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.

So in playing smaller games I've taken a Necron Lord as my HQ choice, and one time, I even took a Cryptek. We're talking <500 points here, and no one has ever had a problem with it. So my question is, "Is this allowed?" An opponent pointed out that you could only take a Necron Lord or Cryptek if I had already taken an Overlord as part of a Royal Court. This seems a little nuts to me, but I wanted to hear others' opinions on this.

Second question, and this may be a stupid question, but, "Is the Linebreaker Secondary Objective 1 Victory point for any unit with a model's base wholly in the opponent's deployment zone, or for each?" I think its just one however I just wanted clarification.

Thanks for answering my questions everyone.

You have to have an Overlord to access a Royal Court.

Yes, lords and crypteks are not legal models to take in and of themselves, you have to follow the rules for the royal court.

Also, linebreaker only applies once for having 'a' unit within the appropriate location; you do not get the victory point for it more than once per game.

The model's base does not have to be "wholly" within the deployment zone.

 NakedSeamus wrote:
So in playing smaller games I've taken a Necron Lord as my HQ choice, and one time, I even took a Cryptek. We're talking <500 points here, and no one has ever had a problem with it. So my question is, "Is this allowed?" An opponent pointed out that you could only take a Necron Lord or Cryptek if I had already taken an Overlord as part of a Royal Court. This seems a little nuts to me, but I wanted to hear others' opinions on this.

Second question, and this may be a stupid question, but, "Is the Linebreaker Secondary Objective 1 Victory point for any unit with a model's base wholly in the opponent's deployment zone, or for each?" I think its just one however I just wanted clarification.

Thanks for answering my questions everyone.

It would be broken if you could take a lord or cryptek for under 50 points.

Codexes with 90pt+ HQs would be spitting.

Like an Ordo Malleus/Xenos/Hereticus inquisitor for 25 points?

Scipio Africanus wrote:

 NakedSeamus wrote:
So in playing smaller games I've taken a Necron Lord as my HQ choice, and one time, I even took a Cryptek. We're talking <500 points here, and no one has ever had a problem with it. So my question is, "Is this allowed?" An opponent pointed out that you could only take a Necron Lord or Cryptek if I had already taken an Overlord as part of a Royal Court. This seems a little nuts to me, but I wanted to hear others' opinions on this.

Second question, and this may be a stupid question, but, "Is the Linebreaker Secondary Objective 1 Victory point for any unit with a model's base wholly in the opponent's deployment zone, or for each?" I think its just one however I just wanted clarification.

Thanks for answering my questions everyone.

It would be broken if you could take a lord or cryptek for under 50 points.

Codexes with 90pt+ HQs would be spitting.

I don't think its terribly broken considering its not much better than your average space marine without upgrades, and the upgrades I usually choose more than double the cost of a lord or cryptek. Not sure what you mean by codexes with a 90pt+ HQs would be spitting. Having played a few games having just taken a Lord as an HQ (wrong as I was) it rarely seemed overpowered or broken. Even with all of their upgrades there is always one huge downside: 1 Wound!

Follow up question then, "If I split the royal court up into squads are they still considered HQ choices, or do they just count as the same type as the squad?" Can they still leave and join other squads freely like independent characters (despite crypteks not being IP (and yet still having Ever-living))? What if (in the case of the cryptek) his squad of Warriors is wiped out, if he isn't considered an HQ choice do I treat him more like a Sgt, ie can he still score? I would think not, but this whole idea has opened up a number of questions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fragile wrote:
The model's base does not have to be "wholly" within the deployment zone.

Also, since I just noticed your post, you are incorrect. Here, straight from the BRB FAQ:

Q: To score a Victory Point for achieving the Linebreaker Secondary
Objective, you must have at least one model from one or more scoring
or denial units within the enemy’s deployment zone. Does such a
model have to be completely within the enemy’s deployment zone, or
do they still count if they are only partially within? (p122)
A: The base of the model in question must be wholly within
the enemy’s deployment zone.

Source: http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2590005a_40K_RULEBOOK_v1a.pdf

jms40k wrote:
Like an Ordo Malleus/Xenos/Hereticus inquisitor for 25 points?

