Ah right. Disintegration Capacitors is about 2 damage against 3+, it's ok. I am looking at running Mephrit with 40 Reapers, with the Mephrit-specific Talent for Annihilation stratagem, which can be reliably maxed out for three additional damage.
Eldenfirefly wrote: So, I just had a thought, is it worth losing command protocols so that we run two separate necron detachements with different dynasties?
Like while we lose command protocols, we do get to now choose a shooty dynasty (like mephrit) for a shooty detachment, and then maybe a custom dynasty or a melee based dynasty for a more melee oriented detachment that has everything obsec.
Because the command protocols are a pain to use, and kind of dependent on how the game goes each turn. While, if you take a shooty dynasty and a melee based dynasty, you can tailor the units in those detachments to make the best use of the dynasty traits and such.
So, do you think its worth losing command protocols over?
Several of the articles I"ve read have mentioned that Cron players probably will shy away from the command protocols because they are convoluted and don't really do much. So yeah you'll probably see what you're doing being very common. Sort of like Tyranid players.
GSC also take different detachments.
It is probably easier for Necrons then Nids. Nids need synapse aura. Unless you do it cleanly it is a mess to execute.
It is very well worth it I would say. Although I have never bothered to do it with nids, nor even with GSC. And that is aying something as GSC 4armed emperor has the vect stratagem.
Not the design of the SM codex also has this to ecurage not bringing multiple detachments, on top of loosing CP for having more detachments. SM get Savage Fury for instance, a ekstra hit in melee on a unmodefied 6+ if assualt doctrine is active. (Turn 3 to 5.) Blood angels get Savage Echoes, ekstra attack if you charged* and is in assault doctrine.
It will probably be common forward in every codex.
2, it makes their twin gauss blaster assault 2 instead of rapid fire 2. If it was two gauss blasters, they'd each become assault 2 for 4 shots total, but it isn't, it's technically one weapon.
Do we have enough firepower on our characters such that we can skip bringing heavy support and vehicles ? So like bring mass infantry and scarabs. 2 dynasties, 2 C'than shards, Immotek, and a Plasmancer or two, other characters.
And just use our characters and mortal wounds against the opponent's heavy and elite stuff?
Plasmancer has a decent anti tank gun. And well, an overlord with a relic Taycon arrow has a 6 damage shot too.
So, this way, its almost impossible to shoot out our characters and the 2 Cthan shards in the first 2 turns. Time enough to clear all the chaff and use mortal wounds and character shooting to wittle down their heavies? Or just charge them and tie them in combat turn 3.
Eldenfirefly wrote: Do we have enough firepower on our characters such that we can skip bringing heavy support and vehicles ? So like bring mass infantry and scarabs. 2 dynasties, 2 C'than shards, Immotek, and a Plasmancer or two, other characters.
And just use our characters and mortal wounds against the opponent's heavy and elite stuff?
Plasmancer has a decent anti tank gun. And well, an overlord with a relic Taycon arrow has a 6 damage shot too.
So, this way, its almost impossible to shoot out our characters and the 2 Cthan shards in the first 2 turns. Time enough to clear all the chaff and use mortal wounds and character shooting to wittle down their heavies? Or just charge them and tie them in combat turn 3.
Our best anti-tank in my opinion is cc. Some gauss cannon shots followed by a warscythe attacks from the command barge will do some damage. The stratagem to give core units + 1 str used with warscythe lychguard gets the job done. Nightbringer and Voiddragon especially the Voiddragon can take out vehicles. You can always gauss blaster a vehicle down with -2 AP.
Melee anti-tank looks great on paper, but in reality doesn't tend to work in the game unless the unit in question is either very fast or has a good way to guarantee a charge from reserves. Without one of those two, the opponent's vehicles can just avoid your melee anti-tank.
The only thing in the Necron book that really fits that bill is scytheguard deploying via the night scythe strat for a max 6" charge. The difficulty here is that it's actually surprisingly easy to screen out the night scythe coming in from DS because of the big base. And even if you start the thing on the table, you can't do the strat T1, so that's not a great solution either because it has to survive a full turn before it can swoop in for delivery. I think that combo has play, but I wouldn't rely on it or any other melee to kill tanks.
It's unfortunate given how anemic necron anti-tank shooting is, but I don't think you can really rely on melee to do it. If you're going to go that route, it's better to just give up on killing vehicles and focus on just tagging them instead with stuff like scarabs.
I was thinking just tag them with stuff like scarabs while our troops sit on objectives and slowly whittle them down with our Ctan and characters throwing out mortal wounds and shots.
In the list I suggested, there are nothing good for them to shoot at anyway. Just tons of troops that would get back up again or scarabs. It will be turn 3 or 4 by the time they get to killing the Ctan shards. And they would need to literally kill the whole army before they can get to the characters.
I think that list could work, though I am not a fan of double C'tan at all, and I would really debate taking a C'tan in that list at all. I would think you might go better going heavy on protected characters instead, to make them totally waste their anti-tank.
Szeras probably does great work in that list; his gun is good, and he gets full use out of his buffing and rezzing in a list full of core. I'd think him + a CCB with the relic staff probably does better work in that list than a C'tan, for nearly 50 points less.
yukishiro1 wrote: I think that list could work, though I am not a fan of double C'tan at all, and I would really debate taking a C'tan in that list at all. I would think you might go better going heavy on protected characters instead, to make them totally waste their anti-tank.
Szeras probably does great work in that list; his gun is good, and he gets full use out of his buffing and rezzing in a list full of core. I'd think him + a CCB with the relic staff probably does better work in that list than a C'tan, for nearly 50 points less.
Running this exact setup. It is wonderful.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: He's the only LoW since pre-nerf Girlyman that's actually value for points IMO. He just does so much. He's like the opposite of a C'tan. C'tan do a couple of things very well and everything else badly or not at all; he does practically everything pretty well, without necessarily having any game-breaking tricks.
I think there's potentially a place for him in almost every list, though obviously lists with a strong <CORE> focus are going to get more out of his buffs than ones that don't. But honestly he's so strong that I think he potentially has a place even in lists that take only one big unit of, say, Lychguard or Praetorians, even without much else that he can buff.
I think hes about 100 points overcosted. Which is a significant amount. Pretty much the most schizophrenic rules I have ever seen on a model with the most horrendous rules for degradation. Buffs only core and praetorians (you get an award if you actually manage to buff the praetorians in melee with him).
Just compare what you can get for his cost and you see hes not remotely balanced in cost.
3x triarch stalkers with heavy gauss. 18 str 7 ap-3 d3 damage per turn with 9 str 7 ap-3 flat 3 damage melee attacks.
36 t7 wounds with quantum sheilding.
3 targets per turn buffed with reroll 1's (not just core).
The worst part about silent king is losing the annihilation beams after your first 10 wounds. That alone makes him overcosted.
I dunno, I'd usually much rather have him than 3 stalkers. But they are used in totally different ways. Stalkers have to be out there killing stuff to be getting value, so they also have to be exposed. A single stalker also has a larger width profile than the king + both menhirs, so you're not going to be able to hide them effectively even if you wanted to.
If you throw TSK out there early in the game sure, he's going to die. But that's a silly way to use him. One of the biggest strengths of the model is that it can benefit from obscuring terrain, play the angles, and still use all his buffs, none of which require LOS. You're usually going to be playing cagey with him for a turn or two, then bringing him out once you've destroyed or tied up the targets he's most vulnerable to.
He has definite vulnerabilities to planes and harlequin bikes. The former don't see much play right now, but the latter do, and there's no great counter. If he's FAQ'd to get the 5+++ vs mortals from his own dynasty trait, that would address that weakness quite a bit.
He might look vulnerable to reserved melta stuff, but I don't think he actually is particularly, assuming you have a board with decent terrain.
When I read the headline all hail the silent king I start hearing the ompa lompa song fron Charlie and the chocolet factory. Imagening the necrons singing and dansing through out the tomb complex.
yukishiro1 wrote: I think that list could work, though I am not a fan of double C'tan at all, and I would really debate taking a C'tan in that list at all. I would think you might go better going heavy on protected characters instead, to make them totally waste their anti-tank.
Szeras probably does great work in that list; his gun is good, and he gets full use out of his buffing and rezzing in a list full of core. I'd think him + a CCB with the relic staff probably does better work in that list than a C'tan, for nearly 50 points less.
Running this exact setup. It is wonderful.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: He's the only LoW since pre-nerf Girlyman that's actually value for points IMO. He just does so much. He's like the opposite of a C'tan. C'tan do a couple of things very well and everything else badly or not at all; he does practically everything pretty well, without necessarily having any game-breaking tricks.
I think there's potentially a place for him in almost every list, though obviously lists with a strong <CORE> focus are going to get more out of his buffs than ones that don't. But honestly he's so strong that I think he potentially has a place even in lists that take only one big unit of, say, Lychguard or Praetorians, even without much else that he can buff.
I think hes about 100 points overcosted. Which is a significant amount. Pretty much the most schizophrenic rules I have ever seen on a model with the most horrendous rules for degradation. Buffs only core and praetorians (you get an award if you actually manage to buff the praetorians in melee with him).
Just compare what you can get for his cost and you see hes not remotely balanced in cost.
3x triarch stalkers with heavy gauss. 18 str 7 ap-3 d3 damage per turn with 9 str 7 ap-3 flat 3 damage melee attacks.
36 t7 wounds with quantum sheilding.
3 targets per turn buffed with reroll 1's (not just core).
The worst part about silent king is losing the annihilation beams after your first 10 wounds. That alone makes him overcosted.
I agree, the loss of the Menhirs for me is the deal breaker with Silent King.
It's funny how people look at things differently, to me those are just a little bonus, not something I actually care about losing. In the vast majority of matchups, unless you play badly you're going to get at least one volley off with them, which seems fine to me.
Purely because he degrades like a mofo. Who else in this game degrades that severely?
He goes from 6+4+3 attacks of 3 pretty strong profiles + 2 BIG guns +2 pretty powerful auras to 2 attacks barely better than an Overlord's swing, loses the big guns, and loses 2 auras.
Seriously, that is right up there with the Titans' 4-5 degrading brackets level of stupid. All other degrading units still have something useful to offer when degraded severely, he's literally an overlord at that point with higher toughness and a single deny.
Agreed 100% with SK feeling schizophrenic. His auras want to buff things that don't really need to be near him.(praetorians want to be zipping around killin fools.)
His firepower + melee makes a significant dent in something but you'll never bring it all to bear meaningfully due to his various profiles.
My main issue with the SK is his auras are so negligible. You get to reroll hits in shooting... with (mostly) your troop choices' 1-damage guns! - and 2 units will likely be hitting on 2s anyway, so for them it's essentially just reroll 1s. You can reroll wound rolls - with your squishy combat Core that will either be creeping up the flanks or deep striking in turn 2, where you may not be able to clip them with your aura thanks your 8" move! Oh and don't forget that extra 1" movement bubble - Core only too of course, wouldn't want to break the game XD
Losing the big guns after 10 wounds is pretty awful. Decent in combat but nothing spectacular for the points. And a solitary deny with no bonuses, when there are multitudes of lesser characters with a cheeky +1 to cast or deny, also feels more than a little conservative.
He has got a few other things going for him and I'm still going to try him out as I'm not a tournament gamer but I agree he feels very overcosted. If he had a reroll 1's to wound aura he might be worth it. However I know those auras are pretty much going away and they showed with his current auras that they're terrified of allowing much in the way of potent force amplification so there wasn't much chance of that.
I wonder if he makes Shieldguard more attractive as they don't mind walking up with him and with rerolls to wound their swords are a bit more scary even with 1 damage... still doesn't sound great tbh.
yukishiro1 wrote: Melee anti-tank looks great on paper, but in reality doesn't tend to work in the game unless the unit in question is either very fast or has a good way to guarantee a charge from reserves. Without one of those two, the opponent's vehicles can just avoid your melee anti-tank.
The only thing in the Necron book that really fits that bill is scytheguard deploying via the night scythe strat for a max 6" charge. The difficulty here is that it's actually surprisingly easy to screen out the night scythe coming in from DS because of the big base. And even if you start the thing on the table, you can't do the strat T1, so that's not a great solution either because it has to survive a full turn before it can swoop in for delivery. I think that combo has play, but I wouldn't rely on it or any other melee to kill tanks.
It's unfortunate given how anemic necron anti-tank shooting is, but I don't think you can really rely on melee to do it. If you're going to go that route, it's better to just give up on killing vehicles and focus on just tagging them instead with stuff like scarabs.
This seems like you have an issue with all melee options. I disagree, you do not need a gimmick in order to use melee units. We don't have to have a perfect world where our cc units are able to charge as soon as they arrive, although we have that option available depending on proper screening. We have Skorpekh and Canoptek units who are fast enough to be in charge range by turn 2-3, if your scarabs can tag them then that means skorpekh destroyer or wraith squads can tag them.
Also what vehicle are we talking about? What vehicle do we fear? I am asking because I thought with point increase we are seeing fewer tanks on the battlefield.
