In the mean time I've pushed my Pariahs into service as Crypteks, and I was able to grab another squad of 10 of them for the price of 1 failcast Cryptek.
In the mean time I've pushed my Pariahs into service as Crypteks, and I was able to grab another squad of 10 of them for the price of 1 failcast Cryptek.
I made 5 by kitbashing Warrior bodies and Praetorian bits.
There is a youtube video explaining how to use the Praetorian box with Deathmark heads that makes really good looking Crypteks. I was planning on doing that until I stumbled across my Pariahs.
So I came across this list that got 4th place at NOVA or something like that.
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/4th-Overall-Aaron-Aleong-Nova-Open-2014.pdf At first it looks like how I would tackle a competitive Necron list. I typically buy a Bargelord, Destroyer Lord, and then Wraiths, and then 3 Night Scythes. However, scrolling down to expect Barges, I get, instead, 3 squads of Meganobz in Trukks. How do you guys feel about this list? I don't know enough about Orks to make comment on how awesome the unit is.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: So I came across this list that got 4th place at NOVA or something like that.
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/4th-Overall-Aaron-Aleong-Nova-Open-2014.pdf At first it looks like how I would tackle a competitive Necron list. I typically buy a Bargelord, Destroyer Lord, and then Wraiths, and then 3 Night Scythes. However, scrolling down to expect Barges, I get, instead, 3 squads of Meganobz in Trukks. How do you guys feel about this list? I don't know enough about Orks to make comment on how awesome the unit is.
It's good, especially with the type of terrain that was present at NOVA (large blocks of LOS-blocking terrain where you can hide a lot of units). Basically, this type of list is used to control the board and to deny the opponent from approaching the middle. However, it probably wouldn't do as well in a terrain-lite board against an enemy alpha-strike type of list.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I have a large 3K game coming up against Tau this weekend. My Tau opponent, while decent in skill, has never been able to beat me. Thus, I am not running a highly optimized list. Rather, I am going to run some units that I haven't run in a while.
3K NECRONS
Obyron
Bargelord
2x Storm-teks
5x Warriors - Night Scythe
5x Warriors - Night Scythe
Wow, that's surprisingly light on troops for 3k.
though, with Veil-tek attached to Immortals for super mobile scoring, I guess you wouldn't need to worry about that so much.
What's your plan?
Obyron & Imotekh with the Pylons, I assume.
skoffs wrote: Wow, that's surprisingly light on troops for 3k.
though, with Veil-tek attached to Immortals for super mobile scoring, I guess you wouldn't need to worry about that so much.
What's your plan?
Obyron & Imotekh with the Pylons, I assume.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: So I came across this list that got 4th place at NOVA or something like that.
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/4th-Overall-Aaron-Aleong-Nova-Open-2014.pdf At first it looks like how I would tackle a competitive Necron list. I typically buy a Bargelord, Destroyer Lord, and then Wraiths, and then 3 Night Scythes. However, scrolling down to expect Barges, I get, instead, 3 squads of Meganobz in Trukks. How do you guys feel about this list? I don't know enough about Orks to make comment on how awesome the unit is.
It's good, especially with the type of terrain that was present at NOVA (large blocks of LOS-blocking terrain where you can hide a lot of units). Basically, this type of list is used to control the board and to deny the opponent from approaching the middle. However, it probably wouldn't do as well in a terrain-lite board against an enemy alpha-strike type of list.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I have a large 3K game coming up against Tau this weekend. My Tau opponent, while decent in skill, has never been able to beat me. Thus, I am not running a highly optimized list. Rather, I am going to run some units that I haven't run in a while.
3K NECRONS
Obyron
Bargelord
2x Storm-teks
5x Warriors - Night Scythe
5x Warriors - Night Scythe
So, do you feel:
1. The Unbound is worth it in this list? Unless it's some formation, of course.
2. Orks as allies are able to make it to melee enough, or that their firepower is sufficient when they can't make it? You mention there being heavy terrain at NOVA, and I usually do medium terrain.
3. We can cut costs by removing one single squad, and finding points elsewhere for 3 Barges? This seems like it would be more competitive.
As for your list, I'm curious to see how it performs. Sentry Pylons were awesome last edition with the Gauss Cannons, but those are now essentially worthless. I have yet to actually USE Pylonstar, so I'm curious how you'll do on that end as well. I haven't used the Tesseract Ark and know nothing about the Shield thing, but I would be prepared to be disappointed by the Bomber.
So, do you feel:
1. The Unbound is worth it in this list? Unless it's some formation, of course.
2. Orks as allies are able to make it to melee enough, or that their firepower is sufficient when they can't make it? You mention there being heavy terrain at NOVA, and I usually do medium terrain.
3. We can cut costs by removing one single squad, and finding points elsewhere for 3 Barges? This seems like it would be more competitive.
As for your list, I'm curious to see how it performs. Sentry Pylons were awesome last edition with the Gauss Cannons, but those are now essentially worthless. I have yet to actually USE Pylonstar, so I'm curious how you'll do on that end as well. I haven't used the Tesseract Ark and know nothing about the Shield thing, but I would be prepared to be disappointed by the Bomber.
1. What col-impact said. It is the Bully Boyz formation.
2. The weakness here are the ork transports. Shoot them down early and they are practically useless. Meganobs are Slow & Purposeful, meaning that they can't run. That is why this type of list doesn't really work all that well without heavy terrain and especially BLOS terrain. They are especially vulnerable to Eldar and Tau shooting if NecrOrks don't go first.
3. I'm not sure if there is a minimum to run the formation. It may be 3-5 units, but we'll need someone with the Ork supplements to confirm this. But if not, then yeah, cutting 1 unit of orks for 3 AB's is definitely a good investment and IMO more competitive.
As for my list, I'm actually going to change it up. I'll post my new list a little later on.
I have a large 3K game coming up against Tau this weekend. My Tau opponent, while decent in skill, has never been able to beat me. Thus, I am not running a highly optimized list. Rather, I am going to run some units that I haven't run in a while.
3K NECRONS
Obyron
Bargelord
2x Storm-teks
5x Warriors - Night Scythe
5x Warriors - Night Scythe
I've decided to switch up my list, for the following reasons:
1. I want to try out new things and units I seldom use.
2. I want to challenge myself.
3. I'm going to throw my opponent a curveball. He's probably expecting bargelords, wraithstars, night scythes and annihilation barges. Nuh uh....he ain't having none of that.
Bullyboyz is simply 3 units of meganobz and all units must have at least 5 models. so no you cant skim points off of the formation unless you remove the trukks... which will literally not get you far
Hmm just realized something. The restriction specifically says "all units must include at least 5 models" so does a unit of 4 MANZ + Trukk count 4manz + trukk is still 5 models
I'm just now starting a Necron army so I thought I'd stop lurking and ask a question. Do any of you follow any kind of thematic thing for your armies, like a specific dynasty? The reason I started looking into Necrons was that I loved the fluff for Trazyn so much. So I was hoping to do make an army based around him but I really don't know where to start since he's kind of a rogue in regards to painting schemes and the like. And I'd like to get some advice on where I should kinda head next. I have about 40 warriors, 10 or so immortals, 2 monoliths, a lord, destroyer lord, Overlord, 6 or 7 destoyers, a Ctan and a bunch of scarabs. Definitely need to get some transports and a CCB I know that much. But I'd love to see generally what everybody likes to do with their armies to bring the pain. I've read a few articles on 1d4chan but I learn more hearing it directly from players.
keltikhoa wrote: Bullyboyz is simply 3 units of meganobz and all units must have at least 5 models. so no you cant skim points off of the formation unless you remove the trukks... which will literally not get you far
Hmm just realized something. The restriction specifically says "all units must include at least 5 models" so does a unit of 4 MANZ + Trukk count 4manz + trukk is still 5 models
The trukk is a seperate unit from the MANZ so wouldn't apply to their model count.
In fact based off of what you said you couldn't take trukks because they wouldn't be a five model unit.
Gamerely wrote: I'm just now starting a Necron army so I thought I'd stop lurking and ask a question. Do any of you follow any kind of thematic thing for your armies, like a specific dynasty? The reason I started looking into Necrons was that I loved the fluff for Trazyn so much. So I was hoping to do make an army based around him but I really don't know where to start since he's kind of a rogue in regards to painting schemes and the like. And I'd like to get some advice on where I should kinda head next. I have about 40 warriors, 10 or so immortals, 2 monoliths, a lord, destroyer lord, Overlord, 6 or 7 destoyers, a Ctan and a bunch of scarabs. Definitely need to get some transports and a CCB I know that much. But I'd love to see generally what everybody likes to do with their armies to bring the pain. I've read a few articles on 1d4chan but I learn more hearing it directly from players.
Deathmarks + Dispairtek = Flamer Template AP2 wounds on 2+, plus the rapid fired sniper shots of Deathmarks wounding on 2+, against a single squad. It drops in effectiveness massively after that first target is eliminated, but it usually wipes out that first squad.
5 Man squads of Warriors + Stormtek + Scythe = TAC, OBJ SEC
Scarabs + Spyders = Scarab Farm. Tarpit pretty much anything that isn't awesome in hand to hand, and chew through anything with an AV.
Personally I run a couterstrike list that uses two Night Scythes full of warriors to drop into key areas to harass or contest, and otherwise interfere with whatever my opponent is doing.
This occasionally works in a hammer and anvil scenario, with the drop squads and my main battleline catching pockets of my opponent's army in crossfire, but that isn't my usual intention.
Recently I started running a Monolith & Destroyers again, alongside the two annihilation barges which were my former answer to almost anything T6 or more.
My advice is don't underestimate your troops, because when they are backed up by a Res-Orb lord they can absorb horrific amounts of damage, repeatedly if not focussed upon and removed as soon as plausible. Due to Gauss, we don't require *that* much in the way of special weaponry, so your heavy supports should be for picking on infantry, which the Monolith does very well. To help there, a Doom Scythe for heavy Armour hunting, or a pair of Death Ray sentries (not taken for the sentrystar) if you don't mind forge world.
With that many destroyers and a destroyer lord, consider running a unit of 5 Destroyers to decimate whatever you point them at, and if your local allows Forge World, invest in some Arcanthrites to escort the DLord.
Other than that, not much to say besides use our resiliency to experiment with tactics, see what works for you, and expand upon that.
Thanks for the tips. I used to play Imperial Guard so I'm still trying to get out of that mindset of thinking my troops are worthless and do no damage unless there's 20 of them there. What would be a good way to discourage CC type elites. Like my good friend runs thunderwolves with suped up Dreads. The other runs a Warboss with like 4 meganobz that are all kitted out for CC. I wouldn't think there would be much in the way to tarpit dedicated CC of that caliber. Scarabs would probably get instant ko, maybe hope for a few entropic strikes before they die to weaken them for the oncoming gaus fire?
10 Scarab bases 150 points, 30 wounds, 40 attacks(50 on the charge), and is fearless. They can tarpit pretty much anything that does less than S6. Then strip it's armor. Then kill it when it doesn't get amor saves. Park 3 Spyders 6" behind them and the swarm grows 3 bases (9 wounds) every turn
Echoing what's been said above:
Deathstar breaker = Deathmarks + Despair-teks (in Night Scythe)
Tarpit = Scarabs + Spyders
Anti-AV = Storm-teks + Gauss troops (in Night Scythe)
For everything else, there's Tesla Destructors... or at least until January
skoffs wrote: Echoing what's been said above:
Deathstar breaker = Deathmarks + Despair-teks (in Night Scythe)
Tarpit = Scarabs + Spyders
Anti-AV = Storm-teks + Gauss troops (in Night Scythe)
For everything else, there's Tesla Destructors... or at least until January
I don't know why but I found that incredibley amusing.
It sounds like it should be Necron Corporate's Slogan.
So how'd you think my army matches up? Does an experimental Necron list have a chance against this type of Tau list? Love to hear what you guys think.
BTW, I played the Sentrystar as conservatively as possible ruleswise. That means hits generated against 1 unit apply only to that unit. For example, if the 3 pylons hit 3 separate vehicles, that means each vehicle takes 6 hits each (and not 18 hits each as would happen under pure RAW).
Batrep should be coming out sometime during the week.
Are the Spyders and Scarabs going to be hanging back by the Citadel?
Adding 4 bases a turn is going to be pretty sweet.
(Though I would have been tempted to split the Scarabs up. Some to go with the Spyders to be more of a mobile threat, and some to hang back with the Citadel to hopefully be forgotten and slowly grow unmolested until they can zoom off to wreak havoc when least expected).
skoffs wrote: Are the Spyders and Scarabs going to be hanging back by the Citadel?
Adding 4 bases a turn is going to be pretty sweet.
(Though I would have been tempted to split the Scarabs up. Some to go with the Spyders to be more of a mobile threat, and some to hang back with the Citadel to hopefully be forgotten and slowly grow unmolested until they can zoom off to wreak havoc when least expected).
They will be for the very 1st turn, after which they should be advancing. BTW, I am generating 7 scarab bases a turn (6 from spiders and 1 from the Tomb Citadel's Tomb Ziggurat).
Oh yeah, duh, 6 Spyders. (why did I think there was only 3?)
And these are all the Maynarkh CC Scarabs, too, right?
Man, 17+ of those in one unit... *shudder*
I thought there was a limit on how many scarabs you could potentially create, like if you rolled a 1 you suffer a wound and can no longer create them? Or maybe I'm mistaken and they just don't do that in the battle reports I'm watching.
Gamerely wrote: I thought there was a limit on how many scarabs you could potentially create, like if you rolled a 1 you suffer a wound and can no longer create them? Or maybe I'm mistaken and they just don't do that in the battle reports I'm watching.
Spiders can always produce. On a roll of a '1', they take a wound but still produce.
The Tomb Citadel stops producing if it rolls a '1'.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
IHateNids wrote: 2+ scarab placed fine, 1 scarab placed and you take a wound.
I haven't ever tried a Scarab farm, never really thought it was that viable a tactic...
how well does it work?
It is a matchup dependent build that can be quite good against a lot of armies. Other armies, not quite as well, but you can complement its weaknesses with the rest of the army. Just make sure you give it 1 or 2 turns to "grow" before going all out with it.
If you are already fielding scarabs and you can spare 150 points to field 3 Spyders it doesn't hurt.
Honestly though, it comes down to how prepared your opponents are to deal with swarms.
I've been fielding 2-3 scarab swarms,10 bases each, on the deployment line with the Spyders right behind them.
Turn 1 bump one swarm up to 13 bases and run it red tover stlye at the enemy 12+d6" to tie up whatever they are advancing, providing cover saves to my army at the same time.
Move up second swarm 11" and spyders 6", so they are still within 6" range to spawn more scarabs at the beggining of turn 2.
One of those squads will end up tar pitting something. If the opponent can't kill more than 3 bases a turn, you can use the spyders spawn ability to replace losses and keep your scarabs full strength.
If the scarabs get wiped out, they've usually stripped some armor saves. I usually have warriors waiting in rapid fire range at that point to mop up.
Remember to that 3 Spyders pay for themselves in Scarab swarms in 3 turns, and they are not useless beyond that.
I've had mulitple games where people concentrate their fire on the Spyders and get devoured by the scarabs.
I don't normally base my entire army around them, but I'll usually invest in at least a unit of 3 Spyders and 2 swarms of Scarabs.
There are 8 Spyders and 80+bases of scarabs in my collection waiting for the day I can field the Appcalypse formation that revolves around them.
adamsouza wrote: If you are already fielding scarabs and you can spare 150 points to field 3 Spyders it doesn't hurt.
Honestly though, it comes down to how prepared your opponents are to deal with swarms.
I've been fielding 2-3 scarab swarms,10 bases each, on the deployment line with the Spyders right behind them.
Turn 1 bump one swarm up to 13 bases and run it red tover stlye at the enemy 12+d6" to tie up whatever they are advancing, providing cover saves to my army at the same time.
Move up second swarm 11" and spyders 6", so they are still within 6" range to spawn more scarabs at the beggining of turn 2.
One of those squads will end up tar pitting something. If the opponent can't kill more than 3 bases a turn, you can use the spyders spawn ability to replace losses and keep your scarabs full strength.
If the scarabs get wiped out, they've usually stripped some armor saves. I usually have warriors waiting in rapid fire range at that point to mop up.
Remember to that 3 Spyders pay for themselves in Scarab swarms in 3 turns, and they are not useless beyond that.
I've had mulitple games where people concentrate their fire on the Spyders and get devoured by the scarabs.
I don't normally base my entire army around them, but I'll usually invest in at least a unit of 3 Spyders and 2 swarms of Scarabs.
There are 8 Spyders and 80+bases of scarabs in my collection waiting for the day I can field the Appcalypse formation that revolves around them.
The strength of Scarab farm is in direct relationship to the density of terrain. In a dense terrain setup, it is really, really solid. If I know ahead of time that the terrain will be dense, I bring the Scarab farm and wreck face.
I hadn't thought of it that way. Wher I play there usually isn't more than 6-8" of empty space between pieces of terrain.
Scarabs are soo small they can pretty mch hide behind anything.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kangodo wrote: Your prayers have been answered, there IS an Apocalypse Formation..
But it's quite gakky, so we'll have to wait for a normal formation.
Yes and Yes.
The Apocalypse formation where scarabs eat ruins is what I was refering to. We have a tables worth of ruins we often play with, and I want to see the look on their faces when the scarabs start demolishing it.
The Second part is not CAD. If you're running Dark Harvest (as the Flayed Ones suggest), Warrior squads have to be taken in a minimum of 10 from that Army List.
BTW, I played the Sentrystar as conservatively as possible ruleswise. That means hits generated against 1 unit apply only to that unit. For example, if the 3 pylons hit 3 separate vehicles, that means each vehicle takes 6 hits each (and not 18 hits each as would happen under pure RAW).
Not sure why you chose to nerf Sentrystar. The rules are not ambiguous at all and 18 hits would happen in the above example. This is equivalent to playing Wave Serpent's Serpent Shield at 6" instead of the clearly written 60" cuz we want to.
Perhaps they're playing it with the RAI interpretation that whoever wrote the rule for the FDR f'd up and the never intended it to be that overpowered. (sure, RAW saying you can play it that way, but come on, that's pretty ridiculous)
skoffs wrote: Perhaps they're playing it with the RAI interpretation that whoever wrote the rule for the FDR f'd up and the never intended it to be that overpowered. (sure, RAW saying you can play it that way, but come on, that's pretty ridiculous)
Like I said, that would be active rule replacement without any justification except to purely power level edit. RAW it's very clear how FDR resolves. Tournaments implement RAW in this case unless a house rule is in place to explicitly overrule. If we are going to start power level editing, where does it start and where does it end? Why power level edit the Sentry Pylon before power level editing the Transcendant C'Tan or the Riptide or the Wave Serpent or Invisibility?
BTW, I played the Sentrystar as conservatively as possible ruleswise. That means hits generated against 1 unit apply only to that unit. For example, if the 3 pylons hit 3 separate vehicles, that means each vehicle takes 6 hits each (and not 18 hits each as would happen under pure RAW).
Not sure why you chose to nerf Sentrystar. The rules are not ambiguous at all and 18 hits would happen in the above example. This is equivalent to playing Wave Serpent's Serpent Shield at 6" instead of the clearly written 60" cuz we want to.
Because I didn't want to roflstomp my opponent?
In casual play, oftentimes, I need to handicap myself. But if this was a tournament, I'll play it however the event ruled it.
The Second part is not CAD. If you're running Dark Harvest (as the Flayed Ones suggest), Warrior squads have to be taken in a minimum of 10 from that Army List.
Thanks for pointing it out. I had not noticed that.
BTW, I played the Sentrystar as conservatively as possible ruleswise. That means hits generated against 1 unit apply only to that unit. For example, if the 3 pylons hit 3 separate vehicles, that means each vehicle takes 6 hits each (and not 18 hits each as would happen under pure RAW).
Not sure why you chose to nerf Sentrystar. The rules are not ambiguous at all and 18 hits would happen in the above example. This is equivalent to playing Wave Serpent's Serpent Shield at 6" instead of the clearly written 60" cuz we want to.
