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.

I agree with Dave. The only requirement is that he is included in the army. Lictors pheremone trail specifies in the rule that the lictor must be in play to take effect. Hive commander requires only the tyrant be alive, not in play. Those are their conditions. Imotekh's only condition is that he is included in the army.

What he's saying, that you're missing, is that the FAQ changed the way that you must perceive Imotekh. There are two ways of thinking:

1) The Lord of the Storm is directly linked to Imotekh (allowing the Chronometron to affect the roll).
2) The Lord of the Storm is not directly linked to Imotekh (the Chronometron would not affect this roll).

You're saying 2, and Nos is saying 1. But if 2 is correct, the Chronometron couldn't work, so the roll must be directly linked to Imotekh. If it is directly linked to Imotekh, it limits its use.



Believe me, we all used to agree with you. We all used to be on your side of the argument, just search the forum. Then the FAQ came out.

puma713 wrote:
1) The Lord of the Storm is directly linked to Imotekh (allowing the Chronometron to affect the roll).
2) The Lord of the Storm is not directly linked to Imotekh (the Chronometron would not affect this roll).

Or 3) which is what I'm saying:

The Lord of Storm is not directly linked to Imotekh. The Chronometron affecting his roll is an exception and does not change Lord of Storm because if 1) is true, then it negates the WHOLE Lord of Storm.

This is why Nos is avoiding my question. Because if what he and Puma are saying is true, then unless Imotekh is on the board the first turn, Lord of Storm does not work at all and that contradicts the wording of Lord of Storm itself.

Yep, I'm thinking this is more of a #3 scenario. The new faq language provides for an odd permissive exception for the chronometron, not an errata'd limitation to Imotekh.

Nemesor Dave wrote:

puma713 wrote:
1) The Lord of the Storm is directly linked to Imotekh (allowing the Chronometron to affect the roll).
2) The Lord of the Storm is not directly linked to Imotekh (the Chronometron would not affect this roll).

if 1) is true, then it negates the WHOLE Lord of Storm.

Ummm, how? It would only negate it in two situations:

1) He begins the game off the board.
2) When he dies.

puma713 wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:

puma713 wrote:
1) The Lord of the Storm is directly linked to Imotekh (allowing the Chronometron to affect the roll).
2) The Lord of the Storm is not directly linked to Imotekh (the Chronometron would not affect this roll).

if 1) is true, then it negates the WHOLE Lord of Storm.

Ummm, how? It would only negate it in two situations:

1) He begins the game off the board.
2) When he dies.

Exactly. You're saying Lord of Storm is completely negated if Imotekh is not on the board. But the Lord of Storm specifies that it works if he's included in the army. There is the contradiction.

You can't have it both ways. Either it works when Imotekh is not on the board and the crono FAQ is an exception. Or it doesn't work at all when Imotekh is not on the board and then it violates the wording of Lord of Storm, and nobody should agree with that.

Nemesor Dave wrote:

You can't have it both ways. Either it works when Imotekh is not on the board and the crono FAQ is an exception. Or it doesn't work at all when Imotekh is not on the board and then it violates the wording of Lord of Storm, and nobody should agree with that.

Either way it is going to be house ruled and a TO will make a decision. Obviously, there are two sides to the argument. I don't have a dog in the hunt, but I see both sides.

Nemesor Dave wrote:

Or 3) which is what I'm saying:

The Lord of Storm is not directly linked to Imotekh. The Chronometron affecting his roll is an exception and does not change Lord of Storm because if 1) is true, then it negates the WHOLE Lord of Storm.

This is why Nos is avoiding my question. Because if what he and Puma are saying is true, then unless Imotekh is on the board the first turn, Lord of Storm does not work at all and that contradicts the wording of Lord of Storm itself.

This, which is what I said before. There was an implicit change in the Chronometron rules, not Imotekh's rules. The Chronometron is now allowed to affect one specific (please note; not all) roll which is not directly associated with a model.

Except there is a change in the Lords rules, because it continually refers to it as "his" roll, not the "your" or "you" language in the codex.

As a TO you get the rough with the smooth - you benefit from the chrono (smooth) but if you're dead / off the board you have no permission to roll, so you cannot

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except there is a change in the Lords rules, because it continually refers to it as "his" roll, not the "your" or "you" language in the codex.

As a TO you get the rough with the smooth - you benefit from the chrono (smooth) but if you're dead / off the board you have no permission to roll, so you cannot

But the use of the word 'his' in the FAQ doesn't change the language in the codex. The codex still says "If your army contains". You still meet that condition. The FAQ doesn't contradict that.

You dont get to roll to continue night fighting, because the person rolling isnt on the board.

nosferatu1001 wrote:You dont get to roll to continue night fighting, because the person rolling isnt on the board.

So, just to make sure I have this straight, your argument is;

1. Night Fighting is in effect on the first turn because you took Imotekh, no matter where he is. ("If your army contains. . ." allows this)

2. In order to roll to continue Night-Fighting, Imotekh must be on the table. (The FAQ effectively replaces "you may roll" with "he may roll")

3. Lightning can strike on the first turn, but cannot continue if Imotekh was not on the table at the beginning of the second turn, because he could not roll to continue Night-Fighting.

