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.

How does Cleaving Counterblow work if Obyron is in a unit?

I'm under the notion that when an enemy assaults into obyron's group you would take the majority WS and toughness, if this is the case, how would you know what misses and how would you add up missed attacks towards cleaving counterblow?

Continued from Tactics thread

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/480149.page

Only on Orbydon is what I say.

I'll just add my posts in here:

Kevin949 wrote:

 sounddemon wrote:
How does Cleaving Counterblow work if Obyron is in a unit?

Same as it does if he's solo.

The enemy attacks would be the same number whether he's in a unit or not, and the enemy is still attempting to strike him whether he's in a unit or not.

Kevin949 wrote:

 sounddemon wrote:
i'm under the notion that when an enemy assaults into obyron's group you would take the majority WS and toughness, if this is the case, how would you know what misses would add up towards cleaving counterblow?

Again, it doesn't matter. It only mattered in 5th because you "had" to allocate attacks against an IC. Now when you assault the unit you're attacking "everyone" which includes him, so essentially every attack is against him or could be counted as being against him. Or every miss, as it were.

Obviously this is different for challenges.

Kevin949 wrote:

 tetrisphreak wrote:
I disagree. When an enemy unit attacks another, they're directing blows at the unit as a whole (therefore majority WS/T applies). Obyron should only get his bonus strikes from cleaving counterblow when he is solo or in a challenge.

So, they either are or are not trying to hit obyron. Which is it? Yes, they are striking at the unit as a whole but he is included in there and is thus being attacked, or having blows directed at him.

Its in the necron faq, look there.

BlackSanguinor wrote:
Its in the necron faq, look there.

No, it's not, look again and then apply the FAQ to the rule in the codex.

Anyone got any opinions on this matter?

Without rules text in front of me I cannot quote, but my argument is basically:

Obyrons rule mentions his model specifically, not his "unit". At the bare minimum interpretation I say cleaving cblow only works when attacks are directed solely at Obyron (challenges/solo combat). Any other time he is considered part of a unit and therefore is no longer solely the target of enemy attacks. How else is the player sure his bonus attacks were actually swings going towards Obyron and not some robot chump? Majority WS is used in cc after all.

So I'm in the "solo/challenge only" camp.

Nevermind, just realized you were in the previous thread.

 tetrisphreak wrote:
Obyrons rule mentions his model specifically, not his "unit". At the bare minimum interpretation I say cleaving cblow only works when attacks are directed solely at Obyron (challenges/solo combat). Any other time he is considered part of a unit and therefore is no longer solely the target of enemy attacks. How else is the player sure his bonus attacks were actually swings going towards Obyron and not some robot chump? Majority WS is used in cc after all.

I looked at the Necron update v1.1 and the Cleaving Counterblow rule on p 61. Where do you see it mentioning "his model specifically"? It just says Obyron.

p2 and p3 show how models are grouped together to form units, also noting that some powerful models are units of 1 model.

Obyron is a model and a unit. He may use the IC rules to join certain other units, but whatever unit he joins will still be "Obyron's unit" even if it might also be "that Immortals unit", etc.

I'm not sure about the relevance of "Majority WS is used in cc after all" being some sort of evidence/deciding factor for this question.

I have not yet looked at the other thread on this, but it seems like any Attacks made against Obyron's unit would count for Cleaving Counterblow unless Obyron was in a challenge.

 tetrisphreak wrote:
Obyrons rule mentions his model specifically, not his "unit". At the bare minimum interpretation I say cleaving cblow only works when attacks are directed solely at Obyron (challenges/solo combat). Any other time he is considered part of a unit and therefore is no longer solely the target of enemy attacks. How else is the player sure his bonus attacks were actually swings going towards Obyron and not some robot chump? Majority WS is used in cc after all.

foolishmortal wrote:
I looked at the Necron update v1.1 and the Cleaving Counterblow rule on p 61. Where do you see it mentioning "his model specifically"? It just says Obyron.

