Overread wrote: Plus who knows new Ctan might be next year. They already held back and surprised us with new flayed ones.
"New" as in new models of existing Shards, or new Shards that have been brought out of their labyrinths since the Eye blinked across the galaxy?
Seriously, the Nightbringer and Deceiver could use updated models to match other Monstrous Creatures, and I wouldn't be opposed to some that could stand toe to toe with the Knights.
Overread wrote: Plus who knows new Ctan might be next year. They already held back and surprised us with new flayed ones.
"New" as in new models of existing Shards, or new Shards that have been brought out of their labyrinths since the Eye blinked across the galaxy?
Seriously, the Nightbringer and Deceiver could use updated models to match other Monstrous Creatures, and I wouldn't be opposed to some that could stand toe to toe with the Knights.
I really like the superhuman aspect of the Deceiver, and the grim reaper ripoff of the Nightbringer. I don't think they need to be updated tbh
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.
Since eradicators and blade veterans are core no reason wraiths shouldn't be.
Overread wrote: Plus who knows new Ctan might be next year. They already held back and surprised us with new flayed ones.
"New" as in new models of existing Shards, or new Shards that have been brought out of their labyrinths since the Eye blinked across the galaxy?
Seriously, the Nightbringer and Deceiver could use updated models to match other Monstrous Creatures, and I wouldn't be opposed to some that could stand toe to toe with the Knights.
I really like the superhuman aspect of the Deceiver, and the grim reaper ripoff of the Nightbringer. I don't think they need to be updated tbh
Ditto. I actually miss the 3rd ed aesthetic. The new model designs, and not just necrons, feel too showy. I suspect its because back then the modelers had to work with limitations and so had to make a good looking model that looked simple yet effective. Nowadays due to the improvements in modeling tools modelers have no limitations and can do what they want, which is why there's a lot of out there that has a bunch of floating bits suspended on thin pieces of plastic that bend and warp, or just plain convoluted kits.
The Deceiver looks great, its like a greek god. The Void Dragon looks ok but it has too much clutter and unneeded detail. I'll get it anyway because I like the concept of C'tan.
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.
Since eradicators and blade veterans are core no reason wraiths shouldn't be.
I'd expect wraithguard and wraithlords to be given the core keyword, but proably not wraithknights. Remember GW is using the core word as a subtle way to enchourage army list building to be more or less what it should be like via the lore.
CORE feels like a useful balance handle they can turn rather than increasing/decreasing lists of exemptions to Auras, I would say even take where they start with a pinch of salt as they'll want to see what the reaction is. We might even see the regular points reviews also including an updated list of CORE units?
With the new stats for the tomb spider.
If the cost remains the same - I think we are looking at possibly the best melee unit in all of 40k.
5 attacks at str 8 ap-3 with flat 2 damage
Sure it only hits on 4's BUT these are only 50 points currently.
A unit of 3 has 18 wounds t6 with 3+ save. For 150 points. 155 if you take the repair ability (which you should).
Xenomancers wrote: With the new stats for the tomb spider.
If the cost remains the same - I think we are looking at possibly the best melee unit in all of 40k.
5 attacks at str 8 ap-3 with flat 2 damage
Sure it only hits on 4's BUT these are only 50 points currently.
A unit of 3 has 18 wounds t6 with 3+ save. For 150 points. 155 if you take the repair ability (which you should).
Seems viable honestly.
So, for 155 points, you get 18 T6 3+ wounds that dish out 15 WS4+ S8 AP-3 D2 attacks, plus a minor repair ability. Assuming points stay the same.
Under that same assumption, you get 10 T4 2+/4++ wounds that dish out 16 S8 AP-3 D2 attacks, hitting on 4s, on a chassis that moves 12". And is less vulnerable to high damage weapons.
Xenomancers wrote: With the new stats for the tomb spider.
If the cost remains the same - I think we are looking at possibly the best melee unit in all of 40k.
5 attacks at str 8 ap-3 with flat 2 damage
Sure it only hits on 4's BUT these are only 50 points currently.
A unit of 3 has 18 wounds t6 with 3+ save. For 150 points. 155 if you take the repair ability (which you should).
Seems viable honestly.
Unless you can easily see which one has a Fabricator Claw, I'd suggest taking it on all 3, then you can have a pretty big repair bubble.
Like the Glom Prism, they're per model, not unit, upgrades.
Overread wrote: Plus who knows new Ctan might be next year. They already held back and surprised us with new flayed ones.
"New" as in new models of existing Shards, or new Shards that have been brought out of their labyrinths since the Eye blinked across the galaxy?
Seriously, the Nightbringer and Deceiver could use updated models to match other Monstrous Creatures, and I wouldn't be opposed to some that could stand toe to toe with the Knights.
I really like the superhuman aspect of the Deceiver, and the grim reaper ripoff of the Nightbringer. I don't think they need to be updated tbh
In terms of basic design, I agree. In terms of size and presence on the battlefield? That's a different story. A basic resize to justify both being on a 60mm base is all I'd really be asking for.
Not to mention, not all Shards were shattered equally. Why not have Greater C'tan Shards that can tower over a Knight, even if they were still having the basic shape? (of course, the answer would be: because they would actually over do it like the Void Dragon, which may not be a bad thing...)
They said that a lot of the units had been redesigned from the ground up so maybe C'Tan can go toe to toe with a Knight now, I have hopes that the Void Dragon might be able to.
I do agree that next to the Void Dragon the Nightbringer and Deceiver models look dated and a little off scale given the size of the Void Dragon.
In the new codex, the Destroyer Cult has branched out into four distinct types – the blade-wielding Skorpekhs, the subterranean, segmented Ophydians, the gunfighting Hexmarks, and the floating weapons platforms that are the Lokhust.
So this says to me that the old Destroyers are either considered to be Lokhust Destroyers or are being removed from the new codex.
We are getting new anti armour units, and a new core rules comes, which strengthtens infantry. Are those destroyers going to be useless, because there will be no more vehicles ?
BroodSpawn wrote: Where do you get the 'no more vehicles' idea from?
I mean I'm not going to be super excited to be bringing vehicles to the table if you've got damage d6+2 meltas and damage 4 thunderhammers and damage 3d3 heavy destroyers running around everywhere. Vehicles are already laughably paper-thin on the tabletop, I think at this point we're pretty close to them just not being worth bothering with in general.
BroodSpawn wrote: Where do you get the 'no more vehicles' idea from?
I mean I'm not going to be super excited to be bringing vehicles to the table if you've got damage d6+2 meltas and damage 4 thunderhammers and damage 3d3 heavy destroyers running around everywhere. Vehicles are already laughably paper-thin on the tabletop, I think at this point we're pretty close to them just not being worth bothering with in general.
"But blast weapons! 9th edition is the end of hordes and infantry!" they said.
The thread is generally positive - in contrast to much of the forum - so I dislike being negative, but its hard to see the heavy Lokhust in an especially positive light even if I love the model. Rerolls rerolls etc - but you will always have inescapable unreliability on a one shot weapon.
Meanwhile 3D3 S7 AP1 1 damage shots feels like an attack profile from the indexes rather than modern 40k. Enjoy plugging 3 Boyz a turn I guess. "Not everyone's a Marine you know" - sure - but what exactly is this sort of profile meant to be good against?
BroodSpawn wrote: Where do you get the 'no more vehicles' idea from?
I mean I'm not going to be super excited to be bringing vehicles to the table if you've got damage d6+2 meltas and damage 4 thunderhammers and damage 3d3 heavy destroyers running around everywhere. Vehicles are already laughably paper-thin on the tabletop, I think at this point we're pretty close to them just not being worth bothering with in general.
"But blast weapons! 9th edition is the end of hordes and infantry!" they said.
Yeah.
Currently the only role that light infantry has is "Well, I'll bet you brought all your weapons to deal with heavy infantry! Ah-ha, you have, I win on points!"
Otherwise, you might as well take all heavy infantry/bikes/etc, with a variety of weapons to deal with all types of target.
What I notice is that they describe each of the four branches of the Destroyer Cult has having units and lords.
Hexmark for example we only have a Character model for - ergo a lord - so we might see more troop variations of them appear. Meanwhile the hovering destroyers we've only seen the heavy destroyer which leaves things open for a new destroyer lord and that means potential for another kit.
The hexmark might be with the skorpek in a duel kit.
Tyel wrote: The thread is generally positive - in contrast to much of the forum - so I dislike being negative, but its hard to see the heavy Lokhust in an especially positive light even if I love the model. Rerolls rerolls etc - but you will always have inescapable unreliability on a one shot weapon.
Meanwhile 3D3 S7 AP1 1 damage shots feels like an attack profile from the indexes rather than modern 40k. Enjoy plugging 3 Boyz a turn I guess. "Not everyone's a Marine you know" - sure - but what exactly is this sort of profile meant to be good against?
Anti-horde, guard and eldar. Its just that better weapons exist for the exact same thing, and aren't on that oddly vulnerable platform.
No one needs a special weapon to punch guardians or kabalite warriors in the face.
Tyel wrote: The thread is generally positive - in contrast to much of the forum - so I dislike being negative, but its hard to see the heavy Lokhust in an especially positive light even if I love the model. Rerolls rerolls etc - but you will always have inescapable unreliability on a one shot weapon.
Meanwhile 3D3 S7 AP1 1 damage shots feels like an attack profile from the indexes rather than modern 40k. Enjoy plugging 3 Boyz a turn I guess. "Not everyone's a Marine you know" - sure - but what exactly is this sort of profile meant to be good against?
Anti-horde, guard and eldar. Its just that better weapons exist for the exact same thing, and aren't on that oddly vulnerable platform.
No one needs a special weapon to punch guardians or kabalite warriors in the face.
And in doing so you definitely waste 1 point of strength and probably waste Blast, because you cant run guard in over 10 models and probably won't run guardians, like, at all.
Tyel wrote: The thread is generally positive - in contrast to much of the forum - so I dislike being negative, but its hard to see the heavy Lokhust in an especially positive light even if I love the model. Rerolls rerolls etc - but you will always have inescapable unreliability on a one shot weapon.
Meanwhile 3D3 S7 AP1 1 damage shots feels like an attack profile from the indexes rather than modern 40k. Enjoy plugging 3 Boyz a turn I guess. "Not everyone's a Marine you know" - sure - but what exactly is this sort of profile meant to be good against?
This was pretty much my exact reaction too, though I also think it's one of the weaker new model releases (stop just adding barrels to make different guns, please...). I've been struggling with Reaper Autocannons in my Chaos army, and these are just slightly better Reapers. I simply don't understand why you would ever want a weapon with a S7 AP1 D1 profile, nothing about it makes sense to me.
What? The grooves to put the green rods are still there. He said the old destroyer sets aren't going away.
Yep, but if you look under the main body halves there's four clear grey rods. Seems odd to rework the kit and just have plain rods like that. Then again I guess it was easy for them to modify the existing mould that way. Still if they were going to modify it surely they could have added detailed rods not just a blank slate rod. Still be interesting to see when those kits phase into general sales and such and where that photo comes from to get an idea. It's also odd GW would do this "on the quiet"
I really dislike all these hoses attached to the back/body and then into the arms. It makes everything monopose without some heavy conversion with drills and guitar strings.
The heavy destroyer kit was a metal upgrade kit, then it became an impossibly bad finecast kit. I think its being replaced wholesale by the new Lokhust Heavy Destroyer model. Because the destroyer lord upgrade kit was similarly terrible finecast crap I think a new Lokhust Lord model will be revealed sooner or later.
The rods don't even look like those found on the Gauss Flayers that Warriors carry and doesn't take into consideration the finecast bits needed for the Lord. This very much looks like a stopgap measure to me and while we may not get a new Lokhust Destroyer/Lokhust Destroyer Lord kit in October, I wouldn't be surprised to see one sometime next year.
What? The grooves to put the green rods are still there. He said the old destroyer sets aren't going away.
Yep, but if you look under the main body halves there's four clear grey rods. Seems odd to rework the kit and just have plain rods like that. Then again I guess it was easy for them to modify the existing mould that way. Still if they were going to modify it surely they could have added detailed rods not just a blank slate rod. Still be interesting to see when those kits phase into general sales and such and where that photo comes from to get an idea. It's also odd GW would do this "on the quiet"
Huh, so there is, I thought it was part of the sprue itself. Odd how they would go for that instead of a more detailed design like on the other new gauss weapons. I guess they wanted to cut corners.
p5freak wrote: We are getting new anti armour units, and a new core rules comes, which strengthtens infantry. Are those destroyers going to be useless, because there will be no more vehicles ?
I agree, I've seen that image of an "official" destroyer a few times and think its not real or a stop gap. If we have that there where is the new box art and statine for the model. Feels very fake to me
Aza'Gorod wrote: I agree, I've seen that image of an "official" destroyer a few times and think its not real or a stop gap. If we have that there where is the new box art and statine for the model. Feels very fake to me
Necron Destroyers are 'Direct Only' in the online store and therefore would come in a white box.
BroodSpawn wrote: Where do you get the 'no more vehicles' idea from?
Did you read the WHC article about core units ? If vehicles dont get rerolls from HQs they wont be played.
I'm sure they'll be played, although yeah you'll see less of them. I can think of a few Marine tanks that, assuming they're priced compeitivly could be useful, the whirlwind tank comes to mind (indirect fire support could have it's uses) but we certainly won't be seeing armor lists from marines
p5freak wrote: Ok, vehicles will see a lot less play. Vehicles hiding, not needing LOS to shoot, will be even harder for necrons to kill, we dont have artillery.
Do have much improved planes however, that can easily get LOS on them. Szarekhan Doom Scythes are going to be really deadly against artillery.
Aza'Gorod wrote: I agree, I've seen that image of an "official" destroyer a few times and think its not real or a stop gap. If we have that there where is the new box art and statine for the model. Feels very fake to me
Necron Destroyers are 'Direct Only' in the online store and therefore would come in a white box.
Fair enough but my point still stands, i've seen the white boxes before and they still say the name of the models inside date of manufacture, serial number etc.
I'm just saying I want more evidence instead of a picture of a sprue which is the only one I've seen so far.
Even on the GW website the product description for the destroyers still says includes green rods
Overread wrote: GW doesn't always update the store pages. I believe even when base sizes have changed they've not updated it.
I'd find this more believable if the plastic rods were on a separate sprue as this would be cheaper for GW to reuse the old green rod mold then change the destroyer mold completely
Overread wrote: GW doesn't always update the store pages. I believe even when base sizes have changed they've not updated it.
I'd find this more believable if the plastic rods were on a separate sprue as this would be cheaper for GW to reuse the old green rod mold then change the destroyer mold completely.
You're assuming that the 'green rods' had a mold that could be used for GW's grey plastic.
Overread wrote: GW doesn't always update the store pages. I believe even when base sizes have changed they've not updated it.
I'd find this more believable if the plastic rods were on a separate sprue as this would be cheaper for GW to reuse the old green rod mold then change the destroyer mold completely.
You're assuming that the 'green rods' had a mold that could be used for GW's grey plastic.
I agree with your point but even if the mold wasn't suitable it would still make more sense for GW to make a new smaller mold for the "grey" rods then shelve the old destroyer mold and create a new mold as you can't modify an existing mold just make a new one.
I just want more pictures of the new destroyers, I've seen multiple pictures of the other repackaged models but this is the only image I've seen related to destroyers which is why I question it.
If they had replaced the green rods more people would be posting images of it then just this 1 guy
Overread wrote: GW doesn't always update the store pages. I believe even when base sizes have changed they've not updated it.
I'd find this more believable if the plastic rods were on a separate sprue as this would be cheaper for GW to reuse the old green rod mold then change the destroyer mold completely.
You're assuming that the 'green rods' had a mold that could be used for GW's grey plastic.
I agree with your point but even if the mold wasn't suitable it would still make more sense for GW to make a new smaller mold for the "grey" rods then shelve the old destroyer mold and create a new mold as you can't modify an existing mold just make a new one.
I just want more pictures of the new destroyers, I've seen multiple pictures of the other repackaged models but this is the only image I've seen related to destroyers which is why I question it.
If they had replaced the green rods more people would be posting images of it then just this 1 guy
GW has recut molds before (e.g., adding heavy weapons to the Ork Boyz sprues). It's not necessarily a completely new mold.
Overread wrote: GW doesn't always update the store pages. I believe even when base sizes have changed they've not updated it.
I'd find this more believable if the plastic rods were on a separate sprue as this would be cheaper for GW to reuse the old green rod mold then change the destroyer mold completely.
