TBH, with destroyers, the new heavy destroyers and the DDA I'm just not seeing any role for the new doomstalker to fill. Maybe if it's cannon could fire in variable modes, like a shorter ranged anti infantry type mode or a good vehicle buster, maybe some other mode, it would have a role.
A tessaract ark has a 3 mode main gun, if this had one it might be worth it too.
As is, I really am not seeing a role for it. Maybe if a cryptek follow and buffs it somehow...
Matt Swain wrote: TBH, with destroyers, the new heavy destroyers and the DDA I'm just not seeing any role for the new doomstalker to fill. Maybe if it's cannon could fire in variable modes, like a shorter ranged anti infantry type mode or a good vehicle buster, maybe some other mode, it would have a role.
A tessaract ark has a 3 mode main gun, if this had one it might be worth it too.
As is, I really am not seeing a role for it. Maybe if a cryptek follow and buffs it somehow...
I guess this is a flavour choice - but I think 1 shot weapons are generally bad because so much of the time they do nothing.
The Lokhust may look okay on averages - especially against something like a Leman Russ - but against something with a 5++, you have a 35% or so chance to get a wound through (assuming standard destroyer reroll 1s to hit). So that's a 65% chance to do nothing.
Shooting two of them, you have a 43% chance to do nothing. Even with 3 your odds of getting nothing is 28%. Which is going to come up a lot.
Doing the calculations on a Doomstalker (or DDA) is more difficult due to the variable number of shots - but I think generally, if you get 3+ shots, you have higher odds on to get *something* through compared with two Lokhusts - even if D6 damage is a lot worse than 3D3.
Stratagems, buffs, synergies may change it - but still.
Sumilidon wrote: After seeing the Doom Stalker it would seem GW are returning to their old ways. That thing needs to be cheap in order to be any good because BS4 is pants, random shots are pants and it's a weapon called a Doomsday Blaster but doesn't even have the blast rule!
Stormtrooper weapons are blasters in sw but no big explosion.
And you really don't want blast to this. It's nothing but nerf
In the end some choices are going to be hard until we see the new Codex in full and the rest of the unit roster. Some units might appear bad, but are cheap and also designed to work in groups with buff units etc... Others might just be cheap or have other benefits outside of the weapon profile.
Well, one thing to make the doom stalker and the DDA more attractive with the lokhust heavy destroyer now would be to just give them MWs on hit roll of 6, plus it kinds puts the whole "Doom" thing in doomsday cannons.
They could also just stop giving us random damage. Or anyone random damage. Or random shots. All those mechanics are completely ridiculous, honestly, and they've already shown they're happy to make blasts fixed shots in certain circumstances. Such a "feel bad" mechanic, introducing randomness for the sake of randomness.
Could you say something about the variance of the damage output.
It can be nice to be able to bring some stable and some variable damage dealers. For example you start your shooting by firing the higher variance shooters, proabbly the HDs, and lo and behold, they roll 5 and 6 for their D6 damages. Now you can go with lower damage output units to fininsh the LRBT off. On the other hand, if you roll 1 and 2 for the damage, then right, you bring in the cavalry to finish them off any way. Allows you to better capitalize on luck.
p5freak wrote: The lokhust heavy destroyer is ~80 pts, can't reroll 1s to hit, has no RP, and gets -1 to hit when it moves ? What a pathetic joke.
Nah, that's clearly a simplified datasheet similar to those shown to be in the new starter sets (where the Necron Warriors don't have either RP or Their number is legion).
Huh the Heavy Gauss Cannon has a lot more in common with the regular gauss cannon now?
Maybe. It depends what they did to the regular cannon.
But the new HGC is a +1 strength, +6" range version of the current gauss cannon. So who knows what they did to that- buff if they nerf it too much, it just becomes a gauss blaster.
Though this isn't necessarily a nerf. Multiple shots makes the HGC a lot better against a lot of targets. (though the to-wound chart makes it indistinguishable from the current GC against a fair number of those, like most elite infantry)
The odd thing about it is the Stalker with twin HGC does the job of Enmitic Lokhust, but better.
Sasori wrote: The Enmitic weapon looks even worse when compared to the new SM bike and turret...
I just feel that, with same PL as Lokust Heavy Destroyer, it seem that the turret is far better.
Well it's marines. Of course it's better. We are better off comparing our stuff to other non-imperial marines. Npc vs npc is meaningfull comparison. Npc vs master faction just leaves sour taste in mouth
do you think a 10 inch movement profile vs a 3 inch movement profile isn't worth ANY points?
Sasori wrote: The Enmitic weapon looks even worse when compared to the new SM bike and turret...
I just feel that, with same PL as Lokust Heavy Destroyer, it seem that the turret is far better.
Well it's marines. Of course it's better. We are better off comparing our stuff to other non-imperial marines. Npc vs npc is meaningfull comparison. Npc vs master faction just leaves sour taste in mouth
do you think a 10 inch movement profile vs a 3 inch movement profile isn't worth ANY points?
Now that we have seen the icons on the Stalker's weapons, and that they look like an explosion, for what we can assume is still Heavy (and I must say the new Particle Cannon is spicy, in my personal opinion), does this mean that the 5e-troops-icon we see on the Wraith T.Beams mean they are Assault Weapons?
Because if they are, I am thinking that our Wraiths gotta double down on being objective holders/counter attack kinda unit, because the changes to the claws coupled with the big gun being assault, I can actually see these guys being exceptionally good as an anchor point instead of a spearhead.
Also curious what the new Whips do....
Or am I being short-sighted and desperate to use the stuff stuck on my wriaths (the came from ebay like that, don't flame me)
Huh the Heavy Gauss Cannon has a lot more in common with the regular gauss cannon now?
Looks like it might be a twin Gauss Cannon rather than a Heavy Gauss Cannon judging by the stats. Maybe the heavy cannon is gone completely, replaced by the new weapon on the Heavy Lokhust Destroyer?
Sasori wrote: The Enmitic weapon looks even worse when compared to the new SM bike and turret...
I just feel that, with same PL as Lokust Heavy Destroyer, it seem that the turret is far better.
Well it's marines. Of course it's better. We are better off comparing our stuff to other non-imperial marines. Npc vs npc is meaningfull comparison. Npc vs master faction just leaves sour taste in mouth
do you think a 10 inch movement profile vs a 3 inch movement profile isn't worth ANY points?
Seeing you reach most targets and hit on 4+ when moving not that much. 1 shot that miss half the time...other shoots 4 time and even on move on 3+
Sasori wrote: The Enmitic weapon looks even worse when compared to the new SM bike and turret...
I just feel that, with same PL as Lokust Heavy Destroyer, it seem that the turret is far better.
Well it's marines. Of course it's better. We are better off comparing our stuff to other non-imperial marines. Npc vs npc is meaningfull comparison. Npc vs master faction just leaves sour taste in mouth
do you think a 10 inch movement profile vs a 3 inch movement profile isn't worth ANY points?
Seeing you reach most targets and hit on 4+ when moving not that much. 1 shot that miss half the time...other shoots 4 time and even on move on 3+
you're still trying to compare a turret to a mobile strike unit. you'd be better off comparing this to primaris supressors.
Now that we have seen the icons on the Stalker's weapons, and that they look like an explosion, for what we can assume is still Heavy (and I must say the new Particle Cannon is spicy, in my personal opinion), does this mean that the 5e-troops-icon we see on the Wraith T.Beams mean they are Assault Weapons?
Because if they are, I am thinking that our Wraiths gotta double down on being objective holders/counter attack kinda unit, because the changes to the claws coupled with the big gun being assault, I can actually see these guys being exceptionally good as an anchor point instead of a spearhead.
Also curious what the new Whips do....
Or am I being short-sighted and desperate to use the stuff stuck on my wriaths (the came from ebay like that, don't flame me)
Nobody knows until we get updated pts, hopefully particle casters will no longer be free, because while they are they are the obvious option.
Sasori wrote: The Enmitic weapon looks even worse when compared to the new SM bike and turret...
I just feel that, with same PL as Lokust Heavy Destroyer, it seem that the turret is far better.
Well it's marines. Of course it's better. We are better off comparing our stuff to other non-imperial marines. Npc vs npc is meaningfull comparison. Npc vs master faction just leaves sour taste in mouth
do you think a 10 inch movement profile vs a 3 inch movement profile isn't worth ANY points?
Seeing you reach most targets and hit on 4+ when moving not that much. 1 shot that miss half the time...other shoots 4 time and even on move on 3+
you're still trying to compare a turret to a mobile strike unit. you'd be better off comparing this to primaris supressors.
1 shot weapon that hits on 4+ on move isn't mobile strike unit. You are trying to turn turret into mobile strike uni'
Sasori wrote: The Enmitic weapon looks even worse when compared to the new SM bike and turret...
I just feel that, with same PL as Lokust Heavy Destroyer, it seem that the turret is far better.
Well it's marines. Of course it's better. We are better off comparing our stuff to other non-imperial marines. Npc vs npc is meaningfull comparison. Npc vs master faction just leaves sour taste in mouth
do you think a 10 inch movement profile vs a 3 inch movement profile isn't worth ANY points?
Seeing you reach most targets and hit on 4+ when moving not that much. 1 shot that miss half the time...other shoots 4 time and even on move on 3+
you're still trying to compare a turret to a mobile strike unit. you'd be better off comparing this to primaris supressors.
1 shot weapon that hits on 4+ on move isn't mobile strike unit. You are trying to turn turret into mobile strike uni'
[/spoiler]
Number of shots does not denote if something is a 'mobile strike platform'. Ability to move and fire at a significant degree over normal units does. 10" vs 6", even if both had a 1 shot weapon, would suggest that the 10" moving unit is more mobile.
I got half of an Indominatus box and so are adding some cool new models to my Necron army. But... I honestly don't know how they fit in... For that matter, I have been having problems thinking what are Necrons supposed to be good at? Close combat doesn't seem like our forte. We have some killy units, but compared to some dedicated melee armies, I think we definitely aren't there.
Shooty? I don't think we are the shootiest army. But we definitely shoot better than we fight. Maybe we survive better, so even though our shooting is not the most devastating out there, but because we last longer, over the long term, we might actually shoot out more damage. Again... this seems debatable. Are we really that resilient ? Because of RP ? RP only works if the opponent can't totally kill off a whole unit. Otherwise, it might as well not exist.
So, in designing an army, with the option to use the units from the Indominatus box, what should I aim for ? Silver tide? Wraiths and destroyers and flyers ?
Eldenfirefly wrote: I got half of an Indominatus box and so are adding some cool new models to my Necron army. But... I honestly don't know how they fit in... For that matter, I have been having problems thinking what are Necrons supposed to be good at? Close combat doesn't seem like our forte. We have some killy units, but compared to some dedicated melee armies, I think we definitely aren't there.
Shooty? I don't think we are the shootiest army. But we definitely shoot better than we fight. Maybe we survive better, so even though our shooting is not the most devastating out there, but because we last longer, over the long term, we might actually shoot out more damage. Again... this seems debatable. Are we really that resilient ? Because of RP ? RP only works if the opponent can't totally kill off a whole unit. Otherwise, it might as well not exist.
So, in designing an army, with the option to use the units from the Indominatus box, what should I aim for ? Silver tide? Wraiths and destroyers and flyers ?
IMO the Indomitus box is weird. Its a good addition as long as you already own necrons heavy hitting model but otherwise its a bit useless. I think GW wants to characterise Necrons as being good at attrition but they die too easily. I'd just paint the models and wait till October and see what the new codex brings.
Eldenfirefly wrote: I got half of an Indominatus box and so are adding some cool new models to my Necron army. But... I honestly don't know how they fit in... For that matter, I have been having problems thinking what are Necrons supposed to be good at? Close combat doesn't seem like our forte. We have some killy units, but compared to some dedicated melee armies, I think we definitely aren't there.
Shooty? I don't think we are the shootiest army. But we definitely shoot better than we fight. Maybe we survive better, so even though our shooting is not the most devastating out there, but because we last longer, over the long term, we might actually shoot out more damage. Again... this seems debatable. Are we really that resilient ? Because of RP ? RP only works if the opponent can't totally kill off a whole unit. Otherwise, it might as well not exist.
So, in designing an army, with the option to use the units from the Indominatus box, what should I aim for ? Silver tide? Wraiths and destroyers and flyers ?
You've put your finger on why Necrons are bad right now. They don't really do anything. They're supposed to be resilient and good at mid-range shooting but the reality is they just aren't. Their shooting is eclipsed by lots of other armies in the game, especially because their original schtick of having AP on even their basic guns has been completely outclassed by SM. Reanimation is too easy to play around, so what we end up with is expensive troops with low-impact shooting and fairly poor close combat.
The Indomitus box doesn't really contain many good units, if any, TBH. The Cryptothralls are decent for 9th's objective-based game but everything else feels like it's waiting for the new Codex. You probably can't go too far wrong building the Warriors and characters for now, then waiting until October.
Eldenfirefly wrote: I got half of an Indominatus box and so are adding some cool new models to my Necron army. But... I honestly don't know how they fit in... For that matter, I have been having problems thinking what are Necrons supposed to be good at? Close combat doesn't seem like our forte. We have some killy units, but compared to some dedicated melee armies, I think we definitely aren't there.
Shooty? I don't think we are the shootiest army. But we definitely shoot better than we fight. Maybe we survive better, so even though our shooting is not the most devastating out there, but because we last longer, over the long term, we might actually shoot out more damage. Again... this seems debatable. Are we really that resilient ? Because of RP ? RP only works if the opponent can't totally kill off a whole unit. Otherwise, it might as well not exist.
So, in designing an army, with the option to use the units from the Indominatus box, what should I aim for ? Silver tide? Wraiths and destroyers and flyers ?
As Slipspace said, this has been a problem for Necrons for years. They don't shoot well, their combat is bad, their lack of invulns makes them squishy and reanimation rarely triggers. It's hard to suggest what to do, because the new codex will probably change everything - and I mean everything, there's not been a single Necron codex release where previous playstyles have worked, except maybe at a push comparing the 3e destroyer build to the 7e decurion. If reanimation changes, and there's very good indications that it'll have some significant change, that can affect how the army is built. Likewise, a load of units are having stat changes which are potentially very impactful, such as Praetorians getting 2 damage rods, Spyders getting 5 S8 attacks in melee, or the Triarch Stalker gaining 2 wounds. Because of that, and codices being increasingly reliant on synergies, I don't feel like we can give you any useful advice as it could all be wrong when the codex comes out in ~2 months. If you can hold off on purchases, I probably would. If you'd like to know the scale of how little we know, there's a new thing called rites of reanimation which Crypteks seems to get, which we have no idea what it does; there's command protocols, which other than being limited in some capacity to within 6" of a character we don't know what they do; one of the canoptek unit upgrades in crusade let's them get an automatic 6 for reanimation protocols - but they don't have reanimation protocols, etc etc. And there's more nuance than there appears to be even then! Take, for example, that canoptek upgrade - would GW really give canoptek units a 1 in 3 chance of having a useless upgrade if only some canoptek units were to get RP? And if all of them can get it somehow, how does that work with the Doomstalker, Reanimator, etc, which are single models? Again, it seems quite unlikely the upgrade is pointless for them, so will it act like FNP? We just don't know. So, my only real advice is get the indomitus stuff assembled and painted, then chill for a while,
Agreeing with most of what you wrote, I just think the part of the Canoptek units is less of a mystery than what you imply.
You have the stratagem REPAIR SUBROUTINES already which gives Canoptek RP for one round. So having an automatic 6 means you won't waste your command points.
I really love the theme of Skorpekh Destroyer and Skorpekh Lord.
But I just wonder, is it a chance for Skopekh Heavy Destroyer. The model would be cool.
armisael wrote: I really love the theme of Skorpekh Destroyer and Skorpekh Lord.
But I just wonder, is it a chance for Skopekh Heavy Destroyer. The model would be cool.
There's mention of a ranged Skorpekh in the Indomitus novel, so those could be the Skorpehk Heavies.
Yes, salt because it's a Black Library book, but they've been a bit more strict about making sure things in the newer "modern era" novels line up with the actual game range.
a_typical_hero wrote: Agreeing with most of what you wrote, I just think the part of the Canoptek units is less of a mystery than what you imply.
You have the stratagem REPAIR SUBROUTINES already which gives Canoptek RP for one round. So having an automatic 6 means you won't waste your command points.
We currently do, we have no idea if it's sticking around. It also seems really weird that crusade would give a buff for something you have to use a strategem to get, given nothing else in any other crusade upgrade path in the main book or the Necron book is that situational; every other one is useful all the time. I think there's a real clue here, I'm almost certain there's more to it than that!
For comparison, a brief summary of all the upgrades is:
Noble units:
1-2: Add 3" to MWBD ability.
3-4: Reroll hit rolls of 1 for this model.
5-6: If this model gained 3+ exp from the battle, gain 1 requisition point.
Core units:
1-2: Out of Action tests are auto passed for this unit.
3-4: This unit gets directive of active command protocol anywhere on board, not just within 6" of a non-C'tan character.
5-6: Each time you make Reanimation Protocol rolls for this unit, you can change a single dice result to a 6.
Cryptek units:
1-2: Once per battle, can use Harbinger of Destruction/Despair/Rites of Reanimation/Chronometron one more time.
3-4: Once per battle, can shoot again after shooting.
5-6: Improve weapon skill +1; successful hits automatically wound.
Canoptek units:
1-2: Reroll to wound rolls in melee if within 6" of a Cryptek.
3-4: Reroll advance and charge rolls for this unit.
5-6: Each time you make Reanimation Protocol rolls for this unit, you can change a single dice result to a 6.
So yeah, having the exact same wording as the core units seems super suspicious to me, so we'll see.
Number of shots does not denote if something is a 'mobile strike platform'. Ability to move and fire at a significant degree over normal units does. 10" vs 6", even if both had a 1 shot weapon, would suggest that the 10" moving unit is more mobile.
Yes you can move 10". You also then hit on 4+. Locust is too valuable to shoot such randomly. In theory you can move 10". In practice if you do you are wasting power and having inefficient unit.
Move with your lokus and you will lose games. If you want mobile at there's better units. Lokust is static gun platform.
Bosskelot wrote: Lokhust's are 100% getting hardwired hatred and repulsor platform, allowing them to re-roll 1's and ignoring heavy penalties from moving.
Nothing on ever 100% certain, but it's safe to assume this is the case when discussing them.
a_typical_hero wrote: Agreeing with most of what you wrote, I just think the part of the Canoptek units is less of a mystery than what you imply.
You have the stratagem REPAIR SUBROUTINES already which gives Canoptek RP for one round. So having an automatic 6 means you won't waste your command points.
