Switch Theme:

Necrons in 7th  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Anpu-adom wrote:
col_impact wrote:
 Anpu-adom wrote:
 Sigvatr wrote:
Join Obyron first, then let the CCB join?


Yes... if you go the order of operations approach.

Designate Unit A
Obyron joins unit A... no vehicles, so no problem
CCBLord joins unit A... there is no text requiring Obyron to leave the unit, just that he can't join after the CCBLord.

But fundamentally, there's a problem. The BRB doesn't tell us if IC's joining units follows orders of operation or if they are simultaneous.

JY2, I agree with the philosophy you expound. Interpret rules as conservatively as possible until it is clear to do otherwise.


An order of operations argument is clearly rules lawyering at it's worst since it brings us into this silly arbitrary state where it matters who joins first and defeats the rule in the first place. Obviously, ICs can't (be) join(ed to) vehicles. So if the CCB Overlord joins a unit with an IC in it, the joining is prevented outright to prevent the illegal state. A fundamentalist reading of the rules might support an order of operations interpretation, but not a commonsensical reading....


Col-Impact, a friendly reminder... saying that someone's argument is "silly" and "arbitrary" doesn't make your argument any better. You need a better evidence than asserting that something is "a fundamentalist reading" or "common sense". Just be prepared to back your argument with more substance than that if you are going to play in the YMTC section of the forums.

How about an example that isn't arbitrary? Obyron joins and deploys with Unit A at the start of the game. During the Necron player's first movement phase, the CCBLord moves within 2" and is declared to be a part of the unit. In this instance, the joining of the IC's is clearly not simultaneous, and there is nothing saying that the IC's must leave and rejoin the unit at the end of the movement phase. There is nothing in the rules specifically disallowing this (AND THIS IS A PROBLEM).



Sorry, I did not mean to imply that anyone's argument was silly only that if we follow a literalistic interpretation of the rules that we wind up in a silly place that violates our common sense of what the rule writers are intending. The problem stems from GW writing their rules sloppily and imprecisely so they don't hold up to a literalistic interpretation. When the rules say that an IC can not join a unit of vehicles they clearly intend to restrict certain combinations and not mandate some odd awkward arbitrary order of joining where a combination is okay if sequenced a certain way (Ovesa joins last) and not okay if sequenced a different way (Ovesa joins first). The confusion stems from interpreting join as instantenous or continual. GW didn't realize that they needed to be more precise in their language and indicate that it is continually checked.

E.g. GW should have included what I put in the parentheses below to avoid confusion

ICs can't (be) join(ed to) vehicles

Basically, if it were allowed by following some special order of operations, it would be taking advantage of a slip-up in the precision of their language. Sure, it's a problem that we need to patch GW's holes for them, but we need to do it if we want a decent set of rules.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/29 05:40:54


 
   
Made in jp
Proud Triarch Praetorian





Regarding the CCB not being able to use the 3++:
I'm assuming that's just in CC, right?
(as shooting can surely still just allocate to the Overlord if its controller wants)

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/29 08:18:34


 
   
Made in de
Ladies Love the Vibro-Cannon Operator






Hamburg

 skoffs wrote:
Regarding the CCB not being able to use the 3++:
I'm assuming that's just in CC, right?
(as shooting can surely still just allocate to the Overlord if its controller wants)

Right, its a pity that the enemy can make the decision in cc.
Thus you have to choose wisely what to charge.

Former moderator 40kOnline

Lanchester's square law - please obey in list building!

Illumini: "And thank you for not finishing your post with a "" I'm sorry, but after 7200 's that has to be the most annoying sign-off ever."

Armies: Eldar, Necrons, Blood Angels, Grey Knights; World Eaters (30k); Bloodbound; Cryx, Circle, Cyriss 
   
Made in il
Tail-spinning Tomb Blade Pilot




Israel

 skoffs wrote:
Regarding the CCB not being able to use the 3++:
I'm assuming that's just in CC, right?
(as shooting can surely still just allocate to the Overlord if its controller wants)


Blasts automatically hit the Barge, and S10 shots are something you'd probably want to avoid taking on your OL due to ID.

