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.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:


It's in the rules for RP, so what? Are you also going to contest that the lords/crypteks attached to Warrior and Immortal units don't count as scoring?

No, of course not. That's absurd.
As absurd as letting the Ghost Ark make squads of 9 lords and 1 warrior.

Well keep in mind, at least on my part, I don't agree with that aspect. Following the rules of the royal court you can only ever have 1 member of the court in a squad.

I do stand by the ark being able to bring back lords and crypteks though.

Also, I'm pretty sure no one actually DOES play it the way you mentioned, it's just exaggerated here as the RAW and the RAI are two very different things.

You can have up to 2 RC members in a warrior unit.

Anyway the rule fluff also talks about repairing fallen Necrons not just Warriors. So RAW and RAI you can bring back RC members. And since it is "repair", it's 100% RAI that you can add only the same RC members that was originally part of the unit.

I guess that's fair. I was worried that there was going to be cheese, like lord farming.

I still don't quite like the idea of lords coming back in general, but if the fluff supports it (too lazy to check atm) I guess its fine.

copper.talos wrote:
You can have up to 2 RC members in a warrior unit.

Anyway the rule fluff also talks about repairing fallen Necrons not just Warriors. So RAW and RAI you can bring back RC members. And since it is "repair", it's 100% RAI that you can add only the same RC members that was originally part of the unit.

That's 2 RC members per unit assuming you have two royal courts, which requires two overlords.

fursphere wrote:

copper.talos wrote:
You can have up to 2 RC members in a warrior unit.

Anyway the rule fluff also talks about repairing fallen Necrons not just Warriors. So RAW and RAI you can bring back RC members. And since it is "repair", it's 100% RAI that you can add only the same RC members that was originally part of the unit.

That's 2 RC members per unit assuming you have two royal courts, which requires two overlords.

Not necessarily, certain named characters also unlock courts.

 sounddemon wrote:

fursphere wrote:

copper.talos wrote:
You can have up to 2 RC members in a warrior unit.

Anyway the rule fluff also talks about repairing fallen Necrons not just Warriors. So RAW and RAI you can bring back RC members. And since it is "repair", it's 100% RAI that you can add only the same RC members that was originally part of the unit.

That's 2 RC members per unit assuming you have two royal courts, which requires two overlords.

Not necessarily, certain named characters also unlock courts.

Those named HQ units are still overlords.

Bringing back court members is bs and the first I've heard about this. It is so unbelievably cheesy, if you play like this there is no downside fully decking out a lord and putting it in front of the unit to have a 2+/3++/4+++ model tanking shots... And I play necrons and this is so cheesy and obviously unintended that I would never abuse this it just feels wrong. I can't believe people play like this, so what when you guys play the necron warrior squad becomes the strongest CC unit in the game? Yeah that sounds intentional... Just take 2 overlords add in 2 decked out lords in a warrior squad and now you can on average bring back 2 units a turn, the 2 lords if they die, and with 2 ever living rolls with a res orb odds are one of them gets back up if the squad is wiped and then the other is put back on due to a ghost ark.

This isn't intentional and it isn't how people play, otherwise ghost ark spam would be the most viable army list with the unkillable CC warrior-lord squads.

So you're a GW game dev? If not, how do you know what was and wasn't intentional?

And you're wrong that no one plays like that - FYI.

I actually think this may have been intentional. Why else would it not say add d3 warriors instead of d3 models. Not to mention that 2+/3++/4+++ lord costs what, 135/150 points for a 1 wound model? The wording is similar to HfH with a despairtek which was allowed. It needs an FAQ but yeah, I don't see why not.

Because the wording is messed up? By your logic, the Death Ray was intended to be used on flyers.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Because the wording is messed up? By your logic, the Death Ray was intended to be used on flyers.

How so? How on earth does the death ray having no real rules against hitting flyers as it was a crossover codex have ANY bearing on a rule functional in 5th and 6th with no core rules changing for its target unit? It doesn't, that's a strawman.

because its exploitation... by definition, this is called inclusion... you are implying that the RAW is RAI meaning GW wants the game to unfair and imbalanced (smart alec comments unecessary.... bottom line up front, you play like this and you can start kissing your opponents good-bye as it will be a sad lonely world for a necron player with no friends to play with. Maybe competition is your bag, and you want to play to win, but lets not forget why the game was made... in the beginning there was no Grand Tourny for people to go rules crazy for and read into everything... the only thing that makes the rules not work or make an army broken is us...

