7th ED Necron FAQ Thread

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.

**jay_mo**

Thanks for adding my input. A few comments on this one though:

In regards to the "Reanimation Protocols" special rule:
Are multiple bonuses to RP cumulative in respect to the the Instant Death negative modifier of -1? Example: should a unit rolling against an Instant Death hit, with a Cryptek "Technomancer" modifier as well as the "Ever-Living" special rule (from the Decurion Detachment Command Benefits section), count its Reanimation Protocol roll as +4 rather than +5?

* It should probably say "Instant Death wound" or as it is referred to in the RP rules, "wound with the Instant Death special rule". A hit can not have Instant Death.
(btw is there a difference between instant death wound and a wound with the instant death special rule? Or do a wound with double strength acquire the instant death special rule? The reason I ask is because the RP rules only mention the "instant death special rule")

* It is not a unit that is rolling RP, it is a model.

* I would suggest these changes to the question:
"Are multiple bonuses to RP cumulative in respect to the the Instant Death negative modifier of -1? Example: should a model that suffers an unsaved wound with the Instant Death special rule, rolling with a Cryptek "Technomancer" modifier as well as the "Ever-Living" special rule (from the Decurion Detachment Command Benefits section), pass its Reanimation Protocol roll on a 4?"

The reason I suggest phrasing the question based on what dice result you pass the roll on rather than 4+ / 5+ is that the roll WILL be a 4+ in either case, because that is where the limit is. The question is rather if the bonuses works the same way as the instant death penalty (which subtracts 1 from the actual roll).

**docdoom77**

Ghaz wrote:
Ever-living is the name of the Command Benefit for the Decurion Detachment.

Well, that could be confusing for a new player.

I think the description pretty much clenches the rules debate, but adding confusing naming conventions is very bad.

**Victory**

- why is there a tactical objective: harness the warp in the necron Datacards set?
- is the Monolith's particle whip a primary weapon instead of ordnance? (here's to hope for not snapshooting gauss flux arcs)

Are these two relevant enough to warrant submission?

Also: please review all the proposed questions so far.

**Nehekhare**

Victory wrote:
if the Wraithflight issue revolved around initiative, why doesn't the Immune to Natural Law have this issue?

one minor related issue: Immune to natural Law is worded differently for the C'Tan Shards ("can move over all other models and terrain as if they were open ground", exactly like wraithflight) and the Transcendent C'Tan ("can move over all other models and terrain freely"), with potentially different implications for the Initiative penalty from charging through difficult terrain.

**Victory**

Nehekhare wrote:
Victory wrote:
if the Wraithflight issue revolved around initiative, why doesn't the Immune to Natural Law have this issue?

one minor related issue: Immune to natural Law is worded differently for the C'Tan Shards ("can move over all other models and terrain as if they were open ground", exactly like wraithflight) and the Transcendent C'Tan ("can move over all other models and terrain freely"), with potentially different implications for the Initiative penalty from charging through difficult terrain.

Oh Christ GW. And there I thought you had mastered copy and paste.

**Henker-Kind**

We need a monolith FAQ!

1.Pleas ask them if the monolith can make use of the "skimmer-cannot be forced to move over models rule" from the core rulebook - which would prevent him from deepstrike mishap!

2. Same thing: ask if it was intended for the monolith to fire all its weapons - you know the ordenance desaster rule problem from the core rulebook combined wih the monoliths shooting RAI from the rulebook!!!

Please ask that because no matter what the consensus here, a clear answer from GW would nail the RAI into the game again, or even depict a flawed mechanic.

**krodarklorr**

Henker-Kind wrote:
We need a monolith FAQ!

1.Pleas ask them if the monolith can make use of the "skimmer-cannot be forced to move over models rule" from the core rulebook - which would prevent him from deepstrike mishap!

2. Same thing: ask if it was intended for the monolith to fire all its weapons - you know the ordenance desaster rule problem from the core rulebook combined wih the monoliths shooting RAI from the rulebook!!!

Please ask that because no matter what the consensus here, a clear answer from GW would nail the RAI into the game again, or even depict a flawed mechanic.

There's nothing that needs to be cleared up about the monolith. It's pretty clear how ti works. It's suppose to be limited by Ordnance, and the whole "skimmers not misshaping" is completely different thread, and the concensus was, yes, they do mishap.

