Thursday, 15 December 2011

Royal Court Tournament Ruling...D'oh!!

The upcoming Caledonian Uprising tournament here in the UK (January 20-something-th) is a big one for the Sons.. There are some 110 competitors and its at 1850. Biggest EVERYTHING for this Son..

But I have an issue. There is a tournament specific FAQ and it has ruled that Necron armies running 2 Overlords can attach just ONE member from each Court to a single squad.

The codex states:
".. For each Overlord in your army, the army may also include a Royal Court..."

the next paragraph says:
"...Each member of the Royal Court has the option of being split off from his unit and assigned to lead another unit....only one member of the Royal Court can join each unit in this manner..."

So the use of the word 'the' does not refer to a collective Royal Court, but the Royal Court of each Overlord, I personally disagree with the ruling.

To me, it is pretty straightforward that each Royal Court can only assign one member of its Court to each unit, but that BOTH Courts may add a member to the same unit.

This is a very big issue for me, I am desperate to run my Crons, but every time I try and build a list I find myself several restricted by this ruling.

Simple example of how it is a pain in the arse..
2 Overlords
Court1 - Veil Cryptek
Court 2 - Orb Lord w SoL
10 Immortals - Gauss

Great for throwing into 12" and blasting a unit away..and survivable too with an Orb Lord. However, this ruling forbids this..

What about wanting to throw the Storm Lord into a unit of Immortals (for Phaeron/Relentless), a Chronometron Tek (to reroll Night Fight, Lightning rolls and failed 2+ armour saves) and then attaching an Orb Lord to massively increase the survivability of the unit?

Can't do it.

Ahhh! It's a fucker.
I feel this ruling is wrong, but clearly just have to man up and deal with it.

Which most likely (read: very fucking strongly) means I will not be taking Necrons...


How do y'all feel about this? Am I talking bullshit? Is the ruling correct as far as you are concerned? Whats the precedent?


  1. Whilst I agree the codex doesn't prevent you from doing it, I wouldn't be surprised if the GW FAQ has the same ruling.

    Seems a bit crap but I think it's a classic case of GW wording something badly so as to make it ambiguous. The wording was probably intended to be the same as wolf guard in the SW codex but that's Phil Kelly and not Matt Ward....

    If it had been written properly originally you wouldn't even be worried about it now. I hope it doesn't put you off taking Necrons.

    In short, you're right, man the fuck up and deal with it!

  2. RAW you're right but as Ales has said, and what I reckon was intended was them to work like Wolf Guard.

    Plus Cali' uprising is the Scott's ETC fund raiser using ETC rules so perhaps this is how it might be at the ETC.

  3. does put me off, definately for this tournament..some great tools and tricks use this and are nowhere near broken, merely effective.
    It'd be a real shame if this happens..
    @Mc Tic Tac -meh. I get your point, it is just the cracking in the ice that'll start to dissuade me and, as I am not a unique flower, others from using the robots..

    All this said, there are some very good builds that do not even need to farm out the Court or even require a Court...but they DO take up an entire PAGE in an otherwise brief Army List...

  4. i have paid but not heard from the organiser if i have the slot. guess i'll start planning an 1850 guard list. oh and stupid ruling.

  5. I think it may end up that way from GW...they are Xenos after all... ;)

    According to the Warhammer have a spot!

  6. Sounds to me that someone was butt hurt by a royal court one day and decided that instead of people figuring out how to deal with it they would simply faq it so they didnt.

    This doesnt need an FAQ, and I would be surprised if GW FAQ'd it the same way.

    I dont deny that having access to two Solar Pulses or Viels might be breaking what they intended, but then again they could have just put them as unique wargear for the army, that would solve the issue easier (or the tournament rules would FAQ it that way).

    I agree with you that its a mistake, but not much you can do, as when you agree to attend someone elses tournament you agree to abide by their decisions, rules and missions.

    Clear hit and a miss there from the TO imo.

