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.

Well, a little background -
My Fiance and I were doing a fun game of 40k, Necrons vs Chaos Marines. She was fielding two chaos lords, both with Daemon Weapons, one marked Slaanesh, the other marked with Khorne.
Needless to say, that as the game trudged on, it was only a matter of time before the first of these two Lords encountered my Overlord with Mindshackle Scarabs. It was the Slaanesh Lord, who failed his leadership test...

Now, as we reading it, it's quite clear that the scarabs take advantage of the weapons properties, so the Instant death effect would apply to the attacks, but what about the additional attacks generated by the weapon?

For reference, the Daemon Weapon entry states -

A Daemon Weapon:
- Requires two hands to use.
- Is a power weapon.
- Adds an extra D6 Attacks in close combat. Roll the dice everytime the model is about to attack. If the result is a 1, the bount Daemon within the weapon rebels - the model may not make any attacks in this round and suffers one wound with no armour saves allowed.

Yes you would add the D6 attacks on top of the D3 that shackles cause

Mindshackle scarabs:
"... and benefit from any abilities and penalties from his close combat weapons ..."

Since the extra attacks are a benefit granted by the weapon and not the model you would apply them. Also, the deamon weapon wording simply states "about to attack" it does not specifically state that this only occurs when the model is charging etc. Ergo, specific trumps general, and since the necron codex specifically tells you you can apply the powers from the weapon, and the deamons codex does not explicitly contradict this then you'd follow through with the necron wording.

At least that's how I'd play it.

@WanderingFox: Two problems (well really 1 since they both stem off the same thing), both the extra attacks and rebeling daemon only apply when the model attacks. Although they are part of the weapons properties, they would have no bearing on the d3 hits caused by the scarabs.

@Amanax: d3 hits that ignore armor saves (PW) and cause ID if the model fails an invuln save and doesn't have EW.

Happyjew wrote:@WanderingFox: Two problems (well really 1 since they both stem off the same thing), both the extra attacks and rebeling daemon only apply when the model attacks. Although they are part of the weapons properties, they would have no bearing on the d3 hits caused by the scarabs.

@Amanax: d3 hits that ignore armor saves (PW) and cause ID if the model fails an invuln save and doesn't have EW.

The rules for the shackle scarabs state that model strikes out against his allies instead of attacking normally, so that would lead me to believe that it is still the model attacking. And as has been said before, you get the benefits and detriments of any CC weapon that model uses. The D3 attacks simply replaces the statline listed attacks of the model. This keeps it a bit more fair for the person getting hit by the shackle scarabs as having your front line of charging super soldiers with 5 attacks each on the charge would decimate their own squad if they all failed their leadership rolls.

Well shackles only takes 1 model randomly.

That said, however, Kevin949 hit the proper counter-argument to that on the head. Mindshackle scarabs causes the model to immediately land hits on its own unit "on its turn to attack"

Again, the CD codex does not specify "enemy models" or anything that overrides this. The deamon weapon, in its simplest form "adds d6 attacks in close combat" The model is in close combat, using the weapon, and is attacking. This is no different than say having the ability to reroll to hit in close combat from a weapon.

The argument you're making is, unless I'm completely mistaken, is that it does not get to make the D6 extra attacks because the wording of scarabs states that the model inflicts D3 hits on its own unit rather than 'attacks his own unit', correct?

If, for a moment, we take this is as true, then what does the following line mean? The one about benifits/penalties of close combat weapons.

You're suggesting that only some benifits of close combat weapons work. Something like a witchblade is listed out exactly like the deamon sword, yet I'm pretty sure that we can all agree that strikes from a witchblade still wound on a 2+ when generated via scarabs.

That is a benefit of the weapon... So too is getting extra D6 attacks.

That said, however, I can see your point in the fact that the scarabs just automatically cause hits, there's no to-hit roll. In counter to this, I would ask you does a deamon sword work against a stationary vehicle? If you answer yes to this, then you are agreeing to the fact that the to-hit roll is irrelevant (since you automatically hit in both cases). By simple continuation of that thought, you must then admit that the trigger for the Deamon Sword is that the weilder's turn in combat has come up. If this is the case, then scarabs work just fine because it occurs when it's the models "turn to attack"

Not only does this imply that the model is still legitimately attacking (ie. its not some 3rd party ability causing the hits, but rather the subject of the scarabs themselves), it also satisfies the trigger of "Roll the dice everytime the model is about to attack." for the Deamon Sword.

WanderingFox wrote:Well shackles only takes 1 model randomly.