We currently do, we have no idea if it's sticking around. It also seems really weird that crusade would give a buff for something you have to use a strategem to get, given nothing else in any other crusade upgrade path in the main book or the Necron book is that situational; every other one is useful all the time. I think there's a real clue here, I'm almost certain there's more to it than that!
So yeah, having the exact same wording as the core units seems super suspicious to me, so we'll see.
The running theory a few of on the Necrotyr discord has is that Necrons are getting a similar ability to the AoS Ossiarchs Boneshaper/SoB Hospitallar Medicae ability.
The question is the number of dice. It is likely a d6 base (with things like the Reanimator giving extra dice) or 2d3. Could be 3d3 but that is a bit over the top. Especially since units like Szeras can do Rites twice.
Lysenis wrote: The running theory a few of on the Necrotyr discord has is that Necrons are getting a similar ability to the AoS Ossiarchs Boneshaper/SoB Hospitallar Medicae ability.
The question is the number of dice. It is likely a d6 base (with things like the Reanimator giving extra dice) or 2d3. Could be 3d3 but that is a bit over the top. Especially since units like Szeras can do Rites twice.
The issue is the character tax.
Indeed, I was there this morning when we were trying to figure out how rites and normal reanimation might be different. I doubt it'll use any D3 rolls honestly, given the crusade wording - I'd expect it to say you can count a result as a 3 instead of rolling a D3, or something rather than saying 6 (as technically a d3 isn't a d6 roll, you could make a dedicated d3 dice).
It feels logical though, replace living metal with that rule. Also might explain why so many of our units are getting wounds of exactly 2, 3, 6, 12, instead of what they were before...
Lysenis wrote: The running theory a few of on the Necrotyr discord has is that Necrons are getting a similar ability to the AoS Ossiarchs Boneshaper/SoB Hospitallar Medicae ability.
The question is the number of dice. It is likely a d6 base (with things like the Reanimator giving extra dice) or 2d3. Could be 3d3 but that is a bit over the top. Especially since units like Szeras can do Rites twice.
The issue is the character tax.
Indeed, I was there this morning when we were trying to figure out how rites and normal reanimation might be different. I doubt it'll use any D3 rolls honestly, given the crusade wording - I'd expect it to say you can count a result as a 3 instead of rolling a D3, or something rather than saying 6 (as technically a d3 isn't a d6 roll, you could make a dedicated d3 dice).
It feels logical though, replace living metal with that rule. Also might explain why so many of our units are getting wounds of exactly 2, 3, 6, 12, instead of what they were before...
That is unless Rites is across the board on characters and non Cryptek's do it in D3's and Crypteks are d6 but that is overtly complicated
Sasori wrote: The Enmitic weapon looks even worse when compared to the new SM bike and turret...
I just feel that, with same PL as Lokust Heavy Destroyer, it seem that the turret is far better.
Well it's marines. Of course it's better. We are better off comparing our stuff to other non-imperial marines. Npc vs npc is meaningfull comparison. Npc vs master faction just leaves sour taste in mouth
One is highly mobile and 80 points, the other one is almost immobile and costs 130. I expect the second one to be better at shooting.
Yes, Stalkers get +2 wounds, Shredder is D2, the Gauss is losing the "Heavy" and seems to be going to a straight Gauss Cannon, Heat Rays is 12" on Dispersed... OH and Forelimbs is GREAT
Wraiths work out pretty much the same as before in combat, but the beamer is bettet against multi wound moves now as it lost shots but gained +2 S and +2D per shot. I did the calculations before and it looks worse but really isn't. I think k Wraiths are gonna hinge on whether we still have the 3++
The stalker is straight up better with more wounds and stronger weapons then before
I was thinking the same thing regarding the wraiths and 3++. Stalker is looking really good honestly. Im hoping it keeps the targeting relay, not that it wouldnt
I mean there is only one way reanimation can change, it's either going to stay multiple attempts which will require an escape hatch like wiping the unit to be balanced. Or it will go to a fail once and remove the model, in which case it's just a better Disgustingly resilient because no amount of firepower can guarantee a kill. Maybe they will change the escape hatch to be the old 5th ed style of requiring a friendly model within 3", but that seems like extra work to keep track of.
If I were a gambling man, I'd bet on it being the later, combined with increasing the difficulty to get a +1 to RP roll. Also resurrected models will only get up with a single wound, which is why all of our multi-wound non-character models got living metal.
Sasori wrote: The Enmitic weapon looks even worse when compared to the new SM bike and turret...
I just feel that, with same PL as Lokust Heavy Destroyer, it seem that the turret is far better.
Well it's marines. Of course it's better. We are better off comparing our stuff to other non-imperial marines. Npc vs npc is meaningfull comparison. Npc vs master faction just leaves sour taste in mouth
One is highly mobile and 80 points, the other one is almost immobile and costs 130. I expect the second one to be better at shooting.
Its only 130 for the las-talon version. Which frankly marines have better platforms for (either faster vehicles with lastalons, or just lascannons in general). and they're getting a grav-tank with twin lastalons and multimeltas, so... seriously whatever (a quad lascannon predator is 170, by way of example.).
The turret with autocannon is only 90, and compares really, really well (by virtue of being better) with the Lokhust at 70.
If GW are getting rid of all green rod kits, does that mean a new doomsday ark and ghost ark kit?
Which leads to the very interesting question - will we see reaper arrays as well as flayer arrays?
With the Arks speed, reapers would be devastating on ghost arks (probably too risky on a DDA).
As far as a new kit goes, I hope they go down a mini monolith route rather than sticking with the existing design minus the rods. Something like a small rectangular base monolith with Barge style pilots at the back...
DDA and GA don't have green rods. All QS vehicles are a bit weird, the new Canoptek walkers fill the same niches so if you don't like the look of DDAs and GAs you don't need them anymore.
Looks like GW are swinging the nerf bat hard to clear the way for people to buy their new destroyer models when the multi-part kit comes out. Praetorians next.
vict0988 wrote: DDA and GA don't have green rods. All QS vehicles are a bit weird, the new Canoptek walkers fill the same niches so if you don't like the look of DDAs and GAs you don't need them anymore.
Well now, don't I feel stupid! I guess that means no chance for reaper arrays then!
Sumilidon wrote: Looks like GW are swinging the nerf bat hard to clear the way for people to buy their new destroyer models when the multi-part kit comes out. Praetorians next.
We've seen the prats stats, they got +1 attack, and an extra damage on the rod in both CC and shooting.I think they'll be ok.
Immortal spam holds up a lot better in PL games. PL decreases on named HQs is really nice. I might just play PL instead of pts when possible, it's not like I'll get a discount for taking the weaker weapon options most of the time anyway. Leave it to GW to make a 20 times less granular pts system more right than the alternative, Grots are 4 pts/model, Guardsmen are more expensive per model than Conscripts and same price as Cultists.
Not sure if anyone has compared everything, so I took a quick look compared to the 8th Codex. Everything has stayed the same, gone down by 1, or gone down by 2, except for: The Monolith, which has dropped by 5, and the Tesseract Vault, which is up by 3.
Weirdly, the Warriors have stayed at 6 despite the straight up better profile listed in the Indomitus supplement being at 5. So... I guess I'm using the better units at lower power?
tneva82 wrote: New datasheet replaces old one. There's only 1 datasheet for warriors with one power level value.
Funnily enough means ATM overlords have zero options as well.
Is this true? Do you have a source on that?
Seems strange to expect Necron players to have to buy a limited run boxed set and stranger still to update the power levels without referencing it's giving a power level for a unit that you're no longer allowed to play. Are we no longer allowed to run units of 20 Necron Warriors too?
Ah yes, I double checked, the unit size is covered. So the correct data sheet to use is the new one (with RP rerolls) and the updated power level of 6?
You missed the HUGE buffs to Deathmarks
T5, BS2+ and 36" range, S5 and -2 AP.
Heavy 1, but still. That's a much better gun for the job- they might actually kill enemies with a real sniper weapon.
Immortals at toughness 5 and 2 attacks base. 18ppm doesn't seem too bad all of a sudden, the gauss blaster change is a welcome bonus too.
I'm still not completely sold on Deathmarks, maybe my bad experiences with them are colouring my judgement but the BS 2+ and 36" range is definitely something worth tinkering with.
Mixzremixzd wrote: Immortals at toughness 5 and 2 attacks base. 18ppm doesn't seem too bad all of a sudden, the gauss blaster change is a welcome bonus too.
Well they might go up in points you know...
Hopefully not because of the 2 attacks. That'd be irritating, even if the makes the new Novokh code suck a little less for them. (still trying to decide if I want to go with my original idea when I started my necron project, or switch to Nephrek for more general usefulness. It doesn't help that I despise the Nephrek fluff.
IHateNids wrote: I am still holding out hope that it's only the Veterans who go to 2 Wounds.
If not, we suddenly have to compare out 18ppm Immortals to the Tactical marine bodies, and we go back to being sour.
I apologise for being the cynic here, but I am so unbelievably sick of getting token buffs...
Reanimation better be obnoxiously good in this upcoming book.
You're Toughness 5 on Immortals, which is higher than a lot of armies' heroes.
I hate to break bad news to you man, but that Toughness is nothing to sneeze at. An extra Wound might sound better, but being a bit harder to Wound is fairly nice as well.
You missed the HUGE buffs to Deathmarks T5, BS2+ and 36" range, S5 and -2 AP. Heavy 1, but still. That's a much better gun for the job
Yea that's an eliminator quality sniper rifle.
With marines going to W2 the RP needs to be a little spicier. Hopefully that pans out.
I am still holding out hope that it's only the Veterans who go to 2 Wounds.
If not, we suddenly have to compare out 18ppm Immortals to the Tactical marine bodies, and we go back to being sour.
I apologise for being the cynic here, but I am so unbelievably sick of getting token buffs...
Reanimation better be obnoxiously good in this upcoming book.
Immortals were better than Tacs when Tacs were 12 pts and Immortals 15. That's a 25% increase to get an extra wound vs 20% increase to get an extra Toughness and Attack, not to mention a new army wide Protocol mechanics, which we have to assume is an upgrade to the current RP, it's not really an unfair deal considering Tacs were worse than Immortals in late 8th edition. The problem is only really in the narrative aspect of Space Marines starting to live up to their narrative and Necrons doing so to a lesser extent than their Space Marine counterparts, fluff is all over the place anyway because stories are almost always written to highlight one faction or the other and Necrons are caught between being two conflicting themes of either being a necromantic horde or elite cyborgs, which is also exactly what makes Necrons different and exciting. GW should have just waited with changing pts, reduce the recommended game size from 2000 to 1750 and introduce half points where necessary for internal balance, update pts for units as they get new rules and not in preparation as seems to have been done. But who knows, we might see a further increase in Immortal cost which would be FUN, but not necessarily a new kind of unfair considering what some Troops choices went through in translation to 9th.
Comparing tacticals to immortals, the wounds side is not such an issue if they are the same points. The Immortals weapon is much better, toughness 5 makes a real difference and assuming reanimation protocols stay the same - id rather have all the above instead of 2 wounds.
Sumilidon wrote: Comparing tacticals to immortals, the wounds side is not such an issue if they are the same points. The Immortals weapon is much better, toughness 5 makes a real difference and assuming reanimation protocols stay the same - id rather have all the above instead of 2 wounds.
T5 sometimes makes a difference. They don't care about the heavy bolter change, but plasma still leaves them as goo.
RP staying the same would be a major problem. Immortal squads are too small for RP to matter as its written now- its simply too easy to wipe the unit off the board. T5 will require more gun at S4 & 5, but there is enough other stuff out there in quantity that if the opponent wants to wipe out the unit, they can. A lot of the DS suicide units that people used to use (with lots of special weapons, combi-weapons or whatever) still work just fine for wiping out immortals- the math doesn't change at all for a Stormtrooper or Chaos terminator drop, for example.
Don't get me wrong, I like the return of T5. But RP has to change.
I like the new Immortal/Deathmark stats, not as good as 2W, but T5 will do.
A note on the Deathmarks, there is now literally no incentive to counter deepstrike them, because if you do you now have a -1 to hit (Which i guess balances out with BS2+), and half the shots.
I do feel there is now an actually good reason to take them now though, overall I like it
I actually rate the T5 higher than I would an extra wound. The extra wound is not what makes Primaris Marines good, in actual fact throughout most of the previous edition it was touted as the main reason for why Primaris were so bad and underwhelming. When you're paying a premium for an extra wound in an edition where D2+ is EVERYWHERE it sucks. And nothing about that has changed. In actual fact, the amount of D2+ weapons is increasing. What obfuscated this was the gigantic improvement in Marine lethality with the 2.0 Codex, which is where their actual strengths lie. People are getting all excited about this but their hype will disappear when they come up against mass Starcannon Aeldari or a Necron list with 30 Praetorians.
I am so happy about the deathmarks. I've always liked them but admit their flaws.
Now we have a unit with a 2+ BS and 36" range, they actuslly function as snipers and not glorified warriors who cam do maybe 1 MW a turn
A note on the Deathmarks, there is now literally no incentive to counter deepstrike them, because if you do you now have a -1 to hit (Which i guess balances out with BS2+), and half the shots.
I do feel there is now an actually good reason to take them now though, overall I like it
Unless they have new special rules so if you countet deepstrike maybe they cause MW on a 4+ instead or something
IHateNids wrote: I am still holding out hope that it's only the Veterans who go to 2 Wounds.
If not, we suddenly have to compare out 18ppm Immortals to the Tactical marine bodies, and we go back to being sour.
I apologise for being the cynic here, but I am so unbelievably sick of getting token buffs...
Reanimation better be obnoxiously good in this upcoming book.
You're Toughness 5 on Immortals, which is higher than a lot of armies' heroes.
I hate to break bad news to you man, but that Toughness is nothing to sneeze at. An extra Wound might sound better, but being a bit harder to Wound is fairly nice as well.
I don't think the changes look that great tbh. All of those weapons are damage 1 when every marine unit is going to 2 wounds. I guess it all depends on how reanimation is going to work, but so far it's not looking great for our troops.
You can now double tap at 15" range with blasters, which is a good buff for an army that wants to engage at mid range, Deathmarks can actually hit targets and hurt targets now and engage from a safe distance, immortals have a bit more durability against small arms which may synergize well with RP.
I don't think its that bleak. Its not overpowered, but its better than before and seems workable.
Egyptian Space Zombie wrote: I don't think the changes look that great tbh. All of those weapons are damage 1 when every marine unit is going to 2 wounds. I guess it all depends on how reanimation is going to work, but so far it's not looking great for our troops.
Marines are going up to 18pts/model, and there basic guns are still str 4 1 D so as it stands an immortal is 18pts so as a comparison
Immortal vs standard marine 10 v 10 30" (I think the bolter is going up to 30 as well)
Immortals
Gauss 10 shots 6.6 hits 4.3 w 2.87 unsaved
Tesla (24") 20 shots 13.2 tesla 19.2, 12.6 W, 4.18 unsaved
Marines
10 shots 6.6 hits 2.1 W 0.7 unsaved
Of course within 15" it's basically double damage but that T5 makes a bigger difference then expected
I admit I'm not factoring in character buffs or anything else but still not bad and the total SM wounds are 20 vs our 10 but with such neglible damage our RP should even the disparity
IHateNids wrote: I am still holding out hope that it's only the Veterans who go to 2 Wounds.
If not, we suddenly have to compare out 18ppm Immortals to the Tactical marine bodies, and we go back to being sour.
I apologise for being the cynic here, but I am so unbelievably sick of getting token buffs...
Reanimation better be obnoxiously good in this upcoming book.
You're Toughness 5 on Immortals, which is higher than a lot of armies' heroes.
I hate to break bad news to you man, but that Toughness is nothing to sneeze at. An extra Wound might sound better, but being a bit harder to Wound is fairly nice as well.
Ask Chaos Players how well small T5 W1 units do.
Yeah and getting +1 W in an edition full of multi-damage weapons and a meta entirely revolving around multi-damage weapons, while also paying a premium for that extra wound, is also not as big a buff as people think.
My lists already revolved around killing Primaris as a matter of course. Now other armies become way weaker to that but also end up paying more points and therefore bring less models.
(The Immortal has a vastly better gun than even an Intercessor though.)
I like these changes to Immortals (and Deathmarks). GW are improving the overall resiliency of both Firstborn Marines and Necrons, but doing it in different ways, maintaining the armies unique feel.
The biggest weakness of the space marine bolter or bolt rifle is the str 4, against T5 they need 5+ to wound. Immortal guns being str 5 is vastly superior.
Crusaderobr wrote: The biggest weakness of the space marine bolter or bolt rifle is the str 4, against T5 they need 5+ to wound. Immortal guns being str 5 is vastly superior.
...Against T5 and T8. They're not the most common Toughness values around.
Crusaderobr wrote: The biggest weakness of the space marine bolter or bolt rifle is the str 4, against T5 they need 5+ to wound. Immortal guns being str 5 is vastly superior.
...Against T5 and T8. They're not the most common Toughness values around.
Besides crypteks, warriors and scarabs I dont think any of our units are T4 anymore, all of our units are at least T5 now
Crusaderobr wrote: The biggest weakness of the space marine bolter or bolt rifle is the str 4, against T5 they need 5+ to wound. Immortal guns being str 5 is vastly superior.
...Against T5 and T8. They're not the most common Toughness values around.
And T4 which is very common.
In an immortal vs marine shoot out wounding twice as often is pretty big.
OK not sure that S4 is 'big' weakness, but S5 is a lot better on a T5 model.
Crusaderobr wrote: The biggest weakness of the space marine bolter or bolt rifle is the str 4, against T5 they need 5+ to wound. Immortal guns being str 5 is vastly superior.
...Against T5 and T8. They're not the most common Toughness values around.
And T4 which is very common.
In an immortal vs marine shoot out wounding twice as often is pretty big.
OK not sure that S4 is 'big' weakness, but S5 is a lot better on a T5 model.
And T4, yes, but a large percentage of the T4 infantry in the game are getting an extra wound.
But the 24" gauss gun of the warrior could be bit of a downer if we consider the possible 30" Bolter (old)marines and sisters "may" get.
i am referring to the leaked company command squad datasheet which includes a 30" boltgun profile which "may" turn out to be a new boltgun profile or just an upgraded veteran version of the regular boltgun
But the 24" gauss gun of the warrior could be bit of a downer if we consider the possible 30" Bolter (old)marines and sisters "may" get.
i am referring to the leaked company command squad datasheet which includes a 30" boltgun profile which "may" turn out to be a new boltgun profile or just an upgraded veteran version of the regular boltgun
I hope its a veteran version, 30" boltguns just makes it that bit harder to field warriors as unless you advance you cant get into range before they can fire at you
But the 24" gauss gun of the warrior could be bit of a downer if we consider the possible 30" Bolter (old)marines and sisters "may" get.
i am referring to the leaked company command squad datasheet which includes a 30" boltgun profile which "may" turn out to be a new boltgun profile or just an upgraded veteran version of the regular boltgun
I hope its a veteran version, 30" boltguns just makes it that bit harder to field warriors as unless you advance you cant get into range before they can fire at you
exactly my thoughts
we may have better ap and be a bit cheaper but we are slower for the most time and the lack of range means they have an easier time to shoot us before we can.