You're assuming that the 'green rods' had a mold that could be used for GW's grey plastic.
I agree with your point but even if the mold wasn't suitable it would still make more sense for GW to make a new smaller mold for the "grey" rods then shelve the old destroyer mold and create a new mold as you can't modify an existing mold just make a new one.
I just want more pictures of the new destroyers, I've seen multiple pictures of the other repackaged models but this is the only image I've seen related to destroyers which is why I question it.
If they had replaced the green rods more people would be posting images of it then just this 1 guy
GW has recut molds before (e.g., adding heavy weapons to the Ork Boyz sprues). It's not necessarily a completely new mold.
This, and adding 4 mostly featureless rods is a pretty simple recut to be done with a CNC milling machine, which they presumably have (since they cut all their moulds now from CAD).
This would mean not only do you only need 1 sprue per destroyer rather than two (with a rod sprue), but each sprue has exactly the number of rods the model needs.
Most certainly the minimum cost option of getting rid of the rods.
Overread wrote: Just a point, but having blank rods actually makes it line up to the new heavy destroyer model which also has blank rods in the latter part of its gun
Spoiler:
This is the Lokhust Heavy Destroyer with Gauss Destructor:
wuestenfux wrote: Well, the Lockhurst HD looks bulky, a heavy model that can do some serious damage.
How will it be priced?
I'd love to say £25 - but you know its probably going to be £35, maybe even £40.
Really like the look of the Enmitic Exterminator - but as said repeatedly, the rules look rubbish unless there is a special enmitic rule they have thus far kept under wraps.
wuestenfux wrote: Well, the Lockhurst HD looks bulky, a heavy model that can do some serious damage.
How will it be priced?
I'd love to say £25 - but you know its probably going to be £35, maybe even £40.
Really like the look of the Enmitic Exterminator - but as said repeatedly, the rules look rubbish unless there is a special enmitic rule they have thus far kept under wraps.
Because it is ETB, so I guess that its price should be £25 at most.
wuestenfux wrote: Well, the Lockhurst HD looks bulky, a heavy model that can do some serious damage.
How will it be priced?
I'd love to say £25 - but you know its probably going to be £35, maybe even £40.
Really like the look of the Enmitic Exterminator - but as said repeatedly, the rules look rubbish unless there is a special enmitic rule they have thus far kept under wraps.
Let's hope that the Lockhurst HD's can be fielded in squadrons.
Xenomancers wrote: With the new stats for the tomb spider.
If the cost remains the same - I think we are looking at possibly the best melee unit in all of 40k.
5 attacks at str 8 ap-3 with flat 2 damage
Sure it only hits on 4's BUT these are only 50 points currently.
A unit of 3 has 18 wounds t6 with 3+ save. For 150 points. 155 if you take the repair ability (which you should).
Seems viable honestly.
So, for 155 points, you get 18 T6 3+ wounds that dish out 15 WS4+ S8 AP-3 D2 attacks, plus a minor repair ability. Assuming points stay the same.
Under that same assumption, you get 10 T4 2+/4++ wounds that dish out 16 S8 AP-3 D2 attacks, hitting on 4s, on a chassis that moves 12". And is less vulnerable to high damage weapons.
What unit are you comparing them to? Also T 4 is much more vulnerable to str 4 and str 5 weapons...I consider that weaker. The repair ability might be minor but could also turn out crucial.
Xenomancers wrote: With the new stats for the tomb spider.
If the cost remains the same - I think we are looking at possibly the best melee unit in all of 40k.
5 attacks at str 8 ap-3 with flat 2 damage
Sure it only hits on 4's BUT these are only 50 points currently.
A unit of 3 has 18 wounds t6 with 3+ save. For 150 points. 155 if you take the repair ability (which you should).
Seems viable honestly.
Unless you can easily see which one has a Fabricator Claw, I'd suggest taking it on all 3, then you can have a pretty big repair bubble.
Like the Glom Prism, they're per model, not unit, upgrades.
Not a terrible idea. Not only is the bubble bigger they can repair more stuff!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CthuluIsSpy wrote: I like the Gauss Destructor more than the Enmitic gun aesthetically.
The Enmitic weapon looks silly, way too bulky.
I love the look of that gun perosnally. The stats of the weapon...not happy with. I thought this was going to be double profiles for the heavy gauss destructor.
NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote: Apologies if asked previously - I am not reading 70+ pages of posts - but is anyone actually going to field The Silent King?
Frankly we don't know anything about what he actually does aside from the very, very basic stat block leaked.
Without his weapon profiles, his special abilities, wargear, and points cost. Just too soon to say.
NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote: Apologies if asked previously - I am not reading 70+ pages of posts - but is anyone actually going to field The Silent King?
I have only seen his stat line. Which is like 16 wounds...with okay stats and a nice weapon with not a lot of attacks. I don't like his dynasty ether. So unless he has some amazing aura buff or some other insane ability...I doubt it. The Monolith though...Hells yeah. 4 Doom scythe guns? Yes pls.
NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote: Apologies if asked previously - I am not reading 70+ pages of posts - but is anyone actually going to field The Silent King?
He looks to be a buff machine from his description so we need to see the whole book to understand if his force multiplication will be worth it compared to taking more units instead.
NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote: Apologies if asked previously - I am not reading 70+ pages of posts - but is anyone actually going to field The Silent King?
In the live stream where they revealed his stat block they said he's the single strongest unit in the game (outside of apocalypse im assuming) and can easily stand toe to toe with the various primarchs.
I'm betting The silent king will have some c'tan powers. Similar to the tesseract vault
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MoonlightSonata wrote: In the live stream where they revealed his stat block they said he's the single strongest unit in the game (outside of apocalypse im assuming) and can easily stand toe to toe with the various primarchs.
That would be nice, but if it's true don't expect it to last. Chances are if he's that strong then he's unbalanced.
NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote: Apologies if asked previously - I am not reading 70+ pages of posts - but is anyone actually going to field The Silent King?
lol, no.
Care to elaborate why? From the tiny bits of info we have, its hard to say, he's certainly not "lol" worthy.
MoonlightSonata wrote: In the live stream where they revealed his stat block they said he's the single strongest unit in the game (outside of apocalypse im assuming) and can easily stand toe to toe with the various primarchs.
GW sometimes doesn't really udnerstand what makes units powerful. They could be right but...GW probably thinks landraiders are powerful too. So there is that. We have not seen his weapons yet - that could make a big difference. For example if he ignores invune saves with a flat 3/4 weapon AP -4. Hes gonna be a slayer.
NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote: Apologies if asked previously - I am not reading 70+ pages of posts - but is anyone actually going to field The Silent King?
lol, no.
Care to elaborate why? From the tiny bits of info we have, its hard to say, he's certainly not "lol" worthy.
Sure.
- I'm not a fan of special characters in general, and even less so when they seem to hoover up all the interesting rules and wargear.
- I loathe these stupid diorama models that GW seems to love. I'm sure they look nice in someone's display case, but on the table I just find them tiresome. And I'll be buggered if I'm carrying that monstrosity into games.
- Even as a diorama, I just find the Silent King completely uninspired. So he's a slightly bigger Overlord with a fancy cape and a Lollipop of Light. zzzzzzz. What's more, I had no idea that those random dudes either side of him were supposed to be important, named characters until I saw a passing mention of such in an article. Their designs are so boring that I mistook them for the same sort of random Necron pilots that CCBs have.
Put simply, for me it makes no difference whether his rules are good or bad because there's no way in hell I'm buying that model.
SCs are bad evil wrong fun, or so GW spent 20 years telling me. They can't take that back.
The model is uninspired.
The model is stupidly impractical. Both as a game piece (which GW seems to forget a lot with special characters) and as a setting piece- why is he floating around in a balcony, exactly? Which wouldn't be quite so terrible if it looked good, but... no.
Fluffwise, I have no idea what they're doing with this guy, even if I liked SCs. Previously he was a background guy who burned his absolute control of his people and left the galaxy in penance. Now he's a mustache twirling insane megalomaniac, because reasons.
Also from a game point of view, ~200+ point characters just seem daft to me. Heavy fire magnet and they're gone. I'd rather have another unit or two. Being locked into a subfaction (rather than picking one I find interesting) doesn't help either.
NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote: Apologies if asked previously - I am not reading 70+ pages of posts - but is anyone actually going to field The Silent King?
Yes, as I like the model, I will definitely field him regardless of his rule.
Insectum7 wrote: ^As Vipod and Voss above. I don't like special characters and the model is less than inspiring.
If the rules are good it might be cool to make a custom C'tan stand-in model.
I think GW is getting better with characters. The Space Marine characters that are below 150 points are okay, it is the Demi-God characters that they need to work on. Units that cost 300+ are discriminated against by players because people naturally fire everything at them.
We need to put some respect on the Silent King's name! The buffs and offense we are not sure about but the durability is potentially crazy if this thing gets a 4+ invulnerable save, Quantum Shielding, living metal, must take out the Menhir first (10 wounds) that's a great start.
Don't like the special characters in their current form because then the background of their entire faction revolves around them when they outclass any generic character. That shrinks the apparent scale of the universe if it is just a handful of named characters running around and bumping into each other all the time, but never really killing each other off. It becomes like those superhero vs superhero movies. Lots of scenery gets destroyed but that's about it.
I will 100% buy the Silent King, but like as people said mainly for display. I joined the hobby more as a collector/painter and started gaming after.
I too hate fielding SC's, I like to have my own story and a SC ruins that for me, however I will field him occasionally if someone fields a primarch or something just to get the dust off the model.
I can see peoples points about the model, I agree with some to an extent, but overall I like it, to me it feels like it should.
That's just my 2 cents though, I'm more concerned with the dilemma of whether or not we're getting a Lokhust Lord/Destroyers kit.
I think we'll see at least a new kit for the lord, the heavy destroyer was terrible upgrade kit, the destroyer lord is the same, so it would be weird in my eyes for one to get a kit and not the other.
Iracundus wrote: Don't like the special characters in their current form because then the background of their entire faction revolves around them when they outclass any generic character. That shrinks the apparent scale of the universe if it is just a handful of named characters running around and bumping into each other all the time, but never really killing each other off. It becomes like those superhero vs superhero movies. Lots of scenery gets destroyed but that's about it.
This is probably my major complaint. See the same when DE players go "we need Vect" - no, Vect is an albatross round the neck of the entire faction. Super big, "these guys determine the fate of the faction" characters should remain mysterious and largely in the background. As you say, once they start turning up every episode to say "I'll get you next time Guilliman" its hard to retain any sense of power.
I find mid-range characters who are essentially just "Overlord+" more reasonable - although game play wise its a bit annoying if they become autotakes.
Iracundus wrote: Don't like the special characters in their current form because then the background of their entire faction revolves around them when they outclass any generic character. That shrinks the apparent scale of the universe if it is just a handful of named characters running around and bumping into each other all the time, but never really killing each other off. It becomes like those superhero vs superhero movies. Lots of scenery gets destroyed but that's about it.
This is probably my major complaint. See the same when DE players go "we need Vect" - no, Vect is an albatross round the neck of the entire faction. Super big, "these guys determine the fate of the faction" characters should remain mysterious and largely in the background. As you say, once they start turning up every episode to say "I'll get you next time Guilliman" its hard to retain any sense of power.
As a DE player, I agree entirely.
It just seems like there should be characters who simply don't take part in these sorts of battles. It would be like if GW gave the Emperor stats and made him float into battle on his throne (which isn't even too far off what they've already done with the Silent King).
Even from a mechanical perspective, I really don't want to see Vect appear. Because he'll either be an overpriced paperweight that no one ever bothers with (but who would have been released instead of more reasonable HQs), or else he'll be an auto-take and basically force DE to play Black Heart or start with an immediate handicap. To say nothing of how he'll have a pile of rules and wargear that regular Archons can only dream of, just to show how awsome and special he is.
I find mid-range characters who are essentially just "Overlord+" more reasonable - although game play wise its a bit annoying if they become autotakes.
I've said it before, but my preference with special characters would be that they don't exist as separate profiles. Instead, they should be represented by a specific build of wargear and relics (and maybe Warlord Traits) for generic characters.
Yeah the model prices are about where I'd expected, its the hardback codex cost increase that I don't like. AT this rate we'll be spending £50 soon enough for regular codex without a fancy cover
Huh. So if that Quantum Shielding rule holds up for units instead of terrain, that's a 5+ invulnerable and only wounded on a 4+ regardless of the strength of the weapon to strike.
Wonder if the Canoptek Destroyer, which we know has a 5+, will get the "Only wounded on a 4+" as well? Might make up for being such a ludicoursly-large target...
Ghaz wrote: All I can say is that the Crusade material better be worth the price increase!
In fairness to GW when I look back at the £12 codex of yesteryear they are a LOT thinner and softbacks. The new codex have a lot more lore, a lot more art, are full colour start to end and are chunkier all round even before you add in new pages for new models.
It puts him on par with both Magnus and Mortarion who are $150. It's the extra $10 for the codex that's
Considering that like 50% of the model is two giant identical shields I will contend that no, its the price for the Silent King is
Nah, seems fair in the context that he's a massive special character/unit you'll only ever want 1 of and has a lot of sprues I'd imagine.
Despite the fact he comes with the big shields which might be dull, he's clearly in the same ball park as the primarchs. Its like saying that magnus price is bull because he's 50% hair and wings.
More I think about it, even at £90 his £ to points ratio is probably still pretty solid as a guess.
Ghaz wrote: All I can say is that the Crusade material better be worth the price increase!
In fairness to GW when I look back at the £12 codex of yesteryear they are a LOT thinner and softbacks. The new codex have a lot more lore, a lot more art, are full colour start to end and are chunkier all round even before you add in new pages for new models.
Somehow many of the older books felt more substantive. . .
50 bones is a lot. The only saving grace is that because it's xenos, it likely won't be updated in one frakking year like the SM one.
If the price list is correct, I suspect we are going to start getting leaks this coming week, maybe we'll even get the full stat section like the Lumineth book. Worst case, we'll have man reads book on Saturday.
Somehow many of the older books felt more substantive. . .
50 bones is a lot. The only saving grace is that because it's xenos, it likely won't be updated in one frakking year like the SM one.
The only bonus in the old books was that they were much easier to read for building an army. Each model had its own segment, with each weapon option and profile listed and then the costs for taking each item listed below. Sure it meant some things were repeated, but it was easy. Now a days you have model on one page; weapons on another; items on another; wargear on another; points on another. Plus you have to flip back and forth to remember which upgrade items you are and are not allowed to take. GAH it makes it far more complex to build. The only bonus is that points are in a single table for reference, which honestly GW could put into the book AS WELL just as a reference point and then have it like it was in the old days.
Somehow many of the older books felt more substantive. . .
50 bones is a lot. The only saving grace is that because it's xenos, it likely won't be updated in one frakking year like the SM one.
The only bonus in the old books was that they were much easier to read for building an army. Each model had its own segment, with each weapon option and profile listed and then the costs for taking each item listed below. Sure it meant some things were repeated, but it was easy. Now a days you have model on one page; weapons on another; items on another; wargear on another; points on another. Plus you have to flip back and forth to remember which upgrade items you are and are not allowed to take. GAH it makes it far more complex to build. The only bonus is that points are in a single table for reference, which honestly GW could put into the book AS WELL just as a reference point and then have it like it was in the old days.
Well, there were also all the customization options before the no-mode-no-rules era. . .
Somehow many of the older books felt more substantive. . .
50 bones is a lot. The only saving grace is that because it's xenos, it likely won't be updated in one frakking year like the SM one.
The only bonus in the old books was that they were much easier to read for building an army. Each model had its own segment, with each weapon option and profile listed and then the costs for taking each item listed below. Sure it meant some things were repeated, but it was easy. Now a days you have model on one page; weapons on another; items on another; wargear on another; points on another. Plus you have to flip back and forth to remember which upgrade items you are and are not allowed to take. GAH it makes it far more complex to build. The only bonus is that points are in a single table for reference, which honestly GW could put into the book AS WELL just as a reference point and then have it like it was in the old days.
The old books also has a summary page at the back. This alone made them far superior to the current codexes.
They also had everything clearly separated into their different categories (Elites, Fast Attack etc) instead of mashing them all together and leaving you to play Guess The Symbology.
Potential hint at how QS might be changing. This is for the Pariah Nexus missions, but it might indicate how QS itself works too now.
I think a QS is different from a QS Generator but, you never know.
honestly if thats how QS is going to work now I like it. seems fairly intuative. once you get a handle on it. 5 up invul and you need at least a 4 no matter weapon str to harm it.
