113031
Post by: Voss
-Ňecrontyr- wrote:Anyone with better info know what the exact wording is on the Doomstalker's overwatch ability? They get to fire overwatch for free on anything charging a friendly within 6"... but do they still need 6's to hit?
It is free, and yes, probably still need 6s. ( Iirc, it's in the several videos that have been posted)
They also do have a pair of flayers in addition to the big gun, for what that's worth.
It's a thematically neat bonus for a pretty awesome looking model, but not much more than that.
118305
Post by: Necronplayer
Sgt. Cortez wrote:-Ňecrontyr- wrote:Another question; as Destroyers are now "Lokhust Destroyers" are the old Heavy Destroyers essentially re-done into the new "Lokhust Heavy" variant? Or are the old 'heavy destroyers' now just a weapon swap for 'lokhust destroyers'
Little confused.
I'd say so. You take your old heavy destroyers as Lokhust heavy destroyers, your old destroyers as Lokhust destroyers and your destroyer lord as lokhust destroyer lord.Even the options stayed similar as you can still mix one heavy destroyer into a group of normal destroyers.
Yup, also a minor difference aside from the weapon options is you can include 1-6 destroyer models and 0-1 heavy destroyers in the same unit. So max unit size of 7 now, instead of 6.
25580
Post by: Maelstrom808
-Ňecrontyr- wrote:Works for me. I can now drop 10 lychguard/immortals and a character again!
Plus you can trigger Malecolent Arcing off their tesla destructors
You need to pump those numbers up! Two units of 9 Lychguard and two characters for support  Automatically Appended Next Post:  CKO wrote:Necron melee is better, there might be a marginal difference in damage output when you compare old rules and new rules for Flayed Ones but they are a 1 wound model with the new RP rule. That means defensively they are far superior.
Plus a native deepstrike. Add in some charge and attack buffs and they turn into a decent blender that can also be a decent speed bump between your opponent and objectives.
7637
Post by: Sasori
Cynista wrote: Sasori wrote:
Just did the math on this 10 flayed ones vs T4, you cause an average of 5 unsaved wounds vs 3+, 6 with the new rules.
Against T5 you cause an average of 3 unsaved wounds against 3+ with the old rules vs 2 with the current rules.
So it's not vastly superior at all. It's very slightly better against T5+, while the new rule being better on T4 and below. That's not even starting to get into the bonus' you can get between the stratagems and the Novokh Dynasty.
Long story short, they were bad before and are still bad now. It's a shame. I think if they had 4 attacks base each they would be viable
If you want to take them, taking them in Novokh makes them pretty good I think. They can get the bonus AP, +1 charge and the Novokh Stratagem for more attacks.
These guys seem primed to take a backfield objective form an enemy.
126602
Post by: pothocboots
Would the canoptek reanimator be worth it if instead of +1 to RP it could reanimate a la the reanimation orb once a round?
7637
Post by: Sasori
pothocboots wrote:Would the canoptek reanimator be worth it if instead of +1 to RP it could reanimate a la the reanimation orb once a round?
The problem with the reanimator really isn't it's abilities, though nerfing them from indomitus didn't help..., it's the statline. It's just way too fragile and way to easy to be killed. It really needed to be a character to be useful. You are just better off spending the points for more models
118305
Post by: Necronplayer
Sasori wrote:pothocboots wrote:Would the canoptek reanimator be worth it if instead of +1 to RP it could reanimate a la the reanimation orb once a round?
The problem with the reanimator really isn't it's abilities, though nerfing them from indomitus didn't help..., it's the statline. It's just way too fragile and way to easy to be killed. It really needed to be a character to be useful. You are just better off spending the points for more models
I agree with its statline being awful. But I'm inclined to try it out though. With the free 6" move, and assuming the board has a decent amount of terrain, the reanimator just may be able to LOS enemy units. It is a rather tall model though....
And it's at that price point where its like why should I take this unit when I can just bring almost 10 more warriors.
113031
Post by: Voss
Sasori wrote:pothocboots wrote:Would the canoptek reanimator be worth it if instead of +1 to RP it could reanimate a la the reanimation orb once a round?
The problem with the reanimator really isn't it's abilities, though nerfing them from indomitus didn't help..., it's the statline. It's just way too fragile and way to easy to be killed. It really needed to be a character to be useful. You are just better off spending the points for more models
It needed quantum shielding or the Doomstalker's containment field (4++)
Or priced like a spyder and a unit of 1-3
44971
Post by: Wakshaani
Wonder if the new terrain piece is tall enough to hide a Reanimator behind?
127633
Post by: -Ňecrontyr-
Exactly on Reanimator statline. One of the only sources of +1 RP and its expensive, fragile, and 2 stories tall
101163
Post by: Tyel
Its all been said, but the Reanimator is a 55 point model with a good rule.
At best its worth about 75-80 points.
Really, it would be better to have 9-12 wounds, and either quantum shielding or a base invul. And preferably twice as many shots.
115943
Post by: Darsath
If the Reanimator was 75 points, and you take 2 per detachment slot (similar to crypteks) it would be alright. At 110 it's just way too much, and sadly its one of the only sources of +1 to reanimation. It's a shame too, because the model's quite cool as well.
77922
Post by: Overread
The Reanimators issues are both that its a rather squishy unit, but also that its a very very tall unit. This makes it much easier to shoot out and take out earlier in the game; because its just going to tower over a lot of terrain in the game.
It's why many feel its not got bad stats, its just too expensive so it makes a really attractive target for early prioritising for your opponent. If it were cheaper and a 0-3 or so unit I think many would prefer it as then they could run two or three and thus have a much greater chance of the function (renaimation boost) surviving into the mid game .
122535
Post by: Twilight Pathways
Apologies for my ignorance on Necron rules, what are the other ways to get +1 to RP other than a Reanimator?
115943
Post by: Darsath
Twilight Pathways wrote:Apologies for my ignorance on Necron rules, what are the other ways to get +1 to RP other than a Reanimator?
There isn't any other. The only other source is the Orb of Eternity, but that's once per game res orb, and only when using it do you get the +1.
127633
Post by: -Ňecrontyr-
At the moment I think you only get +1 from Reanimator and the ResOrb Relic
106383
Post by: JNAProductions
Crypteks lost their +1 to RP rolls?
127633
Post by: -Ňecrontyr-
The Technomancer can straight up Reanimate 1 core model, or d3 warriors now
7637
Post by: Sasori
-Ňecrontyr- wrote:At the moment I think you only get +1 from Reanimator and the ResOrb Relic
Yeah, that's it right now.
320
Post by: Platuan4th
Necronplayer wrote:
+1 to hit aura for Canoptek units
-1 to toughness (T4 to T3)
Hitting on 3s, wounding on 2s sounds pretty juicy.
This is most likely my go to for Causual/Narrative play since I prefer running Canoptek units
97127
Post by: Kharne the Befriender
Silly question for you all, so I've seen a lot of people convert the Triarch Stalker to be more canoptek looking. I myself tried on one, emphasis on try, and I have the pilots off my other 2 to paint.
Would the Reanimator add to it well? I've got 3 spare so I could try it. Should I? Do any of you think it could work?
77922
Post by: Overread
Warriors (10 per pack, plus 3 scarabs), Skorpekh Destroyers (3 plus one Plasmacyte) and Hexmark Destroyer are all making an appearance next weekend!
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/10/04/sunday-preview-huge-news-for-the-mortal-realms/
113031
Post by: Voss
Curious to see what the prices are, and if the warriors & skorpekhs are even worth buying separately ( or just picking up the 'elite' starter set)
Still pending:
Monolith
Ophydian destroyers
2 new Crypteks (Chrono and Psycho)
Void Dragon
Flayed Ones
still an open question if Indomitus characters are going to come separately.
But I'd say we've got two more weeks of Necron releases to come.
77922
Post by: Overread
Right now they aren't. There's ample Indomitus split sets on ebay and flying around and we've not yet had the second wave hit.
I would hope Warriors at around £20 and Skorpekh closer to £30. That's the generously good side of prices, Skorpekh could easily be £35 and Warriors £25 or greater.
Still even at the most generous low price that would still be 20+20+30 = £70. You can get half an Indomitus set easily for that much and less (I've seen them from £45 and up). Basically giving you the same content for less, plus a load of free leaders and a reanimator. If you don't need the rest then you can sell it on or use it for conversion parts .
With two warrior weapons and Skorpehk having 3-6 limits I'd say it makes having 4 Indomitus sets quite an attractive purchase for a Necron player starting out and wanting to grow their forces.
11600
Post by: CKO
I got 3 Necron Portions of the Indomitus sets. I bought the necron half from one friend, split with one person, and bought one for myself.
60 Warriors is a good number t o have.
90435
Post by: Slayer-Fan123
Another good question is if the classic Destroyer Lord is stuck at BS/WS3+
72249
Post by: beast_gts
Lokhust Lord is BS/WS3+ (with re-roll 1s)
14
Post by: Ghaz
I can't see the Warriors being cheaper than Nighthaunt Chainrasp Horde which retails at £25 ($40 US).
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Yeah, and they've caught holy hell over that one.
14
Post by: Ghaz
I know, because that's why I never started a Nighthaunt army myself. Still it's the closest equivalent to the new Warriors that GW has (easy to build, core unit for the army, etc).
120704
Post by: Cynista
Sasori wrote:Cynista wrote: Sasori wrote:
Just did the math on this 10 flayed ones vs T4, you cause an average of 5 unsaved wounds vs 3+, 6 with the new rules.
Against T5 you cause an average of 3 unsaved wounds against 3+ with the old rules vs 2 with the current rules.
So it's not vastly superior at all. It's very slightly better against T5+, while the new rule being better on T4 and below. That's not even starting to get into the bonus' you can get between the stratagems and the Novokh Dynasty.
Long story short, they were bad before and are still bad now. It's a shame. I think if they had 4 attacks base each they would be viable
If you want to take them, taking them in Novokh makes them pretty good I think. They can get the bonus AP, +1 charge and the Novokh Stratagem for more attacks.
These guys seem primed to take a backfield objective form an enemy.
My point is that Novokh Flayed Ones used to reroll both hits and wounds. And they were.... mediocre at best? We all wanted them to get better and frankly they've gotten worse, partially because Novokh got nerfed. So I'm not really going to go along with anyone saying they're good because they aren't lol. And that goes for a lot of our codex. I've been reading it for the past hour, to be frank, it's not great.
112152
Post by: Denegaar
A lot of things have changed and went up in points... and Flayed Ones went cheaper if I read it correctly. I don't play Necrons, but comparing them with the last edition pt costs isn't fair.
In a world where a Wych costs 11 points, a 13 FO is pretty good.
113031
Post by: Voss
Novokh got +1 charge and bonus AP on a charge (or when charged). I'd rather have that than only rerolling failed hits on charges/response to charges
Especially given that a lot of necron melee units can get buffs from being destroyers, from nearby destroyer lords, or are canoptek and can get buffs from technomancers.
Granted, flayer ones don't benefit from those buffs, but I'd rather have the new charge bonuses anyway.
116615
Post by: unitled
Cynista wrote: Sasori wrote:Cynista wrote: Sasori wrote:
Just did the math on this 10 flayed ones vs T4, you cause an average of 5 unsaved wounds vs 3+, 6 with the new rules.
Against T5 you cause an average of 3 unsaved wounds against 3+ with the old rules vs 2 with the current rules.
So it's not vastly superior at all. It's very slightly better against T5+, while the new rule being better on T4 and below. That's not even starting to get into the bonus' you can get between the stratagems and the Novokh Dynasty.
Long story short, they were bad before and are still bad now. It's a shame. I think if they had 4 attacks base each they would be viable
If you want to take them, taking them in Novokh makes them pretty good I think. They can get the bonus AP, +1 charge and the Novokh Stratagem for more attacks.
These guys seem primed to take a backfield objective form an enemy.
My point is that Novokh Flayed Ones used to reroll both hits and wounds. And they were.... mediocre at best? We all wanted them to get better and frankly they've gotten worse, partially because Novokh got nerfed. So I'm not really going to go along with anyone saying they're good because they aren't lol. And that goes for a lot of our codex. I've been reading it for the past hour, to be frank, it's not great.
I don't think the numbers back you up here to be honest, while they do marginally fewer hits on a charge (2.67 old Flayed ones and 2.5 Flayed ones) and don't have the wound reroll, an extra -2AP more than make up for this for anything with a 5+ save or better... and they've gone down to 13 points too?
EDIT: Plus, the Novokh strat now gives you +1 attack rather than fight again, and the fight again strat is still there for Flayed Ones and dropped to 2CP from 3.
120704
Post by: Cynista
The point being they were so bad before nobody ever took them. We can argue about whether rerolling hits and wounds is better or if -2 AP is better (give me the former any day of the week, we have more than enough AP already), but at BEST it's a sidegrade for a bottom tier unit. Why are people so hesistant to call out GW? Because I bet you all will be when Necrons are crashing out of tournaments next year.
And strats are not a sound argument, because CP are currency.
116615
Post by: unitled
Cynista wrote:The point being they were so bad before nobody ever took them. We can argue about whether rerolling hits and wounds is better or if -2 AP is better (give me the former any day of the week, we have more than enough AP already), but at BEST it's a sidegrade for a bottom tier unit. Why are people so hesistant to call out GW? Because I bet you all will be when Necrons are crashing out of tournaments next year.
And strats are not a sound argument, because CP are currency.
What you said was that Flayed Ones have got worse and Novokh has got worse, and neither of those things are backed up by the numbers; Flayed Ones have got better and have got cheaper, and they now have additional supporting rules as well.
I don't know where FO sit in the new army, I never got any first time round and I really hate the finecast models (this is probably more of a reason they've never played to be honest) and I don't have the codex yet, so yes maybe they're terrible, but to claim they're worse isn't backed up.
125976
Post by: yukishiro1
Flayed ones don't look great to me. Better than before, but you need to (1) be Novokh and (2) spend 2CP to make them actually good, with a mind-bending 4CP to fight twice while being good.
It's a ton of investment when you could just take a bunch of other stuff in the book that does basically the same melee effect but isn't super squishy and doesn't require a ton of CP to work. The only thing they're really the best at is blendering low quality chaff, and I'm not sure that's something the army is really going to have an issue with anyway.
119933
Post by: Bosskelot
Or you could just run 2 units of 5 and use them as Linebreaker or Deploy Scramblers bots.
Also if anyone thinks Novokh got nerfed they're out of their mind and don't understand 40k.
101163
Post by: Tyel
Okay its 3 CP, but you can have 8(8) S4 AP-2 attacks, with exploding hits versus non-vehicles, on a 13 point model.
CP are there to be spent.
The debate is going to be Novokh for damage output and more reliable charge from DS, or grab obsec, and basically go "I've got 20 models jumping on a rear primary. Kill them or risk a massive 15-0 swing on the primary." With the -1 to hit stratagem and new RP that might not be trivial, while the rest of your force moves up.
115943
Post by: Darsath
Everyone talking about Novokh while I'm looking at rad-aura'd Flayed Ones.
113031
Post by: Voss
Darsath wrote:Everyone talking about Novokh while I'm looking at rad-aura'd Flayed Ones.
Yeah, the rad aura shifts almost every important toughness value (3, 4, 5 and 8).
Its definitely good for a melee army.
11600
Post by: CKO
I have friends that think I should do youtube videos about Necrons. They say I think outside the box and a lot of my tips change their opinions on Necrons. I am unsure how I should start? Should I make a video about the silver tide list everyone keeps talking about or should I do unit by unit analysis? How should I start?
7637
Post by: Sasori
yukishiro1 wrote:Flayed ones don't look great to me. Better than before, but you need to (1) be Novokh and (2) spend 2CP to make them actually good, with a mind-bending 4CP to fight twice while being good.
It's a ton of investment when you could just take a bunch of other stuff in the book that does basically the same melee effect but isn't super squishy and doesn't require a ton of CP to work. The only thing they're really the best at is blendering low quality chaff, and I'm not sure that's something the army is really going to have an issue with anyway.
I don't think you have to spend a ton of CP to make them good, depending on how large the squad is you may not even need the fight twice. with 10 models and Novokh ap bonus and stratagem you'll deal 10 damage on average to MEQ. That's enough to kill a combat squad.
The Novokh +1 Attack is until the end of the phase, so you can use the fight twice without spending for the +1 attack again.
as Bosskelot mentioned you can just use them for linebreak/deploy scramblers in units of 5.
That being said, you do want them to be Novokh.
101864
Post by: Dudeface
 Ghaz wrote:
I know, because that's why I never started a Nighthaunt army myself. Still it's the closest equivalent to the new Warriors that GW has (easy to build, core unit for the army, etc).
The recruit edition is £32.50, if the warden, Lieutenant and 5 intercessors are making up £7.50 somethings wrong. No way should those warriors be sat at £25.
7637
Post by: Sasori
Dudeface wrote: Ghaz wrote:
I know, because that's why I never started a Nighthaunt army myself. Still it's the closest equivalent to the new Warriors that GW has (easy to build, core unit for the army, etc).
The recruit edition is £32.50, if the warden, Lieutenant and 5 intercessors are making up £7.50 somethings wrong. No way should those warriors be sat at £25.
GW normally offers a pretty steep discount on models in the starter sets. I myself would be suprised if it is cheaper than 40 USD.
125976
Post by: yukishiro1
I'll be shocked if they're under $35, that would be way out of step with the rest of GW's releases. Probably $40.
113031
Post by: Voss
Same. Not selling many of this kit in the short term due to box sets doesn't matter too much, as GW can easily afford loss leaders if it means customers will make those next few purchases of full price kits.
Resetting (lowering) expectations of what core troops cost.... GW will avoid that like the plague.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Sorry, been out of the loop.
Can anyone confirm if Heavy Destroyers come in Squadrons?
79199
Post by: Bitharne
1-3 solo entry: Heavy Support
Or 1 in a squad of 1-6 regular Destroyers (Lohkest sp?) also heavy support.
101864
Post by: Dudeface
Sasori wrote:Dudeface wrote: Ghaz wrote:
I know, because that's why I never started a Nighthaunt army myself. Still it's the closest equivalent to the new Warriors that GW has (easy to build, core unit for the army, etc).
The recruit edition is £32.50, if the warden, Lieutenant and 5 intercessors are making up £7.50 somethings wrong. No way should those warriors be sat at £25.
GW normally offers a pretty steep discount on models in the starter sets. I myself would be suprised if it is cheaper than 40 USD.
Well, when the royal warden comes out at £15 and a box of warriors is £25, making them £7.50 more expensive than buying the exact same sculpts together, I shall golf clap for GW.
