When you try that Lith list, let us know how it goes!

No doubt. I'm pretty excited about how it's come together.

Speaking of trying things out, has anyone heard anything lately from Dakka's patron saint of Necrons? (jy2)
I'd be interested to see what the pros think the 'Crons new strengths are in 7th and how they'll be adjusting their competitive lists to meet the meta.

ShadarLogoth wrote:
Barges, Barges, and more Barges. And Solar Pulses. And Barges. That's my thoughts on 7th so far (oh, and the Lith, because he likes hanging out with Barges)!

Huh? He's a HS slot that's vastly inferior to other picks as in AB and Pylons...

ShadarLogoth wrote:
Barges, Barges, and more Barges. And Solar Pulses. And Barges. That's my thoughts on 7th so far (oh, and the Lith, because he likes hanging out with Barges)!


Huh? He's a HS slot that's vastly inferior to other picks as in AB and Pylons...

If you run dual CAD (combined arms detatchment), you can run up to 6 HS. Unless you were thinking of running 4+ AB's then this should give you the slots you want.

Even if you played wih dual CAD, why would you use the slot and the points for a monolith?

Post 2014/06/13 15:11:43 Subject: Necrons in 7th
Even if you played wih dual CAD, why would you use the slot and the points for a monolith?

The idea was to use the Mono for LOS blocking and perhaps hiding spiders /w fab claws there to repair the GA's and Mono as they took hits.

Personally, i'd only consider taking a Mono in a not-so-friendly list if i was going to use it to teleport a trans-c'tan, trans. slide 18" across w/e i wanted to hit with Str. D and dual flame anything left with MORE str. D.

EDITED:for clafiry

Remember you can't immediately go for the D-slide (that sounds dirty) as you have already "moved" when using Dimensional Corridor. Not to mention you are likely out of range due to the monolith's huge size and you not wanting to risk a DS fail.

 skoffs wrote:
Speaking of trying things out, has anyone heard anything lately from Dakka's patron saint of Necrons? (jy2)
I'd be interested to see what the pros think the 'Crons new strengths are in 7th and how they'll be adjusting their competitive lists to meet the meta.

Did I hear someone call my name?

Let me paraphrase what I said in one of my battle reports:

Let me tell you the secret to 7th Edition. There are 2 things that you really need to be successful in 7th.

1. Objective Secured troops. The more the better. You either protect them in a transport of some sort, or you take lots of them. Otherwise, they will die. Best case scenario is you take lots of them....and you protect them in transports.

2. Mobile Scoring. Static armies are a thing of the past. To compete with the newer armies, you need mobility and you need lots of it. There's no point in having a lot of scoring if they will never reach the farther objectives. Also, they need to be able to get away from enemy assault units, at least to a certain degree. That's why you need some mobility with your scoring units. Not every scoring unit needs to be highly mobile, but a substantial part of your army does. The best armies, IMO, are the ones where almost every unit is mobile. And the best of the best armies are where all the Objective Secured troops are highly mobile.

Currently in 7th, you need OS scoring and you need mobility. Either troops in Necron flyers or in Ghost Arks. A mix of the 2 is fine as well. I normally run 4 troops in flyers, but now I think I am going to try out 2-3 flyers and 1-2 GA.

They really don't need to do much adjusting. The 6E competitive builds actually got better in 7E. The only thing to watch out for is that high-AV will be somewhat more prevalent. That means get at least 2 warscythes in each army or run a doom scythe to deal with AV14. Scarab-farm will work as well as the meta is shifting back towards MSU-mech.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Greggy wrote:
Hey guys, I've seen a lot of talk about how awesome Kutlakh is now on a CCB. But what makes him more awesome then say a kitted up overlord? (asking because I don't have access to the Imperial Armour book atm having lent it out to a mate)

He's not.

He's good against MC's with his ability to Insta-kill them. However, the meta is shifting back towards MSU-mech and Kutlakh isn't very good against vehicles. You're going to be finding him less and less useful in competitive play as players bring more and more tanks. I'd rather have an Overlord with warscythe on a CCB instead.

Fragile wrote:

 Sasori wrote:

I personally think Ancanthrites are stronger than Wraiths, especially with the advent of more people taking vehicles.

Well you can spend 5 points for a ranged shot and an additional attack on the Wraiths again.

Wasn't it FAQ'd previously that you don't get the +1A? Arguing that the gun gives them +1A sounds kinda gamey to me.

ShadarLogoth wrote:
Has there been any discussion about Trazyn's ability counting as "super scoring?" Haven't seen that mentioned anywhere, FAQ or otherwise, but I think it would be the logical adaptation.

He's not a troop so he doesn't have Objective Secured.

It also makes the Grey Knight Grandmaster's Grand Strategy somewhat useless as well.

I believe currently, only Sternguards have been FAQ'd to be OS.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skoffs wrote:
So, looking at the way things are stacking up for us post FAQ, what would the top competitive builds be now?
• CCB is super strong, and GAs became a lot more survivable, so AV13 Wall looks like a strong contender.

You've got a winner here.

• with swarms being able to score and the changes to MCs, Scarab Farm might make a bit of a comeback.

Scarab-farm is back not because swarms are scoring, but because mech-spam is coming back big time.

• RCDI has still got some serious potential.

Never liked it. Never will. A deathstar without much shooting and which cannot assault the turn that it teleports is NOT a good deathstar. Moreover, the Necron's greatest strength (besides their mobility) is their ability to lead a very balanced attack. The RCDI makes their offense very unbalanced.

• not sure how Silver Tide is doing.

Mediocre. Not a competitive build.

• is Wraith Wing still viable?

Very much so. Still a top-tier tournament build.

• how's CronAir looking?

Very strong still, especially with the return of MSU.

• what about some other thinking outside the box list ideas (Deathmarks? Destroyers? Tomb Blades? Etc.)

I can see deathmarks as part of CronAir being a good build. Other builds will be somewhat gimmicky.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

MarkCron wrote:
So, back on topic, I think that CronAir and Wraithwing are better suited to Eternal War Missions, but Silver tide (maybe with a mini scarab farm)/AV13 wall is the build of choice for Maelstrom.

I think that Night Scythes are still great transports, but in a Maelstrom mission the turn or two you miss when waiting for them to come on is critical.

thoughts?

Maelstrom missions favor the faster armies. Unfortunately, Necrons will take a hit on Turn 1 due to their fastest units being off the table. But once their flyers come in, Necrons will then dominate in Maelstrom. CronAir and Wraithwing will still be good in both missions, though I wouldn't recommend running pure CronAir. I'd recommend a slightly more balanced build (CronAir Lite) with perhaps some AB's or a GA.

I'm seconding the Arcanthrites. Very solid experience, meta-friendly, small models.

Liking my Death Ray Sentry Pylons so far. Bit expensive, but solid against a lot of armies, hitting at least 2 vehicles / models is very likely to wreck a vehicle (even AV14) and even a mere single hit means 2 S10 AP1 hits.

Got any input on Sentry Pylons, jy2, oh great master of competitive Necrons?

(Just Focused Death Ray though, Gauss is clear to be useless and Heat Cannon is too expensive)

Do tournaments allow FW stuff?
(I genuinely don't know. I never see them in competitive lists, so I just assumed they were banned or something)

Huh? He's a HS slot that's vastly inferior to other picks as in AB and Pylons...

The discussion was a few pages ago but you take it because it's a mobile LOS blocker, AV14 with any kind of cover save is incredibly hard to take down in this meta, and because the teleport ability can offer flexibility in the objective grab game. Knock it all you want, but a Mono paired with some GAs, Command Barges, and Spyders is far from mediocre. Many lists struggle to knock out more then 3 AV 13+ HPs a turn. The Spyders will net you 1.5 a turn back, and they can't die because they have a huge moving tower in front of them. Extrapolate that over a few turns and you should be able to see how difficult a nut that is to crack. The GAs provide cover for themselves and the Mono, the Spyders keep everything alive. Throw in some scarabs to give the spyders a second job. Meanwhile your CCBs present them with an immediate threat so any anti-AV 13 going into your castle in the early turns is an after thought.

 Sigvatr wrote:
I'm seconding the Arcanthrites. Very solid experience, meta-friendly, small models.

Liking my Death Ray Sentry Pylons so far. Bit expensive, but solid against a lot of armies, hitting at least 2 vehicles / models is very likely to wreck a vehicle (even AV14) and even a mere single hit means 2 S10 AP1 hits.

Got any input on Sentry Pylons, jy2, oh great master of competitive Necrons?

(Just Focused Death Ray though, Gauss is clear to be useless and Heat Cannon is too expensive)

I really don't have much experience with them. I tend to prefer a more mobile army, but they could work, especially with the meta now shifting back towards mech. The fact that you can just put them right next to an objective is a plus. Just watch out for tank-shocking vehicles (assuming they are immobile artillery).

One of these days, I'm going to have to try one of these units.

 skoffs wrote:
Do tournaments allow FW stuff?
(I genuinely don't know. I never see them in competitive lists, so I just assumed they were banned or something)

Most of the tournaments in the West Coast, USA, do allow FW, spearheaded primary by the BAO (Bay Area Open) and the LVO (Las Vegas Open). Basically, the tournaments held by the Frontline guys - which is most of the larger GT's in the West Coast - do allow FW.

ShadarLogoth wrote:

Huh? He's a HS slot that's vastly inferior to other picks as in AB and Pylons...

The discussion was a few pages ago but you take it because it's a mobile LOS blocker, AV14 with any kind of cover save is incredibly hard to take down in this meta, and because the teleport ability can offer flexibility in the objective grab game. Knock it all you want, but a Mono paired with some GAs, Command Barges, and Spyders is far from mediocre. Many lists struggle to knock out more then 3 AV 13+ HPs a turn. The Spyders will net you 1.5 a turn back, and they can't die because they have a huge moving tower in front of them. Extrapolate that over a few turns and you should be able to see how difficult a nut that is to crack. The GAs provide cover for themselves and the Mono, the Spyders keep everything alive. Throw in some scarabs to give the spyders a second job. Meanwhile your CCBs present them with an immediate threat so any anti-AV 13 going into your castle in the early turns is an after thought.

Monoliths are awesome. If you manage to deepstrike it into opponents backfield or even just the middlefield early in the game you can pull very far ahead and win the game on just successfully striking the monolith and netting huge tempo and board control. But notice there are problems with that scenario. You might very well be walking into a cluttered terrain setup that is unfriendly to deepstriking that Monolith or an astute opponent could quickly place vehicles or bodies in zones to prevent your deepstrike or increase the likelihood of a mishap. The footprint of the Monolith is huge. As strong a play as it is to deepstrike the Monolith right where you want it early, it is equally devastating to mishap or not have any place to deep strike and have your Monolith effectively neutered for the whole game. So it's a swingy variable to introduce into the list.

col_impact wrote:

ShadarLogoth wrote:

Huh? He's a HS slot that's vastly inferior to other picks as in AB and Pylons...

The discussion was a few pages ago but you take it because it's a mobile LOS blocker, AV14 with any kind of cover save is incredibly hard to take down in this meta, and because the teleport ability can offer flexibility in the objective grab game. Knock it all you want, but a Mono paired with some GAs, Command Barges, and Spyders is far from mediocre. Many lists struggle to knock out more then 3 AV 13+ HPs a turn. The Spyders will net you 1.5 a turn back, and they can't die because they have a huge moving tower in front of them. Extrapolate that over a few turns and you should be able to see how difficult a nut that is to crack. The GAs provide cover for themselves and the Mono, the Spyders keep everything alive. Throw in some scarabs to give the spyders a second job. Meanwhile your CCBs present them with an immediate threat so any anti-AV 13 going into your castle in the early turns is an after thought.

Monoliths are awesome. If you manage to deepstrike it into opponents backfield or even just the middlefield early in the game you can pull very far ahead and win the game on just successfully striking the monolith and netting huge tempo and board control. But notice there are problems with that scenario. You might very well be walking into a cluttered terrain setup that is unfriendly to deepstriking that Monolith or an astute opponent could quickly place vehicles or bodies in zones to prevent your deepstrike or increase the likelihood of a mishap. The footprint of the Monolith is huge. As strong a play as it is to deepstrike the Monolith right where you want it early, it is equally devastating to mishap or not have any place to deep strike and have your Monolith effectively neutered for the whole game. So it's a swingy variable to introduce into the list.

Don't forget that with the return of mech, you are also going to also see a return of anti-tank weaponry. Yes, you are going to see the return of the melta. Just something to keep in mind as it will be very hard for the monolith to outrun the melta.

The monolith lacks defensive powers / abilities. It is a very expensive vehicle with low-end offensive powers and its main use being transportation. While in concept, it is a strong move to deepstrike a monolith behind the enemy lines and then let other models appear through it, in reality, you face several problems. You don't have Jink, you don't have Smoker Launchers (or anything comparable), you got a huge footprint without DSM protection and you're a huge target that can hardly profit from cover (as deepstriking near cover could just as likely mean getting a Deepstrike Mishap).

Our meta has always been more mech-heavy and thus you see more AV equipment that can quickly take care of a monolith. A smoke launcher would at least give it a good chance to survive a single turn, but as it stands right now, even a AV 14 vehicle can be deceiving when just looking at its profile.

 jy2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:

 Sasori wrote:

I personally think Ancanthrites are stronger than Wraiths, especially with the advent of more people taking vehicles.

Well you can spend 5 points for a ranged shot and an additional attack on the Wraiths again.

Wasn't it FAQ'd previously that you don't get the +1A? Arguing that the gun gives them +1A sounds kinda gamey to me.

It was FAQ'd both ways. First was yes, then was no. Now it is no more. They still have a close combat weapon and a pistol so RAW it would be +1A. But I can see them FAQ it to no again .

Fragile wrote:

 jy2 wrote:

Fragile wrote:

Sasori wrote:I personally think Ancanthrites are stronger than Wraiths, especially with the advent of more people taking vehicles.

Well you can spend 5 points for a ranged shot and an additional attack on the Wraiths again.

Wasn't it FAQ'd previously that you don't get the +1A? Arguing that the gun gives them +1A sounds kinda gamey to me.

It was FAQ'd both ways. First was yes, then was no. Now it is no more. They still have a close combat weapon and a pistol so RAW it would be +1A. But I can see them FAQ it to no again .

Since when do Wraiths have a close combat weapon?
I thought it was a case of "if it doesn't specifically list in their profile that they have a weapon (eg. knife), they're not going to get the bonus attack if they have a pistol", wasn't it?

Ok guys, I've got 2 games (actually, 3) coming up, all competitive. One is an 1850 single-CAD BAO practice game against 2 different armies - Tau and Seer Council/Wave Serpent Deldar. The other is a no-holds-barred 2K game against a GT-winning Eldar player.

I think I am going to show them that Necrons are still a very real and top-tier tournament threat.


This is what I am planning on running:


1850 Necrons - Single-CAD

Overlord - 2+/3++, MSS, ResOrb, Warscythe, Catacomb Command Barge
Destroyer Lord - 2+, MSS, ResOrb

1x Storm-tek

5x Warriors - Night Scythe
5x Warriors - Night Scythe
5x Warriors - Night Scythe
5x Warriors - Night Scythe

6x Wraiths
6x Wraiths

Annihilation Barge
Annihilation Barge
Annihilation Barge



2K Necrons - Dual-CAD

The only problem here would be to find enough barges to run this list. Otherwise, I'm may have to change it.

Overlord - 2+/3++, MSS, ResOrb, Warscythe, Catacomb Command Barge
Overlord - 2+/3++, MSS, Warscythe, Catacomb Command Barge
Overlord - 2+/3++, MSS, Warscythe, Catacomb Command Barge

5x Warriors - Night Scythe
5x Warriors - Night Scythe
5x Warriors - Night Scythe
5x Warriors - Night Scythe

Annihilation Barge
Annihilation Barge
Annihilation Barge
Annihilation Barge
Annihilation Barge
Annihilation Barge


So what do you guys think? I'm expecting to see a lot of wave serpents, wraithknights and at least 1 seer council with both Fortune and Invisibility.

For the first list, I'd drop the Resorb on the D Lord for a second Stormtek- 30pts for a 16.67% better chance of reanimating 1 model that hides in a group of Wraiths anyway seems a waste and you could do with the extra haywire in case you come across a mech list.

As for the second list...

That's just plain evil...

Take care with S10 AP1 shooting and high strength low AP blast weapons, as they can "bypass" the CCB's ability to juggle hits between the Barge and the rider.

 Galorian wrote:
For the first list, I'd drop the Resorb on the D Lord for a second Stormtek- 30pts for a 16.67% better chance of reanimating 1 model that hides in a group of Wraiths anyway seems a waste and you could do with the extra haywire in case you come across a mech list.

As for the second list...

That's just plain evil...

Take care with S10 AP1 shooting and high strength low AP blast weapons, as they can "bypass" the CCB's ability to juggle hits between the Barge and the rider.

I will consider that for List #1. The main reason why I like to take a ResOrb on my D-lord is because I prefer to use him as my Warlord.

For List #2, I have an extra insurance against S10 guns (BTW, S10 AP1 is very rare. I'm much more likely to encounter S10 AP2 from WK shooting/attacks). The CCB can transfer any Immobilized results into 1W for my Overlord. That should help to keep them alive a little longer.

 jy2 wrote:

 Galorian wrote:
For the first list, I'd drop the Resorb on the D Lord for a second Stormtek- 30pts for a 16.67% better chance of reanimating 1 model that hides in a group of Wraiths anyway seems a waste and you could do with the extra haywire in case you come across a mech list.

