Necron Cheese? Using Grand Illusion to get extra HfH Deathmark tokens

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.

**Kemen'tep**

Chrysis wrote:I'm pretty sure the disembarking rules are phrased as deploy within 2" of a hatch. So you could possibly skip the mishap step and just keep embarking and disembarking from a Nightscythe.

The wormhole gateway uses "embark and disembark" language rather than "deploy" language so that's a no go....BUT the Night Scythe transport rule says that If the Night Scythe is destroyed any embarked units go into reserve. That's a much safer way to get your D-marks back into reserve for an extra HfH token than a Deepstrike mishap.

**Chrysis**

Right, but don't the actual rules for disembarking use the deploy language? So when looking to find out how disembark works it tells you to deploy models? Or are the Nightscythe disembark rules comprehensive in the codex?

I don't have my books on hand, I'm just running off memory.

**Kemen'tep**

Chrysis wrote:Right, but don't the actual rules for disembarking use the deploy language? So when looking to find out how disembark works it tells you to deploy models? Or are the Nightscythe disembark rules comprehensive in the codex?

I don't have my books on hand, I'm just running off memory.

you're right! That's some dirty dirty pool

p 67 of the small rule book
"When a unit disembarks, each model is deployed within 2" of one of the vehicles access points, and within unit coherency"

p36 Necron Codex
Hunters from Hyperspace
"When a Deathmark unit deploys, choose a non-vehicle enemy unit on the battlefield (even a unit in a transport) to be their prey - place a counter next to the unit to serve as a reminder..."

Now is deploying models the same as deploying units?

**gregor_xenos**

Kemen'tep wrote:
Chrysis wrote:Right, but don't the actual rules for disembarking use the deploy language? So when looking to find out how disembark works it tells you to deploy models? Or are the Nightscythe disembark rules comprehensive in the codex?

I don't have my books on hand, I'm just running off memory.

you're right! That's some dirty dirty pool

p 67 of the small rule book
"When a unit disembarks, each model is deployed within 2" of one of the vehicles access points, and within unit coherency"

p36 Necron Codex
Hunters from Hyperspace
"When a Deathmark unit deploys, choose a non-vehicle enemy unit on the battlefield (even a unit in a transport) to be their prey - place a counter next to the unit to serve as a reminder..."

Now is deploying models the same as deploying units?

Holy jumpin Jeeeezus on a pogo stick!!!!
My game tomorrow just got REALLY interesting! lol

**Chrysis**

So run two or three units of Deathmarks and 1 nightscythe. Two of the Deathmark units stick relatively close, and each turn one disembarks from the Nightscythe while the other embarks. Thus 1 extra counter per turn, and a hard cover rulebook to the face for being a jammy git.

**dajobe**

dang, that is intense

**Kemen'tep**

Cross-posted from the rule guys
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/417580.page

DeathReaper wrote:As above, But with a reason:

deploying models is not the same as deploying units.

You deploy units before the game starts. this is very specific language in the BRB

The disembarking rules tell you how the unit disembarks by deploying the models within etc...

Two totally different things.

Honestly it's for the best. The other HfH tricks, (Grand Illusion on deploy second, Deepstrike mishap into reserve, embarked in a destroyed Night Scythe) each require both luck and have an in game cost. The disembark=deploy would have been all benefit at no cost, but it doesn't look like it's RAW anyway so it's no bid deal.

**azazel the cat**

Kemen'tep wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:
Kemen'tep wrote:Oh, I wasn't clear. I totally agree that if you mishap during deployment no token goes out, but if your Obyron unit is already on the board from a successful deployment and then you mishap into reserve during a veil move you would get to put out an extra HfH token when you deploy back out of reserve.

Oh, yeah, I get it now. Yeah, that would definitely work, and is very, very devious. And as I said, synergizes very nicely with my balls-to-the-wall VoD play style. (I love attempting to VoD onto CoD ledges. Direct hit or else mishap, no in-between!)

