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.

Does the 3++ upgrade affects both the rider and the chariot?

Yes. Currently it affects both rider and chariot

RaW it certainly does. RaI however seems very clear to be a no. So whilst you can argue for it to work on both don't expect every opponent to agree to that interpretation nor can you expect everyone to look kindly on you trying to enforce iy. However RaW this absolutely works.

 FlingitNow wrote:
RaW it certainly does. RaI however seems very clear to be a no. So whilst you can argue for it to work on both don't expect every opponent to agree to that interpretation nor can you expect everyone to look kindly on you trying to enforce iy. However RaW this absolutely works.

Wrong. RAW and RAI the phase shifter grants 3++ to the chariot profile.

GW published new chariot rules for 7th edition and a new necron FAQ for 7th edition. We have fresh rules for dealing with necron chariots from them. RAW its very clear that the phase shifter confers to the chariot. The general counter-argument is that they messed up in their fresh rulings and left an unintended interaction in there between phase shifter and the chariot so that its not RAI. This idea gained traction in the community because a lot of stuff about these chariots was unprecedented and a conservative approach seemed warranted at the time. However, with the release of the Space Wolves codex came a lot of clarification and a lot of precedent straight from a GW codex that was written entirely for 7th edition. The Space Wolves chariot has an invul save on the chariot matching the invul save of the Belt of Russ. Moreover, how the codex handles the chariot makes it clear that the USR of the rider and the wargear (e.g. terminator armour's deep strike ability) confer to the chariot unless otherwise explicitly blocked.

I used to think that the 3++ on the chariot was some easter egg (unintended buff) of a 5th edition codex in a 7th edition ruleset. But, with the release of the Space Wolves codex and the new information about chariots that can be gleaned from that codex it becomes crystal clear that RAW and RAI the phase shifter confers to the chariot. So my argument is that the 7th edition FAQ is fine as is to play RAW and we should play it that way unless the power level of the chariot is a problem. I have been playing it that way for a while and its not a problem. So if you haven't already I suggest you read the Space Wolves codex and take careful note of how chariots are intended by GW to be handled. Then we can have a discussion about RAI. If you haven't read up on the SW codex, you haven't done your homework yet. And since you are advocating going directly against RAW you better be up to date on your homework.

The Necron codex was updated by the Necron FAQ after 7th edition came out. The FAQ provides fresh rules for dealing with the Necon chariot and they certified it for use in 7th. They very much intend for us to use the FAQ as written. The counter argument is that they made a mistake and missed an unintended interaction. However, what we find out in the Space Wolves codex is that there is no unintended interaction. The Space wolves codex points out that the deep strike ability of the terminator armor that Logan wears would confer to the chariot so they explicitly block that ability. This is because the ability to deep strike is conferred to the model (which in this case is the chariot model) that wears the terminator armor. The interaction between rider wargear and the chariot model is what the Space Wolves codex elucidates.

The counter argument only makes sense in those days prior to the Necron FAQ being updated for 7th. GW took a deliberate and conscientious pass at updating the codex for 7th. The burden of proof is on the counter argument to prove that a mistake was made where otherwise everything works perfectly fine by RAW. Does the counter argument have any proof beyond mere suspicion that a mistake was made in the updated for 7th FAQ with regards to the rules that clearly grant the phase shifter 3++ to the chariot?

With the publication of the Necron 7th edition FAQ chose to leave in the interaction between the phase shifter and the chariot. The Space Wolves codex points out minimally that they are fully aware of the interaction and have chosen to leave as is. This is because the interaction works as intended. Since RAW is clear, works, is unbroken, and is freshly certified by GW, there is no justification to do anything but RAW. The burden of proof is on the counter argument. The counter argument needs to PROVE a mistake has happened or a broken situation has been created.

col_impact wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
RaW it certainly does. RaI however seems very clear to be a no. So whilst you can argue for it to work on both don't expect every opponent to agree to that interpretation nor can you expect everyone to look kindly on you trying to enforce iy. However RaW this absolutely works.

The Space Wolves chariot has an invul save on the chariot matching the invul save of the Belt of Russ. Moreover, how the codex handles the chariot makes it clear that the USR of the rider and the wargear (e.g. terminator armour's deep strike ability) confer to the chariot unless otherwise explicitly blocked.