He himself doesn't degrade at all until losing 18 wounds, he just loses the guns on the rocks. All other vehicles start degrading at 50% damage, you have to do 70% to degrade him. It's a pretty significant difference. With the lowest profile only being 1-4 wounds and him healing 1+ a round, and his always fights last aura, he's realistically very unlikely to be at that profile anyway. And as long as he's not at bottom profile, he's at 7 very damaging attacks with a reroll wounds aura for <CORE>, which means he's still quite effective.
This seems like you have an issue with all melee options. I disagree, you do not need a gimmick in order to use melee units. We don't have to have a perfect world where our cc units are able to charge as soon as they arrive, although we have that option available depending on proper screening. We have Skorpekh and Canoptek units who are fast enough to be in charge range by turn 2-3, if your scarabs can tag them then that means skorpekh destroyer or wraith squads can tag them.
Melee is great generally in 9th, because it's an objective game. But melee against tanks is problematic because they can be easily screened and they move fast enough when not degraded to just scoot away. If you fail to charge a tank on the turn you arrive, the tank just moves 10" away and you're even worse off next round, even if by some miracle you aren't just dead.
Wraiths are a tagging unit like scarabs, they don't really kill stuff. They can tag stuff because they have fly and move faster than or the same speed as most vehicles, which means you can't screen them out effectively and you can't really run from them either.
You will do fine using melee to kill tanks against mediocre players who just want to pew pew, good ones just won't let you get into them unless your melee has fly, high movement and/or advance and charge.
The fact that tanks aren't a big part of the meta is why just tagging them is more effective than trying to kill them in many cases, and certainly more effective than trying to kill them with melee units that can just be screened or kited.
yukishiro1 I understand what you are saying you are discussing the difficulty of getting into cc, while I am talking about the best weaponry we have for vehicles. I think skorpekh destroyers is the strongest unit against vehicles. If you want a ranged option then lokhust destroyers with the stratagem to re-roll wounds will get the job done.
yukishiro1 wrote: It's funny how people look at things differently, to me those are just a little bonus, not something I actually care about losing. In the vast majority of matchups, unless you play badly you're going to get at least one volley off with them, which seems fine to me.
What if the barge gained an unfocused heatray like profile once both Menhirs were destroyed? Honestly my opinion is also influenced by the completely non competitive reason of “what is the point of the C’tan shard”? In my mind the C’tan would power the menhirs that would fire a focused attack. When both lenses are gone, C’tan itself fires unfocused beam. I really wonder if Silent King was toned done in the early design of rules because the C’tan is so prominent on the model but the rules do not back it up.
Hello, guys! I'm a pretty new player, having only played a bit back at the start of 8th. I thought I would post my current list here and maybe get some useful feedback.
My overall logic is something like this. The nightbringer shard is there mostly to be a big threat that eats a lot of fire. Similarly, the CCB is mostly there to discourage charging my main force. I went with lots of small units of immortals because I feel like they do much better than warriors as general infantry, at least when operating without heavy reliance on ghost arks and the like. They go and sit on objectives, and still have the range and punch to affect things. Szeras is there to patch up units in reach and maybe give out a decent buff or two. With as much core as I have in the list, I figure he's worth the minor cost up from just running two technomancers to do his job.
I like deathmarks, and I'm hopeful they'll do something this edition, particularly with their ability to drop into an isolated spot and start poking more fragile characters.
The tomb blades and praetorians will hopefully work okay as a more mobile force while I walk the rest of the guys up. the technomancer with the cloak should hopefully keep some of them up.
I picked Nihilakh mostly for flavor (my necrons are painted in tan, gold, and blue), although extra objective secured on already durable bodies seems pretty good, and I like their warlord trait.
Lastly, the doomstalkers are meant as more denial than anything. Setting them up will in all likelihood, cause my opponent to immediately clear any of their heavy vehicles from its firing arc. I think that kind of positional control has some value at least. Sitting in the back with Nihilakh gives them the odd bonus of any AP large enough to matter being wasted on their invuln.
I really want to run one of the new royal wardens, and a squad of lychguard with sword and shields, but I haven't found anything I would cut.
v0iddrgn wrote: Do you round up for Mephrit half range? Eg 27in = 14in for bonus -1 AP.
Not sure if this is official but you can use half inches. 27in would get bonus ap at 13 1/2 inches. Most measuring tapes have fractions on them, and if not you can just estimate, it shouldn't make much of a difference
Barcha wrote: Hello, guys! I'm a pretty new player, having only played a bit back at the start of 8th. I thought I would post my current list here and maybe get some useful feedback.
My overall logic is something like this. The nightbringer shard is there mostly to be a big threat that eats a lot of fire. Similarly, the CCB is mostly there to discourage charging my main force. I went with lots of small units of immortals because I feel like they do much better than warriors as general infantry, at least when operating without heavy reliance on ghost arks and the like. They go and sit on objectives, and still have the range and punch to affect things. Szeras is there to patch up units in reach and maybe give out a decent buff or two. With as much core as I have in the list, I figure he's worth the minor cost up from just running two technomancers to do his job.
I like deathmarks, and I'm hopeful they'll do something this edition, particularly with their ability to drop into an isolated spot and start poking more fragile characters.
The tomb blades and praetorians will hopefully work okay as a more mobile force while I walk the rest of the guys up. the technomancer with the cloak should hopefully keep some of them up.
I picked Nihilakh mostly for flavor (my necrons are painted in tan, gold, and blue), although extra objective secured on already durable bodies seems pretty good, and I like their warlord trait.
Lastly, the doomstalkers are meant as more denial than anything. Setting them up will in all likelihood, cause my opponent to immediately clear any of their heavy vehicles from its firing arc. I think that kind of positional control has some value at least. Sitting in the back with Nihilakh gives them the odd bonus of any AP large enough to matter being wasted on their invuln.
I really want to run one of the new royal wardens, and a squad of lychguard with sword and shields, but I haven't found anything I would cut.
Assuming you aren't trying to take the most competitive list possible here, but do want some advice on how to make it more competitive in the general range of what you've got:
Take the -1D trait instead of the always strikes first, unfortunately the way the game mechanics work (i.e. chargers still hit before it) that trait is almost never useful. The technomancer can't do anything for the praetorians except I guess rez one once a game with the thing you paid almost as much for as the cost of a praetorian, and I think it is redundant in a list where you also take szeras, so I'd cut one of the two, or if you're really committed to both, turn it into a +1 to hit bot for the doomstalkers. But I probably wouldn't do that, the bot is only really value if you take 3.
I don't think you need 6 troops in a list where everything has ob-sec, I'd drop 3 of those immortals units for at least one unit of scarabs, preferably two, and preferably 9 man each. Your list doesn't have fast stuff that wants to be on objectives right now, and ob-sec scarabs are just wickedly good things to have around. With the extra points left over from that + dropping the technomancer I'd pick up a triarch stalker since you can make a lot of use out of the rerolling 1s to hit, or a third doomstalker if you decided to go the technomancer +1 to hit.
It would be more competitive to go custom dynasty and take the +6" pre-game move instead of the -1AP in your deployment zone, but Nihilakh isn't terrible or anything.
Assuming you aren't trying to take the most competitive list possible here, but do want some advice on how to make it more competitive in the general range of what you've got:
Take the -1D trait instead of the always strikes first, unfortunately the way the game mechanics work (i.e. chargers still hit before it) that trait is almost never useful. The technomancer can't do anything for the praetorians except I guess rez one once a game with the thing you paid almost as much for as the cost of a praetorian, and I think it is redundant in a list where you also take szeras, so I'd cut one of the two, or if you're really committed to both, turn it into a +1 to hit bot for the doomstalkers. But I probably wouldn't do that, the bot is only really value if you take 3.
I don't think you need 6 troops in a list where everything has ob-sec, I'd drop 3 of those immortals units for at least one unit of scarabs, preferably two, and preferably 9 man each. Your list doesn't have fast stuff that wants to be on objectives right now, and ob-sec scarabs are just wickedly good things to have around. With the extra points left over from that + dropping the technomancer I'd pick up a triarch stalker since you can make a lot of use out of the rerolling 1s to hit, or a third doomstalker if you decided to go the technomancer +1 to hit.
It would be more competitive to go custom dynasty and take the +6" pre-game move instead of the -1AP in your deployment zone, but Nihilakh isn't terrible or anything.
I'm sad to hear that the warlord trait is bad. I had thought it was a good way to ruin charges, so that will definitely have to change. I'm thinking I'll probably dump one of the doomstalkers for a triarch stalker.
What do you think of spyders this edition as backup for scarabs? probably with a gloom prism, because denial for 5 points is pretty okay in my book. Cutting the technomancer buys me quite a bit of flex room, and I'd be tempted to put one on the table.
It should be a good way to ruin charges...until you read the rare rules section, and realize GW has come up with this unbelievably convoluted system, the rub of which is that one charging unit still fights before any units that have always fights first and they then alternate, because <reasons>. Which takes away most of the point of the ability.
I actually like the lone spyder with a prism with some scarabs, I don't think it's a bad pick. It will die easily to anyone who actually sets out to kill it, but by the same token, it has pretty decent resilience for its points, and if they DON'T kill it, they don't really accomplish anything at all. I like those models that tempt your opponent to make bad choices.
Just don't expect it to really kill anything or do much besides be a nuisance, and I think it's a decent use of 65 or however many points it costs.
Barcha wrote: I'm sad to hear that the warlord trait is bad. I had thought it was a good way to ruin charges, so that will definitely have to change. I'm thinking I'll probably dump one of the doomstalkers for a triarch stalker.
What do you think of spyders this edition as backup for scarabs? probably with a gloom prism, because denial for 5 points is pretty okay in my book. Cutting the technomancer buys me quite a bit of flex room, and I'd be tempted to put one on the table.
So I belive this works until they release an FAQ for FW... or new FW books...
There are two FW characters part of the Maynarkh dynasty.
As it is, Maynarkh becomes a custom dynasty.
So all custom dynasties get access to the following characters:
Kutlahk the world killer
- unique, old school MWBD - 12" infantry advance and charge aura
Toholk the Blinded
- Old School cryptek aura (3", 5++ aura, infantry)
- Old School Reanim aura (+1 reanim rolls)
- upgrade living metal to be d3 on any 1 vehicle for the whole game
- Obviously Toholks old school reanim aura is super good.
- Advance and charge for Skorpehks and or Lychguard who also get a 6" pregame move?
- MWBD for destroyers?
All seems super good. Now, I'll admit right now it won't last, it's 100% an exploit of circumstance. But until they FAQ it, rules is rules.
I have looked at Maynarkh characters a couple times, but honestly, I am kinda hoping they get custom Dynasty traits in the upcoming Compendium.
In othe rnews, could someone who has already recieved their book answer me if the Spyders can still repair tings, how many points that upgrade is if it's purchased and confimr if it stack (either with itself or the cryptek. I'm expecting not itself, and yes cryptek, as we were)
I think it would be super gamey to try to use the FW Maynarkh characters in a custom dynasty, or, frankly, to use them at all when they're so clearly based on the outdated old rules.
It's only 5 points for the Spyder repair upgrade, but it can only heal <Dynasty> Vehicles, not anything else. It doesn't stack with itself, but would stack with the Technomancer heal if you buy it.
CKO wrote: Can you get -4 AP withe Mephrit and vengeful stars? I don't know if modifiers only apply to hit rolls.
Only to hit and to wound. If it applied to AP...Marines would be open as hell. Terminator getting hit by multi melta? Save on 3+! Even power armour would never save on worse than 4+
That ought to put to end any idea that there's some universal modifier cap. There isn't. It's specifically for to hit and to wound
yukishiro1 wrote: I think it would be super gamey to try to use the FW Maynarkh characters in a custom dynasty, or, frankly, to use them at all when they're so clearly based on the outdated old rules.
It's only 5 points for the Spyder repair upgrade, but it can only heal <Dynasty> Vehicles, not anything else. It doesn't stack with itself, but would stack with the Technomancer heal if you buy it.
Sorry, but I don't believe it stacks. Both abilities even though named differently say:
...you can repair one friendly <DYNASTY> model within 3" of this model. That model regains up to D3 lost wounds. Each model can only be [b]repaired once per turn.[/b]
They do not have a caveat of "by this ability" or anything. A model may only be repaired once per turn, full stop.
The distinction in 8th Ed was that the Cloak on the Cryptek made Living Metal regenerate D3 instead of 1, and then the Spyder gave an additional D3
however, you reminded me that there's a lot of repair-stack-prohibiting in the Iron Hands Supplement FAQ, which stopped the Librarian and Techmarines repairing the same tanks...
I guess we'll have to wait and see if it gets FAQ'd....
I would almost guarantee that their intention is to only let something get repaired from one source a turn and not have it stack. That’s still 1 for Living Metal and D3 from the repairer which is still neat. Then with the Command Protocol it could get 2+d3 which is solid. I’m sort of tempted (though probably isn’t worth it) to keep a spyder near a group of Doomstalkers along with the Canoptek buffing Technomancer to give them +1 to hit as well.
If the spyder isn’t dead I’m the first few turn it can also counter charge anyone trying to go for your Stalkers and potentially get the +1 to hit still from the Technomancer.
I never said it needed one, I simply wondered if we'd get a clarifying one.
As said, if the Cryptek cloak makes Living Metal go to d3 instead of just 1, I think we'd still be able to do 2d3.