You are brilliant, and I think I am going to have to steal all your ideas and pretend that they are my own.

Hey Azazel I've been thinking of a C'tan-less list variant based on your play style.

I'm calling it a "Hunting Accident" list.

So don't take a C'tan. This opens up that third elites slot for another unit of D-marks. This way you know you'll get to put out at least three HfH tokens. Take the Nemesor/Obyron/Overlord combo to get two courts and the Ghostwalk Mantle. For each court go triple Despair Crypteks with Abyssal Staffs and one with VoD. D-mark units one and two each get an Overlord or The Nemesor, an Abyssal staff Cryptek and a VoD Cryptek. Obyron goes with the third D-mark unit with the remaining two staff Crypteks. So all three units are veiling with two templates. You've got to be right in the other units face to get full use of the 2+ wounding, AP1 templates but that's to your advantage since you have an increased chance to mishap into reserve to get that extra HfH token when you re-deploy. Bring a few Night Scythes to load your D-mark units into to regain Deepstrike and combo with the Nemesor's "phased reinforcements"

You could always add something else to the courts if you want some close combat protection.

Just think if The Nemesor rolls up on a HfH marked unit Obyron can pin point Veil to any spot within 6 inches of him and bring FOUR 2+ wounding AP1 templates plus all the Deathmark shots and just annihilate the target.

At first I was thinking go small on the D-mark unit size since the tactic is so inherently risky but I say just go for it. Load em up with as many D-marks as you can afford.

This was the first idea that came to my mind, too. But I tend to create very conservative lists, and just play them like a crazy person. And I actually prefer versatility rather than rocking out on a single combo like this. Currently the list I'm going to try out this weekend can be found here: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/417086.page#3685682

We'll have to see what kinda tweaks it takes. Currently I'm really looking forward to seeing what kind of synergy the C'Tan option will bring. I really like the idea of my opponent being stuck in the dark, slowed to a crawl and having to deal with the Deathmarks bouncing all over the place. I've been using the Deathmarks-Despair combo from the get-go and have had great success with it. (and when they get assaulted, they do just fine because the unit that assaults them is typically the marked unit that they just shot to pieces, so it's usually just a model or two against the full Deathmark unit, that still hits & wounds in CC on a 2+) I'm debating adding a Harbinger of Transmogrification to each Deathmark unit as well, just because it would lend a different kind of template and add even more synergy with the C'Tan.

I love the idea of using Zandrekh & Obyron in order to get a 3rd teleporter, but they're just too expensive and I would have to base the entire army around it. And as you can see, I'm quite attached to my Destroyer wings.

**Ratius**

Kudos for discovering the tactic. Nice to see different tactics and ideas come out of codexes rather then the standard ideas done ad nausem.

**Rex-Nine**

The point of the token is to know who the deathmarks (and anyone with them) get to wound on a 2+ right? I dont see whats wrong with it. RAW seems fine to me. I do not think its cheese at all. Sternguard Veterans can wound any unit on a 2+ (hellfire rounds) no tokens needed.

**Nate668**

This is not a "tactic", and does not deserve "kudos". This is an exploit in the RAW.

That being said, it is not a terribly overpowered exploit, so I wouldn't refuse to play against it.

**azazel the cat**

Nate668 wrote:This is not a "tactic", and does not deserve "kudos". This is an exploit in the RAW.

That being said, it is not a terribly overpowered exploit, so I wouldn't refuse to play against it.

Do please share with me your definition of both "tactic" and "exploit".

I'm not saying that I fully disagree with you, I just don't make as much of a distinction between the two. For example, three units of Long Fangs are no more a tactic than an exploitation of an undercosted unit.