Does Stormrider have a Belt of Russ? no
Do the rules for Stormrider say it gets to use the invulnerable save of the belt of Russ? no
Do the rules for Stormrider say it has a 4+ invulnerable save? yes
there is no correlation between the Belt of Russ and Stormriders 4+ invulnerable save

Kaela_Mensha_Khaine wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
RaW it certainly does. RaI however seems very clear to be a no. So whilst you can argue for it to work on both don't expect every opponent to agree to that interpretation nor can you expect everyone to look kindly on you trying to enforce iy. However RaW this absolutely works.

The Space Wolves chariot has an invul save on the chariot matching the invul save of the Belt of Russ. Moreover, how the codex handles the chariot makes it clear that the USR of the rider and the wargear (e.g. terminator armour's deep strike ability) confer to the chariot unless otherwise explicitly blocked.

Does Stormrider have a Belt of Russ? no
Do the rules for Stormrider say it gets to use the invulnerable save of the belt of Russ? no
Do the rules for Stormrider say it has a 4+ invulnerable save? yes
there is no correlation between the Belt of Russ and Stormriders 4+ invulnerable save

Let's be very clear here. I am not in the position of having to prove anything. The Space Wolves codex points out minimally that GW is fully aware of the interaction between wargear and chariots and have chosen to leave the Necron codex as is on the matter. This is because the interaction works as intended. Since RAW is clear, works, is unbroken, and is freshly certified by GW, there is no justification to do anything but RAW. The burden of proof is on you. You need to PROVE a mistake has happened or a broken situation has been created.

Well they give Stormrider it's own invun. Which by your interpretation is entirely redundant as it would already receive that invun from the Belt so I don't get why you think the SW Codex adds weight to the RaI argument for the 3++ going onto the model when it clearly highlights that they are unaware of that interaction. Whilst putting weight in lack of clarification in FaQ as an indicator of RaI is frankly laughable, the FaQs are half hearted Errata at best these days. They haven't done a proper FaQ since the end of 5th.

As I said RaW you are completely correct. RaI is very strongly implied the opposite due to the Space Wolf codex as an example. How people will play it I expect to vary from group to group. Some will play 3++ fine, some will see the argument for but still play it doesn't transfer, some consider it TFG behaviour to even suggest that interpretation. I was just giving the OP a heads up that it is probably best to broach this before a game rather than assume your opponent is OK with playing the rule like that.

 FlingitNow wrote:
RaI is very strongly implied the opposite due to the Space Wolf codex as an example.

Wrong. The Space Wolves codex takes away the RAI argument from those who would argue against the phase shifter transferring to the chariot.

It is clear in Space Wolves codex that the USR of the rider and the wargear (e.g. terminator armour's deep strike ability) confer to the chariot unless otherwise explicitly blocked. This is because those abilities are applied to the "model" which is the case in Necron Phase Shifter.

As stated before, the Space Wolves codex shows that GW is fully aware that rider wargear that is worded to affect the model interacts with the chariot.

The counter argument has nothing to go for it. All they have is a suspicion that the interaction somehow slipped underneath GW radar and continues to be undiscovered. The Space Wolves codex shows that the interactions of wargear and chariots is very much on their radar.


People are of course free to house rule it as they like and go along with Mob Thinking on the matter and take away the 3++ on the chariot based on nothing more than suspicion, but they have no logical or rules justification for doing so.

So why does the Stormrider come with a 4++ of its own? Just wondering what your opinion is on that? Do you believe the Stormrider also has a 2+ armour?

You seem very invested in finding the most beneficial rules interpretations for the CCB. Are you a Necron player by chance?

 FlingitNow wrote:
So why does the Stormrider come with a 4++ of its own? Just wondering what your opinion is on that?

The Belt of Russ is not optional wargear so a discussion of how the wargear confers to the StormRider is unnecessarily lengthy and can most elegantly be stated as "Stormrider has a 4+ invulnerable save".

What is more significant and what you should focus on instead is how they do go into length in their handling of the discussion on the Deep Strike ability of the Terminator Armour that they explicitly block.



Considering how they are handling the Deep Strike ability, do you think GW is aware that wargear that is applied to the model interacts with the chariot? The evidence is indisputably right there in front of you that they are fully aware that they interact.

Do you believe the Stormrider also has a 2+ armour?

Under Armor Saves


Vehicles can't be allocated wounds so they can't take armor saves.