Obyron is Obyron specifically. It doesn't say "Obyron and his unit", which would be required for CC to extend to them.

foolishmortal wrote:
p2 and p3 show how models are grouped together to form units, also noting that some powerful models are units of 1 model.

And page 39 tells you how this actually works.

foolishmortal wrote:
Obyron is a model and a unit.

This is true. It doesn't matter in case of Cleaving Counterblow though.

foolishmortal wrote:
He may use the IC rules to join certain other units, but whatever unit he joins will still be "Obyron's unit" even if it might also be "that Immortals unit", etc.

You're missing that "Obyron's unit" (possessive) is not "Obyron unit" which is what RAW requires. RAI is obviously Obyron (model). And IC rules on page 39 explicitly specify that the combined unit is "Immortals unit" (note that there is no possessive here), not "Obyron unit". Fact that it is "Obyron's unit" doesn't matter in this case at all, as CC doesn't mention "Obyron's unit" at all.
If you want to see example where being "Obyron's unit" does matter, just check the rules for Ghostwalk Mantle on same page and see that in there they explicitly mention "Obyron and his unit".

foolishmortal wrote:
I have not yet looked at the other thread on this, but it seems like any Attacks made against Obyron's unit would count for Cleaving Counterblow unless Obyron was in a challenge.

I disagree strongly. Cleaving Counterblow explicitly specifies that the attacks must be made against Obyron itself. Your argument is completely dependant on assuming "Obyron's unit" and "Obyron (unit)" are same thing, when they're obviously not. See page 39.

To recap: Unless special rule explicitly says "IC and his unit" or requires only one model in unit to have it, that special does not extend to rest of the unit. CC is no different.

Luide wrote:
To recap: Unless special rule explicitly says "IC and his unit" or requires only one model in unit to have it, that special does not extend to rest of the unit. CC is no different.

I'm not extending Cleaving Counterblow to the unit. The Immortals, or Warriors or whatevers don't get extra attacks - just Obyron.

Interesting.
In a challenge, it obvious.
Outside of a challenge, it's messy.
If misses don't generate CCB (cleaving counter blow) then you have generated a situation where he can be hit, but he cannot be missed.
If you have misses generate CCB, then you have a situation where misses generate CCB, but hits might not go to Obyron at all (if you lack precision strikes, and Obyron is tied for closest model).

I do not see a clean and fair solution. Maybe allocate where the hits will be going before the attacks are made, so that you can determine who was missed.

-Matt

foolishmortal wrote:

Luide wrote:
To recap: Unless special rule explicitly says "IC and his unit" or requires only one model in unit to have it, that special does not extend to rest of the unit. CC is no different.

I'm not extending Cleaving Counterblow to the unit. The Immortals, or Warriors or whatevers don't get extra attacks - just Obyron.

You're extending CC's trigger "attack made against Obyron misses" to be "attack made against Immortals Unit misses", so yes, you're extending the rule to the unit.
Close Combat attacks outside challenges are made against the unit (page 24, Rolling To Hit), not against any specific model. And because of how IC rules work, that unit is "Immortals unit", not "Obyron unit".

Note that if you have situation where you have joined Overlord to Obyron, you could argue that all missed attacks against this "Obyron unit" do trigger CC.

Put him in a command barge and just watch the carnage, problem solved

Luide wrote:

foolishmortal wrote:

Luide wrote:
To recap: Unless special rule explicitly says "IC and his unit" or requires only one model in unit to have it, that special does not extend to rest of the unit. CC is no different.

I'm not extending Cleaving Counterblow to the unit. The Immortals, or Warriors or whatevers don't get extra attacks - just Obyron.

You're extending CC's trigger "attack made against Obyron misses" to be "attack made against Immortals Unit misses", so yes, you're extending the rule to the unit.
Close Combat attacks outside challenges are made against the unit (page 24, Rolling To Hit), not against any specific model. And because of how IC rules work, that unit is "Immortals unit", not "Obyron unit".