EDIT: But I do disagree with on the the 'kudos'. Kemen'Tep found a neat trick whose craftiness is on par with the Writhing Worldscape + Tremorstave combo. Which, under your definition, would also constitute an exploit rather than a tactic. So unless your definition of 'tactic' is simply getting a stronger unit to fight a weaker unit, then he most definitely DOES deserve some praise here. And if that is your definition of 'tactic', then any game more complex than War with a deck of playing cards is not the game for you.

**Nate668**

Fair enough. I suppose exploiting the wording of RAW against the fluff of a rule and more than likely RAI could be considered a tactic.

**azazel the cat**

Nate668 wrote:Fair enough. I suppose exploiting the wording of RAW against the fluff of a rule and more than likely RAI could be considered a tactic.

Only after you explain how this goes against the fluff of the rule, and then explain how you know that it's not as intended.

**Nate668**

azazel the cat wrote:
Nate668 wrote:Fair enough. I suppose exploiting the wording of RAW against the fluff of a rule and more than likely RAI could be considered a tactic.

Only after you explain how this goes against the fluff of the rule, and then explain how you know that it's not as intended.

I don't know who you think you are, but I do not owe you an explanation. Read HfH and Grand Illusion and decide for yourself if this interaction of the rules makes any sense at all.

**Dytalus**

Nate668 wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:
Nate668 wrote:Fair enough. I suppose exploiting the wording of RAW against the fluff of a rule and more than likely RAI could be considered a tactic.

Only after you explain how this goes against the fluff of the rule, and then explain how you know that it's not as intended.

I don't know who you think you are, but I do not owe you an explanation. Read HfH and Grand Illusion and decide for yourself if this interaction of the rules makes any sense at all.

You made a statement, it requires an explanation if people are to take it seriously. For example:

You are wrong. I do not owe you an explanation.

For the record, I wouldn't use this tactic all the time, or even often. Maybe as a once off in a friendly game, because it can be fun to mess with people's heads and testing out imaginative tactical moves like this is part of the fun of the game.

**azazel the cat**

Nate668 wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:
Nate668 wrote:Fair enough. I suppose exploiting the wording of RAW against the fluff of a rule and more than likely RAI could be considered a tactic.

Only after you explain how this goes against the fluff of the rule, and then explain how you know that it's not as intended.

I don't know who you think you are, but I do not owe you an explanation. Read HfH and Grand Illusion and decide for yourself if this interaction of the rules makes any sense at all.

I think I'm a guy that read the rules for HRH and Grand Illusion, and thinks it makes perfect sense.

I do apologize if my last comment came off as hostile, it really wasn't mean to be. However, if you're going to claim something is against RAI, then yes you do owe an explanation. Otherwise I can just claim that I know what the RAI are, and not you, and then we both fall into an argument that is nothing more than "uh-huh! vs. nuh-uh!"

Anyway, think of Grand Illusion as a magic trick: Ziegfried puts the lady in the cage and covers it. Then he removes the cover, and the lady is no longer in the cage. Instead, she appears sitting atop a tiger on a plinth. Just because she didn't end the trick in the cage, doesn't mean she was never there.

**Nate668**

I guess my issue is that unlike most people who post on forums, I have no desire to argue with strangers, and am perfectly happy to state my opinion and be done with it. I also do not believe that any of you actually think this is RAI, so I do not feel that an explanation is necessary.

However, if you insist, these are my premises.

HfH represents the unit selecting a target for assassination.

Grand deception represents the shard either tricking the enemy into believing the unit is present on (or absent from) the battlefield, OR teleports the unit onto/off of the battlefield.

There is no logical explanation that i can come up with for how this action of the shard causes the deathmarks to suddenly choose multiple targets when they normally choose a single target.

**azazel the cat**

Nate668 wrote:I guess my issue is that unlike most people who post on forums, I have no desire to argue with strangers, and am perfectly happy to state my opinion and be done with it. I also do not believe that any of you actually think this is RAI, so I do not feel that an explanation is necessary.

However, if you insist, these are my premises.

HfH represents the unit selecting a target for assassination.

