.
"But the unit isn't Infantry!" Well it is, and it isn't. It's the whole square and rectangle deal. Jump units pg 65 last two sentences of first paragraph (the bold one) "Jump units therefore share two sets of rules, the Jump unit rules, and those of their base type. Jump Infantry would, for example, follow the rules for Jump units and Infantry." Not all Infantry units are Jump Infantry, but all Jump Infantry are Infantry since they follow both sets of rules.
And the Transport Capacity rules for what type a Transport can carry is Infantry, (and Independent Characters as long as they too are Infantry).
TlR: Rules wise, just because you are embarked upon a transport doesn't mean you went through the Embarking rules, which is limited to only Infantry models, and not Jump or Jet Infantry, (unless specifically stated otherwise). And you can't embark without a Movement phase.
Some people are also arguing that if a non-Infantry unit type be deployed into a DT at the start of the game, capacity does not matter as well (so 20 Warriors in a Ghost Ark, 30 Boyz in a trukk).
Figured I'd add this to the thread to provide additional discussion.
Yup, if you're throwing one restriction out the window, you have to throw them all out to be consistent. If the unit type restriction on embarking doesn't matter, then neither should the unit size restriction. Enjoy your 30 Shoota Boy strong Trukk gunboats. (Obviously being sarcastic.)
Could ask about the chariot and the rider both having IWND, is it 1 IWND roll since they are considered 1 model or is it 2 because the entry states that both the rider and the chariot have the IWND special rule.
Punisher wrote: Could ask about the chariot and the rider both having IWND, is it 1 IWND roll since they are considered 1 model or is it 2 because the entry states that both the rider and the chariot have the IWND special rule.
One model, so one roll. And the IWND rule says you have the option of restoring a wound OR a hull point. So make your single roll and recoup whichever you prefer. You can never make two rolls and you can never restore both a wound and hull point form IWND at one time.
Punisher wrote: Could ask about the chariot and the rider both having IWND, is it 1 IWND roll since they are considered 1 model or is it 2 because the entry states that both the rider and the chariot have the IWND special rule.
One model, so one roll. And the IWND rule says you have the option of restoring a wound OR a hull point. So make your single roll and recoup whichever you prefer. You can never make two rolls and you can never restore both a wound and hull point form IWND at one time.
IWND already transfers to the whole model and it pointless to say both the rider and the chariot have the rule.
In this case, it appears they meant that both the rider and chariot have an individual chance to regain a wound/hull point, however the RAW does not fit.
A FAQ is needed.
"Quantum Shielding" Necron Vehicle Equipment:
Since both the "Quantum Shielding" special rule and the "Lance" universal special rule apply set value modifiers to Necron vehicles, which one applies?
IS that really a set modifier now for quantum shielding rather then the +2, if its still plus two its a modifer so will be brought down to AV12 by lance as that is a set modifer.
I do have a question. Basically this (in response to someone saying they can use Orikans rule on wraiths)
Would you acutally be able to use Orikan rule of +1 RP and rr 1's for the wraiths?, harvest rule states they benefit from RP but Orikans rule says all friendly models with the RP rule. Does benefit = have?
At the start of each of the controlling player’s Movement phases, choose one of the following special rules: Fleet, Reanimation Protocols, Shred. The Canoptek Spyder from this Formation, and all units from this Formation within 12" of the Canoptek Spyder from this Formation, benefit from the effects of the chosen special rule until the start of the controlling player’s next Movement phase.
I am not sure if it does, surely it would have said all units from this formation gain the chosen special rule until the start.... etc
If you compare to Zanhdreks rule
Counter Tactics: Whilst Nemesor Zahndrekh is within 24" of any enemy unit(s) with any of the following special rules – Counter-attack, Furious Charge, Hit & Run, Split Fire, Stealth, Tank Hunters – then Zahndrekh and his unit also have the same special rule(s)
Kriswall wrote: Yup, if you're throwing one restriction out the window, you have to throw them all out to be consistent. If the unit type restriction on embarking doesn't matter, then neither should the unit size restriction. Enjoy your 30 Shoota Boy strong Trukk gunboats. (Obviously being sarcastic.)
Because restrictions are always consistent right? (sarcasm as well) That's a bit throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Reading the BRB is like reading one of those old choose your own adventure books where you keep flipping to random page after random page. There are so many rules within rules that override other rules but not these other rules over hear because of this rule.
Thought of a better example. The whole Codex > BRB all the time, every time, zealotry but that only applies if there is a contradiction that the codex wins out, not all the time such as the BRB having an Advance rule and the codex having a basic rule.