Apples to oranges, peaches to plums

Sure, GK HQs can be cheap, but their troops are expensive

10 basic strikes = 200 points (2 squads).

that means the minimum legal army is 225 points
the minimum legal army for sm is 250 points
the minimum legal army for Necrons if they could get a (what, 50 pt leader) and 2 troops is in the range of 180 points

Fragile wrote:
The model's base does not have to be "wholly" within the deployment zone.

Yes it does. This is explicitly answered in Rulebook FAQ, page 7,
Q: To score a Victory Point for achieving the Linebreaker Secondary Objective, you must have at least one model from one or more scoring or denial units within the enemy’s deployment zone. Does such a model have to be completely within the enemy’s deployment zone, or
do they still count if they are only partially within? (p122)
A: The base of the model in question must be wholly within the enemy’s deployment zone.

First no, you can use a lord as an HQ choice that would be super broken. When you pay for an Overlord part of the cost isl unlocking a royal court. Next, royal court members don't count as an HQ choice in fact they don't count as anything with regards to the force organization, the only requirement is that to take a royal court you must have an Overlord in your army. When you split up a royal court into squads the members of the court simply act as characters, similar to space marine sergeants they do not benefit from independent character rules. As for whether or not the if the last remaining member is a cryptek thanks to it's everliving rule the general consensus is that it can score but this still needs a FAQ.

Scipio Africanus wrote:

jms40k wrote:
Like an Ordo Malleus/Xenos/Hereticus inquisitor for 25 points?

Apples to oranges, peaches to plums

Sure, GK HQs can be cheap, but their troops are expensive

10 basic strikes = 200 points (2 squads).

that means the minimum legal army is 225 points
the minimum legal army for sm is 250 points
the minimum legal army for Necrons if they could get a (what, 50 pt leader) and 2 troops is in the range of 180 points

And minimum legal army for Nids is 130.

 Happyjew wrote:

Scipio Africanus wrote:

jms40k wrote:
Like an Ordo Malleus/Xenos/Hereticus inquisitor for 25 points?

Apples to oranges, peaches to plums

Sure, GK HQs can be cheap, but their troops are expensive

10 basic strikes = 200 points (2 squads).

that means the minimum legal army is 225 points
the minimum legal army for sm is 250 points
the minimum legal army for Necrons if they could get a (what, 50 pt leader) and 2 troops is in the range of 180 points

And minimum legal army for Nids is 130.

140 actually (80+30+30) but its a worthless army.

I thought prime was 70 points. Oh well, I agree its worthless.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

Scipio Africanus wrote:

jms40k wrote:
Like an Ordo Malleus/Xenos/Hereticus inquisitor for 25 points?

Apples to oranges, peaches to plums

Sure, GK HQs can be cheap, but their troops are expensive

10 basic strikes = 200 points (2 squads).

that means the minimum legal army is 225 points
the minimum legal army for sm is 250 points
the minimum legal army for Necrons if they could get a (what, 50 pt leader) and 2 troops is in the range of 180 points

And minimum legal army for Nids is 130.

140 actually (80+30+30) but its a worthless army.

This is still apples to oranges.

When you talk nids, you're talking a really really weak army. Necron warriors are arguably some of the most survivable medium infantry in the game. Termagants, as much as I love them, are pointlessly weak to the extent that, at low point games, it's easier just to take warriors.

The 30 points is Rippers - even worse. :-)

also wanted to point out that Lords and Crypteks are Characters according to the BRB, and once broken up from the Royal Court, they count as upgrades to the unit they join as per the rules for characters. IE a Lord counts as an upgraded Warrior in the same way a Sergeant is still a space marine.

This opens up some shenanigans with the ghost ark being able to bring back lords and crypteks now in 6th edition, thanks to that little above loophole I stated above....but I think there is some debate on whither its legal or not, but that's for a different thread, lol.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jms40k wrote:
Like an Ordo Malleus/Xenos/Hereticus inquisitor for 25 points?