**Nilok**

krodarklorr wrote:
Henker-Kind wrote:
We need a monolith FAQ!

1.Pleas ask them if the monolith can make use of the "skimmer-cannot be forced to move over models rule" from the core rulebook - which would prevent him from deepstrike mishap!

2. Same thing: ask if it was intended for the monolith to fire all its weapons - you know the ordenance desaster rule problem from the core rulebook combined wih the monoliths shooting RAI from the rulebook!!!

Please ask that because no matter what the consensus here, a clear answer from GW would nail the RAI into the game again, or even depict a flawed mechanic.

There's nothing that needs to be cleared up about the monolith. It's pretty clear how ti works. It's suppose to be limited by Ordnance, and the whole "skimmers not misshaping" is completely different thread, and the concensus was, yes, they do mishap.

Would it really hurt to add it to the FAQ?

**Henker-Kind**

krodarklorr wrote:
Henker-Kind wrote:
We need a monolith FAQ!

1.Pleas ask them if the monolith can make use of the "skimmer-cannot be forced to move over models rule" from the core rulebook - which would prevent him from deepstrike mishap!

2. Same thing: ask if it was intended for the monolith to fire all its weapons - you know the ordenance desaster rule problem from the core rulebook combined wih the monoliths shooting RAI from the rulebook!!!

Please ask that because no matter what the consensus here, a clear answer from GW would nail the RAI into the game again, or even depict a flawed mechanic.

There's nothing that needs to be cleared up about the monolith. It's pretty clear how ti works. It's suppose to be limited by Ordnance, and the whole "skimmers not misshaping" is completely different thread, and the concensus was, yes, they do mishap.

If I (or any single other individual out there) have a question that needs to be cleared up, then there is something to be cleared up! RAI vs RAW is a big thing here and listen to consensus is like listening to a dictator. there are questions why this core rules even exist and why the monoliths differ so damn far from RAI as they do now - maybe there is an core rules oversight with the heavy rule - man, do not try to silence the ones, that try to find something out!!

**Kangodo**

Nilok wrote:
Would it really hurt to add it to the FAQ?

If we would be dealing with any other company: No.
But since our FAQ's usually get three out of a dozen questions answered I would like those answer to go to actual rules-issues.

**Henker-Kind**

So Victory,

are you going to implement the monolith questions or not?
I think me and other necron players want this unit to be good! The last time a FAQ gave the monolith the ability to use the gate of eternity directly after deep striking - the same thing happened to the german rulebook: via FAQ deepstriking units would now only count as moving with combat speed before that there was an translation error where they moved at cruising speed which also was important for the monolith.

So please include those questions, maybe they even lead to an errata of the heavy or ordenance rule!

Greetings,
-A-

**Galorian**

Might be a good idea to add a BRB inquiry regarding whether or not firing a dual profile weapon in the shooting phase precludes its use as a melee weapon in the assault phase.

While technically not a "Codex: Necrons" specific issue it does have a major affect on the Praetorians and is an issue that came up only recently and so never had the chance to be addressed.

**Henker-Kind**

How many powers of the C'tan can be used per model in the shooting phase.

(I know consensus thinks it has the answer but it is a dubious and strange weapon profile that needs proper adressing)

**Fragile**

You may want to add in the debate over whether the Rod of the Covenant can be used in both the shooting phase and the assault phase.

**krodarklorr**

Fragile wrote:
You may want to add in the debate over whether the Rod of the Covenant can be used in both the shooting phase and the assault phase.

Well, that's more of a BRB issue than the codex. But yeah, a quick FAQ would be nice.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Henker-Kind wrote:
krodarklorr wrote:
Henker-Kind wrote:
We need a monolith FAQ!

1.Pleas ask them if the monolith can make use of the "skimmer-cannot be forced to move over models rule" from the core rulebook - which would prevent him from deepstrike mishap!

2. Same thing: ask if it was intended for the monolith to fire all its weapons - you know the ordenance desaster rule problem from the core rulebook combined wih the monoliths shooting RAI from the rulebook!!!

Please ask that because no matter what the consensus here, a clear answer from GW would nail the RAI into the game again, or even depict a flawed mechanic.

There's nothing that needs to be cleared up about the monolith. It's pretty clear how ti works. It's suppose to be limited by Ordnance, and the whole "skimmers not misshaping" is completely different thread, and the concensus was, yes, they do mishap.

