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.

If you have questions about how certain rules / wargear / etc. work, feel free to open a thread here:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/forums/show/15.page

The people on Dakka will gladly help you out.

I will post questions that relate to Necron stuff that may have changed from the clearcutting of 47 items from the Necron FAQ since its 100% revelant to a thread titled "Necrons in 7th".

Triarch Stalkers - how do you guys use them?

I really dig the models...they definitely look awesome. What bothers me is the pretty high cost and the terrible gun position - hanging lower than Santa's ba....g of presents, you easily lose LOS to enemy units and limit your ability to get in cover (as cover threatens you losing LOS again).

Kit-wise, I'd always use the regular gun for TL awesomeness. They got a good buff in 7th so maybe they're worth it in some lists (well...mainly AV 13 wall I guess) and the Elite slot is never full anyway.

/e: No Doomsday Ark suggestions please

 Sigvatr wrote:
Triarch Stalkers - how do you guys use them?

I really dig the models...they definitely look awesome. What bothers me is the pretty high cost and the terrible gun position - hanging lower than Santa's ba....g of presents, you easily lose LOS to enemy units and limit your ability to get in cover (as cover threatens you losing LOS again).

Kit-wise, I'd always use the regular gun for TL awesomeness. They got a good buff in 7th so maybe they're worth it in some lists (well...mainly AV 13 wall I guess) and the Elite slot is never full anyway.

/e: No Doomsday Ark suggestions please

I use it with my AV 13 wall. =P Really useful when shooting a bunch of gauss at other vehicles. Also, use with Zandrahk to give a unit Tank Hunters as well. And I usually give him the TL Heavy Gauss Cannon, mainly for the range. Keep him on the back of the field and such.

True, the range certainly is an advantage. How well can you position them in cover in order to avoid getting shot? I'd assume that they quickly become a high priority target.

Interesting, Night Scythes now no longer have permission RAW to carry infantry. That Q and A item was lost. The codex entry specifies only jump infantry and jetbikes.

It isn't that they are pretending the 6th edition FAQ never existed. They are saying that it was for an edition that is no longer current no matter how similar the two editions are.

As for the abyssal staff we are told that "To wound rolls from the abyssal staff's shooting attacks are made against the target's Leadership, rather than toughness..." necron codex pg.84.

And for Instant death "Any wounds allocated to a model has the Instant Death special rule (see below) if the Strength value of that attack is at least double the Toughness value (after modifiers) of that model." pg 36

At face value yeah sure it insta-gibs T4 but under instant death it says "Strength of that ATTACK.." and in the necron codex we are told to treat the abyssal staff's attacks against Leadership and not toughness.

This is my interpretation of the rules using RAW as support. But i do feel like you have a point Col_impact to use 6th's faqs to help sort some messy instants, but that is just a simple compromise as a house rule.

Oberron wrote:
It isn't that they are pretending the 6th edition FAQ never existed. They are saying that it was for an edition that is no longer current no matter how similar the two editions are.

As for the abyssal staff we are told that "To wound rolls from the abyssal staff's shooting attacks are made against the target's Leadership, rather than toughness..." necron codex pg.84.

And for Instant death "Any wounds allocated to a model has the Instant Death special rule (see below) if the Strength value of that attack is at least double the Toughness value (after modifiers) of that model." pg 36

At face value yeah sure it insta-gibs T4 but under instant death it says "Strength of that ATTACK.." and in the necron codex we are told to treat the abyssal staff's attacks against Leadership and not toughness.

This is my interpretation of the rules using RAW as support. But i do feel like you have a point Col_impact to use 6th's faqs to help sort some messy instants, but that is just a simple compromise as a house rule.

I agree with playing it the old way. But unless people have access to the old Q and A in the penultimate FAQ by a TO or a house rule, a strict RAW approach is going to let the staff Instant Death T4 units. Basically, the clearcutting reintroduced some old messes back into the mix since GW didn't do a clean job of updating the FAQ. If TOs are really going to start judging like Sigvatr proposes then you got to be prepared for the nerfs and buffs involved in the clearcutting.

And Sigvatr et al is literally pretending the 6th edition FAQ never existed. That's not necessarily a wrong choice, its just a painful awkward choice if it reintroduces messes that were cleaned out before. Sigvatr's approach certainly would be a lot more palatable if the FAQ was in better shape.

col_impact wrote:

 jy2 wrote:
FAQ 1.4 has no bearings on the rules as they are now. It is a 6th Ed. FAQ that is now obsolete.

Anyways, this is getting way off-topic. Let's just say we can agree to disagree. If you want to further debate this topic, I suggest you open up a thread in YMDC and link it here for people to follow.