Apples to oranges, peaches to plums

Sure, GK HQs can be cheap, but their troops are expensive

10 basic strikes = 200 points (2 squads).

that means the minimum legal army is 225 points
the minimum legal army for sm is 250 points
the minimum legal army for Necrons if they could get a (what, 50 pt leader) and 2 troops is in the range of 180 points

When an HQ is cheaper like the inquisitor, it opens more points to be spent elsewhere. Statistically, a 10 man of GK strike squads and a Inq will beat a 15(roughly the same point cost) man of warriors and a (for the sake of argument Lord). Now look at the stats of each of these units. They're both MEQ so that's moot. GK SS have a storm bolter which is Assault 2 S4 AP5 and a Nemesis Force Sword versus the Necron Warriors Gauss Flayer S4 AP5 Rapid Fire, Gauss. Outside of 12" range, GKs out-shoot the Necrons with 20 S4 shoots versus 15, with crons beating them below the 12" range by doubling their shots to 30. However what makes GK SS much better as a troop comes with their In4 and NFS while the crons have nothing and are only IN2. with roughly balanced shooting, Close combat becomes wholely one sided. Not to mention GK SS have grenades (assault and defensive, the Psk out are pointless in this situation), They have access to deepstrike, TSKNF, and are Psykers versus the crons only SR of RP with no other grenades or special wargear. and for the price of less than a warrior, you can make the entire unit of GKs shoot S5 bolter fire. Suddenly now they have Tau level firepower at BS 4 without needing something like a marker-light. (which is 30/40? points for the Tau btw just to have a chance at being BS4, but thats balanced right?)

now on the the HQ slot, Inq are 25 points base plus upgrades. Lords are 35. Typical Lord Setup is MSS, Warscythe and MAYBE a Res Orb (60-90 points depending on the orb) for a In2 power armor marine with no shooting attack. On the other hand, the Inquisitor is 25 base, +2 wounds than the Lord -1 S and T In4 and +1 A. The lord has a +3 save versus the Inq 4+ but for only 8 points they can upgrade to 3+ (making the inq 33 points base). And if you take the Ordo Malleus, you have the option of turning him into basically a GK terminator with a deamon hammer, making him 65 points total. 5 points more than the basic loadout of a Lord.

Long story short, please explain to me how a character costing more than your HQ/warlord with a worse stat-line is broken? And if you make it Legal and turn said Lord into an Overlord for the same Loadout, it turns to 115/145. All to get the Stat-line equivalence of your HQ at half the cost. But that's broken?

Punisher wrote:
First no, you can use a lord as an HQ choice that would be super broken. When you pay for an Overlord part of the cost isl unlocking a royal court. Next, royal court members don't count as an HQ choice in fact they don't count as anything with regards to the force organization, the only requirement is that to take a royal court you must have an Overlord in your army. When you split up a royal court into squads the members of the court simply act as characters, similar to space marine sergeants they do not benefit from independent character rules. As for whether or not the if the last remaining member is a cryptek thanks to it's everliving rule the general consensus is that it can score but this still needs a FAQ.

Yes, if any part of the royal court stays together then the "Royal Court" unit *is* an HQ. It just does not take up an HQ Slot and you are required to field the requisite models to unlock the royal court but that does not, by any means, change it to a "nothing". The members that split off to join units become "Troops" or "Elites" depending on who they join.

Also, royal court members are *always* characters, no matter if they split off to units or stay in the royal court. They *never* have the independent character rule.

Why would it need an FAQ? The lord/cryptek leading a unit of warriors or immortals does not stop leading that unit. They do not stop being a part of the unit during the game, it is against the rules for them to do so, for any reason other than being removed from play completely. Everliving has zero to do with any of that.

Legal army for DE is 110.

50pt Haemonculus
x3 Wracks- 30pts
x3 Wracks- 30pts

But yes as others have said. An Overlord isn eeded for a Crytek.

You only get 1 pt for Linebreaker and the base does have to be fully within.

 Kevin949 wrote:

Punisher wrote:
First no, you can use a lord as an HQ choice that would be super broken. When you pay for an Overlord part of the cost isl unlocking a royal court. Next, royal court members don't count as an HQ choice in fact they don't count as anything with regards to the force organization, the only requirement is that to take a royal court you must have an Overlord in your army. When you split up a royal court into squads the members of the court simply act as characters, similar to space marine sergeants they do not benefit from independent character rules. As for whether or not the if the last remaining member is a cryptek thanks to it's everliving rule the general consensus is that it can score but this still needs a FAQ.

