Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hi,
Do Imotekh's nightfight and lightning storm abilities still apply even if he is in reserve?

Do they apply if he is attatched to a unit in a closed vehicle i.e. Warrior squad in Nightsycthe but on the board?

Can a Cryptek with a Chronometron attached to Imotekh and his warriors use the chronometron to gain re-roles to nightfight and storm if in the same positions as Imotekh i.e. off the board in reserve or in a transport?

Thanks in advance.

Firsst turn - yes

Second turn onwards - no, because he needs to be on the board to roll for night fight (it is HIS roll, as defined in the FAQ a number of times), you dont have permission to roll while in reserve.

FAQ covers your last question

Thanks nosferatu.

To which FAQ are you refering, the new GW necron one or the Dakka one, or even the rulebook FAQ?

Necron one.

Repeatedly it defines the roll for NF as "his" roll - which is the only reason the chrono allows you to reroll it. Because it is HIS roll, you cannot roll while off the board in reserves, dead, or any other situation where it is absurd to consider a model still able to contribute to a battle.

Ok thanks. Just to clarify, on the board in a vehicle, he is still allowed his rolls and the crypteks reroles?
Sorry for the repeated questions, don't have access to FAQ from this computer.

Yep, thats ok - because while youre not "on the board" while embarked, you are still in play - otherwise you couldnt fire weapons, etc.

Flashman, just be aware that nosferatu1001 is giving you his interpretation of the implications of the Necron FAQ's. It's far from cut-and-dried, and if you drug Nemesor Dave onto this thread he'd pretty vigorously maintain that the Lord of the Storm power remains in effect with Imotekh in reserve, or even with Imotekh killed.

The relevant codex wording is: "If your army includes Imotekh the Stormlord, the Night Fighting rules automatically apply during the first game turn. Furthermore, you can attempt to keep the Night Fighting rules in play in subsequent game turns by rolling a D6 at the start of the turn." (etc)

Then, the relevant FAQ q&a entries are:
Q: Must Imotekh the Stormlord roll to see if Night Fighting continues at the start of the game turn? (p55)
A: No, he can attempt it but isn’t forced to.

Q: If I choose to use a solar pulse to remove the effects of Night Fighting for the turn, do I roll to see if Imotekh’s Lord of the Storm special rule hits any enemy units? (p84)
A: No.

Q: If an army contains Imotekh the Stormlord can a Cryptek with a chronometron use it to re-roll the roll to see if the Night Fighting special rule stays in effect? (p85)
A: Only if Imotekh is in the same unit as the Cryptek with the chronometron.

The original rule clearly states that the Lord of the Storm special rules are a consequence of Imotekh's inclusion in the army, not a direct action such as shooting or casting a psychic power, etc. The single enabling factor for Lord of the Storm effects are inclusion of Imotekh in the army. The subsequent FAQ answers follow the possessive tense of the questions, ie, the first question implicitly assumes Imotekh owns the Night Fighting roll, and the answer is couched in the same terms. But D6 roll "possession", for some undefined by RAW value of "possession", is a weak reed to base a reinterpretation of the codex rule on.

Nosferatu makes the argument that Imotekh cannot exercise a power from reserve, which is actually (he says) what's happening when we make the Night Fighting roll. Actually, in a thread he was arguing over this with N.Dave, he says almost exactly that:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Additionally you CANNOT use powers from reserve, and cannot use "start of turn " "Start of movement phase" powers when you have just arrived from Reserves.

The problem with this is that if he's correct, and you cannot use powers from reserve, then the power isn't Imotekh's - because Imotekh most certainly CAN "use the power", or more accurately the power manifests, when he's in reserve on the first turn. Likewise, if he's mistaken, and you CAN use powers from reserve, well, the argument's also over.

This is the weakest part of his argument, ie, that the Lord of the Storm rules can apply on turn 1 when Imotekh is in reserve, but can't on turn 2 when Imotekh is still in reserve. It ends up in a paradox, and requires a specific exception to his argument, which is a good indication that there's a logical flaw somewhere in the reasoning.

I'm making Nemesor Dave's points here b/c you're getting a one-sided treatment of the question. I myself believe that you and your opponent should recognize this as a gray area and come to an agreement. If I were playing nosferatu, I'd probably play that you had to be on the board to roll. If I were playing Dave, I'd agree that he could roll while in reserve. All I'm saying here is, don't take what nosferatu is saying as black-and-white gospel or you're liable to end up in an argument.

ps - bring beer to the game, that always works.

Very good summary of both sides of the argument.

