Wrong. The Destroyer Lord's Unit Type is 'Jet Pack Infantry'. You'll see if you check the rulebook one of the special rules that Jet Pack units have is 'Deep Strike'.
Yeah gotta love all of those hidden special rules. I understand the consolidation, but how hard would it be to just put that in the unit profile? That's some redundancy I could get behind.
On topic though, how would you guys deep strike a D Lord if you had to? With flayed ones? Probably would take a solar staff, but maybe it's best to include a Cryptek to have it so the D Lord could have a warscythe/voidreaper
Automatically Appended Next Post: Aha! So I just looked into the rulebook to double check. I am marginally vindicated! So outflank works like infiltrate used to - you just need one model that has the rule. So it will work with ICs. It actually kind of makes sense. The turn one infiltrate was some nasty stuff but with reserves it's turn 2 at best so that's not too bad. Outflank to your heart's content
The infiltrate doesn't but the Outflank ability most certainly does.
So outflanking with Flayed Ones and a Cryptek to give them some good saves isn't a terrible idea. Honestly having a huge strong squad show up turn two or later isn't that big of a hindrance, plus it's actually possible get some reroll reserve rolls in the Necron army.
luke1705 wrote: Yeah gotta love all of those hidden special rules. I understand the consolidation, but how hard would it be to just put that in the unit profile? That's some redundancy I could get behind.
It's not exactly hidden, its a rule that the unit gets because of its unit type so that's the best place to put it.
Okay how is this for a assault heavy take all comers list
Destroyer Lord w/ Warscythe, Phase Shifter (155) ( can Deep STrike with Flayed Ones, Praetorians, or Go with the Wraiths)
Cryptek w/ Staff (80) ( can stay with the Wraiths to give them that valuable 6s to hit on the first turn or outflank with the Flayed Ones. running w/ the Wraiths won't be to bad especially if there's a lot of firepower on them it may slow their movement on the first turn but ensure a Turn 2 charge by them)
Elites
13 Flayed Ones ( outflanking or deep striking) (169)
Formations
Justicar Battalion
5 Praetorians P. Casters (140)
5 Praetorians P. Casters (140)
Triarch Stalker w/ H. Gauss Cannon (135)
This gives me some nice tactical options, 3 Deep Striking Lascannons, or I can get them near the Triarch for a BS of 5 for a 2+ reroll. The D-Lord can can stay with the Wraiths or deep strike with the Praetorians, and Flayed Ones, The Flayed Ones can infiltrate snaked forward with the Cryptek or Outflank with them.
3 Tomb Blades sitting back and pot shotting Flyers or running around grabbing objectives.
Hollismason wrote: Okay how is this for a assault heavy take all comers list
Destroyer Lord w/ Warscythe, Phase Shifter (155) ( can Deep STrike with Flayed Ones, Praetorians, or Go with the Wraiths)
Cryptek w/ Staff (80) ( can stay with the Wraiths to give them that valuable 6s to hit on the first turn or outflank with the Flayed Ones. running w/ the Wraiths won't be to bad especially if there's a lot of firepower on them it may slow their movement on the first turn but ensure a Turn 2 charge by them)
Elites
13 Flayed Ones ( outflanking or deep striking) (169)
Formations
Justicar Battalion
5 Praetorians P. Casters (140)
5 Praetorians P. Casters (140)
Triarch Stalker w/ H. Gauss Cannon (135)
This gives me some nice tactical options, 3 Deep Striking Lascannons, or I can get them near the Triarch for a BS of 5 for a 2+ reroll. The D-Lord can can stay with the Wraiths or deep strike with the Praetorians, and Flayed Ones, The Flayed Ones can infiltrate snaked forward with the Cryptek or Outflank with them.
3 Tomb Blades sitting back and pot shotting Flyers or running around grabbing objectives.
I think wraiths with TransD beamers is the way to go. The soft spot for Necrons is MC and TransD beamers help with that. 5 wraiths with TransD beamers > 6 wraiths with whip coils.
Hollismason wrote: Anything you shoot the Transdimensional beamer at you can probably charge and kill so I say why bother that's kind of my view of it.
Well, yeah, but tying up an MC for multiple turns when you have a chance to just outright remove it from the board, psh.
It's only on a 6, I'll take the more reliable murderizing Wraiths. It's not like the thing your shooting at isn't going to have a Invulnerable or a Cover save.
Hollismason wrote: Anything you shoot the Transdimensional beamer at you can probably charge and kill so I say why bother that's kind of my view of it.
Think of it like this: If you could get 1 extra attack per model at Initiative 10 that was AP2 with ID on 6s, you would take it. It's the same thing, but instead of being at I10, it's before the attack. And if it kills them outright, they don't get overwatch. You're paying 10 points to do more damage, and if you don't kill it outright, you'll do the same damage charging as you would without them. Except more, because now they're down models.
Hollismason wrote: Wraiths with Transbeamers cannot move and shoot. Unless beasts are relentless.
Canoptek Harvest. Because why run them any other way?
Because CAD is better
CAD + Canoptek Harvest is best. Don't need to be part of a decurion to get that sweet sweet Relentless and 5+ RP or Shred. Just have to pay 110 points for 4 models that are actually still pretty good on their own.
Hollismason wrote: I'd rather be giving my Wraiths RP with the Formation than relentless.
You don't have to choose... everything in the formation gets Move Through Cover and Relentless baseline. The choice is between RP, Shred, and Fleet. So you can get both RP and Relentless.
schadenfreude wrote: Beamer are a tough call. They are only really good against mc, but necrons struggle with mc.
I'm also not sure if CAD is better or not. It's obsec for troops versus army wide 4+ rp. They can both build a solid list.
Beamers are the right call. You have a seriously good chance (~50%) of outright removing a Dreadknight or a Wraithknight and when you outright remove them you generate enough tempo to effectively win the game right there. It's like flipping a coin to see if you win the game.
schadenfreude wrote: Beamer are a tough call. They are only really good against mc, but necrons struggle with mc.
I'm also not sure if CAD is better or not. It's obsec for troops versus army wide 4+ rp. They can both build a solid list.
Beamers are the right call. You have a seriously good chance (~50%) of outright removing a Dreadknight or a Wraithknight and when you outright remove them you generate enough tempo to effectively win the game right there. It's like flipping a coin to see if you win the game.
Just saw that Necron vs Grey Knight game. Watching that Dreadknight get removed by a single overwatch shot was a bit painful.
I think mass flayed ones could be viable in the normal Necron dex as well, and moreso within a Decurion for the extra durability.
Sure, the Dark Harvest version gets ObSec, but that's about it. They have less attacks and pay extra for shred, and then it is one use only.
schadenfreude wrote: Beamer are a tough call. They are only really good against mc, but necrons struggle with mc.
I'm also not sure if CAD is better or not. It's obsec for troops versus army wide 4+ rp. They can both build a solid list.
They're not "only good against MC" by any stretch of the imagination. It's still a S4 AP2 gun. You know what that kills? Marines, Terminators, Eldar, Tau Battlesuits, Immortals, Tyranid Warriors, Hive Guard, Obliterators, Nobz... everything. Anything that is too "light" to require ID on 6s is still going to take a S4 AP2 hit. That's not useless.
Hollismason wrote: I don't think Deathmarks are getting enough love it's a sad thing.
Yeah, did I miss something with DMs? They used to be great prior to the FAQ getting the Axe. I just don't see how they're at all worth it anymore. unless I'm missing something and if I am please point it out because I'm not seeing it which sucks since I own 15 of the suckers...
Hollismason wrote: I don't think Deathmarks are getting enough love it's a sad thing.
Yeah, did I miss something with DMs? They used to be great prior to the FAQ getting the Axe. I just don't see how they're at all worth it anymore. unless I'm missing something and if I am please point it out because I'm not seeing it which sucks since I own 15 of the suckers...
They lost the veilTek combo. HfH USR doesn't transfer to IC in the new codex, if I recall correctly.
Deathmarks are... eh. I was really jazzed about the new Ethereal Interception, but HfH nerf was really heavy and uncalled for. They also went up in cost for no reason. Their one big gimmick (Death and Despair) went away, too.
I honestly don't see a reason to bring them, unless you really feel that your army needs an unreliable Interceptor squad.
Deathmarks seem pretty great, yes. Point reduction with interception becoming useful and the nerf to their marking ability honestly being pretty meaningless 90% of the time.
Also they're one of the only units a Decurion can spam. You could run a bulky Reclamation Legion gunline and have five man squads of Deathmarks and Flayed Ones springing up all over the board all game if you like.
changemod wrote: Deathmarks seem pretty great, yes. Point reduction with interception becoming useful and the nerf to their marking ability honestly being pretty meaningless 90% of the time.
Also they're one of the only units a Decurion can spam. You could run a bulky Reclamation Legion gunline and have five man squads of Deathmarks and Flayed Ones springing up all over the board all game if you like.
They are super nifty for intercepting deep striking troops, just less potent for MC control. Also they seem less potent than same number of points in Flayed Ones, so losing their place at the adult table.
Yeah, that's what I thought. too. Plus they lost the ability to get back in to the NS. I used to run 3 death+despair units in NSs and just fly around, hop out and flame/shoot and hop back in and fly off to the next target. Granted you could only reliably slaughter three units but I pissed off a lot of people who thought their 10 man terminator squads were going to roll me. All 3 D&D units hope out flame on - no more termies - fly off to the next target. Rinse and repeat. Ahhh....those were the days
Hollismason wrote: I don't think Deathmarks are getting enough love it's a sad thing.
Yeah, did I miss something with DMs? They used to be great prior to the FAQ getting the Axe. I just don't see how they're at all worth it anymore. unless I'm missing something and if I am please point it out because I'm not seeing it which sucks since I own 15 of the suckers...
They lost the veilTek combo. HfH USR doesn't transfer to IC in the new codex, if I recall correctly.
Veiltek is lost anyhow, really.
That said, the Gauntlet of the Conflagrator doesn't need the 2+ effect to work, so if you want to drop in a ten man squad with a Conflagrator Destroyer Lord, you could do an extreme version. Preferred enemy helps their shooting from then on too. Not the most optimal unit, but could be a hard counter to some Deathstar or other.
Hollismason wrote: I don't think Deathmarks are getting enough love it's a sad thing.
Yeah, did I miss something with DMs? They used to be great prior to the FAQ getting the Axe. I just don't see how they're at all worth it anymore. unless I'm missing something and if I am please point it out because I'm not seeing it which sucks since I own 15 of the suckers...
They lost the veilTek combo. HfH USR doesn't transfer to IC in the new codex, if I recall correctly.
Veiltek is lost anyhow, really.
That said, the Gauntlet of the Conflagrator doesn't need the 2+ effect to work, so if you want to drop in a ten man squad with a Conflagrator Destroyer Lord, you could do an extreme version. Preferred enemy helps their shooting from then on too. Not the most optimal unit, but could be a hard counter to some Deathstar or other.
Yeah, they are for sure still cool, just flayed ones are stone cold nuts.
Wait, so Deathmarks getting not-cheesy and more fluffy is a bad thing? I think they're great still. They can still kill MCs just like before, and now they can screw with Melta drop pods.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hollismason wrote: I could see a use for a full squad of ten to just drop in on something , plus 2+ wounding on the first roudn with BS 4 is gonna put some wounds a MCs.
That is always a good use for them, though running multiple small units of them is also a decent option.
A big squad just seems to be asking to mishap. Smaller squads feel better, and you can scatter them about to get good angles as well.
Still, if you don't annihilate the thing that you're intercepting, then they're just kinda mediocre after that. Especially if you Interecept on your side of the board (drop pods, Mawlocs, etc), and then need to footslog them across to anything else to shoot at.
I think death marks are awesome for AV protection I am going to be running 5 AV13 units and to counter the heavy drop pod meta at my LFGS so their meltas can drop into a sniper trap and protect my armor. all n all I think they are great in 7th.
The big difference really is that last edition, I took one or two units nearly every game, but now there's more than one useful thing to do with Elites slots.
There might be *better* things to do with the elites slots, but we have so many viable options that that isn't saying all that much. Will there be death marks in a top tier LVO list? Unlikely. But if they round out your army comp and fill in its weaknesses then that's all that really matters.
I feel like I would prefer having more than just min squads though. I mean, with 5 coming in, they hit say 7 times out of 10 shots times, wound 6 or so, 1 ish of which are AP 2? Hardly going to decimate any squad that you likely want to remove. I'd rather go big or go home (but that's also a personal philosophy haha)
We're just an army that doesn't need big blobs. Unless you are limited by force organization or formations there's no benefit of maxing our squads.
1 unit of 10 death marks deals the same damage as 2 units of 5 except you can split your target priority if you want and you can force your opponent to overkill your squads since they can only remove 5 from the min squad and whatever they kill from the 10 man. MSU is used competitively because it's just better unless you need x number for said upgrade.
Punisher wrote: We're just an army that doesn't need big blobs. Unless you are limited by force organization or formations there's no benefit of maxing our squads.
1 unit of 10 death marks deals the same damage as 2 units of 5 except you can split your target priority if you want and you can force your opponent to overkill your squads since they can only remove 5 from the min squad and whatever they kill from the 10 man. MSU is used competitively because it's just better unless you need x number for said upgrade.
Another way of looking at that is:
"You give up two easy kill points to your opponent instead of one more difficult kill point. Furthermore, the amount of damage output that a 5 man squad puts out is not likely to overkill anything"
MSU is often used competitively to min/max a list; however there are a number of units that will take as many models as you can fit in them. See wraiths, flayed ones, etc.
"You give up two easy kill points to your opponent instead of one more difficult kill point. Furthermore, the amount of damage output that a 5 man squad puts out is not likely to overkill anything"
MSU is often used competitively to min/max a list; however there are a number of units that will take as many models as you can fit in them. See wraiths, flayed ones, etc.
Except kill points show up so infrequently in games its not that much to worry about. The part about damage output was more that your opponent has to overkill the squad and "waste" shots that wouldn't be wasted otherwise. An example would be a centurion squad shoots at your 5 man squad wiping it with lots of wounds left over, those wounds would surely have dealt more damage if the unit was fuller.
However with certain units the kill points can be a concern, specifically if it's a first blood risk. But with the deathmark in particular since it's what was being discussed it's in deepstrike reserve and will likely come in after first blood anyway.
If that's true in the games you play, then go for it. However in maelstrom (especially modified) they show up quite a bit. And there are a couple of missions where kill points play a large roll. I usually just roll a d6 to see what mission I play, so I like for my army to have as few liabilities as possible. It's not game-breaking either way, but I think the cons generally outweigh the pros. Unless you don't play kill points. In which case go nuts!
FWIWbtw, Necrons are not great at getting first blood turn one so if you don't give it up, then I would worry a little more since the death marks will likely be sitting there for the taking on your opponent's turn 2
Requizen wrote: You don't lose Relentless when the Spyder dies, only RP/Fleet/Shred. So Beamers are still good even if they focus the Spyder or you leave it behind.
Unless I am reading the rule wrong, the buff is applied to everything within range during the movement phase, then it lasts until the start of the players next movement phase. I would assume that the RP/fleet/shred would last until the beginning of my next movement phase, whether the spyder dies or not.
Requizen wrote: You don't lose Relentless when the Spyder dies, only RP/Fleet/Shred. So Beamers are still good even if they focus the Spyder or you leave it behind.
Unless I am reading the rule wrong, the buff is applied to everything within range during the movement phase, then it lasts until the start of the players next movement phase. I would assume that the RP/fleet/shred would last until the beginning of my next movement phase, whether the spyder dies or not.
You're right, but that has nothing to do with the use of Beamers on Wraiths. The rule for Relentless is granted to everything in the formation regardless of range to the spyder. The Wraiths need Relentless to fire the Beamers and still charge/move without using snap shots.
How would the Necron list do with a horde list such as green tide, with a stompa. Thing I have noticed with Necrons is they have issues with killing hordes, if bringing decurion, kinda limits what you can bring.
Requizen wrote: You don't lose Relentless when the Spyder dies, only RP/Fleet/Shred. So Beamers are still good even if they focus the Spyder or you leave it behind.
Unless I am reading the rule wrong, the buff is applied to everything within range during the movement phase, then it lasts until the start of the players next movement phase. I would assume that the RP/fleet/shred would last until the beginning of my next movement phase, whether the spyder dies or not.
Decurion needs to take tomb blades and tomb blades can take particle beamers. Small blasts in numbers that ignore cover can thin out hordes decently. Stalkers can also do damage to hordes with the flamer or large blast, the hq's can take flamers for cheap, and well warriors with their bolter like shots still do ok damage to hordes.
Think our problem is more with flyers since we only have flyers of our own to really damage them which is just a coin toss on whose comes in second.
Standard invisibility no, but LVO invis really isn't bad. You just hit on 5's in CC and can target with blasts. For standard invis, I think I ally in Mawlocs
No seriously the only answer I have for invisibility is to send units at it piecemeal to tie it up in combat forever. Especially Centurions w/ Grav Guns.
Hollismason wrote: No seriously the only answer I have for invisibility is to send units at it piecemeal to tie it up in combat forever. Especially Centurions w/ Grav Guns.
Invisibility is so clearly screwed up that it seems almost certain to me that somebody wrote the rules wrong by accident and the editors didn't catch it. Something like it should be "WS and BS are reduced to 1 for purposes of targeting the unit," which would allow blasts and templates to be used AND would give it a niche that is not redundant with the power that gives Shrouding.
aceytrixx wrote: So I have a 1250 tournament coming up. 3-6 troops and one from every other category is what's allowed so here's what I've more or less decided on
Overlord, warsycthe, veil of darkness
125
5 Immortals, gauss, night scythe
215
15 warriors, ghost ark
300
14 warriors
182
6 wraiths, whipcoils
258
Doom Scythe
160
1240
I'm considering making 1 19 strong warrior squad and then putting 10 in the ghost ark but I'm not sure. This will be my first time using the necrons.