6,000pts (over 5,000 painted to various degrees, rest are still on the sprues)  
   
Made in de
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Just to clear it up: I don't think that the CCB joining a unit is RAI and we do not allow it to join any units and neither save is transferred from the Rider to the Chariot.

I just wanted to state that RAW, it is possible as only "joining" is excplicitely disallowed and therefore, it would be possible to first let Obyron join the unit of Sentry Pylons and then let the CCB. It's legal because as soon as Obyron joins, he no longer is a single model, independent character unit, he is part of the unit for all purposes.

   
Made in jp
Proud Triarch Praetorian





Can we get some clarification on whether the Sentry Pylons can normally fire after they deepstrike on their own?

 
   
Made in il
Tail-spinning Tomb Blade Pilot




Israel

 skoffs wrote:
Can we get some clarification on whether the Sentry Pylons can normally fire after they deepstrike on their own?


The weapon type is Heavy so without a Phaeron making them Relentless they'd only be able to snapfire after deepstriking, and the Death Ray cannot be snap fired.

6,000pts (over 5,000 painted to various degrees, rest are still on the sprues)  
   
Made in de
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 Galorian wrote:
 skoffs wrote:
Can we get some clarification on whether the Sentry Pylons can normally fire after they deepstrike on their own?


The weapon type is Heavy so without a Phaeron making them Relentless they'd only be able to snapfire after deepstriking, and the Death Ray cannot be snap fired.


Precisely.

   
Made in jp
Proud Triarch Praetorian





Ah... well, looks like there's no way out of attaching a Phaeron to the Pyl-O-Star.

 
   
Made in de
Decrepit Dakkanaut





I'd be careful with it though.

On the one hand, it is extremely expensive...yet on the other hand, it bears extreme destructive power. It bypasses a lot of defensive abilities such as Jink or Invisibility and everything without a good ++ will be absolutely slaughtered.

Against an unprepared, average enemy, you will end the game by the end of turn 1 or turn 2 - I am not kidding you. The first time I used a full unit of FDR Sentry Pylons, against a SM player, I popped up a transport to get to the juicy infantry, then shot the first beam and destroyed 2 vehicles and a full squad of Space Marines with 14 S10 AP1 hits each. It's ridiculous. A FDR Sentry Pylon is about the deadliest weapon a Necron army has to offer. List-tailoring enemies can put an end to the madness, but if they don't know what they're up against, they're in for a no-fun match.

   
Made in jp
Proud Triarch Praetorian





Was that result with the RAW (pass over 2 models in unit A, 3 models in unit B, with one line = 10 hits for both units)
or the RAI (pass over 2 models in unit A, 3 models in unit B, with one line = unit A gets 4 hits, unit B 6 hits)
style of useage?

 
   
Made in de
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Oh, RAW.

I'm using the Gauss variants again as we agreed on them being able to shoot at all targets with full BS.

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 skoffs wrote:
Ah... well, looks like there's no way out of attaching a Phaeron to the Pyl-O-Star.


A normal overlord with phaeron can join the Pylon-star. He just can't be a CCB overlord.

edit: Oops, gratuitous reply. Read your line to be saying "there's no way of" instead of "there's no way out of"


On the plus side, you probably want that overlord in there anyway, since the Pylon's can't LOS for Obyron while the Phaeron could. The fun ends basically once Obyron goes down.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/06/29 14:59:44


 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





San Jose, CA

col_impact wrote:

Here's the thing. You can't. ICs cannot join vehicles, which the CCB Overlord is. So you can't add any IC to the unit that the CCB Overlord joins. That's one of the things that keeps the CCB Overlord joining units in check and balanced and self-limiting. I have mentioned this several times. It's frustrating that it's not sinking in to your opinion. It would be nice if you actually did a full examination of the repercussions of a CCB Overlord joining units, since your opinion is so influential on people like Reecius.