Potential hint at how QS might be changing. This is for the Pariah Nexus missions, but it might indicate how QS itself works too now.
I think a QS is different from a QS Generator but, you never know.
honestly if thats how QS is going to work now I like it. seems fairly intuative. once you get a handle on it. 5 up invul and you need at least a 4 no matter weapon str to harm it.
It would be a serious downgrade if this is how was worked minus being near an objective.
Potential hint at how QS might be changing. This is for the Pariah Nexus missions, but it might indicate how QS itself works too now.
I think a QS is different from a QS Generator but, you never know.
honestly if thats how QS is going to work now I like it. seems fairly intuative. once you get a handle on it. 5 up invul and you need at least a 4 no matter weapon str to harm it.
It would be a serious downgrade if this is how was worked minus being near an objective.
ohh yeah I'm assuming that the full ting would be how QS works all the time. 5+ invul and 1-3 always fails to wound.
-Ňecrontyr- wrote: Does that work for low str weapons as well? Or only weapons with high enough Str to warrant usually needing a 3 or 2 to wound being restricted to 4+?
Regardless of weapon STR, wound roll of 1-3 always fail.
However, low STR weapons usually wound on 4-6 anyway. So, the quantum shield doesn't effect must to them.
-Ňecrontyr- wrote: Yep. If it had a single pip for a 1 and the Triarch for 6 Ide get a pile of them. 2 custom faces is just tiresome
My main complaint is the size of the skull: the new dice are very consistent in that skulls are 1s. It’s just why is the skull the whole side? Also the 6symbol is very noticeably more “open”. The marine dice are FAR worse in this case and I quite like these Necron dice (just like I love my Ork dice even if some opponents bitch about them).
Kharne the Befriender wrote: The part of the article that talks about the Canoptek Doomstalker mentions that the weapon gets more powerful the further away the target is.
Probably more mistakes owing to them not knowing the actual rules, but in the off chance that it's not, could be interesting
Kharne the Befriender wrote: The part of the article that talks about the Canoptek Doomstalker mentions that the weapon gets more powerful the further away the target is.
Probably more mistakes owing to them not knowing the actual rules, but in the off chance that it's not, could be interesting
didn't the conversion beamer work like that?
Yeah, basically +2S and +d3 damage per 24" between the firing model and target if I remember correctly
Kharne the Befriender wrote: The part of the article that talks about the Canoptek Doomstalker mentions that the weapon gets more powerful the further away the target is.
Probably more mistakes owing to them not knowing the actual rules, but in the off chance that it's not, could be interesting
didn't the conversion beamer work like that?
Yeah, basically +2S and +d3 damage per 24" between the firing model and target if I remember correctly
If only the basic 9e board size was longer than 30" HAHAHA
That means you don't want to put in single stray shots into Necron units.
For example a random Storm Bolter on a Rhino won't shoot the already damaged 20 man strong Warrior unit, as killing one will trigger RP for the whole unit.
Do I get this right?
Edit:
On second read, it refers to the just destroyed models as "those models try to reassemble". So not the whole killed-in-previous-rounds gang gets to stand up again.
So essentially it's a more fiddly 5+++ now, but far worse on multi wound models. It now seems like a good thing our Immortals have stayed at 1W!
Yet to be seen if we get any abilities that trigger RP rolls aside from after an attack; I can see abilities adding dice to the pool we roll when reanimating coming too?
a_typical_hero wrote: That means you don't want to put in single stray shots into Necron units.
For example a random Storm Bolter on a Rhino won't shoot the already damaged 20 man strong Warrior unit, as killing one will trigger RP for the whole unit.
Do I get this right?
Nope. You only make RP rolls for models destroyed 'as a result of those attacks'
So if the rhino shoots and destroys 0 necrons, no RP rolls are made. If it shoots and destroys 1 necron, 1 RP roll is made.
Exception: If it finishes off a multi-wound necron, roll equal to the number of wounds. But you always remove RP 'pool dice' = the number of wounds, so there isn't ever any overflow.
Its a clunky paragraph of rules text, but it practice its pretty straightforward.
You roll a die for every wound lost by models destroyed by the current attacks, and you divvy up 5+ results among the casualties. You can only ever bring back whole models.
So if you lose a single Skorpekh, you roll 3 dice. If all 3 are 5 or more, it comes back. If they aren't, the model is gone for good.
Emissary wrote: It doesn't say to roll for the combined wounds of the models killed by that attack. Instead it's for reassembling models. Hence, it really looks to me that it's all models already dead. Hence if you lost 5 after reassembly in the last shot, then lose 4 more to this shot, you're rolling for 9 reassembling models.
Hmm, this doesn't look right to me. It says at the start, enemies are not destroyed by the attack and begin to 'reassemble'. It then says you roll an RP die for each 'reassembling' model wound. Then right at the end it says that any models who haven't reassambled fail to. I think they're discarded at that point and then count as destroyed.
I'm not convinced, the first paragraph states that models destroyed by result of attack are reassembling, the next paragraph states then whenever RP is triggered you roll for every reassembling model.
It's worded oddly but it seems like you roll for all dead necrons in the unit, this is also how the White Dwarf article made it sound too if I remember correctly
Emissary wrote: It doesn't say to roll for the combined wounds of the models killed by that attack. Instead it's for reassembling models. Hence, it really looks to me that it's all models already dead. Hence if you lost 5 after reassembly in the last shot, then lose 4 more to this shot, you're rolling for 9 reassembling models.
Hmm, this doesn't look right to me. It says at the start, enemies are not destroyed by the attack and begin to 'reassemble'. It then says you roll an RP die for each 'reassembling' model wound. Then right at the end it says that any models who haven't reassambled fail to. I think they're discarded at that point and then count as destroyed.
Yeah, it's why I changed my post.
I will say it's better than a 5+ feel no pain for 1 wound models, because you only have to pass one 5+ for multi-damage shots rather than for each damage. But less good for multi-wound models.
Also, this stacks with the Szarekhan 5+ feel no pain against mortal wounds which will make them very resilient against mortal wounds...
Voss wrote: Nope. You only make RP rolls for models destroyed 'as a result of those attacks'
So if the rhino shoots and destroys 0 necrons, no RP rolls are made. If it shoots and destroys 1 necron, 1 RP roll is made.
Exception: If it finishes off a multi-wound necron, roll equal to the number of wounds. But you always remove RP 'pool dice' = the number of wounds, so there isn't ever any overflow.
Its a clunky paragraph of rules text, but it practice its pretty straightforward.
Yep, I got it now reading it a second and third time. Thanks!
So in total it is a buff to how RP works right now, as a single model could reanimate multiple times per turn. Compared to now where it would be once per battle round, which makes it harder to wipe out a unit and deny this special rule to the Necron player.
Kharne the Befriender wrote: I'm not convinced, the first paragraph states that models destroyed by result of attack are reassembling, the next paragraph states then whenever RP is triggered you roll for every reassembling model.
It's worded oddly but it seems like you roll for all dead necrons in the unit, this is also how the White Dwarf article made it sound too if I remember correctly
That's literally the opposite of what it says.
'every reassembling model' refers to the first paragraph- those destroyed by the enemy unit's attacks. Its defining reassembling model and then telling you what to do with them.
IHateNids wrote: Is it too much of a hope that "Rites of Reanimation" becomes and out-of-sequence roll triggered by a buff of sorts at the beginning of the pahse?
I'm hoping this is basically how the current RP works, command phase, pick a unit, roll for slain models/wounds
"[...] you're encouraged to commit enough shots to wipe out a unit then fire. But, you will get more multi wound models back if you roll more RP dice together. So, if you undershoot and get 18 wounds on a 20 wound unit, a good chunk of it is going to jump back up. Far more than if you'd done 18x 1 damage attacks seperately!"
Kharne the Befriender wrote: I'm not convinced, the first paragraph states that models destroyed by result of attack are reassembling, the next paragraph states then whenever RP is triggered you roll for every reassembling model.
It's worded oddly but it seems like you roll for all dead necrons in the unit, this is also how the White Dwarf article made it sound too if I remember correctly
That's literally the opposite of what it says.
'every reassembling model' refers to the first paragraph- those destroyed by the enemy unit's attacks. Its defining reassembling model and then telling you what to do with them.
Yeah fair point, the last sentece kind of puts the nal in the coffin on that one too
So its a FnP that starts at 5+, cannot get better then 4+ and reroll 1's, that only activates if the squad is not wiped out, does NOT allow for models slain in previous phases/turns, and you have to succeed on ALL of a multiwound models' W charscteristic or they die.
vipoid wrote: I thought GW said that RPs would also work on characters. Am I misremembering?
Also, wow. Multi-wound models are really going to suck.
I think you're misremembering.
No, I remember there being something about having to do a lot of wounds to an overlord to keep it from standing back up. I just think it's called something else, as when a character gets back up they don't have a unit to stand back up with. Plus it would be almost impossible for a 5 wound character to have all 5 dice roll a 5+ to get back up.
So, if 5 immortals are killed, i roll 5 dice, because their combined wounds characteristic is 5 ? Lets say i roll two 5+. Those dice are now in the pool. Two is more than one (which is the wound characteristic of a killed model), so one would reanimate. The pool is reduced by one, to one. Then another would reanimate, and the pool is reduced to zero. And no more models would reanimate. But, a W2 model needs two rolls of 5+ to reanimate ? Doesnt that mean that its better to only kill one W2 model ? If two would get killed i would roll 4 dice and have a better chance of getting two 5+ ?
It may seem like a poor man's 5+++. And against single damage weapons it pretty much is. but it's actually better against multi damage weapons especially if they're targeting your single wound models. It's similar to one of the forge world dogmas but significantly better.
... and any dice remaining in the pool are discarded.
So as an example, you have a 20 man unit of Warriors who have already lost five models. They're wounded again and lose another five models. Even if they succeed with all of their Reanimation Protocol rolls, it will only add five dice to the pool meaning you can only bring back five Warriors. There is no way to get enough dice in the pool to bring back Warriors that failed to Reanimate the first time.
Well, unless res orbs alter it to affect all models as per the units starting strength or something, they've managed to make it worse for multi wound models and marginally better for single wound.
Dudeface wrote: Well, unless res orbs alter it to affect all models as per the units starting strength or something, they've managed to make it worse for multi wound models and marginally better for single wound.
Yes, but with just the rules we have from this preview you can never bring back models that failed to Reanimate the first time.
You also don't have the problem where people can focus all their units to wipe out a complete squad per turn. Sure it can happen if a single unit wipes out whole squad but that's pretty rare. Overall I see this as a buff compared to the old rule. Whenever I played against my friend with necrons I would just either completely wipe out a squad or leave it. He barely ever got to use reanimation protocols. Now at least he'll get them multiple times a turn. that combined with all the new fancy units and buffs you're getting I think would make this Army pretty effective. I mean you're also getting essentially doctrines.
vipoid wrote: I thought GW said that RPs would also work on characters. Am I misremembering?
Also, wow. Multi-wound models are really going to suck.
I think you're misremembering.
No, I remember there being something about having to do a lot of wounds to an overlord to keep it from standing back up. I just think it's called something else, as when a character gets back up they don't have a unit to stand back up with. Plus it would be almost impossible for a 5 wound character to have all 5 dice roll a 5+ to get back up.
Wait... I do see one reason why this might be so over-written..
I could easily be wrong, but the wording "if any of the successes in the pool are higher than the wounds charscterist of ANY REASSEMBLING MODELS" might suggest ....
Say you lose 5 warriors and a Skorpekh in this PHASE... that could mean all the dead for the PHASE share the pool?
So in essence you could pass enough dice to reanimate that Skorpekh and let the warriors die off?
Dudeface wrote: Well, unless res orbs alter it to affect all models as per the units starting strength or something, they've managed to make it worse for multi wound models and marginally better for single wound.
Yes, but with just the rules we have from this preview you can never bring back models that failed to Reanimate the first time.
With this specific rule, assuming we are interpreting it correctly. None of this is to say that there isn't another way to bring back models in the book that we haven't seen (Resurrection Orb, Ghost Ark, strategem, etc)
Here's hoping that we get a strat or something that'll add more dice to the pool. I imagine a res orb will either buff a units roll or allow then to immediately make a roll for dead models.
And perhaps the technomancer will be able to juice them too.
I fear though that since all of these abilities are likely either once per game or only on a targeted unit that they won't be very useful.
I'm worried but hopeful, I'll reserve any real judgment until I see the full codex
a_typical_hero wrote: What about the Void Dragon? Only able to get 3 wounds per phase is really good imho. He does have the profile to wreck other beatsticks reliably.
It's quite good. Couple of thoughts on it:
1) It's like Morathi in AoS. Also, anything that doesn't let you ignore wounds will let it take more than 3 wounds in a phase. But with the targeting restrictions on a character and 9 wounds, it will let it stick around for awhile.
2) It's possible the other c'tan have this ability as well as it's just a necrodermis.
3) I wonder if Szarekh or the Vault have something in it's neighborhood. Obviously it can't be the same as they have too many wounds to make 3 wounds lost fair, but who knows.
Dudeface wrote: Well, unless res orbs alter it to affect all models as per the units starting strength or something, they've managed to make it worse for multi wound models and marginally better for single wound.
Right now it's better for both, as in practice you almost never got to roll for RP at all in it's current state.
That being said, the interaction with MW models is pretty disappointing right now. I'm hoping that Rites and Res Orbs can offer a boost to this.
They absolutely said we would have more control over how our units come back on the battlefield quite specifically.... if Im right that could be huge. Throw your warriors into the fray and funnel their RP into your Lychguard/Praetorians/Destroyers...
Des702 wrote: You also don't have the problem where people can focus all their units to wipe out a complete squad per turn. Sure it can happen if a single unit wipes out whole squad but that's pretty rare. Overall I see this as a buff compared to the old rule. Whenever I played against my friend with necrons I would just either completely wipe out a squad or leave it. He barely ever got to use reanimation protocols. Now at least he'll get them multiple times a turn. that combined with all the new fancy units and buffs you're getting I think would make this Army pretty effective. I mean you're also getting essentially doctrines.
Eh. 'Doctrines' is a stretch.
Some of the protocol benefits are neat, but they're honestly rather weak for how fiddly they are.
-Ňecrontyr- wrote: Wait... I do see one reason why this might be so over-written..
I could easily be wrong, but the wording "if any of the successes in the pool are higher than the wounds charscterist of ANY REASSEMBLING MODELS" might suggest ....
Say you lose 5 warriors and a Skorpekh in this PHASE... that could mean all the dead for the PHASE share the pool?
So in essence you could pass enough dice to reanimate that Skorpekh and let the warriors die off?
I could very easily be wrong...
Unfortunately this isn't how it works because it doesnt trigger per phase, it triggers when a unit is shot at
Bye bye necron hype. It was good to have hopes for a xenos faction for once, while it lasted...
This is an absolute shame and insult to the necrons if there is no way to bring back models destroyed earlier. That was their iconic feature through the ages !
-Ňecrontyr- wrote: They absolutely said we would have more control over how our units come back on the battlefield quite specifically.... if Im right that could be huge. Throw your warriors into the fray and funnel their RP into your Lychguard/Praetorians/Destroyers...
That... doesn't work. At all. RP happens based on enemy units resolving their actions and only works on one necron unit at a time ('this unit'), so even if they split fire, that can't happen.
I do think it's kinda worth mentioning that the Reanimator's beam gives you +1 to the rolls for models in that unit, with you picking the unit in the Command Phase.
Big blob o' Warriors that you sent down the middle gets hit hard? Oh, look! +1 to their rolls.
There is a mention that it can't ever be modified by -1, which makes me curious if Deathwatch might get something that lets them counter traits for Xenos.
godardc wrote: Bye bye necron hype. It was good to have hopes for a xenos faction for once, while it lasted...
This is an absolute shame and insult to the necrons if there is no way to bring back models destroyed earlier. That was their iconic feature through the ages !
I think you might be misremembering. It was only in 8th that you were able to keep trying to bring destroyed models back. Prior to that, Necrons that failed their RP/WBB roll were gone for good.
godardc wrote: Bye bye necron hype. It was good to have hopes for a xenos faction for once, while it lasted...
This is an absolute shame and insult to the necrons if there is no way to bring back models destroyed earlier. That was their iconic feature through the ages !
Don't count them out until we have the full rules in hand.
A rule that you barely got to use because your unit was wiped out entirely was hardly an iconic feature.