Kriswall wrote: Yup, if you're throwing one restriction out the window, you have to throw them all out to be consistent. If the unit type restriction on embarking doesn't matter, then neither should the unit size restriction. Enjoy your 30 Shoota Boy strong Trukk gunboats. (Obviously being sarcastic.)
Because restrictions are always consistent right? (sarcasm as well) That's a bit throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Reading the BRB is like reading one of those old choose your own adventure books where you keep flipping to random page after random page. There are so many rules within rules that override other rules but not these other rules over hear because of this rule.
Thought of a better example. The whole Codex > BRB all the time every time zealotry while if there is a contradiction the codex wins out, that is only most of the time not all the time.
No, it's all the time, but a lot if people like to pretend that "if there is a contradiction" part doesn't exist. Or pretend that there isn't a contradiction when there is (and vice versa).
I'm surprised to see this up again. I figured everybody just abandoned it.
I already submitted the FAQ to GW. What's stopping you?
Anyways, about the questions regarding the Monolith/Rod of Covenant, as they seem to be persistent. If you want me to add them, then write them.
See the OP? Nearly every one of those I did myself. I'm not going to do anymore effort for you guys if you don't want to play by the rules; none of this "u gonna do it m8?"
Put in the effort.
Reading the BRB is like reading one of those old choose your own adventure books where you keep flipping to random page after random page.
Kriswall wrote: Yup, if you're throwing one restriction out the window, you have to throw them all out to be consistent. If the unit type restriction on embarking doesn't matter, then neither should the unit size restriction. Enjoy your 30 Shoota Boy strong Trukk gunboats. (Obviously being sarcastic.)
Please clarify. Are you advocating that you ignore rules? Sounds like you are running well astray from RAW.
Kriswall wrote: Yup, if you're throwing one restriction out the window, you have to throw them all out to be consistent. If the unit type restriction on embarking doesn't matter, then neither should the unit size restriction. Enjoy your 30 Shoota Boy strong Trukk gunboats. (Obviously being sarcastic.)
Please clarify. Are you advocating that you ignore rules? Sounds like you are running well astray from RAW.
I guess when I wrote "obviously being sarcastic" that I wasn't being clear enough.
Might have missed it but if not then heres one for the FAQ:
How does RP interact with FNP when unsaved wounds spill over/reallocated to an character?
(i.e. can a unit potentially receive the benefits of armour/invuln saves and RP and then FNP spread between multiple models?)
Theoretical example:
Conclave of the burning one formation receives 12 ap2 wounds.
The Ctan LO,S 7 wounds to the teks who RP 2, sustain 4 wounds leaving 1 wound.
Can the ctan now attempt FNP for each of these wounds?
What if the allocation order was reversed (resulting in fnp then RP).
Kriswall wrote: Yup, if you're throwing one restriction out the window, you have to throw them all out to be consistent. If the unit type restriction on embarking doesn't matter, then neither should the unit size restriction. Enjoy your 30 Shoota Boy strong Trukk gunboats. (Obviously being sarcastic.)
Please clarify. Are you advocating that you ignore rules? Sounds like you are running well astray from RAW.
I guess when I wrote "obviously being sarcastic" that I wasn't being clear enough.
If there is a rule that puts the Praetorian on the NS are you ignoring it, yes or no?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dominuschao wrote: Might have missed it but if not then heres one for the FAQ:
How does RP interact with FNP when unsaved wounds spill over/reallocated to an character?
(i.e. can a unit potentially receive the benefits of armour/invuln saves and RP and then FNP spread between multiple models?)
Theoretical example:
Conclave of the burning one formation receives 12 ap2 wounds.
The Ctan LO,S 7 wounds to the teks who RP 2, sustain 4 wounds leaving 1 wound.
Can the ctan now attempt FNP for each of these wounds?
What if the allocation order was reversed (resulting in fnp then RP).
No model in that formation has both, and the rules for reanimation protocol are clear that if you did have both then you have to choose one or the other.
Kriswall wrote: Yup, if you're throwing one restriction out the window, you have to throw them all out to be consistent. If the unit type restriction on embarking doesn't matter, then neither should the unit size restriction. Enjoy your 30 Shoota Boy strong Trukk gunboats. (Obviously being sarcastic.)
Please clarify. Are you advocating that you ignore rules? Sounds like you are running well astray from RAW.
Let's try to keep this constructive, please - if a user posts they are obviously being sarcastic, there's no need for us to have a serious discussion on the matter.