Because I didn't want to roflstomp my opponent?
BAO allowed Forgeworld and the Sentry Pylons. In fact, Sentry Pylons made it to the top 16.Did it play Sentry Pylons your way or RAW way? Sentry Pylons are good and all but if they aren't getting teleported around by Obyron it's generally a volcano the opponent knowingly walks into and if it is being teleported around by Obyron then it's one big glass cannon death star that is fragile to deep strike mishap. Might as well play things RAW at first and adjust for power level second. Sentry Pylons played pure RAW are still going to struggle against Tau,Eldar, and SM mainstays.
It's definitely noble of you to handicap yourself for your opponent, but it winds up being less telling of how that match-up would resolve in actual tournament conditions.
BTW, I played the Sentrystar as conservatively as possible ruleswise. That means hits generated against 1 unit apply only to that unit. For example, if the 3 pylons hit 3 separate vehicles, that means each vehicle takes 6 hits each (and not 18 hits each as would happen under pure RAW).
Not sure why you chose to nerf Sentrystar. The rules are not ambiguous at all and 18 hits would happen in the above example. This is equivalent to playing Wave Serpent's Serpent Shield at 6" instead of the clearly written 60" cuz we want to.
Because I didn't want to roflstomp my opponent?
BAO allowed Forgeworld and the Sentry Pylons. In fact, Sentry Pylons made it to the top 16.Did it play Sentry Pylons your way or RAW way? Sentry Pylons are good and all but if they aren't getting teleported around by Obyron it's generally a volcano the opponent knowingly walks into and if it is being teleported around by Obyron then it's one big glass cannon death star that is fragile to deep strike mishap. Might as well play things RAW at first and adjust for power level second. Sentry Pylons played pure RAW are still going to struggle against Tau,Eldar, and SM mainstays.
It's definitely noble of you to handicap yourself for your opponent, but it winds up being less telling of how that match-up would resolve in actual tournament conditions.
I'm not sure. He was the only sentry pylon player in the tourney and he ran them as 2 separate, individual units. But from talking to Reece after the tournament, it doesn't appear that Reece was all too familiar with the rules for the sentry pylons.
BTW, I went suicidal with my pylonstar and teleported them smack-dab in the middle of the Tau army, where all 4 of his riptides and all of his markerlights were waiting.
In tournament play, it'll be as strong as almost any other deathstar. It also has the same weaknesses as any other deathstar army and isn't unbeatable.
BTW (part II), I know how powerful it is if you go by pure RAW. It is absolutely broken. But I think it is better to play with the toned-down version of it and then ramp up the power in competitive play. Playing the weaker version better prepares you in the case that the tournament allows for the stronger version, but playing the stronger version absolutely screws you over if you take it to a tournament and the tournament rules it to be played with the weaker version.
BTW, I played the Sentrystar as conservatively as possible ruleswise. That means hits generated against 1 unit apply only to that unit. For example, if the 3 pylons hit 3 separate vehicles, that means each vehicle takes 6 hits each (and not 18 hits each as would happen under pure RAW).
Not sure why you chose to nerf Sentrystar. The rules are not ambiguous at all and 18 hits would happen in the above example. This is equivalent to playing Wave Serpent's Serpent Shield at 6" instead of the clearly written 60" cuz we want to.
Because I didn't want to roflstomp my opponent?
BAO allowed Forgeworld and the Sentry Pylons. In fact, Sentry Pylons made it to the top 16.Did it play Sentry Pylons your way or RAW way? Sentry Pylons are good and all but if they aren't getting teleported around by Obyron it's generally a volcano the opponent knowingly walks into and if it is being teleported around by Obyron then it's one big glass cannon death star that is fragile to deep strike mishap. Might as well play things RAW at first and adjust for power level second. Sentry Pylons played pure RAW are still going to struggle against Tau,Eldar, and SM mainstays.
It's definitely noble of you to handicap yourself for your opponent, but it winds up being less telling of how that match-up would resolve in actual tournament conditions.
I'm not sure. He was the only sentry pylon player in the tourney and he ran them as 2 separate, individual units. But from talking to Reece after the tournament, it doesn't appear that Reece was all too familiar with the rules for the sentry pylons.
BTW, I went suicidal with my pylonstar and teleported them smack-dab in the middle of the Tau army, where all 4 of his riptides and all of his markerlights were waiting.
In tournament play, it'll be as strong as almost any other deathstar. It also has the same weaknesses as any other deathstar army and isn't unbeatable.
BTW (part II), I know how powerful it is if you go by pure RAW. It is absolutely broken. But I think it is better to play with the toned-down version of it and then ramp up the power in competitive play. Playing the weaker version better prepares you in the case that the tournament allows for the stronger version, but playing the stronger version absolutely screws you over if you take it to a tournament and the tournament rules it to be played with the weaker version.
I don't agree with your logic. Tourneys either play RAW or ban. Rarely do they power level edit. For example, the Transcendant C'tan.
skoffs wrote: Perhaps they're playing it with the RAI interpretation that whoever wrote the rule for the FDR f'd up and the never intended it to be that overpowered. (sure, RAW saying you can play it that way, but come on, that's pretty ridiculous)
Like I said, that would be active rule replacement without any justification except to purely power level edit. RAW it's very clear how FDR resolves. Tournaments implement RAW in this case unless a house rule is in place to explicitly overrule. If we are going to start power level editing, where does it start and where does it end? Why power level edit the Sentry Pylon before power level editing the Transcendant C'Tan or the Riptide or the Wave Serpent or Invisibility?
You may argue its RAW, but the intent is clearly laid out in how the regular Death Ray works.
skoffs wrote: Perhaps they're playing it with the RAI interpretation that whoever wrote the rule for the FDR f'd up and the never intended it to be that overpowered. (sure, RAW saying you can play it that way, but come on, that's pretty ridiculous)
Like I said, that would be active rule replacement without any justification except to purely power level edit. RAW it's very clear how FDR resolves. Tournaments implement RAW in this case unless a house rule is in place to explicitly overrule. If we are going to start power level editing, where does it start and where does it end? Why power level edit the Sentry Pylon before power level editing the Transcendant C'Tan or the Riptide or the Wave Serpent or Invisibility?
You may argue its RAW, but the intent is clearly laid out in how the regular Death Ray works.
There is no ambiguity in the RAW for FDR. RAW = RAI for the FDR. You have a problem with the power level of the FDR which has nothing to do with RAW or RAI.
There's no way to prove the RAW is RAI on the FDR.
It could just be someone's f-up that was never caught before it went to print (it's not like they're not known for crap like that).
And seeing as how FW never updates their IAFAQs, there's no way to clear it up one way or the other.
skoffs wrote: There's no way to prove the RAW is RAI on the FDR.
It could just be someone's f-up that was never caught before it went to print (it's not like they're not known for crap like that).
And seeing as how FW never updates their IAFAQs, there's no way to clear it up one way or the other.
You don't base RAI/RAW discussions on wild speculation. There is no basis for not taking RAW as is. If people wind up having trouble with the power level then they can power level edit or ban.
skoffs wrote: There's no way to prove the RAW is RAI on the FDR.
It could just be someone's f-up that was never caught before it went to print (it's not like they're not known for crap like that).
And seeing as how FW never updates their IAFAQs, there's no way to clear it up one way or the other.
You don't base RAI/RAW discussions on wild speculation. There is no basis for not taking RAW as is. If people wind up having trouble with the power level then they can power level edit or ban.
I really don't see why you are so caught up with pure RAW. Now if GW were to update us constantly new FAQ's to address our questions/concerns/arguments, then yeah, I'd be more inclined to go fully with RAW. But the fact of the matter is GW has dropped the ball on us. They have basically told us that they don't care about competitive play and that they are not going to do anything about it (with their lack of updates). So for now, this is a game of RAW/RAI/power-editing-to-balance-the-game-in-the-eyes-of-the-TO's. It's great that some of the TO's are trying to create some uniformity in the game by coordinating their FAQ's, but the fact of the matter is that you really can't play pure RAW nowadays - it's just too unbalancing in competitive play! If you want to go by pure RAW, that's fine. But don't hold everyone to the same RAW standards in tournament play. They've got potentially a lot of money to lose if their player base felt that the game was too unbalanced for them to go to tournaments.
skoffs wrote: There's no way to prove the RAW is RAI on the FDR.
It could just be someone's f-up that was never caught before it went to print (it's not like they're not known for crap like that).
And seeing as how FW never updates their IAFAQs, there's no way to clear it up one way or the other.
You don't base RAI/RAW discussions on wild speculation. There is no basis for not taking RAW as is. If people wind up having trouble with the power level then they can power level edit or ban.
I really don't see why you are so caught up with pure RAW. Now if GW were to update us constantly new FAQ's to address our questions/concerns/arguments, then yeah, I'd be more inclined to go fully with RAW. But the fact of the matter is GW has dropped the ball on us. They have basically told us that they don't care about competitive play and that they are not going to do anything about it (with their lack of updates). So for now, this is a game of RAW/RAI/power-editing-to-balance-the-game-in-the-eyes-of-the-TO's. It's great that some of the TO's are trying to create some uniformity in the game by coordinating their FAQ's, but the fact of the matter is that you really can't play pure RAW nowadays - it's just too unbalancing in competitive play! If you want to go by pure RAW, that's fine. But don't hold everyone to the same RAW standards in tournament play. They've got potentially a lot of money to lose if their player base felt that the game was too unbalanced for them to go to tournaments.
I am really not that caught up with pure RAW. I just insist people are super clear about what they are indeed doing. If they are power level nerfing then admit to power level nerfing, but don't try to insist you have RAI support when you don't. For better or worse, GW has left the maintenance of the ruleset in the hands of the player base. The problem is that the player base is self-interested and prone to lobbying for self-advantage, they are interested in seeing their armies prevail in the rules and their opponents succumb to the rules. So it is of utmost importance that everyone holds themselves and everyone else up to highest measure of fair standards, clear thinking, and honest and logical procedure. So what all this means is that Skoff's wild speculation that some typo is at fault in the way that the FDR is written needs to be called out as nothing more than wild speculation that has no weight in a RAI discussion.
So I would completely be in favor of power level editing the T C'tan and the Revenant Titan and the Warhound. Also I would be in favor of power level editing the PylonStar if it proved to outclass other deathstars like the Centurion Star.
I wouldn't call my RAI speculation "wild" so much as "plausible", in that the whole debacle reeks of their typical indifference toward competitive play, quality control and play testing.
... actually, I wouldn't even call it mine.
(I'm not the one who initially proposed it, this theory of "it's probably another oversight that no one caught" has been around for a while.)
skoffs wrote: I wouldn't call my RAI speculation "wild" so much as "plausible", in that the whole debacle reeks of their typical indifference toward competitive play, quality control and play testing.
... actually, I wouldn't even call it mine.
(I'm not the one who initially proposed it, this theory of "it's probably another oversight that no one caught" has been around for a while.)
Those kinds of theories have no weight because they can be applied without restraint to anything. How do we know Warriors have a 24" shooting range and not a 36" range? "it's probably another oversight that no one caught"
We need to have standards as to what can count as support in a RAW/RAI argument. "it's probably another oversight that no one caught" is actually nothing more than wild speculation.
skoffs wrote: I wouldn't call my RAI speculation "wild" so much as "plausible", in that the whole debacle reeks of their typical indifference toward competitive play, quality control and play testing.
... actually, I wouldn't even call it mine.
(I'm not the one who initially proposed it, this theory of "it's probably another oversight that no one caught" has been around for a while.)
Those kinds of theories have no weight because they can be applied without restraint to anything. How do we know Warriors have a 24" shooting range and not a 36" range? "it's probably another oversight that no one caught"
We need to have standards as to what can count as support in a RAW/RAI argument. "it's probably another oversight that no one caught" is actually nothing more than wild speculation.
There is a standard to compare it to, and that is the Deathray of the Doom Scythe. It's like saying ok there are boltguns, but the boltgun of unit XYZ shoots double the shots and does that number of hits to every unit in a straight line within range. Sometimes, you've really got to wonder whether the developers really meant to make the weapon that much more powerful than the standard weapon of its kind, or was the writer under the influence when he actually wrote it (as well as the editor who edited it).
skoffs wrote: I wouldn't call my RAI speculation "wild" so much as "plausible", in that the whole debacle reeks of their typical indifference toward competitive play, quality control and play testing.
... actually, I wouldn't even call it mine.
(I'm not the one who initially proposed it, this theory of "it's probably another oversight that no one caught" has been around for a while.)
Those kinds of theories have no weight because they can be applied without restraint to anything. How do we know Warriors have a 24" shooting range and not a 36" range? "it's probably another oversight that no one caught"
We need to have standards as to what can count as support in a RAW/RAI argument. "it's probably another oversight that no one caught" is actually nothing more than wild speculation.
There is a standard to compare it to, and that is the Deathray of the Doom Scythe. It's like saying ok there are boltguns, but the boltgun of unit XYZ shoots double the shots and does that number of hits to every unit in a straight line within range. Sometimes, you've really got to wonder whether the developers really meant to make the weapon that much more powerful than the standard weapon of its kind, or was the writer under the influence when he actually wrote it (as well as the editor who edited it).
One weapon is on a flyer. The other is on an artillery model. Artillery guns tend to be more powerful, fluff-wise, logic-wise, and game-wise. It's also called Focused Death Ray and not Death Ray to imply that they were actually very serious about making it stronger. There is absolutely no case for nerfing the Focused Death Ray to be a Death Ray unless you just want to power level edit. Which is fine. Just don't pretend you have RAI for it.
So in your example above it's like comparing a boltgun to a focused boltgun (which is another word for "super").
Also, keep in mind that what makes sentry pylons OP is not the strength of their guns but their new to 7th edition ability to be granted relentless.
So Adepticon is now allowing the T. C'tan in all the events it looks like with a 33% of total points only for all the events except exterminatus, So, this means it isn't usable for the Highlander, or classic event because it always costs more than 500points but in the champs you can run it with Cosmic Fire x2 and Sesmic Shockwave for 600pts. Do you think it's worth it?
The rules on the death ray and the focused death ray were written the same confusing language. When the Necron codex first came out, people were trying to claim RAW was RAI as well there ("it says the unit the lines passes over gets hits equal to the number of models in the unit the line passes over, so because there are ten models in the unit, the unit gets ten hits... despite the fact the the line only passed over two of them.")
The difference between the rules for the death ray and focused death ray is that the death ray had a FAQ which clarified the confusing wording. IA12 has received no FAQ so the focused death ray's confusing wording has recieved no clarification.
Hence the split between players.
Half the camp is playing it conservatively, using the example of how the death ray was FAQd as a basis for their RAI, and the other half of the camp is completely ignoring the possibility that the focused death ray may have been subject to the same confused wording problem as it's predecessor.
TL;DR- we're not pretending to base our RAI argument on wild speculation. There's precedent in the codex FAQ. The assumption that the IA12FAQ would do the same thing were FW ever to bother to address it is very much a valid one.
(PS. The fact that the FDR doubles its hits is already super enough. The idea that it can quintuple its hits if there are enough units bunched together is so beyond broken it reeks of RAW abuse power gaming)
skoffs wrote: The rules on the death ray and the focused death ray were written the same confusing language. When the Necron codex first came out, people were trying to claim RAW was RAI as well there ("it says the unit the lines passes over gets hits equal to the number of models in the unit the line passes over, so because there are ten models in the unit, the unit gets ten hits... despite the fact the the line only passed over two of them.")
The difference between the rules for the death ray and focused death ray is that the death ray had a FAQ which clarified the confusing wording. IA12 has received no FAQ so the focused death ray's confusing wording has recieved no clarification.
Hence the split between players.
Half the camp is playing it conservatively, using the example of how the death ray was FAQd as a basis for their RAI, and the other half of the camp is completely ignoring the possibility that the focused death ray may have been subject to the same confused wording problem as it's predecessor.
TL;DR- we're not pretending to base our RAI argument on wild speculation. There's precedent in the codex FAQ. The assumption that the IA12FAQ would do the same thing were FW ever to bother to address it is very much a valid one.
(PS. The fact that the FDR doubles its hits is already super enough. The idea that it can quintuple its hits if there are enough units bunched together is so beyond broken it reeks of RAW abuse power gaming)
I don't follow you. There is not much change to the Death Ray in the 7th Edition FAQ. We are pretty much working off the straight codex wording except for an Errata'd bit about the 1 mm line. Death Ray tallies up models in units. Focused Death Ray tallies up models. Keep in mind that the writers of the original Sentry Pylon didn't foresee a Sentry Pylon that could shoot in the same turn that it deep striked in. As powerful as it is, they probably envisioned that people could plan ahead to deal with it.
How many points is invested in the Pylon Star? How many kills does it need to win back its points? As potent as the Pylon Star is, is it better than the Invisi Centurion Star?
skoffs wrote: The rules on the death ray and the focused death ray were written the same confusing language. When the Necron codex first came out, people were trying to claim RAW was RAI as well there ("it says the unit the lines passes over gets hits equal to the number of models in the unit the line passes over, so because there are ten models in the unit, the unit gets ten hits... despite the fact the the line only passed over two of them.")
The difference between the rules for the death ray and focused death ray is that the death ray had a FAQ which clarified the confusing wording. IA12 has received no FAQ so the focused death ray's confusing wording has recieved no clarification.
Hence the split between players.
Half the camp is playing it conservatively, using the example of how the death ray was FAQd as a basis for their RAI, and the other half of the camp is completely ignoring the possibility that the focused death ray may have been subject to the same confused wording problem as it's predecessor.
TL;DR- we're not pretending to base our RAI argument on wild speculation. There's precedent in the codex FAQ. The assumption that the IA12FAQ would do the same thing were FW ever to bother to address it is very much a valid one.
(PS. The fact that the FDR doubles its hits is already super enough. The idea that it can quintuple its hits if there are enough units bunched together is so beyond broken it reeks of RAW abuse power gaming)
Not to mention that the wording from FDR is the same as DR without "in the unit". The FDR is already twice the power of the DR and while FW is notorious for overpowered abilities, anyone that claims that an exponential power buildup is by design is silly. It breaks too many basic rules to be by design, without having a more clear rule set that shows that it was intended that way.
skoffs wrote: The rules on the death ray and the focused death ray were written the same confusing language. When the Necron codex first came out, people were trying to claim RAW was RAI as well there ("it says the unit the lines passes over gets hits equal to the number of models in the unit the line passes over, so because there are ten models in the unit, the unit gets ten hits... despite the fact the the line only passed over two of them.")
The difference between the rules for the death ray and focused death ray is that the death ray had a FAQ which clarified the confusing wording. IA12 has received no FAQ so the focused death ray's confusing wording has recieved no clarification.
Hence the split between players.
Half the camp is playing it conservatively, using the example of how the death ray was FAQd as a basis for their RAI, and the other half of the camp is completely ignoring the possibility that the focused death ray may have been subject to the same confused wording problem as it's predecessor.
TL;DR- we're not pretending to base our RAI argument on wild speculation. There's precedent in the codex FAQ. The assumption that the IA12FAQ would do the same thing were FW ever to bother to address it is very much a valid one.
(PS. The fact that the FDR doubles its hits is already super enough. The idea that it can quintuple its hits if there are enough units bunched together is so beyond broken it reeks of RAW abuse power gaming)
Not to mention that the wording from FDR is the same as DR without "in the unit". The FDR is already twice the power of the DR and while FW is notorious for overpowered abilities, anyone that claims that an exponential power buildup is by design is silly. It breaks too many basic rules to be by design, without having a more clear rule set that shows that it was intended that way.
Huh? I think it's real clear they understood what they were writing when they wrote it. The wording is not ambiguous at all. They just didn't foresee it being able to deep strike and shoot in the same turn. Feel free to test it out without the relentless ability. It's easy to counter deploy and position units to minimize FDR hits when you have a whole turn to shuffle around.
skoffs wrote: The rules on the death ray and the focused death ray were written the same confusing language. When the Necron codex first came out, people were trying to claim RAW was RAI as well there ("it says the unit the lines passes over gets hits equal to the number of models in the unit the line passes over, so because there are ten models in the unit, the unit gets ten hits... despite the fact the the line only passed over two of them.")