Note that if you have situation where you have joined Overlord to Obyron, you could argue that all missed attacks against this "Obyron unit" do trigger CC.

It doesn't matter, the specific mentions and the wording of the rule are an oversight from the 5th to 6th transition.

It's a simple question of "is the attacker trying to hit obyron or not?"

It also does not matter if it is called "Immortals Unit" or "Obyrons Unit" so long as he is included in either.

 Kevin949 wrote:

Luide wrote:

foolishmortal wrote:

Luide wrote:
To recap: Unless special rule explicitly says "IC and his unit" or requires only one model in unit to have it, that special does not extend to rest of the unit. CC is no different.

I'm not extending Cleaving Counterblow to the unit. The Immortals, or Warriors or whatevers don't get extra attacks - just Obyron.

You're extending CC's trigger "attack made against Obyron misses" to be "attack made against Immortals Unit misses", so yes, you're extending the rule to the unit.
Close Combat attacks outside challenges are made against the unit (page 24, Rolling To Hit), not against any specific model. And because of how IC rules work, that unit is "Immortals unit", not "Obyron unit".
Note that if you have situation where you have joined Overlord to Obyron, you could argue that all missed attacks against this "Obyron unit" do trigger CC.

It doesn't matter, the specific mentions and the wording of the rule are an oversight from the 5th to 6th transition.

RAW matters. And if you're bringing 5e to 6e transition "oversights" to it, in 5e CC only worked when attacker was specifically attacking Obyron. Shouldn't it therefore work exactly same way in 6e? If it worked any other way, that would be oversight. Now it works pretty much the same as before. Main thing that changed is that Challenge is the new "target the IC" mechanic.

 Kevin949 wrote:
It's a simple question of "is the attacker trying to hit obyron or not?"

And the answer is no. They're not trying to hit Obyron, they're trying to hit Immortals. Major difference. Unless of course Obyron is solo or in challenge, in which case they're actually trying to hit Obyron.

 Kevin949 wrote:
It also does not matter if it is called "Immortals Unit" or "Obyrons Unit" so long as he is included in either.

CC doesn't work for attacks made against "Obyrons unit" (note possessive), it works for attacks made against "Obyron". This is the thing you're missing.

Right. Since cleaving counterblow only refers to Obyron, trying to infer it also applies to when his unit gets attacked is wrong.

Also for clarification see Lukas the trickster and his FAQ entry regarding "pelt of the doppelgangrel"

Luide wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

Luide wrote:

foolishmortal wrote:

Luide wrote:
To recap: Unless special rule explicitly says "IC and his unit" or requires only one model in unit to have it, that special does not extend to rest of the unit. CC is no different.

I'm not extending Cleaving Counterblow to the unit. The Immortals, or Warriors or whatevers don't get extra attacks - just Obyron.

You're extending CC's trigger "attack made against Obyron misses" to be "attack made against Immortals Unit misses", so yes, you're extending the rule to the unit.
Close Combat attacks outside challenges are made against the unit (page 24, Rolling To Hit), not against any specific model. And because of how IC rules work, that unit is "Immortals unit", not "Obyron unit".
Note that if you have situation where you have joined Overlord to Obyron, you could argue that all missed attacks against this "Obyron unit" do trigger CC.

It doesn't matter, the specific mentions and the wording of the rule are an oversight from the 5th to 6th transition.

RAW matters. And if you're bringing 5e to 6e transition "oversights" to it, in 5e CC only worked when attacker was specifically attacking Obyron. Shouldn't it therefore work exactly same way in 6e? If it worked any other way, that would be oversight. Now it works pretty much the same as before. Main thing that changed is that Challenge is the new "target the IC" mechanic.

