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 was talking about the Tomb Spyder. You could probably get the Lord to benefit from it, if it's written that way.

I know that in order to get a cover save, the majority of the unit needs to be in cover but I have never heard of a "majority cover save " in the same terms of "majority toughness".

Your opponent rolls to wound using the toughness of the majority. However, after he allocates wounds to inidividual models, the controlling player makes each save (armour, cover, and invulnerable) based on individual stats...its just in most cases, cover will normally be the same for each model in the unit.

In the case of an IC without stealth joining a unit with stealth. The BRB states that unless an unit's special ability specifically mentions "that the special ability is transfered to an attached IC", the IC will NOT beneifit from that ability. I wasn't aware that stealth was one of those shared USRs . Therefore, if a unit of scarabs go to ground with a destroyer lord, the scarabs would get a 4+ for their two special abilities, while the destroyer lord would get only a 6+ (assuming Stealth is not a shared USR). Again, I have found no basis for a "majority cover save".

The tomb spider is not an IC. however, the Necron Faq states:

"all wounds are allocated to specific models, only wounds allocated to the scarabs are doubled for vulnerablity to blasts and gain the +1 cover save for stealth."

This concludes that the Tombspider does not benefit from Stealth and sets a strong presidence that it would not get the other scarab specific cover boost either.

All models in a unit get the cover save if 50% or more models are in cover. A tomb spider in the open would get a cover save if it has a single scarab base in it's unit, and that scarab base is in cover.

Similarly, a Thunderfire Cannon will get a 3+ cover save if it and it's Techmarine are in bolstered ruins, and a Hive Tyrant will get a cover save if its Tyrant Guard are in cover.

The TS would not get a cover save unless it was 50% obscured. The MC requirement of 50% is still in effect. The scarab in cover would guarantee it gets a cover save, as it's still half the unit.

The TS model is not in cover, as it is not 50% obscured. In that situation, though, it will still get a cover save. Nothing in the description of Monstrous Creatures says that they disregard the "Units Partially in Cover" rule.

RobPro wrote:The TS would not get a cover save unless it was 50% obscured. The MC requirement of 50% is still in effect. The scarab in cover would guarantee it gets a cover save, as it's still half the unit.

You have misunderstood the 50% requirement for MCs, they say "for a monstrous creature to be in cover, at least 50% of its body has to be in cover from the point of view of the majority of firing models".

But in a unit, a single model being "in cover" is not what determines that models save, from the cover rules: "If half or more of the models in the target unit are in cover, then the entire unit is deemed to be in cover and all of its models may take cover saves."

so while the MC is not considered "in cover" if enough members of it's unit are, it still gets a cover save.

I thought the MC still had to be separately obscured because the scarab swarm isn't a retinue or something. Thanks for clearing it up.

If the TS has scarabs yes, otherwise no.

RobPro wrote:I thought the MC still had to be separately obscured because the scarab swarm isn't a retinue or something. Thanks for clearing it up.

No, non-swarm units cannot use swarms to claim a cover save but swarms can use non-swarms to claim the cover save themselves.

Actually, intervening swarms do not grant cover saves to MC. That is the restriction. Units involving both are not part of that.

Don't forget that 1 part of a unit cannot provide cover to the other part of the unit either.

Just an aside that was touched on earlier, We're saying that you follow the codex and the FAQ so the Scarabs gain both their Small Targets +1 cover save and the stealth +1 cover save. So by extension they must also have Vulnerable to Blast twice as well, once from their codex special rule and once from Swarm special rule.


Say you have a complex unit of a Tomb Spyder , Necron Lord and 2 Swarms of Scarabs. You wander up and give the unit a light flamering covering the whole unit. Assuming the Scarabs fail their saves this will cause 8 wounds to the unit, Can these wounds only kill the scarabs or do these spill over onto the Tomb Spyder and Necron Lord as well?


Aramoro

Wounds are doubled, not hits. Per the Necron FAQ, only wounds allococated to the spiders are doubled.

I know the wounds are doubled not the hits.

it's more the scenario you flamer the unit, hitting all four models. You roll to wound and score four wounds, he allocates one to each model in his unit, 1 on the Tomb Spyder, 1 on the Lord and 2 on the Scarabs. The scarabs fail their saves against the wounds, the small targets rules double those wounds up to 4 , the Vulnerable to Blast Rule doubles those up to 8. So your unit has now suffered 8 wounds, 4 to each scarab base. Are those two bases just vaporised and the extra wound vanishes into the ether as the wounding hit where assigned to the scarabs. Or do they spill over to the two remaining guys who have to suck them up.

