Necrons Questions

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.

**Akaiyou**

1. C'tan Gaze of Death regains wounds lost during the battle as in 'During the course of the Game' or just for that specific combat ?

2. How exactly does Abyssal Staff work?? Wounding against leadership is odd...do we take Leadership = Toughness? And if such does this mean that you can't instant kill models with actual toughness 4? I would appreciate a detailed explanation on this one if possible

3. If running 2 courts with Harbingers of Storm Cryptek w/Lightning Fields and you place both of them on 1 unit. This means that anyone assaulting that unit is hit by 2D6 S8 AP5 attacks when assaulting it? Unlike Ether Crystal that specifically states that you only add +1 to the roll for having more than 1, it would seem that lightning field stacks.

**WanderingFox**

1. Given the phrasing, it implies that it would regain a single wound (regardless of how many the gaze causes), but only if it had taken a wound in that assault. This is pure implication however, and is completely open to interpretation.

2. It wounds vs leadership. This was clarified in the FAQ, so for all instances of toughness in combat replace with leadership. So no, it does not ID t4 models. It IDs leadership 4 models.

Q: When using an abyssal staff, do you use the target’s
Toughness or Leadership for the purposes of working
out if Instant Death applies? (p84)
A: You use the target’s Leadership.

3. It does not specifically state a method of stacking, therefore they would generate two sets of 1d6 attacks, or as you put it 2d6 attacks. Unless I've missed something somewhere... That isn't to say that people would actually play it as such though, and my guess is it will eventually get FAQ'd to be +1 attack like eather crystal, but as of current there is nothing supporting that statement.

**foolishmortal**

1) I would say the course of the game. "The battle" is a fairly broad term. GW has specific language it could have chosen to use (Phase,Turn,Assualt,etc) but didn't. You could make an arguement for a different view of RAI, but I don't see it.

2) As Fox said. It's also worth noting that this is not a characteristic test, so you go by most common leadership (as you would most common toughness), not highest leadership.

3) I think it's 2d6, but I could see someone making an argument that the wargear gives the lightning field ability to the squad, and giving it to the squad twice does not necessarily stack. I would disagree, but be willing to roll for it.

**Akaiyou**

Alright thanks for the prompt reply

1. Gaze of Death is the most expensive c'tan power...I agree you regain only 1 wound if you cause unsaved wounds to the opponent. But to say it can ONLY regain wounds lost during the same assault phase in which is used, makes it ridiculously hard to actually ever regain any wounds lost. For an ability to cause 50 pts it makes no sense, which is why i wanted a clarification since my interpretation is that you would regain a wound lost during the course of the game. Thus making the ability 'useful' similar to the hive tyrant's leech essence but during assaults instead of shooting.

2. Ok...so what about the first part of the question? Do we apply leadership in all regards where toughness shoudl be?

Say i attack a squad of tactical marines. Am i wounding them on 5s or 4s?

If we use the squad's leadership they would be leadership 9 with a Sergeant. But then again squad commanders leadrship is normally taken into account when the squad needs to take a morale/leadership check in which case...

With the above in mind, and if we are simply replacing their leadership value for their toughness. The whole squad is instead Toughness 8 (majority toughness rule) for the purposes of Abyssal Staff wounding them.

Anyone want to clarify all this?

**Happyjew**

Yes, you effectively replace Toughness with Leadership. If the majority of the unit was Ld 8, you roll against Ld 8.

**WanderingFox**

1. I agree with your statement, but like I said, there is no rules backing one way or the other. Given the point cost, I'd lean towards it being any lost wound rather than one in that assault, but the more literal reading implies just the assault. Agree with your opponent before you start?

2. As Happyjaw said, you replace all instances of toughness with leadership. So in effect, you are firing at a unit of t8 models with a t9 sergeant.