Oddly if they sold me 20 warriors for £35 I'd be onboard with that.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Bitharne wrote:
1-3 solo entry: Heavy Support
Or 1 in a squad of 1-6 regular Destroyers (Lohkest sp?) also heavy support.
Cheers dude!
Might invest in 9.....
119933
Post by: Bosskelot
LHD's are an example of a unit in the Codex which statswise is excellent and fills a really important niche but whose points feel like they're slightly too high.
Thankfully, future CA's can fix that. Which is good because what happened with a lot of units in the old Codex is that their core rules and statlines were just terrible, so no amount of points reductions were able to make them appealing. Outside of one or two units, that's not a problem with the new Codex where the most you can say about a potentially underwhelming/overcosted unit is that it is that way because of it's cost, not because it doesn't have potential.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Well, we’re also comparing points from a freshly updated Codex, to older Codexes, when there does seem to be a trend toward point increases overall.
Definitely thinking of going Destroyer Heavy. Mostly for fun, and hang the CP cost 
119933
Post by: Bosskelot
Well, even if you compare the LHD to the old HD from the MFM, it's about 30 more points which is certainly significant.
119634
Post by: MrPieChee
Anyone else feel like rites of reanimation should have just been unit recovers D3 wounds and usable on any unit with RP.
And I know it's not happening, but having living metal treat a model as having +1 wound for RP would have been great...
Still not happy Necrons aren't immune to morale losses... I know they changed the fluff to cater to this, but still feels wrong.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
 Bosskelot wrote:Well, even if you compare the LHD to the old HD from the MFM, it's about 30 more points which is certainly significant.
I guess.
But what price sickass firepower? CHOOM! BAZAPPP! PEW!
53939
Post by: vipoid
MrPieChee wrote:Anyone else feel like rites of reanimation should have just been unit recovers D3 wounds and usable on any unit with RP.
Absolutely. But GW has a new key word, so they have to get some use out of it. 
Also very disappointed that characters still don't revive beyond a bloody stratagem.
116615
Post by: unitled
Sasori wrote:yukishiro1 wrote:Flayed ones don't look great to me. Better than before, but you need to (1) be Novokh and (2) spend 2CP to make them actually good, with a mind-bending 4CP to fight twice while being good.
It's a ton of investment when you could just take a bunch of other stuff in the book that does basically the same melee effect but isn't super squishy and doesn't require a ton of CP to work. The only thing they're really the best at is blendering low quality chaff, and I'm not sure that's something the army is really going to have an issue with anyway.
I don't think you have to spend a ton of CP to make them good, depending on how large the squad is you may not even need the fight twice. with 10 models and Novokh ap bonus and stratagem you'll deal 10 damage on average to MEQ. That's enough to kill a combat squad.
The Novokh +1 Attack is until the end of the phase, so you can use the fight twice without spending for the +1 attack again.
as Bosskelot mentioned you can just use them for linebreak/deploy scramblers in units of 5.
That being said, you do want them to be Novokh.
Just out of interest... I reran the numbers using Arise Against the Interlopers (dynasty trait that gives auto-wound against infanty and bikers on 6s to hit) instead of Novokh and I think it gives you a slight further boost against higher T enemies. If I have run the numbers right! Means if you're expecting a higher T field, might be a slightly better pick than Novokh.
EDIT: I think this means on 10 Flayed Ones with Blood Rites (1CP), you will average 10 wounds on T5 3+ units... With 40 attacks you'll hopefully hit 6.67 6s, which is 13.33 wounds in itself (6.67 unsaved wounds vs 3+).
DOUBLE EDIT: Now I read the rules again, I suspect the auto-wounds only apply to the individual 6s to hit, not the additional free hits from AAtI... It's still superior for the T5 targets, but seems generally less so than the additional AP on T4 and below.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
As I’m well behind on the new info, and also pretty lazy.....
Would any current Necron player like to weigh in with their top 5 units based on the new info, and any comments on how you might rearrange your army?
87092
Post by: Sim-Life
Having seen the Silent Kings full data sheet I still don't think he's that good.
81508
Post by: BroodSpawn
Top 5?
Void Dragon/Nightbringer depending on mood - they're just death to vehicles/non-vehicles
Doomstalker - cheaper than a DDA for the same gun, 4++ save
Crypteks - build your own, they have options but the classic heals units which is good
Warrior/Immortals - look, big blocks that get back up pretty often will help you on the obj. game
The Silent King - 450 Supreme Commander that adds +3CP, doesn't break dynasties and is just a flat out monster to deal with.
Hot to build -
You probably want a core of 20-40+ infantry (Warriors/Immortals) for holding objectives, backed up with Crypteks and Overlords. Grab a Doomstalker or two while you're at it After that pick your theme, there is a lot of choice available and only 1 real dud unit (the Reanimator) that's not in the LoW slots.
101864
Post by: Dudeface
feth me sideways
Warriors £29
Skorpekhs £34.5
Hexmark £21
Giant - useful for 40k lootin' £120
77922
Post by: Overread
Warriors are more than I thought they'd be especially as there are only 10 in a box - Skorpekh a bit more too honestly.
Hexmark is actually a touch cheaper for a character type model.
All are within GW's general boundaries, if on the higher end. Giant is very much breaching the market being the highest priced model GW now makes.
Sometimes GW seems to be a creature of two heads; one sane and able to balance rules and have fair sounding prices. Another more wild with overpowered stuff and much more keen to price higher.
Something tells me Indomitus stuff on ebay is going to start selling at record speed now!
101864
Post by: Dudeface
 Overread wrote:Warriors are more than I thought they'd be especially as there are only 10 in a box - Skorpekh a bit more too honestly.
Hexmark is actually a touch cheaper for a character type model.
All are within GW's general boundaries, if on the higher end. Giant is very much breaching the market being the highest priced model GW now makes.
Sometimes GW seems to be a creature of two heads; one sane and able to balance rules and have fair sounding prices. Another more wild with overpowered stuff and much more keen to price higher.
Something tells me Indomitus stuff on ebay is going to start selling at record speed now!
Well, it resigns me to running a lot of assault intercessors and outriders if I expand the marines, there is no point buying them separately basically. Unless you only want the Skorpekhs, but then ebays probably got your back there.
97127
Post by: Kharne the Befriender
I'm seeing a pretty powerful synergy here. The Szarekhan relic, if I'm reading right, boosts command protocols to 9" over 6, and allows those units to benefit from both doctrines on all protocols.
Stack that with Thrall of the Silent King WL trait and he'll have a 12" aura of dual protocols. If you have Conquering Tyrant on that goes to 15", which might as well be your whole army if the Overlord is on a barge
You could even give the Szarekhan warlord trait to another character to get the 4 doctrines with a doubled up one.
Go with the base core of troops, I'd throw in a technomancer with the Canoptek Control Node and Fail Safe Overcharger to baby sit a trio of spyders or a couple Doomstalkers
Make the second Cryptek a Psychomancer with the Hyper Material Ablator to give units cover and for the crypteks ability to cancel an enemy action/overwatch
If those Spyders all had Gloom Prisms thats 3 attempts to deny psychic powers, 4 is you use the Szarekhan strat
I also like the idea of a full unit of Ophydian Destroyers with a Hexmark destroyer to take/clear a backfield objective. The Hexmark clears chaff/gives protocols, the Ophydian charge in and kill whatever they touch
113031
Post by: Voss
 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:As I’m well behind on the new info, and also pretty lazy.....
Would any current Necron player like to weigh in with their top 5 units based on the new info, and any comments on how you might rearrange your army?
Hard to say with real precision at this stage, but...
1- Nightbringer looks completely crazy. If you're going to bring a Big Expensive Thing, he's top of the pile. But all of the named shards have tricks.
2- Tentative and subject to change, but: Warriors feel like they edge out Immortals in terms of support and shenanigans, and for Immortals gauss swung over tesla. Tesla got adjusted and costs more, and you have to pay for the privilege. Too much
3- Crypteks- technomancer or chronomancer, as they have a lot of (and best) toys. Also access to (or innate) personal mobility
4- Catacomb Command Barge Warlord. Lots of buffs to this unit- more wounds (but still gets look out sir), more attacks, quantum shield gives invulnerable save, can't be wounded on 1-3 by anything.
5- shockingly, tomb spyders. They're still relatively squishy, but they're nasty in CC now. Have a Technomancer to support them, however.
bonus 6- Praetorians got a lot of buffs, particularly rods. But they're not <dynasty> or Core, and while that makes sense, it matters.
Army depends heavily on Dynasty, and what they're good at. Some solid close combat will help any army though, and thankfully there are some good options for that. (Skorpekhs and Wraiths probably have priority. Ophydians look like they're innately runners-up, for overlapping both but not being as good as either). Lychguard are surprisingly solid, with more attacks and shields get the storm shield rules: 4++ and +1 to saves, but they're still walking everywhere.
AT (or anti-heavy infantry which is just as important and overlaps) needs to be in the list. Lot of good choices in HS, and also the Triarch Stalker- the heat ray snuck in the melta and flamer changes.
61896
Post by: dan2026
The Doomstalker doesn't seem that good to me considering you can't fire its best weapon profile if you move.
I guess with 48" range you can just plant it and hope what you want to shoot is in line of sight.
But I kinda hate models that get heavily penalised for moving.
46852
Post by: IHateNids
 dan2026 wrote:The Doomstalker doesn't seem that good to me considering you can't fire its best weapon profile if you move.
I guess with 48" range you can just plant it and hope what you want to shoot is in line of sight.
But I kinda hate models that get heavily penalised for moving.
Given they're only 26 quid, I might get two, and alternate one moving and the other staying still in my turns to move up the board.
Equally though, I'm thinking ditch them entirely in exchange for the standard 2DDAs and a squad of Destroyers. Need to actually sit and plan a couple lists after I have the book and read the BRB
115943
Post by: Darsath
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:As I’m well behind on the new info, and also pretty lazy.....
Would any current Necron player like to weigh in with their top 5 units based on the new info, and any comments on how you might rearrange your army?
This is only based on opinion and comparisons, not playtesting with the units yet. That said, in no particular order:
1. Immortals - I think Warriors are a trap choice, as they're not as reliable as Gauss Immortals, and with their buffs they'll be a much easier to include Core unit to fill troops choices.
2. Deathmarks - Looks like buffing characters are here to stay for the long term, and at 18 points per model, these things are great for killing castle-style lists with their new weapons, 2 + Ballistic Skill and Toughness 5.
3. Canoptek Spyders - No one expected this unit to be good, but really, they're actually quite a pain to push at 6 Wounds and Toughness 6 for only 60 points. Killy with 5 attacks at Strength 8 Damage 2. Main issue is the 4+ WS and BS, but they can take support items on top of all this. Something to watch out for for sure (but why do they have Reanimation Protocols will remain a mystery to me)
4. Lychguard - New shield changes on them give a 2+ save and 4+ invuln so straight buff, plus now 3 attacks. They're just solid for holding the line
5. Nightbringer - The new C'tan are the hardest to judge. They look especially nasty on paper, but remember that at 350 points, they're going to struggle to make up those points reliably. However, with the move to bigger, more elite infantry, the Nightbringer is likely the exception here. Ignoring Invulns, Feel No Pain, 6 Attacks at Strength 14 and D6 damage he's something no one wants to face in combat. On top of that, he has one of the best unique C'tan powers.
101163
Post by: Tyel
On the Doomstalker - feel the weirder problem is only having 24" range on the low power. So if you are unduly cagey, and want to move turn 1, there is a risk you are not only on the weaker bracket, but can't shoot what you would want to shoot at anyway.
Also find it funny GW went on a whole journey on the Sisters of Battle Exorcist (people don't like D6 shot weapons because they are so random, what is this?) and well... here we are.
But at the same time - 140 points for D6 S10, AP-5, D6 damage shots seems quite reasonable, and a 4++ on 12 wounds is surprisingly solid.
If you were going for an assault-pressure army they maybe risk being a bit isolated - but otherwise I think they are sufficiently cheap you take 3 and don't really worry about it.
The overwatch thing is probably more cute than potent - but when you melt a charging HQ people are going to be sad.
97127
Post by: Kharne the Befriender
Question, do the Obeisance Generators that the Silent King has override units that fight first in the fight phase?
44971
Post by: Wakshaani
Wondering if I can take a spare Skorpekh and build a Hexmark out of him. Should be *possible* but might be ugly.
As for a top five? Man, I don't KNOW. Everythng but the Reanimator looks so GOOD. Internal balance, but interesting, you know?
That said? I'll take a stab at what jumped out at me.
#1 - WARRIORS
The more the merrier, and I'm feeling 60 in a 2K rumble. Objective Secured footsloggers with durability is how you win in 9th and, boy howdy, do Warriors have it.
#2 - SPYDERS
Just a rock-solid Dreadnought-type unit that can be fat-n-happy in melee to tie down opponents, best-used as a bully unit … facing a non-melee unit in the fight phase, it'll take 1, maybe 2, wounds a turn, but it gets 1 BACK a turn, so you can stay parked there for as long as you want. It can also break tougher units by itself and, of course, don't forget that, if they fall back, you have the Canoptek strat to heroicly intervene. Just USEFUL.
#3 - SCARABS
I know, I know, but wounds for less than 4 pts a model, teensy size, and high speed gives you a unit that can flit around, handle backrow objectives, perform actions, and give vehicles the Bad Touch (tm) . They also benefit from a handy strat AND team up well with Spyders. Just great utility models.
#4 - DEATHMARKS
The best snipers in the game? May be! Not only do they get to deepstrike but they force your opponent to doublethink … do you REALLY want to give these badboys free shooting in YOUR turn, knowing that they can tap again in their own? Weapons strong enough to give characters pause that are perfectly fine gunning down elite troopers as well, dominating LOS in huge corridors. Unlike most snipers, they're not even fragile, with T5, a 3+ save in cover, and, of course, the chance of getting back up. Love 'em.
#5 - FLAYED ONES
Controversial pick? Oh yes, but, with the force as a whole being so good at chonking marines, you need to keep something around for hordes, and Flayed Ones do that like nothing else in the list. The morale effects are stronger than you think, and even small units can rack up a bodycount. They're also another feather in the "Cheap infantry units that can do actions" cap, with a side-order of deepstrike. How can you not love these guys?
Again, I'm an outlier, but these are some of wha jumped up at me. There's more (so much more!0 but I'm *really* looking forward to giving it all a try.
127633
Post by: -Ňecrontyr-
Im personally liking Tomb Blades being able to move, advance and still fire with their strat. Thats a humongeous chunk of table traversed and rapid firing Mephrit Gauss Blasters
116615
Post by: unitled
 Kharne the Befriender wrote:Question, do the Obeisance Generators that the Silent King has override units that fight first in the fight phase?
The Obesiance Generators make it so enemies aren't 'eligible' to fight, so effectively yes it overrides those abilities.
119634
Post by: MrPieChee
Wakshaani wrote:Wondering if I can take a spare Skorpekh and build a Hexmark out of him. Should be *possible* but might be ugly.
I was thinking the body of a Ghar battle suit from Beyond the gates of Antares, six old Gauss flayers with the rod/barrel removed, and a deathmark head... Three Ghar battle suits are £20, I've got the rest as spares. Bargain. I'm planning on swapping all my old warriors to the new flayers and blasters anyway, so it works out pretty well!
44971
Post by: Wakshaani
Maybe! I know I can use a spare Skorpekh Lord for it if all else fails. Already has the body and the arms, more or less. Just stickin' on more form there...
125976
Post by: yukishiro1
Anyone know whether the new warrior kit is just the same warriors as in indomitus put into its own box, or actually a new multi-part kit?
101864
Post by: Dudeface
yukishiro1 wrote:Anyone know whether the new warrior kit is just the same warriors as in indomitus put into its own box, or actually a new multi-part kit?
Not confirmed for certain but "previously only available in the Indomitus box and the various Starter Sets, will soon be released on their own to bolster your ranks of implacable murder androids" suggests the existing ones.
77922
Post by: Overread
If it was a new kit GW would have said already to help hype it up. That said the current kit is nice - you get head swaps and weapon options.
Still as of now its cheaper to get on ebay and grab them new on the sprue from Indomitus than from GW direct so I predict both those new necorn kits will sell poorly right now .
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
 Sim-Life wrote:Having seen the Silent Kings full data sheet I still don't think he's that good.
Remains to be seen. His cost is significant and his best weapons disappear with his first 10 wounds...
He does have a lot of abilities...In Melee he hits like a truck.
Full rerolls to hit in shooting and to wound in melee for core and praetorians.
I feel like at 2000 points he just isn't viable. In larger games he can do really well I think. Or he could do well I just don't see how.
106711
Post by: Necronmaniac05
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:As I’m well behind on the new info, and also pretty lazy.....
Would any current Necron player like to weigh in with their top 5 units based on the new info, and any comments on how you might rearrange your army?
Canoptek doomstalker looks a solid choice at HS
Nightbringer is amazing in elites if you have the points
Warriors for troops for me
Deathmarks also look good for ranged elites
I like the Skorpekhs in fast attack too
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
Since everyone is doing a top 5 I will give mine.
#1 Canoptek Spider. 60 point murder beatstick and they just look so cool too...
#2 Praetorians - flat 2 damage in melee and shooting now at ap-3 (don't get protocols is their only real downside:( )
#3 Triarch Stalker - With new quantum shielding he will be sticking around - drop the 4++ save stratagem on him and buff your army for days.
#4 Monolith - 24 wounds 2+ t8? Lots of guns? Oh yeah...bonus shenanigans too.
#5 Doomstalker - 4++ you say? Yep - I'll take it.
95983
Post by: punisher357
What's the canoptek Doomstalker max unit size?
101864
Post by: Dudeface
 Xenomancers wrote:Since everyone is doing a top 5 I will give mine.
#1 Canoptek Spider. 60 point murder beatstick and they just look so cool too...
#2 Praetorians - flat 2 damage in melee and shooting now at ap-3 (don't get protocols is their only real downside:( )
#3 Triarch Stalker - With new quantum shielding he will be sticking around - drop the 4++ save stratagem on him and buff your army for days.
#4 Monolith - 24 wounds 2+ t8? Lots of guns? Oh yeah...bonus shenanigans too.
#5 Doomstalker - 4++ you say? Yep - I'll take it.
That monolith pick is a tough sell. They look awesome models but being locked into a LoW is rough.
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
Sadly 1. Automatically Appended Next Post: Dudeface wrote: Xenomancers wrote:Since everyone is doing a top 5 I will give mine.
#1 Canoptek Spider. 60 point murder beatstick and they just look so cool too...
#2 Praetorians - flat 2 damage in melee and shooting now at ap-3 (don't get protocols is their only real downside:( )
#3 Triarch Stalker - With new quantum shielding he will be sticking around - drop the 4++ save stratagem on him and buff your army for days.