This reminds me of the whole Shrike+infiltrating unit+another IC (or the Snikrot+unit+warboss) rules debacle back in 5th. I believe GW FAQ'd the Shrike issue as legal, but GW is known for flip-flopping their rules (and even their FAQ's) between editions.

In any case, yes, I agree with you on this. It would also be the more conservative ruling that the 2 cannot join the same unit.

BTW, I am not the sole influence on Reece and his decision-making. While it's true we both tend to see things from a similar perspective, Reece actually consorts with a lot of other TO's (including Mike Brandt of Nova) and discuss with them a lot of the rules issues to try to maintain some uniformity between tournaments. I am but 1 voice. Reece listens to a lot of voices as well as his own personal philosophy.

There are a number of criterias TO's tend to look at when making FAQ's for their tournaments. While they try to follow as closely to GW RAW as they can, sometimes they do deviate for the following reasons:

1. What is fun for their attendees. Sometimes, they will rule against something if they think it will make it an unpleasant unexperience for their attendees. Examples include the re-rollable 2+ saves and now bargelords being able to join other units. Or allowing Forgeworld and limited Lords of War units.

2. Practicality. Sometimes, they will make FAQ's with the intent of making the game run more smoothly. Examples include flyers having a 180 degree vertical firing arc, as most of the complaints that came up in their tournaments (and other's tournaments) was the very subjective debate on whether flyers had LOS to particular units. Also, another example was back in 6th where they ruled a unit that is scoring is also a denial unit because that argument came up all the time and made for some very mad players when they found out that their units couldn't contest and lose the game because of it.

3. What they feel is RAI (rules-as-intended). Example here would be allowing an IC to attach to an infiltrating unit (or letting a unit infiltrate with an IC who has that rule). Another example would be to not allow a vehicle unit to join other units.




6th Edition Tournaments: Golden Throne GT 2012 - 1st .....Bay Area Open GT 2013 - Best Tyranids
ATC 2013 - Team Fluffy Bunnies - 1st .....LVO GT 2014 Team Tournament - Best Generals
7th Edition: 2015-16 ITC Best Grey Knights, 2015-16 ITC Best Tyranids
Jy2's 6th Edition Battle Report Thread - Links.....Jy2's 7th Edition Battle Report Thread - Links
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 jy2 wrote:
col_impact wrote:

Here's the thing. You can't. ICs cannot join vehicles, which the CCB Overlord is. So you can't add any IC to the unit that the CCB Overlord joins. That's one of the things that keeps the CCB Overlord joining units in check and balanced and self-limiting. I have mentioned this several times. It's frustrating that it's not sinking in to your opinion. It would be nice if you actually did a full examination of the repercussions of a CCB Overlord joining units, since your opinion is so influential on people like Reecius.

This reminds me of the whole Shrike+infiltrating unit+another IC (or the Snikrot+unit+warboss) rules debacle back in 5th. I believe GW FAQ'd the Shrike issue as legal, but GW is known for flip-flopping their rules (and even their FAQ's) between editions.

In any case, yes, I agree with you on this. It would also be the more conservative ruling that the 2 cannot join the same unit.

BTW, I am not the sole influence on Reece and his decision-making. While it's true we both tend to see things from a similar perspective, Reece actually consorts with a lot of other TO's (including Mike Brandt of Nova) and discuss with them a lot of the rules issues to try to maintain some uniformity between tournaments. I am but 1 voice. Reece listens to a lot of voices as well as his own personal philosophy.

There are a number of criterias TO's tend to look at when making FAQ's for their tournaments. While they try to follow as closely to GW RAW as they can, sometimes they do deviate for the following reasons:

1. What is fun for their attendees. Sometimes, they will rule against something if they think it will make it an unpleasant unexperience for their attendees. Examples include the re-rollable 2+ saves and now bargelords being able to join other units. Or allowing Forgeworld and limited Lords of War units.

