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.

ClassicCarraway wrote:So you could take a phase shifter on, say, a Ghost Ark or Night Scythe? If the unit type becomes Chariot, and Chariot is a vehicle, wouldn't that restrict you to taking only vehicle upgrades? I'm just trying to get a handle on this, because I play against Necrons on a regular basis, and I know I'll be facing these things (my opponent loves him some power units). Its bad enough that it has 13 armour, 4+ Jink (3+ with nightfighting because Imhotekh is always there) and will be able to sweep attack Landraiders into oblivion, and then MSS any unit it charges.

Sure you could, if any of those offered a phase shifter as an available option in it's unit entry. (none do currently, so no nightscythe or ghost ark with a 3++ for you at this time)

Happyjew wrote: I'm pretty sure that every single one of those wargear specify that they affect the whole unit/army. Generally along the lines of "A unit that has X..." or "The bearer and his unit...".

Yes they do. The Phase Shifter however just indicates it effects the model. What the model constitutes however is modified by the Chariot entry to include both the CCB and the Overlord.

Given how one rule explicitly states they count as one model, and no rules explicitly state that you need refer to a specific profile to determine what the phase shifter effects, well which option has the stronger rules support?

 Neorealist wrote:

ClassicCarraway wrote:So you could take a phase shifter on, say, a Ghost Ark or Night Scythe? If the unit type becomes Chariot, and Chariot is a vehicle, wouldn't that restrict you to taking only vehicle upgrades? I'm just trying to get a handle on this, because I play against Necrons on a regular basis, and I know I'll be facing these things (my opponent loves him some power units). Its bad enough that it has 13 armour, 4+ Jink (3+ with nightfighting because Imhotekh is always there) and will be able to sweep attack Landraiders into oblivion, and then MSS any unit it charges.

Sure you could, if any of those offered a phase shifter as an available option in it's unit entry. (none do currently, so no nightscythe or ghost ark with a 3++ for you at this time)

Ah, that's what I wasn't sure of, if the PS was listed under the unit itself or if it was like the newer codex entries (may take items from wargear section). Based on that, I'd say 3++ it is....oh well, time to go Unbound, put in a Vindicare Assassin and break the shield (since its only one wargear item providing the save, it doesn't matter who take the hit!)

 ClassicCarraway wrote:

 Neorealist wrote:

ClassicCarraway wrote:So you could take a phase shifter on, say, a Ghost Ark or Night Scythe? If the unit type becomes Chariot, and Chariot is a vehicle, wouldn't that restrict you to taking only vehicle upgrades? I'm just trying to get a handle on this, because I play against Necrons on a regular basis, and I know I'll be facing these things (my opponent loves him some power units). Its bad enough that it has 13 armour, 4+ Jink (3+ with nightfighting because Imhotekh is always there) and will be able to sweep attack Landraiders into oblivion, and then MSS any unit it charges.

Sure you could, if any of those offered a phase shifter as an available option in it's unit entry. (none do currently, so no nightscythe or ghost ark with a 3++ for you at this time)

Ah, that's what I wasn't sure of, if the PS was listed under the unit itself or if it was like the newer codex entries (may take items from wargear section). Based on that, I'd say 3++ it is....oh well, time to go Unbound, put in a Vindicare Assassin and break the shield (since its only one wargear item providing the save, it doesn't matter who take the hit!)

Vindicare won't work.
A *wound* has to be allocated to the model before the save is removed.
It is impossible to *wound* a vehicle, assuming the controlling player has half a brain cell and makes the hit go onto the chariot itself.

Sanctuary gives a +1 bonus to a models invulnerable save. It modifies it.

 Neorealist wrote:
Given how one rule explicitly states they count as one model, and no rules explicitly state that you need refer to a specific profile to determine what the phase shifter effects, well which option has the stronger rules support?

Man, again you forgot to quote the rule that allows a model to use a profile that it doesn't have.
I'm sure it was accidental - no big deal. Would you mind quoting it? That'd be great.

Rigeld:
With a phase shifter, the way it is worded can lead us to assign a boolean variable to the whole shebang.
If (model has a phase shifter) = true then
3++
else
meh
end if
Let's use this with the chariot.
The chariot is one model. Irrefutable. Does this model have a phase shifter?
Yes.
Ergo, 3++.

