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.

Basically I'm looking around for possibilities as to things to try to help keep my Necron units out of close combat.

So. Assuming I have two HQs. Both are of the type that they can have Royal Courts. I choose Harbinger of the Storm, both Courts. Assuming that it is indeed possible to have two Crypteks from 2 separate Courts in the same unit, and you may take the same wargear twice (1 per Court)...

Would 2 Lightning Fields stack?

"When an enemy unit successfully moves into assault with the Cryptek (or his unit) the assaulting unit immediately suffers d6 Strength 8, AP 5 hits. The rest of the unit loses this ability if the Cryptek is removed as a casualty."

If there are 2 HoS Crypteks, both with Lightning Fields, attached to the same unit, would that be 2d6, or would it still be 1d6?

---

I'm not looking for advice as to -other- ways to keep my Necrons out of close combat, nor am I looking for discussion as whether or not this is a good or bad idea (I can find that out myself in my games). I'm just want to try and push the limits of the Crypteks to see what they're capable of, aside from the obvious.

i would say 2d6

As it is a model upgrade and not a unit effect, I would say they do stack.

Stack 'em. 2d6 s8 hits for any enemy unit assaulting should be a pretty good deterrent for assault.

Dare i imagine this target unit has 15-20 warriors, plus a rez orb phaeron lord?

I hate to say it, but I don't think so... if two different sources gave the same unit Furious Charge, would its bonuses stack?

azazel the cat wrote:I hate to say it, but I don't think so... if two different sources gave the same unit Furious Charge, would its bonuses stack?

It's not an ability. It's something the Cryptek has. The rule states if a unit assaults the Cryptek or the unit he is in. Thus, if two Crypteks are in a unit, and that unit is assaulted, meaning both Crypteks are assaulted, thus each Crtyptek's Lightning Field comes into effect thus the assaulting unit suffers 2D6 S8 AP5 attacks.

This is different than two ICs granting FC on a unit joining the same unit expecting to get double the bonus attacks.

azazel the cat wrote:I hate to say it, but I don't think so... if two different sources gave the same unit Furious Charge, would its bonuses stack?

Ghenghis Jon wrote:As it is a model upgrade and not a unit effect, I would say they do stack.

It is a unit effect tho - or at least the rule implies that it is by saying that the unit loses the ability when the Cryptek dies.

Just some devils advocate going on.

rigeld2 wrote:It is a unit effect tho - or at least the rule implies that it is by saying that the unit loses the ability when the Cryptek dies.

Just some devils advocate going on.

Not from the aggressor's point of view. Each Cryptek, and the unit he is with, is being attacked. The rule doesn't imply that at all. It just states Lightning Field goes away if the Cryptek goes away.

I'm on the fence about this one. I would be initially inclined to believe that it wouldn't stack, as few things do in 40k when they are duplicated. However, after reading the Codex again, I noticed something interesting. The Harbinger of the Storm's other piece of wargear, the Ether Crystal, specifies that if a second Ether Crystal is present then only +1 is added to a single D6.

Now, I'm starting to think you may be correct in saying that the Lightning Field ability stacks, simply because the codex did not go to any lengths to specify that Lightning Field does not stack, as they had for the piece of wargear listed immediately previous to Lightning Field. I recognize the fallacy in assuming an absence of evidence is evidence of absence, but it may just apply in the case of complex rules.

I'd have no problem allowing 2D6 after that.

Hmmm...

Well. I did try it out in a game. Actually worked fairly well. Zapped the marines that came in close combat with me, was able to take out a few with lucky rolls.

Anyways.

If this does work.

Going with this thought, this should work as well. What happens if you have two Seismic Crucibles in a unit?

'At the start of the assault phase, roll a d3 and nominate an enemy unit. If the enemy unit attempts to assault the Cryptek, or his unit, reduce their assault move by the result of the d3 for that phase.'

Would you be able to reduce the assault range by 2d3 then?

That could make it very hard for a normal 6" threat assault to make it to you, especially if you forced your opponent to move through difficult terrain.

I don't see why that wouldn't work. But then, why would you want to allocate points like that in the first place?