Well the real underlying issue is the shortening of a 27 item long Q and A list to a 3 item long Q and A list and seems very on topic for this thread. It impacts potentially more than just the NS (e.g. the Veil of Darkness).

Mind posting a link to the 1.4 FAQ online? I can't find it on GW's website anymore.

col_impact wrote:

 jy2 wrote:
What's the issue with Veil of Darkness?

BTW, GW incorporated a lot of the FAQ issues into the 7th Ed. rulebook. Though from the looks of it, they didn't do a very good job.

This Q and A item was dropped

Spoiler:

Q: Can a veil of darkness be used instead of moving onto the board when a unit arrives from reserves? (p84)
A: Yes

So does this mean that a VeilTek now loses this ability?

So now you don't have permission to teleport them onto the table from Reserves. From the RAW, they have to be on the tabletop for you to be able to use them. Otherwise, how can you remove them from the tabletop during the Movement phase? At least that is my intepretation just from the rules and not relying on an old FAQ.

col_impact wrote:
This is good. At least we are the same page here . . . finally.

Finally we see collectively that the only change for the NS is the dropping of a Q and A item.

That is not the only changes to the NS. Please post a link to the old FAQ and I will show you.

 Sigvatr wrote:

col_impact wrote:


So my specific question to you Sigvatr is do you indeed think that Q and A items carry rule forming weight, and if so, why do you think that?

Rules are rules. Referees need to always be able to pinpoint to the rules when players are confronted with a rules issue and the only go-to source are GW publications, be it BRB, Codex, FAQ or any other GW publication such as Forgeworld books. If GW says that you can re-embark on a NS, then that's the way it is. If the entry is removed, you now lack any rules for letting your models re-embark and therefore cannot hold the rule up anymore.

Imagine you were a player at a tournament. You want to re-embark on the NS. Your opponent disagrees and asks for a ref. I come to your table and listen to both of you. Your opponent points to the flyer transport section that says you cannot embark on a Zooming Flyer. What would you do? You cannot point to an old FAQ as they are no longer existent for any purposes. Since you have no rules to back your argumention up, your opponent would be correct and you would not be allowed to re-embark.

Correct. You can not point out to an old FAQ that does not even exist anymore (at least not on GW's site) in a rules debate while in a tournament. You will lose that argument.

col_impact wrote:

I think we all need to look closely at the list of 24 that were dropped out. There are items on there that we grew accustomed to playing that we may have no rule basis for.

For example, this Q and A entry was dropped.

Spoiler:

Q: If I have 2 Royal Courts, can one model from each be attached to the same unit?
A: Yes.

Did we now lose the ability to build lists this way?

This rule remains somewhat ambiguous. My intepretation of it was - and this was even before the Necron FAQ's came out in 6E - that each Royal Court can split off its members to join different units. Members of that Royal Court cannot join the same unit. However, members of a different Court can join the same unit as long as its members aren't the ones who are joined to the same unit. At least that was how I intepretated it from the context. Now that it is absent from the new FAQ's, I fall back to that same intepretation.

In short, that FAQ entry was just a clarification of the actual rules. Even without it, you would run it in this edition as you did previously.

 iGuy91 wrote:
I'm confused as to why old FAQ rulings become irrelevant even though nothing has changed regarding those rulings, rules-wise, in the new edition. Otherwise, this problem should be popping up all over the place, in every codex, and the FAQ's should be carrying over as a consistent document.

Would it not be prudent to view the 6th ed document as clarifying specifically "6th ed" questions, and the new FAQ to address unqiuely"7th ed" rulings?

Why does one completely over-write the other when most of the rulings in the new one do not have anything to do with the new rulings?

You can no more use FAQ's from 6th Ed. just as you can no more use the 6th Ed. BRB. That FAQ is obsolete. Unfortunately, the side effect is that rules that were made clear once now becomes ambiguous once again. Thank you very much GW. Of course, you can always houserule it to use the old FAQ's until the new ones come out, but this is only a houserule and not everyone will agree to it.

The problem is that GW is neither consistent nor do they care about a tight ruleset. Until they "patch up" their rules with newer FAQ's, we are left with trying to intepret their new ruleset as best as we can. We can use the 6th Ed. FAQ's as a basis, but in reality, all it is is a houserule until GW finally comes around to doing their jobs.

the 6th edition 1.4 FAQ . . .

http://www.teambelgium.eu/FAQ/Necrons_v1.4.pdf

That doesn't appear to be GW site. How do I know you didn't just make up whatever you felt like?

Not to beat a dead horse, but I emailed frontline gaming because I was curious about how they would rule the NS re-embarking issue as well as the wraith +1 attack for a particle caster issue. Got a reply from Reece saying that embarking back onto a Night Scythe will be allowed, but the wraith having an extra attack would not be, and that they plan to update the BAO FAQ sometime this week. This is interesting because it follows the line of thought of the 6e FAQ establishing precedent for RAI and flies directly in the face of RAW currently.