My take on the paradox you mention is that Imotekh's inclusion in the army starts the storm going, Imotekh himself is the only one who can keep it going.

I'm starting to think the other way. It's inconsistent to say that the power "hops" from global to personal.

I'm starting to think the power IS personal, but the power CAN be employed from reserve. It's more consistent. Edit: but if we were playing, we'd go your way - it's not a big enough deal to make an argument over. The OP must be keeping everything in reserve? That's a bit odd for Necrons, isn't it? Don't see an advantage. But that's tactics, and I'm sure he has reasons.

The ruling on the Chronometron is a big factor inclining me to believe that it is personal.

calypso2ts wrote:Very good summary of both sides of the argument.

My take on the paradox you mention is that Imotekh's inclusion in the army starts the storm going, Imotekh himself is the only one who can keep it going.

This. It's not a paradox. There's a difference between starting the night-fight and keeping it going.

Mannahnin wrote:The ruling on the Chronometron is a big factor inclining me to believe that it is personal.

And that's fine, it's a big reason the INAT ruling that "Lord of the Storm" goes away if he dies feels "right". It also happens to be a "personal" power that we know we can employ from reserve, for at least one turn.

rigeld2 wrote:This. It's not a paradox. There's a difference between starting the night-fight and keeping it going.

A very minor one, and no difference in the power itself. There's no rule-as-written support for separating the power on turn one from the same power on turns two, three, etc. other than probability of successful employment. And there's no rule-as-written support for denying a Necron player the opportunity to make that probability check. Quote:

"...you can attempt to keep the Night Fighting rules in play in subsequent game turns by rolling a D6 at the start of the turn."

No qualifiers. No "if you're not in reserve", no "if you're not dead", you can just do it. If we had one instance of being able to employ that power after dying I'd be arguing in favor of that, too. We don't - but reserve sure doesn't seem to be an impediment.

Tervigons have similar wording. Can I spawn gaunts I'm reserve?

It's his ability and you can't use abilities while in reserve without permission.

If your Tervigons could spawn gaunts from reserve on turn one, and then suddenly lost that ability on turn two, we'd have a parallel situation.

You DO understand that Imotekh CAN use his ability on turn one from reserve, right? (without getting into the argument of whether it's "his" ability or an army effect.)

There are two abilities - manifesting the storm, and trying to keep it gong

One is entirely passive, the other is active.

Find a single instance where someone can use an active power from reserve where this isnt specifically allowed - e.g. Autarchs strategist rule, etc.

I think Randall stated the case for allowing you to roll to continue nightfight from reserve as well or better than I could.

Before the FAQ there was no question, you could roll from reserve. Nightfight begins if your army includes Imotekh, the lightning is a result of the nightfight being in play, and "you" are the one rolling to continue nighfight. Those are the facts from the codex.

The FAQ calls the roll "Imoteks" and creates and implied contradiction.

This implied contradiction from a FAQ is not the same as RAW.

There is no RAW argument against rolling to continue nightfight if Imotekh is dead or in reserve and the codex clearly supports this being allowed.

There is no contradiction; RAW the FAQ is more specific and replaces the codex.

I agree that beforehand there was no issue - it was an army wide ability, meaning no chrono reroll bt gaining you a lot of flexibility. GW decided to screw around with it, and one consequence is that it is a little less powerful

nosferatu1001 wrote:There is no contradiction; RAW the FAQ is more specific and replaces the codex.

I agree that beforehand there was no issue - it was an army wide ability, meaning no chrono reroll bt gaining you a lot of flexibility. GW decided to screw around with it, and one consequence is that it is a little less powerful

The FAQ is not answering a question about whether LoS works when Imotekh is off the table, or who is rolling. You are not arguing RAW. You're taking the use of "Imotekhs roll" and wrapping a whole argument around it. There is not even a contextual relationship between the FAQ and your claim.

Actually it's more powerful this way. According to the original wording, chronometron should not work. Now it can be kept going much longer.

Randall Turner wrote:You DO understand that Imotekh CAN use his ability on turn one from reserve, right? (without getting into the argument of whether it's "his" ability or an army effect.)

The ability to keep the storm going?

You do understand that's separate from the "creation" of the storm, right?

Nemesor Dave, I think for the purposes of "Lord of the Storm" employment from reserve, it's irrelevant how closely the power is tied to Imotekh himself. While I agree that the codex phraseology and FAQ wording isn't consistent on this, it doesn't seem germane to the employment from reserve issue.

