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.

I think its time we got another generic 40k rumour thread so lets start with this new guy:

New Necron Overlord with Translocation Shroud

So it's almost, but not quite, like giving a unit jump packs. Might make Lychguard a bit more interesting.

I'm not greatly impressed with this design. Hopefully the rules in the codex will give the Necrons a boost but I feel both codexes released so far for tenth have been a bit hit and miss. As primarily a narrative player I'm not overly concerned with how powerful units are, but I would like the rules around them to make sense in regard to the background.

Don’t care for the model as an Overlord. Too dynamic and stand out to be a unit leader. It’s a cool model though, and could make a good Orikan conversion.

I’m hoping the ability there is an Enhancement and not a new, additional Overlord profile. It’s a cool ability though, it’s actually the previous Nephrekh army rule, which I love.

Why in the 9 hells did he have to be teleporting onto a tactical rock!? Could he not just have you know... materialised on the ground?

The concept for the model is cool, but I don't think it's overly well executed. While the general pose itself is nice enough, the balancing precariously on a rock is not though. The mid-relocation is cool, but the swirly bullgak does not convey very well what I think they're trying to and just serves to clutter the model up and make it unnecessarily busy. They could have just have easily had him walking out of a portal and it would have looked infinitely better while representing the same thing.

GW's obsession with tactical rocks is unfortunately, untameable at this point.

 Snrub wrote:
Why in the 9 hells did he have to be teleporting onto a tactical rock!? Could he not just have you know... materialised on the ground?

The concept for the model is cool, but I don't think it's overly well executed. While the general pose itself is nice enough, the balancing precariously on a rock is not though. The mid-relocation is cool, but the swirly bullgak does not convey very well what I think they're trying to and just serves to clutter the model up and make it unnecessarily busy. They could have just have easily had him walking out of a portal and it would have looked infinitely better while representing the same thing.

Who's to say he isn't rising off the ground in that moment and the rocks are being pulled up with him?

Uptonius wrote:

 Snrub wrote:
Why in the 9 hells did he have to be teleporting onto a tactical rock!? Could he not just have you know... materialised on the ground?

The concept for the model is cool, but I don't think it's overly well executed. While the general pose itself is nice enough, the balancing precariously on a rock is not though. The mid-relocation is cool, but the swirly bullgak does not convey very well what I think they're trying to and just serves to clutter the model up and make it unnecessarily busy. They could have just have easily had him walking out of a portal and it would have looked infinitely better while representing the same thing.

Who's to say he isn't rising off the ground in that moment and the rocks are being pulled up with him?

That's a very tactical way of propping up a rock, I must say

That said, if tactical rocks are the price to pay to get ride of transparent flyer bases, I'm all the more for it; those transparent sticks;

the rock is there because he is not teleporting in, but teleporting out
and teleport works better if you jump off a rock

just imagine him running away from the enemy and therefore he jumps backword off the rock and vanish

 kodos wrote:
the rock is there because he is not teleporting in, but teleporting out
and teleport works better if you jump off a rock

just imagine him running away from the enemy and therefore he jumps backword off the rock and vanish

I refuse, that rock is there because it's tactical rock, I've decided.

Besides, teleportation shouldn't require rock; the rock is there because the designer put it there and they thought it was tacticool. I've also decided.

For a model like that I'm fine with a tactical rock as the effects need a few contact points at different positions/orientations to be structurally sound

I'd like to say thanks for taking the time and effort to make a general 40k new thread.

On topic, I really couldn't care less about the rock, it doesn't detract from the sculpt and I don't think the overlord should be floating given what the wargear does.

I do feel like there's been a run of "alternate test sculpts we liked but didn't have room for in the main release" going on, like the last 3 event necrons and the recent einhyr champ.

I didn't even notice the rock.

I like the model though, paint scheme is a bit naff but that doesn't dissuade me from liking it, some expert painters are gonna be able to make this thing look amazing.

It looks like the tactical debris is just large enough to support his left foot while the right foot does nothing to actually keep him up there. I'm not a fan of that choice. If the designers absolutely have to have a tactical rock on the model, I'd rather if the rock had some substance to it so the Necron can comfortably and securely stand on it.

Aside from that, eh. Wouldn't be my first choice, but no complaints about getting something a bit different. Suitable models for non-fancy lords aren't in short supply.

 Geifer wrote:
It looks like the tactical debris is just large enough to support his left foot while the right foot does nothing to actually keep him up there. I'm not a fan of that choice. If the designers absolutely have to have a tactical rock on the model, I'd rather if the rock had some substance to it so the Necron can comfortably and securely stand on it.

Aside from that, eh. Wouldn't be my first choice, but no complaints about getting something a bit different. Suitable models for non-fancy lords aren't in short supply.

I think it's meant to be them stepping/kicking off as they dissipate, hence the pose not quite looking comfy/supported.

I'm tempted to say that if a tactical rock only supports a single pose, the sculptor's intention doesn't make much of a difference. The tactical rock loses any pretense of being a natural feature and strictly becomes a means to facilitate that specific pose. I'm not particularly fond of that approach.

Compare that to Lord Horseyman for instance, who gets titan head so he has a mound to stand on. Doesn't matter if his horse is standing or rearing, or if he's by himself or has attendants below him. His mound provides elevation and can support all manner of things while it fulfills its core function. The Necron's tactical rock can't.

I just prefer for a tactical rock to be meaningful and interesting on its own if it has to be there in the first place.

I also didn't see the rock, which I assume is there to elevate the Overlord to accommodate his large weapon and all that swirly gak.

