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.

On turn 2, when Imotekh comes to roll the dice to see if Night Fight continues, he is dead and so cannot roll it.

As you cannot roll a 4+, Night Fight ends.

It doesnt go away as soon as he dies, just when you next come to make the roll you cannot roll.

Has any one ever seen Imotekh die on round two? just wondering how this sort of thing would change and alter the out come of the game. I've played Imotekh when codex was first released.. yeah necrons do well on night fight.. first round or two but after that you want to open it up for your guys to Dakka Dakka Dakka, the enemy. i took some wounds on imotekh but went seven rounds and still no dead.. but still this is a good thread to read. i agree with the codex and FAQ .. i'm just saying .

Yes, I've seen him die - Night fight doesnt do a lot against close up trueborn blasters blowing Imotekhs ghost barge (wel, the warriors, but they know their place....) and him being assaulted by wytches. He doesnt do well against wytches.

nosferatu1001 wrote:On turn 2, when Imotekh comes to roll the dice to see if Night Fight continues, he is dead and so cannot roll it.

As you cannot roll a 4+, Night Fight ends.

It doesnt go away as soon as he dies, just when you next come to make the roll you cannot roll.

Except that, being a army wide rule, the death has no effect on Lord of the Storm.

NecronLord3 wrote:
Except that, being a army wide rule, the death has no effect on Lord of the Storm.

It was army wide rule, until GW FAQ:d the keeping night fight up to be his personal rule. Because
1) If it's army wide rule, Chrono cannot work (as it's not Imhotek's roll, but general, army wide roll)
2) If Chronometron works, it is Imhotek making the roll, which he cannot do unless he is alive and on table.

Basically, you cannot have your cake and eat it too. Before FAQ it was (obviously as per Necron Codex) number 1 and now it is number 2.

And any claims that non-errata portion of FAQ's don't alter rules are blatantly false.

There are multitude of examples presented, here's just one of them:
"Q: If a model with a Nemsesis Force halberd has had
his Initiative reduced to a fixed number by an
ability/special rule, do they still get the +2 Initiative
from the Halberd? (p54)"
A: No. (GK FAQ version 1.1)
A: Yes. (GK FAQ, version 1.2)

If someone claims that non-errata FAQ don't change rules, I'd like to see how one can argue that neither of those two, completely contradictory answers changed any rules. By definition, one of the answers MUST have changed rules, which makes that argument completely invalid.
There are multitude of examples like this, SiTW etc.

GW reversing its decision on the answer to a question, does not alter the rules. It alters the answer to a question on the rules. Just as GW answering a question on whether or not the Chronometron works with Imotek answers that question it does not alter an entire unrelated section of the Codexes rules. The Necron codex specifically defines the Lord of the storm ability to be an army wide rule, nothing has yet altered that. Play it how you want to, but that is not RaW,

The question to answer here is not if the rules allow this but whether this action violates any rule. A subtle difference that has huge ramifications.

Looking over the reserve rules (and the BRB faq) I see nothing prohibiting special rules from being used from reserve, aside from not being able to find los of or to measure distance from a model not on the board.

Though the brb faq does say

Q: If a unit is in reserve, and has an ability that occurs at the start of the turn can they use that ability on the turn they arrive?(p 94)
A: No. Unless specifically stated otherwise.

Now for LoS to violate that rule the ability would have to occur at the start of the turn. I'd argue that the ability occurs at the start of the game and makes you to roll at start of each turn, and thus does not violate the ruling in the faq.

Also the wording in the Necron FAQ nowhere implies that Imotekh owns the roll for LoS (no possessive language there). It only says that the roll determining if the night fighting rule stays in effect, if an army contains Imotekh, can be rerolled only if the cryptek with the chronometron is in the same unit as Imotekh. Nothing there implies ownership of the roll for night fighting to continue.

NecronLord3 wrote:GW reversing its decision on the answer to a question, does not alter the rules. It alters the answer to a question on the rules. Just as GW answering a question on whether or not the Chronometron works with Imotek answers that question it does not alter an entire unrelated section of the Codexes rules. The Necron codex specifically defines the Lord of the storm ability to be an army wide rule, nothing has yet altered that. Play it how you want to, but that is not RaW,

So, when GW change the rules by changing their answer, that isnt them changing their rules? They said the rules work X way, they now say the rules work Y way. That is literally a change to the rules.

LOL. Or wait, am I now Rigeld again? Which account am I posting from??

