Claas wrote: QS is fine the way it is, it is not OP and has decent counters. I fail to see the logic that because Melta got buffed, QS Needs a nerf.
It messes up with primaris new toy. In case you haven't noticed primaris marines are GW's current pet toys(before it was regular marines). Nothing that hinders marine's can be allowed. They are supposed to be the heroic master race. Rest are just NPC for master race to defeat easily.
Also confirmed as an elite and a character! You start him off the board and he clears enemy objectives well.
Well he kills about one T4 W2 3+ guy. Since it's pistol version of guns that didn't get dam2 he's not getting dam2 guns and GW decided dam1 weapons are to be irrelevant in damage output. There just isn't unit relevant in 9e that it kills efficiently.
It's edition too late. Light infantry has died to exctinction in 9e. Light infantry kiler thus has no real role left to do. Only reason you would take this is basically cheap deep striker to score some secondaries(line breaker, engage all front etc). Killing? Nope. Ideally you will land this in safe place he sees nobody and nobody sees him.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Maelstrom808 wrote: I cant imagine that if there are six of them, and you can shoot again everytime you kill a model, that they will be more than one shot each. Even at 6 shots total and S6, ap -1, that thing will absolutely murder chaff or light infantry if it gets to keep shooting it's full complement of shots.
And I don't know about you, but even Space Marines arent the only army I ever face off against. I would very happily send this guy after things like Dark Reapers
Automatically Appended Next Post: Let's face it, Tesla is still king of Chaff Removing, and the fact warriors aren't laughable now is also going to help with dropping a wall of bodies.
Dudeface wrote: My only hope in all this is the codex comes out in the wash better than the marine one, not because I dislike marines, not because I want crons to be top tier. Just purely to stop the whinefest about marines.
Nah, I'm quite happy being middle of the pack. I've been through a couple of periods when necrons were top of the heap and it was worse than being at the bottom of the barrel due to all of the whining I had to deal with.
Yeah honestly all I want is an interesting army with some teeth that, if played well, could go 5-1 at a top level tournament, but otherwise has a lot of flavour and cool synergies. If it has lots of list variety and you can easily find people wanting to play you then it'll be a success in my mind.
I don't want an 8.5 Marine Codex. I actually want to find opponents who want to play me and who will enjoy the game.
Bosskelot wrote: Yeah honestly all I want is an interesting army with some teeth that, if played well, could go 5-1 at a top level tournament, but otherwise has a lot of flavour and cool synergies. If it has lots of list variety and you can easily find people wanting to play you then it'll be a success in my mind.
I don't want an 8.5 Marine Codex. I actually want to find opponents who want to play me and who will enjoy the game.
You'd have a point if it weren't for the fact basically 100% of the other codices besides Marine 2.0 were so bland AND imbalanced.
IHateNids wrote: I always thought it was the difference between an actual malefic curse for the Flayers, and just generic computer data corruption for the Destroyers.
Not too sure if I buy into the "self acceptance" thing for Destroyers, but it seems about as plausible as anything else I've seen. Fall of Damnos has a few passages written from their Phaeron's perspective, and he succumbs to the desire for destruction eventually
Eh, I think it would be more interesting if the Destroyer affliction is a side effect of Biotransference and is a inevitable state that all necrons will eventually succumb too. They were created by the C'tan to serve as soldiers, after all, and one of the core motivations behind Biotransference was hatred for the Old Ones. As the Old Ones apparently created most life-forms in the galaxy, its not hard to imagine that old hatred in the Necron's programming flaring up now and again and taking it out on living creatures. Consider the Undead Curse from Dark Souls for reference.
Gav Thorpe's version really just makes the Destroyers look like emos listening to Linkin Park 24/7 and running into their tantrum rooms because the Overlord wouldn't let them purge more humans.
As for if the Hexmark is crap or not...doesn't matter, cool model, still getting him. I like how in 9th ed they are introducing more destroyer types. Maybe we'll get a destroyer troop unit so we can field pure destroyer battalions. Like, I dunno, a floating warrior torso and head with particle weapons for arms or something.
And I don't know about you, but even Space Marines arent the only army I ever face off against. I would very happily send this guy after things like Dark Reapers
Automatically Appended Next Post: Let's face it, Tesla is still king of Chaff Removing, and the fact warriors aren't laughable now is also going to help with dropping a wall of bodies.
Other factions are just dropping light infantry. Orks? Nobody sane takes their troops except maybe bare minimum and you don't bring that necron sniper character to clear some grots...
GW has made 9e so that light infantry has no feasible role. Only reason you take them is to save 3CP if you deem that's worth paying points for junk.
Dark reapers? You think he will allow your pistol weapons to get in range...
Generally I assume I'm not playing against idiot when I'm building my army.
Claas wrote: QS is fine the way it is, it is not OP and has decent counters. I fail to see the logic that because Melta got buffed, QS Needs a nerf.
It messes up with primaris new toy. In case you haven't noticed primaris marines are GW's current pet toys(before it was regular marines). Nothing that hinders marine's can be allowed. They are supposed to be the heroic master race. Rest are just NPC for master race to defeat easily.
Also confirmed as an elite and a character! You start him off the board and he clears enemy objectives well.
Well he kills about one T4 W2 3+ guy. Since it's pistol version of guns that didn't get dam2 he's not getting dam2 guns and GW decided dam1 weapons are to be irrelevant in damage output. There just isn't unit relevant in 9e that it kills efficiently.
It's edition too late. Light infantry has died to exctinction in 9e. Light infantry kiler thus has no real role left to do. Only reason you would take this is basically cheap deep striker to score some secondaries(line breaker, engage all front etc). Killing? Nope. Ideally you will land this in safe place he sees nobody and nobody sees him.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Maelstrom808 wrote: I cant imagine that if there are six of them, and you can shoot again everytime you kill a model, that they will be more than one shot each. Even at 6 shots total and S6, ap -1, that thing will absolutely murder chaff or light infantry if it gets to keep shooting it's full complement of shots.
Chaff of 9e is W2 3+ save models though...
I think its a bit too early to cout out the hexmark.
Fair enough i agree his weapons will be only 1 damage (maybe blast d3 shots each though if we go by the Enmitic weapon trend) but we don't know about his special rules as i'm hopeful he might have a dead eye ability which means on 6s he scores a MW or something as he is still a trained sniper at the end of the day and knows how to look for weakpoints in armour
Maybe it'll get an improved version of the old Deathmark marking ability, where you pick a unit you really want dead and it gets bonuses against it?
If it gets a marking ability, then it would not be the same as the original; the original granted 2+ to hit iirc, which in 9th ed is redundant as deathmarks are confirmed to hit on 2+ now, and it would make no sense for a destroyer deathmark to hit on worse than 2+.
Does anyone have the dimensions for a Transcendant C'tan on hand? After playing some Dark Crusade again I was looking at some C'tan proxies for my Phaerakh when I stumbled on this and I wanna make sure it's roughly the same shape before I set aside some hobby money for it.
Also, since there's been practically crickets at this point I'm assuming the C'tan are staying the same when the codex drops, Void Dragon notwithstanding.
tneva82 wrote: Dark reapers? You think he will allow your pistol weapons to get in range...
Generally I assume I'm not playing against idiot when I'm building my army.
You can deep strike - so while they can screen you out, that alone might be worth something if the model is cheap.
Killing 3 immortals isn't awful if he's circa 80-100 points.
As I see it most lists are including something fragile (whether its a cheap troops unit or a cheap character they can LOS block) to hold some backfield objectives while the bulk of their force moves into the centre of the board.
Really what would be nice is some sort of "Super Obsec" and a reroll to charge, so you can shoot some guys on an objective, and then jump on to claim - or at least deny it to your opponent. But that might be asking too much.
And I don't know about you, but even Space Marines arent the only army I ever face off against. I would very happily send this guy after things like Dark Reapers
Automatically Appended Next Post: Let's face it, Tesla is still king of Chaff Removing, and the fact warriors aren't laughable now is also going to help with dropping a wall of bodies.
Other factions are just dropping light infantry. Orks? Nobody sane takes their troops except maybe bare minimum and you don't bring that necron sniper character to clear some grots...
GW has made 9e so that light infantry has no feasible role. Only reason you take them is to save 3CP if you deem that's worth paying points for junk.
Dark reapers? You think he will allow your pistol weapons to get in range...
Generally I assume I'm not playing against idiot when I'm building my army.
Generally playing against idiots or not has yet to come into it.
I find that there's always a valid target for a Veiled squad of Immortals, against the reigning champion of our local tourney scene or against someone who is new to army purchased to win (Legit schooled an Imperial Fists pay-to-win player last year's final. Schooled him so hard he sold the army)
I don't find it hard to believe at all that one of these new Hexmarks can easily find a valid target in every single match.
My plan is to drop something in with this guy, possibly some Praetorians if they can Deep Strike this new codex to wrap him, and then he'll melt a screen and then they'll shoot whats behind it.
As for the Hexmark; my guess will be something in the neighborhood of 6d3 or 2d3+3 or d6+6 shots, they confirmed str 6, confirmed BS 2+ reroll 1's, and since he deploys same as or similar to Deathmarks the only issue will be the range on his guns.
My guess will be they will put his range long enough that if you take Mephrit he will be able to deploy close enough to get the additional AP with Mephrit's new range bonus.
For those lamenting d1 pistols will be ineffective as there are no longer any decent targets, this guy will absoloutely melt most squads of infiltrators, (genestealers, scouts, greenskins shenanigans, pathfinders etc) then use his additional shots to pop the attached character or turn around and take potshots at their front line.
Do pistols still get to be used in melee? If so you can imagine him landing in someones back-line, deleting a squad (or two!) of cheap objective campers, then overwatching a counter charge and then pistolling in combat!
ALSO as he counts as a destroyer he may interact with Destroyer/Skorpekh Lords, gaining their rerolls to wound, abke to help clear chaff for either shooty or choppy destroyer variants
And I don't know about you, but even Space Marines arent the only army I ever face off against. I would very happily send this guy after things like Dark Reapers
Automatically Appended Next Post: Let's face it, Tesla is still king of Chaff Removing, and the fact warriors aren't laughable now is also going to help with dropping a wall of bodies.
Other factions are just dropping light infantry. Orks? Nobody sane takes their troops except maybe bare minimum and you don't bring that necron sniper character to clear some grots...
GW has made 9e so that light infantry has no feasible role. Only reason you take them is to save 3CP if you deem that's worth paying points for junk.
Dark reapers? You think he will allow your pistol weapons to get in range...
Generally I assume I'm not playing against idiot when I'm building my army.
I think it's too early to say what the 9th meta will look like and what role different types of unit will play.
Apart from anything else some armies don't really have much of an option about whether to run light infantry or not. Craftworlds likely will in some fashion, Harlequins have to, as do GSC, IG most certainly will. Given that we don't even know the stats for the Hexmark's weapons or have details on its special rules it seems like it's too early to call it useless.
(Been trying to log in for days; have a lot to say)
As for the new Monolith; if there was ever a candidate for proliferating the rule that caps incoming damage (like gaz) here it is. They HAVE to improve the monolith after 3 editions of relative suckage, especially with such an amazing new kit, with weapon options and apparent blackstone thrown in.
Shocked to see the Reanimator looking to be DoA
Entire codex is going to hinge on what they do with Reanimation Protocols and those army wide "canticle" type protocols they hinted at with the Dynastic Codes imho.
We have seen a lot of datasheets but there may still be special rules that augment each model we arent privy to yet.
-Ňecrontyr- wrote: (Been trying to log in for days; have a lot to say)
As for the new Monolith; if there was ever a candidate for proliferating the rule that caps incoming damage (like gaz) here it is. They HAVE to improve the monolith after 3 editions of relative suckage, especially with such an amazing new kit, with weapon options and apparent blackstone thrown in.
Shocked to see the Reanimator looking to be DoA
Entire codex is going to hinge on what they do with Reanimation Protocols and those army wide "canticle" type protocols they hinted at with the Dynastic Codes imho.
We have seen a lot of datasheets but there may still be special rules that augment each model we arent privy to yet.
I'm thinking well see more leaks next month in preparation for when our codex drops in October
Im really liking the warrior's alternate weapon option, synergizing with our unique way of using transports. Beyond 10 in a ghost ark (which I totally am going to do) you can take a full unit of Immortals, reaper-warriors, and something else; take a monolith and night scythe, and then decide what pops out of either each turn. THEN if your transports die; you can safely deploy the troops from the corrosponding board edges using the new strategic reserves rules.
Depending on the durability of the new Monolith; barfing out cheap(ish) 10/20 man reaper-warrior squads each turn all over the midfield firing point blank while the rest of your army does its work sounds fun!
-Ňecrontyr- wrote: Im really liking the warrior's alternate weapon option, synergizing with our unique way of using transports. Beyond 10 in a ghost ark (which I totally am going to do) you can take a full unit of Immortals, reaper-warriors, and something else; take a monolith and night scythe, and then decide what pops out of either each turn. THEN if your transports die; you can safely deploy the troops from the corrosponding board edges using the new strategic reserves rules.
No, you cant. In matched play, necrons are the only faction who cant "disembark" from their transports in the first turn, because they dont really disembark. Units that arent set up on the battlefield are reinforcements, and those cannot arrive on the battlefield in the first turn, in matched play. Monolith and night scythes set up other units on the tomb world, rather than on the battlefield. This makes them reinforcements, because the tomb world isnt the battlefield. When your transports die, the units on the tomb world die as well. Read the invasion beams rule.
-Ňecrontyr- wrote: Im really liking the warrior's alternate weapon option, synergizing with our unique way of using transports. Beyond 10 in a ghost ark (which I totally am going to do) you can take a full unit of Immortals, reaper-warriors, and something else; take a monolith and night scythe, and then decide what pops out of either each turn. THEN if your transports die; you can safely deploy the troops from the corrosponding board edges using the new strategic reserves rules.
Depending on the durability of the new Monolith; barfing out cheap(ish) 10/20 man reaper-warrior squads each turn all over the midfield firing point blank while the rest of your army does its work sounds fun!
Seeing all but 1 unit waiting dies at death of monolith it needs to be silly durable to rlsk putting more than 1. Current plus 4++ would not cut it.
Im sure we will retain the emergency disrmbarkation strategems, and I would be surprised if there was no interaction between our 'tomb world' reserves and the new 'strategic reserves' core rules.
One of the major complaints of 8th Necrons was severely hamstrung transport ability, thats why they made the emergency disembarkation strats in the first place.
And yes; the Monolith really needs to go back to being exceedingly hard to crack!
-Ňecrontyr- wrote: Im sure we will retain the emergency disrmbarkation strategems, and I would be surprised if there was no interaction between our 'tomb world' reserves and the new 'strategic reserves' core rules.