The difference between the rules for the death ray and focused death ray is that the death ray had a FAQ which clarified the confusing wording. IA12 has received no FAQ so the focused death ray's confusing wording has recieved no clarification.
Hence the split between players.
Half the camp is playing it conservatively, using the example of how the death ray was FAQd as a basis for their RAI, and the other half of the camp is completely ignoring the possibility that the focused death ray may have been subject to the same confused wording problem as it's predecessor.
TL;DR- we're not pretending to base our RAI argument on wild speculation. There's precedent in the codex FAQ. The assumption that the IA12FAQ would do the same thing were FW ever to bother to address it is very much a valid one.
(PS. The fact that the FDR doubles its hits is already super enough. The idea that it can quintuple its hits if there are enough units bunched together is so beyond broken it reeks of RAW abuse power gaming)
Not to mention that the wording from FDR is the same as DR without "in the unit". The FDR is already twice the power of the DR and while FW is notorious for overpowered abilities, anyone that claims that an exponential power buildup is by design is silly. It breaks too many basic rules to be by design, without having a more clear rule set that shows that it was intended that way.
Huh? I think it's real clear they understood what they were writing when they wrote it. The wording is not ambiguous at all. They just didn't foresee it being able to deep strike and shoot in the same turn. Feel free to test it out without the relentless ability. It's easy to counter deploy and position units to minimize FDR hits when you have a whole turn to shuffle around.
That has almost no impact on how powerful it is. It can sit still in the middle of the board and control half of it. They understood they thought they were writing a DR that hit twice. Otherwise you would have to add huge sections of rules because you just created a weapon that has no precedent and breaks alot of fundamentals in the game. Even the worst game designers/ rule writer do not do that.
Given the choice of creating a super powered weapon that does things nothing else did and breaks rules or simply left 3 words out of the DR rule when they wrote it. Logically its clear to see intent.
Your RAI argument - the designers are radically incompetent and they have no understanding of how what they design functions in the rules
My RAI argument - the designers are competent but they did not foresee that artillery in the future would be able to be granted relentless since that is new to 7th.
So for me, if you want to play RAI play sentry pylons as unable to be granted relentless. They have existed a long time in the game as exactly that and have not proven a problem in spite of how strong their gun is. The big bad gun is still a slow moving volcano that you can defeat by positioning and alpha strike and rain of fire.
If we follow your rationale, that FW is radically incompetent, then we should ban all FW from the game. If they truly are as radically incompetent as you claim then we cannot rely on anything that comes from them. We don't know if for example the underpowered FW units should be buffed. The whole lot of FW stuff would be a mess that you couldn't trust.
Relentless may be the key to deathstar, but it is NOT what we are arguing is broken.
The interpretation some people have on how the FDR works is in question here.
If you have a "the same way the codex FAQ says the Deathray works" RAI interpretation FDR equipped SentryStar pumping out 2x S10 AP1 hits per model the line passes over in each individual unit, that is one hell of a powerful alpha strike!
If you have the same unit playing by "the codex FAQ has no bearing on a FW model" RAW interpretation, and you're doing 2x S10 AP1 hits x all models passed over to EVERY unit under that line, that's not powerful, it's broken. It's the kind of broken that makes people not want to play against FW stuff (because yes, they have shown they are fairly incompetent at writing rules, both in terms of balance as well as game testing to make sure things work properly with the rest if the rules. Their lack of continued support in the form of no FAQs when needed is further evidence of their incompetence). If that wasn't the case, there wouldn't be so many people opposed to using them.
skoffs wrote: Relentless may be the key to deathstar, but it is NOT what we are arguing is broken.
The interpretation some people have on how the FDR works is in question here.
If you have a "the same way the codex FAQ says the Deathray works" RAI interpretation FDR equipped SentryStar pumping out 2x S10 AP1 hits per model the line passes over in each individual unit, that is one hell of a powerful alpha strike!
If you have the same unit playing by "the codex FAQ has no bearing on a FW model" RAW interpretation, and you're doing 2x S10 AP1 hits x all models passed over to EVERY unit under that line, that's not powerful, it's broken. It's the kind of broken that makes people not want to play against FW stuff (because yes, they have shown they are fairly incompetent at writing rules. If that wasn't the case, there wouldn't be so many people opposed to using them).
I checked the Necron FAQ and I don't see any FAQ item that relates to what you are saying. Can you double check by reading the 7th ed. Necron FAQ and clarify?
And it's fine if you want to advocate a blanket ban on FW. That is at least a position that is backed by your premise.
But I strongly suggest you playtest against Sentry Pylons the pre-7th edition way. It's only in theory hammer land where you are making the big nasty gun out to be a big deal. It is only going to catch really bad players off guard.
No, because as we all know, in a classic show of GW's own legendary incompetence, once 7th hit they decided the omit the majority of the previous FAQ which made the train wreck of a codex workable.
Luckily the majority of players were already familiar with the proper rulings on these oh so recently unclarified examples of bad rule writing. Evidence of this can be seen in tournament organization which takes from both the current and previous FAQs to fill in the gaps where things need better clarification.
The only time there is a problem is usually when someone is trying to abuse RAW. Luckily TOs have judges to rule on instances like that. In non tournament organized games, well, I guess all we can hope for is that players not try to be that guy who tries to rule lawyer in some broken ass interpretation so he can power game his way to victory.
And no one in this thread is advocating a blanket ban on FW. You keep bringing it up, though. What we (RAI advocates) want is balanced non-broken FW models and rules to be played.
skoffs wrote: No, because as we all know, in a classic show of GW's own legendary incompetence, once 7th hit they decided the omit the majority of the previous FAQ which made the train wreck of a codex workable.
Luckily the majority of players were already familiar with the proper rulings on these oh so recently unclarified examples of bad rule writing. Evidence of this can be seen in tournament organization which takes from both the current and previous FAQs to fill in the gaps where things need better clarification.
The only time there is a problem is usually when someone is trying to abuse RAW. Luckily TOs have judges to rule on instances like that. In non tournament organized games, well, I guess all we can hope for is that players not try to be that guy who tries to rule lawyer in some broken ass interpretation so he can power game his way to victory.
And no one in this thread is advocating a blanket ban on FW. You keep bringing it up, though. What we (RAI advocates) want is balanced non-broken FW models and rules to be played.
Relentless is what makes it broken. Without relentless, it's a big nasty gun that is easily dealt with by positioning and threat priority. If you have playtesting or even a hypothetical play situation to suggest otherwise, please provide.
No one is arguing that the Sentry Pylons shouldn't be able to get relentless. That part of the rules is solid, so there's no need to run hypotheticals over it unless you purposely want to run the deathstar without a Phaeron (which might not be a bad idea to see how it works if you want to run it cheap).
The argument we're dealing with is about how to use the Focused Deathray.
skoffs wrote: No one is arguing that the Sentry Pylons shouldn't be able to get relentless. That part of the rules is solid, so there's no need to run hypotheticals over it unless you purposely want to run the deathstar without a Phaeron (which might not be a bad idea to see how it works if you want to run it cheap).
The argument we're dealing with is about how to use the Focused Deathray.
There are many examples of FW's incompetence (both in rules interaction testing and creating balanced units). As a result, yes, there are many people who feel FW should not be allowed in standard 40k. This is hardly news to anyone.
Both issues could probably be easily addressed and even rectified were FW to release FAQs to fix things. Sadly, this may never be the case.
Regardless, we've seen evidence that the conservative RAI interpretation of the FDR's usage in the SentryStar is more than adequate, and there is no need to use the broken ramped up hit multiplier interpretation. We can only hope tournaments ruling it that way will see said play style spread to everyday non-tournament usage as well.
skoffs wrote: There are many examples of FW's incompetence (both in rules interaction testing and creating balanced units). As a result, yes, there are many people who feel FW should not be allowed in standard 40k. This is hardly news to anyone.
Both issues could probably be easily addressed and even rectified were FW to release FAQs to fix things. Sadly, this may never be the case.
Regardless, we've seen evidence that the conservative RAI interpretation of the FDR's usage in the SentryStar is more than adequate, and there is no need to use the broken ramped up hit multiplier interpretation. We can only hope tournaments ruling it that way will see said play style spread to everyday non-tournament usage as well.
What you are calling a conservative RAI interpretation isn't a conservative RAI interpretation, it's a power-level edit. Nothing wrong with a power level edit, just we should be clear what you are advocating here.
Also I would love to have your thoughts on this question . . .
If Sentry Pylons play out fine if you play them as intended by FW (without relentless) is FW incompetent (insofar as how they wrote the rules for Focused Death Ray)?
Sentry pylons getting relentless is RAI because its 7ed rules. When you play with the rulebook, the RAI for the rulebook is you follow all of its rules. So if the rulebook allows artillery to get relentless then its RAI for them to get relentless.
CrownAxe wrote: Sentry pylons getting relentless is RAI because its 7ed rules.
I am not advocating taking a conservative RAI approach, but it is easy to argue that since FW wrote the Sentry Pylons before 7th edition that they could not foresee that the Sentry Pylons would play out differently in 7th edition than was intended by them when they wrote the rules for the Sentry Pylon back when the general rules were 5th edition.
This is an extremely easy argument to make and it is a RAI argument. I am not advocating it, but such an argument could be made. I think people should play RAW until it proves to be broken and then they can freely choose to address the issue in how they choose fit - ban, power nerf, remove relentless, etc.
Both GW and FW know that when they write rules that there is going to be change in the future because that's how 40k works, new rules editions and codexs come out and change stuff. The idea that rules are timestamped and only applicable to the rule set when it was written is slowed. That not how games work. If you're going to argue that it does then you might as well say you can't use codexs written before 7ed because they weren't written with 7ed in mind.
Both GW and FW know that when they write rules that there is going to be change in the future because that's how 40k works, new rules editions and codexs come out and change stuff. The idea that rules are timestamped and only applicable to the rule set when it was written is slowed. That not how games work. If you're going to argue that it does then you might as well say you can't use codexs written before 7ed because they weren't written with 7ed in mind.
Huh? Beginning to wonder about your logic here. If what you are saying is correct then GW would not have to release 7th edition FAQs for each codex. Is this what you are saying? Rules for old supplements do have to be updated for new editions. For evidence of this I show you the clear and indisputable proof that GW does indeed release FAQs that update the codexes to new editions.
Both GW and FW know that when they write rules that there is going to be change in the future because that's how 40k works, new rules editions and codexs come out and change stuff. The idea that rules are timestamped and only applicable to the rule set when it was written is slowed. That not how games work. If you're going to argue that it does then you might as well say you can't use codexs written before 7ed because they weren't written with 7ed in mind.
Huh? Beginning to wonder about your logic here. If what you are saying is correct then GW would not have to release 7th edition FAQs for each codex. Is this what you are saying? Rules for old supplements do have to be updated for new editions. For evidence of this I show you the clear and indisputable proof that GW does indeed release FAQs that update the codexes to new editions.
FAQs are there for if their intentions changed, were not clear, or no longer work. If something isn't in the FAQ then its working as intended
Both GW and FW know that when they write rules that there is going to be change in the future because that's how 40k works, new rules editions and codexs come out and change stuff. The idea that rules are timestamped and only applicable to the rule set when it was written is slowed. That not how games work. If you're going to argue that it does then you might as well say you can't use codexs written before 7ed because they weren't written with 7ed in mind.
Huh? Beginning to wonder about your logic here. If what you are saying is correct then GW would not have to release 7th edition FAQs for each codex. Is this what you are saying? Rules for old supplements do have to be updated for new editions. For evidence of this I show you the clear and indisputable proof that GW does indeed release FAQs that update the codexes to new editions.
FAQs are there for if their intentions changed, were not clear, or no longer work. If something isn't in the FAQ then its working as intended
Both GW and FW know that when they write rules that there is going to be change in the future because that's how 40k works, new rules editions and codexs come out and change stuff. The idea that rules are timestamped and only applicable to the rule set when it was written is slowed. That not how games work. If you're going to argue that it does then you might as well say you can't use codexs written before 7ed because they weren't written with 7ed in mind.
Huh? Beginning to wonder about your logic here. If what you are saying is correct then GW would not have to release 7th edition FAQs for each codex. Is this what you are saying? Rules for old supplements do have to be updated for new editions. For evidence of this I show you the clear and indisputable proof that GW does indeed release FAQs that update the codexes to new editions.
FAQs are there for if their intentions changed, were not clear, or no longer work. If something isn't in the FAQ then its working as intended
Can you point me to the 7th edition FWFAQs?
There aren't any. And since its been like 6 months since the 7ed rules have been out and they have even released publications they've had ample time to make an FAQ. But they haven't which proves they don't think one is necessary. So all of their rules are working as intended
Both GW and FW know that when they write rules that there is going to be change in the future because that's how 40k works, new rules editions and codexs come out and change stuff. The idea that rules are timestamped and only applicable to the rule set when it was written is slowed. That not how games work. If you're going to argue that it does then you might as well say you can't use codexs written before 7ed because they weren't written with 7ed in mind.
Huh? Beginning to wonder about your logic here. If what you are saying is correct then GW would not have to release 7th edition FAQs for each codex. Is this what you are saying? Rules for old supplements do have to be updated for new editions. For evidence of this I show you the clear and indisputable proof that GW does indeed release FAQs that update the codexes to new editions.
FAQs are there for if their intentions changed, were not clear, or no longer work. If something isn't in the FAQ then its working as intended
Can you point me to the 7th edition FWFAQs?
There aren't any. And since its been like 6 months since the 7ed rules have been out and they have even released publications they've had ample time to make an FAQ. But they haven't which proves they don't think one is necessary. So all of their rules are working as intended
Alternatively, since absolutely no FAQs have been released and GW saw fit to release a good number of FAQs, it proves that FW is not taking responsibility for keeping their rules up to date.
So which is more plausible? Is FW capable of future proofing their rules with 100% accuracy or is FW being irresponsible?
Don't get me wrong. I am not advocating taking a conservative RAI approach which prevents relentless from being granted to Sentry Pylons. I am merely seeing that it is possible to have a RAI argument to that effect and that it is not "stupid and wrong", as you have so eloquently put it.
My general approach is to play it as RAW and to take RAW as RAI until something proves broken.
Both GW and FW know that when they write rules that there is going to be change in the future because that's how 40k works, new rules editions and codexs come out and change stuff. The idea that rules are timestamped and only applicable to the rule set when it was written is slowed. That not how games work. If you're going to argue that it does then you might as well say you can't use codexs written before 7ed because they weren't written with 7ed in mind.
Huh? Beginning to wonder about your logic here. If what you are saying is correct then GW would not have to release 7th edition FAQs for each codex. Is this what you are saying? Rules for old supplements do have to be updated for new editions. For evidence of this I show you the clear and indisputable proof that GW does indeed release FAQs that update the codexes to new editions.
FAQs are there for if their intentions changed, were not clear, or no longer work. If something isn't in the FAQ then its working as intended
Can you point me to the 7th edition FWFAQs?
There aren't any. And since its been like 6 months since the 7ed rules have been out and they have even released publications they've had ample time to make an FAQ. But they haven't which proves they don't think one is necessary. So all of their rules are working as intended
Alternatively, since absolutely no FAQs have been released and GW saw fit to release a good number of FAQs, it proves that FW is not taking responsibility for keeping their rules up to date.
So which is more plausible? Is FW capable of future proofing their rules with 100% accuracy or is FW being irresponsible?
Don't get me wrong. I am not advocating taking a conservative RAI approach which prevents relentless from being granted to Sentry Pylons. I am merely seeing that it is possible to have a RAI argument to that effect and that it is not "stupid and wrong", as you have so eloquently put it.
My general approach is to play it as RAW and to take RAW as RAI until something proves broken.
Both are equally plausible which is why I think the RAI for this and all RAI arguments are stupid for this exact reason. We don't actually know what is or isn't actually RAI because GW/FW never says so. The idea that they didn't FAQ because they didn't need to is just as valid as the idea that they didn't FAQ it because they haven't yet. Both sides are just as valid as each other but completely contradictory of each other as well. Ultimately this means neither side is right.
But its like this for all RAI arguments. There is always an equal yet opposite side to have RAI argument that is completely contradictory of each other thus invalidating the whole argument. It makes the whole debacle pointless.
Both GW and FW know that when they write rules that there is going to be change in the future because that's how 40k works, new rules editions and codexs come out and change stuff. The idea that rules are timestamped and only applicable to the rule set when it was written is slowed. That not how games work. If you're going to argue that it does then you might as well say you can't use codexs written before 7ed because they weren't written with 7ed in mind.
Huh? Beginning to wonder about your logic here. If what you are saying is correct then GW would not have to release 7th edition FAQs for each codex. Is this what you are saying? Rules for old supplements do have to be updated for new editions. For evidence of this I show you the clear and indisputable proof that GW does indeed release FAQs that update the codexes to new editions.
FAQs are there for if their intentions changed, were not clear, or no longer work. If something isn't in the FAQ then its working as intended
Can you point me to the 7th edition FWFAQs?
There aren't any. And since its been like 6 months since the 7ed rules have been out and they have even released publications they've had ample time to make an FAQ. But they haven't which proves they don't think one is necessary. So all of their rules are working as intended
Alternatively, since absolutely no FAQs have been released and GW saw fit to release a good number of FAQs, it proves that FW is not taking responsibility for keeping their rules up to date.
So which is more plausible? Is FW capable of future proofing their rules with 100% accuracy or is FW being irresponsible?
Don't get me wrong. I am not advocating taking a conservative RAI approach which prevents relentless from being granted to Sentry Pylons. I am merely seeing that it is possible to have a RAI argument to that effect and that it is not "stupid and wrong", as you have so eloquently put it.
My general approach is to play it as RAW and to take RAW as RAI until something proves broken.
Both are equally plausible which is why I think the RAI for this and all RAI arguments are stupid for this exact reason. We don't actually know what is or isn't actually RAI because GW/FW never says so. The idea that they didn't FAQ because they didn't need to is just as valid as the idea that they didn't FAQ it because they haven't yet. Both sides are just as valid as each other but completely contradictory of each other as well. Ultimately this means neither side is right.
But its like this for all RAI arguments. There is always an equal yet opposite side to have RAI argument that is completely contradictory of each other thus invalidating the whole argument. It makes the whole debacle pointless.
I think you may have jumped into this discussion with all guns blazing. I am not pushing for a conservative RAI approach.
But, let's say for the sake of argument that the Sentry Pylons prove stupid OMG broken we have to do something about it.
What do you do then? What I am saying is that at that point in time an RAI fix would be to restore 6th edition behavior that prevented artillery from being applied to artillery since Sentry Pylons were designed with that rule environment in mind.
CrownAxe wrote: My point was there is no way to actually determine what the RAI is so it shouldn't be used at all.
So what do you want to call a rules correction measure that restores the rules environment before things became broken?
Why would I restrict myself to such a specific set ruleset if I'm already changing the rules to begin with? I can change what ever I want.
Having relentless isn't the part that makes Sentry Pylons broken, other things are (such as the poor wording on focused death ray or the artillery rules in general) Why don't I just fix those instead?
CrownAxe wrote: My point was there is no way to actually determine what the RAI is so it shouldn't be used at all.
So what do you want to call a rules correction measure that restores the rules environment before things became broken?
Why would I restrict myself to such a specific set ruleset if I'm already changing the rules to begin with? I can change what ever I want.
Having relentless isn't the part that makes Sentry Pylons broken, other things are (such as the poor wording on focused death ray or the artillery rules in general) Why don't I just fix those instead?
You can advocate any kind of fix you want. I am just saying there are different types of fixes that can be employed. Banning Sentry Pylons is a different kind of fix than preventing relentless on Sentry Pylons and we justify them using different rationales.
CrownAxe wrote: My point was there is no way to actually determine what the RAI is so it shouldn't be used at all.
So what do you want to call a rules correction measure that restores the rules environment before things became broken?
Why would I restrict myself to such a specific set ruleset if I'm already changing the rules to begin with? I can change what ever I want.
