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.

So if I join a Cryptek with Abyssal Staff to a Deathmark unit does the Cryptek benefit from "Hunters from Hyperspace", thus giving me an AP 1 Template that wounds marked units on a 2+?

I think Yes, but I wanted to see if anyone could find anything wrong with it.

I would say no, you could attach them to death marks and deep strike but not get the 2+ due to the fact the abyssal staff is tested against ld, not toughness.

I would say the contrary; Hunters from Hyperspace makes no mention of toughness; just the deathmark unit wound the target on a 2+

I hope your right, if the consensus is in your favor I would say I have a list change coming.

Already being discussed. Yes to the Staff wounding on a 2+, along with any other weapon a Character or IC joined to the unit hits the marked unit with. Deep Striking may be FAQed like Wolf Guard in Scouting and Infiltrating units, but as of now not legal.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/414386.page#3635953

^ This. I agree.

As to whoever suggested the staff did not wound on a 2+ because it goes against the Ld, not the Str:

It doesn't matter. It's a Str 8 weapon against Ld 8, 9,10, whatever. This number only determines the minimum D6 roll as per the tables in the BRB. However, due to the Hunters From Hyperspace rule this number does not matter, as the rule overrides it and says it wounds on an easy 2+. There really shouldn't be any debate about this, unless you also feel like calling shenanigans on any powers bestowed by... well, just about any unit-wide power in the game whose source is a character in that unit.

I say no to an IC gaining the benefits of the rule, and we'll be playing it that way at my tournaments. Hopefully GW does an FAQ for necrons soon, as there is a growing number of questions needing answers.

mikhaila wrote:I say no to an IC gaining the benefits of the rule,

Not to be argumentative, but this is like saying that an Ork IC does not benefit from Snikrot's Ambush rule. Hunters from Hyperspace is a Codex specific rule that affects a unit and is not governed by the asterisks of the Universal Special Rules. Just sayin'.

mikhaila wrote:I say no to an IC gaining the benefits of the rule, and we'll be playing it that way at my tournaments. Hopefully GW does an FAQ for necrons soon, as there is a growing number of questions needing answers.

Then you will have to allow Crypteks to gain the Hunters From Hyperspace rule, since they are not independent characters.

There is absolutely no reason to treat them any differently than a Wolf Guard that joins a squad of Grey Hunters.

EDIT: spelling.

So if the wounds for Abyssal Staff are meant to be rolled against LD, but instead wounds on 2+ being attached to Deathmarks, is it still possible to inflict instant death on a T4 model?

Crypteks dont have DS, and nothing anywhere states they gain such.

As to causing ID, yes it does. It wounds off leadership, but ID checks off toughness.

Reckoner wrote:So if the wounds for Abyssal Staff are meant to be rolled against LD, but instead wounds on 2+ being attached to Deathmarks, is it still possible to inflict instant death on a T4 model?

No. ID would go off of Leadership not Toughness wrt the Abyssal Staff. There's no rule to cite here, but other Leadership weapons were FAQed to go off of Leadership iirc.

azazel the cat wrote:

mikhaila wrote:I say no to an IC gaining the benefits of the rule, and we'll be playing it that way at my tournaments. Hopefully GW does an FAQ for necrons soon, as there is a growing number of questions needing answers.

Then you will have to allow Crypteks to gain the Hunters From Hyperspace rule, since they are not independent characters.

There is absolutely no reason to treat them any differently than a Wolf Guard that joins a squad of Grey Hunters.

EDIT: spelling.

Well no, I don't have to do anything of the sort. I can look at discussions, see how the arguements progress, and hope GW does an FAQ in the next couple of months. But in the end, every TO has to make lots of rules calls. It's up to the TO, not someone on a forum saying "You have to do this." I'm more arguing your choice of words, than arguing the rule here.

In this case, I've got a GT coming up end of February. I'm putting all the necron rulings where any player wanting to sign up can see them ahead of time, or drop out of the tournament if they don't like what they see. But they'll know ahead of time how things will be ruled.

and it doesnt matter if Cypteks have DS, they joined a unit that does and they arent ICs so they benefit from any special rules that that unit has

Exalted Pariah wrote:and it doesnt matter if Cypteks have DS, they joined a unit that does and they arent ICs so they benefit from any special rules that that unit has.

The main rulebook FAQ says otherwise in regards to deep striking.

mikhaila wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:

mikhaila wrote:I say no to an IC gaining the benefits of the rule, and we'll be playing it that way at my tournaments. Hopefully GW does an FAQ for necrons soon, as there is a growing number of questions needing answers.

Then you will have to allow Crypteks to gain the Hunters From Hyperspace rule, since they are not independent characters.