As for the second list...

That's just plain evil...

Take care with S10 AP1 shooting and high strength low AP blast weapons, as they can "bypass" the CCB's ability to juggle hits between the Barge and the rider.

I will consider that for List #1. The main reason why I like to take a ResOrb on my D-lord is because I prefer to use him as my Warlord.

For List #2, I have an extra insurance against S10 guns (BTW, S10 AP1 is very rare. I'm much more likely to encounter S10 AP2 from WK shooting/attacks). The CCB can transfer any Immobilized results into 1W for my Overlord. That should help to keep them alive a little longer.

Transfer immobilized results? that sounds like 6th edition talk. In the 'new world' (7th edition) chariots now treat immobilized results as a crew stunned result instead. And thanks to living metal, you can ignore crew stunned with a 4+.

Holy cats! How'd I miss that? Lol.

 jy2 wrote:
Ok guys, I've got 2 games (actually, 3) coming up, all competitive. One is an 1850 single-CAD BAO practice game against 2 different armies - Tau and Seer Council/Wave Serpent Deldar. The other is a no-holds-barred 2K game against a GT-winning Eldar player.

I think I am going to show them that Necrons are still a very real and top-tier tournament threat.


This is what I am planning on running:


1850 Necrons - Single-CAD

Overlord - 2+/3++, MSS, ResOrb, Warscythe, Catacomb Command Barge
Destroyer Lord - 2+, MSS, ResOrb

1x Storm-tek

5x Warriors - Night Scythe
5x Warriors - Night Scythe
5x Warriors - Night Scythe
5x Warriors - Night Scythe

6x Wraiths
6x Wraiths

Annihilation Barge
Annihilation Barge
Annihilation Barge



2K Necrons - Dual-CAD

The only problem here would be to find enough barges to run this list. Otherwise, I'm may have to change it.

Overlord - 2+/3++, MSS, ResOrb, Warscythe, Catacomb Command Barge
Overlord - 2+/3++, MSS, Warscythe, Catacomb Command Barge
Overlord - 2+/3++, MSS, Warscythe, Catacomb Command Barge

5x Warriors - Night Scythe
5x Warriors - Night Scythe
5x Warriors - Night Scythe
5x Warriors - Night Scythe

Annihilation Barge
Annihilation Barge
Annihilation Barge
Annihilation Barge
Annihilation Barge
Annihilation Barge


So what do you guys think? I'm expecting to see a lot of wave serpents, wraithknights and at least 1 seer council with both Fortune and Invisibility.

Seems like you are light on ground based Objective Secured units, ie Ghost Arks.

col_impact wrote:

Seems like you are light on ground based Objective Secured units, ie Ghost Arks.

The problem is that I don't own any at the moment, although I do have 2 on order.

But it really isn't a problem. I dare any Eldar player to turbo-boost their jetbike troops into the heart of my army.

Also, I don't expect wave serpents to be a problem, not when I have so much tesla shooting, wraiths and bargelords.

As for 60 marines in drop pods, I'm not concerned. I should be able to clear them off of the objectives.

My 1500 pts double-CAD list:

2x CCB-lord (just scythe & weave)
4x 5 warriors + night scythe
5x annibarge

And yes, I actually own 7 barges... I almost sold the extra two before 7th came out.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Yeah, the lack of psychic defense is just stupid. The race that's most resistant to the influence of the Warp has no defense against it. Legit.

Well, I'm thinking about CSM as allies of convenience with a Sorcerer or winged DP and troops (Cultists or CSM in Rhinos) for holding objectives.
Any thoughts here?

 Galorian wrote:
Everything in this game is "justified" by fluff

Like how regular space marines are weak and easily killed, eldar can summon Slanesh daemons, the Eldar WERE battle bros with tau (same with space marines) and that black templars are allies of convenience with eldar, the most pyschic race out there?
Absolutely, everything is justified.

 ninjafiredragon wrote:

 Galorian wrote:
Everything in this game is "justified" by fluff

Like how regular space marines are weak and easily killed, eldar can summon Slanesh daemons, the Eldar WERE battle bros with tau (same with space marines) and that black templars are allies of convenience with eldar, the most pyschic race out there?
Absolutely, everything is justified.

These things you just recounted wouldn't be pissing people off half as much if it wasn't for the fact they represent a breaking from fluff in a game that's built around it.

So are you saying that that Eldar should be able to summon daemons (which is stupid) Or are you saying that the game doesn't justify that fluff (Proving your original statement wrong)

 ninjafiredragon wrote:
So are you saying that that Eldar should be able to summon daemons (which is stupid) Or are you saying that the game doesn't justify that fluff (Proving your original statement wrong)

I'm saying that the fact the game is mostly based on fluff is the reason people find these kind of things so aggravating.

Also, nice loaded question, you'll get far in online debating...

 Galorian wrote:

 ninjafiredragon wrote:
So are you saying that that Eldar should be able to summon daemons (which is stupid) Or are you saying that the game doesn't justify that fluff (Proving your original statement wrong)

I'm saying that the fact the game is mostly based on fluff is the reason people find these kind of things so aggravating.

Also, nice loaded question, you'll get far in online debating...

Thanks

Well, everybody seems to jump on the bandwagon to field Overlords in barges. Its a huge point sink if equipped right.

I ran four in our apoc battle on Saturday and was not too impressed by them. Maybe I did something wrong.
Mine had a warscythe, 2+ armor save, a 3++ inv save, wbb on 4+, wbb with D3 wounds. I must admit that my two wbb roles didn't work.

 wuestenfux wrote:
Well, everybody seems to jump on the bandwagon to field Overlords in barges. Its a huge point sink if equipped right.

I ran four in our apoc battle on Saturday and was not too impressed by them. Maybe I did something wrong.
Mine had a warscythe, 2+ armor save, a 3++ inv save, wbb on 4+, wbb with D3 wounds. I must admit that my two wbb roles didn't work.

Can you explain in more detail what happened?

Mine have been invaluable so far.

Well, this was my first game in the 7th ed and I was certainly a bit stupid.

I lost one chariot after it had been charged by an Imperial Knight despite the fact that the Overlord was going first (cover).

I lost another one after charging a Wolf Lord (w/ storm shield, th) who had one wound left.

 wuestenfux wrote:
Well, this was my first game in the 7th ed and I was certainly a bit stupid.

I lost one chariot after it had been charged by an Imperial Knight despite the fact that the Overlord was going first (cover).

I lost another one after charging a Wolf Lord (w/ storm shield, th) who had one wound left.

The CCB's main weakness is that it isn't any more durable than the Overlord itself once it commits to CC, and compounds that by adding the Barge's vulnerabilities as a vehicle against opponents who find it easier to kill, as they get to choose which one to attack.

Whenever possible the CCB must avoid close combat against anything that would normaly beat the Overlord or have a decent shot at exploding the Barge in CC.

 Galorian wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
Well, this was my first game in the 7th ed and I was certainly a bit stupid.

I lost one chariot after it had been charged by an Imperial Knight despite the fact that the Overlord was going first (cover).

I lost another one after charging a Wolf Lord (w/ storm shield, th) who had one wound left.

The CCB's main weakness is that it isn't any more durable than the Overlord itself once it commits to CC, and compounds that by adding the Barge's vulnerabilities as a vehicle against opponents who find it easier to kill, as they get to choose which one to attack.

Whenever possible the CCB must avoid close combat against anything that would normaly beat the Overlord or have a decent shot at exploding the Barge in CC.

In fact, in cc the Overlord has a 2+ armor save, a 3++ inv save, and the enemy fights either against the Overlord or has to hit the front side of the barge.

 wuestenfux wrote:

 Galorian wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
Well, this was my first game in the 7th ed and I was certainly a bit stupid.

I lost one chariot after it had been charged by an Imperial Knight despite the fact that the Overlord was going first (cover).

I lost another one after charging a Wolf Lord (w/ storm shield, th) who had one wound left.

The CCB's main weakness is that it isn't any more durable than the Overlord itself once it commits to CC, and compounds that by adding the Barge's vulnerabilities as a vehicle against opponents who find it easier to kill, as they get to choose which one to attack.

Whenever possible the CCB must avoid close combat against anything that would normaly beat the Overlord or have a decent shot at exploding the Barge in CC.

In fact, in cc the Overlord has a 2+ armor save, a 3++ inv save, and the enemy fights either against the Overlord or has to hit the front side of the barge.

I noticed that you did not have MSS? I wold easily trade the Phylactery for MSS.

 Sasori wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

 Galorian wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
Well, this was my first game in the 7th ed and I was certainly a bit stupid.

I lost one chariot after it had been charged by an Imperial Knight despite the fact that the Overlord was going first (cover).

I lost another one after charging a Wolf Lord (w/ storm shield, th) who had one wound left.

The CCB's main weakness is that it isn't any more durable than the Overlord itself once it commits to CC, and compounds that by adding the Barge's vulnerabilities as a vehicle against opponents who find it easier to kill, as they get to choose which one to attack.

Whenever possible the CCB must avoid close combat against anything that would normaly beat the Overlord or have a decent shot at exploding the Barge in CC.

In fact, in cc the Overlord has a 2+ armor save, a 3++ inv save, and the enemy fights either against the Overlord or has to hit the front side of the barge.

I noticed that you did not have MSS? I wold easily trade the Phylactery for MSS.

Well, I had mss as well. Sorry for not mentioning. But it didn't work against the Wolf Lord and walkers like the Imp. Knight are immune, aren't they?

 wuestenfux wrote:

 Galorian wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
Well, this was my first game in the 7th ed and I was certainly a bit stupid.

I lost one chariot after it had been charged by an Imperial Knight despite the fact that the Overlord was going first (cover).

I lost another one after charging a Wolf Lord (w/ storm shield, th) who had one wound left.

The CCB's main weakness is that it isn't any more durable than the Overlord itself once it commits to CC, and compounds that by adding the Barge's vulnerabilities as a vehicle against opponents who find it easier to kill, as they get to choose which one to attack.

Whenever possible the CCB must avoid close combat against anything that would normaly beat the Overlord or have a decent shot at exploding the Barge in CC.

In fact, in cc the Overlord has a 2+ armor save, a 3++ inv save, and the enemy fights either against the Overlord or has to hit the front side of the barge.

Plenty of things can wreck a decked out Overlord's day in assault rather handily, and anything with Armourbane and a decent strength value would have little problem penning AV13

 Galorian wrote:

Plenty of things can wreck a decked out Overlord's day in assault rather handily, and anything with Armourbane and a decent strength value would have little problem penning AV13

Armorbane isn't that common and there only are few weapons being able to penetrate S13. You would have to have at least S8 to penetrate the AV - which is quite a lot for melee weapons. Powerfists, certainly, but...?

Furthermore: keep in mind that the CCB chooses its enemies, not the other way around, due to its very high mobility.

 jy2 wrote:
Ok guys, I've got 2 games (actually, 3) coming up, all competitive. One is an 1850 single-CAD BAO practice game against 2 different armies - Tau and Seer Council/Wave Serpent Deldar. The other is a no-holds-barred 2K game against a GT-winning Eldar player.

I think I am going to show them that Necrons are still a very real and top-tier tournament threat.


This is what I am planning on running:


1850 Necrons - Single-CAD

Overlord - 2+/3++, MSS, ResOrb, Warscythe, Catacomb Command Barge
Destroyer Lord - 2+, MSS, ResOrb

1x Storm-tek

5x Warriors - Night Scythe
5x Warriors - Night Scythe
5x Warriors - Night Scythe
5x Warriors - Night Scythe

6x Wraiths
6x Wraiths

Annihilation Barge
Annihilation Barge
Annihilation Barge

I think this might be stronger all comers tourney list at 1850:

Overlord - Barge, PS, WS, MSS, Semp Weave
Royal Court: 2 x Despairteks, 2 x Stormteks

Overlord - Barge, PS, WS, MSS, Semp Weave
Royal Court: 2 x Despairteks, 2 x Stormteks

5 x Deathmarks (N Scythe)
5 x Deathmarks (N Scythe)

5 x Warriors (N Scythe)
5 x Warriors (N Scythe)

Tomb Blade (shadowloom, nebuloscope)
Tomb Blade (shadowloom, nebuloscope)

Annihilation Barge
Annihilation Barge
Annihilation Barge

I just think that's going to delete stuff, and be able to score multiple, spread out tactical objectives...

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Galorian wrote:

Plenty of things can wreck a decked out Overlord's day in assault rather handily, and anything with Armourbane and a decent strength value would have little problem penning AV13

Armorbane isn't that common and there only are few weapons being able to penetrate S13. You would have to have at least S8 to penetrate the AV - which is quite a lot for melee weapons. Powerfists, certainly, but...?

Furthermore: keep in mind that the CCB chooses its enemies, not the other way around, due to its very high mobility.

Which is why you need to avoid those things, which is quite feasible.

 Sigvatr wrote:
The monolith lacks defensive powers / abilities.

You've obviously never seen a 300 point Demon Prince get teleported to Delaware. Oh, and AV 14 4 HP and living metal are all plenty defensive.

It is a very expensive vehicle with low-end offensive powers and its main use being transportation.

No, it's main use is a utility vehicle that brings an 8/3 barrage pie plate, a splattering of extra Gauss fire, teleportation ability that can both extend the death reach of your units as well as the scoring reach of your OS units, and, most importantly, he can provide a 0+ cover save to virtually anything else in your army. If you are discussing the Monolith without mentioning it's ability to completely cloak the units behind it you simply are not properly appraising the unit.

While in concept, it is a strong move to deepstrike a monolith behind the enemy lines and then let other models appear through it, in reality, you face several problems. You don't have Jink, you don't have Smoker Launchers (or anything comparable), you got a huge footprint without DSM protection and you're a huge target that can hardly profit from cover (as deepstriking near cover could just as likely mean getting a Deepstrike Mishap).

I agree that DSing isn't something you would regularly do, as that splits the Monolith off the rest of your forces. The ones the Mono could be providing cover for, and could likewise being providing cover for it. GA's are better then Smoke Launchers as they are more then one use only and the Mono doesn't have to sack it's shooting to use them. You castle early, then spread as objectives demand. A couple of GAs and a Mono can completely cover mid-field with OS potential.

DSing is, again, a utility feature that you use when the proper opportunity presents itself. Your opponent knows you can opt to use it and will be considering it if they deploy first.

Our meta has always been more mech-heavy and thus you see more AV equipment that can quickly take care of a monolith. A smoke launcher would at least give it a good chance to survive a single turn, but as it stands right now, even a AV 14 vehicle can be deceiving when just looking at its profile.

If that's the case, so be it, although I have a hard time picturing it, to be honest. Most people are still spamming S7/6 for AV which, obviously, can't touch the Mono. I occasionally see melta but it's ridged and, you know, premeasuring is still a thing. Just don't go within it's range until it's dead. Outside of Haywire techs dropping out of a scythe I can't think of many things that even have a chance of scratching it. Even drop melta should be pretty easy to castle against.

These are all things that would be more apparent to you though if you actually played with a Mono in this edition. Throw one in a list with some GAs, CCBs, and the like, throw a squad of Tomb Spyders with Fab Claws behind it, and if you lose it more then one out of 6 games you are doing something wrong.

 Galorian wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Galorian wrote:

Plenty of things can wreck a decked out Overlord's day in assault rather handily, and anything with Armourbane and a decent strength value would have little problem penning AV13

Armorbane isn't that common and there only are few weapons being able to penetrate S13. You would have to have at least S8 to penetrate the AV - which is quite a lot for melee weapons. Powerfists, certainly, but...?

Furthermore: keep in mind that the CCB chooses its enemies, not the other way around, due to its very high mobility.

Which is why you need to avoid those things, which is quite feasible.

So what will be the main targets of a CCB? Its shooting is rather crap.

What I see in the new edition is Marine armies in pods or Rhinos, which have a lot of scoring potential especially in maelstrom missions.

So what will be the main targets of a CCB? Its shooting is rather crap.

What I see in the new edition is Marine armies in pods or Rhinos, which have a lot of scoring potential especially in maelstrom missions.

Didn't you just kind of answer your own question ?

ShadarLogoth wrote:

So what will be the main targets of a CCB? Its shooting is rather crap.

What I see in the new edition is Marine armies in pods or Rhinos, which have a lot of scoring potential especially in maelstrom missions.

Didn't you just kind of answer your own question ?

Actually I did.

The CCB is an interesting unit and its tempting to field it as exalted jy2 explained.

However, due to the maelstrom missions and troops having objective secured, I would tend to include a CSM detachment as allies such as
Typhus and (fearless) Cultists, or
Sorcerer (or flying DP) and CSM units in Rhinos.

Why? What is the CSM detachment going to bring that is that much better than a similar number of points of Crons?

Rhinos in particular are inferior to Ghost Arks - cheaper, but inferior.

MarkCron wrote:
Why? What is the CSM detachment going to bring that is that much better than a similar number of points of Crons?

Rhinos in particular are inferior to Ghost Arks - cheaper, but inferior.

Well, I'm looking for alternatives and cheap solutions.

Sorry, bad wording. What is the problem with a pure cron list that you are looking for a solution to?

 wuestenfux wrote:

 Galorian wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Galorian wrote:

Plenty of things can wreck a decked out Overlord's day in assault rather handily, and anything with Armourbane and a decent strength value would have little problem penning AV13

Armorbane isn't that common and there only are few weapons being able to penetrate S13. You would have to have at least S8 to penetrate the AV - which is quite a lot for melee weapons. Powerfists, certainly, but...?