I dont have the codex in front of me, but I think a ghost ark can only carry ten warriors
Yeah if only the Ghost Ark was Transport 12 ugh. it'd be perfect.
It's still a great unit with good firepower and a bonus to the unit.
It's pretty much impossible to kill a unit of Decurion Warriors near a Ghost Ark with shooting, I played 3 squads w/ Ghost Arks, I think I lost 4 models out of all of them during the game.
bodazoka wrote: Can you have 9 of your models outside of the ark and 10 inside it?
Nope. That would instantly put them out of coherency with each other wouldn't it.
Would it though? they only need to be in 2" from each other. I didn't put the "dead" crons in my ghost ark so that I could physically put the warriors in there, so...
aceytrixx wrote: So I have a 1250 tournament coming up. 3-6 troops and one from every other category is what's allowed so here's what I've more or less decided on
Overlord, warsycthe, veil of darkness
125
5 Immortals, gauss, night scythe
215
15 warriors, ghost ark
300
14 warriors
182
6 wraiths, whipcoils
258
Doom Scythe
160
1240
I'm considering making 1 19 strong warrior squad and then putting 10 in the ghost ark but I'm not sure. This will be my first time using the necrons.
I dont have the codex in front of me, but I think a ghost ark can only carry ten warriors
Yeah the warriors won't go in the ark unless I switch the squads to 19 and 10. Otherwise the ark will float around repairing warriors and shooting things
bodazoka wrote: Can you have 9 of your models outside of the ark and 10 inside it?
Nope. That would instantly put them out of coherency with each other wouldn't it.
Would it though? they only need to be in 2" from each other. I didn't put the "dead" crons in my ghost ark so that I could physically put the warriors in there, so...
You cannot split up units unless you have SM combat squads. Putting some into a transport is splitting up the unit.
I don't see the problem though -- just get a 9-man unit and a 10-man unit.
bodazoka wrote: Can you have 9 of your models outside of the ark and 10 inside it?
Nope. That would instantly put them out of coherency with each other wouldn't it.
Lol. I don't think that rule actually comes into play. Isn't there a rule that says for all intents and purposes measure distances from the hull of the transport for the passengers inside? One would think that logically such a rule would exist that would cause them to break coherency, but oddly enough that isn't the issue.
col_impact wrote: Lol. I don't think that rule actually comes into play. Isn't there a rule that says for all intents and purposes measure distances from the hull of the transport for the passengers inside? One would think that logically such a rule would exist that would cause them to break coherency, but oddly enough that isn't the issue.
That's what I was thinking, I don't know of any rule your breaking by doing that! But.. I don't know all the rules all the time so possibly there is one somewhere?
They are still within 2" of each other, (I think) even without measuring from the hull.
Kholzerino wrote: So having got to grips with the new codex, whats everyone's take on dealing with Imperial Knights now? Drown them with gauss? How I miss my Stormteks!
If you had to tailor a 1500 pt list to deal with 3 Imperial Knights what would you take?
Have yet to play with necrons but my current idea is deathbringer formation. Get the scythes at different angles to deny saves. Along with massed gauss and a Canoptek Harvest to tie one of them up for awhile. Although that's probably far off the mark and is pure guess work.
Kholzerino wrote: So having got to grips with the new codex, whats everyone's take on dealing with Imperial Knights now? Drown them with gauss? How I miss my Stormteks!
If you had to tailor a 1500 pt list to deal with 3 Imperial Knights what would you take?
Heavy Destroyers would be at the top of my list.
Wraiths and VB/PC Triarch Praetorians both do pretty well against them, too, from what I understand.
Hollismason wrote: Yeah if only the Ghost Ark was Transport 12 ugh. it'd be perfect.
It's still a great unit with good firepower and a bonus to the unit.
It's pretty much impossible to kill a unit of Decurion Warriors near a Ghost Ark with shooting, I played 3 squads w/ Ghost Arks, I think I lost 4 models out of all of them during the game.
I ran 2 ghost arms in my first game with the new dex. Granted they plus 1 NS were the only vehicles. But both got taken out by multi melta from 2 drop pod squads. 1 exploded the other immobilized and later eventually exploded.
Played my first game last night with a decurion detatchment + canoptek harvest vs GK in a hammer&anvil/purge the alien game. Let me tell you - necrons are &*%$# resilient as hell. I thought for sure going up against a 90% termie army in a KP mission would be impossible. He also had that annoying invisible/gating/paladin unit. I did catch a huge break on turn one he blew up his libby in the paladin unit which did help a lot. The rest of the game was me rolling 4++ all over the place, trying to stay out of combat and letting the wraiths do the talking. My list was a kitchen sink list with only one NS (which is unusual for me) and if this had been a non-termie list my destroyer cult would have had a field day but as it turned out my opponent wasn't rolling a lot of 1's. Still it was a very close game and had I not made a mistake with JSJ I would have won. Without a doubt the MVP of the game was the 4+ reanimation protocols and a stupid GA that kept spitting out warriors was just hilarious. Considering this list was geared more for SM, vehicles and objectives it did amazingly well against TEQ with ap3 CC weapons.
bodazoka wrote: Can you have 9 of your models outside of the ark and 10 inside it?
Nope. That would instantly put them out of coherency with each other wouldn't it.
Would it though? they only need to be in 2" from each other. I didn't put the "dead" crons in my ghost ark so that I could physically put the warriors in there, so...
From 'Transport Capacity' in the main rulebook:
The entire unit must be embarked on the Transport if any part of it is - a unit cannot be partially embarked or be spread across multiple Transports.
Have not read the whole thread, but interested in peoples thoughts -
What does the new Necron codex do against FMC spam?
I played a buddy with 4 flyrants and 3 Crones with a malanthrope in tow to give them 2+ cover if they were in a ruin or 2+ after they jinked. They pretty much get to choose how they engage the army, and a lack of AA or ignores cover options makes it difficult to do much to them.
To me, it seems like you now have to go outside of the codex to get decent AA options (firebase support cadre seems interesting?). The changes to how grounding works and tesla makes it unlikely you have the volume of shots to reliably down a flying monster.
Against an all ground-based army I see the book as very strong. There might be issues catching very fast units, but you should be able to zone out parts of the board with your models so they either have to turboboost every turn or you can assault with something.
RobPro wrote: Have not read the whole thread, but interested in peoples thoughts -
What does the new Necron codex do against FMC spam?
I played a buddy with 4 flyrants and 3 Crones with a malanthrope in tow to give them 2+ cover if they were in a ruin or 2+ after they jinked. They pretty much get to choose how they engage the army, and a lack of AA or ignores cover options makes it difficult to do much to them.
To me, it seems like you now have to go outside of the codex to get decent AA options (firebase support cadre seems interesting?). The changes to how grounding works and tesla makes it unlikely you have the volume of shots to reliably down a flying monster.
Against an all ground-based army I see the book as very strong. There might be issues catching very fast units, but you should be able to zone out parts of the board with your models so they either have to turboboost every turn or you can assault with something.
Against anything that flies you ignore it and go for the objectives.
Play the mission. They won't take the chance in landing and RP makes you nigh invulnerable. We also have a lot of 'fast' ground options. wraiths, destroyers, flayed ones, ghost arks, and tomb blades can all beat feet to maelstrom objectives or force the enemy to maneuver in ways they don't really want to.
col_impact wrote: Lol. I don't think that rule actually comes into play. Isn't there a rule that says for all intents and purposes measure distances from the hull of the transport for the passengers inside? One would think that logically such a rule would exist that would cause them to break coherency, but oddly enough that isn't the issue.
That's what I was thinking, I don't know of any rule your breaking by doing that! But.. I don't know all the rules all the time so possibly there is one somewhere?
They are still within 2" of each other, (I think) even without measuring from the hull.
This is the exact rule that one would be breaking . . .
Spoiler:
TRANSPORT CAPACITY Each Transport vehicle has a maximum passenger capacity that can never be exceeded. A Transport can carry a single Infantry unit and/or any number of Independent Characters (as long as they are also Infantry), up to a total number of models equal to the vehicle’s Transport Capacity. The entire unit must be embarked on the Transport if any part of it is – a unit cannot be partially embarked or be spread across multiple Transports.
Play the mission. They won't take the chance in landing and RP makes you nigh invulnerable. We also have a lot of 'fast' ground options. wraiths, destroyers, flayed ones, ghost arks, and tomb blades can all beat feet to maelstrom objectives or force the enemy to maneuver in ways they don't really want to.
Exactly. Force them to switch from Zooming to Hover to be able to tactically accomplish anything against you.
Play the mission. They won't take the chance in landing and RP makes you nigh invulnerable. We also have a lot of 'fast' ground options. wraiths, destroyers, flayed ones, ghost arks, and tomb blades can all beat feet to maelstrom objectives or force the enemy to maneuver in ways they don't really want to.
Exactly. Force them to switch from Zooming to Hover to be able to tactically accomplish anything against you.
That doesn't seem matter, they can sit at 18" and peel your frontlines each turn. They can fly circles around your wraiths until they've pegged them to death with 12 TL S6 shots per flyrant. Against me, my buddy was able to reduce my units to 0 WS/BS with paroxysm and engage them one at a time with everything. I just don't see anything particularly strong against a lot of FMCs in the codex, but I am definitely open to ideas.
Play the mission. They won't take the chance in landing and RP makes you nigh invulnerable. We also have a lot of 'fast' ground options. wraiths, destroyers, flayed ones, ghost arks, and tomb blades can all beat feet to maelstrom objectives or force the enemy to maneuver in ways they don't really want to.
Exactly. Force them to switch from Zooming to Hover to be able to tactically accomplish anything against you.
That doesn't seem matter, they can sit at 18" and peel your frontlines each turn. They can fly circles around your wraiths until they've pegged them to death with 12 TL S6 shots per flyrant. Against me, my buddy was able to reduce my units to 0 WS/BS with paroxysm and engage them one at a time with everything. I just don't see anything particularly strong against a lot of FMCs in the codex, but I am definitely open to ideas.
Can you clarify whether your buddy is zooming or hovering? 18" is not hard for wraiths to cover to get into assault and then it's over the hovering FMC. And, if the opponent is zooming, it's easy to move to future blind/out-of-range spots with jump move equivalent or better. Plus, the bargeLord's crazy movement and potential here should not be overlooked. Anything hovering at any time should be assaulted and locked in CC. Maybe you are not running enough fast assault to get to the hovering FMC. The real vulnerability would be to FMC 24" ranged psyker platforms, but our own focused 24" shooting attacks and the bargeLord is still potent here
Kholzerino wrote: So having got to grips with the new codex, whats everyone's take on dealing with Imperial Knights now? Drown them with gauss? How I miss my Stormteks!
If you had to tailor a 1500 pt list to deal with 3 Imperial Knights what would you take?
You cannot drown them with enough Gauss. Warrior and Immortals are slow, so the Knight will almost always be able to put its shield in an optimal position. Glancing on 6's and him getting a 4+ save against each is a reall uphill battle on a 6 HP model. Plus it can wipe out a squad each turn in combat thanks to D weapon plus stomps. You need some dedicated anti-tank to have a decent chance of stopping one, imo.
Note: I've only played 3 games with my new crons, but 2 of them had Imperial Knights in them... so I have some experience with it.
Yeah, but if you're dealing with multiple knights he's tied up over 700 points in two models - close to half his army. Focus, again, on the mission and maybe the rest of his army.
necron99 wrote: Yeah, but if you're dealing with multiple knights he's tied up over 700 points in two models - close to half his army. Focus, again, on the mission and maybe the rest of his army.
It's not bad advice. But, it's been my (limited) experience that each knight can kill a unit each turn unless dealt with, meaning you won't have an army to take objectives with, in short order, if you don't deal with them.
Two battlecannon shots, followed by a S10 Hammer of Wrath, followed by 4 D-weapon attacks (no reanimation), follwed by d3 stomps (each usually killing multiple models and capable of bypassing reaminmation), means you're losing combat (IF anyone is left alive) and at Initiative 2, you're getting swept.
I'm of the opinion that you need to work some stuff into your list to help you destroy the Knights. Stalkers and Heavy Destroyers would help. Just my view on it.
Yeah, I hear what you're saying but in order to deal multiple knights you are no longer a TAC army. I have some knights at my club and I always secretly detest them. My lists tend to be fast though so if they want to kill me they'll need to catch me first. Scarabs are now somewhat lethal and wraiths at I5 or armed with transdimensional beamers aren't horrible. Flyers are there Achilles heal though - the deathbringer flight should chew them up.
Or if you don't mind taking allies try running the ork bully boyz formation. I ran three units of meganobz in trucks smack into an adlance - got rid of all three knights in a single turn.
"I ran 2 ghost arms in my first game with the new dex. Granted they plus 1Â NSÂ were the only vehicles. But both got taken out by multi melta from 2 drop pod squads. 1 exploded the other immobilized and later eventually exploded."
Don't think anything is supposed to survive drop pod melta. You could get lucky, but that unit is designed to pop units on arrival.
Couple things you can do is when you see your opponent has melta pods "wrap" your warriors around them so it's harder to unsafe to land the pods in melta's special range. The other thing is too field more targets so all the AT weapons aren't aimed at them.
What do you guys think of using a min-sized Canoptek Harvest, with the Spyder equipped with fabricator claws, as a bodyguard for an Annihilation Nexus?
Alcibiades wrote: What do you guys think of using a min-sized Canoptek Harvest, with the Spyder equipped with fabricator claws, as a bodyguard for an Annihilation Nexus?
I am leaning toward pure vanilla min-sized harvests or variants with gloom prisms or transD beamers. But yeah, 6 wraiths seems overkill and best to spread the tarpit around.
Alcibiades wrote: What do you guys think of using a min-sized Canoptek Harvest, with the Spyder equipped with fabricator claws, as a bodyguard for an Annihilation Nexus?
I am leaning toward pure vanilla min-sized harvests or variants with gloom prisms or transD beamers. But yeah, 6 wraiths seems overkill and best to spread the tarpit around.
t
I'm thinking the Spyder can be generating scarabs and repairing the vehicles, while if anybody tries to get within melta or charge range he gets a face full of wraiths.
Hollismason wrote: H. Destroyers in small squads are pretty good at dealing with Knights because your able to Deep Strike to multiple different sides and get shots off.
So the Knight player is forced to pick which facing he'd rather not have the shield.
That's really pretty much it.
Also, if Lychguard w/ Warscythes can get a charge off they'll probably kill the Knight in CC especially accompanied by a destroyer lord.
You also have Triarch Stalkers w/ 2 Shot Melta Weapons.
Oh yes. There are definitely answers. All I was saying is that you better pack some into your list, or Knights will wreck you.
The Destroyer Cult Especially upgraded can hurt Knights specifically, 3 H. Destroyers and each Squad having a H. Destroyer. Rerolling Armour Penetration on all the Gauss Shots and the ST9.
Being able to just deep strike to get the Arcs you want on the shooting is pretty good.
I've only played a single game against a knight so far and it wasnt that bad. I pretty much held it up with wraiths for a few turns while I killed the rest of his army. By turn 4 all he had was the knight and it didnt survive almost my entire army glancing it to death.
Multiple knights might be an issue and I wouldnt mind facing it to see how it goes but nobody in my group really uses more than 1.
I've read most of this post, but don't recall if this has been discussed. For the royal court formation under the little 3 breakout for the crypteks where it says Illuminor Szeras or Orikan the Diviner may be taken in place of a cryptek". Does that mean i can only replace 1 cryptek with only 1 of these 2 characters. Or can I replace 2 crypteks, 1 with each of these characters?
docdoom77 wrote: My reading is that you could replace 2 crypteks, each with one of the special characters, but it's vague enough for some argument, I'm sure.
Makes sense to me, but I see how it could be seen the other way as well. My normal opponent won't care though.
Next question(s), Deathmarks and destroyer lord. If I attach the destroyer lord to the deathmarks and hold them in reserve, can the destroyer lord come on with them if I choose to bring them in on my opponents turn? And if he can, he grants preferred enemy to the deathmarks, but does the hunter from hyperspace rule transfer to the D lord?
KiloFiX wrote: Remind me, are Lychguard better with Warscythes or Shields?
I realize it depends on what one is going up against but supposing you were building a squad for general TAC as part of the Rec Legion.
Thanks!
Actually it mostly depends on what the rest of your army is doing. Do you lack AP 2? Do you need a durable unit to tarpit and/or murderize most non-TEQs?
The offensive output of the warscythes can't be ignored; however the decrease in durability is not insubstantial. So you need to make sure that you have something to overcome this. Are you going to run a Cryptek with the solar staff with them? Are you going to try and have a ranking destroyer lord/Cryptek?
You can approach it from the other side of the coin as well. Stick a D lord in with some shield boys and that should be a decent amount of AP 2 and armorbane for your needs (although you really probably don't want to charge a tank with your Lychguard, but in a pinch a solo D lord can do some work late game)
In short, I think they can both be made to work. If you're playing the Decurion, I would value offensive output over durability because you already have that in spades. In a normal CAD, I would probably try to enhance their durability through alternate means and take the warscythes to get the best of both worlds; however that is expensive, so it's still balanced either way.
Praetorians don't have S7 or Armourbane. They're the second strongest assault option offensively... But lack even the potential for Cryptek/Cryptek character buffing for durability Scythe Lychguard have.
In fact, I'd rank Praetorians dead last for Necron assault unit durability after even Flayed Ones, who can buy over two unit members per Praetorian for a -1 to saves.
On the other hand, Lychguard are dead last for mobility, so really it's a matter of carefully combining your options to get what you need.