You seem very invested in finding the most beneficial rules interpretations for the CCB. Are you a Necron player by chance?

That question is immaterial to the rules discussion at hand. If you like you can check my posting history and come up with an opinion on that. But rules related questions only. We all are required to set aside our player preferences and apply logic and the rules here without exceptions.

As stated before, the Space Wolves codex points out minimally that they are fully aware of the interaction and have chosen to leave as is. This is because the interaction works as intended. Since RAW is clear, works, is unbroken, and is freshly certified by GW, there is no justification to do anything but RAW. The burden of proof is on the counter argument. The counter argument needs to PROVE a mistake has happened or a broken situation has been created.

The counter argument has nothing but suspicion to back it up.

the FaQs are half hearted Errata at best these days. They haven't done a proper FaQ since the end of 5th.

Please clarify what you are saying here. Are you saying we don't have to adhere to the FAQs? The FAQs are rules provided by GW. We are required by the tenets of YMDC to treat them as rules.

 FlingitNow wrote:
So why does the Stormrider come with a 4++ of its own? Just wondering what your opinion is on that? Do you believe the Stormrider also has a 2+ armour?
You seem very invested in finding the most beneficial rules interpretations for the CCB. Are you a Necron player by chance?

I think you misunderstand what he is aiming at.
When people use the Stormrider, they aren't referring to its Invulnerable-save. They are talking about the Deep Strike ability.

Terminator Armour says the model has Deep Strike, so that would also apply to the Chariot.
Phaseshifter says the model has a 3++, so that would also apply to the Chariot.
But the Stormrider has an additional line that tells us it doesn't have Deep Strike, whereas the CCB has no rule that tells us it does not gain a 3++

Kangodo wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
So why does the Stormrider come with a 4++ of its own? Just wondering what your opinion is on that? Do you believe the Stormrider also has a 2+ armour?
You seem very invested in finding the most beneficial rules interpretations for the CCB. Are you a Necron player by chance?

I think you misunderstand what he is aiming at.
When people use the Stormrider, they aren't referring to its Invulnerable-save. They are talking about the Deep Strike ability.

Terminator Armour says the model has Deep Strike, so that would also apply to the Chariot.
Phaseshifter says the model has a 3++, so that would also apply to the Chariot.
But the Stormrider has an additional line that tells us it doesn't have Deep Strike, whereas the CCB has no rule that tells us it does not gain a 3++

I'm pretty sure when I use or talk about Stormrider I am referring to its invulnerable save and not its inability to deep strike.

@col_impact: Maybe they removed Logan's deep strike ability so to prevent people thinking that since Logan can deep strike then so can Stormrider. Also have you looked at the Daemons FaQ yet? Wouldn't a discussion of how the special rules that would be confer to the Daemon chariots be unnecessarily lengthy and could be most elegantly be stated as benefit from Furious Charge? But they went with the unnecessarily lengthy explanation of not giving them furious charge.

I think that the Daemon FaQ puts a good precedent for RAW that USR's and wargear are not conferred to the chariot by the rider

Edit: of course I don't play Daemons so I don't know if the Chariots have Furious Charge or not I'm just assuming they do. If I'm wrong about that please ignore my ramblings

col_impact wrote:

The Space Wolves codex points out minimally that GW is fully aware of the interaction between wargear and chariots and have chosen to leave the Necron codex as is on the matter.

Don't confuse laziness and lack of action as approval.
GW might not be thinking at all about a 5th edition codex because they are working out the kinks in another 7th edition one.
Maybe they are so busy working on the next "how can we sell more spacemarines", that they just don't give a crap at all about Necrons, or necron issues.

The Belt of Russ is not optional wargear so a discussion of how the wargear confers to the StormRider is unnecessarily lengthy and can most elegantly be stated as "Stormrider has a 4+ invulnerable save". 

What is more significant and what you should focus on instead is how they do go into length in their handling of the discussion on the Deep Strike ability of the Terminator Armour that they explicitly block. 

You are aware both your arguments could be applied to the other interaction:


Wargear doesn't confer so a discussion of how the wargear doesn't confer to the StormRider is unnecessarily lengthy and can most elegantly be stated as "When riding Stormrider, Logan Grimnar loses the Deep Strike special rule (which is conferred from his Terminator armour), can no longer join other units, or be joined by any other Independent Character".  Where here they say conferred from his Terminator armour is referring to that rule being conferred to him from his armour.