#4 Monolith - 24 wounds 2+ t8? Lots of guns? Oh yeah...bonus shenanigans too.
#5 Doomstalker - 4++ you say? Yep - I'll take it.
That monolith pick is a tough sell. They look awesome models but being locked into a LoW is rough.
Looks incredible. 3 CP is nothing IMO. It's not mandatory to include one or anything but lots of builds will center around the monolith I think.
44017
Post by: Punisher
Xenomancers wrote:
Looks incredible. 3 CP is nothing IMO. It's not mandatory to include one or anything but lots of builds will center around the monolith I think.
One problem with the lith is that we actually have a bunch of strats that look useful now so the CP cost will be relevant, in addition it kinda looks fair for it's cost so it's not jumping out as an OP auto include at all but more of a build around. Which it should be and why it sucks that there is a cp tax. But maybe the biggest problem with it is that it lacks an invuln and is going to be eaten alive by space marine eradicators which I believe will be absolutely everywhere, I can't fathom a marine list that doesn't start with a dozen of them.
113031
Post by: Voss
 Punisher wrote: Xenomancers wrote:
Looks incredible. 3 CP is nothing IMO. It's not mandatory to include one or anything but lots of builds will center around the monolith I think.
One problem with the lith is that we actually have a bunch of strats that look useful now so the CP cost will be relevant, in addition it kinda looks fair for it's cost so it's not jumping out as an OP auto include at all but more of a build around. Which it should be and why it sucks that there is a cp tax. But maybe the biggest problem with it is that it lacks an invuln and is going to be eaten alive by space marine eradicators which I believe will be absolutely everywhere, I can't fathom a marine list that doesn't start with a dozen of them.
Eradicators are rough on them, but they're not even the only threat.
Lots of armies can take tons of multimeltas, meltaguns or equivalents, or have other anti-tank attacks, and can basically strip wounds off it at will.
You can pay through the nose for one and expect to see it burned down to nothing in two turns if you're lucky.
One of the worst 'improved' models (with a new kit, no less) in a long time.
120704
Post by: Cynista
Voss wrote:
You can pay through the nose for one and expect to see it burned down to nothing in two turns if you're lucky.
One of the worst 'improved' models (with a new kit, no less) in a long time.
Agreed. I just can't justify 3 CP on top of the already steep 360-380 points. Making it a LoW without the special snowflake rules that Primarch's and Knights have is a kick in the teeth that feels really unnecessary. Which is kind of my opinion on the entire codex, but I digress
7637
Post by: Sasori
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:As I’m well behind on the new info, and also pretty lazy.....
Would any current Necron player like to weigh in with their top 5 units based on the new info, and any comments on how you might rearrange your army?
1. Nightbringer/Void Dragon - Nightbringer is probably the single best unit in the Codex, and one of the best units in the game right now. The void dragon is not quite that level, but close.
2. CCB. The QS is a huge upgrade for this guy, the Overlord going up in base attacks, and the available artifacts now that you are not stuck taking the lightning field. It's speedy and perfect for ensuring you get secondaries, MWBD' or using the Orb.
3. Technomancer. The Technomancer just adds a ton of value and be tailored a lot of ways for your army. He is just brimming with options now. an A+ Support unit.
4. Doomstalker. Great base Stats, Great stragems, really good with the right support. Seems like a very solid unit.
5. Warriors/Gauss Immortals. Both of these are great now, and there is an actual choice between the two of them.
Runner up: The Psychomancer. I'm a huge fan of the way he can manipulate stuff like turning off OBSEC. I really enjoy playing with units like this.
Sleeper Unit: Flayed ones. I think these suckers are a sleeper. They are an absolute blender unit, and in Novokh seem very Strong.
As for rearranging my army, I think I'm pretty much starting at 1750 every game because I'm always including the NIghtbringer. It's just too good to pass up. There are honestly so many ways to play the army now though. I'm going to enjoy experimenting and playing with shooty, canoptek heavy, Melee heavy. All kinds of stuff.
20901
Post by: Luke_Prowler
CKO wrote:I have friends that think I should do youtube videos about Necrons. They say I think outside the box and a lot of my tips change their opinions on Necrons. I am unsure how I should start? Should I make a video about the silver tide list everyone keeps talking about or should I do unit by unit analysis? How should I start?
You should certainly start with a general tactical run though, giving views an idea on how Necrons "work" and from there people can have a frame of reference when you dive deeper into later works.
100848
Post by: tneva82
Overread wrote:Warriors are more than I thought they'd be especially as there are only 10 in a box - Skorpekh a bit more too honestly.
Funny thing is recent style is 10 for 35£ so warriors got lucky. Guess starter sets forced gw to underprice models to ensure solo boxes sell at least somewhat while keeping starter sets on hook-up price.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dudeface wrote: Xenomancers wrote:Since everyone is doing a top 5 I will give mine.
#1 Canoptek Spider. 60 point murder beatstick and they just look so cool too...
#2 Praetorians - flat 2 damage in melee and shooting now at ap-3 (don't get protocols is their only real downside:( )
#3 Triarch Stalker - With new quantum shielding he will be sticking around - drop the 4++ save stratagem on him and buff your army for days.
#4 Monolith - 24 wounds 2+ t8? Lots of guns? Oh yeah...bonus shenanigans too.
#5 Doomstalker - 4++ you say? Yep - I'll take it.
That monolith pick is a tough sell. They look awesome models but being locked into a LoW is rough.
Plus monolith dies t1. People gear up to kill t8 24w 5++( 4++) . You can bring 2 monoliths and there's still good chance to lose both t1. Then we add eradicators to mix and...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relic list feels bit thin. Especially skorpek lords have only 2 decent relics to choose. Veil and living metal buffer(which isn't even that amazing).
My favourite skorpek lord relic dissapeared :( wonder what to replace it with in crusade we have going on.
84851
Post by: Tiberius501
I guess technically you’re getting a unit of 10 warriors and a unit of 3 Scarabs for that cost. I know you did previously, but I’m sure that factors in to their decision with new price points.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
Punisher wrote: Xenomancers wrote:
Looks incredible. 3 CP is nothing IMO. It's not mandatory to include one or anything but lots of builds will center around the monolith I think.
One problem with the lith is that we actually have a bunch of strats that look useful now so the CP cost will be relevant, in addition it kinda looks fair for it's cost so it's not jumping out as an OP auto include at all but more of a build around. Which it should be and why it sucks that there is a cp tax. But maybe the biggest problem with it is that it lacks an invuln and is going to be eaten alive by space marine eradicators which I believe will be absolutely everywhere, I can't fathom a marine list that doesn't start with a dozen of them.
But on the other end of that it is a deepstriking knight, essentially. If you had one it might make sense to go second and come in and eat whatever it can and then explode it. Or if you went first the Chronomancer can get it a 5++, right? Kick in a technomancer to heal. Not so viable if you get back luck or positioning though.
127633
Post by: -Ňecrontyr-
Can someone explain why we would tske an Enmitic Heavy destroyer over an Annibarge? -1 ap vs QS and a secondary gun....
100848
Post by: tneva82
-Ňecrontyr- wrote:Can someone explain why we would tske an Enmitic Heavy destroyer over an Annibarge? -1 ap vs QS and a secondary gun....
Cheaper. 70 pts vs 120 pts is not that insiginificant difference. Better question. Why would you take enmitic heavy destroyer over gauss? Enmitic doesn't really serve any real role nor does it pack punch enough. At least gauss variant serves a role your basic troops aren't filling up.
101163
Post by: Tyel
Not totally sure on the maths, but Enmitic might have a place if Harlequins became 30% of the meta. Although whether you'd bother with heavy destroyers at all is an open question.
127633
Post by: -Ňecrontyr-
Just wondering why exactly the enimitic heavy exists.
For 50 more points the Anni barge has *essentially* the same primary gun, AND a regular destroyer cannon.
And with QS's improvements and a 3+ armor save its surprisingly durable
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Squadrons, I guess?
119933
Post by: Bosskelot
Just to clear a misconception, but Praetorians do get Command Protocols.
127633
Post by: -Ňecrontyr-
The turn-specific Protocols, but not Dynastic codes, right?
123962
Post by: deTox91
Could the Annihilation Barge be actually finally viable now after the buffs it has got? (3+ sv , reworked QS, 10 shots on the twin tesla destructor, move and shoot heavy without penalty, shoot in combat)
Being heavy support it's kind of competing for slots with Arks/Stalkers/Destroyers which probably might be the bigger issue to include it in a list, but it looks like quite a fast and versatile little annoying vehicle at 120pts
Also the Triarch Stalker seems better then ever, I could easily see running 2-3 of them with heath rays or heavy gauss cannons, also they are not too shabby in melee either, a pity they don't benefit from dynastic codes, but can't have everything I guess
127633
Post by: -Ňecrontyr-
True; the HS slot is extremely competetive atm
Might come down to points in the end
100848
Post by: tneva82
And role. Anti infantry necrons have anyway. It's been AT that necrons are lacking and mostof THAT comes in AT...
Every AB is one less slot for AT. What you are throwing vs tanks then? Warriors?
123962
Post by: deTox91
tneva82 wrote:And role. Anti infantry necrons have anyway. It's been AT that necrons are lacking and mostof THAT comes in AT...
Every AB is one less slot for AT. What you are throwing vs tanks then? Warriors?
That is true, but I could see AB covering the anti Infantry role (and anti elite as the heavy gauss is quite good) in a necron list that focuses much more on vehicles and canoptek and less on silver tide, with probably just 3x5 immortals for objectives, AT can then be covered by Triarch Stalkers which are quite good at it (though short range), mayby C'than, and Doomschytes and overall elite slots.
Not saying that this would work or be optimal, just thinking that overall its quite appealingly costed and might offer some alternative builds for a Sherekan vehicle list possibly
111146
Post by: p5freak
tneva82 wrote:And role. Anti infantry necrons have anyway. It's been AT that necrons are lacking and mostof THAT comes in AT...
Necrons didnt lack AT. Now we get even more AT (which almost all is support, so they rival each other for the few slots), but dont really need it, the overall number of vehicles will decrease, because of CORE.
100848
Post by: tneva82
Necrons never have been fielding tons of AT and especially not in units(especially thanks to ro3). DDA is good but you need 2 to deal with 1 leman russ in average(average damage is 5.55). Then destroyers for another. Stalker got semi useful in 9e, bad before.
There's reason necron's took often 3 DDA. Because that was pretty much necron AT...Destroyer squad option but one shot wonders as once they expose within 24" they are shot off the board in one go.
Top of that the firepower is generally one big gun more suited for dealing with bigger vehicles. Not much guns to deal with spam of T7 vehicle spams as it is pretty much same do you shoot at T8 or T7. And since you need 2 DDA rounds to deal with T8 tank...(well bit more actually)...
And now there's even more of contest because destroyers got slapped into HS. Outside HS(3 slots) you are struggling with AT. Stalker and doom scythe is pretty much it and doom scythe suffers from being expensive flier(easy to take down, can't even hold objectives)
When you have 3 HS slots that leaves you 2 AT slots. 2 doomstalker/DDA deals with 1 leman russ with slightly over average rolls. Then you are left with just stalkers to deal with.
HS slots are rather valuable for AT. Especially one that doesn't require you to get to punching range which isn't most reliable way to deal with tanks.
For infantry pretty much every slot is flooded with anti infantry options. Troops pure anti infantry, zero anti tank. Elites have stalkers, flayed ones, hexmarchs, lychguard, skorpek destroyers. FA has praetorians, wraiths, tomb blades, ophydian destroyers and even scarab swarms can do it. Dedicated transport is anti infantry.
115943
Post by: Darsath
tneva82 wrote:Necrons never have been fielding tons of AT and especially not in units(especially thanks to ro3). DDA is good but you need 2 to deal with 1 leman russ in average(average damage is 5.55). Then destroyers for another. Stalker got semi useful in 9e, bad before.
There's reason necron's took often 3 DDA. Because that was pretty much necron AT...Destroyer squad option but one shot wonders as once they expose within 24" they are shot off the board in one go.
Top of that the firepower is generally one big gun more suited for dealing with bigger vehicles. Not much guns to deal with spam of T7 vehicle spams as it is pretty much same do you shoot at T8 or T7. And since you need 2 DDA rounds to deal with T8 tank...(well bit more actually)...
And now there's even more of contest because destroyers got slapped into HS. Outside HS(3 slots) you are struggling with AT. Stalker and doom scythe is pretty much it and doom scythe suffers from being expensive flier(easy to take down, can't even hold objectives)
When you have 3 HS slots that leaves you 2 AT slots. 2 doomstalker/ DDA deals with 1 leman russ with slightly over average rolls. Then you are left with just stalkers to deal with.
HS slots are rather valuable for AT. Especially one that doesn't require you to get to punching range which isn't most reliable way to deal with tanks.
For infantry pretty much every slot is flooded with anti infantry options. Troops pure anti infantry, zero anti tank. Elites have stalkers, flayed ones, hexmarchs, lychguard, skorpek destroyers. FA has praetorians, wraiths, tomb blades, ophydian destroyers and even scarab swarms can do it. Dedicated transport is anti infantry.
The new Heavy Destroyers aren't too bad if you're looking for Anti-tank options, but they should always be sticking to cover. Their mobility, and re-roll 1's natively helps them, but it really feels bad when you roll a couple 1s and 2s to wound. Triarch Stalker is decent for its points, and provides some anti-tank firepower, but not enough on its own to seriously threaten most vehicles. At least they're fairly inexpensive and provide the re-roll 1's for other units they shoot when they're not on anti-tank duty.
127633
Post by: -Ňecrontyr-
Yes, but the point being made is that nearly all of our AT is now crammed into the HS category, making the HS slots very competetive against one another.
With the continuing degredarion of Warscythe effectiveness, (Lokhust) Destroyers moving to HS, there are very few dedicated AT platforms outside of the HS category
Some characters can hurt vehicles, as can some of our strats
123962
Post by: deTox91
-Ňecrontyr- wrote:Yes, but the point being made is that nearly all of our AT is now crammed into the HS category, making the HS slots very competetive against one another.
With the continuing degredarion of Warscythe effectiveness, (Lokhust) Destroyers moving to HS, there are very few dedicated AT platforms outside of the HS category
Some characters can hurt vehicles, as can some of our strats
Speaking of characters and AT, I wander if Szeras might actually sneak in as a staple, quite costly at 160pts, but offers a bit of anti-tank, double rites, and being able to buff Lychguard and Tomb Blades might be quite huge
111146
Post by: p5freak
Did anyone notice that you can put ten <DYNASTY> INFANTRY CHARACTERS in a ghost ark ?
So, thats three skorpekh lords, three overlords with voidscythes or three lokhust lords inside, use grand illusion with the deceiver, disembark, move, and all have a 2-3" charge. There is your T1 alpha strike, with almost your entire army.
127633
Post by: -Ňecrontyr-
That doesnt sound like RAI; will lrobably get erratfaq'd
111146
Post by: p5freak
Why should necron characters be excluded from embarking on their transport ??? Every faction with a transport can do that.
119933
Post by: Bosskelot
Grand Illusion is only in your deployment zone now.
111146
Post by: p5freak
Ok, deceiver is useless now. Still, you can transport those characters in a ghost ark.
61800
Post by: Cryptek of Awesome
 p5freak wrote:
Why should necron characters be excluded from embarking on their transport ??? Every faction with a transport can do that.
They've always been able to take Characters - Still have fond memories of a full Royal Court of nobles and crypteks of destruction cursing around blasting people from inside the Ark.
Previous codexes specifically said Destroyer Lords couldn't embark even though they were infantry and something else that just didn't play well with "Destroyer Cult" models.
I can see them issuing an errata along the same lines. But who knows with GW.
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
Bosskelot wrote:Just to clear a misconception, but Praetorians do get Command Protocols.
This includes all dynastic agents right?
53161
Post by: Falkman
Anyone who has the Command Protocols ability. It is a rule listed on every datasheet that has it.
95983
Post by: punisher357
I think you're all forgetting the void dragon for anti- tank.
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
Falkman wrote:
Anyone who has the Command Protocols ability. It is a rule listed on every datasheet that has it.
Excellent. It appears most units have it. I had initially thought triarch stalkers didn't get it ether but they do. That is a great thing to because I plan on playing Szarekhan - that double living metal bonus is huge for triarchs. Automatically Appended Next Post: He is nearly the cost of 3 doom stalkers. I think he will be on the shelf. He is impressive though. Albeit short ranged.
84439
Post by: Marshal Loss
Any thoughts on how to get the most out of Ophydian Destroyers?
113031
Post by: Voss
Focus on their deployment shenanigans, I guess. There is a strat for redeploying them as well.
Their big problem is they're exactly the same price as Skorpekhs and Wraiths, and in the same ballpark as praetorians, who do better with D2 attacks. And for anti-horde duties, flayed ones can get the same number of attacks (plus extra hits) for roughly the same points, advanced deployment as well, the LD debuff, have better strats, do better with RP, and aren't tying up the FA slots (which you have less of in battalions and brigades).
They're competing with four different units for overlapping roles, and come up short against each one.
They're good-looking models, but the don't have a clear purpose and somehow GW created a necron codex where close combat units feel redundant.
119634
Post by: MrPieChee
From two lychguard/praetorian boxes, is it a no brainer to build them as ten rod praetorians?
Or is there an argument for board and sword, or war scythes?
What about after you've built ten as praetorians - is it worth getting another two boxes to build some lychguard?
Is it worth taking any configuration in units of 5 in 2k pts games? What about smaller games?
113031
Post by: Voss
MrPieChee wrote:From two lychguard/praetorian boxes, is it a no brainer to build them as ten rod praetorians?
Or is there an argument for board and sword, or war scythes?
What about after you've built ten as praetorians - is it worth getting another two boxes to build some lychguard?
Is it worth taking any configuration in units of 5 in 2k pts games? What about smaller games?
Both units got buffs, particularly in attacks.
But praetorians with rods and definitely better than pistol and void blade. D2 all the time and 3AP beats out an extra d1 pistol shot.
Lychguard have a useful bodyguard ability (though I think it works only on nobles? Fuzzy on details due to too much info running around).
Shields got the Stormshield upgrade (+1 to armor saves), and their sword is pretty decent. They're also Core, which helps them quite a bit.
Not really sold on the scythes, as they're relatively squishy without the shield.
5 is an RP math problem. But might be worth it if you're using praetorians to swoop in and steal things (or hunt MSU), and 5 might work for a lychguard bodyguard.
801
Post by: buddha
Delete
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
Another lazy post.