By the way, I tried the two Lychguard unit Zahndrekh/Obyron catapult trick I've mentioned before, and it worked great. Dropping ten scythe Lychguard and two characters one inch from my opponent's back field with no scatter on turn one gave him a lot to think about.
That's the problem. Superior melee damage potential is worthless when you cannot make it into melee ever - unless you also take a NS which heavily increases the model's PPM.
Meh, it's not that hard to work around for the level of output you get.
I'd go teleporting rather than Night Scythe though. Charging on turn 3 is realistically only a tiny fraction better than they'd manage running, and any reserves delay makes it an active hindrance.
In a decurion I'd say praets are your go to for damage output, the 4+++ makes them reasonably durable and they give you much needed ap2. The speed more than makes up for the warscythe, since you don't really need armourbane when your entire army shreds vehicles and while the +2 str is nice the shooting attack on the rod allows for more flexibility to go with their mobility.
However if you want durability then Shieldguard are arguably PPM the most durable thing in the game. 3++/4+++ in the decurion or with a cryptek. In the decurion have your Overlord nearby to provide re-rolls of 1 for RP, and outside of the decurion give them orikan to re-roll 1 on saves. These things are hard to bring down. Only problem is they are slow, a veil is useful on them but thats another expense plus a character, still is the best choice for their mobility problems. The scythe has them hiding for potentially too long to be of use and not making use of their durability.
So for the Praets vs Lytch debate, in a decurion I would say praets since it helps their 1 weakness and I would say never go for warscytheguard since praets do the job generally better. Shieldguard are a close second to praets in the decurion just depending on weather or not you need ap2. Outside of a decurion I would say shieldguard are the best, since it is easy to improve their RP without slowing them down with a cryptek, still don't think warscythes are good but they are definitely better outside the decurion because praets take a big durability hit when not in the decurion.
So in general, what's the better (in terms of points efficiency and delivery) Unit for AP3 / AP2 (as in preferably AP2 but at least AP3) to go up against Marines, MCs, Suits, TDA, Riptides, etc.?
Lychguard?
Wraiths (both Rending and Beamer in Harvest Formation)?
KiloFiX wrote: So in general, what's the better (in terms of points efficiency and delivery) Unit for AP3 / AP2 (as in preferably AP2 but at least AP3) to go up against Marines, MCs, Suits, TDA, Riptides, etc.?
Lychguard?
Wraiths (both Rending and Beamer in Harvest Formation)?
Destroyers, Heavy Destroyers and Destroyer Lords?
Or is there another option (short of like C'Tan)?
Thanks!
Your other option is Flayed Ones, with raw number of attacks and disposability of horde members.
KiloFiX wrote: So in general, what's the better (in terms of points efficiency and delivery) Unit for AP3 / AP2 (as in preferably AP2 but at least AP3) to go up against Marines, MCs, Suits, TDA, Riptides, etc.?
Lychguard?
Wraiths (both Rending and Beamer in Harvest Formation)?
Destroyers, Heavy Destroyers and Destroyer Lords?
Or is there another option (short of like C'Tan)?
Thanks!
C'tan is definitely an option. AP 2 fleshbane is legit. Grab the Conclave of the Burning One for actual durability
Automatically Appended Next Post: So I played my first game with the new codex yesterday and it was definitely an experience. Played against a Daemon Flying Circus. His list was:
Fateweaver
Be'Lakor
Blue Scribes
3 Min nurgling squads
khorne dog star
Tzeentch DP Tzeentch DP
I don't recall which upgrades he had put on the princes, but I believe they were pretty kitted out.
The list I ran:
Destroyer Lord w/warscythe, phase shifter, nightmare shroud, res orb
Orikan the Diviner
Nightbringer
Cryptek w/phase shifter, God Shackle, solar staff
Cryptel w/phase shifter, veil of darnkess
Not going to go into a bat rep but some interesting moments from the game:
Daemons turn 1 warp storm which proceeds to instagib the veiltek out of existence for first blood. I did the math. In 5,000 games, I should statistically never again experience that happening (from that warp storm result anyhow)
The Blue Scribes did turn into a greater unclean one, who became T10, resulting in quite the slap fight between him and my wraiths. I know it was a bad idea but they won in the end and man did it feel good.
No matter what people think about Necron durability, they still get swept like nobody's business
I'm glad that I can finally play a ridiculously fast ground unit without resorting to space elves. Thank you Tomb Blades
Night scythes are still pretty good. Felt super good to land 10 hits on Fateweaver in a single volley.
Before the game started, I spoke with my opponent about how to handle the Nightbringer. His interpretation of the rule (which I also believe is RAW) is that it can just target whatever it wants. Flyers, invisible units, into/out of combat. Not everyone will take that stance and I understand that perspective. However, with that in mind, he did some serious work even though he had to slog it across the board. He was able to run into range of the Gaze a few times and then just not fire his C'tan powers (oh no!)
Wraiths are awesome. I had a mini deathstar that included Orikan as well as the Destroyer Lord with a squad of wraiths. Sadly, the D lord never got to tank shots (because Daemons) but they did work on a dogstar that typically had a 3++ and was invisible until I killed Be'Lakor. Took a while, but I'm ok with the end result. 3++ re-rolling 1's is stupid. And orikam went super saiyan, which is all that really mattered.
In the end, I took the game pretty convincingly on objectives, although it was close on turn 6 when his princes murdered 2 of my obsec squads. I2 is still I2. Definitely want to try out full wraithwing, but this was good.
omerakk wrote: What really pisses me off is trying to find a list I can shove a C'tan into.
Every time I think I have a setup I like, I take a second look and think "This guy is so slow" ><
I think the only viable thing is to use the conclave formation and the nightbringer and deep strike him into the middle of the opponent's back field to wreck face, distract, and disrupt. Still seems like a lot of points invested though.
KiloFiX wrote: In a 2000 Dec list, is the Rec Legion itself worth upgrading? Or should it be kept minimal and points spent on the other Formations?
Thanks for the opinions.
Absolutely. The reclamation legion is such an investment already that the most sensible course of action is to bulk out the units until it's a solid core gunline before shopping elsewhere.
...That said, you don't need to go particularly far, just make sure your Overlord is appropriately kitted, your Immortals and Tomb Blades are equipped to do their jobs and consider the pros and cons of adding ghost arks.
The reclamation legion is also where you get Lychguard, if you want them.
omerakk wrote: I'm still not sold on the destroyer cult, but that's probably the easiest way to go for now
Whats not to like? 2 wounds T5, base weapon is STR5 AP3, JSJ, 3+, 4+++ RP in Decurion and preferred enemy with reroll all wounds and pens.
It's more the 9 destroyer tax.
I think you are better off buying the D Lord in a CAD and buying 3 Heavy Destroyers directly and having 2 objSec troops to boot.
It's not just the heavy points cost; it's also the fact that destroyers are pretty bad against other necron players.
They may be a decent option against other armies, but when facing cover saves and RP... you're paying premium price for minimal damage.
Again, I think they do well against everyone; except other necrons. I have found them to be borderline useless both when I use them as well as when they are used against me.
That might not be an issue for most people, but I have 6 other necron players in my area
You asked what's not to like. I replied that the 6 regular destroyers kinda suck and the 240 points for them could be better spent elsewhere (and interestingly on adding objective secured ability to a Decurion force). I think I succeeded at articulating a very valid counter opinion.
Yeah, my only dislike of Destroyer cult is the possibility of having too few models on the table.
Against Space Marines, it's pretty much priceless to watch the Space Marine player wince when he's constantly forced to remove casualties without getting any armor save rolls.
I don't see any restriction to the contrary. In the codex it says you can only have one codex relic; however the relics from the shield of Baal book have no such restriction. I'm grabbing a relic from Mephrit and a relic from the codex.
Byte wrote: LVO was just won by an army with no viable obsec. No biggie.
Point taken; however much of that was due to reserves manipulation and forcing entire armies to shoot into mucolids, a single Lictor in 2+ cover, or nothing at all for a turn. You can't get that with Necrons. Also Flyrant AA is real. I'm not saying Decurion is awful, just that it probably won't be at the top tables for some time to come.
Byte wrote: LVO was just won by an army with no viable obsec. No biggie.
How many of the top 8 ran objective secured?
That's like asking what the brides maids look like? C'mon. Do you ever concede a point?
I don't think you understand what counts as evidence. The percentage of players running objective secured in the top 8 is a much more telling statistic than the outlier statistic of whether or not the actual overall winner ran objective secured.
Both are valid points. Obviously, obsec is not the end all be all that we have made it out to be. You can win even at the highest level with very little obsec. That being said, it is also telling that a large percentage of the field did have a good amount or even a lot of obsec. That doesn't count for nothing, just as Sean's list only having 1 obsec ripper squad doesn't count for nothing
Byte wrote: LVO was just won by an army with no viable obsec. No biggie.
How many of the top 8 ran objective secured?
That's like asking what the brides maids look like? C'mon. Do you ever concede a point?
I don't think you understand what counts as evidence. The percentage of players running objective secured in the top 8 is a much more telling statistic than the outlier statistic of whether or not the actual overall winner ran objective secured.
I understand quite well thank you. Obsec centric lists aren't required to win the biggest 40kGT to date. As demonstrated by tangible results.
Byte wrote: LVO was just won by an army with no viable obsec. No biggie.
How many of the top 8 ran objective secured?
That's like asking what the brides maids look like? C'mon. Do you ever concede a point?
I don't think you understand what counts as evidence. The percentage of players running objective secured in the top 8 is a much more telling statistic than the outlier statistic of whether or not the actual overall winner ran objective secured.
I understand quite well thank you. Obsec centric lists aren't required to win the biggest 40kGT to date. As demonstrated by tangible results.
Your logic is amusing to me. It's like someone saying there is no more racism in America since America has a black president.
Byte wrote: LVO was just won by an army with no viable obsec. No biggie.
How many of the top 8 ran objective secured?
That's like asking what the brides maids look like? C'mon. Do you ever concede a point?
I don't think you understand what counts as evidence. The percentage of players running objective secured in the top 8 is a much more telling statistic than the outlier statistic of whether or not the actual overall winner ran objective secured.
I understand quite well thank you. Obsec centric lists aren't required to win the biggest 40kGT to date. As demonstrated by tangible results.
Your logic is amusing to me. It's like someone saying there is no more racism in America since America has a black president.
Glad to amuse you. I try to be polite, but your just can't reciprocate.
Byte wrote: LVO was just won by an army with no viable obsec. No biggie.
How many of the top 8 ran objective secured?
That's like asking what the brides maids look like? C'mon. Do you ever concede a point?
I don't think you understand what counts as evidence. The percentage of players running objective secured in the top 8 is a much more telling statistic than the outlier statistic of whether or not the actual overall winner ran objective secured.
I understand quite well thank you. Obsec centric lists aren't required to win the biggest 40kGT to date. As demonstrated by tangible results.
Your logic is amusing to me. It's like someone saying there is no more racism in America since America has a black president.
Glad to amuse you. I try to be polite, but your just can't reciprocate.
1st place had 1 obsec unit (3 rippers)
2nd place had 3-6 obsec units (3x10 man scouts)
3rd place had 6 obsec units (2 5man DA, 2x3 bikes, 2 wavserpents)
~6th place had 2 obsec units (2x 11 horrors)
~7th place had 3 obsec units (2x GK strikes 1x 5man scout)
I'm trying to cut down to the best units in the new codex.
For Troops it seems that minimum cost Nightscythes are still the most reliable source of objective secured units and firepower.
Fast Attack is where all the tough choices lie. After doing a lot of experimenting and reading I've decided to cut Wraiths... it's just really hard to fit them into a well balanced list. They're a great tarpit but you're trading a lot of points (258 for 6 with whip coils) for a great tarpit that can get shot to pieces before it can do any real damage. Destroyers and Tomb Blades have shined in the new codex with their mobility, survivability, ranged firepower and cost. There's also not enough room in the Fast Attack slots to fit a good amount of all 3 (Wraiths, Tomb Blades and Destroyers) Fortunately the Destroyer Cult gives you Destroyers without a real tax. The Canoptek Harvest has a steap tax of 110 points to get those same 6 Wraiths.
Heavy Support is pretty easy. 150 pts for a resilient and mobile unit that has 3 Lascannons? Yes please.
So that's 3 units of AP 3 shooting, 3 units of AP 2 shooting and 2 units of AP 4 ignore cover shooting plus 2 Nightscythes... all on mobile and resilient platforms. And the two Destroyer Lords are no push over in close combat. Each could easily get rid of a small unit or a vehicle.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Maybe cut back on the Tomb Blades for Stalkers? It's serious synergy with your Destroyers...
That seems like a huge liability. Being the only vehicle in the list it would receive all the anti-vehicle fire. The Destroyers would have to be near the Stalker to gain the bonus, forcing me to clump up when I should be spreading out and using the assault move for shoot and scoot tactics. The stalker also doesn't contribute as much damage as a unit of Tomb Blades.
I'm not saying it's a bad idea, it just doesn't fit the mobility aspect of the list.
I know you've already decided against them,(which is fine because the destroyer list works well), but I don't think running a max group of 6 with whip coils is the best idea anyway.
For less points, you can take the bare bones Canoptek Harvest formation. You get 3 units, 2 of which are very fast and annoying, and all 3 are survivable. The whole goal of wraiths should be for tying units up, not really trying to kill them (which they can be terrible at). I havent found the whip coils to be worth the points at all. The exile rays work fine, but again, cause the unit to be super expensive.
More and more the MSU approach with wraiths is looking better than the max approach with them.
omerakk wrote: One thing worth mentioning about wraiths:
I know you've already decided against them,(which is fine because the destroyer list works well), but I don't think running a max group of 6 with whip coils is the best idea anyway.
For less points, you can take the bare bones Canoptek Harvest formation. You get 3 units, 2 of which are very fast and annoying, and all 3 are survivable. The whole goal of wraiths should be for tying units up, not really trying to kill them (which they can be terrible at). I havent found the whip coils to be worth the points at all. The exile rays work fine, but again, cause the unit to be super expensive.
More and more the MSU approach with wraiths is looking better than the max approach with them.
Oh that's interesting. I hadn't even considered running Wraiths in minimum squad sizes. I'm pretty committed to building the Destroyer Wing right now but until it's built I'll probably try out that idea.
The MSU approach with Wraiths is a super great viable strategy , especiall if you go with the Decurion Detachment, because they get the Transdimensional Beamer and Relentless.
Then with the Decurion which allows 3 Units of Tomb Blades
The unit of 3 Tomb Blades is the one that sticks out the most because added up that's 7 Fast Attack Choices. You can then still at 540 points take more Fast Attack Options w/ the Destroyer Cult or spend 480 on 10 Praetorians and a Triarch.
Is it just because they're the 'toughest' line option in a Rec Legion?
They're an Immortal upgraded to jetbike rules, a twin linked gun and T5 for a trivial cost and can buy ignores cover and/or a horde clearing blast for cheap.
The don't quite come into their own against Marines who are admittedly ten times as common as any other army, but when you can shred Wave Serpents and most of the infantry from the same source, or loose ten S6 cover ignoring blasts into a horde... Yeah.
Is it just because they're the 'toughest' line option in a Rec Legion?
They're cheap. 22 points per model.
They're resilient. T5 and 3+ armour saves and Jink AND 5+ RP (4+ in decurion)
They're fast. See jetbikes.
They deal good amount of damage. Twin-linked rapid fire S5 AP4 Gauss with Ignores Cover is very strong.
Add all this together and include the fact that they can be taken in units of up to 10 models and you have a strong unit with little to no downsides.
He's got most of the bases covered. The thing he left out is that they are a requirement to field a Decurion. So you're in for at least 3 if you want to field a Decurion at all, and you'll probably want to field a Decurion.
Sasori wrote: There is no way that Tomb Blades should be 40 points... that's just insane. They were cheaper than that in the last codex, and still never taken...
They are awesome now though.
I just threw that number out there. What do you think an appropriate cost is for them? 30?
Sasori wrote: There is no way that Tomb Blades should be 40 points... that's just insane. They were cheaper than that in the last codex, and still never taken...
They are awesome now though.
I just threw that number out there. What do you think an appropriate cost is for them? 30?
I honestly think they're fine. Maybe their upgrades could stand to be a little more expensive, but we'll have to see if they are as meta-defining as abarges and night scythes were. I don't think they will be on that level.
How do you guys like to run them? Think the 3+ is a must. Been toying with blasts however I don't see the value in ignores cover with the blast since the ap isn't great so the enemy will likely get their save anyway. But ignoring cover feels like a must with gauss as it makes them much more potent with ap4.
Either way they are 22pts which is a steal, how do you guys equip them?
Hollismason wrote: The part where they shine is the Decurion, seriously 4+ RP, Reroll 1s near the Warlord who can keep up with a Barge.
Seriously hard to deal with that.
No matter where they are fielded, they are good. Need a cheap and durable objective grabber? Check. Want a bigger squad that can actually do some work? Got that also. As soon as GW gets off their butts and decides to make more of those things, I will be looking to try a bit of both. I think I'd like to run a small unit with little/no upgrades (maybe 3+ jink) and then a nice 10 man unit with ignores cover on their gauss. Hello Mr. Wave Serpent/any other tank lol.
I just need more fast attack slots. Seriously. I think I'll wind up taking a Canoptek Harvest just to give me another unit of tomb blades to go alongside my wraiths
I am thinking the best ally for Decurion Crons is Tau with Riptide for AA and Kroot (and optionally a Buffmander for Zandrekh shenanigans). The Tau package seems to shore up all the Necron weaknesses.
col_impact wrote: I am thinking the best ally for Decurion Crons is Tau with Riptide for AA and Kroot (and optionally a Buffmander for Zandrekh shenanigans). The Tau package seems to shore up all the Necron weaknesses.
