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.

 skoffs wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

omerakk wrote:

The only way I see a Doom Scythe Death Ray matching that kind of point per damage output is if you line up some of your own dudes next to the SuperHeavy and sacrifice them in the Death Ray so you ramp up the number of hits. That would be a cool way to do it though.

That's not how the death ray works...

Well, that is indeed how it works. You may hit your own models with it, it is specifically mentioned in the weapon rules for the Focused Death Ray ("friendly or enemy"). Hit 3 of your own models, hit the super heavy and both your unit and the super heavy get 8 S10 AP1 hits. That's bye-bye for the super heavy. And your unit too most likely

Even if you don't hit your own models, just hit a single model other than the super heavy and you are already looking at 4 S10 AP1 hits for the super heavy, giving you a good chance to destroy it as well.

... as this is a case of exploiting a RAW loophole of a poorly written rule, this would be something you wouldn't normally do in friendly games.

I for one would never play that model like that- it's both silly and ridiculously OP.

I'm pretty sure it was faq'ed to not work like that last edition. just like how the pistol upgrade for wraiths didn't give them an extra attack.

Of course, now we are in that weird "early new edition" phase where they decide to dump the majority of the previous faq and leave some answered questions in limbo.

omerakk wrote:
I'm pretty sure it was faq'ed to not work like that last edition. just like how the pistol upgrade for wraiths didn't give them an extra attack.

Of course, now we are in that weird "early new edition" phase where they decide to dump the majority of the previous faq and leave some answered questions in limbo.

The Death Ray was FAQ'd. IA12 still has not received an update yet. And people wonder why FW has a bad reputation rules-wise.

 Galorian wrote:

 skoffs wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

omerakk wrote:

The only way I see a Doom Scythe Death Ray matching that kind of point per damage output is if you line up some of your own dudes next to the SuperHeavy and sacrifice them in the Death Ray so you ramp up the number of hits. That would be a cool way to do it though.

That's not how the death ray works...

Well, that is indeed how it works. You may hit your own models with it, it is specifically mentioned in the weapon rules for the Focused Death Ray ("friendly or enemy"). Hit 3 of your own models, hit the super heavy and both your unit and the super heavy get 8 S10 AP1 hits. That's bye-bye for the super heavy. And your unit too most likely

Even if you don't hit your own models, just hit a single model other than the super heavy and you are already looking at 4 S10 AP1 hits for the super heavy, giving you a good chance to destroy it as well.

... as this is a case of exploiting a RAW loophole of a poorly written rule, this would be something you wouldn't normally do in friendly games.

I for one would never play that model like that- it's both silly and ridiculously OP.

It's basically how the Death Ray is conceived. The more death underneath it, the more powerful it becomes. The rules for the Death Ray are very clear and unambiguous. There really aren't any loopholes in it. RAW here is RAI and a tactic that involves sacrificing necron robots to augment a weapon's power is very fluffy. If someone brings anything remotely combolicious to the table (imperial knight, riptides, wraithknights, invisibility, deathstars of any sort) I don't see any qualms of using an expensive and difficult to maneuver unit to nix a few of my opponent's broken goodies. If both players are bringing their A-game then both players bring their A-game. If it's not an A-game then bring out the beer and pretzels and Orks and Sisters and CSM. Keep in mind that Doom Scythes are really only ever useful against broken units. Otherwise they are overcosted garbage.

It's about the Focused Death Ray, not the regular Death Ray. It's deadlier because it deals twice the amount of models hit. Plus:

a) Death Ray: You hit 3 models in Unit A and a vehicle. The unit gets 3 hits, the vehicle one.

b) Focused Death Ray: You hit 3 models in Unit A and a vehicle. BOTH the unit AND the vehicle receive 8 ([3+1]*2) hits. That's Death for you Most people aren't familar with it, but after GW decided to make Gauss Sentry Pylons useless, everyone with Sentry Pylons took the FDR instead. And they hurt. So hard.

 Sigvatr wrote:
It's about the Focused Death Ray, not the regular Death Ray. It's deadlier because it deals twice the amount of models hit. Plus:

a) Death Ray: You hit 3 models in Unit A and a vehicle. The unit gets 3 hits, the vehicle one.

b) Focused Death Ray: You hit 3 models in Unit A and a vehicle. BOTH the unit AND the vehicle receive 8 ([3+1]*2) hits. That's Death for you Most people aren't familar with it, but after GW decided to make Gauss Sentry Pylons useless, everyone with Sentry Pylons took the FDR instead. And they hurt. So hard.