 Kevin949 wrote:
It's a simple question of "is the attacker trying to hit obyron or not?"

And the answer is no. They're not trying to hit Obyron, they're trying to hit Immortals. Major difference. Unless of course Obyron is solo or in challenge, in which case they're actually trying to hit Obyron.

 Kevin949 wrote:
It also does not matter if it is called "Immortals Unit" or "Obyrons Unit" so long as he is included in either.

CC doesn't work for attacks made against "Obyrons unit" (note possessive), it works for attacks made against "Obyron". This is the thing you're missing.

If you apply an older ruleset to the newer one then you're playing the game wrong. So, no, it should not be played "exactly the same" because the rules have changed. Yes, in 5th you had a mechanic similar to challenges but you were REQUIRED to split attacks if you EVER wanted to hit the IC. Now, you are not.

Oh, great, so I don't have to allocate wounds to him them?

No, I'm missing nothing. You're missing that the rule only says "when enemies attempt to strike obyron". If he can be hit 'at all' then he can be missed against. And yes, while you do use majority WS for CC it doesn't discount that obryons WS is counted in that majority.

You can't equate "Obyron" to mean "Just Obyron", which is what you're doing. the issue I'm having, personally, is coming up with another example of a situation similar to this.

In close combat the hits aren't actually allocated until a successful wound has been caused. We have no way of knowing who was hit or who was missed. However since when IC's join units they effectively become a part of it, not the other way around then I would say no, misses don't generate cleaving counter blow.

"You can't equate "Obyron" to mean "Just Obyron",
which is what you're doing."


That's exactly what you have to do, otherwise you're inferring extra rules!

If you cannot miss him, then you should not be able to attack him, imo.

Yeah kinda odd that it wasn't addressed seeing as they tried to fix quite a bit but in the end we compromised and did the 5th edition BtB plus those only within 2" of said model are considered attacking Obyron in our group. Not as insane as the whole unit nor as completely negating as no additional attacks.

 Kevin949 wrote:
If you apply an older ruleset to the newer one then you're playing the game wrong.

I'm not applying "older ruleset" at all. I'm checking how the Codex Necrons rules with Errata interact with 6e rules. And I didn't bring the 5e to 6e transition to this discussion, it was you who did it. Let me remind you:

 Kevin949 wrote:
It doesn't matter, the specific mentions and the wording of the rule are an oversight from the 5th to 6th transition.

 Kevin949 wrote:
You can't equate "Obyron" to mean "Just Obyron", which is what you're doing.

Actually, this is exactly what must be done. Otherwise you're just making up rules.
Think about this for a second. Unless "Obyron" means "Just Obyron", then all special rules that apply to Obyron would apply to his whole unit. Maybe even for the whole army. Perhaps the enemy army too. No, it should be obvious that when rules say "X" it means "Just X". Any other interpretation has massive consequences that break the game.

In 6e rules changed, this just means that Cleaving Counterblow is lot more situational than it used to be. When Obyron is joined to a unit and not in a challenge, in close combat nobody is trying to hit Obyron. In fact, nobody can even hit him, they can only hit the unit. Note that they cannot hit any other specific model in the unit either. Now, Wounds inflicted to the unit may be allocated to Obyron, but that has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.

Luide wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:
If you apply an older ruleset to the newer one then you're playing the game wrong.

I'm not applying "older ruleset" at all. I'm checking how the Codex Necrons rules with Errata interact with 6e rules. And I didn't bring the 5e to 6e transition to this discussion, it was you who did it. Let me remind you:

 Kevin949 wrote:
It doesn't matter, the specific mentions and the wording of the rule are an oversight from the 5th to 6th transition.

 Kevin949 wrote:
You can't equate "Obyron" to mean "Just Obyron", which is what you're doing.

