Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: warlord trait that makes him a sniper. Now add a command barge with a Gauss weapon and ouch. Not to shabby.
Careful....there'll be those arguing he's not actually using the weapon mounted on the Command Barge!
The Gauss isn't assault which is required by the trait but the tesla cannon is and that does make for some tasty sniping potential against things like warlocks, assassins or commissars.
So far it would seem that way. There will probably be some subtle tweaks to weapons (such as wraiths in Forgebane) but the codex will most likely as a whole remain the same. I don't see any of the Traits or Stratagems changing at all.
v0iddrgn wrote: It looks to me like the "beta" codex is probably THE codex. No changes whatsoever based on official reveals.
There were several changes from the Forgebane rules to the Beta Codex, which indicates many of the rules may be the same, but the final point costs may not. There is some discrepancy however, so the beta does not look 100% accurate at this time.
Good AP, lots of shots, decent damage. Wang out a squad level re-roll, and you're deleting a unit each turn.
Can anyone used to 8th Ed provide a useful comment on whether S6 is particularly reliable firepower against Tanks?
Meet an AM army with a Baneblade and several LRBTs at the 2000 pt level.
All of them have T8, so S6 wounds on 5+. Not reliable enough.
Yes it wounds on a 5+, but with their "Destroyers kick ass now" stratagem, 6 destroyers still do 17.8 wounds to a 3+ sv tank or 14.8 wounds to a 2+ one and that's without an Overlord blessing them with a 2+ to hit. Surely that kills a LRBT, probably does severe damage to the Baneblade too. Sure Heavy Destroyers do it better, but normal destroyers can and will kill tanks now.
Here, it all depends whether you get first turn or not.
If there is sufficient terrain on the board so that you can hide the Destroyers, it should be fine.
Otherwise, the Baneblade with its twin heavy bolter sponsons (30 shots, S5, AP-1) and the LRBTs shooting twice will give you hard time.
Notice that the AM army described (which one of our buddies here plays) has not very many units:
1x Baneblade, 4x LRBTs, 3x30 Conscripts, 2x Ratlings, 2x Sentinals, and HQs
Of course, going up against guard if they get the first turn it is going to hurt. But firstly if it's a competitive setting, there
should definitely be enough terrain to hide a squad of destroyers and destroyer Lord.
Additionally, if he finishes deploying first, deploy your destroyers last and stick them as far away as physically possible. Or have them in reserves. Hell, maybe even hide them behind your own units like a monolith point is there will be ways of making sure they live
Strikes me as kind of pointless judging the value of Destroyers on whether you get first turn or not. Winner being determined by who gets first turn is 8th ed in a nutshell.
I think S6 on Destroyers isn't as important as the third shot, but it's a nice addition with so much T5 infantry running around. I just wouldn't go and rely on Destroyers for anti-tank. They're not bad and will help in a pinch, but they aren't all that great either.
Geifer wrote: Strikes me as kind of pointless judging the value of Destroyers on whether you get first turn or not. Winner being determined by who gets first turn is 8th ed in a nutshell.
I think S6 on Destroyers isn't as important as the third shot, but it's a nice addition with so much T5 infantry running around. I just wouldn't go and rely on Destroyers for anti-tank. They're not bad and will help in a pinch, but they aren't all that great either.
Sadly that's a lot of 8th, alpha strikes galore. But I agree mostly, the extra shot is better than the strength buff, though the strength definitely helps. Destroyers will never be dedicated anti-tank true, that's what Heavy Destroyers are for.
Wondering if we'll see any changes to the beta rules. So far it seems not but one can always hope.
v0iddrgn wrote: It looks to me like the "beta" codex is probably THE codex. No changes whatsoever based on official reveals.
There were several changes from the Forgebane rules to the Beta Codex, which indicates many of the rules may be the same, but the final point costs may not. There is some discrepancy however, so the beta does not look 100% accurate at this time.
The nature of forgebanes contents mean it most likely had to be finished well before the Necron codex. 10 to 1 the beta was the final version and the stuff in forgerbane is whats incorrect. Just because the Beta was leaked prior to the official release of FB doesn't somehow mean it was also sent to printers before FB.
v0iddrgn wrote: It looks to me like the "beta" codex is probably THE codex. No changes whatsoever based on official reveals.
There were several changes from the Forgebane rules to the Beta Codex, which indicates many of the rules may be the same, but the final point costs may not. There is some discrepancy however, so the beta does not look 100% accurate at this time.
The nature of forgebanes contents mean it most likely had to be finished well before the Necron codex. 10 to 1 the beta was the final version and the stuff in forgerbane is whats incorrect. Just because the Beta was leaked prior to the official release of FB doesn't somehow mean it was also sent to printers before FB.
I will take that bet. 50$ wager that Forgebane rules will match the final rulebook.
v0iddrgn wrote: It looks to me like the "beta" codex is probably THE codex. No changes whatsoever based on official reveals.
There were several changes from the Forgebane rules to the Beta Codex, which indicates many of the rules may be the same, but the final point costs may not. There is some discrepancy however, so the beta does not look 100% accurate at this time.
The nature of forgebanes contents mean it most likely had to be finished well before the Necron codex. 10 to 1 the beta was the final version and the stuff in forgerbane is whats incorrect. Just because the Beta was leaked prior to the official release of FB doesn't somehow mean it was also sent to printers before FB.
