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 hadn't realised this would be such a divisive issue...

Anyhow, the discussion seems to hinge on whether or not the lord/cryptek attached to the unit of necron warriors counts as a necron warrior.

Crypteks and lords have the Character rules as defined on pg 63 of the main rulebook. the problem is that characters are defined as upgrades to a unit without a seperate entry. Lords/crypteks are chosen as a member of a royal court (by definition a seperate entry) bur can be assigned to lead a variety of different units before deployment (necron codex pg 90: royal court)

If they are to be counted as a member of the unit for all rules purposes, then they would, do so as per the rules on Pg63, and therefore count as Necron warriors if they join a unit of warriors, immortals if they joined immortals etc.

the repair barge special rule says, target a unit of warriors, and add D3 models to the unit, it specifically does not say 'add D3 necron warriors' and since we can infer a lord/cryptek counts as a member of the unit, then they can be added if they are a casualty.
if the lord/cryptek does NOT count as a member of the unit, then the entire unit cannot embark a transport, since the transport rules state: Pg: 78

'a transport can carry a single infantry unit and/or any number of independent characters'

If you allow me to embark my unit of 9 warriors + Lord/cryptek on a ghost ark, or night scythe, or use the dimensional corridor on the monolith, or use the veil of darkness to to allow 'the cryptek and his unit...' (pg 84 wargear section necron codex) then that is just the same as saying that he is a member of the unit, and will benefit/suffer from any rules that affect the unit.

Now (another question) since my stance is that an attached lord/cryptek is RAW a member of whatever unit he has joined, will he recieve the benefits of Anrakyr's 'Pyrrhian Eternals' special rule, and Szeras' 'Mechanical augmentation' ? potentially giving him S9 on the charge (furious charge + enhanced servo motors + warscythe)

40k-noob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
funny how "precedent" is cited here because of the similarity between WG and RC members yet when "similarity" exists in other parts of the Game all of sudden its a permissive rule set and if its not tin the rules you can't do it.

just an observation

It's funny how people can observe things without context and think its relevant everywhere.

Edit: I try to always argue RAW. In this case, RAW is literally unworkable so it's an indefensible position.

so what is the "context" for using "precedent" in this discussion? Since i must have missed it.

Perhaps read the last few posts I've made.
Without using the precedent of the Wolf Guard Battle Leaders, a Royal Court "splitting off to lead other units" has zero rules support to define what that means. Unless you'd like to offer some?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

madtankbloke wrote:
Now (another question) since my stance is that an attached lord/cryptek is RAW a member of whatever unit he has joined, will he recieve the benefits of Anrakyr's 'Pyrrhian Eternals' special rule, and Szeras' 'Mechanical augmentation' ? potentially giving him S9 on the charge (furious charge + enhanced servo motors + warscythe)

It's unclear - Szeras' roll happens before deployment, Royal Courts attaching happens before the game with no delineation of when that is. (It could be during deployment for example)
Anrakyr's ability won't work because the Eternals are selected at list time, when you cannot have a Court member attached.

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
funny how "precedent" is cited here because of the similarity between WG and RC members yet when "similarity" exists in other parts of the Game all of sudden its a permissive rule set and if its not tin the rules you can't do it.

just an observation

It's funny how people can observe things without context and think its relevant everywhere.

Edit: I try to always argue RAW. In this case, RAW is literally unworkable so it's an indefensible position.

so what is the "context" for using "precedent" in this discussion? Since i must have missed it.

Perhaps read the last few posts I've made.
Without using the precedent of the Wolf Guard Battle Leaders, a Royal Court "splitting off to lead other units" has zero rules support to define what that means. Unless you'd like to offer some?

so again the similarities between WG and RC is the justification for using "precedent" to define the game play/mechanics for the RC members based on the game play/mechanics for WG.

I have no wish to detract from this thread any further.

It was just an observation.

40k-noob wrote:
so again the similarities between WG and RC is the justification for using "precedent" to define the game play/mechanics for the RC members based on the game play/mechanics for WG.