Yeah, you are right, the trick of sacrificing your dudes works with the Focused Death Ray but not the Doom Scythe Death Ray because the model hit count is sorted by unit in the case of the Doom Scythe, not all units in the case of the Focused Death Ray.

col_impact wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
It's about the Focused Death Ray, not the regular Death Ray. It's deadlier because it deals twice the amount of models hit. Plus:

a) Death Ray: You hit 3 models in Unit A and a vehicle. The unit gets 3 hits, the vehicle one.

b) Focused Death Ray: You hit 3 models in Unit A and a vehicle. BOTH the unit AND the vehicle receive 8 ([3+1]*2) hits. That's Death for you Most people aren't familar with it, but after GW decided to make Gauss Sentry Pylons useless, everyone with Sentry Pylons took the FDR instead. And they hurt. So hard.

Yeah, you are right, the trick of sacrificing your dudes works with the Focused Death Ray but not the Doom Scythe Death Ray because the model hit count is sorted by unit in the case of the Doom Scythe, not all units in the case of the Focused Death Ray.

It should be sorted by unit for the S.Pylon versions, too (the ridiculously OP damage it puts out because of this bad writing loophole is evidence enough that, just like the confusion with the codex entry on the Deathscythe, this is not the way it was meant to be played), but the lazy bastards haven't gotten around to fixing it via FAQ yet.

Like he said before, crap like this is the reason people won't play against forgeworld stuff.

I'll gladly change back to Gauss if they fix it with a FAQ

Yes, it's inexcusably lazy by GW to not update their codices / books after a new edition...actually, WEEKS after its release.

 Sigvatr wrote:

omerakk wrote:
I'm pretty sure it was faq'ed to not work like that last edition. just like how the pistol upgrade for wraiths didn't give them an extra attack.

Of course, now we are in that weird "early new edition" phase where they decide to dump the majority of the previous faq and leave some answered questions in limbo.

The Death Ray was FAQ'd. IA12 still has not received an update yet. And people wonder why FW has a bad reputation rules-wise.

I think this Jab at FW is really unfair, and you know it.

We both know how the Focused Deathray should work, and I honestly would have never even come to interpreting your way, had I not read your view.

And most FW stuff hasn't received a FAQ yet, but the new edition just came out, so I'd cut them a little slack in that regard.

Focussed Death Rays sound really badass, setting aside the potential for exploitation.

I might have to get one.

Out of curiosity, what is the point of giving a 2+ save to an overlord (either on a CCB or a destroyer Lord). My assumption is that it would be to help in close combat and for the D-Lord to be less afraid of challenges. Do you guys find that it is worth the cost? The other place I would consider putting the points is turning one or two squads of warriors in scythes into immortals.

luke1705 wrote:
Out of curiosity, what is the point of giving a 2+ save to an overlord (either on a CCB or a destroyer Lord). My assumption is that it would be to help in close combat and for the D-Lord to be less afraid of challenges. Do you guys find that it is worth the cost? The other place I would consider putting the points is turning one or two squads of warriors in scythes into immortals.

If your plan is to send him in to combat then 2+ and 3++ along with a warscythe are definitely worth the cost. If you are sticking him in a ghost ark then probably its not worth it. In fact, if you are putting an overlord into a ghost ark you probably want Nemesor Zandrekh in that ark.

col_impact wrote:

luke1705 wrote:
Out of curiosity, what is the point of giving a 2+ save to an overlord (either on a CCB or a destroyer Lord). My assumption is that it would be to help in close combat and for the D-Lord to be less afraid of challenges. Do you guys find that it is worth the cost? The other place I would consider putting the points is turning one or two squads of warriors in scythes into immortals.

If your plan is to send him in to combat then 2+ and 3++ along with a warscythe are definitely worth the cost. If you are sticking him in a ghost ark then probably its not worth it. In fact, if you are putting an overlord into a ghost ark you probably want Nemesor Zandrekh in that ark.

Really, the 3++ is not normally required. Usually, even in combat, 2+ and MSS will do the trick. You do need to be a little bit careful with placement to ensure that MSS goes off against the correct model. Don't forget the warscythe makes you S7 and AP2 and you swing at I2. So hopefully you'll do some damage before the other AP2/1 weapons swing.

col_impact wrote:

luke1705 wrote:
Out of curiosity, what is the point of giving a 2+ save to an overlord (either on a CCB or a destroyer Lord). My assumption is that it would be to help in close combat and for the D-Lord to be less afraid of challenges. Do you guys find that it is worth the cost? The other place I would consider putting the points is turning one or two squads of warriors in scythes into immortals.

