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.

Simple question-
Earlier today, an NDK charged my CCB and chose to attack the chariot instead of the rider. Would the rider's 3++ confer to the chariot as well?

Verviedi wrote:
Simple question-
Earlier today, an NDK charged my CCB and chose to attack the chariot instead of the rider. Would the rider's 3++ confer to the chariot as well?

Rules as Written yes.

Discussed in this thread

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/620543.page

As Col states RaW certainly yes. RaI vastly more likely no. Either way likely to be resolved more clearly at the end of the month.

I dunno about intent. Between Reanimation working on the Chariot and Grimnar giving his mount his invulnerable save, it's probably intentional.

Chariot rules are kind of a mess though. Seems to come from a weird obsession with trying to change them from a transport to an overcomplicated emulation of a Fantasy chariot treated as one model, without going far enough and just merging the profiles properly.

Reanimation protocol would completely turn off if it didn't work on the chariot and has a specific exception that explains how it works. Grimnar does not give his Chariot an invulnerable save despite the wording being identical the Chariot still has to be given its own separate invun. Grimnar is a massive example for RaI being that the Chariot doesn't get the invun.

However RaW it does and there are lots of RaW issues with Chariots and no really clear divider as to what transfers and what doesn't. The IC status being the biggest problem.

 FlingitNow wrote:
As Col states RaW certainly yes. RaI vastly more likely no. Either way likely to be resolved more clearly at the end of the month.

That's how I look at it. If one were to argue the Phase Shifter gives the chariot a 3++, you could equally argue a Semipiternal Weave gives the chariot a 2+ armour save could you not?

 FlingitNow wrote:
Reanimation protocol would completely turn off if it didn't work on the chariot and has a specific exception that explains how it works. Grimnar does not give his Chariot an invulnerable save despite the wording being identical the Chariot still has to be given its own separate invun. Grimnar is a massive example for RaI being that the Chariot doesn't get the invun.

However RaW it does and there are lots of RaW issues with Chariots and no really clear divider as to what transfers and what doesn't. The IC status being the biggest problem.

At this point, with the new Necron codex only a month away, if they are planning on the phase shifter not working on the chariot, then they are intentionally not telling us by not updating their FAQ.

The Necron codex is less than a month away. The RAI argument always propped itself on there somehow being some way that GW is not aware of the issue. At this point it is impossible for them to be unaware of the issue. Therefore there is no longer an RAI argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ryuken87 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
As Col states RaW certainly yes. RaI vastly more likely no. Either way likely to be resolved more clearly at the end of the month.

That's how I look at it. If one were to argue the Phase Shifter gives the chariot a 3++, you could equally argue a Semipiternal Weave gives the chariot a 2+ armour save could you not?

Armor saves don't get applied to vehicles.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Reanimation protocol would completely turn off if it didn't work on the chariot and has a specific exception that explains how it works.

Remember when Destroyers were Warriors on Jetbikes and the Warrior would reanimate solo if his bike crashed?

Honestly, would be more sensible than an entire vehicle somehow getting back up when they normally can't.

changemod wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Reanimation protocol would completely turn off if it didn't work on the chariot and has a specific exception that explains how it works.

Remember when Destroyers were Warriors on Jetbikes and the Warrior would reanimate solo if his bike crashed?

Honestly, would be more sensible than an entire vehicle somehow getting back up when they normally can't.

A chariot is more like a battlesuit fused to the overlord and is no longer a transport. Think Dreadknight.

col_impact wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ryuken87 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
As Col states RaW certainly yes. RaI vastly more likely no. Either way likely to be resolved more clearly at the end of the month.

That's how I look at it. If one were to argue the Phase Shifter gives the chariot a 3++, you could equally argue a Semipiternal Weave gives the chariot a 2+ armour save could you not?

Armor saves don't get applied to vehicles.

Just for my own reference where does it say that? Or rather is there some explicit permission for vehicles to take invulnerable saves but not armour saves?

col_impact wrote:

changemod wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Reanimation protocol would completely turn off if it didn't work on the chariot and has a specific exception that explains how it works.

Remember when Destroyers were Warriors on Jetbikes and the Warrior would reanimate solo if his bike crashed?

Honestly, would be more sensible than an entire vehicle somehow getting back up when they normally can't.

A chariot is more like a battlesuit fused to the overlord and is no longer a transport. Think Dreadknight.

...I don't think we're looking at the same models here.