Ya, it's really that crappy. Shove it in a deathmark unit though and you get a template that wounds on a 2+ regardless though XD

**foolishmortal**

I don't think it's that crappy. Even without the deathmark shinanigans and against MeQ, it's an AP1 template weapon (no cover saves, no armor saves, no FnP)

**WanderingFox**

perhaps crappy was a poor choice of words

It's decent... It gets far, far better when you shove deathmarks in the unit and hit the marked enemy with it though... AP1 and auto-wound on a 2+

**McNinja**

Akaiyou wrote:Alright thanks for the prompt reply

1. Gaze of Death is the most expensive c'tan power...I agree you regain only 1 wound if you cause unsaved wounds to the opponent. But to say it can ONLY regain wounds lost during the same assault phase in which is used, makes it ridiculously hard to actually ever regain any wounds lost. For an ability to cause 50 pts it makes no sense, which is why i wanted a clarification since my interpretation is that you would regain a wound lost during the course of the game. Thus making the ability 'useful' similar to the hive tyrant's leech essence but during assaults instead of shooting.

GW generally refers to games as battles, so it would be one wound lost during the course of the game.

2. Ok...so what about the first part of the question? Do we apply leadership in all regards where toughness shoudl be?

Say i attack a squad of tactical marines. Am i wounding them on 5s or 4s?

If we use the squad's leadership they would be leadership 9 with a Sergeant. But then again squad commanders leadrship is normally taken into account when the squad needs to take a morale/leadership check in which case...

With the above in mind, and if we are simply replacing their leadership value for their toughness. The whole squad is instead Toughness 8 (majority toughness rule) for the purposes of Abyssal Staff wounding them.

Take the To Wound Chart in the Rulebook. Replace the word "Toughness" with "Leadership." There you go.

WanderingFox wrote:1. I agree with your statement, but like I said, there is no rules backing one way or the other. Given the point cost, I'd lean towards it being any lost wound rather than one in that assault, but the more literal reading implies just the assault. Agree with your opponent before you start?

GW has referred to games as Battles more than once. Regardless, no one in their right mind would pay 50 points for regaining one wound lost in that assault, and I'm fairly sure any opponent would realize this. Generally, if an opponent isn't entirely familiar with a rule, they'll ask to either see a codex or have it explained.

Ya, it's really that crappy. Shove it in a deathmark unit though and you get a template that wounds on a 2+ regardless though XD

Against GEQ armies, it's magnificent. It's an AP1 flamer that wounds on 2s or 3s against any model with less than 8 Ld. Against MEQ, I agree with the deathmark statement.

**foolishmortal**

there is a middle ground to be found between super crappy and magnificent. Let's call it average and say that the basic Abyssal Staff is that vs MeQ, but with the potential to be better or worse vs varrious armies (Not so good vs other necrons,etc)

**WanderingFox**

sound about right.

Re: battles... Yes, I'm aware, however there is no rules meaning behind the word, which leaves it up to the players opinion. No matter how much anecdotal evidence you can provide there is always room for alternate meanings. Hence, my caveat in my original post about it being open to interpretation. That said, I do agree, at least personally, that it means 'wounds lost during the entire game' given the point cost of the power...

**Akaiyou**

Ok new question...

Can you stack seismic crucible?

Because the more i'm looking at this stuff the more it seems like you can stack ANYTHING that doesnt specifically say you can't. Otherwise why would they go through the trouble of specifically saying how it works when you try to stack it?

Also thanks a lot to everyone who replied my previous questions that makes things a lot clearer.

And I guess the abyssal staff + deathmark idea came after the new FAQ eh? I've been fiddling with my other armies so hadn't thought about mixing those in with deathmarks yet

**McNinja**

WanderingFox wrote:sound about right.

Re: battles... Yes, I'm aware, however there is no rules meaning behind the word, which leaves it up to the players opinion. No matter how much anecdotal evidence you can provide there is always room for alternate meanings. Hence, my caveat in my original post about it being open to interpretation. That said, I do agree, at least personally, that it means 'wounds lost during the entire game' given the point cost of the power...

Rulebook wrote:THE END OF THE GAME p.9-
The standard missions presented in this book last a random number of game turns (five to seven turns), determined by a dice roll. However the final section of the book includes ideas for creating your own missions, which could end in a number of ways. A battle could last a specific number of game turns, so that both players know when the end is nigh.

SIZE OF A GAME p. iv-
Very experienced (or plain ambitious) players will even play matches of enormous size with added unique mission rules. These massive battles may last a weekend or longer and will almost certainly require a gaming space where models can be left standing over night!