Grand deception represents the shard either tricking the enemy into believing the unit is present on (or absent from) the battlefield, OR teleports the unit onto/off of the battlefield.

There is no logical explanation that i can come up with for how this action of the shard causes the deathmarks to suddenly choose multiple targets when they normally choose a single target.

"Deathmark! Go kill Mephiston!" Bellowed the Overlord, his eyes glowing sickly green as he addressed the squad of Deathmarks standing at attention before him.
"Yes sir." Replied the Deathmark squad leader. This was business as usual for the Deathmarks; just another day at the office. Except, when you're a Deathmark, all your days at the office smelled like cordite and sorrow. Not dwelling on his task any further, the Deathmark squad leader hefted the rifle in his hands and set off with his unit to find their prey. The battlefield was rough and craggy underfoot, and the squad leader knew that soon the pock-marked ground would be covered in small pools of Mephiston's blood. Suddenly, the battle-strewn world vanished in a flash of green, only to reappear again. It only took a moment for the squad leader to compute his location and triangulate his bearings again. He was off the battlefield, amongst the countless squads being held back from the opening of the soon-to-begin battle. This had happened before; each time the Overlords had changed their minds; revised their strategy.
"Deathmark!" Bellowed the Overlord, as he had done so many times before. "There is a new target for you. Go kill Lemartes and those jumping idiots that follow him around. You will deal with Mephiston later."
"Yes sir." Answered the Deathmark squad leader, as he once again set off with his unit to find their prey. Today would be a busy day.

**tetrisphreak**

azazel the cat wrote:
Nate668 wrote:I guess my issue is that unlike most people who post on forums, I have no desire to argue with strangers, and am perfectly happy to state my opinion and be done with it. I also do not believe that any of you actually think this is RAI, so I do not feel that an explanation is necessary.

However, if you insist, these are my premises.

HfH represents the unit selecting a target for assassination.

Grand deception represents the shard either tricking the enemy into believing the unit is present on (or absent from) the battlefield, OR teleports the unit onto/off of the battlefield.

There is no logical explanation that i can come up with for how this action of the shard causes the deathmarks to suddenly choose multiple targets when they normally choose a single target.

"Deathmark! Go kill Mephiston!" Bellowed the Overlord, his eyes glowing sickly green as he addressed the squad of Deathmarks standing at attention before him.
"Yes sir." Replied the Deathmark squad leader. This was business as usual for the Deathmarks; just another day at the office. Except, when you're a Deathmark, all your days at the office smelled like cordite and sorrow. Not dwelling on his task any further, the Deathmark squad leader hefted the rifle in his hands and set off with his unit to find their prey. The battlefield was rough and craggy underfoot, and the squad leader knew that soon the pock-marked ground would be covered in small pools of Mephiston's blood. Suddenly, the battle-strewn world vanished in a flash of green, only to reappear again. It only took a moment for the squad leader to compute his location and triangulate his bearings again. He was off the battlefield, amongst the countless squads being held back from the opening of the soon-to-begin battle. This had happened before; each time the Overlords had changed their minds; revised their strategy.
"Deathmark!" Bellowed the Overlord, as he had done so many times before. "There is a new target for you. Go kill Lemartes and those jumping idiots that follow him around. You will deal with Mephiston later."
"Yes sir." Answered the Deathmark squad leader, as he once again set off with his unit to find their prey. Today would be a busy day.

Nice. I approve.

**azazel the cat**

Thank you.

**Nate668**

Ignoring the terrible excuse for an explanation above.

Looked up the description for Grand Illusion. It says "The C'Tan Shard weaves a glamour of deception, preventing from seeing the true disposition of the Necron forces."

Seems to me "preventing from seeing the true disposition" does not equal "teleports onto/off of battlefield before combat" But it is pointless to argue fluff, as azazel has shown.

OP, this is all that I wanted you to take from my posts: I personally do not like this idea, I would like a person who tried to do this a little less than I otherwise would, and if you actually took the time to read the background information, I think you would agree that this is not RAI. If your friends enjoy this kind of stuff, more power to you.