But the 24" gauss gun of the warrior could be bit of a downer if we consider the possible 30" Bolter (old)marines and sisters "may" get.
i am referring to the leaked company command squad datasheet which includes a 30" boltgun profile which "may" turn out to be a new boltgun profile or just an upgraded veteran version of the regular boltgun
I hope its a veteran version, 30" boltguns just makes it that bit harder to field warriors as unless you advance you cant get into range before they can fire at you
exactly my thoughts
we may have better ap and be a bit cheaper but we are slower for the most time and the lack of range means they have an easier time to shoot us before we can.
Sternguard alwqays had 30" bolters, they just never see the tabletop so everyone has forgotten.
Sternguard alwqays had 30" bolters, they just never see the tabletop so everyone has forgotten.
Absolutely true but the leaked datasheet is not from the sternguard unit but from the company command box which doesnt include sternguard but only "regular" veterans. These guys never had the special issue boltgun with 30"
IHateNids wrote: As far as I remember, "Sternguard" was merely a title for an all-shooty Veteran unit, same with Vanguard for all-stabby....
But I may be wrong, it's been a while since I read anything properly
Hate to say it. But you are wrong ^^
There are the following oldmarine veteran datasheets in the marine codex
(which actually include the word "veteran" so no termis etc)
Vanguard Veterans -- stabby
Sternguard Veterand -- shooty
Company Veterans -- can do both and pick more or less any equipment they want with the exception of some thing (like the 30" special issue boltgun)
Tyrannic war Veterans (Ultramarines only i think?)
IHateNids wrote: As far as I remember, "Sternguard" was merely a title for an all-shooty Veteran unit, same with Vanguard for all-stabby....
But I may be wrong, it's been a while since I read anything properly
Hate to say it. But you are wrong ^^
There are the following oldmarine veteran datasheets in the marine codex
(which actually include the word "veteran" so no termis etc)
Vanguard Veterans -- stabby
Sternguard Veterand -- shooty
Company Veterans -- can do both and pick more or less any equipment they want with the exception of some thing (like the 30" special issue boltgun)
Tyrannic war Veterans (Ultramarines only i think?)
Fair enough, I stand, or rather reanimate, corrected.
I did not know about the Company Veterans. Maybe they're getting the Special Issue Bolters now?
IHateNids wrote: ...I did not know about the Company Veterans. Maybe they're getting the Special Issue Bolters now?
It'll be pretty odd, given that the Sternguard with SIA were only in the 5e book in the first place to be the Deathwatch, and the Deathwatch have not only been released as their own army but are getting rolled back into the main SM book now.
IHateNids wrote: ...I did not know about the Company Veterans. Maybe they're getting the Special Issue Bolters now?
It'll be pretty odd, given that the Sternguard with SIA were only in the 5e book in the first place to be the Deathwatch, and the Deathwatch have not only been released as their own army but are getting rolled back into the main SM book now.
Sternguard were basically lifted from the Deathwatch rules from 3rd-4th Edition, yeah. Prior to Sternguard there were still Command Squads and Veteran Squads though. Veterans were basically a Tactical Squad with extra Attacks and Ld., and in 4ht could get one of several Veteran Abilities.
So I got an order of blood claws in today, no new box alas. I was hoping to get to leak some rules on stuff like what, if anything, would become of frost weapons
Saw the repackaged cryptek with Canoptek Cloak at my flgs today, didn't buy it but I did see the statline, which didn't change, but what struck me is that the datasheet said 'Technomancer' not Cryptek, even though it was written on the package
Kharne the Befriender wrote: Saw the repackaged cryptek with Canoptek Cloak at my flgs today, didn't buy it but I did see the statline, which didn't change, but what struck me is that the datasheet said 'Technomancer' not Cryptek, even though it was written on the package
It'd be a little weird, but I wonder if they're changing the name to Technomancer to differentiate it from the <Cryptek> keyword, which is shared by Plasmancers and a few named characters.
Kharne the Befriender wrote: Saw the repackaged cryptek with Canoptek Cloak at my flgs today, didn't buy it but I did see the statline, which didn't change, but what struck me is that the datasheet said 'Technomancer' not Cryptek, even though it was written on the package
It'd be a little weird, but I wonder if they're changing the name to Technomancer to differentiate it from the <Cryptek> keyword, which is shared by Plasmancers and a few named characters.
Probably that. Plasmancer has 'Cryptek' and 'Plasmancer' keywords, while the technomancer ability is +1 RP rolls that the current codex Crypteks have (and they can chose between the cloak or chronometron)
So both are crypteks, but plasmancers are the MW zappy ones and technomancers are the repair ones.
Sumilidon wrote: Comparing tacticals to immortals, the wounds side is not such an issue if they are the same points. The Immortals weapon is much better, toughness 5 makes a real difference and assuming reanimation protocols stay the same - id rather have all the above instead of 2 wounds.
T5 sometimes makes a difference. They don't care about the heavy bolter change, but plasma still leaves them as goo.
RP staying the same would be a major problem. Immortal squads are too small for RP to matter as its written now- its simply too easy to wipe the unit off the board. T5 will require more gun at S4 & 5, but there is enough other stuff out there in quantity that if the opponent wants to wipe out the unit, they can. A lot of the DS suicide units that people used to use (with lots of special weapons, combi-weapons or whatever) still work just fine for wiping out immortals- the math doesn't change at all for a Stormtrooper or Chaos terminator drop, for example.
Don't get me wrong, I like the return of T5. But RP has to change.
I would just say if your opponent is firing his plasma or using an alpha strike unit on immortals then that is a win for Necron Players.
Why? Immortals are a backbone unit, and can happily camp objectives with ObSec.
They should be a pretty high target priority to start with, and they've tended to be small units that can easily be wiped out (a feature that 9th edition base rules magnify).
So I got an order of blood claws in today, no new box alas. I was hoping to get to leak some rules on stuff like what, if anything, would become of frost weapons.
At 10 pts each they should be d2, 1d3d or something else. +1 str over already +1str Power Weapons are not worth another 5 points.
Random early morning thought... with Melta damage at D6+2 rather than D6 (rolling 2, picking highest), if Quantum Shielding stays the same it just got a bit better against it: average of 1.11 damage as opposed to 1.56.
unitled wrote: Random early morning thought... with Melta damage at D6+2 rather than D6 (rolling 2, picking highest), if Quantum Shielding stays the same it just got a bit better against it: average of 1.11 damage as opposed to 1.56.
Much, much better considering modern melta was choose one and not discard the lowest. But with re-roll nerf QS will still generally be a bit weaker.
unitled wrote: Random early morning thought... with Melta damage at D6+2 rather than D6 (rolling 2, picking highest), if Quantum Shielding stays the same it just got a bit better against it: average of 1.11 damage as opposed to 1.56.
this could make life difficult for sisters of battle who don't have any anti tank options other then melta and exorcists
unitled wrote: Random early morning thought... with Melta damage at D6+2 rather than D6 (rolling 2, picking highest), if Quantum Shielding stays the same it just got a bit better against it: average of 1.11 damage as opposed to 1.56.
Doesn't it effectively make them min damage 3 so we always have a 1/3 chance to ignore them with quantum shielding, but that's if they roll a 1. When they roll a 5/6 you dont even need to roll as thats at least 7 damage and if they roll any 4s you can just use quantum deflection.
This is assuming of course that they all stay the same
unitled wrote: Random early morning thought... with Melta damage at D6+2 rather than D6 (rolling 2, picking highest), if Quantum Shielding stays the same it just got a bit better against it: average of 1.11 damage as opposed to 1.56.
this could make life difficult for sisters of battle who don't have any anti tank options other then melta and exorcists
If Praetorians are costed reasonably I think they'll have a niche, even if they still lose out on Dynastic Codes/buffs. In a world of T4, 2W, 3+ save models, something that's entire damage output is S5 AP -3 D2 will always have a place.
Bosskelot wrote: If Praetorians are costed reasonably I think they'll have a niche, even if they still lose out on Dynastic Codes/buffs. In a world of T4, 2W, 3+ save models, something that's entire damage output is S5 AP -3 D2 will always have a place.
Unless it is on a relatively overpriced 2w 3+ body. Pts will determine whether the unit is worth bringing.
Bosskelot wrote: If Praetorians are costed reasonably I think they'll have a niche, even if they still lose out on Dynastic Codes/buffs. In a world of T4, 2W, 3+ save models, something that's entire damage output is S5 AP -3 D2 will always have a place.
Is it possible that The Silent King will extend Dynastic Codes/buffs to the Triarch stuff?
Bosskelot wrote: If Praetorians are costed reasonably I think they'll have a niche, even if they still lose out on Dynastic Codes/buffs. In a world of T4, 2W, 3+ save models, something that's entire damage output is S5 AP -3 D2 will always have a place.
Is it possible that The Silent King will extend Dynastic Codes/buffs to the Triarch stuff?
I dont think he'll extend Dynastic Codes, but definitely buffs, I would be shocked if he didnt
Bosskelot wrote: If Praetorians are costed reasonably I think they'll have a niche, even if they still lose out on Dynastic Codes/buffs. In a world of T4, 2W, 3+ save models, something that's entire damage output is S5 AP -3 D2 will always have a place.
Is it possible that The Silent King will extend Dynastic Codes/buffs to the Triarch stuff?
I don't believe Triarch Praetorians will benefit from the Szarekhan Dynastic Code as I explained back on page 8 of this thread:
Aza'Gorod wrote: My guess is the new Scorpekh destroyers and Lords and a new dynasty (hopefully you wont have to play that dynasty to use them) and we will still have the old destroyers in a dual kit as people have already said
The Dynasty that the Silent King hails from is very likely the new bronze color scheme we have seen.
I am hoping they don't lock units behind dynasties. That would be incredibly stupid. It would also be nice if Triarch units can benefit from Dynasty codes now as well.
In the fluff weren't the triarch like the special forces of the silent king? I wonder if they will benefit from just his dynastic code or hopefully they will be able to use everyone's. I mean fluff wise it doesnt make sense but it would make them a hell of a lot more useful
No, not really. From page 55 of Codex Necrons:
In the Necron dynasties, the Praetorians held the responsibility of maintaining the Triarch’s rule, to ensure that wars and politics alike were pursued according to ancient codes. As such, they acted outside the political structures, and held both the right and the means to enforce their will should a Lord, Overlord or even a phaeron’s behaviour contravene the edicts of old. However, the Triarch Praetorians also held a higher responsibility: to ensure that the Necron dynasties never fell, that their codes of law and order did not vanish into the darkness.
So the Praetorians are loyal to the ruling council of the Necrontyr (i.e., the Triarch) and not any particular dynasty. So while Szarekh may have the TRIARCH PRAETORIANS keyword, I seriously doubt the Praetorians will have the SZAREKHAN dynasty keyword.
I asked if the Silent King might extend the effects of his dynastic code to the Triarch stuff.
As goofy as it might sound, it would be something on par with a Lord of War/Supreme Commander style unit.
To be clear: I'm talking about this as a form of aura/army benefit exclusive to him being on the field. Not a "Szarekhan Dynasty codes are the only codes that Triarch Praetorians can get" kind of thing.
I'm with Sasori, I think QS will change, probably to a flat invul. I think this for two reasons, first QS is kind of a janky rule, which punishes you for having the right weapon, but I've thought that since before we got our 8th ed codex. The real indicator is the comparison between the DDA and the new canoptek Doomstalker. Any time we've looked at one of the new units and said "that isn't as good as the existing option" it's turned out that there was a rules change we didn't know about. Examples include reaper vs flayer and skorpekh destroyer vs wraiths. So when we look at the doom stalker, we see it as overlapping the role of the DDA, similar main gun, same force org slot (heavy support) but but the DDA is way ahead in terms of defenses because QS is much better than a 5++. So why waste a heavy support slot on a doom stalker when you could take a DDA.
The only answer I can see to that question is that QS is going to change, probably to a flat invul. If they both have similar defenses the Doomstalker vs DDA debate becomes nuanced, because now you have to weigh the extra points vs the flayer array and extra wounds.
I asked if the Silent King might extend the effects of his dynastic code to the Triarch stuff.
Which is what I answered The Triarch Praetorians are not a part of any Dynasty, not even the Silent King's own SZAREKHAN dynasty so they will not have a <DYNASTY> keyword. Szarekh may have rules that allow him to buff models with the TRIARCH PRAETORIANS keyword, but it will be a separate buff from the one for the SZAREKHAN keyword.
Grimgold wrote: I'm with Sasori, I think QS will change, probably to a flat invul. I think this for two reasons, first QS is kind of a janky rule, which punishes you for having the right weapon, but I've thought that since before we got our 8th ed codex. The real indicator is the comparison between the DDA and the new canoptek Doomstalker. Any time we've looked at one of the new units and said "that isn't as good as the existing option" it's turned out that there was a rules change we didn't know about. Examples include reaper vs flayer and skorpekh destroyer vs wraiths. So when we look at the doom stalker, we see it as overlapping the role of the DDA, similar main gun, same force org slot (heavy support) but but the DDA is way ahead in terms of defenses because QS is much better than a 5++. So why waste a heavy support slot on a doom stalker when you could take a DDA.
The only answer I can see to that question is that QS is going to change, probably to a flat invul. If they both have similar defenses the Doomstalker vs DDA debate becomes nuanced, because now you have to weigh the extra points vs the flayer array and extra wounds.
Instead of an Invulnerable, I would think a more logical effect would be to reduce incoming damage by 1 or 2pts.
Grimgold wrote: I'm with Sasori, I think QS will change, probably to a flat invul. I think this for two reasons, first QS is kind of a janky rule, which punishes you for having the right weapon, but I've thought that since before we got our 8th ed codex. The real indicator is the comparison between the DDA and the new canoptek Doomstalker. Any time we've looked at one of the new units and said "that isn't as good as the existing option" it's turned out that there was a rules change we didn't know about. Examples include reaper vs flayer and skorpekh destroyer vs wraiths. So when we look at the doom stalker, we see it as overlapping the role of the DDA, similar main gun, same force org slot (heavy support) but but the DDA is way ahead in terms of defenses because QS is much better than a 5++. So why waste a heavy support slot on a doom stalker when you could take a DDA.
The only answer I can see to that question is that QS is going to change, probably to a flat invul. If they both have similar defenses the Doomstalker vs DDA debate becomes nuanced, because now you have to weigh the extra points vs the flayer array and extra wounds.
Instead of an Invulnerable, I would think a more logical effect would be to reduce incoming damage by 1 or 2pts.
It's kind of samey, a lascannon (3.5 average damage) does 2.31 vs a 5++ or 2.5 if it's a flat minus one damage. Ethier are significant downgrades from QS which ends up with 1.55 average damage per lascannon hit/wound. Against the new melta (5.5 average damage) the invul suffers 3.63 damage, and the -1 damage lets through a whopping 4.5. The -1 is better against two damage weapons, which considering every marine has 2 wounds now and is the army to beat, I expect we'll see a fair number of those.
Which is why I'm happy immortals went a different way than marines. We are going to see a flood of 2 (or more) damage weapons to deal with marines, be they heavy bolters, plasma, autocannons, etc. The common thread in all of those is they are not as good against immortals as they are against marines. All of them waste damage down range, which is an opportunity cost, and plasma and heavy bolters have a harder time wounding immortals.
Grimgold wrote: I'm with Sasori, I think QS will change, probably to a flat invul. I think this for two reasons, first QS is kind of a janky rule, which punishes you for having the right weapon, but I've thought that since before we got our 8th ed codex. The real indicator is the comparison between the DDA and the new canoptek Doomstalker. Any time we've looked at one of the new units and said "that isn't as good as the existing option" it's turned out that there was a rules change we didn't know about. Examples include reaper vs flayer and skorpekh destroyer vs wraiths. So when we look at the doom stalker, we see it as overlapping the role of the DDA, similar main gun, same force org slot (heavy support) but but the DDA is way ahead in terms of defenses because QS is much better than a 5++. So why waste a heavy support slot on a doom stalker when you could take a DDA.
The only answer I can see to that question is that QS is going to change, probably to a flat invul. If they both have similar defenses the Doomstalker vs DDA debate becomes nuanced, because now you have to weigh the extra points vs the flayer array and extra wounds.
Inv punishes you for having right weapon as well.
DDA better get some sort of buff if it becomes just inv save unless it's 4++ as a bare minimum and still would be weak.
And doomstalker...uhhuh? People are saying why take DDA with stalker out there...If DDA becomes even worse what's the point in taking DDA?
I like quantum shieldjng as it is now. The vehicles its on are all T6 which isnt particularly tough anyway. It just means yoy want to fire lots of high strength low damage and space marines for example have that in spades with plasma or for tau they can just make use of a Heavy burst cannon riptide.
Effectively against 2 D its a 6++, 3 5++, 4 4++. Etc so it increases incrementally the harder you hit it (like some weird non utopian liquid) and i think this is nice for necrons as they are meant to have weird technology other armies only dream of.
Maybe they'll make it so a roll of a 6 always fails not matter what which I think will be fair enough
Grimgold wrote: I'm with Sasori, I think QS will change, probably to a flat invul. I think this for two reasons, first QS is kind of a janky rule, which punishes you for having the right weapon, but I've thought that since before we got our 8th ed codex. The real indicator is the comparison between the DDA and the new canoptek Doomstalker. Any time we've looked at one of the new units and said "that isn't as good as the existing option" it's turned out that there was a rules change we didn't know about. Examples include reaper vs flayer and skorpekh destroyer vs wraiths. So when we look at the doom stalker, we see it as overlapping the role of the DDA, similar main gun, same force org slot (heavy support) but but the DDA is way ahead in terms of defenses because QS is much better than a 5++. So why waste a heavy support slot on a doom stalker when you could take a DDA.
The only answer I can see to that question is that QS is going to change, probably to a flat invul. If they both have similar defenses the Doomstalker vs DDA debate becomes nuanced, because now you have to weigh the extra points vs the flayer array and extra wounds.
Inv punishes you for having right weapon as well.
DDA better get some sort of buff if it becomes just inv save unless it's 4++ as a bare minimum and still would be weak.
And doomstalker...uhhuh? People are saying why take DDA with stalker out there...If DDA becomes even worse what's the point in taking DDA?
TL;DR - I'm not arguing for a nerf, I'm trying to predict a rule change from our upcoming codex.
