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.

The new necron codex has a number of abilities with the potential to wound/remove enemy models locked in close combat. How many of them are wishful thinking on the necron player's part? How strong of a case could be made for others? Looking for RAW interpretations here.

1) Tesla Destructor (Arc) - p82 - this seems pretty clear, but of the least practical use. It explicitly states that it can damage enemies locked in CC, but you have to aim it at something that isn't and you have to roll a die to see if it arcs.

2) Monolith Portal of Exile - p47 - seems like a strong case for this working on models locked in CC. The biggest problem I see is that it explicitly labeled a shooting attack, but it does not target.

3) Catacomb Command Barge Sweep Attack - p52 - I have met with some strong resistance to people allowing this at my FLGS. The new faq mentions it a few times but does not make this aspect of it clear. It is not a CC attack. It happens in the movement phase. The Eldar equivalent ability explicitly states you cannot use it on models in CC. The fact that the new necron ability had no such restriction was suggestive to me. It was less persuasive to others who cited general principles and GW absentmindedness.

4) Doom Scythe Death Ray - p50 - This seems similar to, but not identical to, JotWW. That ended up not being used into CC due to template targeting rules. I am eager for ideas on this one.

5) Imotekh's Staff of the Destroyer - p55 -The argument for this will probably be very similar to the Death Ray. I would expect them to either both work or both not.

1) Yes, of course thats fine
2) Yes it works in CC, as it does not target. You cannot target models locked in CC, nothing states you cannot affect them
3) Yes you can use this against models in CC. It does not target a unit for shooting
4) Yes you can use it aginst models in CC, you do not target a unit
5) That draws a line out XD6" doesnt it? Again nothing stating it is targetting that I can see

To play devils advocate on points 4 and 5, there is very specific text in the rulebook saying that you're not allowed to deliberately target stuff in CC. By inference I would suggest that its against the spirit of the rules to use some of the more wooly worded special rules to do so. for the lione of effect type powers/weapons, even of the aim point is beyond the CC, you are still deliberately targetting the unit as you know damn well where the line will go.

For 1 and 2 would you not also have to apply hits to your troops in CC as well in the same way as for scattering blast markers?

"Target" is a specific term in 40k. This isnt "targeting" the unit in 40k terms.

1) yes, if they get a 6 rolled on them - from memory the arc hits any unit, friend or foe, within 6"

2) Only specifies enemy models, not friendly ones

1 and 2 I was confident about.

3 I am still fairly confident, but need to make sure I have a solid line of thought to give a TO.

4 and 5 I see as more open for debate. I do not play space wolves, so correct me if I get this wrong. JotWW is a psychic shooting attack that (due to faq language) targets the unit of the 1st model the line hits?

For 3 there is no rule saying things can't be affected by abilities while they are locked in CC it just states that they cannot be selected as a target for ranged attacks. take a look at the first paragraph under check line of sight on page 16 of the BRB. Templates and blast markers also have rules saying they cannot be placed over models in CC. There is no restriction for the CCB's sweep attacks, the same goes for most of the other abilities you mentioned.

TheAvengingKnee wrote:For 3 there is no rule saying things can't be affected by abilities while they are locked in CC it just states that they cannot be selected as a target for ranged attacks. take a look at the first paragraph under check line of sight on page 16 of the BRB. Templates and blast markers also have rules saying they cannot be placed over models in CC. There is no restriction for the CCB's sweep attacks, the same goes for most of the other abilities you mentioned.

My primary concern on 4 and 5 is the precedent language in the SW faq

Q. Does Jaws of the World Wolf require line of sight?
Does it ignore terrain that blocks line of sight (i.e.,
impassable terrain)? (p37)
A. As a psychic shooting attack, Jaws of the World Wolf
requires line of sight. The Rune Priest must have line of
sight to the first model that the power affects – in
effect he is treated as the target model; the power just
happens to hit everybody else on its way through!

While 4 and 5 are clearly not psychic shooting attack, they are both shooting attacks and might follow the same principle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I just go off the phone with GW and I am more confused than ever.

The rep said "this is how we've been playing it here". Not official, but interesting

2) NO - you can use it, but the portal of exile ignores enemy units locked in CC
3) NO - cannot use it on enemy units in CC. (Might have to do with the following faq language, but this is just my guess)

"Q: Can a character on a Catacomb Command Barge
target one unit with his Sweep Attack and charge a
different unit in the subsequent Assault phase? (p52)
A: Yes."

4) YES
5) YES - They have been playing that it works on friend or foe, engaged or unengaged.

As I said in my OP, this is not what I expected. I like the idea of the doom scythe, but I will miss the CCB sweeping things in CC. I don't see #'s 2 or 5 making much of a difference often. This is also basicly the reverse of the TO's initial opinion at my FLGS. Sigh.