Sorry, that was poor wording on my part. The Slaanesh Lord was the only one in combat at that given time. He failed his roll, and with the way we played it, he impaled himself on his sword. Later in the game, the Khorne Lord ended up in combat with the same Overlord, and failed his leadership two turns in a row, but rolled "1"s on his attacks and by the way we were playing it, meant the Daemon Weapon just dealt one wound to the Lord, canceling the other attacks (As stated in the Daemon Weapon entry).

So it was just one target at a time, the Slaanesh Lord was just the first of the two to kill himself with his cursed weapon

That was directed at Kevin949's comment of "This keeps it a bit more fair for the person getting hit by the shackle scarabs as having your front line of charging super soldiers with 5 attacks each on the charge would decimate their own squad if they all failed their leadership rolls. "

Not you You were perfectly clear ^_^

long story short, I'd say you played that just right. Leadership Test -> Roll for extra Deamon Sword attacks -> Roll for number of Scarab attacks -> combat proceeds as normal

WanderingFox wrote:That was directed at Kevin949's comment of "This keeps it a bit more fair for the person getting hit by the shackle scarabs as having your front line of charging super soldiers with 5 attacks each on the charge would decimate their own squad if they all failed their leadership rolls. "

Not you You were perfectly clear ^_^

long story short, I'd say you played that just right. Leadership Test -> Roll for extra Deamon Sword attacks -> Roll for number of Scarab attacks -> combat proceeds as normal

Oh I know it only affects one "random" enemy but if you have a court of 5 lords all with shackle scarabs and then some IC's that have them as well, that's a whole slew of pain coming at the enemy.

Because seriously, why would you only have one unless it's Imotekh attached to a non-court unit or you split up every lord.

Imotekh doesn't have mindshackle scarabs... He has bloodswarm nanoscarabs, which are completely different.

As for the other part... It might have something to do with that unit of 5 lords w/ scarabs being, at the cheapest, 250 points for 5 models that are relatively easy to kill. To make it a viable CC unit, you'd need to throw AT LEAST scythes on the unit which puts it in the high 300s...

Hyperphase and Scarabs x5 is 250. Warscythes is 300. That's not unreasonable at all for an elite unit.

WanderingFox wrote:Imotekh doesn't have mindshackle scarabs... He has bloodswarm nanoscarabs, which are completely different.

As for the other part... It might have something to do with that unit of 5 lords w/ scarabs being, at the cheapest, 250 points for 5 models that are relatively easy to kill. To make it a viable CC unit, you'd need to throw AT LEAST scythes on the unit which puts it in the high 300s...

Right right, stupid scarabs I keep getting them mixed up in my head. Anyway, my point still stands.

And no, you don't "have" to put scythes on them. If you wanted the CC punch just give them hyperphase swords for free. The court isn't meant to take out "everything and anything". Heck, in my last game I had my court with no invul saves and no power weapons but those 15 AP 3 shots and 4 eldritch lances with two flame template weapons and a veil seemed to hold up pretty nicely and stay out of CC. The scarab gear is just there to make my opponent think twice about assaulting them and if he decides to it gives me a much better chance of survival without having to add in all that extra wargear because my opponents upgrades will, hopefully, work against him. It's a gamble, but so is putting on warscythes that still only typically hit 50% of the time and you'll have less chance of using them since you'll most likely go last (in a straight up fight with no multi-assaults with wraiths or something).

The court you just described is over 400pts...

The point of scythes + scarabs is that if the scarabs prevent a model from attacking you, which means you have more left at your initiative order, and a better chance of winning combat.

I'm not saying its a bad idea, but I have reservations about fielding 400+ pts in a unit that can be swept if something goes wrong...

Especially when I can take something like 5 lychguard + Lord w/ scythe and scarabs for ~285 and just bum rush things in melee with it (lord is not an IC and cannot be singled out in melee so no worries there). Then I can just stick my lance crypteks in immortal squads, which provide a much better buffer zone.

Anyway, that's off topic for this post

WanderingFox wrote:The court you just described is over 400pts...

The point of scythes + scarabs is that if the scarabs prevent a model from attacking you, which means you have more left at your initiative order, and a better chance of winning combat.

I'm not saying its a bad idea, but I have reservations about fielding 400+ pts in a unit that can be swept if something goes wrong...

Especially when I can take something like 5 lychguard + Lord w/ scythe and scarabs for ~285 and just bum rush things in melee with it (lord is not an IC and cannot be singled out in melee so no worries there). Then I can just stick my lance crypteks in immortal squads, which provide a much better buffer zone.