A friend was telling me about the Buffmander thing with Zandrekh. What all buffs can you get from the HQ choice? I'm still new and haven't played with or against Tau yet.
col_impact wrote: I am thinking the best ally for Decurion Crons is Tau with Riptide for AA and Kroot (and optionally a Buffmander for Zandrekh shenanigans). The Tau package seems to shore up all the Necron weaknesses.
I don't know about the preatoriens but the stalker is a very good unit if your just looking for some heavy duty short range fire power.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I would definitely suggest the wraiths but if your using army builder keep in mind that the wraiths only come in squads of four now. This really erks me because I've been playing necrons for quite a while now and the 6 man wraith squad with whip coils was hard to beat.
So that's 3 units of AP 3 shooting, 3 units of AP 2 shooting and 2 units of AP 4 ignore cover shooting plus 2 Nightscythes... all on mobile and resilient platforms. And the two Destroyer Lords are no push over in close combat. Each could easily get rid of a small unit or a vehicle.
Does this seem like a good competitive list?
I really like your list, I think the only other things I would change is to remove 1 x unit of HD's and then upgrade 1 x Destroyer from the cult unit's into a HD. Gives your guys some flexibility if they are in the right position to fire at the rear of a vehicle. Also gives you another 120 points to play with.
EDIT - On another note, I have found my Destroyer Lords are hard to find a place for.. I think the one in the CAD could be down graded to a normal over lord (or even Cryptek) to free up even more points for some flayed ones to deep strike in with the DL in the formation. Flayed ones still fit in with the "fluff" of the army I would of thought?
So that's 3 units of AP 3 shooting, 3 units of AP 2 shooting and 2 units of AP 4 ignore cover shooting plus 2 Nightscythes... all on mobile and resilient platforms. And the two Destroyer Lords are no push over in close combat. Each could easily get rid of a small unit or a vehicle.
Does this seem like a good competitive list?
I really like your list, I think the only other things I would change is to remove 1 x unit of HD's and then upgrade 1 x Destroyer from the cult unit's into a HD. Gives your guys some flexibility if they are in the right position to fire at the rear of a vehicle. Also gives you another 120 points to play with.
I disagree, the mixed destroyer units are just worse. Their target priority is all over the place, high str ap2 generally wants to shoot at vehicles or elite infantry, while the destroyer just want to shoot at meq/infantry. The range hurts too, since if the destroyers can shoot then they can generally be shot at and thats not where the Heavies want to be. Personally I find running vanilla destroyers better as it allows you to deepstrike them if you need to without sacrificing the great range of the heavies.
As for the destroyer lords, t6 3wounds with a 4+invuln and then RP is pretty tanky and hard to take down. I would just run them with a fast unit like his tomb blades or destroyers and then break off once they get close to something.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I would definitely suggest the wraiths but if your using army builder keep in mind that the wraiths only come in squads of four now. This really erks me because I've been playing necrons for quite a while now and the 6 man wraith squad with whip coils was hard to beat.
Dunno about "army builder", but in normal games you can take 3-6 wraiths.
col_impact wrote: I am thinking the best ally for Decurion Crons is Tau with Riptide for AA and Kroot (and optionally a Buffmander for Zandrekh shenanigans). The Tau package seems to shore up all the Necron weaknesses.
Points become an issue though.
A min load out (with Ethereal) runs about as much as a Conclave or a Destroyer cult and adds tons more than either.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I would definitely suggest the wraiths but if your using army builder keep in mind that the wraiths only come in squads of four now. This really erks me because I've been playing necrons for quite a while now and the 6 man wraith squad with whip coils was hard to beat.
Dunno about "army builder", but in normal games you can take 3-6 wraiths.
Use Battlescribe, and if something doesn't work you can communicate to Kangodo directly.
"Hi there. The Fall of Orpheus book was written before the release of the 7th edition 40k rules and so would not take in to account any changes to the way special rules work or interact with each other in the new rules set.
With regards to the new 40k rules set and Codexes we are looking at how they affect our publications and will be publishing erratas for these, where necessary, in due course. Regrettably we are not able to give a more precise date for this at present so please accept our apologies."
It looks to me like this is saying that units such as the pylons should still work as they did in sixth, even including the change to how Skyfire/interceptor works. Does anyone play it like that or are we all collectively waiting for an FAQ that says, "change the Skyfire special rule for the Necron Pylons to a special rule that says, 'the pylon may choose to use the Skyfire special rule at the start of each turn'"?
It seems to me like that would be the sensible way to play it; however do people do this or just accept the new way that it works through the old rules for the most part?
luke1705 wrote: So I found an interesting piece of evidence concerning Necron pylons, as I was thinking about AA in the Necron codex (or the relative lack thereof)
"Hi there. The Fall of Orpheus book was written before the release of the 7th edition 40k rules and so would not take in to account any changes to the way special rules work or interact with each other in the new rules set.
With regards to the new 40k rules set and Codexes we are looking at how they affect our publications and will be publishing erratas for these, where necessary, in due course. Regrettably we are not able to give a more precise date for this at present so please accept our apologies."
It looks to me like this is saying that units such as the pylons should still work as they did in sixth, even including the change to how Skyfire/interceptor works. Does anyone play it like that or are we all collectively waiting for an FAQ that says, "change the Skyfire special rule for the Necron Pylons to a special rule that says, 'the pylon may choose to use the Skyfire special rule at the start of each turn'"?
It seems to me like that would be the sensible way to play it; however do people do this or just accept the new way that it works through the old rules for the most part?
Thing is, when you argue that point you might as well argue that the quad-gun and Icarus lascannon should get to pick as well, seeing they suffered as much from the change without getting their cost adjusted. So while I really want the pylons to work properly, I'd say we all have to wait for the FAQ to arrive or you'd be house ruling in your favour. If your group agrees to treat all instances of skyfire+interceptor as pick each turn, then feel free to do so.
Punisher wrote: I disagree, the mixed destroyer units are just worse. Their target priority is all over the place, high str ap2 generally wants to shoot at vehicles or elite infantry, while the destroyer just want to shoot at meq/infantry. The range hurts too, since if the destroyers can shoot then they can generally be shot at and thats not where the Heavies want to be. Personally I find running vanilla destroyers better as it allows you to deepstrike them if you need to without sacrificing the great range of the heavies.
As for the destroyer lords, t6 3wounds with a 4+invuln and then RP is pretty tanky and hard to take down. I would just run them with a fast unit like his tomb blades or destroyers and then break off once they get close to something.
Realistically you are only sacrificing 1 x Str5 AP3 shot but gaining a (mostly) guaranteed pen and the ability to actually kill a 2+ save. So you shoot at a unit of marines and don't have 1 x extra shot? what if there is a tanking character with a 2+ or someone you want to try double out? for the benefit of flexibility I think it's worth it. Also, put your heavy destroyers in the back of the unit so If you are shot at they are the last ones to take wounds.
I don't like the idea of trying to JSJ the Destroyer Lords around with a fast moving unit, too many variables in trying to keep him in coherency and as beef cake as he is if he is floating around himself he will be killed by VoF. I mentioned the flayed ones as you can DS a decent sized unit and he can tank for them for a turn and flayed ones kinda fit the "destroyer' theme as well as being awesome.
luke1705 wrote: So I found an interesting piece of evidence concerning Necron pylons, as I was thinking about AA in the Necron codex (or the relative lack thereof)
"Hi there. The Fall of Orpheus book was written before the release of the 7th edition 40k rules and so would not take in to account any changes to the way special rules work or interact with each other in the new rules set.
With regards to the new 40k rules set and Codexes we are looking at how they affect our publications and will be publishing erratas for these, where necessary, in due course. Regrettably we are not able to give a more precise date for this at present so please accept our apologies."
It looks to me like this is saying that units such as the pylons should still work as they did in sixth, even including the change to how Skyfire/interceptor works. Does anyone play it like that or are we all collectively waiting for an FAQ that says, "change the Skyfire special rule for the Necron Pylons to a special rule that says, 'the pylon may choose to use the Skyfire special rule at the start of each turn'"?
It seems to me like that would be the sensible way to play it; however do people do this or just accept the new way that it works through the old rules for the most part?
Thing is, when you argue that point you might as well argue that the quad-gun and Icarus lascannon should get to pick as well, seeing they suffered as much from the change without getting their cost adjusted. So while I really want the pylons to work properly, I'd say we all have to wait for the FAQ to arrive or you'd be house ruling in your favour. If your group agrees to treat all instances of skyfire+interceptor as pick each turn, then feel free to do so.
Kind of figured this was the case. Shame really. I feel like forge world will most likely FAQ this in the favor of the Necrons once they get around to actually creating that document. Plus I think pylons look pretty cool. Might be mostly worthwhile even outside of a FAQ with all of the Flyers/FMC/skimmers floating around. Literally haha
KiloFiX wrote: How are Scarabs? I noticed that a lot of Harvest lists only have the minimal 3.
I've been running scarabs. I think the reason your seeing minimal units fielded with the Canoptek Swarm is really because of the solo Spyder and people being obbsessed with the Wraiths. A solo Spyder can't really replace the losses to the scarab swarm fast enough, and you may not want to run the risk of it harming itself producing more scarabs.
Last weekend I had my Canoptek Swarm's Spyder kill itself in turn 3, having suffered a wound each turn producing scarabs. I realise that rolling 1's 3 turns in a row was gak luck, but it happened, and it stung.
The other reasoning I've seen is simply point shaving. I run 10 Spyders in my newest list. If I needed to shave points, I can get a swarm of 3 scarabs up to 13 in my first movement phase. I'm actually running a swarm of 9 and a swarm of 3. By turn 2 I have 20 something scarab bases with 4+RP locked in combat, and I start bumping up the numbers of the squad of 3.
KiloFiX wrote: How are Scarabs? I noticed that a lot of Harvest lists only have the minimal 3.
I've been running scarabs. I think the reason your seeing minimal units fielded with the Canoptek Swarm is really because of the solo Spyder and people being obbsessed with the Wraiths. A solo Spyder can't really replace the losses to the scarab swarm fast enough, and you may not want to run the risk of it harming itself producing more scarabs.
Last weekend I had my Canoptek Swarm's Spyder kill itself in turn 3, having suffered a wound each turn producing scarabs. I realise that rolling 1's 3 turns in a row was gak luck, but it happened, and it stung.
The other reasoning I've seen is simply point shaving. I run 10 Spyders in my newest list. If I needed to shave points, I can get a swarm of 3 scarabs up to 13 in my first movement phase. I'm actually running a swarm of 9 and a swarm of 3. By turn 2 I have 20 something scarab bases with 4+RP locked in combat, and I start bumping up the numbers of the squad of 3.
Thanks, that's informative.
How do you find the new Entropic in combat though?
How do you find the new Entropic in combat though?
Meh.
I guess it will come in handy agaisnt MC's, but I mostly play against Space Marines, so it hasn't done much for me.
Against vehicles, math hammer says 66% of your attacks will hit, and 16% of them with glance, so in theory a big swarm should be able to down pretty much anything, but I hate relying on rolling 6's. I am notorious for rolling 6's to hit and none to wound.
So I been thinking something along these lines . . .
MonsterCrons (1849pts)
Decurion Detachment
Reclamation Legion
Nemesor Zahndrekh
5x Immortal
8 x Tomb Blade Nebuloscope, Shield Vanes, Twin-linked Gauss Blaster
Ghost Ark, 10x Necron Warrior
20x Necron Warrior
Canoptek Harvest
6 x Canoptek Scarab
1 x Canoptek Spyder
1 x Canoptek Spyder Gloom Prism
6 x Canoptek Wraith Transdimensional Beamer
Tau Empire: Codex (2013) (Allied Detachment)
Commander (Command and Control Node, Early warning override, Multi-spectrum Sensor Suite, Puretide Engram Neurochip, Target lock, Vectored retro-thrusters, Velocity tracker)
XV104 Riptide Ion accelerator, Twin-linked smart missile system, Velocity tracker
10x Kroot
This list is sick! Giving a blob of 20 warriors or a blob of tomb blades Skyfire, Tank Hunter, Monster Hunter, Hit and Run, Interceptor, etc. is just combolicious!
This list provides an uber strong gunline plus a tough as nails fearless assault team. What can't this list handle? I can even add a second unit of kroot for objective secured if testing indicates I need it.
I'm not all that impressed by the change. It allows us to kill MCs and Superheavies, but MCs squish scarab bases like bugs, and the only Superheavies I've run into are Knights, who do the same. I'm seriously considering dropping the Canoptek Harvest in favour of just more wraiths.
3 spyders was already considered a "mini-farm" and the Swarm wasn't an MVP. With only 1, I just don't see the point.
caelim wrote: I'm not all that impressed by the change. It allows us to kill MCs and Superheavies, but MCs squish scarab bases like bugs, and the only Superheavies I've run into are Knights, who do the same. I'm seriously considering dropping the Canoptek Harvest in favour of just more wraiths.
3 spyders was already considered a "mini-farm" and the Swarm wasn't an MVP. With only 1, I just don't see the point.
Please don't tell people that, ugh. No it's quite clear that it's 1 spyder. A minority of people choose to try and work a way around that restriction but those people are literally cheating their opponents.
Hollismason wrote: Please don't tell people that, ugh. No it's quite clear that it's 1 spyder. A minority of people choose to try and work a way around that restriction but those people are literally cheating their opponents.
Huh? The cheaty thing is people claiming RAW for something that is only their RAI argument and then having the audacity to call my RAW a farce. So please don't claim RAW Hollis unless you can actually back it up with RAW like I can. I will argue RAW all day long with you and win.
A formation that has "no restrictions" and points directly to an army entry list and that uses rules for formations that specifies units can unequivocally access the option to add additional spyders. You literally have nothing to counter that chain of permission except the feeling that more than one spyder is not fair.
And yes I will spread and make known that correct RAW reading of the rules and counter act the misinformation that is being popularly spread around and I will happily add 1-2 spyders to each Canoptek Harvest because that is indeed RAW and I follow RAW consistently since I do not want to be a hypocrite.
RAW the unit is one Tomb Spyder. I just backed my RAW argument up. Are 3 Tomb Spyders 1 Tomb Spyder? No. Sorry you have no RAW because RAW it says 1 Tomb Spyder, no tourney's allow it, because it's as clear as day to everyone but the people who are insistent that it is some sort of grammatical semantic argument or loophole to make it so that 1 = 3 or 3= 1.
You're just straight up incorrect.
By your argument because a formation has "no restriction" I can take as many Wraiths as I want or I can take a Dedicated Transport for my Wraiths because there are "no restrictions".
Hollismason wrote: RAW the unit is one Tomb Spyder. I just backed my RAW argument up. Done.
So just like I can add more warriors to a unit of warriors in the Reclamation Legion I can add more spyders to the spyder unit. Done and done. Remember you absolutely have to be consistent!
If you feel I cannot add spyders to the unit as easily as I can add warriors to the unit of warriors please go into explicit detail why I cannot. The Reclamtion Legion specifies a unit of 10 warriors and does not even mention a Ghost Ark.
You are straight up wildly inconsistent and hypocritical in your application of rules.
No because that's adding a word to the formation that doesn't exist, unit. It simply states 1 Tomb Spyder. That's all there is to it. It references 1 Spyder in the rules, it references 1 spyder in the formation itself.
If it say 3 Wraiths would you be allowed to take 6 wraiths?
Hollismason wrote: No because that's adding a word to the formation that doesn't exist, unit. It simply states 1 Tomb Spyder. That's all there is to it. It references 1 Spyder in the rules, it references 1 spyder in the formation itself.
If it say 3 Wraiths would you be allowed to take 6 wraiths?
No because 6 is not 3.
The Formation rules specify unit and army list entries so its a unit of Spyders containing 1 Spyder by definition. My argument is rock solid and I am applying the rules consistently and exactly as they are written.
If the Formation specified 1 Canoptek Spyder 'model' then you would have the specific override you need. But you are not allowed to imagine the word 'model' to be there when it clearly is not.
It was a couple of pages ago but within the scope of the Destroyer formation I rate normal Destroyers pretty well. That re-roll to wound and pen goes a long way with S% AP 3 and Gauss. If you have two normals and a Heavy the Normals are contributing almost a full HP of shooting against anything with AV 11 or above, making them jive quite well with the HD's shot. It's also a decent salvo when aimed at Flying Hiveys and the like.
Outside the formation they are okay, but in the formation they are as solid as units get, imho. I'd still upgrade each HD I had a slot for, though. HD's are super rad, man, and an HD with Re-Roll to Pen and Wounds standing next to a Stalker is just nuts. 95% chance to wound just about anything along with about an 86% chance to peal a HP off AV 12? Yes please.
It's 1 Tomb Spyder, if you take that formation and you take 3 Spyders are you satisfying the requirement of it only having 1 Spyder?
No, you are not. Good luck with your games and convincing your opponent that 3 = 1, but it just doesn't.
Explain to me this then, if that is how it works then why do Every other entry in all of the formation of the Decurion for units say units and this one unit does not but instead says 1
You're cheating your opponent through a purposeful misinterpretation of the rules.
This isn't a opinion, 3 does not equal 1. That's MATH, you're arguing with me over math that you can trick your way semantically into being correct and you just can't.
Hollismason wrote: No because that's adding a word to the formation that doesn't exist, unit. It simply states 1 Tomb Spyder. That's all there is to it. It references 1 Spyder in the rules, it references 1 spyder in the formation itself.
If it say 3 Wraiths would you be allowed to take 6 wraiths?
No because 6 is not 3.
Yes I would be allowed to take 6 wraiths because the Formation rules means its a unit of 3 wraiths and I can use the options in the wraith army entry list to add 3 more wraiths just like I can add a Ghost Ark to a formation that has a unit of 10 warriors.