As always, if there are any issues please hit the yellow triangle rather than responding in-thread - thanks.
Kriswall wrote: Yup, if you're throwing one restriction out the window, you have to throw them all out to be consistent. If the unit type restriction on embarking doesn't matter, then neither should the unit size restriction. Enjoy your 30 Shoota Boy strong Trukk gunboats. (Obviously being sarcastic.)
Please clarify. Are you advocating that you ignore rules? Sounds like you are running well astray from RAW.
I guess when I wrote "obviously being sarcastic" that I wasn't being clear enough.
If there is a rule that puts the Praetorian on the NS are you ignoring it, yes or no?
This is the core issue. I see no rule overriding the basic restriction Transports have on allowing Jump Infantry to be embarked. I don't believe the Dedicated Transport rules have wording sufficient to override the general Transport rules. The Night Scythe has no wording whatsoever on the matter, so this isn't a Codex versus BRB issue. If a Transport says it can hold 15 models, this typically refers to 15 Infantry (excepting Jump and Jet Pack varieties) models. The Dedicated Trasport rules add a further restriction that only the purchasing unit can be deployed inside at game start. I see no wording overriding the Jump/Jet Pack restriction.
I'm not ignoring a rule saying Jump Infantry can be embarked upon a Transport because there is no rule saying Jump Infantry can be embarked upon a Transport.
If you except the wording in the Dedicated Transport section saying that the only restriction is that only the purchasing unit can be deployed inside as a way of overriding the unit type restriction... then why can't you use the same wording to override other restrictions... such as the unit size restriction? You have yet to sufficiently answer this. You can't cherry pick restrictions to override. All or nothing. Which was my sarcastic point. Your position necessarily results in 30 man Ork units in Trukks... which is obviously ludicrous.
The most likely scenario is that GW made a mistake and meant to include wording saying the Night Scythe could transport Jump Infantry... which is why we need an FAQ/Errata.
Kriswall wrote: Yup, if you're throwing one restriction out the window, you have to throw them all out to be consistent. If the unit type restriction on embarking doesn't matter, then neither should the unit size restriction. Enjoy your 30 Shoota Boy strong Trukk gunboats. (Obviously being sarcastic.)
Please clarify. Are you advocating that you ignore rules? Sounds like you are running well astray from RAW.
I guess when I wrote "obviously being sarcastic" that I wasn't being clear enough.
If there is a rule that puts the Praetorian on the NS are you ignoring it, yes or no?
This is the core issue. I see no rule overriding the basic restriction Transports have on allowing Jump Infantry to be embarked. I don't believe the Dedicated Transport rules have wording sufficient to override the general Transport rules. The Night Scythe has no wording whatsoever on the matter, so this isn't a Codex versus BRB issue. If a Transport says it can hold 15 models, this typically refers to 15 Infantry (excepting Jump and Jet Pack varieties) models. The Dedicated Trasport rules add a further restriction that only the purchasing unit can be deployed inside at game start. I see no wording overriding the Jump/Jet Pack restriction.
I'm not ignoring a rule saying Jump Infantry can be embarked upon a Transport because there is no rule saying Jump Infantry can be embarked upon a Transport.
If you except the wording in the Dedicated Transport section saying that the only restriction is that only the purchasing unit can be deployed inside as a way of overriding the unit type restriction... then why can't you use the same wording to override other restrictions... such as the unit size restriction? You have yet to sufficiently answer this. You can't cherry pick restrictions to override. All or nothing. Which was my sarcastic point. Your position necessarily results in 30 man Ork units in Trukks... which is obviously ludicrous.
The most likely scenario is that GW made a mistake and meant to include wording saying the Night Scythe could transport Jump Infantry... which is why we need an FAQ/Errata.
These are the rules in question.
Spoiler:
The only limitation of a Dedicated Transport is that when it is deployed, it can
only carry the unit it was selected with (plus any Independent Characters that
have joined it). After the game begins, it can then transport any friendly
Infantry unit, subject to Transport Capacity and other special exclusions, as
explained in the vehicle’s entry.
Spoiler:
Combined Reserve Units
During deployment, when deciding which units are kept as Reserves, you must specify if
any of the Independent Characters in Reserve are joining a unit, in which case they must
arrive together. Similarly, you must specify if any units in Reserve are embarked upon
any Transport vehicles in Reserve, in which case they will arrive together. In either case,
when making a Reserve Roll (see below) for a combined unit, roll a single dice for the
unit and/or its Independent Character/Transport vehicle.
