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.

 Victory wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
One other question.

The Necron Decurion Detachment is made up of a number of formations. The units in each formation is listed right after the "FOC" specifying units required. Additionally, some of these formations can be taken as normal Formations (rules listed elsewhere). For the Command/Core/Auxiliary Formations, do you just use what is listed after the FOC (meaning there is no requirements, but no benefits), or do you use the "normal" formations (meaning you must meet any listed requirements, but gain the benefits)?

I'm confused. I thought we're pretty well sorted out on this issue. Can you point to a thread where this is raised?

I apologize. I thought this was a thread for Necron Codex questions. Did not realize it was a thread for hotly debated Necron codex questions.

stormcraft wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
One other question.

The Necron Decurion Detachment is made up of a number of formations. The units in each formation is listed right after the "FOC" specifying units required. Additionally, some of these formations can be taken as normal Formations (rules listed elsewhere). For the Command/Core/Auxiliary Formations, do you just use what is listed after the FOC (meaning there is no requirements, but no benefits), or do you use the "normal" formations (meaning you must meet any listed requirements, but gain the benefits)?

I read this 5 times now and still dont get what your point is Oo

All these formations are "normal" formations and can be taken...

Most of the formations are listed twice.
Once, right after detailing the "FOC" (0-1 Royal Court, 1+ Reclamation Legion, 1-10 Auxiliary Formations). The second place is with the various datasheets. The first location simply says that you must take A, B, C. The Datasheet version says you must take A, B, C and you get the following special rules.

For example, per the first location, the Destroyer Cult requires 1 Destroyer Lord, 3 units of Destroyers, 0-1 units of Heavy Destroyers. No restrictions, no special rules.
The Datasheet version (later on) requires the same units, however, each unit of Destroyers must contain 3+ models, and the units have Move Through Cover, Fearsome Ruler, and Extermination Protocols.

How does RP interact with the CCB now?

 RobPro wrote:
How does RP interact with the CCB now?

No longer an issue, because CCB does not get the "other FNP" roll. (-> RP has completely changed in mechanics)

I think Obelisk's Gravity Pulse should also belong in there.
They need to clarify the interaction between 'Automatically Pass' and the need to still roll, though they do not normally take it.

 BlackTalos wrote:

 RobPro wrote:
How does RP interact with the CCB now?

No longer an issue, because CCB does not get the "other FNP" roll. (-> RP has completely changed in mechanics)

I'm not following you, could you give a little more info? The main rulebook uses RP as an example of a rule that does confer to the chariot. The RP rule in the codex only talks about cancelling out wounds, not glances or pens.

Does this rule still flow through to the chariot (which means clarifying glances/pens, and if you RP'd a pen does the shield still go down), or should the rules in the chariot section of the rulebook be errata'd so this is no longer a grey area?

 RobPro wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

 RobPro wrote:
How does RP interact with the CCB now?

No longer an issue, because CCB does not get the "other FNP" roll. (-> RP has completely changed in mechanics)

I'm not following you, could you give a little more info? The main rulebook uses RP as an example of a rule that does confer to the chariot. The RP rule in the codex only talks about cancelling out wounds, not glances or pens.

Does this rule still flow through to the chariot (which means clarifying glances/pens, and if you RP'd a pen does the shield still go down), or should the rules in the chariot section of the rulebook be errata'd so this is no longer a grey area?

In the data sheet for the CCB, it says that the Overlord has Reanimation Protocol. The CCB itself does not, which makes sense because vehicles don't

So my conclusion is that wounds allocated on the lord can roll for RP, and wounds allocated on the CCB can not. Normally the owner of the CCB decides where the wound goes unless it is hit by blasts or templates etc.

The rule for CCB that says that both will be brought back when reanimating is not really applicable anymore because you don't roll for reanimation after you die as you used to, you roll before.

The main rulebook, in the Chariots section, it states that special rules increasing the survivability of the rider flow through to the chariot and specifically uses RP as an example of a special rule that flows from rider to chariot. It doesn't need to be listed in the CCBs rules because it is on the rider. This is what I'm asking about.

I don't have the main rulebook or codex on hand but I can edit this later with page/paragraph quotes.