THe FAQ defined it as HIS roll. He cannot make HIS roll when HE is dead, because HE cannot do anytyhing while dead that isnt explicitly defined. So, when it comes round to the start of the roll, one criteria for making the rolls (was night fighting still in play?) may be fulfilled, but you cannot then roll the dice because the person required to roll the dice isnt allowed to. Thus ending night fighting.

The rule is army wide, the roll GW changed the rules to make it Imotekh making the roll

Venomthrope FAQ absolutely changed the rules as they apply to the Venomthrope.

FAQs can change rules. Errata can change wording.

Actually Errata does change wording, and they may change the function of the rule (For example - errata to remove Waaagh! from non-Infantry Ork models changed the letter but not the function of the rule, as it never applied to them anyway) but are not required to.

Tarrasq wrote:The question to answer here is not if the rules allow this but whether this action violates any rule. A subtle difference that has huge ramifications.

Looking over the reserve rules (and the BRB faq) I see nothing prohibiting special rules from being used from reserve, aside from not being able to find los of or to measure distance from a model not on the board.

Though the brb faq does say

Q: If a unit is in reserve, and has an ability that occurs at the start of the turn can they use that ability on the turn they arrive?(p 94)
A: No. Unless specifically stated otherwise.

Now for LoS to violate that rule the ability would have to occur at the start of the turn. I'd argue that the ability occurs at the start of the game and makes you to roll at start of each turn, and thus does not violate the ruling in the faq.

Also the wording in the Necron FAQ nowhere implies that Imotekh owns the roll for LoS (no possessive language there). It only says that the roll determining if the night fighting rule stays in effect, if an army contains Imotekh, can be rerolled only if the cryptek with the chronometron is in the same unit as Imotekh. Nothing there implies ownership of the roll for night fighting to continue.

Absolutely correct in every way!

No ownership implied? Imotekh's Lord of the Storm rule, his roll... How is ownership not implied when they use possessive la gauge throughout?

Tarrasq - no ownership? Apart from when it says He rolls it, you mean? That ownership?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Tarrasq - no ownership? Apart from when it says He rolls it, you mean? That ownership?

No such wording in the Codex.

NecronLord3 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Tarrasq - no ownership? Apart from when it says He rolls it, you mean? That ownership?

No such wording in the Codex.

And the Codex wasn't referred to here - the FAQ was. And the FAQ implies ownership.
Since FAQs can certainly change rules, Imotekh owns the roll and cannot make it when he's dead.

rigeld2 wrote:

NecronLord3 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Tarrasq - no ownership? Apart from when it says He rolls it, you mean? That ownership?

No such wording in the Codex.

And the Codex wasn't referred to here - the FAQ was. And the FAQ implies ownership.
Since FAQs can certainly change rules, Imotekh owns the roll and cannot make it when he's dead.

Implied is not RAW. Stick to the tenets of YMDC. You are drawing conclusions based on what you believe the wording of the FAQ implies about the wording of the codex. If that were an acceptable form of argument we could draw all kinds of conclusions based on implied scenarios from far more than just this FAQ.

An implied change is not enough to go on by the tenets of YMDC.

The codex precisely gives YOU permission to roll to continue nightfight in subsequent turns if nightfight is in effect. The sentence you're looking for is something like "You may roll to continue nightfight if nightfight is in effect and Imotekh is in play.

rigeld2 wrote:

NecronLord3 wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Tarrasq - no ownership? Apart from when it says He rolls it, you mean? That ownership?

No such wording in the Codex.

And the Codex wasn't referred to here - the FAQ was. And the FAQ implies ownership.
Since FAQs can certainly change rules, Imotekh owns the roll and cannot make it when he's dead.

Since the question is not specifically asked and addressed per the FAQ you cannot alter the entire rules section for a unit. When the FAQ addresses it, there will be an answer. Until then Specific trumps general and the FAQ only vaguely refers to the matter in a question that effects the Chronotron. Doesn't address LotS. LotS is an army wide ability, per the Codex.

Tarrasq wrote:Also the wording in the Necron FAQ nowhere implies that Imotekh owns the roll for LoS (no possessive language there).

NecronLord3 wrote:Absolutely correct in every way!

That's what I was referring to with my post. Sorry for not quoting it. I couldn't care less about the rest of this debate anymore, I was simply addressing that statement.

Have fun.

The question not being directly addressed isnt important: they answered and asked that HE rolls.

No implication there, a straight up assertion that HE rolls.

Feel free to ignore the FAQ, but as per the tenets of YMDC you must point this out as it is not following accepted rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:The question not being directly addressed isnt important: they answered and asked that HE rolls.