I am really hoping that the same phenomenon applies to the Knight Armiger. A nice price cut between Forgebane and codex would be great. It has happened already for several units from Dark Imperium. Perhaps people complaining about the price of the Armiger could lead to a decrease in price for them in the codex.
At any rate, I am never trusting the rules content from the boxed sets ever again. Though hopefully I can at least hold off from buying the Necron Codex for a bit. Hopefully the Start Collecting includes the rules content for those units too. No codex and just some rules from the boxes and the War Com articles for me!
v0iddrgn wrote: It looks to me like the "beta" codex is probably THE codex. No changes whatsoever based on official reveals.
There were several changes from the Forgebane rules to the Beta Codex, which indicates many of the rules may be the same, but the final point costs may not. There is some discrepancy however, so the beta does not look 100% accurate at this time.
The nature of forgebanes contents mean it most likely had to be finished well before the Necron codex. 10 to 1 the beta was the final version and the stuff in forgerbane is whats incorrect. Just because the Beta was leaked prior to the official release of FB doesn't somehow mean it was also sent to printers before FB.
I will take that bet. 50$ wager that Forgebane rules will match the final rulebook.
v0iddrgn wrote: It looks to me like the "beta" codex is probably THE codex. No changes whatsoever based on official reveals.
There were several changes from the Forgebane rules to the Beta Codex, which indicates many of the rules may be the same, but the final point costs may not. There is some discrepancy however, so the beta does not look 100% accurate at this time.
The nature of forgebanes contents mean it most likely had to be finished well before the Necron codex. 10 to 1 the beta was the final version and the stuff in forgerbane is whats incorrect. Just because the Beta was leaked prior to the official release of FB doesn't somehow mean it was also sent to printers before FB.
I will take that bet. 50$ wager that Forgebane rules will match the final rulebook.
Pay up. Beta codex is right. Forgebane is wrong. And hope was given to the owners of the Knight Armiger.
v0iddrgn wrote: It looks to me like the "beta" codex is probably THE codex. No changes whatsoever based on official reveals.
There were several changes from the Forgebane rules to the Beta Codex, which indicates many of the rules may be the same, but the final point costs may not. There is some discrepancy however, so the beta does not look 100% accurate at this time.
The nature of forgebanes contents mean it most likely had to be finished well before the Necron codex. 10 to 1 the beta was the final version and the stuff in forgerbane is whats incorrect. Just because the Beta was leaked prior to the official release of FB doesn't somehow mean it was also sent to printers before FB.
I will take that bet. 50$ wager that Forgebane rules will match the final rulebook.
Someone is out 50 bones.
Sure looks like it, but I'll wait until both are out before I commit.
Meet an AM army with a Baneblade and several LRBTs at the 2000 pt level.
All of them have T8, so S6 wounds on 5+. Not reliable enough.
Reroll wounds and multi damage is something tougher vehicles hate.
A baneblade hit with a mephtrit squad of 6 and the 1CP with MWBD becomes a reliable 16 wounds. Can you find 10 more wounds from the other 1700 points of your army to kill it? That is not shabby.
Importantly, with D3 damage for each wound, it doesn't take a massive quirk of chance to strip more than the 16.
So the whole codex has been leaked. Pretty much. We know exactly what's going to be in it and the "beta" codex has only been labelled as "beta" because it's less of a crime to leak the beta rules than the actual thing? Or something like that?
EnTyme wrote: Sweet! Whip Coils are now a direct upgrade. Now I don't feel so dumb for building my Wraiths with them.
Can't say I'm super happy about them having a functionally useless ability when I slightly sacrified asthetics to give my wraiths one trimmed down whip coil each so they could hit first before.
Honestly they look best with regular claws because the whip coils have very fixed poses and are hard to transport.
Aren73 wrote: So the whole codex has been leaked. Pretty much. We know exactly what's going to be in it and the "beta" codex has only been labelled as "beta" because it's less of a crime to leak the beta rules than the actual thing? Or something like that?
Close. Super Wargamer published his copy to YouTube (no longer up there but republished many other places.) His was a copy for playtesters (hence the "beta".) It's possible that some minor changes were made for the final codex after the playtesters got theirs. It's also possible that Super Wargamer's playtester copy is identical to the final printed codex.
Except that bothers me. Us wargamers are usually an opinionated lot and no one is 100% happy with any codex. Given half a chance any of us would tweak something even if just a little bit.
Yet it looks like the playtesters were given the playtest version of the codex, essentially said: "Hey, this is so cool everything is fine Games Workshop change NOTHING about this codex PLEASE" and then GW immediately sent it to print.
Not saying the codex is bad, but I refuse to believe the playtesters didn't change anything about the playtest version of the book. Isn't that what testing is for?
Aren73 wrote: Except that bothers me. Us wargamers are usually an opinionated lot and no one is 100% happy with any codex. Given half a chance any of us would tweak something even if just a little bit.
Yet it looks like the playtesters were given the playtest version of the codex, essentially said: "Hey, this is so cool everything is fine Games Workshop change NOTHING about this codex PLEASE" and then GW immediately sent it to print.
Not saying the codex is bad, but I refuse to believe the playtesters didn't change anything about the playtest version of the book. Isn't that what testing is for?
You can refuse to believe all you want but every day it shows nothing's been changed.
Aren73 wrote: Except that bothers me. Us wargamers are usually an opinionated lot and no one is 100% happy with any codex. Given half a chance any of us would tweak something even if just a little bit.