And Necrons are more than just their RP. They have lots of new toys to play around with.
godardc wrote: Bye bye necron hype. It was good to have hopes for a xenos faction for once, while it lasted...
This is an absolute shame and insult to the necrons if there is no way to bring back models destroyed earlier. That was their iconic feature through the ages !
Correct me, but we don't have an idea of what the 'Rites of Reanimation' are do we? Or of any items, equipment. strats, relics or Command Protocols, etc that could affect units coming back outside of just the re-worked RP?
-I could also see a relic/WL Trait buffing RP -Strats could be added to buff RP -Perhaps the Silent King will have a buff thats similar?
I think as is, the RP has gotten much stronger (1W models) and much weaker (Multi Wound Models) but without seeing how the rule can be manipulated, and that anything that will will just make it better, I've still got hopes.
We've also seen a pretty huge spike in our weapon stats so we'll also be putting out way more hurt than before, and with a lot of distraction units necrons could be great
There is a mention that it can't ever be modified by -1, which makes me curious if Deathwatch might get something that lets them counter traits for Xenos.
Deathwatch's anti-Necron strat is a -1 to a unit's RP rolls. As currently worded, it lasts an entire turn so it might actually be worth using now.
godardc wrote: Bye bye necron hype. It was good to have hopes for a xenos faction for once, while it lasted...
This is an absolute shame and insult to the necrons if there is no way to bring back models destroyed earlier. That was their iconic feature through the ages !
Correct me, but we don't have an idea of what the 'Rites of Reanimation' are do we? Or of any items, equipment. strats, relics or Command Protocols, etc that could affect units coming back outside of just the re-worked RP?
I'm hoping Rites gives us what we have currently essentially, allows for a point-and-click unit to make all of it's Res, out of sequence of shooting in the Command phase
godardc wrote: Bye bye necron hype. It was good to have hopes for a xenos faction for once, while it lasted...
This is an absolute shame and insult to the necrons if there is no way to bring back models destroyed earlier. That was their iconic feature through the ages !
Mate. Not since 2nd Ed have we been able to keep attempting Self Repair turn after turn until it worked.
These new RP make a Warriors and Immortals (traditionally the backbone of any Necron force) massive pains in the bum to shift. Get a unit of 20 Warriors dug in on an objective, and it’s the devil’s job to shift them.
Yes, some armies probably can gather the firepower to wreck 20 in a single turn. But it’s still going to take a significant chunk of their available attacks to do so.
Emissary wrote: It doesn't say to roll for the combined wounds of the models killed by that attack. Instead it's for reassembling models. Hence, it really looks to me that it's all models already dead. Hence if you lost 5 after reassembly in the last shot, then lose 4 more to this shot, you're rolling for 9 reassembling models.
Hmm, this doesn't look right to me. It says at the start, enemies are not destroyed by the attack and begin to 'reassemble'. It then says you roll an RP die for each 'reassembling' model wound. Then right at the end it says that any models who haven't reassambled fail to. I think they're discarded at that point and then count as destroyed.
Yeah, it's why I changed my post.
I will say it's better than a 5+ feel no pain for 1 wound models, because you only have to pass one 5+ for multi-damage shots rather than for each damage. But less good for multi-wound models.
Also, this stacks with the Szarekhan 5+ feel no pain against mortal wounds which will make them very resilient against mortal wounds...
So, it's essentially a FNP that sometimes doesn't get to roll and gets worse on multi-wound models. All I can say is that we had better hope for some REALLY good modifiers and rules for the rule in the book, but a look at those Command Protocols is giving doubt (+1 Move whoo!).
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: What an amazing battle report! Using everything out of the box we already know about!
This is Games Workshop, the company that printed an entire Codex that managed to show off virtually zero new models beyond what came in the big preview box and a couple of vehicles that had been previewed on the website. Didn't even show the real kits of the preview models (Archos, Repentia), just the ones from the preview box.
That's how afraid they are of revealing things. Not even in the damned Codex, and all because it came out several months to the rest of the range.
Dudeface wrote: Well, unless res orbs alter it to affect all models as per the units starting strength or something, they've managed to make it worse for multi wound models and marginally better for single wound.
Right now it's better for both, as in practice you almost never got to roll for RP at all in it's current state.
That being said, the interaction with MW models is pretty disappointing right now. I'm hoping that Rites and Res Orbs can offer a boost to this.
Certainly it is better for both in practice. It's jsut so much better on 1 W models it makes taking 3 wound models kind of badly internal balanced. It's still pretty great for 2 wound models too. Between overkill and number of 5+ rolls. It will probably break even with a straight 5+ FNP vs d3 damage weapons.
godardc wrote: Bye bye necron hype. It was good to have hopes for a xenos faction for once, while it lasted...
This is an absolute shame and insult to the necrons if there is no way to bring back models destroyed earlier. That was their iconic feature through the ages !
Mate. Not since 2nd Ed have we been able to keep attempting Self Repair turn after turn until it worked.
These new RP make a Warriors and Immortals (traditionally the backbone of any Necron force) massive pains in the bum to shift. Get a unit of 20 Warriors dug in on an objective, and it’s the devil’s job to shift them.
Yes, some armies probably can gather the firepower to wreck 20 in a single turn. But it’s still going to take a significant chunk of their available attacks to do so.
Not really. In the end it's just 5+ fnp that can be negated(and likely will for later half). 10 plague marines will be crapload of harder to remove. Even nurglings are more annoying.
godardc wrote: Bye bye necron hype. It was good to have hopes for a xenos faction for once, while it lasted...
This is an absolute shame and insult to the necrons if there is no way to bring back models destroyed earlier. That was their iconic feature through the ages !
Mate. Not since 2nd Ed have we been able to keep attempting Self Repair turn after turn until it worked.
These new RP make a Warriors and Immortals (traditionally the backbone of any Necron force) massive pains in the bum to shift. Get a unit of 20 Warriors dug in on an objective, and it’s the devil’s job to shift them.
Yes, some armies probably can gather the firepower to wreck 20 in a single turn. But it’s still going to take a significant chunk of their available attacks to do so.
Plus if you undershoot and take out 18 or 19 rather than 20, say hello to 7 of them jumping back up (maybe 9 or 10 if you've buffed the RP on the unit).
mournwhelk wrote: Does the change to reanimation protocol make the new reanimator more appealing?
Not if it stays at 110pts. I can't remember who suggested it, but someone said it needed to be like 70pts and can be in squads of 3, that would make them good imo
Someone can check the maths on this, but I saw someone say that a Warrior has a 33% chance of standing up, but a Lychgard has a 11.11% chance to get back up.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Someone can check the maths on this, but I saw someone say that a Warrior has a 33% chance of standing up, but a Lychgard has a 11.11% chance to get back up.
That doesn't seem like a good change to me.
Correct, a warrior has a 1/3 chance with 1 dice where as a single lychguard has a 1/9 chance assuming you roll 2 dice
godardc wrote: Bye bye necron hype. It was good to have hopes for a xenos faction for once, while it lasted...
This is an absolute shame and insult to the necrons if there is no way to bring back models destroyed earlier. That was their iconic feature through the ages !
Mate. Not since 2nd Ed have we been able to keep attempting Self Repair turn after turn until it worked.
These new RP make a Warriors and Immortals (traditionally the backbone of any Necron force) massive pains in the bum to shift. Get a unit of 20 Warriors dug in on an objective, and it’s the devil’s job to shift them.
Yes, some armies probably can gather the firepower to wreck 20 in a single turn. But it’s still going to take a significant chunk of their available attacks to do so.
Plus if you undershoot and take out 18 or 19 rather than 20, say hello to 7 of them jumping back up (maybe 9 or 10 if you've buffed the RP on the unit).
This happens now, the only difference is a 2nd unit mops them up now and might not in 9th.
I know there could be more to the picture but as of right now its looking like we essentially got a weak fnp. Then with the max of +1 to reanimate there's never going to be a real point of taking the reanimator considering you can't hide it like a cryptek. RP is essentially useless on multi-wound models. after seeing the leaked space marine stuff and then this it looks like another addition of almost never winning with necrons (outside of maybe 1-2 skew lists that pop up)
H.B.M.C. wrote: Someone can check the maths on this, but I saw someone say that a Warrior has a 33% chance of standing up, but a Lychgard has a 11.11% chance to get back up.
That doesn't seem like a good change to me.
Correct, a warrior has a 1/3 chance with 1 dice where as a single lychguard has a 1/9 chance assuming you roll 2 dice
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: What an amazing battle report! Using everything out of the box we already know about!
This is Games Workshop, the company that printed an entire Codex that managed to show off virtually zero new models beyond what came in the big preview box and a couple of vehicles that had been previewed on the website. Didn't even show the real kits of the preview models (Archos, Repentia), just the ones from the preview box.
That's how afraid they are of revealing things. Not even in the damned Codex, and all because it came out several months to the rest of the range.
I feel like the RP on Multi-wound models is a bit overblown.
Sure if only 1 Lychguard dies then fishing for double 5s is gonna be a feelsbad moment in comparison to Warriors but unless your opponent clanks his shooting more than 1 LG is gonna die.
E.g. 3 LG die so you roll 6 dice in total to get 1 back on average.
3 Warriors die so you roll 3 dice to get... 1 back on average.
If my opponent wants to kill 1 Lychguard model per unit in order to outplay RP by all means go ahead.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Someone can check the maths on this, but I saw someone say that a Warrior has a 33% chance of standing up, but a Lychgard has a 11.11% chance to get back up.
That doesn't seem like a good change to me.
Depends how you calculate it.
Yes, if a single Lychguard dies, you have a 1/9 chance of him getting back up. Quite awful.
But if say 3 Lychguard die, your odds of making 2 5+s on 6 dice are... uh, beyond me right now. But considerably better I think than 1/9. You'd expect it to round to 1/3.
The problem with say multi-wound models is how the wounds breakdown.
So say you have 3 Heavy Lokhusts, each with 4 wounds.
I inflict 7 wounds on you. You get to make 4 5+ renamination rolls because only 1 4 wound model is "dead". Unless all 4 come up as 5s, which is 1/81 roll, the model dies.
I then inflict 5 remaining wounds with another unit. Unit is dead, no reanimation. Lets say I fail and you have one wound left. Okay... but you only get to roll 4 more dice and the odds of getting 4 5+s are again, 1/81.
So odds are good you are never ressurecting a Lokhust.
Its a similar story on the 3 wound models. If I nuke 5 out of 6 with one unit, okay you get 15 rolls, a good chance one will get up, maybe you get lucky and get 2. But if I chip away one at a time, the most likely result is nothing getting up. Which is a bit sad.
Its sort of fine if GW recognise this. But if they go "well, these units all have a 5+++, they should be priced as such" then its going to suck.
Edit - Sort of ninjaed by the above, but embellished.
Mixzremixzd wrote: I feel like the RP on Multi-wound models is a bit overblown.
Sure if only 1 Lychguard dies then fishing for double 5s is gonna be a feelsbad moment in comparison to Warriors but unless your opponent clanks his shooting more than 1 LG is gonna die.
E.g. 3 LG die so you roll 6 dice in total to get 1 back on average.
3 Warriors die so you roll 3 dice to get... 1 back on average.
If my opponent wants to kill 1 Lychguard model per unit in order to outplay RP by all means go ahead.
yeah but now (if I'm reading the rule correctly) once a lychguard is gone it's gone for good. so by putting some odd shots into them turns 1-2 and killing like 2 a turn you can essentially wear them down then shoot them with something big, wipe the unit, and deny any reanimation protocols
Asmodios wrote: I know there could be more to the picture but as of right now its looking like we essentially got a weak fnp.
It depends. Against attacks that deal more than 1 point of damage to single wound models, its stronger- FNP has to roll against each incoming wound individually, and this doesn't.
For single damage weapons against single wound models, its functionally the same (slightly in favor of necrons if the modifiers are common enough)
Its definitely weaker for the multiwound necrons, but with the way the core rules assign wounds (to the first wounded model until they die), I think this partially works the way it does to avoid complications.
Mixzremixzd wrote: I feel like the RP on Multi-wound models is a bit overblown.
Sure if only 1 Lychguard dies then fishing for double 5s is gonna be a feelsbad moment in comparison to Warriors but unless your opponent clanks his shooting more than 1 LG is gonna die.
E.g. 3 LG die so you roll 6 dice in total to get 1 back on average.
3 Warriors die so you roll 3 dice to get... 1 back on average.
If my opponent wants to kill 1 Lychguard model per unit in order to outplay RP by all means go ahead.
I acknowledge some attrition is needed and keeping 1/3 of a unit is good but when your army special rule requires you to hope your opponent kills lots of your unit just so you can bring a third back, that's not a good feeling moment.
Reanimation protocols for 9th, possibly more than last time are silver lining mechanic. It's a "oh nice 1 got back up" as a bonus, which requires units not to be priced like they're all standing back up all the time like they are currently.
mournwhelk wrote: Does the change to reanimation protocol make the new reanimator more appealing?
Its main issue is that it's ridiculously fragile.
Combine that with the fact that it can't stack with a Cryptek... I'd say no.
Crypteks are an Aura, right?
Fighting AdMech, remember that our flyer can shut down Auras. Who knows what other armies can do this edition?
The Reanimator is a 9" buff to a single, targeted unit not an Aura.
It's also worth mentioning that the wording for RP mods is:
A Reanimation Protocol roll can never be modified by more than -1 or +1.
So while a Cryptek and Reanimator both won't give you +2, if there's something that can mitigate the roll by forcing a -1? You'd still get your +1.
Mixzremixzd wrote: I feel like the RP on Multi-wound models is a bit overblown.
Sure if only 1 Lychguard dies then fishing for double 5s is gonna be a feelsbad moment in comparison to Warriors but unless your opponent clanks his shooting more than 1 LG is gonna die.
E.g. 3 LG die so you roll 6 dice in total to get 1 back on average.
3 Warriors die so you roll 3 dice to get... 1 back on average.
If my opponent wants to kill 1 Lychguard model per unit in order to outplay RP by all means go ahead.
You realise that this is after each attack, right? Not at the end of the shooting phase.
Asmodios wrote: I know there could be more to the picture but as of right now its looking like we essentially got a weak fnp.
It depends. Against attacks that deal more than 1 point of damage to single wound models, its stronger- FNP has to roll against each incoming wound individually, and this doesn't.
For single damage weapons against single wound models, its functionally the same (slightly in favor of necrons if the modifiers are common enough)
Its definitely weaker for the multiwound necrons, but with the way the core rules assign wounds (to the first wounded model until they die), I think this partially works the way it does to avoid complications.
I would still hold to saying its a weak FNP as its essentially useless on multi-wound models where FNP is still just as strong. Even on a warriors blob once its been taken down a bit you can still wipe the unit to deny RP but you can never just remove FNP by killing all the models at once
Mixzremixzd wrote: I feel like the RP on Multi-wound models is a bit overblown.
Sure if only 1 Lychguard dies then fishing for double 5s is gonna be a feelsbad moment in comparison to Warriors but unless your opponent clanks his shooting more than 1 LG is gonna die.
E.g. 3 LG die so you roll 6 dice in total to get 1 back on average. 3 Warriors die so you roll 3 dice to get... 1 back on average.
If my opponent wants to kill 1 Lychguard model per unit in order to outplay RP by all means go ahead.
I acknowledge some attrition is needed and keeping 1/3 of a unit is good but when your army special rule requires you to hope your opponent kills lots of your unit just so you can bring a third back, that's not a good feeling moment.
Reanimation protocols for 9th, possibly more than last time are silver lining mechanic. It's a "oh nice 1 got back up" as a bonus, which requires units not to be priced like they're all standing back up all the time like they are currently.
Well considering in 8th you probably NEVER got to roll for the ability you were taxed for I'll take a nerfed version (I don't think it is in totality btw just being hyperbolic) that I can actually use.
Still, it all comes down to GW's price point and how they perceive the value to be so we'll see when the Codex drops.
Mixzremixzd wrote: I feel like the RP on Multi-wound models is a bit overblown.
Sure if only 1 Lychguard dies then fishing for double 5s is gonna be a feelsbad moment in comparison to Warriors but unless your opponent clanks his shooting more than 1 LG is gonna die.
E.g. 3 LG die so you roll 6 dice in total to get 1 back on average. 3 Warriors die so you roll 3 dice to get... 1 back on average.
If my opponent wants to kill 1 Lychguard model per unit in order to outplay RP by all means go ahead.
You realise that this is after each attack, right? Not at the end of the shooting phase.
Yes. You roll after an enemy unit has completed it's attack, not sure how that changes what I said though?