There is absolutely no reason to treat them any differently than a Wolf Guard that joins a squad of Grey Hunters.

EDIT: spelling.

Well no, I don't have to do anything of the sort. I can look at discussions, see how the arguements progress, and hope GW does an FAQ in the next couple of months. But in the end, every TO has to make lots of rules calls. It's up to the TO, not someone on a forum saying "You have to do this." I'm more arguing your choice of words, than arguing the rule here.

Let me make this easy for you:

A: "...Any Deathmark unit that shoots at..." (Necron codex, pg. 36)
B: "...Only one member of the Royal Court can join each unit..." (Necron codex, pg. 90)

These two points establishes that A: The entire Deathmark unit benefits from the Hunters From Hyperspace rule, and B: A Cryptek is part of the Deathmark unit. Therefore C: The Cryptek benefits from the Hunters From Hyperspace rule.

It's black-letter law. The Cryptek gets the benefit of the rule. To deny them this (which is your right, as a TO) is no more justified than arbitrarily denying other benefits to armies without a sound RAW reason to do so. Perhaps you don't like green paint, therefore any army painted green may only enter with 300 points less. Or perhaps you don't feel that jetbikes should be as good as they are, so you'll declare that they cannot shoot and move during the same turn.

My point is that if you want to deny the Necrons the ability to combine a Cryptek with the Hunters From Hyperspace, then find a RAW reason why they cannot, and see if you can trump my argument. Don't just get all huffy and effectively say that it's your party so everyone has to play the way you want them to. While you technically have the right to do so, if you make enough rulings against an army, eventually people will stop fielding that army. I know there's a lot of questions up in the air with the Necrons right now, but this one is a 'gimme', because it is clearly written in its entirely and requires no sources other than the Necron codex itself. And if you even bother to read through my rant to this point, I'm sure you will have grown to dislike me, and I can accept that. I'm aggressive in my arguments, sometimes a jackass and rarely kind.


But that doesn't mean that I am wrong about the rule.

Or perhaps the TO takes the entirely reasonable opinion that this particular combination was an oversight and will be fixed in the errata.

The Necron codex is still new. There's been numerous questions relating to it, and I imagine GW will have quite a challenge putting their FAQ together. Until such time, I don't think it would be out of the question to take a conservative approach in reading the ambiguities of a new codex.

In a circumstance where "always wounds on 4+" weapons are being upgraded to "always wounds on 2+", I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that an oversight might have occurred -- particularly when the attack in question is being rolled against leadership...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, green armies are obviously overpowered. They should be take at least a 300 point penalty to their army budget.

Corollax wrote:Or perhaps the TO takes the entirely reasonable opinion that this particular combination was an oversight and will be fixed in the errata.

The Necron codex is still new. There's been numerous questions relating to it, and I imagine GW will have quite a challenge putting their FAQ together. Until such time, I don't think it would be out of the question to take a conservative approach in reading the ambiguities of a new codex.

In a circumstance where "always wounds on 4+" weapons are being upgraded to "always wounds on 2+", I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that an oversight might have occurred -- particularly when the attack in question is being rolled against leadership...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, green armies are obviously overpowered. They should be take at least a 300 point penalty to their army budget.

But my point is that there is no ambiguity about this. There is no other way to read the rule. If it's an oversight, then it's a very clearly written oversight. But I don't think it is a TO's right to make this particular call based on an opinion any more than it is for the TO to completely change the rules altogether.

I could understand, as I said, making a judgement call on an ambiguous rule such as the Death Ray issue (which I do not think is ambiguous, I would play it exactly like JotWW), but this rule is very plain, and to rule against it is nothing more than telling Necron players that they're not allowed to use any of their good toys.

azazel the cat wrote:But my point is that there is no ambiguity about this. There is no other way to read the rule.

You know what? You're absolutely right. The rules are not ambiguous. As stated, the words written in that codex can only be strictly interpreted in the manner you've described. This is RAW, and I admit it explicitly now, just as I did so implicitly in my previous post.

...but let me now point out that this is not the first time this topic has come up. Not the first time on these forums, and certainly not the first time elsewhere. And there is reason for this. Games Workshop has been writing codices for a long time, and in that period they have established a common mechanism for by which their rules work. We roll ToHit, ToWound, ToSave -- this is all very familiar, and it becomes intuitive for anyone that stays in the hobby for for long.

The rule discussed here breaks this. There exist very few mechanisms for inflicting wounds that ignore the unit's profile. Poison is one mechanism. Sniper rifles are another. And so it makes sense to an experienced reader that Hunters from Hyperspace would just be an improvement on the standard 4+ sniper rifles we all know and love.

