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.
2015/12/20 22:59:06
Subject: Using Transcendent C'tan escalation rules
Do people feel this is still legit as the transcendent got hit with the nerf stick with the most recent book, though GW continue to sell escalation with the previous rules. Can both be fielded ?
Seems like its fairly costed, especially with the prevalence of D weapons about. (For what it's worth we're playing a 8000 non apocalypse game)
2015/12/21 01:16:41
Subject: Using Transcendent C'tan escalation rules
I would say generally people will say no, because unlike other examples it's pretty clear that the new Necron codex invalidated all three of the necron's entries in Escalation, since the Vault and the Obelisk are in there too (with new rules too I believe).
However like Fragile said, check with your TO. If it's an apocalypse game, generally people will be more lenient if you talk it out.
Gwar! wrote:Huh, I had no idea Graham McNeillm Dav Torpe and Pete Haines posted on Dakka. Hi Graham McNeillm Dav Torpe and Pete Haines!!!!!!!!!!!!! Can I have an Autograph!
Kanluwen wrote:
Hell, I'm not that bothered by the Stormraven. Why? Because, as it stands right now, it's "limited use".When it's shoehorned in to the Codex: Space Marines, then yeah. I'll be irked.
When I'm editing alot, you know I have a gakload of homework to (not) do.
2015/12/21 08:59:17
Subject: Using Transcendent C'tan escalation rules
Most people say no. The errata for the escalation says "The datasheets presented in this book describe units with the Lords of War Battlefield Role. These can be included in your army as described in the Choosing an Army section of Warhammer 40,000: The Rules. The Lords of War units presented in this book have the following Factions:"
Which, until there is another FAQ saying otherwise, you can use the T C'tan from Escalation. The rules for the necron LOW are really fuzzy and has kinda became the new creed problem(I think it was creed anyway when there was a time there was one unique character in two different books/armies and people where wondering if using both was ok)
It's easy to assume that people arguing an interpretation you disagree with are just looking for an advantage for themselves... But it's quite often not the case.
2015/12/21 18:11:02
Subject: Using Transcendent C'tan escalation rules
I have played multiple times against that abomination.
It is not "fair costed" at all. It can have the dmg output of a titan is it dirt cheap and can hide from line of sight just by standing behind a a small building or a large tank. On top of that Its rules are updated in the Necron codex and it is bad form to use the older rules just because they are better.
Would I allow it at a 8000 pt appoc game. Depends, appoc games aren't about balance at all. They are about the madness and destruction that the game brings. My first reaction is sure bring it, it will only add to the toal madness.. But there is one big but. It all depends on how much your opponents embrace the madness of apocalypse. If they go all out on strategic assets and appoc formations its fair game. If they just bring 4x a normal 2000 points army then it is just a bit too silly.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/21 23:58:30
Inactive, user. New profile might pop up in a while
So you don't have a rule that says the Transcendent C'tan entry in Escalation has been replaced by those in Codex Necrons and can no longer be used?
'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'
- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
Ghaz wrote: So you don't have a rule that says the Transcendent C'tan entry in Escalation has been replaced by those in Codex Necrons and can no longer be used?
Are you referring to the same allowance that would allow me to play 5th edition Necrons alongside 7th edition Necrons? There is no rule which specifies players use the latest source, but players universally play that as the default way to play.
2015/12/22 01:10:39
Subject: Using Transcendent C'tan escalation rules
That's what I thought. GW has no rule saying new rules override old rules. If one existed, then one could quote it.
'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'
- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
There is no official thing that invalidates any book officially. It's what your local players will play against. Most people on this topic have given you an answer on this, NO. If you want to feel technically correct go for it, but you will likely struggle to find players and tournaments that will be willing to give you a game using outdated rules.
2015/12/22 01:18:26
Subject: Using Transcendent C'tan escalation rules
Ghaz wrote: That's what I thought. GW has no rule saying new rules override old rules. If one existed, then one could quote it.