This is why a lot of units are getting both Living Metal AD Reanimation Protocols
We've seen it on cryptothralls and Ophydian Destroyers. Maybe more units will get it?
I don't remember seeing Living Metal on the Destroyers but it makes the new RP sting less I guess. That doesn't help Lychguard and Praetorians at all though. Immortal blocks look fun again at least.
This is why a lot of units are getting both Living Metal AD Reanimation Protocols
We've seen it on cryptothralls and Ophydian Destroyers. Maybe more units will get it?
I don't remember seeing Living Metal on the Destroyers but it makes the new RP sting less I guess. That doesn't help Lychguard and Praetorians at all though. Immortal blocks look fun again at least.
Mixzremixzd wrote: I feel like the RP on Multi-wound models is a bit overblown.
Sure if only 1 Lychguard dies then fishing for double 5s is gonna be a feelsbad moment in comparison to Warriors but unless your opponent clanks his shooting more than 1 LG is gonna die.
E.g. 3 LG die so you roll 6 dice in total to get 1 back on average.
3 Warriors die so you roll 3 dice to get... 1 back on average.
If my opponent wants to kill 1 Lychguard model per unit in order to outplay RP by all means go ahead.
I acknowledge some attrition is needed and keeping 1/3 of a unit is good but when your army special rule requires you to hope your opponent kills lots of your unit just so you can bring a third back, that's not a good feeling moment.
Reanimation protocols for 9th, possibly more than last time are silver lining mechanic. It's a "oh nice 1 got back up" as a bonus, which requires units not to be priced like they're all standing back up all the time like they are currently.
Well considering in 8th you probably NEVER got to roll for the ability you were taxed for I'll take a nerfed version (I don't think it is in totality btw just being hyperbolic) that I can actually use.
Still, it all comes down to GW's price point and how they perceive the value to be so we'll see when the Codex drops.
Mixzremixzd wrote: I feel like the RP on Multi-wound models is a bit overblown.
Sure if only 1 Lychguard dies then fishing for double 5s is gonna be a feelsbad moment in comparison to Warriors but unless your opponent clanks his shooting more than 1 LG is gonna die.
E.g. 3 LG die so you roll 6 dice in total to get 1 back on average.
3 Warriors die so you roll 3 dice to get... 1 back on average.
If my opponent wants to kill 1 Lychguard model per unit in order to outplay RP by all means go ahead.
You realise that this is after each attack, right? Not at the end of the shooting phase.
Yes. You roll after an enemy unit has completed it's attack, not sure how that changes what I said though?
Apologies for being uncharacteristically nit picky, but it’s after the enemy’s attacks are completed. Given how the shooting sequence works for mixed weapons, that is an important distinction to bear in mind
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Apologies for being uncharacteristically nit picky, but it’s after the enemy’s attacks are completed. Given how the shooting sequence works for mixed weapons, that is an important distinction to bear in mind
No problem, I think it's meant to cover split fire so if a 10 Tac squad shoots 5 and 5 at different units you don't need to wait until the entire unit is done shooting just until all the attacks are resolved for your unit by the enemy as far as I understand it.
-Ňecrontyr- wrote: So its a FnP that starts at 5+, cannot get better then 4+ and reroll 1's, that only activates if the squad is not wiped out, does NOT allow for models slain in previous phases/turns, and you have to succeed on ALL of a multiwound models' W charscteristic or they die.
Feels like a nerf.
I mean it objectively isn't, but you do you.
I just saw a 2k game with necrons in it yesterday and recall that on battle round 3 the guy playing necrons said "hey, I actually get to roll for resurrection! That's the first time this game!"
Not for nothing, but there is a lot of 5s getting tossed around here for an ability that will almost certainly be on 4s for all the parts of the game that matters. It's trivially easy to get +1 to reanimation in the early parts of the game, which is also where you're facing the brunt of your opponents output.
Agreed. If the opponent manages to destroy one model you get three dice, and each dice must be a 5+, if not the model is gone. Pool is discarded. The next unit also kills one model, you get three dice, and need a 5+ on every dice, otherwise pool is discarded, and the model is gone. You get six dice when the opponent kills two models, but you still need three 5+ to bring back a destroyer.
Also, worth pointing out here that assuming he gets RPs, a necron immortal is actually slightly tougher than a primaris marine against every basic anti-infantry weapon except lasguns!
In view of the RP, if I loose say 2 models (one with 1W and the other with 2W) in say a shooting phase,
then I will roll 3 (pool) dice.
If I roll one 5++, I can recover the model with 1W.
If I roll two 5++, I may recover the model with 2W (or eventually both models, one with 1W and the other with 1W instead of 2W) ???
Agreed. If the opponent manages to destroy one model you get three dice, and each dice must be a 5+, if not the model is gone. Pool is discarded. The next unit also kills one model, you get three dice, and need a 5+ on every dice, otherwise pool is discarded, and the model is gone. You get six dice when the opponent kills two models, but you still need three 5+ to bring back a destroyer.
Or you could prioritize using things like the Reanimator for those big units?
Might sound a bit goofy at first blush--but the Cryptek, assuming it's an Aura, would be better served camped out with bigger units right? The Reanimator can be used to fulfill a different role targeting a specific unit thanks to its 'leash' of 9 inches rather than an Aura which likely would be 3-6" instead.
Agreed. If the opponent manages to destroy one model you get three dice, and each dice must be a 5+, if not the model is gone. Pool is discarded. The next unit also kills one model, you get three dice, and need a 5+ on every dice, otherwise pool is discarded, and the model is gone. You get six dice when the opponent kills two models, but you still need three 5+ to bring back a destroyer.
If you bring a cryptek or ANY of the many sources of +1 to reanimation means hat two dead destroyers suddenly becomes one dead destroyer, which means a unit of 6 destroyers is suddenly a unit of nearly 9.
godardc wrote: Bye bye necron hype. It was good to have hopes for a xenos faction for once, while it lasted...
This is an absolute shame and insult to the necrons if there is no way to bring back models destroyed earlier. That was their iconic feature through the ages !
Mate. Not since 2nd Ed have we been able to keep attempting Self Repair turn after turn until it worked.
These new RP make a Warriors and Immortals (traditionally the backbone of any Necron force) massive pains in the bum to shift. Get a unit of 20 Warriors dug in on an objective, and it’s the devil’s job to shift them.
Yes, some armies probably can gather the firepower to wreck 20 in a single turn. But it’s still going to take a significant chunk of their available attacks to do so.
Plus if you undershoot and take out 18 or 19 rather than 20, say hello to 7 of them jumping back up (maybe 9 or 10 if you've buffed the RP on the unit).
This happens now, the only difference is a 2nd unit mops them up now and might not in 9th.
The difference between 8th and 9th here is admittedly mostly best case, but it's between the second unit needing to kill 1 and 7, which is considerable. Especially as the 7 are likely to get more RP and the 1 certainly isn't.
The void dragon looks kind of OP. Max 3 damage per phase and it has character protection. Is the nocrodermis on all ctans? If that is the case its gonna be hard not to take at least 1 in your list.
Agreed. If the opponent manages to destroy one model you get three dice, and each dice must be a 5+, if not the model is gone. Pool is discarded. The next unit also kills one model, you get three dice, and need a 5+ on every dice, otherwise pool is discarded, and the model is gone. You get six dice when the opponent kills two models, but you still need three 5+ to bring back a destroyer.
So we accept and understand that risk, and do what we can, game to game, situation to situation to mitigate it.
RP, as with all Special Rules should not be a simple crutch for sloppy tactics etc.
It’s a perk, nothing more. One for us to learn to better exploit the strengths of than our opponents exploit the weakness of.
Xenomancers wrote: The void dragon looks kind of OP. Max 3 damage per phase and it has character protection. Is the nocrodermis on all ctans? If that is the case its gonna be hard not to take at least 1 in your list.
All have necrodermis but no confirmation he's a character at present.
Agreed. If the opponent manages to destroy one model you get three dice, and each dice must be a 5+, if not the model is gone. Pool is discarded. The next unit also kills one model, you get three dice, and need a 5+ on every dice, otherwise pool is discarded, and the model is gone. You get six dice when the opponent kills two models, but you still need three 5+ to bring back a destroyer.
If you bring a cryptek or ANY of the many sources of +1 to reanimation means hat two dead destroyers suddenly becomes one dead destroyer, which means a unit of 6 destroyers is suddenly a unit of nearly 9.
If you lose two W4 Destroyers in an attack, you have...
A 25% chance of bringing one back on a 5+, and a .02% chance of bringing back two.
A 64% chance of bringing one back on a 4+, and a .39% chance of bringing back two.
If you bring a cryptek or ANY of the many sources of +1 to reanimation means hat two dead destroyers suddenly becomes one dead destroyer, which means a unit of 6 destroyers is suddenly a unit of nearly 9.
You have dice that auto roll 4+ ? I dont. If one destroyer dies you still need three 4+ with three dice. If two destroyer die, you get six dice and still need three 4+. Chances are better, but its far from auto succeeding.
Xenomancers wrote: The void dragon looks kind of OP. Max 3 damage per phase and it has character protection. Is the nocrodermis on all ctans? If that is the case its gonna be hard not to take at least 1 in your list.
All have necrodermis but no confirmation he's a character at present.
Xenomancers wrote: The void dragon looks kind of OP. Max 3 damage per phase and it has character protection. Is the nocrodermis on all ctans? If that is the case its gonna be hard not to take at least 1 in your list.
All have necrodermis but no confirmation he's a character at present.
Xenomancers wrote: The void dragon looks kind of OP. Max 3 damage per phase and it has character protection. Is the nocrodermis on all ctans? If that is the case its gonna be hard not to take at least 1 in your list.
All have necrodermis but no confirmation he's a character at present.
Are Ctan characters right now?
Ctans were characters in 8th, and they still are in 9th. Unless the codex changes it.
godardc wrote: Bye bye necron hype. It was good to have hopes for a xenos faction for once, while it lasted...
This is an absolute shame and insult to the necrons if there is no way to bring back models destroyed earlier. That was their iconic feature through the ages !
If you bring a cryptek or ANY of the many sources of +1 to reanimation means hat two dead destroyers suddenly becomes one dead destroyer, which means a unit of 6 destroyers is suddenly a unit of nearly 9.
You have dice that auto roll 4+ ? I dont. If one destroyer dies you still need three 4+ with three dice. If two destroyer die, you get six dice and still need three 4+. Chances are better, but its far from auto succeeding.
Nice shifting the goldposts. 'The statistical roll is the only thing that matters when I'M complaining about a rule, but when YOU counter my complaint it's about probability as a whole again'.
By your logic reanimation protocol is awesome because I don't have dice that only roll 1-4s so I could roll SIX 5s and 6s and lose no models!
If you bring a cryptek or ANY of the many sources of +1 to reanimation means hat two dead destroyers suddenly becomes one dead destroyer, which means a unit of 6 destroyers is suddenly a unit of nearly 9.
You have dice that auto roll 4+ ? I dont. If one destroyer dies you still need three 4+ with three dice. If two destroyer die, you get six dice and still need three 4+. Chances are better, but its far from auto succeeding.
We still haven't seen everything. For all we know, there's a Protocol with a Directive that allows for you to get Reanimation Protocols on a 4+, meaning that you'd be on 3+'s with Reanimators or Crypteks.
For all we know, Resurrection Orbs just flatout can return models rather than bolstering RPs.
If you bring a cryptek or ANY of the many sources of +1 to reanimation means hat two dead destroyers suddenly becomes one dead destroyer, which means a unit of 6 destroyers is suddenly a unit of nearly 9.
You have dice that auto roll 4+ ? I dont. If one destroyer dies you still need three 4+ with three dice. If two destroyer die, you get six dice and still need three 4+. Chances are better, but its far from auto succeeding.
We still haven't seen everything. For all we know, there's a Protocol with a Directive that allows for you to get Reanimation Protocols on a 4+, meaning that you'd be on 3+'s with Reanimators or Crypteks.
For all we know, Resurrection Orbs just flatout can return models rather than bolstering RPs.
Considering how amazing the SM stuff is after a first read and how after every necron reveal we have to hold our breath and "wait and see" im not going to let myself get overly hyped. Chances are this crapy version of a FNP is essentially all we are getting and GW probably overvalues it meaning everything is going to be insanely expensive
Agreed. If the opponent manages to destroy one model you get three dice, and each dice must be a 5+, if not the model is gone. Pool is discarded. The next unit also kills one model, you get three dice, and need a 5+ on every dice, otherwise pool is discarded, and the model is gone. You get six dice when the opponent kills two models, but you still need three 5+ to bring back a destroyer.
So we accept and understand that risk, and do what we can, game to game, situation to situation to mitigate it.
RP, as with all Special Rules should not be a simple crutch for sloppy tactics etc.
It’s a perk, nothing more. One for us to learn to better exploit the strengths of than our opponents exploit the weakness of.
I tend to disagree, what it seems to really do is give a 'defensive consistency' rather than a wild swing from a lucky/big attack. It's better if more models are killed, meaning those big damaging attacks from your opponent are mitigated, and it works especially well on the exact troops you're hopefully sitting on objectives. And if your opponent heavily commits to remove them, well, they're not shooting at your damaging units.
This is just my initial theorising to be honest, obviously remains to be seen what else happens with our units.
wuestenfux wrote: In view of the RP, if I loose say 2 models (one with 1W and the other with 2W) in say a shooting phase,
then I will roll 3 (pool) dice.
If I roll one 5++, I can recover the model with 1W.
If I roll two 5++, I may recover the model with 2W (or eventually both models, one with 1W and the other with 1W instead of 2W) ???
No - a couple of things wrong here.
1) you roll one dice for the combined wound characteristic of all models attempting to reanimate (i.e. the combined wound values from their stat line). I don't know of any unit in Necrons where the models have different wounds values except Destroyers with a Plasmacyte and the current understanding is that the plasmacyte will be a separate unit in the new codex. So assuming this is a unit with 2 wounds and one guy is wounded - down to 1 wound. You would still roll 4 dice for RP (their combined W pool based on their W stat.)
2) If you roll one 5 - you get nothing back.
If you roll two 5's - you get one guy back.
If you roll three 5's - you get one guy back and the other dice is lost - you cannot reanimate a model unless you can reanimate at full wounds.
If, for some reason, the plasmacyte does remain a unit upgrade for destroyers I imagine it would work like that - where you could reanimate it with 1 wound, but would need 3 to get a destroyer back.
Kharne the Befriender wrote: We also don't know if the Technomancer is keeping the +1RP aura, unless I've missed that somewhere?
I'm fairly certain that Technomancers keeping the aura did get mentioned in one of the preview streams.
Asmodios wrote:Considering how amazing the SM stuff is after a first read and how after every necron reveal we have to hold our breath and "wait and see" im not going to let myself get overly hyped. Chances are this crapy version of a FNP is essentially all we are getting and GW probably overvalues it meaning everything is going to be insanely expensive
The Marine stuff isn't really a 'known' factor at this point either. We saw Wolves and both brands of Angels. We saw a list of names for Chapter Traits and 4 of the pickable 'custom traits'. They outright say that there are changes to some of them without naming things.
We've seen units certainly, and quite a few are questionable in terms of 'what the heck were they thinking?'. But it's not like we've seen all the Dynasties or the custom Dynasty traits either.
godardc wrote: Bye bye necron hype. It was good to have hopes for a xenos faction for once, while it lasted...
This is an absolute shame and insult to the necrons if there is no way to bring back models destroyed earlier. That was their iconic feature through the ages !
Resurrection orb?
Also, no.
Necrons always got to come back (rolling each turn) in 2nd edition
in 3rd edition it was the most similar to now, necrons got back up each turn but it was conditional, if there was no unit to join, they would be gone. So effectively if you wiped the squad, it was gone.
in 5th edition IIRC you rolled at the end of the phase with tokens, and if you fell back or got wiped your tokens were lost
in 7th edition it was basically just a FNP save.
in 8th edition it was back to pseudo the 3rd edition rule (though there was no keeping track of the dead model's position on the table)
and now, in 9th ed, it's back to being a pseudo-FNP, though I'm willing to bet you'll have res orbs, ghost arcs, etc giving you the ability to bring back units that failed to res previously.
I'm not sure about the new RP rule.
It seems really complicated, and its unclear if previously destroyed models can come back the following turn or if they are removed.
It doesn't say that they are removed, but it doesn't say that they persist either, and the article seems to imply that they stick around until the unit is wiped out.