If I (or any single other individual out there) have a question that needs to be cleared up, then there is something to be cleared up! RAI vs RAW is a big thing here and listen to consensus is like listening to a dictator. there are questions why this core rules even exist and why the monoliths differ so damn far from RAI as they do now - maybe there is an core rules oversight with the heavy rule - man, do not try to silence the ones, that try to find something out!!

I mean, I myself would love to see GW add in something, or add a reason why Skimmers even have that rule, truly I do. But I've looked over the book, Ordnance works how it works. So that should be pretty obvious. But, I dunno. I personally could see the argument of how DS is a movement, otherwise why have the rule? But, other arguments are just as valid. So, we'll see. I wasn't meaning to sound like a jerk, I just feel there isn't much grey area with the monolith in particular.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Henker-Kind wrote:
How many powers of the C'tan can be used per model in the shooting phase.

(I know consensus thinks it has the answer but it is a dubious and strange weapon profile that needs proper adressing)

Well, I won't really comment on that, but I will add that I hope they make it clear that the Nightbringer can target a different unit then his shooting target wit his Gaze of Death, as well as use it in and out of combat.

**Camarodragon**

Since we are on the monolith subject.

What is the shooting arc for the monoliths particle whip?

What is the shooting arc for the Tesla Spheres on the Obelisk and Tesseract Vault.?

**Tomb King**

Clarity on auto passing DT test and having to take DT test for FMC etc....

**bluewing711**

With the wraithflight issue, if wraiths suffer the initiative penalty to 1 for charging into difficult terrain do whiplash coils initiative boost come before penalty (meaning still I1) or after (I4)?

**Anpu-adom**

Nehekhare wrote:

- why is there a tactical objective: harness the warp in the necron Datacards set?

Because each of the faction specific ones replace the 1d6 objectives from the book... and Harness The Warp is a later option. We still get it, and we still have to pitch it. Not worth asking GW about, IMHO.

**Unholyllama**

Concerning Praetorians taking a Night Scythes - there's been a fairly hefty discussion dedicated to the topic over on Necrontyr - http://w11.zetaboards.com/Necrontyr_Online/topic/10972178/1

The main argument is that deployed within is not the same as "embarking" and all restrictions are based on "embarking" during the game.

To be Embarked, one has to Embark (because of the former being a past tense version of the latter).

Since one is Embarked (per a combination of Deployment and Reserves rules), one has followed the rules TO Embark. And so we look back at the requirements for Transport Capacity...
Since one is Embarked (per a combination of Deployment and Reserves rules), one has followed the rules TO Embark.

Gonna need a rules quote page and paragraph for that there. Saying in order to be embarked/carried on a vehicle you have to Embark means nothing can EVER be placed on a flyer or on ANY vehicle in reserve.

"Embarking" pg 80 "A unit can embark onto a vehicle by moving each model to within 2" of its Access Points in the Movement phase - Difficult and Dangerous Terrain tests should be taken as normal. The whole unit must be able to embark - if some models are out of range, the entire unit must stay outside. When the unit embarks, remove it from the table and place it aside, making a note that the unit is being transported....."

How do you do the underlined before the game begins and before any Movement phase?

As for other problems from this thread people have posted. Transport Capacity pg 80 "Each Transport vehicle has a maximum passenger capacity that can never be exceeded." Never is never is never if the TC of a vehicle is 15 you can't put 20 into it because that capacity is now exceeded something that per raw can -never- be exceeded. During the game, in the deployment phase, at Thanksgiving, during Yaksmear Day, never.

As for what can a Transport carry next line and it is in bold in the book as well "A Transport can carry a single Infantry unit and/or any number of Independent Characters (as long as they are also Infantry), up to a total number of models equal to the vehicle's Transport Capacity." Now this rule is an Advance rule because it talks about specific types of models "Infantry" and "Independent Characters" (that are also Infantry). Transport Capacity on most Vehicles just state "X number of models". Meaning that rule is basic. This is one of the few times where the rule book trumps the codex. Drop pods (like in the Blood angels book) say Ten models OR one Dreadnought of any type. This part gets a little tricky, that line is part basic and part advanced, in a way, because of the "OR" choice. The reason I say this is because of pg 13 Basic Versus Advanced 2nd paragraph "Advanced rules apply to specific types of models,..... or because they are not normal infantry models (a bike, a swarm or even a tank)." The specific model type here is Dreadnought which makes it advance BUT the first part is still basic since it does not state a model type, Basic versus Advanced first sentence "Basic rules apply to all the models in the game, unless stated otherwise." For the people that are saying "If the preatoriens can be on a Transport then I can put 20 warhound titans in a drop pod because of same reason ho ho ho!" You are saying that the Transport Capacity is a basic rule applying to all models and we have an advance rule that trumps it