The weak point in their argument is that they have to somehow do the mental gymnastics to separate the "Lord of the Storm" effects on turn one, from subsequent effects on later turns. They're doing that by attempting to separate the probability of the storm continuing from the storm itself - without any RAW support.

So, their argument goes "sure, fine, LotS the actual power works from reserve, but the die roll, yeah, that's a separate deal right there".

If this sticks in my craw as a beer player, it's going to stick in pretty much anyone's - and the RAW is an irresistible lever to use pulling apart their specious arguments, like so:

nosferatu1001 wrote:There are two abilities - manifesting the storm, and trying to keep it gong

One is entirely passive, the other is active.

Odd, I only see one ability - Lord of the Storm. I see two sentences there. And they're so short, I'll just keep repasting them:
Lord of the Storm:"If your army includes Imotekh the Stormlord, the Night Fighting rules automatically apply during the first game turn. Furthermore, you can attempt to keep the Night Fighting rules in play in subsequent game turns by rolling a D6 at the start of the turn."
To me, that "furthermore" sorta means the second sentence is a continuation of the first - I mean, if it weren't already totally obvious. Can you provide support for the opposing view?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Find a single instance where someone can use an active power from reserve where this isnt specifically allowed - e.g. Autarchs strategist rule, etc.

I see one real concrete instance where this particular power is specifically allowed from reserve, partner. Again: "...the Night Fighting rules automatically apply during the first game turn." Then, I don't see anywhere it's subsquently dis-allowed, only wording on how to resolve the probability of it continuing. I also seem to be doing a lot of quoting of rules here without reciprocity on your part. Perhaps you could do me the favor of adhering to the tenets of YMDC and provide something a bit more concrete than restating your position?

Nosferatu, that was an example of how to attack your argument, not you. I really don't think any one rule is very important, and if you have the beer, we'll play it your way. In this case, though, I think you're going too far out on a limb and hurting your own credibility.

Anyway, Dave and Nosferatu and all of y'all, I have a question. A bit off topic. What's going on here? I'm a noob, clue me in. Are the positions in YMDC used as input to TNAT? Is this an attempt to maintain tournament rule balance or some such? I don't particularly care about YMDC consensus or specific TNAT rulings on situations I'm familiar with, but I do care that TNAT at least remain an unbiased reference for quick resolution of disputes where I'm not familiar with the situation. This discussion is also making me wonder about other rules discussions, such as the IC attached to units thread you all were hammering on yesterday. I was initially going, "oh, another abstract intellectual exercise here", but after mulling over the arguments in this disagreement, I wonder.

[to be clear: I understand that YMDC consensus, TNAT guidelines, tournament rules in general, and finally HYWPI aren't directly linked - but to maintain they're completely unrelated is disingenuous. Also, specifically re: IC/units - imo It's fairly obvious that the (IC/units) issue isn't well developed in RAW outside of voluntary attachment/detachment - and that Necron propensity for attaching "ever-living" models to fragile infantry units exposes the undeveloped areas. While I agree that it'd benefit from a revisit in a FAQ release, RAW supports the "IC as a unit" interpretation, albeit indirectly.]

Randall Turner is totally spot on with this(and just for GP the INAT Faq agrees).

There is nothing attaching the ownership of the ability specifically to the Stormlord, it is an army ability that YOU(as in the player) continue to roll for. It could even be argued that the ability could continue after Imotek's death.

This is the same type of army wide rule as Draigo making Paladins a Troops choice, they do not revert back to being Elite if Draigo is killed or held in reserve.

Randall Turner wrote: I also seem to be doing a lot of quoting of rules here without reciprocity on your part. Perhaps you could do me the favor of adhering to the tenets of YMDC and provide something a bit more concrete than restating your position?

Whoa! Passive aggressive at all? Stop being snarky and stick to the facts.

There are two distinct parts to the rule Lord of the Storm. The first being that the Night Fighting rules apply. The second (separated by a period on purpose since the sentence construction of ",furthermore," is entirely valid) is continuing the storm.

The precedent set by the Necron FAQ suggest it is Imotekh's roll. First with...

Q: Must Imotekh the Stormlord roll to see if Night Fight continues...A: No he can attempt it....

Consistent with Imotekh making the roll is the ruling...

Q: If an army contains Imotekh the Stormlord....only if Imotekh is in the same unit as the Cryptek with the Chronometron...

To be consistent with the Chronometron, Imotekh must own the roll. This is backed up by the reference to Imotekh making the roll in the related FAQ question. A model not on the board is not in play and does not get to make these kinds of rolls (consistent with Psychic Communion, Farseer powers et cetera from past rulings).