Furthermore: keep in mind that the CCB chooses its enemies, not the other way around, due to its very high mobility.

Which is why you need to avoid those things, which is quite feasible.

So what will be the main targets of a CCB? Its shooting is rather crap.

All manner of vehicles would be good targets save for walkers with a higher Initiative or that are superheavy (as you're very unlikely to take those out in a single turn), anything on the ground is a viable target for sweep attacks if it's within 12" (and you could always flat out away afterwards if it's a serious threat and you failed to kill it), units that aren't good enough in CC to stand up to an OL and are vulnerable enough that they would most likely fail the Ld test after losing the assault and MCs that can't ID the Overlord or penetrate the Barge without using Smash (which is rather terrible now).

MarkCron wrote:
Sorry, bad wording. What is the problem with a pure cron list that you are looking for a solution to?

Its nothing wrong with a pure Cron list.
As said, I'm looking for alternatives especially when it comes to scoring such as units coming from Allies of Convenience (CSM, Tau).

All manner of vehicles would be good targets save for walkers with a higher Initiative or that are superheavy (as you're very unlikely to take those out in a single turn), anything on the ground is a viable target for sweep attacks if it's within 12" (and you could always flat out away afterwards if it's a serious threat and you failed to kill it), units that aren't good enough in CC to stand up to an OL and are vulnerable enough that they would most likely fail the Ld test after losing the assault and MCs that can't ID the Overlord or penetrate the Barge without using Smash (which is rather terrible now).

I think game-wise, the number of targets will be rather limited.
Sweeping attacks vs. light tanks and then going flat out would be an option.
But here you already need to be within 12'' of the tank at the start of the turn.

 wuestenfux wrote:

MarkCron wrote:
Sorry, bad wording. What is the problem with a pure cron list that you are looking for a solution to?

Its nothing wrong with a pure Cron list.
As said, I'm looking for alternatives especially when it comes to scoring such as units coming from Allies of Convenience (CSM, Tau).

Ah, sorry. Ok, good question. I'd suggest that the purpose of an ally is to fix a gap in the Cron's codex. So, long range high Str shooting, a fast tough monstrous creature and psyker defense spring to mind.

Clearly, Tau can bring the shooting and the MC. I'm not familiar enough with the tau codex/slates, but a formation with a riptide and some suits would be good (if it was cheapish). From a CSM perspective, oblits are always one of my first targets and a Heldrake would definitely be handy.

Not sure what troops I'd bring though? Maybe a giant squad of outflanking kroot with sniper rifles? Can't think of a single CSM troop unit I'd really like - can cultists deep strike? That could be handy. Thing is our troops are really good compared to both tau and CSM, so not sure I'd swap for any of those.

Well, I'm not thinking so much about Tau. Fire Warriors can be rather squishy and Tau have no psychic defense. However, Kroot are tempting, outflanking or infiltrating if they are supported well.

CSM is more tempting for my play style. Typhus with fearless Cultists or a Sorcerer supported by CSM in Rhinos are more viable choices.

That's where I am too, MarkCron.

3 oblits, Heldrake, Typhus w/35 zombies is almost 800 points.

Riptide, 3 cheap, long-range broadsides, outflanking kroot, and a Commander geared out to help out the Broadsides is also in the 700-750 points range. Better, but the riptide isn't the beast it used to be (with Batman Commander attached).

In either case... I think I'd just rather have that many points of more necrons. Granted, I think we are moving back into an era of MSU spam with transports, but our gauss weapons have no trouble opening up the vehicles we'll see most often.

My advice? Take your warriors in Ghost Arks. They finally feel worth their 115 points to me.

700-800?? That's too many points for me....I have long thought that Crons didn't really need allies and in an MSU environment I'm now certain of it!

And I agree, the GA is now definitely worth the points. With spyder support they are bordering on awesome - well, until everyone starts bringing lascannons again anyway

Kholzerino wrote:

 jy2 wrote:
1850 Necrons - Single-CAD
Overlord - 2+/3++, MSS, ResOrb, Warscythe, Catacomb Command Barge
Destroyer Lord - 2+, MSS, ResOrb

1x Storm-tek

5x Warriors - Night Scythe
5x Warriors - Night Scythe
5x Warriors - Night Scythe
5x Warriors - Night Scythe

6x Wraiths
6x Wraiths

Annihilation Barge
Annihilation Barge
Annihilation Barge

I think this might be stronger all comers tourney list at 1850:

Overlord - Barge, PS, WS, MSS, Semp Weave
Royal Court: 2 x Despairteks, 2 x Stormteks

Overlord - Barge, PS, WS, MSS, Semp Weave
Royal Court: 2 x Despairteks, 2 x Stormteks

5 x Deathmarks (N Scythe)
5 x Deathmarks (N Scythe)

5 x Warriors (N Scythe)
5 x Warriors (N Scythe)

Tomb Blade (shadowloom, nebuloscope)
Tomb Blade (shadowloom, nebuloscope)

Annihilation Barge
Annihilation Barge
Annihilation Barge

I just think that's going to delete stuff, and be able to score multiple, spread out tactical objectives...

That seems like waaaaay too few super-scoring units to be useful in anything but "just for fun" games.

If he swaps out the D.Lord's ResOrb for a second Storm-tek it should work pretty well.

Any suggestions on solid lists built around the Transcendent C'tan in games allowing LoW?

Quick question - what's the most effective way of dealing with a Knight Errant? This thing keeps popping up in the GK 7th thread - I don't have one or the dex so not sure what it can do. Also, is it a Walker or an MC? Is it expensive?

Walker, I'm thinking scarabs to deal with it, MC, sounds like a job for a death and despair squad.

Well it's a Superheavy a Walker and therefore scarabs entropic strike has no effect. Crypteks with haywire are good options, but in general just a Cron-Air list can crush them with S7 tesla destructor and Deathray attacks. A dedicated Cron-Air list is the most optimized counter to Imperial knight primary CADs. Mixed lists with dedicated AA options however, can work well in concert to counter Cron-Air.

It's super heavy? Bummer. How many HP do we need to strip? Presumably a shedload of gauss will do the job as well?

MarkCron wrote:
Quick question - what's the most effective way of dealing with a Knight Errant? This thing keeps popping up in the GK 7th thread - I don't have one or the dex so not sure what it can do. Also, is it a Walker or an MC? Is it expensive?

Walker, I'm thinking scarabs to deal with it, MC, sounds like a job for a death and despair squad.

6 x Transdimensional Beamers on a unit of Wraiths. Any 6 result instantly removes it from play since 6 automatically fails. Gives you roughly 66% chance of removal on one round of firing.

So far while on my "business trip", I've already played 3 games with my crons. The 1st 2 were with my Fun-crons, a semi-competitive list with monolith, teleporting immortals, doom scythe and overall very little spam. 1st game was against blob squad AM/Space Marines and then against Mechdar with 4 wave serpents and the Forgeworld Hornets.

3rd game was using my competitive single-CAD neurons against seer council+Baron + 4 wave serpents.

In my 2 games against the death stars, my opponents had awesome powers. Blob squad got Invisibility and Gate of Infinity. Seer council got invisibility and Fortune.

Tomorrow I have 1 more game, this time against GT-winner Mortetvie and his mechdar.

Damn, I played against a lot of Eldar on this trip!

I will be providing reports for all my games in the near future.

col_impact wrote:

MarkCron wrote:
Quick question - what's the most effective way of dealing with a Knight Errant? This thing keeps popping up in the GK 7th thread - I don't have one or the dex so not sure what it can do. Also, is it a Walker or an MC? Is it expensive?

Walker, I'm thinking scarabs to deal with it, MC, sounds like a job for a death and despair squad.

6 x Transdimensional Beamers on a unit of Wraiths. Any 6 result instantly removes it from play since 6 automatically fails. Gives you roughly 66% chance of removal on one round of firing.

Superheavies don't get removed from play like that...

 jy2 wrote:
So far while on my "business trip", I've already played 3 games with my crons. The 1st 2 were with my Fun-crons, a semi-competitive list with monolith, teleporting immortals, doom scythe and overall very little spam. 1st game was against blob squad AM/Space Marines and then against Mechdar with 4 wave serpents and the Forgeworld Hornets.

3rd game was using my competitive single-CAD neurons against seer council+Baron + 4 wave serpents.

In my 2 games against the death stars, my opponents had awesome powers. Blob squad got Invisibility and Gate of Infinity. Seer council got invisibility and Fortune.

Tomorrow I have 1 more game, this time against GT-winner Mortetvie and his mechdar.

Damn, I played against a lot of Eldar on this trip!

I will be providing reports for all my games in the near future.

We're looking forward to your reports. Always an inspiration.

Pff, invisibility, time to throw some beams around

 Sigvatr wrote:
Pff, invisibility, time to throw some beams around

And sweep, and tesla, and whoops looks like my C'tan's apocalyptic barrage accidentally fit 4 out of 5 blast templates on the invisible unit while trying to hit that completely unrelated unit standing next to it, and now it just happens to be standing behind a unit I'm shooting my strength D hellstorm template at- looks like I mistakenly covered that entire invisible unit with its widest part...

Well, I think Necrons are still strong in the new ed, but the lack of psychic defense and (as a consequence) invisibilty can be very annoying.

 wuestenfux wrote:
Well, I think Necrons are still strong in the new ed, but the lack of psychic defense and (as a consequence) invisibilty can be very annoying.

Depends. On the one hand, Necrons lack psychic defense. On the other hand, Psykers received an overall nerf compared to 6th where you could almost risk-free cast any powers you wanted to. Invisibility isn't much of an issue either, as Necrons got quite a few weapons to work against it, mainly (Focused) Death Rays that ignore Invisibility and still hit at full force - and with a Focused Death Ray, this means easily getting rid of entire units unless they also pack an awesome ++.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
Well, I think Necrons are still strong in the new ed, but the lack of psychic defense and (as a consequence) invisibilty can be very annoying.

Depends. On the one hand, Necrons lack psychic defense. On the other hand, Psykers received an overall nerf compared to 6th where you could almost risk-free cast any powers you wanted to. Invisibility isn't much of an issue either, as Necrons got quite a few weapons to work against it, mainly (Focused) Death Rays that ignore Invisibility and still hit at full force - and with a Focused Death Ray, this means easily getting rid of entire units unless they also pack an awesome ++.

So death rays ignore invisibilty? Sorry for asking.

 wuestenfux wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
Well, I think Necrons are still strong in the new ed, but the lack of psychic defense and (as a consequence) invisibilty can be very annoying.

Depends. On the one hand, Necrons lack psychic defense. On the other hand, Psykers received an overall nerf compared to 6th where you could almost risk-free cast any powers you wanted to. Invisibility isn't much of an issue either, as Necrons got quite a few weapons to work against it, mainly (Focused) Death Rays that ignore Invisibility and still hit at full force - and with a Focused Death Ray, this means easily getting rid of entire units unless they also pack an awesome ++.

So death rays ignore invisibilty? Sorry for asking.

You just have to declare you're shooting at another unit (need to have LoS but doesn't have to be in range) and then ignore it and place the line-o'-death on the Invisible one.

One thing to note is that you'd be unable to fire your Tesla Destructor unless the Death Ray also hits a model from the unit you declared you're firing on.

 wuestenfux wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
Well, I think Necrons are still strong in the new ed, but the lack of psychic defense and (as a consequence) invisibilty can be very annoying.

Depends. On the one hand, Necrons lack psychic defense. On the other hand, Psykers received an overall nerf compared to 6th where you could almost risk-free cast any powers you wanted to. Invisibility isn't much of an issue either, as Necrons got quite a few weapons to work against it, mainly (Focused) Death Rays that ignore Invisibility and still hit at full force - and with a Focused Death Ray, this means easily getting rid of entire units unless they also pack an awesome ++.

So death rays ignore invisibilty? Sorry for asking.

There's absolutely no need to apologize for asking a legimitate question

Death Ray weapons (be it Focused or not) do not specifically target a unit and therefore, Invisibility is not applied as it only works against shooting attacks that target the invisible unit. Focused Death Ray is simply more effective because it deals twice the amount of hits the regular Death Ray does and you can take more of them in a regular list.

Guys, thanks for clarifying. This makes sense.

Nevertheless, I'm looking for psychic defense in form of a Sorcerer or GD with some (cheap) troop units.

Same here. I wish we would have some sort of special character that allowed for psychic defense. Allying in isn't worth it, in my opinion, as the ally tax is really high and most of the time, you are better off paying for more Necron units instead.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Same here. I wish we would have some sort of special character that allowed for psychic defense. Allying in isn't worth it, in my opinion, as the ally tax is really high and most of the time, you are better off paying for more Necron units instead.

s
This might be the consequence at the end. But in higher pt games, an ally tax can be useful.

 Galorian wrote:

col_impact wrote:

MarkCron wrote:
Quick question - what's the most effective way of dealing with a Knight Errant? This thing keeps popping up in the GK 7th thread - I don't have one or the dex so not sure what it can do. Also, is it a Walker or an MC? Is it expensive?

Walker, I'm thinking scarabs to deal with it, MC, sounds like a job for a death and despair squad.

6 x Transdimensional Beamers on a unit of Wraiths. Any 6 result instantly removes it from play since 6 automatically fails. Gives you roughly 66% chance of removal on one round of firing.

Superheavies don't get removed from play like that...

Why don't they? Beamers only care if the model has a strength characteristic, and I am not finding anything in the Super Heavy Rules that prevent this. Am I overlooking something?


Edit: Found it. Each hit of the beamer would translate to D3 Hull Points of damage per Invincible Behemoth.

col_impact wrote:

 Galorian wrote:

col_impact wrote:

MarkCron wrote:
Quick question - what's the most effective way of dealing with a Knight Errant? This thing keeps popping up in the GK 7th thread - I don't have one or the dex so not sure what it can do. Also, is it a Walker or an MC? Is it expensive?

Walker, I'm thinking scarabs to deal with it, MC, sounds like a job for a death and despair squad.

6 x Transdimensional Beamers on a unit of Wraiths. Any 6 result instantly removes it from play since 6 automatically fails. Gives you roughly 66% chance of removal on one round of firing.

Superheavies don't get removed from play like that...

Why don't they? Beamers only care if the model has a strength characteristic, and I am not finding anything in the Super Heavy Rules that prevent this. Am I overlooking something?

Superheavies cannot be instantly killed.

If you really want decent psychic defenses you'd best aim for allying psykers that have a good WC/pt ratio and putting some Gloom Prisms in your list - if you manage to spread the prisms around so that anything of importance in your army is covered you'd get +2 to DtW against any malediction or offensive Psyker power and the allies will give you the dice you'll need to make use of that bonus.

Playing against daemons for instance you could make a scarab farm that would be very well protected from witchfire powers.

MarkCron wrote:
Quick question - what's the most effective way of dealing with a Knight Errant? This thing keeps popping up in the GK 7th thread - I don't have one or the dex so not sure what it can do. Also, is it a Walker or an MC? Is it expensive?

Walker, I'm thinking scarabs to deal with it, MC, sounds like a job for a death and despair squad.

 NecronLord3 wrote:
Well it's a Superheavy a Walker and therefore scarabs entropic strike has no effect. Crypteks with haywire are good options, but in general just a Cron-Air list can crush them with S7 tesla destructor and Deathray attacks. A dedicated Cron-Air list is the most optimized counter to Imperial knight primary CADs. Mixed lists with dedicated AA options however, can work well in concert to counter Cron-Air.

Stormteks seem like the best option here, if you want to do it quickly. 175 points of stormteks (7 of them) can put 16 glances on a superheavy in one round of shooting. So 3 Stormteks can handle a small superheavy like a Knight Errant. The only way I see a Doom Scythe Death Ray matching that kind of point per damage output is if you line up some of your own dudes next to the SuperHeavy and sacrifice them in the Death Ray so you ramp up the number of hits. That would be a cool way to do it though.

The only way I see a Doom Scythe Death Ray matching that kind of point per damage output is if you line up some of your own dudes next to the SuperHeavy and sacrifice them in the Death Ray so you ramp up the number of hits. That would be a cool way to do it though.

That's not how the death ray works...

Gloom Prisms don't do much. Offensive psychic powers aren't much of a threat, buffs are where the power's at. And sadly, Gloom Prisms don't do anything against those.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

omerakk wrote:

The only way I see a Doom Scythe Death Ray matching that kind of point per damage output is if you line up some of your own dudes next to the SuperHeavy and sacrifice them in the Death Ray so you ramp up the number of hits. That would be a cool way to do it though.

That's not how the death ray works...

Well, that is indeed how it works. You may hit your own models with it, it is specifically mentioned in the weapon rules for the Focused Death Ray ("friendly or enemy"). Hit 3 of your own models, hit the super heavy and both your unit and the super heavy get 8 S10 AP1 hits. That's bye-bye for the super heavy. And your unit too most likely

Even if you don't hit your own models, just hit a single model other than the super heavy and you are already looking at 4 S10 AP1 hits for the super heavy, giving you a good chance to destroy it as well.

 Sigvatr wrote:


Even if you don't hit your own models, just hit a single model other than the super heavy and you are already looking at 4 S10 AP1 hits for the super heavy, giving you a good chance to destroy it as well.

Maybe you are talking about something else with a Death Ray but a Doom Scythe is only going to get 2 hits in that situation.

col_impact wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:


Even if you don't hit your own models, just hit a single model other than the super heavy and you are already looking at 4 S10 AP1 hits for the super heavy, giving you a good chance to destroy it as well.