By punishing you for bringing the right weapon I mean that the strength of the QS rule is proportional to the damage of the weapon used against it, it's useless against damage 1 and equivalent to a 2++ against anything damage 6+. An invul is equivalent in effectiveness against all damage amounts, doesn't matter if it's 1 damage or 100.
The reason this is important is that one of the founding pillars of 8th/9th ed is bring the right weapon for the target. That's why 40k treats multi damage different than AoS, In AoS damage carriers through to other models when you exceed the wound characteristic of one of the models in the unit so something that does 6 damage could kill 6 pikemen. That does not happen in 40k in order to make different amounts of damage work more or less effectively against different targets. So we have weapons like metlas and las cannons that work poorly against units of 1 wound models, but are very effective at taking out units with a high toughness and multiple wounds.
So now that we both have a grasp of the basic mechanics of this edition, lets go over that comment again. QS is a rule that disproportionately affects high damage weapons, when something is disproportionately effective against something the gaming vernacular is we say it punishes that thing. So you are being punished for using an anti-vehicle weapon against a vehicle, which goes against the grain of this edition. An Invul is equally effective against all damage amounts, and thus doesn't discourage you from using a particular type of weapon, which respects the specialized roles of certain weapons.
The doomstalker has almost the exact same gun as a DDA, and is also a heavy support choice. Unless you want to pay CP (or pay a dumb amount in troop tax), you only get 3 heavy support options. That means that these two units are in direct competition with each other. The only thing the doomstalker has going for it is it's cheaper, but the DDA is so much more durable because of QS it's basically a non-choice. They could have given the doomstalker QS and none of us would have batted an eye, instead they gave it a 5++. Why would they cripple a new model by using an inferior rule, seems like a really bad sales strategy. Which brings us back to my point, when it seems like GW made a bad choice, it was because we didn't have all of the information. They are not going to release a DoA unit because it doesn't make good business sense. That means that the doomstalker is at least as good as the DDA which it is competing with, which means there is some unknown factor at play. That unknown factor could be one of a number of things, but the most likely answer is if QS was brought into line with a 5++.
I'm not giving a suggestion that QS should be nerfed, we are well past the point of my opinion mattering on that topic. What I'm saying is that based on what we can see from the data sheets so far, it looks likely that there was a change to QS that brings it into line with a 5++.
Grimgold wrote: I'm with Sasori, I think QS will change, probably to a flat invul. I think this for two reasons, first QS is kind of a janky rule, which punishes you for having the right weapon, but I've thought that since before we got our 8th ed codex. The real indicator is the comparison between the DDA and the new canoptek Doomstalker. Any time we've looked at one of the new units and said "that isn't as good as the existing option" it's turned out that there was a rules change we didn't know about. Examples include reaper vs flayer and skorpekh destroyer vs wraiths. So when we look at the doom stalker, we see it as overlapping the role of the DDA, similar main gun, same force org slot (heavy support) but but the DDA is way ahead in terms of defenses because QS is much better than a 5++. So why waste a heavy support slot on a doom stalker when you could take a DDA.
The only answer I can see to that question is that QS is going to change, probably to a flat invul. If they both have similar defenses the Doomstalker vs DDA debate becomes nuanced, because now you have to weigh the extra points vs the flayer array and extra wounds.
Instead of an Invulnerable, I would think a more logical effect would be to reduce incoming damage by 1 or 2pts.
It's kind of samey, a lascannon (3.5 average damage) does 2.31 vs a 5++ or 2.5 if it's a flat minus one damage. Ethier are significant downgrades from QS which ends up with 1.55 average damage per lascannon hit/wound. Against the new melta (5.5 average damage) the invul suffers 3.63 damage, and the -1 damage lets through a whopping 4.5. The -1 is better against two damage weapons, which considering every marine has 2 wounds now and is the army to beat, I expect we'll see a fair number of those.
Which is why I'm happy immortals went a different way than marines. We are going to see a flood of 2 (or more) damage weapons to deal with marines, be they heavy bolters, plasma, autocannons, etc. The common thread in all of those is they are not as good against immortals as they are against marines. All of them waste damage down range, which is an opportunity cost, and plasma and heavy bolters have a harder time wounding immortals.
I find this analysis a little strange, as marine armies are flooded with bolters, and 2w is much more resistant to (very common) S3-4 weapons. There seems to be a pretty small array of weapons where T5 is actually advantageous over T42W. A particularly annoying detail is that there's no benefit to Overcharging Plasma against Immortals as well. So, while it's slightly harder to wound, there's also no risk. "Opportunity cost" for firing Heavy Bolters at them might be a thing, but at D2 they actually become reasonably viable to fire at vehicles, so I'm not sure that particular defensive "advantage" will pan out. HBs can just plug away at multiwound targets like Destroyers etc. anyways.
Which is why I'm happy immortals went a different way than marines. We are going to see a flood of 2 (or more) damage weapons to deal with marines, be they heavy bolters, plasma, autocannons, etc. The common thread in all of those is they are not as good against immortals as they are against marines. All of them waste damage down range, which is an opportunity cost, and plasma and heavy bolters have a harder time wounding immortals.
I find this analysis a little strange, as marine armies are flooded with bolters, and 2w is much more resistant to (very common) S3-4 weapons. There seems to be a pretty small array of weapons where T5 is actually advantageous over T42W. A particularly annoying detail is that there's no benefit to Overcharging Plasma against Immortals as well. So, while it's slightly harder to wound, there's also no risk. "Opportunity cost" for firing Heavy Bolters at them might be a thing, but at D2 they actually become reasonably viable to fire at vehicles, so I'm not sure that particular defensive "advantage" will pan out. HBs can just plug away at multiwound targets like Destroyers etc. anyways.
This is one of those things you have to math to show, because twice the wounds is not twice the durability.
str 4 Bolters
2/3 * 1/2 * 1/3 = 1/9 = 18 shots with a bolter to kill a marine
2/3 * 1/3 * 1/3 = 2/27 = 13 shots with a bolter to kill an immortal
with marines at 20 points and immortals at 18, you kill about 1.1 point per bolter shot at marines and 1.3 point per bolter shot at immortals. Against str 4 1 damage weapons marines are about 18% tougher per point. Not insignificant, but the problem is that most single damage weapons are not amazing against either immortals or Marines having low str and low ap values.
Heavy Bolter
2/3 * 2/3 * 2/3 = 8/27 = 3.3 shots to kill so each heavy bolter shot does 6 list building points of damage
2/3 * 1/2 * 2/3 = 2/9 = 4.5 shots to kill so each heavy bolter shot against immortals does 4 list building points of damage.
So against heavy bolters (which are going to be super common in the new edition) immortals have twice the durability advantage marines have on normal bolter shots.
In every case where multi damage is involved Immortals will have an advantage over marines, if only because they are cheaper. With multi damage and some very common weapon strengths (4, 5 and 8) immortals have huge advantages over marines in terms of durability per point of investment. Marines have an advantage against single damage weapons of str 7 or less, and it's not a very large advantage. Single damage weapons are almost all between str 3 and 5, and little in the way of AP. So the weapons marines have an advantage against are not the ideal profile for dealing with immortals or marines, even if they are fairly common. In a marine heavy meta where everyone is brining multi damage weapons to deal with tacticals and intercessors, Immortals will make out like bandits by having a slightly different target profile.
As for your example about plasma, which is kind of a switch hitter:
2/3 * 5/6 * 5/6 * 2 = .93 damage per shot = 2.2 shots to kill an intercessor or 9 points list building points a shot
2/3 * 2/3 * 5/6 = .37 damage per shot = 2.7 shots to kill an immortal or 6.7 list building points a shot
So plasma is way more effective against marines than against Immortals.
^I believe marines are now 18 ppm. Not Intercessors, Tac Marines.
Also something about the math seems suspect. Ignoring save, etc. and doing pure point per wound x chance to wound with bolter I get:
Marine .5x9=4.5
Immortal .333x18=5.99
Even at a 20 pt marine you get a 5, so still more value vs Immortals.
Another thing to recognize is that an Assault Cannon is the same return marines against marines as a Heavy Bolter. Just one Damage but twice the shots. At the same time it's more than twice as effective against Immortals iver the Heavy Bolter, and better against hordes in general. Therefore, a Marine player, I'm still going to be looking at Assault Cannons which will still be better against hordes, Crons, etc. and looking at a .666 to wound against T5.
And of course, against Lasguns marines are twice as durable. The thing is, Marines are more durable vs. every 'basic rifle', the most common weapons in the game.
Insectum7 wrote: ^I believe marines are now 18 ppm. Not Intercessors, Tac Marines.
Even at equal points, immortals are still tougher against multi-damage at str 4 -5, and 8-9 because of the way the to wound formula works, and those are the most common weapon strengths. Also unlike intercessors, immortals unarguably have a better gun than the bog standard bolter, even if the new bolter is 30". Finally Immortals have an extra attack on first born, which just makes immortals even more efficient for their points. All of that comparison is without new RP, which could be a significant upswing in durability and tip the balance even more in favor of immortals.
Of course the trade off is that marines have much better in army synergy, with easy access to rerolls and buffs from psychers. That seems like an interesting design choice, one army is more synergistic, the other is more efficient per model. That makes very similar armies play differently from each other. It follows an overall trend of better game balance/design in 9th, for instance I was pleasantly surprised to see that heavy destroyers were pointed to have the same output per point as the old heavy destroyers, and the same amount of durability per point as normal destroyers. That kind of precision isn't an accident, they planned that when they pointed and designed that unit. That same amount of care and attention seems to have been paid when bringing firstborn more into line with primaris options, because it was done while buffing the troop choices of the other faction coming out at the same time. Warriors got a reroll ones on RP (which we don't know how good that is yet, but could be very powerful if RP is strong), and immortals got an extra toughness and an extra attack.
If necrons and marines are an indication, I think we can expect to see the troop choices of all factions get more interesting. Which is why I think all of the whining surrounding firstborn getting an extra wound is premature at best, and counter productive at worst. Of course if dakka was a superhero they would be the inbigantor because this forum has been making molehills into mountains with near supernatural efficiency.
*edit* math seems pretty clear str 4 has a 50/50 chance of wounding against marines and a 33/66 chance against immortals.
so drum roll 10 wounds divided by .33 = 30 effective wounds, 20 wounds divided by .5 = 40 so if we are comparing 18 point against 20 points (because I used intercessors in my math) that means 30 wounds for 180 points and 40 wounds for 200, which means you are paying 6 per immortal wound and 5 per intercessor wound. For firstborn it would be 18 vs 18 which would mean 6 for immortals and 4.5 for first born. Of course first born have one less attack than immortals, and a garbage gun. Again that's without reanimation which if it turns out like I think it will (a failure removes the model permanently, but you can roll even if the unit is destroyed) then immortals would effectively have up to double their listed amount of wounds. Which would mean they have up to 60 effective wounds to the first borns 40. Again I didn't include that because we don't know for sure, but I'd say the odds are good we will be much tougher than marines.
Also if your relying on lasguns to kill immortals or marines your pretty fethed.
Insectum7 wrote: ^I believe marines are now 18 ppm. Not Intercessors, Tac Marines.
Also something about the math seems suspect. Ignoring save, etc. and doing pure point per wound x chance to wound with bolter I get:
Marine .5x9=4.5
Immortal .333x18=5.99
Even at a 20 pt marine you get a 5, so still more value vs Immortals.
Another thing to recognize is that an Assault Cannon is the same return marines against marines as a Heavy Bolter. Just one Damage but twice the shots. At the same time it's more than twice as effective against Immortals iver the Heavy Bolter, and better against hordes in general. Therefore, a Marine player, I'm still going to be looking at Assault Cannons which will still be better against hordes, Crons, etc. and looking at a .666 to wound against T5.
And of course, against Lasguns marines are twice as durable. The thing is, Marines are more durable vs. every 'basic rifle', the most common weapons in the game.
I think this is the wrong way to judge Immortal durability. They have a far superior weapon. They used to be 8+7. Necrons were 11, but Immortals were trading points for the body into the weapon. Realistically an Immortal is worth 13 (or less) when a Necron is worth 12.
Yes, the total price of the unit is the real bearing, but unless you're including damage output you're just skewing against Immortals.
I'm just going to suspect that Reanimation Protocols are improved enough that they decided 2 W Immortals was too durable. Lord knows it won't take much to improve RP over its current level of usefulness.
alextroy wrote: I'm just going to suspect that Reanimation Protocols are improved enough that they decided 2 W Immortals was too durable. Lord knows it won't take much to improve RP over its current level of usefulness.
What if they just changed it to a feel no pain sort of thing? Not quite fit the theme, but at least the "just focus fire on a unit to get rid of it so it can't reanimate" thing would go away.
Insectum7 wrote: ^I believe marines are now 18 ppm. Not Intercessors, Tac Marines.
Also something about the math seems suspect. Ignoring save, etc. and doing pure point per wound x chance to wound with bolter I get:
Marine .5x9=4.5
Immortal .333x18=5.99
Even at a 20 pt marine you get a 5, so still more value vs Immortals.
Another thing to recognize is that an Assault Cannon is the same return marines against marines as a Heavy Bolter. Just one Damage but twice the shots. At the same time it's more than twice as effective against Immortals iver the Heavy Bolter, and better against hordes in general. Therefore, a Marine player, I'm still going to be looking at Assault Cannons which will still be better against hordes, Crons, etc. and looking at a .666 to wound against T5.
And of course, against Lasguns marines are twice as durable. The thing is, Marines are more durable vs. every 'basic rifle', the most common weapons in the game.
I think this is the wrong way to judge Immortal durability. They have a far superior weapon. They used to be 8+7. Necrons were 11, but Immortals were trading points for the body into the weapon. Realistically an Immortal is worth 13 (or less) when a Necron is worth 12.
Yes, the total price of the unit is the real bearing, but unless you're including damage output you're just skewing against Immortals.
Mmmm. . . I look at it differently. Immortals are now roughly equivalent to marines. Before, Immortals were superior to a marine, and even further back, Immortals were FAR superior to a Marine, and the basic Necron Warrior was equal to/superior to a marine. In my mind this is just a further degradation of the 'Cron.
Back when I played Crons, Marines were 15ppm, Warriors 18, Immortals 28. I preferred that paradigm much more. Warriors would basically be what Immortals are now.
Also if your relying on lasguns to kill immortals or marines your pretty fethed.
It's not about relying, it's about how much auxilliary damage is done when there are floods of them around. The pitter patter of basic weapons adds up. Battle cannon fires twice into a unit, then some heavy bolters, then some flashlight rain into them is how it tends to go down. In this case every 7 lasgun shots is worth a single heavy bolter. 2 IS gets you close to another 3 HBs hitting the unit before Orders.
alextroy wrote: I'm just going to suspect that Reanimation Protocols are improved enough that they decided 2 W Immortals was too durable. Lord knows it won't take much to improve RP over its current level of usefulness.
What if they just changed it to a feel no pain sort of thing? Not quite fit the theme, but at least the "just focus fire on a unit to get rid of it so it can't reanimate" thing would go away.
I wouldn't mind seeing a 6+++, not replacing RP but in addition. I think it would fit the "unfeeling, crumbling robot" niche Necrons seem to be moving towards, if you are going by the Indominus models.
Additionally wouldn't it be nice to have the ability to field a Phaeron (ala Chapter Master Strat); can dream I guess.
alextroy wrote: I'm just going to suspect that Reanimation Protocols are improved enough that they decided 2 W Immortals was too durable. Lord knows it won't take much to improve RP over its current level of usefulness.
What if they just changed it to a feel no pain sort of thing? Not quite fit the theme, but at least the "just focus fire on a unit to get rid of it so it can't reanimate" thing would go away.
I wouldn't mind seeing a 6+++, not replacing RP but in addition. I think it would fit the "unfeeling, crumbling robot" niche Necrons seem to be moving towards, if you are going by the Indominus models.
Additionally wouldn't it be nice to have the ability to field a Phaeron (ala Chapter Master Strat); can dream I guess.
That and a 'Nemesor' Strat for an extra WL Trait would be amazing
alextroy wrote: I'm just going to suspect that Reanimation Protocols are improved enough that they decided 2 W Immortals was too durable. Lord knows it won't take much to improve RP over its current level of usefulness.
What if they just changed it to a feel no pain sort of thing? Not quite fit the theme, but at least the "just focus fire on a unit to get rid of it so it can't reanimate" thing would go away.
I wouldn't mind seeing a 6+++, not replacing RP but in addition. I think it would fit the "unfeeling, crumbling robot" niche Necrons seem to be moving towards, if you are going by the Indominus models.
Additionally wouldn't it be nice to have the ability to field a Phaeron (ala Chapter Master Strat); can dream I guess.
Yeah, I think we are going to get some kind of 6+++ Deathless minions style save in addition to bringing back models.
Kharne the Befriender wrote: Question for those of you that played crons back when we had cryptek conclaves, what exactly did Harbingers of Despair do?
We have Harbingers of Destruction in the form of Plasmancers that are offensive
We have Technomancers in the form of our normal crypteks which are more defensive in nature
I just wonder what kind of role the Harbingers of Despair might fill
Harbingers of Despair did attacks against Morale and Leadership, plus they were the users of the Veil of Darkness, where they could teleport units around.
There was also Harbingers of Destruction, Eterrnity, The Storm, and Transmogrification.
alextroy wrote: I'm just going to suspect that Reanimation Protocols are improved enough that they decided 2 W Immortals was too durable. Lord knows it won't take much to improve RP over its current level of usefulness.
What if they just changed it to a feel no pain sort of thing? Not quite fit the theme, but at least the "just focus fire on a unit to get rid of it so it can't reanimate" thing would go away.
I wouldn't mind seeing a 6+++, not replacing RP but in addition. I think it would fit the "unfeeling, crumbling robot" niche Necrons seem to be moving towards, if you are going by the Indominus models.
Additionally wouldn't it be nice to have the ability to field a Phaeron (ala Chapter Master Strat); can dream I guess.
With all the multi damage out there a 6+++ is just not that great. It is something vs other necrons (since we cant seem to get reliable multi damage weapons...looking at you Emnitic) but overall there is so much multi damage.
Insectum7 wrote: There was also Harbingers of Destruction, Eterrnity, The Storm, and Transmogrification.
The Harbinger of Destruction was the Plasmancer. The others (in the order already listed) are the Chronomancer and the Ethermancer. The Harbinger of Transmogrification didn't have a specific name listed but could be a Geomancer or Alchemist given the description.
Are the new Warriors any good (alternate gun choice I mean).
Has anyone built these and perhaps converted with Deathmarks/Immortals weapons on the bodies? Wondering if they match up well.
(I did this with the old warrior kit and Deathmarks guns/heads, but could do with slightly bigger bodies, not sure if the new ones are)
With all the multi damage out there a 6+++ is just not that great. It is something vs other necrons (since we cant seem to get reliable multi damage weapons...looking at you Emnitic) but overall there is so much multi damage.