Having relentless isn't the part that makes Sentry Pylons broken, other things are (such as the poor wording on focused death ray or the artillery rules in general) Why don't I just fix those instead?
You can advocate any kind of fix you want. I am just saying there are different types of fixes that can be employed. Banning Sentry Pylons is a different kind of fix than preventing relentless on Sentry Pylons and we justify them using different rationales.
RAI isn't a rational argument though. If you think it shouldn't have relentless for balance fine, but trying to justify it because you think thats the RAI for in from 6ed is stupid.
CrownAxe wrote: My point was there is no way to actually determine what the RAI is so it shouldn't be used at all.
So what do you want to call a rules correction measure that restores the rules environment before things became broken?
Why would I restrict myself to such a specific set ruleset if I'm already changing the rules to begin with? I can change what ever I want.
Having relentless isn't the part that makes Sentry Pylons broken, other things are (such as the poor wording on focused death ray or the artillery rules in general) Why don't I just fix those instead?
You can advocate any kind of fix you want. I am just saying there are different types of fixes that can be employed. Banning Sentry Pylons is a different kind of fix than preventing relentless on Sentry Pylons and we justify them using different rationales.
RAI isn't a rational argument though. If you think it shouldn't have relentless for balance fine, but trying to justify it because you think thats the RAI for in from 6ed is stupid.
Lol. Looks like I am having a discussion with someone who is not capable of having a discussion.
Anyway, it looks like Xmas time for Nids. Nids is one of our tougher matchups and a rise in Nids is problematic for Necrons.
I am also seeing a rise in Orks. Orks have proven to be a real issue for Necrons. What are some of things Necrons can do to adress this?
CrownAxe wrote: I proved why RAI isn't valid, if your going to ignore that there is no point to continue this debate.
I don't consider discussions with people who resort to "that's stupid" as actually debating. So stepping away from this non-debate we were having. Carry on. As you were.
####
Anyway, it looks like Xmas time for Nids. Nids is one of our tougher matchups and a rise in Nids is problematic for Necrons.
I am also seeing a rise in Orks. Orks have proven to be a real issue for Necrons. What are some of things Necrons can do to adress this?
With all the new Nids released this month, I am sure we will see more Tyranids coming out of hybernation and onto the gaming table.
Tryanid Drop pods are going to be the biggest nuisance, delivering bitey things right up to our metal feet.
I have two gut reactions to counter Tyranids, Scarab Farm and Cron Air. Use scarabs to bubblewrap what you don't want tied up in melee with bugs and rely on Scythes to dismember anything they have not tied up.
When I play orks the biggest issue I have when fighting Necrons is volume of fire and tissue saves. Anything we can do to keep out of assualt and force a shooting match is going to go in the Necrons favor.
Things most people are concerned with about SentryStar: the FDR's wording is not clear.
(A conservative interpretation simply doubles hits. A broken interpretation creates a bajillion hits under the right circumstances (eg. stick a bunch of your own Warriors next to a Wraithknight, draw line over 4 of them plus WK, suddenly WK is getting hit 10 times instead of 2... Wtf?!).)
Things one person is concerned with about SentryStar: artillery should not be able to benefit from relentless.
adamsouza wrote: With all the new Nids released this month, I am sure we will see more Tyranids coming out of hybernation and onto the gaming table.
Tryanid Drop pods are going to be the biggest nuisance, delivering bitey things right up to our metal feet.
I have two gut reactions to counter Tyranids, Scarab Farm and Cron Air. Use scarabs to bubblewrap what you don't want tied up in melee with bugs and rely on Scythes to dismember anything they have not tied up.
When I play orks the biggest issue I have when fighting Necrons is volume of fire and tissue saves. Anything we can do to keep out of assualt and force a shooting match is going to go in the Necrons favor.
What Ork list you running? I run 3 x 5 BullyBoyz in trukks, 15 TankBoyz in a Wagon, 15 lootas in ruins, 11 hardboyz in a trukk with a PKBP nob, 5 DeffKoptas attached to a Painboy and a Warboss both on bikes who scout, and a unit of gretchins in reserves. That list puts up a lot of right in your face pressure!
My Orks lists revolve around whatever Ork models I kustomized last, so they don't look conform to competitive templates. I also almost never play against Orks, and I can't remember the last time I had to fend off an Orkish invasion with crons.
The last time I had to fight crons with orks I stuck 15 tankbustas and 30 'ard boyz, both with painboyz, on skyshield landing pad, just to see 4++ saves with 5+ FNP on 45 models.
Ffyllotek wrote: I want to know what new models necrons will get. Every other new army seems to have got on...
Ask Grey Knights about that.
In that current rumors point to minimal update (like Grey Knights), we're probably not getting anything but fixes and nerfs.
If we're lucky, the theory that 'Crons could some how fit into one of the upcoming campaign boxes could pan out and we could get a new Overlord model (like the Orks and SW did with the Storm Claw campaign. After all, Grey Knights did factor in at the end of Storm Claw, did they not?).
...
But this is probably a conversation for news and rumors, not tactics.
Anyway, it looks like Xmas time for Nids. Nids is one of our tougher matchups and a rise in Nids is problematic for Necrons.
I am also seeing a rise in Orks. Orks have proven to be a real issue for Necrons. What are some of things Necrons can do to adress this?
Nids are actually deceptively good, and they've just got better with the slew of new unit releases recently. However, as much as a problem Tyranids present to Necrons, necrons can be just as problematic for Tyranid players as well. We've got all the tools to really hurt them and their flyers. Mindshackles stop their assault beasts and MC's dead in their tracks. Teslas bring down their flyrants easily. Volume of fire can deal with the gribblies. Bugs cannot reliably deal with AV13-spam, especially when that AV13 platform is shooting down their bugs as they try. More importantly, we can just out-maneuver them in most cases. Drop their new drop pod spores and we can just get out of the way. Frankly, I see Necrons as having the advantage on average against bugs.
As for orks, I really don't have much experience against the new orks, but if history is any indication, orks traditionally have had problems with necrons as well. But I'd rather defer advice here to someone who has had some more experience against them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ffyllotek wrote: I want to know what new models necrons will get. Every other new army seems to have got on...
Me too!
We will get more info from the web as it gets closer to our new release.
Anyway, it looks like Xmas time for Nids. Nids is one of our tougher matchups and a rise in Nids is problematic for Necrons.
I am also seeing a rise in Orks. Orks have proven to be a real issue for Necrons. What are some of things Necrons can do to adress this?
Nids are actually deceptively good, and they've just got better with the slew of new unit releases recently. However, as much as a problem Tyranids present to Necrons, necrons can be just as problematic for Tyranid players as well. We've got all the tools to really hurt them and their flyers. Mindshackles stop their assault beasts and MC's dead in their tracks. Teslas bring down their flyrants easily. Volume of fire can deal with the gribblies. Bugs cannot reliably deal with AV13-spam, especially when that AV13 platform is shooting down their bugs as they try. More importantly, we can just out-maneuver them in most cases. Drop their new drop pod spores and we can just get out of the way. Frankly, I see Necrons as having the advantage on average against bugs.
As for orks, I really don't have much experience against the new orks, but if history is any indication, orks traditionally have had problems with necrons as well. But I'd rather defer advice here to someone who has had some more experience against them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ffyllotek wrote: I want to know what new models necrons will get. Every other new army seems to have got on...
Me too!
We will get more info from the web as it gets closer to our new release.
Here is the post Nova meta for how necrons compete on average vs other armies. Looking down each column shows an army’s win percentage by opponent.
I too would like to know some good strats for taking out up in your face armies. My good friend plays drop pod Space Wolves and my other friend plays aggressive/horde Orks.
Gamerely wrote: I too would like to know some good strats for taking out up in your face armies. My good friend plays drop pod Space Wolves and my other friend plays aggressive/horde Orks.
What I like to do in a lot of my lists is to include a squad or two of Scarabs and then Spyders as a backline defense can keep scary close combat units from getting to my squishy gunline. Spyders will add extra bases, and even though Scarabs are not going to win many Assaults, they're 4 wounds each and Fearless. 10 Scarab Bases can hold up anything that's not S6+ for a while, and Spyders themselves are no slouches in close combat (W3 T6 3+). They're also pretty cheap for what they do.
In a separate discussion, can we talk about HQs for a second? The way our HQs are set up are just so confusing to me. For being a shooting army, we have a woefully small number of HQs that empower our shooting or even have decent shooting attacks themselves. In fact, many of them, including the basic HQs of DLords and Overlords, are much better in Assault than they are at shooting. The DLord is an exception, because he's Jump and can roll with Wraiths, and the CCB is good sure, but most of our foot HQs just feel very counter intuitive. There are no decent retinues for them to get into Assault with - Lychguard/Praetorians are pretty bad, and the only Assault vehicle we have is the Ghost Ark, which can only be ridden in with Warriors (Rapid Fire and also crap in CC) or Royal Court (extremely expensive).
I always get jealous of our Tau players that have HQs that buff their shooting or have fantastic shooting attacks of their own. Heck, even Nids have better shooting HQs than us. If my HQ isn't on a Barge, I always just end up taking Nemesor Zahndrekh because hey, at least he can give some extra USRs and has a Res Orb. That's more than most of our characters can boast, and way more than a similarly kitted Overlord can do.
Gamerely wrote: I too would like to know some good strats for taking out up in your face armies. My good friend plays drop pod Space Wolves and my other friend plays aggressive/horde Orks.
What I like to do in a lot of my lists is to include a squad or two of Scarabs and then Spyders as a backline defense can keep scary close combat units from getting to my squishy gunline. Spyders will add extra bases, and even though Scarabs are not going to win many Assaults, they're 4 wounds each and Fearless. 10 Scarab Bases can hold up anything that's not S6+ for a while, and Spyders themselves are no slouches in close combat (W3 T6 3+). They're also pretty cheap for what they do.
In a separate discussion, can we talk about HQs for a second? The way our HQs are set up are just so confusing to me. For being a shooting army, we have a woefully small number of HQs that empower our shooting or even have decent shooting attacks themselves. In fact, many of them, including the basic HQs of DLords and Overlords, are much better in Assault than they are at shooting. The DLord is an exception, because he's Jump and can roll with Wraiths, and the CCB is good sure, but most of our foot HQs just feel very counter intuitive. There are no decent retinues for them to get into Assault with - Lychguard/Praetorians are pretty bad, and the only Assault vehicle we have is the Ghost Ark, which can only be ridden in with Warriors (Rapid Fire and also crap in CC) or Royal Court (extremely expensive).
I always get jealous of our Tau players that have HQs that buff their shooting or have fantastic shooting attacks of their own. Heck, even Nids have better shooting HQs than us. If my HQ isn't on a Barge, I always just end up taking Nemesor Zahndrekh because hey, at least he can give some extra USRs and has a Res Orb. That's more than most of our characters can boast, and way more than a similarly kitted Overlord can do.
It does feel counter-intuitive a bit, since they're SO effective in CC. I'm still new to Necrons and haven't read through the whole codex yet but do they have anything that would grant them preferred enemy? I know the stalker grants twin linked so there's that at least.
- Allied Dark Harvest - 965
HQ: Destroyer Lord - Warscythe - Mindshackle Scarabs - ResOrb - 175
TR: 2x 20 Flayed One Pack - 520
HS: 3 x Anihilation Barge - 270
D-lords DS with PE flayed ones which are troops. Only the arks and barges need to start on the table.
And yes, it is a silly list but ... interesting. I'm not a huge fan of flayed ones but they are troops here and they have a whopping 4 attacks on the charge with preferred enemy and a murderous d-lord.
... uhh, pro-tip: if you're taking any Necron HQ, don't skimp on the Sempiternal Weave (ESPECIALLY on a Destroyer Lord).
Also, D.Lords attached to Deathmarks can be particularly nasty.
Tesla Immortals aren't a horrible unit to stick him in as well, but there's usually better options for him on the table.
Basically, if there is someone who has something good happen on a to-hit/to-wound roll of a 6, you want some way to give them the chance to reroll. At the moment, you're mostly restricted to D.Lords and Stalkers.
- Allied Dark Harvest - 965
HQ: Destroyer Lord - Warscythe - Mindshackle Scarabs - ResOrb - 175
TR: 2x 20 Flayed One Pack - 520
HS: 3 x Anihilation Barge - 270
D-lords DS with PE flayed ones which are troops. Only the arks and barges need to start on the table.
And yes, it is a silly list but ... interesting. I'm not a huge fan of flayed ones but they are troops here and they have a whopping 4 attacks on the charge with preferred enemy and a murderous d-lord.
That doesn't look like allies. It looks more like dual-CAD.
BTW, it's kinda stupid, but the Maynark Necrons are only Allies of Convenience to regular Necrons. Thus, you won't be able to attach the primary D-lord to the 2nd unit of flayed ones.
2 more suggestions:
1) As skoffs said, don't skimp out on the 2+ for your D-lords.
2) Get Flensing Scarabs for the Flayed Ones. Just 10-pts more to give them rending is totally worth it.
- Allied Dark Harvest - 965
HQ: Destroyer Lord - Warscythe - Mindshackle Scarabs - ResOrb - 175
TR: 2x 20 Flayed One Pack - 520
HS: 3 x Anihilation Barge - 270
D-lords DS with PE flayed ones which are troops. Only the arks and barges need to start on the table.
And yes, it is a silly list but ... interesting. I'm not a huge fan of flayed ones but they are troops here and they have a whopping 4 attacks on the charge with preferred enemy and a murderous d-lord.
That doesn't look like allies. It looks more like dual-CAD.
BTW, it's kinda stupid, but the Maynark Necrons are only Allies of Convenience to regular Necrons. Thus, you won't be able to attach the primary D-lord to the 2nd unit of flayed ones.
2 more suggestions:
1) As skoffs said, don't skimp out on the 2+ for your D-lords.
2) Get Flensing Scarabs for the Flayed Ones. Just 10-pts more to give them rending is totally worth it.
Sadly, Flensing Scarabs only gives Shred in the first round of combat. It does not grand Rending.
skoffs wrote: Makes them better than they currently are...
(we can only hope new codex gives them this option, too)
What's so bad about flayed ones? I kid, I'm not THAT new. I wonder what changes they're going to make. Or if they'll add any new units. I'm really hoping Necrons are part of a battlebox like Stormclaw.
I feel stupid - I totaaly missed that they were allies of convenience. So I pretty much need dual CAD and two d-lords just for the Maynarkh CAD. Doable - just needs a bit of a tweak. i can drop a doomsday ark and use a CCB Overlord maybe drop one Ani barge too. Put the overlord in the Necron CAD ... still lots of barges and one ark.
What is the "correct" Necron response to tough units with good saves? Things like Riptides, Dreadknights, etc? We don't particularly have a lot of High Strength/Low AP shooting - only Destruction Crypteks, Stalkers, Doomsday Arks and Doom Scythes. Warscyhes work, but if you are unlucky with MSS, many MCs or assault-focused enemy characters will beat DLords and Overlords.
I've had issues in the past with MC focused Nid lists. Sure, I can put out a lot of shots with Annihilation Barges and eventually those Tyrants/Carnifexes/Tervigons will fail their saves, but I feel like we don't have any sure-fire ways to deal with heavy targets. We don't particularly have a "Devastator Squad" or "Heavy Weapons Team" analogy, which can be irksome in some situations.
Requizen wrote: What is the "correct" Necron response to tough units with good saves? Things like Riptides, Dreadknights, etc? We don't particularly have a lot of High Strength/Low AP shooting - only Destruction Crypteks, Stalkers, Doomsday Arks and Doom Scythes. Warscyhes work, but if you are unlucky with MSS, many MCs or assault-focused enemy characters will beat DLords and Overlords.
I've had issues in the past with MC focused Nid lists. Sure, I can put out a lot of shots with Annihilation Barges and eventually those Tyrants/Carnifexes/Tervigons will fail their saves, but I feel like we don't have any sure-fire ways to deal with heavy targets. We don't particularly have a "Devastator Squad" or "Heavy Weapons Team" analogy, which can be irksome in some situations.
How do you guys deal with these sorts of lists?
Answer: Fast attack
Option 1:
Wraiths. Many attacks, rending, High Str, CC specialists with a good invuln save is not something most MC's want to play with. Add a D-lord for Preferred enemy
option 2:
Scarabs with entropic strike scare the hell out of my nidzilla opponent. Yes the MC's can ID a base of scarabs but it only takes one failed save to remove his armor for the rest of the game.
Alternatively the IA:12 scarabs can gain rending but lose entropic strike. the massive number of attacks with rending is good but vs high T mc's the wraiths do this job much better.
other options that are not fast attack
Option 3:
Tesla lots and lots of tesla.
option 4:
royal court, Honestly these guys are the elites of our codex. you want a devastator squad? royal court crypteks. heavy weapon team? royal court crypteks. Terminator cc squad? royal court lords. Terminator shootie squad? royal court mixed.
Ffyllotek wrote: The time honoured tactic of 75 Necrons shooting guass flayers or blasters also works very well vs armour.
66% Accuracy to hit of those 16% actually do damage
75 warriors @13 points = 975 points and a minimum of 4 Troops Choices
75 x .66 = 49.5 hit
49.5 x .16 = 7.92 damage
The biggest problem with that equation is that somehow you not only have 75 warriors, but that they are also all within range and LOS of the target vehicle.
Sure, it's not certain. It is however very effective. Stormteks have a very short range.
Normally I buy necron warriors at 13/model, I assume you've averaged warriors and immortals. In which case you need to make allowance for better blasters and bias damage a bit.
Also by the third turn warriors are gong to be rapid firing so output doubles.
I'm not a fan of maths to work out who's best. 60/80 warriors coming at you with res orb support is brutal. Especially for armour. Ifv's tend to have lower armour too.
So I'm thinking of things to put on my Christmas list (since the SO and family seem to be ok supporting my plastic crack addiction ) and I'm not sure what I should go for.
As far as "standard" models are concerned, the only thing I'm missing are Wraiths. So I was thinking of trying to grab some of the more expensive toys - namely the T-C'Tan with his box or some Forgeworld things. What are some good pickups? I've been eyeing the Pylons for a bit, but they seem pretty easy to convert and the Gauss one got nerfed since Interceptor/Skyfire doesn't let you shoot at ground anymore, so I don't know if I want the official models just yet.
I've always loved the Tesseract Vault model that Forgeworld has. Despite the 250 searchlight price, I'd love to field one to see what would happen.
Do you guys have any experience using the Forgeworld models? What are they like on the tabletop, and how nice are the models in person?
Edit: forgot about the Tomb Sentinel/Stalker and Acanthrites. They look so cool, but I'm not sure about their viability on the table. I always liked the idea of Acanthrites as mobile tank-busters (and MC killers, meltas do that well too), but I'd like opinions as well.
Ffyllotek wrote: Sure, it's not certain. It is however very effective. Stormteks have a very short range.
Normally I buy necron warriors at 13/model, I assume you've averaged warriors and immortals. In which case you need to make allowance for better blasters and bias damage a bit.
Also by the third turn warriors are gong to be rapid firing so output doubles.
I'm not a fan of maths to work out who's best. 60/80 warriors coming at you with res orb support is brutal. Especially for armour. Ifv's tend to have lower armour too.
You are correct about 13 points per model, I adjusted my total in that example accordingly.
Mathammering it out usually works out better than it does for me on the table, so forgive me if I disagree on how reliable it is
When I need to roll to accomplish something it's almost certain I will not.
Basically for every 10 warriors that shoot 6 hit and 1 glances, 2 when rapid firing. It's not terrible, and it's nice since you are not paying for heavy weapons, but it's comparable to a Tactical squad with a heavy and specialist. Marine players don't run around touting tactical squads as a reliable counter to tanks. Your basically just taking tons of something that has a 10% chance of success hoping to trigger it enough to be significant.
60 Warriors taking 3 turns to get into effective range to threaten a tank does not compare to 5 Warriors + Storm-tek in a Night Scythe being able to take out a tank from turn 2 on (or even 2 Storm-teks + a Veil-tek being able to take out any non-superheavy vehicle on the table from turn 1, if you're desperate enough).