One of the major complaints of 8th Necrons was severely hamstrung transport ability, thats why they made the emergency disembarkation strats in the first place.
And yes; the Monolith really needs to go back to being exceedingly hard to crack!
Yes. That's why I said you can put ONE unit. One. As in single. As in not more than one.Aka not multiples. If you put 3 squads of warriors inside and monolith dies there goes 2 units. Poof.
Ergo:
Seeing all but 1 unit waiting dies at death of monolith it needs to be silly durable to rlsk putting more than 1
Can put in one since you can save that one with stratagem. More than that and you risk losing more than just monolith when opponent takes it out
p5freak wrote: No, you cant. In matched play, necrons are the only faction who cant "disembark" from their transports in the first turn, because they dont really disembark. Units that arent set up on the battlefield are reinforcements, and those cannot arrive on the battlefield in the first turn, in matched play. Monolith and night scythes set up other units on the tomb world, rather than on the battlefield. This makes them reinforcements, because the tomb world isnt the battlefield. When your transports die, the units on the tomb world die as well. Read the invasion beams rule.
Could you tell me which page in the rulebook explains this? My understanding was that units with an inbuilt deepstrike could arrive on turn 1 (at the end of your movement phase), while Strategic Reserves (those who you put into reserve by paying CP) can only arrive starting turn 2.
@tneva82 dude. Chill out.
@a typical hero Thats a good concern... if we cant deepstrike till turn 2...and "reinforcements" step is after "movement" step... would that mean turn 2 monolith/night scythes arrive... then turn 3 disembark? Thats awfull
I guess its kind of uninspired, but I'm really not sure what upside Necrons get over the monolith just having a transport capacity of 20-30 and calling it a day.
Nor do I see Night Scythes surviving to deploy their payload with having to spend a turn 'arriving' and being free to shoot at, especially with smaller table sizes
Why are we iterating all this? It's been clear for some time that 9th wasn't changing much wrt reinformcent rules. Nor was it likely it would. It's up to the codex to fix this, always was.
Simply discussing 9th edition tactics and exploring if the new Reserves deployment rules are more usable/optimal than our somewhat tangled and lackluster transport options.
If deploying from a deepstriking Monolith/Night Scythe means waiting til turn 3 you might as well just deploy in strategic reserve and pop in from board edges it seems like...
-Ňecrontyr- wrote: Simply discussing 9th edition tactics and exploring if the new Reserves deployment rules are more usable/optimal than our somewhat tangled and lackluster transport options.
If deploying from a deepstriking Monolith/Night Scythe means waiting til turn 3 you might as well just deploy in strategic reserve and pop in from board edges it seems like...
Sure, but they're all status quo, right?
The nightscythe and monolith I mean, till we have the codex
Honestly there really isn't a lot to talk about until the Codex drops, GW previews another brand new unit, or there's another datasheet leak. The 8th Ed Necron Codex is not complex, and has been analysed to death at this point, plus it's fun remember it's also kinda pointless to theorycraft for 9th since...the new Codex is coming in a little over a month and promises sweeping changes for Dynasty traits (confirmed), custom Dynasties (iirc from one of the early streams), new Sacred Rites-esque Protocols and RP changes.
Necron talk may be a lull right now but it's literally the calm before the storm.
I want to scratchbuild some Flayed Ones, based on the original info, that had them wearing skins of people, then bursting out, because that's some Terminator-style shennanigans that I can get behind. Human dudes with half-faces, an arm or leg exposed for the metal underneath, etc … that's a crackin' good time.
I have around 20 old Necron bodies to work with (the new GW statue-style obviously won't work), including spare limbs, but, I *don't* know what plastics would go well with a mix-n-match style.
Necromunda gangers? Imperial Guardsmen? Anyone have some suggestions for kitbashing this kind of thing?
(Not exactly the right thread, but Necron experts up in here, so I figured one of y'all might have tried this already.)
Pros; good speed, decent support gun, cryptek reanimation bonus without using an HQ slot
Cons; nearly impossible to hide, no lookout sir, extremely squishy, feels overcosted
Beyond the hope of some sort of CP stratagem giving it more usability (perhaps +1 toughness or a feel no pain for the unit recieving its beam), for those veterans out there do you see this guy ever being viable or is it truly dead on arrival?
Pros; good speed, decent support gun, cryptek reanimation bonus without using an HQ slot
Cons; nearly impossible to hide, no lookout sir, extremely squishy, feels overcosted
Beyond the hope of some sort of CP stratagem giving it more usability (perhaps +1 toughness or a feel no pain for the unit recieving its beam), for those veterans out there do you see this guy ever being viable or is it truly dead on arrival?
For cons: You need to decide what units receive buff turn BEFORE and thus turn 1 if enemy goes first won't even help.
Hiding isn't that bad though as obscuring terrain hides even 100" tall model as long as it has <18 wounds.
But even if the repair would work that turn and he had character protection it would STILL suck ass. It gives you one extra resurection per 6 rolls. 60 rolls for warriors, 11 extra warriors come up(rr 1's). Wee! So you gained 132 pts. So you basically need to give that buff enough times to affect 60 RP rolls for warriors.
(btw it's not cryptek buff as it's worse. It only affects one unit and as said unit is selected turn before)
Destroyers? 6 rolls, 1 extra, 55. You need 12 RP rolls...Ummm....I don't generally get to roll even close. Even if unit survives it's generally only 2-3 rolls then. Super rare I would have 5 and even then I would basically need 3 units to get 12 RP rolls to it...
It would need to be aura rather than affect 1, obviously would need to work THIS turn rather than NEXT(giving opponent chance to simply wiping out unit or not deal with it and deal with other unit if not confident. Or destroy reanimator.). And have some other use than just RP buff. Dam2 for gun and melee for example. Dam1 weapons will be fairly irrelevant for offence this edition and 3 shots is pathetic. You are killing 0.3333 marine. Wooooooooooooo!
Or RP buff needs to change significantly. We know there's some sort of change coming but WHAT kind of change no idea.
Pros; good speed, decent support gun, cryptek reanimation bonus without using an HQ slot
Cons; nearly impossible to hide, no lookout sir, extremely squishy, feels overcosted
Beyond the hope of some sort of CP stratagem giving it more usability (perhaps +1 toughness or a feel no pain for the unit recieving its beam), for those veterans out there do you see this guy ever being viable or is it truly dead on arrival?
Barring some weird changes to RP it looks DOA. The gun's too short-ranged to be decent and I wouldn't say it has great speed. I'm also not sure what the benefit of that speed is for a support unit with a pretty good range on its ability. It's simply too big and too fragile to be of any use at anywhere near its current cost. I have no idea why GW decided one of the defining features of Canoptek monsters was that they'd be defensively terrible - just look at the Tomb Spyder for more proof.
Just spotted that stats for the Lokhust Heavy Destroyer and the Doomstalker have both been added to the 40k app under the Edge of Silence rules. I don't think they were there previously!
Still no special rules for them (the LHD doesn't even get the Destroyer Cult keyword) so it's nothing more than what we saw on the leaks a while ago, but might mean we're seeing these units released early? Before the Codex? Pure speculation.
-Ňecrontyr- wrote: Pretty much what I was worried about. Such a shame for an entirely new aesthetic visual theme, interesting concept, terrible application.
Agreed if they were 50 to 60 points and came in groups of up to 3 like Spyders Ide try them.
Could have just been a Spyder variant at that
I just think the datasheet is bizarre.
I'm really hoping - without much hope - that it gets a complete re-write in the codex.
If its to remain 110 points, then it should be at least 8 wounds, T6, QS and potentially double the number of shots and attacks.
This feels sort of against the idea of the model - but the alternate is knock the price down to 50ish points.
To some extent GW can boost the buff as much as they like - every army with a gun is just going to pop a 6 wound T5 3+ save model for 110 points.
There is some small hope that when AoS 2.0 first started, units in the pre-battletome box set had wonky stats and unit sizes, then were tweaked when the book came out a month later, with the stats in the box designed for people JUST playing with the contents of the box...
-Ňecrontyr- wrote: Pretty much what I was worried about. Such a shame for an entirely new aesthetic visual theme, interesting concept, terrible application.
Agreed if they were 50 to 60 points and came in groups of up to 3 like Spyders Ide try them.
Could have just been a Spyder variant at that
I just think the datasheet is bizarre.
I'm really hoping - without much hope - that it gets a complete re-write in the codex.
If its to remain 110 points, then it should be at least 8 wounds, T6, QS and potentially double the number of shots and attacks.
This feels sort of against the idea of the model - but the alternate is knock the price down to 50ish points.
To some extent GW can boost the buff as much as they like - every army with a gun is just going to pop a 6 wound T5 3+ save model for 110 points.
Or maybe +1 roll to "new" RP will be very valueable.
armisael wrote: Or maybe +1 roll to "new" RP will be very valueable.
I guess there's always a chance that in "The Decurion Returns" a Feel No Pain chases Brendan Fraser around the table.
But it still feels kind of bad that this model is either going to be irrelevant - or so good it will have to hide behind LOS blocking terrain or be instantly removed from existence.
-Ňecrontyr- wrote: -Or maybe +1 roll to "new" RP will be very valueable-
Very possible; but the point is t5 w6 sv3+ is utterly toast the moment something looks at it.
Especially when you need to predict which unit needs benefit. And you would need either more rolls somehow or more effect than 1extra resurection per 6 rolls
Re-reading the Reanimator.. it doesnt say a unit can only benefit from the ability once... god forbid you shell out the points for mutiples of these but RAW they stack? Correct me if Im wrong...
-Ňecrontyr- wrote: Re-reading the Reanimator.. it doesnt say a unit can only benefit from the ability once... god forbid you shell out the points for mutiples of these but RAW they stack? Correct me if Im wrong...
They are pretty cool looking, I’d love to bring a bunch of them. They’ve got a decent amount of fire power too, but the range is so short. But they’re priced like a dreadnought. Need either more toughness or more wounds.
I think GW must want us to run them alongside skorpekhs, based on their weapons and speed.
Pros; good speed, decent support gun, cryptek reanimation bonus without using an HQ slot
Cons; nearly impossible to hide, no lookout sir, extremely squishy, feels overcosted
Beyond the hope of some sort of CP stratagem giving it more usability (perhaps +1 toughness or a feel no pain for the unit recieving its beam), for those veterans out there do you see this guy ever being viable or is it truly dead on arrival?
Barring some weird changes to RP it looks DOA. The gun's too short-ranged to be decent and I wouldn't say it has great speed. I'm also not sure what the benefit of that speed is for a support unit with a pretty good range on its ability. It's simply too big and too fragile to be of any use at anywhere near its current cost. I have no idea why GW decided one of the defining features of Canoptek monsters was that they'd be defensively terrible - just look at the Tomb Spyder for more proof.
At present I feel like I can hide the model pretty well. Once the battle gets mid-game it will be harder to keep alive, but then it might force some hard choices. It could certainly use a point decrease at present though barring some other revelation.
Unfortunately I think there is a bit of Marine Mania. With a Tesla loadout, would you pay 115 points for something which is only marginally more lethal than a twin-heavy bolter?
On the other hand with Mephrit and Gauss it probably does tick up to about the appropriate level against a reasonable range of targets. Being in 19.5" of your desired target is hardly a major burden.
Which sort of turns the question into "is a Mephrit detachment viable"?
With the emphasis on a midrange army, the spotlight on controlling the midboard, and smaller table sizes Ive been planning on Mephrit for the added lethality
unitled wrote: I can't be the only one who didn't previously know that an Overlord is known as Señor Supremo abroad?
Makes sense as a direct translation I suppose, but what really perplexes me is the Japanese translation for Overlord.
I could be mistaken, as my Japanese isn't great, but shouldn't it be オーバーロード? They have a ウ (katakana character for U) with a dakuten (those two little dashes that slightly changes how you pronounce it) which I'm pretty sure doesn't exist.
Tétrarque doesn't really make sense either, as a tétraque (or tetrarch) is actually a really specific title that was used by a specific dynasty during a specific period of time where there were 4 rulers over a specific bit of territory. A more accurate French translation would have been suzerain, or if you want a more direct approach, haut-seigneur. I know that's been around for a while, but that's something that always bugged me.
I could be mistaken, as my Japanese isn't great, but shouldn't it be オーバーロード?
They have a ウ (katakana character for U) with a dakuten (those two little dashes that slightly changes how you pronounce it) which I'm pretty sure doesn't exist.
.
You can write va in two ways. バ or ヴァ. Maybe second is more formal? My teacher taught me to write my family name ネヴァライネン for example.
I could be mistaken, as my Japanese isn't great, but shouldn't it be オーバーロード?
They have a ウ (katakana character for U) with a dakuten (those two little dashes that slightly changes how you pronounce it) which I'm pretty sure doesn't exist.
.
You can write va in two ways. バ or ヴァ. Maybe second is more formal? My teacher taught me to write my family name ネヴァライネン for example.
Interesting, I did not know this.
Apparently ヴァ is a recent thing, so I guess its not on the katakana charts or in common usage yet, as the series Overlord is written as オーバーロード
-Ňecrontyr- wrote: With the emphasis on a midrange army, the spotlight on controlling the midboard, and smaller table sizes Ive been planning on Mephrit for the added lethality
I'm leaning that way but I expect Nihilakh will be the competitive choice. Boring perhaps, but Obsec>just about everything.
It could actually get obnoxious if RP is changed such that it does anything.
I'm still going to play Novohk. They and mephrit are the closest thing to destroyer / old cron factions, imo, as they are built for aggression and destruction.
-Ňecrontyr- wrote: With the emphasis on a midrange army, the spotlight on controlling the midboard, and smaller table sizes Ive been planning on Mephrit for the added lethality
I'm leaning that way but I expect Nihilakh will be the competitive choice. Boring perhaps, but Obsec>just about everything.
It could actually get obnoxious if RP is changed such that it does anything.
Maybe. I'd rather have traits that allow the units to accomplish tasks, even though my runner up is actually Nephrek for the ability to get into position.
That said, I can't bring myself to decide without knowing what the protocols do and how they work. It could shift any dynasty from 'mediocre' to 'wow' or be fairly useless little things.
---
The overlord change is interesting, just for the fact that its a stat improvement over the Indomitus stats, which weren't that long ago.
As a long-term Necron player I'm interested to play them in the 9th, while I skipped them in the 8th.
What is the common point of view about units playable in the 9th?
What I've seen is that Wraiths are largely nerfed which is a big downside to the melee department of Necrons.
We dont know until the codex drops. We know some stats, but we dont know points, we dont know how RP will change, we dont know if living metal will stay the same. We dont know what protocols will be, and how they work.
wuestenfux wrote: As a long-term Necron player I'm interested to play them in the 9th, while I skipped them in the 8th.
What is the common point of view about units playable in the 9th?