Obviously, I know that the Rite will not make it d3+1 as the rite says outright that it's 2 instead of 1, I'm just wondering if I could have a cryptek improve living metal and then a spyder do d3 of repairs.
IHFAQ gives food for thought, but thats all. This is why I'm wondering if we'll gte an FAQ of our own.
personally i feel trying to use FW after a codex got a massive overhaul like this is unwise.
Either the unit is broken and doesnt work right because it hasnt been updated to follow the codex, or is broken because its in this weird in-between phase and is hyper powerful because of it.
And since we know new FW books are imminent thats why they havnt been faq'd to fix anything. Usually they release a faq for such a thing, like when ork codex dropped they faq'd the FW stuff enough to not cause any glaring issues.
yukishiro1 wrote: I think it would be super gamey to try to use the FW Maynarkh characters in a custom dynasty, or, frankly, to use them at all when they're so clearly based on the outdated old rules.
It's only 5 points for the Spyder repair upgrade, but it can only heal <Dynasty> Vehicles, not anything else. It doesn't stack with itself, but would stack with the Technomancer heal if you buy it.
Sorry, but I don't believe it stacks. Both abilities even though named differently say:
...you can repair one friendly <DYNASTY> model within 3" of this model. That model regains up to D3 lost wounds. Each model can only be [b]repaired once per turn.[/b]
They do not have a caveat of "by this ability" or anything. A model may only be repaired once per turn, full stop.
No, they don't both say that. One says you can heal any <DYNASTY> model, the other is only <DYNASTY> VEHICLE. It's not only named differently, it has a different effect as well. That text at the end is to make clear you can't use the same ability to repair the same model twice.
There is no reason per the rules as written that you couldn't use both abilities once each on the same model. At that point, you might as well note that Living Metal also says that each unit with it "repairs" one wound a turn, and therefore that you can't use any of these healing abilities at all unless the model was at full health at the start of the command phase because Living Metal already counts as its one repair for the turn, and therefore both abilities are essentially unusable as they would only work if you somehow managed to take damage between your command phase and the end of your movement phase.
"Repair" isn't a keyword. The abilities have different names and different functions. RAW there is no doubt they stack. If GW done Gee-dubbed and meant to make the two rules the same and just screwed up the text, it needs an errata because right now they aren't the same ability and therefore stack.
For the two different repair "abilities" discussion, i present to you...Admech..
Every single one of their dudes that can repair have the same exact name for the ability, but its got 3 different ways its worded. largest glaring issue is the Datasmith's for some reason only works on robots, despite being the same ability that normally is just admech for D3 and nonadmech for 1.
Also, Explodes! - almsot all of them are not given special titles, just explode, yet do different things.
Both of those are not the situation here. When an ability has the same name, but a different effect, there's an ambiguity introduced as to whether it is really the same ability, because GW has never clearly clarified whether the name of the ability is what determines whether it's unique or not. The same problem occurs when you have the opposite situation, different names but an identical effect.
Here, the abilities have different names and different effects. The only thing that is the same is they both talk about "repairing." But so does Living Metal. And there is no way you can possibly tell me it's intended that you can't use a repair on anything that's repaired using Living Metal. So it cannot be the case that they intended the word "repair" itself to be some sort of keyword limitation.
The only way there would be a rule ambiguity here is if it is an error that the Spyder can only heal vehicles (or that the technomancer can heal non-vehicles, I suppose) and they meant to have both abilities worded identically. At that point, even though they have different names, there is an argument that they're the same ability in practice and therefore should not stack.
But then we aren't in RAW, we are speculating about whether GW may have put a typo into the book.
To add to the weirdness here, technically neither ability even *has* a name. They both are wargear options that say what they do via a table, not with any sort of bolded text denoting the name of the effect. If you had to say what they name of each ability was, I suppose it would be the name of the wargear option, but neither is formatted in the standard Ability: Function way.
Repair doesn't require a keyword, anymore than "reassemble" does in ressurection protocols.
Give that a read over and compare.
We can take it to YMDC, but I would argue RAW they do not stack.
I would love it if they FAQd it to stack, as that would be good for us. Repair the SK 1+2d3 a turn would be great.
Edit:
Living Metal doesn't conflict with this. It says that unit "regains 1 lost wound" regains, not repair.
It doesn't matter what the ability name is, but every one of the Necrons variously named abilities say "repair a model... each model may only be repaired once per turn." No limits on where the repair effect is coming from. No conflicting instructions.
actually the silent king is an enigma. He DOES have the dynasty keyword, specifically the Szarekhan one. The fact that he's also an Agent is both useful and irritating (useful because he can be used in any dynasty and annoying because he doesnt get Szarekhan bonuses, depsite the keyword being there)
The other agents (i.e. Triarch Stalker) do not have a dynasty at all so cannot be repaired if the repair is looking for one.
Purely because he degrades like a mofo. Who else in this game degrades that severely?
He goes from 6+4+3 attacks of 3 pretty strong profiles + 2 BIG guns +2 pretty powerful auras to 2 attacks barely better than an Overlord's swing, loses the big guns, and loses 2 auras.
Seriously, that is right up there with the Titans' 4-5 degrading brackets level of stupid. All other degrading units still have something useful to offer when degraded severely, he's literally an overlord at that point with higher toughness and a single deny.
What if you use the Stellar Alignment Protocol to put him back in the top bracket? Does that reactivate Phaeron of the stars/Blades etc
Off hand, i'd say no because it just says he uses the top bracket. The rule that makes him lose the 2 auras and extra attacks is technically not bracket related.
Just noticed Something while browsing the App.
It says the voltaic staff has 12" while in the Codex its written with 18".
Anyone found more mistakes in the App?
Surtr wrote: Just noticed Something while browsing the App.
It says the voltaic staff has 12" while in the Codex its written with 18".
Anyone found more mistakes in the App?
On the app the deceiver has the nightbringer abilities listed instead of his own.
Murderbuckets are nice. I grabbed two additonal sets from ebay just in case. Might come in handy for Raise the banners, their bodyguard rule is hilariously strong, and near a Cryptek they have really nice stats. Only downside is that they might feed Attrition.
Maybe they'll update the destroyer lord to be shootier or something, idk.
I don't know how long Destroyer Lords have been an option, but it feels like people have been saying this for about 10 years now At least he now has melee Destroyer units that he can buff with his aura. GW must have decided that Destroyer Lords must remain weird and mediocre and this must never ever change. They even kept him at 3+ WS unlike almost every other 'combat' character
Maybe they'll update the destroyer lord to be shootier or something, idk.
I don't know how long Destroyer Lords have been an option, but it feels like people have been saying this for about 10 years now At least he now has melee Destroyer units that he can buff his aura. GW must have decided that Destroyer Lords must remain weird and mediocre and this must never ever change. They even kept him at 3+ WS unlike almost every other 'combat' character
He's been an option for more than 16 years.
He was first in the 3rd ed codex, released in 2004 I believe.
Now, back then the Destroyer lord was just a movement upgrade for a lord. In 5th ed he became his own unit choice, iirc, but was still melee oriented and was outclassed by the CCB.
They just had no clue what to do with him, the CCB does everything the destroyer lord does, but better. And then the skorpekh lord comes along and does the one thing the destroyer lord does that the CCB doesn't, but does other stuff too.
I have yet to get my hands on the codex, and would like to plan my things out a bit. Lokhust Destroyers and Heavy Lokust Destroyers: What are the units sizes and weapons upgrades?
On a side note, I've found many of my old-school models now look like they are from other units. How much grief do you think I'll get for running Pariahs as Lychguard, 2nd edition Destroyers as Tomb Blades, and and 3rd edition Wraiths as Ophydian Destroyers?
I'd rebase them to the right sizes, but as long as you do that, most people probably won't care. Some tournaments might, though even there you could probably get approval by pre-submitting and saying they're "conversions" *wink wink nudge nudge*.
I'm pretty sad because I like a lot of the old lord models, but the rules for lords feel incredibly underwhelming. Do you think people would let me run my 3rd edition necron lord as an overlord?
Purely because he degrades like a mofo. Who else in this game degrades that severely?
He goes from 6+4+3 attacks of 3 pretty strong profiles + 2 BIG guns +2 pretty powerful auras to 2 attacks barely better than an Overlord's swing, loses the big guns, and loses 2 auras.
Seriously, that is right up there with the Titans' 4-5 degrading brackets level of stupid. All other degrading units still have something useful to offer when degraded severely, he's literally an overlord at that point with higher toughness and a single deny.
What if you use the Stellar Alignment Protocol to put him back in the top bracket? Does that reactivate Phaeron of the stars/Blades etc
RAW it doesn't, I think. Stellar Alignment Protocols specifically mentions using the top bracket when "determining characteristics", whereas the rules that deal with the Phaeron abilities aren't characteristics but special abilities tied directly to the number of wounds remaining. The strat doesn't actually change the number of wounds remaining so you don't suddenly revive the Phaerons, sadly. I'd love to say this was all planned by GW but I'm not sure they really understand the nuances of their own wording sometimes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Barcha wrote: I'm pretty sad because I like a lot of the old lord models, but the rules for lords feel incredibly underwhelming. Do you think people would let me run my 3rd edition necron lord as an overlord?
Yes. Nobody should complain and the vast majority of people won't know the difference anyway. IIRC, that Lord model is from a time when there was no Lord/Overlord split anyway so I can't see anyone having a problem with it.
Can you Rez Orb models that have fled from morale, combat attrition and models slain from non-attacks like Smite? Same with Rites of Reanimation.
It looks like it. The old caveat that you couldn't reanimate models that flee no longer exists because the basic rules for RP only apply after an attack, so that caveat is no longer necessary. However, the Res Orb just says to roll RP for every model that's been destroyed, so it looks like it applies to all the missing models, regardless of what caused them to be destroyed.
I am so torn between Gauss Immortals and Warriors now.
The Warriors going to 13 points, by comparison to 17 pt Gauss Immortals....
Gets me +1 A,+1 SV, +1 T.
Loses RR1s for the RP.
They seem like a solid choice in a marine meta. They still reliably RP on a 5+, or a 4+ in some cases, and 2 of them will refund the cost of a rez orb. Getting a 2+ in cover is handy as well, with 30 inch range giving them a lot of options.
Thoughts nowadays?
iGuy91 wrote: I am so torn between Gauss Immortals and Warriors now.
The Warriors going to 13 points, by comparison to 17 pt Gauss Immortals....
Gets me +1 A,+1 SV, +1 T.
Loses RR1s for the RP.
They seem like a solid choice in a marine meta. They still reliably RP on a 5+, or a 4+ in some cases, and 2 of them will refund the cost of a rez orb. Getting a 2+ in cover is handy as well, with 30 inch range giving them a lot of options.
Thoughts nowadays?
Always Necron Immortals for on field deployment, Reaper Warriors when Deepstriking
With that said, I'm at least giving the custom dynasty's martial tradition a side-eye. Going MSU (multiple small unit) with minimal units, to get a reroll on the attack for each? You could do some serious work, shifting from resilience to FIREPOWER.
Immortals (max. 10) don't control objectives like Warriors (20). You want to be close to objective with your Troops units so you don't need Immortals "long" range gauss. Maybe one unit for home objective.
Also, 20 warriors can perform sweet "Cut them down" stratagem surprise just for 1CP.
I think that both Warriors and Immortals have places in a list, use your warriors for front line objective grabbing and moving up the board, and use Immortals to snag objectives that the warriors no longer want to hold.
I'm going to try running a 10x immortals for every 20x warriors, I think the secret will be ratios more then which is better if any of what I've said makes sense
Does anyone know how the new RP interacts with morale? And by that, I mean if my squad of ten warriors loses 6, and 2 get back up, is my morale d6 plus 4 or 6?
Well...these little washing machines can mulch through light infantry with easy. If close to a technomancer they would do 6a at 2+ and s5 each. What would be the max? 6 guys? 3 Units of 2? Infantry. Not a bad way of rising banners and counter chaff.
iGuy91 wrote: I am so torn between Gauss Immortals and Warriors now.
The Warriors going to 13 points, by comparison to 17 pt Gauss Immortals....
Gets me +1 A,+1 SV, +1 T.
Loses RR1s for the RP.
They seem like a solid choice in a marine meta. They still reliably RP on a 5+, or a 4+ in some cases, and 2 of them will refund the cost of a rez orb. Getting a 2+ in cover is handy as well, with 30 inch range giving them a lot of options.
Thoughts nowadays?
Immortals are also quite easy to wipe in one go negating rp fully.
cuda1179 wrote: I have yet to get my hands on the codex, and would like to plan my things out a bit. Lokhust Destroyers and Heavy Lokust Destroyers: What are the units sizes and weapons upgrades?
On a side note, I've found many of my old-school models now look like they are from other units. How much grief do you think I'll get for running Pariahs as Lychguard, 2nd edition Destroyers as Tomb Blades, and and 3rd edition Wraiths as Ophydian Destroyers?
1-6 regular destroyers, 0-1 heavy destroyers in the unit. Regular destroyers IIRC have the same gun they have now - heavy 3 S6 AP-3 Dd3, they ignore move and fire heavy with a datasheet rule, and they get always rr1s to hit. The old destroyer stratagem has been nerfed somewhat, it's now 2cp and only rerolls to wound, not to hit and to wound (You miss out on rerolling 2s to hit)
heavy destroyers have the same cost regardless of gun making the lascannon equivalent one always best. Heavy 1 S12 AP-4 D3d3.