 RobPro wrote:
The main rulebook, in the Chariots section, it states that special rules increasing the survivability of the rider flow through to the chariot and specifically uses RP as an example of a special rule that flows from rider to chariot. It doesn't need to be listed in the CCBs rules because it is on the rider. This is what I'm asking about.

I don't have the main rulebook or codex on hand but I can edit this later with page/paragraph quotes.

That rule was clearly written with the old codex in mind. But it would probably be obsolete now.

So your question is what happens if the CCB gets hit and gets wrecked. Can the lord still reanimate to keep the CCB in play, or can even the CCB reanimate itself?
-Well since RP specifically triggers on an unsaved wound, and not on lost hull points, it can't trigger. The lord does not get wounds when the CCB dies, it is removed from board as a casualty. And RP specifically says it does not trigger by that. Seems like we have the info we need to me, but if you want you can start a thread to discuss it further.

However it triggers on each wound on the overlord now, not only when he dies as before, so as long as he doesn't insta-die, your foe may have to get you through up to 3 failed RP rolls before it dies.

 RobPro wrote:
The main rulebook, in the Chariots section, it states that special rules increasing the survivability of the rider flow through to the chariot and specifically uses RP as an example of a special rule that flows from rider to chariot. It doesn't need to be listed in the CCBs rules because it is on the rider. This is what I'm asking about.

I don't have the main rulebook or codex on hand but I can edit this later with page/paragraph quotes.

"If the rider has a special rule that returns it to play after it has been removed as a casualty, such as a Necron’s Ever-living special rule,"

Completely obsolete rule. RP no longer happens after a model is removed from play.
If you have a copy of the Necron Codex? I'm surprised that has been missed?

Guys, make a thread for that.

Where does one submit the questions? Can someone supply the email/gateway?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kangodo wrote:
I think Obelisk's Gravity Pulse should also belong in there.
They need to clarify the interaction between 'Automatically Pass' and the need to still roll, though they do not normally take it.

I took a look at the related thread, voiced my thoughts, but it still seems like an obstinate point of contention. If someone would provide/define the question, well referenced, I will put it up, though I'm not inclined enough to actually write it myself (as I personally see it as pretty clear, see thread). Again, I invite anyone to do so (well).

I feel the same way about wraithflight, but will also put it up if provided. I think we've got most of the major unanswerables though.

Kangodo wrote:
Guys, make a thread for that.

No, simply clarifying that it does not need a mention in this thread, as the rules work absolutely fine

Except the CCB can be glanced to death, killing the Overlord without any ability to use RP.

The interactions with the rules has already stated, but it should still be added to the FAQ to remove confusion later on.

"Can the Catacomb Command Barge use Resurrection Protocol to ignore Glancing and Penetrating Hits?"

The email to contact GW about FAQs questions is here-
Gamefaqs@gwplc.com

 BlackTalos wrote:

 RobPro wrote:
The main rulebook, in the Chariots section, it states that special rules increasing the survivability of the rider flow through to the chariot and specifically uses RP as an example of a special rule that flows from rider to chariot. It doesn't need to be listed in the CCBs rules because it is on the rider. This is what I'm asking about.

I don't have the main rulebook or codex on hand but I can edit this later with page/paragraph quotes.

"If the rider has a special rule that returns it to play after it has been removed as a casualty, such as a Necron’s Ever-living special rule,"

Thats the point, Necrons dont have such a rule anymore.

RP is now for Wounds only, if your CCB explodes your Lord is gone.

 BlackTalos wrote:
No, simply clarifying that it does not need a mention in this thread, as the rules work absolutely fine

I know, the question was stupid.
But the discussion still took 9 posts.

Can I ask about the ghost ark? It's super buffed now with Salvo 5/10 but I don't quite understand that rule on a vehicle. Vehicles are relentless. Relentless allows salvo, heavy and ordnance weapons to fire as if the mover was stationery. So the ghost ark always benefits from being able to fire 10 shots at maximum range... so what's the point in saying salvo 5/10? Why not just heavy 10? Am I missing something?


Conversely the doomsday ark being a vehicle also has relentless, so it always fires as if it were stationery. So I could easily argue that it always gets to fire the primary weapon as divert power always works...

Ffyllotek wrote:
Conversely the doomsday ark being a vehicle also has relentless, so it always fires as if it were stationery. So I could easily argue that it always gets to fire the primary weapon as divert power always works...