The line would have to say 3 Wraith models to override the very specific rules that the Formation rules use that specify units and army entry lists.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hollismason wrote: It's 1 Tomb Spyder, if you take that formation and you take 3 Spyders are you satisfying the requirement of it only having 1 Spyder?
No, you are not. Good luck with your games and convincing your opponent that 3 = 1, but it just doesn't.
Explain to me this then, if that is how it works then why do Every other entry in all of the formation of the Decurion for units say units and this one unit does not but instead says 1
You're cheating your opponent through a purposeful misinterpretation of the rules.
This isn't a opinion, 3 does not equal 1. That's MATH, you're arguing with me over math that you can trick your way semantically into being correct and you just can't.
We aren't arguing math. We are arguing rules. You are trying to pull the fast one here by saying the rules specify 1 Canoptek Spyder model, when it flat out obviously does not specify that. The Reclamation Legion does not have a Ghost Ark on its listing and yet I can add a Ghost Ark and seemingly break your math argument. How is it even possible for me to add a Ghost Ark. Because it is on the army entry list and the Formation rules give access to the options. I am being wholly consistent in my application of the rules. I have no problem claiming my argument is honest, logical, and consistent. I am amazed at how the counter argument can make their claim when they are being totally inconsistent and even possibly outright deceptive (although I am not accusing you of that)
You can try and argue semantically over this but 3 does not equal one.
The formation itself requires that you take only 1 Tomb Spyder to make that formation because that formation only consists of 1 Tomb Spyder and 1 unit of Wraiths , 1 unit of Scarabs.
Now explain to me why all other entries in the Decurion all 20+ are written as UNIT and this one entry is not.
It's because they want to clarify that this formation only will consist of 1 Spyder.
This is like you coming onto the forums and claiming the world is actually hollow and giving advice to people on travel of taking the Moloch tunnels to get to where they need to go even though everyone else is like , yeah just take the train.
" No take the Moloch tunnels, it's quicker" ,
" No, seriously there are no Moloch tunnels",
" There's probably a moloch tunnel you can take" ,
" Please don't go in that cave you will get lost and die"
" Look some people think there are moloch tunnels"
" There are not Moloch Tunnels please do not take your children into that cave"
Hollismason wrote: I want to live in your world because I would make 3x. You can try and argue semantically over this but 3 does not equal one.
The formation itself requires that you take only 1 Tomb Spyder to make that formation because that formation only consists of 1 Tomb Spyder and 1 unit of Wraiths , 1 unit of Scarabs.
Now explain to me why all other entries in the Decurion all 20+ are written as UNIT and this one entry is not.
It's because they want to clarify that this formation only will consist of 1 Spyder.
Here is where you are trying to pull the wool over peoples eyes.
1 Canoptek Spyder does not specify unit or model
The Formation rules explicitly and unequivocally specify unit and army entry lists are always to be used.
So how can you even make the beginning of a claim that we are talking about just a Canoptek Spyder model?
The line would have to say '1 Canoptek Spyder model' to work the way you intend the rule to work. Feel free to ask GW to add 'model' to the rule.
As the rule actually exists in the text it can only read 1 unit of Canoptek Spyders with 1 Canoptek Spyder.
Yeah it specifies 1 Tomb Spyder. That's what it means when it says 1 Tomb Spyder. If it said 1 Tomb Spyder unit then you could take 3, it's singular. It's also easier to write 1 Tomb Spyder instead of 1 Tomb Spyder Unit *
*May only take 1 Tomb Spyder maximum.
Again, please stop suggesting this crazy idea it's not supported by any tournaments, and like you, that's it.
Hollismason wrote: Yeah it specifies 1 Tomb Spyder. That's what it means when it says 1 Tomb Spyder.
Per the rules its a unit and I access the army entry list options to add additional spyders. Please show me the rule that I break doing so. And for a bonus show me how the Spyder case is in any way different than adding warriors to a unit of 10 warriors or adding a Ghost Ark to the warriors.
Like I said I can argue RAW all day because all of the rules are on my side here and you are literally trying to argue off of a vapor of a gut feeling with no support.
No, because it states 1 Tomb Spyder it's giving you permission to purchase 1 Tomb Spyder because of the formation. no more , no less. 3 is not in fact the number.
There are multiple instances of this in multiple forms across the myriad of Formations.
There is no way you can make 3 = 1. It clearly states 1 Tomb Spyder. If later they amend it, then sure. For now you are it unless there is a complete collapse of all reality as we know it on the 3 = 1 thing.
Hollismason wrote: No, because it states 1 Tomb Spyder it's giving you permission to purchase 1 Tomb Spyder because of the formation.
There are multiple instances of this in multiple forms across the myriad of Formations.
I laid out in hyper clear fashion my full permission to add spyders to the spyder unit. The burden is on you to show a rule that I break. Otherwise I simply exercise the permission the rules grant me as a player in a game where we both abide by the rules as they are given. You don't get to break rules simply because you do not like them unless we both decide to allow the breaking of that rule. Please just show anything here. Anything at all. You have so far produced nothing at all.
I don't know about you but I for sure would not allow someone to claim RAW who did not have some actual rule supporting their argument.
No, you haven't you've consistently repeated yourself with a ad nauseum argument , which has no basis in the written text with out inference of a additional word that does not exist.
You will never disprove me because it clearly states that you are allowed to take 1 Tomb Spyder.
If it said you were allowed to take 1 Tactical Marine would you be able to take a full squad of Tactical Marines?No because that does not equal 1.
Hollismason wrote: No, you haven't you've consistently repeated yourself with a ad nauseum argument , which has no basis in the written text with out inference of a additional word that does not exist.
You will never disprove me because it clearly states that you are allowed to take 1 Tomb Spyder.
If it said you were allowed to take 1 Tactical Marine would you be able to take a full squad of Tactical Marines?No because that does not equal 1.
3 does not equal 1.
As I said, because unless it say '1 Tactical Marine model' the Formation rules are exceedingly specific in that they always and unequivocally refer to units and you can add more Tactical marines by accessing the options. I am sorry but that is just the rules as they exist.
Why are you choosing to ignore the exceedingly specific use of unit in the Formation rules? I should remind you that you cannot ignore rules and what they specify. And the Formation rule is one of them.
And the one who is resorting to ad nauseum is you. I have a fully delineated argument and you have failed to topple any of the points I have made because every point is directly supported by rules that you cannot contradict.
Hollismason wrote: Why are you ignoring the fact that all other formations including all the ones in the Decurion say exactly when it is a unit and not a single model?
Cause you are, also you're incorrect on the formation thing always referring to units.
Formations
Spoiler:
Formations are a special type of Detachment, each a specific grouping of units renowned for their effectiveness on the battlefields of the 41st Millennium. Whilst some Formations provide you with all the gaming information you will need to use them in your games, it is not uncommon for them simply to describe a number of special rules that apply when you include several specific units together. Instead of including a Force Organisation chart, the Army List Entries that comprise a Formation are listed on it, along with any special rules that those units gain. Unless stated otherwise, each individual unit maintains its normal Battlefield Role when taken as part of a Formation. Unlike other Detachments, Formations can also be taken as part of Unbound armies. If they are, their units maintain the special rules gained for being part of the Formation.
Please Hollis, please find something, some actual rule to peg your counter argument on, because I don't like beating up on the defenseless.
Units also refers to FMCs and all other models in the game not just used as a term for a collection of models in a unit. Models of 1 are still a unit.
That Tomb Spyder doesn't stop being a unit, by stating 1 we know we can only have 1 Tomb Spyder , that is still a unit. It cannot go beyond 1 because the formation states 1.
Hollismason wrote: Units also refers to FMCs and all other models in the game not just used as a term for a collection of models in a unit. Models of 1 are still a unit.
That Tomb Spyder doesn't stop being a unit, by stating 1 we know we can only have 1 Tomb Spyder , that is still a unit. It cannot go beyond 1 because the formation states 1.
I can add spyders to the unit of 1, just like I can add warriors to the unit of 10, and just like I can add a Ghost Ark to the formation when the formation doesn't even mention a Ghost Ark.
If you feel otherwise, show a consistent line of reasoning that allows you to treat a unit of 1 spyder any differently than a unit of 10 warriors. I am all ears and welcome your pearls of wisdom.
Have I not abundantly shown you that you have no actual rules support? Why do you persist in this folly? This is self-deception and you are masquerading a RAI argument as a RAW argument and spreading misinformation by doing so.
adamsouza wrote: Hollismason and Col Impact, respectfully, BOTH of you please let it go.
It clearly needs to be FAQ'ed because of it's gakky wording.
Yes, it says Spyder.
Yes, there is no limitation listed.
It should either say Spyders, or Limitation 1 Spyder, but it says neither. We get it.
That is fine. A bystander has thrown in the towel for Hollis. The argument was one-sided. At any rate it is clear what the rules actually support doing until we get a FAQ. And for the record I do not mind if they FAQ that it is a Spyder model. I just insist people actually follow the rules and are consistent and logical, which is what I am doing here. And I certainly oppose wholeheartedly the people who try to pass RAI as RAW by virtue of nothing more than mob thinking on the matter which is what has happened in this case. I don't adopt an illogical, inconsistent, and hypocritical interpretation of the rules just because its popular, and indeed no one should. If people want to collectively vote and implement a house rule then more power to them, as long as they don't lie to me that it is RAW.
If you have the necron codex, look at the Canoptek formation in the fluff (pg 34), it says unit of spiders there. Games Workshop wanted to give people something to argue about on the internet.
Warmonger2757 wrote: If you have the necron codex, look at the Canoptek formation in the fluff (pg 34), it says unit of spiders there. Games Workshop wanted to give people something to argue about on the internet.
It certainly has worked as a litmus test to detect who is prone to mob thinking and who can maintain rational and consistent thinking on the rule set. In fact, this rules case presents a challenge to this forum itself, since this boils down to mob thinking versus reasonable thinking. The counter argument literally has zero rules support and only popular support. It uses sheer numbers to make everyone believe that the rules say '1 Spyder model'
So I posted a sick list that I think is possibly the best Decurion list I have seen so far (and naturally its my own creation)
Spoiler:
MonsterCrons (1849pts)
Decurion Detachment
Reclamation Legion
Nemesor Zahndrekh
5x Immortal
8 x Tomb Blade Nebuloscope, Shield Vanes, Twin-linked Gauss Blaster
Ghost Ark, 10x Necron Warrior
20x Necron Warrior
Canoptek Harvest
6 x Canoptek Scarab
1 x Canoptek Spyder
1 x Canoptek Spyder Gloom Prism
6 x Canoptek Wraith Transdimensional Beamer
Tau Empire: Codex (2013) (Allied Detachment)
Commander (Command and Control Node, Early warning override, Multi-spectrum Sensor Suite, Puretide Engram Neurochip, Target lock, Vectored retro-thrusters, Velocity tracker)
XV104 Riptide Ion accelerator, Twin-linked smart missile system, Velocity tracker
10x Kroot
Comments? This list seems like a solid and hard to beat TAC. The only hard counter would be a list with a metric ton of objective secured troops and transports.
col_impact wrote: So I posted a sick list that I think is possibly the best Decurion list I have seen so far (and naturally its my own creation)
Spoiler:
MonsterCrons (1849pts)
Decurion Detachment
Reclamation Legion
Nemesor Zahndrekh
5x Immortal
8 x Tomb Blade Nebuloscope, Shield Vanes, Twin-linked Gauss Blaster
Ghost Ark, 10x Necron Warrior
20x Necron Warrior
Canoptek Harvest
6 x Canoptek Scarab
1 x Canoptek Spyder
1 x Canoptek Spyder Gloom Prism
6 x Canoptek Wraith Transdimensional Beamer
Tau Empire: Codex (2013) (Allied Detachment)
Commander (Command and Control Node, Early warning override, Multi-spectrum Sensor Suite, Puretide Engram Neurochip, Target lock, Vectored retro-thrusters, Velocity tracker)
XV104 Riptide Ion accelerator, Twin-linked smart missile system, Velocity tracker
10x Kroot
Comments? This list seems like a solid and hard to beat TAC. The only hard counter would be a list with a metric ton of objective secured troops and transports.
The combo of Tau + Necrons is really good especially with the cheese combo that is Buffmander + Zahndrekh. Tau shooting with Necron wraiths? *spew* Why so big on the blob of 20 warriors? and only one riptide?
Well its an allied force so only 1 Riptide is allowed unless I am mistaken. Usually tournaments allow one Primary detachment and one ally so this list adheres to that expectation. A dual CAD format could get you more Riptides. The Riptide is actually optional. The Tau allied force is there to access the buffmander mainly. The riptide is a backup source of easy buffs and included also since its arguably the best unit in the game (so why the heck not)
I suppose an additional power up would be to squeeze Obyron or a Cryptek with a Veil (or hey why not both?) and a Royal Court in there so you could buff up a warrior blob with TankHunters, MonsterHunters, etc. and then deep strike the unit into range and shred just about anything.
The blob is there to provide massed fire that is impossible to take down, especially with a Ghost Ark regenerating warriors, re-roll to morale that the Overlord of the Decurion grants (or is that just the bargeLord??), and the stubborn and hit and run USR that the buffmander can grant. That's about as fearless you can get.
3 X Tomb Blade Nebuloscope, Shield Vanes, Twin-linked Gauss Blaster
Ghost Ark, 10x Necron Warrior
10x Necron Warrior
Royal Court
Vargard Obyron
Cryptek, Staff of Light, The Veil of Darkness
Overlord Staff of Light
Auxiliary
Canoptek Harvest
3x Canoptek Scarab
2 x Canoptek Spyders (1 with Gloom Prism)
6 x Canoptek Wraith Transdimensional Beamer
Tau Empire: Codex (2013) (Allied Detachment)
Commander Command and Control Node, Early warning override, Multi-spectrum Sensor Suite, Puretide Engram Neurochip, Velocity tracker
XV104 Riptide, Ion accelerator, Twin-linked smart missile system, Velocity tracker
10x Kroot
This seems like a solid power up. The ICs join a warrior blob making it 14 bodies and roughly the same number of shots. Zandrekh grants a Warlord buff and a buffmander by proxy buff. Then the warriors in the Ghost Ark disembark. Zandrekh embarks. Ghost Ark moves 12". Obyron makes his protected deep strike move. Warrior blob lights up and eliminates the biggest available threat with shooting that far surpasses anything Centurions could put out. Invisible target? Who cares? Super heavy? who cares? GMC? Who cares? This is a sick sick deathstar.
Actually that slingshot method doesn't fully work in the space of 1 turn. Zandrekh needs to rejoin since the USRs are granted to him and his unit. So basically you deep strike the whole unit with the Cryptek with the Veil and then set up some teleporting combos with Obyron later.
Alternatively you can just hang back and form a relentless, move through cover gunline, that ignores cover and razes the earth like a blitzkrieg with a buffmander or a riptide feeding you buffs. The wraiths are there to go out and harass, tarpit, and/or kill anything that has any hopes of stopping you.
This list started out as a way to find something better than a conclave. Well it looks like I succeeded at just that and proving you have better options than the conclave for where to sink points. And if you compare this combo with Destroyer Cult, the Tau ally force wins hands down.
The buffmander combo is so sick that it probably should be house ruled to not work on allies, only enemy enemies. Without the combo you switch to Ethereal, and add a unit of Broadsides (and maybe rethink the buffmander going here instead of switching him out for the cheaper Ethereal) for something that still outperforms Conclave or Destroyer Cult handily.
Tekron wrote: The Decurion isn't a CAD though, so presumably most tournaments would allow a Decurion + an allied CAD?
Triptides & Decurion & Harvest sounds fun.
If by fun you mean slaughtering everything in your way then yes lots of fun. The Zandrekh Buffmander is silly sick. It's as silly as Void Shield + Green Tide. Silly, silly, silly. Play it until its banned people!
But sure if you get a Tau CAD then by all means strip down to best of Tau (Riptide + Broadsides + Buffmander + 2 Kroot) and best of Decurion (Zandrekh, Ghoast Ark, Tomb Blades + Canopteks with TransD) and if you have the Zandrekh Buffmander combo the opponent might as well just concede and if that has been house ruled away you should dominate the match still. Adding Tau covers all your weaknesses and is the perfect Yin to your Yang. I prefer Broadside spam over Triptides since they can benefit from the buffmander directly per 7th rules.
I think adding Tyranids (Flyrants, etc.) instead of Tau is also a sick combo, but I do think Tau has the edge over it. This is undoubtedly the case if the Zandrekh + Buffmander combo is legal, and still narrowly the case elsewise. But Flyrants (FMC + Psychic hotness) is still a solid alternative that also does much more than the Conclave or the Destroyer Cult.
Plus if you go Tau + Necrons you can still claim "No Psychic" purity! I much prefer skipping that phase altogether. I feel so much cleaner doing so!
Despite the Buffmander giving a lot of stuff, I'd be more inclined to optimise by skipping him. Zandrekh can get split fire, tank hunters and hit and run from Riptides and Broadsides which both contribute by shooting stuff every turn.
Therion wrote: Despite the Buffmander giving a lot of stuff, I'd be more inclined to optimise by skipping him. Zandrekh can get split fire, skyfire, interceptor, and tank hunters from Riptides and Broadsides which both contribute by shooting stuff every turn.
Interesting point and a nice creative contribution. Loading up on buffs from the resilient Riptide alone who hangs in the backfield already is a way of freeing up some points. Of course you lose the tactic of Ghost Mantling or Veiling forward and drop the Royal Court and stick to the Raze the Earth gunline approach. But yeah, that's a good line of thought.
