Algesan Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 There isn't such a thing as an Ever-living roll, only Reanimation Protocols roll. :P That being said, all Necron IC's have both rules. All Necron HQ models have them both. Lords, Crypteks, etc. All Ever Living does is give you the WBB roll even if your unit falls back or is wiped. It is the true WBB with no limits. From the write-up of Imotekh's Staff of the Destroyer : "This ancient and ornamental staff of light was first wielded by Zehet..." At no other point in the write-up is the fact that this weapon is a staff of light brought up. My question is can Imotekh the Stormlord's Staff of the Destroyer use the Staff of Light firing profile because of this? It can use both attacks. It is a Staff of Light (12" S5 AP3 Assault 3) that has the ability to do the super attack once per game, so it has a special name. Wheeee! I didnt mention dangerous nor difficult, dont make a comment about not reading while you havent read mine completely :P ^_^ I did read yours. My Point is still valid. They only ignore Difficult... :) (What Dswanick said.) Of course you're free to believe that Automatically passing tests = ignoring terrain but that is up to you. RAW say you have to roll a die and suffer a penalty depending on the die roll. Therefore, not having to suffer the penalty = not having to roll die = not taking the test. Trying to interpret it otherwise with a unit that is jump infantry and therefore must consider all difficult terrain as dangerous sounds to me like a bit of an axe grinding going on. Lash Whip ("counts as Initiative 1") Furious Charge ("strikes at +1 Initiative") which the ruling says you apply after Lash Whip according to the Codex Tyranids FAQ but according the the Grey Knights FAQ Lash Whip ("counts as Initiative 1") Force Halbert ("strikes at +2 Initiative") is a no go. That is inconsistent. Oh, having different rulings for the effects of a piece of wargear vs (A=USR) & (B=another piece of wargear) is inconsistent? How? The "+" to I comes from different sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saiisil Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 Lash Whip ("counts as Initiative 1") Furious Charge ("strikes at +1 Initiative") which the ruling says you apply after Lash Whip according to the Codex Tyranids FAQ but according the the Grey Knights FAQ Lash Whip ("counts as Initiative 1") Force Halbert ("strikes at +2 Initiative") is a no go. That is inconsistent. Oh, having different rulings for the effects of a piece of wargear vs (A=USR) & (B=another piece of wargear) is inconsistent? How? The "+" to I comes from different sources. It is inconsistent because while sources may be different the effects are the same. Consistency isn't a matter of source but effect, if you say two things that have the same effect do two different things then you are being inconsistent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnowThyEnemy Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 From the write-up of Imotekh's Staff of the Destroyer : "This ancient and ornamental staff of light was first wielded by Zehet..." At no other point in the write-up is the fact that this weapon is a staff of light brought up. My question is can Imotekh the Stormlord's Staff of the Destroyer use the Staff of Light firing profile because of this? It can use both attacks. It is a Staff of Light (12" S5 AP3 Assault 3) that has the ability to do the super attack once per game, so it has a special name. Wheeee! umm incorrect. where, besides in the fluff piece, does it say this is a staff of light? had they wanted it to be a staff a light with a super attack, they would have said "the staff of the destroyer counts as a staff of light that can also make the following attack once per game instead of shooting normaly: XXXXXX". simple. just because it makes reference to the term "staff of light" in some fluff doesn't mean it functions like a staff of light in game terms. as the age-old argument goes: if space marines played in the game like they did in the fluff, xenos would lose 99 out of 100 and would only win the 1 against guard, but that just ain't the way it is :P. on another note, seeing as how my two armies are necrons and gk (been waiting since 3rd, what a long shiny and expensive year it has been), i've been enjoying the plethora of new rules and tactics surrounding these two armies. how are people out there feeling about the scarab farming conga line thats popping up? an faq will almost certainly put a stop to it (something along the lines of "each newly created base of scarabs must maintain coherency with the original unit" , i.e. no more lines) but in the mean time is there any legit arguments against it? turn 1 vehicle alpha strike-ing seems to be pretty gnarly. i do enjoy seeing land raiders wasted away, just not mine ;). any good tactics to avoid getting punked turn 1? reserving as obviously a good strategy and youll avoid most of the lightning strikes, but thatll give the cron player that many more turns and time to go farm crazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