As far as I know...
The INAT is maintained by a separate group of individuals, I think Yakface is the nominal head of it but I am not keyed in on its workings. I do know that YMDC is for discussion, that occasionally a post relevant to the INAT will be made and voted on so they can decide how to consistently represent the rules within the context of the existing books and GW FAQ's/Erratas.

There is something attaching the ownership to the Stormlord - the FAQ. Not only the Chrono question, but it's referred to as Imohtek's Lord of the Storm ability in a different question - indicating possession.

An FAQ answer does not alter or supersede the printed rules of any Codex or rulebook unless it is listed as Errata. Answering a question about one ability does not alter the entire rules entry for another.

NecronLord3 wrote:An FAQ answer does not alter or supersede the printed rules of any Codex or rulebook unless it is listed as Errata. Answering a question about one ability does not alter the entire rules entry for another.

FAQs change rules all the time.

Tyranid Venomthrope Spore Cloud FAQ. SitW FAQ.

The Chrono answer made Lord of the Storm Imhotek's ability, doubly so since it requires him to be in the unit with the Chrono.

calypso2ts wrote:Whoa! Passive aggressive at all? Stop being snarky and stick to the facts.

The "facts" are that you aren't providing rule quotes to support the key elements of your position, partner. Call it snarky, it's also fact. ie..

calypso2ts wrote:There are two distinct parts to the rule Lord of the Storm. The first being that the Night Fighting rules apply. The second (separated by a period on purpose since the sentence construction of ",furthermore," is entirely valid) is continuing the storm.

There's actually quite a few sentences describing the Lord of the Storm ability, including strike probability, hit count, damage, etc. More than two. Call them "parts", "sentences", whatever, I don't care. I'll dispute that a sentence-ending "period" allows you to disassociate a particular probability roll from the remainder of the ability, though. For the same reason we treat "counts as" equivalent to "is" - we start parsing punctuation as ability-separators we'll end up with a half-dozen "abilities" per special rule. Then, as far as "abilities" go, the RAW clearly treat them and their ability to be employed from reserve, not individual die rolls! (see below) Please provide a rule quote that supports your position here, as it's the crux of your argument.

calypso2ts wrote:
The precedent set by the Necron FAQ suggest it is Imotekh's roll. First with...

Q: Must Imotekh the Stormlord roll to see if Night Fight continues...A: No he can attempt it....

Consistent with Imotekh making the roll is the ruling...

Q: If an army contains Imotekh the Stormlord....only if Imotekh is in the same unit as the Cryptek with the Chronometron...

To be consistent with the Chronometron, Imotekh must own the roll. This is backed up by the reference to Imotekh making the roll in the related FAQ question. A model not on the board is not in play and does not get to make these kinds of rolls (consistent with Psychic Communion, Farseer powers et cetera from past rulings).

I do not care who "owns" the "rolls", it's irrelevant to the discussion of whether Imotekh's ability is applicable from reserve. "Roll ownership" isn't treated anywhere in RAW, and as such is an informal "touchy-feely" argument without binding power in these arguments. If you disagree - provide a cite saying otherwise!

Regarding employment of abilities from reserve - this most defintely is treated in the rules, so let's quote rules! Looking at the pertinent BRB entries:

RB.94B.01 – Q: Do special rules for models in Reserve affect the game?
A: Models in Reserve have no effect on the game except when they have an ability that specifies it applies while the model is in Reserve (e.g. ‘not in play’) or while ‘alive’. In addition, any ability used before the start of the game (e.g. during deployment, etc) applies regardless of whether the model is currently on the table or not [clarification]. Ref: IG.31A.02, IG.31C.01, TYR.34B.01, TYR.51C.01, TYR.56G.01, TYR.59B.03

The "Lord of the Storm" ability specifically states that it's applied on turn one, INCLUDING rolling for lightning hits, strikes, damage, etc. (Some gray area on cover saves, but there ARE rolls made during the first turn.) The rule doesn't specifically state that it applies while Imotekh is "alive" it states that... "If your army includes Imotekh the Stormlord," , which is arguably more permissive. Your argument is that somehow those first-turn rolls aren't "owned" by Imotekh, including the probability rolls for strikes, but the probability rolls for continuation are "owned' - please provide some basis in RAW for "ownership of rolls" vs. "ownership of ability", which is clearly treated.

Then, as far as similar rules go, counter-examples selected at random...