Unfortunate that you can't sneak 2 heavies into a unit of lokhusts, but it is what it is.
Do people think regular Destroyers have much use any more? Their move from FA to HS alone pretty much renders them unappealing. Then they went from having one of the best strats in the game to an average one...
I actuall ythink them being in Heavy not Fast is a benefit, given how cramped our FA slots were...
I will probably still use mine. Unless I'm mistaken, they're still one of our best ranged options at dropping Marines, including Gravis armour, which we're about to see a lot more of.
I think one unit of regulars could have a place in lists, if they can be accomodated.
IHateNids wrote: I actuall ythink them being in Heavy not Fast is a benefit, given how cramped our FA slots were...
I will probably still use mine. Unless I'm mistaken, they're still one of our best ranged options at dropping Marines, including Gravis armour, which we're about to see a lot more of.
I think one unit of regulars could have a place in lists, if they can be accomodated.
I'm inclined to agree. I think the key to beating marines now in 9th is being able to handle mass gravis. Which is something destroyers (in any variety) are good at.
IHateNids wrote: I actuall ythink them being in Heavy not Fast is a benefit, given how cramped our FA slots were...
I will probably still use mine. Unless I'm mistaken, they're still one of our best ranged options at dropping Marines, including Gravis armour, which we're about to see a lot more of.
I think one unit of regulars could have a place in lists, if they can be accomodated.
I'm inclined to agree. I think the key to beating marines now in 9th is being able to handle mass gravis. Which is something destroyers (in any variety) are good at.
It's about the only thing I actually feel remotely confident about saying so far about the new dex (granted I have not been able to actually collect it yet - hooray shifts)
I genuinely think the first thing I am going to try is ditching vehicles entirely, just to see how things go (Maybe I'll use the Stalker still... not sure). Will be very wierd not moving 6 big lumps around every single board I'm ever playing on, but I am looking forward to it.
In view of list building, are you using the new GW app and the possibility to access the codex within the app.
Battlescribe seems a bit lacking behind with the codex update.
I'm inclined to agree. I think the key to beating marines now in 9th is being able to handle mass gravis. Which is something destroyers (in any variety) are good at.
It's about the only thing I actually feel remotely confident about saying so far about the new dex (granted I have not been able to actually collect it yet - hooray shifts)
I genuinely think the first thing I am going to try is ditching vehicles entirely, just to see how things go (Maybe I'll use the Stalker still... not sure). Will be very wierd not moving 6 big lumps around every single board I'm ever playing on, but I am looking forward to it.
I'm pretty leery of destroyers, considering both the changes to RP, and the limitations of cryptek support. Statwise, they're still solid, but they feel an order of magnitude more fragile compared to last edition.
Yeah I think at the moment the ranged destroyers are just a bit overcosted as I think GW is overestimating how tough they are. Even with the relic orb on a squad of 6 reduced to 1 (and there's no guarantee a savvy opponent will let you do that) you aren't likely to bring back more than two.
Things might change with a points drop but for now I think one of our best bets to answer the inevitable gravis spam is the humble triarch stalker with heat ray. Yes you have to get close but they have two shots that can be hitting on 2s that are ap-4, wound on 3s and auto kill them in half range and in combat they have ap-2 and 3 damage — and again can be hitting on twos with the triarch strat. They're also fairly resilient against eradicators as far as vehicles go with quantum shielding and 12 wounds. For their points cost I think it's a pretty good deal.
I like the idea of regular destroyers being tanky, heavy support firebase units. The execution is just really underwhelming
If they were 60 points and were harder to kill (T6? 4 wounds? 2+sv?) and their firepower was better, I'm all for it. Right now they're about 15 points overcosted
TheArchmagos wrote: Yeah I think at the moment the ranged destroyers are just a bit overcosted as I think GW is overestimating how tough they are. Even with the relic orb on a squad of 6 reduced to 1 (and there's no guarantee a savvy opponent will let you do that) you aren't likely to bring back more than two.
Things might change with a points drop but for now I think one of our best bets to answer the inevitable gravis spam is the humble triarch stalker with heat ray. Yes you have to get close but they have two shots that can be hitting on 2s that are ap-4, wound on 3s and auto kill them in half range and in combat they have ap-2 and 3 damage — and again can be hitting on twos with the triarch strat. They're also fairly resilient against eradicators as far as vehicles go with quantum shielding and 12 wounds. For their points cost I think it's a pretty good deal.
Stalker is great. I would recommend the heavy gauss cannon though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cynista wrote: I like the idea of regular destroyers being tanky, heavy support firebase units. The execution is just really underwhelming
If they were 60 points and were harder to kill (T6? 4 wounds? 2+sv?) and their firepower was better, I'm all for it. Right now they're about 15 points overcosted
I would say they should be core too. Not being able to my will be done them just kills them.
Destroyers are now good at killing gravis but that's about it. Pretty terrible at everything else. Feels like a specialist unit, whereas in 8th they were a generalist.
Triarch stalkers are solid overall but their offensive output is very low per point; eradicators for example put out 3x the damage per point. You're paying a *lot* for the QS and the ability to let your army reroll 1s.
yukishiro1 wrote: Destroyers are now good at killing gravis but that's about it. Pretty terrible at everything else. Feels like a specialist unit, whereas in 8th they were a generalist.
Triarch stalkers are solid overall but their offensive output is very low per point; eradicators for example put out 3x the damage per point. You're paying a *lot* for the QS and the ability to let your army reroll 1s.
I wouldn't take an army of stalkers but one keeps finding it's way into my lists. With gauss for 150pts you have a unit that can shoot (and whose profile is perfect for killing primaries including gravis), army wide buff, and some CC while on a durable platform.
Gauss or the heat ray also offers a weapon profile lacking for the army.
I do think one stalker is kinda needed in most lists.
Heatray is a good gun and anything it doesnt kill just got easier to kill. And its durable enough to be pretty difficult to take down cheaply.
Now my question is, what dynasty to make the patrol?
Szerakhan - RR 1 wound is 10/10 on ccb and LHD, but the real winner is the 4+ deny strat.
Custom 1: Reroll wound + 3" range to guns (compliments the fire support)
Custom 2: obsec + premove (grants me protocols which... are hard to value, and unlocks MWBD for tomb blades)
Thoughts?
I think that if you're looking to split dynasties, you would be well served to shuffle around some of those units. you have a lot of units you've cut off from MWBD, and I wouldn't count on immortals sticking around, particularly in a detachment with no defensive support. You might be able to squeeze more value out if you swapped a technomancer with a node in for one of the chronomancers in the outrider detatchment, and add an overlord. There's a ton of canoptek in there, and that would give further support if you wanted to add a tomb spyder (which is very much worth its points, with two full units of scarabs). Particularly with a spider or two, you gain the option to deny anyway.
BillyN831 wrote: What are the top three units for Necrons 9th edition? Thank you.
Maybe I'm a bit old school: Wraiths (still, as fast and durable in cc), Warriors, CCB.
In view of the new units, I'd consider Skorpekh destroyers, Doomstalkers, and *mancers.
Vineheart01 wrote: I do think one stalker is kinda needed in most lists.
Heatray is a good gun and anything it doesnt kill just got easier to kill. And its durable enough to be pretty difficult to take down cheaply.
I agree. 140 points for a couple of melta shots feels quite steep (Eradicators are 120 for 6 shots) but the re-roll 1s and the close combat ability, plus the general durability of the Stalker means I always seem to gravitate towards one in my lists. Right now my anti-tank is looking like 2 Doomstalkers and a Triarch Stalker, with the Lokhust Destroyers sadly relegated to the sidelines. I just think 55 points is too steep for what they offer now.
Vineheart01 wrote: I do think one stalker is kinda needed in most lists.
Heatray is a good gun and anything it doesnt kill just got easier to kill. And its durable enough to be pretty difficult to take down cheaply.
I agree. 140 points for a couple of melta shots feels quite steep (Eradicators are 120 for 6 shots) but the re-roll 1s and the close combat ability, plus the general durability of the Stalker means I always seem to gravitate towards one in my lists. Right now my anti-tank is looking like 2 Doomstalkers and a Triarch Stalker, with the Lokhust Destroyers sadly relegated to the sidelines. I just think 55 points is too steep for what they offer now.
Two Doomstalkers and one Triarch Stalkers seem to be reasonable.
But I'm still looking at three Doom Scythes to quickly remove the biggest threats asap.
Vineheart01 wrote: I do think one stalker is kinda needed in most lists.
Heatray is a good gun and anything it doesnt kill just got easier to kill. And its durable enough to be pretty difficult to take down cheaply.
I agree. 140 points for a couple of melta shots feels quite steep (Eradicators are 120 for 6 shots) but the re-roll 1s and the close combat ability, plus the general durability of the Stalker means I always seem to gravitate towards one in my lists. Right now my anti-tank is looking like 2 Doomstalkers and a Triarch Stalker, with the Lokhust Destroyers sadly relegated to the sidelines. I just think 55 points is too steep for what they offer now.
Two Doomstalkers and one Triarch Stalkers seem to be reasonable.
But I'm still looking at three Doom Scythes to quickly remove the biggest threats asap.
How do we actually fit 3 flyers into a list now? There's no detachment allows for 3, unless I'm mistaken, so that kinda dictates you bring 2 detachments....
wuestenfux wrote: In view of list building, are you using the new GW app and the possibility to access the codex within the app.
Battlescribe seems a bit lacking behind with the codex update.
There is a way to get the new Necron stuff into BS. If you check out the BS Reddit there's a post describing how to do it. Basically, you can download the latest files direct from GitHub and upload them into the correct location on your device.
Vineheart01 wrote: I do think one stalker is kinda needed in most lists.
Heatray is a good gun and anything it doesnt kill just got easier to kill. And its durable enough to be pretty difficult to take down cheaply.
I agree. 140 points for a couple of melta shots feels quite steep (Eradicators are 120 for 6 shots) but the re-roll 1s and the close combat ability, plus the general durability of the Stalker means I always seem to gravitate towards one in my lists. Right now my anti-tank is looking like 2 Doomstalkers and a Triarch Stalker, with the Lokhust Destroyers sadly relegated to the sidelines. I just think 55 points is too steep for what they offer now.
Two Doomstalkers and one Triarch Stalkers seem to be reasonable.
But I'm still looking at three Doom Scythes to quickly remove the biggest threats asap.
Yeah, the stalker getting a big buff for its melee, and being able to use the heat ray in melee makes it a really, really strong threat to screens, and to tanks. I've gone ahead and re-painted mine in preparation.
Tomb Blades seem really great now as they benefit so much from being Core. A Technomancer with Canoptek Cloak and Hypermaterial Ablator following them around can take them to a 2+ Sv and res one per turn. MWBD, Lords Will, Relentless March, Adaptive Strategy are all nice too, and even Szeras augments if he's around.
On a less sensible note I think a Rad-wreathed + Interplanetary Invaders could be amusing for a vehicle heavy list - ram people, then if they don't fall back you can shoot into combat while they're -1 toughness.
So if you want to play 3 flyers, you take a detachment as above and an aux. support detachment. It will cost you 2 CP. Not a bad deal for a 3rd Doom Scythe.
Vineheart01 wrote: I do think one stalker is kinda needed in most lists.
Heatray is a good gun and anything it doesnt kill just got easier to kill. And its durable enough to be pretty difficult to take down cheaply.
I agree. 140 points for a couple of melta shots feels quite steep (Eradicators are 120 for 6 shots) but the re-roll 1s and the close combat ability, plus the general durability of the Stalker means I always seem to gravitate towards one in my lists. Right now my anti-tank is looking like 2 Doomstalkers and a Triarch Stalker, with the Lokhust Destroyers sadly relegated to the sidelines. I just think 55 points is too steep for what they offer now.
Two Doomstalkers and one Triarch Stalkers seem to be reasonable.
But I'm still looking at three Doom Scythes to quickly remove the biggest threats asap.
Yeah, the stalker getting a big buff for its melee, and being able to use the heat ray in melee makes it a really, really strong threat to screens, and to tanks. I've gone ahead and re-painted mine in preparation.
I know the heavy gauss is more expensive but it seems auto include to me. The flamer? Who cares. It might kill a few chaff a turn but that is useless. 2 Shot melta vs 6 shot guass with better range and still multi damage - Gauss gonna outperform.
It also seems what the crons really lack is a medium weapons. Lots of str 10 ap-5 d6 damage or better - lots of str 5 ap-2 1 damage. What you need is a nice medium/ anti heavy infantry weapon or all purpose weapon. Which if you really consider it - the stalker is shooting a unit to buff your army against it - what except a t8 target does a stalker not get returns shooting?
If you are already going with double patrol because you want to run more than one dynasty than three flyers is already an option.
I’m not sure about this as there are a lot of ways to spend CP that add a lot of force multipliers in game, but I can still see reasons to run either 2 patrols or a patrol and another detachment
My issue with the gauss on the stalker is its D3D.