Ok, fine, what about the death ray being able to hit entire units, due to the poor wording of the rule? Or is that also a strawman?

The problem isn't bring back 1 lord. One lord, though irritating, is passable. Its using to the Ghost Ark to summon make 3 lords at a time out of mid air.

or something that wasnt in the unit to begin with... how do you determine what three models are placed? you cannot... this is not grab a marker and add stuff in there because you want cheese on your burger... the obvious intent was to make it to where WARRIORS were recreated, not characters. It does not require that much brain power to conclude this... this is the way its been played since the codex came out, it is the way it should be played, and if you play it any other way, you should be treated as someone who peed in the pool...

the death ray is entirely different matter... one could say that this argument is akin to whether or not imotehks lightning can hit fliers... another no brainer arguement

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Ok, fine, what about the death ray being able to hit entire units, due to the poor wording of the rule? Or is that also a strawman?

Except that's been shown to be an incorrect reading, and it has been explained in an FAQ.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 WarlordRob117 wrote:
or something that wasnt in the unit to begin with... how do you determine what three models are placed? you cannot... this is not grab a marker and add stuff in there because you want cheese on your burger... the obvious intent was to make it to where WARRIORS were recreated, not characters. It does not require that much brain power to conclude this... this is the way its been played since the codex came out, it is the way it should be played, and if you play it any other way, you should be treated as someone who peed in the pool...

It may be obvious to you, but I disagree that's the intent. And insulting people isn't the way to make your argument - as I said, you're incorrect that this is how it's been played and that no one plays it any other way.

the death ray is entirely different matter... one could say that this argument is akin to whether or not imotehks lightning can hit fliers... another no brainer arguement

I'm curious - which side of the Imotekh argument do you think was intended?

Yet the wording was still poor enough to confuse a lot of people.
Here's how I see it :

The rule mentions Warrior units. A model in this unit would therefore be a warrior, just as a Space Marine unit is composed of Space Marine models.

But for reasons of incompetency, whoever wrote the rule forgot that you can join characters to the warrior unit, just as same person forgot to specify what the death ray rule does exactly.

Shouldnt have to specify... the fact that people cant look at something nowadays without drawing ridiculous conclusions is absurd

I wasnt insulting anyone, I was making a statement that compares people with childish playstyles to people who cannot control their bodily functions... I wasnt directing towards anyone here...

I have helped judge multiple tournaments here in the states and I can tell this, had this come up, and found out that you had been playing this way the entire tournament? I dont care if you went undefeated, you would be disqualified on the spot.

your curiosity is better served elsewhere...

 WarlordRob117 wrote:
I have helped judge multiple tournaments here in the states and I can tell this, had this come up, and found out that you had been playing this way the entire tournament? I dont care if you went undefeated, you would be disqualified on the spot.

I'm glad you're so objective.

your curiosity is better served elsewhere...

Fair enough.

And really - you are insulting people. Because - wait for it - people do play this way. And yes they should specify it. Leaving glaring loopholes and assuming the reader can figure out your intent is an idiotic way to write a game. Absolutely stupid.

When you have alot of band-wagoners who jump on the latest and greatest army, and they all play the same way (warriors are the only models placed) you find yourself being very decisive... mainly because they take all the work out of making the "hard" decisions everyone seems to have on here... if your methodology is based solely on finding loopholes and trying to make conclusions based on loopholes then you should be a defense attorney for the criminally insane, not a miniature wargamer. That said, if you went to gamesday right now and popped this question to the editing team, trying to garnish their support, Id imagine you'd be very disappointed...

and really no I wasnt... unless you want to admit that you just insulted the entire GW staff with your last statement... so if I am insulting anyone you are as well... the kettle is mighty black, Sir.

 WarlordRob117 wrote:
That said, if you went to gamesday right now and popped this question to the editing team, trying to garnish their support, Id imagine you'd be very disappointed...

I've emailed the GW FAQ team. Have you? That's the right way to divine their intent. Trying to assume intent without rules support (some precedent somewhere, FAQ, etc.) leads to poor rules interpretation.

and really no I wasnt... unless you want to admit that you just insulted the entire GW staff with your last statement... so if I am insulting anyone you are as well... the kettle is mighty black, Sir.

Yes, I will insult the way they write rules. You insulted people. See the difference?

Regardless, I'm done with the thread.

If you think you weren't insulting because you didn't name drop then I have no words. At least be blunt instead of hiding behind ambiguity.