IG.31A.02 – Q: Does the Astropath's ability still apply while the model is in reserve?
A: Yes, as he is ‘alive’ while in Reserve [clarification]. Ref: IG.31C.01, RB.94B.01, TYR.34B.01, TYR.51C.01, TYR.56G.01, TYR.59B.03

IG.31C.01 – Q: Does an Officer of the Fleet's ability still apply while the model is in reserve?
A: Yes, as he is ‘alive’ while in Reserve [clarification]. Ref: IG.31A.02, RB.94B.01, TYR.34B.01, TYR.51C.01, TYR.56G.01,TYR.59B.03

The defining characteristic of these abilities' employment from reserve is that the enabling character be alive. That is all.

rigeld2 wrote:

NecronLord3 wrote:An FAQ answer does not alter or supersede the printed rules of any Codex or rulebook unless it is listed as Errata. Answering a question about one ability does not alter the entire rules entry for another.

FAQs change rules all the time.

Tyranid Venomthrope Spore Cloud FAQ. SitW FAQ.

The Chrono answer made Lord of the Storm Imhotek's ability, doubly so since it requires him to be in the unit with the Chrono.

You mean the ERRATA portion of the FAQ? That is very different from answering a question about an ability.

NecronLord3 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

NecronLord3 wrote:An FAQ answer does not alter or supersede the printed rules of any Codex or rulebook unless it is listed as Errata. Answering a question about one ability does not alter the entire rules entry for another.

FAQs change rules all the time.

Tyranid Venomthrope Spore Cloud FAQ. SitW FAQ.

The Chrono answer made Lord of the Storm Imhotek's ability, doubly so since it requires him to be in the unit with the Chrono.

You mean the ERRATA portion of the FAQ? That is very different from answering a question about an ability.

No, I absolutely don't.
The Venomthrope Q/A is not in the Errata portion of the FAQ and absolutely changes a BRB rule.
The SitW Q/A I'm referring to is the fact that SitW extends inside vehicles. It used to not. One of those two options changed a rule.

Randall Turner wrote:
There's actually quite a few sentences describing the Lord of the Storm ability...we start parsing punctuation as ability-separators...

Far more sensible to examine punctuation than to arbitrarily decide the word furthermore must unite two separate thoughts/actions/ideas/events. I will use punctuation to distinguish between ideas when, here is the shocker, two ideas are presented!

Randall Turner wrote:
Then, as far as "abilities" go, the RAW clearly treat them and their ability to be employed from reserve, not individual die rolls! (see below) Please provide a rule quote that supports your position here, as it's the crux of your argument.

I do not care who "owns" the "rolls", it's irrelevant to the discussion of whether Imotekh's ability is applicable from reserve. "Roll ownership" isn't treated anywhere in RAW, and as such is an informal "touchy-feely" argument without binding power in these arguments. If you disagree - provide a cite saying otherwise!

I do not have to 'prove' a unit cannot make rolls from reserve, you need to prove that it can.

Randall Turner wrote:
RB.94B.01 – Q: Do special rules for models in Reserve affect the game?
A: Models in Reserve have no effect on the game except when they have an ability that specifies it applies while the model is in Reserve (e.g. ‘not in play’) or while ‘alive’. In addition, any ability used before the start of the game (e.g. during deployment, etc) applies regardless of whether the model is currently on the table or not [clarification]. Ref: IG.31A.02, IG.31C.01, TYR.34B.01, TYR.51C.01, TYR.56G.01, TYR.59B.03

Thank you for locating that. Does Imotekh's rule say that he can roll to continue the storm from reserve? It does say that including him is enough for Night Fighting on turn 1, it DOES NOT say you can roll to keep it going from reserve. I know that Imotekh is tied to this ability because it says so in the Necron FAQ's, specifically that it is his ability.

Since he is in reserve, I am looking for specific rules quotes here. Assuming you can make a roll for an ability while in reserve without permission to do so is a bit too touchy feely for me.


I am sorry, I did not see any of the counter examples you were talking about that involved a model in reserve taking an action like a psychic test or continuing a magical storm...

Randall - the rules have been provided countless times in the other threads, whcih if you had searched you would have seen.
Snarkiness this early in, brilliant start.

There are two abilities - one passive, the other not - unless you feel rolling a dice is a passive ability?

So, assuming you agree that the two sentences show separate abilities, one passive the other active, presumably you can now find ANY example anywhere of ANY active ability being used while in Reserve, where it hasnt been explicitly allowed?

When you have shown permission to use Imotekhs dice roll from Reserve, please post it here for us all to see. Anything mentioning reserves at all will do, really


NecronLord - youre back claiming that FAQs dont change rules? Hilarious. They do, all the freaking time. Errata chanegs the rules text, which may or may not change the operation of the rule.