If your plan is to send him in to combat then 2+ and 3++ along with a warscythe are definitely worth the cost. If you are sticking him in a ghost ark then probably its not worth it. In fact, if you are putting an overlord into a ghost ark you probably want Nemesor Zandrekh in that ark.

Even for a D-Lord hanging with wraiths? Do you guys find that the Lord is often challenged out? My thinking is that he can hang back like a hidden power fist and let the wraiths and their natural 3++ take the hurt while he dishes it out. The CCB would certainly have the 3++ because of the ambiguity in whether it is given over to the barge's AV 13 (my interpretation is that this is the case, as well as my gaming group's interpretation) but I'm not as sure about the 2+. I mean, it's already more expensive than a Land Raider without the 2+. Isn't there something to be said about putting all of your eggs in one basket? That being said, if GW FAQ's the CCB to retain it's independent character status, well then.

Another thought that I'm curious to know what the community consensus is:


Does the GW FAQ removing independent character status form the Daemon chariots cause people to think that GW intends for all chariots to lose their IC status, or does their negligence to include such a mention in the Necron FAQ indicate that GW intends for Necron chariots in particular to retain their independent character status?

I know that there's a lengthy discussion in YMDC about this and I don't intend to start that discussion up again - I'm just curious which direction that singular item pushes people in. I could certainly see a FAQ going either way but don't plan on running Barges as IC until (if ever) it is FAQ'd in the affirmative.

DLords can't take phase shifters.

And re the second point, the reason why it is in the Demon codex is that you can take squadrons of chariots - when you do you can upgrade the Alluress (I think) to a Herald, who can't join a unit of vehicles as an IC. So they had to take it away because it breaks the unit.

Any steps of logic that would require the Alluress to lose IC would be the same steps of logic that would attribute IC to the CCB Overlord.

The strongest RAW argument that can be made is that the CCB Overlord indeed has IC and can join units. See the YMDC thread. A CCB Overlord that can join units may seem broken but in testing it has proven to be only a minor boost. The loss of mobility and LOS is significant at throttling the buffs that having IC would bring.

However, the problem with the CCB Overlord joining units is that it opens up a hole in the game of how you resolve wounds against a CCB Overlord that has joined a unit. Allowing a vehicle to join a unit is previously uncharted territory and the mess of wound allocation fuels a RAI argument that GW did not intend to allow the CCB Overlord to join units or else they would have clarified wound allocation. And because the CCB Overlord is already plenty powerful, people who are playing against Necrons will take whatever rationale they can to keep the CCB Overlord from getting any stronger.

Thus, the question of whether or not a CCB Overlord can join units degenerates into a political argument. Neither side can effectively eradicate enough doubt since GW left things with too many gaping holes. At the end of the day, it's going to come down to what the TO wants to do about it. I think most TOs will shy away from the kind of messy situation that this issue brings up and conservatively not allow it. But possibly some RAW-stickler TOs will allow it.

I suggest people experiment both ways in their games and help dispel the myths of how broken a CCB Overlord joining units is, since a lot of the discourse circulating against allowing the CCB Overlord to join units is dominated by an anxiety over how broken it will be, when in fact, it's not broken.

col_impact, your first statement is incorrect, because there are no squadrons in the Necron codex. But, not starting this again.

The simplest way to resolve is to clearly agree with your opponent how it can be played in your game. If you can't agree, don't play.

MarkCron wrote:
col_impact, your first statement is incorrect, because there are no squadrons in the Necron codex. But, not starting this again.

The simplest way to resolve is to clearly agree with your opponent how it can be played in your game. If you can't agree, don't play.

My first statement is correct. The FAQ actively takes away IC status from the Alluress because otherwise she would have it. Squadrons has nothing to do with it. The absence of a similar kind of line in the Necron FAQ that takes away IC status from the CCB Overlord effectively means that the CCB Overlord has IC status.

col_impact wrote:
Any steps of logic that would require the Alluress to lose IC would be the same steps of logic that would attribute IC to the CCB Overlord.

The strongest RAW argument that can be made is that the CCB Overlord indeed has IC and can join units. See the YMDC thread. A CCB Overlord that can join units may seem broken but in testing it has proven to be only a minor boost. The loss of mobility and LOS is significant at throttling the buffs that having IC would bring.