Long story short: Gauss is a nice bonus, but it is stupid to rely on it for anti-armor, especially when there are far superior methods for significantly cheaper available.
So Adepticon is very near me, and I think I'll try to go and play in the tournament in March (maybe with a new codex? GW?).
It seems that many tournaments prominently feature two types of lists. Deathstar lists and/or Superheavy/Knight lists. Of course, that's not all, Wave Serpents still run around, and we still have Flyer spam kicking around, but I see a lot of lists with a big "power unit" (generally a superheavy or an expensive single unit) supported by the rest of the army.
It's a bit early to begin prepping a list, but I've been thinking about it a bit, in regards to having to buy things and get them table ready. I think our army has enough to deal with these sorts of enemies, between Gauss/Stormteks for Superheavy Vehicles and things like MSS or mass fire for Gargantuans. Wraithwings are also pretty good at tying things up, surviving, and killing as well.
However, do we have the capacity to build lists like this of our own? From what I can tell, we don't particularly have many "Deathstar" units outside of Wraithwing. Lychguard/Praetorians aren't good enough to make one with an Overlord, and while you might be able to pull one off with a Royal Court (Lords with 2+/3++/Warscythes escorting a pimped-out Warlord), it would get more expensive than all get-out and still lack the power of a Draigowing or similar. I saw the Battle Report with the Sentrystar, which looked interesting, but is less of a "true" Deathstar and more of a massive firepower shooting gambit.
What about our Superheavies? Sure, we can ally in Knights as CtA, but our Escalation choices are no slouch. Adepticon does not limit any Superheavy choices, only that they cannot consist of more than 33% of your army. Which means the Obelisk is fair game, as are most loadouts for the Tesseract Vault, and the very cheapest loadout for the T-C'Tan (2x Cosmic Fires + Seismic Shockwave or Storm of Heavenly Fire). How do they measure up against other Superheavy choices? The Obelisk seems to deal with skimmers and flyers very well (pretty good against Eldar or other Crons), and some of the C'Tan powers seem downright nasty. Should I consider one for my list?
You know, if you're planning on joining a tournament in March, any list you throw together now may very well be useless come January, so you might as well just wait for a couple months before getting too committed...
Yeah, I'm not looking to get a full list put together or anything, but I am thinking about getting the Obelisk/Vault/C'Tan box or convincing someone to buy it for me for the holidays. I highly doubt that the rules for them are going to be added to the codex and if they are, they're very unlikely to be changed from Escalation imo. And Sentry Pylons are Forgeworld, unlikely to be changed before March.
I was just looking for some insight onto things like the Vault or the Sentrystar so I could make some decisions about buying them and getting them table ready.
True, but odds are thing like Lychguard and Praetorians will get a buff and or points cost reduction in the next codex making the meta less predictable
Well, it seems to me that Tesla is going to be reworked.
Originally, tesla carbines had a role in the fact that they were assault weapons with 24" range, which was balanced against gauss blasters being superior within 12" (and often over 12"). So tesla was for moving and shooting at range, and gauss was for shooting while stationary or at 12" or less, In keeping with Necron's design as a 13"-24" shooting army.
Then the changes to Rapid Fire got rid of that. Tesla still had a special niche though, but now due to Snap Shots.
Going by lightning-type weapons that have appeared since (Space Wolf living lightning), it seems likely that this is going to go away as well, with a 6 on a Snap Shot not giving 2 extra hits.
So Tesla has no role anymore, at least in carbine form.
How to change? Maybe make them into Blast weapons, to similuate the electricity arcing out over a wide area?
(Also, I suspect the Monolith is destined to become a superheavy.)
Alcibiades wrote: Well, it seems to me that Tesla is going to be reworked.....
That prediction has been discussed to death, and then reanimated due to reanimation protocols, since the Space Wolf Codex dropped months ago, in the Necron Rumors thread, and the Necron's 7th Edition Book. What Are You Hoping For? thread.
I find the logic behind the argument for it faulty because it's comparing a human made cold based weapon to advanced Xeno Tech Electrical Weapon and expecting them to mechanically work the same in game.
Alcibiades wrote: Well, it seems to me that Tesla is going to be reworked.....
That prediction has been discussed to death, and then reanimated due to reanimation protocols, since the Space Wolf Codex dropped months ago, in the Necron Rumors thread, and the Necron's 7th Edition Book. What Are You Hoping For? thread.
I find the logic behind the argument for it faulty because it's comparing a human made cold based weapon to advanced Xeno Tech Electrical Weapon and expecting them to mechanically work the same in game.
Well, maybe I shouldn't raise the subject then , but I think the real issue is that the function of Tesla as originally designed simply does not exist anymore, and the function that it does have is very different. Hence, I believe that what Tesla is normally used for nowadays is not its function as designed, but is an artifact of a post-codex rules change, and so is likely to vanish.
Alcibiades wrote: Well, it seems to me that Tesla is going to be reworked.....
That prediction has been discussed to death, and then reanimated due to reanimation protocols, since the Space Wolf Codex dropped months ago, in the Necron Rumors thread, and the Necron's 7th Edition Book. What Are You Hoping For? thread.
I find the logic behind the argument for it faulty because it's comparing a human made cold based weapon to advanced Xeno Tech Electrical Weapon and expecting them to mechanically work the same in game.
Well, maybe I shouldn't raise the subject then , but I think the real issue is that the function of Tesla as originally designed simply does not exist anymore, and the function that it does have is very different. Hence, I believe that what Tesla is normally used for nowadays is not its function as designed, but is an artifact of a post-codex rules change, and so is likely to vanish.
Unless the designers happen to like the quirkiness of Tesla. I asked my magic eight ball and it told me there will be no change to Tesla, so I have it on better authority than you at this point whether there will be a change to Tesla.
Alcibiades wrote: Well, it seems to me that Tesla is going to be reworked.....
That prediction has been discussed to death, and then reanimated due to reanimation protocols, since the Space Wolf Codex dropped months ago, in the Necron Rumors thread, and the Necron's 7th Edition Book. What Are You Hoping For? thread.
I find the logic behind the argument for it faulty because it's comparing a human made cold based weapon to advanced Xeno Tech Electrical Weapon and expecting them to mechanically work the same in game.
Well, maybe I shouldn't raise the subject then , but I think the real issue is that the function of Tesla as originally designed simply does not exist anymore, and the function that it does have is very different. Hence, I believe that what Tesla is normally used for nowadays is not its function as designed, but is an artifact of a post-codex rules change, and so is likely to vanish.
My problem with this is that it wasn't 7th that "broke " Tesla. Tesla being really good happened in 6th which dropped very quickly after crons 5th edition came out. When the codex came out everyone was stating that it was clearly designed around the next edition. So I am pretty sure Tesla is working as it was intended and see no reason for it to be nerfed. Only change I see in regards to Tesla is that models with Tesla destructor willsee a points increase of 10 to 20. I only see small changes in the codex coming and maybe reworking the ctan flayed ones(especially flayed ones, for such a large monetary investment they are a truly awful unit.).
skoffs wrote: This tactics thread sure has a lot of speculation and wish listing going on in it...
Is a problem with an old codex, most of the effective builds and strats have been discussed. So we either speculate, reiterate statements already stated in this thread or help people on an individual bases using their sub optimal lists.
skoffs wrote: This tactics thread sure has a lot of speculation and wish listing going on in it...
Is a problem with an old codex, most of the effective builds and strats have been discussed. So we either speculate, reiterate statements already stated in this thread or help people on an individual bases using their sub optimal lists.
lol. ok i have a list for speculation. 2000 points (unbound)
skoffs wrote: This tactics thread sure has a lot of speculation and wish listing going on in it...
Is a problem with an old codex, most of the effective builds and strats have been discussed. So we either speculate, reiterate statements already stated in this thread or help people on an individual bases using their sub optimal lists.
lol. ok i have a list for speculation. 2000 points (unbound)
10x monolith
DISCUSS!!
Would struggle against the frequent use of invisibility in todays meta. Also would have no answer against a heavy flyer army. Centstar would destroy you with ease.
Does anyone have measurements on the Sentry Pylons? I think I'm going to try and convert them (expensive for needing 3 for a squad, not to mention weapon variants), and I want to make sure that the dimensions are relatively correct.
Figured the Pylon thing was a bit of a long shot, I'll just eyeball it and wing it
Anyway, you guys may be interested in the new Fighter Ace rules: for 35 searchlights, you can upgrade a flyer with the Fighter Ace rule, which gives it a D3 roll on the table (one specific one for each race). Ours is as follows:
Spoiler:
Potentially pretty good. The BS +1 is always nice (though rerolling 2s into 6s is occasionally fun), IWND is never a bad thing to have (can you say Night Shroud Bomber, AV12 all around with 4HP and now IWND? Hello!), and the last one is amazing.
Night Scythe just dropped off a squad without a Lord/Overlord? Free Res Orb for the first turn they're on the ground (maybe 2 depending on how you fly around). That squad is under heavy fire but doesn't have a res orb? Zoom on over and help them out. Despairtek or Obyron just Deep Struck into enemy lines? Here, let me come bring you back on a 4.
Not bad imo. The price might be a bit steep, but if you have the points left over, it might not be a bad investment.
Not impressed with Fighter Ace for Necrons. I mean, if necrons had an uber flyer, then it may be worth it to slap on the FA upgrade. However, it is just as easy to kill with the upgrade as it is without. Taking it will just mean that your opponents will shoot it down first.
Now FA on a flyrant, Imperial flyer or Daemon Prince would be a different story.
jy2 wrote: Not impressed with Fighter Ace for Necrons. I mean, if necrons had an uber flyer, then it may be worth it to slap on the FA upgrade. However, it is just as easy to kill with the upgrade as it is without. Taking it will just mean that your opponents will shoot it down first.
Now FA on a flyrant, Imperial flyer or Daemon Prince would be a different story.
I agree that we're not the best flyer ace army choice, but as I said I'd argue for the Night Shroud if you bring one. AV12 4HP is about as tough as most flyers come, only really lacking Hover. Any of the upgrades are useful on it imo.
Well I hope that Necrons get a new Flyer or changes to weapons with their new Codex when they get it, that table doesn't really do a lot for your TL Tesla Scythes...
Frozocrone wrote: Well I hope that Necrons get a new Flyer or changes to weapons with their new Codex when they get it, that table doesn't really do a lot for your TL Tesla Scythes...
Agreed with this.
With TL tesla I would almost prefer the upgrade to reduce my bs to 3 lol
Frozocrone wrote: Well I hope that Necrons get a new Flyer or changes to weapons with their new Codex when they get it, that table doesn't really do a lot for your TL Tesla Scythes...
I hope not....
Any changes to our tesla destructors will probably be a nerf to it. Any changes to our flyers will probably be a price hike at the very least.
Frozocrone wrote: Well I hope that Necrons get a new Flyer or changes to weapons with their new Codex when they get it, that table doesn't really do a lot for your TL Tesla Scythes...
I hope not....
Any changes to our tesla destructors will probably be a nerf to it. Any changes to our flyers will probably be a price hike at the very least.
Well I mean make use of an improved BS, since TL Tesla doesn't really benefit from it. Maybe if they could take, I don't know Heavy Gauss Cannons, or something else.
It's just sub-par really in comparison to other factions..
Frozocrone wrote: Well I hope that Necrons get a new Flyer or changes to weapons with their new Codex when they get it, that table doesn't really do a lot for your TL Tesla Scythes...
Agreed with this.
With TL tesla I would almost prefer the upgrade to reduce my bs to 3 lol
Almost It's still worse.
Going from BS4 to BS5 is nearly useless.
If I did the math right you would get:
BS4: 5.33 hits
BS5: 5.44 hits
BladeTX wrote: I cba to wade through 45 pages of Necrons goodness, so I'll ask. Are Lychguard or Praetorians useful at all in 7th?
PS: I am not a competitive player...
Lychguard can make a deathstar that's only okay at best (after all, Orbs + Swords make for a 4++ and 4+++, but Warscythes are better than swords. If we could mix I would almost rethink the statement). Praetorians are still just though, losing out to Wraiths and Arcathrites.
There are significantly better things to spend 2-400 points on.
Hopefully that changes come January, but for the time being, no, they're one of the worst units in the codex (sharing the bottom tier with the likes of Flayed Ones and Doomsday Arks).
I love this thing. It's a great model, it fits AV13 armies nicely, and in theory the Twin Linking is amazing. But I have yet to have one survive until the end of the game, or often even make its points back. It just seems to have no defenses other than the AV13, if they have a Melta, Lance, or just powerful enough weapons, it just cries. Open-topped with no save, no jink, and no Stealth or Shrouded means I take this thing off the board in the first few turns nearly every game.
Does anyone have other experiences with it? I would be fine with its performance if we were talking 2/3 or less of the points cost, but I have yet to feel like it is worth the investment. Have you had games where it has been worthwhile?
Requizen wrote: Can we chat about Triarch Stalkers really quick?
I love this thing. It's a great model, it fits AV13 armies nicely, and in theory the Twin Linking is amazing. But I have yet to have one survive until the end of the game, or often even make its points back. It just seems to have no defenses other than the AV13, if they have a Melta, Lance, or just powerful enough weapons, it just cries. Open-topped with no save, no jink, and no Stealth or Shrouded means I take this thing off the board in the first few turns nearly every game.
Does anyone have other experiences with it? I would be fine with its performance if we were talking 2/3 or less of the points cost, but I have yet to feel like it is worth the investment. Have you had games where it has been worthwhile?
It usually won't make its points back. That's just something you have to accept.
If you like to run Royal Courts a lot, buying one with the TLHGC allows twinlinking of those weapons we all know and love (Haywire Stick, Despairtek, etc). Not entirely cost effective, but it will make the difference between something being almost dead and something being actually dead.
skoffs wrote: You don't use Stalkers with Storm/Despair-teks,
You use them with Destruct-teks, the guys who need rerolls the most.
You use them with anything not a TL'd Tesla Desctructor. The issue is that those are already easily bought.
You can use them for anything not TL'd, but the issue with stalkers is that you have to build a list around them - and you need 2 of them to maximise your chances of getting the benefit. In those circumstances, you want the best bang for your buck, so Destruct-Teks, warrior blobs, teleporting immortals (tesla is probably preferred) and the Doomsday Ark tend to benefit the most.
Nope.
They used to be awesome last edition with their Gauss guns hitting all targets at an insane range, but now you gotta get close using the Deathray or not use them at all. Shame, really.
Well, it's not super close ranged. 24" is the same as pretty much the rest of our army, plus 3D6" on the ray itself. And if you still stick a Phaeron in there, they can move 6" and shoot, for an effective firing range of 33"-48". That's obviously not the same as the 120" Gauss Exterminator, but for T7/W3/3+ that's not a bad effective fire range. Obviously taking Obyron for the mobility is better, but for him you're paying the same price as an entire Death Ray Sentry Pylon for what is essentially an expensive caddy.
Quick question about firing a squad of sentry pylons with Focussed Death Rays, do all 3 death rays need to target the same point on the battlefield and use the same 3D6 line (hitting everything under the line 6 times) or can they each target different points on the battlefield and each roll 3D6 individually for their own lines?
unfassbarnathan wrote: Quick question about firing a squad of sentry pylons with Focussed Death Rays, do all 3 death rays need to target the same point on the battlefield and use the same 3D6 line (hitting everything under the line 6 times) or can they each target different points on the battlefield and each roll 3D6 individually for their own lines?
Only FW knows There is no rules to give us an idea how to work it. Sadly I sent them an email about 2 weeks ago asking to clarify this for a tournament but have gotten no answer. I would like something on paper from them.
unfassbarnathan wrote: Quick question about firing a squad of sentry pylons with Focussed Death Rays, do all 3 death rays need to target the same point on the battlefield and use the same 3D6 line (hitting everything under the line 6 times) or can they each target different points on the battlefield and each roll 3D6 individually for their own lines?
The only restriction is that you have to declare some legal target unit initially (so something has to be on the battlefield that you could target). However, after that it plays out without any connection to the unit you targeted. Each pylon will resolve separately with a different target point on the ground.
At the moment, the only indicator we have is that the start of each ray's line is drawn anywhere within 24" of the Pylon firing it.
There's nothing saying the lines all have to be drawn the same way. Just within the 24" bubble around the Pylons.
I asked Tim King, who runs Caledonian Uprising about them about a year ago. He scratched his head a bit and said that he reckoned it would be: pick the same point, draw the same line, roll the 3d6 seperately for each model and resolve all the hits together. Which seems to make about as much sense as anything else.
Cally is one of the biggest tournaments in the UK and frequented by lots of ETC players. Which is a thing, apparently.
I am going heavy combat with my necrons, btw. After winning my first tounrnament last week with stupid double Trans C''Tan, I've decided to try - 3 units of wraiths and 2 CCBs at a local tourney this weekend. Wish me well, fellow zombie robot weirdos!
Finally got a chance to try out my Necrons for the first time. My friend brought Space Wolves and handed me my spine. 2 drop pods bristling with Grey hunters, a 3rd with Wolf Guard pretty much wiped all of my troops away/locked them in combat by turn 2. Blew up my ghost ark in turn 1 before I even got a chance to do anything with it. I started a lot of the vehicles in reserve to prevent the melta assault but didn't seem to help much. Are there recommendations for stopping the drop pod assaults? Even with a unit of 15 warriors in rapid fire I couldn't kill but 3 of this 10 because of the +3 armor save. Then they assault and they're slowly whittled away.
Don't use reserve against other armys that rely on reserves, unless your dropping units on his tableside.. You want to have more of a presence on the board if your worried about drop pods. You really should deploy all your vehicles so he doesn't have room to deploy his drops near you.
Terrain. Make sure you are using adequite amounts of terrain. There shouldn't be wide open spacesi n your depolyment zone for his drop pods if there is terrain with your vehicles and infantry between them.
Scarabs. Anything that want's to fight you in melee, introduce to your scarabs. Aything that he has that is great at shooting, and not so good in melee, introduce to scarabs. If you run lots of scarabs, run 3 spyders. Nothing is as demoralizing to your enemy as you scarab swarm growing every round, even though he's steadilyinflicting 5-6 wounds on it.
The plan was to deep strike the monolith (I know it's a subpar vehicle, I wanted to try it out) and use the gate to transport my big unit of warriors to his deployment zone. But I misshaped and had to wait until turn 3, which by then the warriors were in assault. Lots of terrain really isn't useful against drop pods since they can't mishap unless they fall off the table, especially if one has locator beacons. Generally, everything in the Space Wolves codex is going to be pretty good at cc. First round drop pods with 4 meltas between them is really tough to deal with. Wraiths/spyders w/ scarabs would be helpful, but I didn't bring them. That and my 3 warscythes effectively rolled snake eyes for either to-hit or to-wound approximately 6 times. He also enfeebled me with his Rune Priest for 4 rounds. Humbling loss, but he's got the attention of my Overlord now, I'll play around with my list and bring something a little more.... effective.
Gamerely wrote: Lots of terrain really isn't useful against drop pods since they can't mishap unless they fall off the table, especially if one has locator beacons.
The point isn't for them to mishap ,it's for them not to have enough room to deploy them near you.
6" of space between terrain pieces is enough for a LandRaider to drive through, but not enough for a drop pod to deploy when there are models deployed within that gap.
I bring it up because I have seen too many battle reports with 6-8 pieces of terrain on a 48"x60" table.
Gamerely wrote: Lots of terrain really isn't useful against drop pods since they can't mishap unless they fall off the table, especially if one has locator beacons.
The point isn't for them to mishap ,it's for them not to have enough room to deploy them near you.
6" of space between terrain pieces is enough for a LandRaider to drive through, but not enough for a drop pod to deploy when there are models deployed within that gap.
I bring it up because I have seen too many battle reports with 6-8 pieces of terrain on a 48"x60" table.
Yeah that was a mistake on my part, I'm not 100% aware of what drop pods are capable of, I thought that they couldn't land on craters for some reason. I had about 25 warriors on the field, I suppose I should have bubble wrapped the dickens out of my ghost ark. Losing that turn 1 really crippled me. I have 3 of them, but only 1 fully built.