Yes. Because doing otherwise the game doesn't function.
Your observation implied you were ignoring the latter sentence when in fact it's perhaps the most important thing about this case.
Normally when the rules literally fail to function (not just not do anything, but actually break) precedent is used.

Edit: and if I remember who you are correctly - see you at FO Saturday :-)

rigeld2 wrote:

copper.talos wrote:
A model can only belong to 1 unit.

Citation required.

When the army is deployed the player decides each cryptek/lord's unit.

No, that's not what the rule says. It says they're split off and assigned to lead a unit. It does not say they are now members of that unit - why are they not still members of the Royal Court unit?

Note that I'm only arguing this because of the resistance to using the SW FAQ as precedent.

They are not members of the Royal Court unit because they were assigned to another unit. ""Only 1 member of the Royal Court can join a unit in this manner. Otherwise they remain part of the Royal Court."

If they are not in a unit, then they are part of the RC, hence if they join a unit, they are not part of the RC. (unit)

rigeld2 wrote:

Edit: and if I remember who you are correctly - see you at FO Saturday :-)

yup, see you on Sat.

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
funny how "precedent" is cited here because of the similarity between WG and RC members yet when "similarity" exists in other parts of the Game all of sudden its a permissive rule set and if its not tin the rules you can't do it.

just an observation

It's funny how people can observe things without context and think its relevant everywhere.

Edit: I try to always argue RAW. In this case, RAW is literally unworkable so it's an indefensible position.

so what is the "context" for using "precedent" in this discussion? Since i must have missed it.

Perhaps read the last few posts I've made.
Without using the precedent of the Wolf Guard Battle Leaders, a Royal Court "splitting off to lead other units" has zero rules support to define what that means. Unless you'd like to offer some?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

madtankbloke wrote:
Now (another question) since my stance is that an attached lord/cryptek is RAW a member of whatever unit he has joined, will he recieve the benefits of Anrakyr's 'Pyrrhian Eternals' special rule, and Szeras' 'Mechanical augmentation' ? potentially giving him S9 on the charge (furious charge + enhanced servo motors + warscythe)

It's unclear - Szeras' roll happens before deployment, Royal Courts attaching happens before the game with no delineation of when that is. (It could be during deployment for example)
Anrakyr's ability won't work because the Eternals are selected at list time, when you cannot have a Court member attached.

If going by the codex, the royal court rules say "before the battle" and the in the rulebook if you look at Fighting a Battle (somewhere in the early 100's), that starts with setting up terrain. So, to me, it seems that you choose where they go before even setting up the battlefield.

Great, you found a debate able link. Care to address the rest of the issues I brought up?

And even then - that lends support to the Ark bringing them back.

rigeld2 wrote:
Great, you found a debate able link. Care to address the rest of the issues I brought up?

And even then - that lends support to the Ark bringing them back.

If you're talking to me, I'm agreeing with (and trying to support) you.

Kevin949 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Great, you found a debate able link. Care to address the rest of the issues I brought up?

And even then - that lends support to the Ark bringing them back.

If you're talking to me, I'm agreeing with (and trying to support) you.

No, sorry - I type slow and missed it.

Fragile wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

copper.talos wrote:
A model can only belong to 1 unit.

Citation required.

When the army is deployed the player decides each cryptek/lord's unit.

No, that's not what the rule says. It says they're split off and assigned to lead a unit. It does not say they are now members of that unit - why are they not still members of the Royal Court unit?

Note that I'm only arguing this because of the resistance to using the SW FAQ as precedent.

They are not members of the Royal Court unit because they were assigned to another unit. ""Only 1 member of the Royal Court can join a unit in this manner. Otherwise they remain part of the Royal Court."

If they are not in a unit, then they are part of the RC, hence if they join a unit, they are not part of the RC. (unit)

rigeld2 wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Great, you found a debate able link. Care to address the rest of the issues I brought up?

And even then - that lends support to the Ark bringing them back.

If you're talking to me, I'm agreeing with (and trying to support) you.

No, sorry - I type slow and missed it.

No worries, things are little a confusing in here anyway, as far as who's responding to what and others jumping in without (seemingly) having read previous statements.

ah and another reason i will be running ghost arks over night scyths, or maybe splitting my troops between the two for objective games. Now to remake my list....


Automatically Appended Next Post:
i dont see the rage inducing cheesy as all get out here loophole. So what you can bring back the lord or cryptek with the barge. I agree, it says you cant break the original unit count, so one lord/cryptek it is if it only had one. Its not like you can take a trackyon arrow on a lord and get him killed every turn hopefully and get a semi-reusable arrow. A typical player doesnt fully kit out a lord to be placed in a warrior squad, arguably the worst unit in the codex for cc...itd be as illogical as putting <insert any SM codex CC Beast here> into a unit intended to be a "stay the hellz away from the enemy and shoot it to death" style of unit. Ud be wasting points. A Destruction cryptek is almost the only true blue awesome model to revive every turn to keep that 8S weapon alive even if a savy opp snipes him out.

The only purpose most people run lords in warriors is to give them MSS and a warscythe for challenges only. By then the repair function become moot as in most casses a warrior squad is going to be wiped out in a sweeping advance if not outright killed, so no RP or repair to be had in any case.

It doesn't break the game at all, if anything, its the only real reason to run a Ark over a NS....which is what ill be doing. Honestly, youd think people would be happy that the ghost ark is a more desirable option to the NS with all the complaining about "FLYER SPAM OP"going on everywhere

Kinda feel like the death mark point ended the argument IMO. But it says in the royal court that he joins the unit. How is he part of the unit and then not? Are you saying that if you targeted the unit with a ability it would not affect the cryptek? Or that you can target him separately?

It generates new warriors to replace old ones as the language reads.

It is very likely that it's legal to replace dead crypteks and lords (with warriors) to bring the unit back to it's full strength. Read the rule again and see if you can see it my way.

It just cannot take the unit above it's starting size, which tends to include upgrade characters. If it were say, a space marine unit that it influenced, instead of necron warriors, I could see the rules replacing your srg or plasma gunner with a normal marine. They really aren't getting back up. That isn't at all how the repair barge rule reads. It's making new ones.

You can also have dorks generated up till the point you only have crypteks or lords hanging about. It's still the same old necron warrior unit. it's not like it stopped being a unit if the 2 courtiers were still around and they could go about their courtly business as "not a necron warrior unit".

You can also have dorks generated up till the point you only have crypteks or lords hanging about. It's still the same old necron warrior unit. it's not like it stopped being a unit if the 2 courtiers were still around and they could go about their courtly business as "not a necron warrior unit".

that would be taking them beyond their starting strength.

a lord is added to the unit as an UPGRADE to the typical warrior as per BRB rules for characters. As such, he is still TECHNIcally a necron warrior, meaning the lord can be placed back into the unit vie the barge.

Also according to the codex, its repairing fallen models, not creating new ones, thus the restriction to the size and the dictation of what model to bring back, as you cant place 2 lords with every upgrade available for free instead of 2 warriors as they weren't apart of the original unit's setup. Please note it says Original Strength. If the original strength was 14 warriors and a lord with a warcythe, you can never place anything else but that in the unit.

With a game that's generally ruled based on the wording of the text, this seems to be completely intended by the devs as it specifically says "Models" instead of warriors. Some might argue that it needs to be FAQd, while I'd agree it needs to be clarified at the very least.

Sorry pal, but I think you should whip out the old codex. Starting strength might be an term worth debating but not whether or not the ark is dealing with new models in any sort of traking sense. the ark only checks after the fact vs starting strength of the unit. Clearly the court characters are considered part of the unit as it exists through the course of the game, it tells you to put down new dudes but says you can't put them down if you didn't have that many guys in the unit's starting strength, no mention to what sort they were, so long as they are the part of the necron warrior unit.

Leme dissuade you of any impression that the repair barge is interacting with necron warriors, as opposed to generating new warriors and then subjecting what it did to a series of checks and balances for game balance reasons:

...Nominate a unit of necron warriors with 6 (or embarked on the ghost ark) and roll a D6. If the score is 2 or more, add D3 models to the unit - the models can move and act normally this turn. This cannot take the unit beyond its starting size...

Yeah it never really talks about what models it is replacing, only that there were once models it is replacing in some sort of more broad universal sense. It also makes sure at the start that it is interacting with a warrior unit. Necrons seem to be like that. I do not question the ways of the ghost ark, I only obey it's rules to great satisfaction.

I'll put down all the necron warriors it will let me, starting size allowing. Too bad it doesn't know how to differentiate a lord or whatever the way I do, it might have been able to make one for me.

Right. So the arguement here is that the rules says the Ark can repair D3 models in a unit of "warriors" - but attached Cypteks/Lords are not warriors therefore shoudl nto count.

So would ask this. As a Cyptek/lord is made a part of the squad during deployment they work in a similar fashion to a space marine sergeant - part fo the squad but with different statline, gear etc.

If there was a rule saying that all space marines" within 6" of a Banner get FNP - would this include the sergeant in that squad? He's not technically a space marine, he's a space marine sergeant - different kind of model.

That's how I look at it anyway.

Fragile wrote:
Yes, this is another case of RAI gone wrong. Context says that Warriors are returned to the unit, however the rule just says models. So technically by RAW it can be anything attached to the unit. Even by that wording you could add d3 Lords to the unit.

But you can't add D3 lords. You could replace lost lords, but you can't add more.
Why? Because lords require each to come from a different court, and each court must be unlocked by an overlord.
You can argue the barg allows D3 lords, but those lords cannot be attached unless they each have an overlord to unlock them.

-Matt

the rule also says the unit can't be taken above its starting stregnth, whcih i woudl read to mean to cover unit composition as well.
if the unit started with 1 lord, then you can only repair it to include up to 1 Lord.

I couldn't find a place where it states that the lord and/or cryptek are removed from the RC but you have to consider what happens if you don't.

1. Tying one unit up in CC also ties the other if they are considered part of both. If you have multiple units broken up off a RC then you have more then two units tied up by CC. Even if you don't consider them taking part in the combat the Lord/Cryptek still can't move as a unit involved in CC can't move.
2. The removed and attached Lord/Cryptek is eligible/required to take wounds from shots fired or CC directed at either the warrior unit or RC.
3. If the Character is part of both units then he can target a unit that the RC fires at or that the Warriors fire at.
4. Wargear of the Cryptek that affect his unit like the Chronometron or Lightning Field would then apply to both units.

For these reasons alone I would say they are part of the warrior unit and no longer part of the RC. As written I have to agree you can bring back the Characters via the Ghost Ark.

 Praxiss wrote:
Right. So the arguement here is that the rules says the Ark can repair D3 models in a unit of "warriors" - but attached Cypteks/Lords are not warriors therefore shoudl nto count.

Is it not still a unit of warriors?

Nominate a unit of warriors. Check.
"Repair" d3 models. Is a Cryptek a model? Check.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Praxiss wrote:
Right. So the arguement here is that the rules says the Ark can repair D3 models in a unit of "warriors" - but attached Cypteks/Lords are not warriors therefore shoudl nto count.

Is it not still a unit of warriors?

Nominate a unit of warriors. Check.
"Repair" d3 models. Is a Cryptek a model? Check.

Ummm, i agree that it should work - i was merely stating an example and trying to clarify the main points of the issue (further down in my orignal post).

overlordweasel wrote:
ah and another reason i will be running ghost arks over night scyths, or maybe splitting my troops between the two for objective games. Now to remake my list....


Automatically Appended Next Post:
i dont see the rage inducing cheesy as all get out here loophole. So what you can bring back the lord or cryptek with the barge. I agree, it says you cant break the original unit count, so one lord/cryptek it is if it only had one. Its not like you can take a trackyon arrow on a lord and get him killed every turn hopefully and get a semi-reusable arrow. A typical player doesnt fully kit out a lord to be placed in a warrior squad, arguably the worst unit in the codex for cc...itd be as illogical as putting <insert any SM codex CC Beast here> into a unit intended to be a "stay the hellz away from the enemy and shoot it to death" style of unit. Ud be wasting points. A Destruction cryptek is almost the only true blue awesome model to revive every turn to keep that 8S weapon alive even if a savy opp snipes him out.