What is more significant and what you should focus on instead is how they deliberately give Stormrider a separate invulnerable save.

That question is immaterial to the rules discussion at hand. If you like you can check my posting history and come up with an opinion on that. But rules related questions only. We all are required to set aside our player preferences and apply logic and the rules here without exceptions. 

As stated before, the Space Wolves codex points out minimally that they are fully aware of the interaction and have chosen to leave as is. This is because the interaction works as intended. Since RAW is clear, works, is unbroken, and is freshly certified by GW, there is no justification to do anything but RAW. The burden of proof is on the counter argument. The counter argument needs to PROVE a mistake has happened or a broken situation has been created. 

The counter argument has nothing but suspicion to back it up. 

A simple yes would have sufficed.

Please clarify what you are saying here. Are you saying we don't have to adhere to the FAQs? The FAQs are rules provided by GW. We are required by the tenets of YMDC to treat them as rules. 

Oh sorry I forgot plain English was difficult for you to understand. I never said the FaQs weren't rules just that thry weren't complete. Omission of clarification in an FaQ is not an indication of GWs intent. They simply aren't doing full FaQs all they are doing is the minimal Errata they can get away with, heck they are largely stripping questions that they actually answered before. So yes the FaQ are rules and are good indicators of intent and precedent, omission from an FaQ however is only an indicator of how sparse and incomplete the FaQs are these days.

To repeat,

Let's be very clear here. I am not in the position of having to prove anything. The Space Wolves codex points out minimally that GW is fully aware of the interaction between wargear and chariots and have chosen to leave the Necron codex as is on the matter. This is because the interaction works as intended. Since RAW is clear, works, is unbroken, and is freshly certified by GW, there is no justification to do anything but RAW. The burden of proof is on you. You need to PROVE a mistake has happened or a broken situation has been created.

FlingItNow and any others: your RAI argument that the Phase Shifter does not confer to the chariot is based on nothing but suspicion, which carries no weight here. Unless you can show more basis than that, you have nothing to contribute to this thread.


Tenets of You Make Da Call (YMDC):



Also, from http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/How_to_Have_an_Intelligent_Rules_Debate

New FAQs came out. The 3++ affecting the chariot was not addressed, therefore obviously not a "mistake" that needed correcting. Simple statement of RAI there.

Fragile wrote:
New FAQs came out. The 3++ affecting the chariot was not addressed, therefore obviously not a "mistake" that needed correcting. Simple statement of RAI there.

A joke I assume? You can't possibly believe this?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Let's be very clear here. I am not in the position of having to prove anything. The Space Wolves codex points out minimally that GW is fully aware of the interaction between wargear and chariots and have chosen to leave the Necron codex as is on the matter. This is because the interaction works as intended. Since RAW is clear, works, is unbroken, and is freshly certified by GW, there is no justification to do anything but RAW. The burden of proof is on you. You need to PROVE a mistake has happened or a broken situation has been created. 

First the Space Wolf codex does not minimally show that GW are aware of the interaction it in fact tells us they are unaware of the interaction. This has been shown and your inability to argue against the points raised illustrates this.

Secondly the rest of your argument could have been used through out 5th & 6th to prevent eyeless models (including marines wearing helmets) from ever shooting or assaulting anything due to an inability to draw LoS and in 5th they actually did proper FaQs to address issues. Which just illustrates how weak ground you are on. Then look at issues like ICs joining units to give infiltrate. Shrike had to get an FaQ in 5th to work. It was removed for 6th and the new codex he has a rule that still doesn't work except to give outflank.

100% clear the RaW is the invun goes to the model. 99% clear GW don't believe this is the case as the Space Wolf Codex clearly illustrates. How you and your group play it is of course up to you. RaW your interpretation is entirely correct.

RAW currently it gives the save to the chariot.

RAI it does not give the save to the chariot. When the codex was written chariots had passengers, ie embarked models, not riders and the rule that they count as a single model was not in existence, GW has not really updated the faq for most armies and 7th to any real extent, and most likely in the upcoming necron codex, this will be addressed.

lack of an Question/Erratta in the FAQ is not proof of an answer. Removal of some old rulings in FAQs did not mean the ruling was reversed, it just means there is currently no officially answer to that frequently answered question.

the only answer to a question is an answer, not a lack of addressing the topic.