What I've seen is that Wraiths are largely nerfed which is a big downside to the melee department of Necrons.
Very difficult to answer at this point as the meta is still up in the air, and as it's a matter of weeks until we get our codex any advice you get is going to be out of date before your paint is dry. I suspect there's a bunch of stuff coming in the codex that we didn't see in Pariah, personally!
I'd be interested to see if Mephrit is still a trap in 9th. The little extra range is nice, but you still have the issue of a bunch of already decently high AP weapons and few ways to reliably deliver them to get the bonus consistently. I suppose longer ranges, smaller boards and objectives focused on the middle of the board mitigate this somewhat, but I'm also not a fan of how one dimensional the bonuses are. I guess Command Protocols will be the dealbreaker and associated stratagems/traits/relics etc.
Overall Nihilakh still seems like the one most friendly to 9th's systems, but a part of me really thinks people will be sleeping on Novokh and Szarekhan. Specifically the ability to manipulate wound rolls is something Necrons sorely lack and while both are being nerfed,keeping the re-roll wounds of Master Artisans and Expert Crafters is still incredibly strong for the Necron army specifically.
^If the Monolith gets an ability similar to it's 3rd Ed incarnation where it can pop models out of it's gate the turn that it Deep Strikes, then getting into close range would be pretty doable.
Bosskelot wrote: I'd be interested to see if Mephrit is still a trap in 9th. The little extra range is nice, but you still have the issue of a bunch of already decently high AP weapons and few ways to reliably deliver them to get the bonus consistently. I suppose longer ranges, smaller boards and objectives focused on the middle of the board mitigate this somewhat, but I'm also not a fan of how one dimensional the bonuses are. I guess Command Protocols will be the dealbreaker and associated stratagems/traits/relics etc.
Overall Nihilakh still seems like the one most friendly to 9th's systems, but a part of me really thinks people will be sleeping on Novokh and Szarekhan. Specifically the ability to manipulate wound rolls is something Necrons sorely lack and while both are being nerfed,keeping the re-roll wounds of Master Artisans and Expert Crafters is still incredibly strong for the Necron army specifically.
Hmmm. I'd like to like Novokh, but I can't see it. There are things we don't know, synergies that may exist - but I just keep mentally comparing it to say Bloody Rose and at least to my mind its so much worse. If it was +1A, so basic warriors became... okayish assault units, I could see how the whole list changes.
But unknown things aside - it seems like anything that's bad at close combat (so the bulk of the army) will continue to be bad at close combat.
There might be scope for a mini-detachment for say Wraiths, Scarabs, Lichguard - and who knows, flayed ones - but... I don't see it happening.
I think Szarekhan is more plausible - especially in a sort of vehicle focused list. It will just depend on how good that is.
Necrons are bad at CC? Overall I'd say they are about average, due to their decent WS, strength and durability.
If you want bad at CC try Tau and most Eldar units, due to subpar WS and low strength and durability.
In the past, yes, Necrons were bad at CC due to their low initiative and crippling weakness to sweeping advance. In 8th ed / 9th ed those rules don't exist, so they aren't really bad at CC.
Novokh is useful in that it synergizes with mid to short ranged builds. You take some reaper warriors, for example, double tap into an enemy with them, charge using the +1 bonus to distance (which works well with the 7" rapid fire range) and you get an armor piercing bonus. A unit of 20 warriors doing that should deal a surprising amount of damage.
Bloody Rose isn't a good comparison because Sisters are still S3 and bolt pistols are still AP-, AP-1 with the trait. Necrons are S4 with ranged weapons that tend to have more than AP-1. Its not really accurate.
Plus you have to consider that 9th is actually a close combat edition. You wanna get people off the midfield objectives and score the points? Best way to do that is by both shooting and punching them. Then you deny them points and score your own. Aggressive Novokh Immortal play could be surprisingly decent and if Wraiths are suddenly -3 AP they suddenly become a slight concern for Marines in CC. Even just being able to guarantee a unit of Warriors succeeds a charge and manages to start contesting a point is legitimately useful.
Bosskelot wrote: Plus you have to consider that 9th is actually a close combat edition. You wanna get people off the midfield objectives and score the points? Best way to do that is by both shooting and punching them. Then you deny them points and score your own. Aggressive Novokh Immortal play could be surprisingly decent and if Wraiths are suddenly -3 AP they suddenly become a slight concern for Marines in CC. Even just being able to guarantee a unit of Warriors succeeds a charge and manages to start contesting a point is legitimately useful.
This is how i've always played...paying for S4 and not using attacks against T3/4 with low-ish saves is a bit of a waste to me
I totally agree in theory - 9th does favour assault - I just don't see it working in practice.
Warriors first.
As any Ork player will tell you, getting lots of models on big bases into combat is difficult. Lets be incredibly generous though and say you get 15 into combat versus a Marine unit.
15 attacks. 10 hits. 5 wounds. 5/3 go through=not even a dead marine with 2 wounds. Its not fire warriors sure - but I'm still pretty confident in saying this is terrible. Odds are you won't get 15 in and it will be even worse.
Lets make them Novokh. Well... I feel turning it into 5/2 wounds is still pretty terrible - even if you do at least kill a Marine this time. It seems to me that if you are going down this road its surely Nihilakh every time, because you charge something (or get charged), tag and objective and win obsec wars rather than the pillow fight.
I feel tying up warrior blobs so you take a few punches is far superior to taking a wall of Gauss - whether you are Novokh or not. Its what happened in 8th and I don't see it changing now. The difference declines as the unit shrinks - but at the extreme I think you would be trading in as low as 10~ melee attacks for 40~ shots. I feel the Royal Warden has come into existence to get out out of this situation (and just be more flexible generally - but still.)
Also if you were going melee sisters, you'd bring an icon to push them up to strength 4, and now you are hitting almost as hard as two Necron warriors (and indeed there are further synergies for 3 attacks). If Necron's get some non-chapter tactic synergies (beyond say a reroll charges warlord trait) to give their troops equivalent assault potential then I completely change my view, but as it stands I feel safe in saying Necron warriors are a bad assault unit for their points. I mean yes, your 20 warriors are likely to eat 5 Fire Warriors on the charge - but its 240 points into 45. You'd sort of hope so.
Immortals are mathematically more punchy - because its 2 attacks for 18 points versus 1 for 12 - but I still think its pretty lacklustre. Intercessors for instance are standing right there with 3 attacks for 20 points (and I feel the immortal will always be compared with them). They don't get the point of AP until turn 3 or 4, but they get it baseline with a chapter tactic on top. Every little helps - but being generous, 20 attacks, 13ish hits, 7 ish wounds, 2 and a bit go through to kill one intercessor. Killing 20 points is quite a bad return on an 180 point unit. If you get tied up and can't shoot next turn that's potentially really bad. (Shoot->charge->fight->veil/warden into shoot again is probably theoretically optimal, but very difficult to pull off.)
I just don't think Novokh is opening other doors for these units. Making Wraiths AP-3 is undoubtedly nice. I think Scarabs especially will benefit from a -1. The two-weapon Skorpekhs benefit from going to AP-4 too (AP-5 feels like overkill). I guess if you put a lot of points into these units maybe its the road to go down. I'm just not sure its enough.
I think Necrons have a few specialist units (Lychguard, Praetorians look SURPRISINGLY Solid, the New Skorpekh destroyers if they can come in squads of 6)
However, I feel 1 dedicated melee unit as a bully for an objective is enough. I dont think they're strong enough to base a whole list around. We're still a mid-range, relatively durable, middle of the range quality shooting army, and yes, ranges are reduced this edition, which plays to our benefit.
But I think planning to melee with your warriors to actually cause damage is a trap. They still have 1 attack. The best case is using the charge move to move onto and contest an objective/take an objective from something they outnumber. (Unless my homeboy Anrakyr gets a points cut, then running him with 2x20 warriors makes them funny in melee if you can also make them fearless).
However, currently with the meta as it is I think Necrons are going to move back to Gauss for their weaponry, Dense cover hurts tesla a lot, and marines in cover get a 2+ vs Tesla.
My point about Novokh Warriors had nothing to do with their damage potential. It's just solely about being to able fire a volley at a unit holding an objective and then get a very reliable charge off so you can either contest or start holding that objective. When their turn rolls around you have denied them 5 or potentially more VP's. And you don't even need to be Nihilakh to win the Obsec war since even in a scenario where you fail to kill a Marine, it's still 5 vs 15+.
This is a CC edition not because things are more killy, but because being able to get into combat reliably is now far more useful and far more likely to happen.
Tyel wrote: I totally agree in theory - 9th does favour assault - I just don't see it working in practice.
Warriors first.
As any Ork player will tell you, getting lots of models on big bases into combat is difficult. Lets be incredibly generous though and say you get 15 into combat versus a Marine unit.
15 attacks. 10 hits. 5 wounds. 5/3 go through=not even a dead marine with 2 wounds. Its not fire warriors sure - but I'm still pretty confident in saying this is terrible. Odds are you won't get 15 in and it will be even worse. Lets make them Novokh. Well... I feel turning it into 5/2 wounds is still pretty terrible - even if you do at least kill a Marine this time. It seems to me that if you are going down this road its surely Nihilakh every time, because you charge something (or get charged), tag and objective and win obsec wars rather than the pillow fight.
I feel tying up warrior blobs so you take a few punches is far superior to taking a wall of Gauss - whether you are Novokh or not. Its what happened in 8th and I don't see it changing now. The difference declines as the unit shrinks - but at the extreme I think you would be trading in as low as 10~ melee attacks for 40~ shots. I feel the Royal Warden has come into existence to get out out of this situation (and just be more flexible generally - but still.)
Also if you were going melee sisters, you'd bring an icon to push them up to strength 4, and now you are hitting almost as hard as two Necron warriors (and indeed there are further synergies for 3 attacks). If Necron's get some non-chapter tactic synergies (beyond say a reroll charges warlord trait) to give their troops equivalent assault potential then I completely change my view, but as it stands I feel safe in saying Necron warriors are a bad assault unit for their points. I mean yes, your 20 warriors are likely to eat 5 Fire Warriors on the charge - but its 240 points into 45. You'd sort of hope so.
Immortals are mathematically more punchy - because its 2 attacks for 18 points versus 1 for 12 - but I still think its pretty lacklustre. Intercessors for instance are standing right there with 3 attacks for 20 points (and I feel the immortal will always be compared with them). They don't get the point of AP until turn 3 or 4, but they get it baseline with a chapter tactic on top. Every little helps - but being generous, 20 attacks, 13ish hits, 7 ish wounds, 2 and a bit go through to kill one intercessor. Killing 20 points is quite a bad return on an 180 point unit. If you get tied up and can't shoot next turn that's potentially really bad. (Shoot->charge->fight->veil/warden into shoot again is probably theoretically optimal, but very difficult to pull off.)
I just don't think Novokh is opening other doors for these units. Making Wraiths AP-3 is undoubtedly nice. I think Scarabs especially will benefit from a -1. The two-weapon Skorpekhs benefit from going to AP-4 too (AP-5 feels like overkill). I guess if you put a lot of points into these units maybe its the road to go down. I'm just not sure its enough.
Happy to be wrong though.
You're forgetting shooting. You can shoot and charge now. Yes, Necron warrior just in combat by themselves are weak, but if you add in shooting that's a few more models dead in the same turn. 40 reaper shots followed by 10 warrior attacks (assuming that you can't get all 20 in cc range and only 10 can get in contact) against Primaris should kill about 7 models.
Then your opponent has to deal with a blob of 20 warriors in their lines, possibly holding an objective.
Comparing a unit just on their melee combat potential vs their points value is a faulty comparison. Warriors still have guns, there are 2 phases they can deal damage in.
Shooting at something you want to charge is always a great idea, your opponent will remove models to make your charge longer. Warriors or immortals melee can be improved by anrakyr, MWBD, disruption fields.
That's only really a problem if you are trying to do a long range charge. A 7" with reapers (technically 5" with the Novohk protocol and the engagement rules) is not a long range charge.
Besides, so what if you fail your charge? Failing your charge has the exact same consequence of not attempting a charge. A few overwatch shots doesn't really matter in the end; your opponent is still going to focus down a necron unit in his shooting phase, so you might as well deal as much damage as you can in your turn.
I definitely want to keep an eye on Praetorians. Especially in the rare case of having a Warden lurking about. If only they could receive MWBD from standard Overlords....
Bosskelot wrote: I'd be interested to see if Mephrit is still a trap in 9th. The little extra range is nice, but you still have the issue of a bunch of already decently high AP weapons and few ways to reliably deliver them to get the bonus consistently. I suppose longer ranges, smaller boards and objectives focused on the middle of the board mitigate this somewhat, but I'm also not a fan of how one dimensional the bonuses are. I guess Command Protocols will be the dealbreaker and associated stratagems/traits/relics etc.
Overall Nihilakh still seems like the one most friendly to 9th's systems, but a part of me really thinks people will be sleeping on Novokh and Szarekhan. Specifically the ability to manipulate wound rolls is something Necrons sorely lack and while both are being nerfed,keeping the re-roll wounds of Master Artisans and Expert Crafters is still incredibly strong for the Necron army specifically.
Hmmm. I'd like to like Novokh, but I can't see it. There are things we don't know, synergies that may exist - but I just keep mentally comparing it to say Bloody Rose and at least to my mind its so much worse. If it was +1A, so basic warriors became... okayish assault units, I could see how the whole list changes.
But unknown things aside - it seems like anything that's bad at close combat (so the bulk of the army) will continue to be bad at close combat.
There might be scope for a mini-detachment for say Wraiths, Scarabs, Lichguard - and who knows, flayed ones - but... I don't see it happening.
I think Szarekhan is more plausible - especially in a sort of vehicle focused list. It will just depend on how good that is.
You take units to fit dynasty, not random mix of units and then dynasty.
And i wouldn't worry about warriors being bad at novokh. They are bad period.
Bloody Rose isn't a good comparison because Sisters are still S3 and bolt pistols are still AP-, AP-1 with the trait.
Necrons are S4 with ranged weapons that tend to have more than AP-1. Its not really accurate.
If sisters plan to get into melee they will have s4
Seeing the change to the Datasheet from the OL.
Does it suggest that we might see more changes from the datasheets from Indominus.
And If yes, will the Changes only be on the Units themselves or also on some of the weapons?
Surtr wrote: Seeing the change to the Datasheet from the OL.
Does it suggest that we might see more changes from the datasheets from Indominus.
And If yes, will the Changes only be on the Units themselves or also on some of the weapons?
Highly possible, forgebane had changes from index which were in turn changed short after by the codex.