Correct?

Essentially yes

Idiotic FAQs where the FAQ writer fails to think through their answer....

Mmm, ok. I can see that.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Essentially yes

Idiotic FAQs where the FAQ writer fails to think through their answer....

Your whole argument is based on what you believe is implied by the FAQ, not what it clearly states. I can't see the writer of the FAQ having much sympathy for such a deliberate effort to twist the meaning to change a rule that wasn't even in question.

Nemesor Dave wrote:

Your whole argument is based on what you believe is implied by the FAQ, not what it clearly states. I can't see the writer of the FAQ having much sympathy for such a deliberate effort to twist the meaning to change a rule that wasn't even in question.

No, it's based off a different FAQ ruling, where the word "he" is used (in relation to Imotekh, the model) rather than "you" in relation to the player. Yes, it's a pedantic point, but it's also valid.

EDIT: Found where it was referenced earlier in this thread.

Kevin949 wrote:Ok, so forgetting all the round-table arguments going back and forth, there is another entry in the FAQ about Imotekh's ability that states that "he can elect to not roll", and by that FAQ entry it does imply that it is him making the roll.

Emphasis added.

nosferatu1001 wrote:As a TO you get the rough with the smooth - you benefit from the chrono (smooth) but if you're dead / off the board you have no permission to roll, so you cannot

No, as a player, you get the rough with the smooth. You can not have your cake and eat it too. You take the good with the bad.

As a TO you get nothing. You have to make tough calls. It's a responsibility, not a fun super power, the exercise of which is usually heartbreaking to at least one person.

I have been a TO many times, not for 40k, but for other games. I hated having to make a tough call. I always tried to make the best call that I could - usually the one that required the fewest leaps of logic and assumptions on my part as possible.

Saying it's the TOs decision until there is clarifying language from GW is true. It's also a cop-out and a weak excuse that should be the last resort of a discussion in a forum like this, not a go-to answer. TOs come to places like this before, during, and after events to get the best thinking they can find from objective, knowledge sources. They have a time window and must issue an immediate judgement. We do not. Surely we can come up with something better.

IMO, the faq language clarifies something you can do with the chronometron
"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."

It opens the door for a logical interpretation of Imotekh's 'Lord of the Storm' ability that would limit the ability beyond the scope of the RAW in the codex. It's a good argument and a solid line of logic, but saying the faq allows for only your interpretation is, at best, a misguided stretch and at worst, arrogant rules bullying.

Saying something is possible is not saying it's probable, nor certain, nor appropriate. The codex describes the Lord of the Storm ability. The faq language tells us something we can do with the Chronometron. I would be interested in hearing what people think about the possible situations that might come up and why they would call it one way or another.

GW and 40k rules in general are detailed but not exhaustive. They cover many, but not all circumstances. We rules lawyers try to fit things into neat, arbitrary categories. We mentally arrange things and reach non-enforceable social contracts with imaginary disputants, then act shocked and amazed that others (real humans) don't see our obvious wisdom.

I am not trying to ruffle feathers, but I am not sorry if I do. I am interested in distilling the argument down to 200 proof truth. That goal is usually not possible, so I settle for "as close as I can get it"

Let the TO decide is not as close as I can get it.

foolishmortal wrote:
I am not trying to ruffle feathers, but I am not sorry if I do. I am interested in distilling the argument down to 200 proof truth. That goal is usually not possible, so I settle for "as close as I can get it"

Let the TO decide is not as close as I can get it.

Erm, sometimes it is. To say that it is not is saying that, "We're going to argue until I'm happy with the outcome!" Well, sometimes, as you pointed out in your post, it doesn't work that way. Both sides of the argument have explained, clearly, why they believe what they do. So, we're at an impasse. There are two ways to read this rule and there is evidence for both sides of the argument. Therefore, if neither side is moving, there will be no "as close as you can get." because resolving it at the tabletop (preferably before the game) is, in fact, as close as you can get.

foolishmortal - that was ME saying for ME, as a TO, "you" as in the Necron player gets the rough with the smooth

I don't have a problem with people disagree or coming to an outcome that I am not happy with. (well, no more so than many other humans)

My frustration at this time is that a RAI argument is being passed off as RAW and no one seems to see the difference or object to the presumption of mind reading.

foolishmortal wrote:I don't have a problem with people disagree or coming to an outcome that I am not happy with. (well, no more so than many other humans)

My frustration at this time is that a RAI argument is being passed off as RAW and no one seems to see the difference or object to the presumption of mind reading.

But it's not a RAI argument. Look at my post above. . . there IS, in fact, a written basis for this. If you've got an equally-supported response to that, we'd all be glad to hear it, I'm sure.

Nemesor Dave wrote:The Lord of Storm is not directly linked to Imotekh. The Chronometron affecting his roll is an exception and does not change Lord of Storm because if 1) is true, then it negates the WHOLE Lord of Storm.

This is why Nos is avoiding my question. Because if what he and Puma are saying is true, then unless Imotekh is on the board the first turn, Lord of Storm does not work at all and that contradicts the wording of Lord of Storm itself.

I completely agree with this.