Its not strong enough to reliably kill big models
Its not enough shots to clear chaff
And the D3D will commonly "waste shots" against 2-3W low toughness models.
If that cannon was 2D, or more expensive but 3D, i'd take it over the heatray in a heartbeat.
I hate D3D and i wish they'd stop giving weapons that profile.
Moosatronic Warrior wrote: Tomb Blades seem really great now as they benefit so much from being Core. A Technomancer with Canoptek Cloak and Hypermaterial Ablator following them around can take them to a 2+ Sv and res one per turn. MWBD, Lords Will, Relentless March, Adaptive Strategy are all nice too, and even Szeras augments if he's around.
And with veil of darkness he can teleport himself and a unit of tomb blades.
Vineheart01 wrote: My issue with the gauss on the stalker is its D3D.
Its not strong enough to reliably kill big models
Its not enough shots to clear chaff
And the D3D will commonly "waste shots" against 2-3W low toughness models.
If that cannon was 2D, or more expensive but 3D, i'd take it over the heatray in a heartbeat.
I hate D3D and i wish they'd stop giving weapons that profile.
d3 damage prefers 3 wound over 2 wound for sure. flat 2 would be better but it such a small difference it doesn't make an issue for me. Especially with that number of shots. Your chance of out-damaging a flat 2 weapon against a vehicle is well with in reason. Plus with -1 to damage abilities it can be a lot better too. I see the frustration with it but the upside is flat 6 shots. Number of shots is the most important factor on a multi damage weapon IMO.
The problem with the heat ray is two-fold - first, the sort of thing you want to shoot it at is unlikely to be what you want to get reroll 1s against from the rest of your army, and second, even if it is, you have a decent chance of missing both shots, meaning you don't trigger the reroll 1s at all.
Within 12" obviously that problem goes away, but it does mean that you don't have a good way to put the reroll 1s buff that you are paying so many points for onto what you want to put it on from decent range, which IMO really defeats the purpose of the model.
The big advantage of gauss is that it has a profile that is good for shooting at literally anything, and it is almost certain to hit at least once, so you are always able to put the reroll 1s on whatever you want to put it on without wasting the weapon profile.
Heat Ray every time for me. Whilst the new Heavy Gauss profile is... interesting, I'll always want the TS in the middle of the board being a big fat nuisance
yukishiro1 wrote: The problem with the heat ray is two-fold - first, the sort of thing you want to shoot it at is unlikely to be what you want to get reroll 1s against from the rest of your army, and second, even if it is, you have a decent chance of missing both shots, meaning you don't trigger the reroll 1s at all.
Within 12" obviously that problem goes away, but it does mean that you don't have a good way to put the reroll 1s buff that you are paying so many points for onto what you want to put it on from decent range, which IMO really defeats the purpose of the model.
The big advantage of gauss is that it has a profile that is good for shooting at literally anything, and it is almost certain to hit at least once, so you are always able to put the reroll 1s on whatever you want to put it on without wasting the weapon profile.
Exactly. It is the best all purpose weapon on the list. Also - it is reasonably priced but also doesn't have any other weapons but melee. Additional points into its weapon to make it better is a good use of points considering it is one of the most durable units we have access too.
Yeah, and another hit against the heat ray is that it doesn't get ob-sec, a pre-game move or any other dynasty bonus, so its value moving up the table and sitting on an objective flaming and meleeing stuff is not as high as it could be. Can't even be healed by a technomancer or spyder.
IMO its best value is as a self-contained model that doesn't need support that can just stomp around shooting what it needs to while playing the angles to shield it from some return shooting. Charging it straight up the board with a heat ray seems like asking for it to get tied up or just blown up.
Moosatronic Warrior wrote: Tomb Blades seem really great now as they benefit so much from being Core. A Technomancer with Canoptek Cloak and Hypermaterial Ablator following them around can take them to a 2+ Sv and res one per turn. MWBD, Lords Will, Relentless March, Adaptive Strategy are all nice too, and even Szeras augments if he's around.
And with veil of darkness he can teleport himself and a unit of tomb blades.
Can the Veil take Tomb Blades? I don't think it can...?
I know in 8th the Veil could *only* take a squad with the infantry key word.
I believe Tomb Blades are considered to be Bikers, correct?
Do you really need to veil one of the fastest units in the army? Don't get me wrong, there are always going to be edge cases where such a move might be beneficial, I just don't see the value in bringing a veil with the express reason to use it on Tomb Blades.
oh im definitely never doing it.
Theres no reason to veil Tomeblades. Theyre fast, have good reach, and 0 reason to be in near-melee or melee distances.
Reaper warriorss do. Lychguard do. Either would be great even if you just brough the relic and didnt stockpile the shenanigans with it lol.
Tombblades i want nearby the overlord or CCB because they benefit from MWBD quite nicely.
Vineheart01 wrote: oh im definitely never doing it.
Theres no reason to veil Tomeblades. Theyre fast, have good reach, and 0 reason to be in near-melee or melee distances.
Reaper warriorss do. Lychguard do. Either would be great even if you just brough the relic and didnt stockpile the shenanigans with it lol.
Tombblades i want nearby the overlord or CCB because they benefit from MWBD quite nicely.
Deepstriking Lychguards are gak with a 9" (8 at best if Novokh) rerollable charge which is the best case scenario and still failing 40% of times
Yeah IMO the only way to get scytheguard to work is using the night sycthe for a 6" charge. That's pretty much guaranteed with a reroll; even Novokh veil is only a 65% chance, and having your unit sit there doing nothing then die 35% of the time doesn't work competitively.
Veil at the moment feels like it's for a 20-man reaper blob and not much else.
yukishiro1 wrote: The problem with the heat ray is two-fold - first, the sort of thing you want to shoot it at is unlikely to be what you want to get reroll 1s against from the rest of your army, and second, even if it is, you have a decent chance of missing both shots, meaning you don't trigger the reroll 1s at all.
I don't think this is as much of an issue as you think it is. If you really need the buff you can pay 1 CP to be BS 2+ so hitting at least once is pretty reliable. Not to mention you can guarantee the re-roll with the flamer profile if it's close, although that is an admittedly situational advantage.
I get where people are coming from with the gauss option and I think it's good if what you really want is anti-gravis but I still prefer heat ray. I think with heat ray the stalker is exactly where it wants to be. It's an annoying thorn in your opponent's side that hangs around the mid board to shoot at harder targets with the focused profile and counter charge elite units and transports that stray too close. Yes 2d6 flamer shots aren't exactly melting hordes but that's not why it's useful. The flamer option allows it to be a mid-board presence that can't be tied up by chaff OR transport vehicles. If your opponent charges it with chaff you overwatch with 2d6 shots and then kill a few in melee too. If they charge with a transport you can just punch it in melee and then melta it on your turn. It's an all rounder that can be a real headache for your opponent regardless of how they try to deal with it. Sure, it's not tremendously efficient on its own, but it can't be ignored either.
Stalker with Heat Ray is a glorious Distraction Carnifex, pretty much the best in the game right now. Ridiculously tanky (it has a 50/50 chance of surviving 6 Eliminators with full rerolls), can threaten a wide variety of targets, cannot be bogged down in melee because no Blast and deals additional damage with decent melee capabilities.
yukishiro1 wrote: The problem with the heat ray is two-fold - first, the sort of thing you want to shoot it at is unlikely to be what you want to get reroll 1s against from the rest of your army, and second, even if it is, you have a decent chance of missing both shots, meaning you don't trigger the reroll 1s at all.
I don't think this is as much of an issue as you think it is. If you really need the buff you can pay 1 CP to be BS 2+ so hitting at least once is pretty reliable. Not to mention you can guarantee the re-roll with the flamer profile if it's close, although that is an admittedly situational advantage.
I get where people are coming from with the gauss option and I think it's good if what you really want is anti-gravis but I still prefer heat ray. I think with heat ray the stalker is exactly where it wants to be. It's an annoying thorn in your opponent's side that hangs around the mid board to shoot at harder targets with the focused profile and counter charge elite units and transports that stray too close. Yes 2d6 flamer shots aren't exactly melting hordes but that's not why it's useful. The flamer option allows it to be a mid-board presence that can't be tied up by chaff OR transport vehicles. If your opponent charges it with chaff you overwatch with 2d6 shots and then kill a few in melee too. If they charge with a transport you can just punch it in melee and then melta it on your turn. It's an all rounder that can be a real headache for your opponent regardless of how they try to deal with it. Sure, it's not tremendously efficient on its own, but it can't be ignored either.
The targeting array ability does not require a hit on the target. All you have to do is shoot at the target to get reroll 1s for the army.
With the Triarch Stalker, I like the Particle Shredder, multiple marines dying on a 4+ is good. I also like the twin heavy gauss cannon getting -4 AP with Mephrit easily because they can move 10 and be within 16 inches. The 9th edition targeting relay says if a hit is scored.
The targeting array ability does not require a hit on the target. All you have to do is shoot at the target to get reroll 1s for the army.
I can see why you think that as that was how it worked in the previous codex, but read it again, they updated the wording to require a hit. Why they decided that ability needed to be nerfed is beyond me but they did it.
I have two rules questions for units that I admittedly don't plan to run any time soon. First is for the skorpekh destroyers. The composition for a unit of them seems weirdly specific to me. If I'm running a squad of five, is there any flex to the weapons the squad is carrying? Can I go two of the heavy weapons on a squad of four or five, or is it locked to the sixth model?
Secondly, the void dragon has a weird melee weapon. the phrasing is "each time the bearer fights" rather than the ""each time an attack is made with this weapon profile" of other models. does this mean it gets d6 free attacks with it, in addition to its other heavier weapon?
The Particle Shredder on the Stalker is an excellent gun. If I were mostly planning on shooting at targets on objectives along with my warriors, I think I'd grab the cheap option.
The Heavy Gauss lets the Stalker play a bit more cagey, though, which keeps it up and shooting. I like that profile for amplifying the excellent HQ based shooting in Necrons; I think we can get just enough quality shooting on our HQs to not absolutely need Destroyers as a scalpel with the help of the Stalker.
Nora wrote: quick question: Do you need to spend CP and use the Overwatch strat in order to actual use Sentinal Construct ability for the Domestalker?
I would say no. Precedents being the tau greater Good ability and any of the marines overwatch interception strats. These have all been FAQ'd to state you don't need to use the overwatch strat.
No you dont have to pay CP for the overwatch ability.
Its an ability which says "You can fire overwatch" - codex > big rulebook. It also says "this is in addition to any other unit firing overwatch" which is 100% impossible if you still have to use the stratagem.
It's also important to note that the Doomstalker can only shoot overwatch in the opponent's turn if it didn't move during the previous movement phase in your turn, since it has to shoot at high power. That really limits its potential.
Oaka wrote: It's also important to note that the Doomstalker can only shoot overwatch in the opponent's turn if it didn't move during the previous movement phase in your turn, since it has to shoot at high power. That really limits its potential.
Not so. It's only shooting in the shooting phase that requires it to be static to fire at full power. In Overwatch there's no mention that it has to not move to enable overwatch nor to fire as part of overwatch.
Barcha wrote: I have two rules questions for units that I admittedly don't plan to run any time soon. First is for the skorpekh destroyers. The composition for a unit of them seems weirdly specific to me. If I'm running a squad of five, is there any flex to the weapons the squad is carrying? Can I go two of the heavy weapons on a squad of four or five, or is it locked to the sixth model?
Secondly, the void dragon has a weird melee weapon. the phrasing is "each time the bearer fights" rather than the ""each time an attack is made with this weapon profile" of other models. does this mean it gets d6 free attacks with it, in addition to its other heavier weapon?
Yes, a unit of 5 has to have 4 of the normal double blades and 1 of the bigger blades. A unit of 6 adds one with another bigger blade. There is no flexibility.
The void dragon gets the d6 extra attacks with the tail each time it fights. There is no way to double fight with a C'tan, but if there somehow was, you'd get an extra d6 attacks with the tail each time. It's in addition to the normal spear attacks, not instead of.
With the Triarch Stalker, I like the Particle Shredder, multiple marines dying on a 4+ is good. I also like the twin heavy gauss cannon getting -4 AP with Mephrit easily because they can move 10 and be within 16 inches. The 9th edition targeting relay says if a hit is scored.
1 Issue - Triarchs don't get dynasty traits. They do have command protocols though - so you can get ap -4 another way.
Odd, and probably dumb, question. The Silent King has the Dynastic Agent keyword, does the SIlent King not benefit from his own dynasty trait? Seems rather wierd
yukishiro1 wrote: Nobody knows. RAW he does not benefit, but that seems kinda weird, so I think people are hoping for a FAQ that says he does.
Yeah, me too. Looking through the codex again there's nothing that exempts him from it. Hoping they let him benefit if he's in an all Szarekhan dynasty list
With the Triarch Stalker, I like the Particle Shredder, multiple marines dying on a 4+ is good. I also like the twin heavy gauss cannon getting -4 AP with Mephrit easily because they can move 10 and be within 16 inches. The 9th edition targeting relay says if a hit is scored.
1 Issue - Triarchs don't get dynasty traits. They do have command protocols though - so you can get ap -4 another way.
I forgot the Triarch Stalker doesn't receive the dynasty traits, which makes it less attractive. It's still a good unit though.