Yet it looks like the playtesters were given the playtest version of the codex, essentially said: "Hey, this is so cool everything is fine Games Workshop change NOTHING about this codex PLEASE" and then GW immediately sent it to print.
Not saying the codex is bad, but I refuse to believe the playtesters didn't change anything about the playtest version of the book. Isn't that what testing is for?
Why do people have so much tunnel vision on this, there's so many different ways it can go.
For instance, the play testers could have said something really needs to be changed and GW can just say no.
It’s also possible that this wasn’t an early beta, but a proof-check beta version of the codex. You know the stage where you find all those irritating typos and errors (like lithguard/deathmarks being troops) before printing. I figured it was, since it was fully laid out with all the artwork, etc.
EnTyme wrote: Sweet! Whip Coils are now a direct upgrade. Now I don't feel so dumb for building my Wraiths with them.
But now Wraiths get a severe pt upgrade (55 pts, +17).
I'm not the best judge of points efficiency, but Wraiths were generally considered to be pretty close to their value in points, so a buff would necessitate a points bump.
Duskland wrote:It’s also possible that this wasn’t an early beta, but a proof-check beta version of the codex. You know the stage where you find all those irritating typos and errors (like lithguard/deathmarks being troops) before printing. I figured it was, since it was fully laid out with all the artwork, etc.
Aren73 wrote: Except that bothers me. Us wargamers are usually an opinionated lot and no one is 100% happy with any codex. Given half a chance any of us would tweak something even if just a little bit.
Yet it looks like the playtesters were given the playtest version of the codex, essentially said: "Hey, this is so cool everything is fine Games Workshop change NOTHING about this codex PLEASE" and then GW immediately sent it to print.
Not saying the codex is bad, but I refuse to believe the playtesters didn't change anything about the playtest version of the book. Isn't that what testing is for?
I don't really understand why someone would think the codex being nearly identical to this beta leak would be evidence that playtesters aren't doing anything or even that GW isn't responding to them. Surely you'd expect the final codex to be very similar to a beta version.
Like, I'm not GW and I have zero experience with game design, but here's what seems to me to be a reasonable way to put together a final set of rules:
1. I put together a first draft, and send it out to playtesters. They give feedback and I make changes.
2. I put together a second draft, and send it out to playtesters. They give feedback and I make changes.
...
X. Eventually everyone is pretty happy with the rules, so I take the last beta version and release it basically as-is.
Likewise if I'm a playtester and I'm going to leak a beta version, I leak the most recent one. It's the most recent one because the consensus was that it was pretty close to what the final version should be.
Do we have reason to believe that they only do one round of sending playtest rules out or something? As Duskland points out, this looks like a pretty final version of the codex. I would have expected an early beta to basically be a Word document. They've got everything laid out and named and formatted. Surely this is pretty late in the process, right?
Yet it looks like the playtesters were given the playtest version of the codex, essentially said: "Hey, this is so cool everything is fine Games Workshop change NOTHING about this codex PLEASE" and then GW immediately sent it to print.
Not saying the codex is bad, but I refuse to believe the playtesters didn't change anything about the playtest version of the book. Isn't that what testing is for?
why do you think there was only one revision cycle?
Well from a practical Standpoint, do we think its realistic that they did another revision cycle after October 2017 and got that + printing and shipping done until now?
I always thought printing + shipping was a really long process?
Aren73 wrote: Except that bothers me. Us wargamers are usually an opinionated lot and no one is 100% happy with any codex. Given half a chance any of us would tweak something even if just a little bit.
Yet it looks like the playtesters were given the playtest version of the codex, essentially said: "Hey, this is so cool everything is fine Games Workshop change NOTHING about this codex PLEASE" and then GW immediately sent it to print.
Not saying the codex is bad, but I refuse to believe the playtesters didn't change anything about the playtest version of the book. Isn't that what testing is for?
I don't really understand why someone would think the codex being nearly identical to this beta leak would be evidence that playtesters aren't doing anything or even that GW isn't responding to them. Surely you'd expect the final codex to be very similar to a beta version.
Like, I'm not GW and I have zero experience with game design, but here's what seems to me to be a reasonable way to put together a final set of rules:
1. I put together a first draft, and send it out to playtesters. They give feedback and I make changes.
2. I put together a second draft, and send it out to playtesters. They give feedback and I make changes.
...
X. Eventually everyone is pretty happy with the rules, so I take the last beta version and release it basically as-is.
Likewise if I'm a playtester and I'm going to leak a beta version, I leak the most recent one. It's the most recent one because the consensus was that it was pretty close to what the final version should be.
Do we have reason to believe that they only do one round of sending playtest rules out or something? As Duskland points out, this looks like a pretty final version of the codex. I would have expected an early beta to basically be a Word document. They've got everything laid out and named and formatted. Surely this is pretty late in the process, right?
Yet it looks like the playtesters were given the playtest version of the codex, essentially said: "Hey, this is so cool everything is fine Games Workshop change NOTHING about this codex PLEASE" and then GW immediately sent it to print.
Not saying the codex is bad, but I refuse to believe the playtesters didn't change anything about the playtest version of the book. Isn't that what testing is for?
why do you think there was only one revision cycle?
Fair enough I think you might be correct here, it does indeed look pretty late in the testing process and is reasonable to say that this beta was right before final proofreading and printing.