Anywho, the more sensible way to handle the split profile would have been to use the rider's WS/BS/S/A/ and wargear along with the AV and HP of the vehicle (plus bonus attacks for crew where applicable), but I guess they didn't want to completely rewrite the... Five or so chariots rules entirely making everything the old codices said redundant and went for a ham-fisted half measure.

Do we need to do this all over again?
Last thread it was quickly decided that it worked RAW.

It then turned into a big fight about RAI and we can't know what they intend, nor does it really matter.

At this point, with the new Necron codex only a month away, if they are planning on the phase shifter not working on the chariot, then they are intentionally not telling us by not updating their FAQ. 

The Necron codex is less than a month away. The RAI argument always propped itself on there somehow being some way that GW is not aware of the issue. At this point it is impossible for them to be unaware of the issue. Therefore there is no longer an RAI argument.

You are aware there has been no proper FAQs since 5th Ed right? So lack of FAQ is evidence of literally nothing. Just because they're working on the dex does not mean they are aware of anything written in the BrB. Just read Shrike's rules for evidence of that.

The RaI argument has always propped itself up on the fact when the rule was written an Overlord and his Chariot could not be the same model. Whilst Grimnar has identical wording yet his Chariot has its own separate invun clearly pointing out this is an unkown issue to them.

But we agree RaW and hope RaI will be cleared up in a short time so the argument is hopefully redundant now.

Oh? I saw some FAQ's that are only a few months old.
Your personal opinion on the quality of these facts means nothing.

Is that the same Grimnar that loses Deep Strike from his TDA when he gets the Stormrider?
That's because they know the rule from the wargear would extend to the Stormrider and they obviously don't want it to Deep Strike.

changemod wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Reanimation protocol would completely turn off if it didn't work on the chariot and has a specific exception that explains how it works.

Remember when Destroyers were Warriors on Jetbikes and the Warrior would reanimate solo if his bike crashed?

Yes, but that was back in the day when the Destroyer model was literally a warrior sitting in a flying comfy chair.

 Bookwrack wrote:

changemod wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Reanimation protocol would completely turn off if it didn't work on the chariot and has a specific exception that explains how it works.

Remember when Destroyers were Warriors on Jetbikes and the Warrior would reanimate solo if his bike crashed?

Yes, but that was back in the day when the Destroyer model was literally a warrior sitting in a flying comfy chair.

Which honestly, is basically what a Tomb Blade is.

What is the rule (page number/paragraph) or copy paste?
I am trying to convince a person who believes everything on the internet is a lie.

Verviedi wrote:
What is the rule (page number/paragraph) or copy paste?
I am trying to convince a person who believes everything on the internet is a lie.

Chariot rules:

The rider and the chariot are always treated as one model.

Phase shifter rules:

A model with a Phase shifter has a 3+ invulnerable save.

BRB chariot section near the start and Necron wargear respectively.

changemod wrote:

Verviedi wrote:
What is the rule (page number/paragraph) or copy paste?
I am trying to convince a person who believes everything on the internet is a lie.

Chariot rules:

The rider and the chariot are always treated as one model.

Phase shifter rules:

A model with a Phase shifter has a 3+ invulnerable save.

BRB chariot section near the start and Necron wargear respectively.

Opponent says just because chariot and rider are treated as a single model doesn't mean the invul passes over.

Verviedi wrote:

changemod wrote:

Verviedi wrote:
What is the rule (page number/paragraph) or copy paste?
I am trying to convince a person who believes everything on the internet is a lie.

Chariot rules:

The rider and the chariot are always treated as one model.

Phase shifter rules:

A model with a Phase shifter has a 3+ invulnerable save.

BRB chariot section near the start and Necron wargear respectively.

Opponent says just because chariot and rider are treated as a single model doesn't mean the invul passes over.

That very sentence proves it does.

Kangodo wrote:
Oh? I saw some FAQ's that are only a few months old.
Your personal opinion on the quality of these facts means nothing.

Is that the same Grimnar that loses Deep Strike from his TDA when he gets the Stormrider?
That's because they know the rule from the wargear would extend to the Stormrider and they obviously don't want it to Deep Strike.

So you believe the RaI is that a Psyker stops being a Psyker the minute he joins a non-Psyker unit? And that a Psyker in a Brotherhood of Psykerd unit doesn't generate Warp Charge? Thete are many known issues that GW hasn't answered. The current FAQs are nothing like the FAQs of 5th and previous editions (and we complained then that they weren't complete). Lack of an FaQ is not evidence of anything. Anyone that believes that is lying to themselves.