Kharne the Befriender wrote: We also don't know if the Technomancer is keeping the +1RP aura, unless I've missed that somewhere?
I'm fairly certain that Technomancers keeping the aura did get mentioned in one of the preview streams.
Asmodios wrote:Considering how amazing the SM stuff is after a first read and how after every necron reveal we have to hold our breath and "wait and see" im not going to let myself get overly hyped. Chances are this crapy version of a FNP is essentially all we are getting and GW probably overvalues it meaning everything is going to be insanely expensive
The Marine stuff isn't really a 'known' factor at this point either. We saw Wolves and both brands of Angels. We saw a list of names for Chapter Traits and 4 of the pickable 'custom traits'. They outright say that there are changes to some of them without naming things.
We've seen units certainly, and quite a few are questionable in terms of 'what the heck were they thinking?'. But it's not like we've seen all the Dynasties or the custom Dynasty traits either.
Yes there is still a ton of “unknowns” for SM as well but unlike necrons their raw stat lines make you go “unless something happens these guys will be borderline broken” necrons on the other hand make you go “hopefully there is more to this or it’s gonna be a rough edition”
CthuluIsSpy wrote: I'm not sure about the new RP rule.
It seems really complicated, and its unclear if previously destroyed models can come back the following turn or if they are removed.
It doesn't say that they are removed, but it doesn't say that they persist either, and the article seems to imply that they stick around until the unit is wiped out.
The rule exists only during one phase of an attack. If you don't reanimate during that phase then those models are lost and the pool of dice are lost. Each attack round is a fresh wave; otherwise RP would work better and better the more damage you took from multiple sources.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: I'm not sure about the new RP rule.
It seems really complicated, and its unclear if previously destroyed models can come back the following turn or if they are removed.
It doesn't say that they are removed, but it doesn't say that they persist either, and the article seems to imply that they stick around until the unit is wiped out.
The rule exists only during one phase of an attack. If you don't reanimate during that phase then those models are lost and the pool of dice are lost. Each attack round is a fresh wave; otherwise RP would work better and better the more damage you took from multiple sources.
^this. You don't get to roll a second time for all your dead 'crons each time your opponent lobs a storm bolter at you.
Daedalus81 wrote: HB kills 3 W1 models - 3 dice - 1 in pool - 1 gets up.
HB kills 3 W2 models - 6 dice - 2 in pool - 1 gets up.
Lasguns kill 6 W1 models - 6 dice - 2 in pool - 2 get up
Lasguns kill 3 W2 models - 6 dice - 2 in pool - 1 gets up
When you have a pool that is not divisible by the wounds --
Lasguns kill 4 W1 models - 4 dice - 1.33 in pool - 1 or 2 get up
Lasguns kill 2 W2 models - 2 dice - 1.33 in pool - 0 to 1 get up
Seems relatively level for those wounds. Based on the way they worded this I do expect to see ways for more dice to enter the pool.
This is my assumption. There will be ways to modify the number of dice or successes to your RP rolls. It's just Games workshop not previewing things in a logical manner. Once it's all out, we can judge it to our hearts content, and there will be no more waiting for more info.
It is basically FNP with threshholds. The threshold is the max wounds characteristic of the models in the unit. Must meet the threshold or successful results are wasted.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: I'm not sure about the new RP rule. It seems really complicated, and its unclear if previously destroyed models can come back the following turn or if they are removed.
It doesn't say that they are removed, but it doesn't say that they persist either, and the article seems to imply that they stick around until the unit is wiped out.
The rule exists only during one phase of an attack. If you don't reanimate during that phase then those models are lost and the pool of dice are lost. Each attack round is a fresh wave; otherwise RP would work better and better the more damage you took from multiple sources.
^this. You don't get to roll a second time for all your dead 'crons each time your opponent lobs a storm bolter at you.
So its basically FNP. Lame. So much for "you have to destroy the unit in a single attack" then.
C'tan seem nice now at least. Necrodermis has the same damage gating mechanic that Ghaz has, so C'tan can actually shrug off some damage, and the Void Dragon seems to be a decent Anti-Tank option. So we have an anti-infantry C'tan (Nightbringer) A general use C'tan (Transcendent) A support C'tan (Deceiver) And now an anti-tank C'tan.
Just look at warriors. Next to a Ghost arch and a cyrptec.
If it works like it used to for the ghost arch. Assuming you don't even get a save. You have a 4+ rr1's twice. Which is pretty silly. With the 5++ save from the cryptec...
CthuluIsSpy wrote: I'm not sure about the new RP rule.
It seems really complicated, and its unclear if previously destroyed models can come back the following turn or if they are removed.
It doesn't say that they are removed, but it doesn't say that they persist either, and the article seems to imply that they stick around until the unit is wiped out.
The rule exists only during one phase of an attack. If you don't reanimate during that phase then those models are lost and the pool of dice are lost. Each attack round is a fresh wave; otherwise RP would work better and better the more damage you took from multiple sources.
^this. You don't get to roll a second time for all your dead 'crons each time your opponent lobs a storm bolter at you.
So its basically FNP. Lame.
So much for "you have to destroy the unit in a single attack" then.
Except...you do?
If you have a unit of 20 Warriors and 19 get slain, then Reanimation Protocols are done. You can potentially get all 19 Warriors back...which makes it so they no longer count as destroyed for Morale purposes and just are Back(tm).
We don't know yet if there's a way to return destroyed models to the unit, but it's extremely likely.
Reanimation Protocols on their own are nice and we've no idea what synergies and other options there are in the Codex.
They certainly, without buffs, favour warriors and other 1 wound models over multiwound models; which makes sense. Even in the lore its the warriors who are endless legion.
Buffs and other elements might well let you scale up to improve results for multiwound models as well.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: I'm not sure about the new RP rule. It seems really complicated, and its unclear if previously destroyed models can come back the following turn or if they are removed.
It doesn't say that they are removed, but it doesn't say that they persist either, and the article seems to imply that they stick around until the unit is wiped out.
The rule exists only during one phase of an attack. If you don't reanimate during that phase then those models are lost and the pool of dice are lost. Each attack round is a fresh wave; otherwise RP would work better and better the more damage you took from multiple sources.
^this. You don't get to roll a second time for all your dead 'crons each time your opponent lobs a storm bolter at you.
So its basically FNP. Lame. So much for "you have to destroy the unit in a single attack" then.
Except...you do?
If you have a unit of 20 Warriors and 19 get slain, then Reanimation Protocols are done. You can potentially get all 19 Warriors back...which makes it so they no longer count as destroyed for Morale purposes and just are Back(tm).
We don't know yet if there's a way to return destroyed models to the unit, but it's extremely likely.
You fail most of those rolls because its a 5+, they lose more in the next attack, and they get wiped out in the third attack with no effort (if it gets to that point, they'll probably die in the next attack). That's not a single attack, that's two-three attacks. Its really no different from Death Guard. Having reanimation be persistent would make it closer to the single attack claim and still have that feel that's unique to necrons. 7th ed was lame not because it wasn't effective (it was) but because it made necrons like every other faction that had FNP.
Maybe there will be something that return fallen models to a unit, but right now I'm not liking the perceived feel of it.
That said I don't mind the nerf to multi-wound models. It was pretty ridiculous how all it took was a single successful roll and you got a three wound model back. I can understand the change there at least.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: I'm not sure about the new RP rule.
It seems really complicated, and its unclear if previously destroyed models can come back the following turn or if they are removed.
It doesn't say that they are removed, but it doesn't say that they persist either, and the article seems to imply that they stick around until the unit is wiped out.
The rule exists only during one phase of an attack. If you don't reanimate during that phase then those models are lost and the pool of dice are lost. Each attack round is a fresh wave; otherwise RP would work better and better the more damage you took from multiple sources.
^this. You don't get to roll a second time for all your dead 'crons each time your opponent lobs a storm bolter at you.
So its basically FNP. Lame.
So much for "you have to destroy the unit in a single attack" then.
Except...you do?
If you have a unit of 20 Warriors and 19 get slain, then Reanimation Protocols are done. You can potentially get all 19 Warriors back...which makes it so they no longer count as destroyed for Morale purposes and just are Back(tm).
We don't know yet if there's a way to return destroyed models to the unit, but it's extremely likely.
You fail most of those rolls because its a 5+, they lose more in the next attack, and they get wiped out in the third attack with no effort (if it gets to that point, they'll probably die in the next attack). That's not a single attack, that's two-three attacks. Its really no different from Death Guard.
Having reanimation be persistent would make it closer to the single attack claim and still have that feel that's unique to necrons. 7th ed was lame not because it wasn't effective (it was) but because it made necrons like every other faction that had FNP.
Maybe there will be something that return fallen models to a unit, but right now I'm not liking the perceived feel of it.
That said I don't mind the nerf to multi-wound models. It was pretty ridiculous how all it took was a single successful roll and you got a three wound model back. I can understand the change there at least.
Except its not a nerf to multi-wound models its a nuke from orbit. Could they not have just given our multi-wound models a FNP.... it sucks because this rule is almost never going to go off and yet you know they are going to overprice every multi-wound model because of it.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: I'm not sure about the new RP rule.
It seems really complicated, and its unclear if previously destroyed models can come back the following turn or if they are removed.
It doesn't say that they are removed, but it doesn't say that they persist either, and the article seems to imply that they stick around until the unit is wiped out.
The rule exists only during one phase of an attack. If you don't reanimate during that phase then those models are lost and the pool of dice are lost. Each attack round is a fresh wave; otherwise RP would work better and better the more damage you took from multiple sources.
^this. You don't get to roll a second time for all your dead 'crons each time your opponent lobs a storm bolter at you.
So its basically FNP. Lame.
So much for "you have to destroy the unit in a single attack" then.
Except...you do?
If you have a unit of 20 Warriors and 19 get slain, then Reanimation Protocols are done. You can potentially get all 19 Warriors back...which makes it so they no longer count as destroyed for Morale purposes and just are Back(tm).
We don't know yet if there's a way to return destroyed models to the unit, but it's extremely likely.
You fail most of those rolls because its a 5+, they lose more in the next attack, and they get wiped out in the third attack with no effort (if it gets to that point, they'll probably die in the next attack). That's not a single attack, that's two-three attacks. Its really no different from Death Guard.
Having reanimation be persistent would make it closer to the single attack claim and still have that feel that's unique to necrons. 7th ed was lame not because it wasn't effective (it was) but because it made necrons like every other faction that had FNP.
Maybe there will be something that return fallen models to a unit, but right now I'm not liking the perceived feel of it.
That said I don't mind the nerf to multi-wound models. It was pretty ridiculous how all it took was a single successful roll and you got a three wound model back. I can understand the change there at least.
Except its not a nerf to multi-wound models its a nuke from orbit. Could they not have just given our multi-wound models a FNP.... it sucks because this rule is almost never going to go off and yet you know they are going to overprice every multi-wound model because of it.
Well it's GW - they don't need a reason to under or over cost things. It is a buff overall to an ability that was almost useless. It is REALLY good on 1 w models. 2 wound models it's for sure better than a 6+ FNP provided it's a big unit and hard to wipe.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: I'm not sure about the new RP rule.
It seems really complicated, and its unclear if previously destroyed models can come back the following turn or if they are removed.
It doesn't say that they are removed, but it doesn't say that they persist either, and the article seems to imply that they stick around until the unit is wiped out.
The rule exists only during one phase of an attack. If you don't reanimate during that phase then those models are lost and the pool of dice are lost. Each attack round is a fresh wave; otherwise RP would work better and better the more damage you took from multiple sources.
^this. You don't get to roll a second time for all your dead 'crons each time your opponent lobs a storm bolter at you.
So its basically FNP. Lame.
So much for "you have to destroy the unit in a single attack" then.
Except...you do?
If you have a unit of 20 Warriors and 19 get slain, then Reanimation Protocols are done. You can potentially get all 19 Warriors back...which makes it so they no longer count as destroyed for Morale purposes and just are Back(tm).
We don't know yet if there's a way to return destroyed models to the unit, but it's extremely likely.
You fail most of those rolls because its a 5+, they lose more in the next attack, and they get wiped out in the third attack with no effort (if it gets to that point, they'll probably die in the next attack). That's not a single attack, that's two-three attacks. Its really no different from Death Guard.
Having reanimation be persistent would make it closer to the single attack claim and still have that feel that's unique to necrons. 7th ed was lame not because it wasn't effective (it was) but because it made necrons like every other faction that had FNP.
Maybe there will be something that return fallen models to a unit, but right now I'm not liking the perceived feel of it.
That said I don't mind the nerf to multi-wound models. It was pretty ridiculous how all it took was a single successful roll and you got a three wound model back. I can understand the change there at least.
Except its not a nerf to multi-wound models its a nuke from orbit. Could they not have just given our multi-wound models a FNP.... it sucks because this rule is almost never going to go off and yet you know they are going to overprice every multi-wound model because of it.
Well it's GW - they don't need a reason to under or over cost things. It is a buff overall to an ability that was almost useless. It is REALLY good on 1 w models. 2 wound models it's for sure better than a 6+ FNP provided it's a big unit and hard to wipe.
Its really not better though as long as the enemy is targeting it with units that will kill 1-2 at most, so the ability almost never triggers. Once the unit is at a manageable level just shoot it with something mean remove them all and they don't get a chance to reanimate. FNP always gets a chance to work, there is still the "wipe all the model" way around RP. Its is going to be worse then FNP 99% of the time for multi-wound models
CthuluIsSpy wrote: I'm not sure about the new RP rule.
It seems really complicated, and its unclear if previously destroyed models can come back the following turn or if they are removed.
It doesn't say that they are removed, but it doesn't say that they persist either, and the article seems to imply that they stick around until the unit is wiped out.
The rule exists only during one phase of an attack. If you don't reanimate during that phase then those models are lost and the pool of dice are lost. Each attack round is a fresh wave; otherwise RP would work better and better the more damage you took from multiple sources.
^this. You don't get to roll a second time for all your dead 'crons each time your opponent lobs a storm bolter at you.
So its basically FNP. Lame.
So much for "you have to destroy the unit in a single attack" then.
Except...you do?
If you have a unit of 20 Warriors and 19 get slain, then Reanimation Protocols are done. You can potentially get all 19 Warriors back...which makes it so they no longer count as destroyed for Morale purposes and just are Back(tm).
We don't know yet if there's a way to return destroyed models to the unit, but it's extremely likely.
You fail most of those rolls because its a 5+, they lose more in the next attack, and they get wiped out in the third attack with no effort (if it gets to that point, they'll probably die in the next attack). That's not a single attack, that's two-three attacks. Its really no different from Death Guard.
Having reanimation be persistent would make it closer to the single attack claim and still have that feel that's unique to necrons. 7th ed was lame not because it wasn't effective (it was) but because it made necrons like every other faction that had FNP.
Maybe there will be something that return fallen models to a unit, but right now I'm not liking the perceived feel of it.
That said I don't mind the nerf to multi-wound models. It was pretty ridiculous how all it took was a single successful roll and you got a three wound model back. I can understand the change there at least.
It's different. The way to deal with DG is to overkill individual models - force 2 or 3 FNP rolls per model by using D2 / D3 weapons and you're safely getting rid of them. Can't do that vs Necrons. I mean come on, what do you expect? It's obviously going to be "kinda like FnP" whatever you do. Not sure what you'd expect to make this so different , or what making RP "persistent" would mean - unless you mean going back to 7th edition which was simply a "persistent" FnP.
Been running some numbers on this for multi wound units... now, apologies in advance, I couldn't be bothered to run the maths, so I've done 120k random rolls and based percentages off that.
Lets pick a 3 wound model unit, and model RP rolls after losing 1, 2 or 3 models. Assuming we have an RP of 5+, our chances of returning models are as follows (and note these are for returning only that many, not at least that many):
1 model 0 models returned: 96.66% (ouch), 1 model returned: 3.34%
I can rerun these numbers with RPs of 4 and I suspect that makes a BIG difference. What I'm more interested in is the impact of rolling additional dice; let's hypothisise that a Resurrection Orb gives you 2 additional dice for RP and rerun the exact scenario above:
1 model 0 models returned: 79%, 1 model returned: 21.00%
Happy to run some other scenarios, but broadly rolling additional dice (even only 2) gives you a very decent boost in survivability, especially at lower counts/higher wounds.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: I'm not sure about the new RP rule.
It seems really complicated, and its unclear if previously destroyed models can come back the following turn or if they are removed.
It doesn't say that they are removed, but it doesn't say that they persist either, and the article seems to imply that they stick around until the unit is wiped out.