Do we have any idication that they work with playtesters throughout the codex development stages? I would very much like it if they worked through 10 different versions of this codex updating the playtesters each time with a new one. However it could also be the opposite, where they develop the codex in house with their in house alpha testers, then only give the playtesters the single beta copy we have seen and unless the reaction is drastic they print that.
Do we have any idea which of those two the GW method is closest to? Not arguing for/against anything, just speculating btw.
changemod wrote: I believe the YouTube video leak said in the description that the points might not be finalised?
I'm expecting a minor scattershot of small differences when we see the points page, not really expecting much other change though.
I'm also expecting the same thing. If anything, there will probably be a few minor points tweaks to a couple units/wargear but the bulk of the wording will remain the same
For the points costs of Lychguard / Dispersion Shields the 3++ and bounce a MW on a 6 should have been included in the data sheet (going off Beta points, I'm still holding onto the hope that Lychguard are cheaper in the codex)
v0iddrgn wrote: Another confirmation day. No need for buying the Dex when we all have it downloaded on our devices already LOL
I think you'll be in for a surprise, the doom scythe is in tomorrow's preview, and it was untouched in the leaks. Somehow I doubt they would show a completely unchanged unit in a preview. I suppose they could be just showing off the new stratagem, but it honestly isn't that good.
v0iddrgn wrote: Another confirmation day. No need for buying the Dex when we all have it downloaded on our devices already LOL
I think you'll be in for a surprise, the doom scythe is in tomorrow's preview, and it was untouched in the leaks. Somehow I doubt they would show a completely unchanged unit in a preview. I suppose they could be just showing off the new stratagem, but it honestly isn't that good.
Same could be said for the Lychguard "preview" today. Showed nothing different apart from 2 stratagems which can combo well with them.
Wish they gave the Doom Scythe the old beam profile that it had previously - everything under the line takes D3 hits. They've shown they are willing to do it with Mortarion having a similar weapon with Lantern.
I wish I could get excited about this, but I know damn well there is only going to be a single new model: the plastic clampack Cryptek that was released for Forgebane.
Kind of lame that in terms of model support from GWS, Necrons have gotten a single new model from 2011-2018 (the plastic Overlord), will now get a second one, and presumably that's it until 9th edition - so functionally 2 single character models over nearly a decade.
Certainly not holding my breath for FW to fill in any gaps since the only models they released for IA12 were low-effort retreads of existing models you'd expect from a hobbyist with some extra bits. There is 30k Marine stuff to make, after all!
v0iddrgn wrote: Another confirmation day. No need for buying the Dex when we all have it downloaded on our devices already LOL
I think you'll be in for a surprise, the doom scythe is in tomorrow's preview, and it was untouched in the leaks. Somehow I doubt they would show a completely unchanged unit in a preview. I suppose they could be just showing off the new stratagem, but it honestly isn't that good.
Same could be said for the Lychguard "preview" today. Showed nothing different apart from 2 stratagems which can combo well with them.
Wish they gave the Doom Scythe the old beam profile that it had previously - everything under the line takes D3 hits. They've shown they are willing to do it with Mortarion having a similar weapon with Lantern.
Honestly I wish the Doomscythes had something similar to the Fireprisms linked shots in terms of destructive potential.
Ouze wrote: I wish I could get excited about this, but I know damn well there is only going to be a single new model: the plastic clampack Cryptek that was released for Forgebane.
Kind of lame that in terms of model support from GWS, Necrons have gotten a single new model from 2011-2018 (the plastic Overlord), will now get a second one, and presumably that's it until 9th edition - so functionally 2 single character models over nearly a decade.
Certainly not holding my breath for FW to fill in any gaps since the only models they released for IA12 were low-effort retreads of existing models you'd expect from a hobbyist with some extra bits. There is 30k Marine stuff to make, after all!
Ouze,
I can certainly sympathize with this view. They didn't even release the character models from IA12! That being said, I am very grateful that nearly all of our range is in plastic. We could have ended up like Eldar, but instead ended up like the Nids.
I would really like to see some heavy weapon Necrons, and some more Canoptek units though!
v0iddrgn wrote: It looks to me like the "beta" codex is probably THE codex. No changes whatsoever based on official reveals.
There were several changes from the Forgebane rules to the Beta Codex, which indicates many of the rules may be the same, but the final point costs may not. There is some discrepancy however, so the beta does not look 100% accurate at this time.
The nature of forgebanes contents mean it most likely had to be finished well before the Necron codex. 10 to 1 the beta was the final version and the stuff in forgerbane is whats incorrect. Just because the Beta was leaked prior to the official release of FB doesn't somehow mean it was also sent to printers before FB.
I will take that bet. 50$ wager that Forgebane rules will match the final rulebook.
Someone is out 50 bones.
Does PayPal work for you?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
changemod wrote: I believe the YouTube video leak said in the description that the points might not be finalised?
I'm expecting a minor scattershot of small differences when we see the points page, not really expecting much other change though.
Points page is the MOST likely to be altered, we know they miss placed lych guard and deathmarks into the troops section.
BTW thank god they started putting points into slots at the back rather then an alphabetical mess. No idea what they were thinking originally lol.
v0iddrgn wrote: It looks to me like the "beta" codex is probably THE codex. No changes whatsoever based on official reveals.
There were several changes from the Forgebane rules to the Beta Codex, which indicates many of the rules may be the same, but the final point costs may not. There is some discrepancy however, so the beta does not look 100% accurate at this time.