Tactical_Genius wrote:
Does this model have a phase shifter?
Yes.
Ergo, 3++.

Objection - not a yes or no answer.
The answer depends on which profile you're interacting with.

Does this model have a Toughness?
It depends.

Does this model have AV?
It depends.

Does this model have a gun?
It depends.

You can't simply say yes because of the dual profile and the fact that they're explicitly separate.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Neorealist wrote:
Given how one rule explicitly states they count as one model, and no rules explicitly state that you need refer to a specific profile to determine what the phase shifter effects, well which option has the stronger rules support?

Man, again you forgot to quote the rule that allows a model to use a profile that it doesn't have.
I'm sure it was accidental - no big deal. Would you mind quoting it? That'd be great.

Could you provide the restriction, quote or page, that the Chariot can not use the rider's wargear? The rider is explicitly prevented from using some of the chariots wargear, its weapons, can you find similar wording for the opposite?

Can you please show where we only apply rules to the profile instead of the model.
I can understand stand your argument as RAI, but I can't find the RAW to back it up.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Neorealist wrote:
Given how one rule explicitly states they count as one model, and no rules explicitly state that you need refer to a specific profile to determine what the phase shifter effects, well which option has the stronger rules support?

Man, again you forgot to quote the rule that allows a model to use a profile that it doesn't have.
I'm sure it was accidental - no big deal. Would you mind quoting it? That'd be great.

1) the model 'does' have the profile? (Since it has both)
However the above is irrelevant since:
2) You do not ordinarily refer to a models' profile to determine what wargear does. You refer to the wargears' rules-text. Its entirely possible for wargear to effect profiles other than the entry it is found in if it's rules text allows for such.

 Nilok wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Neorealist wrote:
Given how one rule explicitly states they count as one model, and no rules explicitly state that you need refer to a specific profile to determine what the phase shifter effects, well which option has the stronger rules support?

Man, again you forgot to quote the rule that allows a model to use a profile that it doesn't have.
I'm sure it was accidental - no big deal. Would you mind quoting it? That'd be great.

Could you provide the restriction that the Chariot can not use the rider's wargear? The rider is explicitly prevented from using some of the chariots wargear, its weapons, can you find similar wording for the opposite?

I've quoted it in this thread.

If the rider has a special rule that returns it to play after it has been removed as a casualty, such as a Necron’s Ever-living special rule, that model’s Chariot is also returned to play with a single Hull Point.

If the rider has a rule. Evidence that they do not share special rules.

A Chariot is an unusual unit with a dual profile – a non-vehicle profile for the rider of the Chariot (see below), and a vehicle profile for the Chariot itself.

One model, two profiles.

Furthermore, any characteristics modifiers that affect a Chariot model apply to both rider and Chariot.

Explicit permission for something that affects the chariot to affect both profiles.

How about you cite permission for the Chariot to use the rider's wargear? You have to show permission before looking for denial.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Neorealist wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Neorealist wrote:
Given how one rule explicitly states they count as one model, and no rules explicitly state that you need refer to a specific profile to determine what the phase shifter effects, well which option has the stronger rules support?

Man, again you forgot to quote the rule that allows a model to use a profile that it doesn't have.
I'm sure it was accidental - no big deal. Would you mind quoting it? That'd be great.

1) the model 'does' have the profile? (Since it has both)
However the above is irrelevant since:
2) You do not ordinarily refer to a models' profile to determine what wargear does. You refer to the wargears' rules-text. Its entirely possible for wargear to effect profiles other than the entry it is found in if it's rules text allows for such.

No, the Chariot explicitly does not share the rider's wargear. Until you cite a rule proving otherwise.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Nilok wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Neorealist wrote:
Given how one rule explicitly states they count as one model, and no rules explicitly state that you need refer to a specific profile to determine what the phase shifter effects, well which option has the stronger rules support?

Man, again you forgot to quote the rule that allows a model to use a profile that it doesn't have.
I'm sure it was accidental - no big deal. Would you mind quoting it? That'd be great.