The rule exists only during one phase of an attack. If you don't reanimate during that phase then those models are lost and the pool of dice are lost. Each attack round is a fresh wave; otherwise RP would work better and better the more damage you took from multiple sources.
^this. You don't get to roll a second time for all your dead 'crons each time your opponent lobs a storm bolter at you.
So its basically FNP. Lame.
So much for "you have to destroy the unit in a single attack" then.
Except...you do?
If you have a unit of 20 Warriors and 19 get slain, then Reanimation Protocols are done. You can potentially get all 19 Warriors back...which makes it so they no longer count as destroyed for Morale purposes and just are Back(tm).
We don't know yet if there's a way to return destroyed models to the unit, but it's extremely likely.
You fail most of those rolls because its a 5+, they lose more in the next attack, and they get wiped out in the third attack with no effort (if it gets to that point, they'll probably die in the next attack). That's not a single attack, that's two-three attacks. Its really no different from Death Guard.
Having reanimation be persistent would make it closer to the single attack claim and still have that feel that's unique to necrons. 7th ed was lame not because it wasn't effective (it was) but because it made necrons like every other faction that had FNP.
Maybe there will be something that return fallen models to a unit, but right now I'm not liking the perceived feel of it.
That said I don't mind the nerf to multi-wound models. It was pretty ridiculous how all it took was a single successful roll and you got a three wound model back. I can understand the change there at least.
It's different. The way to deal with DG is to overkill individual models - force 2 or 3 FNP rolls per model by using D2 / D3 weapons and you're safely getting rid of them. Can't do that vs Necrons. I mean come on, what do you expect? It's obviously going to be "kinda like FnP" whatever you do. Not sure what you'd expect to make this so different , or what making RP "persistent" would mean - unless you mean going back to 7th edition which was simply a "persistent" FnP.
The main difference he's pointing out is that RP still has the "kill them all and it doesn't work" special rule where FNP doesn't. That means once you get a unit to a manageable amount for a unit to one-shot you get to ignore the rule completely. Imagine if FNP only activated if there weren't enough wounds to kill the whole unit
CthuluIsSpy wrote: I'm not sure about the new RP rule.
It seems really complicated, and its unclear if previously destroyed models can come back the following turn or if they are removed.
It doesn't say that they are removed, but it doesn't say that they persist either, and the article seems to imply that they stick around until the unit is wiped out.
The rule exists only during one phase of an attack. If you don't reanimate during that phase then those models are lost and the pool of dice are lost. Each attack round is a fresh wave; otherwise RP would work better and better the more damage you took from multiple sources.
^this. You don't get to roll a second time for all your dead 'crons each time your opponent lobs a storm bolter at you.
So its basically FNP. Lame.
So much for "you have to destroy the unit in a single attack" then.
Except...you do?
If you have a unit of 20 Warriors and 19 get slain, then Reanimation Protocols are done. You can potentially get all 19 Warriors back...which makes it so they no longer count as destroyed for Morale purposes and just are Back(tm).
We don't know yet if there's a way to return destroyed models to the unit, but it's extremely likely.
You fail most of those rolls because its a 5+, they lose more in the next attack, and they get wiped out in the third attack with no effort (if it gets to that point, they'll probably die in the next attack). That's not a single attack, that's two-three attacks. Its really no different from Death Guard.
Having reanimation be persistent would make it closer to the single attack claim and still have that feel that's unique to necrons. 7th ed was lame not because it wasn't effective (it was) but because it made necrons like every other faction that had FNP.
Maybe there will be something that return fallen models to a unit, but right now I'm not liking the perceived feel of it.
That said I don't mind the nerf to multi-wound models. It was pretty ridiculous how all it took was a single successful roll and you got a three wound model back. I can understand the change there at least.
Except its not a nerf to multi-wound models its a nuke from orbit. Could they not have just given our multi-wound models a FNP.... it sucks because this rule is almost never going to go off and yet you know they are going to overprice every multi-wound model because of it.
Well it's GW - they don't need a reason to under or over cost things. It is a buff overall to an ability that was almost useless. It is REALLY good on 1 w models. 2 wound models it's for sure better than a 6+ FNP provided it's a big unit and hard to wipe.
Its really not better though as long as the enemy is targeting it with units that will kill 1-2 at most, so the ability almost never triggers. Once the unit is at a manageable level just shoot it with something mean remove them all and they don't get a chance to reanimate. FNP always gets a chance to work, there is still the "wipe all the model" way around RP. Its is going to be worse then FNP 99% of the time for multi-wound models
You are right about RP on multi wound. It's worse than 5+ FNP. For 1 wound models the principle reason it is better than 5+ FNP - overkill is wasted. It's draw back is if the unit is wiped you don't get it.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: I'm not sure about the new RP rule.
It seems really complicated, and its unclear if previously destroyed models can come back the following turn or if they are removed.
It doesn't say that they are removed, but it doesn't say that they persist either, and the article seems to imply that they stick around until the unit is wiped out.
The rule exists only during one phase of an attack. If you don't reanimate during that phase then those models are lost and the pool of dice are lost. Each attack round is a fresh wave; otherwise RP would work better and better the more damage you took from multiple sources.
^this. You don't get to roll a second time for all your dead 'crons each time your opponent lobs a storm bolter at you.
So its basically FNP. Lame.
So much for "you have to destroy the unit in a single attack" then.
Except...you do?
If you have a unit of 20 Warriors and 19 get slain, then Reanimation Protocols are done. You can potentially get all 19 Warriors back...which makes it so they no longer count as destroyed for Morale purposes and just are Back(tm).
We don't know yet if there's a way to return destroyed models to the unit, but it's extremely likely.
You fail most of those rolls because its a 5+, they lose more in the next attack, and they get wiped out in the third attack with no effort (if it gets to that point, they'll probably die in the next attack). That's not a single attack, that's two-three attacks. Its really no different from Death Guard.
Having reanimation be persistent would make it closer to the single attack claim and still have that feel that's unique to necrons. 7th ed was lame not because it wasn't effective (it was) but because it made necrons like every other faction that had FNP.
Maybe there will be something that return fallen models to a unit, but right now I'm not liking the perceived feel of it.
That said I don't mind the nerf to multi-wound models. It was pretty ridiculous how all it took was a single successful roll and you got a three wound model back. I can understand the change there at least.
It's different. The way to deal with DG is to overkill individual models - force 2 or 3 FNP rolls per model by using D2 / D3 weapons and you're safely getting rid of them. Can't do that vs Necrons. I mean come on, what do you expect? It's obviously going to be "kinda like FnP" whatever you do. Not sure what you'd expect to make this so different , or what making RP "persistent" would mean - unless you mean going back to 7th edition which was simply a "persistent" FnP.
The main difference he's pointing out is that RP still has the "kill them all and it doesn't work" special rule where FNP doesn't. That means once you get a unit to a manageable amount for a unit to one-shot you get to ignore the rule completely. Imagine if FNP only activated if there weren't enough wounds to kill the whole unit
I don't see how that was their point at all, to be honest. Their point was that "That's not a single attack, that's two-three attacks. Its really no different from Death Guard."
CthuluIsSpy wrote: I'm not sure about the new RP rule.
It seems really complicated, and its unclear if previously destroyed models can come back the following turn or if they are removed.
It doesn't say that they are removed, but it doesn't say that they persist either, and the article seems to imply that they stick around until the unit is wiped out.
The rule exists only during one phase of an attack. If you don't reanimate during that phase then those models are lost and the pool of dice are lost. Each attack round is a fresh wave; otherwise RP would work better and better the more damage you took from multiple sources.
^this. You don't get to roll a second time for all your dead 'crons each time your opponent lobs a storm bolter at you.
So its basically FNP. Lame.
So much for "you have to destroy the unit in a single attack" then.
Except...you do?
If you have a unit of 20 Warriors and 19 get slain, then Reanimation Protocols are done. You can potentially get all 19 Warriors back...which makes it so they no longer count as destroyed for Morale purposes and just are Back(tm).
We don't know yet if there's a way to return destroyed models to the unit, but it's extremely likely.
You fail most of those rolls because its a 5+, they lose more in the next attack, and they get wiped out in the third attack with no effort (if it gets to that point, they'll probably die in the next attack). That's not a single attack, that's two-three attacks. Its really no different from Death Guard.
Having reanimation be persistent would make it closer to the single attack claim and still have that feel that's unique to necrons. 7th ed was lame not because it wasn't effective (it was) but because it made necrons like every other faction that had FNP.
Maybe there will be something that return fallen models to a unit, but right now I'm not liking the perceived feel of it.
That said I don't mind the nerf to multi-wound models. It was pretty ridiculous how all it took was a single successful roll and you got a three wound model back. I can understand the change there at least.
Except its not a nerf to multi-wound models its a nuke from orbit. Could they not have just given our multi-wound models a FNP.... it sucks because this rule is almost never going to go off and yet you know they are going to overprice every multi-wound model because of it.
Well it's GW - they don't need a reason to under or over cost things. It is a buff overall to an ability that was almost useless. It is REALLY good on 1 w models. 2 wound models it's for sure better than a 6+ FNP provided it's a big unit and hard to wipe.
Its really not better though as long as the enemy is targeting it with units that will kill 1-2 at most, so the ability almost never triggers. Once the unit is at a manageable level just shoot it with something mean remove them all and they don't get a chance to reanimate. FNP always gets a chance to work, there is still the "wipe all the model" way around RP. Its is going to be worse then FNP 99% of the time for multi-wound models
You are right about RP on multi wound. It's worse than 5+ FNP. For 1 wound models the principle reason it is better than 5+ FNP - overkill is wasted. It's draw back is if the unit is wiped you don't get it.
So on 1 wound models, it comes out be about equal. You are more resilient to multi-wound shots but there is a chance you don't even get your special rule. So we have an army-wide special rule that is about equal on are single wound infantry as FNP and far worse on out multi-wound models then FNP. Sorry but at this point, I would rather we just have a FNP
Overly verbose and worded terribly, but overall that's a big improvement over the current rules. It is a slightly worse FNP vs lots of cases, although much better on single wound models vs multi damage weapons. All I wanted was an improvement over 8th's rules and that's what this is. Plus we still don't know what Rites of Reanimation, Ghost Ark, and Res Orbs do and if/how the Reanimator has changed so it could very easily be a better FNP once all things are taken into consideration.
You fail most of those rolls because its a 5+, they lose more in the next attack, and they get wiped out in the third attack with no effort (if it gets to that point, they'll probably die in the next attack). That's not a single attack, that's two-three attacks. Its really no different from Death Guard.
Having reanimation be persistent would make it closer to the single attack claim and still have that feel that's unique to necrons. 7th ed was lame not because it wasn't effective (it was) but because it made necrons like every other faction that had FNP.
Maybe there will be something that return fallen models to a unit, but right now I'm not liking the perceived feel of it.
That said I don't mind the nerf to multi-wound models. It was pretty ridiculous how all it took was a single successful roll and you got a three wound model back. I can understand the change there at least.
Edit - My bad, RP still doesn't activate if the entire unit is wiped out, so this is all lies! Still, leaving the rest of the post because I think the point is valid - an emphasis on lower-level infantry being more durable and staying on objectives longer.
Hard to tell without the full codex and how they're going to rework things like the Ghost Ark (if at all), but the new Warriors get to re-roll 1s, the new Reanimator adds 1, the old Ghost Ark and Resurrection Orb let you re-roll your fails...
The 8th ed one, at the tournament level, was essentially a delayed FNP that would likely never activate. For your Warriors, with a Reanimator or equivalent standing nearby, you have a guaranteed 4+++, re-rolling 1s. So if you lose 20 Warriors in a go, you're getting 13-14 back. With Death Guard FNP, you can apply enough firepower to make it statistically unlikely for a model to survive; since ours takes place after the attacks, you can't "overkill" our units to get a near-guaranteed kill. Even without any buffing units, half of all Warrior casualties are going to stand back up.
Effectively, this changes a Warrior blob from being a pool of 20 T4 4+ wounds you have to chew through in a turn, to a pool of 20+10+5+2(ish)+1 unbuffed wounds you have to chew through to wipe a unit off an objective. Add in a Reanimator (or equivalent, I know the early impressions were that a wet paper bag offered more resistance, but we'll likely get similar rules from other sources), and suddenly you have a pool of (optimistically rounded) 20+14+10+6+4+3+2+1 wounds, with each of those attacks coming either from a different unit, or in a different round. Effectively, we're doubling/tripling the wounds for our basic infantry, regardless of how much firepower gets turned on them.
In the smaller games I've played with my friends, they're pretty bad at actually finishing a unit of Warriors off, so the multi-round persistence of RP definitely worked in my favor - but I think this variant will work better at more competitive levels. Since this edition is all about board control, having greater soak will work in our favor, since units will have to be out in the open getting shot at to generate any points.
We have no idea what army-wide FNP saves are going to look like at at this point. I've read that GW are wanting to cut down on these types of roll as they slow the game down, and I've even heard rumours that DR is going down to a -1 to wound.
As my post above proves, RP is better against the exact tactic you take to counter it, throwing lots of shots at a unit and taking more of them down, and it's better on the exact units that score points this edition: Warriors and Immortals.
Regardless, also I think there is a big element of missing the picture here: RP as it stood in 8th was unreliable, meaning you could see a big swing between returning 100s of points of models and doing almost nothing. It has to be priced for the former situation happening so that Necrons aren't ludicrously overpowered i a percentage of their games (and, let's face it, no fun to play against). An RP which is less *potentially* potent and more consistent on our more expensive models allows a far more competitive pricing to be established, and the proposed solution even works far better on big blobs of troops.
People saying the ability is worthless on multiwound models are also exposing their balls and inability to understand how 40k works.
It doesn't matter if old-RP meant a Destroyer could get back up on one 5+ if you were never making that dice roll in the first place. Actively getting chances to resurrect models after attacks still increases the survivability of units to a really high degree because every saved ones leads to more models subsequent units have to chew through which also leads to more RP rolls.
Is it as strong as a traditional FNP? Of course not, but to call it worse than the 8th edition rule is pure comedy.
There's very little reason to make the rule this complex without adding ways to toy with it (IE, add more dice to the pool). The baseline is already way better than 8th and it can only get better from here.
If necrons are killed in the psychic phase by mortal wounds, or by any other rule which doesnt involve shooting or fighting, no reanimation. If necrons are killed by an explosion of a vehicle, no reanimation. If necrons are killed by a weapon which does mortal wounds (in addition) they can reanimate This is a huge nerf
p5freak wrote: If necrons are killed in the psychic phase by mortal wounds, or by any other rule which doesnt involve shooting or fighting, no reanimation. If necrons are killed by an explosion of a vehicle, no reanimation. If necrons are killed by a weapon which does mortal wounds (in addition) they can reanimate This is a huge nerf
They weren't getting RP in any of those situations before either, is the thing.
While I think the new rule is very weak to the point of non-existent for multi-wound models, people are forgetting RP almost never mattered in 8th since it was likely to never go off since wiping units in a phase/turn was and is not hard. Now there is a least a chance, especially for one wound models, to get good milage out of RP.
Plus I'm betting there are still unseen re-rolls and potential extra dice rules we haven't seen yet.
p5freak wrote: If necrons are killed in the psychic phase by mortal wounds, or by any other rule which doesnt involve shooting or fighting, no reanimation. If necrons are killed by an explosion of a vehicle, no reanimation. If necrons are killed by a weapon which does mortal wounds (in addition) they can reanimate This is a huge nerf
They weren't getting RP in any of those situations before either, is the thing.
Yes, they did. You rolled for RP whenever a model was slain. You didnt roll when a model ran away because of morale.
Reanimation Protocols: Roll a D6 for each slain model from this unit (unless the whole unit has been completely destroyed) at the beginning of your turn. Do not roll for models that have fled the unit......
p5freak wrote: If necrons are killed in the psychic phase by mortal wounds, or by any other rule which doesnt involve shooting or fighting, no reanimation. If necrons are killed by an explosion of a vehicle, no reanimation. If necrons are killed by a weapon which does mortal wounds (in addition) they can reanimate This is a huge nerf
They weren't getting RP in any of those situations before either, is the thing.
Yes, they did. You rolled for RP whenever a model was slain. You didnt roll when a model ran away because of morale.
Reanimation Protocols: Roll a D6 for each slain model from this unit (unless the whole unit has been completely destroyed) at the beginning of your turn. Do not roll for models that have fled the unit......
If they were targeting a unit in the Psychic phase, that unit was not going to survive until next turn to use RP.