Actually, this is exactly what must be done. Otherwise you're just making up rules.
Think about this for a second. Unless "Obyron" means "Just Obyron", then all special rules that apply to Obyron would apply to his whole unit. Maybe even for the whole army. Perhaps the enemy army too. No, it should be obvious that when rules say "X" it means "Just X". Any other interpretation has massive consequences that break the game.

In 6e rules changed, this just means that Cleaving Counterblow is lot more situational than it used to be. When Obyron is joined to a unit and not in a challenge, in close combat nobody is trying to hit Obyron. In fact, nobody can even hit him, they can only hit the unit. Note that they cannot hit any other specific model in the unit either. Now, Wounds inflicted to the unit may be allocated to Obyron, but that has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.

Ya, you don't have to remind me of what I said, you were the one that said it should work the same way as it did in fifth edition. All I said was that it was simply an oversight [for when they wrote the FAQ] from 5th to 6th. I'm sorry I didn't write that bracketed part in earlier, I thought it was easy enough to discern I was talking about the FAQ since the necrons didn't get a 6th edition codex.

And no, precision strikers can still target him specifically, outside of challenges. I'm sure there are other things that can either target specific models in melee. So, you say they're trying to hit the unit but is he not a part of that? Yes I know, full circle of "But it's not this, it's that!"
I know you all think it's a transference of his rule to the unit but it's not, otherwise everyone would get bonus attacks.

Anyway, it's clear you're all set in your thinking, I'm set in mine. I'll just wait for the FAQ (if their email address is actually worth a damn).

 Kevin949 wrote:
Ya, you don't have to remind me of what I said, you were the one that said it should work the same way as it did in fifth edition.

No, my whole point was that it was kinda strange for you to argue that "RAW doesn't matter because it's 5e codex in 6e" and pointed out that if 5e to 6e transition had some "oversights" in it, wouldn't it be logical that we'd argue for CC to work as it did in 5e. I agree it's not RAW argument, but that is because it was an answer to a "RAW doesn't matter" argument.

 Kevin949 wrote:
It doesn't matter, the specific mentions and the wording of the rule are an oversight from the 5th to 6th transition.

Luide wrote:
And if you're bringing 5e to 6e transition "oversights" to it, in 5e CC only worked when attacker was specifically attacking Obyron. Shouldn't it therefore work exactly same way in 6e?

 Kevin949 wrote:
And no, precision strikers can still target him specifically, outside of challenges. I'm sure there are other things that can either target specific models in melee.

Actually, you don't allocate hits with Precision Strikes.Relevant quote from page 63.

Rulebook page 63 wrote:Wounds from Precision Strikes are allocated...

But you're correct about special rules, Rapier Strike in C:GK would trigger CC. I guess should have written the obvious "special rules may apply" disclaimer to the "you only attack, and therefore hit units, not models" part after all. Anyway, we both were talking about the generic case with normal attacks and those either hit or miss the unit, not any specific model in it as Page 24 says.

 Kevin949 wrote:
So, you say they're trying to hit the unit but is he not a part of that?

Oh, he is part of the unit. But the problem is that combined unit is not Obyron, which would be required for CC to work. Simply put: If A is member of B, that doesn't make mean B is A.
So unless the attacks are actually targeted towards him via either a) Obyron being in challenge b) Obyron being solo c) special rule they're not missing him. Well, there's actually fourth option I can think of: Attacks directed against unit compromised of Obyron and any number of IC's joined to him will also trigger Cleaving Counterblow, as it is an Obyron unit per IC rules.

 Kevin949 wrote:
I know you all think it's a transference of his rule to the unit but it's not, otherwise everyone would get bonus attacks.

You're transferring the trigger from "Attack misses Obyron" to "Attack misses unit that Obyron is member of".
Lets take similar example. Mordrak creates Ghost Knights when "Mordrak suffers an unsaved wound". Do you think Mordrak can create new Ghost Knights when "model suffers unsaved wound in unit Mordrak is member of", and if not, why are you arguing for "X means just X" in case of Mordrak, but not in case of Obyron.