My existing army has 5 Tomb Blades equipped with the Particle weapon, built for 6th/7th Ed, because blasts were funny to me.
From what we know, will they find a use in 9th?
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
Voss wrote:MrPieChee wrote:From two lychguard/praetorian boxes, is it a no brainer to build them as ten rod praetorians?
Or is there an argument for board and sword, or war scythes?
What about after you've built ten as praetorians - is it worth getting another two boxes to build some lychguard?
Is it worth taking any configuration in units of 5 in 2k pts games? What about smaller games?
Both units got buffs, particularly in attacks.
But praetorians with rods and definitely better than pistol and void blade. D2 all the time and 3AP beats out an extra d1 pistol shot.
Lychguard have a useful bodyguard ability (though I think it works only on nobles? Fuzzy on details due to too much info running around).
Shields got the Stormshield upgrade (+1 to armor saves), and their sword is pretty decent. They're also Core, which helps them quite a bit.
Not really sold on the scythes, as they're relatively squishy without the shield.
5 is an RP math problem. But might be worth it if you're using praetorians to swoop in and steal things (or hunt MSU), and 5 might work for a lychguard bodyguard.
Both Units have a use. Praetorians have all the tools they are just a little softer. So they can't be the main threat. Lychgard are a front line unit and durable but they are also slow. Me Personally I went for Praetorians.
81508
Post by: BroodSpawn
They're the cheapest version of Tomb Blades and have an alright amount of shots, so if you want something to harass/grab table quarters for engage/ fast ob-sec in that one Dynasty then yeah - they'll have a use.
64821
Post by: Tycho
He is nearly the cost of 3 doom stalkers. I think he will be on the shelf. He is impressive though. Albeit short ranged.
Yeah, that's my concern too. So many armies are geared to first-turn-kill knights, Morty, and Magnus that IDK how well this guy and his short range are going to do. He's a huge points sink. Hopefully this pans out to be incorrect because I LOVE the model, but right now I'm struggling to justify him. Especially with the craziness of the Knightbringer.
90435
Post by: Slayer-Fan123
Tycho wrote:He is nearly the cost of 3 doom stalkers. I think he will be on the shelf. He is impressive though. Albeit short ranged.
Yeah, that's my concern too. So many armies are geared to first-turn-kill knights, Morty, and Magnus that IDK how well this guy and his short range are going to do. He's a huge points sink. Hopefully this pans out to be incorrect because I LOVE the model, but right now I'm struggling to justify him. Especially with the craziness of the Knightbringer.
Keep in mind Voidy can only take three wounds per phase. That is an increase to durability right there.
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Tycho wrote:He is nearly the cost of 3 doom stalkers. I think he will be on the shelf. He is impressive though. Albeit short ranged.
Yeah, that's my concern too. So many armies are geared to first-turn-kill knights, Morty, and Magnus that IDK how well this guy and his short range are going to do. He's a huge points sink. Hopefully this pans out to be incorrect because I LOVE the model, but right now I'm struggling to justify him. Especially with the craziness of the Knightbringer.
Keep in mind Voidy can only take three wounds per phase. That is an increase to durability right there.
A good point and also living metal. So unless they can manage to do psychic phase damage to him. it will take you a minimum of 4 shooting phases to shoot him down (if that is the only way you can damage him).
Typically with the likely turn 2 assault he will be coming in with 7 wounds after he regens 1 of the wounds they dealt him. That turn though he is likely at risk of smite shooty assaulty death. It is probably best to reserve him.
44971
Post by: Wakshaani
Tomb Blades. I've never had the good fortune to own them, mainly because I don't like the look of 'em.
BUT, they sound like they're a really important pick this time around, so...
What can you tell me about them? Strengths? Weaknesses? How should they be constructed?
64821
Post by: Tycho
Keep in mind Voidy can only take three wounds per phase. That is an increase to durability right there.
This is a good point and I do keep forgetting it!
25580
Post by: Maelstrom808
Wakshaani wrote:Tomb Blades. I've never had the good fortune to own them, mainly because I don't like the look of 'em.
BUT, they sound like they're a really important pick this time around, so...
What can you tell me about them? Strengths? Weaknesses? How should they be constructed?
- with shield vanes and shadowlooms they are T5, 2w, 3+/5++, -1 to hit, living metal, and in the middle ground for RP effectiveness.
- Gauss Blasters gives each model 4 S5, ap -2 shots at 15" and they have a strat that changes the type to assault and let's them advance without taking the -1 hit penalty, so your range is 30" and you are moving 14+ d6" at that point.
- an additional strat will let them auto wound on 6s to hit
- they are Core so get all the buffs that are associated with that
They good.
Keep them out of combat (shouldn't be hard with their mobility), and support them with a CCB and I promise they will put work in. Use the dynasty trait to make them scoring.
Bonus points for using Szeras to make them T6 or BS2.
120704
Post by: Cynista
Still can't see how they can justify not letting us mix and match weapons in Lychguard squads. Especially as they are depicted in mixed squads in official artwork. There's a dozen obvious fixes that all of us would have put on our wishlists that GW just ignore. Triarch is an even more pointless keyword than before too
126422
Post by: Matt Swain
Looking at the new rp rolls, I kinda wish they'd dome something that just gave you straight up reanimation points to spend.
So a cryptek uses rites of reanimation, roll a d3, get that many points to count toward successful rolls.
Maybe it'll get tweaked later on.
On the other hand, I've seen new batreps with new necron units and rules, and it is kind of amazing to see them absolutely kicking ass in the close combat phase now. Against iron warriors and now with the new codex against tyranids. I just saw a 1k point batrep with the new codex necrons vs tyranids and the necrons tabled the nids, much of said tabling happening in close combat.
Here: https://youtu.be/xErTT9rNyD0
We may have issues with the new codex, but one thing's for sure, the necron army got a lot more flexible in it. We're not just a shooting phase army anymore.
97127
Post by: Kharne the Befriender
Are scarabs back up to 9 bases a unit? Or is 6 still the cap?
7637
Post by: Sasori
They are back up to 9 now.
97127
Post by: Kharne the Befriender
Awesome, thank you.
I should also assume that Cryptothralls are still only 2 to a unit and plasmacytes are still one per destroyer unit?
100848
Post by: tneva82
Voss wrote:MrPieChee wrote:From two lychguard/praetorian boxes, is it a no brainer to build them as ten rod praetorians?
Or is there an argument for board and sword, or war scythes?
What about after you've built ten as praetorians - is it worth getting another two boxes to build some lychguard?
Is it worth taking any configuration in units of 5 in 2k pts games? What about smaller games?
Both units got buffs, particularly in attacks.
But praetorians with rods and definitely better than pistol and void blade. D2 all the time and 3AP beats out an extra d1 pistol shot.
Lychguard have a useful bodyguard ability (though I think it works only on nobles? Fuzzy on details due to too much info running around).
Shields got the Stormshield upgrade (+1 to armor saves), and their sword is pretty decent. They're also Core, which helps them quite a bit.
Not really sold on the scythes, as they're relatively squishy without the shield.
5 is an RP math problem. But might be worth it if you're using praetorians to swoop in and steal things (or hunt MSU), and 5 might work for a lychguard bodyguard.
Though void blades isn't that hopeless. Still kills 7 primaris aka squad wipeout. And if your local meta isn't that marine filled void blades can still do wonders. The s6 shot and 4 attacks made mincemeat out of orks today.
For lychguard there's core keyword which gives some bonuses. 4++ melee t5 w2 obsec for example has value in midfield crawl.
Lychguard with scythe could be interesting as if you can keep at least 1 night scythe alive you can get automatic charge where-ever you can land night scythe plus lychguard.
Overall praetorians are less resource intensive and safe so if you take lychguard make damned sure you take advantage of core keyword Automatically Appended Next Post:  BroodSpawn wrote:They're the cheapest version of Tomb Blades and have an alright amount of shots, so if you want something to harass/grab table quarters for engage/ fast ob-sec in that one Dynasty then yeah - they'll have a use.
It's essentially 4 hits vs 6 hits vs tesla. As long as no -1 to hit it's not that bad and as you jia cheapest
14
Post by: Ghaz
No. Canoptek Plasmacytes are their own separate unit now.
97127
Post by: Kharne the Befriender
Ghaz wrote:
No. Canoptek Plasmacytes are their own separate unit now.
Right on, so what's their unit size?
84851
Post by: Tiberius501
1, and you can only have 1 per Destroyer unit haha. But they are now a seperate unit and don’t take up a slot.
77922
Post by: Overread
I think its mostly not "in the unit" so that it doesn't complicate reanimation protocols and gets used for unit tricks and such in the game.
11600
Post by: CKO
Is it a character?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Is it a character?
115943
Post by: Darsath
CKO wrote:Is it a character?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Is it a character?
It has a rule that it can't be targeted by ranged attacks whilst within 3" of a Destroyer unit.
119331
Post by: Yazima
Loving the updated C'tan rules. These guys are finally starting to live up to their fluff, especially the pure destruction that is the Nightbringer. Its amusing to see that he is now proportionally stronger than he was back when he was supposedly fully formed
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
That is good. Hard to completely wipe them. Even needing 4 success to bring 1 back if you lose 6 bases you are rolling 24 dice!
84851
Post by: Tiberius501
Xenomancers wrote:
That is good. Hard to completely wipe them. Even needing 4 success to bring 1 back if you lose 6 bases you are rolling 24 dice!
Yeah you statistically get 1 back for every 3 bases they kill, if I’m not really bad at math (which I am). Same as Skorpekh Destroyers and Wraiths and the like.
106140
Post by: Pyrothem
Now that we have the rules as they are printed it seems to me that GW once again has no idea how to play/read rules for their own game.
In the White Dwarf mag showing a battle report there was a point where the Necron player used the strat to blow up a scarab base for mortal and it is said he tried to use RP on it after. By the rules that is not allowed so will we get a second week FAQ or will it be ignored?
Personally I think RP should work after an explosion or bombing run and such.
119933
Post by: Bosskelot
It does seem like RP was written with being weak to psychic attacks in mind.
Which is absolutely fine and fits in with lore somewhat. But it does also feel that the rules writers forgot that actually the majority of MW output in the game is from non-psychic abilities. Plus there's the immersion factor and the question of: why is a plane dropping bombs or a vehicle exploding somehow deadlier to the Reanimation process than, say, a Battle Cannon on a Leman Russ? Or a Volcano Lance on a Castellan?
14
Post by: Ghaz
Pyrothem wrote:Now that we have the rules as they are printed it seems to me that GW once again has no idea how to play/read rules for their own game.
In the White Dwarf mag showing a battle report there was a point where the Necron player used the strat to blow up a scarab base for mortal and it is said he tried to use RP on it after. By the rules that is not allowed so will we get a second week FAQ or will it be ignored?
Personally I think RP should work after an explosion or bombing run and such.
Battle reports in White Dwarf have always had errors and I've been in the game since 3rd edition and they've never affected the printed rules. it's more likely that the player simply got the rule wrong or was remembering a playtest version of the stratagem.
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
 Tiberius501 wrote: Xenomancers wrote:
That is good. Hard to completely wipe them. Even needing 4 success to bring 1 back if you lose 6 bases you are rolling 24 dice!
Yeah you statistically get 1 back for every 3 bases they kill, if I’m not really bad at math (which I am). Same as Skorpekh Destroyers and Wraiths and the like.
Yes that is about the average. Automatically Appended Next Post: Bosskelot wrote:It does seem like RP was written with being weak to psychic attacks in mind.
Which is absolutely fine and fits in with lore somewhat. But it does also feel that the rules writers forgot that actually the majority of MW output in the game is from non-psychic abilities. Plus there's the immersion factor and the question of: why is a plane dropping bombs or a vehicle exploding somehow deadlier to the Reanimation process than, say, a Battle Cannon on a Leman Russ? Or a Volcano Lance on a Castellan?
This is why you must bow to the silent king. Need that psychic mortals protection . 
111146
Post by: p5freak
Bosskelot wrote:It does seem like RP was written with being weak to psychic attacks in mind.
Which is absolutely fine and fits in with lore somewhat. But it does also feel that the rules writers forgot that actually the majority of MW output in the game is from non-psychic abilities. Plus there's the immersion factor and the question of: why is a plane dropping bombs or a vehicle exploding somehow deadlier to the Reanimation process than, say, a Battle Cannon on a Leman Russ? Or a Volcano Lance on a Castellan?
Yes, its ridiculous that RP doesnt work against any kind of MW.
47547
Post by: CthuluIsSpy
Tiberius501 wrote: Xenomancers wrote:
That is good. Hard to completely wipe them. Even needing 4 success to bring 1 back if you lose 6 bases you are rolling 24 dice!
Yeah you statistically get 1 back for every 3 bases they kill, if I’m not really bad at math (which I am). Same as Skorpekh Destroyers and Wraiths and the like.
You can also use Spyders to instantly revive one scarab.
I'm liking the Rites of Reanimation variants. I was a bit put off at first by the new RP rule, but seeing the get back up after death rule in some form makes up for it.
Its not only once per game either. Well, the Orb is, but it is actually worth something now.
120704
Post by: Cynista
p5freak wrote: Bosskelot wrote:It does seem like RP was written with being weak to psychic attacks in mind.
Which is absolutely fine and fits in with lore somewhat. But it does also feel that the rules writers forgot that actually the majority of MW output in the game is from non-psychic abilities. Plus there's the immersion factor and the question of: why is a plane dropping bombs or a vehicle exploding somehow deadlier to the Reanimation process than, say, a Battle Cannon on a Leman Russ? Or a Volcano Lance on a Castellan?
Yes, its ridiculous that RP doesnt work against any kind of MW.
Honestly after our complete lack of Psychic Awakening content, and waiting for the codex, the utter lack of new anti Psycher support outside of the Silent King is a massive disappointment and just stinks of classic GW. No Pariahs, no special rules for Praetorians, no gloom prism for other units....
115943
Post by: Darsath
I get the feeling that the new Reanimation Protocols were changed last minute and got minimal testing. Only basing this on a few anecdotes mind you, no hard evidence for it, but speaking to one of the playtesters, the version that they ended up using wasn't what we got in the Codex. Now, this is fairly normal, and many rules end up different from what gets playtested. But, with the confusion around the wording of the rule, and how unintuitive it reads and plays, I believe that they made a change to it last minute and only got a couple weeks of playtesting with it.
126602
Post by: pothocboots
Do you any insight into what the rule would've been prior then?
115943
Post by: Darsath
Roll at the end of each phase for each model destroyed in a unit. Return 1 model on a 5+. I'd imagine that the book-keeping for remember the total casualties for each unit and then rolling at the end was why it got redone. Also played poorly from the sounds of it.
126422
Post by: Matt Swain
Darsath wrote:
Roll at the end of each phase for each model destroyed in a unit. Return 1 model on a 5+. I'd imagine that the book-keeping for remember the total casualties for each unit and then rolling at the end was why it got redone. Also played poorly from the sounds of it.
The problem was that the enemy would simply fire one unit after another into a necron squad until it was completely gone, negating and rp at all.
106383
Post by: JNAProductions
Darsath wrote:
Roll at the end of each phase for each model destroyed in a unit. Return 1 model on a 5+. I'd imagine that the book-keeping for remember the total casualties for each unit and then rolling at the end was why it got redone. Also played poorly from the sounds of it.
That is brutally OP.
I’ve run the math before, and 20 Necron Warriors beat 30 Plaguebearers in close combat with that rule.
118765
Post by: A.T.
Bosskelot wrote:It does seem like RP was written with being weak to psychic attacks in mind.
Which is absolutely fine and fits in with lore somewhat. But it does also feel that the rules writers forgot that actually the majority of MW output in the game is from non-psychic abilities
That's how reanimation used to work for the oldschool necrons - anything that blew them up sufficiently stopped reainimation (and feel no pain and so on).
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
Cynista wrote: p5freak wrote: Bosskelot wrote:It does seem like RP was written with being weak to psychic attacks in mind.
Which is absolutely fine and fits in with lore somewhat. But it does also feel that the rules writers forgot that actually the majority of MW output in the game is from non-psychic abilities. Plus there's the immersion factor and the question of: why is a plane dropping bombs or a vehicle exploding somehow deadlier to the Reanimation process than, say, a Battle Cannon on a Leman Russ? Or a Volcano Lance on a Castellan?
Yes, its ridiculous that RP doesnt work against any kind of MW.
Honestly after our complete lack of Psychic Awakening content, and waiting for the codex, the utter lack of new anti Psycher support outside of the Silent King is a massive disappointment and just stinks of classic GW. No Pariahs, no special rules for Praetorians, no gloom prism for other units....
Illuminator is pretty bad ass. I plan on running him every game. Szarekhan is the answer to all your woes.
11600
Post by: CKO
 Luke_Prowler wrote: CKO wrote:I have friends that think I should do youtube videos about Necrons. They say I think outside the box and a lot of my tips change their opinions on Necrons. I am unsure how I should start? Should I make a video about the silver tide list everyone keeps talking about or should I do unit by unit analysis? How should I start?
You should certainly start with a general tactical run though, giving views an idea on how Necrons "work" and from there people can have a frame of reference when you dive deeper into later works.
Thank you, for your response! I am trying to think of ways to make my videos different, is there anything you guys can think of that will make a review better for the viewer.
97127
Post by: Kharne the Befriender
CKO wrote: Luke_Prowler wrote: CKO wrote:I have friends that think I should do youtube videos about Necrons. They say I think outside the box and a lot of my tips change their opinions on Necrons. I am unsure how I should start? Should I make a video about the silver tide list everyone keeps talking about or should I do unit by unit analysis? How should I start?
You should certainly start with a general tactical run though, giving views an idea on how Necrons "work" and from there people can have a frame of reference when you dive deeper into later works.
Thank you, for your response! I am trying to think of ways to make my videos different, is there anything you guys can think of that will make a review better for the viewer.
Visuals and bullet points. Say your reviewing an Overlord, put up a picture of an Overlord model and as you review it have bullet points pop up kind of summarizing what youre saying. Kind of like Auspex Tactics, but less bland as I'm sure you'll add more to it.
Bonus points for demonstrations. This is just my opinion however, im a visual learner so being able to see whats being talked about is a huge plus
111146
Post by: p5freak
Cynista wrote: p5freak wrote: Bosskelot wrote:It does seem like RP was written with being weak to psychic attacks in mind.
Which is absolutely fine and fits in with lore somewhat. But it does also feel that the rules writers forgot that actually the majority of MW output in the game is from non-psychic abilities. Plus there's the immersion factor and the question of: why is a plane dropping bombs or a vehicle exploding somehow deadlier to the Reanimation process than, say, a Battle Cannon on a Leman Russ? Or a Volcano Lance on a Castellan?