Grimnar proves they have no handle on the situation much like Shrike does for ICs joining units (which the Wolf dex illustrates they may have finally worked out). Stormrider has its own separate invun and Belt of Russ is worded the same as Phase Shifter which shows they don't think the invun passes over. But as you say he loses special rules so they know those pass over (so they know for instance the Overlord keeps his IC status, which also causes all sorts of issues). So they clearly don't have a handle on the situation.

The RaI is absolutely 100% clear. Anyone that claims it isn't either has a vested interest in the argument or is lying. Play it how you and your group want. Both RaW & RaI are abundantly clear and we all know it. Hopefully the new Codex will sort the issue.

I play it RAW across the board in rules issues and only deviate from RAW when a broken situation is created. This is really the only fair way to handle rules situations.

The bargeLord having a 3++ save on the chariot is not broken. There is no need to deviate from RAW.

The RAI argument against the 3++ save is premised on GW incompetence and utter lack of awareness of the issue which can not be proven or disproven.

In fact the RAI argument is advanced by the non-Necron players (or self-loathing Necron players) who have a democratic advantage in numbers over Necron players as a way to gain advantage over Necrons. A conspiracy theory of GW incompetence is leveraged to basically change rules at will.

The only reason a RAI argument has been adopted by some is because Necrons are an unpopular army that is popularly viewed as needing any nerfing that can be thrown at them and the bargeLord in particular is an unpopular unit that is popularly viewed as needing any nerfing that can be thrown at it..

However, the popularity of an army or a unit should not be taken into consideration when dealing with rules issues. RAW it is exceedingly clear that the phase shifter confers to the chariot profile.

Also, the benefit of the doubt needs to be on GW being competent in rules situation until proven otherwise. If you really are cynical to the point where you think GW is incompetent until proven otherwise then you should not be playing the game because you have a toxic relationship to the creators of the rules.

So until you can prove that GW is incompetent in this case, GW is assumed to be competent in this case, and the rules stand as they are provided to us from GW.

I don't allow Space Wolves to get s10 TWC and I don't allow non-Necron players to take away the invul save of the bargeLord's chariot profile, because that is the way the rules are.

If someone can prove a bargeLord with a 3++ save is broken then they have a case. Otherwise RAW is how it goes for this case as well as for any other case in the rules. That is the only fair way to play in a game where everyone has an army or armies they are rooting for.

Col playing by RaW is fine and you have a consistent approach which is clear. However the idea that RaI is a conspiracy put together by non-Necron players is laughably inaccurate. I mean I'm one of those promoting playing by the actual rules yet I am a Necron player. As for a conspiracy trying to invent GW rules incompetency that illustrates you don't even believe what you're saying. No one that has ever rad GWs rules and FAQs could claim they are remotely competent at getting RaW & RaI to match up nor fix known issues with their FAQs. Seriously did you really write that?

 FlingitNow wrote:
Col playing by RaW is fine and you have a consistent approach which is clear. However the idea that RaI is a conspiracy put together by non-Necron players is laughably inaccurate. I mean I'm one of those promoting playing by the actual rules yet I am a Necron player. As for a conspiracy trying to invent GW rules incompetency that illustrates you don't even believe what you're saying. No one that has ever rad GWs rules and FAQs could claim they are remotely competent at getting RaW & RaI to match up nor fix known issues with their FAQs. Seriously did you really write that?

If you really think GW is grossly incompetent then why are you playing their game?

We have to assume some core integrity to the rules of the game or else there is no point to coming together and playing that game.

Cynical lines of argumentation that assume GW incompetence until proven otherwise simply cannot be tolerated. If you want to be cynical like that, find another game.

The only rational and fair way to come together and play this game is to assume that GW is competent until proven otherwise.

Cool read the Psychic phase rules. Then the terrain rules. Then the D Weapon rules. Then check the FAQs and come back. QED.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Cool read the Psychic phase rules. Then the terrain rules. Then the D Weapon rules. Then check the FAQs and come back. QED.

Check out the definition of Straw Man argument.

Relevance of what you have posted to the argument at hand? Nothing.

If you are trying to convince me that GW is incompetent, then I can only point you to your own personal contradiction at continuing to invest time and money playing a game you don't give the benefit of the doubt to.

We give the benefit of the doubt to the rules that GW provides because once we find ourselves no longer giving the benefit of the doubt to those rules then that is the point in time where we should move on to find another game.

