Looking for help against necrons

Wow,

I had assumed that wraithflight only worked in the movement phase and not the charge phase. Looks like the description would allow them to use it when charging as well.

Still, the Kabalites etc are meant as a bubblewrap speedbump and will work just the same.

When moving wraiths treat all terrain as open ground in a similar way to how jetbikes do. But if you charge through difficult terrain you take the init hit even if you are not slowed by it.

Did the wraith charge through the difficult terrain, avoiding being slowed by it's special rule or did it actually not charge though difficult terrain at all?

It treats the difficult terrain as open ground when moving - so when it moved through the terrain it was effectively open ground.
I think you are right Sigmaril.

The Shredder wrote:

Could anyone give me some advice about how to deal with this necron list:

it changes a little, but roughly it's:

Necron Dynasty Detachment (his troops can reroll RP rolls of 1)
- Destroyer Lord w/ Warscythe, MSS, Warscythe, 2+ Save, Res Orb
- Overlord w/ Warscythe, MSS, Possibly orb
- 10 Deathmarks in nightscythe
- 10 Immortals in nightscythe
- 5 Warriors in Ghost Ark
- 5 Warriors in Ghost Ark
- Annihilation Barge
- Something else - maybe a monolith, maybe a Triarch stalker, maybe something else.

The Destroyer lord accompanies the Deathmarks, whilst the Overlord goes with the Immortals.

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned before, but the necron list is illegal. This is because the minimum size of necron warrior squads has become 10 rather than 5

Count Adhemar wrote:

Lord Puberis wrote:

On the subject of quantum shielding, does the lance effect still work?

Yes, no change there.

Reading through the thread, this caught my eye.  

This is something I'm seeing debated a bit.  

Both rules use "counts as" wording and lance is in the BRB. I've seen many argue (successfully) that Quantum Shielding wins out due to Codex vs BRB. I've seen a couple TOs rule this way too.

So if you're at a tournament, ask early and plan accordingly.

Unholyllama wrote:

Count Adhemar wrote:

Lord Puberis wrote:

On the subject of quantum shielding, does the lance effect still work?

Yes, no change there.

Reading through the thread, this caught my eye.  

This is something I'm seeing debated a bit.  

Both rules use "counts as" wording and lance is in the BRB.  I've seen many argue (successfully) that Quantum Shielding wins out due to Codex vs BRB. I've seen a couple TOs rule this way too.

So if you're at a tournament, ask early and plan accordingly.

What a load of rubbish! The debate, not your post Unholyllama!

Quantum Shielding wrote:

A vehicle equipped with active quantum shielding counts all of its Front and Side Armour Values as 13.

Lance wrote:

Weapons with the Lance special rule count vehicle Armour Values that are higher than 12 as 12.

Is 13 higher than 12? Yes. So the Lance rule knocks it back down to 12. Both rules work perfectly well together and there's no conflict therefore nothing for Codex>BRB to worry itself about.

Count Adhemar wrote:

Unholyllama wrote:

Count Adhemar wrote:

Lord Puberis wrote:

On the subject of quantum shielding, does the lance effect still work?

Yes, no change there.

Reading through the thread, this caught my eye.  

This is something I'm seeing debated a bit.  

Both rules use "counts as" wording and lance is in the BRB.  I've seen many argue (successfully) that Quantum Shielding wins out due to Codex vs BRB. I've seen a couple TOs rule this way too.

So if you're at a tournament, ask early and plan accordingly.

What a load of rubbish! The debate, not your post Unholyllama!

Quantum Shielding wrote:

A vehicle equipped with active quantum shielding counts all of its Front and Side Armour Values as 13.

Lance wrote:

Weapons with the Lance special rule count vehicle Armour Values that are higher than 12 as 12.

Is 13 higher than 12? Yes. So the Lance rule knocks it back down to 12. Both rules work perfectly well together and there's no conflict therefore nothing for Codex>BRB to worry itself about.

I also play Necrons and have been on the fence about it myself. I understand both perspectives since 1 perceives "counts as" to be a set modifier while the other views it as unique situations that don't conflict.

I would hope for a FAQ to clarify it; however, that would require GW to answer questions.

Even if it is a 'set modifier' there's still no conflict. QS 'sets' AV to 13, Lance treats AV>12 as 12. Both rules still work perfectly without conflict.

If it's any help, GW did answer this exact question in the FAQ for the previous codex

Q: What armour value will Lance weapons roll against when firing at the front or side armour of a vehicle with Quantum Shielding that has yet to suffer a penetrating hit? (p82)
A: 12.

Hmm, I have the old 6th ed FAQs and the current ones for both DE, Necrons, and the BRB. I'm not seeing that entry (though I could be overlooking it).

Which FAQ & version is that entry in?

Unholyllama wrote:

Hmm, I have the old 6th ed FAQs and the current ones for both DE, Necrons, and the BRB.  I'm not seeing that entry (though I could be overlooking it).

Which FAQ & version is that entry in?

Official Update Version 2.0, 9th January 2012. Probably the last one before 6e hit.

Ah.  So the last codex Necron FAQ under 5th edition core rules.  That explains why I don't have it (only have FAQs that came out in 6th and forward).

Good to know.