I dunno, getting Warriors into close combat is one of those radical 9th ed revissions that might actually work. People don't often fall back from a unit that's *crappy* in combat, so you might wind up being locked in combat for a turn or three which … isn't bad. You don't kill *quickly* but there aren't many normal troopers that will kill you any faster than you k them. (Melee-specific units, obviously, will, but.) … but Warriors get back up, while their guys don't.
And if on top of that, you have the body advantage, you hold the objective even if you aren't killing.
It's counter-intuitive, but … this might be a Thing.
(Bonus observation: As it currently stands, a Ghost Arc's ability works just fine while locked into melee as well. Ghost Arc and 10 Warriors against 5 Intercessors? 10 Dire Avengers? You'll always win that grind over time.)
It's not really counter-intuitive at all. The game is entirely based around objective scoring and Primaries are the easiest ones to achieve. You can absolutely kill all of 5 models and still win the game in 9th. Anything that helps you contest and control objectives, directly or indirectly, is automatically really good.
This is why, despite its improvements, I'm not enamored by Mephrit still. It doesn't do any of the above or help contribute to them, is useless against a few armies in the game and is also useless on a lot of the actual shooting units too. It's still the exact same issue as the 8th edition trait: making something already good, slightly better, but not introducing extra options or tactical depth in your list building or play. However, I'm happy to eventually be proven wrong and to see all of the lists that tech hard into relying on the Mephrit trait. But as it stands I'd even place 9th ed Sautekh above it.
Although it's not a new datasheet, someone on reddit got their hands on our new repackaged Croissants noted the change in flight stands.
I'm kinda ambivalent about it for now. I guess aircraft flight stands will be more uniform with what we've seen from the Inceptors, Seraphim etc. but I am curious about the strength of the cross connection to the stem.
Mixzremixzd wrote: Although it's not a new datasheet, someone on reddit got their hands on our new repackaged Croissants noted the change in flight stands.
I'm kinda ambivalent about it for now. I guess aircraft flight stands will be more uniform with what we've seen from the Inceptors, Seraphim etc. but I am curious about the strength of the cross connection to the stem.
Well, it's going to be a lot easier to glue to the base, so that's nice.
3+ Save for the Barge and the Overlord is +1 M and +1 A.
So what I'm taking from this is that Warscythes are still garbage (since D2 is weaksauce when Thunderhammers are doing literally twice that, and AP-4 is irrelevant on anything that matters due to Invulnerable Saves breeding like rabbits). Nice to see that Overlords at least get an extra swing with their Rubberscythes, though.
Also, after an entire edition, GW still haven't figured out that S7 AP0 D1 is not a good profile for the main weapon of a vehicle, even with 10 shots.
Yeah. The Tesla Destructor got nerfed going from 5th to 6th back when you could glancing hit things to death; upping the point cost for the Anni Barge, Doom and Night scythes, while ALSO removing the Arc special rule that allowed TLTD to do splash damage.
After vehicles got armor saves TLTD have really been pretty useless, and I was very diappointed when the Tesseract Vault/Obelisk ended up with similar weapons
I'm holding off on building a CCB instead of an annihilation barge for the codex.
With 4 attacks and 9 wounds it is a lot better but your max damage is pretty weak. You can take void-reaper but CCB really needs the lightning field. I think rule of cool is gonna win out here BUT a better melee weapon would go a long way.
The barge on the other hand is pretty good - with the points we have right now i think in every situation you are better off taking a doom scythe for +50 points. (IDK) What do you all think about Barges?
Xenomancers wrote: I'm holding off on building a CCB instead of an annihilation barge for the codex.
With 4 attacks and 9 wounds it is a lot better but your max damage is pretty weak. You can take void-reaper but CCB really needs the lightning field. I think rule of cool is gonna win out here BUT a better melee weapon would go a long way.
The barge on the other hand is pretty good - with the points we have right now i think in every situation you are better off taking a doom scythe for +50 points. (IDK) What do you all think about Barges?
Regarding the barge, the problem I have (as above) is that I just don't see the point of the primary weapon.
Let's assume that you give it the Overlord buff and that Tesla still works on modified 6s. Even with that buff, it's still only killing 1.5 Marines. Maybe another one with the Gauss Cannon. That doesn't seem like much for over 200pts of investment.
Said it last week, but I think the barge is out unless its Mephrit, which as the thread discussed is probably a trap for most units, so its really about whether you want to spend a special detachment for it.
I think the Barge is probably the big hope for GW looking down and going "oh wait, this doesn't work" in the Codex - somehow printing this a week after the Barge's stats for the box were printed. But it seems incredibly unlikely.
Anni barges are fast units, and good for engage on all fronts. When my opponent targets them with anti armour weapons he is not using them against my stalkers and DDAs.
p5freak wrote: Anni barges are fast units, and good for engage on all fronts. When my opponent targets them with anti armour weapons he is not using them against my stalkers and DDAs.
My problem with that is they are currently far too fragile against small arms. The new ones are quite a bit better but still pretty fragile and we don't have the new points for them yet so it's hard to make any definite conclusions. Between Tomb Blades, Scarabs and Skorpekhs roaming up the board I don't usually have too many problems with Engage on All Fronts so adding a not-very-tough vehicle with poor armament to the list seems sub-optimal. If the main Tesla weapon was D2 I think it'd be much more attractive as an option.
Bosskelot wrote: I wouldn't really say T6 8W and a 3+ save are fragile against small arms.
I would. Sure, not against Lasguns or Splinter fire but against even partially buffed bolters or pulse rifles, with a smattering of plasma or similar they fold pretty fast. The volume of fire available to most competitive armies now means units like the Barge or Land Speeders often end up dying to a flurry of shots that wound on 5+, simply through weight of shots. It's exacerbated by the fact you're often better shooting a vehicle against Necrons than their infantry if you can't be sure of killing the infantry.
If you keep the Barge further back it can work OK, but pushing it forward, into rapid fire and potentially charge range to get the Engage on All Fronts points is what I think is a bad idea. It puts you right into the sweet spot for the enemy and I just don't think it's survivable enough in that scenario.
The 3+ Sv will help a lot against the small arms fire, but they need to be cheap to be attractive. I find the Gauss cannon a better gun than the Tesla Destructor.
p5freak wrote: Anni barges are fast units, and good for engage on all fronts. When my opponent targets them with anti armour weapons he is not using them against my stalkers and DDAs.
I suppose that's fair, though I generally prefer units that can do that while still being effective themselves.
Still, do you think Annihilation Barges are better in that role than Triarch Stalkers? The Stalkers are slightly more expensive, but are also tougher, have some melee ability, and can provide buffs to other units without needing to be anywhere near them.
Or is this for when you're already maxed out on Stalkers?
Plus stalkers are actually threat in shooting department as well.
And yes first max out on stalkers, then AB's. Though then you start bleeding bring it down. With 3 DDA you really shouldn't be adding all that much more vehicles unless you then go for full on vehicle mode.
Right now I don't think there is really a good case for Abarges over what else our codex can bring, though I'd be happy to put them on the table again if the end up good again.
Triach Stalkers and Doom scythes are looking great though.
I suppose that's fair, though I generally prefer units that can do that while still being effective themselves.
Still, do you think Annihilation Barges are better in that role than Triarch Stalkers? The Stalkers are slightly more expensive, but are also tougher, have some melee ability, and can provide buffs to other units without needing to be anywhere near them.
Or is this for when you're already maxed out on Stalkers?
Anni barges serve a different purpose in my army than stalkers. They are anti infantry and score some VP for engage on all fronts. Heat ray stalkers buff other units, they are anti armour and partially anti infantry. They can shoot in melee, hit automatically, and fight a little bit as well. And yes, i am maxed out on stalkers.
Also, Tesla destructors now have 30" range, so you can kite with them a bit more effectively.
With a bit of micromanaging you can make annibarges as annoying as some Eldar units.
Why would you be in rapid fire range of small arms fire when you have a fast moving vehicle with 30" range guns? Even with the smaller table sizes it should be hard to catch it.
You can see the anni barge as a distration carnifex that can shrug heavy weapon fire... but even with all that maneuverability and durability you are still just plinking away with AP - that might sneak maybe 1 or 2 wounds per turn through
Bosskelot wrote: I think a big thing that would push the desirability of the unit way up would be the ability to take multiple in the same slot.
Good point. It's a light vehicle in the same way as Land Speeders are. It's weird it doesn't get the same squadron rule. Necrons in general feel like they have a lot of "competition" for slots, though in reality it's more the case for Heavy Support that we have one stand-out unit we want to take lots of. The army as a whole suffers from things like no multi-unit choices in single slots and a lack of characters in the Elite slot.
Bosskelot wrote: I think a big thing that would push the desirability of the unit way up would be the ability to take multiple in the same slot.
Good point. It's a light vehicle in the same way as Land Speeders are. It's weird it doesn't get the same squadron rule. Necrons in general feel like they have a lot of "competition" for slots, though in reality it's more the case for Heavy Support that we have one stand-out unit we want to take lots of. The army as a whole suffers from things like no multi-unit choices in single slots and a lack of characters in the Elite slot.
Most of the competition comes from our FA though doesn't it?
Warriors vs Immortals was always a wash for Immortals as far as I remember. The Elites section felt largely sub-optimal in the past and could be ignored aside from a few standout abilities. You've mentioned Heavy Support and it's only recently that things may be a little cluttered in our HQs but I feel like even with wildly different playstyles you could still pick 3 HQs for a Battalion and be good to go.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Against what target? If you attack light infantry with it you're going to deal more than 2 wounds.
Non-Marines exist, despite GW's attempt to make you think otherwise.
It has a longer engagement range than most necron anti-infantry weapons, so you can deal damage without waiting for the army to come in position.
Is it auto-include? No. Is it functional, especially compared to the previous version? Yes, I think so.
Non marines exists but they take high save multi wound stuff as well if they aren't trying to lose deliberately at which point doesn't really matter what you take. Gw made damned sure light infantry is worthless junk in 9e so even blind and deaf takes the hint.
Bosskelot wrote: I think a big thing that would push the desirability of the unit way up would be the ability to take multiple in the same slot.
Good point. It's a light vehicle in the same way as Land Speeders are. It's weird it doesn't get the same squadron rule. Necrons in general feel like they have a lot of "competition" for slots, though in reality it's more the case for Heavy Support that we have one stand-out unit we want to take lots of. The army as a whole suffers from things like no multi-unit choices in single slots and a lack of characters in the Elite slot.
Most of the competition comes from our FA though doesn't it?
Warriors vs Immortals was always a wash for Immortals as far as I remember. The Elites section felt largely sub-optimal in the past and could be ignored aside from a few standout abilities. You've mentioned Heavy Support and it's only recently that things may be a little cluttered in our HQs but I feel like even with wildly different playstyles you could still pick 3 HQs for a Battalion and be good to go.
Well anni barges contest on that hs. Anni barge or dda/heavy destroyer/locust destroyer...unless you take second det no room for ab
Using two patrol detachments served me well. Its only 2 HQ tax, 2 troop choices, and 4 slots for the rest. A battalion requires 3 troop choices, 3 HS and 3 FA isnt enough.
So Necron troops don't get 2 wounds each such as Tacticals.
But Immortals get at least T5 which they had before.
Not sure if the new Necrons will be worth it as the Marines are overwhelmingly good.
wuestenfux wrote: So Necron troops don't get 2 wounds each such as Tacticals.
But Immortals get at least T5 which they had before.
Not sure if the new Necrons will be worth it as the Marines are overwhelmingly good.
Are they? We don't have either codex to say for certain.
wuestenfux wrote: So Necron troops don't get 2 wounds each such as Tacticals.
But Immortals get at least T5 which they had before.
Not sure if the new Necrons will be worth it as the Marines are overwhelmingly good.
1% chance RP gets revealed at the weekend and its awesome.
But otherwise yeah. At least whenever they wrote the 9th edition points GW seem to really overvalue 1 W semi-elite infantry.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Against what target? If you attack light infantry with it you're going to deal more than 2 wounds.
Non-Marines exist, despite GW's attempt to make you think otherwise.
It has a longer engagement range than most necron anti-infantry weapons, so you can deal damage without waiting for the army to come in position.
Is it auto-include? No. Is it functional, especially compared to the previous version? Yes, I think so.
My issue with the anni barge is why would I take it over a doom scythe - both have the tesla weapon. Doom scythe for + 50 points get a much better weapon and a lot more wounds. Plus flying allows it to shoot what it wants. With 2 Doom scythe already in my list I can add 1 in for 120 points....just seems a little expensive for what you get on the barge...Point has been made that 135 points gets you a heavy gauss stalker...MUCH better deal there.
Annihilation Barges also benefit from Quantam Shielding (unless I’ve gone mad?), so they’re trickier for the opponent to deal with.
Plus, they’re easier to hide than Night or Doom Scythes.
Totally easier to hide true and yes it does have quantum. So does a stalker though! In list construction I have found instead of adding an annibarge you are better off trying to find 30 points to make it a CCB. Just my personal experience here.
Triarch Stalkers are way better than Anni Barges. Heatray stalkers are becoming one of my “go to” units for their versatility. They are solid at tying up opponents in CC, can target infantry or vehicles, have the reroll 1s buff, plus the speed is solid. There are units that do these things better individually but having this all in one package is what makes em good. Plus they are getting 2 more wounds, 12” range on the flamers and flat d3 damage on claws .
I had my Stalkers assembled as HGC's but with their weapon profile going from the equivalent of 2 Heavy Destroyers to 2 regular Destroyers I may rethink the heat ray...
wuestenfux wrote: How do you feel whether the shiny new units will contribute to the competitiveness of Necrons?
Currently LHD's are weaker than HD's, but considering the latter is disappearing I think we'll have to make do. Having said that we don't know the actual points values for the unit until the Codex drops, but it's definitely one which I think is worth keeping an eye on. It melts vehicles and monsters, which are both popular, and it melts a lot of the new Marine hotness like Outriders and Eradicators (kills Gravis on a 2+ after all!). There's a few Dynasties it synergizes quite nicely with, like Szarekhan and who knows how Command Protocols will work with them?
I also think Skorpekhs have a place, but it'll really depend on how delivery and teleport options change them going into the Codex. Even if Extermination Protocols is gone or changed, they're still an incredible Marine killing unit on their own, but being able to reliably get them into CC will be the main challenge.
Claas wrote: Triarch Stalkers are way better than Anni Barges. Heatray stalkers are becoming one of my “go to” units for their versatility. They are solid at tying up opponents in CC, can target infantry or vehicles, have the reroll 1s buff, plus the speed is solid. There are units that do these things better individually but having this all in one package is what makes em good. Plus they are getting 2 more wounds, 12” range on the flamers and flat d3 damage on claws .
Yeah stalker been one of the best units for me. Consistent performance. Just mobile at is soooo good. Dda can't move and shoot efficiently so with automatic t1 charges out there quite possible to ensure dda never shoots at vehicles with full profile.