My argument follows strict RAW - a Praetorian comes already embarked on the NS in deployment and can use its dedicated transport no problem . You are correct that a loophole exists in the RAW that allows units with dedicated transports to exceed transport capacity. However we must follow RAW and allow Praetorians on the NS and separately deal with the loophole (should we choose to do so).
Your argument is that you don't have to follow this rule, which runs against RAW. In fact you are in your approach slipping in a RAI ("we can ignore this rule") yet still trying to call it RAW.
Except it doesn't because you have to invent a method of getting embarked that doesn't follow the rules for embarking. You're literally making rules up to have your argument fit.
You have permission to begin the game deployed in the transport. How do you get in there? According to your argument - magic. The actual rules - embarking.
Except it doesn't because you have to invent a method of getting embarked that doesn't follow the rules for embarking. You're literally making rules up to have your argument fit.
You have permission to begin the game deployed in the transport. How do you get in there? According to your argument - magic. The actual rules - embarking.
On the contrary, I am dilligently adhering to RAW.
These are the rules for embarking
Spoiler:
Embarking
A unit can embark onto a vehicle by moving each model to within 2" of its
Access Points in the Movement phase – Difficult and Dangerous Terrain tests should
be taken as normal. The whole unit must be able to embark – if some models are out of
range, the entire unit must stay outside. When the unit embarks, remove it from the table
and place it aside, making a note that the unit is being transported. If the players need to
measure a range involving the embarked unit (except for its shooting), this range is
measured to or from the vehicle’s hull.
For embarking to happen in deployment you would be the one making up rules. Is that not abundantly clear?
Except it doesn't because you have to invent a method of getting embarked that doesn't follow the rules for embarking. You're literally making rules up to have your argument fit.
You have permission to begin the game deployed in the transport. How do you get in there? According to your argument - magic. The actual rules - embarking.
On the contrary, I am dilligently adhering to RAW.
These are the rules for embarking
Spoiler:
Embarking
A unit can embark onto a vehicle by moving each model to within 2" of its
Access Points in the Movement phase – Difficult and Dangerous Terrain tests should
be taken as normal. The whole unit must be able to embark – if some models are out of
range, the entire unit must stay outside. When the unit embarks, remove it from the table
and place it aside, making a note that the unit is being transported. If the players need to
measure a range involving the embarked unit (except for its shooting), this range is
measured to or from the vehicle’s hull.
For embarking to happen in deployment you would be the one making up rules. Is that not abundantly clear?
Except you have permission for it to happen in deployment. Conflict! Specific > General. Deployment wins.
I've made nothing up. Cite the rules on how you end up embarked on a transport you never followed the rules for embarking into. Those must exist for your argument to be considered RAW.
Except it doesn't because you have to invent a method of getting embarked that doesn't follow the rules for embarking. You're literally making rules up to have your argument fit.
You have permission to begin the game deployed in the transport. How do you get in there? According to your argument - magic. The actual rules - embarking.
On the contrary, I am dilligently adhering to RAW.
These are the rules for embarking
Spoiler:
Embarking
A unit can embark onto a vehicle by moving each model to within 2" of its
Access Points in the Movement phase – Difficult and Dangerous Terrain tests should
be taken as normal. The whole unit must be able to embark – if some models are out of
range, the entire unit must stay outside. When the unit embarks, remove it from the table
and place it aside, making a note that the unit is being transported. If the players need to
measure a range involving the embarked unit (except for its shooting), this range is
measured to or from the vehicle’s hull.
For embarking to happen in deployment you would be the one making up rules. Is that not abundantly clear?
Except you have permission for it to happen in deployment. Conflict! Specific > General. Deployment wins.
I've made nothing up. Cite the rules on how you end up embarked on a transport you never followed the rules for embarking into. Those must exist for your argument to be considered RAW.
They start the game embarked upon the vehicle as indicated clearly in the rules. Embarking is going through the process of starting outside the vehicle to winding up inside the vehicle. If the game starts with them embarked on the vehicle then logically you don't have to go through the process of embarking them.
The rules start the game with them embarked upon the NS so no embarking happens at deployment.
The rules for embarking specify movement phase and cannot apply at deployment (which is fine because no embarking happens anyway at deployment - see note above)
Anyway, that's all rehash on the linked thread above. I was only asking for Kriswall to explain whether his argument was RAW, RAI, or whatever. More of a discussion of what counts as RAW (ie if you willfully ignore a rule can you say you are RAW?)
col_impact wrote: They start the game embarked upon the vehicle as indicated clearly in the rules. Embarking is going through the process of starting outside the vehicle to winding up inside the vehicle. If the game starts with them embarked on the vehicle then logically you don't have to go through the process of embarking them.