POINTS VALUES p.8-
Generally, you’ll find characteristic profiles come along with one other piece of information – the model’s points value. This represents the relative battlefield value of the creature in question. Points values take into account a number of different factors including characteristics, different races’ overall strengths and weaknesses, basic weapons, unit size, rarity and so forth. Choosing forces that are worth a specific points total allows players to organise an evenly matched battle.

THE SHOOTING PHASE p.15-
In a Warhammer 40,000 battle, we split up the firing so that each player’s force fires during the Shooting phase of his own turn. During the Shooting phase, any and all of your units may fire. You can choose any order for your units to shoot, but you must complete all the firing by one unit before you move on to the next.

ORGANISING A BATTLE p.86-
Now that you’ve learned the rules for moving, shooting and fighting with your army, we’ll look at how to organise a game of Warhammer 40,000, including how to choose your forces, how to set up the battlefield and how to select a mission to play.

Anecdotal evidence? The terms "game" and "battle" are synonymous, at least to GW. I don't mean to sound as if I'm saying "HAHA YOU'RE WRONG" I"m just pointing these out for future reference

If someone challenges the Gaze of Death and says it only counts for that Assault Phase, I"ll say "yeah? what does it say on page 86? Organising an Assault Phase?" or something to that effect, probably without the snark.

As for the new question, yes, but remember the roll is d3 + d3, not 1 d6. It gives a total of between 2 and 6, not 1-6.

**WanderingFox**

I meant in specific reference to the wording used in gaze of death

Which reads:
"If the C'tan Shard causes one or more unsaved Wounds in this manner, it regains one Wound lost earlier in the battle. These Wounds do not count towards combat resolution."

Yes, while in general I'd agree whole-hardheartedly that battle is a reference to the game as a whole, it is used in the context of a single assault phase. Hence the ambiguity I was discussing. It was mostly to illustrate the point that there is not a definitive RAW reading of the power, just a RAI one.

@ new question. Yes, they stack. It's 2d3 though, not 1d6 (as McNinja pointed out)

re:deathmarks - Nope, I've been doing it since the codex came out. The faq, however, makes it possible to keep them in reserve and still deep strike in, which makes them a much better unit than having to move in from board edge on their first turn and THEN deep strike next to their target.

**Lukus83**

It's not a particularly new idea...people were throwing it around before the FAQ, it's just taken time for people to make proper use of them. It's to be expected since it's a reasonably new codex.

With regards to stacking it isn't that simple. You have to look how each individual case is written. For this one I would say no they don't stack due to the wording. An assault move is reduced by D3, not 2D3.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here's a reference from a thread created a while ago. Kommissar Kel's answer to the question in particular helps to make sense of it all.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/410274.page

**McNinja**

Lukus83 wrote:It's not a particularly new idea...people were throwing it around before the FAQ, it's just taken time for people to make proper use of them. It's to be expected since it's a reasonably new codex.

With regards to stacking it isn't that simple. You have to look how each individual case is written. For this one I would say no they don't stack due to the wording. An assault move is reduced by D3, not 2D3.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here's a reference from a thread created a while ago. Kommissar Kel's answer to the question in particular helps to make sense of it all.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/410274.page

Kommissar Kel's answer is poorly reasoned, as another poster in that thread stated.

Of course the codex doesn't say that, the description is only written under the assumption that only one Cryptek would be in the squad.

"At the start of the enemy Assault Phase, roll a D3 and nominate an enemy unit. If the nominated unit attempts to assault the Cryptek, reduce they assault move by the result of the D3 for that phase."

It says nothing about having more than one Cryptek with a Seismic Crucible, and the rules seem to be written with only one in mind. However, it says "If the nominated unit attempts to assault the Cryptek, or his unit..." if they are assaulting the unit with two Crypteks (both with SCs), they are also assaulting the Crypteks, and so must reduce their assault move by D3 per Cryptek they assault.

**Akaiyou**

That's what I agree with thanks fellas

**Lordhat**

McNinja wrote: Anecdotal evidence? The terms "game" and "battle" are synonymous, at least to GW. .......If someone challenges the Gaze of Death and says it only counts for that Assault Phase, I"ll say "yeah? what does it say on page 86? Organising an Assault Phase?"

Sigged