Maybe you are talking about something else with a Death Ray but a Doom Scythe is only going to get 2 hits in that situation.

I said Focused Death Ray

 Sigvatr wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:


Even if you don't hit your own models, just hit a single model other than the super heavy and you are already looking at 4 S10 AP1 hits for the super heavy, giving you a good chance to destroy it as well.

Maybe you are talking about something else with a Death Ray but a Doom Scythe is only going to get 2 hits in that situation.

I said Focused Death Ray

Which is fine, but not everyone has/plays with Forgeworld.

I like my Ghost Arks w/warriors and Stormteks. Assuming a side shot with my build, you can get 13 (26 rapidfire) and 8 storm shots. You should average 7.2 hullpoints stripped on the non-shield side (3.6 on the shield side). Dedicate 2 Ghost Arks of shooting and you should be able to take down 1-2 Imperial Knights per turn.

My suggestion of using Doomscythes comes from maximizing the amount of flyers for your army has. The Doomscythe isn't always the most point efficient unit, but being able to counter invisibility makes them a lot better and against a mostly Imperial Knight army you may get luck and be able to position the doom scythe to get a shot around the inv. shield or keep you opponent turning the shield toward the Doomscythes so that everything else can take shots on the exposed sides.

 NecronLord3 wrote:
My suggestion of using Doomscythes comes from maximizing the amount of flyers for your army has. The Doomscythe isn't always the most point efficient unit, but being able to counter invisibility makes them a lot better and against a mostly Imperial Knight army you may get luck and be able to position the doom scythe to get a shot around the inv. shield or keep you opponent turning the shield toward the Doomscythes so that everything else can take shots on the exposed sides.

For determining invul save coming from the knights shield, if a doom scythe hits a knight with its death ray, is the point of origin determined from the doom scythe or the direction from which the ray hit the knight? If i remember right, it is from the doom scythe but Im not sure.

That is correct unless something has changed. Regardless the knight player determines facing during the opposing shooting phase so optimally they can always move it to face the Doomscythes Deathray attack, but like I said tatctially you can bait your opponent to either leave a side exposed for the Deathray attack, or open up another side for mass tesla attack from night scythes and other units.

 NecronLord3 wrote:
That is correct unless something has changed. Regardless the knight player determines facing during the opposing shooting phase so optimally they can always move it to face the Doomscythes Deathray attack, but like I said tatctially you can bait your opponent to either leave a side exposed for the Deathray attack, or open up another side for mass tesla attack from night scythes and other units.

Keep in mind that the line doesn' have to be drawn going away from the Scythe. If you can put the first point at the flank of the Knight you can put the second point anywhere 3d6" from there.

col_impact wrote:

 NecronLord3 wrote:
That is correct unless something has changed. Regardless the knight player determines facing during the opposing shooting phase so optimally they can always move it to face the Doomscythes Deathray attack, but like I said tatctially you can bait your opponent to either leave a side exposed for the Deathray attack, or open up another side for mass tesla attack from night scythes and other units.

Keep in mind that the line doesn' have to be drawn going away from the Scythe. If you can put the first point at the flank of the Knight you can put the second point anywhere 3d6" from there.

right, but as long as the knight puts the shield up facing the doom scythe, it'll get the save since point of origin is determined from the weapon, not the proverbial bullet (which is wierd).

 Sigvatr wrote:

omerakk wrote:

The only way I see a Doom Scythe Death Ray matching that kind of point per damage output is if you line up some of your own dudes next to the SuperHeavy and sacrifice them in the Death Ray so you ramp up the number of hits. That would be a cool way to do it though.

That's not how the death ray works...

Well, that is indeed how it works. You may hit your own models with it, it is specifically mentioned in the weapon rules for the Focused Death Ray ("friendly or enemy"). Hit 3 of your own models, hit the super heavy and both your unit and the super heavy get 8 S10 AP1 hits. That's bye-bye for the super heavy. And your unit too most likely

Even if you don't hit your own models, just hit a single model other than the super heavy and you are already looking at 4 S10 AP1 hits for the super heavy, giving you a good chance to destroy it as well.

... as this is a case of exploiting a RAW loophole of a poorly written rule, this would be something you wouldn't normally do in friendly games.

 skoffs wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

omerakk wrote:

The only way I see a Doom Scythe Death Ray matching that kind of point per damage output is if you line up some of your own dudes next to the SuperHeavy and sacrifice them in the Death Ray so you ramp up the number of hits. That would be a cool way to do it though.

That's not how the death ray works...

Well, that is indeed how it works. You may hit your own models with it, it is specifically mentioned in the weapon rules for the Focused Death Ray ("friendly or enemy"). Hit 3 of your own models, hit the super heavy and both your unit and the super heavy get 8 S10 AP1 hits. That's bye-bye for the super heavy. And your unit too most likely

Even if you don't hit your own models, just hit a single model other than the super heavy and you are already looking at 4 S10 AP1 hits for the super heavy, giving you a good chance to destroy it as well.

... as this is a case of exploiting a RAW loophole of a poorly written rule, this would be something you wouldn't normally do in friendly games.

I for one would never play that model like that- it's both silly and ridiculously OP.

I'm pretty sure it was faq'ed to not work like that last edition. just like how the pistol upgrade for wraiths didn't give them an extra attack.

Of course, now we are in that weird "early new edition" phase where they decide to dump the majority of the previous faq and leave some answered questions in limbo.

omerakk wrote:
I'm pretty sure it was faq'ed to not work like that last edition. just like how the pistol upgrade for wraiths didn't give them an extra attack.

Of course, now we are in that weird "early new edition" phase where they decide to dump the majority of the previous faq and leave some answered questions in limbo.

The Death Ray was FAQ'd. IA12 still has not received an update yet. And people wonder why FW has a bad reputation rules-wise.

 Galorian wrote:

 skoffs wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

omerakk wrote:

The only way I see a Doom Scythe Death Ray matching that kind of point per damage output is if you line up some of your own dudes next to the SuperHeavy and sacrifice them in the Death Ray so you ramp up the number of hits. That would be a cool way to do it though.

That's not how the death ray works...

Well, that is indeed how it works. You may hit your own models with it, it is specifically mentioned in the weapon rules for the Focused Death Ray ("friendly or enemy"). Hit 3 of your own models, hit the super heavy and both your unit and the super heavy get 8 S10 AP1 hits. That's bye-bye for the super heavy. And your unit too most likely

Even if you don't hit your own models, just hit a single model other than the super heavy and you are already looking at 4 S10 AP1 hits for the super heavy, giving you a good chance to destroy it as well.

... as this is a case of exploiting a RAW loophole of a poorly written rule, this would be something you wouldn't normally do in friendly games.

I for one would never play that model like that- it's both silly and ridiculously OP.

It's basically how the Death Ray is conceived. The more death underneath it, the more powerful it becomes. The rules for the Death Ray are very clear and unambiguous. There really aren't any loopholes in it. RAW here is RAI and a tactic that involves sacrificing necron robots to augment a weapon's power is very fluffy. If someone brings anything remotely combolicious to the table (imperial knight, riptides, wraithknights, invisibility, deathstars of any sort) I don't see any qualms of using an expensive and difficult to maneuver unit to nix a few of my opponent's broken goodies. If both players are bringing their A-game then both players bring their A-game. If it's not an A-game then bring out the beer and pretzels and Orks and Sisters and CSM. Keep in mind that Doom Scythes are really only ever useful against broken units. Otherwise they are overcosted garbage.

It's about the Focused Death Ray, not the regular Death Ray. It's deadlier because it deals twice the amount of models hit. Plus:

a) Death Ray: You hit 3 models in Unit A and a vehicle. The unit gets 3 hits, the vehicle one.

b) Focused Death Ray: You hit 3 models in Unit A and a vehicle. BOTH the unit AND the vehicle receive 8 ([3+1]*2) hits. That's Death for you Most people aren't familar with it, but after GW decided to make Gauss Sentry Pylons useless, everyone with Sentry Pylons took the FDR instead. And they hurt. So hard.

 Sigvatr wrote:
It's about the Focused Death Ray, not the regular Death Ray. It's deadlier because it deals twice the amount of models hit. Plus:

a) Death Ray: You hit 3 models in Unit A and a vehicle. The unit gets 3 hits, the vehicle one.

b) Focused Death Ray: You hit 3 models in Unit A and a vehicle. BOTH the unit AND the vehicle receive 8 ([3+1]*2) hits. That's Death for you Most people aren't familar with it, but after GW decided to make Gauss Sentry Pylons useless, everyone with Sentry Pylons took the FDR instead. And they hurt. So hard.

Yeah, you are right, the trick of sacrificing your dudes works with the Focused Death Ray but not the Doom Scythe Death Ray because the model hit count is sorted by unit in the case of the Doom Scythe, not all units in the case of the Focused Death Ray.

col_impact wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
It's about the Focused Death Ray, not the regular Death Ray. It's deadlier because it deals twice the amount of models hit. Plus:

a) Death Ray: You hit 3 models in Unit A and a vehicle. The unit gets 3 hits, the vehicle one.

b) Focused Death Ray: You hit 3 models in Unit A and a vehicle. BOTH the unit AND the vehicle receive 8 ([3+1]*2) hits. That's Death for you Most people aren't familar with it, but after GW decided to make Gauss Sentry Pylons useless, everyone with Sentry Pylons took the FDR instead. And they hurt. So hard.

Yeah, you are right, the trick of sacrificing your dudes works with the Focused Death Ray but not the Doom Scythe Death Ray because the model hit count is sorted by unit in the case of the Doom Scythe, not all units in the case of the Focused Death Ray.

It should be sorted by unit for the S.Pylon versions, too (the ridiculously OP damage it puts out because of this bad writing loophole is evidence enough that, just like the confusion with the codex entry on the Deathscythe, this is not the way it was meant to be played), but the lazy bastards haven't gotten around to fixing it via FAQ yet.

Like he said before, crap like this is the reason people won't play against forgeworld stuff.

I'll gladly change back to Gauss if they fix it with a FAQ

Yes, it's inexcusably lazy by GW to not update their codices / books after a new edition...actually, WEEKS after its release.

 Sigvatr wrote:

omerakk wrote:
I'm pretty sure it was faq'ed to not work like that last edition. just like how the pistol upgrade for wraiths didn't give them an extra attack.

Of course, now we are in that weird "early new edition" phase where they decide to dump the majority of the previous faq and leave some answered questions in limbo.

The Death Ray was FAQ'd. IA12 still has not received an update yet. And people wonder why FW has a bad reputation rules-wise.

I think this Jab at FW is really unfair, and you know it.

We both know how the Focused Deathray should work, and I honestly would have never even come to interpreting your way, had I not read your view.

And most FW stuff hasn't received a FAQ yet, but the new edition just came out, so I'd cut them a little slack in that regard.

Focussed Death Rays sound really badass, setting aside the potential for exploitation.

I might have to get one.

Out of curiosity, what is the point of giving a 2+ save to an overlord (either on a CCB or a destroyer Lord). My assumption is that it would be to help in close combat and for the D-Lord to be less afraid of challenges. Do you guys find that it is worth the cost? The other place I would consider putting the points is turning one or two squads of warriors in scythes into immortals.

luke1705 wrote:
Out of curiosity, what is the point of giving a 2+ save to an overlord (either on a CCB or a destroyer Lord). My assumption is that it would be to help in close combat and for the D-Lord to be less afraid of challenges. Do you guys find that it is worth the cost? The other place I would consider putting the points is turning one or two squads of warriors in scythes into immortals.

If your plan is to send him in to combat then 2+ and 3++ along with a warscythe are definitely worth the cost. If you are sticking him in a ghost ark then probably its not worth it. In fact, if you are putting an overlord into a ghost ark you probably want Nemesor Zandrekh in that ark.

col_impact wrote:

luke1705 wrote:
Out of curiosity, what is the point of giving a 2+ save to an overlord (either on a CCB or a destroyer Lord). My assumption is that it would be to help in close combat and for the D-Lord to be less afraid of challenges. Do you guys find that it is worth the cost? The other place I would consider putting the points is turning one or two squads of warriors in scythes into immortals.

If your plan is to send him in to combat then 2+ and 3++ along with a warscythe are definitely worth the cost. If you are sticking him in a ghost ark then probably its not worth it. In fact, if you are putting an overlord into a ghost ark you probably want Nemesor Zandrekh in that ark.

Really, the 3++ is not normally required. Usually, even in combat, 2+ and MSS will do the trick. You do need to be a little bit careful with placement to ensure that MSS goes off against the correct model. Don't forget the warscythe makes you S7 and AP2 and you swing at I2. So hopefully you'll do some damage before the other AP2/1 weapons swing.

col_impact wrote:

luke1705 wrote:
Out of curiosity, what is the point of giving a 2+ save to an overlord (either on a CCB or a destroyer Lord). My assumption is that it would be to help in close combat and for the D-Lord to be less afraid of challenges. Do you guys find that it is worth the cost? The other place I would consider putting the points is turning one or two squads of warriors in scythes into immortals.

If your plan is to send him in to combat then 2+ and 3++ along with a warscythe are definitely worth the cost. If you are sticking him in a ghost ark then probably its not worth it. In fact, if you are putting an overlord into a ghost ark you probably want Nemesor Zandrekh in that ark.

Even for a D-Lord hanging with wraiths? Do you guys find that the Lord is often challenged out? My thinking is that he can hang back like a hidden power fist and let the wraiths and their natural 3++ take the hurt while he dishes it out. The CCB would certainly have the 3++ because of the ambiguity in whether it is given over to the barge's AV 13 (my interpretation is that this is the case, as well as my gaming group's interpretation) but I'm not as sure about the 2+. I mean, it's already more expensive than a Land Raider without the 2+. Isn't there something to be said about putting all of your eggs in one basket? That being said, if GW FAQ's the CCB to retain it's independent character status, well then.

Another thought that I'm curious to know what the community consensus is:


Does the GW FAQ removing independent character status form the Daemon chariots cause people to think that GW intends for all chariots to lose their IC status, or does their negligence to include such a mention in the Necron FAQ indicate that GW intends for Necron chariots in particular to retain their independent character status?

I know that there's a lengthy discussion in YMDC about this and I don't intend to start that discussion up again - I'm just curious which direction that singular item pushes people in. I could certainly see a FAQ going either way but don't plan on running Barges as IC until (if ever) it is FAQ'd in the affirmative.

DLords can't take phase shifters.

And re the second point, the reason why it is in the Demon codex is that you can take squadrons of chariots - when you do you can upgrade the Alluress (I think) to a Herald, who can't join a unit of vehicles as an IC. So they had to take it away because it breaks the unit.

Any steps of logic that would require the Alluress to lose IC would be the same steps of logic that would attribute IC to the CCB Overlord.

The strongest RAW argument that can be made is that the CCB Overlord indeed has IC and can join units. See the YMDC thread. A CCB Overlord that can join units may seem broken but in testing it has proven to be only a minor boost. The loss of mobility and LOS is significant at throttling the buffs that having IC would bring.

However, the problem with the CCB Overlord joining units is that it opens up a hole in the game of how you resolve wounds against a CCB Overlord that has joined a unit. Allowing a vehicle to join a unit is previously uncharted territory and the mess of wound allocation fuels a RAI argument that GW did not intend to allow the CCB Overlord to join units or else they would have clarified wound allocation. And because the CCB Overlord is already plenty powerful, people who are playing against Necrons will take whatever rationale they can to keep the CCB Overlord from getting any stronger.

Thus, the question of whether or not a CCB Overlord can join units degenerates into a political argument. Neither side can effectively eradicate enough doubt since GW left things with too many gaping holes. At the end of the day, it's going to come down to what the TO wants to do about it. I think most TOs will shy away from the kind of messy situation that this issue brings up and conservatively not allow it. But possibly some RAW-stickler TOs will allow it.

I suggest people experiment both ways in their games and help dispel the myths of how broken a CCB Overlord joining units is, since a lot of the discourse circulating against allowing the CCB Overlord to join units is dominated by an anxiety over how broken it will be, when in fact, it's not broken.

col_impact, your first statement is incorrect, because there are no squadrons in the Necron codex. But, not starting this again.

The simplest way to resolve is to clearly agree with your opponent how it can be played in your game. If you can't agree, don't play.

MarkCron wrote:
col_impact, your first statement is incorrect, because there are no squadrons in the Necron codex. But, not starting this again.

The simplest way to resolve is to clearly agree with your opponent how it can be played in your game. If you can't agree, don't play.

My first statement is correct. The FAQ actively takes away IC status from the Alluress because otherwise she would have it. Squadrons has nothing to do with it. The absence of a similar kind of line in the Necron FAQ that takes away IC status from the CCB Overlord effectively means that the CCB Overlord has IC status.

col_impact wrote:
Any steps of logic that would require the Alluress to lose IC would be the same steps of logic that would attribute IC to the CCB Overlord.

The strongest RAW argument that can be made is that the CCB Overlord indeed has IC and can join units. See the YMDC thread. A CCB Overlord that can join units may seem broken but in testing it has proven to be only a minor boost. The loss of mobility and LOS is significant at throttling the buffs that having IC would bring.

However, the problem with the CCB Overlord joining units is that it opens up a hole in the game of how you resolve wounds against a CCB Overlord that has joined a unit. Allowing a vehicle to join a unit is previously uncharted territory and the mess of wound allocation fuels a RAI argument that GW did not intend to allow the CCB Overlord to join units or else they would have clarified wound allocation. And because the CCB Overlord is already plenty powerful, people who are playing against Necrons will take whatever rationale they can to keep the CCB Overlord from getting any stronger.