You do realize that the Combined Reserve Units rule you quoted isn't permission to be embarked, right? It just says that you have to specify if you are.
Please cite permission.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
col_impact wrote: The rules for embarking specify movement phase and cannot apply at deployment (which is fine because no embarking happens anyway at deployment - see note above)
... Except how I've already pointed out that it can perfectly well happen at deployment. Please don't ignore my posts.
col_impact wrote: They start the game embarked upon the vehicle as indicated clearly in the rules. Embarking is going through the process of starting outside the vehicle to winding up inside the vehicle. If the game starts with them embarked on the vehicle then logically you don't have to go through the process of embarking them.
You do realize that the Combined Reserve Units rule you quoted isn't permission to be embarked, right? It just says that you have to specify if you are.
Please cite permission.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
col_impact wrote: The rules for embarking specify movement phase and cannot apply at deployment (which is fine because no embarking happens anyway at deployment - see note above)
... Except how I've already pointed out that it can perfectly well happen at deployment. Please don't ignore my posts.
Feel free to point out in the rules for deployment when and how you exactly go through the process of embarking them.
Here are the rules. Go into detail how that happens.
Spoiler:
Embarking
A unit can embark onto a vehicle by moving each model to within 2" of its
Access Points in the Movement phase – Difficult and Dangerous Terrain tests should
be taken as normal. The whole unit must be able to embark – if some models are out of
range, the entire unit must stay outside. When the unit embarks, remove it from the table
and place it aside, making a note that the unit is being transported. If the players need to
measure a range involving the embarked unit (except for its shooting), this range is
measured to or from the vehicle’s hull.
col_impact wrote: Feel free to point out in the rules for deployment when and how you exactly go through the process of embarking them.
Here are the rules. Go into detail how that happens.
Spoiler:
Embarking
A unit can embark onto a vehicle by moving each model to within 2" of its
Access Points in the Movement phase – Difficult and Dangerous Terrain tests should
be taken as normal. (Stricken because this cannot happen in the Deployment phase and we have permission to embark)
The whole unit must be able to embark – if some models are out of
range, the entire unit must stay outside. When the unit embarks, remove it from the table
and place it aside, making a note that the unit is being transported. If the players need to
measure a range involving the embarked unit (except for its shooting), this range is
measured to or from the vehicle’s hull.
Not hard at all. You then, per the Combined Reserve Units rules, must specify that the unit is embarked. You forgot some rules though:
Spoiler:
Models can be deployed ‘inside’ buildings, fortifications, or Transport vehicles in their deployment zone, subject to their Transport Capacity.
col_impact wrote: Feel free to point out in the rules for deployment when and how you exactly go through the process of embarking them.
Here are the rules. Go into detail how that happens.
Spoiler:
Embarking
A unit can embark onto a vehicle by moving each model to within 2" of its
Access Points in the Movement phase – Difficult and Dangerous Terrain tests should
be taken as normal. (Stricken because this cannot happen in the Deployment phase and we have permission to embark)
The whole unit must be able to embark – if some models are out of
range, the entire unit must stay outside. When the unit embarks, remove it from the table
and place it aside, making a note that the unit is being transported. If the players need to
measure a range involving the embarked unit (except for its shooting), this range is
measured to or from the vehicle’s hull.
Not hard at all. You then, per the Combined Reserve Units rules, must specify that the unit is embarked. You forgot some rules though:
Spoiler:
Models can be deployed ‘inside’ buildings, fortifications, or Transport vehicles in their deployment zone, subject to their Transport Capacity.
Note the underlined.
First, striking out lines of rules is inventing rules.
Further, you don't have permission at deployment to go through embarking. 'Embarking' is not mentioned in the deployment rules. The rules start you off 'embarked on' or 'deployed inside' as you helpfully quoted. So you have utterly failed to show when embarking happens at deployment since as you quoted for me 'deployed inside' circumvents embarking entirely.
col_impact wrote: Feel free to point out in the rules for deployment when and how you exactly go through the process of embarking them.
Here are the rules. Go into detail how that happens.