Interesting concept, completely rules lowering tfg behavior if someone tried to pull it though for the following reason.
Codex chaos space Marines, I must use Codex chaos space Marines to choose my army, which one, no rule says I can't pick and choose the best units from each book, also no rule says I cannot choose the best version of the faq I like, so I'm gonna have my 360* hell turkey back, and cavalry deamon prince with infiltrate, cos I just have to use Codex chaos space Marines.
2015/12/22 01:22:22
Subject: Using Transcendent C'tan escalation rules
Yep. Of course doing so would most likely mean never getting a game with anybody ever again, but technically the rules don't disallow it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/22 01:22:52
'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'
- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
2015/12/22 01:29:55
Subject: Using Transcendent C'tan escalation rules
Ghaz wrote: Yep. Of course doing so would most likely mean never getting a game with anybody ever again, but technically the rules don't disallow it.
Funny isn't it haha
Not really, its just another sad indicator that shows that GW can't write a clear rules set
'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'
- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
2015/12/22 01:40:10
Subject: Using Transcendent C'tan escalation rules
Ghaz wrote: That's what I thought. GW has no rule saying new rules override old rules. If one existed, then one could quote it.
I can think of only one. It happened in the previous Codex: Space Marines and dealt with the Black Templars.
Are you referring to the following passage from the previous codex?
Designer's Note: Some older publications may refer to Codex: Black Templars. For all rules purposes, consider these references to instead refer to detachments from Codex: Space Marines using the Black Templars Chapter Tactics special rule.
'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'
- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
Ghaz wrote: That's what I thought. GW has no rule saying new rules override old rules. If one existed, then one could quote it.
I can think of only one. It happened in the previous Codex: Space Marines and dealt with the Black Templars.
Are you referring to the following passage from the previous codex?
Designer's Note: Some older publications may refer to Codex: Black Templars. For all rules purposes, consider these references to instead refer to detachments from Codex: Space Marines using the Black Templars Chapter Tactics special rule.
Indeed I am referring to that passage.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
Yeah, that's kind of a wishy-washy way of saying it overrides the old codex (maybe?) without actually coming out and saying so. The question is can the old Codex Black Templars be considered as referring to itself
'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'
- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
col_impact wrote: The T. Ct'an in the Apocalypse/Escalation ruleset occupies a LoW slot.
The T. C'tan in the 7th ed Necron codex occupies an HS slot.
So long as you are playing by Apocalypse/Escalation rules then the Apocalypse/Escalation T. C'tan LoW is legal.
The fact that they changed the slot isn't relevant at all. This happens all the time in codex updates.
If your reasoning was true then Ba could build an army with with old death company troops and new elites since they are clearly not the same unit.
Inactive, user. New profile might pop up in a while
col_impact wrote: The T. Ct'an in the Apocalypse/Escalation ruleset occupies a LoW slot.
The T. C'tan in the 7th ed Necron codex occupies an HS slot.
So long as you are playing by Apocalypse/Escalation rules then the Apocalypse/Escalation T. C'tan LoW is legal.
The fact that they changed the slot isn't relevant at all. This happens all the time in codex updates.
If your reasoning was true then Ba could build an army with with old death company troops and new elites since they are clearly not the same unit.
The Apocalypse rules are not a codex update. They are a supplement that modifies the core rules. Included in that supplement is a datasheet for a T. C'tan Lord of War. Nothing in the 7th edition Necron codex forbids you from using that datasheet as long as you are playing by Apocalypse rules.
Spoiler:
Army List Entries
The rules for your Citadel miniatures are found in a wide range of Games
Workshop publications, such as codexes, codex supplements and dataslates.
Regardless of where this information is found, it is known as an Army List
Entry. Each Army List Entry describes a unit of Citadel miniatures and
includes everything you will need to know in order to use that unit in a game
of Warhammer 40,000.