Thus, the question of whether or not a CCB Overlord can join units degenerates into a political argument. Neither side can effectively eradicate enough doubt since GW left things with too many gaping holes. At the end of the day, it's going to come down to what the TO wants to do about it. I think most TOs will shy away from the kind of messy situation that this issue brings up and conservatively not allow it. But possibly some RAW-stickler TOs will allow it.

I suggest people experiment both ways in their games and help dispel the myths of how broken a CCB Overlord joining units is, since a lot of the discourse circulating against allowing the CCB Overlord to join units is dominated by an anxiety over how broken it will be, when in fact, it's not broken.

Ok definitely don't want to start this up again. Out of curiosity, have you played with the barge joining units, presumably wraiths? You say that it's not broken, which is certainly the presumable fear. I do think it's possible (albeit slightly more tedious) to resolve any shooting using the rules for shooting at chariots, but it does seem like a strong combination.

Then again, who knows? Maybe this will be like Daemon summoning, where all the cries of THIS IS CRAZY OP came to rest. Frankly, I think GW has more or less given up on counter-play and is just letting people field whatever they want (i.e. bring 5 imperial knights). Not that they can't be stopped or beaten (same as the CCB with wraiths). I think the best solution is to understand who you're playing against and discuss with your opponent things like this beforehand. Are they playing mono-Khorne? Well maybe you don't need to join that barge to your wraiths. Maybe you need to break out your flayed ones instead (exaggeration naturally, but I do feel for Khorne as it was my first love)

luke1705 wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Any steps of logic that would require the Alluress to lose IC would be the same steps of logic that would attribute IC to the CCB Overlord.

The strongest RAW argument that can be made is that the CCB Overlord indeed has IC and can join units. See the YMDC thread. A CCB Overlord that can join units may seem broken but in testing it has proven to be only a minor boost. The loss of mobility and LOS is significant at throttling the buffs that having IC would bring.

However, the problem with the CCB Overlord joining units is that it opens up a hole in the game of how you resolve wounds against a CCB Overlord that has joined a unit. Allowing a vehicle to join a unit is previously uncharted territory and the mess of wound allocation fuels a RAI argument that GW did not intend to allow the CCB Overlord to join units or else they would have clarified wound allocation. And because the CCB Overlord is already plenty powerful, people who are playing against Necrons will take whatever rationale they can to keep the CCB Overlord from getting any stronger.

Thus, the question of whether or not a CCB Overlord can join units degenerates into a political argument. Neither side can effectively eradicate enough doubt since GW left things with too many gaping holes. At the end of the day, it's going to come down to what the TO wants to do about it. I think most TOs will shy away from the kind of messy situation that this issue brings up and conservatively not allow it. But possibly some RAW-stickler TOs will allow it.

I suggest people experiment both ways in their games and help dispel the myths of how broken a CCB Overlord joining units is, since a lot of the discourse circulating against allowing the CCB Overlord to join units is dominated by an anxiety over how broken it will be, when in fact, it's not broken.

Ok definitely don't want to start this up again. Out of curiosity, have you played with the barge joining units, presumably wraiths? You say that it's not broken, which is certainly the presumable fear. I do think it's possible (albeit slightly more tedious) to resolve any shooting using the rules for shooting at chariots, but it does seem like a strong combination.

Then again, who knows? Maybe this will be like Daemon summoning, where all the cries of THIS IS CRAZY OP came to rest. Frankly, I think GW has more or less given up on counter-play and is just letting people field whatever they want (i.e. bring 5 imperial knights). Not that they can't be stopped or beaten (same as the CCB with wraiths). I think the best solution is to understand who you're playing against and discuss with your opponent things like this beforehand. Are they playing mono-Khorne? Well maybe you don't need to join that barge to your wraiths. Maybe you need to break out your flayed ones instead (exaggeration naturally, but I do feel for Khorne as it was my first love)

In testing joining the barge to a unit of wraiths has only been a slight boost. Keep in mind that there is no LOS mechanic allowed so basically what is happening is that the wraiths are enjoying a shield from small arms fire as if they were passengers inside a rhino and the CCB is being throttled in terms of speed and otherwise not enjoying any additional protection from having the wraiths around. In testing, mobility is a huge factor here. By itself the CCB can close to CC with its juicy target in the space of 1 turn, but when the CCB is taxiing wraiths it adds at least 1 more turn to go into CC. This gives the opponent one more turn to douse the CCB Overlord in shooting attacks and it gives the opponent time to gum up the CCB + wraiths with a sacrificial lamb or otherwise control what the CCB goes into CC with and it also gives the opponent one more turn to use the unit you are aiming to get into CC with. There's a trade-off here. The CCB Overlord loses some definite capabilities if its shuttling wraiths around. So do you want the CCB Overlord to take one more round of heavy arms fire and do one less turn of damage to its target and allow its target to be active for one more turn or do you want to shield the wraiths from small arms fire and deliver them with vehicle level protection into CC? Keep in mind that many armies can handle the mobility level of wraiths easily, but not so easily the mobility level of a fast skimmer.

Also, self-limiting is the fact that a CCB Overlord can't join any other ICs. So it's not like you are running around shielding a bunch of super friends. 6 x wraiths with transdimensional beamers given relentless with a phaeron upgrade to the CCB Overlord is the most powerful unit you could be slinging around and that is pricey and not all that potent.

Another line of play is to join a unit of Tomb Blades to the CCB Overlord and give up none of the very significant mobility in the equation. It's nice, but obviously not that potent, since the CCB Overlord wants to go into CC and the Tomb Blades want to avoid CC.

 Sasori wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

omerakk wrote:
I'm pretty sure it was faq'ed to not work like that last edition. just like how the pistol upgrade for wraiths didn't give them an extra attack.

Of course, now we are in that weird "early new edition" phase where they decide to dump the majority of the previous faq and leave some answered questions in limbo.

The Death Ray was FAQ'd. IA12 still has not received an update yet. And people wonder why FW has a bad reputation rules-wise.

I think this Jab at FW is really unfair, and you know it.

We both know how the Focused Deathray should work, and I honestly would have never even come to interpreting your way, had I not read your view.

And most FW stuff hasn't received a FAQ yet, but the new edition just came out, so I'd cut them a little slack in that regard.

It's the RAW reading. There's more stuff to it, such as Kulakh still be able to take a CCB - or not? And by the C'tan, I hope they fix the Gauss Sentry Pylon. Like, come on guys. Please.

I don't think it's unfair, though. It's been quite a few weeks now that 7th hit and since FW is GW, I do expect a quick FAQ.

 Sigvatr wrote:
--and since FW is GW, I do expect a quick FAQ.

HA!
Good one!

Hope dies last!

I've got a number of Necron battle reports in the works. Let me know which ones you guys want to see first.


Jy2's 7E Necron Battle Reports - From Fun-crons to Double-CAD - Which Do You Want to See First?

Damn, all of those 'Cron ones look interesting.
I voted for #5, but #6 would be a close second.

#6, seems like the most current meta.

I'm looking into getting a Necron Army, the only thing that puts me off is the dated looking warrior models. With that being said, how viable is a Immortal troop based army?

They don't have to be the core of the force, just no warriors.

Eldercaveman wrote:
I'm looking into getting a Necron Army, the only thing that puts me off is the dated looking warrior models. With that being said, how viable is a Immortal troop based army?

They don't have to be the core of the force, just no warriors.

IMO, you'd only want to go full-out Immortals if you were facing alot of AP 4, or if you were facing hordes, the Tesla guns would be good for that.

For facing alot of AV 11 or better Armor, or alot of AP3 or better, I don't think Immortals are worth the upgrade since one Gauss shot is as good as the next, and AP3 kills an Immortal just as easy as it kills a Warrior. YMMV

Eldercaveman wrote:
I'm looking into getting a Necron Army, the only thing that puts me off is the dated looking warrior models. With that being said, how viable is a Immortal troop based army?

They don't have to be the core of the force, just no warriors.

I generally like Immortals better- nothing quite like dropping a squad of Immortals out of a Nightscythe in double tap range and mowing down some unfortunate fools trying to hold an objective.

Warriors are cheaper and synergize with the Ghost Ark, but they're much more vulnerable and pack less of a punch (though they are better at taking HP off of vehicles). Choosing which one to play is generally down to personal preference and what you need for a given strategy (I often use both really).

You could go for a Fall of Orpheus army and take Flayed Ones as your core.

DO NOT BUY THE FLAYED ONE MODELS. There are insanely good tutorials for converted Flayed Ones made from Warriors and Green Stuff.

I'll have a play around on battle scribe and try come up with a list for you to take a look at.

Eldercaveman wrote:
I'm looking into getting a Necron Army, the only thing that puts me off is the dated looking warrior models. With that being said, how viable is a Immortal troop based army?

They don't have to be the core of the force, just no warriors.

Well you lose the Ghost Ark since you can't put immortals in there which kinda sucks because the Ghost Ark is the real deal now.

The other options are shuttling them around in Scythes for an air cavalry list and/or using Veilteks and Obyron to teleport them around. So strictly immortals can be very viable, but a fully optimized list would have a Ghost Ark in it for central board control.

col_impact wrote:

Eldercaveman wrote:
I'm looking into getting a Necron Army, the only thing that puts me off is the dated looking warrior models. With that being said, how viable is a Immortal troop based army?

They don't have to be the core of the force, just no warriors.

Well you lose the Ghost Ark since you can't put immortals in there which kinda sucks because the Ghost Ark is the real deal now.

The other options are shuttling them around in Scythes for an air cavalry list and/or using Veilteks and Obyron to teleport them around. So strictly immortals can be very viable, but a fully optimized list would have a Ghost Ark in it for central board control.

Is there a way to make Wraiths, Annihilation barges and immortals work as the core if the list?

Wraiths and AB always work. If you want to go for Immortals, you should look into Night Scythes or, alternatively, a Veil-Tek.

<deletd...misunderstood earlier post>

 jy2 wrote:

I've got a number of Necron battle reports in the works. Let me know which ones you guys want to see first.


Jy2's 7E Necron Battle Reports - From Fun-crons to Double-CAD - Which Do You Want to See First?

Dang, JY2... you've been busy!

We just had the last 6th edition event in my area, so I expect that we'll be onto 7th.

How good are tomb blades in 7th? Seems like they have some potential use in 7th as very fast remote objective grabbers.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Gloom Prisms don't do much. Offensive psychic powers aren't much of a threat, buffs are where the power's at. And sadly, Gloom Prisms don't do anything against those.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

omerakk wrote:

The only way I see a Doom Scythe Death Ray matching that kind of point per damage output is if you line up some of your own dudes next to the SuperHeavy and sacrifice them in the Death Ray so you ramp up the number of hits. That would be a cool way to do it though.

That's not how the death ray works...

Well, that is indeed how it works. You may hit your own models with it, it is specifically mentioned in the weapon rules for the Focused Death Ray ("friendly or enemy"). Hit 3 of your own models, hit the super heavy and both your unit and the super heavy get 8 S10 AP1 hits. That's bye-bye for the super heavy. And your unit too most likely

Even if you don't hit your own models, just hit a single model other than the super heavy and you are already looking at 4 S10 AP1 hits for the super heavy, giving you a good chance to destroy it as well.

Hit 3 of your guys and you generate 6 hits on your guys and 2 on the SHV. Hits do not transfer like you are claiming.

col_impact wrote:
How good are tomb blades in 7th? Seems like they have some potential use in 7th as very fast remote objective grabbers.

Yep. They do have potential for that. I just recently bought a couple of boxes and have been playing with configurations. I think I'm now leaning towards stock 20pts, in units of 2-3. In this config, they seem to be easy to hide and they can do some damage, plus Jink doesn't affect shooting that much. Not useful for OS contested objectives, but handy for contesting back objectives held by non OS troops.

The other config is to put beamers, but then you need to take vanes because you don't want to Jink, probably also the nebuloscope. Thing is, at this price scarabs are probably more flexible and have more uses.

Fragile wrote:


Hit 3 of your guys and you generate 6 hits on your guys and 2 on the SHV. Hits do not transfer like you are claiming.

That's your house rule then. RAW, it works as described above.

Well, I think my Necron army to be played in RTT's will not change from what I fielded in the 6th edition:
DLord(s), Wraiths, Warriors and Immortals in Night Scythes, Annihilation Barges.
If superheavies are allowed, I'll think about a Trans. C'tan. Fun to play.

MarkCron wrote:

col_impact wrote:
How good are tomb blades in 7th? Seems like they have some potential use in 7th as very fast remote objective grabbers.

Yep. They do have potential for that. I just recently bought a couple of boxes and have been playing with configurations. I think I'm now leaning towards stock 20pts, in units of 2-3. In this config, they seem to be easy to hide and they can do some damage, plus Jink doesn't affect shooting that much. Not useful for OS contested objectives, but handy for contesting back objectives held by non OS troops.

The other config is to put beamers, but then you need to take vanes because you don't want to Jink, probably also the nebuloscope. Thing is, at this price scarabs are probably more flexible and have more uses.

Vanilla seems to be the way to go. At 20 points each they seem like a great deal, especially compared to immortals at 17. You lose Objective Secured and 3+ armor of the immortal but gain twin linked, +1 toughness, 4+ jink, and jetbike(!) mobility all for 3 points. If you have a slot open in fast attack, it seems like a good place to put 40 points to get 2 bikes that can fill a role.

Tomb Blades work best at 3@90 points, with Stealth & Tesla Carbines IMO

Then you have T5 4+/3+ (2+ after flat out IIRC)

that's not bad for a turn 5 Flat Out objective grab, a 2+ cover

 IHateNids wrote:
Tomb Blades work best at 3@90 points, with Stealth & Tesla Carbines IMO

Then you have T5 4+/3+ (2+ after flat out IIRC)

that's not bad for a turn 5 Flat Out objective grab, a 2+ cover

Flating out and Turbo-Boosting don't give +1 to jink saves anymore

 IHateNids wrote:
Tomb Blades work best at 3@90 points, with Stealth & Tesla Carbines IMO

Then you have T5 4+/3+ (2+ after flat out IIRC)

that's not bad for a turn 5 Flat Out objective grab, a 2+ cover

10 points/model for stealth doesn't seem like much until you realize its half the cost of a vanilla one.

Running 4@80 or 5@100 seems better than 3@90. Each additional model you buy nets an extra shot, an extra attack, and an extra wound. 5 models in a unit is probably best to avoid morale checks from losing 1 model.

I guess it comes down to what you want to use them for.
If just objective nabbing, run 'em stock.
If you want to cause trouble, beamers & scopes.

Still pisses me off that the unit cap is 5 models, but you can only buy them 3 at a time.
Here's hoping the adjust it to maximum of 6 in the next codex update?
(spoiler: not gonna happen)

 skoffs wrote:
Still pisses me off that the unit cap is 5 models, but you can only buy them 3 at a time.
Here's hoping the adjust it to maximum of 6 in the next codex update?
(spoiler: not gonna happen)

What's the problem, dude??? Just buy 5 boxes and you're set!

 jasper76 wrote:

 skoffs wrote:
Still pisses me off that the unit cap is 5 models, but you can only buy them 3 at a time.
Here's hoping the adjust it to maximum of 6 in the next codex update?
(spoiler: not gonna happen)

What's the problem, dude??? Just buy 5 boxes and you're set!

It's the hotdog pack buns pack ratio conundrum all over again!

[EDIT]

The real pickle is if you just want a ton of Scarabs...

I'm sure this is widely known, but the big Transcendent C'Tan/Obelisk box comes with a good many scarabs. I've seen an ebayer strip the set of scarabs for sale, but at the time the asking price was pretty laughable.

If you ever buy some Lychguard, the backs of the Praetorians make for some ok conversion materials. Wish I had some picks, but if you take the Praetorian back, you can cut the "rib cage"-looking thing down the middle and get 2 sets of legs. Then take one of those thin spines, and use that as a tail, and it doesn't end up loooking too bad as a kind of scarab, especially if you glue on a regular scarab or 2 to the base. I got 5 scarab bases built this way.

I'm not a fan of the scarab models to begin with. They look more like tiny spaceships than bugs.

The old metal ones are pretty cool by comparison, IMO

On either the metal of plastic scarabs, green stuff molds are really easy to do.

I also recomend some of the quick mold materials. I cast 1 base with piled up scarabs and made several green stuff bases of scarabs, then included 1 actual plastic scarab on each base. That way they aren't a recast model but a scenic base that looks like scarabs with a single scarab model mounted on it.

I'm seconding the casting Scarabs opinion. My wife gladfully helped me cast my scarabs so I could get 12 on each base, making it look like a real swarm

It is easy to do as the underside does not matter too much and just casting one half of the model is rather easy!

 Sigvatr wrote:

Fragile wrote:


Hit 3 of your guys and you generate 6 hits on your guys and 2 on the SHV. Hits do not transfer like you are claiming.

That's your house rule then. RAW, it works as described above.

It is RAW, your simply misunderstanding the rule.

 Sigvatr wrote:
I'm seconding the casting Scarabs opinion. My wife gladfully helped me cast my scarabs so I could get 12 on each base, making it look like a real swarm

It is easy to do as the underside does not matter too much and just casting one half of the model is rather easy!

I am also sick of scarabs breaking off their bases... I'm close to casting three different sizes of swarms, to represent the wounds.