Yes, its ridiculous that RP doesnt work against any kind of MW.
Honestly after our complete lack of Psychic Awakening content, and waiting for the codex, the utter lack of new anti Psycher support outside of the Silent King is a massive disappointment and just stinks of classic GW. No Pariahs, no special rules for Praetorians, no gloom prism for other units....
I wasnt talking about psychic MWs, i meant explosions, and other abilities that do MWs. But yes, our psychic defense is still hilariously bad. The WLT which let us deny a psychic power is gone. Now the silent king, a 450 pts. LOW, can deny one psychic power. Woooooow  And there is a stratagem which has to be played before the psychic test is rolled, and the chance of it working is 50%. And we still have gloom prisms on spyders.
Why did we gather this blackstone stuff which can nullify/absorb psychic energies, when we dont use it ??
100848
Post by: tneva82
 JNAProductions wrote:Darsath wrote:
Roll at the end of each phase for each model destroyed in a unit. Return 1 model on a 5+. I'd imagine that the book-keeping for remember the total casualties for each unit and then rolling at the end was why it got redone. Also played poorly from the sounds of it.
That is brutally OP.
I’ve run the math before, and 20 Necron Warriors beat 30 Plaguebearers in close combat with that rule.
Uuh that's fairly close to what RP was before and it was hardly OP...
111146
Post by: p5freak
Xenomancers wrote:Illuminator is pretty bad ass. I plan on running him every game. Szarekhan is the answer to all your woes.
I guess you talk about empyric overcharger. Enemy psykers within 12" suffer perils on any dice roll that includes doubles. Most psychic powers have more than 12" range. There are around 180 psychic powers, and around 30 of them have a range of 12" or less, empyric overcharger is useless against 150 psychic powers. Even if an enemy psyker is within 12" of szeras and rolls doubles (he can move, and advance, in the movement phase to get away from szeras), the chance is 1/6 that this ability is successful, and your opponent can reroll that psychic test, the chance to roll doubles again is almost impossible. This ability is pretty much useless. The deny strat has to be played before the psychic test is rolled, and the chance to succeed is 50%.
126422
Post by: Matt Swain
I think that rp works on weapons that do MW n the shooting and close combat phase unless I reads it wrong.
There is zero excuse for it to not work in the psychic phase...
111146
Post by: p5freak
RP works after a units shoots or fights, which usually happens in the shooting or fight phase. There are some exceptions, though.
127633
Post by: -Ňecrontyr-
Might be worth taking a full squad of Deathmarks to pop off psykers b4 the MW your elites
111146
Post by: p5freak
The monolith no longer has FLY, assuming its base will be 130, or even 160mm, how are you going to move it across the battlefield ? It cant move over or through a ruin. You would need an almost empty table, a simple barricade, or fuel pipe would stop it dead in its tracks, because of unstable position. Models cannot end their movement on top of a terrain piece with that trait. A crater subtracts 2" from its movement, because of difficult ground. The iconic unit, from the most advanced race in the universe, is stopped by simple terrain, thats ridiculous
116670
Post by: Ordana
The fact that there are a bunch of different crytek variants and none of them are an anti-psyker definitely feels like an oversight that will hinder Necrons in a lot of matchups.
116615
Post by: unitled
A hugely advanced race stopped in their tracks by terrain you say...
1
127633
Post by: -Ňecrontyr-
It is TITANIC, does that not give it some form of move through terrain unrestricted rule?
111146
Post by: p5freak
-Ňecrontyr- wrote:It is TITANIC, does that not give it some form of move through terrain unrestricted rule?
There is no such thing in 9th. If its not on its datasheet, then it has to follow normal movement rules, like any other model.
7637
Post by: Sasori
 Ordana wrote:The fact that there are a bunch of different crytek variants and none of them are an anti-psyker definitely feels like an oversight that will hinder Necrons in a lot of matchups.
It's probably quite intentional. The Tradeoff is that we have a lot of psychic-like abilities that can't be denied that just require a roll to go off.
106383
Post by: JNAProductions
tneva82 wrote: JNAProductions wrote:Darsath wrote:
Roll at the end of each phase for each model destroyed in a unit. Return 1 model on a 5+. I'd imagine that the book-keeping for remember the total casualties for each unit and then rolling at the end was why it got redone. Also played poorly from the sounds of it.
That is brutally OP.
I’ve run the math before, and 20 Necron Warriors beat 30 Plaguebearers in close combat with that rule.
Uuh that's fairly close to what RP was before and it was hardly OP...
No, RP was once at the start of your turn.
If it was at the end of each phase, with only a 5+ RP, you get close to 90% of casualties back after five phases.
Hell, let's say you shoot a squad of 20 Warriors down to 2, and then charge them.
End of shooting, you get 6 back.
End of charging, you get another 4 back.
There are now 12 Warriors in a squad that you shot down to 2 earlier that turn.
115943
Post by: Darsath
JNAProductions wrote:tneva82 wrote: JNAProductions wrote:Darsath wrote:
Roll at the end of each phase for each model destroyed in a unit. Return 1 model on a 5+. I'd imagine that the book-keeping for remember the total casualties for each unit and then rolling at the end was why it got redone. Also played poorly from the sounds of it.
That is brutally OP.
I’ve run the math before, and 20 Necron Warriors beat 30 Plaguebearers in close combat with that rule.
Uuh that's fairly close to what RP was before and it was hardly OP...
No, RP was once at the start of your turn.
If it was at the end of each phase, with only a 5+ RP, you get close to 90% of casualties back after five phases.
Hell, let's say you shoot a squad of 20 Warriors down to 2, and then charge them.
End of shooting, you get 6 back.
End of charging, you get another 4 back.
There are now 12 Warriors in a squad that you shot down to 2 earlier that turn.
Incorrect. You only rolled for models killed in that phase, not all dead models.
106383
Post by: JNAProductions
Okay-that was not clear.
120704
Post by: Cynista
p5freak wrote:
Why did we gather this blackstone stuff which can nullify/absorb psychic energies, when we dont use it ??
One of many valid questions GW should be held to account for. Others include;
Why does the new Monolith have Blackstone built into the sculpt, with no rules?
Why does the Skopekh Lord have no weapon options whatsoever?
Why is the Veil of Darkness CORE only?
Why force us to choose between a Canoptek Cloak and Control Node?
Why is there only 8 generic relics?
Why are the 270 point T.Ctan and the 350 point Deceiver STR 6 with 4+ saves?
Why are Tesla Spheres still AP 0 & D 1?
Why still can't we mix shields and scythes with Lychguard?
And dozens more
I know I sound like a broken record, but the more I read the book, the worse it looks and I think it will be the general consensus soon
81508
Post by: BroodSpawn
Cynista wrote: p5freak wrote:
Why did we gather this blackstone stuff which can nullify/absorb psychic energies, when we dont use it ??
One of many valid questions GW should be held to account for. Others include;
Why does the new Monolith have Blackstone built into the sculpt, with no rules?
Why does the Skopekh Lord have no weapon options whatsoever?
Why is the Veil of Darkness CORE only?
Why force us to choose between a Canoptek Cloak and Control Node?
Why is there only 8 generic relics?
Why are the 270 point T.Ctan and the 350 point Deceiver STR 6 with 4+ saves?
Why are Tesla Spheres still AP 0 & D 1?
Why still can't we mix shields and scythes with Lychguard?
And dozens more
I know I sound like a broken record, but the more I read the book, the worse it looks and I think it will be the general consensus soon
This just reads as a 'but I want it my way' moan as opposed to anything constructive.
Let's use Tesla as an example.
Why is Tesla Ap0 1D? Well let's see.. if you make it 2D that's and (quick maths based on 10 guys hitting on 3's) you still have about 20 hits. At S5 you're wounding T4 on 3's. Let's call it 14 wounds. Every failed save is 2D. Every failed save removes a marine, or forces 2 FnP saves, or chips down a vehicle fast.
Add in AP-1 and your damage increases, especially if it's stacked with Mephrit.
Tesla did not need a buff like that.
What it looks like you're complaining about is that you can't roll 3's, then 3's and just remove any non-3w model per attack from the table. That kind of action is not good for the game as a whole.
120704
Post by: Cynista
BroodSpawn wrote:This just reads as a 'but I want it my way' moan as opposed to anything constructive.
Let's use Tesla as an example.
Why is Tesla Ap0 1D? Well let's see.. if you make it 2D that's and (quick maths based on 10 guys hitting on 3's) you still have about 20 hits. At S5 you're wounding T4 on 3's. Let's call it 14 wounds. Every failed save is 2D. Every failed save removes a marine, or forces 2 FnP saves, or chips down a vehicle fast.
Add in AP-1 and your damage increases, especially if it's stacked with Mephrit.
Tesla did not need a buff like that.
What it looks like you're complaining about is that you can't roll 3's, then 3's and just remove any non-3w model per attack from the table. That kind of action is not good for the game as a whole.
Yeah, no
I said Tesla Sphere's, not Tesla in general. They are only on the Obelisk and T. Vault which are 370 and 500 points respectively. Don't try to tell me that D2 or some AP would be OP for such vastly expensive models.
I'm not attempting to be constructive here, I'm pointing out some obviously bad decisions in a book full of them. As for your last sentence, that's just a ridiculous statement in bad faith. Don't assume that's my take when I said nothing of the sort.
92012
Post by: Argive
Cynista wrote: p5freak wrote: Why did we gather this blackstone stuff which can nullify/absorb psychic energies, when we dont use it ??
One of many valid questions GW should be held to account for. Others include; Why does the new Monolith have Blackstone built into the sculpt, with no rules? Why does the Skopekh Lord have no weapon options whatsoever? Why is the Veil of Darkness CORE only? Why force us to choose between a Canoptek Cloak and Control Node? Why is there only 8 generic relics? Why are the 270 point T.Ctan and the 350 point Deceiver STR 6 with 4+ saves? Why are Tesla Spheres still AP 0 & D 1? Why still can't we mix shields and scythes with Lychguard? And dozens more I know I sound like a broken record, but the more I read the book, the worse it looks and I think it will be the general consensus soon
"dear user of NPC race #2 Because you are not a space marine therefore...nobody cares. Sincerly GW". What's there to be constructive about ? There's is a proposed rules section of the forum for wish listing. In current reality, compare the two codices side by side and its laughibly clear which one is just much better, easier to use has more options and is easy to synergise.. Of course lets wait and see...How dare people have opinions.
7637
Post by: Sasori
Someone posted the math about the new QS over on reddit. TLDR: It's generally much better and suprsingly durable even against stuff like Eradicators
On the post yesterday about the death of vehicle heavy lists in the new eradicator world there was a lot of discussion about the viability of Necron ghost arks given the relative survivability provided by quantum shielding. The most common opinion in that thread was that with the exception very high damage weapons (such as new melta) the new quantum shielding rules make ghost arks more durable than the old rules. I thought I would see if that stands up to the test and mathhammer the expected damage of some common weapon profiles against the old and new rules.
For those of you not familiar with Necron rules the ghost ark in the new codex is T6, 14W with a 3+ save and has the quantum shielding rule which lets it ignore unmodified wound roles of 1-3 and give it a 5++ (which can be boosted to 4++ for a phase for 1cp). In 8th Ed the ark instead had a 4+ save and quantum shielding let you role a d6 when wounded and if it was less than the damage of that wound you ignored it completely (you could spend 1cp to subtract 1 from this role for a phase which was weirdly faq’d to be the only situation in 8th where a role could be modified to be less than 1). What this meant in practice was that under the old rules ghost arks melted to high rate of fire D2 and D3 weapons such as autocannons and plasma while being very resilient to high damage weapons.
The below table shows the expected damage per hit for each weapon profile against an 8th ed ghost ark, 9th ed ghost ark, 8th ed ark using the stratagem, and 9th ed ark using the stratagem. Bold numbers show the more resilient profile, italic are more resilient with the stratagem.
Name Profile 8th 9th 8th+ 9th+
Bolter 4 0 1 0.17 0.11 0.14 0.11
Heavy Bolter 5 -1 2 0.37 0.33 0.30 0.33
Grav cannon 5 -3 1 0.33 0.44 0.28 0.33
Gauss cannon 6 -3 D3 0.78 0.67 0.61 0.5
Autocannon 7 -1 2 0.74 0.5 0.59 0.5
Stormcannon 7 -2 2 0.93 0.67 0.74 0.5
Predator Autocannon 7 -1 3 0.89 0.75 0.67 0.75
Plasma overcharge 8 -3 2 1.11 0.67 0.89 0.5
Lascannon 9 -3 D6 1.04 1.17 0.65 0.88
Melta 8 -4 D6 1.04 1.17 0.65 0.88
Melta (1/2 range) 8 -4 D6+2 0.74 1.83 0.41 1.38
Heavy Melta rifle (1/2 range) 8 -4 D6+4 0.3 2.5 0.09 1.88
Heavy Death Ray 12 -4 D3+3 1.3 1.67 0.6 1.25
Gauss Pylon 16 -5 D3+6 0 2.67 0 2.0
What we see here is that as expected the new ark rules make it more resilient to high volume low damage fire, partly due to the improvement from 4+ to 3+ save against low AP weapons (which notably makes it weaker against grav weapons although since grav devastators have been heavily nerfed this isn't that much of an issue). Especially against higher strength and ap D2 weapons such as overcharged plasma the new quantum shielding rules make the ark over 50% more durable. Once the average damage of a weapon starts to get above 3 then the new ghost ark starts to become increasingly more vulnerable compared to the old profile to the point where half range heavy melta rifles would be 8 times less effective against the old profile (or 20 times with the stray). While there were some comments on the previous thread about how the change to quantum shielding was made entirely to sell the new eradicators the data shows that the change was actually made because Forgeworld weren't selling enough titan killing Gauss Pylons /s! In seriousness I can see why the rule was changed because it would have been ridiculous having a feels bad situation where dedicated close range antitank models were trying to run away from the enemy tanks to get to their "weaker" profiles above half range.
What the mathhammer does show is that ghost arks are indeed remarkably tanky against basically all weapons for their 145 point cost. Even heavy melta armed eradicators in half range need an average of 6 hits (and therefore 7 - 9 shots depending on rerolls) to destroy a ghost ark (9 - 12 shots vs the 4++), which requires 180 - 270 points of some of the most efficient ranged anti tank unit in the game to take down. In conclusion the new quantum shielding rules provide a significant defensive boost against "light" anti tank weapons while still providing a decent defense against dedicated anti tank and ghost arks in particular may be a good pick with the new codex.
P.S. I picked the weapon profiles in the table almost at random based on what I thought was a representative coverage of most weapon types. let me know if there's anything else that you'd like me to include and I'll edit the table accordingly!
53939
Post by: vipoid
Cynista wrote:
Why does the Skopekh Lord have no weapon options whatsoever?
Why force us to choose between a Canoptek Cloak and Control Node?
I imagine the answer to these is 'the models are built that way'.
Remember, GW does models first and then just throws them at the rules team to do something with.
To be honest, I don't think the number of Relics is particularly bad. It's just that so many of the ones we got look pretty dismal.
Lightning Field and Timesplinter Cloak are gone entirely (I can maybe understand the former going, given that CCBs now have built-in invuls, but why on earth was the latter removed?), as is the Abyssal Staff.
Nanoscarab Casket is now an entirely different artefact, which outright lost its most fun ability (because who wants Necrons that get back up, right? ). But that's okay because now other units can take it... even though there's no longer any reason to do so.
The Gauntlet of the Conflagrator was retained, as was the depressing slab that is the Sempiternal Weave. Oh, and the Blood Scythe is apparently still around, though why anyone would take it over the Voidreaper is a question yet to be answered.
In terms of new stuff, we have gems like:
The Arrow of Infinity. A bafflingly named weapon as it has neither infinite range nor an infinite number of shots.  You'll forgive me if I'm still not a fan of one-shot weapons that are just begging to roll a 1 on the hit/wound roll.
The Star Conduit. Hey, remember how the Nanoscarab Casket had to be nerfed to hell because in 8th only one model could take it and that wasn't acceptable? Well here's a gun that only one model is able to take!
The Ruler's Diadem. zzzzzzzzzZZZZ
125976
Post by: yukishiro1
The relics and warlord traits in the new Necron book are straight-up terrible. If it was the first book you could say it was a trend and GW was trying to get away from super powerful relics and traits...except that the SM codex's relics and warlord traits are way, way, way better, to the point that even comparing them is embarrassing.
I don't know why or how GW seems to be unable to learn that it isn't good game design to give SM stuff that's just better than everyone else's stuff, because <reasons>.
The Necrons codex is in a weird place because on the one hand it is vastly better than the prior Necrons codex and has vastly better internal balance...but yet it's also significantly inferior to the other codex that comes out at the same time. It's really disappointing to see GW evidently hasn't learned its lesson on not overtuning space marines.
120704
Post by: Cynista
IMO the only actually good relic is the Voltaic Staff for a Technomancer or a CCB/Overlord. And the only Warlord trait i'd take is Enduring Will. Everything else seems medicore or just bad. Options in the 8th ed codex were a lot better, it's mind boggling from GW
 vipoid wrote:Cynista wrote:
Why does the Skopekh Lord have no weapon options whatsoever?
Why force us to choose between a Canoptek Cloak and Control Node?
I imagine the answer to these is 'the models are built that way'.
Remember, GW does models first and then just throws them at the rules team to do something with.
I am genuinely surprised that the Skorpekh Lord is not a build-your-own-hero unit, like a Hive Tyrant or Demon Prince. I fully expected the monopose version from Indomitus to not enter production and a new multi-part kit released with tons of options. It seems like an obvious win win scenario for everyone.
53939
Post by: vipoid
yukishiro1 wrote:The relics and warlord traits in the new Necron book are straight-up terrible. If it was the first book you could say it was a trend and GW was trying to get away from super powerful relics and traits...except that the SM codex's relics and warlord traits are way, way, way better, to the point that even comparing them is embarrassing.
Yeah, it seems like they were trying to play it really safe with the Necron relics, going for the most boring and limited effects possible.
And I could understand that for the first codex... if they hadn't gone in the opposite direction for Space Marines.
And the fact that SMs literally have versions of our relics that our just outright better is especially galling.
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
Voltaic staff and veil of darkness are the only relics I will use with any frequency.
119179
Post by: Acehilator
Not sure what the problem is with the relics and WL traits... like wtf?
When using Warriors and/or Immortal blobs:
- Overlord with Phaeron upgrade
- Thrall of the Silent King WL trait
- Orb of Eternity
One dope package.
Senor Skorpekh (defensive setup):
- Eternal Pride
- Nanoscarab Casket
Second dope package.
Coming to get ya CCB (offensive setup):
- Honorable Combatant
- Voidreaper
Third dope package.