"But wait how can the Preatoriens be on a Transport because they can't embark as it says on pg 80 "Only Infantry models can embark upon transports (this does not include Jump or Jet Pack Infantry, unless specifically stated otherwise." then because that is an advance rule too!" You say Mr. Devil's advocate! And here is my answer. They can't. I'll agree that Jump Infantry and Jet Pack Infantry can not embark on a Transport without a rule saying that can. But what is "Embarking" the rule? Well I posted it up above and it clearly states per RAW that Embarking is the process of a unit embarks on a vehicle by getting 2" near the Access points during the movement phase. That is it. Jump Infantry and Jet pack Infantry can't do that unless they have permission to. I agree with that statement.

"But how are you saying they can be on a transport then if they can't do that?" Well, simply, we look at the "Combined Reserve Units" rules on page 135 ".... Similarly, you must specify if any units in Reserve are embarked upon any Transport vehicles in Reserve, in which case they will arrive together..." This rule here gives us permission to have a unit already embarked on a Transport in reserve during deployment. Yes in normal English Embarked is the past tense of the word embark. But embarked is not the past tense of the rule "Embarking" which tells us the only way to embark is to do it during the movement phase. This rule skips the "Embarking" rule, the unit is already on the Transport.

"But the unit isn't Infantry!" Well it is, and it isn't. It's the whole square and rectangle deal. Jump units pg 65 last two sentences of first paragraph (the bold one) "Jump units therefore share two sets of rules, the Jump unit rules, and those of their base type. Jump Infantry would, for example, follow the rules for Jump units and Infantry." Not all Infantry units are Jump Infantry, but all Jump Infantry are Infantry since they follow both sets of rules.

And the Transport Capacity rules for what type a Transport can carry is Infantry, (and Independent Characters as long as they too are Infantry).

TlR: Rules wise, just because you are embarked upon a transport doesn't mean you went through the Embarking rules, which is limited to only Infantry models, and not Jump or Jet Infantry, (unless specifically stated otherwise). And you can't embark without a Movement phase.

Some people are also arguing that if a non-Infantry unit type be deployed into a DT at the start of the game, capacity does not matter as well (so 20 Warriors in a Ghost Ark, 30 Boyz in a trukk).

Figured I'd add this to the thread to provide additional discussion.

**Kriswall**

Yup, if you're throwing one restriction out the window, you have to throw them all out to be consistent. If the unit type restriction on embarking doesn't matter, then neither should the unit size restriction. Enjoy your 30 Shoota Boy strong Trukk gunboats. (Obviously being sarcastic.)

**Unholyllama**

If only I could find a way to argue that. Arguing grammar and default states all because of a (potential) copy & paste error by GW.

**Punisher**

Could ask about the chariot and the rider both having IWND, is it 1 IWND roll since they are considered 1 model or is it 2 because the entry states that both the rider and the chariot have the IWND special rule.

**Kriswall**

Punisher wrote:
Could ask about the chariot and the rider both having IWND, is it 1 IWND roll since they are considered 1 model or is it 2 because the entry states that both the rider and the chariot have the IWND special rule.

One model, so one roll. And the IWND rule says you have the option of restoring a wound OR a hull point. So make your single roll and recoup whichever you prefer. You can never make two rolls and you can never restore both a wound and hull point form IWND at one time.

**Nilok**

Kriswall wrote:
Punisher wrote:
Could ask about the chariot and the rider both having IWND, is it 1 IWND roll since they are considered 1 model or is it 2 because the entry states that both the rider and the chariot have the IWND special rule.

One model, so one roll. And the IWND rule says you have the option of restoring a wound OR a hull point. So make your single roll and recoup whichever you prefer. You can never make two rolls and you can never restore both a wound and hull point form IWND at one time.