2. Practicality. Sometimes, they will make FAQ's with the intent of making the game run more smoothly. Examples include flyers having a 180 degree vertical firing arc, as most of the complaints that came up in their tournaments (and other's tournaments) was the very subjective debate on whether flyers had LOS to particular units. Also, another example was back in 6th where they ruled a unit that is scoring is also a denial unit because that argument came up all the time and made for some very mad players when they found out that their units couldn't contest and lose the game because of it.

3. What they feel is RAI (rules-as-intended). Example here would be allowing an IC to attach to an infiltrating unit (or letting a unit infiltrate with an IC who has that rule). Another example would be to not allow a vehicle unit to join other units.




Thank you for well-formulated reply. For the record, I don't disagree with a TO taking a conservative approach to issues like these. The only thing I am taking people to task on is on their opinion of if being "OMG OP!!" if the CCB Overlord is allowed to join units because when you actually test it out and examine it and how it interacts with the other rules, a CCB Overlord joining a unit is not OP at all. If people want to disallow it for other reasons then fine. The whole wound allocation thing opens up an issue that would be tricky at the tournament level.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





San Jose, CA

 Galorian wrote:
 jy2 wrote:

If that's the case, then that is actually a pretty darn good strategy.



You'd also want to place the Phaeron Overlord between the pylons and the biggest return-fire threat on the board to use him as a 3W Sv2+/3++ shield for the majority toughness 7 unit, next turn have Obyron take up a second flank (switch them around to keep the 3++ on the side where your enemy has AP2 shooting). With an effective range of 24+3d6" you probably won't have to deepstrike this squad more than once or twice during a game unless you have a CC beatstick squad coming your way you can't kill reliably, so losing those two won't be that big a deal (even "immobilized" the squad will still basically dominate half the table and will have already inflicted its alpha strike, so at worst you'll have to use the rest of your army to perform mop up duty and hold objective under their protective cover of stupendous firepower).

You risk handing out Slay the Warlord this way, but taking down 3 T7 2+/3++ wounds is no mean feat so I'd say it's worth the risk.

And your opponents would want to play against this? Yeesh! It appears to be quite powerful though expensive.


 Sasori wrote:

BTW, BAO is going to rule the following in their tournaments. I'm pretty sure Nova will follow suit. That means a lot of the smaller tournaments will do the same.


1. Bargelords CANNOT join other units.

2. The CCB DOES NOT benefit from the rider's phase shifters.




I'm really surprised about the 3++ ruling. I figured at the Pricepoint you are paying for the barge, and that it is pretty legal per raw, that it would be fine. Interesting to note though!

I'm not. Right now, the biggest weakness of the bargelord is that it is vulnerable in cc. Giving the barge 3++ as well acts as a force-multiplier making it much, much harder to kill, both in assault (from no save to 3++ in cc) as well as from shooting. There's a reason why GW didn't even let Destroyer Lords get a 3++ invuln. I'm pretty sure their intent isn't to let chariots have it as well. At least that is how TO's will justify it in their tournaments to nerf the thing down so that they think their attendees can have a better gaming experience.


 wuestenfux wrote:
 skoffs wrote:
Regarding the CCB not being able to use the 3++:
I'm assuming that's just in CC, right?
(as shooting can surely still just allocate to the Overlord if its controller wants)

Right, its a pity that the enemy can make the decision in cc.
Thus you have to choose wisely what to charge.

Grumble, grumble....

This is what keeps them in check. I've played against 8 wraithknights recently in 3 games against Eldar. None of my bargelords survived in any of those games due to close-combat and bad 4+ Ever-living rolls against brutes that shoot and assault with S10 weapons.