Are you guys having a hard time winning your games? If so please tell me what units you are having an issue playing against or what army. Also, I would like to know which units are underperforming for you.
yukishiro1 wrote: Nobody knows. RAW he does not benefit, but that seems kinda weird, so I think people are hoping for a FAQ that says he does.
TSK doesnt benefit from his own dynasty trait. Its weird, but thats how it is. Girlyman from the UM is a MONSTER (he has that keyword), and doesnt benefit from his chapter tactic as well.
I think that used to be the case, but it isn't any more. Now all space marine models get their tactics IIRC, not just infantry/dreads/etc.
In any case it's a little different because TSK has both a dynasty keyword and a dynastic agent keyword, which is a weird combo that nothing else in the book has.
The rules are clear as written he doesn't get it, but it's GW, so it's anyone's guess whether that's intended or not given the weird combination of keywords.
Its only really a question because he has the Szarekhan tag as well as the Dyanstic Agent one.
No other Agent has a dyansty tag. At all. It serves virtually no purpose, all it allows since hes not a core or canoptek is he can be healed by a Szarekhan spider and he can use the Szarekhan strat, since iirc thats just looking for the dynasty tag and not infantry (could be wrong on that part i dont feel like digging it up atm).
Its just really weird for GW to give him the tag. Hence, the confusion. Its pretty clear RAW, but still causes questions just because its different from the other agents.
Yup it's a weird one. Fluff-wise you would assume he would benefit, but this really isn't one of those cases where you can assume it was just an oversight and play him as having it because it's *probably* what they intended because that dynasty trait actually can make a huge difference on a model like him in some matchups.
Surtr wrote: Any educated guess as to when flayed ones get released?
(Shrugs) them and the cronomancer and psycomancer still haven't been announced. Next week will be SW, deathwatch, and imperial armor pre-order so the soonest they would be available in store would be 3 weeks.
For me personally none.
I tried some of your video's but i don't like them.
I really can't finish them.
They are so uninspiring.
Pretty boring, no visual and audial attraction at all.
Why not just mathhammer instead of using digital dice (better use actual dice so you don't have a white screen all the time..)
Also it is you opinion.
Stalker a "B"? I dont like the abc grades but inhave to grade them its an A
It all depents what is in your list to...
It is my opinion. I wonder of others can finish the vids and think they are really helpfull.
Sadly I'd have to echo Krull's thoughts. I admire the enthusiasm and the rate these videos are getting pushed out but after the first two were around 30 minutes long I kind of lost the will to watch any more. I notice some are much shorter, but in general I think these videos are too long. The general rule for YT videos is that you need to stick to less than 10 minutes unless you have a very good reason because people are just not likely to click on something much longer than that.
I also think you need more visual appeal. Look at something like Auspex Tactics for a good example of something that's simple but visually appealing. The weird virtual battlefield and dice sim set-up in your videos looks kind of dated, as does the rapidly-rotating slideshow of images during the Good and Bad sections, and I find the dice roll sections to be far too lengthy without really explaining anything in depth. As an example, a good 25% or more of the dice roll maths in the video above was you entering the correct parameters for the calculations and counting the results, not actually talking about the on-table impact of the units from a Mathhammer POV. I'd strongly advise you to just use Mathhammer when dealing with dice rolls. You don't need to show every result, or even the process, just the outcomes. I think you also need to work on your vocal presentation. Maybe it's because of the length of the videos, but when you're talking for any length of time you need to vary your intonation and make sure the video sounds engaging. At the moment it's a bit monotonous. Again, looking at Auspex Tactics, his videos can also be a little like that but he generally does a decent job of keeping his tone varied and engaging and keeping the videos short helps too.
I think there's some good info buried in your videos but I don't think it's currently being presented in the most stimulating and viewer-friendly fashion. If you can cut the length down to around 10 minutes and improve the visuals a bit I think you'll be more successful.
With the Triarch Stalker, I like the Particle Shredder, multiple marines dying on a 4+ is good. I also like the twin heavy gauss cannon getting -4 AP with Mephrit easily because they can move 10 and be within 16 inches. The 9th edition targeting relay says if a hit is scored.
1 Issue - Triarchs don't get dynasty traits. They do have command protocols though - so you can get ap -4 another way.
I forgot the Triarch Stalker doesn't receive the dynasty traits, which makes it less attractive. It's still a good unit though.
Are you guys having a hard time winning your games? If so please tell me what units you are having an issue playing against or what army. Also, I would like to know which units are underperforming for you.
I feel like its worth it because their price is right. Just not with a particle shredder. It's got to be the heavy gauss for standard AP-3. In fact I think it's one of the few auto include options we have in the crons.
I feel that you might be right about them being overcosted, I think 10 points less is where they should be, but this is just because of what you get with marines not when looking at other necron units, so they are probably balanced within the codex.
My overall fear is that once the other marine books are out necrons will feel underpowered and need some points reductions in chapter approved
I think the particle caster is a fine option...if you've got that high AP elsewhere in your army. It's important to have significant sources of AP 3 or above to be able to deal with stuff that reduces AP2 to AP0 - valorous heart, custodes, etc. And the stalker isn't a bad platform for it, given its general resilience. But if your army is full of other stuff that has AP3+, I think it's perfectly defensible to save 10% on the cost of the model and get a gun that's actually better at killing a lot of stuff.
Honestly this is one of the nicest things about the book - with a few small exceptions (e.g. swords & pistols on praetorians being just bad compared to rods), most of the weapon options actually feel like a choice now. There is less of a sense of being clear obvious loadouts and obvious units that are just much better than the alternatives.
Surtr wrote: Any educated guess as to when flayed ones get released?
(Shrugs) them and the cronomancer and psycomancer still haven't been announced. Next week will be SW, deathwatch, and imperial armor pre-order so the soonest they would be available in store would be 3 weeks.
Immortals are also quite easy to wipe in one go negating rp fully.
How that?
It's 10 wounds with no inv save.
40k lethality has gone up so much units gets wiped out in a blink.
10 wounds. No inv save.
In 40k durability is measured in pts per wound and in inv saves. Immortals neither is good. Thus they are soft.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vineheart01 wrote: Its only really a question because he has the Szarekhan tag as well as the Dyanstic Agent one.
No other Agent has a dyansty tag. At all. It serves virtually no purpose, all it allows since hes not a core or canoptek is he can be healed by a Szarekhan spider and he can use the Szarekhan strat, since iirc thats just looking for the dynasty tag and not infantry (could be wrong on that part i dont feel like digging it up atm).
Its just really weird for GW to give him the tag. Hence, the confusion. Its pretty clear RAW, but still causes questions just because its different from the other agents.
You just listed reasons why he has the keyword...
Or would you prefer him to be unhealable and miss out on stratagems?
Immortals are also quite easy to wipe in one go negating rp fully.
How that?
It's 10 wounds with no inv save.
40k lethality has gone up so much units gets wiped out in a blink.
10 wounds. No inv save.
In 40k durability is measured in pts per wound and in inv saves. Immortals neither is good. Thus they are soft.
Here is where I do not agree. How would a 5++ in any way make them more durable? That would require guns with more than 2 AP to be fired at them. 3 AP or more if in cover or buffed by a Cryptek. And on the provision the squad is not wiped in one go, they have a 5+++. I do not think they are "soft". If so, the only "non-soft" unit we have is Wraith.
Obviously the feel of lethality is subjective, but in the 3 games I got to play in the new edition so far, the increased points and focus on objectives led to less lethality, not more.
Immortals are also quite easy to wipe in one go negating rp fully.
How that?
It's 10 wounds with no inv save.
40k lethality has gone up so much units gets wiped out in a blink.
10 wounds. No inv save.
In 40k durability is measured in pts per wound and in inv saves. Immortals neither is good. Thus they are soft.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vineheart01 wrote: Its only really a question because he has the Szarekhan tag as well as the Dyanstic Agent one.
No other Agent has a dyansty tag. At all. It serves virtually no purpose, all it allows since hes not a core or canoptek is he can be healed by a Szarekhan spider and he can use the Szarekhan strat, since iirc thats just looking for the dynasty tag and not infantry (could be wrong on that part i dont feel like digging it up atm).
Its just really weird for GW to give him the tag. Hence, the confusion. Its pretty clear RAW, but still causes questions just because its different from the other agents.
You just listed reasons why he has the keyword...
Or would you prefer him to be unhealable and miss out on stratagems?
Your equation is off. Durability is a part of it certainly. Can you give some examples of things that wipe 10 immortals? What about 20? 340 pts of immortals vs 340 pts of many things in the game are not close.
The best weapon and unit to shot at immortals I could think of is the Redemptor Dreadnaught with the 2 onslaught gatling cannons, which in the ideal scenario would be 20 shots s6 ap-2 d1 buffed to BS2+ with re-roll 1s to hit and wound, this would on average kill 8 immortals out of 10 (not in cover) and then 3~ should stand back up leaving you with 5 casualties with a single round of fire of a perfect weapon against them in the perfect scenario. sure here there's some chance that with some pretty bad rolling on the receiving end the unit will get wiped entirely and no reanimation is rolled, but that will not be the majority of the times.
Though I think they are tough enough
I don't think there is much that can kill 10 immortals in one go.
The issue is more as the unit degrades - because the amount of things that can kill say 4-5 immortals is quite high. But realistically, that's just an issue of RP. Its not like killing 6 warriors is that difficult either. Its just that with a starting pool of 20, you might get to cycle through more times.
Really I think warriors and immortals are reasonably balanced (although Tesla looks over nerfed to me).
Tesla in itself is fine, it allows you to advance and still shoot (and proc tesla!). The +2 p price hike was unnecessary, however.
In general I am very happy how the book turned out and how it has adressed a lot of the small things, that made Necrons subpar in the past.
Quality of life improvements like increased ranges on auras and buffs, increased range on staff of light, possibility to actually use the shock rules and stratagems for the Monolith...
As long as it is just points, we can have it fixed with the next CA. If it was a problem with the datasheets, we would have to wait another 3 years.
I'm really liking the Rad-Wreathed trait. It turns out that -1 toughness is incredibly relevant against T4 for most of our close combat units. S6 things like Lychguard with Swords, Wraith, Skorpekh Lord and Skorpekh Destroyers (w/plasmacite) go to 2's to wound. Scarabs go up to 4's to wound, and Flayed ones go to 3's.
My sword and board Lychguard were murder machines in a recent game vs T4 stuff; hitting on 2's (MWBD) wounding on 2's (Rad-Wreathed) with 4 attacks each (Eternal Protectors). Also, my Ghost Arks that were assaulted after moving onto objectives (a common occurrence) enjoyed rapid firing into combat and wounding on 3's in my subsequent turn.
Moosatronic Warrior wrote: I'm really liking the Rad-Wreathed trait. It turns out that -1 toughness is incredibly relevant against T4 for most of our close combat units. S6 things like Lychguard with Swords, Wraith, Skorpekh Lord and Skorpekh Destroyers (w/plasmacite) go to 2's to wound. Scarabs go up to 4's to wound, and Flayed ones go to 3's.
My sword and board Lychguard were murder machines in a recent game vs T4 stuff; hitting on 2's (MWBD) wounding on 2's (Rad-Wreathed) with 4 attacks each (Eternal Protectors). Also, my Ghost Arks that were assaulted after moving onto objectives (a common occurrence) enjoyed rapid firing into combat and wounding on 3's in my subsequent turn.
Indeed, rad-wreathed should not be overlooked.
Together with the 6'' pre-game move you get a great ancient dynasty.
This army is almost 1000 points but has too few troops with too many headquarters and elites to be battle forged. I am planning to add another 10 warriors so I can make 3 troops for a battalion detachment. What should I add and what should I subtract to make it a reasonably competitive 1000-point battle-forged army? What should I add to make it a 1500-point battle-forged army?
This totals 2000 points give or take some wargear options or I use the remaining points to squeeze in some scarabs.
I am thinking about adding szeras, or getting a catacomb command barge
Solid list. You can swap Sezarez for the scorp lord easily its only a 20 points difference. A thrid doom stalker would go a long way too. Only way to fit is to drop plasmamancer and reduce something else.
CKO wrote: How do you guys feel about the combo I showed in the video where you can turn Immortals into flayed ones?
I do not think it is particularly useful to try and buff a unit that is more expensive and better suited for another role into something that we have already good options for. And the new book gave us plenty of options to deepstrike (vod, translocation crypt, prismatic dimensional breach, ophydian destroyers, flayed ones) to get into melee.
Krull wrote: I tried but didn't get there.
I gave up watching your vids. But at least i tried
Maybe type it out? It can be a good idea, but i'm not going to search through 30min of dicecounting not seeing anything happening.
Maybe you should switch to batreps or something? Seeing actually models, in actual terain fighting a real army?
It is a very detailed video of why you should use Immortals and I also give a visual on how you can use them, that is why the video is 30 minutes long. The combo starts around the 16-minute mark and I summarize everything at the 22-minute mark.
Immortals are a good solid unit. All the bonuses they get over a warrior are useful - there's really nothing you're paying points for that you aren't going to get use out of.