IWND already transfers to the whole model and it pointless to say both the rider and the chariot have the rule.

In this case, it appears they meant that both the rider and chariot have an individual chance to regain a wound/hull point, however the RAW does not fit.
A FAQ is needed.

**MarkyMark**

"Quantum Shielding" Necron Vehicle Equipment:
Since both the "Quantum Shielding" special rule and the "Lance" universal special rule apply set value modifiers to Necron vehicles, which one applies?

IS that really a set modifier now for quantum shielding rather then the +2, if its still plus two its a modifer so will be brought down to AV12 by lance as that is a set modifer.

I do have a question. Basically this (in response to someone saying they can use Orikans rule on wraiths)

Would you acutally be able to use Orikan rule of +1 RP and rr 1's for the wraiths?, harvest rule states they benefit from RP but Orikans rule says all friendly models with the RP rule. Does benefit = have?

At the start of each of the controlling player’s Movement phases, choose one of the following special rules: Fleet, Reanimation Protocols, Shred. The Canoptek Spyder from this Formation, and all units from this Formation within 12" of the Canoptek Spyder from this Formation, benefit from the effects of the chosen special rule until the start of the controlling player’s next Movement phase.

I am not sure if it does, surely it would have said all units from this formation gain the chosen special rule until the start.... etc
If you compare to Zanhdreks rule

Counter Tactics: Whilst Nemesor Zahndrekh is within 24" of any enemy unit(s) with any of the following special rules – Counter-attack, Furious Charge, Hit & Run, Split Fire, Stealth, Tank Hunters – then Zahndrekh and his unit also have the same special rule(s)

IT clearly says they gain the special rule

**Oberron**

Kriswall wrote:
Yup, if you're throwing one restriction out the window, you have to throw them all out to be consistent. If the unit type restriction on embarking doesn't matter, then neither should the unit size restriction. Enjoy your 30 Shoota Boy strong Trukk gunboats. (Obviously being sarcastic.)

Because restrictions are always consistent right? (sarcasm as well) That's a bit throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Reading the BRB is like reading one of those old choose your own adventure books where you keep flipping to random page after random page. There are so many rules within rules that override other rules but not these other rules over hear because of this rule.

Thought of a better example. The whole Codex > BRB all the time, every time, zealotry but that only applies if there is a contradiction that the codex wins out, not all the time such as the BRB having an Advance rule and the codex having a basic rule.

Edited for clarification hopefully.

**rigeld2**

Oberron wrote:
Kriswall wrote:
Yup, if you're throwing one restriction out the window, you have to throw them all out to be consistent. If the unit type restriction on embarking doesn't matter, then neither should the unit size restriction. Enjoy your 30 Shoota Boy strong Trukk gunboats. (Obviously being sarcastic.)

Because restrictions are always consistent right? (sarcasm as well) That's a bit throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Reading the BRB is like reading one of those old choose your own adventure books where you keep flipping to random page after random page. There are so many rules within rules that override other rules but not these other rules over hear because of this rule.

Thought of a better example. The whole Codex > BRB all the time every time zealotry while if there is a contradiction the codex wins out, that is only most of the time not all the time.

No, it's all the time, but a lot if people like to pretend that "if there is a contradiction" part doesn't exist. Or pretend that there isn't a contradiction when there is (and vice versa).

**Victory**

I'm surprised to see this up again. I figured everybody just abandoned it.

I already submitted the FAQ to GW. What's stopping you?

Anyways, about the questions regarding the Monolith/Rod of Covenant, as they seem to be persistent. If you want me to add them, then write them.
See the OP? Nearly every one of those I did myself. I'm not going to do anymore effort for you guys if you don't want to play by the rules; none of this "u gonna do it m8?"
Put in the effort.

Reading the BRB is like reading one of those old choose your own adventure books where you keep flipping to random page after random page.

This is excellent.

Exalt why not.

**col_impact**

Kriswall wrote:
Yup, if you're throwing one restriction out the window, you have to throw them all out to be consistent. If the unit type restriction on embarking doesn't matter, then neither should the unit size restriction. Enjoy your 30 Shoota Boy strong Trukk gunboats. (Obviously being sarcastic.)

Please clarify. Are you advocating that you ignore rules? Sounds like you are running well astray from RAW.