In some older codexes, the information for a single unit’s Army List Entry is
spread out amongst different sections of the book. Taken together they
describe, and are treated for all rules purposes as, a single Army List Entry.
When using such a codex, each unit’s Faction is the same as its codex title. For
example, all units in Codex: Space Marines belong to the Space Marines
Faction, whilst all units in Codex: Chaos Daemons belong to the Chaos
Daemons Faction.
2017/09/30 22:47:52
Subject: Using Transcendent C'tan escalation rules
col_impact wrote:The Apocalypse rules are not a codex update. They are a supplement that modifies the core rules. Included in that supplement is a datasheet for a T. C'tan Lord of War. Nothing in the 7th edition Necron codex forbids you from using that datasheet as long as you are playing by Apocalypse rules.
You mean Escalation, correct? Escalation rules were not exclusive to Apocalypse, but we're meant to allow such Apocalyptic units in to smaller 40K games.
And while there is no GW rule on it, game organizers, like your opponent in a non-tourney game, may say otherwise.
Dozer Blades wrote:Okay so I can field Coteaz from two different sources ? Or should I use the latest rules ?
Coteaz is Unique, so only one per army. Even if you go far enough back to avoid the Unique rule, he still carries a form if that rule.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
col_impact wrote:The Apocalypse rules are not a codex update. They are a supplement that modifies the core rules. Included in that supplement is a datasheet for a T. C'tan Lord of War. Nothing in the 7th edition Necron codex forbids you from using that datasheet as long as you are playing by Apocalypse rules.
You mean Escalation, correct? Escalation rules were not exclusive to Apocalypse, but we're meant to allow such Apocalyptic units in to smaller 40K games.
And while there is no GW rule on it, game organizers, like your opponent in a non-tourney game, may say otherwise.
I mean Apocalypse or Escalation or any other supplement that is deemed legal for the game you are about to play. If Apocalypse or Escalation are legal then the LoW T. C'tan is legal.
The BRB makes Escalation rules legal, provided you are allowing any Lords of War at all in the game you are about to play.
Spoiler:
Lords of War
Lords of War are the most powerful and destructive units to wage war in the 41st
Millennium. They include towering monstrosities and super-heavy vehicles that bristle
with enough weaponry to lay waste to anything foolish enough to stand before them.
You’ll find a selection of Lords of War units in some codexes and in Warhammer 40,000:
Escalation.
2015/12/23 01:25:52
Subject: Using Transcendent C'tan escalation rules
Dozer Blades wrote: I love it when people explain why they want to field the defunct TransCtan and how cool it is... Really.
At issue is not people's feelings on the matter. At issue is what the rules allow. If the Escalation rules are legal, then a LoW T. C'tan is legal unless the LoW T. C'tan is being specifically disallowed by house rule.
2015/12/24 03:35:07
Subject: Using Transcendent C'tan escalation rules
Ghaz wrote: That's what I thought. GW has no rule saying new rules override old rules. If one existed, then one could quote it.
Actually there use to be this exact rule, where you had to use the latest edition of whatever army you were playing. The only reason I know this is because Lost and the Damned ran into a similar issue because it was technically never replaced.
Note that the keyword is "had". I'm pretty sure if you emailed GW now they'd go "oh just forge the narrative". This is probably because they started changing the names of the factions willy nilly after Grey Knights (again, technically there was only one edition of Daemonhunters and Witchhunters) and it was around the time they decided that responding with a shrug to all rules-related questions was company policy.
Gwar! wrote:Huh, I had no idea Graham McNeillm Dav Torpe and Pete Haines posted on Dakka. Hi Graham McNeillm Dav Torpe and Pete Haines!!!!!!!!!!!!! Can I have an Autograph!
Kanluwen wrote:
Hell, I'm not that bothered by the Stormraven. Why? Because, as it stands right now, it's "limited use".When it's shoehorned in to the Codex: Space Marines, then yeah. I'll be irked.
When I'm editing alot, you know I have a gakload of homework to (not) do.