breng77 Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 The argument against it is that it does not say that you can do it (nor does it say you cannot). I think the best thing to tell people is that they know it will not work come FAQ so better learning to play without it. As for avoiding it, bubble wrap. Just put infantry infront of said vehicles so that the opponent cannot assault them. (or if you have flamers (especially flamestorm cannons, or even vindicators.) put out a sacrificial vehicle (something of lower importance, maybe even a pred) to draw the assault and then after all the scarabs pile in, you drive up and blast/flame the heck out of them. Lots of hits= lots of wounds, which get doubled. Especially if you have blasts/templates that are S6 and higher, double instant death wounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isiah Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 Tactical issues are for another part of this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Algesan Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 umm incorrect. where, besides in the fluff piece, does it say this is a staff of light? had they wanted it to be a staff a light with a super attack, they would have said "the staff of the destroyer counts as a staff of light that can also make the following attack once per game instead of shooting normaly: XXXXXX". simple. just because it makes reference to the term "staff of light" in some fluff doesn't mean it functions like a staff of light in game terms. as the age-old argument goes: if space marines played in the game like they did in the fluff, xenos would lose 99 out of 100 and would only win the 1 against guard, but that just ain't the way it is :lol:. Well, the "fluff" bit is page 54 and the first column of 55. I happened to find "Staff of the Destroyer" called a staff of light under the section known as "Wargear", just below "Unit Type" and the stat line. Oh, I don't know, plenty of references in the fluff to the way the Imperium redacts losses and such. Although one experiment I plan on trying one day is to have a fight between a (very) small force using the Dark Heresy ruleset. Then it will act like the fluff. Gah, if I was using fluff for the Necrons, even the Newcron fluff, I'd have plenty of ammo for building a fear list. on another note, seeing as how my two armies are necrons and gk (been waiting since 3rd, what a long shiny and expensive year it has been), i've been enjoying the plethora of new rules and tactics surrounding these two armies. how are people out there feeling about the scarab farming conga line thats popping up? an faq will almost certainly put a stop to it (something along the lines of "each newly created base of scarabs must maintain coherency with the original unit" , i.e. no more lines) but in the mean time is there any legit arguments against it? turn 1 vehicle alpha strike-ing seems to be pretty gnarly. i do enjoy seeing land raiders wasted away, just not mine :). any good tactics to avoid getting punked turn 1? reserving as obviously a good strategy and youll avoid most of the lightning strikes, but thatll give the cron player that many more turns and time to go farm crazy. There are all kinds of fun interpretations I've been seeing. I've pretty much been taking the conservative approach to them so that I don't care what the FAQ says. That way, if the FAQ rules it the conservative side, I'm used to it and if it doesn't, then helllloooo conga line! Well, I do think that one will be FAQ'd the way you suggest, but since I don't really need it... Main thing I've finding amusing, I seem to be the only one pursuing "phalanx" builds with lots of Necron bodies on the ground. I think the Scarab farm is fun, as is the AV13 swarm, the Tesla Destructor build (with or without Doom Scythes), etc., but lots of bodies, with some vehicles and some Scarabs w/ Spyders should work out real well also. Lash Whip ("counts as Initiative 1") Furious Charge ("strikes at +1 Initiative") which the ruling says you apply after Lash Whip according to the Codex Tyranids FAQ but according the the Grey Knights FAQ Lash Whip ("counts as Initiative 1") Force Halbert ("strikes at +2 Initiative") is a no go. That is inconsistent. Oh, having different rulings for the effects of a piece of wargear vs (A=USR) & (B=another piece of wargear) is inconsistent? How? The "+" to I comes from different sources. It is inconsistent because while sources may be different the effects are the same. Consistency isn't a matter of source but effect, if you say two things that have the same effect do two different things then you are being inconsistent. No. Different sources can provide differing effects without being inconsistent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saiisil Posted December 17, 2011 Share Posted December 17, 2011 No. Different sources can provide differing effects without being inconsistent. Totally not what I was saying, I am saying it is inconsistent because even with it being different sources it is the same effect but with 2 different FAQ rulings. If the effects were different for example one of those effects was similar to the effect of offensive grenades then I couldn't say it is inconsistent but both effects a numerical increase in I value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Algesan Posted December 18, 2011 Share Posted December 18, 2011 No. Different sources can provide differing effects without being inconsistent. Totally not what I was saying, I am saying it is inconsistent because even with it being different sources it is the same effect but with 2 different FAQ rulings. If the effects were different for example one of those effects was similar to the effect of offensive grenades then I couldn't say it is inconsistent but both effects a numerical increase in I value. Yep. It is an inconsistent treating of something giving +X to Initiative. However, before you can call it an inconsistency in the rules, you have to show that two identical things are being treated differently. Unfortunately, you have Furious Charge (USR) being treated one way and a weapon (Wargear) being treated another way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spacefrisian Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Q: Is the roll for an Ever-living counter the same as a Reanimation Protocol roll; does it benefit from the resurrection orb? (p29) A: Yes to both questions. Source: Official gw faq. Whip coils are also mentioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawk Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Which, amusingly, would still say that all the characters die because they must follow the rules for RP. However, they also included this right after that: Q: If an entire unit, including an attached character from a Royal Court, is wiped out, do you get to make any Reanimation Protocol rolls? (p29) A: You would only get to make one roll for the attached character as he has the Ever-living special rule. Note that in this case, he must be placed within 3" of the counter as his unit has been wiped out. Thereby ignoring their own rules and allowing EL characters to still get back up. Hooray, the world is right once more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spacefrisian Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Have you seen the Nids version already, cant hide my psykers in vehicles anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morollan Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Have you seen the Nids version already, cant hide my psykers in vehicles anymore. About time the Nids got a bit of FAQ love. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Idaho Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Glad common sense prevailed in the Necron Codex FAQ. The best one is the Independent characters joining a unit and then affected by Mindshackle Scarabs will attack his unit. Makes sense really since an IC is generally part of the unit. Anyway, that means a tough character hiding in a unit will be a danger to the unit since his own attacks will carve through the unit generally better than his own save. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Something Wycked Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Thereby ignoring their own rules and allowing EL characters to still get back up. Hooray, the world is right once more. Next question: if the EL has no space to be placed within 3" of the counter, do they get up? :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Idaho Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 That's covered already in the Codex; it's destroyed. Also noted the clarification on the Doomscythe shot is how I argued it :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Something Wycked Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 :lol: Goes to show how much money I've spent on the Necron codex, eh? I thought they might be getting some love, since two or three other things in the new FAQs say "if there's no room to place it, make room." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawk Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 About time the Nids got a bit of FAQ love.Also some nerfing as well: Q: Do enemy models assaulting a Venomthrope brood, or another frindly Tyranid unit within range of its Spre Cloud, have their Initiative reduced to 1 for assaulting through the cloud? (p45) A: No, as the Spore Cloud is not a piece of terrain It used to reduce enemy I to 1 because that's what the rulebook says. Oh well! Imperial Guard got the biggest love in this FAQing mess of rulings. A whole platoon counts as one unit for purposes of Dawn of War...I'm totally going to deploy 120 men with a dozen heavy weapons and orders galore, while you get...a rhino mounted squad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dswanick Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Imperial Guard got the biggest love in this FAQing mess of rulings. A whole platoon counts as one unit for purposes of Dawn of War...I'm totally going to deploy 120 men with a dozen heavy weapons and orders galore, while you get...a rhino mounted squad. Heck with that - Captain Al'Rahem just got a buttload better. It also affects Outflanking Rolls - so one roll for the good Captain, his squads and all their dedicated Chimeras! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawk Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 To be fair, that one was already in the codex: "Each infantry platoon...is rolled for collectively when rolling for reserves." (p.96) We always interpreted that for all purposes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niiai Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 This I do not get from the new FAQ: Q: Can a unit of Deathmarks with an attached model from a Royal Court Deep Strike? (p90) A: No. Every model in a unit must have the Deep Strike special rule for it to do so. I thought that the wording was similar to wolf guards joinings couts. (Regular wolf guards, not IC.) Am I reading this wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dswanick Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 To be fair, that one was already in the codex: "Each infantry platoon...is rolled for collectively when rolling for reserves." (p.96) We always interpreted that for all purposes. Yeah, but most places I've heard of distinguished Reserve availability rolls from Outflank rolls - this just nails it down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kodanshi Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Q: Can a unit of Deathmarks with an attached modelfrom a Royal Court Deep Strike? (p90) A: No. Every model in a unit must have the Deep Strike special rule for it to do so. Interestingly though, a Veiltek and the unit it attaches to can Deep Strike from reserve! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spacefrisian Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 I guess those Lords and Crypteks shouldnt be seen as Squadsergeants like the Wolfguard in the SW codex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentlemanloser Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 With SW, the Wolf Guard becomes a member of the unit. With Necrons and the Royal Court, they're just IC's that can attach themselves to specific units. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morollan Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 With SW, the Wolf Guard becomes a member of the unit. With Necrons and the Royal Court, they're just IC's that can attach themselves to specific units. :D Actually they're not IC's at all. They just have a rule that allows them to attach to units. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.