It's pretty easy to determine who is going to try to hit a single model since allocation is determined by the position of the models. For attacking models in B2B to or whose closest enemy is Obyron roll to hit separately counting up the misses. You still use majority WS of course but at least you have the maximum number of models that are going to allocate their wounds to him.

+1 to Luide on all accounts.

Luide wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:
Ya, you don't have to remind me of what I said, you were the one that said it should work the same way as it did in fifth edition.

No, my whole point was that it was kinda strange for you to argue that "RAW doesn't matter because it's 5e codex in 6e" and pointed out that if 5e to 6e transition had some "oversights" in it, wouldn't it be logical that we'd argue for CC to work as it did in 5e. I agree it's not RAW argument, but that is because it was an answer to a "RAW doesn't matter" argument.

 Kevin949 wrote:
It doesn't matter, the specific mentions and the wording of the rule are an oversight from the 5th to 6th transition.

Luide wrote:
And if you're bringing 5e to 6e transition "oversights" to it, in 5e CC only worked when attacker was specifically attacking Obyron. Shouldn't it therefore work exactly same way in 6e?

 Kevin949 wrote:
And no, precision strikers can still target him specifically, outside of challenges. I'm sure there are other things that can either target specific models in melee.

Actually, you don't allocate hits with Precision Strikes.Relevant quote from page 63.

Rulebook page 63 wrote:Wounds from Precision Strikes are allocated...

But you're correct about special rules, Rapier Strike in C:GK would trigger CC. I guess should have written the obvious "special rules may apply" disclaimer to the "you only attack, and therefore hit units, not models" part after all. Anyway, we both were talking about the generic case with normal attacks and those either hit or miss the unit, not any specific model in it as Page 24 says.

 Kevin949 wrote:
So, you say they're trying to hit the unit but is he not a part of that?

Oh, he is part of the unit. But the problem is that combined unit is not Obyron, which would be required for CC to work. Simply put: If A is member of B, that doesn't make mean B is A.
So unless the attacks are actually targeted towards him via either a) Obyron being in challenge b) Obyron being solo c) special rule they're not missing him. Well, there's actually fourth option I can think of: Attacks directed against unit compromised of Obyron and any number of IC's joined to him will also trigger Cleaving Counterblow, as it is an Obyron unit per IC rules.

 Kevin949 wrote:
I know you all think it's a transference of his rule to the unit but it's not, otherwise everyone would get bonus attacks.

You're transferring the trigger from "Attack misses Obyron" to "Attack misses unit that Obyron is member of".
Lets take similar example. Mordrak creates Ghost Knights when "Mordrak suffers an unsaved wound". Do you think Mordrak can create new Ghost Knights when "model suffers unsaved wound in unit Mordrak is member of", and if not, why are you arguing for "X means just X" in case of Mordrak, but not in case of Obyron.

Well let me say I wasn't arguing that RAW didn't matter because it's a 5th edition codex. I simply said it was an oversight for FAQ'ing. Nothing more. If you inferred more from my statement, I'm sorry, it wasn't intended.

I didn't say "allocate hits" anyway, I said targeted. And if a 6 to hit allows you to target a specific model then a 1 (or whatever, only using for reference not specificity) to miss must also mean that it could have counted against that model.

Transferring the trigger because the attacks are still directed at him. Either specifically or generically. In your example with modrak that doesn't even compare because he must suffer an unsaved wound. You may see it as the same thing, but it's a completely different step in the resolution process to trigger that effect. And by what you're saying, he wouldn't be able to do it in a unit anyway as he "didn't suffer the wound, the unit did".

 Kevin949 wrote:
I didn't say "allocate hits" anyway, I said targeted. And if a 6 to hit allows you to target a specific model then a 1 (or whatever, only using for reference not specificity) to miss must also mean that it could have counted against that model.