Heatray stalkers are great, but they are far away from the mobility of a annibarge. Stalkers cant enter ruins through walls, they must subtract 2 from their move when moving over a barricade, and they cant end their move on top of a barricade, which means a barricade is a serious obstacle for a stalker. An annibarge can move on top of a ruin, it doesnt suffer -2 to move when moving over barricades.
p5freak wrote: Heatray stalkers are great, but they are far away from the mobility of a annibarge. Stalkers cant enter ruins through walls, they must subtract 2 from their move when moving over a barricade, and they cant end their move on top of a barricade, which means a barricade is a serious obstacle for a stalker. An annibarge can move on top of a ruin, it doesnt suffer -2 to move when moving over barricades.
When it comes to HS, I'll still plan with Doom Scythes and not Barges.
CCB seems to be an option too. I like the model.
Could it be that with Objective Secured being the new hotness, shooting basic troops of the table is suddenly really worthwhile, whereas you might let the elite infantry move on to lock in with your own OS wraiths? And thus the AB may serve a purpose, targeting 1W, poorer save, models?
It would still suffer in a space-marine heavy meta, with 2W/3+ tacticals threatening objectives.
I don't see how they can't preview some of the codes and protocols properly this weekend, might finally give some stuff a little context.
Previews of rules generally start when preorders are announced. Thus 28.9 is earliest we can expect rule previews by gw
Well there is a codex preview on Saturday as mentioned in my post. From the community article: "Set a reminder for this Saturday to catch your first solid look at the new Space Marines and Necrons books"
I want to see some of the rules in full, in order to figure them out.
For instance, the one Dynasty that allows you to ignore enemy models when Advancing. Does that mean that you could Advance out of combat instead of using Fall Back, thus retaining more options, such as shooting Assault weapons, than you could via Falling Back?
And, of course, we all obviously want to know how the new Reanimation Protocols work.That they'll move to the Command Phase is a given, but beyond that?
Having the answers so close yet so far away is maddening.
Wakshaani wrote: I want to see some of the rules in full, in order to figure them out.
For instance, the one Dynasty that allows you to ignore enemy models when Advancing. Does that mean that you could Advance out of combat instead of using Fall Back, thus retaining more options, such as shooting Assault weapons, than you could via Falling Back?
And, of course, we all obviously want to know how the new Reanimation Protocols work.That they'll move to the Command Phase is a given, but beyond that?
Having the answers so close yet so far away is maddening.
Yeah, it's been driving me crazy. Especially since I think every new Necron model that's coming has been revealed at this point.
For instance, the one Dynasty that allows you to ignore enemy models when Advancing. Does that mean that you could Advance out of combat instead of using Fall Back, thus retaining more options, such as shooting Assault weapons, than you could via Falling Back?
Depends on the wording. If they only ignore models, then no since the movement rules and Advance specifically mention that they can't be/move within Engagement Range. Notice how it's worded with Super Heavy Walkers, which states acting as if models aren't there and then specifically calling out that the model can move within Engagement Range as long as it doesn't end within.
In short, ignoring models =/= ignoring Engagement Range.
wuestenfux wrote: How do you feel whether the shiny new units will contribute to the competitiveness of Necrons?
The new overlord is auto include IMO.
1 time use weapon is a monster - the move bonus and MWBD on any unit. Plus a better melee weapon.
Royal warden seems very good. I have included him in many theory crafting lists - I feel he is a bit expensive for what he does. His cost is fine he just needs to do more IMO. An aura buff of some kind would be good.
The re-constructor is over-pointed badly
New warriors are probably the best "new unit" Reaper bomb is going to be quite good and the reroll 1's on reanimation isnt much but it is something!
New destroyers...why take them over wraiths or lychgaurd or even pretorians. Unless you prefer your melee slow and without invunes...6 man units might help them some.
The new illuminator dude I love. As soon as I get him physically I think I will include in most lists.
Plasmamancer...eh?
wuestenfux wrote: How do you feel whether the shiny new units will contribute to the competitiveness of Necrons?
The new overlord is auto include IMO.
1 time use weapon is a monster - the move bonus and MWBD on any unit. Plus a better melee weapon.
I think it's stretching things to consider the Overlord a 'new unit', given that he's been in the game for 5 editions now.
The new rules do seem like an improvement, but I have to disagree about his one-use-only weapon being a monster. If anything, it seems like you're just asking to roll a 1 to hit or to wound (or to have it bounce off an invulnerable save).
Frankly, it looks like the exact sort of weapon that people are already avoiding due to how unreliable they are - and that's when they can expect to fire them more than once per game.
I know it's not what you'd take an Overlord for, but I'd still much rather have a weaker weapon that you can fire every turn, rather than putting all his eggs into a single shot.
wuestenfux wrote: How do you feel whether the shiny new units will contribute to the competitiveness of Necrons?
The new overlord is auto include IMO.
1 time use weapon is a monster - the move bonus and MWBD on any unit. Plus a better melee weapon.
Royal warden seems very good. I have included him in many theory crafting lists - I feel he is a bit expensive for what he does. His cost is fine he just needs to do more IMO. An aura buff of some kind would be good.
The re-constructor is over-pointed badly
New warriors are probably the best "new unit" Reaper bomb is going to be quite good and the reroll 1's on reanimation isnt much but it is something!
New destroyers...why take them over wraiths or lychgaurd or even pretorians. Unless you prefer your melee slow and without invunes...6 man units might help them some.
The new illuminator dude I love. As soon as I get him physically I think I will include in most lists.
Plasmamancer...eh?
New Overlord rules are very nice. He’s is auto include for me in games over 1k. Small games I prefer Skorpekh Lord.
Royal Warden? Haven’t tried him yet but seems lackluster.
Reanimator, I don’t build lists around RP anyway but It’s so easy to kill.
Warriors - I think they are pretty solid right now. The reroll 1s RP helps. I still like in 10 man units over max.
Skorpekh Destroyers - I don’t think they are quite as slow as you make them out with smaller table sizes. Also terrain helps tremendously getting them into combat. But yes they do attract a lot of attention and rarely do they make it into a fight at full strength but that is not always a bad thing.
Skorpekh Lord - Auto Include For me. My favorite HQ right now, he has killed double his points for me many times. In small games he is a monster. Veil helps getting him in a fight. I veil him with either 10 warriors Or Skorpekh Ds.
Plasmancer- Hard to fit in a list but can have a use sitting on an objective with 2 crypto thralls hidden out of sight. They don’t attract a lot of attention until the mortal wounds start to pile up.
wuestenfux wrote: How do you feel whether the shiny new units will contribute to the competitiveness of Necrons?
The new overlord is auto include IMO.
1 time use weapon is a monster - the move bonus and MWBD on any unit. Plus a better melee weapon.
Royal warden seems very good. I have included him in many theory crafting lists - I feel he is a bit expensive for what he does. His cost is fine he just needs to do more IMO. An aura buff of some kind would be good.
The re-constructor is over-pointed badly
New warriors are probably the best "new unit" Reaper bomb is going to be quite good and the reroll 1's on reanimation isnt much but it is something!
New destroyers...why take them over wraiths or lychgaurd or even pretorians. Unless you prefer your melee slow and without invunes...6 man units might help them some.
The new illuminator dude I love. As soon as I get him physically I think I will include in most lists.
Plasmamancer...eh?
New Overlord rules are very nice. He’s is auto include for me in games over 1k. Small games I prefer Skorpekh Lord.
Royal Warden? Haven’t tried him yet but seems lackluster.
Reanimator, I don’t build lists around RP anyway but It’s so easy to kill.
Warriors - I think they are pretty solid right now. The reroll 1s RP helps. I still like in 10 man units over max.
Skorpekh Destroyers - I don’t think they are quite as slow as you make them out with smaller table sizes. Also terrain helps tremendously getting them into combat. But yes they do attract a lot of attention and rarely do they make it into a fight at full strength but that is not always a bad thing.
Skorpekh Lord - Auto Include For me. My favorite HQ right now, he has killed double his points for me many times. In small games he is a monster. Veil helps getting him in a fight. I veil him with either 10 warriors Or Skorpekh Ds.
Plasmancer- Hard to fit in a list but can have a use sitting on an objective with 2 crypto thralls hidden out of sight. They don’t attract a lot of attention until the mortal wounds start to pile up.
Did you really suggest the new Destroyers not making it into combat at full strength isn't a bad thing?
wuestenfux wrote: How do you feel whether the shiny new units will contribute to the competitiveness of Necrons?
The new overlord is auto include IMO.
1 time use weapon is a monster - the move bonus and MWBD on any unit. Plus a better melee weapon.
Royal warden seems very good. I have included him in many theory crafting lists - I feel he is a bit expensive for what he does. His cost is fine he just needs to do more IMO. An aura buff of some kind would be good.
The re-constructor is over-pointed badly
New warriors are probably the best "new unit" Reaper bomb is going to be quite good and the reroll 1's on reanimation isnt much but it is something!
New destroyers...why take them over wraiths or lychgaurd or even pretorians. Unless you prefer your melee slow and without invunes...6 man units might help them some.
The new illuminator dude I love. As soon as I get him physically I think I will include in most lists.
Plasmamancer...eh?
New Overlord rules are very nice. He’s is auto include for me in games over 1k. Small games I prefer Skorpekh Lord.
Royal Warden? Haven’t tried him yet but seems lackluster.
Reanimator, I don’t build lists around RP anyway but It’s so easy to kill.
Warriors - I think they are pretty solid right now. The reroll 1s RP helps. I still like in 10 man units over max.
Skorpekh Destroyers - I don’t think they are quite as slow as you make them out with smaller table sizes. Also terrain helps tremendously getting them into combat. But yes they do attract a lot of attention and rarely do they make it into a fight at full strength but that is not always a bad thing.
Skorpekh Lord - Auto Include For me. My favorite HQ right now, he has killed double his points for me many times. In small games he is a monster. Veil helps getting him in a fight. I veil him with either 10 warriors Or Skorpekh Ds.
Plasmancer- Hard to fit in a list but can have a use sitting on an objective with 2 crypto thralls hidden out of sight. They don’t attract a lot of attention until the mortal wounds start to pile up.
Did you really suggest the new Destroyers not making it into combat at full strength isn't a bad thing?
If it means getting my Skorpekh Lord into combat full strength.
Skorpekh Lord looks pretty good. It's a minor thing, but I like that he actually gets a proper ranged weapon in addition to good melee weapons. Something our other HQs can't seem to wrap their heads around. -.-
Regarding the Plasmancer, I quite like the model design, albeit with a single exception. Because someone on the design team - you know who you are - decided that he needed a stupidly long chin. And yes, I know this has been a feature of previous Crypteks, and it looks equally crap on them, too. Worse still, I think the Plasmancer's is even longer than the absurd chin of the regular Crypteks.
Here comes the Crimson Chin!!!
Anyway, model-ruining design choices aside, the problem I have with the Plasmancer is that he seems to be a sort of pseudo-psyker, but I don't generally take Psykers for Smite (outside of maybe GKs or TS). The support powers are generally much more valuable, with Smite being little more than a backup.
And given that our HQ section is already pretty crowded with buffing HQs (some of which, while not able to dispense Mortal Wounds, can nevertheless fight a great deal better than the Plasmancer), I think it will struggle to find a place.
Also, I find it depressing that a weapon I'd love to have on an Overlord or Destroyer Lord in place of the garbage Staff of Light is stuck on a model with a single attack and WS/BS3+.
wuestenfux wrote: How do you feel whether the shiny new units will contribute to the competitiveness of Necrons?
The new overlord is auto include IMO.
1 time use weapon is a monster - the move bonus and MWBD on any unit. Plus a better melee weapon.
Royal warden seems very good. I have included him in many theory crafting lists - I feel he is a bit expensive for what he does. His cost is fine he just needs to do more IMO. An aura buff of some kind would be good.
The re-constructor is over-pointed badly
New warriors are probably the best "new unit" Reaper bomb is going to be quite good and the reroll 1's on reanimation isnt much but it is something!
New destroyers...why take them over wraiths or lychgaurd or even pretorians. Unless you prefer your melee slow and without invunes...6 man units might help them some.
The new illuminator dude I love. As soon as I get him physically I think I will include in most lists.
Plasmamancer...eh?
New Overlord rules are very nice. He’s is auto include for me in games over 1k. Small games I prefer Skorpekh Lord.
Royal Warden? Haven’t tried him yet but seems lackluster.
Reanimator, I don’t build lists around RP anyway but It’s so easy to kill.
Warriors - I think they are pretty solid right now. The reroll 1s RP helps. I still like in 10 man units over max.
Skorpekh Destroyers - I don’t think they are quite as slow as you make them out with smaller table sizes. Also terrain helps tremendously getting them into combat. But yes they do attract a lot of attention and rarely do they make it into a fight at full strength but that is not always a bad thing.
Skorpekh Lord - Auto Include For me. My favorite HQ right now, he has killed double his points for me many times. In small games he is a monster. Veil helps getting him in a fight. I veil him with either 10 warriors Or Skorpekh Ds.
Plasmancer- Hard to fit in a list but can have a use sitting on an objective with 2 crypto thralls hidden out of sight. They don’t attract a lot of attention until the mortal wounds start to pile up.
Did you really suggest the new Destroyers not making it into combat at full strength isn't a bad thing?
If it means getting my Skorpekh Lord into combat full strength.
Well, I don't see the new Overlord as a must-have unit as I don't like lumbering HQs. The tachyon arrow is nice but can only be shot once per battle.
Royal warden is infantry but only one model per unit? Its weapon is nice, but we have to see how pricey it will get.
New warriors maybe.
New destroyers are a hard-hitting counter-strike unit or a unit that can clear an objective although its quite slow.
It can be buffed by the new destroyer lord.
wuestenfux wrote: Well, I don't see the new Overlord as a must-have unit as I don't like lumbering HQs. The tachyon arrow is nice but can only be shot once per battle.
vipoid wrote: Skorpekh Lord looks pretty good. It's a minor thing, but I like that he actually gets a proper ranged weapon in addition to good melee weapons. Something our other HQs can't seem to wrap their heads around. -.-
Regarding the Plasmancer, I quite like the model design, albeit with a single exception. Because someone on the design team - you know who you are - decided that he needed a stupidly long chin. And yes, I know this has been a feature of previous Crypteks, and it looks equally crap on them, too. Worse still, I think the Plasmancer's is even longer than the absurd chin of the regular Crypteks.
They're recreating the false beard that Egyptian nobility wore.
vipoid wrote: Skorpekh Lord looks pretty good. It's a minor thing, but I like that he actually gets a proper ranged weapon in addition to good melee weapons. Something our other HQs can't seem to wrap their heads around. -.-
Regarding the Plasmancer, I quite like the model design, albeit with a single exception. Because someone on the design team - you know who you are - decided that he needed a stupidly long chin. And yes, I know this has been a feature of previous Crypteks, and it looks equally crap on them, too. Worse still, I think the Plasmancer's is even longer than the absurd chin of the regular Crypteks.