Depends on what model. On W1 immortal sure. On 2 wound lychguard? Gives essentially 30% chance to require taking another shot to kill one. On W3 wraith? Even 6+++ will hinder any dam3 weapon a lot making it about 43% chance you need another hit past save to finish wraith.
Danny76 wrote: Are the new Warriors any good (alternate gun choice I mean).
Has anyone built these and perhaps converted with Deathmarks/Immortals weapons on the bodies? Wondering if they match up well.
(I did this with the old warrior kit and Deathmarks guns/heads, but could do with slightly bigger bodies, not sure if the new ones are)
The new bodies are significantly smaller (not a lot shorter, though they're squatting less, but a lot less bulky)- they don't match up well. They'd actually be worse than the old ones for this.
The new gun seems dynasty dependent.
Sautehk dynasty gives 2 shots at their full range of 14" (or 18" for other guns), which utterly changes how the unit works. Particularly if they're coming out of a ghost ark or some sort of teleport.
Mephrit makes them slightly better with the range increase, but no where near enough. (8.5" rapid fire is just shy of what they need to be). If it were +6", maybe.
Nephrek can theoretically rush them forward first turn with their 6" advance, but again, not sure its enough.
Danny76 wrote: Are the new Warriors any good (alternate gun choice I mean).
Has anyone built these and perhaps converted with Deathmarks/Immortals weapons on the bodies? Wondering if they match up well.
(I did this with the old warrior kit and Deathmarks guns/heads, but could do with slightly bigger bodies, not sure if the new ones are)
They have been okay for me so far. Not great, not bad. Biggest issue has been having vehicles to deal with often. Once due to own mistake where to bring from reserve, one just the way things fell(and when opponents army is Ghazkhull, painboy, weirdboy, 6 meganobz, 10 grots, 3 killa kans and deff dread...there's really not much good targets for them! I did get shoot at meganobz at full rapid fire but bad dice rolling from me and good from him ruined result. Average 4.444 wounds, I caused 1. GG.).
One thing that has been noticable is having distraction carnifex along helps. If you have 6 wraiths with 2++ or 7 lychguard with 2++ heading toward objective soaking firepower warriors gets to actually advance into rf range! And if they shoot instead warriors...well weapons good at clearing at warriors are high rate of fire which is what you want against 2++ units so...I don't mind that at all!
One thing I want to try is 2-3 ghost arks with reapers inside. Then add deceiver. If I get first turn that's d3 ghost arks filled with reapers repositioned 12.1" from enemy, disembark 3", move 5", fire 4.1" away from enemy. Dakkadakkadakka. 60 S5 -2 and 60 S4 -1 from ghost arks should make some sort of a dent.
So if I choose not to build any I won’t be missing out it seems.
I already have so many warriors anyway, so don’t really want more unless they seemed an auto pick..)
And likely no use for the warrior sprues if I can’t convert for anything.
(Though I bought that big 48warrior/monolith box years ago, and I’m still converting old bodies to alternate units..)
Glad that DDA look to be better, though not sure what the new Codex will bring..
I have built Deathmarks from Indomitus warriors, used the deathmark gun with arm, and the other arm from the warrior. It does look a bit weird, the warrior arm is to short, and the gun is pretty big. Head from Deathmarks. If you look from behind you notice that the hand on the buttom of the gun doesn't match with the arm.
Danny76 wrote: Are the new Warriors any good (alternate gun choice I mean).
Has anyone built these and perhaps converted with Deathmarks/Immortals weapons on the bodies? Wondering if they match up well.
(I did this with the old warrior kit and Deathmarks guns/heads, but could do with slightly bigger bodies, not sure if the new ones are)
The new bodies are significantly smaller (not a lot shorter, though they're squatting less, but a lot less bulky)- they don't match up well. They'd actually be worse than the old ones for this.
The new gun seems dynasty dependent.
Sautehk dynasty gives 2 shots at their full range of 14" (or 18" for other guns), which utterly changes how the unit works. Particularly if they're coming out of a ghost ark or some sort of teleport.
Mephrit makes them slightly better with the range increase, but no where near enough. (8.5" rapid fire is just shy of what they need to be). If it were +6", maybe.
Nephrek can theoretically rush them forward first turn with their 6" advance, but again, not sure its enough.
Wouldn't really consider them for anyone else.
I'd argue Novokh actually since there's a generic Outflank Strat and you can get them really close in for potential charging.
p5freak wrote: I have built Deathmarks from Indomitus warriors, used the deathmark gun with arm, and the other arm from the warrior. It does look a bit weird, the warrior arm is to short, and the gun is pretty big. Head from Deathmarks. If you look from behind you notice that the hand on the buttom of the gun doesn't match with the arm.
That was the problem I had with the old warrior bodies.
I filled the sockets a bit with Green Stuff which pushed the arms further away, making the gun and arm connect better.
Was hoping these would be better and I’d just switch to new bodies, but may as well carry on with the old body process and sell the whole new sprue.
(I also did it with Tesla Immortals and warrior bodies, making all 15 gun options from the kit. Well worth it.
Want to try with the Lynch/Praet box, but not sure whether it feasible there anyway..)
Danny76 wrote: Are the new Warriors any good (alternate gun choice I mean).
Has anyone built these and perhaps converted with Deathmarks/Immortals weapons on the bodies? Wondering if they match up well.
(I did this with the old warrior kit and Deathmarks guns/heads, but could do with slightly bigger bodies, not sure if the new ones are)
The new bodies are significantly smaller (not a lot shorter, though they're squatting less, but a lot less bulky)- they don't match up well. They'd actually be worse than the old ones for this.
The new gun seems dynasty dependent.
Sautehk dynasty gives 2 shots at their full range of 14" (or 18" for other guns), which utterly changes how the unit works. Particularly if they're coming out of a ghost ark or some sort of teleport.
Mephrit makes them slightly better with the range increase, but no where near enough. (8.5" rapid fire is just shy of what they need to be). If it were +6", maybe.
Nephrek can theoretically rush them forward first turn with their 6" advance, but again, not sure its enough.
Wouldn't really consider them for anyone else.
It’d be teleport for me as my two arks are DDA, so potentially the Sautehk as extra shots is the way, but then that improves the regular warriors and maybe just sticking to them is still best..
Anybody else hopeful that the Doomsday Cannon will have a strength increase to 12 maybe?
Not saying its certain to happen, but if you compare it to the blaster its like twice as long and the only benefit so far is a range buff which considering the smaller board size isn't really much of a benefit. Id take a strength buff or a min damage 3 at least just to differentiate it
Aza'Gorod wrote: Anybody else hopeful that the Doomsday Cannon will have a strength increase to 12 maybe?
Not saying its certain to happen, but if you compare it to the blaster its like twice as long and the only benefit so far is a range buff which considering the smaller board size isn't really much of a benefit. Id take a strength buff or a min damage 3 at least just to differentiate it
S12 changes nothing against Marines and Custodes so it's not relevant as far as I can tell, I definitely would not pay more for this upgrade.
Oh yeah i do admit that besides bikes, some flyers and land speeders (not sure about astra militarum but I do think admech have some T6) there aren't lots of T6 models in the imperial armies but it would be nice to have something to differentiate the two because as I mentioned at the moment there really isnt anything
I was pondering last night that the relatively small changes from our Index to our Codex in 8th (essentially we just got the traits, strats, codes, and relics) was because this much broader refresh of the line had already been planned for 2020?
I mean, this is pretty much guaranteed to be why we got such an anaemic offering in Pariah, but I feel like they must have had *BIG NECRON DO OVER* on their pipeline even as they were doing the and kicked a bunch of work on them down the road...?
unitled wrote: This may be a decidedly lukewarm take, but:
I was pondering last night that the relatively small changes from our Index to our Codex in 8th (essentially we just got the traits, strats, codes, and relics) was because this much broader refresh of the line had already been planned for 2020?
I mean, this is pretty much guaranteed to be why we got such an anaemic offering in Pariah, but I feel like they must have had *BIG NECRON DO OVER* on their pipeline even as they were doing the and kicked a bunch of work on them down the road...?
Not really. What you describe is what majority of codexes got. There was very few model releases(apart from marine lietnautnants) for 8e codexes. Likely to get them in 2-3 per a month.
The few exceptions were orks, sisters of battle(but of course here no models, no codex release either), knights, nurgle marines, daemons got couple kits. But for most you were super lucky to get single HQ. Necrons did get cryptek so...yeah about what most factions could hope for.
unitled wrote: This may be a decidedly lukewarm take, but:
I was pondering last night that the relatively small changes from our Index to our Codex in 8th (essentially we just got the traits, strats, codes, and relics) was because this much broader refresh of the line had already been planned for 2020?
I mean, this is pretty much guaranteed to be why we got such an anaemic offering in Pariah, but I feel like they must have had *BIG NECRON DO OVER* on their pipeline even as they were doing the and kicked a bunch of work on them down the road...?
I doubt it, the problems of Codex Necrons was spawned by a terribly terrible Index Necrons and fixing every single problem of the faction was probably just outside the scope of the writers of the Codex. There have been a million other codexes that have been bad and some of those have been bad and not updated for several editions, we're just lucky to be playing in a time where the pace of releases is at an all time high, covid not-withstanding. I would caution against being overly optimistic about the future of our new Codex and all our releases being good, Doomstalkers are the only unit which has a chance of seeing competitive play, the rest are somewhere between meh and worst unit in the game and I doubt GW will release an army-wide rule as fantastically busted as Doctrines paired with super Doctrines ended up being with SM and I still think Codex Necrons 9th will end up being rushed and will fail to update some rules. One thing to keep in mind with SM also was that Doctrines and Super Doctrines came with restrictions, what restrictions can be put on Necrons that have not already been put upon us? No allies and detachments makes multi-dynasty lists less viable already, I guess GW could force us back into Decurions if we want Reanimation Protocols to do something useful.
I doubt it, the problems of Codex Necrons was spawned by a terribly terrible Index Necrons and fixing every single problem of the faction was probably just outside the scope of the writers of the Codex. There have been a million other codexes that have been bad and some of those have been bad and not updated for several editions, we're just lucky to be playing in a time where the pace of releases is at an all time high, covid not-withstanding. I would caution against being overly optimistic about the future of our new Codex and all our releases being good, Doomstalkers are the only unit which has a chance of seeing competitive play, the rest are somewhere between meh and worst unit in the game and I doubt GW will release an army-wide rule as fantastically busted as Doctrines paired with super Doctrines ended up being with SM and I still think Codex Necrons 9th will end up being rushed and will fail to update some rules. One thing to keep in mind with SM also was that Doctrines and Super Doctrines came with restrictions, what restrictions can be put on Necrons that have not already been put upon us? No allies and detachments makes multi-dynasty lists less viable already, I guess GW could force us back into Decurions if we want Reanimation Protocols to do something useful.
You know you don't HAVE to play 40k right...?
Feels premature to be judging the codex, having potentially regenerating cheap blobs of troops feels like it might be an edge in the objective game to me (plus durable dedicated transports for those units that may have an edge against high damage AV weapons).
So far leaks have been far from encouraging and there's still no suggestion whatsoever that RP would be actually meaningful. As it is now there's no regenerating cheap blobs. We don't even have cheap blobs.
I doubt it, the problems of Codex Necrons was spawned by a terribly terrible Index Necrons and fixing every single problem of the faction was probably just outside the scope of the writers of the Codex. There have been a million other codexes that have been bad and some of those have been bad and not updated for several editions, we're just lucky to be playing in a time where the pace of releases is at an all time high, covid not-withstanding. I would caution against being overly optimistic about the future of our new Codex and all our releases being good, Doomstalkers are the only unit which has a chance of seeing competitive play, the rest are somewhere between meh and worst unit in the game and I doubt GW will release an army-wide rule as fantastically busted as Doctrines paired with super Doctrines ended up being with SM and I still think Codex Necrons 9th will end up being rushed and will fail to update some rules. One thing to keep in mind with SM also was that Doctrines and Super Doctrines came with restrictions, what restrictions can be put on Necrons that have not already been put upon us? No allies and detachments makes multi-dynasty lists less viable already, I guess GW could force us back into Decurions if we want Reanimation Protocols to do something useful.
You know you don't HAVE to play 40k right...?
Feels premature to be judging the codex, having potentially regenerating cheap blobs of troops feels like it might be an edge in the objective game to me (plus durable dedicated transports for those units that may have an edge against high damage AV weapons).
I don't understand what you mean? The core rules of 8th were so good that despite Index Necrons being terrible they were still fun to play. Codex Necrons made improvements, just not enough to make it amazing and I think Codex Necrons 9th will be as good or at best slightly better than the last, I am being realistic to avoid being let down. I had low expectations of CA19 and ended up happy, I slowly got higher and higher expectations with 9th and was then let down by a poor CA20.
I don't know what cheap troops Necrons will get, is there a rumour I don't know about? /s
I doubt it, the problems of Codex Necrons was spawned by a terribly terrible Index Necrons and fixing every single problem of the faction was probably just outside the scope of the writers of the Codex. There have been a million other codexes that have been bad and some of those have been bad and not updated for several editions, we're just lucky to be playing in a time where the pace of releases is at an all time high, covid not-withstanding. I would caution against being overly optimistic about the future of our new Codex and all our releases being good, Doomstalkers are the only unit which has a chance of seeing competitive play, the rest are somewhere between meh and worst unit in the game and I doubt GW will release an army-wide rule as fantastically busted as Doctrines paired with super Doctrines ended up being with SM and I still think Codex Necrons 9th will end up being rushed and will fail to update some rules. One thing to keep in mind with SM also was that Doctrines and Super Doctrines came with restrictions, what restrictions can be put on Necrons that have not already been put upon us? No allies and detachments makes multi-dynasty lists less viable already, I guess GW could force us back into Decurions if we want Reanimation Protocols to do something useful.
You know you don't HAVE to play 40k right...?
Feels premature to be judging the codex, having potentially regenerating cheap blobs of troops feels like it might be an edge in the objective game to me (plus durable dedicated transports for those units that may have an edge against high damage AV weapons).
Honestly I've become convinced that some people will claim "it sucks GW hates us" unless they get a complee range re-work AND a dozen new models, all of which have a power level on par with 7th edition wraithknights
MrPieChee wrote: If GW are getting rid of all green rod kits, does that mean a new doomsday ark and ghost ark kit?
Which leads to the very interesting question - will we see reaper arrays as well as flayer arrays?
With the Arks speed, reapers would be devastating on ghost arks (probably too risky on a DDA).
As far as a new kit goes, I hope they go down a mini monolith route rather than sticking with the existing design minus the rods. Something like a small rectangular base monolith with Barge style pilots at the back...
No, the Arks aren't going anywhere, in either form. The DDA will remain one of our best AT options (even with the points increase), and with mission play in 9th the transport might be viable as well.
I want ghost arks to be able to transport more than warriors. A ghost ark can transport ten skorpekh lords, but it cant transport five immortals. Necrons are the only faction who cant put all their troop choices in their transports.
Ghost Arks cannot transport Destroyer Lords, it's extremely obvious they won't be able to transport Skorpekhs, if not at release then whenever GW notices.
The ghost ark is no different than say the Space Marine Landspeeder Storm, they are both designed to transport one kind of model. I would rather they fix the Monolith and Night Scythe's ability to transport models.
MinscS2 wrote: \
(The Immortal has a vastly better gun than even an Intercessor though.)
At the moment the Intercessor gun can fire twice at 30" and at AP-2 for most of the game.
for 2/5s of the game and not the first turn - plus it is str 4...half as effective at damaging t5. It is a much worse weapon. If it turns out that every army has 50% flat 2 wepaons in their army T5 with a better gun is going to be superior to 2 wounds for 2 additional points. The way I see it. Primaris will do better against trash units while immortals will do better against elite firepower. I am liking Immortals. Reaper bomb seems to be the best option to me though.
MinscS2 wrote: \
(The Immortal has a vastly better gun than even an Intercessor though.)
At the moment the Intercessor gun can fire twice at 30" and at AP-2 for most of the game.
for 2/5s of the game and not the first turn - plus it is str 4...half as effective at damaging t5. It is a much worse weapon. If it turns out that every army has 50% flat 2 wepaons in their army T5 with a better gun is going to be superior to 2 wounds for 2 additional points. The way I see it. Primaris will do better against trash units while immortals will do better against elite firepower. I am liking Immortals. Reaper bomb seems to be the best option to me though.
With just the -1 on the Bolt Rifle:
Intercessors vs.
GEQ .666 x .666 x .83 x2 = .73
MEQ .666 x .5 x .5 x2 = .333
TEQ .666 x .5 x .333 x 2 = .22
Custodes EQ .666 x .333 x .333 x2 =.14
Immortals vs.
GEQ .666 x .666 = .44
MEQ .666 x .666 x .666 = .29
TEQ .666 x .333 x .5 = .22
Custodes EQ .666 x .5 x .5 = .16
2 shots with a Bolt Rifle is still equal to 1 shot of the Gauss Blaster shooting at Terminators, and the Blaster barely beats the Bolt Rifle firing at Custodes. It only really becomes a better gun in double-tap range or firing at T8.
Xenomancers wrote: for 2/5s of the game and not the first turn - plus it is str 4...half as effective at damaging t5. It is a much worse weapon. If it turns out that every army has 50% flat 2 wepaons in their army T5 with a better gun is going to be superior to 2 wounds for 2 additional points. The way I see it. Primaris will do better against trash units while immortals will do better against elite firepower. I am liking Immortals. Reaper bomb seems to be the best option to me though.
If Immortals got "Gauss Discipline" they'd be great.
But as far as I'm aware they don't (or at least they don't yet). So you need to get into 15" (dynasty code dependent) to be really effective and that's not guaranteed on a slow model. 15" obviously helps over 12", and the missions force people into the middle of the board more than before, but gauss was generally considered the weaker option so thinking its going to be amazing now may be pushing it.
The meta may shake out, GW may throw 2 damage onto almost anything largely than a bolter, but there are a lot of damage one guns out there right now.
MinscS2 wrote: \
(The Immortal has a vastly better gun than even an Intercessor though.)
At the moment the Intercessor gun can fire twice at 30" and at AP-2 for most of the game.
for 2/5s of the game and not the first turn - plus it is str 4...half as effective at damaging t5. It is a much worse weapon. If it turns out that every army has 50% flat 2 wepaons in their army T5 with a better gun is going to be superior to 2 wounds for 2 additional points. The way I see it. Primaris will do better against trash units while immortals will do better against elite firepower. I am liking Immortals. Reaper bomb seems to be the best option to me though.
With just the -1 on the Bolt Rifle:
Intercessors vs.
GEQ .666 x .666 x .83 x2 = .73
MEQ .666 x .5 x .5 x2 = .333
TEQ .666 x .5 x .333 x 2 = .22
Custodes EQ .666 x .333 x .333 x2 =.14
Immortals vs.