The only purpose most people run lords in warriors is to give them MSS and a warscythe for challenges only. By then the repair function become moot as in most casses a warrior squad is going to be wiped out in a sweeping advance if not outright killed, so no RP or repair to be had in any case.

It doesn't break the game at all, if anything, its the only real reason to run a Ark over a NS....which is what ill be doing. Honestly, youd think people would be happy that the ghost ark is a more desirable option to the NS with all the complaining about "FLYER SPAM OP"going on everywhere

The problem is that with 2 overlords you can have 2 lords with res.orbs in a unit of warriors, now when this unit dies with one of the 2 lords coming back on a 4+ odds are(75%) that at least 1 stands back up and then the ark just puts the other one back in. So now you have this squad that is for all intents and purposes is immortal until the ghost ark dies, at AV13 and 4HP the ark is pretty durable and if your abusing this you are probably taking more than 1 ark. And to top it all off the squad scores, plus as an added benefit if you have MSS on both of them they can effectively go toe to toe with any CC unit in the game(except maybe very large boy and nid squads, since they can effectively cover both tokens) since all they need to do is charge in MSS something, die, get revived, repeat. And that's what feels wrong about this ruling, it just feels like an exploit, for 340pts(all the lords need are MSS and an orb) you get a scoring unit with effectively infinite wounds(until the ark dies and any other arks you took) that can take out/delay opponents death stars and a transport for said unit. I mean maybe I'm wrong but this doesn't feel like the intended function of the ghost ark.

Anyway this thread is the first that I am hearing about this and I have been playing with and against newcrons since it's release and no one has ever interpreted it like this, which if it was intended you would think people would play that way more often. Would like to see a FAQ on the royal courts in general I mean people that I play with still grime about lone crypteks and lords scoring and if I brought this up they would probably stop playing me.

So the arguement here is that the rules says the Ark can repair D3 models in a unit of "warriors" - but attached Cypteks/Lords are not warriors therefore shoudl nto count.

see, in 5th edition this would be true, as the 6th edition rule set and more specifically the introduction to the "character" rule came into effect. As such, the BRB specifically considers them as an upgrade model with a different stat line, wargear, etc; while all the while counting as whatever they replaced as an upgraded from. The only reason people are callign foul is that the necron warrior/Lord cryptek entries don't follow the normal convention following character upgrades in their respective entires. As Lords and Crypteks are apart of a separate unit in the RC and then split p at the start to join and lead other squads as a character (using the character rules, which I explained above how they work).

Also, concerning the Ark, the codex entry specifically states "models" in a "unit of Necron Warriors". As it doesnt designate ONLY warrior models and Lords count as warriors as already explained above, so it is completely legal in RAW to bring back a Lord or Cryptek as long as you don't expand beyond the origional model count IE 14 warriors led by 1 Lord.

It's a neat trick that 6th edition gave the ghost ark, that we previously didn't have and by no means is game breaking. Essentially its a almost guaranteed reroll to a failed RP on a character that in my opinion should have been 2 wounds in the first place, but I can understand why not as it would make the royal court disco inferno deathstar unit utterly ridiculously hard to kill. Seriously if you had to pay to "upgrade" a single warrior model to a lord, ud be paying roughly 100 points to have +1 S, T, A, and the save of an immortal/ power armor. All of this to turn a shooty model into a...super slow meager CC model with a neat trick via MSS and a very situational AV option with a scythe; but as your playign necrons, ud be better of throwing 20+ gauss shots down the field and glance it to death instead of risking a explode result from the scythe and potentially loosing models for no reason. Crypteks are more worth their points as they rarely go over 75 points, and you have long range melta str weapon options, further boosting what the warrior squad was already doing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The problem is that with 2 overlords you can have 2 lords with res.orbs in a unit of warriors, now when this unit dies with one of the 2 lords coming back on a 4+ odds are(75%) that at least 1 stands back up and then the ark just puts the other one back in. So now you have this squad that is for all intents and purposes is immortal until the ghost ark dies, at AV13 and 4HP the ark is pretty durable and if your abusing this you are probably taking more than 1 ark. And to top it all off the squad scores, plus as an added benefit if you have MSS on both of them they can effectively go toe to toe with any CC unit in the game(except maybe very large boy and nid squads, since they can effectively cover both tokens) since all they need to do is charge in MSS something, die, get revived, repeat. And that's what feels wrong about this ruling, it just feels like an exploit, for 340pts(all the lords need are MSS and an orb) you get a scoring unit with effectively infinite wounds(until the ark dies and any other arks you took) that can take out/delay opponents death stars and a transport for said unit. I mean maybe I'm wrong but this doesn't feel like the intended function of the ghost ark.