6th Edition Tournaments: Golden Throne GT 2012 - 1st .....Bay Area Open GT 2013 - Best Tyranids
ATC 2013 - Team Fluffy Bunnies - 1st .....LVO GT 2014 Team Tournament - Best Generals
7th Edition: 2015-16 ITC Best Grey Knights, 2015-16 ITC Best Tyranids
Jy2's 6th Edition Battle Report Thread - Links.....Jy2's 7th Edition Battle Report Thread - Links
 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka



Chicago, Illinois

If two Bargelords could join each other then that'd be weird, also I just don't think RAW is even there for it. it counts as one model with a dual profile of vehicle and model. I dunno it's so weird of a RAW interpretation. I mean I could see it RAW ,but then the whole Chariot rules are all wacky.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/06/29 16:17:04


If I lose it is because I had bad luck, if you win it is because you cheated. 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





San Jose, CA

col_impact wrote:

Thank you for well-formulated reply. For the record, I don't disagree with a TO taking a conservative approach to issues like these. The only thing I am taking people to task on is on their opinion of if being "OMG OP!!" if the CCB Overlord is allowed to join units because when you actually test it out and examine it and how it interacts with the other rules, a CCB Overlord joining a unit is not OP at all. If people want to disallow it for other reasons then fine. The whole wound allocation thing opens up an issue that would be tricky at the tournament level.

Perhaps I will try it again....that is, if my opponents agree to it. The thing is, most of them have a hard enough time playing against me even when I run just a casual list. I may be able to play 1 game with them with this ruleset, but I am pretty sure that, after that, they won't want to do it again.




6th Edition Tournaments: Golden Throne GT 2012 - 1st .....Bay Area Open GT 2013 - Best Tyranids
ATC 2013 - Team Fluffy Bunnies - 1st .....LVO GT 2014 Team Tournament - Best Generals
7th Edition: 2015-16 ITC Best Grey Knights, 2015-16 ITC Best Tyranids
Jy2's 6th Edition Battle Report Thread - Links.....Jy2's 7th Edition Battle Report Thread - Links
 
   
Made in jp
Proud Triarch Praetorian





 jy2 wrote:
I've played against 8 wraithknights recently in 3 games against Eldar. None of my bargelords survived in any of those games due to close-combat and bad 4+ Ever-living rolls against brutes that shoot and assault with S10 weapons.
Sounds like it might be time to introduce those Wraithknights to the Amazing Obyron and his astounding sudden-appearifying triple Focused Deathrays of death (6 S10 AP1 hits should be enough to handle a WK, right?)

 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





San Jose, CA

Hollismason wrote:
If two Bargelords could join each other then that'd be weird, also I just don't think RAW is even there for it. it counts as one model with a dual profile of vehicle and model. I dunno it's so weird of a RAW interpretation. I mean I could see it RAW ,but then the whole Chariot rules are all wacky.

Yes it is. We need GW to point us in the right direction with more specific FAQ's (that is, FAQ's more specific to how chariots would work). But until then, we are left with our own intepretations of how we think it works.




6th Edition Tournaments: Golden Throne GT 2012 - 1st .....Bay Area Open GT 2013 - Best Tyranids
ATC 2013 - Team Fluffy Bunnies - 1st .....LVO GT 2014 Team Tournament - Best Generals
7th Edition: 2015-16 ITC Best Grey Knights, 2015-16 ITC Best Tyranids
Jy2's 6th Edition Battle Report Thread - Links.....Jy2's 7th Edition Battle Report Thread - Links
 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka



Chicago, Illinois

I hate the dual profile of the Chariots and how that works, I wished they'd change to the Fantasy way of it just having a good toughness value. It's so frustrating.

If I lose it is because I had bad luck, if you win it is because you cheated. 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





San Jose, CA

 skoffs wrote:
 jy2 wrote:
I've played against 8 wraithknights recently in 3 games against Eldar. None of my bargelords survived in any of those games due to close-combat and bad 4+ Ever-living rolls against brutes that shoot and assault with S10 weapons.
Sounds like it might be time to introduce those Wraithknights to the Amazing Obyron and his astounding sudden-appearifying triple Focused Deathrays of death (6 S10 AP1 hits should be enough to handle a WK, right?)

I know, right? Problem is, they have the seer council supporting them. Not going to be easy to try to get away from the seer council and their fleshbane weapons of death.

Plus, I don't have any of the models. And probably by the time I do get them, the meta will have changed and that unit would be obsolete just like the spyderstar.