So sure, switch to Ethereal. Buff off of the resilient Riptide. Add more Riptides or Broadsides and even more wraiths for a more surefire core. Maybe even room for a bargeLord who I think really shines once you flood the opponent with too much other stuff to worry about. Good suggestion. I like broadsides but riptides in this line of thought also seem juicy and thematic. Nothing seems cooler than a bunch of giant robots stomping around and wraiths ghosting around for fights like some sick mashup between Harry Potter and Pacific Rim. Seems like a fully doable alternative. I will plunk away on a list that works in those suggestions.
I don't know why I assumed counter tactics gives skyfire and interceptor, so I edited my post. It's still good though in the exact ways discussed here.
I wasn't thinking of the Ethereal either, I was just thinking that you'd take a Firebase Support Cadre for the 6 Broadsides and Riptide. You get almost all the special rules you can and you get 3 Tau units capable of dealing with air targets, and you can still take a Decurion if you want for Zandrekh as your primary detachment. CAD works too but since Warrior blobs are being used near Zandrekh, the 4+ RP and re-roll 1's seems like a no-brainer.
Therion wrote: I don't know why I assumed counter tactics gives skyfire and interceptor, so I edited my post. It's still good though in the exact ways discussed here.
I wasn't thinking of the Ethereal either, I was just thinking that you'd take a Firebase Support Cadre for the 6 Broadsides and Riptide. You get almost all the special rules you can and you get 3 Tau units capable of dealing with air targets, and you can still take a Decurion if you want for Zandrekh as your primary detachment. CAD works too but since Warrior blobs are being used near Zandrekh, the 4+ RP and re-roll 1's seems like a no-brainer.
I do like squeezing in objective secured in there somehow, even if it is just 1 unit. How many points do you value objective secured at? I would value it as something like 200 points. Its situational though, but in those matchups where you need it, even just 1 objective secured unit can mean the difference between winning and losing. Two units is good to have once people key in how to fight you. Luckily, Tau provide you with some of the cheapest and some of the best objective secured troops in the game.
Here's a quick list for discussion . . .
Spoiler:
MonsterCrons (1849pts)
Necrons: Codex (2015) (Decurion Detachment)
(No Category)
Relics and Warlord Traits
Codex: Necrons
Core
Reclamation Legion
Nemesor Zahndrekh
5x Immortal
3 x Tomb Blades Twin-linked Gauss Blaster
Ghost Ark, 10x Necron Warrior
10x Necron Warrior
Royal Court
Vargard Obyron
Catacomb Command Barge Gauss Cannon, Gauntlet of Fire, Phase Shifter, Phylactery, The Nightmare Shroud, Warscythe
Cryptek Chronometron, Staff of Light
Auxiliary
Canoptek Harvest
3x Canoptek Scarab
1 x Canoptek Spyder Gloom Prism
Canoptek Wraiths
6 x Canoptek Wraith Transdimensional Beamer
Tau Empire: Codex (2013) (Allied Detachment)
Ethereal
XV104 Riptide Early warning override, Ion accelerator, Twin-linked smart missile system, Velocity tracker
10x Kroot
Grabbing points from Tomb blades and losing a Spyder (spyders in my opinion are really good when you give them RP 4+++) but this list looks solid. And, I would prepare to add a second unit of Kroot once people start objective securing as a hard counter.
Now the only thing the Tau are giving to Zandrekh is split fire and stealth (forests), and overall they contibute one obsec unit and one antiair unit. At that point it feels like the allied Hive Fleet Leviathan will do better.
To me the core issue of Necrons is dealing with air targets. Zandrekh giving one unit per turn a few special rules is a cool bonus to an army that is filled with individually strong units, but it doesn't solve the actual issue. Still, you should maximise Zandrekh with a larger Warrior unit than 10, and you should get tank hunters in there somewhere if you're using Tau allies.
Alcibiades wrote: No way did the designers intend on Zandrekh getting buffs from allies. Get real.
Easy to claim, harder to prove. As written, that is how it works until FAQed.
The best Zandrekh ally would IMO be a buffmander, a kroot squad and three HYMP broadsides. It's not an overinvestment while providing good volume of S7 firepower, something most cron lists lack nowadays since most players no longer runs tesla after the nerf. You can also give the broadsides skyfire and get your anti-air.
It's a neat idea but don't think it can remove anything. Assuming you'll have rerolls on to hit and to wound/pen lets look at the numbers.
Without skyfire, you can give a blob of warriors all the buffs in the world and they still won't do much damage to a flyrant or invisible death star. Snap Shots with rerolls and 40 shots is still only 12 hits. Then you still need to wound and get past their armour saves.
Against vehicles you'll average 11 Glancing hits, which is plenty to kill anything up to an IK. Against an MC you're also looking at 11 wounds. Which will deal 4 wounds to anything with a 3+ save (Wraithknights, tyrants etc). Not enough to kill a Wraithknight but it'll hurt it. Against Dreadknights this is even worse. You'll have to rely on other elements of your army to take care of them.
Against things with lower than T6, you'll pretty much wipe them out.
So as long as you avoid shooting at fliers, invisibile units, 5+ wound MCs and MCs with 2+ armour... you'll blow stuff away. The investment to do so on the Necron side is 415 points (zandrekh, 20 warriors, ghost ark) Which isn't bad considering the HQ and at least 10 warriors are mandatory anyway. To get all the buffs, you'll have to invest in Tau. But I don't consider that to be a negative since the Tau should pull their own weight anyway.
The critical thing a fire support cadre can't give zahndrekh is hit & run. I think that rule can be extremely powerful in a big unit that also has orikan in it, as he'll (hopefully) have I4. Being super resilient is cool, but being able to get out of combat when you need to makes it a lot better.
On riptides, having played tau allies with the previous codex, I feel that a single riptide without markerlight support is pretty damn bad for it's points, at least compared to how good it would be in a proper tau army. I'm currently thinking of having marker drones in a broadside unit (with the buffmander) to support the riptide. Not sure if that'd work, it feels a bit wonky. Pathfinders are unusable IMO, so there aren't that many sources for markerlights in an allied detachment.
Here's a 1500 point list I'll be trying out tonight:
Still not sure what I'd take for those additional 350 points. Extra warriors, wraiths (to max out all units) and a riptide with skyfire and interceptor. A unit of tomb blades would be nice too.
MLKTH wrote: The critical thing a fire support cadre can't give zahndrekh is hit & run. I think that rule can be extremely powerful in a big unit that also has orikan in it, as he'll (hopefully) have I4. Being super resilient is cool, but being able to get out of combat when you need to makes it a lot better.
On riptides, having played tau allies with the previous codex, I feel that a single riptide without markerlight support is pretty damn bad for it's points, at least compared to how good it would be in a proper tau army. I'm currently thinking of having marker drones in a broadside unit (with the buffmander) to support the riptide. Not sure if that'd work, it feels a bit wonky. Pathfinders are unusable IMO, so there aren't that many sources for markerlights in an allied detachment.
Tetras. Tetras are amazing for markerlight support, especially when you can give them sensor spines and keep them behind 4+ cover, with the little markerlight thingy sticking out so they can still shoot.
MLKTH wrote: Yeah, I thought of tetras. Unit of 2 would be 70 points if I remember correctly. I'll have to fiddle with the list and see if I could fit them.
Find the extra 5 points each to give them sensor spines. Trust me, it's well worth the investment.
What do people of putting the solar staff on a CCB. It will make him less than optimal in assault with nothing to go through armor, but an invisible armor 13 seems advantageous. Then tie in with gauntlet to mobile firing platform and can pass on the reanimation legion reroll of 1s.
oz of the north wrote: What do people of putting the solar staff on a CCB. It will make him less than optimal in assault with nothing to go through armor, but an invisible armor 13 seems advantageous. Then tie in with gauntlet to mobile firing platform and can pass on the reanimation legion reroll of 1s.
Well, you can't have the gauntlet and the Solar staff on the same character.
In addition, the solar staff really does nothing for you on a command barge. You get some nice AP shooting.. which you could get from Destroyers. The Warscythe is better, for opening up vehicles, and winning combats. You could be tarpitted the entire game if you end up in close combat with the solar staff.
oz of the north wrote: What do people of putting the solar staff on a CCB. It will make him less than optimal in assault with nothing to go through armor, but an invisible armor 13 seems advantageous. Then tie in with gauntlet to mobile firing platform and can pass on the reanimation legion reroll of 1s.
If you want the CCB to sit back and support your reclamation legion instead of rushing to the assault, just save points and keep a regular Staff of Light. The solar staff is much more useful in a teleporting unit of lychguard or wraiths. AV13 behind intervening units has a 5+ cover save, and is relatively hard to crack since it's a chariot - if he's shooting at you just take the hits on the overlord (unless they're s10).
oz of the north wrote: What do people of putting the solar staff on a CCB. It will make him less than optimal in assault with nothing to go through armor, but an invisible armor 13 seems advantageous. Then tie in with gauntlet to mobile firing platform and can pass on the reanimation legion reroll of 1s.
Anything you can shoot at with a 12 inch gun will just move 6 inches towards you and then charge you since you are terrible in CC without a war scythe you are stuck till they kill you or you run a assault unit in to bail out your lord.
oz of the north wrote: What do people of putting the solar staff on a CCB. It will make him less than optimal in assault with nothing to go through armor, but an invisible armor 13 seems advantageous. Then tie in with gauntlet to mobile firing platform and can pass on the reanimation legion reroll of 1s.
Anything you can shoot at with a 12 inch gun will just move 6 inches towards you and then charge you since you are terrible in CC without a war scythe you are stuck till they kill you or you run a assault unit in to bail out your lord.
Would it then be worth giving the CCB a phylactery or Phase shifter.
oz of the north wrote: What do people of putting the solar staff on a CCB. It will make him less than optimal in assault with nothing to go through armor, but an invisible armor 13 seems advantageous. Then tie in with gauntlet to mobile firing platform and can pass on the reanimation legion reroll of 1s.
Anything you can shoot at with a 12 inch gun will just move 6 inches towards you and then charge you since you are terrible in CC without a war scythe you are stuck till they kill you or you run a assault unit in to bail out your lord.
Would it then be worth giving the CCB a phylactery or Phase shifter.
Easy to claim, harder to prove. As written, that is how it works until FAQed.
I know it's how it works until FAQed, but it's transparently unintended, like the CH giving you multiple Spyders.
How could you possibly know it's unintended? I read the rule when it was leaked in leak thread and it took me all of five seconds to realize it would work with allies, because all Necron allies count as enemy units. I am sure many other Xenos players used to allies being enemies thought the same thing. It seems hard to believe the writers were not aware of it when writing the rule.
As for the CH, there's literally a page in the codex dedicated to a diagram of the formation, and it specifies a unit of Spyders. Most likely the writer of the formation rules was being sloppy and forgot Spyders are one of the few MCs that can come in squads and used the same formatting as the other Necron units that come alone (C'Tan, ICs etc.). The Spyder costs 50pts and is priced the same as an entire infantry squad, making it the least efficient unit in pts per $ spent for the entire Necron codex. Are we now living in some bizarro universe where GW would intentionally make it hard to field lots of a unit like that?
oz of the north wrote: What do people of putting the solar staff on a CCB. It will make him less than optimal in assault with nothing to go through armor, but an invisible armor 13 seems advantageous. Then tie in with gauntlet to mobile firing platform and can pass on the reanimation legion reroll of 1s.
Anything you can shoot at with a 12 inch gun will just move 6 inches towards you and then charge you since you are terrible in CC without a war scythe you are stuck till they kill you or you run a assault unit in to bail out your lord.
Would it then be worth giving the CCB a phylactery or Phase shifter.
On mine, I like to run it with both the invulnerable and IWND, it makes it so hard to kill by shooting it. I also like the warscythe since I think the staff leaves you too vulnerable and the option to assault is nice. I also like to give it the 1 use flamer, it always makes it points back and with the mobility of the barge you can usually get a good angle for it. 30pts is 1 teq or about 2-3 meq both of which is easy to cover with a template.
Tekron wrote: The Decurion isn't a CAD though, so presumably most tournaments would allow a Decurion + an allied CAD?
Triptides & Decurion & Harvest sounds fun.
If by fun you mean slaughtering everything in your way then yes lots of fun. The Zandrekh Buffmander is silly sick. It's as silly as Void Shield + Green Tide. Silly, silly, silly. Play it until its banned people!
But sure if you get a Tau CAD then by all means strip down to best of Tau (Riptide + Broadsides + Buffmander + 2 Kroot) and best of Decurion (Zandrekh, Ghoast Ark, Tomb Blades + Canopteks with TransD) and if you have the Zandrekh Buffmander combo the opponent might as well just concede and if that has been house ruled away you should dominate the match still. Adding Tau covers all your weaknesses and is the perfect Yin to your Yang. I prefer Broadside spam over Triptides since they can benefit from the buffmander directly per 7th rules.
I'm pretty rusty on my Tau, wonder if they have a tactics thread I can sneak into . Can the buffmander buff Broadsides with skyfire? That seems to be the absolute must take special super-awesome-synergy rule for Necrons, and Velocity Trackers are mega expensive on a per-model basis.
The Spyder costs 50pts and is priced the same as an entire infantry squad, making it the least efficient unit in pts per $ spent for the entire Necron codex.
I think flayed ones might be the worst pts per $ in the game at 1.44pts per dollar (Murican price). For comparison the spyder is 1.515pts per dollar. And actually now that I do the math, naked tomb blades cost 1.31pts per dollar.
Tekron wrote: The Decurion isn't a CAD though, so presumably most tournaments would allow a Decurion + an allied CAD?
Triptides & Decurion & Harvest sounds fun.
If by fun you mean slaughtering everything in your way then yes lots of fun. The Zandrekh Buffmander is silly sick. It's as silly as Void Shield + Green Tide. Silly, silly, silly. Play it until its banned people!
But sure if you get a Tau CAD then by all means strip down to best of Tau (Riptide + Broadsides + Buffmander + 2 Kroot) and best of Decurion (Zandrekh, Ghoast Ark, Tomb Blades + Canopteks with TransD) and if you have the Zandrekh Buffmander combo the opponent might as well just concede and if that has been house ruled away you should dominate the match still. Adding Tau covers all your weaknesses and is the perfect Yin to your Yang. I prefer Broadside spam over Triptides since they can benefit from the buffmander directly per 7th rules.
I'm pretty rusty on my Tau, wonder if they have a tactics thread I can sneak into . Can the buffmander buff Broadsides with skyfire? That seems to be the absolute must take special super-awesome-synergy rule for Necrons, and Velocity Trackers are mega expensive on a per-model basis.
Sadly, no such thing. The buffmander provides twin-link, ignore cover, hit & run and either stubborn, monster hunter or tank hunter that's of value.
Hollismason wrote: No because that's adding a word to the formation that doesn't exist, unit. It simply states 1 Tomb Spyder. That's all there is to it. It references 1 Spyder in the rules, it references 1 spyder in the formation itself.
If it say 3 Wraiths would you be allowed to take 6 wraiths?
No because 6 is not 3.
Yes I would be allowed to take 6 wraiths because the Formation rules means its a unit of 3 wraiths and I can use the options in the wraith army entry list to add 3 more wraiths just like I can add a Ghost Ark to a formation that has a unit of 10 warriors.
The line would have to say 3 Wraith models to override the very specific rules that the Formation rules use that specify units and army entry lists.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hollismason wrote: It's 1 Tomb Spyder, if you take that formation and you take 3 Spyders are you satisfying the requirement of it only having 1 Spyder?
No, you are not. Good luck with your games and convincing your opponent that 3 = 1, but it just doesn't.
Explain to me this then, if that is how it works then why do Every other entry in all of the formation of the Decurion for units say units and this one unit does not but instead says 1
You're cheating your opponent through a purposeful misinterpretation of the rules.
This isn't a opinion, 3 does not equal 1. That's MATH, you're arguing with me over math that you can trick your way semantically into being correct and you just can't.
We aren't arguing math. We are arguing rules. You are trying to pull the fast one here by saying the rules specify 1 Canoptek Spyder model, when it flat out obviously does not specify that. The Reclamation Legion does not have a Ghost Ark on its listing and yet I can add a Ghost Ark and seemingly break your math argument. How is it even possible for me to add a Ghost Ark. Because it is on the army entry list and the Formation rules give access to the options. I am being wholly consistent in my application of the rules. I have no problem claiming my argument is honest, logical, and consistent. I am amazed at how the counter argument can make their claim when they are being totally inconsistent and even possibly outright deceptive (although I am not accusing you of that)
In regards to the first portion of your argument, no, you are not correct,
If the formation states you are taking a unit of 3 wraiths, it means you are taking a singluar unit of only 3 wraiths. You are not allowed to add more wraiths as per a normal unit selection like you would in a CAD or normal detachment. Formations don't work that way unless given explicit permission.
An example would be the Ork's Green Tide. We are told we are allowed to take 1 Warboss and 10 units of Boyz that will merge to become a singular unit. In this example, we are allowed to max/min whatever squads we wish as they are not telling us exactly how many models we are supposed to take. It doesn't say 'take 10 units of 10 boyz', it merely says '10 units of Boyz'. So we could take a Green Tide with as few as 101 models to as many as 301 models.
So in the example with Warriors, if it says you need to take x many units of warriors, you may mix/max how you like. If it tells you to take a unit of 1 Spyder or a unit of 3 wraiths, you do not have the option to make the units larger or smaller. You can only take the exact model count. You don't need to add the word 'model' to know this.
Edit: On the topic of Necron/Tau allies, I thought you could not mix allied units together anymore? Which was why Taudar lost a lot of steam? Because you couldn't put ICs in opposing faction's units, where Eldar were getting beefed by Buffmanders and whatnaught.
The Spyder costs 50pts and is priced the same as an entire infantry squad, making it the least efficient unit in pts per $ spent for the entire Necron codex.