I can certainly see TO simply saying "RAW" and doing the exact opposite of both of these, but I have to say, if you don't allow re-embarking onto a night scythe on the basis of RAW, you then I think you also need to allow for wraiths to get their extra attack from the particle caster.

col_impact wrote:
the 6th edition 1.4 FAQ . . .
http://www.teambelgium.eu/FAQ/Necrons_v1.4.pdf

That is not from GW, so it's not official.

col_impact wrote:
And Sigvatr et al is literally pretending the 6th edition FAQ never existed. That's not necessarily a wrong choice, its just a painful awkward choice if it reintroduces messes that were cleaned out before. Sigvatr's approach certainly would be a lot more palatable if the FAQ was in better shape.

False.
He is pretending as if the FAQ does not exist anymore at this moment.
And he is corrent in this, the 1.4 FAQ is no longer relevant and thus might as well not exist.

DarknessEternal wrote:That doesn't appear to be GW site. How do I know you didn't just make up whatever you felt like?

Kangodo wrote:

col_impact wrote:
the 6th edition 1.4 FAQ . . .
http://www.teambelgium.eu/FAQ/Necrons_v1.4.pdf

That is not from GW, so it's not official.

col_impact wrote:
And Sigvatr et al is literally pretending the 6th edition FAQ never existed. That's not necessarily a wrong choice, its just a painful awkward choice if it reintroduces messes that were cleaned out before. Sigvatr's approach certainly would be a lot more palatable if the FAQ was in better shape.

False.
He is pretending as if the FAQ does not exist anymore at this moment.
And he is corrent in this, the 1.4 FAQ is no longer relevant and thus might as well not exist.

You guys are weird. I posted that because Jy2 requested and for people's reference. It's the version that was official before 7th edition. It's not going to destroy your soul if you look at it. Sheesh. Grow up.

Besides, you can't really tell what has changed from the penultimate FAQ to the current one unless you actually look at that one.

It seems Sigvatr thinks that every unit that isn't in one of the cookie cutter builds is "trash." Honest question, man, do you have any unique perspective to offer to these discussions other then "take what veryone else is taking, nothing else is worth looking at?" If that's how you are most comfortably playing, then cool, more power to you. But it's a little awkward discussing units that you personally have success with and having some one who never takes them themselves tell you that they are trash.

A 6' x 4' board is 80" from corner to corner. I promise you, being able to hit everything from one corner is quite useful.

I also love the universal 4+ cover save every single target on the board is receiving in your analysis. Seems realistic.

And, finally, since this thread is particularly focused on 7th edition, cover has become harder to come by in anything better then the 5+ variety, vehicles have become harder to destroy, and MSU seems to be creeping back into popularity. These are all things that benefit the DA (although the S9 AP 1 shot is diminished slightly against vehicles). This thing can simply wreck shop against light vehicles and elite infantry, and against weaker giblits it's "only" a pie plate that wounds a 2+, takes away FNP, etc.

Man, if only it were possible to have ShadarLogoth play against Sigvatr online, so he can finally prove all of these claims (eg. "Doomsday Arks/Monoliths/Flayed Ones/etc. are awesome, I use them all the time and plow through my opponents!").

ShadarLogoth wrote:
It seems Sigvatr thinks that every unit that isn't in one of the cookie cutter builds is "trash."

Honest question, man, do you have any unique perspective to offer to these discussions other then "take what veryone else is taking, nothing else is worth looking at?" If that's how you are most comfortably playing, then cool, more power to you. But it's a little awkward discussing units that you personally have success with and having some one who never takes them themselves tell you that they are trash.

My usual list:

01001110 01011010 (Nemesor Zahndrekh)
Destroyer Lord

Destrotek x5

20 Warriors w/ GA
10 Warriors w/ GA

3 Heavy Destroyers
6 Wraiths
2 AB
2 SP

Not even close to a competitive list and far from the usual netlists

Now, to the DA: it's trash because it's vastly overcosted. If it could move and shoot, it would be ok. If it was 30 pts cheaper, it would be ok. If it was S10 AP1 and had additional armor penetration, it would be good.

It's extremely expensive and offers so little while being vulnerable in return and taking up valuable HS slots. S9 AP1 is nice to have, no doubt, but not for this price and not on an immobile firing station that, additionally, has a 33% chance on a Weapon Destroyed result to be effectively destroyed. It's incredibly overpriced and until it gains any additional benefit or a severe cost reduction, it's bottom tier. Still better than th C'tan Shard (well...), but not as good as Flayed Ones and not as good as the monolith.

/r FO: My Maynarkh list consists of 60 Flayed Ones

Interjecting momentarily:

Scarabs.