'Basic versus Advanced' in the 'General Principles' section of the rulebook should answer your question.

You should probably make a new thread on this
Though this can be fixed with one line: That is not what Relentless does.
Re-read Relentless and then read the weapon type on the DD-Ark.

Kangodo wrote:
You should probably make a new thread on this
Though this can be fixed with one line: That is not what Relentless does.
Re-read Relentless and then read the weapon type on the DD-Ark.

I will make a new thread

"Relentless models can shoot with Heavy, Salvo or Ordnance weapons, counting as stationary, even if they moved in the previous Movement phase."

Ffyllotek wrote:

Kangodo wrote:
You should probably make a new thread on this
Though this can be fixed with one line: That is not what Relentless does.
Re-read Relentless and then read the weapon type on the DD-Ark.

I will make a new thread

"Relentless models can shoot with Heavy, Salvo or Ordnance weapons, counting as stationary, even if they moved in the previous Movement phase."

It's not one of those types though. It is a Primary weapon

Ffyllotek wrote:
Can I ask about the ghost ark? It's super buffed now with Salvo 5/10 but I don't quite understand that rule on a vehicle. Vehicles are relentless. Relentless allows salvo, heavy and ordnance weapons to fire as if the mover was stationery. So the ghost ark always benefits from being able to fire 10 shots at maximum range... so what's the point in saying salvo 5/10? Why not just heavy 10? Am I missing something?

Your interpretation of the facts is correct. Best guess is either that salvo weapon might be or have been on option for a non-relentless platform or they are simply doing some future proofing and giving themselves the tools to write a new unit in a supplement at some point that will have that weapon but not necessarily be relentless.

Ffyllotek wrote:
Conversely the doomsday ark being a vehicle also has relentless, so it always fires as if it were stationery. So I could easily argue that it always gets to fire the primary weapon as divert power always works...

The doomsday cannon has two profiles, depending on if its in high power or low power mode. One profile has interactions with relentless, the other does not.

No more contributors? What, would you all be content to argue on the YMDC til the end of time? Bumping for awareness; start submitting these to GW folks.

 Victory wrote:
No more contributors? What, would you all be content to argue on the YMDC til the end of time? Bumping for awareness; start submitting these to GW folks.

Could you update the top post with the questions that will be sent in? Or have you already?

I have seen 2 questions in this thread that I want an official statement on but which are not listen in the top post. I will try to phrase them in a specific manner here:

"Do Canoptek Wraiths ignore the initiative 1 penalty when charging in, into or out from difficult terrain due to the Wraithflight special rule?"
(majority seems to agree they do, but it turned out to be a tough topic arguing, and it will start again if we don't get an official statement)

"Does a unit in the Decurion Detachment containing a Cryptek pass a Reanimation Protocol roll of 4 even if the wound triggering the roll has the Instant Death special rule?"

FAQ-Question:

If you take the destroyer cult as your primary detachement does it gain the command benefits of the decurion without using the reclamation legion.

(This isn't clear at all!!!)

I wrote several rules request to this with quotes of the decurion rules - they haven't been answered - before you think this is easily swapped aside read the last paragraphs of the decurion explanation in the book please.

If you are taking a formation you gain the command benefits there, and none ofhters.

In other words: as youre not taking the Decurion, how are you taking the beneftis from it?

stormcraft wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

 RobPro wrote:
The main rulebook, in the Chariots section, it states that special rules increasing the survivability of the rider flow through to the chariot and specifically uses RP as an example of a special rule that flows from rider to chariot. It doesn't need to be listed in the CCBs rules because it is on the rider. This is what I'm asking about.

I don't have the main rulebook or codex on hand but I can edit this later with page/paragraph quotes.

"If the rider has a special rule that returns it to play after it has been removed as a casualty, such as a Necron’s Ever-living special rule,"

Thats the point, Necrons dont have such a rule anymore.

RP is now for Wounds only, if your CCB explodes your Lord is gone.

My question about the interaction seems pretty well answered, but I think it should go into any "big list" email to remind them they should errata that section to remove the reference. Ever-living is still a rule, and it could definitely be confusing.