I think flayed ones might be the worst pts per $ in the game at 1.44pts per dollar (Murican price). For comparison the spyder is 1.515pts per dollar. And actually now that I do the math, naked tomb blades cost 1.31pts per dollar.
I can't believe I forgot how expensive TBs are! I'll put it down to the fact I'm currently in denial about how much money they are going to cost me. The fortunate thing about FOs is that they are easily converted from warriors.
The DESTROYER CULT has restrictions. We know this because there is actually something written in the RESTRICTIONS box of the formation. It tells us that the Destroyer units must consist of at least 3 models.
RAW The CANOPTEK HARVEST has no listed restrictions, it literally says "none" We know that it MUST consist of 1 Spyder, 1 unit Canoptek Wraiths, and 1 unit of Canoptek Scarabs. It doesn't say no more than 3 Wraiths, 3 Scarabs, 1 Spyder. We know that Wraiths and Scarabs have a minimum unit size of 3, and can include additional models. The Spyder has a minimum unit size of 1, and can include additional models. The requirement calls for at least 1 Spyder be included. Since the requirement is singular, it is listed in it's singular form. There is no RAW Restriction on the Spyder unit size, because NO Restrictions are listed.
The Canoptek Harvest being limited to no more than a singular spyder would indeed be a "restriction" since it would overide the Canoptek Spyder dataslate allowing for additional Spyders, and therefore should be listed as a restriction.
RAI Page 34 states "unit of Canoptek Sypders", instead of the singular Sypder. The language of the Judicator Battalion requirements states "unit of Triarch Stalkers" instead of the singular. The language of the Judicator Battalion states "within line of sight of a Triarch Stalker", while the Canoptek Harvest's language states "within 12" of the Canoptek Spyder"
It's sloppy editing any case. Either the language of the two formations should match, or there should be something listed in the restrictions section of the Canoptek Swarm.
I am unaware of any other formation in 40K that has a restriction limiting the maximum unit size. It would be an unprecedented restriction.
Hollismason wrote: No because that's adding a word to the formation that doesn't exist, unit. It simply states 1 Tomb Spyder. That's all there is to it. It references 1 Spyder in the rules, it references 1 spyder in the formation itself.
If it say 3 Wraiths would you be allowed to take 6 wraiths?
No because 6 is not 3.
Yes I would be allowed to take 6 wraiths because the Formation rules means its a unit of 3 wraiths and I can use the options in the wraith army entry list to add 3 more wraiths just like I can add a Ghost Ark to a formation that has a unit of 10 warriors.
The line would have to say 3 Wraith models to override the very specific rules that the Formation rules use that specify units and army entry lists.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hollismason wrote: It's 1 Tomb Spyder, if you take that formation and you take 3 Spyders are you satisfying the requirement of it only having 1 Spyder?
No, you are not. Good luck with your games and convincing your opponent that 3 = 1, but it just doesn't.
Explain to me this then, if that is how it works then why do Every other entry in all of the formation of the Decurion for units say units and this one unit does not but instead says 1
You're cheating your opponent through a purposeful misinterpretation of the rules.
This isn't a opinion, 3 does not equal 1. That's MATH, you're arguing with me over math that you can trick your way semantically into being correct and you just can't.
We aren't arguing math. We are arguing rules. You are trying to pull the fast one here by saying the rules specify 1 Canoptek Spyder model, when it flat out obviously does not specify that. The Reclamation Legion does not have a Ghost Ark on its listing and yet I can add a Ghost Ark and seemingly break your math argument. How is it even possible for me to add a Ghost Ark. Because it is on the army entry list and the Formation rules give access to the options. I am being wholly consistent in my application of the rules. I have no problem claiming my argument is honest, logical, and consistent. I am amazed at how the counter argument can make their claim when they are being totally inconsistent and even possibly outright deceptive (although I am not accusing you of that)
In regards to the first portion of your argument, no, you are not correct,
If the formation states you are taking a unit of 3 wraiths, it means you are taking a singluar unit of only 3 wraiths. You are not allowed to add more wraiths as per a normal unit selection like you would in a CAD or normal detachment. Formations don't work that way unless given explicit permission.
An example would be the Ork's Green Tide. We are told we are allowed to take 1 Warboss and 10 units of Boyz that will merge to become a singular unit. In this example, we are allowed to max/min whatever squads we wish as they are not telling us exactly how many models we are supposed to take. It doesn't say 'take 10 units of 10 boyz', it merely says '10 units of Boyz'. So we could take a Green Tide with as few as 101 models to as many as 301 models.
So in the example with Warriors, if it says you need to take x many units of warriors, you may mix/max how you like. If it tells you to take a unit of 1 Spyder or a unit of 3 wraiths, you do not have the option to make the units larger or smaller. You can only take the exact model count. You don't need to add the word 'model' to know this.
Edit: On the topic of Necron/Tau allies, I thought you could not mix allied units together anymore? Which was why Taudar lost a lot of steam? Because you couldn't put ICs in opposing faction's units, where Eldar were getting beefed by Buffmanders and whatnaught.
The problem with your argument is that no where does it actually say to take 'exactly' X spyders. If the rules wanted to specify that it would specify that. What the rules do specify is that we are dealing unequivocally with units, unequivocally with an army entry list, and unequivocally have access to the options on that army entry list, and unequivocally have 'no restriction'. So the rules exactly give me permission to do exactly what I am claiming I can do. And you miss something that says '1 Canoptek Spyder model' or a restriction that says 'This formation can only have 1 Spyder'. What makes you think you can willy nilly make up rules and count your argument as RAW?
Also take a look at page 36. It says 'unit of spyders'. Sure it's in the fluff, but we actually have solid textual evidence in the Codex certifying our argument, where you have conjecture at most. Conjecture does not fly against unequivocal permission in the rules from start to finish and a picture in the freaking Codex proving our claim. Seriously, why is this even an argument? Is mob thinking that prevalent on this forum. Seriously?
Edit: On the topic of Necron/Tau allies, I thought you could not mix allied units together anymore? Which was why Taudar lost a lot of steam? Because you couldn't put ICs in opposing faction's units, where Eldar were getting beefed by Buffmanders and whatnaught.
Only battle brother level allies can mix units, and 7th removed that from tau/eldar and tau/sm. Necrons have never been battle brothers with anyone, so what changed is that Nemesor Zahndrekh now steals a number of USRs from enemies within 24", and all Necron allies count as enemies for the purpose of this.
So now Necrons gain a synergy from allies they never had before, and with the meta shift to FMC spam some decent AA looks very tempting.
Hollismason wrote: No because that's adding a word to the formation that doesn't exist, unit. It simply states 1 Tomb Spyder. That's all there is to it. It references 1 Spyder in the rules, it references 1 spyder in the formation itself.
If it say 3 Wraiths would you be allowed to take 6 wraiths?
No because 6 is not 3.
Yes I would be allowed to take 6 wraiths because the Formation rules means its a unit of 3 wraiths and I can use the options in the wraith army entry list to add 3 more wraiths just like I can add a Ghost Ark to a formation that has a unit of 10 warriors.
The line would have to say 3 Wraith models to override the very specific rules that the Formation rules use that specify units and army entry lists.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hollismason wrote: It's 1 Tomb Spyder, if you take that formation and you take 3 Spyders are you satisfying the requirement of it only having 1 Spyder?
No, you are not. Good luck with your games and convincing your opponent that 3 = 1, but it just doesn't.
Explain to me this then, if that is how it works then why do Every other entry in all of the formation of the Decurion for units say units and this one unit does not but instead says 1
You're cheating your opponent through a purposeful misinterpretation of the rules.
This isn't a opinion, 3 does not equal 1. That's MATH, you're arguing with me over math that you can trick your way semantically into being correct and you just can't.
We aren't arguing math. We are arguing rules. You are trying to pull the fast one here by saying the rules specify 1 Canoptek Spyder model, when it flat out obviously does not specify that. The Reclamation Legion does not have a Ghost Ark on its listing and yet I can add a Ghost Ark and seemingly break your math argument. How is it even possible for me to add a Ghost Ark. Because it is on the army entry list and the Formation rules give access to the options. I am being wholly consistent in my application of the rules. I have no problem claiming my argument is honest, logical, and consistent. I am amazed at how the counter argument can make their claim when they are being totally inconsistent and even possibly outright deceptive (although I am not accusing you of that)
In regards to the first portion of your argument, no, you are not correct,
If the formation states you are taking a unit of 3 wraiths, it means you are taking a singluar unit of only 3 wraiths. You are not allowed to add more wraiths as per a normal unit selection like you would in a CAD or normal detachment. Formations don't work that way unless given explicit permission.
An example would be the Ork's Green Tide. We are told we are allowed to take 1 Warboss and 10 units of Boyz that will merge to become a singular unit. In this example, we are allowed to max/min whatever squads we wish as they are not telling us exactly how many models we are supposed to take. It doesn't say 'take 10 units of 10 boyz', it merely says '10 units of Boyz'. So we could take a Green Tide with as few as 101 models to as many as 301 models.
So in the example with Warriors, if it says you need to take x many units of warriors, you may mix/max how you like. If it tells you to take a unit of 1 Spyder or a unit of 3 wraiths, you do not have the option to make the units larger or smaller. You can only take the exact model count. You don't need to add the word 'model' to know this.
Edit: On the topic of Necron/Tau allies, I thought you could not mix allied units together anymore? Which was why Taudar lost a lot of steam? Because you couldn't put ICs in opposing faction's units, where Eldar were getting beefed by Buffmanders and whatnaught.
The problem with your argument is that no where does it actually say to take 'exactly' X spyders. If the rules wanted to specify that it would specify that. What the rules do specify is that we are dealing unequivocally with units, unequivocally with an army entry list, and unequivocally have access to the options on that army entry list, and unequivocally have 'no restriction'. So the rules exactly give me permission to do exactly what I am claiming I can do. And you miss something that says '1 Canoptek Spyder model' or a restriction that says 'This formation can only have 1 Spyder'. What makes you think you can willy nilly make up rules and count your argument as RAW?
Also take a look at page 36. It says 'unit of spyders'. Sure it's in the fluff, but we actually have solid textual evidence in the Codex certifying our argument, where you have conjecture at most. Conjecture does not fly against unequivocal permission in the rules from start to finish and a picture in the freaking Codex proving our claim. Seriously, why is this even an argument? Is mob thinking that prevalent on this forum. Seriously?
Second paragraph: I could use the same argument when it came to the Gorkanaught's weapon. In the weapon profile page, it was listed as a S6 weapon. In the back of the book where it shows wargear, it was listed as S5. It was until recently they FAQ'd it to finally cement the weapon as a S6 weapon.
In short, it's damn near impossible to tell exactly what it is SUPPOSED to be until they actually FIX it. We were playing it as a S6 weapon because my group didn't midn and that SEEMED to be the correct profile. But until GW outright clearifies, sadly everyone will have to play it strictly as HIWPI. Because, lets' face it. Both sides seem to have a leg to stand on, yet neither leg seems very strong right now.
I honestly have no investment in it either way. I personally feel that taking more than one spider is overkill for the formation and a waste of points.
I honestly have no investment in it either way. I personally feel that taking more than one spider is overkill for the formation and a waste of points.
Aside from making it much harder to remove RP from a wraith-star, a unit of 3 Spyders with 9W between them, T6 3+/4+++ with Smash and Fearless and HoW is extremely deadly, tough to kill and incredibly cheap at 150pts. Plus they can spawn more than their point cost in Scarabs over the course of 3 turns.
So it's actually a very important issue for anyone who wants to play a Harvest.
Re: The Canoptek Harvest, determining intent in this particular case isn't actually hard, and regardless of what some of you keep insisting, the legislative intent is what we should go by whenever a rule can be interpreted in a variety of ways and is therefore poorly written.
All the formations follow the same logic. For example, in the Judicatior Batallion, it is written that you must have '1 unit of Triarch Stalkers'. Triarch Stalker units are identical to Spyders in the sense that they have just one model by default. Clearly since they mention you must have a unit, and immediately follows below that there's no restrictions, and use the plural of Triarch Stalker, you can use the option to add up to two additional Triarch Stalkers if you wish. The Canoptek Harvest could easily have been worded identically to be '1 unit of Canoptek Spyders', but instead they opted for the singular term '1 Canoptek Spyder', as they did with '1 Overlord' in the Reclamation Legion formation. It is beyond a shadow of a doubt that the intent is that the Canoptek Harvest has 1 Canoptek Spyder and no more or less. Naturally, GW's rules writers take a very casual approach to the game so you can argue a lot of rules with any agenda for your benefit, but personally I don't use any ambiguous rules to my benefit. Especially when this one isn't really crucial to anyone playing Necrons, so my suggestion is that you err in the side of caution and use one Canoptek Spyder in the formation untill otherwise stated in a FAQ or an Errata.
And to the guy above, no, it isn't important for anyone playing the Harvest to use ambiguous rules to their benefit, especially when it's quite likely they are in the wrong. The formation is strong as is, and it's in fact arguable if having 150 points of Spyders is actually beneficial to a power gamer tournament army.
The Canoptek Harvest could easily have been worded identically to be '1 unit of Canoptek Spyders', but instead they opted for '1 Canoptek Spyder', as they did with '1 Overlord' in the Reclamation Legion formation.
I find that example flawed. The Overlord Datasheet does not allow for additional overlords to be added in the same slot, as the Canoptek Spyders allows. There is no such thing as unit of overlords, but a single Spyder can be ugraded to a unit of Spyders.
In any case, the biggest problem with the solo Spyder argument is that lack of any restrictions in the Canoptek Swarm Datasheet. Limiting a unit of 1-3 models to a single model is defeintely a restriction.
Did you even read my post? I specifically mentioned the Triarch Stalker. It's a perfect example. You literally repeated everything I already said.
Limiting a unit of 1-3 models to a single model is defeintely a restriction.
That's why the rule is badly written. They could've been more clear that they are in fact placing a restriction. Otherwise I wouldn't say the rule is ambiguous, I'd say it's clear that you can only have one Canoptek Spyder. What I did say on the other hand is that the intent is crystal clear when we take a look at their wording on all the formations and see that they all follow the same logic. The custom in games that are played for fun, not money or otherwise as a career, players don't use clearly ambiguous rules to their benefit at the expense of their opponent and quite possibly a fair contest, and instead wait for clarification.
We should probably move this discussion to YMDC instead of clogging up the tactics thread?
As a side note; even if you're allowed to take up to 3 spyders in that formation, I will probably still stick with just 1 and continue with the MSU spam approach when it comes to the harvests.
omerakk wrote: We should probably move this discussion to YMDC instead of clogging up the tactics thread?
As a side note; even if you're allowed to take up to 3 spyders in that formation, I will probably still stick with just 1 and continue with the MSU spam approach when it comes to the harvests.
At the moment I prefer the Leviathan allies to the Tau allies. 2 or 3 Flyrants just seem to remove any weakness that the Necrons still had. As jy2 said in his threads, the Necrons have such a strong ground presence that all they need is a couple units to dominate the skies with and they're set. If you can make a list with a mix of Flyrants, Wraiths and Tomb Blades, with a couple units for objectives sprinkled on top, not only are you very hard to kill but very fast and deadly too. You have a psychic phase, you shoot hard, and you can assault things.
Even a Mawloc wouldn't be out of the question if you're expecting invisibility.
Therion, I got hung up on you using the overlord as an example and quoted that. By time I was writing the rest of the post I forgot that you had mentioned the Triarch. I apologize for rehashing that.
While I completely agree with you that the dataslate is badly written, the fact they listed no restrictions, the fluff mentions unit not singular, and the white dwarf pictures showed multiple Spyders, makes the intent completely obfuscated at best, and provides an argumet for intent for multiple spyders.
Full disclosure, I've been running the Canoptek Swarm with a single Spyder, to minimize any potential arguments, but the more this gets brought up the more I think people who are doing so handicapping themselves unnecessarily.
I'll gladly accept a GWFAQ ruling either way, but I think the RAW argument of no restrictions currently trumps any RAI assertions to the contrary.
I'll add Flyrants to my list when I can figure out a way to make Mechanical Necrony looking ones
I don't really think players are handicapping themselves by only taking 1 spyder; I think the formation works fine with as few points in it as possible.
Unless of course, you're wanting to use the formation as a platform for the full blown scarab farm.
Adding 3 bases a turn to a unit that gets RP.... could be extremely annoying for people to deal with.
adamsouza wrote:
I'll add Flyrants to my list when I can figure out a way to make Mechanical Necrony looking ones
You read my mind I actually spent the better part of this day reading up on background material for an excuse for Necrons to use crazy 'Necromorph' creations in their forces and I think it fits that Illuminator Szeras and Tomb World Zantragora stuff pretty well. The canon fluff says they are hoarding thousands upon thousands of captured biological creatures for their laboratories for twisted and dark experimentations (haemonculus style).
I'm pretty sure Hive Tyrants won't be hard to convert into Necrons. You can swap the tail into a Wraith or a Dark Eldar Cronos pain engine tail if you want, the head gets some Canoptek Spyder alternative with mandibles, then put some Necron guns on it instead of Devourers, and Wraith type claws instead of the Scything Talon look of the nids. Finish up with extra gadgets and power cables and tubes and voila! A horror! The come the apocalypse allies rules even fit the visual appearance. The Necrons don't want to get close to the abominations they've released from their labs The mindshackle scarabs will work only for so long
So I recently decided that I was inspired by the one force that used Necrons and Tyranids in the same army, and figured that I'd give it a go. I can easily borrow my friend's Flyrants, so here's how the list is shaping up so far.