I think almost all of what GW provides is solid and good quality. Do I think it is 100% error free? No. But I will assume it is good quality until proven otherwise. If you want to assume its trash until proven otherwise, then again I ask you why are you playing this game?

You stated that GW were competent at writing rules I listed a bunch of occasions where that is patently not true. So I don't see how that is irrelevant. Or is any argument that proves you wrong irrelevant? How about checking Grimnars rules. They tell you he loses DS granted by his Terminator but give the Chariot a separate 4++ which it should already have from the belt of russ.

The streamlined efficiency of GWs rule writing is not akey driver for my involvement in the hobby or game. It is a barrier to my enjoyment but just because the acting is badin Star Wars it does not stop me from loving those films. In you believe GW fully competent at writing the rules again read the rules I pointed to then come back and explain how well written they are.

 FlingitNow wrote:
You stated that GW were competent at writing rules I listed a bunch of occasions where that is patently not true. So I don't see how that is irrelevant. Or is any argument that proves you wrong irrelevant? How about checking Grimnars rules. They tell you he loses DS granted by his Terminator but give the Chariot a separate 4++ which it should already have from the belt of russ.

The streamlined efficiency of GWs rule writing is not akey driver for my involvement in the hobby or game. It is a barrier to my enjoyment but just because the acting is badin Star Wars it does not stop me from loving those films. In you believe GW fully competent at writing the rules again read the rules I pointed to then come back and explain how well written they are.

An entity can be competent at writing rules while occasionally producing some rules that have problems. I occasionally make errors at my job but that doesn't make me grossly incompetent. All I see is you pointing to some cases (that are overall in the grand scheme exceedingly few in number) where the rules have problems. What is the percentage of rules that have problems to those that don't have problems? Let's say 99% of rules have no problems but 1% of rules have problems.

So let's say I have a rule that gives the bargeLord a 3++ invulnerability to its chariot profile. It's rational to take the rules as written unless there is some actual solid definable reason to proceed otherwise. Otherwise your are proceeding irrationally off suspicion that can't be proven.


If you want to contest my 99% good versus 1% bad rules estimation, then consider that unless you are wanting to say that the MAJORITY of rules that GW produces are TRASH then you are formulating an irrational argument that should be given no credibility.

Saying that GW has some problems with quality control and lets lots of isolated problems into their rules is far, far, far different than claiming that the bulk of what GW produces is of gak quality.

And if indeed you are saying that the bulk of the rules that GW produces are TRASH then your opinion is TOXIC to the people who actually want to play the game and you should excuse yourself from playing the game and find something you can trust in.

So, sure, GW is capable of producing rules that have problems and maybe even they have a quality control issue where they let more rules problem in to the mix than we would like, but the VAST MAJORITY of the rules they produce have no problems, so unless there are solid reasons otherwise, we take rules as written.

In the case of the 3++ conferring to the chariot profile, there is no solid reason to do anything except accept rules as written.

 FlingitNow wrote:
So you believe the RaI is that a Psyker stops being a Psyker the minute he joins a non-Psyker unit? And that a Psyker in a Brotherhood of Psykerd unit doesn't generate Warp Charge? Thete are many known issues that GW hasn't answered. The current FAQs are nothing like the FAQs of 5th and previous editions (and we complained then that they weren't complete). Lack of an FaQ is not evidence of anything. Anyone that believes that is lying to themselves.

Relevance?
The lack of FAQ for some issues does not mean that everything without a FAQ means they forgot to address it.

Grimnar proves they have no handle on the situation much like Shrike does for ICs joining units (which the Wolf dex illustrates they may have finally worked out). Stormrider has its own separate invun and Belt of Russ is worded the same as Phase Shifter which shows they don't think the invun passes over. But as you say he loses special rules so they know those pass over (so they know for instance the Overlord keeps his IC status, which also causes all sorts of issues). So they clearly don't have a handle on the situation.

Well, clearly they DO know stuff passes over to the Chariot otherwise there wouldn't be a reason to remove the Deep Strike.

The RaI is absolutely 100% clear. Anyone that claims it isn't either has a vested interest in the argument or is lying. Play it how you and your group want. Both RaW & RaI are abundantly clear and we all know it. Hopefully the new Codex will sort the issue.

So you have a quite from a rules-writer from GW to tell us what their intent is?
Otherwise you shouldn't use lines like "100% clear"
Ooh, so I am doing this for my own interest or I am lying? Do you troll in every thread or only when it concerns Necrons?