Spoiler:
Embarking
A unit can embark onto a vehicle by moving each model to within 2" of its
Access Points in the Movement phase – Difficult and Dangerous Terrain tests should
be taken as normal. (Stricken because this cannot happen in the Deployment phase and we have permission to embark)
The whole unit must be able to embark – if some models are out of
range, the entire unit must stay outside. When the unit embarks, remove it from the table
and place it aside, making a note that the unit is being transported. If the players need to
measure a range involving the embarked unit (except for its shooting), this range is
measured to or from the vehicle’s hull.
Not hard at all. You then, per the Combined Reserve Units rules, must specify that the unit is embarked. You forgot some rules though:
Spoiler:
Models can be deployed ‘inside’ buildings, fortifications, or Transport vehicles in their deployment zone, subject to their Transport Capacity.
Note the underlined.
First, striking out lines of rules is inventing rules.
Not at all. I demonstrated there was a conflict so those rules cannot apply, hence the strikeout.
Further, you don't have permission at deployment to go through embarking. 'Embarking' is not mentioned in the deployment rules. The rules start you off 'embarked on' or 'deployed inside' as you helpfully quoted. So you have utterly failed to show when embarking happens at deployment since as you quoted for me 'deployed inside' circumvents embarking entirely.
But it's still subject to their Transport Capacity - which includes the exclusion of Jump Infantry unless specified. Have you found some place it's specified yet?
col_impact wrote: Feel free to point out in the rules for deployment when and how you exactly go through the process of embarking them.
Here are the rules. Go into detail how that happens.
Spoiler:
Embarking
A unit can embark onto a vehicle by moving each model to within 2" of its
Access Points in the Movement phase – Difficult and Dangerous Terrain tests should
be taken as normal. (Stricken because this cannot happen in the Deployment phase and we have permission to embark)
The whole unit must be able to embark – if some models are out of
range, the entire unit must stay outside. When the unit embarks, remove it from the table
and place it aside, making a note that the unit is being transported. If the players need to
measure a range involving the embarked unit (except for its shooting), this range is
measured to or from the vehicle’s hull.
Not hard at all. You then, per the Combined Reserve Units rules, must specify that the unit is embarked. You forgot some rules though:
Spoiler:
Models can be deployed ‘inside’ buildings, fortifications, or Transport vehicles in their deployment zone, subject to their Transport Capacity.
Note the underlined.
First, striking out lines of rules is inventing rules.
Not at all. I demonstrated there was a conflict so those rules cannot apply, hence the strikeout.
Further, you don't have permission at deployment to go through embarking. 'Embarking' is not mentioned in the deployment rules. The rules start you off 'embarked on' or 'deployed inside' as you helpfully quoted. So you have utterly failed to show when embarking happens at deployment since as you quoted for me 'deployed inside' circumvents embarking entirely.
But it's still subject to their Transport Capacity - which includes the exclusion of Jump Infantry unless specified. Have you found some place it's specified yet?
Quote the rule you are referring to.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrotherGecko wrote: Still subject to thier transport capacity which doesn't include jump pack infantry.
Spoiler:
A Transport can carry a single Infantry unit and/or any number of Independent
Characters (as long as they are also Infantry), up to a total number of models
equal to the vehicle’s Transport Capacity.
Spoiler:
Jump units are equipped with jump packs, wings, teleport devices or other
means of moving quickly over short distances. Unlike most other unit type
categories, ‘Jump’ is not a classification in and of itself. Instead, you’ll find it
occurs before another category – commonly Infantry, sometimes Monstrous
Creatures and perhaps, rarely, other things. Jump units therefore share two
sets of rules, the Jump unit rules, and those of their base type. Jump Infantry
would, for example, follow the rules for Jump units and Infantry.
Spoiler:
The only limitation of a Dedicated Transport is that when it is deployed, it can
only carry the unit it was selected with (plus any Independent Characters that
have joined it). After the game begins, it can then transport any friendly
Infantry unit, subject to Transport Capacity and other special exclusions, as
explained in the vehicle’s entry.
I do like how you are selectively ignoring the rules for Jump units on Transports by not quoting them (even though they would follow the rules for them) as well as the fact the very last line in the last rule you posted states that the vehicles entry would explain any special exclusions it has.
Transport Capacity section of the Transport rules...
"TRANSPORT CAPACITY
Each Transport vehicle has a maximum passenger capacity that can never be exceeded. A Transport can carry a single Infantry unit and/or any number of Independent Characters (as long as they are also Infantry), up to a total number of models equal to the vehicle’s Transport Capacity. The entire unit must be embarked on the Transport if any part of it is – a unit cannot be partially embarked or be spread across multiple Transports.