That's with just the common relics and WL traits. Immortal Pride is situationally useful when running 40+ Warriors, and the Veil of Darkness is auto-take. 5 out of the 6 Dynasty-specific WL traits are really good too (everything but Novokh), and 2 of the 6 specific artefacts.
After typing up this summary, I realize that the selection is not only not bad, but actually really good.
115943
Post by: Darsath
Acehilator wrote:Not sure what the problem is with the relics and WL traits... like wtf?
When using Warriors and/or Immortal blobs:
- Overlord with Phaeron upgrade
- Thrall of the Silent King WL trait
- Orb of Eternity
One dope package.
Senor Skorpekh (defensive setup):
- Eternal Pride
- Nanoscarab Casket
Second dope package.
Coming to get ya CCB (offensive setup):
- Honorable Combatant
- Voidreaper
Third dope package.
That's with just the common relics and WL traits. Immortal Pride is situationally useful when running 40+ Warriors, and the Veil of Darkness is auto-take. 5 out of the 6 Dynasty-specific WL traits are really good too (everything but Novokh), and 2 of the 6 specific artefacts.
After typing up this summary, I realize that the selection is not only not bad, but actually really good.
Ironically, you made the choices sound worse than I was thinking before. I still think a Command Barge with Voidreaper and Enduring Will is the way to go.
90435
Post by: Slayer-Fan123
The Nanoscarabs are absolutely TERRIBLE now.
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
duplicated.
I think there is just a very limited group of effective things in the relic section. Those options are quite good though.
84851
Post by: Tiberius501
I’m a fan of all the Szarekhan stuff. Their trait to take 4 protocols instead of 5 and have 1 active for 2 turns is quite nice and their relic to provide 9” range for protocols from the Warlord and all core units getting both directives from the protocols within his range is really nice and all makes protocols more useful.
97127
Post by: Kharne the Befriender
Tiberius501 wrote:I’m a fan of all the Szarekhan stuff. Their trait to take 4 protocols instead of 5 and have 1 active for 2 turns is quite nice and their relic to provide 9” range for protocols from the Warlord and all core units getting both directives from the protocols within his range is really nice and all makes protocols more useful.
Just finished my first game with the new codex, 1400pts. I used that exact setup and it won me the game, granted I was playing orks and with a rather unoptimized list, but that combo worked.
Another combo I setup was a technomancer with Control Node and the Fail Safe Overcharger following a unit of 5 wraiths, did well but maintaining the 6" distance is difficult, maybe not at first but as soon as the wraiths charge they're out of range next turn as the technomancer has likely advanced to keep up. The Technomancer would be ace if you could take the cloak and the node but that won't happen
47547
Post by: CthuluIsSpy
The canoptek cloak and control node should really be part of the same item.
I mean, its called a Canoptek Cloak, why wouldn't it have a control node built into it?
113031
Post by: Voss
 CthuluIsSpy wrote:The canoptek cloak and control node should really be part of the same item.
I mean, its called a Canoptek Cloak, why wouldn't it have a control node built into it?
Because neither 'cloak' nor 'canoptek' have any implicit or explicit meaning connected them with the idea that they control stuff or act as a hub for controlling stuff.
I'm completely at a loss as to what the logic here is supposed to be.
I get that one or both may be underpowered, but not that they present some sort of inherent meaning that encompasses both effects.
120704
Post by: Cynista
They do feel like one wargear item that was split into two though, because reasons. It's a shame because the Technomancer would be an A+ support unit if he could use both and I would happily pay the 20 points. I'd pay 30 even
97127
Post by: Kharne the Befriender
An interesting concept would be to swap the abilities. Make the cloak 10" FLY with the +1 to hit aura and rename the node to be the repairing a vehicle ability, that seems more reasonable to me.
Agreed though, I'd be willing to pay extra to take both
7637
Post by: Sasori
I think the Cloak should have just been baked in, and you can still purhcase the node if you need it.
It almost seems like this distinction exists because they are still going to sell that crappy finecast model.
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
Sasori wrote:I think the Cloak should have just been baked in, and you can still purhcase the node if you need it.
It almost seems like this distinction exists because they are still going to sell that crappy finecast model.
I plan on converting a technomancer unless they make a new model for it.
It is a real bummer he can't repair and buff like a tech marines... 
127633
Post by: -Ňecrontyr-
Think Technomancer is supposed to your average run-of-the-mill cyptek model
100857
Post by: Claas
-Ňecrontyr- wrote:Think Technomancer is supposed to your average run-of-the-mill cyptek model
I believe that is the case.
125976
Post by: yukishiro1
Acehilator wrote:Not sure what the problem is with the relics and WL traits... like wtf?
When using Warriors and/or Immortal blobs:
- Overlord with Phaeron upgrade
- Thrall of the Silent King WL trait
- Orb of Eternity
One dope package.
Senor Skorpekh (defensive setup):
- Eternal Pride
- Nanoscarab Casket
Second dope package.
Coming to get ya CCB (offensive setup):
- Honorable Combatant
- Voidreaper
Third dope package.
That's with just the common relics and WL traits. Immortal Pride is situationally useful when running 40+ Warriors, and the Veil of Darkness is auto-take. 5 out of the 6 Dynasty-specific WL traits are really good too (everything but Novokh), and 2 of the 6 specific artefacts.
After typing up this summary, I realize that the selection is not only not bad, but actually really good.
Those are all terrible packages, lol. Honorable combatant is terrible. Nanoscarab casket is terrible, and goes to only bad when combined with the -1D. Immortal pride (I am assuming this is what you meant, there is no such thing as eternal pride; if you meant eternal madness that is terrible on a skorpekh lord since he rerolls 1s to wound anyhow natively).
The only good generic warlord trait is the -1D, on either a Skorpekh or Command Barge, which ironically you haven't even included. Sautek and Szarekh have pretty good warlord traits, but nothing exceptional.
The only really good generic relic is the staff. The veil is now only good in very specific builds, because of the <CORE> restriction. Voidreaper is a decent weapon, but overlords are bad, and on a command barge you want to take the staff instead. Orb of eternity is bad; you are hardly ever going to get to use it to bring back more than like 2 dudes above what the normal orb would, unless your opponent is a dope.
It's just not a good selection, aside from the -1D trait and the staff, both of which are very good.
120704
Post by: Cynista
Preach. The fact there's only one standout Warlord trait is really incredibly frustrating if you want to use both a Noble HQ and give -1D to a Skorpekh Lord or Cryptek. Because that's a waste of a CP
edit - I think Eternal Madness for the Noble of your choice and -1D for the Skorpekh/Cryptek is the only real compromise. Everything else is just bad.
125976
Post by: yukishiro1
If eternal madness worked at range too it'd be great, but nobles really don't want to be in melee IMO unless maybe they have the -1D, and even then it's questionable.
But yeah, there's not a lot of options. Sautekh and Szarekh you obviously take those warlord traits. If you don't have access to those, I'd probably lean towards thrall instead of eternal madness, but neither are exactly great, and the others are just bad.
120704
Post by: Cynista
Yeah I'm not planning on using a named Dynasty so have to choose from pile of meh. Since the CCB is a vehicle and can shoot in combat I'd say it's the one noble you'll want in melee. 9 wounds and new QS make it pretty tanky against the sort of things that'll be hitting it anyway
I'm really starting to think the CCB will be an allstar again, just like in 7th. Shame I sold mine 6 months ago lol.
125976
Post by: yukishiro1
Yeah, the CCB is far and away the best noble unit. Not that that is saying much. Lords are meme-level bad, and overlords are only a little better.
Also, why oh why does the Skorpekh lord have a crappier version of the weapon the normal Skorpekh destroyer has? Great going there guys, give the lord the unwieldy crappy version of the weapon, and the normal dude the better one that doesn't have the -1 to hit. I am almost considering ditching the Skorpekh lord entirely and either just putting the -1W on the CCB with the staff, or running 2 CCBs, one with voidreaper and the -1D and the other with the staff and no warlord trait because they're all pants.
120704
Post by: Cynista
That drives me crazy too. Skorpekh might be worth his points if he hit on 2's with the main weapon. I'm going to run him with radiation trait and send him after T5 W3 targets. Would also melt T4 W1 type models with the flensing claw.
7637
Post by: Sasori
yukishiro1 wrote:Yeah, the CCB is far and away the best noble unit. Not that that is saying much. Lords are meme-level bad, and overlords are only a little better.
Also, why oh why does the Skorpekh lord have a crappier version of the weapon the normal Skorpekh destroyer has? Great going there guys, give the lord the unwieldy crappy version of the weapon, and the normal dude the better one that doesn't have the -1 to hit. I am almost considering ditching the Skorpekh lord entirely and either just putting the -1W on the CCB with the staff, or running 2 CCBs, one with voidreaper and the -1D and the other with the staff and no warlord trait because they're all pants.
It's been pretty typical for weapons that put infantry to strength 8 or double their strength to be at -1 to hit. This is even true in SM. You need a Plasmacyte to buff the regular Skorpekh to get it to strength 8 with the reap blade, which is why it doesn't come with the in built penalty.
90435
Post by: Slayer-Fan123
yukishiro1 wrote:Yeah, the CCB is far and away the best noble unit. Not that that is saying much. Lords are meme-level bad, and overlords are only a little better.
Also, why oh why does the Skorpekh lord have a crappier version of the weapon the normal Skorpekh destroyer has? Great going there guys, give the lord the unwieldy crappy version of the weapon, and the normal dude the better one that doesn't have the -1 to hit. I am almost considering ditching the Skorpekh lord entirely and either just putting the -1W on the CCB with the staff, or running 2 CCBs, one with voidreaper and the -1D and the other with the staff and no warlord trait because they're all pants.
Not to mention the classic Destroyer Lords still have the BS/WS3+ for reasons.
127963
Post by: Deathseed
Yeah it is. Read it again.
Each time an enemy unit shoots or fights, after it makes its attacks, if any models in this unit were destroyed as a result of those attacks but this unit was not destroyed, this unit's reanimation protocols are enacted and those destroyed models begin to reassemble.
They made the whole affair more wordy than it probably needed to be.
There is a WAY more concise summary of the process on the last page of the Codex (page 120), paraphrased below:
1) After any enemy unit attacks, if any models in this unit were destroyed by those attacks, Reanimation Protocol rolls are made.
2) For each model destroyed by those attacks, roll a number of D6 equal to its Wounds characteristic. Each 5+ result is added to a pool.
3) Number of dice in pool ÷ Wounds characteristic = number of models Reanimated and added back to the unit.
97127
Post by: Kharne the Befriender
Deathseed wrote:
Yeah it is. Read it again.
Each time an enemy unit shoots or fights, after it makes its attacks, if any models in this unit were destroyed as a result of those attacks but this unit was not destroyed, this unit's reanimation protocols are enacted and those destroyed models begin to reassemble.
They made the whole affair more wordy than it probably needed to be.
There is a WAY more concise summary of the process on the last page of the Codex (page 120), paraphrased below:
1) After any enemy unit attacks, if any models in this unit were destroyed by those attacks, Reanimation Protocol rolls are made.
2) For each model destroyed by those attacks, roll a number of D6 equal to its Wounds characteristic. Each 5+ result is added to a pool.
3) Number of dice in pool ÷ Wounds characteristic = number of models Reanimated and added back to the unit.
I could be wrong, but I think they were saying that which models reanimated in the play tested verion was unclear, not how current RP works. It seemed like the assumption was that you rolled 8th RP at the end of every phase or something similar. Again, I could be wrong
127963
Post by: Deathseed
Kharne the Befriender wrote:Deathseed wrote:
Yeah it is. Read it again.
Each time an enemy unit shoots or fights, after it makes its attacks, if any models in this unit were destroyed as a result of those attacks but this unit was not destroyed, this unit's reanimation protocols are enacted and those destroyed models begin to reassemble.
They made the whole affair more wordy than it probably needed to be.
There is a WAY more concise summary of the process on the last page of the Codex (page 120), paraphrased below:
1) After any enemy unit attacks, if any models in this unit were destroyed by those attacks, Reanimation Protocol rolls are made.
2) For each model destroyed by those attacks, roll a number of D6 equal to its Wounds characteristic. Each 5+ result is added to a pool.
3) Number of dice in pool ÷ Wounds characteristic = number of models Reanimated and added back to the unit.
I could be wrong, but I think they were saying that which models reanimated in the play tested verion was unclear, not how current RP works. It seemed like the assumption was that you rolled 8th RP at the end of every phase or something similar. Again, I could be wrong
Could be. However, for those trying to grok it now, I recommend that summary on page 120. It boils down the mechanic to its basic elements. 
104478
Post by: caladancid
I know this won't bother a ton of people, but the fact that the fluff section literally is half what it used to be is fairly discouraging.
119380
Post by: Blndmage
caladancid wrote:I know this won't bother a ton of people, but the fact that the fluff section literally is half what it used to be is fairly discouraging.
If it's new lore, that's better than filling the book with slightly reworded versions of the same things we've been reading since 5th.
119933
Post by: Bosskelot
Having put together a few lists from the leaks, the main limiting factor of the CCB will be its cost. I've often found myself using an Overlord just because it's cheaper.
97127
Post by: Kharne the Befriender
Agreed, 150pts is quite the investment for necrons now.
The more I think about it the more it looks like most lists will be a core of 20 warriors/10 Immortals in any combo, then a theme or combo that you have to tailor the rest of the list for, then lastly filling in the last points with support characters/arkana/upgrades. That's how all of my lists have built so far.
I'm curious as to how the rest of you have been going about list making? What are your processes and philosophies on list making in the new book beyond plucking chickens?
53939
Post by: vipoid
Kharne the Befriender wrote:
The more I think about it the more it looks like most lists will be a core of 20 warriors/10 Immortals in any combo, then a theme or combo that you have to tailor the rest of the list for, then lastly filling in the last points with support characters/arkana/upgrades. That's how all of my lists have built so far.
I can't help but notice that, in spite of all the new models, Necrons are still stuck with bugger-all options when it comes to troops.
What's you're favourite Necron troop choice? The mid-range shooty unit or the other mid-range shooty unit?
77922
Post by: Overread
Considering the codex is now out in the wild perhaps its time for a dedicated 9th edition necron thread? Since the first 100pages of this one are half rumour and leaks and theories and ideas and generally a mishmash.
97127
Post by: Kharne the Befriender
vipoid wrote: Kharne the Befriender wrote:
The more I think about it the more it looks like most lists will be a core of 20 warriors/10 Immortals in any combo, then a theme or combo that you have to tailor the rest of the list for, then lastly filling in the last points with support characters/arkana/upgrades. That's how all of my lists have built so far.
I can't help but notice that, in spite of all the new models, Necrons are still stuck with bugger-all options when it comes to troops.
What's you're favourite Necron troop choice? The mid-range shooty unit or the other mid-range shooty unit?
You make a good point, I remember awhile ago I made some homebrew canoptek units and one of them was a troop choice.
I'm not a huge fan of crossing rules from one game to another, but if they did something similar to AoS or even 30k where your Warlord could influence what was troops and such, that'd be good. I also imagine though it'd hard to balance
Overread wrote:Considering the codex is now out in the wild perhaps its time for a dedicated 9th edition necron thread? Since the first 100pages of this one are half rumour and leaks and theories and ideas and generally a mishmash.
That could be a good idea
100848
Post by: tneva82
Cynista wrote:Yeah I'm not planning on using a named Dynasty so have to choose from pile of meh. Since the CCB is a vehicle and can shoot in combat I'd say it's the one noble you'll want in melee. 9 wounds and new QS make it pretty tanky against the sort of things that'll be hitting it anyway
I'm really starting to think the CCB will be an allstar again, just like in 7th. Shame I sold mine 6 months ago lol.
Attrition removal isn't that bad if you run 20 blops. halve guys running away(which won't be rp'ed) and particularly in future expect more minuses.
Other than that need to load up on melee with reroll charges
125976
Post by: yukishiro1
There is no melee that rerolls charges from that trait except lycheguard. It's <CORE> only which severely limits its usefulness except maybe in a Novokh list.
100848
Post by: tneva82
Sasori wrote:yukishiro1 wrote:Yeah, the CCB is far and away the best noble unit. Not that that is saying much. Lords are meme-level bad, and overlords are only a little better.
Also, why oh why does the Skorpekh lord have a crappier version of the weapon the normal Skorpekh destroyer has? Great going there guys, give the lord the unwieldy crappy version of the weapon, and the normal dude the better one that doesn't have the -1 to hit. I am almost considering ditching the Skorpekh lord entirely and either just putting the -1W on the CCB with the staff, or running 2 CCBs, one with voidreaper and the -1D and the other with the staff and no warlord trait because they're all pants.
It's been pretty typical for weapons that put infantry to strength 8 or double their strength to be at -1 to hit. This is even true in SM. You need a Plasmacyte to buff the regular Skorpekh to get it to strength 8 with the reap blade, which is why it doesn't come with the in built penalty.
Also the other weapon would need huge buff otherwise. As it is it's too easy choice for s8 as is
So far skorpek lord has rarely failed me and when it has it's been to wound rolls, whiffing like 4/4 inv saves or opponents inv saves roliing hot. Automatically Appended Next Post:  Blndmage wrote:caladancid wrote:I know this won't bother a ton of people, but the fact that the fluff section literally is half what it used to be is fairly discouraging.
If it's new lore, that's better than filling the book with slightly reworded versions of the same things we've been reading since 5th.
That assumes you are selling army just for old veterans
105388
Post by: Egyptian Space Zombie
vipoid wrote: Kharne the Befriender wrote:
The more I think about it the more it looks like most lists will be a core of 20 warriors/10 Immortals in any combo, then a theme or combo that you have to tailor the rest of the list for, then lastly filling in the last points with support characters/arkana/upgrades. That's how all of my lists have built so far.
I can't help but notice that, in spite of all the new models, Necrons are still stuck with bugger-all options when it comes to troops.
What's you're favourite Necron troop choice? The mid-range shooty unit or the other mid-range shooty unit?
This is why I was hoping that flayed ones were going to become cheaper, crappier warriors which came in boxes of 10. Almost nobody will use them now.
11600
Post by: CKO
Overread wrote:Considering the codex is now out in the wild perhaps its time for a dedicated 9th edition necron thread? Since the first 100pages of this one are half rumour and leaks and theories and ideas and generally a mishmash.
I think we should and I created a thread.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/792822.page
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
My folks...... I Am Disappoint.
Whilst the new rules are ace? Why does our spanky new Codex skimp on unit describing background?
111146
Post by: p5freak
Its nice that GW continues the tradition that anrakyr is useless. He has no DYNASTY, he cant embark on a ghost ark, or a night scythe. He cant be teleported to a monolith or night scythe. How does the traveller travel across the galaxy, when he has to walk across the battlefield ?