No implication there, a straight up assertion that HE rolls.

Feel free to ignore the FAQ, but as per the tenets of YMDC you must point this out as it is not following accepted rules.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Entries refer to LotS:

Q: Must Imotekh the Stormlord roll to see if Night
Fighting continues at the start of the game turn? (p55)
A: No, he can attempt it but isn’t forced to.

and

[Q: If an army contains Imotekh the Stormlord can a
Cryptek with a chronometron use it to re-roll the roll to
see if the Night Fighting special rule stays in effect? (p85)
A: Only if Imotekh is in the same unit as the Cryptek
with the chronometron.[/u]

2 FAQ Entries. One refers to the roll as an army ability, the other as "he" rolling so they conflict in the same document. What other piece of reference material do we have to go off of? The Codex, that specifically and in every way refers to this repeatedly as an Army ability. Sense the Codex is really the most important piece of material, as it is the most specific and directly addresses the rules in question, using one off word in an FAQ entry to rewrite the entire section of LotS, is out of line and totally unwarranted.

You are reaching. To suggest that it is debatable or possible to be altered by GW in a future FAQ, is fair. But as of right now RaW is very clearly making LotS an army wide rule unaffected by the physical location of Imotek other than in regard to the Chronometron allowing a reroll when attached to the same squad as Imotek.

Actually, the second question implies ownership as well, since that's how the Chrono works.

Again, you dont seem to know how the chrono works - it requires the reroll to be of a roll that was made by a member of the unit.

So, two claims of ownership, one DIRECT the other necessary for the answer to follow the rules.

That's consistency right there - again, you can ignore the FAQ if you like, but thats no longer RAW

rigeld2 wrote:Actually, the second question implies ownership as well, since that's how the Chrono works.

It in no way changes the wording of the Codex, still an Army Wide ability.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Again, you dont seem to know how the chrono works - it requires the reroll to be of a roll that was made by a member of the unit.

So, two claims of ownership, one DIRECT the other necessary for the answer to follow the rules.

That's consistency right there - again, you can ignore the FAQ if you like, but thats no longer RAW

Again you are ignoring the specific permissions allowed by the Necron Codex entry, and you ignore the first FAQ entry addressing the issue which reiterates that it is an army wide ability.

Sorry, you dont seem to get specific vs general.

The FAQ is more specific than the codex, so you follw the FAQ. The FAQ has stated that it is HIS roll, and has not altered the rules for the chrono requiring Imotekh to be in the unit with the chrono cryptek.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Sorry, you dont seem to get specific vs general.

The FAQ is more specific than the codex, so you follw the FAQ. The FAQ has stated that it is HIS roll, and has not altered the rules for the chrono requiring Imotekh to be in the unit with the chrono cryptek.

And you are ignoring that the FAQ is considered "soft" rules versus the codex and erratta which are considered official RAW. Specific permission allowed by the codex trump vague references in the FAQ.

Are you ignoring that according to the tenets of YMDC that the posted FAQs (which include both errata and FAQ) are considered RAW?

Happyjew wrote:Are you ignoring that according to the tenets of YMDC that the posted FAQs (which include both errata and FAQ) are considered RAW?

And you all are ignoring something specifically stated in both the FAQ and Codex making LotS an army special ability not requiring Imotek to be in play in order to use. Something vaguely referencing a question about an entirely different ability is not overriding the RAW of the Codex until it is erratad or specifically addressed in the FAQ.

What, the answer to the question that requires Imotekh to be in the unit that has the Chronocryptek otherwise the chrono doesnt get to reroll? And the part where it specifically states HE rolls it? The 2 consistent answers? Those answers?

Theyre not "soft" accordig to the tenets of this forum and most tournaments out there

nosferatu1001 wrote:What, the answer to the question that requires Imotekh to be in the unit that has the Chronocryptek otherwise the chrono doesnt get to reroll? And the part where it specifically states HE rolls it? The 2 consistent answers? Those answers?

Theyre not "soft" accordig to the tenets of this forum and most tournaments out there

Nothing alters the codex wording at all, identifying the LotS ability as an ability of the army containing Imotekh. It simply gives you permissions to do things not addressed in the codex.

I still think ownership of the roll is irrelevant. You get to use the ability if your army includes Immotekh. That's what the codex says and the FAQ did not change that.

I'm still up in the air on the whole lightning while dead thing though. I took, "If your army includes..." at it's plain English meaning and assumed that a dead model was no longer considered included. Is it just the generally accepted terminology in Warhammer that "army includes" doesn't care about the status of the model?