Only Infantry models can embark upon Transports (this does not include Jump or Jet Pack Infantry), unless specifically stated otherwise. Some larger Infantry models count as more than one model for the purposes of Transport Capacity, and this will be specified in the model’s rules. Sometimes, there will be constraints on which types of models can embark upon a particular vehicle, and this will be specified in the unit’s entry. Space Marine Terminators, for example, cannot embark upon a Rhino or Razorback, although they can be transported by a Land Raider."
So, Jump Infantry can't embark upon Transports, per the Transport Capacity rules. When you deploy a unit inside a Transport, it is embarked. Clearly, being deployed inside a Transport during deployment is a form of embarkation as it results in a unit being embarked.
Since you can only deploy models inside a Transport subject to the Transport's Transport Capacity AND the Transport Capacity rules say you can't embark Jump Infantry, the Transport itself would have to have a special exemption. The 5th edition Necron Codex had such an exemption. The 7th edition Codex doesn't.
This seems very black and white if you're actually reading the Transport Capacity rules. You need to show that being deployed into a Transport ISN'T a form of embarkation that happens during deployment.
I'd suggest we end this line of argument. Nobody appears to agree with col_impact, his argument is internally inconsistent and he ignores certain rules in his citations.
I'd suggest a mod lock, but this thread is really an FAQ wishlist thread.
TRANSPORT CAPACITY Each Transport vehicle has a maximum passenger capacity that can never be exceeded. A Transport can carry a single Infantry unit and/or any number of Independent Characters (as long as they are also Infantry), up to a total number of models equal to the vehicle’s Transport Capacity. The entire unit must be embarked on the Transport if any part of it is – a unit cannot be partially embarked or be spread across multiple Transports. Only Infantry models can embark upon Transports (this does not include Jump or Jet Pack Infantry), unless specifically stated otherwise. Some larger Infantry models count as more than one model for the purposes of Transport Capacity, and this will be specified in the model’s rules. Sometimes, there will be constraints on which types of models can embark upon a particular vehicle, and this will be specified in the unit’s entry. Space Marine Terminators, for example, cannot embark upon a Rhino or Razorback, although they can be transported by a Land Raider.
Since the requirement to be Infantry is under the rule TRANSPORT CAPACITY and you are subject to a transports TRANSPORT CAPACITY you need a rule specifically stating otherwise. You've utterly failed to present one.
Spoiler:
A Transport can carry a single Infantry unit and/or any number of Independent Characters (as long as they are also Infantry), up to a total number of models equal to the vehicle’s Transport Capacity.
Yup! Which includes the restriction on Jump Infantry. Unless you're going to pretend that doesn't apply?
col_impact wrote: But it's still subject to their Transport Capacity - which includes the exclusion of Jump Infantry unless specified. Have you found some place it's specified yet?
Quote the rule you are referring to.
Seriously?
Spoiler:
TRANSPORT CAPACITY
Each Transport vehicle has a maximum passenger capacity that can never be exceeded. A Transport can carry a single Infantry unit and/or any number of Independent Characters (as long as they are also Infantry), up to a total number of models equal to the vehicle’s Transport Capacity. The entire unit must be embarked on the Transport if any part of it is – a unit cannot be partially embarked or be spread across multiple Transports.
Only Infantry models can embark upon Transports (this does not include Jump or Jet Pack Infantry), unless specifically stated otherwise. Some larger Infantry models count as more than one model for the purposes of Transport Capacity, and this will be specified in the model’s rules. Sometimes, there will be constraints on which types of models can embark upon a particular vehicle, and this will be specified in the unit’s entry. Space Marine Terminators, for example, cannot embark upon a Rhino or Razorback, although they can be transported by a Land Raider.
Since the requirement to be Infantry is under the rule TRANSPORT CAPACITY and you are subject to a transports TRANSPORT CAPACITY you need a rule specifically stating otherwise. You've utterly failed to present one.
Spoiler:
A Transport can carry a single Infantry unit and/or any number of Independent
Characters (as long as they are also Infantry), up to a total number of models
equal to the vehicle’s Transport Capacity.
Yup! Which includes the restriction on Jump Infantry. Unless you're going to pretend that doesn't apply?
Jump Infantry are restricted from embarking upon. Since as you noted, the game starts with units embarked on or deployed inside, the restriction never applies.
If you feel otherwise, point out when exactly embarking happens at deployment.
Kriswall wrote: I'd suggest we end this line of argument. Nobody appears to agree with col_impact, his argument is internally inconsistent and he ignores certain rules in his citations.
I'd suggest a mod lock, but this thread is really an FAQ wishlist thread.