Anyway, that's off topic for this post

Ya, but I was playing a 2000 pt per person, 4 player apoc battle. I recognize that taking a court that size isn't going to be standard.

So you must have reservations about any CC option worth it's weight in this new codex then? I mean really, the court can be swept just as easily as anything else on the board.

The court adds up, I know it, but so far they've proven to be very resilient and versatile, unlike the lychguard/lord combo you mentioned which pretty much is a [slow] one trick pony.

If the 400+ points I put in the royal court cause my opponent to shift his lane of advance or disrupts his strategy, even if they court kills nothing I still feel that the cost was worth it for driving everything else into "my" lane of advance on my terms.

But yes, this is getting VERY off topic, I apologize.

The way I see it, a Daemon weapon's extra attacks are no different than the 2 ccw bonus other weapons give you. These extra attacks, while normally a feature of the weapon, would be lost because the scarabs happen 'instead of attacking normally.'

Likewise, an ability that hits every model in base would not be able to be used, nor would special 1 use attacks like the large blast Prince Yriel has, be eligible because scarabs are 'instead of attacking normally.'

DevianID wrote:The way I see it, a Daemon weapon's extra attacks are no different than the 2 ccw bonus other weapons give you. These extra attacks, while normally a feature of the weapon, would be lost because the scarabs happen 'instead of attacking normally.'

Likewise, an ability that hits every model in base would not be able to be used, nor would special 1 use attacks like the large blast Prince Yriel has, be eligible because scarabs are 'instead of attacking normally.'

It's actually quite different because the 2 ccw bonus is a rule for all close combat weapons and not a specific rule of the weapon wielded. Say if you could equip two of these daemon weapons you'd get an extra attack for 2 CCW's & +2d6 attacks on top of that. When the scarabs take over they only benefit from "one" of the weapons equipped and they ignore the benefits allotted to the model for his/her loadout but they do not ignore the benefits the weapon itself grants them.

This is kind of like saying you wouldn't get the stun benefit from thunder hammers when that model is mindshackled.

The "instead of attacking normally" is to denote that they DO NOT get their attacks against the necrons after they're mindshackled. The fact you're leaving out the "... and benefit from any abilities and penalties from his close combat weapons ..." part of the rule is pretty key to why it "does" work.

And no, you wouldn't be able to use a characters special abilities because they are not close combat weapons. Nor does the rule say to do anything other than inflict D3 hits on their own unit with their equipped close combat weapon(s).

Id say the extra attacks wouldnt happen. Scarabs give D3 hits, the weapon gives extra attacks.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:Id say the extra attacks wouldnt happen. Scarabs give D3 hits, the weapon gives extra attacks.

Ya, and the weapon has an ability to cause D6 extra hits, which the scarabs benefit from per the rule. It's in black and white.

Would you also say that the emperors champion wouldn't benefit from his +2 str in CC because of his power weapon if affected by mindshackle scarabs? It's the same thing.

The Scarabs cause you to make D3 automatic hits, instead of attacking normally.

Given that the scarabs say the attacks are made using the abilities and penalties of the weapon, I could see someone making an argument that you'd still roll the d6, and on a 1 he'd hit himself instead, and on another roll he'd add that number of attacks.

That said, I'm not sure how you can bridge the gap between +d6 attacks (which normally have to roll to hit) and d3 automatic hits (which do not). You'd have to make up a rule as to how those convert.

I think the cleanest and most likely ruling is that the +d6A just get ignored in favor of the d3 auto-hits.

Mannahnin wrote:The Scarabs cause you to make D3 automatic hits, instead of attacking normally.

Given that the scarabs say the attacks are made using the abilities and penalties of the weapon, I could see someone making an argument that you'd still roll the d6, and on a 1 he'd hit himself instead, and on another roll he'd add that number of attacks.

That said, I'm not sure how you can bridge the gap between +d6 attacks (which normally have to roll to hit) and d3 automatic hits (which do not). You'd have to make up a rule as to how those convert.

I think the cleanest and most likely ruling is that the +d6A just get ignored in favor of the d3 auto-hits.

Why would it have to be any different than it normally is if they're attacking the necrons as opposed to their own team? The +d6 attacks should still have to roll to hit as normal, there's nothing precluding that would be any different. I think people are too hung up on the "instead of attacking normally" part of the rule, as that is there to make it so the necrons don't get the benefit the opponent normally would for charging. You have a high possibility of rolling only 1 attack which is, at worst, half of the normal attacks for charging. But typically a CC squad will have 3+ attacks on the charge anyway. That's the only reason that line is there is to specify you don't follow the standard "Roll X dice for Y equipment and charge bonus". They still attack at their initiative and they "are" using their equipped weapon.