Yes, if any part of the royal court stays together then the "Royal Court" unit *is* an HQ. It just does not take up an HQ Slot and you are required to field the requisite models to unlock the royal court but that does not, by any means, change it to a "nothing". The members that split off to join units become "Troops" or "Elites" depending on who they join.

Also, royal court members are *always* characters, no matter if they split off to units or stay in the royal court. They *never* have the independent character rule.

Why would it need an FAQ? The lord/cryptek leading a unit of warriors or immortals does not stop leading that unit. They do not stop being a part of the unit during the game, it is against the rules for them to do so, for any reason other than being removed from play completely. Everliving has zero to do with any of that.

In this particular instance the Cryptek and his unit were wiped out and the Cryptek came back thanks to Everliving. In which case, can he join a new unit or is he still the same type of unit that his was as part of the squad. In other words if the warrior unit was wiped out, and he stood back up, can he still score?

Yes, he can still score and no he cannot join another unit. He's still part of the warrior unit he joined.

Broken or not isn't the issue and really has no place in the discussion. The question is legal or not, and no, it's not legal without an Overlord. You might talk with your group though. <500pts is a really odd set up for 40k anyways, so you might all come to the agreement that it's fine, or do something like a "1 HQ, 1 Troop" set up like I've seen some groups do.

 lucasbuffalo wrote:
Broken or not isn't the issue and really has no place in the discussion. The question is legal or not, and no, it's not legal without an Overlord. You might talk with your group though. <500pts is a really odd set up for 40k anyways, so you might all come to the agreement that it's fine, or do something like a "1 HQ, 1 Troop" set up like I've seen some groups do.

I agree with you after this excellent discussion as to broken or not, in the games such as those you've mentioned above it hasn't been particularly broken to pay less for less (Lord weaker than and Overlord also does not come with a royal court, so why would I pay for it in fun games anyway?). Anyway flipping through my rulebook I came up with yet another question.

How does nightfighting interact with models that already have stealth or shrouded. In most games I've played where my scarabs are greater than 12 inches away, we've treated the stealth special rule given by NF as cumulative with the already existing special rule for the model. (Since stealth and shrouded are cumulative anyway). Is this correct? It makes since that a stealthy model or unit would be even more able to take advantage of the dark and get the extra bonus despite already having the special rule. What do you guys think?

To my knowledge, and I may be wrong, but stealth and shrouded, like all special rules, are redundant and not self-stacking. They stack with each other, but not with themselves.

 lucasbuffalo wrote:
To my knowledge, and I may be wrong, but stealth and shrouded, like all special rules, are redundant and not self-stacking. They stack with each other, but not with themselves.

That be correct.

You have stealth +1 cover, you have stealth, you still get +1 cover

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 lucasbuffalo wrote:
To my knowledge, and I may be wrong, but stealth and shrouded, like all special rules, are redundant and not self-stacking. They stack with each other, but not with themselves.

That be correct.

You have stealth +1 cover, you have stealth, you still get +1 cover

So in other words no double dipping. I can get 3+ to my cover for having my own Stealth Rule plus the Shrouded due to night fighting, but I can't get 2+ to my save for already Having Stealth and then being given it again. Shucks, that stinks, but oh well.

Another Question (don't know why I have so many right now). How does Entropic Strike interact with Feel No Pain. They way I read it, as the model still suffers an "unsaved Wound" then it loses its Armor Save, whether or not it makes it's Feel No Pain roll. Reasoning:

BRB states that FNP "is not a saving throw."

Says the "unsaved wound is discounted."

So since the model has to "suffer an unsaved wound" for FNP to trigger in the first place, it still loses its armor save correct?

That's not what FNP says.

 NakedSeamus wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 lucasbuffalo wrote:
To my knowledge, and I may be wrong, but stealth and shrouded, like all special rules, are redundant and not self-stacking. They stack with each other, but not with themselves.

That be correct.

You have stealth +1 cover, you have stealth, you still get +1 cover

So in other words no double dipping. I can get 3+ to my cover for having my own Stealth Rule plus the Shrouded due to night fighting, but I can't get 2+ to my save for already Having Stealth and then being given it again. Shucks, that stinks, but oh well.