Is there any rule preventing scarabs from entering and using a wall of martyrs bunker ?
Spoiler:
10 scarabs inside wall of martyrs bunker with escape hatch.
Bunker placed right on front edge of deployment zone.
Escape hatch placed 12" into the center of battlefield.
Turn 1, Scarabs exit bunker using escape hatch, and move 12" across board to edge of opponents deployment zone, preferabley behind cover.
Run and/or going to ground
Turn 2 Assault.
So when it comes to the competitive scene, what are army building options? Obviously we're still rocking the Flyer Spam, though it's less perfect now that there's more Skyfire and you have 3 Flyrants on a table that can shoot them down pretty easily.
Scythe spam is very close to an MSU-focused force. Generally right now it's just 5 Warriors and a Stormtek, or some Deathmarks and a Despairtek, but could we expand on that to make a true MSU style Necron army? Take out the CCBs (I'm not a huge fan of them right now, tough to kill but have basically no killing power for their price), add in some Ghost Arks carting around Warriors + Destructionteks (for S8 AP2 goodness), maybe start including Lords to toughen them up with Res Orbs and to terrify enemy assault.
2 Overlords as HQ means we can bring up to 10 special weapons in the army, which is quite a bit and more than a lot of people can boast. We already see this with the Stormtek spamming to take down Knights and the like, but I feel like Despairteks are underappreciated. Keep 5 in the Royal Court, put them in a Ghost Ark, now you have an AV13 vehicle that's carting around 5 Lascannon shots.
Maybe not a great idea, and everything is likely to change with the new codex, but I'm working on my army and just spitballing.
adamsouza wrote: Is there any rule preventing scarabs from entering and using a wall of martyrs bunker ?
Spoiler:
10 scarabs inside wall of martyrs bunker with escape hatch.
Bunker placed right on front edge of deployment zone.
Escape hatch placed 12" into the center of battlefield.
Turn 1, Scarabs exit bunker using escape hatch, and move 12" across board to edge of opponents deployment zone, preferabley behind cover.
Run and/or going to ground
Turn 2 Assault.
You might want to double check, but I don't believe Beasts can embark into buildings.
adamsouza wrote: Is there any rule preventing scarabs from entering and using a wall of martyrs bunker ?
Spoiler:
10 scarabs inside wall of martyrs bunker with escape hatch.
Bunker placed right on front edge of deployment zone.
Escape hatch placed 12" into the center of battlefield.
Turn 1, Scarabs exit bunker using escape hatch, and move 12" across board to edge of opponents deployment zone, preferabley behind cover.
Run and/or going to ground
Turn 2 Assault.
You might want to double check, but I don't believe Beasts can embark into buildings.
That is why I was asking. It made sense fluff wise, but I didn't have my rulebook handy at the time.
Looked it up.
Beasts rules themselves do not prevent it.
Building rules treat embarking and disembarking the same as vehicles.
Vehicles rules state only infantry can embark.
Has anyone tried running a CCB lord with a Staff of Light rather than a Warscythe? I generally try to keep mine out of combat - he can win against certain things, but has more vulnerability in Assault than he does zooming around. 3 extra shots at S5 AP3 if you take Gauss can be very scary to anything that isn't an MC or Terminator. Of course, you lose the ability wreck vehicles with Armourbane, but other than that, I think the tradeoff is worthwhile.
A single Staff of Light is hardly anything to be afraid of.
... 5 to 10 Staves of Light, on the other hand, should have MEQ players worried.
(eg. put a shooty RCDI in a Ghost Ark or Veil, go around blasting suckers with mass AP3)
Requizen wrote: Has anyone tried running a CCB lord with a Staff of Light rather than a Warscythe? I generally try to keep mine out of combat - he can win against certain things, but has more vulnerability in Assault than he does zooming around. 3 extra shots at S5 AP3 if you take Gauss can be very scary to anything that isn't an MC or Terminator. Of course, you lose the ability wreck vehicles with Armourbane, but other than that, I think the tradeoff is worthwhile.
Would still require you to be in comfortable assault range to do anything.
Basically, once your foes realise there's no reason to shoot it and it has low proportionate damage output, the Barge loses a lot of value. It can kill vehicles, but scarabs can do it better at half the cost. It has a Warscythe and D6HoW, but that ain't as good as proportionate dedicated assault units from the same codex.
Outside of the AV 13 spam playstyle, they've got limited utility at best, and honestly having zero interest in running vehicle spam myself I can't quite wrap my head aroud why, on a theoretical level, they'd even be a better option there than just supplementing the spam with combat units.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skoffs wrote: A single Staff of Light is hardly anything to be afraid of.
... 5 to 10 Staves of Light, on the other hand, should have MEQ players worried.
(eg. put a shooty RCDI in a Ghost Ark or Veil, go around blasting suckers with mass AP3)
I'm definately interested in trying out the full Court of Light when I finish off my last few Lord conversions.
skoffs wrote: A single Staff of Light is hardly anything to be afraid of. ... 5 to 10 Staves of Light, on the other hand, should have MEQ players worried. (eg. put a shooty RCDI in a Ghost Ark or Veil, go around blasting suckers with mass AP3)
Yeah, but you start racking up the cost by quite a bit at that point. I've always wanted to try out the Ghost Ark filled with SoLs, but that's ~415 points rolling around in one vehicle (before upgrades). Once it gets in 12", it kills anything that's not a T6 or 2+, though, which is pretty great, but it'll take a huge amount of fire getting to that point.
But maybe just 5 Destructeks rolling around in the Ark. 5 Eldrich Lance shots from an AV13 platform will make plenty of things cry, you could even throw in Zahndrekh in the list to constantly give the Barge a 3+ cover (Assuming they're not Ignoring Cover). Could potentially be an interesting unit - 290 points for a fairly solid platform shooting like Devestators.
However, its speed, vehicle popping, and tarpitting capabilities are solid.
Its sweep attack ignores cover and laughs at jink and can even hit zooming flyers.
With AV13 to boot the bargeLord is strong against Eldar.
The bargeLord can generally get to where it wants to be unscathed.
A D Lord + 6 wraiths will generally outperform the bargeLord in combat (if it gets there largely intact, which is a big IF in certain matchups like Tau). The bargeLord is generally lackluster in CC against the typical 10 MEQ unit where the wraiths have a kill feast.
However, the bargeLord outperforms a D Lord + 6 wraiths in certain matchups (elite killy units with str8 weapons and 2+)
Against 5 meganobs for example the wraiths go down super fast againt s8 weapons and are ineffective against 2+ and the D Lord lacks the invul save so the D Lord + 6 wraiths go down hard against 5 meganobs. Similarly, they go down hard against TH/SS Termies and TWC and the like.
The bargeLord is approximately evenly matched against the meganob unit of power klaw death (but that's 285 points versus 200 points so the meganobs are still showing off their CC superiority there).
Plus, making the 4+ reanimation roll for the bargeLord is huge, giving it a pseudo hit and run.
col_impact wrote: Its sweep attack ignores cover and laughs at jink and can even hit zooming flyers.
Mmmm... You're using a hole in the rules there. You need to fly over something to sweep it and Zooming Flyers are implicitly in the sky.
Works, but I wouldn't be happy using a fluff-warping glitch like that. Good were it not for the conceptual wonkiness though. Anti-flyer that does something else is annoyingly hard to come by after the Interceptor nerf.
Against 5 meganobs for example the wraiths go down super fast againt s8 weapons and are ineffective against 2+ and the D Lord lacks the invul save so the D Lord + 6 wraiths go down hard against 5 meganobs. Similarly, they go down hard against TH/SS Termies and TWC and the like.
Actually, you're discounting the sheer number of attacks and thus rends here. Dunno how many attacks a Meganob has, but against Thunderhammer and Stormshield Terminators the fact that Termies only have one wound, Wraiths have way more attacks, are almost guaranteed to get the charge, and they have the same invul makes it pretty much even.
col_impact wrote: Its sweep attack ignores cover and laughs at jink and can even hit zooming flyers.
Mmmm... You're using a hole in the rules there. You need to fly over something to sweep it and Zooming Flyers are implicitly in the sky.
Works, but I wouldn't be happy using a fluff-warping glitch like that. Good were it not for the conceptual wonkiness though. Anti-flyer that does something else is annoyingly hard to come by after the Interceptor nerf.
Against 5 meganobs for example the wraiths go down super fast againt s8 weapons and are ineffective against 2+ and the D Lord lacks the invul save so the D Lord + 6 wraiths go down hard against 5 meganobs. Similarly, they go down hard against TH/SS Termies and TWC and the like.
Actually, you're discounting the sheer number of attacks and thus rends here. Dunno how many attacks a Meganob has, but against Thunderhammer and Stormshield Terminators the fact that Termies only have one wound, Wraiths have way more attacks, are almost guaranteed to get the charge, and they have the same invul makes it pretty much even.
Fair enough. TWC is the more likely matchup anyway.
The bargeLord is better than the D Lord + wraiths in a lot of matchups a lot the times due to the D Lord + Wraiths taking wounds from small arms fire as it comes in. One big variable is how big the D Lord + wraiths squad when it finally gets into CC. Against shooty armies this is of course a huge consideration.
Regarding Sweep versus Flyers, I play the bargeLord RAW.
col_impact wrote: The bargeLord is better than the D Lord + wraiths in a lot of matchups a lot the times due to the D Lord + Wraiths taking wounds from small arms fire as it comes in. One big variable is how big the D Lord + wraiths squad when it finally gets into CC. Against shooty armies this is of course a huge consideration.
Tends to lose 1d3 members against an agressively shooty list in my experience. I've never gotten the hang of wound allocation tricks though so I dunno if I could minimise that with better 2+ and Look out Sir manipulation.
Regarding Sweep versus Flyers, I play the bargeLord RAW.
Didn't say you didn't, just that I'm uncomfortable using gaps like failure to adequately define Flyers being on different vertical levels.
And the flyer rules just plain are kind of a mess, one flyer can warp a game horribly with it's prescence at times and deciding if a list is going to tie itself in knots to deal with them or just ignore them and concede it'll have to endure them buzzing around and never table that army is a pain.
I can't even imagine how bad it must be in areas where people put more than two on the table. (Referring to actual flyers here, not FMC which usually either come down to play eventually or are so defence focused they can't keep up with damage output.)
No experience with Wolf Cavalry yet. Cool models though.
Night Scythes are a bit overrated these days too. I am not saying they are not good. But not being able to hover is a huge liability in 7th edition. And they lost the ability to scoop troops back up inside them with the 7th edition FAQ.
Compare Night Scythes to Storm Talons. Before 7th, Night Scythe obviously better. But now that its 7th, Storm Talons are a little bit better. People will still complain about Night Scythes though.
col_impact wrote: Night Scythes are a bit overrated these days too. I am not saying they are not good. But not being able to hover is a huge liability in 7th edition. And they lost the ability to scoop troops back up inside them with the 7th edition FAQ.
Compare Night Scythes to Storm Talons. Before 7th, Night Scythe obviously better. But now that its 7th, Storm Talons are a little bit better. People will still complain about Night Scythes though.
Well, Annie Barge with a ten point upgrade that lets it only be snap-shotted at by most things.
...And harder to aim, can't shoot until it arrives from reserves, no shielding...
And on the plus side again, not open topped and can help a unit functionally deep strike most of the board's width in with improved accuracy.
It balances out, but most people just see "Annie Barge with a ten point snapshot upgrade" at first glance.
Personally I prefer the Night Shroud. Not for practical reasons, just that a S10 bomb and better AV makes it pretty cool to play.
I've been enjoying taking less Night Scythes as of late, and running more Warriors in in Arks. AV13 feels really strong in this edition, though that could just be my local meta.
In a tourney scene Scythes are necessary to get your Stormteks to the enemy vehicles (yay Knights and Superheavies), but most of my opponents are Tyranids or foot lists, so I end up bringing DnD squads or Destructeks instead.
I've veered away from D&D lately because it causes a distressing amount of people halting the game to page through the rulebook and look for ways to disprove it.
Two guys have even tried point blank saying "Deathmark Unit" phrasing automaticaly excludes any attached character and calling the matter settled, though both didn't demand a redo of the phase and figured I'd just been "corrected" and wouldn't pull it again.
RAW or not, if they're having that reaction it must be making me look like a dick.
'S fine though, I'm hardly in a hypercompettitive meta and two deep striking units of Marks are plenty fun.
I even have a Deathmark and Praetorian parts Vindicator converted to be the "leader" of the Deathmark division of the army. Only used him once so far though. (He killed a Grey Knight Librarian and a Stormraven in rapid sucession with two turbo-penetrator rounds and the Stormraven fell on and crushed a Paladin. Statistically unlikely, but an amazing first outing.)
changemod wrote: I've veered away from D&D lately because it causes a distressing amount of people halting the game to page through the rulebook and look for ways to disprove it.
Two guys have even tried point blank saying "Deathmark Unit" phrasing automaticaly excludes any attached character and calling the matter settled, though both didn't demand a redo of the phase and figured I'd just been "corrected" and wouldn't pull it again.
RAW or not, if they're having that reaction it must be making me look like a dick.
'S fine though, I'm hardly in a hypercompettitive meta and two deep striking units of Marks are plenty fun.
I even have a Deathmark and Praetorian parts Vindicator converted to be the "leader" of the Deathmark division of the army. Only used him once so far though. (He killed a Grey Knight Librarian and a Stormraven in rapid sucession with two turbo-penetrator rounds and the Stormraven fell on and crushed a Paladin. Statistically unlikely, but an amazing first outing.)
I actually like this idea of converted models to be representative of Assassins. Pariahs for those of us of old can use them as Culexus, and then come crazy looking Flayed One to be an Eversor.
Not sure how to tackle Callidus though.
changemod wrote: I've veered away from D&D lately because it causes a distressing amount of people halting the game to page through the rulebook and look for ways to disprove it.
Two guys have even tried point blank saying "Deathmark Unit" phrasing automaticaly excludes any attached character and calling the matter settled, though both didn't demand a redo of the phase and figured I'd just been "corrected" and wouldn't pull it again.
RAW or not, if they're having that reaction it must be making me look like a dick.
'S fine though, I'm hardly in a hypercompettitive meta and two deep striking units of Marks are plenty fun.
I even have a Deathmark and Praetorian parts Vindicator converted to be the "leader" of the Deathmark division of the army. Only used him once so far though. (He killed a Grey Knight Librarian and a Stormraven in rapid sucession with two turbo-penetrator rounds and the Stormraven fell on and crushed a Paladin. Statistically unlikely, but an amazing first outing.)
I actually like this idea of converted models to be representative of Assassins. Pariahs for those of us of old can use them as Culexus, and then come crazy looking Flayed One to be an Eversor.
Not sure how to tackle Callidus though.
Yep, my (unused) Eversor is a Flayed One with one hand swapped for a Hyperphase sword and wrist-mounted particle caster. Thus he has the Freddy Kruger gauntlet, the power sword and the pistol.
Culexus is a Pariah as you said. Painted over his green plastic tube in glowy red-pink to show it's not Gauss anymore but a Necrony Anima Speculum equivalent.
Vindicare is a Praetorian with a Deathmark head, a one-handed Synaptic Disintegrator with a bayonet, and another pistol. Attempt at a vaguely James Bondish pose.
For the Callidus... I got lazy. My army has no Praetorians, so nobody'll confuse him for one and it's an excuse to own one, I guess. On the plus side he does have a blade and pistol by default. I can fluff the cage thing on his back as a hologram projector instead of a Jump Pack, I guess?
adamsouza wrote: All my Crypteks used to be Pariahs. They all wield staff weapons are their heads make them distinguishable from the cannon fodder.
Sensible reuse, though personally I've fallen in obsessive love with the cycloptic Deathmark/Cryptek heads.
My current project is a complete Science Team with 5 of each Cryptek Type barring only two Harbingers of Eternity (It'd be only one because you only take them for Chronometrons and his minions couldn't have them on the table... But both Orikan and Toholk are Eternity and I'm doubling Squad Leaders as special characters in some cases. Destruction is Szeras, Storm is Imhotek, Despair is Trazyn.)
26 of them have cycloptic heads. Toholk the Blinded still has a Deathmark head, but the eye is filed and liquid green stuffed out.
So, Imperial Knights as allies for an AV13 army that is not using CCBs. Sensible? They'll draw anti-tank fire from Barges, Arks, and possibly even things like Monoliths/Tesseract Arks (though then you're getting expensive). They're also not bad at tying up scary deathballs like TWC.
TWC will (typically) walk through a knight, but yea they do work as good allies, I recently ran Necrons with a knight errant at a local tourney and did extremely well.
Requizen wrote: So, Imperial Knights as allies for an AV13 army that is not using CCBs. Sensible? They'll draw anti-tank fire from Barges, Arks, and possibly even things like Monoliths/Tesseract Arks (though then you're getting expensive). They're also not bad at tying up scary deathballs like TWC.
That base size plus Come the Apocalypse is gonna chew up a heck of a lot of board space, especially as you used plural.
Plus side, you could make Knights the Primary Detachment, convert them into War Mechs and Canoptek abominations, stick say... A combat Phaeron in a Scythe with an Immortal Squad for the mandatory (Or 5 warrior tax it, but I despise doing so, better to have your crew actually do something) then load up the other slots with speedy or shooty support units.
Nice and fluffy if you've got the conversions down and you could stick a lot in reserve.
I have something i'd like fellow Necron players to weigh in on. Recently it was brought to my attention by a mutual friend of a man who has become notorious in certain circles here in Northern Ireland for minmaxing/bending rules for the sake of cheese and online for a hilariously bad and ill fated kickstarter attempt last year.
According to him a death ray can't extend via the 3d6" roll beyond the range listed in the weapons profile. For example using the death ray on the Doom Scythe i nominate a point starting at the base of the flyer, as close as possible and by sheer luck I roll 3 6's meaning an 18" line. By his ruling the beam would vanish after leaving the 12" range bubble as listed in the weapons profile. This also applies to the focussed death ray of course so if I nominated a point 23.5" away from the pylon the line would only go 0.5" no matter what I rolled (should I want to hit something further away).
I have never played it this way nor have I seen any other Necron player (online and off) even mention this let alone play it that way and have understood the range listed in the weapons profiles as merely the range in which the line can be started.
His argument seems to stem from the fact traditional line weapons have their range in their profile as xd6" rather than the standard number. I can't comment on that as Necrons are my only army.
MoonlightSonata wrote: I have something i'd like fellow Necron players to weigh in on. Recently it was brought to my attention by a mutual friend of a man who has become notorious in certain circles here in Northern Ireland for minmaxing/bending rules for the sake of cheese and online for a hilariously bad and ill fated kickstarter attempt last year.
According to him a death ray can't extend via the 3d6" roll beyond the range listed in the weapons profile. For example using the death ray on the Doom Scythe i nominate a point starting at the base of the flyer, as close as possible and by sheer luck I roll 3 6's meaning an 18" line. By his ruling the beam would vanish after leaving the 12" range bubble as listed in the weapons profile. This also applies to the focussed death ray of course so if I nominated a point 23.5" away from the pylon the line would only go 0.5" no matter what I rolled (should I want to hit something further away).
I have never played it this way nor have I seen any other Necron player (online and off) even mention this let alone play it that way and have understood the range listed in the weapons profiles as merely the range in which the line can be started.
His argument seems to stem from the fact traditional line weapons have their range in their profile as xd6" rather than the standard number. I can't comment on that as Necrons are my only army.
Is he right? Am I taking crazy pills?
Short answer. He is wrong. You just follow the instructions on the Death Ray. Only the first nominated point is within 12". You then roll 3d6 and then nominate a 2nd point that can be that many inches away from the first nominated point. Then draw a 1 mm line.
It also doesn't give you a speficic direction to extend the line in. Feel free to have it focus a penetrating straight line blast or rake sideways through an enemy line.
What should I tell my friend who has been pretty firmly brainwashed by this guy into his way of thinking? I've explained to him how it really works, which is how we've been playing it for years but now he just repeats the rule bending guys take on it.