However, the problem with the CCB Overlord joining units is that it opens up a hole in the game of how you resolve wounds against a CCB Overlord that has joined a unit. Allowing a vehicle to join a unit is previously uncharted territory and the mess of wound allocation fuels a RAI argument that GW did not intend to allow the CCB Overlord to join units or else they would have clarified wound allocation. And because the CCB Overlord is already plenty powerful, people who are playing against Necrons will take whatever rationale they can to keep the CCB Overlord from getting any stronger.

Thus, the question of whether or not a CCB Overlord can join units degenerates into a political argument. Neither side can effectively eradicate enough doubt since GW left things with too many gaping holes. At the end of the day, it's going to come down to what the TO wants to do about it. I think most TOs will shy away from the kind of messy situation that this issue brings up and conservatively not allow it. But possibly some RAW-stickler TOs will allow it.

I suggest people experiment both ways in their games and help dispel the myths of how broken a CCB Overlord joining units is, since a lot of the discourse circulating against allowing the CCB Overlord to join units is dominated by an anxiety over how broken it will be, when in fact, it's not broken.

Ok definitely don't want to start this up again. Out of curiosity, have you played with the barge joining units, presumably wraiths? You say that it's not broken, which is certainly the presumable fear. I do think it's possible (albeit slightly more tedious) to resolve any shooting using the rules for shooting at chariots, but it does seem like a strong combination.

Then again, who knows? Maybe this will be like Daemon summoning, where all the cries of THIS IS CRAZY OP came to rest. Frankly, I think GW has more or less given up on counter-play and is just letting people field whatever they want (i.e. bring 5 imperial knights). Not that they can't be stopped or beaten (same as the CCB with wraiths). I think the best solution is to understand who you're playing against and discuss with your opponent things like this beforehand. Are they playing mono-Khorne? Well maybe you don't need to join that barge to your wraiths. Maybe you need to break out your flayed ones instead (exaggeration naturally, but I do feel for Khorne as it was my first love)

luke1705 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Any steps of logic that would require the Alluress to lose IC would be the same steps of logic that would attribute IC to the CCB Overlord.

The strongest RAW argument that can be made is that the CCB Overlord indeed has IC and can join units. See the YMDC thread. A CCB Overlord that can join units may seem broken but in testing it has proven to be only a minor boost. The loss of mobility and LOS is significant at throttling the buffs that having IC would bring.

However, the problem with the CCB Overlord joining units is that it opens up a hole in the game of how you resolve wounds against a CCB Overlord that has joined a unit. Allowing a vehicle to join a unit is previously uncharted territory and the mess of wound allocation fuels a RAI argument that GW did not intend to allow the CCB Overlord to join units or else they would have clarified wound allocation. And because the CCB Overlord is already plenty powerful, people who are playing against Necrons will take whatever rationale they can to keep the CCB Overlord from getting any stronger.

Thus, the question of whether or not a CCB Overlord can join units degenerates into a political argument. Neither side can effectively eradicate enough doubt since GW left things with too many gaping holes. At the end of the day, it's going to come down to what the TO wants to do about it. I think most TOs will shy away from the kind of messy situation that this issue brings up and conservatively not allow it. But possibly some RAW-stickler TOs will allow it.

I suggest people experiment both ways in their games and help dispel the myths of how broken a CCB Overlord joining units is, since a lot of the discourse circulating against allowing the CCB Overlord to join units is dominated by an anxiety over how broken it will be, when in fact, it's not broken.

Ok definitely don't want to start this up again. Out of curiosity, have you played with the barge joining units, presumably wraiths? You say that it's not broken, which is certainly the presumable fear. I do think it's possible (albeit slightly more tedious) to resolve any shooting using the rules for shooting at chariots, but it does seem like a strong combination.

Then again, who knows? Maybe this will be like Daemon summoning, where all the cries of THIS IS CRAZY OP came to rest. Frankly, I think GW has more or less given up on counter-play and is just letting people field whatever they want (i.e. bring 5 imperial knights). Not that they can't be stopped or beaten (same as the CCB with wraiths). I think the best solution is to understand who you're playing against and discuss with your opponent things like this beforehand. Are they playing mono-Khorne? Well maybe you don't need to join that barge to your wraiths. Maybe you need to break out your flayed ones instead (exaggeration naturally, but I do feel for Khorne as it was my first love)