The death ray was unclear. However, the last under the line part would be redundant if it was meant to hit the entire unit. That should have been enough really. This says models. It doesn't say warriors. The fluff doesn't say warriors. There is no intent nor concrete rules to back up your stance. There's certainly no reason you should be so stubborn either. Is it broken? No. Is it even useful? Rarely.

Also lightning doesn't hit flyers and the warrior unit argument is plain wrong. See: hunters from hyperspace royal court faq.

This is all assumign your Av13 huge bullet magnet survives past turn 2.

Mine never has, so i have never actually been able to use the repair rule.

 WarlordRob117 wrote:
or something that wasnt in the unit to begin with... how do you determine what three models are placed? you cannot... this is not grab a marker and add stuff in there because you want cheese on your burger... the obvious intent was to make it to where WARRIORS were recreated, not characters. It does not require that much brain power to conclude this... this is the way its been played since the codex came out, it is the way it should be played, and if you play it any other way, you should be treated as someone who peed in the pool...

the death ray is entirely different matter... one could say that this argument is akin to whether or not imotehks lightning can hit fliers... another no brainer arguement

So, you *know* what their intent was? Maybe the exclusion of the specific model types allowed WAS intended. They have FAQ'd the codex a few times now and never changed it.

No no, you don't *know* what the intent was.

Also, if you don't want people to ask about your side of other debates, then don't bring up the debates at all when it's not relevant to the thread.

Let me also just say this....if they wanted it to work where it only brought back warriors then they would have used the exact wording for the Scarab Hive (with obvious unit-specific word changes). But they did not. This is the same argument I used for wraithflight and referencing the c'tan Immune to Natural Law.

rigeld2 wrote:

 WarlordRob117 wrote:
That said, if you went to gamesday right now and popped this question to the editing team, trying to garnish their support, Id imagine you'd be very disappointed...

I've emailed the GW FAQ team.

You can do that? I mean no offense, I am genuinely curious.
May we have a link?

Gamefaqs@gwplc.com

It's not a Q/A email, it's an inbox you can send questions to so that they may get answered in the next FAQ.

I've sent a number of emails to it as well.

 Kevin949 wrote:
Gamefaqs@gwplc.com

It's not a Q/A email, it's an inbox you can send questions to so that they may get answered in the next FAQ.

I've sent a number of emails to it as well.

Ok cool. Is it stickied somewhere? It seems to be sticky worthy.

 Praxiss wrote:
This is all assumign your Av13 huge bullet magnet survives past turn 2.

Mine never has, so i have never actually been able to use the repair rule.

Thats if you take 1, they are cheapish and if they bring back 1 lord then they pay for themselves so you can reasonably take more than 1. And at AV13 with 4HP they are about as survivable as a tank can be in 6th edition. Plus being a dedicated transport you can have up to 6 in your army, sure if you only have 1 its going to be a large fire magnet but having 2 or even 3 isn't unreasonable in a list even without exploiting this rule.

I wasnt hiding behind ambiguity I stated my opinion about a particular group of people... hiding behind ambiguity would be adding things like "unlike some people"... stop being so soft (this is directed towards Eyjio)...

"So, you *know* what their intent was? Maybe the exclusion of the specific model types allowed WAS intended. They have FAQ'd the codex a few times now and never changed it.
No no, you don't *know* what the intent was."

niether do you, or anyone on YMDC for that matter... if a rule has a loophole that can easily be exploited by more than one party, you know what to do? ban the unit from play or dont use the codex... simple fix... fair for everyone because it obvious that you and I have two seperate opinons based on intent (as you cannot argue with solid evidence that it was GW's intent to allow any particular model to be returned to play) that cannot be settled until a FAQ directly address' the issue...

I used Imotekhs lightning as an example as several others have done on this thread... you are going to tell me what I can and cannot respond to now? sic a DCM on me if you wish but Im well within my rights to answer or not answer someones question...

following your logic they should do that with every codex entry but they dont, because implication is used to alleviate excess writing and page use. Paraphrase, abreviate, foot note... these are all things used in codices to speed the writing process... it could also be said that someone forgot? or missed it? gasp! Imperfection is a human trait?

i would if i could afford more. I normally take at least 2 Anni Barges and a Nightscythe...sometimes even even a CCb to spread the fire around.

CCB's are meh now in my opinion... they put you in vulnerable positions more often than not... they can be great for harassment if you dont mind conceding STWL and FB lol