GEQ .666 x .666 = .44
MEQ .666 x .666 x .666 = .29
TEQ .666 x .333 x .5 = .22
Custodes EQ .666 x .5 x .5 = .16
2 shots with a Bolt Rifle is still equal to 1 shot of the Gauss Blaster shooting at Terminators, and the Blaster barely beats the Bolt Rifle firing at Custodes. It only really becomes a better gun in double-tap range or firing at T8.
You're assuming standing still though. I never assume Bolter Discipline on anything that doesn't act stationary in the first place like Bikers (look at the new ones for example) and Terminators.
You're assuming standing still though. I never assume Bolter Discipline on anything that doesn't act stationary in the first place like Bikers (look at the new ones for example) and Terminators.
With a 30" range standing still seems like an option. Or, at the moment, if you're playing UM super doctrine like I do, where you can just run around freely and rapid fire to max range at your heart's content.
You're assuming standing still though. I never assume Bolter Discipline on anything that doesn't act stationary in the first place like Bikers (look at the new ones for example) and Terminators.
With a 30" range standing still seems like an option. Or, at the moment, if you're playing UM super doctrine like I do, where you can just run around freely and rapid fire to max range at your heart's content.
So you're assuming one Chapter at turns 2-3. That's not a solid argument in your favor. Also standing still really isn't always an option, so you're having to assume both of those turns you're standing still.
You're assuming standing still though. I never assume Bolter Discipline on anything that doesn't act stationary in the first place like Bikers (look at the new ones for example) and Terminators.
With a 30" range standing still seems like an option. Or, at the moment, if you're playing UM super doctrine like I do, where you can just run around freely and rapid fire to max range at your heart's content.
So you're assuming one Chapter at turns 2-3. That's not a solid argument in your favor. Also standing still really isn't always an option, so you're having to assume both of those turns you're standing still.
No, I'm assuming standing still and firing with any chapter, the calculations I gave are for the -1 AP on the Bolt Rifle. Tactical Doctrine with AP 2 will just be even better than the results I posted. UM just makes it even easier.
I don't understand what you mean? The core rules of 8th were so good that despite Index Necrons being terrible they were still fun to play.
I have to say, I didn't find Necrons fun to play in 8th.
Not because of power level either. I just found their general design and army builds unbelievably uninspiring.
Same. I think for me the biggest loss was all their unique abilties some units could do.
Imotekh calling down literal storms, Crypteks being able to summon the shadows and breathe despair...
The biggest slap in the face is the infinite aged master nobles hitting like wet noodles in close combat.
Give us better warscythes again plsgw
I don't understand what you mean? The core rules of 8th were so good that despite Index Necrons being terrible they were still fun to play.
I have to say, I didn't find Necrons fun to play in 8th.
Not because of power level either. I just found their general design and army builds unbelievably uninspiring.
Same. I think for me the biggest loss was all their unique abilties some units could do.
Imotekh calling down literal storms, Crypteks being able to summon the shadows and breathe despair...
The biggest slap in the face is the infinite aged master nobles hitting like wet noodles in close combat.
Give us better warscythes again plsgw
This has been Necrons problem since we lost the Ward dex. All the character has been leeched out of them.
While the fluff got ruined the Ward dex still had the best rules necrons have ever had in terms of making necrons fun to play.
Disagree. The Teleportation shennannigans of the 3rd ed book were an absolute blast. Monolith drops to the table. Monolith pulls Cron unit out of combat, they roll for WBB again, pop out the portal of the Monolith as if from a stationary transport and start obliterating stuff. Soo juicy. Soo win.
While the fluff got ruined the Ward dex still had the best rules necrons have ever had in terms of making necrons fun to play.
Disagree. The Teleportation shennannigans of the 3rd ed book were an absolute blast. Monolith drops to the table. Monolith pulls Cron unit out of combat, they roll for WBB again, pop out the portal of the Monolith as if from a stationary transport and start obliterating stuff. Soo juicy. Soo win.
Veil of Darkness and Flayed Ones too (though their usefulness could be argued). Anyone saying Necrons were immobile was completely incorrect.
While the fluff got ruined the Ward dex still had the best rules necrons have ever had in terms of making necrons fun to play.
Disagree. The Teleportation shennannigans of the 3rd ed book were an absolute blast. Monolith drops to the table. Monolith pulls Cron unit out of combat, they roll for WBB again, pop out the portal of the Monolith as if from a stationary transport and start obliterating stuff. Soo juicy. Soo win.
Veil of Darkness and Flayed Ones too (though their usefulness could be argued). Anyone saying Necrons were immobile was completely incorrect.
Yeah Veil of Darkness was a must-take for 60 points. Destroyers counted as Jetbikes too iirc, and so could move 24" if they needed to.
Ghaz wrote: Has the Canoptek Spyder shown up here yet (via War of Sigmar)?
Spoiler:
With the Tomb Blade datasheet showing up, it looks like the beamers are six shots each, so a spyder with two beamers should be 12 shots now. that makes it kind of interesting.
vict0988 wrote: Ghost Arks cannot transport Destroyer Lords, it's extremely obvious they won't be able to transport Skorpekhs, if not at release then whenever GW notices.
A skorpekh lord is an INFANTRY CHARACTER. A ghost ark can carry up to ten INFANTRY CHARACTER, excluding destroyer lords, but a skorpekh lord isnt a destroyer lord. As it looks like, skorpekh lords can fold like a folding bike, the destroyer lord cant. This will probably change in the codex, but right now, its possible. I already have a list with deceiver, ghost ark, three skorpekh lords. I guess you can figure out the combo.
Ghaz wrote: Has the Canoptek Spyder shown up here yet (via War of Sigmar)?
Spoiler:
With the Tomb Blade datasheet showing up, it looks like the beamers are six shots each, so a spyder with two beamers should be 12 shots now. that makes it kind of interesting.
Sounds too good to be true for sure, but it would be hilarious. 9 spyders ( in three units ), keeping 27 scarabs alive indefinitely, just blazing away like crazy.. I'd love to try it. Not getting 9 spyders any time soon though.
Blndmage wrote: How are people saying they transport Skorptekh things?
The transport rule was written when there werent' characters that weren't infantry except destroyer lord. Thus GA can transport characters EXCEPT destroyer lord. Now with skorpek lord it slips through loophole and some people are so TFG's they want to exploit that even though it's only for brief period rather than learn how to actually win with tactics. Exploiting loopholes to compensate for own inability.
I don't understand what you mean? The core rules of 8th were so good that despite Index Necrons being terrible they were still fun to play.
I have to say, I didn't find Necrons fun to play in 8th.
Not because of power level either. I just found their general design and army builds unbelievably uninspiring.
Same. I think for me the biggest loss was all their unique abilties some units could do.
Imotekh calling down literal storms, Crypteks being able to summon the shadows and breathe despair...
The biggest slap in the face is the infinite aged master nobles hitting like wet noodles in close combat.
Give us better warscythes again plsgw
This has been Necrons problem since we lost the Ward dex. All the character has been leeched out of them.
Yeah, for all it's faults the Ward codex at least introduced some fun mechanics and playstyles.
I still remember back in 5th/6th I had an army based around small units of Immortals with Crypteks in each.
It wasn't a strong army by any means, but it was a lot of fun to play and effectively gave me a whole array of specialist squads (I had backfield ones with the long-range Crypteks, I had anti-vehicle Storm Cryptek units, I had anti-infantry squads with Despair Crypteks and their flamers), plus all the special wargear they could access like rerolls, teleportation etc..
You can imagine my disappointment when all the Cryptek variants were removed and they just became generic HQ choices.
Also, I liked that the Destroyer Lord actually had decent synergy with Wraiths. They were good against infantry and light vehicles, whilst he was better against heavy vehicles and characters (with the dreaded Mindshackle Scarabs). Plus they made him Fearless when he was attached, so he couldn't lose his RPs by running and getting cut down.
For me, it's difficult because I liked aspects of both.
I definitely miss the infantry-focused playstyle of the old book. I also miss the general look of the models - particularly the HQs. I liked it when they had relatively few embellishments and just a few little details to mark their status. Now every HQ looks like its been artificially inflated by means of a bicycle pump. And rather than being soulless skeletons, they're so embellished that they resemble coral reefs on legs. Even their caps can't just be ragged cloth anymore, no they have to be made out of bead-curtains or something. It seems like the aesthetic I used to love has been all but lost. Hell, I don't even see why Overlords were needed in the first place. Lords already had nice models and Overlords didn't really have a role that wasn't just treading on their toes.
Also, I hate this robots-driving-vehicles nonsense, with Tomb Blades being the worst example. Why were they given full bodies? Why not make them like Destroyers/Wraiths and make them integrated into their 'vehicles'. Same goes for stuff like the Annihilation Barge.
Fair to say I really despise the 'Tomb Kings in Spaaaaace' crap. A fact that is in no way helped by the array of stupid names that seem like a list of horrible puns.
However, from a mechanical perspective, I did at least like some of what the Ward book brought to the table. Not least, it was nice to have some more options in terms of HQs and their weapons and wargear (for some reason I found myself really taking to the flamer-gauntlet things), and the crypteks in particular brought with them a great deal of options and possibilities for the infantry playstyle I so enjoyed.
The unfortunate thing from my perspective, though, is that the stuff I liked was largely or wholly removed in subsequent books whilst all the things I disliked (models, fluff etc.) stayed around.
You're assuming standing still though. I never assume Bolter Discipline on anything that doesn't act stationary in the first place like Bikers (look at the new ones for example) and Terminators.
With a 30" range standing still seems like an option. Or, at the moment, if you're playing UM super doctrine like I do, where you can just run around freely and rapid fire to max range at your heart's content.
You make good points and your math checks out, but Immortals are vastly better than they used to be, period.
You're assuming standing still though. I never assume Bolter Discipline on anything that doesn't act stationary in the first place like Bikers (look at the new ones for example) and Terminators.
With a 30" range standing still seems like an option. Or, at the moment, if you're playing UM super doctrine like I do, where you can just run around freely and rapid fire to max range at your heart's content.
You make good points and your math checks out, but Immortals are vastly better than they used to be, period.
Hmmm, I believe that's kinda missing Insectum7s point that he made a while back. Are Immortals better than they used to be in 5-8th? Yes. The original point however was are they good enough in comparison to Intercessors and soon-to-be 2W Tacs?
You're assuming standing still though. I never assume Bolter Discipline on anything that doesn't act stationary in the first place like Bikers (look at the new ones for example) and Terminators.
With a 30" range standing still seems like an option. Or, at the moment, if you're playing UM super doctrine like I do, where you can just run around freely and rapid fire to max range at your heart's content.
You make good points and your math checks out, but Immortals are vastly better than they used to be, period.
You're assuming standing still though. I never assume Bolter Discipline on anything that doesn't act stationary in the first place like Bikers (look at the new ones for example) and Terminators.
With a 30" range standing still seems like an option. Or, at the moment, if you're playing UM super doctrine like I do, where you can just run around freely and rapid fire to max range at your heart's content.
You make good points and your math checks out, but Immortals are vastly better than they used to be, period.
Hmmm, I believe that's kinda missing Insectum7s point that he made a while back. Are Immortals better than they used to be in 5-8th? Yes. The original point however was are they good enough in comparison to Intercessors and soon-to-be 2W Tacs?
I think yes but YMMV.
I'd say they're rough equivalents but that's not really my frustration. My frustration is that they used to be better than Tacs, and before that Warriors used to be better than Tacs and Immortals were vastly superior to Tacs. My irritation is the constant degradation of iconic necron core units in relation to marines.
It's not really game balance I'm bothered by, I'm sure they'll be a fine unit. It's their relative strength that keeps dropping. When I played Crons their basic trooper was valued as superior to a Space Marine. Now their elite troops are roughly equal. I preferred it when Immortals cost about twice as much as a Space Marine and was totally worth it.
It's not really game balance I'm bothered by, I'm sure they'll be a fine unit. It's their relative strength that keeps dropping. When I played Crons their basic trooper was valued as superior to a Space Marine. Now their elite troops are roughly equal. I preferred it when Immortals cost about twice as much as a Space Marine and was totally worth it.
Quick question, given the influx of new Necron units in 5th and now 9th, would you still want Warriors and Immortals to be better than Tacs and pointed as such even if that meant Lychguard and Triarch Praetorians will most likely be 35+ ppm? Assuming their rules a worth that cost.
Edit: I should mention that from my perspective when I started playing in 6th-7th it's been natural for me to view Warriors as our chaff infantry with Immortals as the MEQ, leaving Lychguard and Praetorians as our elite MEQ similar to Bladeguard Veterans.
It's not really game balance I'm bothered by, I'm sure they'll be a fine unit. It's their relative strength that keeps dropping. When I played Crons their basic trooper was valued as superior to a Space Marine. Now their elite troops are roughly equal. I preferred it when Immortals cost about twice as much as a Space Marine and was totally worth it.
Quick question, given the influx of new Necron units in 5th and now 9th, would you still want Warriors and Immortals to be better than Tacs and pointed as such even if that meant Lychguard and Triarch Praetorians will most likely be 35+ ppm? Assuming their rules a worth that cost.
As opposed to now, when they're a supercheap 30ppm?
I know I would, as they should be about the equivalent to stuff like Terminators/Gravis Units.
It's not really game balance I'm bothered by, I'm sure they'll be a fine unit. It's their relative strength that keeps dropping. When I played Crons their basic trooper was valued as superior to a Space Marine. Now their elite troops are roughly equal. I preferred it when Immortals cost about twice as much as a Space Marine and was totally worth it.
Quick question, given the influx of new Necron units in 5th and now 9th, would you still want Warriors and Immortals to be better than Tacs and pointed as such even if that meant Lychguard and Triarch Praetorians will most likely be 35+ ppm? Assuming their rules a worth that cost.
Edit: I should mention that from my perspective when I started playing in 6th-7th it's been natural for me to view Warriors as our chaff infantry with Immortals as the MEQ, leaving Lychguard and Praetorians as our elite MEQ similar to Bladeguard Veterans.
That'd be totally fine by me, yes.
And instead of Praetorians/Lychguard they should be Pariahs, who actually were 36 points a model or something, back in the day.
Mixzremixzd wrote: Off the top of my head Praetorians are 23ppm and Lychguard 25?
I'm just curious where you view Necrons as a faction on the spectrum of hordes to elite.
To me it seems like GW is aiming for the faction as a whole to offer a versatile playstyle that isn't just MEQ that get back up when killed.
Theyre about the equivalent of sisters of battle/current CSM. Vehicles cost about the same, infantry costs 1-2 points more in most cases.Valorous Heart sisters play incredibly similar to necrons.
Which puts them underneath marines, special marines, custodes, and knights, and more elite than guard and admech. 2/13 imperial codexes. and necrons are pretty much the most elite xenos faction, unless you believe the glorified guardsman that is an eldar guardian is actually worth 10ppm XD
Lol even though I never got to own a Pariah model let alone play them on the TT I still wish GW didn't squat them such a cool unique twist to the 3rd Ed Necrons. All I have now is Dark Crusade to get my fix
Mixzremixzd wrote: Lol even though I never got to own a Pariah model let alone play them on the TT I still wish GW didn't squat them such a cool unique twist to the 3rd Ed Necrons. All I have now is Dark Crusade to get my fix
haha, right? I just reinstalled DC two months ago, and Pariahs are soooo awesome in DC.
Mixzremixzd wrote: Off the top of my head Praetorians are 23ppm and Lychguard 25?
I'm just curious where you view Necrons as a faction on the spectrum of hordes to elite.
To me it seems like GW is aiming for the faction as a whole to offer a versatile playstyle that isn't just MEQ that get back up when killed.
Theyre about the equivalent of sisters of battle/current CSM. Vehicles cost about the same, infantry costs 1-2 points more in most cases.Valorous Heart sisters play incredibly similar to necrons.
Which puts them underneath marines, special marines, custodes, and knights, and more elite than guard and admech. 2/13 imperial codexes. and necrons are pretty much the most elite xenos faction, unless you believe the glorified guardsman that is an eldar guardian is actually worth 10ppm XD
Yeah that's about where I'd say Necrons are and what they should be, IMO, on the hordes to elite scale. Besides, after CA2020 I'm not sure what to believe when it comes to GW and points
Xenomancers wrote: for 2/5s of the game and not the first turn - plus it is str 4...half as effective at damaging t5. It is a much worse weapon. If it turns out that every army has 50% flat 2 wepaons in their army T5 with a better gun is going to be superior to 2 wounds for 2 additional points. The way I see it. Primaris will do better against trash units while immortals will do better against elite firepower. I am liking Immortals. Reaper bomb seems to be the best option to me though.
If Immortals got "Gauss Discipline" they'd be great.
But as far as I'm aware they don't (or at least they don't yet). So you need to get into 15" (dynasty code dependent) to be really effective and that's not guaranteed on a slow model. 15" obviously helps over 12", and the missions force people into the middle of the board more than before, but gauss was generally considered the weaker option so thinking its going to be amazing now may be pushing it.
The meta may shake out, GW may throw 2 damage onto almost anything largely than a bolter, but there are a lot of damage one guns out there right now.
They have even better. rapid fire at 18" all the time with sautec. With all the movement shenanigans crons can pull with infantry - getting in 18" is not an issue. Both are good units (immortals and intercessors) the immortal is likely a little better this eddition though.
MinscS2 wrote: \
(The Immortal has a vastly better gun than even an Intercessor though.)
At the moment the Intercessor gun can fire twice at 30" and at AP-2 for most of the game.
for 2/5s of the game and not the first turn - plus it is str 4...half as effective at damaging t5. It is a much worse weapon. If it turns out that every army has 50% flat 2 wepaons in their army T5 with a better gun is going to be superior to 2 wounds for 2 additional points. The way I see it. Primaris will do better against trash units while immortals will do better against elite firepower. I am liking Immortals. Reaper bomb seems to be the best option to me though.
With just the -1 on the Bolt Rifle:
Intercessors vs.
GEQ .666 x .666 x .83 x2 = .73
MEQ .666 x .5 x .5 x2 = .333
TEQ .666 x .5 x .333 x 2 = .22
Custodes EQ .666 x .333 x .333 x2 =.14
Immortals vs.
GEQ .666 x .666 = .44
MEQ .666 x .666 x .666 = .29
TEQ .666 x .333 x .5 = .22
Custodes EQ .666 x .5 x .5 = .16
2 shots with a Bolt Rifle is still equal to 1 shot of the Gauss Blaster shooting at Terminators, and the Blaster barely beats the Bolt Rifle firing at Custodes. It only really becomes a better gun in double-tap range or firing at T8.
Why are you assuming...the marine did not move?The gun is literally +1 str bolt rifle the only situation in which it is better is if the necron unit is far away and the marine did not move. The immortal if better or equal in literally every other situation AND it costs 2 less points.