Could you provide the restriction that the Chariot can not use the rider's wargear? The rider is explicitly prevented from using some of the chariots wargear, its weapons, can you find similar wording for the opposite?

I've quoted it in this thread.

If the rider has a special rule that returns it to play after it has been removed as a casualty, such as a Necron’s Ever-living special rule, that model’s Chariot is also returned to play with a single Hull Point.

If the rider has a rule. Evidence that they do not share special rules.

A Chariot is an unusual unit with a dual profile – a non-vehicle profile for the rider of the Chariot (see below), and a vehicle profile for the Chariot itself.

That makes sense if a rule refers to just the Overlord, but the wargear refers to the model, not the rider.

One model, two profiles.

Furthermore, any characteristics modifiers that affect a Chariot model apply to both rider and Chariot.

Explicit permission for something that affects the chariot to affect both profiles.

How about you cite permission for the Chariot to use the rider's wargear? You have to show permission before looking for denial.

You are asking me to find a rule that says I have permission to use a rule a piece of wargear is granting to the model. I'm not sure such a rule exists, if that is the case, can any piece of wargear that specifies the model and not the profile work?


Also, one of your quotes almost disproves your argument.

Furthermore, any characteristics modifiers that affect a Chariot model apply to both rider and Chariot.

This says is something modifies the rules characteristics for the model, it applies to both. I guess the real question becomes, is the invulnerable save a characteristic that is transferred to both of them.

rigeld2 wrote:No, the Chariot explicitly does not share the rider's wargear. Until you cite a rule proving otherwise.

The chariot is not 'sharing' the riders wargear. The chariot is being effected by the riders' wargear.

As to why this is happening? the reason has been repeatedly stated, but i'll quote it again here for reference:
Phase Shifter
"...a model with a phase shifter has a 3+ invulnerable save..."
Chariot Rules
"...However, a Chariot is always treated as a single model..."
Invulnerable save rules
"...Models with wargear or abilities like these are allowed an invulnerable saving throw..."
Wargear Rules
"... Certain pieces of wargear or special rules can modify a model’s characteristics..."

You'll notice a common theme...

Now tell me, where does it say you have to refer to a profile for any of the above?

No, the Chariot explicitly does not share the rider's wargear. Until you cite a rule proving otherwise.

Rules explicate chariots profile like this (Pg. 86 BRB):

''Chariot is an unusual unit with dual profile... However, a chariot is always treated as a single model.''

So what taking CCB clearly does, is just simply adding second profile to use.

Phase Shifter pg. 82, cron codex:

''A model with a phase shifter has a 3+ invulnerable save.''

So how is exactly possible, that CCB is one model, but is restricted using its wargear because it has a two profiles?
Two profiles do not effect in any way to wargear.

Also there is stated (Pg. 86 also in BRB):

''When determinig the required To Hit roll for any weapon fired by a Chariot model, use the Ballistic Skill on the Chariot's profile for any weapons mounted on the Chariot itself, and the Ballistic Skill on the rider's profile for any weapons wielded by the rider.''

So they actually _share same wargear_ They are just ordered to use different BS for different weapons.
For a crazy example, Overlord has a Quantum shielding while riding chariot, but it just has no effects on him.

I think this is the most strongest expression, that the Chariot truly has a 3++ that it can really use.

This is really hard to turn over I think.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And what comes to special rules, yes, they share them too.
Rules do not state at any point that Ever-Living would be an exception. Chariot just needed rules for it, because necrons codex hasnt stated them.

Perhaps we should stop the feeding....

It's been fairly obvious for quite a few posts, but-

 Galorian wrote:
It's been fairly obvious for quite a few posts, but-

Your image doesn't like being linked or embedded, I recommend trying a different host/file type.

 milkboy wrote:
Perhaps we should stop the feeding....

Ah true that my friend, and so shall it be!

 Nilok wrote:

 Galorian wrote:
It's been fairly obvious for quite a few posts, but-

Your image doesn't like being linked or embedded, I recommend trying a different host/file type.

Just a Troll detected gif I got with a quick google search, odd that you can't see it...