Anyway this thread is the first that I am hearing about this and I have been playing with and against newcrons since it's release and no one has ever interpreted it like this, which if it was intended you would think people would play that way more often. Would like to see a FAQ on the royal courts in general I mean people that I play with still grime about lone crypteks and lords scoring and if I brought this up they would probably stop playing me.

sorry to point this out, but your scoring count is way off...assuming you take two over lords (going with the bare min of MSS and warscythe to make them even worthwhile, more if you want anything else like a CCB or other upgrades), only one ghost ark for the sake of argument, 2 necron lords kitted out the same as above in your post ( MSS and orb) and one full unit of 20 warriors (which if your going to pull this "exploit" you'd want to invest more than a small squad.

adding all the above comes to a cost of 765 points alone for 2 HQs on foot, 1 troop choice, a transport, and 2/5 of a RC which dont take a slot. So your saying roughly half of your army or more to pull this strategy off is broken? If some1 fielded the above list, id laugh as they could only hold 1-2 obj at all all game in a typical scenario. and with only 1 AV13 vehicle in that, its goign to be gone by turn 2, especially if its obviously the "exploit" you're intending to go and the opponent isnt a complete noob (no offense). Any list that focuses on this would be horribly weak. And being perfectly honest, the above list is only a bare minimum listing, the lords would take warscythes just for the MSS combo alone, and the Overlords would either have more upgrades or even a CCB for themselves (80 points a pop alone) so in complete honesty, youd be adding 100 or more points to that above listing easilly.

As I said in my previous posts, it by no means "game breaking" or "op". If it was the WAAC players would be going that instead fo flyer spam. Your trading any sort of versatility and almost all of your firepower (at least half in my case in how I build my lists) thats almost 1000 points with no shooting attack over S5......lolwut? and at the max 5/10(RF) from the ark, and 20/40(RF) from the warriors all of those being gauss flayers, the weakest shotting weapon in the codex. Also tack on the fact that the most targets you could fire at would be *drum roll for suspense* a massive TWO different units, and thats assuming you shoot the ark at a different target (o noes 5 shots of S4, im shakin).

In all seriousness, its a horrible tactic to "build a list around". I'd only field it as a way to keep my dectruction crypteks alive if they just so happen to be precision shot out of the unit. If it came down to CC, i doubt a necron warrior squad is goign to win combat and survive the sweeping advance (in2 is almost a guaranteed fail unless your playing tau or other crons, in which case youd actually have a good chance of winning combat assumign its warriors fighting warriors and not him beating your warrriors down with wraiths)

overlordweasel wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

The problem is that with 2 overlords you can have 2 lords with res.orbs in a unit of warriors, now when this unit dies with one of the 2 lords coming back on a 4+ odds are(75%) that at least 1 stands back up and then the ark just puts the other one back in. So now you have this squad that is for all intents and purposes is immortal until the ghost ark dies, at AV13 and 4HP the ark is pretty durable and if your abusing this you are probably taking more than 1 ark. And to top it all off the squad scores, plus as an added benefit if you have MSS on both of them they can effectively go toe to toe with any CC unit in the game(except maybe very large boy and nid squads, since they can effectively cover both tokens) since all they need to do is charge in MSS something, die, get revived, repeat. And that's what feels wrong about this ruling, it just feels like an exploit, for 340pts(all the lords need are MSS and an orb) you get a scoring unit with effectively infinite wounds(until the ark dies and any other arks you took) that can take out/delay opponents death stars and a transport for said unit. I mean maybe I'm wrong but this doesn't feel like the intended function of the ghost ark.

Anyway this thread is the first that I am hearing about this and I have been playing with and against newcrons since it's release and no one has ever interpreted it like this, which if it was intended you would think people would play that way more often. Would like to see a FAQ on the royal courts in general I mean people that I play with still grime about lone crypteks and lords scoring and if I brought this up they would probably stop playing me.

sorry to point this out, but your scoring count is way off...assuming you take two over lords (going with the bare min of MSS and warscythe to make them even worthwhile, more if you want anything else like a CCB or other upgrades), only one ghost ark for the sake of argument, 2 necron lords kitted out the same as above in your post ( MSS and orb) and one full unit of 20 warriors (which if your going to pull this "exploit" you'd want to invest more than a small squad.

adding all the above comes to a cost of 765 points alone for 2 HQs on foot, 1 troop choice, a transport, and 2/5 of a RC which dont take a slot. So your saying roughly half of your army or more to pull this strategy off is broken? If some1 fielded the above list, id laugh as they could only hold 1-2 obj at all all game in a typical scenario. and with only 1 AV13 vehicle in that, its goign to be gone by turn 2, especially if its obviously the "exploit" you're intending to go and the opponent isnt a complete noob (no offense). Any list that focuses on this would be horribly weak. And being perfectly honest, the above list is only a bare minimum listing, the lords would take warscythes just for the MSS combo alone, and the Overlords would either have more upgrades or even a CCB for themselves (80 points a pop alone) so in complete honesty, youd be adding 100 or more points to that above listing easilly.

As I said in my previous posts, it by no means "game breaking" or "op". If it was the WAAC players would be going that instead fo flyer spam. Your trading any sort of versatility and almost all of your firepower (at least half in my case in how I build my lists) thats almost 1000 points with no shooting attack over S5......lolwut? and at the max 5/10(RF) from the ark, and 20/40(RF) from the warriors all of those being gauss flayers, the weakest shotting weapon in the codex. Also tack on the fact that the most targets you could fire at would be *drum roll for suspense* a massive TWO different units, and thats assuming you shoot the ark at a different target (o noes 5 shots of S4, im shakin).

In all seriousness, its a horrible tactic to "build a list around". I'd only field it as a way to keep my dectruction crypteks alive if they just so happen to be precision shot out of the unit. If it came down to CC, i doubt a necron warrior squad is goign to win combat and survive the sweeping advance (in2 is almost a guaranteed fail unless your playing tau or other crons, in which case youd actually have a good chance of winning combat assumign its warriors fighting warriors and not him beating your warrriors down with wraiths)

Ok first the point cost I posted was just for the unit in the context because presumably the overlords are providing something for your list other than just unlocking the courts. Anyway you would only ever take 5 necrons warriors in the squad since it doesn't matter if they all die only the lords are important here. 20 warriors is just a complete waste of points, the point is it doesn't matter if the squad dies you still get your everliving rolls. Anyway the cost of that comes to 340 and yes you have to factor in the overlords sure but they are offering more than just this tactic part I mean one of them could be zhandrek who has a lot of uses and isn't just there to unlock the court. But for arguments sake lets say you were just purchasing overlords for the unlocking of the court purpose, so you took 2 foot lords(130 a pop warscythe,MSS,weave) it brings the cost up to 600pts thats not going to break your back when making a list considering it already gives you a really strong scoring unit. Anyway this is only part of a list, so your comments about only having weak shooting? Ummm.... you have 900 more points to spend in 1500, and over a 1000pts at levels above that, so not sure what your point is. Also with regards to your comment about being swept.. ok that's the point you get swept and then get back up due to everliving and then engage again, your opponent makes no progress in regards to killing your unit as whatever he assaults with slowly dies due to MSS or the 6 str5 ap3 shots a turn. Point is unless the ghost arc dies the unit is invincible and if there is a LOS blocking terrain and you place an objective around there, hid the ark, then your never going to be pushed off that objective. And like I've said its a small part of your army and if your army contains another ghost ark then that's 8HPs your opponent must remove before they can touch your scoring unit.