I think it's also there for simplicity (it's quicker to resolve d3 hits than rolling to hit with x number of attacks) and to represent the model not fighting at its full normal capacity.

Not getting the bonus attack for two weapons seems to be indicative that you wouldn't get bonus attacks from any other source either.

It's because of the wording of the powers...

weapon states: Adds an extra D6 Attacks in close combat. Roll the dice everytime the model is about to attack.

Scarabs state: "... when it is his turn to attack."

If the weapon was phrased "does an additional D6 hits when the model attacks" then you would have a more solid footing, but the weapon says "is about to attack." That is to say that they are not a product of swinging against the enemy, but rather simply reaching that models turn to attack.

While the model does not attack 'normally' it still attacks, and the scarabs allow you to use any benefits from the weapon normally.

That said, the way I'd play it according to RAW is as follows:

Roll d6 for the number of attacks. On a 1, don't attack your own unit, but instead take a wound with no armor save as per the weapons rules. Roll those attacks normally to generate the number of hits. Add d3.

However, I can see the reasoning behind the other way. Next time it happens, roll off on it


edit:
As for the bonus attack form CC weapons. That could be argued depending on your definition of 'benefits of the weapon' If you consider that having 2 CCWs is the trigger for the extra attack, then you must also accept that the deamon weapon is the source of the power and it's quite clear that scarabs can make use of it. On the other hand, if you consider that the bonus for 2 CCWs comes from the model, you still must accept the fact that the deamon weapon is the source of the d6 attacks since it only happens when that specific weapon is in place.

That said, the issue is obviously stemming from the fact that the scarabs state "d3 hits" rather than "d3 attacks". This is obviously an ambiguity that will need to be cleared up since the codex then goes on to directly contradict it by saying "his turn to attack" and "any benefits and penalties of his close combat weapons"

I'm not stating that this is how I'd actually play it (I'd likely go with its just d3 automatic hits), but from RAW there's a fairly solid way to argue it in both directions.

The "instead of attacking normally" is to denote that they DO NOT get their attacks against the necrons after they're mindshackled. The fact you're leaving out the "... and benefit from any abilities and penalties from his close combat weapons ..." part of the rule is pretty key to why it "does" work.

The 'd3 Hits' benefit from the abilities and penalties of the weapon.

Hits can not benefit from d6 attacks. Hits can benefit from power weapon rules or double strength. Just like hits can not benefit from 2 ccw of the same type for +1 attack.

I hit a problem where I was charged by a Daemon Prince, because it is a lone unit would it attack itself?

Yes. Scarabs state it attacks its own unit. A single model is a member of its own unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DevianID wrote:

The "instead of attacking normally" is to denote that they DO NOT get their attacks against the necrons after they're mindshackled. The fact you're leaving out the "... and benefit from any abilities and penalties from his close combat weapons ..." part of the rule is pretty key to why it "does" work.

The 'd3 Hits' benefit from the abilities and penalties of the weapon.

Hits can not benefit from d6 attacks. Hits can benefit from power weapon rules or double strength. Just like hits can not benefit from 2 ccw of the same type for +1 attack.

I will concede that this is actually a rather good way to argue against it. Every other argument so far has focused on the aspect of the difference between hits and attacks and the phrasing of 'instead of attacking normally'

Phrased as you put it, however, it's really hard to argue against. /tipshat

If there are no allies to hit the character would not hit himself since he is not an "ally". He has to hit allies from his unit which also means when multiple units assault he can't hit models not in his specific unit.

I'm going to have to put my vote in with the nays on whether d6 attacks would be generated with the demon weapon. It says "instead of attacking normally" meaning the attack stat, charge bonus and anything that produces attacks does not happen normally for that model. They only generate d3 hits (not attacks) on the unit. The part about benefiting from "abilities and penalties" says "are resolved" meaning the to wound roll and is talking about poisoned, power weapon, strength bonus, hammer dropping someone to int 1 (example of a penalty), lightning claws re-rolling wounds, etc.

That being said, I don't think the rule is 100% clear and needs to be FAQ'd, but the rule does skip the roll to hit and then goes straight into the part about being "resolved" which should probably have said something specifically about the to wound roll instead.