The nature of forgebanes contents mean it most likely had to be finished well before the Necron codex. 10 to 1 the beta was the final version and the stuff in forgerbane is whats incorrect. Just because the Beta was leaked prior to the official release of FB doesn't somehow mean it was also sent to printers before FB.
I will take that bet. 50$ wager that Forgebane rules will match the final rulebook.
Someone is out 50 bones.
Does PayPal work for you?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
changemod wrote: I believe the YouTube video leak said in the description that the points might not be finalised?
I'm expecting a minor scattershot of small differences when we see the points page, not really expecting much other change though.
Points page is the MOST likely to be altered, we know they miss placed lych guard and deathmarks into the troops section.
BTW thank god they started putting points into slots at the back rather then an alphabetical mess. No idea what they were thinking originally lol.
v0iddrgn wrote: It looks to me like the "beta" codex is probably THE codex. No changes whatsoever based on official reveals.
There were several changes from the Forgebane rules to the Beta Codex, which indicates many of the rules may be the same, but the final point costs may not. There is some discrepancy however, so the beta does not look 100% accurate at this time.
The nature of forgebanes contents mean it most likely had to be finished well before the Necron codex. 10 to 1 the beta was the final version and the stuff in forgerbane is whats incorrect. Just because the Beta was leaked prior to the official release of FB doesn't somehow mean it was also sent to printers before FB.
I will take that bet. 50$ wager that Forgebane rules will match the final rulebook.
Someone is out 50 bones.
Does PayPal work for you?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
changemod wrote: I believe the YouTube video leak said in the description that the points might not be finalised?
I'm expecting a minor scattershot of small differences when we see the points page, not really expecting much other change though.
Points page is the MOST likely to be altered, we know they miss placed lych guard and deathmarks into the troops section.
BTW thank god they started putting points into slots at the back rather then an alphabetical mess. No idea what they were thinking originally lol.
Enjoy your two years of DCM Membership!
Ha ha, you don't really have to mate, I was just playing
Sasori wrote: That being said, I am very grateful that nearly all of our range is in plastic. We could have ended up like Eldar, but instead ended up like the Nids.
I would really like to see some heavy weapon Necrons, and some more Canoptek units though!
Yeah, I know that while I am complaining, some definitely have it worse. DE sure were in the wilderness a long time there, and then you have SoB.
I'm still wondering why the UKGW site has all the air units for Necron missing at present - not just out of stock but discontinued and removed pages from the website.
We know they aren't removed nor changed to new sculpt as the preview articles include both (including links to the defunct pages).
So I wonder if its just repackaging (not sure what there is specifically in those to repackage that's special over the rest of the range) or if they might even be putting them into a combined kit of some kind. That or they could be releasing them in new boxed sets with new numbers (although honestly I'd have thought they'd do that with destroyers).
Ouze wrote: I wish I could get excited about this, but I know damn well there is only going to be a single new model: the plastic clampack Cryptek that was released for Forgebane.
Kind of lame that in terms of model support from GWS, Necrons have gotten a single new model from 2011-2018 (the plastic Overlord), will now get a second one, and presumably that's it until 9th edition - so functionally 2 single character models over nearly a decade.
Certainly not holding my breath for FW to fill in any gaps since the only models they released for IA12 were low-effort retreads of existing models you'd expect from a hobbyist with some extra bits. There is 30k Marine stuff to make, after all!
You forgot the vault which came in 2013. That said I get the point. I am surprised they didn't take the chance to do plastic flayed ones, an alternative build adding a completely new unit to the range would have changed the conversation considerably.
To save you the trouble of watching an entire 3 hour video, it would seem that everything is identical to the leaked codex, including the troops error with Lychguard and Deathmarks.
Arachnofiend wrote: To save you the trouble of watching an entire 3 hour video, it would seem that everything is identical to the leaked codex,
Yeah, I skipped about a bit and found the two key things I wanted to know: Destroyers/heavy destroyers still have the good points costs of the beta, and monoliths didn't get their needed (I mean, they aren't quite so overpriced you can't take one because you like the model, but they aren't good for cost- and I doubt anyone would want to field multiples) point cut.
including the troops error with Lychguard and Deathmarks.
Ouze wrote: Yeah, I know that while I am complaining, some definitely have it worse. DE sure were in the wilderness a long time there, and then you have SoB.
Orks have spent very long periods where entire units from their book have not had miniatures. I'd even argue that they don't really have Buggies and Deffkoptaz at the moment.
The Forgebane booklet must have gone to print a really long time ago, because the Ad Mech units in it haven't even been updated per Chapter Approved; their points totals are all just copy-pasted directly out of the codex. Between the Necron codex and Chapter Approved, it's actually pretty embarassing how few of Forgebane's points costs (nevermind its actual rules) are accurate.
Ouze wrote: Yeah, I know that while I am complaining, some definitely have it worse. DE sure were in the wilderness a long time there, and then you have SoB.
Orks have spent very long periods where entire units from their book have not had miniatures. I'd even argue that they don't really have Buggies and Deffkoptaz at the moment.
[last one being trivial conversion to buggy if you shorten it, move gunner up, and remove rear platform, something very much expected in this particular army]
By the exact same standard, Marines don't have say Bike/Attack Bike or Techmarine, or a lot of other units, yet if you listen to xeno complains about zillion Imperial releases, surely flagship GW range doesn't have similar situation as the oppressed one?