 Anpu-adom wrote:
I'm close to casting three different sizes of swarms, to represent the wounds.

That's a pretty good idea. I think I may just have to steal it myself. I was thinking of casting a few bases anyways and this wouldn't be too much extra work.

Also I just wanted to know the general opinion on Canoptek Spyders? The fabricator claw seems like it should be pretty useful to add extra life to the many vehicles of a Necron Army. I was specifically thinking about running a squad of 2 (both with Fabricator Claws, one with Gloom Prism) hiding behind a Ghost Ark (9 warriors + 1 Harbinger of Storm) and then using a squad of scarabs, which grows thanks to Spyder's Scarab Hive, to tie up any threats that get close.

Or are Annihilation Barges just the obvious choice for the Heavy Support slot?

Spyders are really good support units in 7th. I've been using one HS slot for 2/3 and 2x3 scarabs in FA for a while, as they were also great in 6th (more smash attacks!).

In 6th the combo was really handy, as the scarabs are a great tarpit. In 7th, it is likely to be awesome particularly if mech makes a comeback. The spyders repairing hull points (or immobilised) is a huge benefit for an OS GA.

Scarabs really, really like getting furious charge from Zandhrek. It means that they can reliably stack a ton of wounds onto MEQ at 5 bases of scarabs or higher.

The spyders are still good in combat, especially with AP2 attacks and T6.

I'm very happy to give up the HS slot and a couple of FA slots for the combo.

I suspected that Zandhrek would be good addition to that combination. He always adds some flexibility to an army and could eliminate some abilities that could be pesky.

Fragile wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

Fragile wrote:


Hit 3 of your guys and you generate 6 hits on your guys and 2 on the SHV. Hits do not transfer like you are claiming.

That's your house rule then. RAW, it works as described above.

It is RAW, your simply misunderstanding the rule.

*you're

You're still debating HYWPI, not RAW.

Apparently RAW you can't jink to an attack that doesn't target you.

This is a buff to the Necron Doom Scythe since its death ray doesn't target.

MarkCron wrote:
Spyders are really good support units in 7th. I've been using one HS slot for 2/3 and 2x3 scarabs in FA for a while, as they were also great in 6th (more smash attacks!).

In 6th the combo was really handy, as the scarabs are a great tarpit. In 7th, it is likely to be awesome particularly if mech makes a comeback. The spyders repairing hull points (or immobilised) is a huge benefit for an OS GA.

Scarabs really, really like getting furious charge from Zandhrek. It means that they can reliably stack a ton of wounds onto MEQ at 5 bases of scarabs or higher.

The spyders are still good in combat, especially with AP2 attacks and T6.

I'm very happy to give up the HS slot and a couple of FA slots for the combo.

It depends on what kind of army you're playing.
Spyders are too slow in a fast moving army with Night Scythes and Wraiths.
However, in an with Warriors mounted in Ghost Arks they can be quite useful as counter strike units.

This may be THE killer Necron combo that is BAO legal. Pylon-star!

In 7th edition, artillery lost this line . . .




Join Obyron to a unit of 3 Sentry Pylons (T7, 3W, 3+) equipped with Focused Death Rays (and optionally IWND). 1st turn deepstrike into opponent's backfield. Destroy any formations within range with 3 focused Death Rays. Rinse. Repeat.

Works against invisibility, flyers. Jink offers no protection since the Death Ray is not targeted. The Pylon-star would shred up an Imperial Knight and most super-heavies in a turn. It will absolutely decimate other deathstars.

The pylons follow the artillery rules. They are fearless but with zero CC capability. Obyron can deepstrike them out of combat and in range of new targets every turn.

Cost of unit = 3 x 160 (sentry pylons) + Obyron (160) = 640 (695 with IWND).

Any reason why this doesn't work? Is there some FAQ that shuts this down? I must be missing something. Seems brutal.

If its actually rules legal, Obyron is the linchpin to the combo. You might join another IC to the unit just so that IC can take hits and keep Obyron alive and the deep striking "hit and run" mayhem going. Once Obyron is gone the Pylons can be swamped by any CC.

Ideally suited to assassinate other death stars or other large point constellations, it will under-perform and struggle to earn its points against multiple msu style armies that position themselves correctly to minimize death ray hits to losing 2 models per Death Ray.


This idea was mentioned earlier on this forum but it gained no traction because Artillery in 6th edition couldn't move and shoot in the same turn. See http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/540635.page

IIRC the Focused Death Ray is Heavy 1, so you'd have to attach a Phaeron to the squad to make it work (unless artillery are already Relentless or somesuch).

Attaching a Phaeron is doable through another IC. And, since the line in the 6th edition artillery rules which prohibited moving and shooting has been removed, Phaeron will effectively make the Pylons relentless.

Do note that one of the biggest advantages of this formation is that the Death Ray targetting rules essentially give it split fire as their targetting rules completely override the standard shooting sequence.

Good positioning and an inadvisible enemy force disposition could theoratically result in the decimation of 3 separate force concentrations half a table away from each other simultaneously.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:
Attaching a Phaeron is doable through another IC. And, since the line in the 6th edition artillery rules which prohibited moving and shooting has been removed, Phaeron will effectively make the Pylons relentless.

I'm aware, I just noted that it needed to be done.

 Galorian wrote:
Do note that one of the biggest advantages of this formation is that the Death Ray targetting rules essentially give it split fire as their targetting rules completely override the standard shooting sequence.

Good positioning and an inadvisible enemy force disposition could theoratically result in the decimation of 3 separate force concentrations half a table away from each other simultaneously.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:
Attaching a Phaeron is doable through another IC. And, since the line in the 6th edition artillery rules which prohibited moving and shooting has been removed, Phaeron will effectively make the Pylons relentless.

I'm aware, I just noted that it needed to be done.

Yup, and thanks for spotting that. I am looking for ways that shut down this cheese.

How about this for a list?

HQ:
Obyron
Overlord + Phaeron + Sempiternal Weave + Phase Shifter

Troops:
5 Warriors + Night Scythe
5 Warriors + Night Scythe

Heavy Support:
3 Sentry Pylons + 3 Focused Death Rays + 3 Sepulchral Scarabs
Annihilation Barge
Annihilation Barge

LoW:
Tessaract Vault + Seismic Assault + Sky of Falling Stars

Total: 1,995pts



Just plain evil...

It's extremely expensive, but causes vast destruction among most enemies. With 3 FDR, everything without a good ++ will die 100%.

 Galorian wrote:
How about this for a list?

HQ:
Obyron
Overlord + Phaeron + Sempiternal Weave + Phase Shifter

Troops:
5 Warriors + Night Scythe
5 Warriors + Night Scythe

Heavy Support:
3 Sentry Pylons + 3 Focused Death Rays + 3 Sepulchral Scarabs
Annihilation Barge
Annihilation Barge

LoW:
Tessaract Vault + Seismic Assault + Sky of Falling Stars

Total: 1,995pts



Just plain evil...

Tessaract Vault is not BAO legal, but it's ok. You need more OS units.

 Anpu-adom wrote:
Tessaract Vault is not BAO legal, but it's ok. You need more OS units.

How about this then?

HQ:
Obyron
Overlord + Phaeron + Sempiternal Weave + Phase Shifter
2 Harbingers of Destruction

Troops:
5 Warriors + Night Scythe
5 Warriors + Night Scythe
5 Warriors + Night Scythe
7 Warriors + Ghost Ark
6 Warriors + Ghost Ark

Heavy Support:
3 Sentry Pylons + 3 Focused Death Rays + 3 Sepulchral Scarabs
Annihilation Barge
Annihilation Barge

Total: 1,999pts

Get the Overlord a CCB and let it join the Sentries for the lulz

Looks good.
BAO is going to use 1 standard mission, and then a set of 6 malestrom cards for each mission. You NEED to have mobile-OS units to score those points.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Get the Overlord a CCB and let it join the Sentries for the lulz

You kind of need him for the Sentrystar...

 Anpu-adom wrote:
Looks good.
BAO is going to use 1 standard mission, and then a set of 6 malestrom cards for each mission. You NEED to have mobile-OS units to score those points.

I'd think that 2 OS Ghost Arks and 3 NSs with OS warriors in them should cover that, particularly since your enemy would be far too busy trying to survive the Sentrystar, TL Tesla Destructors and 23 Gauss Flayers pointing his way to be able to focus too much firepower on the Arks in the early game and by the time you start dropping off the Scythes' Warriors on objectives his army is going to be a broken mess of eviscerated squads, units who weren't important enough to warrant the Sentrystar's attention and the odd flyer if it came in late or managed to survive the tesla coming its way.

col_impact wrote:
This may be THE killer Necron combo that is BAO legal. Pylon-star!

In 7th edition, artillery lost this line . . .

Spoiler:

Gun models cannot be fired if they
moved at all in that turn's Movement
phase - they cannot make Snap Shots.

Join Obyron to a unit of 3 Sentry Pylons (T7, 3W, 3+) equipped with Focused Death Rays (and optionally IWND). 1st turn deepstrike into opponent's backfield. Destroy any formations within range with 3 focused Death Rays. Rinse. Repeat.

Works against invisibility, flyers. Jink offers no protection since the Death Ray is not targeted. The Pylon-star would shred up an Imperial Knight and most super-heavies in a turn. It will absolutely decimate other deathstars.

The pylons follow the artillery rules. They are fearless but with zero CC capability. Obyron can deepstrike them out of combat and in range of new targets every turn.

Cost of unit = 3 x 160 (sentry pylons) + Obyron (160) = 640 (695 with IWND).

Any reason why this doesn't work? Is there some FAQ that shuts this down? I must be missing something. Seems brutal.

If its actually rules legal, Obyron is the linchpin to the combo. You might join another IC to the unit just so that IC can take hits and keep Obyron alive and the deep striking "hit and run" mayhem going. Once Obyron is gone the Pylons can be swamped by any CC.

Ideally suited to assassinate other death stars or other large point constellations, it will under-perform and struggle to earn its points against multiple msu style armies that position themselves correctly to minimize death ray hits to losing 2 models per Death Ray.


This idea was mentioned earlier on this forum but it gained no traction because Artillery in 6th edition couldn't move and shoot in the same turn. See http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/540635.page

Are you sure this is legal? Isn't the sentry pylons immobilized (or can't move)?

If you can do that, wouldn't that be like joining an IC to the quad-guns and then teleporting him and the quad-gun from location to location?




Automatically Appended Next Post:


BTW, BAO is going to rule the following in their tournaments. I'm pretty sure Nova will follow suit. That means a lot of the smaller tournaments will do the same.


1. Bargelords CANNOT join other units.

2. The CCB DOES NOT benefit from the rider's phase shifters.

 jy2 wrote:
Are you sure this is legal? Isn't the sentry pylons immobilized (or can't move)?

If you can do that, wouldn't that be like joining an IC to the quad-guns and then teleporting him and the quad-gun from location to location?

Sentry Pylons are an artillery type unit that has the Canoptek Artillery special rule, which states that they may move and fire without need for a crew and are not removed from play due to the lack of one (duh).

I don't see anything here that would prevent an IC from joining this unit.

If that's the case, then that is actually a pretty darn good strategy.

 jy2 wrote:

If that's the case, then that is actually a pretty darn good strategy.

You'd also want to place the Phaeron Overlord between the pylons and the biggest return-fire threat on the board to use him as a 3W Sv2+/3++ shield for the majority toughness 7 unit, next turn have Obyron take up a second flank (switch them around to keep the 3++ on the side where your enemy has AP2 shooting). With an effective range of 24+3d6" you probably won't have to deepstrike this squad more than once or twice during a game unless you have a CC beatstick squad coming your way you can't kill reliably, so losing those two won't be that big a deal (even "immobilized" the squad will still basically dominate half the table and will have already inflicted its alpha strike, so at worst you'll have to use the rest of your army to perform mop up duty and hold objective under their protective cover of stupendous firepower).

You risk handing out Slay the Warlord this way, but taking down 3 T7 2+/3++ wounds is no mean feat so I'd say it's worth the risk.

 Galorian wrote:
How about this then?

HQ:
Obyron
Overlord + Phaeron + Sempiternal Weave + Phase Shifter
2 Harbingers of Destruction

Troops:
5 Warriors + Night Scythe
5 Warriors + Night Scythe
5 Warriors + Night Scythe
7 Warriors + Ghost Ark
6 Warriors + Ghost Ark

Heavy Support:
3 Sentry Pylons + 3 Focused Death Rays + 3 Sepulchral Scarabs
Annihilation Barge
Annihilation Barge

Total: 1,999pts

Well, what if we bring it in line with your average tournament (1850).
And if we're going for maximum Maelstrom points, switch out those Destruct-teks for a Veil-tek (so you can get on those objectives, anywhere on the table, from turn 1).

HQ:
Obyron
Overlord + Phaeron + Sempiternal Weave + Phase Shifter
1 Veil-tek

Troops:
5 Warriors (Veil-tek goes here)
5 Warriors + Night Scythe
5 Warriors + Night Scythe
5 Warriors + Ghost Ark
5 Warriors + Ghost Ark

Heavy Support:
3 Sentry Pylons + 3 Focused Death Rays + 3 Sepulchral Scarabs
Annihilation Barge
Annihilation Barge

That's 1850 exactly... but it feels like it needs work.
(would dropping one Ghost Ark Warrior unit to beef up the other one and change the foot Warriors to Immortals be a bad idea?)

 skoffs wrote:
Well, what if we bring it in line with your average tournament (1850).
And if we're going for maximum Maelstrom points, switch out those Destruct-teks for a Veil-tek (so you can get on those objectives, anywhere on the table, from turn 1).

HQ:
Obyron
Overlord + Phaeron + Sempiternal Weave + Phase Shifter
1 Veil-tek

Troops:
5 Warriors (Veil-tek goes here)
5 Warriors + Night Scythe
5 Warriors + Night Scythe
5 Warriors + Ghost Ark
5 Warriors + Ghost Ark

Heavy Support:
3 Sentry Pylons + 3 Focused Death Rays + 3 Sepulchral Scarabs
Annihilation Barge
Annihilation Barge

That's 1850 exactly... but it feels like it needs work.
(would dropping one Ghost Ark Warrior unit to beef up the other one and change the foot Warriors to Immortals be a bad idea?)

I'd drop the Veiltek and the Sepulchral Scarabs to free up enough points to bring the 3rd NS back.

5 warriors with a Veiltek are far too easy to kill and DS makes them unreliable to boot, as there's a fair chance you won't land them close enough to grab the objective (not to mention mishaps), in which case they'd probably die before getting to their next turn.

The way this list works is by starting the game with your OS guys safe and sound in reserves or inside OS Ghost Arks (which should start out holding "safe" objectives and minimizing exposure to enemy AT fire) while your Sentrystar deepstrikes to midfield within 24" of the juiciest target (and as many secondary targets and objectives as possible) and nukes the enemy to kingdom come and your Barges pick up the slack with survivors and other "unworthy" targets as well as handle AA duty if applicable.

That's turn 1.

Turn 2 should see your Scythes start coming in to assist the Barges and drop warriors off on objectives. The enemy should be hurting bad and running for cover at this point so your Ghost Arks can drop their guys behind to hold your backfield objectives and flat out to grab new ones where you feel that 5 warrior units won't be able to hold. Sentrystar keeps nuking, TL TDs clear the skies and mop up secondary threats.

I sincerely doubt most armies would be able to take the heat for long- early on it should be fairly easy to line up an average of at least 5 models under each FDR line, which would net you a stupendous ~30 S10 AP1 HITS in a single shooting phase. There aren't too many armies who can survive that kind of punishment without crumbling, even ones that do possess decent invul saves.

Your only weaknesses would be armies of elite MCs and/or GMCs with lots of wounds (Wraithknights and Riptides would have a decent chance of surviving a turn of getting focus fired on by the Sentrystar, though the Barges should be able to pick off the last wound, a T C'tan would take an average 4.5 turns of the same), flyer spam lists that are too much for your TL TDs to handle and rerollable 2++ save shenanigans, but what else is new?

 Galorian wrote:
Your only weaknesses would be armies of elite MCs and/or GMCs with lots of wounds (Wraithknights and Riptides would have a decent chance of surviving a turn of getting focus fired on by the Sentrystar, though the Barges should be able to pick off the last wound, a T C'tan would take an average 4.5 turns of the same), flyer spam lists that are too much for your TL TDs to handle and rerollable 2++ save shenanigans, but what else is new?

AFAIK, Death Rays will hit flyers just as easily as ground troops, meaning a flyer-spam list would be easy to handle. However, there is some justification for the beam subtype not being able to hit Zooming flyers and FMCs when it is discussed in terms of psychic powers (BRB p. 28). IA12 and the Necron codex make no distinction between flyers and non-flyers.

The real danger comes from lists that can precision shot Obyron with focused witchfire or other shenanigans, since once he goes down, then you lose a lot of points once the Sentry-star gets hit by even the lowliest of CC. Lose Obyron early and lose the game.


Jy2, it's really too bad about the CCB Overlord ruled as not being allowed to join units by BAO since in testing it has proven to be anything but OP. The loss of mobility and the loss of LOS and other IC being unable to join the unit are major balancing factors. I am sure if you tested it correctly -- without LOS -- you would come to a similar finding. I am sure Reecius relied a lot on your opinion with regards to the issue, so it's too bad you didn't get to test it more accurately with LOS correctly handled. LOS is precisely what would make it OP and that is explicitly not allowed.