That said though, the previous Necron codex was +2AV instead of counts as wording (if I recall correctly).

"counts all Armour Values on its front and side facings as being 2 points higher"

Still not seeing any issue. Previous version (above), AV 11 counts as AV 13, 13>12 so Lance takes it back down to 12. Exactly the same effect as now.

Count Adhemar wrote:

"counts all Armour Values on its front and side facings as being 2 points higher"

Still not seeing any issue. Previous version (above), AV 11 counts as AV 13, 13>12 so Lance takes it back down to 12. Exactly the same effect as now.

The crux of the argument now seems to be people considering "Counts As" as set modifiers and set modifiers don't stack nor are sequential per the rule book. So while Lance states it counts as AV12, the Necron codex states it counts as AV13. If not sequential than it's AV13 as Codex would trump special rules in the rule book.

The other argument is saying that past FAQs that do not exist in the current FAQ or printed rules no longer apply (which is why most Necron players agree that we can't embark back into a Night Scythe any more).

Unholyllama wrote:

The crux of the argument now seems to be people considering "Counts As" as set modifiers

If anyone actually tries to argue that, please hand them a dictionary.

"To think of or treat something as being a certain thing" As per The Free Dictionary

Thus, you treat it like it is not armor 11 but armor 13. This isn't modifying the value, it is treating it as being something it isn't (And in extension of that, something it isn't modified to).

Thus,
When shooting at it, you treat it as if it had armor 13, without its armor actually becoming 13 (So there is no matter of set modifiers or w/e), then lance knocks it down to 12 because it ttreats it as if it is 12, not 13. Simple English.

And if anyone argues it is a set modifier, ask them this "If your child dresses up as iron man and you treat them like iron man, does that set them to be iron man?"

Anterzhul wrote:

Unholyllama wrote:

The crux of the argument now seems to be people considering "Counts As" as set modifiers

If anyone actually tries to argue that, please hand them a dictionary.

"To think of or treat something as being a certain thing" As per The Free Dictionary

Thus, you treat it like it is not armor 11 but armor 13. This isn't modifying the value, it is treating it as being something it isn't (And in extension of that, something it isn't modified to).

Thus,
When shooting at it, you treat it as if it had armor 13, without its armor actually becoming 13 (So there is no matter of set modifiers or w/e), then lance knocks it down to 12 because it ttreats it as if it is 12, not 13. Simple English.

And if anyone argues it is a set modifier, ask them this "If your child dresses up as iron man and you treat them like iron man, does that set them to be iron man?"

The argument to that though is then that if it's not actually modified to AV13, then why are lances at AV12 and not AV11?  If it doesn't actually change the value, then how is Lance able to activate it and lower it?

The justification for this thinking is just because a flyer goes into hover mode and counts as a Fast Skimmer - it doesn't stop being a zooming flyer. Though this rabbit whole goes into a very broken territory imo.

EDIT:
The thing with "Counts As" phrasing is that it is not explicitly called out as an explicit modifier. It's not explicit in definition as words like "becomes" or just plain "is." However, if such phrasing is not used consistently as a set modifier, than additional issues come into effect since FMCs and Hovering Flyers use similar (not exact) wording. If Counts As isn't a set modifier, the argument turns into that a Hovering Flyer is treated like a Fast Skimmer but is still a Zooming Flyer which cannot be assaulted or hit with Blast markers.

If "counts as" is treated as a set modifier, then we have two rules that are both set modifiers on the same value. 2 modifiers on the same characters switches to basic vs advance ruling...which would give Quantum Shielding the win since it's in a codex.

At this point (well even before this even) I've resorted that it just needs to be FAQed again.  Old codex was interpreted to be +2AV often while the latest is explicitly AV13. It's GW's gloriously consistent and high quality writing.

On another note I had a good game against necrons the other day. Assault is definitely the answer. Here's the report if anyone is interested:

BR1: The Repugnant Ramblers Vs Necrons - 1250pts

After reading Mush's batrep, I think a decent argument could be made that our best chance against the new Necrons is to grind them down over the course of 3-4 turns in CC. I think running a full Coven list might actually be a good idea since anti-tank shooting may not be a huge key to victory against a lot of the new and improved 'Cron units.

sweetbacon wrote:

After reading Mush's batrep, I think a decent argument could be made that our best chance against the new Necrons is to grind them down over the course of 3-4 turns in CC.  I think running a full Coven list might actually be a good idea since anti-tank shooting may not be a huge key to victory against a lot of the new and improved 'Cron units.  

To be fair my list is very extreme (and still in its infancy). But even incorporating a few coven units into a normal dark eldar list will definitely helps against necrons. In my opinion coven or not I feel we suffer less against necrons than other armies though. That being said necrons punish lists that depend solely on shooting for victory.

Glad to hear this went well.  I'm about to head out to two 1500 games and I'm testing the Grotesqurie and Dark Artisan against them.  I'm taking the grotesque in raiders with enhanced aethersails instead of WWP delivery though.  I'm expecting at least one game to be against necron, so hopefully I'll get to see how it goes.

Edit: As an update, I didn't end up playing against either of the Necron players for either of my 2 matches but I'm going to try to put up battlereports to share how the grotesqurie and dark artisan did.