They're recreating the false beard that Egyptian nobility wore.
Would it help if I said that I hate the Egyptian aesthetic?
It's something I've badly wanted Necrons to move away from every since some pratbasket brought it back in 5th.
vipoid wrote: Skorpekh Lord looks pretty good. It's a minor thing, but I like that he actually gets a proper ranged weapon in addition to good melee weapons. Something our other HQs can't seem to wrap their heads around. -.-
Regarding the Plasmancer, I quite like the model design, albeit with a single exception. Because someone on the design team - you know who you are - decided that he needed a stupidly long chin. And yes, I know this has been a feature of previous Crypteks, and it looks equally crap on them, too. Worse still, I think the Plasmancer's is even longer than the absurd chin of the regular Crypteks.
They're recreating the false beard that Egyptian nobility wore.
Would it help if I said that I hate the Egyptian aesthetic?
It's something I've badly wanted Necrons to move away from every since some pratbasket brought it back in 5th.
Yeah, they went too heavy on the Egyptian aesthetic. They bought too heavily in that stupid meme that necrons are tomb kings in space, when they were more death in space in 3rd ed; the Egyptian element is really just from the mortuary cult, they also took themes from Gothic horror and Aztec sacrifice rituals, and the nightbringer is clearly based on the Grim Reaper, which is a Medieval European personification of death.
If you hate the chins you aren't going to like the new Chronomancer. I'll repost from the tactics thread.
Nice that we're getting different types of crypteks back but again, its impossible to know how any of these new units work without knowing how Reanimation Protocals work and its getting really frustrating.
I'm pretty shocked that we are getting so much more at this point! Really makes me think we are getting an update for the old destroyers now more than ever.
We are spoiled for choice now, that's for sure. We really need some kind of Royal court now with all the Cryptek types!
Good lord, that Chronomancer's chin looks like the proboscis of a mosquito.
Anyway, atrocious Egyptian aesthetics notwithstanding, those new models look pretty nice. Psychomancer's rules are looking to be garbage, but I suppose you can't have everything.
I do like that old Wraiths seem to be making a comeback, but I have to say I'm really not a fan of these multi-armed Necrons. It might make sense in principle, but all the ones I've seen thus far just end up looking awkward. Also, why does it appear to be covered in egg-sacs? Has it just mated?
Minor aesthetic quibbles aside, it does seem like Necrons are getting a significant expansion to their range. However, as someone who also plays Dark Eldar, I can't help but turn green with envy (and I say this even as a Necron player). After all, my Necrons already got to keep all of their 5th edition HQs, and are now receiving a whole torrent of new ones. Meanwhile, DE had most of their HQ section stripped away and since then have had nothing but remakes. From that perspective, I can't help but lament that my Necrons are becoming increasingly overwhelmed for HQ choices, while my DE are still stuck with just 3 generic HQs in their entire faction.
vipoid wrote: Good lord, that Chronomancer's chin looks like the proboscis of a mosquito.
Anyway, atrocious Egyptian aesthetics notwithstanding, those new models look pretty nice. Psychomancer's rules are looking to be garbage, but I suppose you can't have everything.
I do like that old Wraiths seem to be making a comeback, but I have to say I'm really not a fan of these multi-armed Necrons. It might make sense in principle, but all the ones I've seen thus far just end up looking awkward. Also, why does it appear to be covered in egg-sacs? Has it just mated?
Minor aesthetic quibbles aside, it does seem like Necrons are getting a significant expansion to their range. However, as someone who also plays Dark Eldar, I can't help but turn green with envy (and I say this even as a Necron player). After all, my Necrons already got to keep all of their 5th edition HQs, and are now receiving a whole torrent of new ones. Meanwhile, DE had most of their HQ section stripped away and since then have had nothing but remakes. From that perspective, I can't help but lament that my Necrons are becoming increasingly overwhelmed for HQ choices, while my DE are still stuck with just 3 generic HQs in their entire faction.
It's ok my sisters are stuck with just 2 generic hqs, one of which is a 0-1.
I honestly find the ongoing model inflation for Necrons a bit silly from the lore perspective.
Did they really have a bajillion vastly different and slightly different robot bodies crafted before their collective transformation? Were there catalogues where you could pick the exact individualized unit type you wanted to become?
Esmer wrote: I honestly find the ongoing model inflation for Necrons a bit silly from the lore perspective.
Did they really have a bajillion vastly different and slightly different robot bodies crafted before their collective transformation? Were there catalogues where you could pick the exact individualized unit type you wanted to become?
Well after transference they did go on to wage Galactic war. They then went on to wage war on the very gods themselves. So they had a LOT of time to adapt and evolve. Many of the curses they have are old - Destroyers and Flayed ones were around far back then; perhaps fewer, but around. So yes they had time for catalogues of evolved designs.
Plus as they are awakening don't forget they don't have any religious reason not to change and adapt their sciences; nor are they limited by the boundaries of genetics and creature design. So for a destroyer they really can change things up if they want.
wuestenfux wrote: How do you feel whether the shiny new units will contribute to the competitiveness of Necrons?
The new overlord is auto include IMO.
1 time use weapon is a monster - the move bonus and MWBD on any unit. Plus a better melee weapon.
I think it's stretching things to consider the Overlord a 'new unit', given that he's been in the game for 5 editions now.
The new rules do seem like an improvement, but I have to disagree about his one-use-only weapon being a monster. If anything, it seems like you're just asking to roll a 1 to hit or to wound (or to have it bounce off an invulnerable save).
Frankly, it looks like the exact sort of weapon that people are already avoiding due to how unreliable they are - and that's when they can expect to fire them more than once per game.
I know it's not what you'd take an Overlord for, but I'd still much rather have a weaker weapon that you can fire every turn, rather than putting all his eggs into a single shot.
Yep gun looks pretty but you have 30% chance to fail vs non inv t6 or less. Add in inv save(most of worthwhile targets) or t7 or more and your gun fails it's only shot. And d6 damage can fail it.
So far it has worked only once and that had 28% chance to work.
Esmer wrote: I honestly find the ongoing model inflation for Necrons a bit silly from the lore perspective.
Did they really have a bajillion vastly different and slightly different robot bodies crafted before their collective transformation? Were there catalogues where you could pick the exact individualized unit type you wanted to become?
It makes more sense than them being all humanoid. If you aren't constrained by biology why would you not modify your form to be more efficient at what you need it to do?
wuestenfux wrote: How do you feel whether the shiny new units will contribute to the competitiveness of Necrons?
The new overlord is auto include IMO.
1 time use weapon is a monster - the move bonus and MWBD on any unit. Plus a better melee weapon.
I think it's stretching things to consider the Overlord a 'new unit', given that he's been in the game for 5 editions now.
The new rules do seem like an improvement, but I have to disagree about his one-use-only weapon being a monster. If anything, it seems like you're just asking to roll a 1 to hit or to wound (or to have it bounce off an invulnerable save).
Frankly, it looks like the exact sort of weapon that people are already avoiding due to how unreliable they are - and that's when they can expect to fire them more than once per game.
I know it's not what you'd take an Overlord for, but I'd still much rather have a weaker weapon that you can fire every turn, rather than putting all his eggs into a single shot.
Yep gun looks pretty but you have 30% chance to fail vs non inv t6 or less. Add in inv save(most of worthwhile targets) or t7 or more and your gun fails it's only shot. And d6 damage can fail it.
So far it has worked only once and that had 28% chance to work.
Compared to the typical bolt/splinter pistol weapons most heros have for range - I consider it really good. It's also got good range too which is a bonus. If you have a 12" gun you MIGHT shoot it more than once but maybe not.
Esmer wrote: I honestly find the ongoing model inflation for Necrons a bit silly from the lore perspective.
Did they really have a bajillion vastly different and slightly different robot bodies crafted before their collective transformation? Were there catalogues where you could pick the exact individualized unit type you wanted to become?
Can't agree, not even vaguely. Think of human diversity in design and function for... anything. Now imagine what the diversity is for a species tens of millions of years old, with access to absurd super sciences and nothing but time (even for the relatively small percentage of those awake for much of that time), and when they were active, the needs of an ever-changing galaxy-encompassing war where the enemy is force-evolving and throwing entirely new species at them. Many of which are capable of manipulating levels of reality the necrons can't perceive or comprehend even with all of their super-science.
This should be just scratching the surface of the variety of war forms the necrons have (subject to the whats practical for a company to produce for a war game).
It is my understanding that Necrons undertook the transference process as a one-time-only thing at a specific point in history and got transferred into their current bodies directly from their biological forms. That's how I remember it from a couple of editions ago - haven't followed the Necron lore too closely since then.
If there is lore stating that they kept modifying themselves up to and including switching bodies for newer fancier models, I stand corrected.
Esmer wrote: I honestly find the ongoing model inflation for Necrons a bit silly from the lore perspective.
Did they really have a bajillion vastly different and slightly different robot bodies crafted before their collective transformation? Were there catalogues where you could pick the exact individualized unit type you wanted to become?
To be fair, there are trillions upon trillions of Necrons, and more variation (destroyers, flayed ones) arose post-biotransference.
It's more annoying to me that there is so much overlap in the units/rules. Four types of Cryptek (plus two characters); wraiths, skorpekh, (acanthrites), and now ophydians too...
Esmer wrote: I honestly find the ongoing model inflation for Necrons a bit silly from the lore perspective.
Did they really have a bajillion vastly different and slightly different robot bodies crafted before their collective transformation? Were there catalogues where you could pick the exact individualized unit type you wanted to become?
To be fair, there are trillions upon trillions of Necrons, and more variation (destroyers, flayed ones) arose post-biotransference.
It's more annoying to me that there is so much overlap in the units/rules. Four types of Cryptek (plus two characters); wraiths, skorpekh, (acanthrites), and now ophydians too...
When models sell most of their lifetime sales in first few months unless gw introduces new models they won't sell much models. And making new datasheets rather than redoing old ones works better
Esmer wrote: It is my understanding that Necrons undertook the transference process as a one-time-only thing at a specific point in history and got transferred into their current bodies directly from their biological forms. That's how I remember it from a couple of editions ago - haven't followed the Necron lore too closely since then.
If there is lore stating that they kept modifying themselves up to and including switching bodies for newer fancier models, I stand corrected.
Going right back to the first codex destroyers didn't go directly into destroyer bodies. They altered their own bodies to become more efficiant killers after biotransference made them all screwy.
Esmer wrote:It is my understanding that Necrons undertook the transference process as a one-time-only thing at a specific point in history and got transferred into their current bodies directly from their biological forms. That's how I remember it from a couple of editions ago - haven't followed the Necron lore too closely since then.
If there is lore stating that they kept modifying themselves up to and including switching bodies for newer fancier models, I stand corrected.
Biotransferance was a one time deal. However:
1) After it was done Necrons could modify their machine bodies. Some remain in the original body, their mind clinging to the last vestiges of their once mortal form; whilst others (eg the destroyer virus) are happy to hack parts off themselves and replace them with machine modifications. To improve themselves, to better their bodies.
2) The Canoptek were built after the great wars and were made to be self sufficient machines that would protect the tombs whilst the Necrons slept. They were likely used before that period as well; but suffice to say that there's no limit for their modification and creation; they are pure machines with no vestiges of the living (although in Severed it is suggested that two Tomb Stalkers did have minds of once living animals put into them).
Lord Damocles wrote:
Esmer wrote: I honestly find the ongoing model inflation for Necrons a bit silly from the lore perspective.
Did they really have a bajillion vastly different and slightly different robot bodies crafted before their collective transformation? Were there catalogues where you could pick the exact individualized unit type you wanted to become?
To be fair, there are trillions upon trillions of Necrons, and more variation (destroyers, flayed ones) arose post-biotransference.
It's more annoying to me that there is so much overlap in the units/rules. Four types of Cryptek (plus two characters); wraiths, skorpekh, (acanthrites), and now ophydians too...
Cryptek were always designed to have lots of versions of themselves, I think we lost a lot when GW lost Chapterhouse and removed them, but we are steadily getting them back. Though now instead of one model with a few alternate parts or one model with different themes; they are very flavourful and unique designs on the battlefield.
So on the topic of the Ophydian Destroyers I may be confusing myself with the wording for the weapons but is this intended:
Allocate 2 attacks from its profile to the threshers = 3 total thresher attacks,
Allocate 1 attack from its profile to the claws = 3 total claw attacks for a grand total of 6 attacks?
Edit: Also do you even need to allocate an attack to either of this weapons to get the bonus? As the wording says "each time the bearer fights..." So I could use all 3 attacks with the threshers and still get the bonus 2 from the claws as far as I can tell?
"Hyperphase Reapblade: Each time a model in this unit makes an attack with a hyperphase reapblade, an unmodified hit roll of 6 scores 1 additional hit."
The datasheet says that one destroyer is equipped with 2 reapblades, so does that mean the following is also intended:
Allocate 2 attacks from its profile to the reapblade = 2 total attacks but can proc 2 extra hits on double 6s, one for each reapblade?
Edit: Also do you even need to allocate an attack to either of this weapons to get the bonus? As the wording says "each time the bearer fights..." So I could use all 3 attacks with the threshers and still get the bonus 2 from the claws as far as I can tell?
Just like models with Chainswords and another CCW, you don't need to allocate anything to a weapon for the bonus attacks. Every time you fight, you get those attacks using that weapon. Yes, you can use the Thresher with every statline attack and still get the 2 Claw attacks.
As for your 2nd question, you get 1 extra hit per 6, having 2 Reap-Blades literally has no effect because the model lacks a "If this model is armed with 2 of this weapon" rule like having 2 Lightning Claws(as an example).
Edit: Also do you even need to allocate an attack to either of this weapons to get the bonus? As the wording says "each time the bearer fights..." So I could use all 3 attacks with the threshers and still get the bonus 2 from the claws as far as I can tell?
Just like models with Chainswords and another CCW, you don't need to allocate anything to a weapon for the bonus attacks. Every time you fight, you get those attacks using that weapon. Yes, you can use the Thresher with every statline attack and still get the 2 Claw attacks.
As for your 2nd question, you get 1 extra hit per 6, having 2 Reap-Blades literally has no effect because the model lacks a "If this model is armed with 2 of this weapon" rule like having 2 Lightning Claws(as an example).
Xenomancers wrote: New destroyers look sweet - their rules are pretty bad though. 4+ save? Maybe it's an invune...
Don't think so. I think they're 4+ because they have Reanimation Protocols -and- Living Metal. (And -1 to be hit in CC)
Though we still don't know if/how RP & LM have changed so... I guess maybe?