Ouze wrote: I wish I could get excited about this, but I know damn well there is only going to be a single new model: the plastic clampack Cryptek that was released for Forgebane.
Kind of lame that in terms of model support from GWS, Necrons have gotten a single new model from 2011-2018 (the plastic Overlord), will now get a second one, and presumably that's it until 9th edition - so functionally 2 single character models over nearly a decade.
Certainly not holding my breath for FW to fill in any gaps since the only models they released for IA12 were low-effort retreads of existing models you'd expect from a hobbyist with some extra bits. There is 30k Marine stuff to make, after all!
You forgot the vault which came in 2013. That said I get the point. I am surprised they didn't take the chance to do plastic flayed ones, an alternative build adding a completely new unit to the range would have changed the conversation considerably.
You're right, I sure did forget the Vault.
So far as Flayed Ones go, I'd personally settle for a hand swap conversion kit for Warriors. I feel comfortable enough rolling super thin green stuff to do the skin. I know I'm being a cheap date by saying that though.
Ouze wrote: Yeah, I know that while I am complaining, some definitely have it worse. DE sure were in the wilderness a long time there, and then you have SoB.
Orks have spent very long periods where entire units from their book have not had miniatures. I'd even argue that they don't really have Buggies and Deffkoptaz at the moment.
While this is true, I think it's at least a little different than Orks. Out of all of 40k, for them looting or scratchbuilding is the most viable option. Obviously "you can just build a buggy" isn't the same as having a nice plastic model release, and I'm not arguing that, but it's a lot easier to scratchbuild a buggy or loot a Rhino and have it look thematically correct then it is to scratchbuild a character model for pretty much any other army - even a relatively simple conversion like Flayed Ones has some pretty fiddly hands and I think most come out quite poorly, generally.
That's a good point, but I'd argue that it could create a self-perpetuating cycle.
"There are no models for these Ork units therefore newer players shy away from them so no one buys the Orks so we don't make models for their missing units therefore new players shy away..."
And so on.
It's galling when the Ork models they do release are just so magnificent. I think the Nob kit, the Meganob kit and especially the Flash Gitz kit (of which I might own 6 or 8 boxes... I can't remember!) are simply incredible. And whilst I don't think many people like it, I think the Morka/Gorkanaut is very cool.
Please GW! Release more Ork minis. They're always great fun, and you include fantastic modular modelling opportunities right there on the sprue.
It means we get a codex with some strong options that should help us be moderately competitive, though also includes some sadly lackluster options that will hopefully be improved in later iterations.
Reanimation Protocols is still a sore point, but the rest of our "core" rules (dynasty codes, warlord traits, and relics) range from good to great.
H.B.M.C. wrote: That's a good point, but I'd argue that it could create a self-perpetuating cycle.
"There are no models for these Ork units therefore newer players shy away from them so no one buys the Orks so we don't make models for their missing units therefore new players shy away..."
And so on.
Battle Sisters? Some Chaos Marine units? Dark Eldar before the revamp? I don't think it's a matter of "could create" with GW. It's just a fundamental flaw in their approach, chasing ever bigger and newer things without seeing to a solid foundation for an army first.
Orks got a good and large model update with the last codex, but years of neglect still show holes in their range that are, for the most part, not there in the later armies like Tau and Necrons that were (more or less) born into the plastic age.
In the specific case of Orks, something else may play into it as well. Now that they're done orcs with different physique in Age of Sigmar, abandoning the old gorilla back for a straighter, full on muscled back, they might not want to commit making old style models even in 40k.
It means we get a codex with some strong options that should help us be moderately competitive, though also includes some sadly lackluster options that will hopefully be improved in later iterations.
Reanimation Protocols is still a sore point, but the rest of our "core" rules (dynasty codes, warlord traits, and relics) range from good to great.
Reanimation protocols are the crucial part for me. Unchanged from the index, I have no desire to play Necrons. I still remember the last time reanimation protocols could be canceled out by wiping out a unit, and it was not a lot of fun to play, never even getting to use my special rules. It wasn't even particularly fun for my opponents either, because at some point it boiled down to, can they kill ten Praetorians in one turn or not. Most games were decided by that.
As far as I'm concerned it either makes the rule unnecessary or forces you into specific unit configurations. 8th ed has enough of that already. I don't need my army's primary special rule to make it worse.
Yeah I'm really not feeling this codex so far which is a shame because I really enjoyed necrons in 7th edition. Now I'm struggling to see past lists of maxed out squads of warriors and immortals which is a throw back to the bad old days of phase out.
Lychguard are a cool unit but at 34 points per model despite getting worse since last edition (4++ instead of 3++) they are just too expensive. Ditto wraiths and the monolith. If I want a low model count army I'll run my custodes because at least they are resilient enough that the low model count isn't as big a deal.
Reanimation protocols is the Necrons thing. It's what makes them who they are and if you're rarely getting to use it then really what's the point?
Superglue and paper make excellent flayed flesh for draping flayed ones. That how I did the ones in my gallery, and it’s dang easy to do.
Since I stared in 2011, Necrons have recieved about the same model support as everyone else except sisters and Space Marines. Thank goodness we aren’t where the sisters are (though I’m hopeful) and it would be foolish to expect the same treatment as space marines.