The Necron FAQ doesn't mention anything about this situation, or anything about their VtB special rule at all in fact. All I can really go on is the VtB rule which says the wound against the unit are doubled.

If the Scarabs getting exploded rule works differently from VtB do you get to choose the other of applying the effects, so you can choose VtB to double your wounds against the unit then apply small target to double the wounds against the Scarab bases themselves.

Aramoro

Wounds never spill over to units (or parts of a complex unit) that were not allocated wounds.

Scarabs are swarms they are not swarms and scarab swarms. Unsaved wounds from templates are double not doubled per Faq and doubled again per codex.

Multiple instances of Vulnerable to blasts is redundant. Multiple instances of any USR is considered redundant and does not confer a bonus or penalty more than once.

wyomingfox wrote:Wounds are doubled, not hits. Per the Necron FAQ, only wounds allococated to the spiders are doubled.

The Necron FAQ only refers to "Vulnerable to blasts/templates" which is the USR they gain from being a USR "swarms", and in this case the FAQ changes nothing because that version of the rule says "each unsaved wound is doubled to two wounds" and an unsaved wound belongs to a model (or model group) rather than the whole unit, thus when it kicks in, it can only double up for the scarabs. However, the "Vulnerable to Blasts" rule provided in the Necron Codex says the relevant weapons "inflict two wounds instead of one" and, given the terminology used(wounds, rather than unsaved wounds), this would arguably mean each hit causes two wounds to the unit, instead of one. Personally I wouldn't care if you played it the other way (that both doublings occur after failing a save), since it seems in line with the RAI, but I think the RAW for the rule listed in the Necron Dex is to double BEFORE assigning wounds in a complex unit.

NecronLord3 wrote:Scarabs are swarms they are not swarms and scarab swarms. Unsaved wounds from templates are double not doubled per Faq and doubled again per codex.

RobPro wrote:Multiple instances of Vulnerable to blasts is redundant. Multiple instances of any USR is considered redundant and does not confer a bonus or penalty more than once.

You guys could be absolutely 100% right, however, there's no difference of circumstance between the Vulnerable to Blasts double entries, which have different titles, and slightly different rules, and the Small Target + Stealth situation. I would never force a Necron player to use both Vulnerable rules, but if a Necron player was seeking a +2 cover save bonus through the doubling up of the other rule, would expect that it's only fair for both to double up.

Small Target and Stealth have similar effects but are different abilities.

Vulnerable to Blasts is actually the exact same in the rulebook as it is in the codex.

Drunkspleen wrote:
You guys could be absolutely 100% right, however, there's no difference of circumstance between the Vulnerable to Blasts double entries, which have different titles, and slightly different rules, and the Small Target + Stealth situation. I would never force a Necron player to use both Vulnerable rules, but if a Necron player was seeking a +2 cover save bonus through the doubling up of the other rule, would expect that it's only fair for both to double up.

They aren't getting a doubling of the cover save from duplicate rules. They get a +1 for having stealth per the rules for swarms. Now what makes it strong is situations like turbo-boosting where the cover save is 3+ improved by +1 for stealth giving Scarabs a 2+ cover save when turbo boosting.

RobPro wrote:Small Target and Stealth have similar effects but are different abilities.

Vulnerable to Blasts is actually the exact same in the rulebook as it is in the codex.

In the rulebook it is titled "Vulnerable to Blasts/Templates" in the codex it is titled "Vulnerable to Blasts".

In the rulebook it says "Some units are especially vulnerable to blast weapons and template weapons. If the unit is a vehicle, then each hit counts as two hits. If it is not a vehicle, each unsaved wound is doubled to two wounds" the codex says "Template, Ordnance and Blast marker weapons inflict two wounds instead of one on Scarab swarms."

These rules are no more the same than Stealth and Small Target, they both have different titles, and different wording, in fact, the two vulnerable rules even have a potentially different in game effect (by doubling at different times in the shooting sequence) which would actually make these rules MORE different than Stealth and Small Target.