The marine is better at melee and shooting trash units. The immortal is better at shooting elite units.
Mixzremixzd wrote: Lol even though I never got to own a Pariah model let alone play them on the TT I still wish GW didn't squat them such a cool unique twist to the 3rd Ed Necrons. All I have now is Dark Crusade to get my fix
haha, right? I just reinstalled DC two months ago, and Pariahs are soooo awesome in DC.
It's a shame, too, as it seems like a theme that could have been expanded greatly.
Mixzremixzd wrote: Off the top of my head Praetorians are 23ppm and Lychguard 25?
I'm just curious where you view Necrons as a faction on the spectrum of hordes to elite.
To me it seems like GW is aiming for the faction as a whole to offer a versatile playstyle that isn't just MEQ that get back up when killed.
Theyre about the equivalent of sisters of battle/current CSM. Vehicles cost about the same, infantry costs 1-2 points more in most cases.Valorous Heart sisters play incredibly similar to necrons.
Which puts them underneath marines, special marines, custodes, and knights, and more elite than guard and admech. 2/13 imperial codexes. and necrons are pretty much the most elite xenos faction, unless you believe the glorified guardsman that is an eldar guardian is actually worth 10ppm XD
Yeah that's about where I'd say Necrons are and what they should be, IMO, on the hordes to elite scale. Besides, after CA2020 I'm not sure what to believe when it comes to GW and points
Cool, so ALL xenos should be "marines -1" tier at most, and ALL chaos should be "marines" tier at most.
That sure does paint the imperium as the "besieged underdogs" doesn't it? if 10/13 factions of imperial armies are stronger and better than 100% of the competition to the imperium?
Mixzremixzd wrote: Off the top of my head Praetorians are 23ppm and Lychguard 25?
I'm just curious where you view Necrons as a faction on the spectrum of hordes to elite.
To me it seems like GW is aiming for the faction as a whole to offer a versatile playstyle that isn't just MEQ that get back up when killed.
Theyre about the equivalent of sisters of battle/current CSM. Vehicles cost about the same, infantry costs 1-2 points more in most cases.Valorous Heart sisters play incredibly similar to necrons.
Which puts them underneath marines, special marines, custodes, and knights, and more elite than guard and admech. 2/13 imperial codexes. and necrons are pretty much the most elite xenos faction, unless you believe the glorified guardsman that is an eldar guardian is actually worth 10ppm XD
Yeah that's about where I'd say Necrons are and what they should be, IMO, on the hordes to elite scale. Besides, after CA2020 I'm not sure what to believe when it comes to GW and points
Cool, so ALL xenos should be "marines -1" tier at most, and ALL chaos should be "marines" tier at most.
That sure does paint the imperium as the "besieged underdogs" doesn't it? if 10/13 factions of imperial armies are stronger and better than 100% of the competition to the imperium?
Sounds to me like the issue is the proliferation of Marines skewing the entire power dynamic no? Why GW as an entire tab on their webstore for SM separate from the Imperium is comical to think about but it's the unfortunate truth.
And besides, we're talking about how a faction functions on a spectrum of hordes or elite so I'm not sure where you think I meant that "All xenos should be marines -1 tier when I'm asking should Necrons play more like Orks or Custodes not should Necrons be as good as Orks or Custodes?
Edit: Just to clarify my stance to erase any misunderstanding. I am personally fine with Warriors being less than Marines and Immortals being MEQ with Lychguard and Praetorians greater than this. Why? Because then it allows me the option to choose how I want to build and play my army. If I want to fight numbers with numbers against Tyranids, I have the option of Silver Tiding with Warriors, Scarabs and Ghost Arks. If I want to go blow-for-blow with Primaris, I can do so using Immortals and Lychguard. Grey Knights, as an example, do not have this option of versatile list building and that's fine. Necrons need more was to play beyond MEQ that stands back up when killed not less IMHO.
the_scotsman wrote: Cool, so ALL xenos should be "marines -1" tier at most, and ALL chaos should be "marines" tier at most.
That sure does paint the imperium as the "besieged underdogs" doesn't it? if 10/13 factions of imperial armies are stronger and better than 100% of the competition to the imperium?
To be fair, I think the 'besieged underdogs' aspect has already been lost by the sheer weight of Marine armies.
It's hard to think of them as being under threat when they seem to outnumber even Tyranids.
To be fair, I think the 'besieged underdogs' aspect has already been lost by the sheer weight of Marine armies.
It's hard to think of them as being under threat when they seem to outnumber even Tyranids.
And to be fair, that has nothing to do with lore. It has everything to do with how Marines are the 'poster' faction and everyone talks about them being OP.
Matters are further not helped by people on other venues doing everything they can to make 40k seem like it's just Marines as good.
To be fair, I think the 'besieged underdogs' aspect has already been lost by the sheer weight of Marine armies.
It's hard to think of them as being under threat when they seem to outnumber even Tyranids.
And to be fair, that has nothing to do with lore. It has everything to do with how Marines are the 'poster' faction and everyone talks about them being OP.
I know it's not an accurate reflection of the lore, but that's exactly why it amuses me.
It's kinda hilarious that the faction supposedly comprised of a minuscule number of elites is so overplayed that it outnumbers all the other factions combined.
Aza'Gorod wrote: Oh yeah i do admit that besides bikes, some flyers and land speeders (not sure about astra militarum but I do think admech have some T6) there aren't lots of T6 models in the imperial armies but it would be nice to have something to differentiate the two because as I mentioned at the moment there really isnt anything
Ork Trukks and Planes would have a S12 gun...My Chinorks are a T5 so they dont care
To be fair, I think the 'besieged underdogs' aspect has already been lost by the sheer weight of Marine armies.
It's hard to think of them as being under threat when they seem to outnumber even Tyranids.
And to be fair, that has nothing to do with lore. It has everything to do with how Marines are the 'poster' faction and everyone talks about them being OP.
It does have something to do with lore - despite the apparently dire situation the Imperium finds itself in they were still able to reinforce basically all existing Marine Chapters with Primaris, found a bunch of new Ultima Chapters, and re-found a bunch of previously lost Chapters.
To be fair, I think the 'besieged underdogs' aspect has already been lost by the sheer weight of Marine armies.
It's hard to think of them as being under threat when they seem to outnumber even Tyranids.
And to be fair, that has nothing to do with lore. It has everything to do with how Marines are the 'poster' faction and everyone talks about them being OP.
It does have something to do with lore - despite the apparently dire situation the Imperium finds itself in they were still able to reinforce basically all existing Marine Chapters with Primaris, found a bunch of new Ultima Chapters, and re-found a bunch of previously lost Chapters.
Much stakes. Very dire.
Unveil a bunch of new weapons, reclaim a ton of lost technology, resurrect their primarch who has since kicked the tuckus of one of the chaos primarchs who had literally been ascending to demigodhood for the 10,000 years that Guilliman was a glorified Futurama jar head, destroy a hive fleet tendril, launch a massive crusade, beat magnus a second time, receive direct guidance from the emperor, mobilize the silent sisters and the custodes...
GW is just so addicted to their bolterporn that they prematurely marineculate every time they try to spend a second setting up stakes. The new necrons in that video are a perfect example - they're like, overwhelming and spooky for about 0.00000000000000000001 second and then the marines show up and effortlessly dunk on every single new necron unit they showcase in the vid while the female voiceover explains that if you believe in fairies and clap your hands, the emperor will send his big, strong, awesome, amazing, sugoiiiiii sempais to notice you..
Mixzremixzd wrote: Off the top of my head Praetorians are 23ppm and Lychguard 25?
I'm just curious where you view Necrons as a faction on the spectrum of hordes to elite.
To me it seems like GW is aiming for the faction as a whole to offer a versatile playstyle that isn't just MEQ that get back up when killed.
Theyre about the equivalent of sisters of battle/current CSM. Vehicles cost about the same, infantry costs 1-2 points more in most cases.Valorous Heart sisters play incredibly similar to necrons.
Which puts them underneath marines, special marines, custodes, and knights, and more elite than guard and admech. 2/13 imperial codexes. and necrons are pretty much the most elite xenos faction, unless you believe the glorified guardsman that is an eldar guardian is actually worth 10ppm XD
Yeah that's about where I'd say Necrons are and what they should be, IMO, on the hordes to elite scale. Besides, after CA2020 I'm not sure what to believe when it comes to GW and points
Cool, so ALL xenos should be "marines -1" tier at most, and ALL chaos should be "marines" tier at most.
That sure does paint the imperium as the "besieged underdogs" doesn't it? if 10/13 factions of imperial armies are stronger and better than 100% of the competition to the imperium?
Sounds to me like the issue is the proliferation of Marines skewing the entire power dynamic no? Why GW as an entire tab on their webstore for SM separate from the Imperium is comical to think about but it's the unfortunate truth.
And besides, we're talking about how a faction functions on a spectrum of hordes or elite so I'm not sure where you think I meant that "All xenos should be marines -1 tier when I'm asking should Necrons play more like Orks or Custodes not should Necrons be as good as Orks or Custodes?
Edit: Just to clarify my stance to erase any misunderstanding. I am personally fine with Warriors being less than Marines and Immortals being MEQ with Lychguard and Praetorians greater than this. Why? Because then it allows me the option to choose how I want to build and play my army. If I want to fight numbers with numbers against Tyranids, I have the option of Silver Tiding with Warriors, Scarabs and Ghost Arks. If I want to go blow-for-blow with Primaris, I can do so using Immortals and Lychguard. Grey Knights, as an example, do not have this option of versatile list building and that's fine. Necrons need more was to play beyond MEQ that stands back up when killed not less IMHO.
Why does every Xenos army need to have a horde option? Also, define "horde". If I could take 100 Necron Warriors at 18 ppm, would that not be a "horde" or "silver tide"? IMO you don't need 11 point models to make a 'horde'. And if Warriors were 18 and we went up from there, what's wrong with Praetorians being 35? Do they even have to be 35? SM Command squads don't much more than Tacticals until you start loading them up with gear.
the_scotsman wrote: ...and then the marines show up and effortlessly dunk on every single new necron unit they showcase in the vid while the female voiceover explains that if you believe in fairies and clap your hands, the emperor will send his big, strong, awesome, amazing, sugoiiiiii sempais to notice you..
Such a disappointing moment. Marines even take over the VO.
Still not sure whether Sisters were there by virtue of being a recent major army revamp, or to deflect criticism, or as a hint of being another early Codex... but they left no doubt who the real heroes of the Imperium are.
To be fair, I think the 'besieged underdogs' aspect has already been lost by the sheer weight of Marine armies.
It's hard to think of them as being under threat when they seem to outnumber even Tyranids.
And to be fair, that has nothing to do with lore. It has everything to do with how Marines are the 'poster' faction and everyone talks about them being OP.
It does have something to do with lore - despite the apparently dire situation the Imperium finds itself in they were still able to reinforce basically all existing Marine Chapters with Primaris, found a bunch of new Ultima Chapters, and re-found a bunch of previously lost Chapters.
Much stakes. Very dire.
Unveil a bunch of new weapons, reclaim a ton of lost technology, resurrect their primarch who has since kicked the tuckus of one of the chaos primarchs who had literally been ascending to demigodhood for the 10,000 years that Guilliman was a glorified Futurama jar head, destroy a hive fleet tendril, launch a massive crusade, beat magnus a second time, receive direct guidance from the emperor, mobilize the silent sisters and the custodes...
GW is just so addicted to their bolterporn that they prematurely marineculate every time they try to spend a second setting up stakes. The new necrons in that video are a perfect example - they're like, overwhelming and spooky for about 0.00000000000000000001 second and then the marines show up and effortlessly dunk on every single new necron unit they showcase in the vid while the female voiceover explains that if you believe in fairies and clap your hands, the emperor will send his big, strong, awesome, amazing, sugoiiiiii sempais to notice you..
Yeah, that trailer seemed to encompass everything wrong with 40k.
Not least the fact that it's impossible to make any xeno race threatening because none of them are allowed to be an actual threat to marines. Hell, even Sisters of Battle apparently have better Resurrection Protocols than Necrons. Because that's the only way I can explain someone having their helmet cut clean in two but their head somehow being completely fine afterwards.
What's more, it seemed a perfect example of Necrons being an NPC race. They're supposed to have actual personalities and goals now (goals beyond 'Exterminate! Exterminate', I mean), but does that come across at all in the trailer? No. They might as well have been generic robot baddies sent by Dr. Eggman.
Mixzremixzd wrote: Off the top of my head Praetorians are 23ppm and Lychguard 25?
I'm just curious where you view Necrons as a faction on the spectrum of hordes to elite.
To me it seems like GW is aiming for the faction as a whole to offer a versatile playstyle that isn't just MEQ that get back up when killed.
Theyre about the equivalent of sisters of battle/current CSM. Vehicles cost about the same, infantry costs 1-2 points more in most cases.Valorous Heart sisters play incredibly similar to necrons.
Which puts them underneath marines, special marines, custodes, and knights, and more elite than guard and admech. 2/13 imperial codexes. and necrons are pretty much the most elite xenos faction, unless you believe the glorified guardsman that is an eldar guardian is actually worth 10ppm XD
Yeah that's about where I'd say Necrons are and what they should be, IMO, on the hordes to elite scale. Besides, after CA2020 I'm not sure what to believe when it comes to GW and points
Cool, so ALL xenos should be "marines -1" tier at most, and ALL chaos should be "marines" tier at most.
That sure does paint the imperium as the "besieged underdogs" doesn't it? if 10/13 factions of imperial armies are stronger and better than 100% of the competition to the imperium?
Sounds to me like the issue is the proliferation of Marines skewing the entire power dynamic no? Why GW as an entire tab on their webstore for SM separate from the Imperium is comical to think about but it's the unfortunate truth.
And besides, we're talking about how a faction functions on a spectrum of hordes or elite so I'm not sure where you think I meant that "All xenos should be marines -1 tier when I'm asking should Necrons play more like Orks or Custodes not should Necrons be as good as Orks or Custodes?
Edit: Just to clarify my stance to erase any misunderstanding. I am personally fine with Warriors being less than Marines and Immortals being MEQ with Lychguard and Praetorians greater than this. Why? Because then it allows me the option to choose how I want to build and play my army. If I want to fight numbers with numbers against Tyranids, I have the option of Silver Tiding with Warriors, Scarabs and Ghost Arks. If I want to go blow-for-blow with Primaris, I can do so using Immortals and Lychguard. Grey Knights, as an example, do not have this option of versatile list building and that's fine. Necrons need more was to play beyond MEQ that stands back up when killed not less IMHO.
Why does every Xenos army need to have a horde option? Also, define "horde". If I could take 100 Necron Warriors at 18 ppm, would that not be a "horde" or "silver tide"? IMO you don't need 11 point models to make a 'horde'. And if Warriors were 18 and we went up from there, what's wrong with Praetorians being 35? Do they even have to be 35? SM Command squads don't much more than Tacticals until you start loading them up with gear.
I never said every Xenos army needs to have a horde option. I simply said why I would like for Necrons to have a horde option for versatility sake and cause you know, "Their Number is Legion". I mean 100 Warriors at 18ppm? 1800 points of your 2k army? Unless you were memeing with friends then no one even considers that to be a decent or viable army, we all know that 18ppm does not constitute a viable horde army if that's the price of your most basic infantry, although with 9th and CA2020 who really knows anymore. What's wrong with Praetorians being 35? Nothing. Never once said there was. I used that number as a ballpark based on Praetorians being 23 and Immortals 18 for a hypothetical of what if Immortals went back to their 3rd Ed cost (Assuming of course Praetorians are still seen as better/more elite than Immortals and not just a side-grade) and I wanted to know what you thought in that hypothetical situation.
Doomscythe is looking Tasty now.... DDA is the same except for the 3+ save, which is nice. Indicates a trend and I think that means QS is likely staying around in it's current form.
D6 Shots and D6 damage still on the DDA is...unfortunate but I'll welcome the 3+ save anyway.
Also the Tesla on the Croissants are now 10 shots rather than 8 and I'm thankful for the flat 3 shots for the Deathray as well as the fact that Sautekh is no longer the only way to make them viable.
Mixzremixzd wrote: D6 Shots and D6 damage still on the DDA is...unfortunate but I'll welcome the 3+ save anyway.
Also the Tesla on the Croissants are now 10 shots rather than 8 and I'm thankful for the flat 3 shots for the Deathray as well as the fact that Sautekh is no longer the only way to make them viable.
D3+3 Damage is also a huge improvement for the Deathray.
Blndmage wrote: How are people saying they transport Skorptekh things?
The transport rule was written when there werent' characters that weren't infantry except destroyer lord. Thus GA can transport characters EXCEPT destroyer lord. Now with skorpek lord it slips through loophole and some people are so TFG's they want to exploit that even though it's only for brief period rather than learn how to actually win with tactics. Exploiting loopholes to compensate for own inability.
Finding these loopholes is what competitive 40k is all about. You don't win competitive games with fluff lists. So far no one complained when I told them that they are infantry characters, because it's normal for infantry characters to use transports.
I never said every Xenos army needs to have a horde option. I simply said why I would like for Necrons to have a horde option for versatility sake and cause you know, "Their Number is Legion". I mean 100 Warriors at 18ppm? 1800 points of your 2k army? Unless you were memeing with friends then no one even considers that to be a decent or viable army, we all know that 18ppm does not constitute a viable horde army if that's the price of your most basic infantry, although with 9th and CA2020 who really knows anymore. What's wrong with Praetorians being 35? Nothing. Never once said there was. I used that number as a ballpark based on Praetorians being 23 and Immortals 18 for a hypothetical of what if Immortals went back to their 3rd Ed cost (Assuming of course Praetorians are still seen as better/more elite than Immortals and not just a side-grade) and I wanted to know what you thought in that hypothetical situation.
Ahh, see. . . running an army of 18 pt Warriors in 3rd was actually kind of a thing, and it was pretty viable. It could be a very tough to kill army in those days when you stuck a Lord with a Resurrection Orb in the middle of it.
Doomscythe is looking Tasty now.... DDA is the same except for the 3+ save, which is nice. Indicates a trend and I think that means QS is likely staying around in it's current form.
How you figure that? Qs was more of compensation for low t and saves. If save improves...
Why oh why have they not changed the random shots and damage on the DDA...
Sasori wrote: DDA is the same except for the 3+ save, which is nice. Indicates a trend and I think that means QS is likely staying around in it's current form.
To me it indicates that QS will be nerfed to just ignore on a 6 or something like that.
Yeah, that trailer seemed to encompass everything wrong with 40k.
Not least the fact that it's impossible to make any xeno race threatening because none of them are allowed to be an actual threat to marines. Hell, even Sisters of Battle apparently have better Resurrection Protocols than Necrons. Because that's the only way I can explain someone having their helmet cut clean in two but their head somehow being completely fine afterwards.