My cynical side would say the reason there are so many tactical rocks under models is that they already weigh nothing, and GW want to add more heft to the box so it feels like you're buying more than compressed farts. At least for the parents handing over the cash...

That and it's an easy way to make a model stand out on the battlefield next to everything else.

 AduroT wrote:
Don’t care for the model as an Overlord. Too dynamic and stand out to be a unit leader. It’s a cool model though, and could make a good Orikan conversion.

I’m hoping the ability there is an Enhancement and not a new, additional Overlord profile. It’s a cool ability though, it’s actually the previous Nephrekh army rule, which I love.

Unlike regular Overlords, who must rely on leisurely barge cruises or hefty teleportation gates to get where they’re going, this mobile variant makes use of their personal translocation shroud to slip through solid walls, enemy sentinels, and other obstructions – even bringing their bodyguards along for the ride.

Definitely sounds like it's meant to be a new profile/variant.

'We should make a Necron Lord who teleports'
'With a Veil of Darkness?'
'No. Also he can move through walls'
'With a Phase Shifter?'
'Shut up and add something new!'

 Lord Damocles wrote:
'We should make a Necron Lord who teleports'
'With a Veil of Darkness?'
'No. Also he can move through walls'
'With a Pashe Shifter?'
'Shut up and add something new!'

I think it is a phase shifter, it's just the overlord got ripped off at the necrontyr relics market and told it was a phase shifter +1. Which it is I guess as it now affects the full retinue.

Why not an overlord with sword and res orb, we have rules for that but no model. only lord with orb.

 skeleton wrote:
Why not an overlord with sword and res orb, we have rules for that but no model. only lord with orb.

Command Barge Overlord plus Praetorian kit sword. Boom, Overlord with sword.

Assuming, of course, that the book even keeps that load out.

Will be interesting to see what’s still in there. Based on previous info the book has 47 entries, and our index has 50. People were already debating and guessing what 3 things we lose, but if this Overlord is indeed a new entry, that puts us up to 4 lost things at least now.

Lords, Destroyer Lords... probably some special characters.

Looks good, might be a bugger to paint. Not sure why people are complaining about a rock, would the same people also complain if he didn't have any base decor?

 Valkyrie wrote:
Not sure why people are complaining about a rock, would the same people also complain if he didn't have any base decor?

As the first person here to mention it (and therefore chief complainer), I would absolutely zero issues if this model (or literally any other for that matter) had no base decor. A rock, or in this case lump of concrete with a piece of rebar sticking out of it, adds nothing to the miniature. Look at all the models in the GW range posed on tactical scenery and tell me how many of them are genuinely enhanced by its presence.

 Snrub wrote:

 Valkyrie wrote:
Not sure why people are complaining about a rock, would the same people also complain if he didn't have any base decor?

As the first person here to mention it (and therefore chief complainer), I would absolutely zero issues if this model (or literally any other for that matter) had no base decor. A rock, or in this case lump of concrete with a piece of rebar sticking out of it, adds nothing to the miniature. Look at all the models in the GW range posed on tactical scenery and tell me how many of them are genuinely enhanced by its presence.

That’s very much a subjective opinion, some of the stuff GW has done with tactical rocks has been great, I think there are loads of good examples and few bad ones. This one I see as a way to show him appearing in mid air, it was used to add hight generally to the pose. Not the best but overall the design is very clever and again by gw, the use of negative space is very clever.

Saying you don't like the rock is just like saying you don’t like the shape of the head or how they’ve painted it. It’s not a fault with the model, it’s just not to your taste.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AduroT wrote:
Will be interesting to see what’s still in there. Based on previous info the book has 47 entries, and our index has 50. People were already debating and guessing what 3 things we lose, but if this Overlord is indeed a new entry, that puts us up to 4 lost things at least now.

I can see lords going and for me they could trim out a bunch of special characters. Maybe the old destroyer models but I dint really see anything with a plastic kit getting binned.

Maybe if the tactical rocks were optional... or if they weren't on (or under, really!) every damned character they put out these days.

Andykp wrote:

 Snrub wrote:

 Valkyrie wrote:
Not sure why people are complaining about a rock, would the same people also complain if he didn't have any base decor?

As the first person here to mention it (and therefore chief complainer), I would absolutely zero issues if this model (or literally any other for that matter) had no base decor. A rock, or in this case lump of concrete with a piece of rebar sticking out of it, adds nothing to the miniature. Look at all the models in the GW range posed on tactical scenery and tell me how many of them are genuinely enhanced by its presence.

That’s very much a subjective opinion, some of the stuff GW has done with tactical rocks has been great, I think there are loads of good examples and few bad ones. This one I see as a way to show him appearing in mid air, it was used to add hight generally to the pose. Not the best but overall the design is very clever and again by gw, the use of negative space is very clever.

Saying you don't like the rock is just like saying you don’t like the shape of the head or how they’ve painted it. It’s not a fault with the model, it’s just not to your taste.

The big problem I have with their tactical rocks is that they don't fit my basing scheme most of the time. I'm all for including stuff to put on the bases and having the miniature standing on stuff as long as its not molded to parts of the model itself. So for example the Votann Kahl or Einhyr Champion are also standing on rocks but if I want to use something else for basing I can just swap out the rocks for something else. The Grymnir on the other hand has both his feet molded on the rocks so I have to take out the saw to separate them.
And with this guy it very much looks like the feet will be molded on the rocks and with the way they are posed it looks quite hard to get them off