Another Question (don't know why I have so many right now). How does Entropic Strike interact with Feel No Pain. They way I read it, as the model still suffers an "unsaved Wound" then it loses its Armor Save, whether or not it makes it's Feel No Pain roll. Reasoning:

BRB states that FNP "is not a saving throw."

Says the "unsaved wound is discounted."

So since the model has to "suffer an unsaved wound" for FNP to trigger in the first place, it still loses its armor save correct?

You can argue it either way tbh, the way that makes the most sense though is if FNP is made the model does not lose it's armor save.

rigeld2 wrote:
That's not what FNP says.

From the BRB pg 35:

"Feel No Pain
When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound, it can make a special Feel No Pain roll to avoid being wounded (this is not a saving throw). Roll a D6 each time an unsaved Wound is suffered, On a 4 or less, you must take the Wound as normal, On a 5+, the unsaved Wound is discounted - treat it as having been saved.

Note that Feel No Pain rolls cannot be made against Wounds that inflict Instant Death.

If a unit has the Feel No Pain special rule with a number in brackets afterwards - Feel No Pain (6+) for example - then the number in brackets is the D6 result needed to discount the Wound."

Its essentially an argument of what takes precedence. RAW the model must suffer an unsaved Wound to trigger either ability, therefore the armor save is gone. If you like at it from a common sense point of view, I just ate through your armor to wound you, however, you're so tough, zealous, furious, etc. to notice and you continue to soldier on, naked or not

If it weren't for the fact that the Entropic Strike Rules specifically state that the model "immediately" loses it's armor save for the remainder of the battle, I would say that people that oppose this would be in a better position to argue, but it couldn't hurt from an FAQ

 NakedSeamus wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
That's not what FNP says.

From the BRB pg 35:

"Feel No Pain
When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound, it can make a special Feel No Pain roll to avoid being wounded (this is not a saving throw). Roll a D6 each time an unsaved Wound is suffered, On a 4 or less, you must take the Wound as normal, On a 5+, the unsaved Wound is discounted - treat it as having been saved.

Note that Feel No Pain rolls cannot be made against Wounds that inflict Instant Death.

If a unit has the Feel No Pain special rule with a number in brackets afterwards - Feel No Pain (6+) for example - then the number in brackets is the D6 result needed to discount the Wound."

Its essentially an argument of what takes precedence. RAW the model must suffer an unsaved Wound to trigger either ability, therefore the armor save is gone. If you like at it from a common sense point of view, I just ate through your armor to wound you, however, you're so tough, zealous, furious, etc. to notice and you continue to soldier on, naked or not

If it weren't for the fact that the Entropic Strike Rules specifically state that the model "immediately" loses it's armor save for the remainder of the battle, I would say that people that oppose this would be in a better position to argue, but it couldn't hurt from an FAQ

I'm on the other side of the fence
has the model suffered an unsaved wound?
Nope. The unsaved wound is discounted. (treat it as having been saved) If I treat it as having been saved, obviously I havn't suffered an unsaved wound.

 NakedSeamus wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
That's not what FNP says.

From the BRB pg 35:

"Feel No Pain
When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound, it can make a special Feel No Pain roll to avoid being wounded (this is not a saving throw). Roll a D6 each time an unsaved Wound is suffered, On a 4 or less, you must take the Wound as normal, On a 5+, the unsaved Wound is discounted - treat it as having been saved.

Note that Feel No Pain rolls cannot be made against Wounds that inflict Instant Death.

If a unit has the Feel No Pain special rule with a number in brackets afterwards - Feel No Pain (6+) for example - then the number in brackets is the D6 result needed to discount the Wound."

Its essentially an argument of what takes precedence. RAW the model must suffer an unsaved Wound to trigger either ability, therefore the armor save is gone. If you like at it from a common sense point of view, I just ate through your armor to wound you, however, you're so tough, zealous, furious, etc. to notice and you continue to soldier on, naked or not

If it weren't for the fact that the Entropic Strike Rules specifically state that the model "immediately" loses it's armor save for the remainder of the battle, I would say that people that oppose this would be in a better position to argue, but it couldn't hurt from an FAQ

The bold is what you missed. If you apply Entropic Strike, you're not treating the wound as having been saved.