6th Edition Tournaments: Golden Throne GT 2012 - 1st .....Bay Area Open GT 2013 - Best Tyranids
ATC 2013 - Team Fluffy Bunnies - 1st .....LVO GT 2014 Team Tournament - Best Generals
7th Edition: 2015-16 ITC Best Grey Knights, 2015-16 ITC Best Tyranids
Jy2's 6th Edition Battle Report Thread - Links.....Jy2's 7th Edition Battle Report Thread - Links
 
   
Made in us
Tunneling Trygon





NJ

If the CCB is eventually FAQ'd the way that the BAO ruled it (no 3++ for the barge and no IC status) do you guys feel that the Bargelord is still worth his points? He's a pretty hefty investment and I certainly will be running 12 wraiths without fail, so having that second D-Lord wouldn't be the worst thing in the world, especially when he's 90 points cheaper. Then again, AV 13 wall is the second-most-appealing wall, after Kan wall naturally.
   
Made in us
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker





LaPorte, IN

I ran it at a tournament and played conservatively. Didn't bring a squad for it to join and only rolled the 3++ when allocating to The Lord, it it was a monster. The d6 HoW is amazing since. It's only real weakness is being tarpited, and blast weapons that easily pierce the Ar11(13) since blasts auto go to the hull, you can't opt to roll on the lords 3++ save.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





San Jose, CA

luke1705 wrote:
If the CCB is eventually FAQ'd the way that the BAO ruled it (no 3++ for the barge and no IC status) do you guys feel that the Bargelord is still worth his points? He's a pretty hefty investment and I certainly will be running 12 wraiths without fail, so having that second D-Lord wouldn't be the worst thing in the world, especially when he's 90 points cheaper. Then again, AV 13 wall is the second-most-appealing wall, after Kan wall naturally.

Oh yeah, he's still worth it. Without them, he is still very good. With them, he is near-broken.

I think 1 bargelord + 1 D-lord with wraiths will make for a balanced Necron list. The only problem is when you go up against serpent-spam mechdar or Tau. Their firepower is enough to make short work of your D-lord + wraiths.




6th Edition Tournaments: Golden Throne GT 2012 - 1st .....Bay Area Open GT 2013 - Best Tyranids
ATC 2013 - Team Fluffy Bunnies - 1st .....LVO GT 2014 Team Tournament - Best Generals
7th Edition: 2015-16 ITC Best Grey Knights, 2015-16 ITC Best Tyranids
Jy2's 6th Edition Battle Report Thread - Links.....Jy2's 7th Edition Battle Report Thread - Links
 
   
Made in us
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker





LaPorte, IN

Which is why allowing the barge lord to join wraiths is more than fair, since wave serpent spam is so powerful.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/01 04:15:48


 
   
Made in de
Decrepit Dakkanaut





That's not how balance works

   
Made in us
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker





LaPorte, IN

Balance is not in the 40k rulebook.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





San Jose, CA

 NecronLord3 wrote:
Which is why allowing the barge lord to join wraiths is more than fair, since wave serpent space is so powerful.

"My 1-kiloton hydrogen bomb isn't as powerful as that dude's 1-megaton nuclear bomb," says 1 soldier to another.

To which the other soldier responds, " And you don't see why all those guys with just hand grenades are looking at you kinda funny."






6th Edition Tournaments: Golden Throne GT 2012 - 1st .....Bay Area Open GT 2013 - Best Tyranids
ATC 2013 - Team Fluffy Bunnies - 1st .....LVO GT 2014 Team Tournament - Best Generals
7th Edition: 2015-16 ITC Best Grey Knights, 2015-16 ITC Best Tyranids
Jy2's 6th Edition Battle Report Thread - Links.....Jy2's 7th Edition Battle Report Thread - Links
 
   
Made in us
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker





LaPorte, IN

I guess your right maybe I'll just hope I roll Vortex of Doom with one of the many Psykers in my Necron codex.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: