57514
Post by: MoonlightSonata
We're Necrons. We really don't need to worry about destroying enemy tanks...unless of course Gauss and Entropic Strike are gone, in which case we should start worrying I guess.
Oh if only!
91160
Post by: Natalya
 adamsouza wrote:I'm going to use my C'tan shard to shoot whatever is within 24" and I want dead.
Good luck with that, because its abilities on average are not excellent at killing anything. no wait its got a 66% chance of rolling a power that is decent against T5 4+ sv or worse models and av10-11 vehicles, so I guess if you were struggling to kill guardsmen/fire warriors and land speeders at 24" with your necrons then this is a miracle for you.
otherwise. only 1/6 of its abilities is good at killing T6 3+ sv MC's, only 2/6 of its abilities are good at killing MEQ and 1/6 of its powers are good at killing AV13+. if the c'tan is 130 points then yeah I guess its worth a buy if youre really struggling against 4+ sv units and light vehicles, but something tells me its not going to be 130 points.
57815
Post by: Ferrum_Sanguinis
adamsouza wrote:Wait, you guys completely convinced me C'tans are crap. Let's not field any
1. Antimatter Meteor -S8 AP3 lg blast
Clearly a terrible power. Battle cannon hits are just uselss against everything
When you need to take out a vehicle, yes it is terrible.
2. Cosmic Fire - S6 AP4 lg blast ignores cover
Clearly a terrible power. Sure it frags every horde unit in the game, (jinking units too right ?) but it can't crack open Landraiders, so feth using it.
Also mediocre agaist MEQ, TEQ, and multi wound units, so yeah, pretty bad
3. Seismic Assault - S6 AP4 assault 10 strikedown
Another one of those terrible anti infantry powers.
See above
4. Sky of Falling Stars - S7 AP4 assault 3 lg blast barrage
3 Large S7 Blast Markers ? Dammit, I might accidently wipe entire units off the board while being uselss against Land Raiders
Again, against vehicles its not so good.
5. Time's Arrow - SD AP1 precision shot
Dammit, that 1 target that I pick has a 16% of surviving
Only great power, and whoops, only a 1/6 chance of getting it.
6. Transdimensional Thunderbolt -S9 AP1 Tesla
Grrr...Arrrgh now I have a great antitank shot that doesn't mow down entire squads.
In what universe is a single S9 attack good against anything?
55577
Post by: ImAGeek
adamsouza wrote:Wait, you guys completely convinced me C'tans are crap. Let's not field any
1. Antimatter Meteor -S8 AP3 lg blast
Clearly a terrible power. Battle cannon hits are just uselss against everything
2. Cosmic Fire - S6 AP4 lg blast ignores cover
Clearly a terrible power. Sure it frags every horde unit in the game, (jinking units too right ?) but it can't crack open Landraiders, so feth using it.
3. Seismic Assault - S6 AP4 assault 10 strikedown
Another one of those terrible anti infantry powers.
4. Sky of Falling Stars - S7 AP4 assault 3 lg blast barrage
3 Large S7 Blast Markers ? Dammit, I might accidently wipe entire units off the board while being uselss against Land Raiders
5. Time's Arrow - SD AP1 precision shot
Dammit, that 1 target that I pick has a 16% of surviving
6. Transdimensional Thunderbolt -S9 AP1 Tesla
Grrr...Arrrgh now I have a great antitank shot that doesn't mow down entire squads.
Congratulations on completely missing the point of people's complaints.
Yes, the powers themselves are pretty good. If you could pick when to use them. You really don't see why people are complaining when they could aim at a horde unit and get a one shot SD gun? Woo yeah...I got one guy. Or aim at a tank and get a S6 gun that might not do anything at all? Yes they'd be awesome if you knew it was going to do anything.
Random charts do not a good game make.
91452
Post by: changemod
Four anti horde, three anti single target and one of the single target ones can pop a special model out of the horde whilst the horde ones are all pretty high strength so will probably wound most things...
Sucks against tough vehicles, but I'm not seeing that as a problem in a Necron list.
Weird that rolling 6 is the worst result, but whatever.
62401
Post by: Eyjio
My issue isn't that the powers are bad (they are actually fantastic), nor that C'tan are doomed to be useless (having gained 55 points and MCs being fairly undercosted in other recent codices means they have a good shot of being awesome - I'm betting the deceiver returns to having grand illusion for example) but rather that the mechanic itself is bad.
If we could pick powers, C'tan would be OP as hell. A STR D shot every turn, or 3 barrages? Are you crazy? That would be totally broken. Even picking before targeting would be questionably OP. That's why it's bad - in lieu of attempting to balance the game, they just made a bunch of broken crazy crap which is a mix of AT and anti infantry, then made you roll totally randomly. Do you see the issue? Some games you'll still be crazy op. In others, you'll do nothing. It's bad writing and doesn't deserve being defended.
Not that I'm holding out hope for C'tan being good generally as they never have been, but this isn't the deal breaker - it's just a bad mechanic.
89217
Post by: JuniorRS13
Anything else besides the c'tans powers?
66089
Post by: Kangodo
jms40k wrote:This isn't really a tactics forum. I'm sure when the book drops, we can argue ad infinitum over the merit of certain units. Right now I'm just salivating for more information!
So we're not allowed to discuss rumoured powers in the rumour-thread? adamsouza wrote:I'm going to use my C'tan shard to shoot whatever is within 24" and I want dead.
So you are going to kill vehicles with your S6 attacks? Or infantry with your S9/D-attacks?
54835
Post by: Fafnir13
So....looks like I'm not using the shard. But what else is new?
I do wonder what the stat line and close combat abilities will be. Something that costs more then a riptide should be pretty good, right?
Not holding my breath 
62401
Post by: Eyjio
Well, I couldn't be more sick of talking about the C'tan, so let's change topic. What are your biggest hopes and fears of the codex? Is there something you really want to be good? Things you would rather be worse?
For me, I want to see what the monolith is like. I'm expecting it to be bad but just how bad could it be? Also, I really love Szeras so I hope he's buffed to the realms of playable. Beyond that, my only real fear is that we're left with too little to cope with flyers and MCs, so get left in the dust. I kinda want to make a mostly immortal army too...
67097
Post by: angelofvengeance
I'm hoping the Particle Whip on the Monolith is longer range like it used to be.
73783
Post by: Skullhammer
I'm worried about gauss and entropic strike and what if any change they will have.
I'm hoping no change but who knows.
5462
Post by: adamsouza
 ImAGeek wrote:Yes, the powers themselves are pretty good. If you could pick when to use them. You really don't see why people are complaining when they could aim at a horde unit and get a one shot SD gun? Woo yeah...I got one guy. Or aim at a tank and get a S6 gun that might not do anything at all?
That shot murders large numbers of Horde on a roll of 1-4, and a single model on 5-6. I am not going to cry if it comes up 5 or 6, just like I don't cry now when I miss. I'll probably get animated and tell me opponent " I murdered the HELL out of that Chaos Cultist. He's nothing but a fine mist" on a 5 or 6 and have a good laugh about it.
The C'tan Chart does alright up against AV12, and has a 50% chance doing well against AV 14.
-----
No news on Scarabs sounds like good news.
Crypteks and Lords getting bumped up to 2 wounds sounds fantastic.
Point reductions on Lychguard and Praetorians will lead to me actually fielding them.
89217
Post by: JuniorRS13
Eyjio wrote:Well, I couldn't be more sick of talking about the C'tan, so let's change topic. What are your biggest hopes and fears of the codex? Is there something you really want to be good? Things you would rather be worse?
For me, I want to see what the monolith is like. I'm expecting it to be bad but just how bad could it be? Also, I really love Szeras so I hope he's buffed to the realms of playable. Beyond that, my only real fear is that we're left with too little to cope with flyers and MCs, so get left in the dust. I kinda want to make a mostly immortal army too...
I really want immortals to be great, as well as tomb blades. I also want to see different lists that include other thing besides minimal warriors with CCBs and annihilation barges with night scythes
59984
Post by: RivenSkull
The more I read, the more and more it looks like Necrons are getting a massive nerf almost everywhere, and I'll be selling my stuff.
One would have almost hoped (well as a Necron-only player) that GW would go: "Oh gak we're losing so much money. Bring back the Codex Creep so people buy again."
69239
Post by: Thokt
 RivenSkull wrote:The more I read, the more and more it looks like Necrons are getting a massive nerf almost everywhere, and I'll be selling my stuff.
One would have almost hoped (well as a Necron-only player) that GW would go: "Oh gak we're losing so much money. Bring back the Codex Creep so people buy again."
What exactly have you been reading?
91452
Post by: changemod
JuniorRS13 wrote: I also want to see different lists that include other thing besides minimal warriors with CCBs and annihilation barges with night scythes
God yes, that's a been absolutely infuriating me. Makes it abnormally hard to get decent discussion online because there's such a mono-focus on that bland, flavourless build. Automatically Appended Next Post:  Thokt wrote: RivenSkull wrote:The more I read, the more and more it looks like Necrons are getting a massive nerf almost everywhere, and I'll be selling my stuff.
One would have almost hoped (well as a Necron-only player) that GW would go: "Oh gak we're losing so much money. Bring back the Codex Creep so people buy again."
What exactly have you been reading?
Yeah, I've not heard many nerfs at all in these rumors. Almost buffing across the board.
67097
Post by: angelofvengeance
adamsouza wrote:That shot murders large numbers of Horde on a roll of 1-4, and a single model on 5-6. I am not going to cry if it comes up 5 or 6, just like I don't cry now when I miss. I'll probably get animated and tell me opponent " I murdered the HELL out of that Chaos Cultist. He's nothing but a fine mist" on a 5 or 6 and have a good laugh about it. The C'tan Chart does alright up against AV12, and has a 50% chance doing well against AV 14. ----- No news on Scarabs sounds like good news. Crypteks and Lords getting bumped up to 2 wounds sounds fantastic. Point reductions on Lychguard and Praetorians will lead to me actually fielding them.
Looking forward to all of this! Also good attitude to have there! If it kills something, great. If it kills a lot awesome. If it misses entirely well, better luck next time.
66089
Post by: Kangodo
RivenSkull wrote:The more I read, the more and more it looks like Necrons are getting a massive nerf almost everywhere, and I'll be selling my stuff.
Massive buffs everywhere.
Except for C'tans.
My Deceiver and three Transcendent C'tans are now useless.
Way to go GW! Luckily I bought two of them from China so I only lost 150 euro instead of 375.
71373
Post by: Nilok
via an anonymous source on Faeit 212
"The C'tan are not generalized into one generic unit like some people are concerned. Each gets its own entry and costs around the same point costs of a Land Raider, with the Transcendent costing an extra 10pts which also carries with it an extra wound giving it a 5 wounds. I would of expected a higher toughness, but S7 and T7 is all around. Transcendent has an additional Strength.
Powers of the C'tan work like this; Pick your target and then roll for power.
All of them share some powers of eternal warrior, and fearless, Immune to natural law- ignoring terrain, and Necrodermis- 4++ and exploding on death-any models within d6" suffer S4 AP1 hits.
The biggest differences are in their remaining powers
Nightbringer- fleshbane and Gaze of Death targets non-vehicles 12" and takes AP2 wounds equal to 3d6 minus leadership
Deceiver- hit and run, Dread-enemy units within 12" -2 leadership, and Grand Illusion- after scouts redeploy d3 units within 12"and the deceiver through normal deployment or put in reserves.
Transcendent- Deepstrike, and Writhing Worldscape- open ground in 6" is difficult terrain."
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
Ah, just like the old codex, Nightbringer being way worse than The Deceiver!
I mean, really, AP2 wounds sounds nice. But when you see that most of the time, that's about 1 or 2 wounds. Woohoo.
57815
Post by: Ferrum_Sanguinis
Am I the only one who actually wanted a generic ctan shard model???
62401
Post by: Eyjio
What I read from latest natfka post was this:
Blah blah still T7 W4 4++ blah blah
Aka something which will never be worth 240 points, even if you could choose the STR d shot every turn.
Aka C'tan still bad, as they always have been. I'm not even upset, just brutally disappointed. Still waiting for guy from tg to post scans before deciding whether to believe that such a colossal blunder could be made, but it does seem like something GW would do.
89474
Post by: Requizen
 Nilok wrote:via an anonymous source on Faeit 212
"The C'tan are not generalized into one generic unit like some people are concerned. Each gets its own entry and costs around the same point costs of a Land Raider, with the Transcendent costing an extra 10pts which also carries with it an extra wound giving it a 5 wounds. I would of expected a higher toughness, but S7 and T7 is all around. Transcendent has an additional Strength.
Powers of the C'tan work like this; Pick your target and then roll for power.
All of them share some powers of eternal warrior, and fearless, Immune to natural law- ignoring terrain, and Necrodermis- 4++ and exploding on death-any models within d6" suffer S4 AP1 hits.
The biggest differences are in their remaining powers
Nightbringer- fleshbane and Gaze of Death targets non-vehicles 12" and takes AP2 wounds equal to 3d6 minus leadership
Deceiver- hit and run, Dread-enemy units within 12" -2 leadership, and Grand Illusion- after scouts redeploy d3 units within 12"and the deceiver through normal deployment or put in reserves.
Transcendent- Deepstrike, and Writhing Worldscape- open ground in 6" is difficult terrain."
I had a feeling that it'd turn out like this, with the T-C'tan turned into just another sort of shard.
I like that they made them all different, Nightbringer more killing infantry, Deceiver being more tricky, and the Trans being... I dunno, looks like he's just supposed to Deep Strike in and be scary.
Only 4++ still is bad. Eternal Warrior is nice.
Seems kinda silly that they made the Trans C'tan a normal MC Elite and yet you can still only buy the model as part of the Tesseract Vault kit.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
Eyjio wrote:
Aka C'tan still bad, as they always have been. I'm not even upset, just brutally disappointed. Still waiting for guy from tg to post scans before deciding whether to believe that such a colossal blunder could be made, but it does seem like something GW would do.
3rd The Deceiver was absolutely brutal and one of the best models in the game.
89474
Post by: Requizen
Nightbringer might be interesting with the God Shackle/Conclave of the Burning One from Exterminatus, if Crypteks can still take Veil. Deep strike in, shooting power, Gaze of Death, T8. Will have to see what Crypteks are like.
43032
Post by: King Pariah
 Sigvatr wrote:Eyjio wrote:
Aka C'tan still bad, as they always have been. I'm not even upset, just brutally disappointed. Still waiting for guy from tg to post scans before deciding whether to believe that such a colossal blunder could be made, but it does seem like something GW would do.
3rd The Deceiver was absolutely brutal and one of the best models in the game.
Those were the days...
though now I'm curious if the named shards can be affected by the God Shackle, regain some of their former glory.
89474
Post by: Requizen
 King Pariah wrote: Sigvatr wrote:Eyjio wrote:
Aka C'tan still bad, as they always have been. I'm not even upset, just brutally disappointed. Still waiting for guy from tg to post scans before deciding whether to believe that such a colossal blunder could be made, but it does seem like something GW would do.
3rd The Deceiver was absolutely brutal and one of the best models in the game.
Those were the days...
though now I'm curious if the named shards can be affected by the God Shackle, regain some of their former glory.
Of course they can, since there are no more generic C'tan.
62401
Post by: Eyjio
Sigvatr wrote:Eyjio wrote:
Aka C'tan still bad, as they always have been. I'm not even upset, just brutally disappointed. Still waiting for guy from tg to post scans before deciding whether to believe that such a colossal blunder could be made, but it does seem like something GW would do.
3rd The Deceiver was absolutely brutal and one of the best models in the game.
To me, it was a massive chunk of non-Necron points which was better spent on a monolith. But honestly, I'm not going to debate the finer points of 3e Necrons in a 7e thread, especially when the entirety of 3e balance was so broken anyway.
91452
Post by: changemod
I don't think this is particularly believable, given the Tran is said to be no stronger for being a mass of combined shards. Automatically Appended Next Post: Requizen wrote: King Pariah wrote: Sigvatr wrote:Eyjio wrote:
Aka C'tan still bad, as they always have been. I'm not even upset, just brutally disappointed. Still waiting for guy from tg to post scans before deciding whether to believe that such a colossal blunder could be made, but it does seem like something GW would do.
3rd The Deceiver was absolutely brutal and one of the best models in the game.
Those were the days...
though now I'm curious if the named shards can be affected by the God Shackle, regain some of their former glory.
Of course they can, since there are no more generic C'tan.
Wording is "1 C'tan Shard", so they may have messed up that RAW.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
There is no RAW yet on the new C'tan.
62401
Post by: Eyjio
changemod wrote:I don't think this is particularly believable, given the Tran is said to be no stronger for being a mass of combined shards.
I've been thinking about it too, and if the t C'tan is that cheap, why would it not be an elite? It's not listed with the other two shards and it's hardly setting the word on fire if it's T7. Seems a bit trolley, but as I said before, this is GW...
91452
Post by: changemod
Unit needs to be named "C'tan Shard" to join the formation, so if it isn't... Automatically Appended Next Post: Eyjio wrote:changemod wrote:I don't think this is particularly believable, given the Tran is said to be no stronger for being a mass of combined shards.
I've been thinking about it too, and if the t C'tan is that cheap, why would it not be an elite? It's not listed with the other two shards and it's hardly setting the word on fire if it's T7. Seems a bit trolley, but as I said before, this is GW...
They used the model for the Burning One in Exterminatus, but if they were gonna downgrade it to just the Burning One's shard I'd have figured they'd rename it.
89474
Post by: Requizen
changemod wrote:
Unit needs to be named "C'tan Shard" to join the formation, so if it isn't...
Read the names from the Elites section. You will notice that both the Nightbringer and Deceiver say "C'tan Shard" before their names.
89756
Post by: Verviedi
Ugh. Anyone want to buy some Necrons... Say... In Febuary?
91452
Post by: changemod
Requizen wrote:changemod wrote:
Unit needs to be named "C'tan Shard" to join the formation, so if it isn't...
Read the names from the Elites section. You will notice that both the Nightbringer and Deceiver say "C'tan Shard" before their names.
Yep, and appear to not have that as the complete unit title.
87339
Post by: skybax
So, inspired by the discussion on C'tan powers, I had some fun mathhammering.
[EDIT: I got the numbers wrong, now they're right]
I assumed that C'tan are BS 5, firing at a target up to 24" from them, and the target doesn't get any saves. Then, I compared it with shooting a single meltagun from <6".
The numbers mean the following: probability of a glancing or better result - average number of HP removed - average number of penetration rolls (with AP 1 bonus)
against AV 14 (Land Raider):
C'tan: 0.271 0.433 0.303
Guardsman w/melta, <6":0.361 0.361 0.652
against AV 12 (Wave Serpent):
C'tan: 0.703 0.842 0.913
Guardsman w/melta, <6": 0.486 0.486 0.902
against AV 11 (Rhino):
C'tan: 1.080 1.219 1.667
Guardsman w/melta, <6": 0.527 0.527 0.986
So basically, as WD editors would say, you can call a C'tan shard an anti-tank specialist - against heavy vehicles it is on par with melta-wielding guardsman. It shines against lighter vehicles, though, when it reaches the unbelivalbe level of two guardsmen firing meltas at once 
91452
Post by: changemod
I never understand why people say this.
Did you spend so much money, effort and time painting and modelling an army just to toss it away because some of the stuff you like has slightly worse rules?
62401
Post by: Eyjio
 skybax wrote:So, inspired by the discussion on C'tan powers, I had some fun mathhammering.
I assumed that C'tan are BS 5, firing at a target up to 24" from them, and the target doesn't get any saves. Then, I compared it with shooting a single meltagun from <6".
The numbers mean the following: probability of a glancing or better result - average number of HP removed - average number of penetration rolls (with AP 1 bonus)
against AV 14 (Land Raider):
C'tan: 0.271 0.433 0.303
Guardsman w/melta, <6":0.361 0.361 0.652
Marine w/melta <6": 0.481 0.481 0.870
against AV 12 (Wave Serpent):
C'tan: 0.494 0.633 0.704
Guardsman w/melta, <6": 0.486 0.486 0.902
Marine w/melta <6": 0.648 0.648 1.203
against AV 11 (Rhino):
C'tan: 0.662 0.801 1.041
Guardsman w/melta, <6": 0.527 0.527 0.986
Marine w/melta <6": 0.703 0.703 1.314
So basically, as WD editors would say, you can call a C'tan shard an anti-tank specialist - against heavy vehicles it is as strong as a melta-wielding guardsman. It really shines against lighter vehicles, though, when it reaches the power of a melta-equipped superhuman Space Marine or a pious Sister of Battle.
Brilliant. My 240 point model has the same effectiveness as either a 20 point, or if I'm lucky, 24 point model? Stop the presses. Now compare it to a Riptide, Wraithknight, Imperial Knight or any other MC which deals with tanks.
89474
Post by: Requizen
changemod wrote:Requizen wrote:changemod wrote:
Unit needs to be named "C'tan Shard" to join the formation, so if it isn't...
Read the names from the Elites section. You will notice that both the Nightbringer and Deceiver say "C'tan Shard" before their names.
Yep, and appear to not have that as the complete unit title.
Oh, so you're just a smug pedantic gak, ok.
91452
Post by: changemod
Requizen wrote:changemod wrote:Requizen wrote:changemod wrote:
Unit needs to be named "C'tan Shard" to join the formation, so if it isn't...
Read the names from the Elites section. You will notice that both the Nightbringer and Deceiver say "C'tan Shard" before their names.
Yep, and appear to not have that as the complete unit title.
Oh, so you're just a smug pedantic gak, ok.
Don't be absurd, I'm just saying there's a solid chance they might have messed it up until we see the actual entry.
87339
Post by: skybax
Eyjio wrote:
Brilliant. My 240 point model has the same effectiveness as either a 20 point, or if I'm lucky, 24 point model? Stop the presses. Now compare it to a Riptide, Wraithknight, Imperial Knight or any other MC which deals with tanks.
After setting the numbers right it's getting up to 30 pts, but yeah, that's not exactly the Knight level.
But admittedly, there may be some units against which powers are good - my bet would be on heavy infantry, or units of creatures with more than one wound.
66089
Post by: Kangodo
Eyjio wrote:Brilliant. My 240 point model has the same effectiveness as either a 20 point, or if I'm lucky, 24 point model? Stop the presses. Now compare it to a Riptide, Wraithknight, Imperial Knight or any other MC which deals with tanks.
It's more the €125 I spend on it than the 240 points that I care about.
I couldn't care less about the second-hand 15 euro C'tan Shard.
89756
Post by: Verviedi
changemod wrote:
I never understand why people say this.
Did you spend so much money, effort and time painting and modelling an army just to toss it away because some of the stuff you like has slightly worse rules?
There's no point in running an army where all of my stuff is useless because I only bought OP stuff and it got nerfed.
It would cost more to update my arny than to sell it.
10093
Post by: Sidstyler
Why'd you "only buy OP stuff" to begin with?
89756
Post by: Verviedi
Because my only opponent uses power builds.
You've probably heard of him.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
There is no RAW yet. Period. The only source of RAW are GW publications, thus codices, dataslates, BRB etc. Rumors are as far from being RAW as possible.
59984
Post by: RivenSkull
changemod wrote: Automatically Appended Next Post: Thokt wrote: RivenSkull wrote:The more I read, the more and more it looks like Necrons are getting a massive nerf almost everywhere, and I'll be selling my stuff. One would have almost hoped (well as a Necron-only player) that GW would go: "Oh gak we're losing so much money. Bring back the Codex Creep so people buy again."
What exactly have you been reading?
Yeah, I've not heard many nerfs at all in these rumors. Almost buffing across the board.
I read all of the Faeit 212/Warseer things posted in the thread not realizing they were Faeit 212/Warseer 
15582
Post by: blaktoof
if you ran an army that was based only on the OP models your army will almost always be 'outdated' when the new codex comes out. Usually this means its not as powerful as some other build for another army so the player sells all their models and buys the current OP net list build for a different army, and the cycle continues. Please do this, it gives GW more money so they can continue print rules for us to play with.
if you buy balanced TAC lists you never have this problem. If you keep your 'bad models' they also become 'good' next edition or two.
I would wait for the codex to come out before you worry about so many things, there's a good chances you roll for power before selecting target for c'tan despite the english as a poor second language post with the rumored stuff. It is also possible you can pick to roll for a power or use the power the specific shard has.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
blaktoof wrote: If you keep your 'bad models' they also become 'good' next edition or two.
Flayed Ones.
You lose!
87339
Post by: skybax
If the rumours are true, they may become kinda playable this time...
Also, I did some more mathhammering. Against marines don't take C'tan, take a Leman Russ. But against Nurgle Chaos Spawns? Man, a C'tan is perfect. EDIT: actually no, it isn't. Four autocannon HWTs still do the job better and cost less.
10093
Post by: Sidstyler
 Verviedi wrote:
Because my only opponent uses power builds.
You've probably heard of him.
I don't think I have, no.
7637
Post by: Sasori
if the Rumors are True they are Ap 5, shred, with a standard of 4 attacks each... That's pretty good.
I'm going to call it in saying those extra powers make the Deceiver Shard worth it. Grand Illusion as always massive when I played with it. I can barely think of a game that it didn't make an impact. The -2 Leadership is just icing on cake.
26170
Post by: davethepak
Ok, so at least the new ctan powers are not terrible, and some in specific situations can be quite good.
And that is the rub - in specific situations.
Also, look, to everyone who might not get why some necron players are not happy, its because of this -
Necrons don't have a problem killing infantry at range.
They have a problem killing vehicles at range.
While gauss is effective, its also kind of a boring alternative.
Of course, who knows that gauss will do now....
So yeah, that list of powers is mostly effective against infantry - but they already have that in their bag of tricks.
THUS necron players are not that excited about their 240 point unit that is good at killing infantry.
(now, if he was 2/4++ that would at least help him get into CC).
52238
Post by: skoffs
Necrons don't have problems with infantry or vehicle killing,
It's MCs and 2+ saves we lack answers to.
91452
Post by: changemod
 skoffs wrote:Necrons don't have problems with infantry or vehicle killing,
It's MCs and 2+ saves we lack answers to.
Deathmarks and Wraiths respectively.
Well, our other close combat units are also pretty good against 2+ saves but good luck closing in.
62401
Post by: Eyjio
changemod wrote: skoffs wrote:Necrons don't have problems with infantry or vehicle killing,
It's MCs and 2+ saves we lack answers to.
Deathmarks and Wraiths respectively.
Well, our other close combat units are also pretty good against 2+ saves but good luck closing in.
Deathmarks are terrible vs MCs and only good vs 2+ saves with the cheese flamer. Wraiths are good currently, and may still be good, but a very large single point of failure without MSS barge lords. MCs have always been Necrons' major issue. 2+ saves melt to mass s7, as do most vehicles. If we no longer have that mass S7 and no way to protect lords from the insane MCs out there...
7637
Post by: Sasori
changemod wrote: skoffs wrote:Necrons don't have problems with infantry or vehicle killing,
It's MCs and 2+ saves we lack answers to.
Deathmarks and Wraiths respectively.
Well, our other close combat units are also pretty good against 2+ saves but good luck closing in.
Deathmarks are only good VS non 2+ MCs. They are also only generally good one time with the mark.
Riptides, Wrathknights and Flyrant heavy Tyranids still look to be major issues.
That being said, we've only had a glimpse (that may not even be true) so far.
52238
Post by: skoffs
Who the hell thought it would be a better idea to roll for random attack AFTER choosing the target?!
(choosing your target after you know what power you're going to be using would have made them usable. In this form? Well, I guess GW was just tired of selling C'tan models...)
92230
Post by: Korinov
skoffs wrote:Who the hell thought it would be a better idea to roll for random attack AFTER choosing the target?!
(choosing your target after you know what power you're going to be using would have made them usable. In this form? Well, I guess GW was just tired of selling C'tan models...)
In the grim darkness of the 41th millenium, there're only random tables and forged narratives.
No, seriously, the game just gets more and more random as time passes. Can't wait for CSM to get their update including a new God of Random, whose mark will force us to roll everything on random tables, through all the game phases, all the time.
58599
Post by: Galorian
 Korinov wrote: skoffs wrote:Who the hell thought it would be a better idea to roll for random attack AFTER choosing the target?!
(choosing your target after you know what power you're going to be using would have made them usable. In this form? Well, I guess GW was just tired of selling C'tan models...)
In the grim darkness of the 41th millenium, there're only random tables and forged narratives.
No, seriously, the game just gets more and more random as time passes. Can't wait for CSM to get their update including a new God of Random, whose mark will force us to roll everything on random tables, through all the game phases, all the time.
We're progressing towards a 2 step game system:
1) Roll a d6, on a roll of 4+ you win the game, otherwise you lose.
2) Proceed to forge a narrative.
34385
Post by: doktor_g
I have a question about the Decurion....
So is that's the new "detachment/formation"?
There're some manditory things to take? Court. Troops etc
Then... if you want to get say an anhillation barge, you have to get 2 plus a ghost arc?
Am I reading that right?
37809
Post by: Kriswall
 doktor_g wrote:I have a question about the Decurion....
So is that's the new "detachment/formation"?
There're some manditory things to take? Court. Troops etc
Then... if you want to get say an anhillation barge, you have to get 2 plus a ghost arc?
Am I reading that right?
Only if you want to use the Decurion thing.
You can always just use a CAD/ AD as allowed by the BRB.
77759
Post by: Gunther
There're some manditory things to take?
1OL/1Immortals/2Warriors/1TBlades
, you have to get 2 plus a ghost arc?
Well, its a Dooms Day Ark but, yes, to field a 'annihilation nexus' and get what ever bonus that applies to it, you have to buy the whole thing.
This is GW's way to encouraging the player base to play the Necron faction in a way consistent with their vision.
Not with winning a game as the goal, mind you, but to roll some dice, drink some beer and ogle some nicely painted models.
Everyone wins! Yeah!
I think the WD even indicated that the Decurion layout is a collecting guide.
The CAD/ FOC is left for those people who want to play the game inconsistent with GW's vision.
20100
Post by: specia_k_squared
You negative nancies are being ridiculous. Bitching about ctan powers in which you probably never even played with a ctan during 5th or 6th. I'm tired of reading about "wah, random powers". Just deal with it and wait til the codex comes out. Let's wait to see the entire codex before you can make judgements and if they change your cookie cutter units in 7th, awww, you might have have to wait a few weeks for the internet to tell you what's good and OP.
85656
Post by: Oberron
If those rules are correct I'm more interested in the nightbringer and deceiver working togeather.
The Deceiver gives a -2LD aura around it and the nightbringer gives ap2 WOUNDS that are 3d6 -LD to a nonvehicle unit. If they go walking around hand in handthat 3d6 -ld wounds becomes 3d6+2 -ld in wounds. What is the most common LD 8-9? Well that now become a 6-7 average on 3d6 is 10.5 that is now a difference from 2.5-1.5 wounds to 4.5-3.5 thats double to triple the dead marines and you haven't even done shooting yet. Then again it IS (if the prices are right) 480 for the pair so they better be giving me something good out of it. And IF they get their 12" move you have an effective 24" area of nearly unavoidable wounds.
But that is a bunch of "what-ifs".
As for the random shooting I'm glad none of it is "useless" on anything av 12 or lower. I run the shards quite often for giggles and I'm glad that they can now have a chance to be usful against nearly everything rather than only sorta useful against a single focus and for the most part LESS points than 5th's c'tan shards (if you want one to be useful anyway). I feel this is an overall BUFF to the C'tan shards but it is a major nerf to the T C'tan like others have stated.
I wnder if the T C'tan is going to be moved down from it's LOW spot because of this? I would assume so.
The str bump to the DDark is nice as long as they reduce the price cost at the same time. hope they either remove the combat speed shot . OH BIG thing I just noticed with using the Reclimation Legion it gives everything relentless even the DDark. meaning it CAN move and fire it's main gun if you take this formation. I think this can be a overlooked thing from everyone and could make them useable.
SO far I'm enjoying the spoilers that are coming out aside from the possible Zhandrek one of he can pick different warlord traits. It's nice I guess?
Edit: Another thought. Is anything else going to be getting Entropic strike now? or is it gonna remain as scarabs as the only ones who have it? Odd that a special rule is only for a single unit. Maybe Flayed ones will have an upgrade to get entropic strike instead of shred who knows.
58139
Post by: SilverDevilfish
Oberron wrote:
The str bump to the DDark is nice as long as they reduce the price cost at the same time. hope they either remove the combat speed shot . OH BIG thing I just noticed with using the Reclimation Legion it gives everything relentless even the DDark. meaning it CAN move and fire it's main gun if you take this formation. I think this can be a overlooked thing from everyone and could make them useable.
Vehicles are relentless. The Doomsday Ark cannot shoot using it's better profile while moving because of the rules of the ark itself.
Also the Doomsday Ark is part of a formation within the Decurion, not the Legion. The Legion is part of the Decurion, not the Decurion itself.
26170
Post by: davethepak
specia_k_squared wrote:You negative nancies are being ridiculous. Bitching about ctan powers in which you probably never even played with a ctan during 5th or 6th. I'm tired of reading about "wah, random powers". Just deal with it and wait til the codex comes out. Let's wait to see the entire codex before you can make judgements and if they change your cookie cutter units in 7th, awww, you might have have to wait a few weeks for the internet to tell you what's good and OP.
yes, there is often quite a bit of "OMG, THIS SUCKS!".
However, there are upon occasion intelligent individuals who are good at deducing trends based off of fragments of information and past experiences.
IF the tables and information we have seen (the specific random powers, the point costs, the 4++save) is correct, then individuals who have USED and also FACED ctan in previous editions can indeed give educated opinions regarding the projected effectiveness or desirability of the units.
Furthermore, not all players use "cookie cutter" units, in fact, creative players who have long used necrons (as opposed to codex hoppers who just wanted the newest shiny) WANT the ctan to be useful again (as they were YEARS ago) - and thus perfer not have their lists all look the same.
Personally, for me, I love the fluff for the ctan (the real fluff, from our old codex - as IF the deceiver would allow himself to be sharded....) and want them to be decent enough on the table so taking one is not a liability, or a sacrifice for nostalgia.
But you are right - whiners are not productive - neither the ones who bitch without thought or experience,nor the ones who bitch about the former.
85656
Post by: Oberron
 SilverDevilfish wrote:
Vehicles are relentless. The Doomsday Ark cannot shoot using it's better profile while moving because of the rules of the ark itself.
Also the Doomsday Ark is part of a formation within the Decurion, not the Legion. The Legion is part of the Decurion, not the Decurion itself.
Derp forgot about that basic rule
Doesn't everything in the formation as a whole gain the special rules?Maybe I was reading wrong
91452
Post by: changemod
davethepak wrote:specia_k_squared wrote:You negative nancies are being ridiculous. Bitching about ctan powers in which you probably never even played with a ctan during 5th or 6th. I'm tired of reading about "wah, random powers". Just deal with it and wait til the codex comes out. Let's wait to see the entire codex before you can make judgements and if they change your cookie cutter units in 7th, awww, you might have have to wait a few weeks for the internet to tell you what's good and OP.
yes, there is often quite a bit of "OMG, THIS SUCKS!".
However, there are upon occasion intelligent individuals who are good at deducing trends based off of fragments of information and past experiences.
IF the tables and information we have seen (the specific random powers, the point costs, the 4++save) is correct, then individuals who have USED and also FACED ctan in previous editions can indeed give educated opinions regarding the projected effectiveness or desirability of the units.
Furthermore, not all players use "cookie cutter" units, in fact, creative players who have long used necrons (as opposed to codex hoppers who just wanted the newest shiny) WANT the ctan to be useful again (as they were YEARS ago) - and thus perfer not have their lists all look the same.
Personally, for me, I love the fluff for the ctan (the real fluff, from our old codex - as IF the deceiver would allow himself to be sharded....) and want them to be decent enough on the table so taking one is not a liability, or a sacrifice for nostalgia.
But you are right - whiners are not productive - neither the ones who bitch without thought or experience,nor the ones who bitch about the former.
The Deceiver is the most likely to allow himself to be sharded in that frankly I wouldn't put it past him to still be fully aware and in control of all his selves like that.
57514
Post by: MoonlightSonata
davethepak wrote:Personally, for me, I love the fluff for the ctan (the real fluff, from our old codex - as IF the deceiver would allow himself to be sharded....)
A kindred spirit! The Deceiver is my favourite 40k character, ever since reading Deus Ex Mechanicus. I'm lucky enough that my friend allows me to use the 3rd edition C'tan rules if I want to field them as he's a huge fan of the 3rd edition (real) Necron fluff. Matt Ward gave me lemons and I made lemonade in the form of a dynasty that worships the Deceiver and is gathering every single shard they can find, taking them by force from other dynasties if needs be.
changemod wrote:The Deceiver is the most likely to allow himself to be sharded in that frankly I wouldn't put it past him to still be fully aware and in control of all his selves like that.
That was my thinking. He broke a portion of himself off and allowed it to be shattered. It's very likely that Orikan is a shard of the Deceiver in my opinion.
26170
Post by: davethepak
 MoonlightSonata wrote:davethepak wrote:Personally, for me, I love the fluff for the ctan (the real fluff, from our old codex - as IF the deceiver would allow himself to be sharded....)
A kindred spirit! The Deceiver is my favourite 40k character, ever since reading Deus Ex Mechanicus. I'm lucky enough that my friend allows me to use the 3rd edition C'tan rules if I want to field them as he's a huge fan of the 3rd edition (real) Necron fluff. Matt Ward gave me lemons and I made lemonade in the form of a dynasty that worships the Deceiver and is gathering every single shard they can find, taking them by force from other dynasties if needs be.
changemod wrote:The Deceiver is the most likely to allow himself to be sharded in that frankly I wouldn't put it past him to still be fully aware and in control of all his selves like that.
That was my thinking. He broke a portion of himself off and allowed it to be shattered. It's very likely that Orikan is a shard of the Deceiver in my opinion.
Quite.
Supposedly the Deceiver turned on the other Ctan - what better way fluff wise than to do it, by having the necrons do his dirty work, and shard them for him!
Now, of course, I understand WHY the writers thought they needed to weaken the ctan - they lacked the creativity to write how a being of such immense power could be played on a game representing a battlefield. I think they totally missed it - for example, to me, it would just be a matter of scale.
Sure, a ctan can stop the fusion in a star - but what if it took him years. Nothing to his life span, but useless in a tactical sense.
Or think of them like exterminatus to the imperium - the ctan on the battlefield has two choices - either restrain himself to a measly amount of force (i.e. powers that would not break the game) or use his full power, and blow up the planet - not always tactically desireable.
This would be a fluffy reason why ctan could be used on the table top - they are having to hold back so much, as to otherwise exterminate the planet.
(think of it as trying to play with an infant - you can only use a fraction of your power, or rather risk doing damage you did not want to do).
Anyway, I ramble to fellow Ctan fanatics...
Regarding the rumors - I think the random damage table I can live with, to be honest, I will just not be able to rely on him for shooting - it will just be a tactical bonus.
If he has a decent save (the non invul one) and WS and attacks, I can just use him as a CC beast.
20100
Post by: specia_k_squared
Don't get me wrong, I loved the old cyan esp. The deceiver. Probably one of the best units for a while, but guys are complaining about something they don't even know they entire rules for. I have probably played against crons probably more than anyone on this current forum. I have also played crons and took 6th at adepticons TT without using wraiths,ABs, and CCBs.
As an experienced player, I look forward to the new codex in so that I can find new ways to playing an army. Yes,some of the units are not the easy push button units, and that's good. It pushes gamers to think outside of the box and pushes the game forward. But for the gamers on here complaining about change to their codex,is dumb. I remember when elder came out and guys were complaining about wave serpents and their cost when they first got the codex. Now almost every list has them.
Let's be excited about the new codex and not so down on these tidbits of rumors.
Sorry, I'll get off my soap box now.
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
Korinov wrote:No, seriously, the game just gets more and more random as time passes.
Not really. Go far enough back and it was a LOT more random than it is now.
86711
Post by: Victory
The biggest differences are in their remaining powers
Nightbringer- fleshbane and Gaze of Death targets non-vehicles 12" and takes AP2 wounds equal to 3d6 minus leadership
Deceiver- hit and run, Dread-enemy units within 12" -2 leadership, and Grand Illusion- after scouts redeploy d3 units within 12"and the deceiver through normal deployment or put in reserves.
Transcendent- Deepstrike, and Writhing Worldscape- open ground in 6" is difficult terrain."
This is the good stuff here. The D6 shooting only really affects the Transcendent and the Vault, as they lost their Apoc powers, but the regular shards (who's 5th ed powers were lacklustre anyways) ought to treat it as a bonus goof roll.
I love me that Nightbringer Gaze of Death change, plus fleshbane so he comes out on top against other MCs.
And the Deceiver is starting to look like his old self again with hit and run. That new Dread rule can combo with Abyssal Staffs.
T-Ct'an gets the shaft, but that's what he gets for dressing like a gimp anyways.
The biggest issue is survivability for all three, forcing you to take a God-Shackle. I wouldn't be surprised if one of the relics allows the C'tans a reroll on the D6.
9158
Post by: Hollismason
I have no doubt that there will be some C'Tan shenanigans plus we still don't know the Crypteks new powers.
Veiltek may have lost the deep strike ability.
91452
Post by: changemod
 Victory wrote:And the Deceiver is starting to look like his old self again with hit and run. That new Dread rule can combo with Abyssal Staffs.
Oh, that is very, very nice.
I was wondering how he'd get any meaningful damage done, but teleporting and two Abyssal Staves followed by his random attack is devastating. Hit and run lets the unit flee tarpits too.
86711
Post by: Victory
changemod wrote:
teleporting and two Abyssal Staves followed by his random attack is devastating
Feel free to name the tactic after me; it'd be very suitable, I'll tell you that. 
9158
Post by: Hollismason
If they still even have that ability! Also, how is he teleporting , I'm pretty sure the formation is a C'Tan Shard.
89756
Post by: Verviedi
Victory wrote:changemod wrote:
teleporting and two Abyssal Staves followed by his random attack is devastating
Feel free to name the tactic after me; it'd be very suitable, I'll tell you that.
But you have no brain! How could someone with no brain make a tactic?
SERVITORS ARE NOT GENERALS!!!
79868
Post by: Tokhuah
Since the C'tan will apparently suck I suppose you could use those points for 9-10 Preatorians.
Wouldn't Mephrit Dynasty be the prefered FOC if you want to reroll your 1's on RP? It doesn't force you to run jank...
13300
Post by: tastytaste
I hope this helps!
I made a post combining all the rumors and leaks we have so far.
Will update it as we get more stuff.
http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2015/01/24/rumor-it-necron-leaked-rules-rumors-compendium/
9158
Post by: Hollismason
You say 8 formations , but isnt it 12?
51881
Post by: BlaxicanX
specia_k_squared wrote:You negative nancies are being ridiculous. Bitching about ctan powers in which you probably never even played with a ctan during 5th or 6th. I'm tired of reading about "wah, random powers". Just deal with it and wait til the codex comes out. Let's wait to see the entire codex before you can make judgements and if they change your cookie cutter units in 7th, awww, you might have have to wait a few weeks for the internet to tell you what's good and OP.
This is a rumors discussion thread. If you can gush about how excited you are with each new rumor, then others are certainly entitled to express themselves to the contrary. This isn't an echo chamber, sorry, and blind optimism isn't preferable to skepticism. As for your "lul WAAC EZ mode" strawman, there's a world of difference between a mechanic being "not trash" and "EZ mode IWInbutton". If the rumors about how the C'tan's powers work are accurate, it's simply bad. It makes the unit entirely unreliable unless your target is guardsmen or equivalent. It being completely unreliable might not bother you, which is perfectly fine, but that doesn't mean it's functional. Hollismason wrote:I have no doubt that there will be some C'Tan shenanigans plus we still don't know the Crypteks new powers. Veiltek may have lost the deep strike ability.
It's pretty scary either way tbh, as the dude earlier pointed out. If the powers are completely random then the model isn't very good- if the powers can be manually selected somehow, I.E. through wargear, than it's godly and pretty cray for ~250 points. A re-roll would probably be the best middle-ground. Missed opportunity with the god-shackled there, imo. It'll be very interesting to see what GW does. - - - - - On an unrelated note, I've been thinking about the wraiths all day.A move to T5 would be interesting, but with two wounds that'd be a little crazy. They're already only a little bit more expensive than spawn despite being way better- making them immune to Str8+ ID would be ridiculous. On the other hand, I feel like T5 W1 with a 3+ 4++ could be pretty crippling, especially against MC's.
28269
Post by: Red Corsair
specia_k_squared wrote:Don't get me wrong, I loved the old cyan esp. The deceiver. Probably one of the best units for a while, but guys are complaining about something they don't even know they entire rules for. I have probably played against crons probably more than anyone on this current forum. I have also played crons and took 6th at adepticons TT without using wraiths,ABs, and CCBs.
As an experienced player, I look forward to the new codex in so that I can find new ways to playing an army. Yes,some of the units are not the easy push button units, and that's good. It pushes gamers to think outside of the box and pushes the game forward. But for the gamers on here complaining about change to their codex,is dumb. I remember when elder came out and guys were complaining about wave serpents and their cost when they first got the codex. Now almost every list has them.
Let's be excited about the new codex and not so down on these tidbits of rumors.
Sorry, I'll get off my soap box now.
I remember when people were saying the wraith knight was a POS in the eldar forum too, now you see them in every list because they are insane value.
I have a feeling that if the T C'tan is in fact S8 T7 5W 4++ and still moves a foot ignoring terrain, he will be the necron version of the wraith knight for sure. He has one less T and W but the 4++ makes him WAY more useful against enemy characters and MC's. Heck, we don't even have all his perks yet and I would take one in every Necron list, he basically is the tank that the CCB is now for cheaper.
13300
Post by: tastytaste
8 Formations is what it says in the Codex description found on GW website
24499
Post by: Waaghboss Grobnub
Hm ,
I realy do not have that much problems with the C'than. Sure... Random sucks.. But the powers are great. Yeah i know random. But if you rely on one single model to bring death to vehicles with crons you are doing something wrong IMO. Gauss, scarabs, heavy gauss canons, tachyon arrow, heat ray, anything entropic, short range haywire cryptek particle whip... Heck even tesla destructor,particle shredder and cc scythe attacks for medium and light vehicles.
And wow... Worries about not enough ap2 attacks for av 2 armour? Lol.. Ffs... Just tesla them biatchezzzz, mass volume of fire works better in most situations than one or 2 ap2 attacks.
But hey what about MC's? Ah well idk,.... Shackle them large bugs up, or wait, rapid fire rending on 2's them up with deathmarks works just fine.. And what about anything str 6 and up reliable wounding them? Also scythes murder them... But hey! What about them flying ones? Oh idk.... Being a good shooting army, how about just mass fire them out of the ffing sky?
Now the problem would be losing all this in the new dex... But that doesnt seem likely hmm? Well see very soon
9158
Post by: Hollismason
As long as you select a non vehicle unit it's perfectly fine. Selecting a Vehicle is kind of a dicey proposition.
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
I'll be honest, I like the new rumors. It really feels like the Necrons are getting nice and balanced (if they're all true). I don't think I'll be dropping my Sisters right this second to play them, but that depends on the codex itself when it comes out. I like a book that feels like it's got some balance, or maybe even feels a touch underpowered because I always feel bad if I win too easily. I'm personally pretty stubborn and will play to the last model of mine is killed, but I know not everyone is like that or enjoys that level of challenge, so to me the Codex looks pretty good. The new 32mm bases on the models looks like it might make the army a touch more resilient to blast templates too.
And I know some people aren't too happy about the flavor being taken away from RP, but honestly I feel it streamlines how the game nicely and will take smoother game play over fluffier play in the long run.
So yeah, this will be the first codex I've bought since Orks came out, though a large part of that has to do more with available funds and free time more than anything else.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
 tastytaste wrote:
8 Formations is what it says in the Codex description found on GW website
This looks like it should be 10 (assuming the whole Decurion is a formation itself):
24409
Post by: Matt.Kingsley
I'm going to assume that the Flayed Ones, Deathmarks and Star-God choices for the Decurion aren't actually Formations (since that would mean there's 8 formations (not counting the Decurion itself as they're calling it a detachment)
51881
Post by: BlaxicanX
 Waaghboss Grobnub wrote:Hm , I realy do not have that much problems with the C'than. Sure... Random sucks.. But the powers are great. Yeah i know random. But if you rely on one single model to bring death to vehicles with crons you are doing something wrong IMO. Gauss, scarabs, heavy gauss canons, tachyon arrow, heat ray, anything entropic, short range haywire cryptek particle whip... Heck even tesla destructor,particle shredder and cc scythe attacks for medium and light vehicles. And wow... Worries about not enough ap2 attacks for av 2 armour? Lol.. Ffs... Just tesla them biatchezzzz, mass volume of fire works better in most situations than one or 2 ap2 attacks. But hey what about MC's? Ah well idk,.... Shackle them large bugs up, or wait, rapid fire rending on 2's them up with deathmarks works just fine.. And what about anything str 6 and up reliable wounding them? Also scythes murder them... But hey! What about them flying ones? Oh idk.... Being a good shooting army, how about just mass fire them out of the ffing sky? Now the problem would be losing all this in the new dex... But that doesnt seem likely hmm? Well see very soon
This is all true I think, but "don't worry about the C'tan's deficiencies because X, Y and Z units do everything the C'tan does better and more reliably anyway" isn't really a good defense for the C'tan. lol  ClockworkZion wrote:I'll be honest, I like the new rumors. It really feels like the Necrons are getting nice and balanced (if they're all true). I don't think I'll be dropping my Sisters right this second to play them, but that depends on the codex itself when it comes out. I like a book that feels like it's got some balance, or maybe even feels a touch underpowered because I always feel bad if I win too easily. I'm personally pretty stubborn and will play to the last model of mine is killed, but I know not everyone is like that or enjoys that level of challenge, so to me the Codex looks pretty good. The new 32mm bases on the models looks like it might make the army a touch more resilient to blast templates too. And I know some people aren't too happy about the flavor being taken away from RP, but honestly I feel it streamlines how the game nicely and will take smoother game play over fluffier play in the long run. So yeah, this will be the first codex I've bought since Orks came out, though a large part of that has to do more with available funds and free time more than anything else.
My feeling on the codex, based on the information we have so far, is generally positive as well. With the sole exception of the C'tan, I'm liking everything we've seen so far. I think this has the potential to be the most balanced codex we've seen in 7th.
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
 Matt.Kingsley wrote:I'm going to assume that the Flayed Ones, Deathmarks and Star-God choices for the Decurion aren't actually Formations (since that would mean there's 8 formations (not counting the Decurion itself as they're calling it a detachment)
All formations are technically detachments. They're just detachments you can take in an Unbound army.
And we'll see eventually I guess, it's just one of those things were I'm looking at it and it looks like a bunch of formations honestly. And if it is, there might be a thing for the C'Tan to make it a little more reliable.
24499
Post by: Waaghboss Grobnub
@BlaxikanX. Nope XD
Just wondering btw. In the Judicator batallion they talk about a unit of triarch stalkers. Might this mean that we can take multiple for one slot? Hmmm
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
 BlaxicanX wrote: ClockworkZion wrote:I'll be honest, I like the new rumors. It really feels like the Necrons are getting nice and balanced (if they're all true). I don't think I'll be dropping my Sisters right this second to play them, but that depends on the codex itself when it comes out. I like a book that feels like it's got some balance, or maybe even feels a touch underpowered because I always feel bad if I win too easily. I'm personally pretty stubborn and will play to the last model of mine is killed, but I know not everyone is like that or enjoys that level of challenge, so to me the Codex looks pretty good. The new 32mm bases on the models looks like it might make the army a touch more resilient to blast templates too.
And I know some people aren't too happy about the flavor being taken away from RP, but honestly I feel it streamlines how the game nicely and will take smoother game play over fluffier play in the long run.
So yeah, this will be the first codex I've bought since Orks came out, though a large part of that has to do more with available funds and free time more than anything else.
My feeling on the codex, based on the information we have so far, is generally positive as well. With the sole exception of the C'tan, I'm liking everything we've seen so far. I think this has the potential to be the most balanced codex we've seen in 7th.
I think that's saying a lot considering how balanced the books have been so far. 7th may not have the most competitive core ruleset (being a lot better for campaigns and the like) but I think it has some of the best codex balance to date.
4139
Post by: wuestenfux
I don't care about formations.
On the other hand, I like what I've seen so far.
Overlord with better stats, Wraiths with higher toughness.
I'm interested to see the rules for Night Scythes, Destroyers, and Monos.
I have two Monos on the shelf. They wait for their return.
58599
Post by: Galorian
Wishing for a Mono build eh?
4139
Post by: wuestenfux
Right.
Monos and infantry can have a great synergy.
Teleporting and additional WBB rolls made up for some good lists.
62061
Post by: Ffyllotek
 wuestenfux wrote:
Right.
Monos and infantry can have a great synergy.
Teleporting and additional WBB rolls made up for some good lists.
They've not actually had enhanced rp rolls in a long time...
88194
Post by: MonumentOfRibs
I agree about the codex balance. Most of the armies so far in 7th play off very well against each other. And if you really can't handle that Necrons seem to be following the trend, then you probably starting playing the army for the wrong reasons
4139
Post by: wuestenfux
I'm certainly not the first observing this but the Overlord is on a larger base, 32 mm, as the BA Tacticals.
Seems to be a new trend.
47547
Post by: CthuluIsSpy
ClockworkZion wrote:I'll be honest, I like the new rumors. It really feels like the Necrons are getting nice and balanced (if they're all true). I don't think I'll be dropping my Sisters right this second to play them, but that depends on the codex itself when it comes out. I like a book that feels like it's got some balance, or maybe even feels a touch underpowered because I always feel bad if I win too easily. I'm personally pretty stubborn and will play to the last model of mine is killed, but I know not everyone is like that or enjoys that level of challenge, so to me the Codex looks pretty good. The new 32mm bases on the models looks like it might make the army a touch more resilient to blast templates too. And I know some people aren't too happy about the flavor being taken away from RP, but honestly I feel it streamlines how the game nicely and will take smoother game play over fluffier play in the long run. So yeah, this will be the first codex I've bought since Orks came out, though a large part of that has to do more with available funds and free time more than anything else. Automatically Appended Next Post: tastytaste wrote: 8 Formations is what it says in the Codex description found on GW website
This looks like it should be 10 (assuming the whole Decurion is a formation itself):
I counted 11, 12 if you count the Decurion. Fast Attack:
Night Scythe:
Ghost Ark:
Canoptek Wraiths: T5
Canoptek Scarabs:
Tomb Blades:
Destroyers: 2 Wounds
Heavy Support:
Doom Scythe: Death Ray - 24" S10 AP1, Heavy 1, Blast, Lance
Doomsday Ark: Doomsday Cannon - Stationary 72" S10 AP1, Heavy 1 Large Blast. Combat Speed 24" S8 AP3 Blast
Please let this be true.
58599
Post by: Galorian
MonumentOfRibs wrote:I agree about the codex balance. Most of the armies so far in 7th play off very well against each other. And if you really can't handle that Necrons seem to be following the trend, then you probably starting playing the army for the wrong reasons
I'd be happy with a 7th balanced codex, what I dislike is the utter unreliability of the C'tan's shooting. For a model priced at 240pts to have shooting that is, at best, semi-reliable against low-mid toughness MCs with poor saves and light infantry and little in the way of means to reach melee (unless their movement rate gets seriously buffed), is just plain bad.
You don't pay Land Raider prices for something this unreliable.
I would've liked it if Tesla remained as it was and just had the prices of things using TL Tesla Destructors adjusted accordingly- the way it works is fun and makes sense thematically (hell, the starship grade version in BFG has special rules specifically meant to simulate the fact it's a "blind fire" weapon by allowing it to ignore holo/shadow fields and the target's maneuverability). Tesla SHOULD work well when snap-firing because that's kind of its thing.
55577
Post by: ImAGeek
wuestenfux wrote:I'm certainly not the first observing this but the Overlord is on a larger base, 32 mm, as the BA Tacticals.
Seems to be a new trend.
The Overlord is actually on a 40mm base I think. The Necrons in the tomb awakens box are all on 32mm though.
53939
Post by: vipoid
I wonder if Overlords will have any wargear/artefacts to give them IWND?
wuestenfux wrote:I'm certainly not the first observing this but the Overlord is on a larger base, 32 mm, as the BA Tacticals.
Seems to be a new trend.
I think it's actually a 40mm base.
Personally, I don't see the appeal.
71373
Post by: Nilok
I was just going over my email and noticed GW's ad for the new Necron Codex, in the email GW had a few pictures from the roster builder.
First, the Doomsday Ark is 170 points, so 5 point drop.
Second, there was an image for the Tomb Blade, though was too low res to read what options it had, but three Tomb Blades + something was 58 points. However, I could see that there were options to be purchased. This means that the Nightbringer has no ability to purchase any wargear. The only hope for people for more reliable C'tan will be in the Crypteks.
55577
Post by: ImAGeek
 vipoid wrote:I wonder if Overlords will have any wargear/artefacts to give them IWND?
wuestenfux wrote:I'm certainly not the first observing this but the Overlord is on a larger base, 32 mm, as the BA Tacticals.
Seems to be a new trend.
I think it's actually a 40mm base.
Personally, I don't see the appeal.
I think Necron and SM look much better on the 32s.
58599
Post by: Galorian
ImAGeek wrote: vipoid wrote:I wonder if Overlords will have any wargear/artefacts to give them IWND?
wuestenfux wrote:I'm certainly not the first observing this but the Overlord is on a larger base, 32 mm, as the BA Tacticals.
Seems to be a new trend.
I think it's actually a 40mm base.
Personally, I don't see the appeal.
I think Necron and SM look much better on the 32s.
I agree that they look kind of silly on a 25mm base (bow legged warriors with their feet poking out of it on both sides especially), but I'm really not going to go through rebasing them AGAIN.
New ones I'll put on the new 32mm bases, old ones are just gonna have to live with lesser living conditions. Automatically Appended Next Post: Nilok wrote:I was just going over my email and noticed GW's ad for the new Necron Codex, in the email GW had a few pictures from the roster builder.
First, the Doomsday Ark is 170 points, so 5 point drop.
Second, there was an image for the Tomb Blade, though was too low res to read what options it had, but three Tomb Blades + something was 58 points. However, I could see that there were options to be purchased. This means that the Nightbringer has no ability to purchase any wargear. The only hope for people for more reliable C'tan will be in the Crypteks.
Can you upload the images?
65784
Post by: Mr.Omega
Hearing that the worst of the Necron bs has been nerfed has made my day. With a large MSS nerf maybe now my combat characters won't auto-lose to Lords, less reanimation stupidity, and less flyer spam.
Add a large Anni-Barge nerf to that list and I have no more complaints with Necrons.
66089
Post by: Kangodo
Huh, nerfs?
Perhaps you should re-read all rumours, because they are surely a lot stronger than before.
Also don't expect MSS to get nerfed, it will probably be buffed a lot seeing how it is useless at the moment.
62401
Post by: Eyjio
Nilok wrote:I was just going over my email and noticed GW's ad for the new Necron Codex, in the email GW had a few pictures from the roster builder.
First, the Doomsday Ark is 170 points, so 5 point drop.
Second, there was an image for the Tomb Blade, though was too low res to read what options it had, but three Tomb Blades + something was 58 points. However, I could see that there were options to be purchased. This means that the Nightbringer has no ability to purchase any wargear. The only hope for people for more reliable C'tan will be in the Crypteks.
Can you upload these? 58 would be at least a 1 point drop.
Mr.Omega wrote:Hearing that the worst of the Necron bs has been nerfed has made my day. With a large MSS nerf maybe now my combat characters won't auto-lose to Lords, less reanimation stupidity, and less flyer spam.
Add a large Anni-Barge nerf to that list and I have no more complaints with Necrons.
No more complaints because you'll never see them again? Those things were spammed because they prop up the failings of the book vs MCs and low saves...
55577
Post by: ImAGeek
Kangodo wrote:Huh, nerfs?
Perhaps you should re-read all rumours, because they are surely a lot stronger than before.
Also don't expect MSS to get nerfed, it will probably be buffed a lot seeing how it is useless at the moment.
How are MSS useless?
53939
Post by: vipoid
ImAGeek wrote:Kangodo wrote:Huh, nerfs?
Perhaps you should re-read all rumours, because they are surely a lot stronger than before.
Also don't expect MSS to get nerfed, it will probably be buffed a lot seeing how it is useless at the moment.
How are MSS useless?
Oh, come on. It's just so much effort to get them to work.
I mean, first you have to buy a character (who uses those these days?).
Then you have to find 15pts. Fifteen! Just for MSS. And, you even have to take the time to write them down in your list (who has that sort of time on their hands?).
66089
Post by: Kangodo
Well, "useless" since you are paying a lot of points for an item that only helps when you attack, a MC attacks you or if your opponent doesn't know the rules.
That is a really narrow use, but for some reason people think it is overpowered.
So expect something that sounds like a nerf but is actually a buff.
43588
Post by: Anpu-adom
8 Formations...
the Decursion is a detachment.
Apparently, GW is making a distinction. Formations have no choice of units other than maybe how many to bring. Detachments, however do.
58599
Post by: Galorian
Eyjio wrote:Nilok wrote:I was just going over my email and noticed GW's ad for the new Necron Codex, in the email GW had a few pictures from the roster builder.
First, the Doomsday Ark is 170 points, so 5 point drop.
Second, there was an image for the Tomb Blade, though was too low res to read what options it had, but three Tomb Blades + something was 58 points. However, I could see that there were options to be purchased. This means that the Nightbringer has no ability to purchase any wargear. The only hope for people for more reliable C'tan will be in the Crypteks.
Can you upload these? 58 would be at least a 1 point drop.
58 is indivisible by 3, meaning the squad now has at least one upgrade that is either squad wide with no correlation between squad size and price (fairly unlikely) or can be taken for only a part of the squad instead of the current all-or-none.
It could be a 1 point upgrade taken once meaning their base price dropped by 1 point, a 2 point upgrade taken twice/4 point upgrade taken once meaning their base price dropped by 2 points. Could even be a 3 point price drop with some combination of upgrades totaling in 7 additional points for the unit, but that's pushing it.
Having their price drop to 16pts or less would be ridiculous unless they got nerfed to hell and back in the process.
57035
Post by: jms40k
Galorian wrote:
Having their price drop to 16pts or less would be ridiculous unless they got nerfed to hell and back in the process.
I believe Nob Bikers are the only biker units not to receive a significant price drop. Reavers used to be 22 points and are now 16. Yes, there are rule changes, that should be expected, but cheaper units are good since the tomb blades as a base unit (not including the jet bike shenanigans which should remain anyway) weren't all that overwhelming to begin with.
88194
Post by: MonumentOfRibs
 Galorian wrote:MonumentOfRibs wrote:
I'd be happy with a 7th balanced codex, what I dislike is the utter unreliability of the C'tan's shooting. For a model priced at 240pts to have shooting that is, at best, semi-reliable against low-mid toughness MCs with poor saves and light infantry and little in the way of means to reach melee (unless their movement rate gets seriously buffed), is just plain bad.
You don't pay Land Raider prices for something this unreliable.
I would've liked it if Tesla remained as it was and just had the prices of things using TL Tesla Destructors adjusted accordingly- the way it works is fun and makes sense thematically (hell, the starship grade version in BFG has special rules specifically meant to simulate the fact it's a "blind fire" weapon by allowing it to ignore holo/shadow fields and the target's maneuverability). Tesla SHOULD work well when snap-firing because that's kind of its thing.
The randomness is a little disappointing I agree, but I feel it defines the C'tan a little better on the tabletop. It never sat right with me that they listened to their slavers orders without a hint of rebellion.
Regarding tesla, we knew this was coming. Space wolves have a similar power with a similar restriction IIRC
53939
Post by: vipoid
Kangodo wrote:
Well, "useless" since you are paying a lot of points for an item that only helps when you attack, a MC attacks you or if your opponent doesn't know the rules.
That is a really narrow use, but for some reason people think it is overpowered.
15pts is not a lot. Not by any stretch of the imagination.
And, what mere 15pts can not only stop a character or MC from attacking (with no possible defence against it), it can also make them attack themselves. Oh, and the Overlord can still hit them with his Warscythe.
It's probably the best value you can get for 15pts anywhere in the game.
47547
Post by: CthuluIsSpy
Provided the MSS targets something dangerous and not just some foot soldier. It seems that everyone keeps forgetting that you have to randomly select the target.
58599
Post by: Galorian
jms40k wrote:Nilok wrote:
Having their price drop to 16pts or less would be ridiculous unless they got nerfed to hell and back in the process.
I believe Nob Bikers are the only biker units not to receive a significant price drop. Reavers used to be 22 points and are now 16. Yes, there are rule changes, that should be expected, but cheaper units are good since the tomb blades as a base unit (not including the jet bike shenanigans which should remain anyway) weren't all that overwhelming to begin with.
Tomb Blades were fairly good for their price, their failings were the low squad size limit, the prohibitive upgrade costs and the fact they competed for the same FOC slot as the Wraiths.
The change to RP alone should buff them up considerably- a max size 5 squad is extremely vulnerable to single shooting phase wipe-outs and all but guaranteed to be forced to take a Ld test whenever some manage to survive, so they rarely got to roll their RP dice at all.
If the rumors about Gauss are true (doubt it, sounds too powerful) then they're going to be just that much stronger in that respect as well.
All that on top of being a T5 jetbike sounds insane on a 16pts model.
66089
Post by: Kangodo
 CthuluIsSpy wrote:Provided the MSS targets something dangerous and not just some foot soldier. It seems that everyone keeps forgetting that you have to randomly select the target.
And don't forget that the active player can decide to resolve MSS before the Challenge.
That makes MSS a really strong thing, but only in the really limited amount of cases where it actually works.
Any change would probably 'nerf' it in those specific scenarios, but buff in for everything else.
So the end-result would be a great buff to MSS even though it 'sounds' nerfed.
73783
Post by: Skullhammer
As to the ctan powers anyone think you might get 2 a turn as they are an mc so 2 guns a turn is allowed and might explain the cost a bit.
9158
Post by: Hollismason
We don't know really how they work if it were two a turn that'd be pretty ridiculous.I'm more curious about the the Tesseract Vault LOW and it's cost.It's got a insane weapon on it I wonder if it's under 500.
I think this books going to have some impact on the Tournament scene, obviously Tesseract will probably be banned. The Decurion detachment may be as well. As it's a special detachment made up of solely formations.
801
Post by: buddha
Hollismason wrote:
I think this books going to have some impact on the Tournament scene, obviously Tesseract will probably be banned. The Decurion detachment may be as well. As it's a special detachment made up of solely formations.
I would hope tournament organizers are not that short sighted to ban the Decurion detachment since it is still essentially one detachment for those that want to adhere to the 2 detachment structure.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
MSS WILL get a nerf. MSS can be worked around, but doing so requires actual skill and knowledge, an element GW actively wants to reduce or remove if possible according to the latest codice releases and current rumors.
66089
Post by: Kangodo
Hollismason wrote:I think this books going to have some impact on the Tournament scene, obviously Tesseract will probably be banned. The Decurion detachment may be as well. As it's a special detachment made up of solely formations.
Why do you think it would be banned?
It's not banned now as far as I know and at the moment it's a lot stronger.
I don't think Tournaments that ban stuff like Detachments and Formations will stay around very long.
Like it or not: It is a new and exciting direction they are taking.
If you are unable to learn new stuff than maybe they shouldn't be hosting tournaments.
5680
Post by: Chad Warden
Sigvatr wrote:MSS WILL get a nerf. MSS can be worked around, but doing so requires actual skill and knowledge, an element GW actively wants to reduce or remove if possible according to the latest codice releases and current rumors.
Actually Necron players who relied on MSS will now have to actually use skill and knowledge to beat people in close combat; something it seems they don't want to do.
43032
Post by: King Pariah
Chad Warden wrote:
Sigvatr wrote:MSS WILL get a nerf. MSS can be worked around, but doing so requires actual skill and knowledge, an element GW actively wants to reduce or remove if possible according to the latest codice releases and current rumors.
Actually Necron players who relied on MSS will now have to actually use skill and knowledge to beat people in close combat; something it seems they don't want to do.
But but but... we had our time in which we had to use skill and knowledge to beat almost anyone! Like back when we had the Oldcron codex throughout most of the duration of the 5th edition BRB.
...those were fun days...
47547
Post by: CthuluIsSpy
Chad Warden wrote:
Sigvatr wrote:MSS WILL get a nerf. MSS can be worked around, but doing so requires actual skill and knowledge, an element GW actively wants to reduce or remove if possible according to the latest codice releases and current rumors.
Actually Necron players who relied on MSS will now have to actually use skill and knowledge to beat people in close combat; something it seems they don't want to do.
The same could be said of tanks and melta guns.
66089
Post by: Kangodo
Sigvatr wrote:MSS WILL get a nerf. MSS can be worked around, but doing so requires actual skill and knowledge, an element GW actively wants to reduce or remove if possible according to the latest codice releases and current rumors.
So it's all a matter of point of view.
I play against good players and they know how to counter it because I taught them.
That means I value it really, really low.
Any streamlining will surely cause it to work a lot easier which means it will actually have an effect that is not psychological.
So against decent players that would surely count as a buff instead of a nerf.
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
 Anpu-adom wrote:8 Formations...
the Decursion is a detachment.
Apparently, GW is making a distinction. Formations have no choice of units other than maybe how many to bring. Detachments, however do.
Except in the core rules they call formations a kind of detachment. :/
53939
Post by: vipoid
That seems more of an issue with the Rock-Paper-Scissors nature of 40k.
I mean, guns in general don't require much in the way of tactics - they are, quite literally, point and click.
58139
Post by: SilverDevilfish
Chad Warden wrote:
Sigvatr wrote:MSS WILL get a nerf. MSS can be worked around, but doing so requires actual skill and knowledge, an element GW actively wants to reduce or remove if possible according to the latest codice releases and current rumors.
Actually Necron players who relied on MSS will now have to actually use skill and knowledge to beat people in close combat; something it seems they don't want to do.
Yeah, I fully expect Overlords and Destroyer Lords to gain the same skill and knowledge of having superior CC upgrades and stats that Space Marine Chapter Masters enjoy.
77759
Post by: Gunther
From Blood of Kittens
Triarch Stalker: Targeting Relay - +1 BS to a single Necron unit within 12" inches
I didn't get that from the rumors when they were posted.
If so, this looks like a fairly significant nerf to a unit that didn't get much time on the table as far as I could tell because it seldom made its points back and was very slow.
Twinlinking your infantry was the reason to take this model.
If you get the twinlinked AND the +1BS or if they cut the points in half or something of that sort, it makes more sense and obviously would be a nice buff. (Yeah! I would love to use my model more)
If it is just +1BS this would appear to work more like marker lights just significantly less flexible on a higher point unit.
If the points are dropped significantly then the other indications that they might be taken in units of more than 1 might make more sense.
A cluster of 3 Stalkers sharing HP pools (vehicle squadron?) would be more survivable and the ineffectiveness of the unit would mitigate against it being OP.
If they remain the same price, well on the bright side, they can't show up on the table much less.
Obviously, the Necron faction is living in interesting times.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
Chad Warden wrote:
Sigvatr wrote:MSS WILL get a nerf. MSS can be worked around, but doing so requires actual skill and knowledge, an element GW actively wants to reduce or remove if possible according to the latest codice releases and current rumors.
Actually Necron players who relied on MSS will now have to actually use skill and knowledge to beat people in close combat; something it seems they don't want to do.
The opposite is the case. If you were not able to play around MSS in 5th, you are a bad player. Hands down.
26170
Post by: davethepak
MSS again? that horse is dead and in the past, can we let it rot please?
He was being sarcastic/trolling ("its 15 whole points, and then you have to write it down...").
Yes, MSS was a BAD DESIGN CHOICE, because it annoyed players (no one likes losing control of models), but Necron characters are just terrible in CC and needed a buff.
GW made a bad call on their implementation of it.
Hopefully in the new codex necron characters get some kind of buff in CC, and from the rumors we have it looks like they are going to get increased weapon skill, which will be a start.
It would be nice to have better init as well, but we will see.
If they do keep MSS, hopefully it will be a more common type debuff (reducing enemy WS, etc.).
91452
Post by: changemod
Used to be Pariahs were I3, Lords and Flayed Ones I4 and Wraiths I6.
Having basically every unit in the codex have the same stats in multiple areas probably wasn't a smart 5th edition move. Too restrictive.
47578
Post by: Herr Dexter
Boy if we used that reasoning, most xeno armies would be nerfed into steamlined boredom.
There is far more many annoying things in the game that are here to stay. Eldars for example.
28269
Post by: Red Corsair
 Herr Dexter wrote:
Boy if we used that reasoning, most xeno armies would be nerfed into steamlined boredom.
There is far more many annoying things in the game that are here to stay. Eldars for example.
Considering your signature I'm not sure it's the armies fault entirely
5680
Post by: Chad Warden
Sigvatr wrote:
The opposite is the case. If you were not able to play around MSS in 5th, you are a bad player. Hands down.
I do not think the effort in countering MSS was in proportion considering the cost. e.g. if you play Khorne Daemons. You can't outshoot Necrons, you may have a hard time out maneuvering them, and if one of your characters gets into combat well they are fethed due to being LD9/8.
There isn't anything else for any other army that causes such problems, and its only 15 points.
Now Necron players will not have an auto-take upgrade, and will actually have to think about keeping their characters out of close combat with the special characters/monsters who cost 2-3 times what they do.
Yeah, I fully expect Overlords and Destroyer Lords to gain the same skill and knowledge of having superior CC upgrades and stats that Space Marine Chapter Masters enjoy.
I'm joking obviously, no one is allowed to have non-MC normal characters as good as a Chapter Master in CC
Strawman.
Necrons are not supposed to be able to reliably beat a Bloodthirster or Abaddon. MSS was anti-fluff.
57035
Post by: jms40k
My guess: MSS effects remain the same, but works only in challenges and might be a 2d6 + 2 leadership test instead of 3d6.
62401
Post by: Eyjio
Galorian wrote:
Tomb Blades were fairly good for their price, their failings were the low squad size limit, the prohibitive upgrade costs and the fact they competed for the same FOC slot as the Wraiths.
The change to RP alone should buff them up considerably- a max size 5 squad is extremely vulnerable to single shooting phase wipe-outs and all but guaranteed to be forced to take a Ld test whenever some manage to survive, so they rarely got to roll their RP dice at all.
If the rumors about Gauss are true (doubt it, sounds too powerful) then they're going to be just that much stronger in that respect as well.
All that on top of being a T5 jetbike sounds insane on a 16pts model.
Agreed with pretty much all of that. Their other major failing is the one shared by all Necron units - inability to take special weapons at all. I hope Gauss remedies that by doing extra damage to infantry again. In all honesty, I wish they would just make it rending already - it would hardly be overpowered in a codex where you have no plasma/missiles/melta in infantry units at all and it makes a lot more sense than just glancing vehicles on a 6, even if they're AV200. It'd still make 10 warriors worse off than any other MEQ+plasma guns, and I think it'd be more fluffy too, even if they're bumped up a point or two because of it. Let's face it - who doesn't miss viable foot Necrons?
Kangodo wrote:Hollismason wrote:I think this books going to have some impact on the Tournament scene, obviously Tesseract will probably be banned. The Decurion detachment may be as well. As it's a special detachment made up of solely formations.
Why do you think it would be banned?
It's not banned now as far as I know and at the moment it's a lot stronger.
I don't think Tournaments that ban stuff like Detachments and Formations will stay around very long.
Like it or not: It is a new and exciting direction they are taking.
If you are unable to learn new stuff than maybe they shouldn't be hosting tournaments.
If the current major tournaments die, it will be 40ks death rattle. 7th is messed up as hell anyway, formations are just a mess. That said, I wish instead of this unbound nonsense, every army had an organisation model or two like this new one. Benefits for fitting the fluff = great for the game IMO. The codices are actually pretty good at this currently, it's just the main rules which need fixing to allow this to happen.
Gunther wrote:From Blood of Kittens
Triarch Stalker: Targeting Relay - +1 BS to a single Necron unit within 12" inches
I didn't get that from the rumors when they were posted.
If so, this looks like a fairly significant nerf to a unit that didn't get much time on the table as far as I could tell because it seldom made its points back and was very slow.
Twinlinking your infantry was the reason to take this model.
If you get the twinlinked AND the +1BS or if they cut the points in half or something of that sort, it makes more sense and obviously would be a nice buff. (Yeah! I would love to use my model more)
If it is just +1BS this would appear to work more like marker lights just significantly less flexible on a higher point unit.
If the points are dropped significantly then the other indications that they might be taken in units of more than 1 might make more sense.
A cluster of 3 Stalkers sharing HP pools (vehicle squadron?) would be more survivable and the ineffectiveness of the unit would mitigate against it being OP.
If they remain the same price, well on the bright side, they can't show up on the table much less.
Obviously, the Necron faction is living in interesting times.
TL BS4 = 8/9 to hit =16/18
BS5 = 5/6 to hit = 15/18
It's a loss of 1/18th chance to hit, but now stacks with things which are already twin linked. Unless you're massively bummed that you can no longer twin link warrior/immortal fire, it's actually pretty much a buff. I mean, that was the issue it always had - there was already so much twin linking that 9 times out of 10 it was a dead ability. Not to mention that if heavy destroyers keep PE, going to BS5 makes them effectively twin liked on BS5 anyway, which will be hideously beautiful.
davethepak wrote:MSS again? that horse is dead and in the past, can we let it rot please?
He was being sarcastic/trolling ("its 15 whole points, and then you have to write it down...").
Yes, MSS was a BAD DESIGN CHOICE, because it annoyed players (no one likes losing control of models), but Necron characters are just terrible in CC and needed a buff.
GW made a bad call on their implementation of it.
Hopefully in the new codex necron characters get some kind of buff in CC, and from the rumors we have it looks like they are going to get increased weapon skill, which will be a start.
It would be nice to have better init as well, but we will see.
If they do keep MSS, hopefully it will be a more common type debuff (reducing enemy WS, etc.).
Agreed. I worry about how Necrons are going to deal with MCs but I still hated MSS. Just not fun to play with really.
Skullhammer wrote:As to the ctan powers anyone think you might get 2 a turn as they are an mc so 2 guns a turn is allowed and might explain the cost a bit.
That would be mental. I doubt it, but if they can I'll take back everything bad I ever said about C'tan.
Chad Warden wrote:
Sigvatr wrote:MSS WILL get a nerf. MSS can be worked around, but doing so requires actual skill and knowledge, an element GW actively wants to reduce or remove if possible according to the latest codice releases and current rumors.
Actually Necron players who relied on MSS will now have to actually use skill and knowledge to beat people in close combat; something it seems they don't want to do.
Skill and knowledge = lucky rolling so your guys aren't instagibbed now? Hmm.
Herr Dexter wrote:
Boy if we used that reasoning, most xeno armies would be nerfed into steamlined boredom.
There is far more many annoying things in the game that are here to stay. Eldars for example.
I think I speak for us all when I say death to the pointy earred freaks.
66089
Post by: Kangodo
Herr Dexter wrote:Boy if we used that reasoning, most xeno armies would be nerfed into steamlined boredom.
There is far more many annoying things in the game that are here to stay. Eldars for example.
Most? How about all.
It seems many Space Marine-players get confused and upset when things don't work as they do in the Imperium.
Chad Warden wrote:Necrons are not supposed to be able to reliably beat a Bloodthirster or Abaddon. MSS was anti-fluff.
If Abbadon is being charged by Necrons, you have more important things to worry about than MSS.
In that case it'd be wise to reconsider your tactics.
Chad Warden wrote:Now Necron players will not have an auto-take upgrade, and will actually have to think about keeping their characters out of close combat with the special characters/monsters who cost 2-3 times what they do.
But it wasn't an auto-take.
Especially not if you field 4 Lords, that would be 60 points and for what.. For that small chance a Daemon-player is charging my Warriors with a MC?
Though this discussion is useless.
We will see how they buffed it in less than a week.
91260
Post by: willow
Chad Warden wrote: Sigvatr wrote: The opposite is the case. If you were not able to play around MSS in 5th, you are a bad player. Hands down.
I do not think the effort in countering MSS was in proportion considering the cost. e.g. if you play Khorne Daemons. You can't outshoot Necrons, you may have a hard time out maneuvering them, and if one of your characters gets into combat well they are fethed due to being LD9/8. There isn't anything else for any other army that causes such problems, and its only 15 points. Now Necron players will not have an auto-take upgrade, and will actually have to think about keeping their characters out of close combat with the special characters/monsters who cost 2-3 times what they do. Yeah, I fully expect Overlords and Destroyer Lords to gain the same skill and knowledge of having superior CC upgrades and stats that Space Marine Chapter Masters enjoy.
I'm joking obviously, no one is allowed to have non-MC normal characters as good as a Chapter Master in CC
Strawman. Necrons are not supposed to be able to reliably beat a Bloodthirster or Abaddon. MSS was anti-fluff.
I'm sorry am I missing something here  Your example of Khorne army doesn't seem to match up with the "cost 2-3 times" bit. Not sure about posting the points values here but I'm not seeing anything that costs 2-3 times more than a fully kitted OL with MSS but has to run scared. I still run OLs from Abby and the like. Hell, I even run away from TWC if there are too many. If I do end up in CC with those units it's because I have nothing to lose by that stage. I think most people here have covered how you can easily deal with MSS (large units, random selection of model etc).
53939
Post by: vipoid
Galorian wrote:
Tomb Blades were fairly good for their price, their failings were the low squad size limit, the prohibitive upgrade costs and the fact they competed for the same FOC slot as the Wraiths.
I don't think they were good for their cost. Their weapons were too weak.
91452
Post by: changemod
I know this is outside the standard toolkit, but Charnel Scarabs from IA:12 are good at treating Monstrous Creatures, and in fact essentially everything without AV13 or that's currently airborne, as a mild speedbump. Not sure how easily compatible they'll be with the new Codex though.
...Actually, I'm not sure how Compatible IA: 12 is in general. The units that say "This thing counts as a Fast Attack choice in Codex Necrons" are simple enough, but what about things like Kutlakh the World Killer being able to take a Royal Court?
66089
Post by: Kangodo
changemod wrote:I know this is outside the standard toolkit, but Charnel Scarabs from IA:12 are good at treating Monstrous Creatures, and in fact essentially everything without AV13 or that's currently airborne, as a mild speedbump. Not sure how easily compatible they'll be with the new Codex though.
...Actually, I'm not sure how Compatible IA: 12 is in general. The units that say "This thing counts as a Fast Attack choice in Codex Necrons" are simple enough, but what about things like Kutlakh the World Killer being able to take a Royal Court?
Kutlakh could still take a 'Royal Court of Maynarkh' which consists of Maynarkh Lords and Crypteks (see Necron-Codex)
What I wonder is how it works with rules like Phaeron.
It now has a description in IA12 and the new Codex; would the Codex overrule that description in IA12?
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
Eyjio wrote:
Skill and knowledge = lucky rolling so your guys aren't instagibbed now? Hmm.
You obviously don't know why MSS weren't as good as many thought. Thanks for proving my point. Google "counterplay MSS 40k". Automatically Appended Next Post: Chad Warden wrote:
Sigvatr wrote:
The opposite is the case. If you were not able to play around MSS in 5th, you are a bad player. Hands down.
I do not think the effort in countering MSS was in proportion considering the cost.
Oh, yes, they definitely were too cheap. 20-25 pts would have been ideal.
91452
Post by: changemod
Kangodo wrote:changemod wrote:I know this is outside the standard toolkit, but Charnel Scarabs from IA:12 are good at treating Monstrous Creatures, and in fact essentially everything without AV13 or that's currently airborne, as a mild speedbump. Not sure how easily compatible they'll be with the new Codex though.
...Actually, I'm not sure how Compatible IA: 12 is in general. The units that say "This thing counts as a Fast Attack choice in Codex Necrons" are simple enough, but what about things like Kutlakh the World Killer being able to take a Royal Court?
Kutlakh could still take a 'Royal Court of Maynarkh' which consists of Maynarkh Lords and Crypteks (see Necron-Codex)
What I wonder is how it works with rules like Phaeron.
It now has a description in IA12 and the new Codex; would the Codex overrule that description in IA12?
I bought enough Canoptek units to make a 2000 point unbound list before, so I'm hoping that with a little luck I can make an almost pure Canoptek bound list by using the new Canoptek formation twice to free up enough FOC spaces to take Acanthrites, Charnel Scarabs and Sentry Pylons in my main force.
62401
Post by: Eyjio
Sigvatr wrote:Eyjio wrote:
Skill and knowledge = lucky rolling so your guys aren't instagibbed now? Hmm.
You obviously don't know why MSS weren't as good as many thought. Thanks for proving my point. Google "counterplay MSS 40k".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Chad Warden wrote:
Sigvatr wrote:
The opposite is the case. If you were not able to play around MSS in 5th, you are a bad player. Hands down.
I do not think the effort in countering MSS was in proportion considering the cost.
Oh, yes, they definitely were too cheap. 20-25 pts would have been ideal.
You either misunderstood my post or didn't even read it. Try being less hostile in the future, good grief.
68230
Post by: BlackArmour
davethepak wrote:MSS again? that horse is dead and in the past, can we let it rot please?
He was being sarcastic/trolling ("its 15 whole points, and then you have to write it down...").
Yes, MSS was a BAD DESIGN CHOICE, because it annoyed players (no one likes losing control of models), but Necron characters are just terrible in CC and needed a buff.
GW made a bad call on their implementation of it.
Hopefully in the new codex necron characters get some kind of buff in CC, and from the rumors we have it looks like they are going to get increased weapon skill, which will be a start.
It would be nice to have better init as well, but we will see.
If they do keep MSS, hopefully it will be a more common type debuff (reducing enemy WS, etc.).
Soooooo....... You wanna be space marines..... Only better? Better standard guns, better leadership, far more surviveable, and to finish it off... Better than or equal in CC now?
Love watching necrons players cry about CC .... All i hear is "i dont want a weakness"
55577
Post by: ImAGeek
Well, equal in close combat with units that are meant to be combat units, yeah. No ones asking for every unit to be awesome in CC but when you're paying 40pts a model for a CC model with I2, something needs a buff. Or a character which is essentially a combat character with I2.
68230
Post by: BlackArmour
ImAGeek wrote:Well, equal in close combat with units that are meant to be combat units, yeah. No ones asking for every unit to be awesome in CC but when you're paying 40pts a model for a CC model with I2, something needs a buff. Or a character which is essentially a combat character with I2.
If we are talking special characters or a unit designed for CC, then sure im with you.
However to boost basic troops or everyone would literaly be space marines ... Only better. Now in fluff that may be true but for game purposes that wouldnt be good.
58599
Post by: Galorian
Chad Warden wrote:Strawman.
Necrons are not supposed to be able to reliably beat a Bloodthirster or Abaddon. MSS was anti-fluff.
Unfluffy?
lol, read 'em and weep (was already making this reply due to the whole initiative 2 thing)-
changemod wrote:Used to be Pariahs were I3, Lords and Flayed Ones I4 and Wraiths I6.
Having basically every unit in the codex have the same stats in multiple areas probably wasn't a smart 5th edition move. Too restrictive.
Not to mention the fact it made zero sense given the fluff-
In their midst was a leaping, slashing monster of metal and stolen skin, who's every blow hurled an Assault Marine ten feet across the ice. Sicarious made a beeline for the creature, raising his Tempest Blade in the briefest of salutes before engaging it in a lightning-fast exchange of blows
-Apocalypse War Zone: Damnos
A leaping monster tossing assault marines around like so many toy soldiers and exchanging "lightning-fast" blows with one of the Space Marines' most renowned swordsmen. Yeah, sure, initiative 2, whatever you say...
Moloc merely raised his Black Spear and unleashed its las-blast at the sinister figure high on its throne-like dais. The golden-white bolt, strong enough to pierce the armor of a battle tank, struck the machine-creature's shoulder and rocked the figure back, but did no more than elicit an eerie hissing howl, not of pain but of insulted rage. From the cold air a great glittering cleaver like blade of pale obsidian materialised in the Necron Overlord's outstretched skeletal hand and he threw himself from the dais like a bolt of thunder, slicing open the first Terminator in his path with a savage backhand blow as if the warrior's vaunted armor were as nothing.
[...]
The dark Overlord fought and killed his way towards the Minotaurs Chapter Master, leaving a trail of rent and severed Terminators in his wake, until suddenly the tomb ship shook to a resounding blow and it began to tilt crazily, the artificial gravity field within it rippling and buckling. The Necron Overlord was thrown unceremoniously to his knees and looming there above him was Ancient Geryon, the Contemptor Dreadnaught's great fist raised to strike, the lethal energy field that enwrapped it churning soundlessly in the now airless vault. The hammer-blow fell but the reaper's blade was there to meet it and the Dreadnaught's forearm exploded in flame and spinning shrapnel. The tomb ship tilted further still and Geryon reeled and staggered, the Dreadnaught's huge armoured feet skidding and losing purchase. The Overlord sprang bonelessly from the ground and laid into Geryon with his great blade in a rapid series of two-handed slashes, sending splintered ceramite and showers of sparks fountaining from the wounded Dreadnaught.
Geryon fell, one knee actuator severed, brackish blood and silver amniotic fluid leaking from the rents in his armour. The Overlord rose up to deliver the final blow and the Black Spear found him. Moloc punched the ancient relic-weapon clean through the Overlord's back and it exploded from the ankh-glyph that was blazoned across the Necron's chest, wreathed in pale flames and amber lightning. Transfixed, the Overlord spasmed upon the spear, its death-mask thrown back as if in a silent scream.
Asterion Moloc smashed the Overlord off his spear-blade using his storm shield to deal the blow just as the tomb ship rocked again with fresh impacts, the white flame of plasma weapon fire licking around the aperture in the vault chamber from the void beyond. By a warrior's instinct earned on a thousand battlefields, Moloc reacted before his conscious mind detected the reaping blade falling from on high, raising his storm shield as the dark Overlord's blade came down, the ancient device blocking a blow that would have cleaved Moloc's head in two before it finally shorted and spat, quickly coming apart under the repeated wild blows of the Necron's glittering blade. The world tilted once more as they parted, Moloc feeling the burning cold hate of the deathless creature's baleful crimson eyes as the broken, skeletal figure retreated into the darkness. The master of the Minotaurs Chapter himself was swept out into the void, surrounded by the bodies of his dead warriors as if caught in a whirlpool.
-Imperial Armor 12: Fall of Orpheus
Leaping "like a bolt of thunder" and easily slashing his way through a Terminator honor guard and the chapter master only managed to wound him with a cheap shot to the back which earned the guy a reprisal blow so fast he had to block it via instinctual reflex before he even registered that it was coming.
Yah, sure, initiative 2, makes perfect sense... 
The Undying One glided smoothly into the brutal melee, double-bladed staff spinning in its hands. With consummate ease, two of the Anointed were instantly cut down. Both of the warriors were sliced neatly in two with a contemptuous lack of effort. The spinning Nexus Arrangement embedded in the ancient being’s chest spilt its ethereal light before it, taunting Marduk. Another Anointed warrior was slain, the Undying One’s bladed staff slicing neatly from shoulder to hip, and the two parts of the warrior slid to the ground. The necron lord spun the staff around in a blinding arc, levelling one of its tips at another Chaos Terminator, and a searing blast of energy slammed into the unfortunate warrior. The Anointed warrior reeled backwards, a head-sized hole punched clear through his chest.
Marduk snarled and launched himself forward, coming at the Undying One from the side. He saw the hulking form of Kol Badar moving to attack the ancient being from its other flank, combi-bolter roaring in his hand, and he felt a surge of rage at the thought of his Coryphaus stealing his kill.
The Undying One’s head was turned away from him, focussed on Kol Badar. He stepped in close, lifting his crozius arcanum with all his might, aiming his strike at the fell being’s delicate- looking, slender skull. The blow never landed, for without so much as turning its head, the necron lord parried the blow with one of the energy-bladed tips of its staff, even as the other blade sliced across Kol Badar’s torso, almost eviscerating him. Turning with a deceptively languid, smooth movement, still hovering a metre above the ground, the Undying One fended off the attacks of both Marduk and Kol Badar with ease. A third warrior entered the fray, power maul striking out. The Anointed brother was instantly slain, an energy blade plunged through his head.
Blood welling from the deep wound slashed across his torso, Kol Badar lifted his combi-bolter, spraying bolts from its twin-barrels. The Undying One’s shroud billowed out around it as it turned, and a dense cloud of scarabs was unleashed upon the Coryphaus, biting and clawing at him. Though the miniscule, robotic insects could do little real damage to him, encased as he was within his Terminator armour, they soaked up the fury of his weapon fire, the bolts detonating well before striking their intended target.
Marduk aimed another strike at his enemy. But again the double-bladed staff came around in a blinding arc, turning his weapon aside. Marduk had prepared for this reaction, and swiftly altered his angle of attack, but this too was blocked, a deft circular parry disarming him neatly, sending his crozius arcanum spinning away, landing several metres away. Still turning, the Undying One cut another Anointed brother in two as he stepped forward to attack the ancient being, before neatly ramming one of the energy-blades straight through Kol Badar, impaling him on its length.
Marduk lifted his combi-bolter towards his enemy, squeezing the trigger. Before the first bolt was launched from the chamber, the Undying One slid its blade clear of Kol Badar and swung it around. Marduk was knocked back a step, and it was only when he saw blood spraying out in a geyser that he realised something was wrong. The pain kicked in a heartbeat later, and the Dark Apostle gazed down in disbelief at his severed arm lying on the ground. His combi-bolter was still clutched in his hand. On the other side of the Undying One, Kol Badar dropped to one knee, blood pumping from his chest wound. The ancient being twirled its staff around in a deft display of skill. A ring of bodies surrounded it.
Necrons closed in on all sides, gauss flayers spitting death, and Marduk, refusing to accept defeat, felt his anger build.
“Face me, betrayer!” came a booming cry and the immense figure of the Warmonger burst through a cluster of necrons, smashing them out of its path with a sweep of one massive, mechanised arm. Heavy bolters spewed a torrent of fire before it as it charged.
...
The Undying One turned smoothly to face the Dreadnought rampaging towards it, and with inhuman speed and suppleness, it contorted its body like a dancer’s. Bolts sprayed around it, tearing holes through its billowing shroud, but failing to strike its body. On the Warmonger came, roaring incoherently as it pounded forward, a ten-tonne behemoth of metal and brutality.
The Undying One ducked neatly beneath the Dreadnought’s swinging talons, its double-bladed staff slicing out, striking across the Warmonger’s armoured chassis amid an explosion of sparks and the agonising scream of rending metal.
The Warmonger struggled to arrest its forward momentum, which took it past the Undying One. The Dreadnought’s damaged chassis was rotating before it had yet ground to a halt, dragging its heavy bolters around. The heavy weapons roared, belching an impenetrable curtain of high-calibre shells around in a wide arc, chasing its elusive foe. The Undying One was too swift, always a fraction of a second in front of the devastating salvo. Hefting its double-bladed staff like a spear, the Undying One glided forward, heavy bolter rounds ripping at its shadow-cloak. With inhuman strength and speed, the Undying One rammed its weapon into the heart of the Dreadnought’s chassis. The glowing energy blade slid effortlessly through the Warmonger’s thick armour plates, impaling it. Marduk roared in outrage and denial but was helpless as the Undying One ripped the glowing energy blade free, tearing it out sideways in a disembowelling stroke that ripped open the Dreadnought’s sarcophagus. Stinking amniotic fluids gushed from this fatal wound, and Marduk caught a glimpse of the Warmonger’s corpse within, shrunken, pallid and foetal. It was hard to believe that once this had been one of the Legion’s proudest warriors, a Dark Apostle no less. It now looked like an exhumed cadaver, a half-rotten corpse cruelly kept lingering in some horrific unlife. Wires, cables and tubes connected this lifeless, drowned thing to the Dreadnought’s nervous system. It was only this spider web tangle that kept it from flopping out onto the ground. It was little more than a wasted torso, upon which a skeletal head hung loosely. Most of its skull was gone, either from the extent of the injuries that had seen it interred or surgically removed, and the exposed brain matter—a horrible colour, like rotten fruit—was pierced with dozens of needle-tipped wires. It was missing its lower jaw. Only its visible fused ribcage and the gigantism of its skeleton revealed that this had once been a proud Astartes warrior. The Warmonger’s mechanised Dreadnought body shuddered and twitched, sparks bursting from damaged wiring and cabling. Marduk hooked his sacred crozius at his waist and dropped to one knee, prying the archaic
combi-bolter from his own dead hand. He fired at the back of the Undying One’s head as he rose, snarling in hatred.
Displaying unnatural prescience, the Undying One swayed aside from the burst of bolter fire, twirling its energy scythe around its hands as it turned. It was unable to avoid the Warmonger, however. The Dreadnought was not yet finished and as the Undying One turned away, the Warmonger lashed out, clamping its immense power talons around the body of its adversary. The necron lord struggled, its double-bladed staff flailing, but it could not escape. It was completely enclosed within the Warmonger’s grasp.
“Death to the False Emperor!” the Dreadnought roared, clenching its fist. The Undying One’s humanoid form splintered, exploding into a million scarabs. In the centre of the buzzing cloud of metallic insects hovered the Nexus Arrangement. Sparks and sickly black smoke rose from the Warmonger as the Dreadnought twitched spasmodically. The Undying One’s bodyguard stepped forward, warscythes flashing as they tore into the Warmonger’s armoured flanks.
Marduk roared in anger, stamping forwards, combi-bolter roaring in his hand. Kol Badar smashed a pair of Immortals and stepped into the midst of the scarab swarm, swatting at the robotic insects. He only registered the Coryphaus when his power talons closed around the Nexus Arrangement, plucking it out of the air. As the hulking warlord’s bladed fingers closed around the spinning orb the device once more took on its prior form, that of an inert, solid sphere. Reality shuddered, and Marduk gasped as he felt the blessed touch of the aether crash in upon him once more. The Dark Apostle whispered a prayer of thanks to the gods that he sensed around him.
Kol Badar held the Nexus Arrangement within his power talons, gunning down a pair of necrons with his combi-bolter. The blood around the hole in his chest was already scabbed and dry, the Larraman cells in his bloodstream having sealed the wound. The angry buzzing of the scarab cloud became more insistent, and Marduk saw it begin to coalesce into a tight, dense swarm once more, forming the unmistakeable outline of the Undying One.
“We need to leave. Now,” said Marduk, firing his combi-bolter on full auto, blasting holes in the reforming necron lord. Even as he did so, he knew it was futile—the Undying One was reforming, and no matter what he did, nothing would halt its progress. “Ashkanez,” said Kol Badar. “Initiate teleport return. Now!”
...
Like droplets of molten metal coming together, a million tiny scarabs gave up their individual form as they combined, until once more the Undying One hovered in the air before Marduk, gleaming, untarnished, perfect. Pinpricks of light began to glow malevolently within darkened eye sockets.
The necron lord turned its head from side to side, as if stretching its neck, before its inscrutable gaze locked onto Marduk. The air shimmered as the immortal being spun its deadly, twin-bladed staff, and it began to glide towards the Dark Apostle. “Any time now, Ashkanez,” hissed Marduk, backing away, still firing with his archaic combi- bolter. His twin-sickle clip ran dry and he bolstered the revered old weapon, drawing his crozius once more.
Then there was a sudden feeling of vertigo, and a bright light obscured his vision. When it cleared, Marduk was standing upon a dimly lit sub deck of the Infidus Diabolus, staring down the barrel of a melta gun.
Pgs.532-535 Dark Creed
Initiative 2, eh?
Well, that's enough soapboxing out of me on the subject... 
58139
Post by: SilverDevilfish
Chad Warden wrote:
Yeah, I fully expect Overlords and Destroyer Lords to gain the same skill and knowledge of having superior CC upgrades and stats that Space Marine Chapter Masters enjoy.
I'm joking obviously, no one is allowed to have non-MC normal characters as good as a Chapter Master in CC
Strawman.
Necrons are not supposed to be able to reliably beat a Bloodthirster or Abaddon. MSS was anti-fluff.
Never mentioned them. Bloodthrister is an MC, Abaddon is a special character. I'm commenting on the fact that no one else is allowed to have a customizable character that is not an MC as good as a Chapter Master. Which is a universal thing, not just Necron related.
The first part was a joke. Thus the and the spoiler saying "I'm joking obviously".
Please comprehend what I am writing before calling me out.
68230
Post by: BlackArmour
Fluff doesnt equal game, the blood angels chapter master Dante cut one of the most well known blood thirsters in two in fluff. Now go look at a bloodthirsters stats and then dantes stats in game. Not exactly on point as fluff goes.
66089
Post by: Kangodo
 BlackArmour wrote:Soooooo....... You wanna be space marines..... Only better? Better standard guns, better leadership, far more surviveable, and to finish it off... Better than or equal in CC now?
Love watching necrons players cry about CC .... All i hear is "i dont want a weakness"
That is quite ironic.
Seeing as it are the Space Marines that are complaining whenever other armies get something unique.
And seeing as Space Marines are one of the top armies in the game right now.
The only SM-weakness is that you have too many options to ignore all weaknesses :')
Better standard guns? Only if you ignore the fact that Tactical Marines can take Meltaguns and Heavy Flamers.
Better Ld hardly matters when you have rules like ATSKNF.
Far more survivable? With RP they have the same survivability as Space Marines (without all the cheesy rules that keep them alive)
And yes! If you pay a gigantic amount of points for a CC-character the least one would expect is that is actually decent in combat.
77477
Post by: Wilson
why is the dude/ dudette with the book not sharing more... some of us nerdizzles don't want to spend our hard erned monies on the book / or wait a week to read it..
WHAT ELSE IS NEW?!
24499
Post by: Waaghboss Grobnub
If we want fluffy they should make Ghazgkull a MC with Eternal warrior, it will not die, feel no pain 1+, rage, etc etc..
As much as id like to since i am a major fluff lover...
It just cannot be done gameplay wise. And to remain on topic or semi topic.
MSS werent that good imo... Sure IF it works, and IF it targeted the character in base combat it was good ofc. But the reliability is quite low.
And if your lord gets into combat it probs already to late,... unless it has Lychguard body guards... only acceptable reason to get him into CC.
And as some people already stated... If your hyve tyrant got killed by MSS,.. you should NEVER charge a lord with your big unz first. Always trash first and hit from the second row dummies.. Ok challenge could screww this up...
68230
Post by: BlackArmour
Kangodo wrote: BlackArmour wrote:Soooooo....... You wanna be space marines..... Only better? Better standard guns, better leadership, far more surviveable, and to finish it off... Better than or equal in CC now?
Love watching necrons players cry about CC .... All i hear is "i dont want a weakness"
That is quite ironic.
Seeing as it are the Space Marines that are complaining whenever other armies get something unique.
And seeing as Space Marines are one of the top armies in the game right now.
The only SM-weakness is that you have too many options to ignore all weaknesses :')
Better standard guns? Only if you ignore the fact that Tactical Marines can take Meltaguns and Heavy Flamers.
Better Ld hardly matters when you have rules like ATSKNF.
Far more survivable? With RP they have the same survivability as Space Marines (without all the cheesy rules that keep them alive)
And yes! If you pay a gigantic amount of points for a CC-character the least one would expect is that is actually decent in combat.
I'm sorry are you some how implying that Necrons ARENT one of the top armies? I'm going to honestly hope you're not saying that.
Oh yeaaaa melta....... boy a gun designed to shoot one shot and penetrate armor.... except armor penetration killing off something in one shot is very unreliable in 7th. what is reliable in the game now though is stripping hull points, something all of your basic troops are capable of doing!
Flamers...designed for hordes...... except you have tesla! which can cause those mass amount of shots you want.
Also no, Immortals have the same stat line as Marines (except CC stats) and with RP they have a built in FNP that can be both buffed to a 4+ (re-rolling ones in the right case) and Ignores Instant death (something FNP doesnt do). That being said that's Necrons unique thing, along with bringing them back onto the field in various ways and I'm not complaining about that because you have a weakness in CC that can be used. close that loophole and yes you have marines , only better.
FWIW I did say up there that if its a character I'm in agreement with you, heck I'd much rather they do that then stick MSS out there and screw the whole thing up like they did.
also as for the weakness bit, I Play blood angels and Tyranids.... my weakness is I have to get real close and personal before you shoot everything dead and I accept that.
58139
Post by: SilverDevilfish
You do know Tyranids have one of the best comp builds right?
77759
Post by: Gunther
TL BS4 = 8/9 to hit =16/18
BS5 = 5/6 to hit = 15/18
It's a loss of 1/18th chance to hit, but now stacks with things which are already twin linked. Unless you're massively bummed that you can no longer twin link warrior/immortal fire, it's actually pretty much a buff. I mean, that was the issue it always had - there was already so much twin linking that 9 times out of 10 it was a dead ability. Not to mention that if heavy destroyers keep PE, going to BS5 makes them effectively twin liked on BS5 anyway, which will be hideously beautiful.
I will note that the rumor indicates that this is only for one unit within 12".
So, yes for one unit there is little detriment.
But a loss for the rest of the army if not already TL'd (most shooting non-vehicles).
Interesting, for a minute there I thought that this would boost BS to help out on snapshots but the snapshoot rule specifically prohibits that unless the overriding rule mentions snap shot specifically.
62061
Post by: Ffyllotek
I am a necron player and my view is that MSS is high powered. I won't say overpowered because for the points, it's not particularly awesome.
Sure, IF you get your overlord, five lords, all tooled up with 2+/3++/MS/WS and a res orb, they are unstoppable. But that's set you back 850 points and the unit is usless except for vs over high powered CCs. They get tarpitted easily and have no shooting power. And they can move a whole six inches. Against unprepared they are deadly. But the trick is only effecive once. Anyone that's been MSS'd to death twice is stupid.
58599
Post by: Galorian
They're also specifically good against Necrons in general due to the Necrons' difficulty with MCs.
68230
Post by: BlackArmour
Galorian wrote:
They're also specifically good against Necrons in general due to the Necrons' difficulty with MCs.
To be fair I never said either of the armies I play are bad or are weak against Necrons. Simply that they do have a weakness.
My Brother plays Necrons and I've played far more games against them than any other army because of that.
It also means I know that army inside and out
9158
Post by: Hollismason
I'm hoping for some new and better rules for the Crypteks, but also wary because I'm really worried we'll lose the Veilteks Deepstrike ability.
66089
Post by: Kangodo
BlackArmour wrote:I'm sorry are you some how implying that Necrons ARENT one of the top armies? I'm going to honestly hope you're not saying that.
Last numbers I saw they were behind 4 or 5 other armies, including Space Marines. Not really sure about Blood Angels, but I would rate them higher than Necrons now. Oh yeaaaa melta....... boy a gun designed to shoot one shot and penetrate armor.... except armor penetration killing off something in one shot is very unreliable in 7th. what is reliable in the game now though is stripping hull points, something all of your basic troops are capable of doing!
Are you acting as if Melta-podding isn't a thing? From a gameplay-PoV I would gladly trade in glancing on a 6 for the ability to Drop in and utterly annihilate a vehicle of your choice. A unit of BA-ASM with a Droppod and 2x Melta + Combi-melta is the same price as 9 Necron Warriors with only 24" range. But that is not how Necrons work, they don't take such options in their squads and that is what I like about them. I've often played games with both my Necrons and Blood Angels and I would rate the BA-anti tank capabilities a lot higher, mainly because they can actually get where I want them, when I want them. Also no, Immortals have the same stat line as Marines (except CC stats) and with RP they have a built in FNP that can be both buffed to a 4+ (re-rolling ones in the right case) and Ignores Instant death (something FNP doesnt do). That being said that's Necrons unique thing, along with bringing them back onto the field in various ways and I'm not complaining about that because you have a weakness in CC that can be used. close that loophole and yes you have marines , only better.
Don't forget that Immortals are three points more expensive than Tactical Marines. Also important to note is that Immortals aren't being used competitively. I think you misunderstand the combat thing. It's not about Immortals being as good in combat as Marines. It's about the CC-dedicated units like Lords and Flayed Ones; or Lychguard and Praetorians. An Overlord with CC-gear (Warscythe, 2+/3++, MSS) is 175 points; taking a ResOrb brings it to 205 points. And he is still quite bad in CC because he runs around with I2. Shooting units should be good in shooting and 'bad' in close combat, fully agree. But when you build an entire list for close combat, they should be good in close combat.
67097
Post by: angelofvengeance
So bickering about the 'Crons being nerfed aside, do we have any further info on the codex to look forward to?
9158
Post by: Hollismason
The Cryptek abilities and actual point values , along with the new Relic over haul.
62401
Post by: Eyjio
 angelofvengeance wrote:So bickering about the 'Crons being nerfed aside, do we have any further info on the codex to look forward to?
Points of everything.
Wargear/relics.
Cryptek stuff.
Gauss rules.
Entropic strike rules.
Quantum shielding rules.
Tesla destructor rules.
Profiles of most units.
Special character rules.
Ghost ark ability.
Monolith rules.
Basically what I'm saying is that at this juncture we know almost nothing about the book balance.
91452
Post by: changemod
Kangodo wrote:I think you misunderstand the combat thing.
It's not about Immortals being as good in combat as Marines.
It's about the CC-dedicated units like Lords and Flayed Ones; or Lychguard and Praetorians.
An Overlord with CC-gear (Warscythe, 2+/3++, MSS) is 175 points; taking a ResOrb brings it to 205 points.
And he is still quite bad in CC because he runs around with I2.
I've been working with swapping out MSS for the Solar Thermesite recently, and it's been going great so far. She's now durable enough to calmly wait for her opponent to stop flailing so she can shove a S8 AP 1 weapon through his face.
Particularly successful battle just last Thursday had her be turn one Veilteked into the back field with an entire Gauss Immortal squad and Phaeron, whilst an infiltrating allied Culexus spread chaos on the opposite side of the board. Even though she obviously attracted a lot of attention, the unit only lost three wounds total. Dunno what my opponent's game plan was, but clearly that didn't pan out.
If this 4++ Phase Shifter thing holds true, it'll make this not quite as good, but still nicely effective. Particularly with WS 5 upping damage potential/defence depending on target.
71373
Post by: Nilok
Here is the image from the email. Sorry it's so small, but I doubt GW wanted to actually release any point values intentionally.
58599
Post by: Galorian
Nilok wrote:Here is the image from the email. Sorry it's so small, but I doubt GW wanted to actually release any point values intentionally.
codteasers... 
9158
Post by: Hollismason
Nilok wrote:Here is the image from the email. Sorry it's so small, but I doubt GW wanted to actually release any point values intentionally.
That looks like to me Tomb Blades did in fact get a point reduction and that is 3 Tomb blades with a Weapon upgrade. So possible 1 in 3 weapon may be upgraded similar to other squads.
It'd make sense.
Also unless the Doomsday Ark got a significant upgrade 170 points is ridiculous.
Really hoping Tomb Blades are 3 - 9 now instead of the abysmally terrible 1-6.
7637
Post by: Sasori
Hollismason wrote: Nilok wrote:Here is the image from the email. Sorry it's so small, but I doubt GW wanted to actually release any point values intentionally.
That looks like to me Tomb Blades did in fact get a point reduction and that is 3 Tomb blades with a Weapon upgrade. So possible 1 in 3 weapon may be upgraded similar to other squads.
It'd make sense.
Also unless the Doomsday Ark got a significant upgrade 170 points is ridiculous.
It's now Strength 10 on the large blast, and S8 on the regular blast.
88854
Post by: Jaq Draco lives
s10 on a 72 inch range is insane especially if it is still AP1.
Goodnight mr Rhinos that I face so regularly!
9158
Post by: Hollismason
For 170 points though, that's really really high cost.
Does anyone else see that as a 3 Tomb Blades with a upgrade or is it just me.
58 divided by 3 comes out to a fractional number. However 58 - 10 point upgrade comes out to 16 points per model. So maybe a 10 point upgrade on the unit. 16 points a model though for them is incredibly powerful though so that doesn't seem right.. at all.
84656
Post by: nflagey
Could it be that the 3 tomb blades have different options?
Instead of getting all 3 the same?
88854
Post by: Jaq Draco lives
Hollismason wrote:For 170 points though, that's really really high cost.
Does anyone else see that as a 3 Tomb Blades with a upgrade or is it just me.
Not really it is comparable to the likes of the price of Leman Russes and other gun boats, it doesn't have AV14 but it does have jink.
For that 72 inch Vindicare assassin strength shot on a durable base its well worth it
58599
Post by: Galorian
Hollismason wrote:For 170 points though, that's really really high cost.
Does anyone else see that as a 3 Tomb Blades with a upgrade or is it just me.
Definitely 3 Tomb Blades, and they definitely have upgrade options. We can also make out the price for the unit as 58pts.
58 is indivisible by 3, so this means they must have upgrade options that can be taken for only some of the models in the squad.
9158
Post by: Hollismason
Galorian wrote:Hollismason wrote:For 170 points though, that's really really high cost.
Does anyone else see that as a 3 Tomb Blades with a upgrade or is it just me.
Definitely 3 Tomb Blades, and they definitely have upgrade options. We can also make out the price for the unit as 58pts.
58 is indivisible by 3, so this means they must have upgrade options that can be taken for only some of the models in the squad.
The next number divided by 3 is 48, so that'd be a ten point upgrade, which is what indicates to me it is possible that it's a 1 out of 3 upgrade option.
However this would put them at 16 points per model, that's pretty low on ppm.
7637
Post by: Sasori
Hollismason wrote: Galorian wrote:Hollismason wrote:For 170 points though, that's really really high cost.
Does anyone else see that as a 3 Tomb Blades with a upgrade or is it just me.
Definitely 3 Tomb Blades, and they definitely have upgrade options. We can also make out the price for the unit as 58pts.
58 is indivisible by 3, so this means they must have upgrade options that can be taken for only some of the models in the squad.
The next number divided by 3 is 48, so that'd be a ten point upgrade, which is what indicates to me it is possible that it's a 1 out of 3 upgrade option.
However this would put them at 16 points per model, that's pretty low on ppm.
Well, They didn't really sell well in the last codex. Knocking down the price and making them mandatory in the Decurion formation seems like a GW thing to do.
I mean, at 16 PPM if they are like the old Tomb Blades with the new RP, I'd buy some for sure.
58599
Post by: Galorian
Nice.
Seems like even the Necrons must suffer austerity in these trying times... Automatically Appended Next Post:  Sasori wrote:Hollismason wrote: Galorian wrote:Hollismason wrote:For 170 points though, that's really really high cost.
Does anyone else see that as a 3 Tomb Blades with a upgrade or is it just me.
Definitely 3 Tomb Blades, and they definitely have upgrade options. We can also make out the price for the unit as 58pts.
58 is indivisible by 3, so this means they must have upgrade options that can be taken for only some of the models in the squad.
The next number divided by 3 is 48, so that'd be a ten point upgrade, which is what indicates to me it is possible that it's a 1 out of 3 upgrade option.
However this would put them at 16 points per model, that's pretty low on ppm.
Well, They didn't really sell well in the last codex. Knocking down the price and making them mandatory in the Decurion formation seems like a GW thing to do.
I mean, at 16 PPM if they are like the old Tomb Blades with the new RP, I'd buy some for sure.
I have five of them and usually enjoy running them, if they're getting that much better I may just get a few more... 
66089
Post by: Kangodo
16PPM seems a bit low and really good.
Perhaps they are 18 PPM with a 2-point upgrade on two of them?
Guess I should start painting the three I have
62401
Post by: Eyjio
Nilok wrote:Here is the image from the email. Sorry it's so small, but I doubt GW wanted to actually release any point values intentionally.
Here's what I think I see:
(Picture of tomb blade) x3 <- means base unit size now 3.
May take up to (seven?) additional
Tomb Blades. 18 pts/model (maybe 16 but looks more like an 8 to me)
Any model may exchange their twin linked gauss blaster for:
Twin linked tesla carbine (3 taken) free
Particle (Beamer?) (??) pts/model (vaguely looks like 15?)
Any model may take:
Shieldvanes (2?) points per model
Any model may take (something) the following:
(Can't read any of it, I bet it's the old upgrade names but they look to be free? Can't figure out missing word).
Anyone disagreeing or can see better than I can, feel free to help.
9158
Post by: Hollismason
I don't see anything but x 3 and 58, you have much better eyes than me!!
If they keep the stealth bonus, plus Reanimation Protocols, they just became probably one of the more top notch units in the codex.
4+ Cover
3+ Armour
5++
T5
For
16 points per model is insane.
91452
Post by: changemod
What interests me about that page is the six fast attack and seven heavy support choices.
Side note: Just me, or does that army builder thing look like it was made in the 90's?
9158
Post by: Hollismason
That may be the total number of available units in that FOC slot and yes it looks like it's from the 1990s.
Cautiously optimistic at this point.
There's no way Wraiths went up to T5 and kept the 2 wounds btw.
24409
Post by: Matt.Kingsley
Well I'm guessing the FA choices will be Wraiths, Scarabs, Tomb Blades, Destroyers, Ghost Arks and Night Scythes and HA will be Doom Scythes, Annihilation Barges, Doomsday Arks, Monoliths, Spyders, Heay Destroyers (since they've been rumored to be split again) and something else... maybe the Transcendent C'Tan?
72446
Post by: HeavyMetalMan
changemod wrote:What interests me about that page is the six fast attack and seven heavy support choices.
Well the two extra FA are probably for the Night Scythe and Ghost Ark, since they have been making the dedicated transports FA choices in other codices. Not sure about the two extra HS options though.
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
changemod wrote:What interests me about that page is the six fast attack and seven heavy support choices.
Side note: Just me, or does that army builder thing look like it was made in the 90's?
The "collection manager" (since it is a pretty poor army builder) is an iPad Enhanced Codex thing.
91452
Post by: changemod
The Transcendent C'tan being nerfed not just to be weaker, but to not actually be more powerful than a shard is just bizzare. Only guess I have is it's a lazy way of removing the unit completely: New C'tan superficially called Transcendent C'tan overrides the older rules.
It'd better at least be a valid target for the God Shackle and Conclave, otherwise why take it over one with non-wrecked fluff at all?
66089
Post by: Kangodo
Heavy Destroyers seem like a valid option for that slot.
What are the chances for Triarch Stalkers to become HS?
I wouldn't like it, but it seems likely.
91452
Post by: changemod
ClockworkZion wrote:changemod wrote:What interests me about that page is the six fast attack and seven heavy support choices.
Side note: Just me, or does that army builder thing look like it was made in the 90's?
The "collection manager" (since it is a pretty poor army builder) is an iPad Enhanced Codex thing.
Ah yes: The "Enhanced" codexes are pretty obviously less about being easier to navigate or better presented than they are designed to be harder to screenshot and redistribute.
49729
Post by: Melcavuk
None, theyre in the elites section of the preview page.
75179
Post by: Torquar
There is if the rumour of Phase Shifters dropping to 4++ is true.
91452
Post by: changemod
Torquar wrote:
There is if the rumour of Phase Shifters dropping to 4++ is true.
Immune to S8 instant death, easier to kill with high AP stuff and more durable against small arms fire is actually a pretty interesting rebalance.
Particularly since in general, it seems way easier to design an overall assault army with this codex than the last one.
55577
Post by: ImAGeek
I really like the bottom piece of art, but (and I know I sound like a broken record), none of the other pieces are really spectacular. The one with them fighting Nids in the air - why is there what looks like an imperial city in the background?
We've seen much better art from GW before. Their art was one of the things they've always seemed to do well, but this is quite sub par I feel.
84656
Post by: nflagey
ImAGeek wrote:
I really like the bottom piece of art, but (and I know I sound like a broken record), none of the other pieces are really spectacular. The one with them fighting Nids in the air - why is there what looks like an imperial city in the background?
isn't that related to the recent campaign?
55577
Post by: ImAGeek
 nflagey wrote: ImAGeek wrote:
I really like the bottom piece of art, but (and I know I sound like a broken record), none of the other pieces are really spectacular. The one with them fighting Nids in the air - why is there what looks like an imperial city in the background?
isn't that related to the recent campaign?
Yeah it might be. I didn't think of that. Still, the rest of what I said I stand by
58599
Post by: Galorian
changemod wrote:Torquar wrote:
There is if the rumour of Phase Shifters dropping to 4++ is true.
Immune to S8 instant death, easier to kill with high AP stuff and more durable against small arms fire is actually a pretty interesting rebalance.
Particularly since in general, it seems way easier to design an overall assault army with this codex than the last one.
I want my Lords to have decent initiative!
It makes no sense to give guys who are rather explicitly faster than Space Marines in fluff an initiative score that's lower than that of a baseline human.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
If Tomb Blades would now be 16 ppm, we'll either see a stats nerf or Immortals and Warriors knocked down in points.
84656
Post by: nflagey
ImAGeek wrote: nflagey wrote: ImAGeek wrote:
I really like the bottom piece of art, but (and I know I sound like a broken record), none of the other pieces are really spectacular. The one with them fighting Nids in the air - why is there what looks like an imperial city in the background?
isn't that related to the recent campaign?
Yeah it might be. I didn't think of that. Still, the rest of what I said I stand by
Im really not an expert, but isn't there a significant change in the style of the artwork (besides being better/worse)?
I just have 2 codices (Orks and Necrons, previous edition) and those pieces seem really different from whatever I've seen before
62401
Post by: Eyjio
I am 99% sure the number is 18 pts/model now, just had a look at the nid force requisition and the 6 looks way different. So, tomb blades - almost certainly 18 pts/model.
changemod wrote:What interests me about that page is the six fast attack and seven heavy support choices.
Side note: Just me, or does that army builder thing look like it was made in the 90's?
6 fast attack (again, squinting at the pixelated image of the Tomb Blades with an image enhancer):
Ghost Ark (? - definitely looks like 2 words, the last one no longer than 3 letters)
Night Scythe
Canoptek Wraiths
Canoptek Scarabs
Tomb Blades
Destroyers (?, doesn't really look like it but 100% not elites)
I'm reasonably sure that Heavy Destroyers are not listed here.
Heavy Support:
Heavy Destroyer (? - last bit looks similar to final entry of fast attack, first bit definitely looks like Heavy)
Canoptek Spyder
Doom Scythe
Monolith
?? (Uhhh... no idea honestly. Maybe Stalker?)
Doomsday Ark
Annihilation Barge
Uhhh... no idea honestly.
Again, these are guesses rather than reliable information. Tomb Blades were much easier to deduce the writing as it's standardised in the charts, and the upgrades are written with interesting word heights, making them mostly easy to pick out. The text for these is much smaller and in places literally a single pixel - impossible to tell.
If I can figure out more, or anyone has a fancy super-duper photo enhancer for digital photography rather than what I'm using (photoshop) then feel free to chip in.
Incidently, here's the elites page in case anyone missed it, from the iTunes page for the enhanced codex:
Note - Stalker is still elite, making that other entry a mystery indeed. Could it be that the Transcendant C'tan, Obelisk or Vault is now Heavy Support rather than a Lord of War? I am 90% sure that heavy Destroyers are Heavy Support, which stinks.
75179
Post by: Torquar
nflagey wrote:
Im really not an expert, but isn't there a significant change in the style of the artwork (besides being better/worse)?
I just have 2 codices (Orks and Necrons, previous edition) and those pieces seem really different from whatever I've seen before
All of that art is from Exterminatus.
55577
Post by: ImAGeek
nflagey wrote: ImAGeek wrote: nflagey wrote: ImAGeek wrote:
I really like the bottom piece of art, but (and I know I sound like a broken record), none of the other pieces are really spectacular. The one with them fighting Nids in the air - why is there what looks like an imperial city in the background?
isn't that related to the recent campaign?
Yeah it might be. I didn't think of that. Still, the rest of what I said I stand by
Im really not an expert, but isn't there a significant change in the style of the artwork (besides being better/worse)?
I just have 2 codices (Orks and Necrons, previous edition) and those pieces seem really different from whatever I've seen before
It looks much more computerised. I'm not against digital art, but it just looks crap to me. The new art in ET: Thanquol was amazing and that was mostly digital.
77759
Post by: Gunther
C'Tan Shard Nightbringer: 240 pts, Eternal warrior, Fleshbane, Gaze of Death - 12" AP2 Roll 3D6 and subtract the target’s Leadership; the target unit suffers a number of Wounds equal to the result.
Not to start the yelling match again regarding the C'Tan but I am curious about how the 'fleshbane' should be interpreted.
The way it is listed doesn't seem to suggest that it applies to Gaze of Death.
So to his CC attacks?
To Gaze of Death?
To the random better-luck-next-time attacks? (sorry I couldn't resist ;& gt
For the deceiver, it seems clear how Hit and run will work.
62401
Post by: Eyjio
FWIW, I love the new art. It's quite remarkable that they managed to make Tomb Blades and Night Scythes look good, rather than awful. Even the derpy crowns look reasonably okay in that art. I did notice they cheated a bit with Night Scythes and had them fly upside down so as to not show the stupid exposed pilot...
91160
Post by: Natalya
Torquar wrote:
There is if the rumour of Phase Shifters dropping to 4++ is true.
a ~17% decrease in durability against ap3- doesnt compensate for a ~17% increase in durability against small-arms and immunity to <str 10 ID
62401
Post by: Eyjio
Gunther wrote:C'Tan Shard Nightbringer: 240 pts, Eternal warrior, Fleshbane, Gaze of Death - 12" AP2 Roll 3D6 and subtract the target’s Leadership; the target unit suffers a number of Wounds equal to the result.
Not to start the yelling match again regarding the C'Tan but I am curious about how the 'fleshbane' should be interpreted.
The way it is listed doesn't seem to suggest that it applies to Gaze of Death.
So to his CC attacks?
To Gaze of Death?
To the random better-luck-next-time attacks? (sorry I couldn't resist ;& gt
For the deceiver, it seems clear how Hit and run will work.
If the model itself has fleshbane, it's his CC attacks. It's pretty good honestly. Automatically Appended Next Post: Natalya wrote:Torquar wrote:
There is if the rumour of Phase Shifters dropping to 4++ is true.
a ~17% decrease in durability against ap3- doesnt compensate for a ~17% increase in durability against small-arms and immunity to <str 10 ID>
Supposing that they're still W2 and have their 3+ armour save that is...
91160
Post by: Natalya
t-thats whats being discussed...
47547
Post by: CthuluIsSpy
Gunther wrote:C'Tan Shard Nightbringer: 240 pts, Eternal warrior, Fleshbane, Gaze of Death - 12" AP2 Roll 3D6 and subtract the target’s Leadership; the target unit suffers a number of Wounds equal to the result.
Not to start the yelling match again regarding the C'Tan but I am curious about how the 'fleshbane' should be interpreted. The way it is listed doesn't seem to suggest that it applies to Gaze of Death. So to his CC attacks? To Gaze of Death? To the random better-luck-next-time attacks? (sorry I couldn't resist ;& gt For the deceiver, it seems clear how Hit and run will work.
Seems it wounds automatically, so no fleshbane required for Gaze of Death. "target unit suffers a number of Wounds equal to the result. " Looks like it hits automatically as well, so as long as you roll a high number on a 3d6, someone should be dying. Fleshbane would apply in CC though. So yeah, bit happy with what they did there. Random powers still sucks though.
55577
Post by: ImAGeek
Eyjio wrote:FWIW, I love the new art. It's quite remarkable that they managed to make Tomb Blades and Night Scythes look good, rather than awful. Even the derpy crowns look reasonably okay in that art. I did notice they cheated a bit with Night Scythes and had them fly upside down so as to not show the stupid exposed pilot...
I don't mind that one in particular, and I really like the bottom one, but in general I expected better.
62401
Post by: Eyjio
Huh? If the model has fleshbane, it applies to his CC attacks alone. It's only if it's on a weapon profile that it can be ranged, etc. I'm not sure I really get this post?
58599
Post by: Galorian
Eyjio wrote:I am 99% sure the number is 18 pts/model now, just had a look at the nid force requisition and the 6 looks way different. So, tomb blades - almost certainly 18 pts/model.
changemod wrote:What interests me about that page is the six fast attack and seven heavy support choices.
Side note: Just me, or does that army builder thing look like it was made in the 90's?
6 fast attack (again, squinting at the pixelated image of the Tomb Blades with an image enhancer):
Ghost Ark (? - definitely looks like 2 words, the last one no longer than 3 letters)
Night Scythe
Canoptek Wraiths
Canoptek Scarabs
Tomb Blades
Destroyers (?, doesn't really look like it but 100% not elites)
I'm reasonably sure that Heavy Destroyers are not listed here.
Heavy Support:
Heavy Destroyer (? - last bit looks similar to final entry of fast attack, first bit definitely looks like Heavy)
Canoptek Spyder
Doom Scythe
Monolith
?? (Uhhh... no idea honestly. Maybe Stalker?)
Doomsday Ark
Annihilation Barge
Uhhh... no idea honestly.
Again, these are guesses rather than reliable information. Tomb Blades were much easier to deduce the writing as it's standardised in the charts, and the upgrades are written with interesting word heights, making them mostly easy to pick out. The text for these is much smaller and in places literally a single pixel - impossible to tell.
If I can figure out more, or anyone has a fancy super-duper photo enhancer for digital photography rather than what I'm using (photoshop) then feel free to chip in.
Incidently, here's the elites page in case anyone missed it, from the iTunes page for the enhanced codex:
Note - Stalker is still elite, making that other entry a mystery indeed. Could it be that the Transcendant C'tan, Obelisk or Vault is now Heavy Support rather than a Lord of War? I am 90% sure that heavy Destroyers are Heavy Support, which stinks.
18pts for Tomb Blades with 5th ed rules would be a pretty good deal and the improved durability afforded by the rumored RP change would make them even better. The less believable rumors regarding the change to Gauss would make them a steal at that price.
Moreover this would mean that there is some combination of optional upgrades to the unit that costs 4 points since 18*3=54. If it's one of the upgrades available in the 5th ed codex then they've gotten considerably cheaper, which might get people to actually take them now (slapping a 3+ armor save on that model for 4 points? YES PLEASE, I' LL HAVE ' EM FOR THE LOT ).
I wonder if making Ghost Arks available in the FA slot means that Lychguards would be able to use them now? That would be awesome, especially if the rumors about their price drop are true.
Might have to make a Swag Ark with bling worthy of Lychguards if that's the case, can't have them surfing around the battlefield in a lowly swagless Ghost Ark like a bunch of peasants now can we?
Hell, that may even make Scytheguards viable over S&Bguards!
Transcendent C'tan being dumped into Heavy Support will probably be the what kills it even moreso than the massive nerf- that slot is WAAAAY too hotly contested for it to stand a chance...
Would've been smarter to make Transcendent be an upgrade to a regular shard that adds a few special rules and buffs its statline a bit rather than a separate and seemingly rather anemic heavy support option...
I'm beginning to like that Gaze of Death thing on the Nightbringer though, could be quite nasty if you can get it to teleport around the battlefield via that Exterminatus formation and stare stuff to death every turn (doubly so if the second Cryptek would be able to take a chronometron to reroll power selection).
9158
Post by: Hollismason
It doesn't make sense for the tomblades to be 18 points the math isn't right.
That means that it's 54 points with 4 points of upgrades, which is kind of a weird number.
It could be splitand two models could have 2 2point upgrades.
Still a weird number though, I mean what's a 2 point upgrade? It's not a weapon choice, it's certainly not something that gives steath.
I think it's a 10 point upgrade and then 16 ppm.
92742
Post by: SlimSlaney
So, looking at this image from GW website, that I found on tumblr… And looking at the card of the Trancendent C’tan, is it just me or is it listed as a Heavy Support.
You will have to zoom but look at the symbol on the top left, its the explosion we see for Heavy Support not the icon we see for Gargantuan creatures or Lord of War.
Yes this is my first post, yes I did make an account just to share this.
62401
Post by: Eyjio
Hollismason wrote:It doesn't make sense for the tomblades to be 18 points the math isn't right.
That means that it's 54 points with 4 points of upgrades, which is kind of a weird number.
It could be splitand two models could have 2 2point upgrades.
Still a weird number though, I mean what's a 2 point upgrade? It's not a weapon choice, it's certainly not something that gives steath.
I think it's a 10 point upgrade and then 16 ppm.
I can only say what I see, and it's a close call anyway. I've seen weirder things than 2 point upgrades honestly. I suppose it could be stealth, but 10 points for stealth on a 16 point model? You'd need to be barmy to take it. Who knows, we'll see. Maybe they are 16 pts, would be a bit crazy to have them a point cheaper than Immortals, yet faster, better armed and yet only losing 1 point of armour. Immortals were pretty good anyway, just overshadowed by the immense power of Night Scythes.
SlimSlaney wrote:[/img]http://40.media.tumblr.com/bad5b605779e704c25f52a861070a68d/tumblr_nineivDa5Z1rcl04eo1_1280.jpg[/img]
So, looking at this image from GW website, that I found on tumblr… And looking at the card of the Trancendent C’tan, is it just me or is it listed as a Heavy Support.
You will have to zoom but look at the symbol on the top left, its the explosion we see for Heavy Support not the icon we see for Gargantuan creatures or Lord of War.
Good eye. Looks like we've found our 7th Heavy Support, and it's a super-nerfed C'tan. I mean, we all knew it was too good, but if it's like the other C'tan now, we may as well just accept that our Lord of War options are garbage. The Vault is nowhere near good enough to match other super heavies and unless the Obelisk has gained something rather wonderful, looks like we're a bit stuffed. There's always Forge World...
91452
Post by: changemod
SlimSlaney wrote:Yes this is my first post, yes I did make an account just to share this.
Hi ponders.
92742
Post by: SlimSlaney
58599
Post by: Galorian
Eyjio wrote:Good eye. Looks like we've found our 7th Heavy Support, and it's a super-nerfed C'tan. I mean, we all knew it was too good, but if it's like the other C'tan now, we may as well just accept that our Lord of War options are garbage. The Vault is nowhere near good enough to match other super heavies and unless the Obelisk has gained something rather wonderful, looks like we're a bit stuffed. There's always Forge World...
If it's a Heavy Support option then he's not a LoW anymore.
Maybe he can cast powers twice per turn? Just trying to find a reason for it to be in Heavy Support rather than in Elite with its siblings...
86711
Post by: Victory
Eyjio wrote:Gunther wrote:C'Tan Shard Nightbringer: 240 pts, Eternal warrior, Fleshbane, Gaze of Death - 12" AP2 Roll 3D6 and subtract the target’s Leadership; the target unit suffers a number of Wounds equal to the result.
Not to start the yelling match again regarding the C'Tan but I am curious about how the 'fleshbane' should be interpreted.
The way it is listed doesn't seem to suggest that it applies to Gaze of Death.
So to his CC attacks?
To Gaze of Death?
To the random better-luck-next-time attacks? (sorry I couldn't resist ;& gt
For the deceiver, it seems clear how Hit and run will work.
If the model itself has fleshbane, it's his CC attacks. It's pretty good honestly.
Eh, not really. The Nightbringer is one of two candidates to receive the God Shackle upgrade, and that already makes him wound on 2+ on even most MCs. At first I thought it pretty neat, but str 7/8 is pretty darn unique.
Now the real problem is the pricing for an individual Nightbringer- is it really worth as many points as a Wraithknight? That shooty bugger gets auto T8, Str 10, and a jump MC status. Honestly outperforms the C'tan shards even before the obscene shooting. Disgusting!
My biggest wish is for nobody to buy the tomblades. I want that sculpt to die. Seriously a blunder of a design. If only GW would re-sculpt them along a more traditional Necron line, and I'd warm up to them. Look at that space combat artwork with the Tyranids! You could hire better DeviantArt contributors all for chips, and they'd do better!
24409
Post by: Matt.Kingsley
SlimSlaney wrote:
So, looking at this image from GW website, that I found on tumblr… And looking at the card of the Trancendent C’tan, is it just me or is it listed as a Heavy Support.
You will have to zoom but look at the symbol on the top left, its the explosion we see for Heavy Support not the icon we see for Gargantuan creatures or Lord of War.
Yes this is my first post, yes I did make an account just to share this.
Well that confirms what myself and many others had guessed.
"And the SM players cried out with joy!"
If it wasn't obvious that was a joke made in good faith... please don't force me to make a reanimation protocols roll!
62401
Post by: Eyjio
Galorian wrote:Eyjio wrote:Good eye. Looks like we've found our 7th Heavy Support, and it's a super-nerfed C'tan. I mean, we all knew it was too good, but if it's like the other C'tan now, we may as well just accept that our Lord of War options are garbage. The Vault is nowhere near good enough to match other super heavies and unless the Obelisk has gained something rather wonderful, looks like we're a bit stuffed. There's always Forge World...
If it's a Heavy Support option then he's not a LoW anymore.
Maybe he can cast powers twice per turn? Just trying to find a reason for it to be in Heavy Support rather than in Elite with its siblings...
If the rumours are true, it's because it's got an extra wound and can deep strike. I mean, it's unplayable, but hey, I guess randomness is fun.
My comment about the Lords of War is because what we'd be left with is the Obelisk (hahahaha, no, a Lord of war with S7 shooting is not good GW, neither is a S8 thing hitting enemy flyers/skimmers) or the Tesseract Vault (used to be good, now in the same boat as C'tan - ruined by stupid S6 powers mixed in with actually good stuff, meaning it's an unreliable waste of space). We would have absolutely no Str D at all unless you take Pylons which, if you use the Warzone Damnos rules, are absolutely terrible. In a game where only Str D matters on LoW, that's a bad sign.
Good thing there's no massive S10 GCs which are super popular at the moment, nor a cheap Imperial walker with a Str D CC attack, because then we'd be really stuffed. Ha ha...
Yeah, unless we have something insane to take on MCs/ GCs, we're screwed in games with LOW.
58599
Post by: Galorian
Matt.Kingsley wrote:SlimSlaney wrote:
So, looking at this image from GW website, that I found on tumblr… And looking at the card of the Trancendent C’tan, is it just me or is it listed as a Heavy Support.
You will have to zoom but look at the symbol on the top left, its the explosion we see for Heavy Support not the icon we see for Gargantuan creatures or Lord of War.
Yes this is my first post, yes I did make an account just to share this.
Well that confirms what myself and many others had guessed.
"And the SM players cried out with joy!"
If it wasn't obvious that was a joke made in good faith... please don't force me to make a reanimation protocols roll!
My Transcendent C'tan never even got to slaughter any Space Marines, and already that glorious feeling is beyond his reach... 
Oh well, he did get to blow up some Imperial Knights and survived duking it out with a Warhound Titan so at least he got to live, however briefly, before getting shelved. Automatically Appended Next Post: Eyjio wrote: Galorian wrote:Eyjio wrote:Good eye. Looks like we've found our 7th Heavy Support, and it's a super-nerfed C'tan. I mean, we all knew it was too good, but if it's like the other C'tan now, we may as well just accept that our Lord of War options are garbage. The Vault is nowhere near good enough to match other super heavies and unless the Obelisk has gained something rather wonderful, looks like we're a bit stuffed. There's always Forge World...
If it's a Heavy Support option then he's not a LoW anymore.
Maybe he can cast powers twice per turn? Just trying to find a reason for it to be in Heavy Support rather than in Elite with its siblings...
If the rumours are true, it's because it's got an extra wound and can deep strike. I mean, it's unplayable, but hey, I guess randomness is fun.
My comment about the Lords of War is because what we'd be left with is the Obelisk (hahahaha, no, a Lord of war with S7 shooting is not good GW, neither is a S8 thing hitting enemy flyers/skimmers) or the Tesseract Vault (used to be good, now in the same boat as C'tan - ruined by stupid S6 powers mixed in with actually good stuff, meaning it's an unreliable waste of space). We would have absolutely no Str D at all unless you take Pylons which, if you use the Warzone Damnos rules, are absolutely terrible. In a game where only Str D matters on LoW, that's a bad sign.
Good thing there's no massive S10 GCs which are super popular at the moment, nor a cheap Imperial walker with a Str D CC attack, because then we'd be really stuffed. Ha ha...
Yeah, unless we have something insane to take on MCs/ GCs, we're screwed in games with LOW.
They shall fall down before the relentless onslaught of our great Tomb Blade fleets!
Hey, if all the rumors are true and our deductions regarding their prices are accurate they might actually be just that good...
91452
Post by: changemod
Pylon can have some utility if you scout out a Skyfire Nexus before it arrives and use it to turn it's Skyfire off.
Other than that... Well, the Invulnerabubble is very large and it's point defences aren't awful besides the obvious range issues, so there's that I guess?
62401
Post by: Eyjio
Victory wrote:Eh, not really. The Nightbringer is one of two candidates to receive the God Shackle upgrade, and that already makes him wound on 2+ on even most MCs. At first I thought it pretty neat, but str 7/8 is pretty darn unique.
Now the real problem is the pricing for an individual Nightbringer- is it really worth as many points as a Wraithknight? That shooty bugger gets auto T8, Str 10, and a jump MC status. Honestly outperforms the C'tan shards even before the obscene shooting. Disgusting!
Oh, don't get me wrong, the shards are dreadful, but fleshbane is still pretty good; at least it means that you don't ever have to worry about toughness. I do find it sad but hilarious that the Nightbringer, a model renowned to being a CC monster, is now really bad in assault (not enough attacks to clear hordes, not good at killing vehicles, weak to walkers especially and is worse than almost all MCs of a similar points cost) but has good shooting. It's literally better off hiding and firing pot shots than ever trying to charge. If that's not hysterically anti-fluff, I don't know what is.
Don't even get me started on the Deceiver, redeployment is meh at best, and leadership is so pointless in 40k it might as well not exist. Whatever happened to my beautiful star gods from 3e, which were at least badass.
4238
Post by: BrotherGecko
Everytime I walk past my Tvault sitting their on its shelf I let out a sad little sigh. We had some good times those 4 games it played. Heck we almost went to Adepticon together buddy but thankfully I choose not to waste my money on losing. Oh well I guess it makes a pretty cool $160 shelf decoration. Along with his friends the Annibarge twins and the Scythe triplets.
(Unless something shows up unknown about the Tvault....like being 270pts with 14av and 9hp which would make it okay to use once and a while. )
9158
Post by: Hollismason
It's a LOW now in the codex and does some insane gak. So yeah I won't be surprised to see them if they're not out right banned.
It won't surprise me if they are banned. They're pretty good even if it's random.
Expect to be like 700 points or some crazy gak.
5046
Post by: Orock
 BrotherGecko wrote:Everytime I walk past my Tvault sitting their on its shelf I let out a sad little sigh. We had some good times those 4 games it played. Heck we almost went to Adepticon together buddy but thankfully I choose not to waste my money on losing. Oh well I guess it makes a pretty cool $160 shelf decoration. Along with his friends the Annibarge twins and the Scythe triplets.
(Unless something shows up unknown about the Tvault....like being 270pts with 14av and 9hp which would make it okay to use once and a while. )
270 points for av 14 and 9 hull points.
Occasionally useable.
If you mean game breakingly good instead of occasionally useable. If you think as is THAT would be "occasionally useable" you are going to be sooooooo disapointed by the likely nerf dex facing you in a week.
57035
Post by: jms40k
Eyjio wrote:
I can only say what I see, and it's a close call anyway. I've seen weirder things than 2 point upgrades honestly. I suppose it could be stealth, but 10 points for stealth on a 16 point model? You'd need to be barmy to take it. Who knows, we'll see. Maybe they are 16 pts, would be a bit crazy to have them a point cheaper than Immortals, yet faster, better armed and yet only losing 1 point of armour. Immortals were pretty good anyway, just overshadowed by the immense power of Night Scythes.
Quite a number of units have gone down in points between 5th and their 6th/7th edition codex. Nothing to suggest Immortals and/or Warriors won't see a similar reduction.
43032
Post by: King Pariah
jms40k wrote:Eyjio wrote:
I can only say what I see, and it's a close call anyway. I've seen weirder things than 2 point upgrades honestly. I suppose it could be stealth, but 10 points for stealth on a 16 point model? You'd need to be barmy to take it. Who knows, we'll see. Maybe they are 16 pts, would be a bit crazy to have them a point cheaper than Immortals, yet faster, better armed and yet only losing 1 point of armour. Immortals were pretty good anyway, just overshadowed by the immense power of Night Scythes.
Quite a number of units have gone down in points between 5th and their 6th/7th edition codex. Nothing to suggest Immortals and/or Warriors won't see a similar reduction.
They already had a sizeable reduction (Oldcron -> Wardcron). If there is another, it probably won't be by much.
77759
Post by: Gunther
So assuming the Triarch Praetorians rumors are true:
Never considered Triarch Praetorians before and don't know much about them.
So in CC, the 'rod of covenant' is a power weapon with no further definition.
A power weapon can suggest either a) Axe b) power maul c) Lance.
Given the BRB description and considering the bladed business end; its likely an Axe.
What's the consensus opinion how it is treated?
Unwieldly, hurts but on I2 not that completely terrible. +1S AP2 is nice but Sv3+
They might be interesting to assault non-CC dedicated troops but going last every time has to hurt their effectiveness.
Let me see if I get this correct:
SM Assault marine (17 pts WS4 S4 T4 W1 I4 A1/CC2 Sv3+) with the option for veteran sergeants with access to power weapons, power fist, and thunder hammer (I think, its hard to be certain as the rules appear to be spread all over the place)
So 47% more points for +2S +1T +2Ld AP2 but fighting at I1.
For the same points, you can effectively get twice as many wounds and twice as many attacks each going ahead of the Praetorians with SM:Assaults.
The Praetorians will wound 17% more and denies armor saves altogether.
Praetorians, Hits on 4+ and Wounds on 3+ (66%) (0.66W/turn) AP2 (no save)
VS
SM:Assault - Hits on 4+ and wounds on 5+ (considering 2 models due to points) (0.66W/turn) and 3+Sv (0.22W/turn) and RP/FNP (.1474W/turn)
Should be higher considering that some Praetorians will be dead before I1 comes around.
So discount the Praetorians W/turn by (.1474w/turn) results in something like (0.5126W/turn).
There are just too many Veteran options to hazard a guess but they will have a significant impact.
Unless, I've missed something seems reasonably balanced (if not buffed) against an MEQ standard.
So, what have I missed?
62401
Post by: Eyjio
I'm getting seriously worried here. Let's assume that tesla destructors are nerfed to being roughly on par with rifle dreads (frankly, that's probably still optimistic). Let's assume that MSS are going to be neutered and probably pointless.
What's our anti-MC strategy? Like, literally, what do we have? We have neither the plasma of other armies, nor good high strength assault units, nor good MCs of our own. Barges are going to be too unreliable without the inv save in combat, and their major "please don't murder me Mr Wraithknight" MSS staller is gone. Without the mass S7, and assuming we don't get something insane like gauss=rending (we won't, only Eldar are special enough snowflakes for that), how can we possibly compete with these big MC spam armies? Let's be honest, double S on gauss isn't happening, it'll just be copy pasted from the 5e codex. What do we do? What's the answer with these changes?
57035
Post by: jms40k
Eyjio wrote:I'm getting seriously worried here. Let's assume that tesla destructors are nerfed to being roughly on par with rifle dreads (frankly, that's probably still optimistic). Let's assume that MSS are going to be neutered and probably pointless.
What's our anti- MC strategy? Like, literally, what do we have? We have neither the plasma of other armies, nor good high strength assault units, nor good MCs of our own. Barges are going to be too unreliable without the inv save in combat, and their major "please don't murder me Mr Wraithknight" MSS staller is gone. Without the mass S7, and assuming we don't get something insane like gauss=rending (we won't, only Eldar are special enough snowflakes for that), how can we possibly compete with these big MC spam armies? Let's be honest, double S on gauss isn't happening, it'll just be copy pasted from the 5e codex. What do we do? What's the answer with these changes?
Well... we are AoC with Tau...
4238
Post by: BrotherGecko
Rod of the Covenant are not power weapons...
51881
Post by: BlaxicanX
Eyjio wrote:
Huh? If the model has fleshbane, it applies to his CC attacks alone. It's only if it's on a weapon profile that it can be ranged, etc. I'm not sure I really get this post?
I think what he (she?) is referring to is your comment about the wraiths' wounds.
14
Post by: Ghaz
Gunther wrote:Never considered Triarch Praetorians before and don't know much about them.
So in CC, the 'rod of covenant' is a power weapon with no further definition.
A power weapon can suggest either a) Axe b) power maul c) Lance.
Given the BRB description and considering the bladed business end; its likely an Axe.
What's the consensus opinion how it is treated?
If it remains a power weapon, it would be an Unusual Power Weapon due to having extra rules.
58139
Post by: SilverDevilfish
62401
Post by: Eyjio
The FAQ making it effectively an axe apparently. Even so, the issue with Praetorians has never been their effectiveness VS MEQ, it's their effectiveness vs everything else. They die too easily to shooting, are overcosted by a huge factor (maybe fixed) and hit at I1.
That said, if they're REALLY 20 points now... I expect them to be everywhere. After all, they're almost MCs if you take 7+, which is rumoured to be 140 points...
Hmm...
Let's assume the rumours are true - they're buffed to 12" range and cost 20 points. That would actually be insane, right? I mean, that's 10 guys for 200 points, at T5 with 3+ and better FNP who fire 10 S5 AP2 shots and charge with silly amounts of S6 attacks. Either the rumours are bunk, or GW wants to sell Praetorian armies.
57035
Post by: jms40k
At the moment, Rod of the Covenant is essentially a power axe: STR +1, AP 2, Unwieldly as suggested and as per the Necron FAQ.
62401
Post by: Eyjio
BlaxicanX wrote:Eyjio wrote:
Huh? If the model has fleshbane, it applies to his CC attacks alone. It's only if it's on a weapon profile that it can be ranged, etc. I'm not sure I really get this post?
I think what he (she?) is referring to is your comment about the wraiths' wounds.
Ohhhhh. I'm an idiot. Yeah, Wraiths are either a holdout hope VS MCs or dead, depending on their wounds. I hope the former, I expect the latter.
14
Post by: Ghaz
Yes, they are according to the Triarch Praetorian entry that says "In addition to being a power weapon in close combat..."
5462
Post by: adamsouza
I don't have the codex in front of me , but army builder lists them as S+1 AP2 unwieldy
14
Post by: Ghaz
adamsouza wrote:I don't have the codex in front of me , but army builder lists them as S+1 AP2 unwieldy
Due to the FAQ, otherwise they would be Unusual Power Weapons.
5462
Post by: adamsouza
 Ghaz wrote: adamsouza wrote:I don't have the codex in front of me , but army builder lists them as S+1 AP2 unwieldy
Due to the FAQ, otherwise they would be Unusual Power Weapons.
Assuming the official FAQ is the direction they intend for them in 7th, it may account for some of the rumored points reduction.
4238
Post by: BrotherGecko
Same effect as power axes in CC does not make them power weapons or power axes. Power axes don't have a shooting attack however Rods of the covenant do.
Ghaz wrote:
Yes, they are according to the Triarch Praetorian entry that says "In addition to being a power weapon in close combat..."
Except the FAQ says they are not power weapons...
9158
Post by: Hollismason
I'm sure it will be fixed to say something else. Regardless if they are 20 points a pop, that's crazzzzy good.
Even 22 PPM would be excellent.
That's not probably going to happen btw, I mean seriously that'd be a 50% reduction in cost. It's more like their 30 points per model now. Watch they'll be Chaos Terminator prices.
14
Post by: Ghaz
The FAQ replaces the profile only, not the entire entry.
5462
Post by: adamsouza
Ghaz wrote:
The FAQ replaces the profile only, not the entire entry.
BOTH of which won't matter in 5 days
58139
Post by: SilverDevilfish
To be honest it really doesn't matter now...
4238
Post by: BrotherGecko
Ghaz wrote:
The FAQ replaces the profile only, not the entire entry.
Except where it says replace its entry with those FAQ rules.
An really why would we want it to change to become a power weapon and a gun when it can just be what it is right now?
91452
Post by: changemod
Are we really having a "Is a Rod of the Covenant a shooty power weapon or statistically identical to a shooty power weapon?" discussion?
14
Post by: Ghaz
BrotherGecko wrote: Ghaz wrote:
The FAQ replaces the profile only, not the entire entry.
Except where it says replace its entry with those FAQ rules.
An really why would we want it to change to become a power weapon and a gun when it can just be what it is right now?
From the Codex Necrons FAQ:
Page 38 - Triarch Praetorians, Rod of Covenant
Replace with the following profile:
So again, it says it replaces the profile and not the entire entry.
61775
Post by: ClassicCarraway
Eyjio wrote:I'm getting seriously worried here. Let's assume that tesla destructors are nerfed to being roughly on par with rifle dreads (frankly, that's probably still optimistic). Let's assume that MSS are going to be neutered and probably pointless.
What's our anti- MC strategy? Like, literally, what do we have? We have neither the plasma of other armies, nor good high strength assault units, nor good MCs of our own. Barges are going to be too unreliable without the inv save in combat, and their major "please don't murder me Mr Wraithknight" MSS staller is gone. Without the mass S7, and assuming we don't get something insane like gauss=rending (we won't, only Eldar are special enough snowflakes for that), how can we possibly compete with these big MC spam armies? Let's be honest, double S on gauss isn't happening, it'll just be copy pasted from the 5e codex. What do we do? What's the answer with these changes?
I don't really understand your fears to be honest. Destroyers are decent at gunning down most MC that aren't Riptides or WraithMCs. Tesla does a bang up job against daemons. Crypteks had all sorts of ways to deal with them. Wraiths remain a viable anti- MC unit, and Nightbringer should be able to deal with them pretty well.
Also, while not in this post, I keep hearing "what are necrons to use as anti-air?" in response to the Tesla nerf....my guess is the same thing most other armies use, other flyers or forge world units ( FW loves sky fire). If you had the 15 point flakk missile on one infantry unit option like space wolves, elder, blood angels, dark angels, and chaos marines, would you ever take it?
62401
Post by: Eyjio
 ClassicCarraway wrote:Eyjio wrote:I'm getting seriously worried here. Let's assume that tesla destructors are nerfed to being roughly on par with rifle dreads (frankly, that's probably still optimistic). Let's assume that MSS are going to be neutered and probably pointless.
What's our anti- MC strategy? Like, literally, what do we have? We have neither the plasma of other armies, nor good high strength assault units, nor good MCs of our own. Barges are going to be too unreliable without the inv save in combat, and their major "please don't murder me Mr Wraithknight" MSS staller is gone. Without the mass S7, and assuming we don't get something insane like gauss=rending (we won't, only Eldar are special enough snowflakes for that), how can we possibly compete with these big MC spam armies? Let's be honest, double S on gauss isn't happening, it'll just be copy pasted from the 5e codex. What do we do? What's the answer with these changes?
I don't really understand your fears to be honest. Destroyers are decent at gunning down most MC that aren't Riptides or WraithMCs. Tesla does a bang up job against daemons. Crypteks had all sorts of ways to deal with them. Wraiths remain a viable anti- MC unit, and Nightbringer should be able to deal with them pretty well.
Also, while not in this post, I keep hearing "what are necrons to use as anti-air?" in response to the Tesla nerf....my guess is the same thing most other armies use, other flyers or forge world units ( FW loves sky fire). If you had the 15 point flakk missile on one infantry unit option like space wolves, elder, blood angels, dark angels, and chaos marines, would you ever take it?
Well, we'll see. I hope destroyers are good, nothing saddened me more about the 5e codex than not having a bunch of them on the table.
On a side note, I'm pretty excited to see what Deathmarks are going to be like. They may not change, but I hope they do. They certainly didn't really see much table time outside of the odd cheese flamers. It would be cool to have a good sniper unit outside of kroot. I figure for 3 times the price, they deserve better than wounding on 2+ vs one unit (which, being AP5 didn't make them much better than Immortals, and in many cases actually made them worse).
91452
Post by: changemod
I use Deathmarks in almost every game, and I change things up in my lists all the time. They're great: Deep strike aggressively with their small unit footprint(I've mishapped a grand total of twice, It's not a real risk honestly.) , slay or cripple a unit, redirect your opponent's attention with sensible positioning, fire on high toughness things if they outlive their target and get to fire again.
52238
Post by: skoffs
The main thing Deathmarks desperately need is Interceptor so their damn Ethereal Interceptor ability becomes useful.
(I mean, it's in the name of the friggin ability! How the hell did they not get that USR given that the ability is pretty much useless without it!)
9158
Post by: Hollismason
If they had interceptor it would they'd go from good to amazing.
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
65916
Post by: mitch_rifle
Wow actually really excited for this. Got a necron BF plus extras may pull them out and work on them
49827
Post by: MajorWesJanson
ClockworkZion wrote:
This looks like it should be 10 (assuming the whole Decurion is a formation itself):
Nope, that looks to be the 8.
1 Reclamation Legion
2 Royal Court
3 Destroyer Cult
4 Judicator Battalion
5 Canoptek Harvest
6 Annihilation Nexus
7 Living Tomb
8 Deathbringer Flight
Star God, Flayed Ones, and Death Marks all look to just be units, not formations, and the Decurion is more of a FOC made up of the formations
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
 MajorWesJanson wrote:
Nope, that looks to be the 8.
1 Reclamation Legion
2 Royal Court
3 Destroyer Cult
4 Judicator Battalion
5 Canoptek Harvest
6 Annihilation Nexus
7 Living Tomb
8 Deathbringer Flight
Star God, Flayed Ones, and Death Marks all look to just be units, not formations, and the Decurion is more of a FOC made up of the formations
We don't have any proof of this just yet as there are single unit formations in the game (like in the Deathstorm rulebook). Until we see rules saying that the Decurion is an FOC not a formation I'm not willing to give that over just yet since the current rules split the game into Battle Forged ( FOC Detachment + Allied Detachments + Formation Detachments (and by the rules Formations are Detatchments) and Unbound (anything you want following the rules for that unit + Formation Detachments). So unless the Decurion is the first FOC Detachment made of Formations, I'm assuming it's a Formations made of other Formations that you'd play using the Unbound rules. Basically I'm employing Occam's Razor with what little info we have on how the rules are constructed, and how what little we know. Automatically Appended Next Post: From Natka (because I didn't notice this last part here):
The C'tan are not generalized into one generic unit like some people are concerned. Each gets its own entry and costs around the same point costs of a Land Raider, with the Transcendent costing an extra 10pts which also carries with it an extra wound giving it a 5 wounds. I would of expected a higher toughness, but S7 and T7 is all around. Transcendent has an additional Strength.
Powers of the C'tan work like this; Pick your target and then roll for power.
All of them share some powers of eternal warrior, and fearless, Immune to natural law- ignoring terrain, and Necrodermis- 4++ and exploding on death-any models within d6" suffer S4 AP1 hits.
The biggest differences are in their remaining powers
Nightbringer- fleshbane and Gaze of Death targets non-vehicles 12" and takes AP2 wounds equal to 3d6 minus leadership
Deceiver- hit and run, Dread-enemy units within 12" -2 leadership, and Grand Illusion- after scouts redeploy d3 units within 12"and the deceiver through normal deployment or put in reserves.
Transcendent- Deepstrike, and Writhing Worldscape- open ground in 6" is difficult terrain.
Well that's not a bad thing for the Transcendent.
14
Post by: Ghaz
ClockworkZion wrote:Until we see rules saying that the Decurion is an FOC not a formation I'm not willing to give that over just yet since the current rules split the game into Battle Forged ( FOC Detachment + Allied Detachments + Formation Detachments (and by the rules Formations are Detatchments) and Unbound (anything you want following the rules for that unit + Formation Detachments). So unless the Decurion is the first FOC Detachment made of Formations, I'm assuming it's a Formations made of other Formations that you'd play using the Unbound rules. Basically I'm employing Occam's Razor with what little info we have on how the rules are constructed, and how what little we know.
I think the fact that they call the Decurion a Detachment and not a Formation is pretty conclusive that its not a Formation. Why else would they call it a Detachment if it were actually a Formation?
8617
Post by: Hulksmash
Formations are a type of detachment.....
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
Ghaz wrote: ClockworkZion wrote:Until we see rules saying that the Decurion is an FOC not a formation I'm not willing to give that over just yet since the current rules split the game into Battle Forged ( FOC Detachment + Allied Detachments + Formation Detachments (and by the rules Formations are Detatchments) and Unbound (anything you want following the rules for that unit + Formation Detachments). So unless the Decurion is the first FOC Detachment made of Formations, I'm assuming it's a Formations made of other Formations that you'd play using the Unbound rules. Basically I'm employing Occam's Razor with what little info we have on how the rules are constructed, and how what little we know.
I think the fact that they call the Decurion a Detachment and not a Formation is pretty conclusive that its not a Formation. Why else would they call it a Detachment if it were actually a Formation?
Go look on page 121 of your rulebook again in that black box labeled "formations":
Formations are a special type of Detachment...
Thank you! I was beginning to wonder if I was just yelling into the wind at this point about that.
14
Post by: Ghaz
But not all Detachments are Formations. So far GW has named all Detachments as 'Detachments' and all Formations as 'Formations', so there is no reason to believe that the Decurion Detachment is a Formation.
24409
Post by: Matt.Kingsley
But in that case it would be called a Decurion Formation, like all the other multi-formation formations
EDIT: Ninja'd
12720
Post by: z3n1st
Formation equals Detachment, however Detachment does not equal Formation
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
Ghaz wrote:
But not all Detachments are Formations. So far GW has named all Detachments as 'Detachments' and all Formations as 'Formations', so there is no reason to believe that the Decurion Detachment is a Formation.
Matt.Kingsley wrote:But in that case it would be called a Decurion Formation, like all the other multi-formation formations
EDIT: Ninja'd
We have no proof that it isn't a formation though since currently formations, being detachments, can't be inside regular detachments. Currently the only place we've seen Formations inside of anything has been other formations.
I'm not saying it can't happen, just pointing out that it means making the rules more complicated when we're seeing signs of them doing the opposite at this time.
14
Post by: Ghaz
It feels like we're going in circles here. GW calls it a Detachment which is our proof that it is a Detachment and not a Formation. When has GW ever called a Formation a 'Detachment'? So why should we assume its a Formation when its called a Detachment? We shouldn't. There is nothing to back up that assumption.
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
Ghaz wrote:It feels like we're going in circles here. GW calls it a Detachment which is our proof that it is a Detachment and not a Formation. When has GW ever called a Formation a 'Detachment'? So why should we assume its a Formation when its called a Detachment? We shouldn't. There is nothing to back up that assumption.
Show me a Detachment we've gotten made of formations and you have my attention. Until then you're asking me to buy them changing how they approach detachments and formations based on a single word in the WD, which has had errors in it before.
52238
Post by: skoffs
Here's an idea:
How about we not get our knickers in a twist over something that will likely be cleared up in less than a week's time?
14
Post by: Ghaz
ClockworkZion wrote: Ghaz wrote:It feels like we're going in circles here. GW calls it a Detachment which is our proof that it is a Detachment and not a Formation. When has GW ever called a Formation a 'Detachment'? So why should we assume its a Formation when its called a Detachment? We shouldn't. There is nothing to back up that assumption.
Show me a Detachment we've gotten made of formations and you have my attention. Until then you're asking me to buy them changing how they approach detachments and formations based on a single word in the WD, which has had errors in it before.
You're the one who's claiming GW has erroneously called a Formation a Detachment. The burden of proof is on you.
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
Ghaz wrote: ClockworkZion wrote: Ghaz wrote:It feels like we're going in circles here. GW calls it a Detachment which is our proof that it is a Detachment and not a Formation. When has GW ever called a Formation a 'Detachment'? So why should we assume its a Formation when its called a Detachment? We shouldn't. There is nothing to back up that assumption.
Show me a Detachment we've gotten made of formations and you have my attention. Until then you're asking me to buy them changing how they approach detachments and formations based on a single word in the WD, which has had errors in it before.
You're the one who's claiming GW has erroneously called a Formation a Detachment. The burden of proof is on you.
Considering the number of times that WD has had mistakes in it in it's run I don't think so bub.
Either way I stand by my position: until I see actual rules saying otherwise I'm not buying the idea of the rules changing drastically just because of a single word in a magazine that doesn't get things right every single time.
26170
Post by: davethepak
Can you guys take the "its a detachment', "no its not"....to another room?
Thanks.
So, to round up, the only things we really know for sure are;
* wd info (how ctan work, stuff on building lists.
* a few unit costs from previews (ctan, bikes, etc.)
* info on the Gw site (not much).
The rumors from "I have a codex..." of the new stats, while some are good info (new stats, how rp works now,ctan powers) we have not actually had any shots of the new book?
Or have we?
Note: "I thought we had ..." is not "yes, we have, and here is a link to it, and the guy who posted it said....."
thanks
14
Post by: Ghaz
ClockworkZion wrote: Ghaz wrote: ClockworkZion wrote: Ghaz wrote:It feels like we're going in circles here. GW calls it a Detachment which is our proof that it is a Detachment and not a Formation. When has GW ever called a Formation a 'Detachment'? So why should we assume its a Formation when its called a Detachment? We shouldn't. There is nothing to back up that assumption.
Show me a Detachment we've gotten made of formations and you have my attention. Until then you're asking me to buy them changing how they approach detachments and formations based on a single word in the WD, which has had errors in it before.
You're the one who's claiming GW has erroneously called a Formation a Detachment. The burden of proof is on you.
Considering the number of times that WD has had mistakes in it in it's run I don't think so bub.
Either way I stand by my position: until I see actual rules saying otherwise I'm not buying the idea of the rules changing drastically just because of a single word in a magazine that doesn't get things right every single time.
Without any proof to back up your claims. I'm done if you're not willing to support your position.
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
davethepak wrote:Can you guys take the "its a detachment', "no its not"....to another room?
Thanks.
So, to round up, the only things we really know for sure are;
* wd info (how ctan work, stuff on building lists.
* a few unit costs from previews (ctan, bikes, etc.)
* info on the Gw site (not much).
The rumors from "I have a codex..." of the new stats, while some are good info (new stats, how rp works now,ctan powers) we have not actually had any shots of the new book?
Or have we?
Note: "I thought we had ..." is not "yes, we have, and here is a link to it, and the guy who posted it said....."
thanks
You missed that the Transcendent is a HS now (which means he's probably an MC).
79868
Post by: Tokhuah
The rumor war Praetorians and Lychguards at almost/nearly/precipitively close to (can't remember exact word indicating proximity) 50% Reduction. Not reading that as exactly 20, more like 25-27.8653 but who is counting?
9158
Post by: Hollismason
25 to 28 points is still a vast deal greater than 40. If they're 25 points they'll still see play. If the Praetorians are 25 that's still a steal for a 3+ 5++ with a 12 inch ST5 AP2 weapon and a Power Axe when they charge into combat. Add in the possibility of Ressurection Protocols and whatever else new "stuff" they get , pretty serious.
If your able to put Lychguards in a Ghost Ark, that would pretty much just be amazing.
84656
Post by: nflagey
 z3n1st wrote:Formation equals Detachment, however Detachment does not equal Formation
This is a mathematical impossibility 
62622
Post by: NakedSeamus
nflagey wrote: z3n1st wrote:Formation equals Detachment, however Detachment does not equal Formation
This is a mathematical impossibility
I think he's going with the 'square is a rectangle but a rectangle isn't a square' argument.
90435
Post by: Slayer-Fan123
nflagey wrote: z3n1st wrote:Formation equals Detachment, however Detachment does not equal Formation
This is a mathematical impossibility
An apple is always a fruit, but not all fruits are apples.
Using math, 2+2=4, but 4 can be formed with other equations.
84656
Post by: nflagey
I know what z3n1st meant, which is what everybody else said:
"a Formation is a Detachment, but a Detachment may not be a Formation"
which is different from "Formation = Detachment but Detachment != Formation"
anyway, what was the point of putting a smiley face at the end of my message again?
45133
Post by: ClockworkZion
Posted by Natfka:
There has been lots of rumors over the last few weeks regarding Necrons, and many of them directed towards leaks from early looks at the White Dwarf. However, I wanted to make a distinct difference in some of the leaks we have lately, because these are direct codex leaks instead of information from White Dwarf, and are very solid.
Anything that I am not sure of where it came from, or the validity of the information, I am not including. This includes the translated bit from yesterday not being included, although is most likely valid. Its here if you want to add this to your own thoughts. http://natfka.blogspot.com/2015/01/more-necron-information-flowing.html#comment-form
Decurion Detachments
I have the codex, and I know the new decurion detachment has been a hot issue. Here are the rules for it straight from the codex.
-The Decurion Detachment is a special type of detachment that can be included in any battle-forged army
-Units cannot normally belong to more than one detachment, units from a formation that is part of a Decurion Detachment are an exeption and are both part of their formation and the detachment with both command benefits and special rules
-If the Warlord is a part of a Decurion Detachment, that entire Decurion Detachment is your primary detachment
-You can take Combined Arms and Allied Detachments and/or Decurion Detachments for Battle-Forged Armies
Special Rules and Warlord Traits
Necron Special Rules
Reanimation Protocols are for whenever a model suffers an unsaved wound and can be used against "no saves of any kind" as RA is not a saving throw. It also works against instant death weapons, but not destroyer or removed from play. Standard is a 5+ and can never be improved better than a 4+. If you have fnp, and RA, you must choose which one to use., but not both.
Living Metal ignores shaken results but still loses a hull point. On the roll of a 6 at the end of the round, regain a lost hull point.
Warlord Traits
1. Warlord has Eternal Warrior
2. Warlord has Zealot
3. Warlord and friendlies within 12" re-roll failed morale, pinning and fear
4. While warlord is alive, add or subtract 1 to reserve rolls and seize the initiative after the roll is made
5. Warlord and friendles within 12" have relentless and crusader
6. Warlord must accept challenges and re-rollls all failed to hit rolls in challenges. If an enemy refuses a challenge the Warlord gains hatred for rest of game.
Stat Changes
Some stat changes I noticed:
Overlords (and the othet special character overlords)- WS and BS 5 insteadof 4
Lords - 2 wounds instead of 1Cryptek - 2 wounds instead of 1
Orikan the Diviner- once the change in stats happens, it remains for theentire game!
Flayed ones - same stats but now have 2 weapons (flayer claws, AP5, shred)so have 4 attacks total.
Triarch praetorians - 2 attacks instead of 1.
Canoptek Wraiths - Toughness 5 instead of 4Destroyers (both versions) - 2 wounds instead of 1 (finally)
Obelisk - 14 AV all around, instead of 12.
The Phase shifter, which is now 4+ inv save instead of 3+, statesspecifically that it doesnt work on the catacomb Barge, just the Overlord.
Death Ray - now is 24" S10, AP1, Heavy 1, Blast, LanceDoomsday cannon, +1 strength to both profiles (so 8/10)
Powers of the C'tan
Note that the datacards include a deck of the c'tan powers so you can shuffle those and draw a card instead of rolling.
All powers are 24" except the Tesseract Vault which has a range of 48". Tesseract Vault powers are are the same strength and ap, but longer ranged and other changes noted below.
1. Powers of the C'tanAntimatter Meteor -S8 AP3 lg blast-Tesseract Vault Apoc Blast
2. Cosmic Fire - S6 AP4 lg blast ignores cover-Tesseract Vault Apoc blast ignores cover
3. Seismic Assault - S6 AP4 assault 10 strikedown-Tesseract Vault Assault 20 strikedown
4. Sky of Falling Stars - S7 AP4 assault 3 lg blast barrage-Tesseract Vault assault 6 apoc barrage
5. Time's Arrow - SD AP1 precision shot-Tesseract Vault assault 2 precision shots
6. Transdimensional Thunderbolt -S9 AP1 Tesla-Tesseract Vault assault 2 Tesla
*Tesla: When firing this weapon a to hit roll of 6 causes 2 extra hits. Snap shots dont do extra hits.
Specifics about the C'tan
The C'tan are not generalized into one generic unit like some people are concerned. Each gets its own entry and costs around the same point costs of a Land Raider, with the Transcendent costing an extra 10pts which also carries with it an extra wound giving it a 5 wounds. I would of expected a higher toughness, but S7 and T7 is all around. Transcendent has an additional Strength.
Powers of the C'tan work like this; Pick your target and then roll for power.
All of them share some powers of eternal warrior, and fearless, Immune to natural law- ignoring terrain, and Necrodermis- 4++ and exploding on death-any models within d6" suffer S4 AP1 hits.
The biggest differences are in their remaining powersNightbringer- fleshbane and Gaze of Death targets non-vehicles 12" and takes AP2 wounds equal to 3d6 minus leadership
Deceiver- hit and run, Dread-enemy units within 12" -2 leadership, and Grand Illusion- after scouts redeploy d3 units within 12"and the deceiver through normal deployment or put in reserves.
Transcendent- Deepstrike, and Writhing Worldscape- open ground in 6" is difficult terrain.
71373
Post by: Nilok
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: nflagey wrote: z3n1st wrote:Formation equals Detachment, however Detachment does not equal Formation
This is a mathematical impossibility
An apple is always a fruit, but not all fruits are apples.
Using math, 2+2=4, but 4 can be formed with other equations.
I'm sorry, but apple was originally "fruit", which is why Oranges were originally called "The Apple of the Orange Tree"
79868
Post by: Tokhuah
Hollismason wrote:25 to 28 points is still a vast deal greater than 40. If they're 25 points they'll still see play. If the Praetorians are 25 that's still a steal for a 3+ 5++ with a 12 inch ST5 AP2 weapon and a Power Axe when they charge into combat. Add in the possibility of Ressurection Protocols and whatever else new "stuff" they get , pretty serious.
If your able to put Lychguards in a Ghost Ark, that would pretty much just be amazing.
Part of the Praetorian rumor is also 2 Attacks, so yeah...
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
Natfka rumors, so 99% a lie, but it looks like GW continues on their ever-lasting journey to make Living Metal worse with every release
47547
Post by: CthuluIsSpy
Sigvatr wrote:Natfka rumors, so 99% a lie, but it looks like GW continues on their ever-lasting journey to make Living Metal worse with every release
Idk, looks better to me.
It loses protection against stun (which was only on a 4+ before), but it does get automatic shaken protection, and it can regenerate hull points.
3rd ed LM was still better though.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
Regenerating HP on OT vehicles is kinda...less useful.
66089
Post by: Kangodo
Hmm, Ghost Arks with AV13, 4 HP's, Jink, regaining HP's on a 6 and we can even get IWND on it.
Sounds quite great to me!
71373
Post by: Nilok
I think the problem is melta causes it to explode on a 4+
47547
Post by: CthuluIsSpy
Nilok wrote:I think the problem is melta causes it to explode on a 4+
I'm not sure how protection against stun prevents that.
Now 3rd ed LM on the other hand...
67097
Post by: angelofvengeance
I'm glad they fixed the Death Ray on the Doom Scythe. While interesting, the 1mm line was a bit annoying to do in a game. Plus- 2 wounds on Destroyers?! Yes please!
Living metal- sounds like it could be useful assuming your vehicle isn't wrecked by the end of the turn lol.
I honestly don't get people being upset about C'tan. All of those powers are wonderful!
66089
Post by: Kangodo
Nilok wrote:I think the problem is melta causes it to explode on a 4+
But only a 23% chance on that.
With BS4 you have a .66 chance to hit; a .5 chance to get through Jink and .72 to actually penetrate.
71373
Post by: Nilok
Kangodo wrote: Nilok wrote:I think the problem is melta causes it to explode on a 4+
But only a 23% chance on that.
With BS4 you have a .66 chance to hit; a .5 chance to get through Jink and .72 to actually penetrate.
That's going a little overboard with the mathhammer.
IWND and the other HP recovery won't matter unless it takes a HP, so you need to factor a hit and a glance or pen to see how well the rule will actually do. By assuming that it won't take the glance or pen in the first place is almost the same as saying it isn't needed. If a dedicated anti-tank unit is shooting at a Ghost Ark, unless it glances, it will at least get a +1 to the chart, this is compounded further with AP.
I think the HP recovery rules are a little wasted on a Ghost Ark unless it takes mostly glances or it regains it's Quantum Shielding at full HP and doesn't immediately explode.
What rumor exactly said that Ghost Arks will get these rules?
62401
Post by: Eyjio
Yeah, let's be honest, if it's lost a hull point, it may have been penetrated, in which case it'll have no QS. And, as we all know, no QS = dead vehicle. I wish we could just always be AV13...
52238
Post by: skoffs
They might be pretty decent in the right circumstance, but with no way to control what power you're going to get until after you've chosen your target, you might end up not being able to do anything (eg. get the S6 AP4 power when you've chosen to shoot at AV14, or the SD AP1 Assault 1 power when you've chosen to shoot at a unit of 30 Boyz).
Everyone can pretty much agree that was a really bad design idea when coming up with the new rules.
Now had it been the other way around (roll for power then choose target) it might have been worth it... but too late now.
(here's hoping they got it wrong and the entry in the codex actually has it around the right/good way?)
|
|