So when this pattern of recognition, this context is violated -- in such a way that forces you to roll against a 2+ on a 2d6, no less -- the reader can't help but suspect an oversight. And without an FAQ to clarify, rationality and common sense must play a role in discerning the intent of the designers.

azazel the cat wrote:I know there's a lot of questions up in the air with the Necrons right now, but this one is a 'gimme', because it is clearly written in its entirely and requires no sources other than the Necron codex itself.

And this quote here illustrates precisely what I'm talking about. You're looking at text in a single book without any context of what has come before or the mechanics in which these rules are applied.

In the absence of an FAQ for designers to correct omissions or add clarification, we have to rely upon the rest of the works that Games Workshop have provided us. This is why the FAQs for some codices are relevant to rules disputes for others -- because we rely upon the pattern of our rules for to create a realistic and internally consistent mechanism for resolution of combat events.

The amount of debate on this subject is testament to the fact that there is conflict between the RAW of the Necron codex and the context to which you are supposed to apply it. Given the absence of an official GW position on the matter, it's perfectly reasonable for a TO to rule against the combination until such clarification arrives. This is not some kind of vendetta against the player, or Necrons, or Matt Ward. It is a natural reaction to a violation of an established mechanism until such time as clarification arrives.

Even if we all know green paint needs a nerf.

Corollax wrote:So when this pattern of recognition, this context is violated -- in such a way that forces you to roll against a 2+ on a 2d6, no less

Wait, what?

If the staff was firing normally (without HfH) on a unit of Grey Hunters, you'd wound on a 4+ on one d6.
Firing on a unit of Tyranid Warriors, you'd wound on a 6+ on one d6.
Firing against anything that has a HfH marker, when you are a member of the Deathmark squad it wounds on a 2+ on one d6.

Where are you getting 2d6 from? Am I missing a rule by not having the codex?

I don't see this as violating any precedent set by the rules...

Yeah, the only 'precedent' that is violated is the established to-hit table and the to-wound tables, both of which are directly addressed by the rule itself.

And to say that 'they use a sniper rifle, and sniper riles wound on a 4+, so this rule that directly says they instead wound on a 2+ is in conflict with the sniper rifle rule' is the sort of stupidity that I normally only associate with banjos and inbreeding.

And if you want a precedent set with all codices, here it is: specific > general. That means that anything found in the Necron codex will override anything found in the BRB. This has always been the way. So when I say that the entire rule is found within the Necron codex, that means whatever you've got in the BRB about sniper rifles is meaningless when HFH comes into play. It is what it is.

To say that there is a problem because this is not the first time this has come up is a seriously flawed and populist argument with no credibility behind it other than someone's desire to appease a large group of people, irrespective of the fact that they are wrong. By your logic, if I get enough Necron players united at a tournament and claim that Warriors have a toughness of 9 -even without RAW to back this up- then the TO should cave, just because a lot of people think it should be that way.

And my specific point to the previous TO was that he wanted to make a rules call not based on any RAW, but because his ass wasn't being kissed enough.

Azazael has a point. The RAW works- although i don't think it should, as this is heavily overpowered if used properly.
It is the argument specific>general that takes precedence.
In Magic the card game it says that any cards that bypass the general rules are to be the ones taking precedence- its simply how things work, and how it should.

Why do people keep bring MTG into Warhammer 40k rule discussions? MTG =/= WH40K and thus has no application here, yet (it seems that) people keep bringing it up as if it makes a difference...

Happyjew wrote:Why do people keep bring MTG into Warhammer 40k rule discussions? MTG =/= WH40K and thus has no application here, yet (it seems that) people keep bringing it up as if it makes a difference...

Yo calm down man seriously. All i do is make ONE LITTLE FETHING EXAMPLE and you pick my argument apart? what else am i supposed to use as an example? please JEW, enlighten me

Easy man, I was asking a question. I don't understand why people consistently bring up another game (or not quite as consistently RL) to bring a point across. You're not the first to do so, and you definitely won't be the last. If I offended you in some way, I apologize, it wasn't intentional.

It's ok. Just don't do it again.

Happyjew wrote:Easy man, I was asking a question. I don't understand why people consistently bring up another game (or not quite as consistently RL) to bring a point across. You're not the first to do so, and you definitely won't be the last. If I offended you in some way, I apologize, it wasn't intentional.

Analogy is one of the most effective ways of demonstrating a relationship between two concepts, because it demonstrates said relationship while removing the context that was creating the bias and thus preventing the other party from understanding the new viewpoint.

Calm down guys.

It's a game of toy soldiers, nothing to get het up about.

Hence the apology.

But this is WAR!!!!1

Epic space battles fought with plastic toy soldiers!

No quarter shall be granted!!!!!!1









I couldn't resist.