Necron Detachment: 670
x1 Destroyer Lord
. Warscythe, Phase Shifter, Phylactery, Resurrection Orb, Veil Of Darkness
I very much like how this list shapes up. The Destroyer Lord makes the Wraiths more killtastic and soaks up a couple more wounds, and has the Veil in case I want to get somewhere else. Flyrants do their own thing, the Warriors do drive-by shootings, and the Immortals make for a quick OS unit with another flying unit on board. I figured that my Destroyer Lord would be my warlord. Questions, though...
1. Is it really worth having another troop choice in order to make the Necrons a CAD, or should they just be allies for less points spent. Otherwise, would another MSU of Immortals for another Night Scythe be better than the Ark?
2. I want to take advantage of the fact that Wraiths are Relentless in the formation to start with, and Beamers take care of the main weakness this army might have: Monstrous Creatures. Not only would it instantly kill those damn Wraithknights, but the Destroyer Lord statistically will make at least one 6 show up on average. Is this worth not striking at I5 though? Whipcoils are still cheaper, after all.
How do we deal with invisible cents? Can't really shoot them with H.Destroyers as they usually miss, our strong blasts/templates can't hit them and they murder entire units that get in their 30" bubble.
So far I've had limited success tying them up with wraiths and scarabs but if they fail the charge then the cents just kinda eradicate them.
Punisher wrote: How do we deal with invisible cents? Can't really shoot them with H.Destroyers as they usually miss, our strong blasts/templates can't hit them and they murder entire units that get in their 30" bubble.
So far I've had limited success tying them up with wraiths and scarabs but if they fail the charge then the cents just kinda eradicate them.
Therion wrote: it's in fact arguable if having 150 points of Spyders is actually beneficial to a power gamer tournament army.
Exactly.
I roll my eyes at absurd power gamer interpretation rules all the time.
Heck, last edition I eventually got to the point where I pretty much never used my annihilation barges or night scythe out of what can only be described as spite for the attitude of spamming them instead of building an interesting or fun list. Right now I'm swearing off Decurions as blatantly unfair to the opponent after horrendously crushing someone with it.
I'm not of the opinion that the Canoptek Harvest blatantly allows three Spyders out of a desire to wring an advantage out of things: I use it that way because A: Formation Restrictions are clearly stated to be where limitations are listed, B: All official imagery of the formation has different numbers of Spyders and C: It's a handy list building tool for someone who likes Canoptek themed lists and has a lot of those models.
Punisher wrote: How do we deal with invisible cents? Can't really shoot them with H.Destroyers as they usually miss, our strong blasts/templates can't hit them and they murder entire units that get in their 30" bubble.
Sylons. No Decurion, though...if I got that right.
A twenty man Flayed One unit is potentially good enough at sucking up enough of a Centurion unit's bullets to make the charge with enough survivors to still kill them.
Mind you that's in a vacuum. If the rest of the army also focus fires the Flayed Ones they'll probably go down.
Therion wrote: The Canoptek Harvest could easily have been worded identically to be '1 unit of Canoptek Spyders', but instead they opted for the singular term '1 Canoptek Spyder', as they did with '1 Overlord' in the Reclamation Legion formation. It is beyond a shadow of a doubt that the intent is that the Canoptek Harvest has 1 Canoptek Spyder and no more or less.
There's plenty of doubt. The fluff piece on Canoptek Harvests earlier in the book says "1 unit of Canoptek Spyders", White Dwarf shows the formation with several Spyders, and again, "Restrictions: None". You may not agree with the other interpretation, but really, it's nowhere near as clear cut as you want to it be. If it were there wouldn't be dozens of pages of discussions on the matter (and WD staff wouldn't get it wrong).
I'm also baffled by people who seemingly think units consisting of a single model aren't considered units. Every single model on the table is part of a unit, and that unit may just consist of a single model (and in many cases that's the only option). Simply, in rules terms, if you put a Spyder on the table, both "1 Canoptek Spyder" and "1 Unit of Canoptek Spyders" are valid descriptions of it.
Therion wrote: Re: The Canoptek Harvest, determining intent in this particular case isn't actually hard, and regardless of what some of you keep insisting, the legislative intent is what we should go by whenever a rule can be interpreted in a variety of ways and is therefore poorly written.
All the formations follow the same logic. For example, in the Judicatior Batallion, it is written that you must have '1 unit of Triarch Stalkers'. Triarch Stalker units are identical to Spyders in the sense that they have just one model by default. Clearly since they mention you must have a unit, and immediately follows below that there's no restrictions, and use the plural of Triarch Stalker, you can use the option to add up to two additional Triarch Stalkers if you wish. The Canoptek Harvest could easily have been worded identically to be '1 unit of Canoptek Spyders', but instead they opted for the singular term '1 Canoptek Spyder', as they did with '1 Overlord' in the Reclamation Legion formation. It is beyond a shadow of a doubt that the intent is that the Canoptek Harvest has 1 Canoptek Spyder and no more or less. Naturally, GW's rules writers take a very casual approach to the game so you can argue a lot of rules with any agenda for your benefit, but personally I don't use any ambiguous rules to my benefit. Especially when this one isn't really crucial to anyone playing Necrons, so my suggestion is that you err in the side of caution and use one Canoptek Spyder in the formation untill otherwise stated in a FAQ or an Errata.
And to the guy above, no, it isn't important for anyone playing the Harvest to use ambiguous rules to their benefit, especially when it's quite likely they are in the wrong. The formation is strong as is, and it's in fact arguable if having 150 points of Spyders is actually beneficial to a power gamer tournament army.
The Overlord is a bad example. The Overlord does not have an option on its army entry list to add another Overlord. However the Spyder army entry list does and we can use it because there is no restriction. Would you care to ammend your argument since it is otherwise well stated but I have managed to topple one of your main points.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ghaz wrote: Rules > Fluff and pictures. It doesn't matter what the fluff and pictures say, you play the game by the rules.
Yup. And the rules unequivocally and unambuously allow us to add additional spyders. See my argument at length in this thread. The counter argument has literally zero rules support. Feel free to bring up any.
I traced out a rock solid rules argument. Hack away at it if you can.
Can't think of many things it wouldn't have something to deal with.
col_impact wrote:I traced out a rock solid rules argument. Hack away at it if you can.
I don't know why you repeat that again and again. Your argument is far from rock solid, and it's been hacked to death. We've moved on. The rule is ambiguous. Start a thread in YMDC. The 'Overlord' wasn't an argument of any kind. It was a piece of a whole, showing how GW has worded the formations. They use plurals and singulars, and when they use plural of the model they also add the word unit, and when they use singular of the model they don't mention units.
omerakk wrote: I don't really think players are handicapping themselves by only taking 1 spyder; I think the formation works fine with as few points in it as possible.
Unless of course, you're wanting to use the formation as a platform for the full blown scarab farm.
Adding 3 bases a turn to a unit that gets RP.... could be extremely annoying for people to deal with.
The benefit you get is to allocate shooting and CC to the Spyders that aren't the Spyder granting buffs.
Therion wrote: Did you even read my post? I specifically mentioned the Triarch Stalker. It's a perfect example. You literally repeated everything I already said.
Limiting a unit of 1-3 models to a single model is defeintely a restriction.
That's why the rule is badly written. They could've been more clear that they are in fact placing a restriction. Otherwise I wouldn't say the rule is ambiguous, I'd say it's clear that you can only have one Canoptek Spyder. What I did say on the other hand is that the intent is crystal clear when we take a look at their wording on all the formations and see that they all follow the same logic. The custom in games that are played for fun, not money or otherwise as a career, players don't use clearly ambiguous rules to their benefit at the expense of their opponent and quite possibly a fair contest, and instead wait for clarification.
How is it that we are using ambiguous rules to our benefit and yet the other side isn't using ambiguous rules to their benefit?
I am basing my RAW read on the most logically sound read of the rules. The counter argument is literally adding words to the rules. My argument wins by principles of logic, consistency, and reason. The counter argument is supported by the majority mob thinking of (mostly non-necron) players that want a nerf in RAW where a nerf is not due.
Ghaz wrote: Rules > Fluff and pictures. It doesn't matter what the fluff and pictures say, you play the game by the rules.
Yup. And the rules unequivocally and unambuously allow us to add additional spyders. See my argument at length in this thread. The counter argument has literally zero rules support. Feel free to bring up any.
I traced out a rock solid rules argument. Hack away at it if you can.
No they don't. Every rule for the Canoptek Harvest is clear in that it only allows a single Canoptek Spyder.
col_impact wrote:I traced out a rock solid rules argument. Hack away at it if you can.
I don't know why you repeat that again and again. Your argument is far from rock solid, and it's been hacked to death. We've moved on. The rule is ambiguous. Start a thread in YMDC. The 'Overlord' wasn't an argument of any kind. It was a piece of a whole, showing how GW has worded the formations. They use plurals and singulars, and when they use plural of the model they also add the word unit, and when they use singular of the model they don't mention units.
The counter argument has failed to produce any rules backing whatsoever. My argument literally stands uncontested. The only thing you can do is bluster about how I am repeating myself ad nauseum.
Therion wrote: Did you even read my post? I specifically mentioned the Triarch Stalker. It's a perfect example. You literally repeated everything I already said.
Limiting a unit of 1-3 models to a single model is defeintely a restriction.
That's why the rule is badly written. They could've been more clear that they are in fact placing a restriction. Otherwise I wouldn't say the rule is ambiguous, I'd say it's clear that you can only have one Canoptek Spyder. What I did say on the other hand is that the intent is crystal clear when we take a look at their wording on all the formations and see that they all follow the same logic. The custom in games that are played for fun, not money or otherwise as a career, players don't use clearly ambiguous rules to their benefit at the expense of their opponent and quite possibly a fair contest, and instead wait for clarification.
How is it that we are using ambiguous rules to our benefit and yet the other side isn't using ambiguous rules to their benefit?
I am basing my RAW read on the most logically sound read of the rules. The counter argument is literally adding words to the rules. My argument wins by principles of logic, consistency, and reason. The counter argument is supported by the majority mob thinking of (mostly non-necron) players that want a nerf in RAW where a nerf is not due.
That's a pretty easy question to answer. I assume you're being rhetorical or trying to be cute here. The opponent isn't using any rules to his advantage since he doesn't play Necrons. The Necron player is the one who is deciding that his interpretation is correct when he's bringing quite potentially an illegal army list. This whole debate is academical. In friendly games the players can agree to the interpretation in a friendly manner or GW style by rolling for it. In competitive games the tournament has a rules FAQ or a referee system in place who will decide the issue well before it ever becomes an issue.
Ghaz wrote: Rules > Fluff and pictures. It doesn't matter what the fluff and pictures say, you play the game by the rules.
Yup. And the rules unequivocally and unambuously allow us to add additional spyders. See my argument at length in this thread. The counter argument has literally zero rules support. Feel free to bring up any.
I traced out a rock solid rules argument. Hack away at it if you can.
No they don't. Every rule for the Canoptek Harvest is clear in that it only allows a single Canoptek Spyder.
Yup, and the Formation rules specifically and unambiguously refer to "units" and "army entry lists" so it is very clear that we are dealing with a unit.
col_impact wrote:I traced out a rock solid rules argument. Hack away at it if you can.
I don't know why you repeat that again and again. Your argument is far from rock solid, and it's been hacked to death. We've moved on. The rule is ambiguous. Start a thread in YMDC. The 'Overlord' wasn't an argument of any kind. It was a piece of a whole, showing how GW has worded the formations. They use plurals and singulars, and when they use plural of the model they also add the word unit, and when they use singular of the model they don't mention units.
The counter argument has failed to produce any rules backing whatsoever. My argument literally stands uncontested. The only thing you can do is bluster about how I am repeating myself ad nauseum.
The only thing that's nauseating here is your moral high ground. There's Necron players in this thread who can actually form an objective stance on this, while also entertaining all alternatives and possible outcomes of the issue. Your only accomplishment is a collection of abrasive replies and constant attempts to take the thread off-topic.
Therion wrote: Did you even read my post? I specifically mentioned the Triarch Stalker. It's a perfect example. You literally repeated everything I already said.
Limiting a unit of 1-3 models to a single model is defeintely a restriction.
That's why the rule is badly written. They could've been more clear that they are in fact placing a restriction. Otherwise I wouldn't say the rule is ambiguous, I'd say it's clear that you can only have one Canoptek Spyder. What I did say on the other hand is that the intent is crystal clear when we take a look at their wording on all the formations and see that they all follow the same logic. The custom in games that are played for fun, not money or otherwise as a career, players don't use clearly ambiguous rules to their benefit at the expense of their opponent and quite possibly a fair contest, and instead wait for clarification.
How is it that we are using ambiguous rules to our benefit and yet the other side isn't using ambiguous rules to their benefit?
I am basing my RAW read on the most logically sound read of the rules. The counter argument is literally adding words to the rules. My argument wins by principles of logic, consistency, and reason. The counter argument is supported by the majority mob thinking of (mostly non-necron) players that want a nerf in RAW where a nerf is not due.
That's a pretty easy question to answer. I assume you're being rhetorical or trying to be cute here. The opponent isn't using any rules to his advantage since he doesn't play Necrons. The Necron player is the one who is deciding that his interpretation is correct when he's bringing quite potentially an illegal army list. This whole debate is academical. In friendly games the players can agree to the interpretation in a friendly manner or GW style by rolling for it. In competitive games the tournament has a rules FAQ or a referee system in place who will decide the issue well before it ever becomes an issue.
Yup, and non-Necron players should not be allowed to abuse the rules to their benefit. There is literally no rules justification for disallowing additional spyders. If you feel otherwise point to a rule. If you cannot, I am allowed. Both players are bound to the rules.
col_impact wrote:I traced out a rock solid rules argument. Hack away at it if you can.
I don't know why you repeat that again and again. Your argument is far from rock solid, and it's been hacked to death. We've moved on. The rule is ambiguous. Start a thread in YMDC. The 'Overlord' wasn't an argument of any kind. It was a piece of a whole, showing how GW has worded the formations. They use plurals and singulars, and when they use plural of the model they also add the word unit, and when they use singular of the model they don't mention units.
Any argument is rock solid if the arguer refuses to listen to any counter arguments.
No one thinks that you can get 3 Talos and 3 Cronos in a Dark Artisan formation.
No one thinks that you can get 9 Biovores in a Living Artillery Node formation.
One Spyder, in fact, means One Spyder.
Therion wrote: Did you even read my post? I specifically mentioned the Triarch Stalker. It's a perfect example. You literally repeated everything I already said.
Limiting a unit of 1-3 models to a single model is defeintely a restriction.
That's why the rule is badly written. They could've been more clear that they are in fact placing a restriction. Otherwise I wouldn't say the rule is ambiguous, I'd say it's clear that you can only have one Canoptek Spyder. What I did say on the other hand is that the intent is crystal clear when we take a look at their wording on all the formations and see that they all follow the same logic. The custom in games that are played for fun, not money or otherwise as a career, players don't use clearly ambiguous rules to their benefit at the expense of their opponent and quite possibly a fair contest, and instead wait for clarification.
How is it that we are using ambiguous rules to our benefit and yet the other side isn't using ambiguous rules to their benefit?
I am basing my RAW read on the most logically sound read of the rules. The counter argument is literally adding words to the rules. My argument wins by principles of logic, consistency, and reason. The counter argument is supported by the majority mob thinking of (mostly non-necron) players that want a nerf in RAW where a nerf is not due.
That's a pretty easy question to answer. I assume you're being rhetorical or trying to be cute here. The opponent isn't using any rules to his advantage since he doesn't play Necrons. The Necron player is the one who is deciding that his interpretation is correct when he's bringing quite potentially an illegal army list. This whole debate is academical. In friendly games the players can agree to the interpretation in a friendly manner or GW style by rolling for it. In competitive games the tournament has a rules FAQ or a referee system in place who will decide the issue well before it ever becomes an issue.
I take the moral high ground because the counter argument is inconsistent, illogical, and hypocritical, and wholly without rules support and those things should be noted and I don't mince words in debates.
col_impact wrote:I traced out a rock solid rules argument. Hack away at it if you can.
I don't know why you repeat that again and again. Your argument is far from rock solid, and it's been hacked to death. We've moved on. The rule is ambiguous. Start a thread in YMDC. The 'Overlord' wasn't an argument of any kind. It was a piece of a whole, showing how GW has worded the formations. They use plurals and singulars, and when they use plural of the model they also add the word unit, and when they use singular of the model they don't mention units.
Any argument is rock solid if the arguer refuses to listen to any counter arguments.
No one thinks that you can get 3 Talos and 3 Cronos in a Dark Artisan formation.
No one thinks that you can get 9 Biovores in a Living Artillery Node formation.
One Spyder, in fact, means One Spyder.
Please sir form a rules argument which takes away my permission in the army entry list to add additional spyders. I can add additonal spyders because the options in the army entry list give me clear permission to do so.
Looking at it from a RAW perspective, I see Col_impact's point. Clearly.
Manufactorum Genestealer Brood - 5x units of genestealers. Restrictions: Genestealer broods in this formation may not add any additional genestealers. Pretty clear - I can take 5x5 broods, and add any other upgrades (including a broodlord), but no genestealers.
The canoptek harvest is missing this restriction. It would have been simple to add it in - and it was not. I think the INTENDED rule, for balance of the game if nothing else, was that the "1 canoptek spyder" was supposed to be it - no extras. However on the RAW side it most certainly can be upgraded to include 2 more spyders.
HIWPI - I'm not going to run more than 1 spyder per canoptek harvest. It's how i feel the formation is intended to be ran. However, should I face a necron player who puts 2 or 3 spyders in the formation, it's within the cut-and-dry rules for them to do so. It might leave a case of feel-badsies on the table, but dem's da rulez.
. Can the buffmander buff Broadsides with skyfire? That seems to be the absolute must take special super-awesome-synergy rule for Necrons, and Velocity Trackers are mega expensive on a per-model basis.