The CCB is terribly OP at the moment being able to use all the OL's gear along side the crazy chariot rules to shuffle weapons damage around. I played a game yesterday against it and it invalidates most of what you throw at it, its insane.

I'll just give that Cron lord some D. Cron lords like a big D. Big D just ignore all yo' saves.

Fancy rule leaps you're making there buddy. Seems legit though.

 Zarrath wrote:
I'll just give that Cron lord some D. Cron lords like a big D. Big D just ignore all yo' saves.

Fancy rule leaps you're making there buddy. Seems legit though.

 Nilok wrote:

They changed the rule for what Independent Characters can join. An IC can't join a unit that contains a vehicle or MC, so you can't join Sypders, and currently it is unknown if you can join by having your CCB join a group last to try and side step the rule.

I would say no on that, hopefully we will get a definitive answer from GW soon.

I say yes to the 3++, makes sense to me. While it's tough, it's not unbeatable. Get in cc.

Also, MSS are kind of screwed now, as you don't ONLY count as btb against the character in the challenge, so some random scrub will probably get affected by it during the combat instead of the character you're challenging. Chariots can get locked in CC now, so get on the chariot, direct all your attacks to the just-as-squishy-as-before necron lord, and kill him. Then consolidate and spread way out. The lord comes up with the chariot, so if there's no room then it dies. Just surround the combat on your turn.

I say no to joining units, though. FAQ says IC can't be a part of a unit that contains MC or vehicles. Join a unit while on a chariot and now you're a unit consisting of a vehicle and other models. Only way for this to work out is for the lord to lose IC rule and not be an IC while riding on a chariot.

 Spellbound wrote:
I say yes to the 3++, makes sense to me. While it's tough, it's not unbeatable. Get in cc.

Also, MSS are kind of screwed now, as you don't ONLY count as btb against the character in the challenge, so some random scrub will probably get affected by it during the combat instead of the character you're challenging. Chariots can get locked in CC now, so get on the chariot, direct all your attacks to the just-as-squishy-as-before necron lord, and kill him. Then consolidate and spread way out. The lord comes up with the chariot, so if there's no room then it dies. Just surround the combat on your turn.

I say no to joining units, though. FAQ says IC can't be a part of a unit that contains MC or vehicles. Join a unit while on a chariot and now you're a unit consisting of a vehicle and other models. Only way for this to work out is for the lord to lose IC rule and not be an IC while riding on a chariot.

It is also interesting that O'Vesa is also and IC and a MC. Another great rules paradox. hopeful GW FAQ that soon.

If you want to comment further on O'Vesa, please do so in the O'Vesa thread so we dont throw this thead too off topic.

Looks to me an IC MC or Vehicle doesn't lose its IC statue and can join a unit with no Vehicles or MCs. That is RAW. I would hope they would faq it tho.

I think a Lord can use his 3++ RAW.

Well that would definitely make slaanesh chariots more survivable if they could be selected for a herald and join a unit of fiends or something.

How does wound allocation work though? If the chariot is the closest model, do you roll to wound and apply wounds to the chariot? Do you roll against armor value until the chariot dies (that would be broken as hell)? Do the wounds just go to the nearest woundable model?

The chariot rules state in shooting the chariot owner decides where the wounds go for each separate wound pool and in CC it states the attacker decides.

Yes, but how do you even do wounds? So if the chariot is in front, they'll make the unit immune to bolter wounds until the chariot dies?

This will be a way for four seeker or daemonette units to be completely immune to all small arms fire until the AV11 chariots are destroyed.

do khorne for av 12 with some crushers!!

 Spellbound wrote:
Well that would definitely make slaanesh chariots more survivable if they could be selected for a herald and join a unit of fiends or something.

How does wound allocation work though? If the chariot is the closest model, do you roll to wound and apply wounds to the chariot? Do you roll against armor value until the chariot dies (that would be broken as hell)? Do the wounds just go to the nearest woundable model?

When you purchase heralds, are they taken as a unit, or are they all separate but take up a single slot?

Unfortunately the daemon FAQ makes Heralds lose their IC status upon purchasing a Chariot, so no joining your AV12 Khorne Herald to a Bloodcrusher unit.