----
I'm still surprised at the flayed ones. Especially with all the new CC units that have high AP and a fair amount of D2.
Unless the point disparity is extreme, I'm still not sure what role they play.
Voss wrote: I'm still surprised at the flayed ones. Especially with all the new CC units that have high AP and a fair amount of D2.
Unless the point disparity is extreme, I'm still not sure what role they play.
Melee Chaff? Screening maybe?
If they're still keeping their deepstrike ability and 20 squad size for a reasonable price then the instant board control gained from dropping 20 and charging a unit on/near an objective could potentially turn the tides in your favour, or at least up the pressure on your opponent and force a mistake.
If the Chronomancer and Pyschomancer follow the similar design cue from the Plasmancer, we should also expect a "Harbinger of X" ability as well on them.
Sasori wrote: If the Chronomancer and Pyschomancer follow the similar design cue from the Plasmancer, we should also expect a "Harbinger of X" ability as well on them.
Which would be the Harbingers of Eternity and Despair respectively. That leaves the Harbinger of the Storm (i.e., the Ethermancer) and the Harbinger of Transmogrification without 9th edition rules and models.
Allocate 2 attacks from its profile to the threshers = 3 total thresher attacks,
Allocate 1 attack from its profile to the claws = 3 total claw attacks for a grand total of 6 attacks?
Edit: Also do you even need to allocate an attack to either of this weapons to get the bonus? As the wording says "each time the bearer fights..." So I could use all 3 attacks with the threshers and still get the bonus 2 from the claws as far as I can tell?
"Hyperphase Reapblade: Each time a model in this unit makes an attack with a hyperphase reapblade, an unmodified hit roll of 6 scores 1 additional hit."
The datasheet says that one destroyer is equipped with 2 reapblades, so does that mean the following is also intended:
Allocate 2 attacks from its profile to the reapblade = 2 total attacks but can proc 2 extra hits on double 6s, one for each reapblade?
You don’t need to allocate attack to claw to get its additional attack
Insectum7 wrote: Ok, who's thinking the five Flayed Ones in the image-roller are the only sculpts, and it'll be five per box?
I'm leaning that way a little.
Hesitating a bit simply because 5 flayed ones would be wiped off the board in a moment.
Even if they're 10, they'll be really monopose. Several have flesh draped over torso, head and/or an arm, and you can't really do that with the typical 'legs & torso, add heads and arms individually' assembly instructions..
Those ophydian destroyers will die to a soft breeze, unless they get an inv. When you deepstrike them they have to make that 9" charge, and you cant give them a charge reroll and 5+ inv with the chronomancer, because that happens in the command phase. So they must start on the table, which means they get deleted before they charge anything. Another useless melee unit.
The silent king will probably have an inv, and some bodyguards.
Well, the new models look great but the rules are a bit disappointing.
In view of the competitiveness of Necrons, everything will depend on the RP. But we cannot hope for another Decurion.
Nevertheless, Marines will dominate the 9th ed like never before.
Flayers in boxes of 10 and being troops would be amazing - but I'm afraid the cynics almost certainly have the right of this. I am hyped, but at the same time the prospect of it being £35 for 5 hurts.
Also being negative on new models is bad, but its hard to think of how Skorpekhs/Ophydians don't completely cross over in terms of purpose. If they were variants of a single kit that would again perhaps not be surprising but it doesn't appear that's the case.
Tyel wrote: Flayers in boxes of 10 and being troops would be amazing - but I'm afraid the cynics almost certainly have the right of this. I am hyped, but at the same time the prospect of it being £35 for 5 hurts.
Also being negative on new models is bad, but its hard to think of how Skorpekhs/Ophydians don't completely cross over in terms of purpose. If they were variants of a single kit that would again perhaps not be surprising but doesn't appear that's the case.
The similar roles is not necessarily a terrible thing because it could help alleviate rules of 3 if both are priced nicely.
Tyel wrote: Flayers in boxes of 10 and being troops would be amazing - but I'm afraid the cynics almost certainly have the right of this. I am hyped, but at the same time the prospect of it being £35 for 5 hurts.
Also being negative on new models is bad, but its hard to think of how Skorpekhs/Ophydians don't completely cross over in terms of purpose. If they were variants of a single kit that would again perhaps not be surprising but doesn't appear that's the case.
The similar roles is not necessarily a terrible thing because it could help alleviate rules of 3 if both are priced nicely.
Skorpekhs are designed to run at the enemy going cover to cover, controlling the board with their threat bubble, whereas the Ophydian seems to be more for dropping into their back line and hunting down things that are scary, like Eradicators, Eliminators, and Dark Reapers.
I think RP is bad, and I think the fact GW clearly reckons its not too far off being "worth" a 5+++, while being dramatically worse in most actual game experience, is why Necrons spent so much of 8th edition toward the bottom of the pack.
If Necrons were pointed more aggressively and RP was essentially just a freebie then it wouldn't matter so much. I guess we'll find out in a few weeks.
Other options are just make it a FNP like in older editions - but there's nothing especially fluffy about that, and its kind of Nurgle's thing.
Another option is that wiped units get a one-off roll, and that immediately shuts down RP for the unit for the remainder of the game. This might be a bit bureaucratic to keep track off though, and potentially difficult to point without significant trial and error. (In theory this guarantee's its worth at least a 5+++ - but at the same time if your opponent doesn't wipe units its better, which could make it too expensive.)
I guess a once per turn stratagem could keep that in check maybe - but then needing stratagems to make your main faction rule work feels like bad design.
There are a million ways they can make RP just a little bit better without a wholesale redesign.
In a magic world where I make the rules:
1) Count how many models are destroyed during the phase, including if the entire unit is destroyed
2) Roll that many RP dice and restore models as appropriate. If the unit was destroyed, return it to play as close to the last model that was destroyed as possible while not in Engagement Range
3) Resurrection Orb is once per game during Command Phase, allow a unit to roll RP for all model of the unit that are destroyed
All done without turning RP into yet another FNP save. It even gives that coming back from the dead feel while also allowing your opponent to grind down the unit, but never knowing when the darn thing will stay dead.
alextroy wrote: There are a million ways they can make RP just a little bit better without a wholesale redesign.
In a magic world where I make the rules:
1) Count how many models are destroyed during the phase, including if the entire unit is destroyed
2) Roll that many RP dice and restore models as appropriate. If the unit was destroyed, return it to play as close to the last model that was destroyed as possible while not in Engagement Range
3) Resurrection Orb is once per game during Command Phase, allow a unit to roll RP for all model of the unit that are destroyed
All done without turning RP into yet another FNP save. It even gives that coming back from the dead feel while also allowing your opponent to grind down the unit, but never knowing when the darn thing will stay dead.
Something like the Guardian of Souls for Night Haunt I think? Spectral lure
Heads up everyone, the new White Dwarf battle report goes into some of the new Necron rules and mentions lots of new stratagems as well giving some info on what the other protocols do.
Reanimation is now made immediately after a model dies and apparently characters can reanimate too (unless overkilled somehow)
Bosskelot wrote: Heads up everyone, the new White Dwarf battle report goes into some of the new Necron rules and mentions lots of new stratagems as well giving some info on what the other protocols do.
Reanimation is now made immediately after a model dies and apparently characters can reanimate too (unless overkilled somehow)
Can you roll repeatedly for the same model throughout the game?
Bosskelot wrote: Heads up everyone, the new White Dwarf battle report goes into some of the new Necron rules and mentions lots of new stratagems as well giving some info on what the other protocols do.
Reanimation is now made immediately after a model dies and apparently characters can reanimate too (unless overkilled somehow)
Can you roll repeatedly for the same model throughout the game?
Also if it's upon death can you kill the same model in a unit repeatedly? I imagine there's an "after all attacks are resolved" catch.
One other thing is that if it is after each attack, using that character to shoot his bolt pistol or rifle at the unit may not be a good idea anymore. doesn't even say anyone has to die from the attack to get that reanimation roll.
Obviously we have to see the full rule as written, so this is just speculation on what we have been revealed.
Emissary wrote: One other thing is that if it is after each attack, using that character to shoot his bolt pistol or rifle at the unit may not be a good idea anymore. doesn't even say anyone has to die from the attack to get that reanimation roll.
Obviously we have to see the full rule as written, so this is just speculation on what we have been revealed.
I'm 99.9999% sure it'll be after you lose a model. If it was literally after each attack you'd have Necron models springing into being left and right as soon as a single SM unit shot at them. I wouldn't take the colloquial language of a WD battle report as indicative of exactly how the rules function.
Sentineil wrote: That seems like a huge durability boost. Looks like people are going to have to overkill a unit to ensure it stays dead.
I have to say, of all the changes I was expecting, that wasn't one, and yet it seems to be a very powerful fix.
I like that it also keeps the element of focusing down on units to fully wipe them.
I wonder is there a way to restore models that failed the RP the turn before, like how the old Monolith use to work.
Sounds fnp that is rolled after models last wound is lost. So in optimal situation it used to be better but now in practice you get to roll but less good than just fnp
Sentineil wrote: That seems like a huge durability boost. Looks like people are going to have to overkill a unit to ensure it stays dead.
I have to say, of all the changes I was expecting, that wasn't one, and yet it seems to be a very powerful fix.
I like that it also keeps the element of focusing down on units to fully wipe them.
I wonder is there a way to restore models that failed the RP the turn before, like how the old Monolith use to work.
Sounds fnp that is rolled after models last wound is lost. So in optimal situation it used to be better but now in practice you get to roll but less good than just fnp
For single wound models its the exact same as a fnp, for multiwound its a grey area given they assumingly come back on full wounds. On a 3 wound model a single 5+ bags you 3 wounds back, a normal fnp a single 5+ prevents 1 damage.
Reanimation looks to be an extra save of some kind when a model dies - can't be taken if the unit is wiped out by a single set of 'attacks'.
Protocol of the Eternal Guardian gives light cover if you don't move +/ unknown.
Protocol of the Hungry Void give extra AP for melee attacks +/ unknown.
Plasmactye is NOT part of the Skorphek destroyer unit, moves as a seperate unit.
Command Protocols turn off when your last 'Noble' dies
No QS on the reanimator (I had hope)
Stratagem names + vague descriptions
Disintegration Capacitors - improves shooting, not clear what but feels like strength or AP Relentless Onslaught - Improves shooting, feels like number of shots.
It's very similar to FNP alright, but it looks like we have more opportunities to improve the roll, native reroll 1s on warriors, and potentially a chance to roll a second time with orbs/rites/arks/monoliths, depending on how it plays out.
I'm still optimistic about it all! I like the idea of protocols and how they seem to interact with characters. It almost feels a bit like Synapse.
torblind wrote: It's a bit disappointing if they revert back to something close to 7th edition RP, when there are many ways the 8th edition RP could be fixed
Like? If you can roll to squad that died you end up with undying units. Stratagem to do that is also unscalable resulting in current issue. If you can't it's essentially tax you pay without gaining anything.
If an ability like Rites of Reanimation can provide an aura giving full-squad reanimation rolls or a boost to RP rolls, it'll make troop units supported by characters commonplace, and hard to shift, which is nice because it seems consistent with current Necron fluff? Where Warriors are near-mindless drones driven by their leaders into constant war?
EDIT: And if the protocols turn off after the last Noble/character dies, it's reinforcing a style of Necron play where you have a core 'court' of characters who are surrounded by constructs and lesser, unthinking Necron troops. Which feels kinda fluffy right?
EDIT EDIT: And actually, if we're seeing a meta shift to higher damage weapons over number of shots to deal with Marines or FNP saves, a flat 5+ or 6+ or whatever to bring a model back regardless of damage goes up in currency.
torblind wrote: It's a bit disappointing if they revert back to something close to 7th edition RP, when there are many ways the 8th edition RP could be fixed
Like? If you can roll to squad that died you end up with undying units. Stratagem to do that is also unscalable resulting in current issue. If you can't it's essentially tax you pay without gaining anything.
It's been discussed at length, in depth, repeatedly for two years, I'm not reiterating. Though I will say I disagree with you, as do others, as should be evident. Make a thread about it if you feel all hasn't been said.
I think that this really points back to the Rites of Reanimation being a heal similar to death in AoS. Heal X number of wounds or something.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: Do you think we'll get the other two Cryptek types? Or do we have them already?
The ones revealed had references in the Crusade rules from the initial codex pages, There didn't seem to be anything about the other abilities so I am thinking this is all we get for now Cryptek wise.
Assuming this works not dissimilar to to the Gaia forge world trait...
Even at a 6+ RP, it's better than a 5+++ on single wound models at anything more than 1 damage (and is essentially incomparably better to any FNP save to 4+ damage weapons).
This is obviously only for single wound models and it gets more complicated on multiwound models: it's mathmatically better than a FNP the more 'overkilled' a unit is, and worse the better matched the unit is to the model's W characteristic. Sort of.
If models are returned on 1W of course, it makes sense that things like Skorpekhs having living metal...
Further prediction: MWs will ignore RP, hence the Szarekhan dynastic code being ignore MWs on a 5+.
unitled wrote: Assuming this works not dissimilar to to the Gaia forge world trait...
Even at a 6+ RP, it's better than a 5+++ on single wound models at anything more than 1 damage (and is essentially incomparably better to any FNP save to 4+ damage weapons).
This is obviously only for single wound models and it gets more complicated on multiwound models: it's mathmatically better than a FNP the more 'overkilled' a unit is, and worse the better matched the unit is to the model's W characteristic. Sort of.
If models are returned on 1W of course, it makes sense that things like Skorpekhs having living metal...
Further prediction: MWs will ignore RP, hence the Szarekhan dynastic code being ignore MWs on a 5+.
This is an interesting take.
You may very much be right. However, I would think that Szarekhan 5+++ vs Mortals would be because the standard RP is possibly going to be 6+ now. Makes sense, right, given how many things effect RP that we know of?
Because if RP is worded to trigger after a unit has resolved its attacks (as implied by the statement), by definition MWs from Psychic powers will never trigger said RP.
Because if RP is worded to trigger after a unit has resolved its attacks (as implied by the statement), by definition MWs from Psychic powers will never trigger said RP.
That's a good point, and probably a reason we need to see the full rules text instead of a narrative snippet. We don't know how the interaction with Psyhic powers would work.
iGuy91 wrote: Anyone else notice the Orphydian Destroyers have Living Metal?
Wonder if our other destroyers etc are also going to be picking that ability up.
My understanding regarding that RP tease might be that we roll RP at the end of the phase, once attacks are resolved against that unit?