I have some more:

- since both quantum shielding and weapons with the lance rule apply set value modifiers to necron vehicles, which one applies?
- do dedicated transport vehicles and/or monoliths that are chosen as part of a Reclamation Legion benefit from the move through cover USR (thus automaticall passing dagerous terrain tests such as from deep striking into or beginning/ending movement in difficult terrain or from an enemy Obelisk's graviton pulse)?
- would skimmers and jetbikes (and by extension zooming flyers, which move "exactly like a skimmer", p.84) "ignore all [...] dangerous terrain tests" (p. 89) from an Obelisk's graviton pulse as long as they do not begin or end their move within 18"?
- are models with the wraithflight/immune to Natural Law rule able to charge buildings (since buildings are listed as terrain, which is treated as open ground during a charge move)?
- do models with the wraithflight/immune to Natural Law rule trigger any effects of buildings or other terrain (such as the unstable fuel core of a mysterious wreckage) when moving?
- are the Dataslates of Trazyn the Infinite and Illuminor Szeras missing their wargear or do they have none?
- why is there a tactical objective: harness the warp in the necron Datacards set?
- is the Monolith's particle whip a primary weapon instead of ordnance? (here's to hope for not snapshooting gauss flux arcs)

 RobPro wrote:

stormcraft wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

 RobPro wrote:
The main rulebook, in the Chariots section, it states that special rules increasing the survivability of the rider flow through to the chariot and specifically uses RP as an example of a special rule that flows from rider to chariot. It doesn't need to be listed in the CCBs rules because it is on the rider. This is what I'm asking about.

I don't have the main rulebook or codex on hand but I can edit this later with page/paragraph quotes.

"If the rider has a special rule that returns it to play after it has been removed as a casualty, such as a Necron’s Ever-living special rule,"

Thats the point, Necrons dont have such a rule anymore.

RP is now for Wounds only, if your CCB explodes your Lord is gone.

My question about the interaction seems pretty well answered, but I think it should go into any "big list" email to remind them they should errata that section to remove the reference. Ever-living is still a rule, and it could definitely be confusing.

Ever-living is still a rule? Where? It's not in the Necron codex, which only has Reanimation Protocols now.

Ever-living is the name of the Command Benefit for the Decurion Detachment.

jay_mo wrote:

 Victory wrote:
No more contributors? What, would you all be content to argue on the YMDC til the end of time? Bumping for awareness; start submitting these to GW folks.

Could you update the top post with the questions that will be sent in? Or have you already?

I have seen 2 questions in this thread that I want an official statement on but which are not listen in the top post. I will try to phrase them in a specific manner here:

"Do Canoptek Wraiths ignore the initiative 1 penalty when charging in, into or out from difficult terrain due to the Wraithflight special rule?"
(majority seems to agree they do, but it turned out to be a tough topic arguing, and it will start again if we don't get an official statement)

"Does a unit in the Decurion Detachment containing a Cryptek pass a Reanimation Protocol roll of 4 even if the wound triggering the roll has the Instant Death special rule?"

These I can work with. Added, though I changed up the last one a bit to make note of the relevant rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nehekhare wrote:
I have some more:

- since both quantum shielding and weapons with the lance rule apply set value modifiers to necron vehicles, which one applies?
- do dedicated transport vehicles and/or monoliths that are chosen as part of a Reclamation Legion benefit from the move through cover USR (thus automaticall passing dagerous terrain tests such as from deep striking into or beginning/ending movement in difficult terrain or from an enemy Obelisk's graviton pulse)?
- would skimmers and jetbikes (and by extension zooming flyers, which move "exactly like a skimmer", p.84) "ignore all [...] dangerous terrain tests" (p. 89) from an Obelisk's graviton pulse as long as they do not begin or end their move within 18"?
- are models with the wraithflight/immune to Natural Law rule able to charge buildings (since buildings are listed as terrain, which is treated as open ground during a charge move)?
- do models with the wraithflight/immune to Natural Law rule trigger any effects of buildings or other terrain (such as the unstable fuel core of a mysterious wreckage) when moving?
- are the Dataslates of Trazyn the Infinite and Illuminor Szeras missing their wargear or do they have none?
- why is there a tactical objective: harness the warp in the necron Datacards set?
- is the Monolith's particle whip a primary weapon instead of ordnance? (here's to hope for not snapshooting gauss flux arcs)

These are great, though need some cleaning up. I have a question myself though: if the Wraithflight issue revolved around initiative, why doesn't the Immune to Natural Law have this issue?