Worth it still? Only if you have Spyders?

Other peoples' opinions would be helpful. I think they would be a worthy investment in 7th edition if the meta shifts back to Mechanized Infantry and or Battle Tanks

Very worth it. Less for fighting vehicles (but if they do make it, they're awesome), but more as incredible tar pits.

I was thinking the same.

One large unit or two smaller ones?

Depends on your opponent

One bigger unit is easier to hit, but more durable due to more bases. It can deal more damage to a vehicle and tarpit longer than two singular units, but on the other hand, the two single units are harder to take out as you have to target two units at once.

I tend to only be able to run a Single unit of Scarabs as my other two Fast Attack slots are typically filled.
Regardless, still an excellent unit.

What's your take on night scythes in maelstrom missions? At first, they seem really good (due to great mobility), but after some testing I've found that the usual 5 warrior units die after disembarking (even moreso than they used to when doing it on turn 5), and when they are usually only getting me one VP, it doesn't seem worth it. Ghost arks are durable and have objective secured themselves, but on the other hand have nowhere near the mobility of scythes.

One answer would be to take both, but I'm currently preparing for a 1500 point tournament and I'm having trouble finding the points.

 MLKTH wrote:
What's your take on night scythes in maelstrom missions? At first, they seem really good (due to great mobility), but after some testing I've found that the usual 5 warrior units die after disembarking (even moreso than they used to when doing it on turn 5), and when they are usually only getting me one VP, it doesn't seem worth it. Ghost arks are durable and have objective secured themselves, but on the other hand have nowhere near the mobility of scythes.

One answer would be to take both, but I'm currently preparing for a 1500 point tournament and I'm having trouble finding the points.

Option C which is worth mentioning is a couple of veilTeks and/or Obyron for super-moblie troops (that risk mishaps).

I don't play Maelstrom, but I would vouch for the Veilteks too. Royal Court is underestimated anyway.

col_impact wrote:
the 6th edition 1.4 FAQ . . .

http://www.teambelgium.eu/FAQ/Necrons_v1.4.pdf

Thanks for posting. Actually, I don't believe I saw this FAQ. I probably saw the one before this.

Regardless, using any of the FAQ's older than the current one is just a houserule. Now there is nothing wrong with that as it makes the game run smoother, but let's just say it is no where near a consensus on how the game works.

luke1705 wrote:
Not to beat a dead horse, but I emailed frontline gaming because I was curious about how they would rule the NS re-embarking issue as well as the wraith +1 attack for a particle caster issue. Got a reply from Reece saying that embarking back onto a Night Scythe will be allowed, but the wraith having an extra attack would not be, and that they plan to update the BAO FAQ sometime this week. This is interesting because it follows the line of thought of the 6e FAQ establishing precedent for RAI and flies directly in the face of RAW currently.

I can certainly see TO simply saying "RAW" and doing the exact opposite of both of these, but I have to say, if you don't allow re-embarking onto a night scythe on the basis of RAW, you then I think you also need to allow for wraiths to get their extra attack from the particle caster.

That's great! Personally, I have no problems with tournaments using slightly older rules to "fill in the blanks" insofar as current ambiguities go. They just need to post it so that everyone that is going will know how certain rulings will go/work.

Makes me want to bring my Necrons to the BAO.

luke1705 wrote:
This is interesting because it follows the line of thought of the 6e FAQ establishing precedent for RAI and flies directly in the face of RAW currently.

/sarcasm
TO's changing rules that are clearly defined in favor of their personal opinion? Shocking, how does such a thing happen...

 DarknessEternal wrote:

luke1705 wrote:
This is interesting because it follows the line of thought of the 6e FAQ establishing precedent for RAI and flies directly in the face of RAW currently.

/sarcasm
TO's changing rules that are clearly defined in favor of their personal opinion? Shocking, how does such a thing happen...

>> Forgeworld

 Sigvatr wrote:
I don't play Maelstrom, but I would vouch for the Veilteks too. Royal Court is underestimated anyway.

I wonder what would be better for scoring purposes: a Veil-tek or 3 Tomb Blades?

 skoffs wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
I don't play Maelstrom, but I would vouch for the Veilteks too. Royal Court is underestimated anyway.

I wonder what would be better for scoring purposes: a Veil-tek or 3 Tomb Blades?

Well, of the 2, Tomb Blades, even though they don't have ObSec, have the advantage in a Maelstrom game, simply because it is way too uncertain trying to capture an objective with a veiling unit. In theory, if you put the veiltek on the objective, you should at least be able to run back within capture range after scatter (unless you roll really high on the scatter) but in practice that tends to be more difficult to achieve.

If you have the points, GA with warriors is better in a maelstrom game.