Ghost Arcs die turn 1. Maybe 2 if extremely lucky. AV13 isn't that tough to pen, and after the 1st pen IF the GA survives (don't forget it's open-topped) it becomes AV11. At that point str 6-7 is all you need to take it down. Even Str 5 can be used to make it lose it's last hull point.

So if you see a list built around a GA and you don't destroy it turn 1, it's your fault. Or you had extremely bad luck...

copper.talos wrote:
So if you see a list built around a GA and you don't destroy it turn 1, it's your fault. Or you had extremely bad luck...

Or you're a Tyranid. AV13 isn't trivial to pen, especially when it gets a 5+ cover save just by moving.

That said, there's nothing really cheesy about this - I've played against it and won, and played against it and lost.

A list based on GA should have plenty of I2 infantry walking around. So I think it might actually be good for tyranids to face such list.

Sure - like I said, I've won against them and it's not really cheesy.

Just saying that it's not just "your fault" if they're not dead on turn 1.

Anyway the cost of that comes to 340 and yes you have to factor in the overlords sure but they are offering more than just this tactic part I mean one of them could be zhandrek who has a lot of uses and isn't just there to unlock the court.

if you put in someone like zhandrek, your talking 185 points for him alone with no options to wargear, hes almost double the cost of one overlord. Again, I listed bare min in my post, the special characters are "upgrades" per say and are going to hike the price tag even higher. As for the Nemessor, typically if your going to run a list with the named guys, you build the list to amplify and focus on their specific SRs that they come with; that being said, he doesn't synergize well with the ghost ark tactic. Only thing he brings to the table for them is adaptive tactics for sub-par buffs other than maybe night vision or stealth in a game with NF rules. Better to give a unit of, say, wraiths FC.

Anyway you would only ever take 5 necrons warriors in the squad since it doesn't matter if they all die only the lords are important here. 20 warriors is just a complete waste of points, the point is it doesn't matter if the squad dies you still get your everliving rolls.

That is very highly situational and dependent on so many factors it would only change per game. For one thing, your assuming the Lord is going to make EVERY EL role. Even with the orb, its only a 50% chance hes coming back up. Two, why would you only place 5 warriors in the unit? If your going the MSU route, you might as well put 9 warriors and the lord in the ark itself and just cruise as itd be safer for the unit and you'd loose no firepower as its open topped, heck it'd be even better as you draw distance based on the hull, which depending on the facing, can add a couple inches of range to the warrior bases original arc. Don't get me wrong, if that's your playstyle, go for it, I see no reason why it wouldn't work well and be a cheaper alternative. However, that many points being spent to hold only one obj in a match? gratz, your opponent cant take one obj you hold , +1 for you, but now the rest of your army suffers being undermanned and potentially out gunned to hold the others as your opponent can almost ignore the "invincible" squad taking up 1/3 of your armies cost, if not more.

Also with regards to your comment about being swept.. ok that's the point you get swept and then get back up due to everliving and then engage again, your opponent makes no progress in regards to killing your unit as whatever he assaults with slowly dies due to MSS or the 6 str5 ap3 shots a turn.

okay, so your point is, the unit your spending 1/3 of your army on is a good tar-pitting unit, which will eventually loose to anything CC orientated. 200 points base for a 10 man of GK space marines(assuming no upgrades at all) would laugh in your face as you loose your unit over and over and over again until that lord fails his EL role (once again, only 50%) and if they get swept and the unit is wiped out, you loose all RP counters, then you'll be limited to only what the ark can revive and even that can fail on you on a roll of a 1 causing a glancing hit and taking away the repair function. Heck if the ooponent is smart, he can even get a hammer wielding GK, multi-charge the unit and the ark at the same and wipe out both the ark AND the unit all at once. so 200+ points just completely wiped out 1/3 or more of your army in one combat phase and all you did was MAYBE cause D3 instant death roles assuming they didn't use hammerhand and used their one warp charge. How long do you think a 5 man of warriors would deal with even worse, purifiers or a termie squad even from ANY SM codex? My point being, the ghost ark backed unit is not some "invicible squad that never dies, muahahahha" it can be wiped out in one turn by something half its point cost at least. THAT sounds like a waste of points to me.