I wouldn't build a list around using them in melee, but the fact that they can fight decently in the right circumstances is a bonus.
yukishiro1 wrote: Immortals are a good solid unit. All the bonuses they get over a warrior are useful - there's really nothing you're paying points for that you aren't going to get use out of.
I wouldn't build a list around using them in melee, but the fact that they can fight decently in the right circumstances is a bonus.
We have better melee options but with those stratagems, they can catch your opponent off-guard and win you the game.
Even just TSK + one C'tan is pushing it I think, I really wouldn't take TSK + two. They don't synergize very well with one another - TSK's buffs are irrelevant for the C'tan and the C'tan can each take 3 wounds a phase so you don't get a lot of synergy.
To get value out of TSK you kinda need a list that goes heavy into a lot of bodies to buff and screen for him, and taking two C'tan really limits your body count and C'tan gain very little benefit from screens. I just don't think they mesh.
I've been using some spare brain power on the Convergence and I think I've hit on a way to use them, as they relate to the SmallBoard style.
Namely, take two units, so that you have a hexagonal ring in your deployment zone with two Crypteks inside of it. Turn 1, you ritual the rear two into another dimension. Turn two, you drop them about an inch apart form one another in a choke point, to stop the other army's movement *cold* and allow your guns to concentrate on half the table.
Turn 2, you ritual the left and right stones away.
Turn 3, block up the enemy movement again, again focusing yoru firepower on the exposed units while holding objectives.
Turn 3, you ritual the last two away.
Turn 4? Block those movement lanes yet again, finishing off the exposed units.
By now, you should have an insurmountable lead and coast to a win.
At leats, that's the *theory*. Obviously a few things could wreck this (like a flyer or a first-turn Genestealer rush) but, in *general*, it seems like it could work. Those stelae will die, and die horribly, but their sacrifice for the greater Necron cause will not be forgotten.
(Watched some tyrannid do a similar choke-point style with spore mines and, well, it got the brainmeats a-churnin'.)
Can 1 action teleport 2? As same action(raise banners excluded) can be done only 1 at same time and teleporting forts is action
also each terrain piece is 10 wounds no inv saves. People gear up to kill minimum 1 knigh' with 24w and 4++. You can easily lose all 6 parts in 2 turns. Albeit is nice firepower soaking
tneva82 wrote: Can 1 action teleport 2? As same action(raise banners excluded) can be done only 1 at same time and teleporting forts is action
also each terrain piece is 10 wounds no inv saves. People gear up to kill minimum 1 knigh' with 24w and 4++. You can easily lose all 6 parts in 2 turns. Albeit is nice firepower soaking
I feel like the fortification has a home, specifically in Nihilakh lists, though. They don't hit hard, and most people aren't going to waste guns on them turn 1 and 2 unless they have nothing more pressing to shoot. So as a 120 point investment for 30 wounds, it seems at least playable. I would probably be pretty happy to spend a CP to shunt one and still shoot with my cryptek. A lot of them now have very respectable guns.
CKO wrote: How do you guys feel about the combo I showed in the video where you can turn Immortals into flayed ones?
No idea what the exact combo is you're talking about (a 30-minute video on a basic unit of Troops is insane dude) but I assume you're probably stacking the Novokh and +1S strats on a unit of Immortals, which does indeed make them very good in close combat, while you can VoD them to get closer to the enemy. The thing is, other units in the Necron army perform a similar role (notably Flayed Ones) and don't need that level of support to fulfil that role. Additionally, Immortals are paying a lot of points for their ability to shoot and I'm not too keen on giving that up for a heap of attacks that don't reliably make it to the enemy.
CKO wrote: How do you guys feel about the combo I showed in the video where you can turn Immortals into flayed ones?
No idea what the exact combo is you're talking about (a 30-minute video on a basic unit of Troops is insane dude) but I assume you're probably stacking the Novokh and +1S strats on a unit of Immortals, which does indeed make them very good in close combat, while you can VoD them to get closer to the enemy. The thing is, other units in the Necron army perform a similar role (notably Flayed Ones) and don't need that level of support to fulfil that role. Additionally, Immortals are paying a lot of points for their ability to shoot and I'm not too keen on giving that up for a heap of attacks that don't reliably make it to the enemy.
I think the point surely is that you will just run them as shooting - but if your opponent gets close, and in 9th this usually happens because you have to take/hold objectives, you can put out respectable assault for a couple of CP. If that doesn't come up you can use the CP on other things.
The downside is Novokh versus other traits you might prefer.
CKO wrote: How do you guys feel about the combo I showed in the video where you can turn Immortals into flayed ones?
No idea what the exact combo is you're talking about (a 30-minute video on a basic unit of Troops is insane dude) but I assume you're probably stacking the Novokh and +1S strats on a unit of Immortals, which does indeed make them very good in close combat, while you can VoD them to get closer to the enemy. The thing is, other units in the Necron army perform a similar role (notably Flayed Ones) and don't need that level of support to fulfil that role. Additionally, Immortals are paying a lot of points for their ability to shoot and I'm not too keen on giving that up for a heap of attacks that don't reliably make it to the enemy.
I think the point surely is that you will just run them as shooting - but if your opponent gets close, and in 9th this usually happens because you have to take/hold objectives, you can put out respectable assault for a couple of CP. If that doesn't come up you can use the CP on other things.
The downside is Novokh versus other traits you might prefer.
Fair enough. I think you're right about the traits though. Giving up the very powerful custom traits to go Novokh isn't that attractive an option. And if you do go Novokh it feels like you should be the one putting the pressure on your opponent, rather than having to deal with that pressure on your own Troops. Things don't always go to plan, of course, but it seems very niche to me.
tneva82 wrote: Can 1 action teleport 2? As same action(raise banners excluded) can be done only 1 at same time and teleporting forts is action
also each terrain piece is 10 wounds no inv saves. People gear up to kill minimum 1 knigh' with 24w and 4++. You can easily lose all 6 parts in 2 turns. Albeit is nice firepower soaking
I feel like the fortification has a home, specifically in Nihilakh lists, though. They don't hit hard, and most people aren't going to waste guns on them turn 1 and 2 unless they have nothing more pressing to shoot. So as a 120 point investment for 30 wounds, it seems at least playable. I would probably be pretty happy to spend a CP to shunt one and still shoot with my cryptek. A lot of them now have very respectable guns.
Yeah it's not total junk IMO and yes the road block is big purpose for it. But you def need to keep in mind it's not invulnerable thing. And 2 is getting excessive seeing as you can't teleport 2 pieces at once. Just 1.
Does btw terrain placement rules apply to it like say sister terrain piece? Those rendered sister terrain super risky if you can't rely on opponent adjusting your deployment zone terrain to fit your piece. 11"x11" square of empty from all terrain and objectives is hard...
edit: it's fortification. It does. No part of it can be within 3" of another terrain piece...how big this is? Can you fit it...Each individual piece needs 3" clearance all directions and each must be within 12" of another piece...
Unless otherwise stated, when setting Fortifications up on the battlefield, they cannot be set up
within 3" of any other terrain feature that is not part of its own datasheet (excluding hills, page 260).
There are specific instructions how to set up the convergence of dominion. The specific instructions from the convergence (Unless otherwise stated) override the general one in the FAQ. You dont have to place it more than 3" away from any other terrain features. You can use it for linebreaker, or engage on all fronts. At 40 pts. per piece and T8 W10 its pretty resilient.
Yeah, C'tan can't shield other characters because they have 9 or less wounds.
I don't think the Convergence thing really works, the earliest you can redeploy is end of movement phase T2, and it can't redeploy within 9". You can only teleport one obelisk per turn - the action says only one cryptek can do it and it only works on one obelisk.
If you go second, the enemy has two whole rounds of movement before you can try to use them as a move-block, by which time it's going to be too late. If they immediately disappeared and reappeared that'd be one thing, but that one turn delay really kills the functionality.
I salute the attempt to make them work, but I just don't see it. The only use I can really see is to put the 3 obelisks around your home deployment zone objective and then hide some murderbuckets behind in such a way that they can't be shot because the obelisks block LOS to them.
i fail to see how only one cryptek can attempt it period.
They removed that core rule restriction of only one unit can attempt a given action per turn.
The "one friendly cryptek unit" bit at the beginning isnt a limiter. GW always puts disclaimers at the end of such rules saying "You may only attempt this..." if its supposed to be restrictive.
The datasheet gives the action to all CRYPTEK units in your army, but then specifies that "one friendly CRYPTEK" can do it in the movement phase. If it wasn't meant to be limited it would say "a friendly CRYPTEK unit," not "one friendly CRYPTEK unit." RAW it is limited to one. Who knows, maybe a FAQ will fix it. But there's no reason to specify "one" if they didn't mean "one."
On your logic, multiple psykers could attempt a psychic ritual per turn because "one" isn't a limiter.
tneva82 wrote: Can 1 action teleport 2? As same action(raise banners excluded) can be done only 1 at same time and teleporting forts is action
also each terrain piece is 10 wounds no inv saves. People gear up to kill minimum 1 knigh' with 24w and 4++. You can easily lose all 6 parts in 2 turns. Albeit is nice firepower soaking
1 per Cryptek, so you need two to move two, but that's a LOT of footprint to stick into lanes.
Another detailed unit analysis with visuals of how you can use Necron Warriors. If you are a competitive player I highly recommend you subscribe as I create content to help Necron players win more games.
Blndmage wrote: Wouldn't each Convergance get its own activation?
Yes, in theory. But you can only do the action once per turn according to the action. The wording is identical to almost all the secondaries. Deploy scrambers, for example. Nobody says you can deploy all three scramblers in a single turn; everyone (that I'm aware of) recognizes you have to do it three times over three turns to get the points. "One unit can attempt this during your X phase" means only one unit can attempt it during your X phase. If they meant to let multiple units they would say so, either the way they did in raise the banners or by saying "a unit can attempt this during your X phase" instead of "one unit."
I don't want to get too bogged down in a rules debate but I think it's really clear you can only do the teleport action once per turn and that's how I would expect a TO would rule it.
I want to take a minute to give a shout out to the Disintegration Capacitors stratagem. In my last 2 games it has worked magnificently. It really makes blobs of 20 warriors very dangerous to vehicles and monsters. In my last game it allowed my warriors to do 10 wounds to a redemptor dreadnought in one turn then 9 wounds to another in the turn after. The game before it allowed them to shoot down a corvus blackstar. It almost serves as the heavy weapon choice for the unit when you want to shoot at high toughness targets.
Emissary wrote: I want to take a minute to give a shout out to the Disintegration Capacitors stratagem. In my last 2 games it has worked magnificently. It really makes blobs of 20 warriors very dangerous to vehicles and monsters. In my last game it allowed my warriors to do 10 wounds to a redemptor dreadnought in one turn then 9 wounds to another in the turn after. The game before it allowed them to shoot down a corvus blackstar. It almost serves as the heavy weapon choice for the unit when you want to shoot at high toughness targets.
Yeah, its been fantastic thusfar in every game i've used it. Easily makes gauss preferable over tesla.
Pff i still dont have my codex.
I ordered dice to and seems they have problems delivering them.
So they dont send anything.
Pff i have downloaded a blurry scan of the codex to read a bit but still it sux.
FY GW.
So i have no idea what strat you are talking about
Disintegration capacitors is one of our best stratagems. The decision tree for it is fairly simple. Does the unit have a lot of shots, if yes, then will they be able to kill the unit they are shooting without the stray, if no, then use the strat.
I dunno, the math on disintegration capacitors isn't actually very good except when you're firing a blob of 20 warriors against something with T6 or higher.
From 40 shots, you're getting 6.66 auto wounds on average. But if you were say wounding on 3s anyway, that's only 2.22 more wounds than you would have got anyway. Not great for 1CP.
It does make gauss reapers reasonably good at killing T6+, though. Against that, it's an additional 4.44 wounds for 1CP, which is a pretty good ratio given you'll have at least 2AP on the shots.
Sorry, I had disintegration capacitors confused with the Mephrit specific stratagem, Disintegration capacitors is probably only best used on 20 warrior units anything else just doesn’t have enough volume of fire to be worth it.
yukishiro1 wrote: I dunno, the math on disintegration capacitors isn't actually very good except when you're firing a blob of 20 warriors against something with T6 or higher.
From 40 shots, you're getting 6.66 auto wounds on average. But if you were say wounding on 3s anyway, that's only 2.22 more wounds than you would have got anyway. Not great for 1CP.
It does make gauss reapers reasonably good at killing T6+, though. Against that, it's an additional 4.44 wounds for 1CP, which is a pretty good ratio given you'll have at least 2AP on the shots.
Yup, hence my original post about it. It's not great against normal infantry. But it makes the squad sneaky good against monsters and vehicles.
I have zero hope whatsoever for that FW book, I think it is going to be just the bare minimum to justify charging people again for a line they're winding down anyway. But I would be happy to be proved wrong!
The tomb sentinel and stalker are such cool models, it's be nice if they were actually good. And if they actually bring the stalker back for sale, it disappeared months ago but it's in the contents of the new book so presumably it's coming back at some point. Maybe they're just taking out the rods.
I'm curious about the Tesseract Ark since it previously had QS and a native invuln. Given that QS itself is an invuln now, it's likely that it gets the standard 5++ which will be a bit lame. Maybe its Seismic Lash will get anti-vehicle properties again, that would be nice.