I don't think it's at the end of the phase, it looks to be after each set of attacks are resolved. So, Primaris unit 1 attacks with with everything against warriros. Warriors make saves, then RP. Primairs unit 2 attacks, etc etc.
torblind wrote: It's a bit disappointing if they revert back to something close to 7th edition RP, when there are many ways the 8th edition RP could be fixed
Like? If you can roll to squad that died you end up with undying units. Stratagem to do that is also unscalable resulting in current issue. If you can't it's essentially tax you pay without gaining anything.
It's been discussed at length, in depth, repeatedly for two years, I'm not reiterating. Though I will say I disagree with you, as do others, as should be evident. Make a thread about it if you feel all hasn't been said.
And nobody has given any solution except can do even for dead unit which is worse than currrent for game or same except as stratagem which has same issue as now: 100% non scalable and as such unworkable.
8e rp is unscalable at it's core. as long as you don't completely redo it stavs as such and it's limited to be either crap or silly good(rp roll even for dead unit would break the army making necrons drag to face. Even if not broken would be annoying to face as you could not ever win killing game)
New Reanimation Protocols could also make Necrons better in combat. If a Necron gets taken out by an enemy in combat, it sounds like they will have a chance stand back up in time to swing when the unit is activated. All this provided that there isn't some stipulation preventing the model from standing back up in combat.
Claas wrote: So this is sounding good, rolling after killed is a good thing.
A unit of 20 warriors just became insanely durable.
I was told only marines get buffs. I am disappointed in GW.
Likewise, I expect there to be some form of gotcha rule where the protocols kick in if you declare yourself a filthy npc.
To be fair, there are a lot of hoops to jump through for our command protocols, to the point I am pretty flabbergasted.
Compared to say doctrines which just work armywide, though there is some hope that gets changed and they have a similar number of hoops to jump through.
Necrons being able to choose the order of their "doctrines" is better than what the space marines get. I imagine some marine armies would like the option to have the assault doctrine on turn two for example.
The doctrines themselves seem good so far. Not knowing when or if the "fall back and shoot" ability is going to happen means an opponent can never rely on locking things down in cc, and the Necron player can ram QS vehicles into things to stop them shooting the turn before they know they'll be able to fall back and shoot.
The rumoured light cover ability is something that I often paid 2cp for in 8th so that's a great one for turn 1.
Needing to be near characters, and have a noble alive are some steep drawbacks though.
The "Dynastic agents" keyword in the protocol rules presumably applies to the triarch stuff, and possibly the silent king too. Meaning you could take him for dynasties other than his own.
On an unrelated note: the protocol of the conquering tyrant mentions 3 abilities that get 3 inches added to their range:
My will be done, the Lords will, and rites of reanimation. I'm guessing that's the Overlord, Lord, and Cryptek abilities respectively. Meaning that the reroll 1s and 4+ reanimation auras are now targeted abilities. So a Cryptek can't buff a whole silver tide. Makes the Canoptek Reanimator slightly more useful as it gets the same ability but without taking up a hq slot.
unitled wrote: It says the scarabs didn't reanimate, does that mean they're getting RP?!
Could just be a strat - there's one currently that allows Canoptek contructs to reanimate.
There's also a Canoptek specific Crusade advancement that adds +1 to RP on that Canoptek unit. The Canoptek bodyguards for Crypteks have RP. All indications point to Canoptek units most likely getting RP.
Claas wrote: So this is sounding good, rolling after killed is a good thing.
A unit of 20 warriors just became insanely durable.
I was told only marines get buffs. I am disappointed in GW.
Likewise, I expect there to be some form of gotcha rule where the protocols kick in if you declare yourself a filthy npc.
Dont you go on every thread and harp on about people whinging about space marines in every thread without knowing rules.. and yet here you are.. being snarky and..whinging.. as soon as theres a chance marines dont get the same thing a Necron gets.
I don't think it's at the end of the phase, it looks to be after each set of attacks are resolved. So, Primaris unit 1 attacks with with everything against warriros. Warriors make saves, then RP. Primairs unit 2 attacks, etc etc.
I dont think it works that way. That would be a lot of dice to roll, like ~100 when a fully buffed unit of ork boys attacks in melee
I feel like if its making the ENTIRE SQUAD'S RP roll after receiving damage that would be nuts, most likely it will be RP as a FNP when taking wounds, then entire squad RP roll during command phase.
I don't think it's at the end of the phase, it looks to be after each set of attacks are resolved. So, Primaris unit 1 attacks with with everything against warriros. Warriors make saves, then RP. Primairs unit 2 attacks, etc etc.
I dont think it works that way. That would be a lot of dice to roll, like ~100 when a fully buffed unit of ork boys attacks in melee
It would seem it does work that way though.
The question is what happened to models that fail their roll? Do they wait for the next RP proc, or are they removed? If the latter then we're basically back to 7th ed RP, which is lame.
I'm guessing they are removed, but we may get to do some more rolls in the command phase to bring back more models Rites may also have something to do with bringing back lost models.
Claas wrote: So this is sounding good, rolling after killed is a good thing.
A unit of 20 warriors just became insanely durable.
I was told only marines get buffs. I am disappointed in GW.
Necrons are going to essentially have 4+/5 FNP accross the board on all their infantry...Aint no one gonna complain. I know I won't my crons are up and running.
This overall is a pretty major change. It's very likely a netbuff for us since most of our auras have moved to targeted abilities.
No?
Its a downgrade from Edge of Silence. MWBD and Relentless March (the latter of which is an aura) could affect everything in the army, assuming it was <dynasty>. Either one (or both) switching to Core-only is a straight nerf.
Previously you could hit Wraiths with MWBD to make them better in combat. Now, if this switches to Core only, that's likely out the window (unless wraiths are Core, which I really don't expect).
In general I think this is a good change for the game, but smaller target selection for abilities isn't a 'net buff' in any way.
This overall is a pretty major change. It's very likely a netbuff for us since most of our auras have moved to targeted abilities.
No?
Its a downgrade from Edge of Silence. MWBD and Relentless March (the latter of which is an aura) could affect everything in the army, assuming it was <dynasty>. Either one (or both) switching to Core-only is a straight nerf.
Previously you could hit Wraiths with MWBD to make them better in combat. Now, if this switches to Core only, that's likely out the window (unless wraiths are Core, which I really don't expect).
In general I think this is a good change for the game, but smaller target selection for abilities isn't a 'net buff' in any way.
MWBD is targeted, so it's not affected by this change, as are our other targeted abilities. Only Auras are affected by the core change per the article. With the only aura that appears to be really sticking around is Relentless March. Relentless March is a good aura, but pretty minor compared to our targeted abilities.
Due to ours being targeted abilities, this means it's an overall netbuff as armies like Marines appear to still be relying on their Auras.
Yeah, sorry, 'net buff' to me means the army is gaining something from the change. Not that someone else is losing something. If you're fighting tyranids, eldar or whoever, the fact that marines lost something makes no difference at all. (And tyranids and eldar have few aura abilities, and the ones they have are on models that don't necessarily show up in lists)
The overall effect of this change on the necron army that is certain is the new Relentless March ability affects fewer Necron units. That's a nerf.
-----
And the article focuses on auras. But it does not say that other abilities won't be at all affected by this Core keyword.
Voss wrote: Yeah, sorry, 'net buff' to me means the army is gaining something from the change. Not that someone else is losing something. If you're fighting tyranids, eldar or whoever, the fact that marines lost something makes no difference at all. (And tyranids and eldar have few aura abilities, and the ones they have are on models that don't necessarily show up in lists)
The overall effect of this change on the necron army that is certain is the new Relentless March ability affects fewer Necron units. That's a nerf.
-----
And the article focuses on auras. But it does not say that other abilities won't be at all affected by this Core keyword.
Okay, I think we're just splitting hairs on what netbuff means. If other armies are going to get hit harder by us, I consider that a buff on the competitive sense as that makes our army better. Especially since marines are the most prolific army in tournaments. A rules change that has a minor affect on us, and a major nerf effect on them to me works out as a net buff.
I think they would have called out if targeted abilities getting this as well. It seems like this was put in just to help reign in auras.
We'll see in October. WarCom's track record on previews is nearly 100% when it comes to 'don't reveal everything, save something for the reveal (or leaks) of the actual book.'
I'm expecting them to not make CANOPTEK units CORE, and, as someone suggested somewhere else, "CORE if", like if there's a new CANOPTEK HQ, they might have a rule "all CANOPTEK units gain the CORE keyword if this model is your Warlord.", similar for Destroyer Lords, foot lords, etc.
Blndmage wrote: I'm expecting them to not make CANOPTEK units CORE, and, as someone suggested somewhere else, "CORE if", like if there's a new CANOPTEK HQ, they might have a rule "all CANOPTEK units gain the CORE keyword if this model is your Warlord.", similar for Destroyer Lords, foot lords, etc.
Note that your Warlord is not required to be an HQ choice, but it is required to be a CHARACTER (if your army has any).
Blndmage wrote: I'm expecting them to not make CANOPTEK units CORE, and, as someone suggested somewhere else, "CORE if", like if there's a new CANOPTEK HQ, they might have a rule "all CANOPTEK units gain the CORE keyword if this model is your Warlord.", similar for Destroyer Lords, foot lords, etc.
Note that your Warlord is not required to be an HQ choice, but it is required to be a CHARACTER (if your army has any).
Not even that!
Your Warlord can be any model, BUT, you only get a Warlord Trait if they're a character.
You could have your Monolith be your Warlord, but it gets no Trait.
You can even pick a C'tan (named or Transcendent) as your Warlord, but they have rule stopping them from getting a Trait. (I've done this a few times for lore heavy games.
Bosskelot wrote: It makes me wonder if the Overlord is losing Relentless March to be replaced by something else.
The Overlord may be getting a bit of a points hike or to account for his wargear, as it looks like he's now power level 6. I could see both the Overlord and Royal Warden getting relentless march. It makes sense, and is a nice little buff that was sorley needed for the Warden. Let's also hope they move him over to the Elite slot a long with Lords....
Blndmage wrote: I'm expecting them to not make CANOPTEK units CORE, and, as someone suggested somewhere else, "CORE if", like if there's a new CANOPTEK HQ, they might have a rule "all CANOPTEK units gain the CORE keyword if this model is your Warlord.", similar for Destroyer Lords, foot lords, etc.
Note that your Warlord is not required to be an HQ choice, but it is required to be a CHARACTER (if your army has any).
Not even that!
Your Warlord can be any model, BUT, you only get a Warlord Trait if they're a character.
You could have your Monolith be your Warlord, but it gets no Trait.
You can even pick a C'tan (named or Transcendent) as your Warlord, but they have rule stopping them from getting a Trait. (I've done this a few times for lore heavy games.
From bullet point 8 on page 251 of the Core Rules:
Which model in your army is your Warlord. This must be a model with the CHARACTER keyword (if your army has any)
And from page 280 of the Core Rules:
Details of how to select a WARLORD and what information your army roster must contain can be found on pages 238 and 251 respectively.
Blndmage wrote: I'm expecting them to not make CANOPTEK units CORE, and, as someone suggested somewhere else, "CORE if", like if there's a new CANOPTEK HQ, they might have a rule "all CANOPTEK units gain the CORE keyword if this model is your Warlord.", similar for Destroyer Lords, foot lords, etc.
Note that your Warlord is not required to be an HQ choice, but it is required to be a CHARACTER (if your army has any).
Not even that!
Your Warlord can be any model, BUT, you only get a Warlord Trait if they're a character.
You could have your Monolith be your Warlord, but it gets no Trait.
You can even pick a C'tan (named or Transcendent) as your Warlord, but they have rule stopping them from getting a Trait. (I've done this a few times for lore heavy games.
From bullet point 8 on page 251 of the Core Rules:
Which model in your army is your Warlord. This must be a model with the CHARACTER keyword (if your army has any)
And from page 280 of the Core Rules:
Details of how to select a WARLORD and what information your army roster must contain can be found on pages 238 and 251 respectively.
Dammit! I really liked that aspect.
Well you can still have a C'tan Warlord, they just get no Traits.
Claas wrote: Dying to know what the quantum orb is!
Yeah, I haven't seen anyone mention what it does yet. Maybe it wasn't used in the battle report or something.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Someone was able to pull some snippits from the first codex teaser, and it looks some of the psychic powers do have the core word.
Looks like we may not be out of the woods yet with stuff like MWBD. Going to be a sad day if our single target ability gets subjected to this.
Claas wrote: Dying to know what the quantum orb is!
Yeah, I haven't seen anyone mention what it does yet. Maybe it wasn't used in the battle report or something.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Someone was able to pull some snippits from the first codex teaser, and it looks some of the psychic powers do have the core word.
Looks like we may not be out of the woods yet with stuff like MWBD. Going to be a sad day if our single target ability gets subjected to this.
The chronometron in the preview works for any dynasty unit. I think MWBD will work the same way
Bosskelot wrote: It makes me wonder if the Overlord is losing Relentless March to be replaced by something else.
The Overlord may be getting a bit of a points hike or to account for his wargear, as it looks like he's now power level 6. I could see both the Overlord and Royal Warden getting relentless march. It makes sense, and is a nice little buff that was sorley needed for the Warden. Let's also hope they move him over to the Elite slot a long with Lords....
What an amazing battle report! Using everything out of the box we already know about!
Literally the picture you quoted has information we didn't know before (the Overlord can take the Nanoscarab Casket now). That's also where we got our first real confirmation of what the new RP does.
Arachnofiend wrote: Literally the picture you quoted has information we didn't know before (the Overlord can take the Nanoscarab Casket now).
To be fair, that's contingent on the team actually playing their own rules correctly.
Regarding RPs, I'm curious as to whether models will still revive with full wounds. If so, it will create odd situations wherein a model can be shot and yet end up on more wounds than it started with! However, if they don't revive with full wounds, then that seems like it will cause a separate issue in that the shooting rules still don't consider the possibility that a unit could have multiple wounded models at the same time.
Arachnofiend wrote: Literally the picture you quoted has information we didn't know before (the Overlord can take the Nanoscarab Casket now).
To be fair, that's contingent on the team actually playing their own rules correctly.
Regarding RPs, I'm curious as to whether models will still revive with full wounds. If so, it will create odd situations wherein a model can be shot and yet end up on more wounds than it started with! However, if they don't revive with full wounds, then that seems like it will cause a separate issue in that the shooting rules still don't consider the possibility that a unit could have multiple wounded models at the same time.
They currently come back on full wounds and can't see it changing tbh.
Just dawned on me though that assumingly nightbringer and deceiver will be stuck in failcrap forever more.
Just dawned on me though that assumingly nightbringer and deceiver will be stuck in failcrap forever more.
Unlikely, it will just take time. The Eldar Avatar is also still finecast. They'll all end up greater demon size, its just a question of waiting for a lot. With the new Void Dragon and Silent King and Obilisk Necrons already got several big new kits this edition already.
Plus who knows new Ctan might be next year. They already held back and surprised us with new flayed ones.