It's odd since there are basically 2 chariots in the game right now and GW went out of there way to clarify in a FAQ that the Chaos Demon chariot rider loses his IC and made no such mention in the Necron FAQ. I think the CCB Overlord being allowed to join units falls into the same camp as Demon Farm. People's initial reactions are OMG OP!! and then in actual reality and after dispassionate testing it proves to not be OP.

col_impact wrote:

Jy2, it's really too bad about the CCB Overlord ruled as not being allowed to join units by BAO since in testing it has proven to be anything but OP. The loss of mobility and the loss of LOS and other IC being unable to join the unit are major balancing factors. I am sure if you tested it correctly -- without LOS -- you would come to a similar finding. I am sure Reecius relied a lot on your opinion with regards to the issue, so it's too bad you didn't get to test it more accurately with LOS correctly handled. LOS is precisely what would make it OP and that is explicitly not allowed.

It's odd since there are basically 2 chariots in the game right now and GW went out of there way to clarify in a FAQ that the Chaos Demon chariot rider loses his IC and made no such mention in the Necron FAQ. I think the CCB Overlord being allowed to join units falls into the same camp as Demon Farm. People's initial reactions are OMG OP!! and then in actual reality and after dispassionate testing it proves to not be OP.

Honestly, as a Necron player, I wouldn't mind it if tournaments ruled the bargelord as being able to join other units and if barges get the same 3++ saves as their lords. However, I tend to look at rules issues from the perspective of the entire 40K community as a whole and not just as a Necron player. Necrons are already a very, very good, top-tier army even without these 2 rules issues. Giving them the benefits of the rulings will further serve to alienate the rest of the player base from us Necron players. I don't really want Necrons to be the next "Eldar".

Moreover, I tend to be more conservative in my rules interpretations. If there is some ambiguity, I tend to go with the interpretations that give the least advantage unless there is strong evidence otherwise. Going more extreme in the interpretations will tend to polarize the community as it oftentimes make for unfun games for your opponents if they have to play against this "combo". We are already bleeding 40K players left and right into other hobbies because of the very loose rules in the game that allow for extreme builds. Taking the more conservative route in regards to the rules will usually lead to funner games for players in general as they are not going up against something that they literally have no way of dealing with.

However, if the majority of the 40K players believe that it should be played the more OP way, than I am fine with that also. I am both a leader and a follower in the community.

 jy2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Jy2, it's really too bad about the CCB Overlord ruled as not being allowed to join units by BAO since in testing it has proven to be anything but OP. The loss of mobility and the loss of LOS and other IC being unable to join the unit are major balancing factors. I am sure if you tested it correctly -- without LOS -- you would come to a similar finding. I am sure Reecius relied a lot on your opinion with regards to the issue, so it's too bad you didn't get to test it more accurately with LOS correctly handled. LOS is precisely what would make it OP and that is explicitly not allowed.

It's odd since there are basically 2 chariots in the game right now and GW went out of there way to clarify in a FAQ that the Chaos Demon chariot rider loses his IC and made no such mention in the Necron FAQ. I think the CCB Overlord being allowed to join units falls into the same camp as Demon Farm. People's initial reactions are OMG OP!! and then in actual reality and after dispassionate testing it proves to not be OP.

Honestly, as a Necron player, I wouldn't mind it if tournaments ruled the bargelord as being able to join other units and if barges get the same 3++ saves as their lords. However, I tend to look at rules issues from the perspective of the entire 40K community as a whole and not just as a Necron player. Necrons are already a very, very good, top-tier army even without these 2 rules issues. Giving them the benefits of the rulings will further serve to alienate the rest of the player base from us Necron players. I don't really want Necrons to be the next "Eldar".

Moreover, I tend to be more conservative in my rules interpretations. If there is some ambiguity, I tend to go with the interpretations that give the least advantage unless there is strong evidence otherwise. Going more extreme in the interpretations will tend to polarize the community as it oftentimes make for unfun games for your opponents if they have to play against this "combo". We are already bleeding 40K players left and right into other hobbies because of the very loose rules in the game that allow for extreme builds. Taking the more conservative route in regards to the rules will usually lead to funner games for players in general as they are not going up against something that they literally have no way of dealing with.

However, if the majority of the 40K players believe that it should be played the more OP way, than I am fine with that also. I am both a leader and a follower in the community.

Ironically, the CCB Overlord joining a unit of wraiths would not be the next OP deathstar build that people feared. It just doesn't wind up being OP in actual practice. But the Sentry-star sure looks like it could be!

col_impact wrote:

 jy2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Jy2, it's really too bad about the CCB Overlord ruled as not being allowed to join units by BAO since in testing it has proven to be anything but OP. The loss of mobility and the loss of LOS and other IC being unable to join the unit are major balancing factors. I am sure if you tested it correctly -- without LOS -- you would come to a similar finding. I am sure Reecius relied a lot on your opinion with regards to the issue, so it's too bad you didn't get to test it more accurately with LOS correctly handled. LOS is precisely what would make it OP and that is explicitly not allowed.

It's odd since there are basically 2 chariots in the game right now and GW went out of there way to clarify in a FAQ that the Chaos Demon chariot rider loses his IC and made no such mention in the Necron FAQ. I think the CCB Overlord being allowed to join units falls into the same camp as Demon Farm. People's initial reactions are OMG OP!! and then in actual reality and after dispassionate testing it proves to not be OP.

Honestly, as a Necron player, I wouldn't mind it if tournaments ruled the bargelord as being able to join other units and if barges get the same 3++ saves as their lords. However, I tend to look at rules issues from the perspective of the entire 40K community as a whole and not just as a Necron player. Necrons are already a very, very good, top-tier army even without these 2 rules issues. Giving them the benefits of the rulings will further serve to alienate the rest of the player base from us Necron players. I don't really want Necrons to be the next "Eldar".

Moreover, I tend to be more conservative in my rules interpretations. If there is some ambiguity, I tend to go with the interpretations that give the least advantage unless there is strong evidence otherwise. Going more extreme in the interpretations will tend to polarize the community as it oftentimes make for unfun games for your opponents if they have to play against this "combo". We are already bleeding 40K players left and right into other hobbies because of the very loose rules in the game that allow for extreme builds. Taking the more conservative route in regards to the rules will usually lead to funner games for players in general as they are not going up against something that they literally have no way of dealing with.

However, if the majority of the 40K players believe that it should be played the more OP way, than I am fine with that also. I am both a leader and a follower in the community.

Ironically, the CCB Overlord joining a unit of wraiths would not be the next OP deathstar build that people feared, but the Sentry-star sure looks like it could be.

And by extension of one of the rules interpretation, then you can join the bargelord to the sentry-star, thereby making an extremely nasty deathstar even nastier!

 jy2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 jy2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Jy2, it's really too bad about the CCB Overlord ruled as not being allowed to join units by BAO since in testing it has proven to be anything but OP. The loss of mobility and the loss of LOS and other IC being unable to join the unit are major balancing factors. I am sure if you tested it correctly -- without LOS -- you would come to a similar finding. I am sure Reecius relied a lot on your opinion with regards to the issue, so it's too bad you didn't get to test it more accurately with LOS correctly handled. LOS is precisely what would make it OP and that is explicitly not allowed.

It's odd since there are basically 2 chariots in the game right now and GW went out of there way to clarify in a FAQ that the Chaos Demon chariot rider loses his IC and made no such mention in the Necron FAQ. I think the CCB Overlord being allowed to join units falls into the same camp as Demon Farm. People's initial reactions are OMG OP!! and then in actual reality and after dispassionate testing it proves to not be OP.

Honestly, as a Necron player, I wouldn't mind it if tournaments ruled the bargelord as being able to join other units and if barges get the same 3++ saves as their lords. However, I tend to look at rules issues from the perspective of the entire 40K community as a whole and not just as a Necron player. Necrons are already a very, very good, top-tier army even without these 2 rules issues. Giving them the benefits of the rulings will further serve to alienate the rest of the player base from us Necron players. I don't really want Necrons to be the next "Eldar".

Moreover, I tend to be more conservative in my rules interpretations. If there is some ambiguity, I tend to go with the interpretations that give the least advantage unless there is strong evidence otherwise. Going more extreme in the interpretations will tend to polarize the community as it oftentimes make for unfun games for your opponents if they have to play against this "combo". We are already bleeding 40K players left and right into other hobbies because of the very loose rules in the game that allow for extreme builds. Taking the more conservative route in regards to the rules will usually lead to funner games for players in general as they are not going up against something that they literally have no way of dealing with.

However, if the majority of the 40K players believe that it should be played the more OP way, than I am fine with that also. I am both a leader and a follower in the community.

Ironically, the CCB Overlord joining a unit of wraiths would not be the next OP deathstar build that people feared, but the Sentry-star sure looks like it could be.

And by extension of one of the rules interpretation, then you can join the bargelord to the sentry-star, thereby making an extremely nasty deathstar even nastier!

Here's the thing. You can't. ICs cannot join vehicles, which the CCB Overlord is. So you can't add any IC to the unit that the CCB Overlord joins. That's one of the things that keeps the CCB Overlord joining units in check and balanced and self-limiting. I have mentioned this several times. It's frustrating that it's not sinking in to your opinion. It would be nice if you actually did a full examination of the repercussions of a CCB Overlord joining units, since your opinion is so influential on people like Reecius.

Join Obyron first, then let the CCB join?

 Sigvatr wrote:
Join Obyron first, then let the CCB join?

Yes... if you go the order of operations approach.

Designate Unit A
Obyron joins unit A... no vehicles, so no problem
CCBLord joins unit A... there is no text requiring Obyron to leave the unit, just that he can't join after the CCBLord.

But fundamentally, there's a problem. The BRB doesn't tell us if IC's joining units follows orders of operation or if they are simultaneous.

JY2, I agree with the philosophy you expound. Interpret rules as conservatively as possible until it is clear to do otherwise.

col_impact wrote:

 Galorian wrote:
Your only weaknesses would be armies of elite MCs and/or GMCs with lots of wounds (Wraithknights and Riptides would have a decent chance of surviving a turn of getting focus fired on by the Sentrystar, though the Barges should be able to pick off the last wound, a T C'tan would take an average 4.5 turns of the same), flyer spam lists that are too much for your TL TDs to handle and rerollable 2++ save shenanigans, but what else is new?

AFAIK, Death Rays will hit flyers just as easily as ground troops, meaning a flyer-spam list would be easy to handle. However, there is some justification for the beam subtype not being able to hit Zooming flyers and FMCs when it is discussed in terms of psychic powers (BRB p. 28). IA12 and the Necron codex make no distinction between flyers and non-flyers.

The real danger comes from lists that can precision shot Obyron with focused witchfire or other shenanigans, since once he goes down, then you lose a lot of points once the Sentry-star gets hit by even the lowliest of CC. Lose Obyron early and lose the game.

I'm pretty sure the Death Ray was FAQd to not work against flyers. As for sniping Obyron, good f**king luck- he's a 3W Sv2+ model hiding in the back of a majority T7 unit that starts the game hidden in the deepest darkest hole you can find in your deployment zone and deepstrikes into position the moment it hits its first movement phase, after which point the damage is done and taking out the mobility enabling ICs will be nothing more than a stopgap measure that leaves the Pylon squad dominating half the board while the rest of your super mobile army has a field day with the objectives your opponent can't reach due to the ~36" radius death zone in the middle of the board.

 Anpu-adom wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Join Obyron first, then let the CCB join?

Yes... if you go the order of operations approach.

Designate Unit A
Obyron joins unit A... no vehicles, so no problem
CCBLord joins unit A... there is no text requiring Obyron to leave the unit, just that he can't join after the CCBLord.

But fundamentally, there's a problem. The BRB doesn't tell us if IC's joining units follows orders of operation or if they are simultaneous.

JY2, I agree with the philosophy you expound. Interpret rules as conservatively as possible until it is clear to do otherwise.

An order of operations argument is clearly rules lawyering at it's worst since it brings us into this silly arbitrary state where it matters who joins first and defeats the rule in the first place. Obviously, ICs can't (be) join(ed to) vehicles. So if the CCB Overlord joins a unit with an IC in it, the joining is prevented outright to prevent the illegal state. A fundamentalist reading of the rules might support an order of operations interpretation, but not a commonsensical reading.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galorian wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Galorian wrote:
Your only weaknesses would be armies of elite MCs and/or GMCs with lots of wounds (Wraithknights and Riptides would have a decent chance of surviving a turn of getting focus fired on by the Sentrystar, though the Barges should be able to pick off the last wound, a T C'tan would take an average 4.5 turns of the same), flyer spam lists that are too much for your TL TDs to handle and rerollable 2++ save shenanigans, but what else is new?

AFAIK, Death Rays will hit flyers just as easily as ground troops, meaning a flyer-spam list would be easy to handle. However, there is some justification for the beam subtype not being able to hit Zooming flyers and FMCs when it is discussed in terms of psychic powers (BRB p. 28). IA12 and the Necron codex make no distinction between flyers and non-flyers.

The real danger comes from lists that can precision shot Obyron with focused witchfire or other shenanigans, since once he goes down, then you lose a lot of points once the Sentry-star gets hit by even the lowliest of CC. Lose Obyron early and lose the game.

I'm pretty sure the Death Ray was FAQd to not work against flyers. As for sniping Obyron, good f**king luck- he's a 3W Sv2+ model hiding in the back of a majority T7 unit that starts the game hidden in the deepest darkest hole you can find in your deployment zone and deepstrikes into position the moment it hits its first movement phase, after which point the damage is done and taking out the mobility enabling ICs will be nothing more than a stopgap measure that leaves the Pylon squad dominating half the board while the rest of your super mobile army has a field day with the objectives your opponent can't reach due to the ~36" radius death zone in the middle of the board.

I found the line in the penultimate April 2013 Necron FAQ but not the current one. Man GW is sloppy. I guess that means that the Death Ray cannot hit zooming flyers, etc.

Did we ever figure out whether the Sentry Pylons would NEED to have a Phaeron with them to be able to fire the same turn Obyron Ghostwalks them?
(I thought they were able to fire after deep striking normally, why would it be different this way instead)

col_impact wrote:

 Anpu-adom wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Join Obyron first, then let the CCB join?

Yes... if you go the order of operations approach.

Designate Unit A
Obyron joins unit A... no vehicles, so no problem
CCBLord joins unit A... there is no text requiring Obyron to leave the unit, just that he can't join after the CCBLord.

But fundamentally, there's a problem. The BRB doesn't tell us if IC's joining units follows orders of operation or if they are simultaneous.

JY2, I agree with the philosophy you expound. Interpret rules as conservatively as possible until it is clear to do otherwise.

An order of operations argument is clearly rules lawyering at it's worst since it brings us into this silly arbitrary state where it matters who joins first and defeats the rule in the first place. Obviously, ICs can't (be) join(ed to) vehicles. So if the CCB Overlord joins a unit with an IC in it, the joining is prevented outright to prevent the illegal state. A fundamentalist reading of the rules might support an order of operations interpretation, but not a commonsensical reading....

Col-Impact, a friendly reminder... saying that someone's argument is "silly" and "arbitrary" doesn't make your argument any better. You need a better evidence than asserting that something is "a fundamentalist reading" or "common sense". Just be prepared to back your argument with more substance than that if you are going to play in the YMTC section of the forums.

How about an example that isn't arbitrary? Obyron joins and deploys with Unit A at the start of the game. During the Necron player's first movement phase, the CCBLord moves within 2" and is declared to be a part of the unit. In this instance, the joining of the IC's is clearly not simultaneous, and there is nothing saying that the IC's must leave and rejoin the unit at the end of the movement phase. There is nothing in the rules specifically disallowing this (AND THIS IS A PROBLEM).

BTW, BAO is going to rule the following in their tournaments. I'm pretty sure Nova will follow suit. That means a lot of the smaller tournaments will do the same.


1. Bargelords CANNOT join other units.

2. The CCB DOES NOT benefit from the rider's phase shifters.

I'm really surprised about the 3++ ruling. I figured at the Pricepoint you are paying for the barge, and that it is pretty legal per raw, that it would be fine. Interesting to note though!

 Anpu-adom wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Anpu-adom wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Join Obyron first, then let the CCB join?

Yes... if you go the order of operations approach.

Designate Unit A
Obyron joins unit A... no vehicles, so no problem
CCBLord joins unit A... there is no text requiring Obyron to leave the unit, just that he can't join after the CCBLord.

But fundamentally, there's a problem. The BRB doesn't tell us if IC's joining units follows orders of operation or if they are simultaneous.

JY2, I agree with the philosophy you expound. Interpret rules as conservatively as possible until it is clear to do otherwise.

An order of operations argument is clearly rules lawyering at it's worst since it brings us into this silly arbitrary state where it matters who joins first and defeats the rule in the first place. Obviously, ICs can't (be) join(ed to) vehicles. So if the CCB Overlord joins a unit with an IC in it, the joining is prevented outright to prevent the illegal state. A fundamentalist reading of the rules might support an order of operations interpretation, but not a commonsensical reading....

Col-Impact, a friendly reminder... saying that someone's argument is "silly" and "arbitrary" doesn't make your argument any better. You need a better evidence than asserting that something is "a fundamentalist reading" or "common sense". Just be prepared to back your argument with more substance than that if you are going to play in the YMTC section of the forums.