As a necron player I'm gonna go with a big ol' no for RAI. If they wanted wargear to confer they would have no reason to give the chariot its own separate save. I would never play the CCB as a 3++ until we get our codex updated or something more specific rules-wise comes down the pipe.

I think it's pretty clear that we cannot get a clear answer on how it works really. And I don't think that any arguments will make the difference. Leave it as it is. The new Dex is near and till then we can hope that answers will come. Thank you for your answers truly. I was at a tourney and this question occurred, and the judges answer was that due to the wording of the chariots rules and the no clarified codex entry of CCB the rider would confer the chariot his 3++. But how silly that is knowing that he can't actually confer his 2+.

 avedominusnox wrote:
But how silly that is knowing that he can't actually confer his 2+.

Its not that the 2+ armor isn't conferred, its that it literally does nothing because you can't take armor saves against pens and glances.

Yes you are right. I hope that with their new Dex blind spots will be filled.

Btw I have another question. I saw the necron player moving his CCB's forward passing 0,5" from a model then going backwards as part of his rest move only to make his 3 attacks. Can he do that forward/backward? Does he need to pass his whole base from a unit? I know also that due to skimmer he can pass a flyer and a swooping FMC and still hit it on 3s due to codex silly wording. Are all these things correct?

 avedominusnox wrote:
Btw I have another question. I saw the necron player moving his CCB's forward passing 0,5" from a model then going backwards as part of his rest move only to make his 3 attacks. Can he do that forward/backward?

Yes

 avedominusnox wrote:
Does he need to pass his whole base from a unit?

No, just a part of its hull

 avedominusnox wrote:
I know also that due to skimmer he can pass a flyer and a swooping FMC and still hit it on 3s due to codex silly wording. Are all these things correct?

Sweep attacks cannot hit flyers/FMC since there is no roll to hit.

Edit: As pointed out by Whacked and CrownAxe there is a "Roll to Hit" so Sweep Attacks do affect flyers/FMCs

Aren't codex rules over BRB? I mean sweep makes 3 attacks hitting on 3s right? Do these ignore snapshot rules of flyers and FMC and invisibility?

blaktoof wrote:
RAW currently it gives the save to the chariot.

RAI it does not give the save to the chariot. When the codex was written chariots had passengers, ie embarked models, not riders and the rule that they count as a single model was not in existence, GW has not really updated the faq for most armies and 7th to any real extent, and most likely in the upcoming necron codex, this will be addressed.

lack of an Question/Erratta in the FAQ is not proof of an answer. Removal of some old rulings in FAQs did not mean the ruling was reversed, it just means there is currently no officially answer to that frequently answered question.

the only answer to a question is an answer, not a lack of addressing the topic.

The necron codex got a brand new FAQ for 7th that completely changed how our codex and our chariot work. With that much attention paid upon 7th's release I don't think anyone could say that the CCB flew under GW's radar. If there was something there that created confusion, rather than someone's suspicion that some interaction is somehow unfair. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

copper.talos wrote:

 avedominusnox wrote:
Btw I have another question. I saw the necron player moving his CCB's forward passing 0,5" from a model then going backwards as part of his rest move only to make his 3 attacks. Can he do that forward/backward?

Yes

 avedominusnox wrote:
Does he need to pass his whole base from a unit?

No, just a part of its hull

 avedominusnox wrote:
I know also that due to skimmer he can pass a flyer and a swooping FMC and still hit it on 3s due to codex silly wording. Are all these things correct?

Sweep attacks cannot hit flyers/FMC since there is no roll to hit.

This is incorrect. A chariot that moves 6" or under hits one of the unit it passes over on 3+ or if it moved 7" or more (up to 12") it hits on a 4+. So it does roll to hit, and that is why it does hit flyers and flying mcs.It probably isn't intended (in my opinion) but the wording is definitely not "silly" as some people described.

Edit: I was wrong indeed. Sweep attacks "Roll to Hit" at a set number.

copper.talos wrote:
I am 100% correct. Sweep attacks don't use a roll to hit so flyers/FMCs are immune.

You literally haven't the Sweep Attack rule in the Necron codex if you are saying that.

It say it hits on a 3+ at combat speed, and 4+ for everything else

Edit: Apparently I missed the "Roll to Hit" part. Thanks for the heads up.

Did you miss the part where Sweep Attack says it rolls to Hit?

its the first sentence of the second paragraph