I think that this will be a good codex, not broken but good. Skilled players have a lot of tools, and we won’t have builds designated by broken model rules.
I've played three games with the leaked codex and I haven't really settled into anything yet, but it's definitely not a book you can just derp your way to victory with. Brute force just won't do it against a decent opponent. I'm 1-2 with the book and my win was the closest game I've had this edition.
Necronmaniac05 wrote: Now I'm struggling to see past lists of maxed out squads of warriors and immortals which is a throw back to the bad old days of phase out.
I have no idea how you can have this view. Silver Tide is almost certainly not the strongest way to play the Necron codex, not even close; destroyers, tomb blades, and the tesseract vault seem to be the big standouts.
It depends. I don't want to run silver tide but for me the big fun of necrons was advancing towards your foe taking the hits and watching your guys come back. With this new RP any opponent worth their salt will just focus fire your units into oblivion then you'll never even get to make any RP rolls. The best way around that is to take larger units but that then eats into your points for other things.
I'm sure competitive players will find builds that work for them. All I'm saying Is, what made necrons fun to play for me has been utterly nerfed to the point where it's borderline unusable.
Eh, I had a couple of games where RP was absolute hell for my opponents, as there was a lot of cover blocking lines of fire, and they didn't have that much experience fighting necrons, so they didn't focus them hard enough. And this was without buffs.
I can see why they didn't improve RP in that sense, as it would have been too punishing otherwise.
Having res orb being actually useful for a one use item would have been nice though.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Eh, I had a couple of games where RP was absolute hell for my opponents, as there was a lot of cover blocking lines of fire, and they didn't have that much experience fighting necrons, so they didn't focus them hard enough. And this was without buffs.
I can see why they didn't improve RP in that sense, as it would have been too punishing otherwise.
Having res orb being actually useful for a one use item would have been nice though.
Yeah like the revive character strategem I was expecting a cost 2 or 3cp one for units within a certain range of a res orb.
Breotan wrote: Is it me or is the new Necron LE codex one of the most lackluster they've released to date?
They are all about the same aren't they? Basically just a slightly better made book with a fabric book mark and alternate cover art. I'd honestly be far more inclined to buy into the limited editions if they had more in them - eg several bits of high grade artwork; more lore or just - you know - more than a £25 front cover
Ouze wrote: I wish I could get excited about this, but I know damn well there is only going to be a single new model: the plastic clampack Cryptek that was released for Forgebane.
Kind of lame that in terms of model support from GWS, Necrons have gotten a single new model from 2011-2018 (the plastic Overlord), will now get a second one, and presumably that's it until 9th edition - so functionally 2 single character models over nearly a decade.
Certainly not holding my breath for FW to fill in any gaps since the only models they released for IA12 were low-effort retreads of existing models you'd expect from a hobbyist with some extra bits. There is 30k Marine stuff to make, after all!
You forgot the vault which came in 2013. That said I get the point. I am surprised they didn't take the chance to do plastic flayed ones, an alternative build adding a completely new unit to the range would have changed the conversation considerably.
You're right, I sure did forget the Vault.
So far as Flayed Ones go, I'd personally settle for a hand swap conversion kit for Warriors. I feel comfortable enough rolling super thin green stuff to do the skin. I know I'm being a cheap date by saying that though.
Ouze wrote: Yeah, I know that while I am complaining, some definitely have it worse. DE sure were in the wilderness a long time there, and then you have SoB.
Orks have spent very long periods where entire units from their book have not had miniatures. I'd even argue that they don't really have Buggies and Deffkoptaz at the moment.
While this is true, I think it's at least a little different than Orks. Out of all of 40k, for them looting or scratchbuilding is the most viable option. Obviously "you can just build a buggy" isn't the same as having a nice plastic model release, and I'm not arguing that, but it's a lot easier to scratchbuild a buggy or loot a Rhino and have it look thematically correct then it is to scratchbuild a character model for pretty much any other army - even a relatively simple conversion like Flayed Ones has some pretty fiddly hands and I think most come out quite poorly, generally.
I'll snap a photo when I am not being lazy but I used left over knives from DE wych kits and small sections of plastic rod to glue them to to make hands for my flayed ones. It works incredibly well. I didn't bother with the skin myself, but I was never a fan of the robo mohel look lol.
Breotan wrote: Is it me or is the new Necron LE codex one of the most lackluster they've released to date?
They are all about the same aren't they? Basically just a slightly better made book with a fabric book mark and alternate cover art. I'd honestly be far more inclined to buy into the limited editions if they had more in them - eg several bits of high grade artwork; more lore or just - you know - more than a £25 front cover
Agreed. It's funny because I thought the 7th edition LE codexes were really cool. Too expensive for me, but they were cool. These ones aren't even interesting.
Several Youtube reviewers have said the same thing. As with any codex there is some trash in there, but overall the book contains some very units and combos and whilst won't be IG/Eldar tier, they will be upper mid of the pack.
I'd say we'll be lucky to get mid tier.
...
For which I'd be grateful (I'd rather we not be constantly getting "OMG Necrons so OP" complaints every time we set up. That crap got old fast back in the Decurion days).
Several Youtube reviewers have said the same thing. As with any codex there is some trash in there, but overall the book contains some very units and combos and whilst won't be IG/Eldar tier, they will be upper mid of the pack.