MoonlightSonata wrote: What should I tell my friend who has been pretty firmly brainwashed by this guy into his way of thinking? I've explained to him how it really works, which is how we've been playing it for years but now he just repeats the rule bending guys take on it.
If this is the same rule-bending guy I think you are talking about , I think he's just sick to death about the Death Ray being "OP".
He also argued that the Death Ray hits all the models in a unit (using the rule-bending guys example, if the Death Ray passes over one model in a unit of 30 Ork Boyz, all 30 Boyz take a hit). Sounds about right (it was later FAQ'd to hit the number of models that are directly underneath the line, so in the previous example, it would just be one hit on the lone Ork Boy underneath the line).
I wouldn't take advice from the rule-bending guy, he sounds like a WAAC kind of player (and loves his deathstars).
If you want evidence, the Death Ray doesn't state the second point needs to be within 12" of the Doomscythe.
This is simply a false interpretation for the benefit of the SW player and his T5 TWC.
Yep he is the guy you're thinking of and he is a WAAC player more often than not. I just rang my friend and repeatedly read him the rules entry for the death ray and focussed death ray, underlining the fact it specifically mentions that the first point is within the weapons range and the second point can be anywhere within 3d6" of that point.
Now the two of you need to start a campaign of correcting the misinformation he's been spreading.
Get enough people onboard and you might be able to widespread discredit him enough so that everyone will automatically assume anything he says from then on is an attempt to be TFG.
That more or less already is the case skoffs! There was a time he destroyed a game of mine against a friend of his in 6th edition by rules lawyering that the Acanthrites that were about to attack a bastion filled with an intensely obnoxious deathstar in fact couldn't do anything as melta doesn't work against buildings and neither does Entropic Strike because both of those rules specifically mention vehicle armour and not buildings.
Much to my chagrin i read the Necron FAQ later on that night which of course clarified that Entropic Strike does indeed work against buildings.
I once came joint second in a store tournament not long after starting 40k... But I lost one of the games.
In it, it was because I trusted my opponent on what he said the building rules were.
First up, he said Armourbane wouldn't apply from my solo Overlord's warscythe. (gimmicky tournament restrictions: Five units each, points limit of 100 on each unit. My units were Scythe Overlord who rolled to outflank on the warlord traits table, five gauss immortals, five tesla immortals, five deathmarks and two Spyders.) So it took two turns to burst the bastion.
Then he declared the Bastion was impassible terrain, when I needed to secure the objective that had been on it. It woulda been a crater.
Holding up one of my units for an entire turn and denying me a victory point on one of said turns? Yeah, I'm bitter about that one.
Moral: Look stuff up when it sounds completely wrong.
Unfortunately I didn't have the Necron FAQ to hand (lesson learned) and by that point i was so sickened by their attitude towards the game that I wanted it to be over ASAP.
MoonlightSonata wrote: Unfortunately I didn't have the Necron FAQ to hand (lesson learned) and by that point i was so sickened by their attitude towards the game that I wanted it to be over ASAP.
Worst part is he basically snuck a free bastion into a 500 point game by insisting mid-battle that that's what the store terrain piece was when everyone generally uses it as a 3-level ruin with no windows for simplicity...
Oh yes, speaking of the Necron FAQ:
6th ed FAQ specifies order of operations for Scarab attacks is roll Entropic Strikes first, then seperately roll against AV.
7th ed doesn't have those lines.
So... What's the current RAW on Entropic Strike units and rolling to breach armour? Doesn't matter when a Scarab horde devours something whole, but certainly does when a small number of surviving Scarabs or an Acanthrite unit is rolling.
...Or Praetorians, I guess. They have Entropic Strike too, I think.
I suppose we'll find out in about a months time (or not, it's GW after all). On that subject I used scarab swarms in a planet strike game and by sheer chance I rolled just enough to reduce a bastion to AV1 then followed a profound amount of penetrating hits which when translated to the building collapse rules caused hundreds of wounds to the marines within. This happened twice via the same squad of scarabs.
Well, I know what the old FAQ clarification was so knowing current exact RAW is really more for the benefit of being able to shortcut awkward conversations when I have three Scarab Bases or Acanthrites trying to eat a Land Raider than anything else.
I basically have to say "They had a clarification in the 6th ed FAQ but removed it, and I know this would be me trying to press an already really good rule even further if I insisted so I frankly dunno how should we play it this time?" every time it comes up.
I have the digital edition codex and it may help shed some light for you.
this is quoted from the digital codex.
"for each hit a vehicle or fortification suffers from a weapon or model with this special rule, immediately roll a d6. For each result of a 4+, it loses one point of armour value from all facings (this is before any armor penetration rolls are made)"
"If a vehicle or fortification is reduced to armor value 0 on any facing it is immediately wrecked"
"As these effects are immediate, blah (regular models) blah, equally, other models attacking in the same initiative step will be able to roll against the vehicle or fortification's reduced armour value"
What do you think the consensus would be to ES vs a superheavy?
Due to their rules, they're free of permanent AV-altering effects, but if a squad of scarabs would drop one hypothetically to 0 or below, would this result in a wreck, or do nothing at all?
adamsouza wrote: Scarabs entropic strike has no effect on superheavies.
Every other army in the game would sob into their cheerios if they did.
Used to be that it worked on a 6 instead of a 4.
Which was pretty reasonable: Tones it down to a third as effective and Superheavies hardly lack ways to thin out a Scarab Horde before it can touch them.
I'd probably run Charnel in Apocalypse though if I was gonna include Scarabs at all.
7E Rulebook clearly states that any attack or special ability that permanently lower the Armor Values of a target vehicle do not affect a super-heavy vehicle.
I'd give you the page number but I'm looking at the epub version on my tablet at the moment.
adamsouza wrote: To be honest I was told Scarabs Entropic Strike didn't effect superheavies in 7E, and just accepted it. No one in my local meta actually plays super heavies, so I've had no acutal need to verify it. I apologize if I have mislead.
Now I'm going to have to look it up to be certain.
No, you're right. It worked on a 6 in sixth though.
skoffs wrote: This might not be the right thread to post that in... yet
It's out now, so we can discuss it I think it's a bit.. lame? It still forces you to buy an overcosted Monolith for your army.
The hilarious thing with the Formations is that there are two units I do not have in my 16.000 point collection: Praetorians and Anrakyr.
Three guesses to what they need -_-'
Conclave of the Burning One is something I can surely see used in a non-competitive setting.
Usually I don't take C'tans in regular games because they are so slow, but this can be fixed with a VeilTek.
Another thing I am really excited about are the Relics and the Warlord-Traits.
Imagine a CCB-Overlord with Solar Thermasite and Edge of Eternity, combined with some of the Traits: IWND or EW!
Nothing beats a 2+/3++ where I can re-roll 1's.
A S8 "Warscythe" is also great now that it can ID anything with T4, with Edge of Eternity you can even select the models you want to die.
That's quite a big buff on his 7 attacks.
Though I think the Trait for CC-Haywire is weird. Why do I want Haywire when my Overlords are already rocking Armourbane-weapons?
Adamantium Will can also be helpful, though it's a small upgrade unless I am missing something.
These bonuses are in my opinion really worth the additional Troop-tax, we already love to take lots of Troops with Flyers and now they get just a bit more durable too.
Kangodo wrote: Though I think the Trait for CC-Haywire is weird. Why do I want Haywire when my Overlords are already rocking Armourbane-weapons?
Because only one of the five weapons an overlord can take are Armorbane.
And yes, I know that even the most non-competitive players never take Voidblades, Hyperphase Swords or Gauntlets of Fire on an Overlord, and Staves of Light are very rare, but that'll still be why.
You could roll it for Zandrekh or Imhotek, I guess.
Imagine a CCB-Overlord with Solar Thermasite and Edge of Eternity, combined with some of the Traits: IWND or EW!
Nothing beats a 2+/3++ where I can re-roll 1's.
A S8 "Warscythe" is also great now that it can ID anything with T4, with Edge of Eternity you can even select the models you want to die.
That's quite a big buff on his 7 attacks.
Any one character can only have one relic.
Edit: Hmm, the store owner got me thinking I could only have one relic per character. On review I am not so sure. I think an Overlord can have more than one relic as long as it is not the same relic) as there is no actual restriction.
Spoiler:
Characters with the Necrons Faction that are part of a Detachment or Formation presented in this book can select an item from the Relics of the War in Heaven list at the points cost shown. Only one of each of the relics may be chosen per army – there is only one of each of these items in the galaxy.
It doesn't say "can select one item" or "can select only one item" which would restrict. It doesn't say "can select items" either. However, "can select an item" isn't restrictive.
I tested out Solar Thermasite (on a fully decked out bargeLord) and Conclave (with DespairTek, LightningTek) in my fully competitive medium Scarab Farm list against a heavy hitting Zhardsnark BullyBoyz Ork list.
For Warlord I got IWND.
I wanted to see how tough the bargeLord and Conclave were so I set the thermasite bargeLord to tarpit the Zhardsnark Deathstar (14 warbikes, PK nob biker, painboy on bike, and of course Zhardsnark) and veiled the Conclave directly into the Ork battlefield. I had the initiative. For those of you who understand the Necron vs Ork matchup you will recognize how ballsy this line of play was.
The bargeLord is a brick but it will go down eventually if it comes across S10 AP2. Outside of ID scenarios like Zhardsnark it will hold strong. Getting EW for Warlord seems to be the best trait to get.
The Conclave did really well. It took down 2 full units of bullyBoyz and their Trukks before going down, so it can earn its points and then some versus super tough and killy units. The conclave also sucked up some attention letting my scarabs reach critical mass.
It wound up being a bloody game where I would have lost narrowly had the game ended on Turn 5 but I took over the game on Turn 6.
It'd be pretty hard to model Zarathustra the Ineffable without both of his unique wargear items, for one thing.
I edited my post above. I posted the relevant rule. I now think it's possible for an Overlord using the Mephrit Dynasty as a source to have more than one relic. It was one of those things I was having to quickly research while in a game and argue against a store owner who was firmly saying you could only have one. Now, outside of the game. It's clear that there is no restriction.
It was something very relevant to the game. I ran him in against Zhardsnark war biker horde thinking I could focus my Edge of Eternity attacks at removing him first since you are under the pressure of Zhadsnark's attacks which can ID.
Yeah, that's how I read it. Besides, going by the official Zarathustra art, he's clearly holding the Edge of Eternity and an Orb, and has a small sun-like object mounted above his head which probably represents the Solar Thermesite.
Annoyingly, they didn't actually explain his loadout like they did for some other build-a-bear special characters (Kranon the Relentless, for example, has all standard wargear and relics but an official build listed in his supplement), so otherwise we can probably assume he has both save improving items, Phaeron and nothing on his person resembling Anrakyr's tachyon arrow.
So my guess would be... Zarathustra the Ineffable: Phaeron, Edge of Eternity, Solar Thermesite, Resurrection Orb, Sempiternal Weave, Phase Shifter.
Possible Phylactery or Mindshackle Scarabs. Tesseract Labyrinth unlikely.
The editing in that book is really weird. Earlier in the book it states that Relics are limited to one per Army, so sadly we can't stack God Shackles or the like.
Nilok wrote: The editing in that book is really weird. Earlier in the book it states that Relics are limited to one per Army, so sadly we can't stack God Shackles or the like.
I'm glad for that!
C'tan Shards should become good on their own, they shouldn't be running around with S10 and T10.
That would be overpowered and after years of everyone claiming Necrons are OP I would like things to calm down
I still think that the Conclave of the Burning One and a God Shackle might make a C'tan good enough to be in a competitive Necron list, and should be testing that in the next couple days.
T8 Deep Striking and up close dakka will make him more beastly than his slow walk.
its in the latest WD as well I believe, but even so, it is merely a relic, the only stipulation is I have to use the WD Warlord table, which doesn't concern me as it is pretty good
Edge of Eternity has Precision Strike 2+. What does that mean? If I read it correctly, it doesn't make you hit on a 2+, but it changes any and all hits to Precision Strikes since the Precision Strike rule modifies hits.
col_impact wrote: Edge of Eternity has Precision Strike 2+. What does that mean? If I read it correctly, it doesn't make you hit on a 2+, but it changes any and all hits to Precision Strikes since the Precision Strike rule modifies hits.
If I understand correctly, it could mean that any to hit roll on a 2+ is a precision strike. So basically
"hey, nice sergent" *rolls a 3 to hit* "Aaand he's gone."
I think it means that all To Hits of a 2+ are Precision Strikes. I'm not sure whether that ignores the normal To Hit-requirement or even the To Wound rolls.
Hitting on a 2+ (with 7 attacks) seems a bit overpowered.
IHateNids wrote: No, it means you can choose who you hit on a 2+ to hit
so it overrules your gakky WS, and then you get to choose who gets whacked for your trouble
That can't be right. That's just OP. I mean, at S7 AP2 you pretty much murder any infantry character.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kangodo wrote: I think it means that all To Hits of a 2+ are Precision Strikes. I'm not sure whether that ignores the normal To Hit-requirement or even the To Wound rolls.
Hitting on a 2+ (with 7 attacks) seems a bit overpowered.
How are you getting 7 attacks? The Edge doesn't increase attacks, does it?
CthuluIsSpy wrote: That can't be right. That's just OP. I mean, at S7 AP2 you pretty much murder any infantry character.
Since you take the other Relic too, it will be S8 and you ID anything with T4 (quite a lot)
How are you getting 7 attacks? The Edge doesn't increase attacks, does it?
Because I am putting it in a CCB, so we can count the Sweep Attacks
Oh my, I hadn't even considered the barge. That's just insanity. You know what's even funnier? There's a warlord trait that gives his melee attacks haywire. So basically, you could have a S8 AP2 overlord with 2+ to hit attacks, armorbane and haywire. Because feth yo' armor. I shall dub this configuration the Rick James.
I think you guys are misreading the rules involved.
Spoiler:
If a model with this special rule rolls a 6 To Hit with a Melee weapon, that hit is a ‘Precision Strike’.
Wounds from Precision Strikes are allocated against an engaged model (or models) of your choice in the unit you are attacking, rather than following the normal rules for Wound allocation. If a Precision Strike Wound is allocated to a character, they can still make their Look Out, Sir roll.
The rule modifies hits that would have to be passed to it from a successful To Hit. It doesn't make hits on its own.
Well, let's put the 2 in there! If a model with this special rule rolls a 2 or higher To Hit with a Melee weapon. that hit is a 'Precision Strike'.
That sounds weird and doesn't make any sense at all. What we need is GW telling us was Executioner (2+) really means, since Precision Strike usually doesn't work with bracketed numbers and a real TFG could even claim that it doesn't work at all because the rules don't tell us the meaning of the (2+).
What happens is that the Precision Strike USR is granted to successful ToHit rolls that happened to be 2 or higher. The rule does not grant a hit on 2+.
You follow the rules for determining if a hit is scored.
Spoiler:
Roll To Hit To determine whether hits are scored, roll a D6 for each Attack a model gets to make and compare the WS of the attacking model to the WS of the target unit. Then, consult the To Hit chart below to find the minimum result needed on a D6 To Hit.
By making it Executioner 2+ it means that all successful hits will be Precision Strikes (rolls of 1 always miss).
This should be crystal clear and not really worthy of debate. However, I can always open a YMDC thread if some debate arises.
I think it's a bit.. lame? It still forces you to buy an overcosted Monolith for your army.
You've completely missed the point of formations. They ARE supposed to make you want to buy such models. What'd be the point of formations that make good combinations and units even better. They're supposed to buff weaker stuff to force sales on what's in stock. Or at least provide new tactix.
I know, but people aren't going to buy Formations if all they contain are terrible overcosted units.
col_impact wrote: This should be crystal clear and not really worthy of debate. However, I can always open a YMDC thread if some debate arises.
Perhaps a thread about the 2+?
Because officially it doesn't do anything, only FNP and Poisoned have a description for numbers behind them.
If I don't miss anything.
col_impact wrote: I think you guys are misreading the rules involved.
Spoiler:
If a model with this special rule rolls a 6 To Hit with a Melee weapon, that hit is a ‘Precision Strike’.
Wounds from Precision Strikes are allocated against an engaged model (or models) of your choice in the unit you are attacking, rather than following the normal rules for Wound allocation. If a Precision Strike Wound is allocated to a character, they can still make their Look Out, Sir roll.
The rule modifies hits that would have to be passed to it from a successful To Hit. It doesn't make hits on its own.
What happens is that the Precision Strike USR is granted to successful ToHit rolls that happened to be 2 or higher. The rule does not grant a hit on 2+.
You follow the rules for determining if a hit is scored.
By making it Executioner 2+ it means that all successful hits will be Precision Strikes (rolls of 1 always miss).
This should be crystal clear and not really worthy of debate. However, I can always open a YMDC thread if some debate arises.
Honestly? It does seem pretty crystal clear from that wording, but in the opposite direction than you're saying.
"If a model with this special rule rolls a 2+ To Hit with a Melee weapon, that hit is a ‘Precision Strike’." says, in clear language, that any precision strike result is considered a hit. A to hit roll that meets criteria X is a precision strike, which is in turn defined as a type of hit.
I'd agree it's not worthy of debate though: Any argument would devolve into nothing more than two sides giving increasingly convoluted and awkward explanations of what the two words "that hit" mean. You say it nebulously refers to if it would have hit anyway, I see it defining what happens when the criteria is met.
I usually fall on the conservative side of interpretations, but as far as I can see a Precision Strike is a hit by definition, and extending it to a 2+ instead of say, a mere 4 or 5+ probably wasn't the most sensible alteration to an existing rule.
col_impact wrote: I think you guys are misreading the rules involved.
Spoiler:
If a model with this special rule rolls a 6 To Hit with a Melee weapon, that hit is a ‘Precision Strike’.
Wounds from Precision Strikes are allocated against an engaged model (or models) of your choice in the unit you are attacking, rather than following the normal rules for Wound allocation. If a Precision Strike Wound is allocated to a character, they can still make their Look Out, Sir roll.
The rule modifies hits that would have to be passed to it from a successful To Hit. It doesn't make hits on its own.
What happens is that the Precision Strike USR is granted to successful ToHit rolls that happened to be 2 or higher. The rule does not grant a hit on 2+.
You follow the rules for determining if a hit is scored.
By making it Executioner 2+ it means that all successful hits will be Precision Strikes (rolls of 1 always miss).
This should be crystal clear and not really worthy of debate. However, I can always open a YMDC thread if some debate arises.
Honestly? It does seem pretty crystal clear from that wording, but in the opposite direction than you're saying.
"If a model with this special rule rolls a 2+ To Hit with a Melee weapon, that hit is a ‘Precision Strike’." says, in clear language, that any precision strike result is considered a hit. A to hit roll that meets criteria X is a precision strike, which is in turn defined as a type of hit.
I'd agree it's not worthy of debate though: Any argument would devolve into nothing more than two sides giving increasingly convoluted and awkward explanations of what the two words "that hit" mean. You say it nebulously refers to if it would have hit anyway, I see it defining what happens when the criteria is met.
I usually fall on the conservative side of interpretations, but as far as I can see a Precision Strike is a hit by definition, and extending it to a 2+ instead of say, a mere 4 or 5+ probably wasn't the most sensible alteration to an existing rule.
We don't need to debate over what "that hit" means. What do the rules actually tell us on how to know whether or not a hit is scored? The rules are crystal clear about how you score hits. There is nothing in the Precision Strike rules that would indicate that it scores hits. However, it is abundantly clear that it modifies things that have been determined to be "hits". I suggest you go back and re-read the involved rules in their totality.
Spoiler:
If a model with this special rule rolls a 6 To Hit with a Melee weapon, that hit is a ‘Precision Strike’.
Wounds from Precision Strikes are allocated against an engaged model (or models) of your choice in the unit you are attacking, rather than following the normal rules for Wound allocation. If a Precision Strike Wound is allocated to a character, they can still make their Look Out, Sir roll.
Spoiler:
Roll To Hit To determine whether hits are scored, roll a D6 for each Attack a model gets to make and compare the WS of the attacking model to the WS of the target unit. Then, consult the To Hit chart below to find the minimum result needed on a D6 To Hit.