77922
Post by: Overread
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:My folks...... I Am Disappoint.
Whilst the new rules are ace? Why does our spanky new Codex skimp on unit describing background?
I too thought that was an odd omission considering how great its been in others like Tyranids. I really like the page or so per unit (or group of units) that fleshes them out and puts meat on the stories. The paragraph per unit profile is nice, but its a teaser; a taster for more. That said its overall lay out feels "classic" in codex terms. I have to admit the last few Tyranid ones have been page-flippers in terms of finding information - this codex feels like I can flip through and build a list without having to constantly be going back and forth and all over the place.
Structurally its really sound - lore wise its good but feels like the missing unit profiles are a shame.
125976
Post by: yukishiro1
p5freak wrote:Its nice that GW continues the tradition that anrakyr is useless. He has no DYNASTY, he cant embark on a ghost ark, or a night scythe. He cant be teleported to a monolith or night scythe. How does the traveller travel across the galaxy, when he has to walk across the battlefield ?
He actually can go on the night scythe, it allows dynastic agent infantry.
127963
Post by: Deathseed
vipoid wrote: Kharne the Befriender wrote:
The more I think about it the more it looks like most lists will be a core of 20 warriors/10 Immortals in any combo, then a theme or combo that you have to tailor the rest of the list for, then lastly filling in the last points with support characters/arkana/upgrades. That's how all of my lists have built so far.
I can't help but notice that, in spite of all the new models, Necrons are still stuck with bugger-all options when it comes to troops.
What's you're favourite Necron troop choice? The mid-range shooty unit or the other mid-range shooty unit?
Well, we DID get a new gun for warriors (of debatable quality), and Their Number is Legion is a tasty rule for them, so I'll take my small victories where I can get them.
But I'm partial to the Silver Tide, so having my warriors get some new tricks pleases me.
I am irritated that flayed ones are still not troops. Automatically Appended Next Post: p5freak wrote:Its nice that GW continues the tradition that anrakyr is useless. He has no DYNASTY, he cant embark on a ghost ark, or a night scythe. He cant be teleported to a monolith or night scythe. How does the traveller travel across the galaxy, when he has to walk across the battlefield ?
Uber?
Damn Necron tourists... Automatically Appended Next Post:  Egyptian Space Zombie wrote: vipoid wrote: Kharne the Befriender wrote:
The more I think about it the more it looks like most lists will be a core of 20 warriors/10 Immortals in any combo, then a theme or combo that you have to tailor the rest of the list for, then lastly filling in the last points with support characters/arkana/upgrades. That's how all of my lists have built so far.
I can't help but notice that, in spite of all the new models, Necrons are still stuck with bugger-all options when it comes to troops.
What's you're favourite Necron troop choice? The mid-range shooty unit or the other mid-range shooty unit?
This is why I was hoping that flayed ones were going to become cheaper, crappier warriors which came in boxes of 10. Almost nobody will use them now.
Yeah, the more I think about it, the more it irritates me that they aren't troops. I even went back and checked all the older codex books, and they never have been, which is just silly. Shambling ranks of skellymen wanting to hack you apart is about as thematic as it gets.
111146
Post by: p5freak
yukishiro1 wrote: p5freak wrote:Its nice that GW continues the tradition that anrakyr is useless. He has no DYNASTY, he cant embark on a ghost ark, or a night scythe. He cant be teleported to a monolith or night scythe. How does the traveller travel across the galaxy, when he has to walk across the battlefield ?
He actually can go on the night scythe, it allows dynastic agent infantry.
Thats true. Shame on you, GW
For breaking with tradition 
53939
Post by: vipoid
 Deathseed wrote: vipoid wrote: Kharne the Befriender wrote:
The more I think about it the more it looks like most lists will be a core of 20 warriors/10 Immortals in any combo, then a theme or combo that you have to tailor the rest of the list for, then lastly filling in the last points with support characters/arkana/upgrades. That's how all of my lists have built so far.
I can't help but notice that, in spite of all the new models, Necrons are still stuck with bugger-all options when it comes to troops.
What's you're favourite Necron troop choice? The mid-range shooty unit or the other mid-range shooty unit?
Well, we DID get a new gun for warriors (of debatable quality), and Their Number is Legion is a tasty rule for them, so I'll take my small victories where I can get them.
But I'm partial to the Silver Tide, so having my warriors get some new tricks pleases me.
I am irritated that flayed ones are still not troops.
I like Silver Tide as much as the next man, but it would still be nice to have some alternatives.
I agree that Flayed Ones should really be troops. I would also suggest that Scarabs should be troops. They're generally depicted as being as ubiquitous as Warriors and they're about as basic as it gets, so I really see no reason not to have them as troops.
I'm pretty sure the only reason they weren't troops in 5e was due to Phase Out.
Also, if Flayed Ones were given the DESTROYER keyword, then you'd have two 'normal' troop choices, a Destroyer troop choice, and a Canoptek troop choice. Seems like that would be much better for constructing themed armies.
119179
Post by: Acehilator
Uhm... you guys realize that GW is doing a pretty agressive push to bring lore, look&feel and rules more in sync with each other, right?
So insane Destroyers, even more insane Flayed Ones or mindless Scarabs are never going to be CORE, and that's alright.
SM should lose CORE on their Dreadnaughts, otherwise both codizes are fine.
126602
Post by: pothocboots
They're not talking about making Flayed ones or Scarabs CORE.
Rather changing them from Elite and Fast Attack slots to being Troops.
14
Post by: Ghaz
Acehilator wrote:SM should lose CORE on their Dreadnaughts, otherwise both codizes are fine.
Dreadnoughts have a (mostly) dead genetically modified superhuman soldier inside, so why should they lose CORE from a fluff standpoint?
120704
Post by: Cynista
I don't think Flayed Ones should be Troops. But Scarabs definitely should be.
"but 4 wound movement 10 would be really powerful for a troop choice!" Yeah, it would be. So?
119179
Post by: Acehilator
pothocboots wrote:They're not talking about making Flayed ones or Scarabs CORE.
Rather changing them from Elite and Fast Attack slots to being Troops.
It's the same reason. Destroyers and Flayed Ones are pariahs in Necron society, and Scarabs are the lowliest of the low.
@Ghaz Because Dreadnaughts are supposed to be ultra rare, only being used under extreme circumstances. They got it right in not making all the characters CORE. But they might have made Dreads CORE to throw them a bone gameplay-wise, to see more of them on the table.
14
Post by: Ghaz
Acehilator wrote:@Ghaz Because Dreadnaughts are supposed to be ultra rare, only being used under extreme circumstances. They got it right in not making all the characters CORE. But they might have made Dreads CORE to throw them a bone gameplay-wise, to see more of them on the table.
CORE has nothing to do with the frequency a unit would show up in an army. From the Oxford English Dictionary
An important or unchanging group of people forming the central part of a larger body.
A Dreadnought's fluff meets that defintion and thus is a CORE unit of a Space Marine army.
79409
Post by: BrianDavion
sides dreads AREN'T rare. Most Marine companies seem to have one or two assigned to them on a perminant or near perminant basis
4139
Post by: wuestenfux
What's you're favourite Necron troop choice? The mid-range shooty unit or the other mid-range shooty unit?
I'd take a mix of both, at least 20 Warriors and 20 Immortals.
Variety is key.
100848
Post by: tneva82
Cynista wrote:I don't think Flayed Ones should be Troops. But Scarabs definitely should be.
"but 4 wound movement 10 would be really powerful for a troop choice!" Yeah, it would be. So?
What's the defining feature of FAST attack?
Why not have doomsday ark as troop while you are at it?
47547
Post by: CthuluIsSpy
Cynista wrote:I don't think Flayed Ones should be Troops. But Scarabs definitely should be. "but 4 wound movement 10 would be really powerful for a troop choice!" Yeah, it would be. So?
Yeah, Scarabs should have always been a troop choice. Lore-wise they are the most common sight in an invasion, even more so than warriors. A destroyer troop choice would have been cool, as well a destroyer cryptek. I really don't like how GW is handling destroyers; they still have good damage output, but they don't benefit from most abilities, especially survival ones. The lore is crap too. Destroyers become destroyers because they're edgy, and that edginess makes other necrons become destroyers. I just can't take that seriously. I just can't get the image of a hexmark going "nothing personal kid" out of my head or Lokhusts blaring Pumped up Kicks on repeat.
120704
Post by: Cynista
tneva82 wrote:Cynista wrote:I don't think Flayed Ones should be Troops. But Scarabs definitely should be.
"but 4 wound movement 10 would be really powerful for a troop choice!" Yeah, it would be. So?
What's the defining feature of FAST attack?
Why not have doomsday ark as troop while you are at it?
Because that is completely fething stupid. Unlike what I said.
53939
Post by: vipoid
CthuluIsSpy wrote:Cynista wrote:I don't think Flayed Ones should be Troops. But Scarabs definitely should be.
"but 4 wound movement 10 would be really powerful for a troop choice!" Yeah, it would be. So?
Yeah, Scarabs should have always been a troop choice.
Lore-wise they are the most common sight in an invasion, even more so than warriors.
A destroyer troop choice would have been cool, as well a destroyer cryptek. I really don't like how GW is handling destroyers; they still have good damage output, but they don't benefit from most abilities, especially survival ones.
The lore is crap too. Destroyers become destroyers because they're edgy, and that edginess makes other necrons become destroyers. I just can't take that seriously. I just can't get the image of a hexmark going "nothing personal kid" out of my head or Lokhusts blaring Pumped up Kicks on repeat.
I miss the times when Destroyers were just the Necron equivalent of Jump Infantry, before they got turned into Daleks.
47547
Post by: CthuluIsSpy
tneva82 wrote:Cynista wrote:I don't think Flayed Ones should be Troops. But Scarabs definitely should be. "but 4 wound movement 10 would be really powerful for a troop choice!" Yeah, it would be. So?
What's the defining feature of FAST attack? Why not have doomsday ark as troop while you are at it?
Genestealers are also troop and they can cross the entire board in a turn. Speed stopped being a relevant qualifier when 8th allowed something like that to happen. Automatically Appended Next Post: vipoid wrote: CthuluIsSpy wrote:Cynista wrote:I don't think Flayed Ones should be Troops. But Scarabs definitely should be. "but 4 wound movement 10 would be really powerful for a troop choice!" Yeah, it would be. So?
Yeah, Scarabs should have always been a troop choice. Lore-wise they are the most common sight in an invasion, even more so than warriors. A destroyer troop choice would have been cool, as well a destroyer cryptek. I really don't like how GW is handling destroyers; they still have good damage output, but they don't benefit from most abilities, especially survival ones. The lore is crap too. Destroyers become destroyers because they're edgy, and that edginess makes other necrons become destroyers. I just can't take that seriously. I just can't get the image of a hexmark going "nothing personal kid" out of my head or Lokhusts blaring Pumped up Kicks on repeat.
I miss the times when Destroyers were just the Necron equivalent of Jump Infantry, before they got turned into Daleks.
I don't mind the dalek aspect per se, its just I find the contagious doomer thing to be silly and lack the true existential dread that necrons used to have. It would been a lot more haunting if becoming a destroyer is a by-product of biotransference and a fate that all necrons, bar warriors as they are too mindless to fall to it, will fall to unless they can undo biotransference. As a rough analogy, imagine the Undead Curse from the Dark Souls series, except instead of becoming beef-jerky you become a HK-Tank. They did the same thing with Flayed Ones; Flayed ones used to be necrons who remembered what they once were and were driven insane by the memories, so they started wearing skins and flesh. GW got rid of this (though to be fair, not many people knew of this background as it was a footnote in some white dwarf, iirc) and turned them into a bunch of hungry boys.
119044
Post by: armisael
Who else thinking that Monolith might has the same price as Mega Gargant?
That’s extreamly expensive.
7637
Post by: Sasori
armisael wrote:Who else thinking that Monolith might has the same price as Mega Gargant?
That’s extreamly expensive.
I sure hope not, that would be nuts. I'd be suprised if it tops the Silent King pricetag.
100848
Post by: tneva82
You mean stompa yes? Mega gargant is imperator level model. Were it to be in 40k about 2m tall probably
81759
Post by: BaconCatBug
 Automatically Appended Next Post: Ghaz wrote:Acehilator wrote:@Ghaz Because Dreadnaughts are supposed to be ultra rare, only being used under extreme circumstances. They got it right in not making all the characters CORE. But they might have made Dreads CORE to throw them a bone gameplay-wise, to see more of them on the table.
CORE has nothing to do with the frequency a unit would show up in an army. From the Oxford English Dictionary An important or unchanging group of people forming the central part of a larger body.
A Dreadnought's fluff meets that defintion and thus is a CORE unit of a Space Marine army.
BrianDavion wrote:sides dreads AREN'T rare. Most Marine companies seem to have one or two assigned to them on a perminant or near perminant basis
A Space Marine Chapter at maximum strength has roughly 1500 full battle brothers. Even if we're extra generous and say there are two dreadnoughts per (non-Scout) company, that's 18 Dreadnoughts. 1.2% of an organisation is, in my honest opinion, pretty rare and not a core part of the organisation. They might be considered important as in they are venerated ancients, but they aren't actually important when it comes to the actual fighting effectiveness of a Chapter.
120704
Post by: Cynista
Destroyer lore could be so much cooler. Like instead of the derpy Dalek angle, the Destroyer Cult could have been an underground paramilitary within Necron culture who the Overlord's can call upon for war but do not trust. Turning another to the Destroyer Cult would be more akin to idealogical subversion. They are extremists
Rather than some kind of.. binary virus? Or whatever it's supposed to be
126422
Post by: Matt Swain
Cynista wrote:Destroyer lore could be so much cooler. Like instead of the derpy Dalek angle, the Destroyer Cult could have been an underground paramilitary within Necron culture who the Overlord's can call upon for war but do not trust. Turning another to the Destroyer Cult would be more akin to idealogical subversion. They are extremists
Rather than some kind of.. binary virus? Or whatever it's supposed to be
I'm not sure that's it. The flayers are victims of virus created by a c'tan who chose to self desruct rather than be turned into a bunch of pokemon for the necrons, that's some type of virus.
Destroyers are more like a mental condition, a sense of despair, then nihilism then finally a childlike attitude of "If I can't be alive I don't want anyone else to be alive either!"
Even the silent king said they were necrons in form only, and should be expended as weapons.
14
Post by: Ghaz
 BaconCatBug wrote:A Space Marine Chapter at maximum strength has roughly 1500 full battle brothers. Even if we're extra generous and say there are two dreadnoughts per (non-Scout) company, that's 18 Dreadnoughts. 1.2% of an organisation is, in my honest opinion, pretty rare and not a core part of the organisation.
Again, numbers have nothing to do with being a CORE unit. As an important and regular part of most Space Marine forces, a dreadnought qualifies fluff-wise as being a CORE unit.
81759
Post by: BaconCatBug
Ghaz wrote: BaconCatBug wrote:A Space Marine Chapter at maximum strength has roughly 1500 full battle brothers. Even if we're extra generous and say there are two dreadnoughts per (non-Scout) company, that's 18 Dreadnoughts. 1.2% of an organisation is, in my honest opinion, pretty rare and not a core part of the organisation.
Again, numbers have nothing to do with being a CORE unit. As an important and regular part of most Space Marine forces, a dreadnought qualifies fluff-wise as being a CORE unit.
So do Rhinos and Drop Pods. Almost everything outside of the command structure can be argued to be "an important and regular part of most Space Marine forces. No Space Marine force outside of emergency deployments of like a single squad are going to go without a Techmarine or Apothecary (or three, making sure the Drop Pods don't burn up on atmospheric entry and retrieving Geneseed are pretty important and regular parts of Adeptus Astartes deployment).
14
Post by: Ghaz
Rhinos and Drop Pods are taxis. Once they get the troops to the target their job is pretty much done. They're also not genetically enhanced superhuman soldiers, they're vehicles.
81759
Post by: BaconCatBug
Ghaz wrote:Rhinos and Drop Pods are taxis. Once they get the troops to the target their job is pretty much done. They're also not genetically enhanced superhuman soldiers, they're vehicles.
But they are "an important and regular part of most Space Marine forces." Your standards, not mine.
14
Post by: Ghaz
Again, they're taxis (i.e., support units). They're not the one's doing the fighting unless you're saying a Drop Pod can do a flanking maneuver after it has arrived on the battlefield.
116670
Post by: Ordana
tneva82 wrote:You mean stompa yes? Mega gargant is imperator level model. Were it to be in 40k about 2m tall probably
The new Age of Sigmar giants are called Mega Gargants
110703
Post by: Galas
The reasoning for Dreadnoughts being core is that GW (and most players) like Dreadnoughts and GW feels they should be an important part of space marines armies.
Nearly nobody plays space marines to play vehicle heavy armies, and GW agrees with that sentiment. Thats the reason why I always hated Custodes competitive armies, full of vehicles.
101163
Post by: Tyel
 Galas wrote:The reasoning for Dreadnoughts being core is that GW (and most players) like Dreadnoughts and GW feels they should be an important part of space marines armies.
Nearly nobody plays space marines to play vehicle heavy armies, and GW agrees with that sentiment. Thats the reason why I always hated Custodes competitive armies, full of vehicles.
I don't think its that logical. Its unclear for instance why - in pure fluff terms, or "army realisation terms" - Centurions should be less core than dreadnoughts or Aggressors/Eradicators.
The only logical argument is that GW got the message centurions were a problem (although probably a reduced one given the various changes - but when they were writing the book) so they got the nerf-dart.
Whereas dreads outside of FW ones were kind of meh, so there's no real reason to deny them a spot. In fact don't they deserve a buff?
4139
Post by: wuestenfux
Well, the new Destroyers look nice and a full Destroyer army could be fluffy.
But from the competitive point of view, I'd stay away from such an enterprise.
Destroyers are too expensive pt wise and despite their larger number of wounds they are vulnerable.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
 wuestenfux wrote:Well, the new Destroyers look nice and a full Destroyer army could be fluffy.
But from the competitive point of view, I'd stay away from such an enterprise.
Destroyers are too expensive pt wise and despite their larger number of wounds they are vulnerable.
They might be more appealing if we stock up on Techno Crypteks? Able to heal wounds and pop models back? Trouble is, the Cryptek would need their cloak, which kinda precludes protective Murder Buckets, leaving them perhaps too exposed for taste?
119248
Post by: Asyrian
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: wuestenfux wrote:Well, the new Destroyers look nice and a full Destroyer army could be fluffy.
But from the competitive point of view, I'd stay away from such an enterprise.