NecronLord3 wrote:They aren't getting a doubling of the cover save from duplicate rules. They get a +1 for having stealth per the rules for swarms. Now what makes it strong is situations like turbo-boosting where the cover save is 3+ improved by +1 for stealth giving Scarabs a 2+ cover save when turbo boosting.

Some people argue they get +1 for stealth and a further +1 for Small Target from the Necron Codex, for a total of +2, all I am saying is, if you are trying to play that those two abilities are both being used and both stacking, there's no reason that the two seperate "Vulnerable" rules would not stack.

Thats all i'm suggesting as well. If you want the double cover save bonus from Small Target and Stealth then you have to suck up a double Vulnerable to Blast. The rules have different titles and slightly different wordings.

Basically if you want the +2 cover save you're exploiting a poorly worded codex and FAQ to gain an advantage so you have to expect the same in return. If you just want your +1 cover saves then cool only 1 VtB rule can apply then.

Aramoro

Well if you're going to play it that way then my Destroyer Lord is Toughness 6(7) for having a Destroyer body and the additional protection for being a Jetbike and all my destroyers are Toughness 5(6) for having Jetbikes also. And I won't be taking any Scarabs against you.

It is not a poorly worded Codex. It is a 3rd edition Codex where USR didn't exist at the time. It is badly in need of an update that is it.

Vulnerable to Blasts is an identical rule in the Necron Codex and the USRs. It was designed for the Necron Codex and carried over into the USRs. I play with the Swarms ability replacing the Scarab special rules. But I can see the argument to allow the Small Target rule in addition to the Swarms rules. Especially when you see the Scarabs in the DOW video game. They are VERY small, smaller than Nurglings, Snotlings, or Rippers.

Well if you're going to play it that way then my Destroyer Lord is Toughness 6(7) for having a Destroyer body and the additional protection for being a Jetbike

Wrong. He MOVES as a jetbike, but he doesn't actually become one.

and all my destroyers are Toughness 5(6) for having Jetbikes also.

See above.

Protip: RTFM.

Gwar! wrote:

Well if you're going to play it that way then my Destroyer Lord is Toughness 6(7) for having a Destroyer body and the additional protection for being a Jetbike

Wrong. He MOVES as a jetbike, but he doesn't actually become one.

and all my destroyers are Toughness 5(6) for having Jetbikes also.

See above.

Protip: RTFM.

Actually they are classified as Jetbikes. However I do not play them like this. But if an opponent is going to try to argue for doubling Vulnerable to Blasts, then I'm doubling my Toughness bonus.

NecronLord3 wrote:Actually they are classified as Jetbikes.

Actually, no they are not.

Take my advice, RTFM, what does it say?

Page 15 wrote:[...]He moves as if mounted on a Jetbike[...]

Page 19 wrote:Destoyers count as Jetbikes for movement purposes.

You were saying?

They only count as Jetbikes for movement, so you cannot under any circumstances claim the +1 Toughness Twice.

Sorry for the bigtext, but I am just making sure you don't miss it. You are Wrong. I know it's not nice to say it, but you are.

4th edition clearly defined such units as JETBIKES. Not for movement purposes only. Not sure if the same classification chart exists in the full 5th edition rulebook as I only purchased the small version that comes with Assault on Black Reach box set.

Don't like that? Try the Scarab rules where it gives the same wording for movement but specifically denies the +1 toughness bonus, the Destroyer rules do not have such an exclusion.

NecronLord3 wrote:
Don't like that? Try the Scarab rules where it gives the same wording for movement but specifically denies the +1 toughness bonus, the Destroyer rules do not have such an exclusion.

Simple answer GW can't write to save their live. Note my sig

NecronLord3 wrote:4th edition clearly defined such units as JETBIKES.

-Sigh-

2005 Called, they want their Lawnmower Back.

In 5th edition, they are not Jetbikes.

Do you want a scan of my codex or will the quotes above suffice?

They show that they only move as jetbikes.

Show me in the rulebook or codex where it says otherwise. Until you do, you are just waffling.

And the AoBR one is the EXACT SAME DOWN TO THE PAGE NUMBERS as the Big Book. All it is missing is the fluff at the back.

Just and FYI in case you missed it. I was making the ridiculous argument to counter the ridiculousness of doubling Vulnerable to blasts.

Thanks for the scan offer but I own all Codexes in PDF form already.

Thanks for playing!