The real question now is did they change Living Metal? We have some indication that multi-wound Necrons are getting this rule. Will it continue to just restore 1 wound to a wounded model, or will it be able to resurrect dead models for the unit if none are wounded? That would help even out the RP issue if it can. That darn “wait and see” has cropped up again.
alextroy wrote: The real question now is did they change Living Metal? We have some indication that multi-wound Necrons are getting this rule. Will it continue to just restore 1 wound to a wounded model, or will it be able to resurrect dead models for the unit if none are wounded? That would help even out the RP issue if it can. That darn “wait and see” has cropped up again.
I think for sure Living metal is going to change, and I feel like it's going to have diffrent attributes depending on the unit type. Heal + something for Vehicles, and Heal + something for Infantry.
p5freak wrote: If necrons are killed in the psychic phase by mortal wounds, or by any other rule which doesnt involve shooting or fighting, no reanimation. If necrons are killed by an explosion of a vehicle, no reanimation. If necrons are killed by a weapon which does mortal wounds (in addition) they can reanimate This is a huge nerf
They weren't getting RP in any of those situations before either, is the thing.
Yes, they did. You rolled for RP whenever a model was slain. You didnt roll when a model ran away because of morale.
Reanimation Protocols: Roll a D6 for each slain model from this unit (unless the whole unit has been completely destroyed) at the beginning of your turn. Do not roll for models that have fled the unit......
If they were targeting a unit in the Psychic phase, that unit was not going to survive until next turn to use RP.
Eeyep. 8th edition RP was objectively stronger... but only in the pie in the sky situation where you actually got roll it. The new RP is much more consistent in its application and value.
Yeah indeed I have been kinda quick to call them out. But things do look grim, RP doesn't even stop psychic powers. And we know for sure it can't be better than 4+. Spending some precious CP to help the RP of one unit (as they are by unit) seem to add up quiclly... Well, we'll see.
I've been mulling it over and trying to math it out, and I think the largest boon we can receive for buffing RP is adding dice to the pool.
The +1 to RP seems like it might be rather easy to maintain if Crypteks keep their aura, but even if they don't, more dice is always better right?
So if we get a strat or piece of wargear or something that adds dice to the pool, I think that'll be far more valuable than a roll modifier.
The only other thing I can think of that could help is a way to roll for previously dead units, via a strat or potentially the Res Orb/Ghost Ark as that would help mitigate the mortal wound conundrum
godardc wrote: Bye bye necron hype. It was good to have hopes for a xenos faction for once, while it lasted... This is an absolute shame and insult to the necrons if there is no way to bring back models destroyed earlier. That was their iconic feature through the ages !
Resurrection orb?
Also, no.
Necrons always got to come back (rolling each turn) in 2nd edition
2nd ed also had the odd "buy extra Warriors for when Destroyers came back as Warriors because their hover chair got broken" version.
Egyptian Space Zombie wrote: I'm not a fan of the new RP. A good rule should be worded simply but provide depth when used. This is very awkwardly worded.
Yeah, part of it is working around the base restriction that you can't have multiple wounded models in the same unit, another is trying to really tighten down the rule with the first two paragraphs, but they basically nailed it down by hammering a nail in every possible surface that would secure the box, and hoped they didn't miss anything, rather than going for something elegant. They broke it down into steps, but didn't go the full distances and make the steps 100% obvious in natural language OR specific game terms. Just take a look at the multiple pages of people trying to puzzle it out in this thread.
The charge phrase restriction I understand basically by independently figuring out what they're trying to stop, not by any virtue of the wording of the restriction. And its vague enough (closer than what model, exactly? If you take the closest model off as a casualty for some reason, I guess you can't put it back in the same spot?) that I think it creates some problems. What if you're trying to multicharge units that surrounds yours? Or even charge a single unit that's managed to surround your unit?
Five paragraphs and three bullet points is just plain wordy for 'roll a die, on a 5+ a destroyed model comes back' OR 'roll a die equal to the wound characteristic of a destroyed model, on a 5+ restore 1 wound to a destroyed model. If it matches the full wounds characteristic of the model, the model comes back. Any model not completely restored to their full wounds is completely destroyed'
p5freak wrote: Nobody will play multi wound models because they are crap now with the new RP, its almost impossible to bring them back, when only one model dies.
Other factions seem to get along fine with their multi-wound models that stay dead. I understand RP is our shtick but let's not blow this outta proportion without seeing if those units have been hit with a big RP tax.
p5freak wrote: If necrons are killed in the psychic phase by mortal wounds, or by any other rule which doesnt involve shooting or fighting, no reanimation. If necrons are killed by an explosion of a vehicle, no reanimation. If necrons are killed by a weapon which does mortal wounds (in addition) they can reanimate This is a huge nerf
They weren't getting RP in any of those situations before either, is the thing.
Yes, they did. You rolled for RP whenever a model was slain. You didnt roll when a model ran away because of morale.
Reanimation Protocols: Roll a D6 for each slain model from this unit (unless the whole unit has been completely destroyed) at the beginning of your turn. Do not roll for models that have fled the unit......
If they were targeting a unit in the Psychic phase, that unit was not going to survive until next turn to use RP.
Also let us not forget that most psychic powers did MW which made RP moot.
p5freak wrote: Nobody will play multi wound models because they are crap now with the new RP, its almost impossible to bring them back, when only one model dies.
Other factions seem to get along fine with their multi-wound models that stay dead. I understand RP is our shtick but let's not blow this outta proportion without seeing if those units have been hit with a big RP tax.
Other factions don't pay extra points for Reanimation Protocols. The worry is GW is gonna overprice our multi-wound models because of RP, even though it will barely ever work on them.
The problem is half their army isnt designed around the concept of their models coming back; synergies, strategies, stratagems and point costs all tied into that particular concept.
Point costs being the first and foremost worry to most of us here. If they are point costed for it being a vestigial theme, thats fine, but if RP is costed like its actually supposed to work; we may be in serious trouble.
p5freak wrote: Nobody will play multi wound models because they are crap now with the new RP, its almost impossible to bring them back, when only one model dies.
Other factions seem to get along fine with their multi-wound models that stay dead. I understand RP is our shtick but let's not blow this outta proportion without seeing if those units have been hit with a big RP tax.
Also, like, focusing down the bigger threats so they don't come back is just the same as what happens now? So, a 3.5% chance of saving a Destroyer is better than what we have. At least now you'll be able to deploy your RP boosters and have them do something rather than have them standing next to a pile of ash when it's time to start rolling.
Also creates some interesting forks for your opponent... Your destroyers are getting +1 RP and an extra two dice for the pool, do you want to pump a load of fire in or target something else?
Also let us not forget that most psychic powers did MW which made RP moot.
Generally with the new RP it becomes damn hard to wipe out a warrior blob within a 4 turn game barring absolutely overwhelming and likely unattainable levels of firepower since each attack is separate.
If I'm reading the new rules correctly, and correct me if I'm mistaken, say you have a 20 warrior blob, and a single enemy unit somehow manages to wipe out 15 of them, which would take a massive and pretty devastating attack from ONE unit.
Roll 15 dice, reroll ones, reanimate a warrior if you get a 5+.
Repeat until you get no 5+s, reducing the number of dice by one each time.
Really, until you get down to 3 dice the odds are on average rolls you're very likely bring back one per roll. Even at 3 dice you will likely bring back one. So out of the 15 whacked, you can count on with average rolls getting 13 back, possibly all 15. It's not unreasonable that the last dice would work since you succeed 1/3 of the time and have a 1/4 reroll chance if you fail.
So the days of just wiping out an entire warrior blob by firing your whole army at it to prevent any RP are now mostly a memory, bitter to necron players, fond to everyone else.
Of course things could go south and you can roll 6 dice and not get a 5+ or a 1, making it always possible to get really shafted by the odds. So it's not an iron clad certainly.
lacking the reroll 1 rule things are a bit less rosy for immortals, and multiwound models will see a massive nerf to RP barring some wargear,. rules or strats.
But one thing's for sure, once you plop a warrior blob on an objective they're pretty damn likely to hold it for a while... In the games where you get beaucoup points for holding an objecting on the far side of the table a warrior blob plus VoD or deceiver just might win you the game.
That's not how it works.
20 Warrior-blob loses 15 models to a single enemy unit shooting.
- You roll 15 dice and each 5+ is added to your pool. Average you get 5 dice/wounds into your pool. Now you use that pool to bring back models back one by one until you have no more "pool" left (for 1-wound models, you bring back 5).
Now you have a unit of 10. Let's say another enemy unit now shoots at that reduced-to-10 warrior blob and kills 6.
- You now roll 6 dice (just those killed by the latest attack sequence) and each 5+ is added to your new pool. Average you get 2 dice/wounds into your pool. Now you use that pool to bring back models one by one until you have no more "pool" left (for 1-wound models, you bring back 2).
You now have a unit of 6 Necron warriors.
Any future attacks will allow you to reanimate using as many dice as models were killed in the latest attack sequence. Stuff that "previously" died doesn't add any dice anymore and there's no way to ever re-animate a unit "over" what it lost in the last attack sequence anymore.
For single wound-models, there's, not much of a difference, but for multi-wound models (say 3-wound destroyers), it's actually better to shoot them with lots of MSU units. If you only kill one 3-wound model per attack-sequence, the Necron player is far less likely to get one back rolling only 3 dice for 3 5+ after each attack, compared to rolling, say, 9 or 12 dice at once after you kill 3-4 models with a single unit of yours.
I think the deciding factor on how good RP is for multi-wound models will be if living metal gets changed significantly, and if there is a way to roll for units that have already been removed previously. We still don't know what "Rites of Reanimation" does unless I missed that and we could very well get a strat along those lines. There's also resurrection orbs. Maybe one of those things could have an ability like "once per battle round when the last model of a unit is removed, make an RP role for every model in that unit (starting strength) at the end of that phase," but maybe that would be too good?
Matt Swain wrote: Well, warrior blobs become pretty hard to whack totally now as they get to roll over and over to reanimate and reroll ones.
Destroyers, tomb blade, etc now become target priorities. Maybe they will get strats and gear to help them survive longer than 2 turns.
They were always priorities and they also had no way to mitigate or survive the firepower that would be directed to them.
Now they do. The new RP is better for multiwound models than the old one.
People need to get this in their heads.
If they attract enough firepower to be reduced to low numbers for RP to kick in and be successful, then they've probably already attracted enough firepower to risk being wiped with no RP. The only way the new one is better for multi-wound is if your opponent heavily depletes the target unit in 1 volley but fails to wipe them. In the event 1 model gets back up either your opponent wipes them back out again with a 2nd unit (same as before just with less overkill) or they're now stuck at that reduced size when previously they had a chance of 1/3 of the models getting back up on full wounds every turn.
A lot of this both was is hyperbole because if a unit of destroyers lose 1 model in a phase, odds are it's dead. if your opponent is killing 5 out of 6 then they're either being unlucky not to wipe all 6 or they're not caring that out of the 5 dead models, you've good odds that 1 will get back up.
Any unit being able to completely wipe 6 destroyers in one shooting attack is incredibly rare anyway. Even Aggressors and Eradicators cannot manage it (well, maybe Aggressors....) because shoot twice abilities are a separate shooting attack, meaning the unit would get to make 2 RP rolls if both attack sequences result in casualties.
Bosskelot wrote: Any unit being able to completely wipe 6 destroyers in one shooting attack is incredibly rare anyway. Even Aggressors and Eradicators cannot manage it (well, maybe Aggressors....) because shoot twice abilities are a separate shooting attack, meaning the unit would get to make 2 RP rolls if both attack sequences result in casualties.
If a unit can kill 3 per volley, it will now take 3 when it used to take 2 which is a definite improvement, but kill them 2 at a time and odds are none get back up albeit this is still better as they have the chance to even if they don't.
IHateNids wrote: As a tiny little aside-point from someone who hasnt had time to read the 9th Ed rules yet, are we still expected to kill off wounded models first?
I'm expecting so, but given I haven't heard I thought I'd check because it would make new RP so much better
Matt Swain wrote: Well, warrior blobs become pretty hard to whack totally now as they get to roll over and over to reanimate and reroll ones.
Destroyers, tomb blade, etc now become target priorities. Maybe they will get strats and gear to help them survive longer than 2 turns.
They were always priorities and they also had no way to mitigate or survive the firepower that would be directed to them.
Now they do. The new RP is better for multiwound models than the old one.
People need to get this in their heads.
If they attract enough firepower to be reduced to low numbers for RP to kick in and be successful, then they've probably already attracted enough firepower to risk being wiped with no RP. The only way the new one is better for multi-wound is if your opponent heavily depletes the target unit in 1 volley but fails to wipe them. In the event 1 model gets back up either your opponent wipes them back out again with a 2nd unit (same as before just with less overkill) or they're now stuck at that reduced size when previously they had a chance of 1/3 of the models getting back up on full wounds every turn.
A lot of this both was is hyperbole because if a unit of destroyers lose 1 model in a phase, odds are it's dead. if your opponent is killing 5 out of 6 then they're either being unlucky not to wipe all 6 or they're not caring that out of the 5 dead models, you've good odds that 1 will get back up.
No the entire point here is that your enemy will kill them piece meal, if he can, effectively denying RP (again!). First unit kills off just the one model from each of your destroyer-like units. No effective RP with only one 3W model lost. The second unit does the same. And the third. Boom. 3 destroyer-like models gone from each unit, 6 total. And no RP. Just like 8th.
Remains of the initial units live on but are no real threat any more and are easily dealt with the subsequent turns if need be.
This is the worst case.
You have to mitigate that as good as you can. But RP isn't really "fixed" for these models going into 9th. They still don't have an effective RP. Sure they cause your enemy to distirbute fire in a certain way, just like RP did in 8th, but its perhaps even more easily handled now as your enemy can evenly distribute his fire power where it does the most damage, no longer wasting fire power by over killing like he did in 8th. That's the new framework from which anti-necron tactics will form.
That beinng said, 20 blob warriors are likely back with a vengeance. For some time they might not see that threat coming and all the time they focus on our destroyer-like units, the warriors might live to score points until its too late to shift them. Who knows.
Matt Swain wrote: Well, warrior blobs become pretty hard to whack totally now as they get to roll over and over to reanimate and reroll ones.
Destroyers, tomb blade, etc now become target priorities. Maybe they will get strats and gear to help them survive longer than 2 turns.
They were always priorities and they also had no way to mitigate or survive the firepower that would be directed to them.
Now they do. The new RP is better for multiwound models than the old one.
People need to get this in their heads.
If they attract enough firepower to be reduced to low numbers for RP to kick in and be successful, then they've probably already attracted enough firepower to risk being wiped with no RP. The only way the new one is better for multi-wound is if your opponent heavily depletes the target unit in 1 volley but fails to wipe them. In the event 1 model gets back up either your opponent wipes them back out again with a 2nd unit (same as before just with less overkill) or they're now stuck at that reduced size when previously they had a chance of 1/3 of the models getting back up on full wounds every turn.
A lot of this both was is hyperbole because if a unit of destroyers lose 1 model in a phase, odds are it's dead. if your opponent is killing 5 out of 6 then they're either being unlucky not to wipe all 6 or they're not caring that out of the 5 dead models, you've good odds that 1 will get back up.
No the entire point here is that your enemy will kill them piece meal, if he can, effectively denying RP (again!). First unit kills off just the one model from each of your destroyer-like units. No effective RP with only one 3W model lost. The second unit does the same. And the third. Boom. 3 destroyer-like models gone from each unit, 6 total. And no RP. Just like 8th.
Remains of the initial units live on but are no real threat any more and are easily dealt with the subsequent turns if need be.
This is the worst case.
You have to mitigate that as good as you can. But RP isn't really "fixed" for these models going into 9th. They still don't have an effective RP. Sure they cause your enemy to distirbute fire in a certain way, just like RP did in 8th, but its perhaps even more easily handled now as your enemy can evenly distribute his fire power where it does the most damage, no longer wasting fire power by over killing like he did in 8th. That's the new framework from which anti-necron tactics will form.
That beinng said, 20 blob warriors are likely back with a vengeance. For some time they might not see that threat coming and all the time they focus on our destroyer-like units, the warriors might live to score points until its too late to shift them. Who knows.
Oh I agree, I was trying to highlight that if they start being gunned down by bigger weapons, it's still not really that much better. the 3+ wound stuff needs to be cheap imo to offset the improbability of it returning at any point. Poor heavy lokhust with it's 1.2% chance of resurrecting.
This is a huge nerf 