Precision strikes aren't targeted to specific model either. You really need to re-read the rules regarding them. I've quoted them here to make it easier

Rulebook page 63 wrote: Just like when shooting, if any of a character's close combat Attacks roll 6 To Hit, these are Precision Strikes. Wounds from Precision Strikes are allocated against an engaged model (or models) of your choice in the unit he is attacking, rather than following the normal rules for Wound allocation. If a Precision Strike Wound is allocated to a character, they can still make their Look Out, Sir roll.

See? Nowhere in the rules is there any mention of Precision Strike itself being targeted toward specific model. Normal attacks (outside challenges) aren't targeted against invidual models and neither are Precision Strikes.

I restate my argument: Excluding some Special rules and challenges, attacks are always directed towards unit, not at any specific model in the unit. (p24) Note that Precision Strike is not one of those special rules and I'm pretty sure all those Special rules are found in Codexes, not rulebook.
So by RAW, normal attacks outside challenges always hit and miss units. This means no specific model in the unit is ever hit and thus no specific model is ever missed either. If you disagree with this statement, give me rules quote that supports your position. You might have hard time finding it though, Close Combat rules in the rulebook only talk about attacking and hitting units.
(One could make an argument about attack against single model unit being directed towards the only model in the unit, but that argument is irrelevant in this case and most likely in all others too.)

So when Obyron is joined to a unit and is in close combat with generic enemy with no characters and no special rules, that generic enemy is attempting to strike at the unit, not at Obyron.

 Kevin949 wrote:
Transferring the trigger because the attacks are still directed at him.

Need rules quote for this. I've given rules quotees why this is not true, now you really need to start giving some actual rules to support your position. So far, I've seen none.

 Kevin949 wrote:
Either specifically or generically.

First, rules don't support your "generically targeted" interpretation in any way. Attack either is directed towards Obyron specifically, or it isn't directed towards Obyron at all. And I've already pointed out that the rules that show attacks are obviously not directed towards Obyron specifically and I've also shown that Obyrons rules require that the attacks need to be directed specifically towards him

C:Necrons, page 61 wrote: "Cleaving Counterblow: When enemies attempt to strike Obyron in dose combat..."

Note how the rule specifically says Obyron. It doesn't say "Obyron or his unit" or "Obyron and his unit" like Ghostwalk Mantle in the paragraph above this rule does. And yes, Obyron obviously does mean "Just Obyron", because any other interpretation is just plain silly like I showed with my Mordrak example.

 Kevin949 wrote:
In your example with modrak that doesn't even compare because he must suffer an unsaved wound. You may see it as the same thing, but it's a completely different step in the resolution process to trigger that effect.

No, they're exactly same thing. Either "Mordrak" means "Just Mordrak" and "Obyron" means "Just Obyron" or neither does.
quote=Kevin949 481913 4870037 900f8229b741c0ede87e3d289ca1e01c.jpeg]And by what you're saying, he wouldn't be able to do it in a unit anyway as he "didn't suffer the wound, the unit did".

Sorry, I don't see your point you're trying make with precision strikes. What you're saying and what the rules say aren't the same thing. The strike itself may not say "targets specially equipped models" or "Targets characters" but the fact you, the precision striker, can allocate the wound does in fact mean the attack is able to specifically target a model.

Yes, of course there's nothing in the rulebook to address a situation like this, it's a codex specific advanced rule. Thus the debate about it.

You've given rules why you feel it's not true. So far all you've quoted are generic assault rules for an advanced situation.

Ok but you rmordrak example would actually work when a wound is allocated to him and consequently unsaved. Unless there's an FAQ that says it doesn't, which I wouldn't understand why (but I'm not familiar with mordrak at all). So if there's no FAQ for it and you truly feel that mordrak suffering an unsaved wound while part of a unit would not allow his ability to trigger then I don't know what to say. You obviously have your own way of interpreting the rules, as do I.

No, they're not, see above this.