Well to be fair Eldar Tier is really Dark Reaper tier, which will be nerfed. IG tier is more the victim of Soup lists than anything. That being said after the smite Nerf, DR nerf, and if they nerf Guardsmen I think it may be enough for us to crack top tier.
Well to be fair Eldar Tier is really Dark Reaper tier, which will be nerfed. IG tier is more the victim of Soup lists than anything. That being said after the smite Nerf, DR nerf, and if they nerf Guardsmen I think it may be enough for us to crack top tier.
But only with one or two specific lists.
I could imagine that the Warrior horde with some fast shooty support could do very well.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Eh, I had a couple of games where RP was absolute hell for my opponents, as there was a lot of cover blocking lines of fire, and they didn't have that much experience fighting necrons, so they didn't focus them hard enough. And this was without buffs.
I can see why they didn't improve RP in that sense, as it would have been too punishing otherwise.
Having res orb being actually useful for a one use item would have been nice though.
Yeah it's either annoyingly strong or it just never triggers. First game with the updated rules I had my opponent delete a unit of 10 Tesla Immortals with Sezras buff and a Rez Orb overlord beside them and I couldn't do a thing. I felt bad for me.
But then I had a squad of Destroyers wrecking his left side and every time he managed to kill one it would come back with a lucky single 5+ roll every turn. I felt bad for him.
Breotan wrote: Is it me or is the new Necron LE codex one of the most lackluster they've released to date?
They are all about the same aren't they? Basically just a slightly better made book with a fabric book mark and alternate cover art. I'd honestly be far more inclined to buy into the limited editions if they had more in them - eg several bits of high grade artwork; more lore or just - you know - more than a £25 front cover
I fully agree. I did that for the Nid codex back in 6th (or was it 5th?) edition and never again. Especially when I didn't even really read it. Only read it 3 times very shortly and the book puffed out and the black was flaking off the edge of the pages. At least GW sent me another copy of the collector's edition of the codex. I still haven't taken it out of the shrink wrap as it's my collection like a comic book. Killing me to find out what number it is though lol.
For the $50 Canadian price extra, I need more than a ribbon and a variant cover to justify the cost. I agree more artwork and what not is needed.
Of course it works for GW cause what I'd spend on the collectors I instead spend on models. That and they seem to have little trouble selling out of special editions so the system must work for them at present at the very least.
I'm sure if the collectors editions were stuffed full of great stuff theyd' run out in seconds and we'd be arguing about the lack of supply
If they’re buffing Destroyers I might have to bring my old Flying circus back out. I’ve got fifteen Destroyers, nine Heavy Destroyers, and a Destroyer Lord from back before their previous Codex when that (plus two required Warriors units) was a legal army.
AduroT wrote: If they’re buffing Destroyers I might have to bring my old Flying circus back out. I’ve got fifteen Destroyers, nine Heavy Destroyers, and a Destroyer Lord from back before their previous Codex when that (plus two required Warriors units) was a legal army.
And now with the specialised detachments an all destroyer army becomes a possibility ... enjoy ...
... if only there was a failed one character available, I wouldn't mind trying a failed one horde just for fun...
Drop d3 units within 12'' of your enemy turn one, let's say average of 2.
Monolith and night scythe.
Now, if you get first turn, you can deploy two squads out of the night scythe using the stratagem, deploy one unit out of the monolith, teleport a unit to the monolith using a stratagem and use veil of darkness for a character and a unit.
That means, turn 1, you have: 4 units 9'' away from the enemy that can then move. 1 unit and 1 character 9'' away from the enemy that can't move and a night scythe and monolith 12'' from the enemy that can move.
I would probably go with 3 units of gauss Immortals, 1 unit of lychguard with warscythes and a full unit of destroyers with destroyer lord (veil of darknessed). All Mephrit.
So then you have 60 s5 ap-3 shots from immortals, 18 s6 ap -4 from destroyers, 6 s8 ap-3 and 12 s5 ap -3 from monolith, 8 s7 ap-1 from Night Scythe plus a full squad of Lychguard with warscythes at 3'' charge range.
Oh and you can use MWBD on the destroyers and Lychguard before teleporting them (using that stratagem).
Then using the Destroyer and the Mephrit stratagem on the destroyers you have 18 shots, hitting on 2s rerolling, 6s give extra shots, s6 rerolling to wound at ap-4. That's brutal.
Of course that eats up the double disembark stratagem, the teleport to monolith stratagem, the destroyer stratagem and the mephrit stratagem, plus the veil of darkness.
But this will cripple any army. Especially if supported by doomsday arks/heavy destroyers from the back.
Going second makes this a lot more awkward so it depends if you want to gamble. But even then, on their first turn they have to kill the monolith and the night scythe and a stratagem lets us deploy when the last one is killed too...so no so dire.
Yes, the Deceiver-Bomb was a fun little gimmick when the index dropped, but as a competitive strategy, not so much.
Even with the changes the codex is brining it hasn't really changed a lot. Its main drawback (the fact that if you don't get first turn it falls apart) is still too much of a liability to be reliable for anything more than fun games.
The good thing with the Deceiver is that it gives you a good way to react when going first or second. This is valuable since Necrons lack scouting units. However I just feel that the Deceiver lacks something, perhaps it's the -1 to Ld that feels meh!
I used the Deceiver in my index list quite alot, but I'm not sure it will fit in my codex list since there's so much else I want to try out. Perhaps when the dust settles.
point is there will be ways of making sure they live
Someone is out 50 bones.