What's more, it seemed a perfect example of Necrons being an NPC race. They're supposed to have actual personalities and goals now (goals beyond 'Exterminate! Exterminate', I mean), but does that come across at all in the trailer? No. They might as well have been generic robot baddies sent by Dr. Eggman.
Oh my god. It's a promotional trailer not a gd movie. What about those Astra militarum? I didn't see their motivations. NPC RACE!
Doomscythe is looking Tasty now.... DDA is the same except for the 3+ save, which is nice. Indicates a trend and I think that means QS is likely staying around in it's current form.
How you figure that? Qs was more of compensation for low t and saves. If save improves...
If QS wasn't staying around In someform I feel like they would have buffed up our Toughness, as even a Rhino is T7. With both the Triarch Stalker and the Arks staying the same T, even though the Ark save improved, makes me feel like it's staying around in some form.
Cynista wrote: Why oh why have they not changed the random shots and damage on the DDA...
Sasori wrote: DDA is the same except for the 3+ save, which is nice. Indicates a trend and I think that means QS is likely staying around in it's current form.
To me it indicates that QS will be nerfed to just ignore on a 6 or something like that.
If it was changed, I guess that it will be changed to invalnulable save instead.
and 6+++ is unlikely to heppen, it is no way that Necron’s highly advance shilding technology is effective as only miracle and less effective that DG’s thick fresh
My worry is now dda has a 3+ will they just get a 5++ like the walker and loose quantum shielding. The flat 3 shots and d3+3 damage makes the doomscythes alot more reliable and the 10 Tesla is really nice, might need to give my croissants a dust.
To be fair, I think the 'besieged underdogs' aspect has already been lost by the sheer weight of Marine armies.
It's hard to think of them as being under threat when they seem to outnumber even Tyranids.
And to be fair, that has nothing to do with lore. It has everything to do with how Marines are the 'poster' faction and everyone talks about them being OP.
It does have something to do with lore - despite the apparently dire situation the Imperium finds itself in they were still able to reinforce basically all existing Marine Chapters with Primaris, found a bunch of new Ultima Chapters, and re-found a bunch of previously lost Chapters.
Much stakes. Very dire.
Unveil a bunch of new weapons, reclaim a ton of lost technology, resurrect their primarch who has since kicked the tuckus of one of the chaos primarchs who had literally been ascending to demigodhood for the 10,000 years that Guilliman was a glorified Futurama jar head, destroy a hive fleet tendril, launch a massive crusade, beat magnus a second time, receive direct guidance from the emperor, mobilize the silent sisters and the custodes...
GW is just so addicted to their bolterporn that they prematurely marineculate every time they try to spend a second setting up stakes. The new necrons in that video are a perfect example - they're like, overwhelming and spooky for about 0.00000000000000000001 second and then the marines show up and effortlessly dunk on every single new necron unit they showcase in the vid while the female voiceover explains that if you believe in fairies and clap your hands, the emperor will send his big, strong, awesome, amazing, sugoiiiiii sempais to notice you..
Yeah, that trailer seemed to encompass everything wrong with 40k.
Not least the fact that it's impossible to make any xeno race threatening because none of them are allowed to be an actual threat to marines. Hell, even Sisters of Battle apparently have better Resurrection Protocols than Necrons. Because that's the only way I can explain someone having their helmet cut clean in two but their head somehow being completely fine afterwards.
What's more, it seemed a perfect example of Necrons being an NPC race. They're supposed to have actual personalities and goals now (goals beyond 'Exterminate! Exterminate', I mean), but does that come across at all in the trailer? No. They might as well have been generic robot baddies sent by Dr. Eggman.
the only necrons we see in that trailer are warriors (who have no personality) and destoyers, whom quite literally are "Exterminate"
also you realize canonicly the 'crons WON that conflict right?
BrianDavion wrote: the only necrons we see in that trailer are warriors (who have no personality) and destoyers, whom quite literally are "Exterminate"
also you realize canonicly the 'crons WON that conflict right?
Would someone watching that video get that impression? Because if not, that's a problem.
Quantum Shielding will surely be changed. Now that weapons are getting D6+2 and D3+3 damage it's just going to bounce off. Imagine using a CP to reroll a 6 for damage, hoping for a 1 or 2? They can't introduce all these shiny new Imperium melta weapons and have them be useless against units in the first Xenos codex.
Well they did change melta already so you DONT have to pick the highest damage roll, before that quantum shielding did ignore melta most the time and it was funny when people had to re roll there 6 damage roll.
BrianDavion wrote: the only necrons we see in that trailer are warriors (who have no personality) and destoyers, whom quite literally are "Exterminate"
also you realize canonicly the 'crons WON that conflict right?
Would someone watching that video get that impression? Because if not, that's a problem.
the video ended right as the biggest bad showed up the impression I got, TBH was "who will win? PLAY A GAME AND FIND OUT!" but I admit I don't suffer from Xenos Persecution complex.
the video ended right as the biggest bad showed up the impression I got, TBH was "who will win? PLAY A GAME AND FIND OUT!" but I admit I don't suffer from Xenos Persecution complex.
Not when you're too busy suffering from Marine Entitlement Fever.
the video ended right as the biggest bad showed up the impression I got, TBH was "who will win? PLAY A GAME AND FIND OUT!" but I admit I don't suffer from Xenos Persecution complex.
Not when you're too busy suffering from Marine Entitlement Fever.
I'm not the one complaining that a trailer wasn't an endless snuff film of aliens killing humans.
Oaka wrote: Quantum Shielding will surely be changed. Now that weapons are getting D6+2 and D3+3 damage it's just going to bounce off. Imagine using a CP to reroll a 6 for damage, hoping for a 1 or 2? They can't introduce all these shiny new Imperium melta weapons and have them be useless against units in the first Xenos codex.
To be honest I see your point, but as our vehicles are staying T6 I hope they leave QS alone in the niche of "you want to counter this with medium strength low damage" such as Autocannons, gatling cannons and plasma. Its not like space marines cant counter it currently and melta weapons are still good against out multi wound units. But i can see your point and if QS is overhauled I won't be surprised
Insectum7 wrote: Ahh, see. . . running an army of 18 pt Warriors in 3rd was actually kind of a thing, and it was pretty viable. It could be a very tough to kill army in those days when you stuck a Lord with a Resurrection Orb in the middle of it.
Interesting, it's good to know how thinks worked previously. Still I guess this discussion has only shown the difference between an OG Necron player and a Newcron like me
Oaka wrote: Quantum Shielding will surely be changed. Now that weapons are getting D6+2 and D3+3 damage it's just going to bounce off. Imagine using a CP to reroll a 6 for damage, hoping for a 1 or 2? They can't introduce all these shiny new Imperium melta weapons and have them be useless against units in the first Xenos codex.
I fear you may be right but really hope you aren't. QS is the one rule Necrons currently have that makes them feel genuinely technologically advanced to the point of being near-magical. All their other "high tech" stuff seems to have a bunch of stupid restrictions (like their teleport transports) or be surpassed by SM stuff (like their generally good AP). But QS is the one rule that I look at and think it perfectly represents the horror of facing Necrons in-universe. I can imagine a faction's first encounter with Necrons and see them rolling out their lascannons, melta weapons, railguns and the like then looking on in horror as every single shot does absolutely nothing.
QS is thematically excellent as it also captures in game terms the requirement to adapt your way of fighting to a threat that is so alien it makes you question the effectiveness of your own technology. Dropping it for a bland 5++ would be a typical, and stupid, GW move.
Really like those Doom Scythe changes. Obviously it might be pretty pricey and investing too heavily in non-Obsec units is dicey in 9th, but I like that it's just very consistently strong in what it does now and has a clear potential for doing lots of damage.
That's something that really sucked about a lot of the units in 8th. Even with all the points drops, they were just never worth it because the damage potential just wasn't there. It's nice to see this problem being addressed although weirdly a lot of the new statlines for new models are suffering from it. The Emnitic gun for the LHD is a great example of something that, even assuming it was made cheaper, fulfills no real obvious niche or role and is just underwhelming in every respect. The same applies to the Reanimator and how, even if RP is now really good, the statline, the inability to take them in a squadron and the points cost just kind of relegate the unit to irrelevancy.
With all the consistencies between the Edge of Silence/Indomitus stuff and the new rules in the boxes, it almost feels like they were designed by two different teams who only shared limited information. Which also makes me believe that actually the Codex may have some pretty big divergences from them.
bennyboy6189 wrote: Well they did change melta already so you DONT have to pick the highest damage roll, before that quantum shielding did ignore melta most the time and it was funny when people had to re roll there 6 damage roll.
Melta will be changed to D6+2 damage in half range or less. Against crons melta will not be fired within half range. I dont think QS will be changed. Whenever you see eradicators move as close as possible with your QS unit
Insectum7 wrote: Ahh, see. . . running an army of 18 pt Warriors in 3rd was actually kind of a thing, and it was pretty viable. It could be a very tough to kill army in those days when you stuck a Lord with a Resurrection Orb in the middle of it.
Interesting, it's good to know how thinks worked previously. Still I guess this discussion has only shown the difference between an OG Necron player and a Newcron like me
In fairness necrons only had about 9 units back then so options were limited.
Having seen the new Flyer profiles it definitely looks better. Necron flyers sucked hard in 8th. This is depending what special rules they add of course.
Aza'Gorod wrote: Am I right in thinking that on average the doom sycthe does 12W against t7 3+ a turn?
Might I humbly show you how http://www.dice-hammer.com will get that result for you; just enter the weapon stats, tick for tesla, and voila, looks like this:
And there it is, 8.33, and you see how it performs for other units too.
Aza'Gorod wrote: Am I right in thinking that on average the doom sycthe does 12W against t7 3+ a turn?
Might I humbly show you how http://www.dice-hammer.com will get that result for you; just enter the weapon stats, tick for tesla, and voila, looks like this:
And there it is, 8.33, and you see how it performs for other units too.
Nice thanks for that, so its quite a good weapon on average as that's not bad at all for damage
Claas wrote: QS is fine the way it is, it is not OP and has decent counters. I fail to see the logic that because Melta got buffed, QS Needs a nerf.
The logic is that marines cant have a disadvantage from some xenos scum rule. Marines first.
As a Marine player I hardly see QS as being an issue for Marines, Marines have plenty of tools to handle necron QS. Hellblasters are almost MADE to handle them.
Claas wrote: QS is fine the way it is, it is not OP and has decent counters. I fail to see the logic that because Melta got buffed, QS Needs a nerf.
The logic is that marines cant have a disadvantage from some xenos scum rule. Marines first.
As a Marine player I hardly see QS as being an issue for Marines, Marines have plenty of tools to handle necron QS. Hellblasters are almost MADE to handle them.
You mean like LC or ML which have D6 damage ? Marines normally dont spam D2 guns as anti armour. When he rolls high i have a good chance ignoring the damage, and when he rolls low i dont suffer much damage. Hellblasters are a bit of a problem, but they are only 36". DDAs can stay away from them with 72".
Speaking as a marine and Necron player, marines have other options, and funnily enough, a lot of the guns that are good for taking down all of these 2 wound infantry models, do plenty of work against QS.
Besides that, every other army is expected to adapt and bring versatile lists that handle multiple types of armies, no reason marines can't do the same, especially when they have more options available to them than any other army. Necrons shouldn't be nerfed because marines want to spam d6 damage weapons as their only option for taking down vehicles.
Hellblasters will be the real problem unit for QS units, but it just depends on how good they are in 9th. The increased stats on their guns help them, but that just means they could go up in price which is where all their problems lie and so you'd continue to not see people take them.
2+ BS and reolling 1's to hit. Everytime it kills a model it can shoot again. Sounds like 6 strength shots base with some Ap, and it sounds like he does something with cover.
Also confirmed as an elite and a character! You start him off the board and he clears enemy objectives well.
Cynista wrote: If it has the same intercept ability that Death Marks have, I'll buy one.
99% sure it was mentioned in stream that it does.
Its mentioned in the article
The Hexmark Destroyer is a Deathmark who has fallen to the Destroyer curse and wants nothing other than to kill absolutely everything around it. While other Destroyers fly around with massive cannons or scuttle forward with phase blades, the Hexmark Destroyer takes the Deathmarks’ propensity for surprise attacks to epic levels. They burst from their dimensional oubliettes, the corrupted Destroyer engrams targeting and dispatching nearby enemies in a hail of enmitic disintegrator fire.
The Hexmark is... Not what I was expecting in the slightest, still awesome though. It is a bit odd that its a character, but that could make it good in my opinion.
Drop this thing right behind a unit of Skorpekh to kill chaff so they can chage the stuff being hidden sounds like a good idea
I reckon the pistols will be str 6 ap -1 1 D to keep them in line with all other Enmitic weaponry.
Now the shot count is the only thing I'm not sure about, so far all enmitic weapons have done 2d3 and 3d3 so maybe it'll be a straight up d3 pistol shots? 6d3 would mulch anything and if like the other enmitic weapons it gets blast then I'd feel sorry for an ork or nid player
I cant imagine that if there are six of them, and you can shoot again everytime you kill a model, that they will be more than one shot each. Even at 6 shots total and S6, ap -1, that thing will absolutely murder chaff or light infantry if it gets to keep shooting it's full complement of shots.
They're pushing us closer and closer to mechanized Tyranids.
We even hav pistons and cables hanging everywhere.
I thought we were made is Living Metal.
With the changes to both the scythes and the arks I'm very curious to see if the barge will change as well. It'll get more shots but will it have a stat change?
Oh cool, another destroyer variant. Looks like an assassin type.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Denegaar wrote: Every model now is some type of mechanical insect/spider? I liked Necrons when they were Egyptian-esque Tomb Kings.
I don't know how they are going to fit this Gunslinger into the lore, but Deathmarks and Destroyers have little in common, as far as I remember...
Only canoptek and some destroyer variants. Which makes sense, as the former are machines and the latter want to embrace the machine aspect instead of larping as Egyptians.
Rather neat that its a hero and not an alternate build. Seems that destroyers will split into two broad variations - those on legs for close combat and those on a hover base for ranged attacks.
Denegaar wrote: Every model now is some type of mechanical insect/spider? I liked Necrons when they were Egyptian-esque Tomb Kings.
I don't know how they are going to fit this Gunslinger into the lore, but Deathmarks and Destroyers have little in common, as far as I remember...
Destroyer status is basically a computer virus, and necrons actually fear it can infect nearby stasis-crypts.
This is somehow different from flayed ones, which is supposedly (at least according to the lore article yesterday) a 'death curse' from a C'tan, and they somehow 'creep in' from their 'nether realm.' Which is a weird sub-bundle off fluff that makes no sense with anything else, new, old, or current.
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/08/21/what-is-biotransference/
Kharne the Befriender wrote: With the changes to both the scythes and the arks I'm very curious to see if the barge will change as well. It'll get more shots but will it have a stat change?
The barge is gonna go 10 shots for tesla destructors maybe a 3+ save
The tesla cannon will probably get a few shots and the Gauss cannon is going up to strength 7 I think. I'm going by the triarchs stalkers new "not" heavy gauss cannon as that has stats pretty much in line with current gauss cannon and I reckon they're just gonna ret con it to that or I could be wrong and its going to be a new weapon entirely
The big thing with these new stat sheets is the 3+ save it means we are now more vunrable to grav weapons, grav bombs will now be a major threat rarther than an annoyance.
Denegaar wrote: Every model now is some type of mechanical insect/spider? I liked Necrons when they were Egyptian-esque Tomb Kings.
I don't know how they are going to fit this Gunslinger into the lore, but Deathmarks and Destroyers have little in common, as far as I remember...
Destroyer status is basically a computer virus, and necrons actually fear it can infect nearby stasis-crypts.
This is somehow different from flayed ones, which is supposedly (at least according to the lore article yesterday) a 'death curse' from a C'tan, and they somehow 'creep in' from their 'nether realm.' Which is a weird sub-bundle off fluff that makes no sense with anything else, new, old, or current.
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/08/21/what-is-biotransference/
Ugh. I hope they're not retconning more fluff. The initial reboot (hurr computer pun) was bad enough.
Ugh. I hope they're not retconning more fluff. The initial reboot (hurr computer pun) was bad enough.
In Indomitus book (by Gav Thorpe), it's not described as a virus but as a form of nihilism that necrons can succomb if they stay to close to Destroyers. Not because it's a virus, more because being a necron is quite depressing, and becoming a murder machine is a way to accept yourself for what you are in a sense.
That how i read it at least.
It's perhaps the only thing about necron that was somewhat interesting in that book, not that this part was especially well written, because i still find it rather meh, but all the other stuff about necrons was pretty bad.
As far as I'm aware on flayed ones - the C'tan death curse and hanging around in an alternate pocket dimension (oubliette?) isn't new. Although the idea that this dimension is the Bone Kingdom of Drazak (which has previously been a sort of Flayer Kingdom out in the Ghoul Stars) is notionally new - or at least mangled.
I always thought it was the difference between an actual malefic curse for the Flayers, and just generic computer data corruption for the Destroyers.
Not too sure if I buy into the "self acceptance" thing for Destroyers, but it seems about as plausible as anything else I've seen. Fall of Damnos has a few passages written from their Phaeron's perspective, and he succumbs to the desire for destruction eventually
With the Indomitus box I am finally back for Necrons. Can't wait to get back to my first 40k army.
Have seen a discussion about new rules for QS a few pages back.
What about a rule like Ghazkull got, with getting a maximum of 4 dmg per phase?
In one of the newer FAQ's there was a part about rules that do extra damage (despite rules like Ghazkulls) interacting with rules that prevent you from getting more than x damage.
Which was kinda weird because Ghazi is the only one with a rule like that and so far there are no units that have rules that would prevent him from using it.
I can see more units getting a rule like this with QS being one of the best candidates.
Maybe just helping in the shooting phase with getting max 4 dmg there but getting no bonus in CC or psychic phase.
This would actually help us, unlike something like a 6+++ or a rule that can be outgunned by using the right weapons.
My only hope in all this is the codex comes out in the wash better than the marine one, not because I dislike marines, not because I want crons to be top tier. Just purely to stop the whinefest about marines.
Unless you were memeing with friends then no one even considers that to be a decent or viable army, we all know that 18ppm does not constitute a viable horde army if that's the price of your most basic infantry, although with 9th and CA2020 who really knows anymore. What's wrong with Praetorians being 35? Nothing. Never once said there was. I used that number as a ballpark based on Praetorians being 23 and Immortals 18 for a hypothetical of what if Immortals went back to their 3rd Ed cost (Assuming of course Praetorians are still seen as better/more elite than Immortals and not just a side-grade) and I wanted to know what you thought in that hypothetical situation.