I don't think I have never wanted so many FAQ's for a single Codex
col_impact wrote: Jump Infantry are restricted from embarking upon. Since as you noted, the game starts with units embarked on or deployed inside, the restriction never applies.
So despite being told "subject to their Transport Capacity" you feel that part of the Transport Capacity doesn't apply. Cute. I'm done with you - you've done nothing but argue simply to get threads locked.
You're certainly not debating honestly.
If you feel otherwise, point out when exactly embarking happens at deployment.
I have done so - with rules support, and not some invented thing that doesn't exist in the BRB.
I like the consistent ignoring of the deployement rules. Were it says models can deploy in their transports but are still subject to their transport capacity.
At this point I feel like he won't admit he is wrong and is just trolling to get threads locked too.
BrotherGecko wrote: I like the consistent ignoring of the deployement rules. Were it says models can deploy in their transports but are still subject to their transport capacity.
At this point I feel like he won't admit he is wrong and is just trolling to get threads locked too.
Page 3 in this thread has a decent summary. I am applying strict RAW. People are throwing their hands up in the air and accusing me of all sorts of things when all I am doing is taking them to task at finding when and how exactly they go through the embarking process at deployment because deployment totally circumvents it in the rules as they are written. RAW means you have to deal with the rules as they are.
As of yet no one has been able to detail out the embarking process at deployment. The rules totally circumvent it.
Kriswall wrote: Yup, if you're throwing one restriction out the window, you have to throw them all out to be consistent. If the unit type restriction on embarking doesn't matter, then neither should the unit size restriction. Enjoy your 30 Shoota Boy strong Trukk gunboats. (Obviously being sarcastic.)
Because restrictions are always consistent right? (sarcasm as well) That's a bit throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Reading the BRB is like reading one of those old choose your own adventure books where you keep flipping to random page after random page. There are so many rules within rules that override other rules but not these other rules over hear because of this rule.
Thought of a better example. The whole Codex > BRB all the time every time zealotry while if there is a contradiction the codex wins out, that is only most of the time not all the time.
No, it's all the time, but a lot if people like to pretend that "if there is a contradiction" part doesn't exist. Or pretend that there isn't a contradiction when there is (and vice versa).
It can't be all the time, for example what can fit in a transport the TC in codex's just say models but the BRB has the restriction of infantry. The brb's rule for CT is an advance rule where the TC of number of models in the codex is basic since it just says models.
Ahh re-reading what you said and what I said I get the impression you think I'm saying that the "in case of contradiction"isn't all the time. Correct? If so Sorry for the confusion I will correct it.
In the Canoptek Harvest formation can the Canoptek. Spyder be upgraded to include up to two additional models (as per the data sheet on page 93 of Codex:Necrons) or is the formation limited to one single Spyder?
What facing does Imotekh's lord of the storm hit vehicles on?
Are the shots counted as coming from him for cover purposes, or do they ignore it? (wondering because Lord of the storm doesn't need Line of sight to Imotekh to hit units.
harkequin wrote: What facing does Imotekh's lord of the storm hit vehicles on?
Are the shots counted as coming from him for cover purposes, or do they ignore it? (wondering because Lord of the storm doesn't need Line of sight to Imotekh to hit units.
The 5th Ed "7th Ed" FAQ covers how his lightning works, so that is HIWPI until they FAQ it in the future.
On a somewhat related note, got this reply from FW when I inquired about their own FAQs-
Hi,
Thank you for your email. We are currently looking at what errata is required for our books due to the release of new codex's and the latest edition of the 40k rules. Once this is completed, we will release any required updates on PDF, via the downloads on our website. As this is a massive under taking it will take quite some time to complete.
Doesn't really say anything aside from saying that they ARE currently working on it really...
It'd be nice if a moderator can split the page of rules argument into its own thread.
Meanwhile, for the second edition in a row, I submitted questions regarding the monolith and Deep Strike. Not because I expect a return to the awesomeness that once was Monolith Deep Striking (dare to dream), but because I want it explicitly stated rather than inferred. Summarized;
-If a skimmer ending movement over another model is moved off, does this prevent Deep Strike mishaps?
-If a vehicle can Tank Shock from Reserves, can it Tank Shock from Deep Strike?
R: Rules wise, just because you are embarked upon a transport doesn't mean you went through the Embarking rules, which is limited to only Infantry models, and not Jump or Jet Infantry, (unless specifically stated otherwise). And you can't embark without a Movement phase.
I don't think I have never wanted so many 