How about an example that isn't arbitrary? Obyron joins and deploys with Unit A at the start of the game. During the Necron player's first movement phase, the CCBLord moves within 2" and is declared to be a part of the unit. In this instance, the joining of the IC's is clearly not simultaneous, and there is nothing saying that the IC's must leave and rejoin the unit at the end of the movement phase. There is nothing in the rules specifically disallowing this (AND THIS IS A PROBLEM).

Sorry, I did not mean to imply that anyone's argument was silly only that if we follow a literalistic interpretation of the rules that we wind up in a silly place that violates our common sense of what the rule writers are intending. The problem stems from GW writing their rules sloppily and imprecisely so they don't hold up to a literalistic interpretation. When the rules say that an IC can not join a unit of vehicles they clearly intend to restrict certain combinations and not mandate some odd awkward arbitrary order of joining where a combination is okay if sequenced a certain way (Ovesa joins last) and not okay if sequenced a different way (Ovesa joins first). The confusion stems from interpreting join as instantenous or continual. GW didn't realize that they needed to be more precise in their language and indicate that it is continually checked.

E.g. GW should have included what I put in the parentheses below to avoid confusion

ICs can't (be) join(ed to) vehicles

Basically, if it were allowed by following some special order of operations, it would be taking advantage of a slip-up in the precision of their language. Sure, it's a problem that we need to patch GW's holes for them, but we need to do it if we want a decent set of rules.

Regarding the CCB not being able to use the 3++:
I'm assuming that's just in CC, right?
(as shooting can surely still just allocate to the Overlord if its controller wants)

 skoffs wrote:
Regarding the CCB not being able to use the 3++:
I'm assuming that's just in CC, right?
(as shooting can surely still just allocate to the Overlord if its controller wants)

Right, its a pity that the enemy can make the decision in cc.
Thus you have to choose wisely what to charge.

 skoffs wrote:
Regarding the CCB not being able to use the 3++:
I'm assuming that's just in CC, right?
(as shooting can surely still just allocate to the Overlord if its controller wants)

Blasts automatically hit the Barge, and S10 shots are something you'd probably want to avoid taking on your OL due to ID.

Just to clear it up: I don't think that the CCB joining a unit is RAI and we do not allow it to join any units and neither save is transferred from the Rider to the Chariot.

I just wanted to state that RAW, it is possible as only "joining" is excplicitely disallowed and therefore, it would be possible to first let Obyron join the unit of Sentry Pylons and then let the CCB. It's legal because as soon as Obyron joins, he no longer is a single model, independent character unit, he is part of the unit for all purposes.

Can we get some clarification on whether the Sentry Pylons can normally fire after they deepstrike on their own?

 skoffs wrote:
Can we get some clarification on whether the Sentry Pylons can normally fire after they deepstrike on their own?

The weapon type is Heavy so without a Phaeron making them Relentless they'd only be able to snapfire after deepstriking, and the Death Ray cannot be snap fired.

 Galorian wrote:

 skoffs wrote:
Can we get some clarification on whether the Sentry Pylons can normally fire after they deepstrike on their own?

The weapon type is Heavy so without a Phaeron making them Relentless they'd only be able to snapfire after deepstriking, and the Death Ray cannot be snap fired.

Precisely.

Ah... well, looks like there's no way out of attaching a Phaeron to the Pyl-O-Star.

I'd be careful with it though.

On the one hand, it is extremely expensive...yet on the other hand, it bears extreme destructive power. It bypasses a lot of defensive abilities such as Jink or Invisibility and everything without a good ++ will be absolutely slaughtered.

Against an unprepared, average enemy, you will end the game by the end of turn 1 or turn 2 - I am not kidding you. The first time I used a full unit of FDR Sentry Pylons, against a SM player, I popped up a transport to get to the juicy infantry, then shot the first beam and destroyed 2 vehicles and a full squad of Space Marines with 14 S10 AP1 hits each. It's ridiculous. A FDR Sentry Pylon is about the deadliest weapon a Necron army has to offer. List-tailoring enemies can put an end to the madness, but if they don't know what they're up against, they're in for a no-fun match.

Was that result with the RAW (pass over 2 models in unit A, 3 models in unit B, with one line = 10 hits for both units)
or the RAI (pass over 2 models in unit A, 3 models in unit B, with one line = unit A gets 4 hits, unit B 6 hits)
style of useage?

Oh, RAW.

I'm using the Gauss variants again as we agreed on them being able to shoot at all targets with full BS.

 skoffs wrote:
Ah... well, looks like there's no way out of attaching a Phaeron to the Pyl-O-Star.

A normal overlord with phaeron can join the Pylon-star. He just can't be a CCB overlord.

edit: Oops, gratuitous reply. Read your line to be saying "there's no way of" instead of "there's no way out of"


On the plus side, you probably want that overlord in there anyway, since the Pylon's can't LOS for Obyron while the Phaeron could. The fun ends basically once Obyron goes down.

col_impact wrote:

Here's the thing. You can't. ICs cannot join vehicles, which the CCB Overlord is. So you can't add any IC to the unit that the CCB Overlord joins. That's one of the things that keeps the CCB Overlord joining units in check and balanced and self-limiting. I have mentioned this several times. It's frustrating that it's not sinking in to your opinion. It would be nice if you actually did a full examination of the repercussions of a CCB Overlord joining units, since your opinion is so influential on people like Reecius.

This reminds me of the whole Shrike+infiltrating unit+another IC (or the Snikrot+unit+warboss) rules debacle back in 5th. I believe GW FAQ'd the Shrike issue as legal, but GW is known for flip-flopping their rules (and even their FAQ's) between editions.

In any case, yes, I agree with you on this. It would also be the more conservative ruling that the 2 cannot join the same unit.

BTW, I am not the sole influence on Reece and his decision-making. While it's true we both tend to see things from a similar perspective, Reece actually consorts with a lot of other TO's (including Mike Brandt of Nova) and discuss with them a lot of the rules issues to try to maintain some uniformity between tournaments. I am but 1 voice. Reece listens to a lot of voices as well as his own personal philosophy.

There are a number of criterias TO's tend to look at when making FAQ's for their tournaments. While they try to follow as closely to GW RAW as they can, sometimes they do deviate for the following reasons:

1. What is fun for their attendees. Sometimes, they will rule against something if they think it will make it an unpleasant unexperience for their attendees. Examples include the re-rollable 2+ saves and now bargelords being able to join other units. Or allowing Forgeworld and limited Lords of War units.

2. Practicality. Sometimes, they will make FAQ's with the intent of making the game run more smoothly. Examples include flyers having a 180 degree vertical firing arc, as most of the complaints that came up in their tournaments (and other's tournaments) was the very subjective debate on whether flyers had LOS to particular units. Also, another example was back in 6th where they ruled a unit that is scoring is also a denial unit because that argument came up all the time and made for some very mad players when they found out that their units couldn't contest and lose the game because of it.

3. What they feel is RAI (rules-as-intended). Example here would be allowing an IC to attach to an infiltrating unit (or letting a unit infiltrate with an IC who has that rule). Another example would be to not allow a vehicle unit to join other units.

 jy2 wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Here's the thing. You can't. ICs cannot join vehicles, which the CCB Overlord is. So you can't add any IC to the unit that the CCB Overlord joins. That's one of the things that keeps the CCB Overlord joining units in check and balanced and self-limiting. I have mentioned this several times. It's frustrating that it's not sinking in to your opinion. It would be nice if you actually did a full examination of the repercussions of a CCB Overlord joining units, since your opinion is so influential on people like Reecius.

This reminds me of the whole Shrike+infiltrating unit+another IC (or the Snikrot+unit+warboss) rules debacle back in 5th. I believe GW FAQ'd the Shrike issue as legal, but GW is known for flip-flopping their rules (and even their FAQ's) between editions.

In any case, yes, I agree with you on this. It would also be the more conservative ruling that the 2 cannot join the same unit.

BTW, I am not the sole influence on Reece and his decision-making. While it's true we both tend to see things from a similar perspective, Reece actually consorts with a lot of other TO's (including Mike Brandt of Nova) and discuss with them a lot of the rules issues to try to maintain some uniformity between tournaments. I am but 1 voice. Reece listens to a lot of voices as well as his own personal philosophy.

There are a number of criterias TO's tend to look at when making FAQ's for their tournaments. While they try to follow as closely to GW RAW as they can, sometimes they do deviate for the following reasons:

1. What is fun for their attendees. Sometimes, they will rule against something if they think it will make it an unpleasant unexperience for their attendees. Examples include the re-rollable 2+ saves and now bargelords being able to join other units. Or allowing Forgeworld and limited Lords of War units.

2. Practicality. Sometimes, they will make FAQ's with the intent of making the game run more smoothly. Examples include flyers having a 180 degree vertical firing arc, as most of the complaints that came up in their tournaments (and other's tournaments) was the very subjective debate on whether flyers had LOS to particular units. Also, another example was back in 6th where they ruled a unit that is scoring is also a denial unit because that argument came up all the time and made for some very mad players when they found out that their units couldn't contest and lose the game because of it.

3. What they feel is RAI (rules-as-intended). Example here would be allowing an IC to attach to an infiltrating unit (or letting a unit infiltrate with an IC who has that rule). Another example would be to not allow a vehicle unit to join other units.

Thank you for well-formulated reply. For the record, I don't disagree with a TO taking a conservative approach to issues like these. The only thing I am taking people to task on is on their opinion of if being "OMG OP!!" if the CCB Overlord is allowed to join units because when you actually test it out and examine it and how it interacts with the other rules, a CCB Overlord joining a unit is not OP at all. If people want to disallow it for other reasons then fine. The whole wound allocation thing opens up an issue that would be tricky at the tournament level.

 Galorian wrote:

 jy2 wrote:

If that's the case, then that is actually a pretty darn good strategy.

You'd also want to place the Phaeron Overlord between the pylons and the biggest return-fire threat on the board to use him as a 3W Sv2+/3++ shield for the majority toughness 7 unit, next turn have Obyron take up a second flank (switch them around to keep the 3++ on the side where your enemy has AP2 shooting). With an effective range of 24+3d6" you probably won't have to deepstrike this squad more than once or twice during a game unless you have a CC beatstick squad coming your way you can't kill reliably, so losing those two won't be that big a deal (even "immobilized" the squad will still basically dominate half the table and will have already inflicted its alpha strike, so at worst you'll have to use the rest of your army to perform mop up duty and hold objective under their protective cover of stupendous firepower).

You risk handing out Slay the Warlord this way, but taking down 3 T7 2+/3++ wounds is no mean feat so I'd say it's worth the risk.

And your opponents would want to play against this? Yeesh! It appears to be quite powerful though expensive.

 Sasori wrote:

BTW, BAO is going to rule the following in their tournaments. I'm pretty sure Nova will follow suit. That means a lot of the smaller tournaments will do the same.


1. Bargelords CANNOT join other units.

2. The CCB DOES NOT benefit from the rider's phase shifters.

I'm really surprised about the 3++ ruling. I figured at the Pricepoint you are paying for the barge, and that it is pretty legal per raw, that it would be fine. Interesting to note though!

I'm not. Right now, the biggest weakness of the bargelord is that it is vulnerable in cc. Giving the barge 3++ as well acts as a force-multiplier making it much, much harder to kill, both in assault (from no save to 3++ in cc) as well as from shooting. There's a reason why GW didn't even let Destroyer Lords get a 3++ invuln. I'm pretty sure their intent isn't to let chariots have it as well. At least that is how TO's will justify it in their tournaments to nerf the thing down so that they think their attendees can have a better gaming experience.

 wuestenfux wrote:

 skoffs wrote:
Regarding the CCB not being able to use the 3++:
I'm assuming that's just in CC, right?
(as shooting can surely still just allocate to the Overlord if its controller wants)

Right, its a pity that the enemy can make the decision in cc.
Thus you have to choose wisely what to charge.

Grumble, grumble....

This is what keeps them in check. I've played against 8 wraithknights recently in 3 games against Eldar. None of my bargelords survived in any of those games due to close-combat and bad 4+ Ever-living rolls against brutes that shoot and assault with S10 weapons.

If two Bargelords could join each other then that'd be weird, also I just don't think RAW is even there for it. it counts as one model with a dual profile of vehicle and model. I dunno it's so weird of a RAW interpretation. I mean I could see it RAW ,but then the whole Chariot rules are all wacky.

col_impact wrote:

Thank you for well-formulated reply. For the record, I don't disagree with a TO taking a conservative approach to issues like these. The only thing I am taking people to task on is on their opinion of if being "OMG OP!!" if the CCB Overlord is allowed to join units because when you actually test it out and examine it and how it interacts with the other rules, a CCB Overlord joining a unit is not OP at all. If people want to disallow it for other reasons then fine. The whole wound allocation thing opens up an issue that would be tricky at the tournament level.

Perhaps I will try it again....that is, if my opponents agree to it. The thing is, most of them have a hard enough time playing against me even when I run just a casual list. I may be able to play 1 game with them with this ruleset, but I am pretty sure that, after that, they won't want to do it again.

 jy2 wrote:
I've played against 8 wraithknights recently in 3 games against Eldar. None of my bargelords survived in any of those games due to close-combat and bad 4+ Ever-living rolls against brutes that shoot and assault with S10 weapons.

Sounds like it might be time to introduce those Wraithknights to the Amazing Obyron and his astounding sudden-appearifying triple Focused Deathrays of death (6 S10 AP1 hits should be enough to handle a WK, right?)

Hollismason wrote:
If two Bargelords could join each other then that'd be weird, also I just don't think RAW is even there for it. it counts as one model with a dual profile of vehicle and model. I dunno it's so weird of a RAW interpretation. I mean I could see it RAW ,but then the whole Chariot rules are all wacky.

Yes it is. We need GW to point us in the right direction with more specific FAQ's (that is, FAQ's more specific to how chariots would work). But until then, we are left with our own intepretations of how we think it works.

I hate the dual profile of the Chariots and how that works, I wished they'd change to the Fantasy way of it just having a good toughness value. It's so frustrating.

 skoffs wrote:

 jy2 wrote:
I've played against 8 wraithknights recently in 3 games against Eldar. None of my bargelords survived in any of those games due to close-combat and bad 4+ Ever-living rolls against brutes that shoot and assault with S10 weapons.

Sounds like it might be time to introduce those Wraithknights to the Amazing Obyron and his astounding sudden-appearifying triple Focused Deathrays of death (6 S10 AP1 hits should be enough to handle a WK, right?)

I know, right? Problem is, they have the seer council supporting them. Not going to be easy to try to get away from the seer council and their fleshbane weapons of death.

Plus, I don't have any of the models. And probably by the time I do get them, the meta will have changed and that unit would be obsolete just like the spyderstar.

If the CCB is eventually FAQ'd the way that the BAO ruled it (no 3++ for the barge and no IC status) do you guys feel that the Bargelord is still worth his points? He's a pretty hefty investment and I certainly will be running 12 wraiths without fail, so having that second D-Lord wouldn't be the worst thing in the world, especially when he's 90 points cheaper. Then again, AV 13 wall is the second-most-appealing wall, after Kan wall naturally.

I ran it at a tournament and played conservatively. Didn't bring a squad for it to join and only rolled the 3++ when allocating to The Lord, it it was a monster. The d6 HoW is amazing since. It's only real weakness is being tarpited, and blast weapons that easily pierce the Ar11(13) since blasts auto go to the hull, you can't opt to roll on the lords 3++ save.

luke1705 wrote:
If the CCB is eventually FAQ'd the way that the BAO ruled it (no 3++ for the barge and no IC status) do you guys feel that the Bargelord is still worth his points? He's a pretty hefty investment and I certainly will be running 12 wraiths without fail, so having that second D-Lord wouldn't be the worst thing in the world, especially when he's 90 points cheaper. Then again, AV 13 wall is the second-most-appealing wall, after Kan wall naturally.

Oh yeah, he's still worth it. Without them, he is still very good. With them, he is near-broken.

I think 1 bargelord + 1 D-lord with wraiths will make for a balanced Necron list. The only problem is when you go up against serpent-spam mechdar or Tau. Their firepower is enough to make short work of your D-lord + wraiths.

Which is why allowing the barge lord to join wraiths is more than fair, since wave serpent spam is so powerful.

That's not how balance works

Balance is not in the 40k rulebook.

 NecronLord3 wrote:
Which is why allowing the barge lord to join wraiths is more than fair, since wave serpent space is so powerful.

"My 1-kiloton hydrogen bomb isn't as powerful as that dude's 1-megaton nuclear bomb," says 1 soldier to another.

To which the other soldier responds, " And you don't see why all those guys with just hand grenades are looking at you kinda funny."

I guess your right maybe I'll just hope I roll Vortex of Doom with one of the many Psykers in my Necron codex.

Necrons do not have Psykers, but despite them having no psychic defense (which is another really stupid plot hole), they still got a good thing out of 7th as Psykers in general got nerfed.

 jy2 wrote:

 NecronLord3 wrote:
Which is why allowing the barge lord to join wraiths is more than fair, since wave serpent space is so powerful.

"My 1-kiloton hydrogen bomb isn't as powerful as that dude's 1-megaton nuclear bomb," says 1 soldier to another.

To which the other soldier responds, " And you don't see why all those guys with just hand grenades are looking at you kinda funny."

A Bargelord joining a unit of wraiths is not OP at all. Just test it out. Reduced mobility for the Bargelord, no LOS from the wraiths, and no other ICs able to join that unit make a Bargelord joined to a unit of wraiths (~ 500 points) hardly something that will do anything remotely OP.

So yeah, I am yet again taking you to task on this. Show me how a Bargelord joined to a unit of wraiths is OP.