DevianID wrote:

The "instead of attacking normally" is to denote that they DO NOT get their attacks against the necrons after they're mindshackled. The fact you're leaving out the "... and benefit from any abilities and penalties from his close combat weapons ..." part of the rule is pretty key to why it "does" work.

The 'd3 Hits' benefit from the abilities and penalties of the weapon.

Hits can not benefit from d6 attacks. Hits can benefit from power weapon rules or double strength. Just like hits can not benefit from 2 ccw of the same type for +1 attack.

You're correct, they can't benefit from it. But having two CCW's is not a by-product of having a weapon equipped in and of itself. The additional ability of having the daemon weapon equipped, however, *is* a direct by-product of having the weapon equipped and is itself an ability of the weapon, not a general rule available to everyone. It should also go with saying that the necron player has the choice of which weapon his opponent uses for these attacks as well, so lets say a captain with a pistol and power sword gets mindshackled, the SM player couldn't say "he's attacking with his pistol hand so I can save everything."

This also falls under the category of "instead of attacking normally" where they [the necron player] doesn't get the 2 CCW or charge bonus but does get the benefits and penalties of the weapon.

I just find it ridiculous to think that a daemon weapon wouldn't act exactly the same against its own unit as it does against an opponent.

@miscdebris "strikes out at his allies" is fluff.... The actual rule that describes this behavior is immediately following it, which states that it immediately inflicts D3 hits on 'it's own unit'

If it functioned any other way, what would happen if it went off on a non-complex unit? Say a squad of 2 warriors. You're suggesting that you can only remove 1 of the two warriors even though the shackled warrior got say 3 successful wounds on 'his own unit' This goes directly against wound allocation and general assault rules.

If it functioned any other way, what would happen if it went off on a non-complex unit? Say a squad of 2 warriors. You're suggesting that you can only remove 1 of the two warriors even though the shackled warrior got say 3 successful wounds on 'his own unit' This goes directly against wound allocation and general assault rules.

Is this the situation you are talking about?:
1. 2 models of one unit are assaulted
2. One of those models are mindshackled
3. Mindshackle causes 3 wounds
4. Where are they allocated?

In this instance I am saying that the 3 wounds are allocated to the one model that is not mindshackled. I just don't see how a mindshackled model can attack itself. When I read that the hits are resolved on its own unit I see it attacking the other models it is with not itself. The part about allies is clearly in the rules section and not the fluff. The mindshackle entry has two paragraphs, the first is obviously fluff and the second is how the rule works. The part that says "allies" is part of the paragraph about how the rule works.

I'm not saying this breaks the wound allocation rules, I just think it amends them by excluding the model that is causing the attacks. Again, the rule is slightly vague and subject to interpretation and I can see your point, but I think the "allies" portion is included to influence how the rule is used.

Except the wounds are not allocated to the model. They are allocated to the unit. You then MUST follow general wound allocation for that UNIT.

BRB states that for a simple unit, you roll all 3 saves and then take a number of wounds = to the number of failed saves.

What you are saying is EXACTLY breaking wound allocation since it does not allow you to evenly balance the incoming wounds as the BRB states must occur.

The rules for scarabs does not explicitly exclude the model, nor does it explicitly state that the wounds are allocated to the 'rest' of the models unit, or anything of the sort.

Point blank... you're making up rules.

To address your argument directly, it is fluff. There is no mechanics in that sentence. "allies" is not a game term. You're inferring that the word allies means "the other models in the unit" but this is just that, inferring. In fact neither "ally" or "allies" appear in the BRB at all.

If for a moment, we assume that it works the way you imply, then the unit is obviously a complex unit (ie. the models are not the same). Please show me where it is allowing you to bypass the following:
"The player must allocate one wound to each model in
the target unit before he can allocate a second wound
to the same model."

The only way your argument would work would be if the shackled model was temporarily not part of the unit, but this is directly contradicted by the rest of the wording since it would no longer be attacking "its own unit"

I understand your point but I don't think I'm making anything up. I'm just choosing not to ignore the part about "allies" which is in the paragraph about the rule.

I do not think these rules break the BRB rules, they simply supersede them which happens all the time.

Agreed, "allies" or "ally" does not appear in the BRB rules, but that does not mean that all approved terminology can appear only in the BRB. The BRB does not specifically cover a situation in which a model attacks it's own unit.

In the rule "allies" is mentioned first: general term, models on its own side, not including itself
Then it mentions the unit: specific term, not only models on its own side but models in the unit it is attached to