  7. It does take a bit of the BANG out of the necron book. However, I think they have the rules and builds to cope with it. Dont give up Ven!!!!

  8. cool, when do lists need to be in by? i really have no idea about this thing, is it standard missions? :S

  9. So, you might want to correct the wording up there.

    " There is a tournament specific FAQ and it has ruled that Necron armies running 2 Overlords can attach just ONE member from each Court to a single squad."

    The word 'each' (as opposed to 'any') changes the meaning of the sentence to be the exact opposite of both your intention, and the ruling. I scratched my head through the whole article until I researched the source, and saw the mistake. Linking said source might be a good idea, too:

  10. Honestly, the one that weirded me out was the 'awaiting decision' on whether a model that failed it's armor save but passed it's FNP roll loses it's armor save due to Entropic Strike. It does.

    In order to take a FNP roll, you must suffer an unsaved wound. If you suffer an unsaved would, you lose your armor save. FNP allowing you to 'ignore the wound' doesn't mean it didn't happen. It just means you don't die from it.

  11. ok scratch previous question, found the rules pack.. they sure like their strange deployments!

  12. If it does end up being ruled this way i see zero reasons to ever take to royal courts. And will always just run a Dlord with wraiths. Atm it is a really toigh choice between dual courts and wraiths. But if its ruled against xenos itll will make it pretty easy. I reckon give it a shot and see if you can make a list with that. Also if you just give a resorb to your overlord you dont need the lord.

  13. Luke...hi. your right, either or any would have been more accurate, sorry!
    The ruling is still only based on The similarity of the units farmibg out to wolf guard..which is decent precident...but RAW wrong as it stands.

    The ES/FNP issue i too thought was pretty straightforward...

    Anob...dlord w wraiths sure is decent option, ran obe the other day for lols and was very pleased

  14. The use of the word "the" in reference to the Court does indicate a member from each court. But the reference to the court member being assigned "to lead" the unit arguably works the other way - a unit has a single leader. So RAW is not quite as clear as people think.

  15. Don't get me wrong it's a shame because there are some nice combos. I bet GW misses it out of their FAQ like they usually do with the big issues!

  16. @Border Prince..fair shout, but what is to stop a unit having more than one leader? A Court is after all, about advice and specialisms..several members could feasibly coordinate their skills to lead a unit to fulfil a mission or task...that is just your perception of one leader, not a leadership team...they are aliens.. lol.

    Just being playful..

  17. Hi Ven, Gary here from over on 40kuk.

    Personally i agree with you, and im with you, its putting me off taking them to the tournament. For the Ukgt this year i will be faq'ing it the other way unless an official faq comes out in the mean time.


  18. Hi Gary,
    I did think I'd not be the only one stumped by it.. I'm not UNABLE to build a list due to this...however, as I understand it, this ruling stops me from making the BEST one I can...

    Whatever way the GW FAQ goes will be fine, as its the rule..and I'll live with it.

    Glad to hear the UK40KGT will be allowing for maximum potential Necrons!

    Been listening to the podcast since you 'turned me on' to you..excellent work man!

  19. Like most of the "questions" (and there are some remarkably stupid ones out there, which gives lots of support to my contention that most of the "GW writes bad rules" claims are actually "40K players cannot read Standard English", especially professional technical English), I simply try to not "exploit" the better for Necron side.

    I don't conga line Scarabs, I don't allow my Scarabs to roll penetration after their entropic strikes (guys, ALL unit combat is simultaneous, therefore chance to pen & entropic happen simultaneously vs the AV the vehicle started with), and I don't include multiple Royal Court members in my lists. Oh, I have one where I double up an Orb Lord with a Cryptek, but that is for my convenience, I could put the Cryptek elsewhere.

    Why? Because now I don't give a fig which way GW rules. Either I'm already playing under the "restricted" version or I'll get some more flexibility after the FAQ.

  20. Just came back to this and read the comment.. lol. I can read english fine bro...