So again the question, what do the rules actually tell us on how to know whether or not a hit is scored?
col_impact wrote: We don't need to debate over what "that hit" means. What do the rules actually tell us on how to know whether or not a hit is scored? The rules are crystal clear about how you score hits. There is nothing in the Precision Strike rules that would indicate that it scores hits. However, it is abundantly clear that it modifies hits that have been scored.
It says in plain language that when a precision strike result on a roll to hit occurs, it's a hit you can assign to a specific model. You can't, after all, score a precision miss.
Like I said, there's no point debating over it. I understand your perspective already, and see that it appears to hold no water. I doubt you aren't seeing the same inverted from over there. I don't have an alternate angle to convince you from, so unless you can find an alternate angle to convince me from, we'd just devolve into the worst type of internet debate: Increasingly wordy and frustrated statements of the same two basic points ad nauseum.
col_impact wrote: We don't need to debate over what "that hit" means. What do the rules actually tell us on how to know whether or not a hit is scored? The rules are crystal clear about how you score hits. There is nothing in the Precision Strike rules that would indicate that it scores hits. However, it is abundantly clear that it modifies hits that have been scored.
It says in plain language that when a precision strike result on a roll to hit occurs, it's a hit you can assign to a specific model. You can't, after all, score a precision miss.
Like I said, there's no point debating over it. I understand your perspective already, and see that it appears to hold no water. I doubt you aren't seeing the same inverted from over there. I don't have an alternate angle to convince you from, so unless you can find an alternate angle to convince me from, we'd just devolve into the worst type of internet debate: Increasingly wordy and frustrated statements of the same two basic points ad nauseum.
There is nothing logically incorrect about assigning Precision Strike to a miss. It would just not do anything.
You are reading into the rules. You are in the awkward position of saying "that hit" has the rules force to say that a hit is scored or generated and that we will now modify it. However, the rule Precision strike has no indication that it generates hits, only that it takes hits and applies the Precision Strike rule. Please point to where it says that it generates or scores hits. Please point to the place in the rules where we generate hits.
You seem to think that the rule reads like this
"If a model with this special rule rolls a 2 or more To Hit with a Melee weapon, a hit is scored and that hit is a ‘Precision Strike’."
However, it does not read like that. It reads like this.
"If a model with this special rule rolls a 2 or more To Hit with a Melee weapon, that hit is a ‘Precision Strike’."
col_impact wrote: You are reading into the rules. You are in the awkward position of saying "that hit" has the rules force to say that a hit is scored or generated and that we will now modify it. However, the rule Precision strike has no indication that it generates hits, only that it takes hits and applies the Precision Strike rule. Please point to where it says that it generates or scores hits. Please point to the place in the rules where we generate hits.
Sure.
Advanced trumps basic.
The precision strike rule states that on a specific target number, normally 6 but in this case 2+, you apply a hit to a target of your chosing.
Was it originally designed under the assumption it would be a hit anyway? Absolutely. But that's not what it actually says. It tells you what to do when you roll the to hit dice.
If we're talking "awkward positions", you're saying that you have been granted permission to assign a hit you didn't score to a specific target.
Note that it doesn't say anything about modifying "that hit", it works on the assumption "that hit" exists and procedes from there. I'd apply the same argument to a situation where some obscure modifier meant you'd need to roll 7 to hit. If you had an ordinary precision strike weapon, you'd hit on a 6 anyway.
Now, clarifications as a reason for even going this far aside: Do you understand my base position? Not "Do you agree with it", just understand. If no, I can keep trying to clarify a little longer. Otherwise, we're probably done here.
col_impact wrote: It doesn't actually say 'that you apply a hit.' It says "that hit has the Precision Strike rule." You are reading in to the rules.
I can assure you, you're making a definite assumption here. You're assuming that referring to a hit is an order to go check elsewhere whether that hit would otherwise exist, rather than an order to proceed with resolving said hit.
col_impact wrote: It doesn't actually say 'that you apply a hit.' It says "that hit has the Precision Strike rule." You are reading in to the rules.
I can assure you, you're making a definite assumption here. You're assuming that referring to a hit is an order to go check elsewhere whether that hit would otherwise exist, rather than an order to proceed with resolving said hit.
I am not assuming anything. The rules tell us explicitly how to generate hits.
See? We're circulating. You've asked that exact question multiple times, and aren't considering my answer valid.
So basically, we've gone as far as we can here.
Except you have failed to show how "that hit" has the rules force to generate hits. I don't have to convince you personally that your argument is logically flawed. I just have to show that your argument is logically flawed.
I don't know how you get "hits on a 2+" from "Executioner (2+)". I can see how the implication might be construed, but without more solid rules, there's no precedent for a rule like Executioner. It doesn't say "Precision Strikes (2+)", it says "Executioner (2+)", which is wildly different and might even just be a typo for all we know.
See? We're circulating. You've asked that exact question multiple times, and aren't considering my answer valid.
So basically, we've gone as far as we can here.
Except you have failed to show how "that hit" has the rules force to generate hits.
To your personal satisfaction, sure. And I could say the same of your arguments ability to disrupt the explanation I laid out to my satisfaction.
You really want to carry on? I can see you haven't budged an inch, so I'm not gonna bother, and I'm honestly a little surprised you can't see the total deadlock.
I don't have to convince you personally that your argument is logically flawed. I just have to show that your argument is logically flawed.
Cute, but I have severe doubts you can reach that level of objectivity.
Anyway, I generated a new thread on YMDC.
I'll glance in, but don't expect me to post if you aren't saying anything new.
I am finding that I am liking the tactical flexibility of including at least one VeilTek in my royal courts along with several stormTeks.
By paying the additional 30 points to having a veilTek instead of just a DespairTek, it allows me the ability at deployment to form Royal Courts instead of Crypteks attached to units and create an alpha strike squad of possibly 1 VeilTek and lets say 2-4 stormTeks to deploy on the board and turn one deep strike for example onto the flank of an Imperial Knight to remove one knight from the opponent's army while they have their pants down.
Of course you are not locked in with the Royal Court at having to break out an alpha strike unit separately. In the appropriate situation, you can attach your Crypteks normally to warrior squads in Night Scythes and keep them safe for later. Again, that's what is really neat. Tactical flexibility.
And really, having that VeilTek is what gives you the possibility of pulling off a turn one alpha strike. Otherwise, Necrons are weak in that area and cannot provide much in the way of turn 1 pressure.
Would it be wise to add a Chronotek to his combo, allowing you to Deep Strike a lot safer?
That gives an average of 6 Hull Points, enough to kill almost anything, quite cheap for 175 points.
I would always add the full amount of StormTeks, they are too cheap and it means you still one-shot Land Raiders after they lose one.
It also allows you to one-shot most Skimmers, despite the Jink.
A word to the wise, if you are going to be doing my alpha strike combo make sure you know how to deep strike snugly and aggressively.
You basically want to deep strike nice and snug to your target so that if you mishap a roll of 6+ or 7+ it will put you free and clear on the backside of the enemy unit you snuggled up with if you are scattered toward the enemy or still within weapon range if you are scattered away from the enemy.
I use the flamer template to do a probability sweep and find a good snug spot.
The optimal unit size for aggressive and snug deep striking is 4 models total.
The nice thing about the combo is that even if you mishap, 50% of the time your unit is safe in reserve and can do another deep strike attack next turn.
The other nice thing about the combo is that you can always choose to deploy them in the Night Scythe normally if there aren't any high value targets.
Another hidden bonus is that the flamer template can be an awesome teleporty weapn all on its own. With Nids, Orks, IG, and DE showing up with low leadership dudes. Using the template to hit an open-topped truck full of BullyBoyz is priceless.
Also, it sure is a slick way of taking out Imperial Knights.
So make sure to practice your aggressive deep striking and understand how to best push the zones of probability. It really pays off to practice it until you understand it at the fundamental level.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I've played with the combo in many different types of list. My favorite is in my patented spyder farm list.
But, here is a more classical Cron take on it.
VeilStorm (1850pts)
Mephrit Dynasty Cohort
HQ Necron Overlord MSS, PS, RO, SW, WS, Solar Thermasite, CCB Royal Court (Harbinger of Despair (Veil), Harbinger of the Storm, Harbinger of the Storm, Harbinger of the Storm, Harbinger of the Storm
Necron Overlord MSS, PS, RO, SW, WS, CCB Royal Court (Harbinger of Despair (Veil), Harbinger of the Storm, Harbinger of the Storm, Harbinger of the Storm, Harbinger of Despair
5x Necron Warrior
5x Necron Warrior
5x Necron Warrior Night Scythe
5x Necron Warrior Night Scythe
5x Deathmarks Night Scythe
This list gives you the option of pulling two separate alpha strike units with enough combined power to down a Baneblade or two knights on turn 1. Go Go Alpha Stike!
Kangodo wrote: Would it be wise to add a Chronotek to his combo, allowing you to Deep Strike a lot safer?
Not really. The Chronometeron can only be used to reroll on the mishap table. Everything else in the deep strike process is ineligible (ie. not a 1d6, the only type of rerolls a chronometeron can affect).
Kangodo wrote: Would it be wise to add a Chronotek to his combo, allowing you to Deep Strike a lot safer?
Not really. The Chronometeron can only be used to reroll on the mishap table. Everything else in the deep strike process is ineligible (ie. not a 1d6, the only type of rerolls a chronometeron can affect).
The scatter roll is 2d6. You can't just reroll 1 of them with the Chronometron ?
Not being a smart ass, I'm not familiar with the Chronometrons wording, and I don't have the book handy.
Kangodo wrote: Would it be wise to add a Chronotek to his combo, allowing you to Deep Strike a lot safer?
Not really. The Chronometeron can only be used to reroll on the mishap table. Everything else in the deep strike process is ineligible (ie. not a 1d6, the only type of rerolls a chronometeron can affect).
The scatter roll is 2d6. You can't just reroll 1 of them with the Chronometron ?
Not being a smart ass, I'm not familiar with the Chronometrons wording, and I don't have the book handy.
I wanna say that the way it happens is that you can re-roll the scatter die, but then the rules concerning rolling for scatter force you to reroll the 2d6 as well. Don't have my rulebook handy, but it says something akin 5 "if an affect would cause you to reroll one of the dice for scatter, reroll all of the dice.
adamsouza wrote: LOL, I had never thought of a royal court full of Haywire attacks teleporting around the board making a mockery of my opponents vehicles in turn 1.
Going to have to try that this weekend...
Problem usually is that you end up destroying 1 vehicle yet losing the entire court immediately afterwards. Worth it if you can down a heavy vehicle, but can easily bite you in your robot butt. Super fun though.
adamsouza wrote: LOL, I had never thought of a royal court full of Haywire attacks teleporting around the board making a mockery of my opponents vehicles in turn 1.
Going to have to try that this weekend...
Problem usually is that you end up destroying 1 vehicle yet losing the entire court immediately afterwards. Worth it if you can down a heavy vehicle, but can easily bite you in your robot butt. Super fun though.
Two things. If there aren't any high value targets keep them in the Scythes. But taking out 2 Knights turn 1 or a LoW is just super awesome. Trukks filled with BullyBoyz or WaveSerpents are other high value targets.
Also, you would be surprised how often Ever Living keeps Royal Courts going and going.
I'm considering doing a five Destructek and Orb Lord unit behind a defence line with the lord manning the quad gun.
Probably not the most durable unit for points cost and attention drawn, but abnormally good range, ever living and the line is long enough to shield other things.
changemod wrote: I'm considering doing a five Destructek and Orb Lord unit behind a defence line with the lord manning the quad gun.
Probably not the most durable unit for points cost and attention drawn, but abnormally good range, ever living and the line is long enough to shield other things.
Alternatively have a unit of scarabs man the quad gun and then it has Entropic Strike! Hidden Bonus: scarabs behind ADL are almost always out of line of sight.
changemod wrote: I'm considering doing a five Destructek and Orb Lord unit behind a defence line with the lord manning the quad gun.
Probably not the most durable unit for points cost and attention drawn, but abnormally good range, ever living and the line is long enough to shield other things.
Alternatively have a unit of scarabs man the quad gun and then it has Entropic Strike! Hidden Bonus: scarabs behind ADL are almost always out of line of sight.
Did 7th change the rules for line of sight? Back in 6th, I remember having had this discussion on Dakka and us realizing that you'd need LOS to fire at enemy units. Which is...tough-ish with Scarabs.
changemod wrote: I'm considering doing a five Destructek and Orb Lord unit behind a defence line with the lord manning the quad gun.
Probably not the most durable unit for points cost and attention drawn, but abnormally good range, ever living and the line is long enough to shield other things.
Alternatively have a unit of scarabs man the quad gun and then it has Entropic Strike! Hidden Bonus: scarabs behind ADL are almost always out of line of sight.
...Just because Scarabs technically can man a defence line doesn't mean it makes any sense.
I would assume the line of sight is from the gun model, but can't be bothered looking it up right now.
This is starting to give me the idea of cramming quite a few things behind the line though. The Destructek unit manning the gun, shooty Spyders farming a second scarab unit as the first surges forth, Tomb Blades with more Particle Beamers... Maybe even a Sentry Pylon. Could form quite an extensive static gunline list.
I'll start Battlescribe prodding and post it in the list section, I guess.
changemod wrote: I'm considering doing a five Destructek and Orb Lord unit behind a defence line with the lord manning the quad gun.
Probably not the most durable unit for points cost and attention drawn, but abnormally good range, ever living and the line is long enough to shield other things.
Alternatively have a unit of scarabs man the quad gun and then it has Entropic Strike! Hidden Bonus: scarabs behind ADL are almost always out of line of sight.
Did 7th change the rules for line of sight? Back in 6th, I remember having had this discussion on Dakka and us realizing that you'd need LOS to fire at enemy units. Which is...tough-ish with Scarabs.
The Quad Gun counts as terrain. The scarab just climbs on top of it.
Line of Sight is drawn from the firing model. The Quad Gun is an additional weapon profile so in this case you would draw line of sight from the scarab on top of the Quad Gun.
Fluffwise I think of the scarabs as taking over the Quad Gun wih Mind in the Machine and imbuing it with Ancient Technological Power (Entropic Strike)
I just imagined a swarm of scarabs sitting on top of the gun, moving like a minion and shouting directions in a high-pitched voice to his fellow scarab comrades that try to move the heavy weapon around. Cute.
Kangodo wrote: Would it be wise to add a Chronotek to his combo, allowing you to Deep Strike a lot safer?
Not really. The Chronometeron can only be used to reroll on the mishap table. Everything else in the deep strike process is ineligible (ie. not a 1d6, the only type of rerolls a chronometeron can affect).
The scatter roll is 2d6. You can't just reroll 1 of them with the Chronometron ?
Not being a smart ass, I'm not familiar with the Chronometrons wording, and I don't have the book handy.
I wanna say that the way it happens is that you can re-roll the scatter die, but then the rules concerning rolling for scatter force you to reroll the 2d6 as well. Don't have my rulebook handy, but it says something akin 5 "if an affect would cause you to reroll one of the dice for scatter, reroll all of the dice.
Despite having six sides, the scatter die is not considered a d6 as far as the rules are concerned (apparently only dice that are numbered 1-6 count).
Also, according to the rule book, not the codex, if you are going to reroll one die in a 2d6 roll, you need express permission to do so. The chronometron does not grant that permission (only says single d6).
Playtested my alpha strike crons again against Orks again. This list was running Mephrit dynasty. The mission was Relic and Vanguard Strike so it was definitely in the Ork favor and sure to be a bloodbath big pileup in the middle.
I ran 1 fully kitted bargelord with Edge of Eternity and Solar Thermasite.
The C'tan Shard formation with a VeilTek and a LightningTek.
Nemesor Zandrekh attached to 5 warriors camped in ruins to give Hit and Run to either the bargeLord or the C'tan shard and take away furious charge from the nasty ork warbike units.
And a mini scarab farm of 3 spyders and 6 scarabs.
I rolled Eternal Warrior on the Warlord chart. This was huge. I think this singlehandedly won me the game since it led to the bargeLord being able to tarpit his Zhadsnark deathstar and be MVP for the game. I think otherwise the bargeLord would have gone down in 1 turn of assault from Zhadsnark s10 ID and I would have had an uphill battle containing his Deathstar. S10 ap2 is the achillles heel to the bargeLord and rolling Eternal Warrior gets a ton more out of those points sunk into the bargeLord.
I won the initiative so I deployed my 2 veilteks and 6 stormteks as 2 sets of 1 Veil x 3 Storm Royal Courts and used them to alpha strike. I sent one after a Trukk full of meganobs and another after the Zhadsnark deathstar. The one sent after the meganobs quickly earned its points and with Ever Living members of the original unit survived until the end of the game. The other unit which was sent against the Deathstar wound up being a mistake. The T5 and FNP of that Painboy buffed unit wound up neutralizing the template attack. I should have sent that second alpha strike unit against another trukk full of nobs. However, he bubblewrapped those somewhat so I went with the safer shots. Hindsight is 20/20 but looking back I think you should push luck to go for the best bang for the buck.
I also had a third alpha strike come in from the deep striking C'Tan shard formation which I planted right in the backfield to blow up a truck full of Tankbustas and draw attention behind the ork player (which is good because the ork army wants to rush forward).
Alpha strike tactics means scoring First Blood is easy.
The royal courts proved really resilient and a true nuisance for the ork player. Ever living and aggressive deep striking really pay off. I had no mishaps and scattered one time to the far side of the unit I snuggled up against to then just simply hit them from the other side.
He ultimately killed my Warlord with Zhadsnark Deathstar but not until bottom of turn 4 when the rest of my army had put a heavy toll on his forces.
Running alpha strike disruption tactics kept the opponent off my Spyder farm which if allowed to brew until turn 3 becomes a real force and I can start to win the game by attrition. I am liking Spyders + Scarabs much more in 7th than the equivalent points spent in wraiths.
Solar thermasite on a bargeLord becomes really really good when combined with Eternal Warrior and Hit and Run which I was able to pull off this game. Sick.
All in all, I think running alpha strikes of VeilTek-mobilized StormTek-populated Royal Courts is extremely potent. Ever living means those stranded units can have surprising longevity and nuisance factor. Against some opponents the stormTek winds up being the cryptek you can't ignore. Against other opponents the VeilTek winds up being the cryptek you can't ignore. Pressuring the opponent with cheap and annoyingly resilient stuff he can't ignore is huge.
I just played against the new Mephrit Necrons. I ran regular Necrons. My opponent ran Mephrit Necrons with the new Ct'an formation:
C'tan - Time's Arrow
Cryptek - Veil of Darkness, God Shackle (it was on one of the cryteks)
Cryptek - Chronometron, 3++ Invuln
The formation actually took me by surprise (ha! when was the last time you saw a regular C'tan on the table?), especially when you combine Time's Arrow with whip coil wraiths. It took out one of my bargelords.
But the main kicker has nothing to do with the Mephrit Dynasty. It was this...neither of my bargelords got back up. His bargelord got back up 5 times!!! Man, Necrons are so broken. LOL!!!
jy2 wrote: I just played against the new Mephrit Necrons. I ran regular Necrons. My opponent ran Mephrit Necrons with the new Ct'an formation:
C'tan - Time's Arrow
Cryptek - Veil of Darkness, God Shackle (it was on one of the cryteks)
Cryptek - Chronometron, 3++ Invuln
The formation actually took me by surprise (ha! when was the last time you saw a regular C'tan on the table?), especially when you combine Time's Arrow with whip coil wraiths. It took out one of my bargelords.
But the main kicker has nothing to do with the Mephrit Dynasty. It was this...neither of my bargelords got back up. His bargelord got back up 5 times!!! Man, Necrons are so broken. LOL!!!
That C'tan Shard is a melee beast, but it seems like something you can generally just run away from. The attached Crypteks means that is slogs around at infantry speed.
The Shard has two abilities. Do you remember what the second one was? I wonder if he went with Entropic Strike for additional Melee punch.
It seems like a C'Tan Shard build that would be exceptionally good at monster killing but not a very good TAC build.
) and I'm not sure what I should go for.
to accomplish something it's almost certain I will not.