In testing joining the barge to a unit of wraiths has only been a slight boost. Keep in mind that there is no LOS mechanic allowed so basically what is happening is that the wraiths are enjoying a shield from small arms fire as if they were passengers inside a rhino and the CCB is being throttled in terms of speed and otherwise not enjoying any additional protection from having the wraiths around. In testing, mobility is a huge factor here. By itself the CCB can close to CC with its juicy target in the space of 1 turn, but when the CCB is taxiing wraiths it adds at least 1 more turn to go into CC. This gives the opponent one more turn to douse the CCB Overlord in shooting attacks and it gives the opponent time to gum up the CCB + wraiths with a sacrificial lamb or otherwise control what the CCB goes into CC with and it also gives the opponent one more turn to use the unit you are aiming to get into CC with. There's a trade-off here. The CCB Overlord loses some definite capabilities if its shuttling wraiths around. So do you want the CCB Overlord to take one more round of heavy arms fire and do one less turn of damage to its target and allow its target to be active for one more turn or do you want to shield the wraiths from small arms fire and deliver them with vehicle level protection into CC? Keep in mind that many armies can handle the mobility level of wraiths easily, but not so easily the mobility level of a fast skimmer.

Also, self-limiting is the fact that a CCB Overlord can't join any other ICs. So it's not like you are running around shielding a bunch of super friends. 6 x wraiths with transdimensional beamers given relentless with a phaeron upgrade to the CCB Overlord is the most powerful unit you could be slinging around and that is pricey and not all that potent.

Another line of play is to join a unit of Tomb Blades to the CCB Overlord and give up none of the very significant mobility in the equation. It's nice, but obviously not that potent, since the CCB Overlord wants to go into CC and the Tomb Blades want to avoid CC.

 Sasori wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

omerakk wrote:
I'm pretty sure it was faq'ed to not work like that last edition. just like how the pistol upgrade for wraiths didn't give them an extra attack.

Of course, now we are in that weird "early new edition" phase where they decide to dump the majority of the previous faq and leave some answered questions in limbo.

The Death Ray was FAQ'd. IA12 still has not received an update yet. And people wonder why FW has a bad reputation rules-wise.

I think this Jab at FW is really unfair, and you know it.

We both know how the Focused Deathray should work, and I honestly would have never even come to interpreting your way, had I not read your view.

And most FW stuff hasn't received a FAQ yet, but the new edition just came out, so I'd cut them a little slack in that regard.

It's the RAW reading. There's more stuff to it, such as Kulakh still be able to take a CCB - or not? And by the C'tan, I hope they fix the Gauss Sentry Pylon. Like, come on guys. Please.

I don't think it's unfair, though. It's been quite a few weeks now that 7th hit and since FW is GW, I do expect a quick FAQ.

 Sigvatr wrote:
--and since FW is GW, I do expect a quick FAQ.

HA!
Good one!

Hope dies last!

I've got a number of Necron battle reports in the works. Let me know which ones you guys want to see first.


Jy2's 7E Necron Battle Reports - From Fun-crons to Double-CAD - Which Do You Want to See First?

Damn, all of those 'Cron ones look interesting.
I voted for #5, but #6 would be a close second.

#6, seems like the most current meta.

I'm looking into getting a Necron Army, the only thing that puts me off is the dated looking warrior models. With that being said, how viable is a Immortal troop based army?

They don't have to be the core of the force, just no warriors.

Eldercaveman wrote:
I'm looking into getting a Necron Army, the only thing that puts me off is the dated looking warrior models. With that being said, how viable is a Immortal troop based army?

They don't have to be the core of the force, just no warriors.

IMO, you'd only want to go full-out Immortals if you were facing alot of AP 4, or if you were facing hordes, the Tesla guns would be good for that.

For facing alot of AV 11 or better Armor, or alot of AP3 or better, I don't think Immortals are worth the upgrade since one Gauss shot is as good as the next, and AP3 kills an Immortal just as easy as it kills a Warrior. YMMV

Eldercaveman wrote:
I'm looking into getting a Necron Army, the only thing that puts me off is the dated looking warrior models. With that being said, how viable is a Immortal troop based army?

They don't have to be the core of the force, just no warriors.

I generally like Immortals better- nothing quite like dropping a squad of Immortals out of a Nightscythe in double tap range and mowing down some unfortunate fools trying to hold an objective.

Warriors are cheaper and synergize with the Ghost Ark, but they're much more vulnerable and pack less of a punch (though they are better at taking HP off of vehicles). Choosing which one to play is generally down to personal preference and what you need for a given strategy (I often use both really).

You could go for a Fall of Orpheus army and take Flayed Ones as your core.

DO NOT BUY THE FLAYED ONE MODELS. There are insanely good tutorials for converted Flayed Ones made from Warriors and Green Stuff.