Destroyers are too expensive pt wise and despite their larger number of wounds they are vulnerable.
They might be more appealing if we stock up on Techno Crypteks? Able to heal wounds and pop models back? Trouble is, the Cryptek would need their cloak, which kinda precludes protective Murder Buckets, leaving them perhaps too exposed for taste?
Eh stock up? Technos can just bring Core back and destroyers are not. And the item which enables to bring back ONE destroyer is a one per army only.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
I.....may need to revisit my Codex!
47547
Post by: CthuluIsSpy
Yeah, Rites of Reanimation only works on Core units, which Destroyers are not.
Which really sucks. Maybe they'll release a destroyer cult cryptek at some point, but right now destroyers are pretty fragile. They have a lot of wounds, but RP punishes models with a lot of wounds now, so destroyers can't effectively benefit from the rule that makes necrons necron.
The best thing you can do is use a resurrection orb with a reanimator, but you only get one shot with the orb and you're still only getting back 1 model for every 2 lost on average.
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
The best you can do is the Hive upgrade for a technomancer. Can revive a heavy destroyer for a 50 point discount (it's a 20 point upgrade).
For me the biggest bummer is you can't give them my will be done.
5269
Post by: lord_blackfang
Sorry to interrupt this discussion on Space Marine chapter organization and the tabletop representation thereof, but are the Cron units going on preorder next worth getting?
77922
Post by: Overread
 lord_blackfang wrote:Sorry to interrupt this discussion on Space Marine chapter organization and the tabletop representation thereof, but are the Cron units going on preorder next worth getting?
Well one is the ground lord of war; the other is a vehicle demolishing void dragon and the other is whip wraiths. Honestly from a purely visual perspective YES is the answer. Void Dragon is a one-time purchase; Monolith is functionally a one-time-purchase; perhaps two if you really want to go all out in a skew list. Wraiths by price alone in models might get overshadowed for a while by the new walker destroyers (because those are dirt cheap with Indomitus and starter sets). That said the new Wraiths have deepstriking abilities which makes them valuable as a constant threat to the enemy rear-guard; gunline and artillery.
106383
Post by: JNAProductions
So, I saw on different site that apparently, the Silent King does NOT have an Invulnerable save?
Can anyone confirm or deny that? Because if that's true... That's dumb. That's really, really dumb.
54827
Post by: iGuy91
JNAProductions wrote:So, I saw on different site that apparently, the Silent King does NOT have an Invulnerable save?
Can anyone confirm or deny that? Because if that's true... That's dumb. That's really, really dumb.
He has a 4++ invuln.
106383
Post by: JNAProductions
 iGuy91 wrote: JNAProductions wrote:So, I saw on different site that apparently, the Silent King does NOT have an Invulnerable save?
Can anyone confirm or deny that? Because if that's true... That's dumb. That's really, really dumb.
He has a 4++ invuln.
Okay, yeah. Said poster apparently was reading a bad leak.
Whew-that would've been absolutely stupid.
119811
Post by: Quasistellar
The more I see of the necron codex, the more it feels like the Kharadron Overlord battletome--extremely restrictive with buffs and abilities, but possibly very powerful nonetheless.
Makes the "list building stage" of 40k feel frustrating, but actually playing the game feels fine.
I've got about 1300 points painted for necrons now so I'm at the point where I can at least give it a go.
120704
Post by: Cynista
I am starting to think that the Technomancer is a bit of a trap unless he is babysitting 3 Doomstalkers. FLY, repair and +1 attack for Canoptek's sounds great on paper but it's 110 points. You're probably just better off taking more Wraiths or Scarabs
119933
Post by: Bosskelot
Listbuilding on the one hand feels restrictive but also at the same time you legitimately feel like you have more options and ways to run different kinds of armies now.
I think what a lot of people also miss with the non-Core units is how insanely cheap they are for what they offer. Skorpekhs and Wraiths at 35 ppm, Praetorians at 25 ppm, Triarch Stalkers and Doomstalkers at 140. These are all very generous price points on the whole and despite lacking core, you have several ways to buff the units up still.
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
JNAProductions wrote:So, I saw on different site that apparently, the Silent King does NOT have an Invulnerable save?
Can anyone confirm or deny that? Because if that's true... That's dumb. That's really, really dumb.
He does have a 4++ but hes pretty bad still though.
His cost is outrageous.
Main reasoning. The way he degrades.
His 2 main guns with 5 wounds each are pretty good. But after 10 wounds they are gone. At this point silent king becomes a 450 point buff bot. (The buffs are decent) but they are also not even remotely worth the cost considering they only affect core (and praetorians) by the time praetorians make it into melee (at the same time silent king is in there) it's turn 3 or 4 and the game has already been decided.
IMO - he is inferior to the monolith even if he was the same cost at 380 (granted there is some CP differential) The best Cron stratagems right now are 1/2 CP anyways.
It's pretty sad that a 110 point technomancer and a 140-155 point triarch stalker is a better buffer than the silent king.
125976
Post by: yukishiro1
Bosskelot wrote:Listbuilding on the one hand feels restrictive but also at the same time you legitimately feel like you have more options and ways to run different kinds of armies now.
I think what a lot of people also miss with the non-Core units is how insanely cheap they are for what they offer. Skorpekhs and Wraiths at 35 ppm, Praetorians at 25 ppm, Triarch Stalkers and Doomstalkers at 140. These are all very generous price points on the whole and despite lacking core, you have several ways to buff the units up still.
Not particularly generous compared to space marine alternatives, which are of course all <CORE> because the modern design approach for Space Marines seems to be a faction that gets to ignore the stuff everybody else has to deal with.
Bladeguard dunk on skorpekhs because of the 4++, eradicators make any anti-tank in the necron book look laughable, etc etc.
8725
Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik
yukishiro1 wrote: Bosskelot wrote:Listbuilding on the one hand feels restrictive but also at the same time you legitimately feel like you have more options and ways to run different kinds of armies now.
I think what a lot of people also miss with the non-Core units is how insanely cheap they are for what they offer. Skorpekhs and Wraiths at 35 ppm, Praetorians at 25 ppm, Triarch Stalkers and Doomstalkers at 140. These are all very generous price points on the whole and despite lacking core, you have several ways to buff the units up still.
Not particularly generous compared to space marine alternatives, which are of course all <CORE> because the modern design approach for Space Marines seems to be a faction that gets to ignore the stuff everybody else has to deal with.
Bladeguard dunk on skorpekhs because of the 4++, eradicators make any anti-tank in the necron book look laughable, etc etc.
Not that I’m utterly bored of your contributions, but I cannot help but notice you always seem to play the army you figured just got dunked on. And indeed, turn up for less focussed diatribes.
Have......and stop me if being radical....tried literally anything else in life in the pursuit of happiness?
125976
Post by: yukishiro1
When you make things personal, all you're doing is admitting you've lost the argument. Please stop wasting everyone's time and just don't engage in the first place if all you can do is make personal attacks.
It's also ironically totally inaccurate in this case. If you had actually bothered to read some of my posts before making a personal attack, you'd realize I'm actually super positive on the Necron book overall. It's not Space Marines level overpowered, but it's a solid book with good internal balance. I'd much rather most books were like the Necron one than like the SM one.
I responded to that post because it was claiming that they were "insanely cheap" as compensation for losing <CORE>. That point doesn't hold up, because the releases in the other book released on the same day are more efficient despite having <CORE> themselves. If he had said "skorpekhs are a good unit, not having <CORE> isn't the end of the world" I would have agreed. Things don't have to be totally terrible or insanely awesome with nothing in-between, nor does someone have to be an unthinking fanboi who loves everything GW ever put out or else be a total hater.
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
yukishiro1 wrote: Bosskelot wrote:Listbuilding on the one hand feels restrictive but also at the same time you legitimately feel like you have more options and ways to run different kinds of armies now.
I think what a lot of people also miss with the non-Core units is how insanely cheap they are for what they offer. Skorpekhs and Wraiths at 35 ppm, Praetorians at 25 ppm, Triarch Stalkers and Doomstalkers at 140. These are all very generous price points on the whole and despite lacking core, you have several ways to buff the units up still.
Not particularly generous compared to space marine alternatives, which are of course all <CORE> because the modern design approach for Space Marines seems to be a faction that gets to ignore the stuff everybody else has to deal with.
Bladeguard dunk on skorpekhs because of the 4++, eradicators make any anti-tank in the necron book look laughable, etc etc.
Yeah but...A Ctan makes bladegaurd laughable.
Skorpekhs are just a bad unit.
120704
Post by: Cynista
IMO yukishiro has had some of the best, well reasoned and enlightening takes on 9th Necrons so far, not really sure where you're coming from Doc.
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
yukishiro1 wrote:When you make things personal, all you're doing is admitting you've lost the argument. Please stop wasting everyone's time and just don't engage in the first place if all you can do is make personal attacks.
It's also ironically totally inaccurate in this case. If you had actually bothered to read some of my posts before making a personal attack, you'd realize I'm actually super positive on the Necron book overall. It's not Space Marines level overpowered, but it's a solid book with good internal balance. I'd much rather most books were like the Necron one than like the SM one.
I responded to that post because it was claiming that they were "insanely cheap" as compensation for losing <CORE>. That point doesn't hold up, because the releases in the other book released on the same day are more efficient despite having <CORE> themselves. If he had said "skorpekhs are a good unit, not having <CORE> isn't the end of the world" I would have agreed. Things don't have to be totally terrible or insanely awesome with nothing in-between, nor does someone have to be an unthinking fanboi who loves everything GW ever put out or else be a total hater.
You aren't alone in being disappointed about the over liberal core units in the marine codex compared to the Necrons. I think thats probably not going anywhere. It's not an issue if the price is right though. The issue is. It's not like marines are paying more for having to many unit types as core options.
On top of things like dynastic agents not getting the armies core rules. There should be some advantage to being a dynastic agent - Maybe they should have their own dynasty type trait like they always benifit from both codes if they have command protocols or something.
125976
Post by: yukishiro1
I think skorpekhs are quite a solid unit, mainly due to the -1 to wound strat. They aren't blade-guard level broken, but very little is (thankfully). They're right about where units should be.
The best thing about the Necron book IMO is that there are a ton of viable things in it, but not a single thing in the whole book that screams out as being obviously broken. It's just too bad they were unable to deliver the same kind of product in the Space Marine codex.
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
yukishiro1 wrote:I think skorpekhs are quite a solid unit, mainly due to the -1 to wound strat. They aren't blade-guard level broken, but very little is (thankfully). They're right about where units should be.
The best thing about the Necron book IMO is that there are a ton of viable things in it, but not a single thing in the whole book that screams out as being obviously broken. It's just too bad they were unable to deliver the same kind of product in the Space Marine codex.
Lets get real here. The issue with scorpecks is they are slow and don't have a gun or an invune save = they are garabge.
Wraiths actually have both. While they might not hit as hard - it doesn't matter because they live more than twice as long - plus they can fall back and charge.
120704
Post by: Cynista
 Xenomancers wrote:On top of things like dynastic agents not getting the armies core rules. There should be some advantage to being a dynastic agent - Maybe they should have their own dynasty type trait like they always benifit from both codes if they have command protocols or something.
I am surprised they didn't do anything cool with the Triarch keyword. It's an open goal in terms of game design, but nope.... nothing. Aside from 1 strat I think?
125976
Post by: yukishiro1
Xenomancers wrote:The issue is. It's not like marines are paying more for having to many unit types as core options.
Yeah, that's precisely the issue. If you put the Necron codex side-by-side with the SM one, what becomes apparent is that <CORE> wasn't actually pointed for. It's on some stuff and not on other stuff for reasons other than competitive balance, and it doesn't appear to have been taken into account when setting those point values.
It would be one thing if almost the whole SM book was <CORE> but the tradeoff for everything being buffable was that individual units didn't measure up point for point without buffs. But that isn't the case. Bladeguard cost the same as Skorpekhs and have <CORE>, but they're absolutely not any worse off for it. If anything, they're slightly better, even without considering all the stuff they get access to through <CORE>. Eradicators vs destroyers is an even more lopsided comparison. You can go down through pretty much the whole of both books and illustrate that <CORE> hasn't been pointed for on the SM units that get it that have non-CORE equivalents in the Necron book.
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
yukishiro1 wrote: Xenomancers wrote:The issue is. It's not like marines are paying more for having to many unit types as core options.
Yeah, that's precisely the issue. If you put the Necron codex side-by-side with the SM one, what becomes apparent is that <CORE> wasn't actually pointed for. It's on some stuff and not on other stuff for reasons other than competitive balance, and it doesn't appear to have been taken into account when setting those point values.
It would be one thing if almost the whole SM book was <CORE> but the tradeoff for everything being buffable was that individual units didn't measure up point for point without buffs. But that isn't the case. Bladeguard cost the same as Skorpekhs and have <CORE>, but they're absolutely not any worse off for it. If anything, they're slightly better, even without considering all the stuff they get access to through <CORE>. Eradicators vs destroyers is an even more lopsided comparison. You can go down through pretty much the whole of both books and illustrate that <CORE> hasn't been pointed for on the SM units that get it that have non-CORE equivalents in the Necron book.
This was my original worry. Whats even more silly. We have new space marine vehicals coming out that aren't core. Like the Gladiator tank. PFF like 230 points for non core tank with 24 str 6 shots ap-1 and potentially 16 more str 4 ap-1 (due to range this will likely just be 8 shots).
Redemptor dread does just about the same amount of firepower. The redemptor dread has almost identical firepower not to mention a -1 to damage (superior to t8) at all times and a d3+3 fist that gets 5 attacks on the charge str 14 lol and core keyword and even an additional wound. Even without core being an issue these units should be within 15 points of each other. Instead we have a 45 point difference with the unit lacking core costing more. Basically none of the units that lost core keyword got compensated with a points drop and most of the best units retained core....it makes no sense.
25774
Post by: Pael
What makes skorpekhs so bad? They seem pretty solid to me. Good support for non melee units
7637
Post by: Sasori
 Pael wrote:What makes skorpekhs so bad? They seem pretty solid to me. Good support for non melee units
They're not. They are a good self-sufficient unit with an excellent strat. They compare worse when looking at Blade Guard Vets, but almost all dedicated CC units will. They compare very favorable against other CC Units for the most part across the game.
47547
Post by: CthuluIsSpy
Yeah, I'm not sure comparing a unit against something that has GW's favor because "poster boys" is fair.
116670
Post by: Ordana
Pael wrote:What makes skorpekhs so bad? They seem pretty solid to me. Good support for non melee units
They are a close combat unit with moderate speed and no invul that have to walk across the board?
At what point in the last 2 editions have those ever been good?
85298
Post by: epronovost
About CORE keyword, wouldn't the broad range of CORE units be accounted in the price of the buffer instead of the recipient of the buff? I would personnaly do it this way. You don't price a unit in function of a potential buff it might receive from an outside source. It's simpler to price the source of the buff in question. How does Space Marines HQ compare to the Necron's one in terms of price and buffing capabilities?
125976
Post by: yukishiro1
It isn't accounted for anywhere; witness the absolute joke comparison of the chief apothecary vs technomancer. Moreover, it doesn't work that way, because <CORE> is as much about stratagems as about buffs.
126422
Post by: Matt Swain
Xenomancers wrote: JNAProductions wrote:So, I saw on different site that apparently, the Silent King does NOT have an Invulnerable save?
Can anyone confirm or deny that? Because if that's true... That's dumb. That's really, really dumb.
He does have a 4++ but hes pretty bad still though.
His cost is outrageous.
Main reasoning. The way he degrades.
His 2 main guns with 5 wounds each are pretty good. But after 10 wounds they are gone. At this point silent king becomes a 450 point buff bot. (The buffs are decent) but they are also not even remotely worth the cost considering they only affect core (and praetorians) by the time praetorians make it into melee (at the same time silent king is in there) it's turn 3 or 4 and the game has already been decided.
IMO - he is inferior to the monolith even if he was the same cost at 380 (granted there is some CP differential) The best Cron stratagems right now are 1/2 CP anyways.
It's pretty sad that a 110 point technomancer and a 140-155 point triarch stalker is a better buffer than the silent king.
it's true his weapons canbe destroyed and he can be degraded or destroyed. But that means the player has ot get as much use out of them as possible first. Just because something can be destroyed doesn;t mean you shouldn;t take it, it just means you need to plan on how to use it best before it is destroyed. Automatically Appended Next Post: Ordana wrote: Pael wrote:What makes skorpekhs so bad? They seem pretty solid to me. Good support for non melee units
They are a close combat unit with moderate speed and no invul that have to walk across the board?
At what point in the last 2 editions have those ever been good?
Can a chronomancer give them a 5++ save?
101163
Post by: Tyel
So for people who think Skorpekhs don't cut it because 3 T5 3+ save wounds for 35 points is soft, are we going with Wraiths as the OP hotness then?
WS4+ might be triggering, but you get plenty of attacks, decent mid-level strength and AP, 2 damage and obvious dynastic synergies in a package with a 4++ and incredible movement capability.
85298
Post by: epronovost
Tyel wrote:So for people who think Skorpekhs don't cut it because 3 T5 3+ save wounds for 35 points is soft
That's not soft that's actually fairly hard. A Guardian is 8 point and has one 1 T3 5+ save wound. A 3.5 points per increase per wound for a two extra point of T and two extra point of save seems a pretty darn good deal.
125976
Post by: yukishiro1
Wraiths don't actually kill anything, that's the main knock against them. Skorpekhs do kill stuff. They seem to fulfill totally different roles to me. For the most obvious example, 3 Skorpekhs kill 5 MEQ unbuffed; 3 Wraiths kill only 2.67, i.e. just over half as many. That's a massive difference.
It's going to require a lot more experimentation, but right now I am kinda down on wraiths because I feel like scarabs can do most of the same things for way cheaper. The one thing I really like about the wraiths is the fall back and charge, but I'm not sure that's enough to take them over scarabs when you get more than twice as many of the latter for the same price.
120704
Post by: Cynista
Yeah it's the main reason he is viable for me
Ordana wrote:So for people who think Skorpekhs don't cut it because 3 T5 3+ save wounds for 35 points is soft, are we going with Wraiths as the OP hotness then?
WS4+ might be triggering, but you get plenty of attacks, decent mid-level strength and AP, 2 damage and obvious dynastic synergies in a package with a 4++ and incredible movement capability.
Definitely not OP. Losing 3+++ and WS3+ and most importantly, their excellent strategem is more than a fair trade for +1 attack & 10 point deduction. I'd like to have seen them at 40 points and less nerfed.
105713
Post by: Insectum7
Can someone give me a rundown on how the Monolith turned out? I'm real.curious.
|
|