**azazel the cat**

Nate668 wrote:Ignoring the terrible excuse for an explanation above.

Looked up the description for Grand Illusion. It says "The C'Tan Shard weaves a glamour of deception, preventing from seeing the true disposition of the Necron forces."

Seems to me "preventing from seeing the true disposition" does not equal "teleports onto/off of battlefield before combat" But it is pointless to argue fluff, as azazel has shown.

OP, this is all that I wanted you to take from my posts: I personally do not like this idea, I would like a person who tried to do this a little less than I otherwise would, and if you actually took the time to read the background information, I think you would agree that this is not RAI. If your friends enjoy this kind of stuff, more power to you.

So exactly how does my Ziegfried & Roy explanation now suffice here? It seems to answer you perfectly.

**Nate668**

azazel the cat wrote:
Nate668 wrote:Ignoring the terrible excuse for an explanation above.

Looked up the description for Grand Illusion. It says "The C'Tan Shard weaves a glamour of deception, preventing from seeing the true disposition of the Necron forces."

Seems to me "preventing from seeing the true disposition" does not equal "teleports onto/off of battlefield before combat" But it is pointless to argue fluff, as azazel has shown.

OP, this is all that I wanted you to take from my posts: I personally do not like this idea, I would like a person who tried to do this a little less than I otherwise would, and if you actually took the time to read the background information, I think you would agree that this is not RAI. If your friends enjoy this kind of stuff, more power to you.

So exactly how does my Ziegfried & Roy explanation now suffice here? It seems to answer you perfectly.

If your "fluff" fit into cannon, how would you explain that HfH can typically only mark a single target per battle? If all it takes is and overlord saying "Get 'em", then why not mark every enemy? Also, as my previous post states, the fluff behind the deceivers rule does not suggest teleporting units to or from the battlefield.

This argument is a waste of time and I won't participate in it any further.

**gregor_xenos**

Nate668 wrote:This argument is a waste of time and I won't participate in it any further.

Thank GOD!!!

**HawaiiMatt**

Maybe the C'Tan confused the enemy long enough for the death marks to mark an additional target.

Really, to debate RAI, please explain to me how 10 death marks can only mark 1 unit, but if you take the same 10 guys, and have them stand in two groups of 5, you can mark 2 units.

I'm still not convinced death marks are worth 19 points, especially with a 100 point transport that you keep hopping into and out of for more marks.

Each turn jumping around is a turn you aren't firing.
-Matt

**azazel the cat**

HawaiiMatt wrote:Maybe the C'Tan confused the enemy long enough for the death marks to mark an additional target.

Really, to debate RAI, please explain to me how 10 death marks can only mark 1 unit, but if you take the same 10 guys, and have them stand in two groups of 5, you can mark 2 units.

I'm still not convinced death marks are worth 19 points, especially with a 100 point transport that you keep hopping into and out of for more marks.

Each turn jumping around is a turn you aren't firing.
-Matt

I'm not a fan of the transport option, either. I'd prefer to field 2 Deathmark units, and then run Grand Illusion. That way I get to mark 2-4 units. And since I include a VoD in each unit, a mishap has the potential to mark yet more units. They're not the core element to my army; more like just one hard-hitting trick that works nicely with the rest.

**Xlotl**

couldnt you use a monolith. "Dimensional corridor" states "That unit immediately phases out from its current position and 'disembarks' from the monoliths portal".

Just constantly teleport them through the monolith

**Anpu-adom**

Xlotl,
HfHS says, "Deploy"... and the Monolith text isn't 'deploy', whereas the Night Scythe is.

**tgf**

While it works, I think you could use points more effectively elsewhere. I also prefer the Abysal staff over tremor with deathmarks if nothing for the pure joy of no cover, ap1 S8 wounds on a 2+ against the marked squad.