At least one gun option for Sentry Pylons was removed from sale, what, 2 years ago? The heat cannon, which is a shame because that one was my favorite.
Acanthrites could be interesting. Assuming they get the same treatment as Wraiths (WS/BS4+, 4 attacks instead of 3) they would be 8 attacks at S5 AP-3 1D, with a 12" assault 1 meltagun equivalent. S/T 5, 3W, 3+ save, and a -1 to be shot aura is not terrible, and that's before considering Dynastic Codes.
Kharne the Befriender wrote: Since the FW compendium drop soon, does anyone have hope for any of the necron FW units?
I'm hoping the rules will be at least playable
I'm praying and hoping the damn Seraptek will get quantum shielding, and drop in points some or something. There is no universe it justifies a 660 point price tag.
Am I the only one that really hates FW stuff?
Don't get me wrong. I really like how the models look. But thats it.
The rules are always OP. They always has to do more than the GW stuff. At least so it seems.
Better weapons, better special rules.
And most of the time the point cost is just cheap.
No never enjoy playing against FW stuff. So I refuse to use FW rules myself!
Krull wrote: Am I the only one that really hates FW stuff?...The rules are always OP.
That's just not true any more. I feel like it was a common attitude 5-10+ years ago, but in recent memory FW stuff more often than not is severely underpowered and 'for fun only'. Anything remotely powerful tends to be priced through the roof points-wise.
The conversation always goes:
FW is OP.
"Its not. Look at X, and Y and Z."
Okay. Do you run them?
"No."
About 10% of FW is overpowered, but it probably makes up 90% of the FW stuff you are ever going to encounter.
What are people thinking on Mephrit? I find it interesting how before the book this was thought as a trap choice, but it increasingly looks like it has legs if you don't want a custom dynasty.
Tyel wrote: The conversation always goes:
FW is OP.
"Its not. Look at X, and Y and Z."
Okay. Do you run them?
"No."
About 10% of FW is overpowered, but it probably makes up 90% of the FW stuff you are ever going to encounter.
What are people thinking on Mephrit? I find it interesting how before the book this was thought as a trap choice, but it increasingly looks like it has legs if you don't want a custom dynasty.
The ability to give your shooting units the ability to basically 'smite' once per turn for a CP is solid.
The increased range is a nice to have, which makes you more likely to benefit from your bonus Ap-1 in half range.
The protocol of vengeful stars giving bonus AP, AND ignoring cover is excellent, making Mephrit Gauss really strong against power armor, which right now, is the king of 9th ed.
Its basically my go-to dynasty if I'm not doing a DIY dynasty.
What are people thinking on Mephrit? I find it interesting how before the book this was thought as a trap choice, but it increasingly looks like it has legs if you don't want a custom dynasty.
Mephrit is ok. The issue has always been It's just doubling down on an area Necrons already do reasonably well at, close range firepower, it doesn't actually help the areas where Necrons tend to need help. I feel like its a dynasty that looks great on paper because it synergises with the concept of fielding a lot of Gauss/tesla weaponry, but then when you actually play it out you realise you opponent isn't just going to let you shoot them point blank all game long.
I'd argue of the non army wide obsec factions Novohk is among the strongest contenders for the following reasons
- The strongest troop choices in the codex are Gauss Reaper Warriors & Gauss Immortals. Gauss flayer warriors tend to not contribute sufficient firepower to justify their price tag and tesla is currently 2points overcosted. Due to the short range of Gauss Reaper warriors and their high durability to ranged firepower it is almost enviable they will see close combat whether they want initiate it themselves or not. Unlike every other sub-faction, the Novohk dynasty allows them to actually become a melee unit. Blood Rites, My Will be Done, Disruption Fields, Novohk Code -1AP, Hungry void both protocols and suddenly you opponent is wondering the how the hell Necron warriors are throwing out 40 WS2+ Strength 6 attacks with -1AP and 6's going to -2AP. The same can be said for Immortals that now have base 2 attacks in combat.
- Many of the very best units in the Necron Codex are currently melee units, Wraiths, Scarabs, Skorpekh, Lychguard. They all benefit greatly from Novohks +1 to charge, -1AP and the blood rites stratagem.
- Novohk double dipping on the hungry void protocol is probably among the best command protocols.
Anyway, all the lists I make currently boil down to trying to dominate on the primary objectives by using either:
- Novohk Battalion and muscling opponents off objectives.
- Eternal Conquerors/Relentless Expansion Outriders with no troops and a lot of tomb blades/scarabs/wraiths and just grabbing the objectives with units disproportionally fast, durable and ob sec.
I focused on the custom dynasty combo initially but it doesn't fit my style. Novokh actually encourages warrior bricks and makes assaulting the line much more problematic. As Necrons are a midrange army being danger close is part of the gig and Novokh really compensates and compliments the playstyle.
tneva82 wrote: Can 1 action teleport 2? As same action(raise banners excluded) can be done only 1 at same time and teleporting forts is action
also each terrain piece is 10 wounds no inv saves. People gear up to kill minimum 1 knigh' with 24w and 4++. You can easily lose all 6 parts in 2 turns. Albeit is nice firepower soaking
1 per Cryptek, so you need two to move two, but that's a LOT of footprint to stick into lanes.
Same action can only be done once. You need specific excetion to allow more than one(see raise flag). Is there such wording or 2+ different named actions?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Krull wrote: Am I the only one that really hates FW stuff?
Don't get me wrong. I really like how the models look. But thats it.
The rules are always OP. They always has to do more than the GW stuff. At least so it seems.
Better weapons, better special rules.
And most of the time the point cost is just cheap.
No never enjoy playing against FW stuff. So I refuse to use FW rules myself!
Uuh fw stuff is by majority inferior. Especially once gw took control as gw wants players to buy plastic which is more profitable.
Been decades since fw was main source of balance issues
The same action can only be done once thing was faq'd out....
If you look at the FAQ related to actions, it tells you to change the part describing actions to a much smaller paragraph, which doesnt have the "one action only" part.
Spoiler:
UnFAQed rule: "...A unit can onlyh attempt to perform one action per battle round, and the same action cannot be started by more than one unit from your army in the same battleround."
FAQ: Page 258 – Performing Actions, second paragraph,
fourth sentence
Change this sentence to read:
‘A unit can only attempt to perform one action per battle round.
And since the CoD's special action is on a different unit, and there has never been a rule that only one unit can do it no matter how many have access to it, you can do it multiple times you just need multiple crypteks.
Hmnm, that's an interesting point. I think you're right: RAW the "one CRYPTEK" thing just means only one CRYPTEK can attempt it per pillar you want to move. If you have multiple pillars you want to move, I guess you could have one CRYPTEK do the action to move each one each turn.
I hadn't considered that each pillar enables a separate instance of the action.
There are rules that disallow you from stacking it onto other units (i.e. Rites or various repairs) but theres never a rule that universally cannot be done because another unit did it period.
A 2nd cryptek cannot action the same pillar due to the "one cryptek unit" bit but since they deploy fairly close to each other thats not a problem.
Actually, now that I look at the text again, I'm back to only one attempt of the action per turn. It says "if there any any STARSTELE units on the battlefield, CRYPTEK units can attempt the following action" blah blah blah. It's not an action that's actually attached to the datasheet of each pillar, and therefore you don't actually get one instance per pillar. It's just if you have any pillars on the battlefield, the action is enabled, and the action says "one CRYPTEK unit" so it can only be done once. I'm back to it being like Psychic Ritual or Deploy Scramblers - only once per turn.
It's also interestingly not tied to any specific pillar. The CRYPTEK can do the action if it's within 3" of any, and you don't pick which to teleport until the action resolves at the end of the turn, if you're in range of more than one.
There has to have been a less confusing way to word the thing.
yukishiro1 wrote: Actually, now that I look at the text again, I'm back to only one attempt of the action per turn. It says "if there any any STARSTELE units on the battlefield, CRYPTEK units can attempt the following action" blah blah blah. It's not an action that's actually attached to the datasheet of each pillar, and therefore you don't actually get one instance per pillar. It's just if you have any pillars on the battlefield, the action is enabled, and the action says "one CRYPTEK unit" so it can only be done once. I'm back to it being like Psychic Ritual or Deploy Scramblers - only once per turn.
It's also interestingly not tied to any specific pillar. The CRYPTEK can do the action if it's within 3" of any, and you don't pick which to teleport until the action resolves at the end of the turn, if you're in range of more than one.
There has to have been a less confusing way to word the thing.
It gets better... taking the Convergence gives all of your Crypteks the action, which can be used to do blah blah blah. So, by adding them to your list, all of your Crypteks get that action added to their sheet.
The big thing to untangle is how the Stelae being vehicles and terrain and fortifications, but can be teleported, interacts with the rules.
Araablane wrote: Would this list work, trying to make my first 1750 pts list.
Im trying to make the most out of Indomitus and the extra warriors i have.
It seems strictly okay, although I think you only need one squad with flayers at most. They favor repositioning tricks with stuff like the veil, in my opinion, and are less good for general use. I also think you need at least one heavier gun somewhere in that list. The Nightbringer is choppy and high damage, but is fragile and will almost always die round two or three.
Should I take large groups of warriors for securing objectives or use medium sized ones? I feel like small ones would just get shot to pieces and fail.
Is it better to take 5 Immortals vs 10? I like the durability of immortals so It think smaller groups of them are okay while holding objectives, plus 5 getting locked up in close combat isn’t as bad as 10.
Just thought I’d mention that I’ll be using Void Dragon as well. Just think it’s a cool model and will be fun to use.
Should I take large groups of warriors for securing objectives or use medium sized ones? I feel like small ones would just get shot to pieces and fail.
Is it better to take 5 Immortals vs 10? I like the durability of immortals so It think smaller groups of them are okay while holding objectives, plus 5 getting locked up in close combat isn’t as bad as 10.
Just thought I’d mention that I’ll be using Void Dragon as well. Just think it’s a cool model and will be fun to use.
With Warriors, if you're going to take 11+ you're usually better going for 20. If you need to cut some points in your list taking a few Warriors out of a 20-man unit is usually fine though. For Immortals, 5 is probably too small. It's not that difficult for opponents to remove 5 T5 3+ save models with one unit and RP gets better the more models you have in the unit. If you're holding midfield objectives with 5 Immortals they're going to die very quickly and if you want to hold your home objectives you usually don't need Troops for that.
I don't know if this is a silly question (and I apologise if it's been discussed already), but is there any point whatsoever in taking a Destroyer Lord over a CCB?
- Destroyer Lords used to at least have the edge in melee with an extra attack, but I notice that Overlords gained an attack but D. Lords didn't. And the latter are still WS3+ for some utterly moronic reason.
- So offensive you've got WS/BS3+ rerolling 1s to hit and wound vs. WS/BS2+. Oh, but they have the same selection of melee/ranged weapons, the CCB also gets a Gauss Cannon.
- The CCB moves 12", whilst the D. Lord's movement has been cut to a pathetic 8".
- They're both T6 with a 3+ save. The D. Lord has a 4++ and can take a Phylactery. The CCB only has a 5++, but can't be wounded on a 1-3 and has 50% more wounds to start with.
- The D. Lord has an aura that lets nearby Destroyers reroll 1s to wound. The CCB has an aura that gives all Core units +1M, and can additionally give a single Core unit +1 to hit.
I get that the CCB is slightly more expensive, but not by a huge amount. And it just seems to completely outclass the D. Lord in every conceivable way. The D. Lord doesn't even have the once-great Nanoscarab casket to fall back on anymore.
Am I missing something, or have D. Lords been made so bad and redundant that they've effectively been removed in all but name?
I get that the CCB is slightly more expensive, but not by a huge amount. And it just seems to completely outclass the D. Lord in every conceivable way. The D. Lord doesn't even have the once-great Nanoscarab casket to fall back on anymore.
Actually, I don't like lumbering HQs.
So I never go out without a CCB.
The D lord was never good, IMO. The Nanoscarab Casket made him somewhat useable but he was always outclassed by any of the other options. Now we have the Skorpekh Lord who actually does well against a variety of targets in close combat and the Casket has been nerfed I really don't know what the D Lord is for. 9th also places more of a premium on HQ slots because there's a cost for adding detachments, unlike 8th, so that's another loss for the D Lord.
The CCB seems like a complete no-brainer to me. You lose a point of invulnerable save compared to an Overlord but gain so much extra it's going to be a rare list that doesn't find the extra 50ish points to upgrade.
Should I take large groups of warriors for securing objectives or use medium sized ones? I feel like small ones would just get shot to pieces and fail.
Is it better to take 5 Immortals vs 10? I like the durability of immortals so It think smaller groups of them are okay while holding objectives, plus 5 getting locked up in close combat isn’t as bad as 10.
Well, the Warriors should be used as shock-and-awe unit.
They can do some damage if they are close - at half range of their weapons.
The problem is to bring them forward. For this, VoD can be used.
As I don't overlook the codex fully, are their other ways such as dimensional translocation?
Then another unit of Warriors could be used in parallel.
As said by Slipspace, Immortals could be used to hold objectives at midfield. But small units could become a liability.
That makes sense. I’m working on a crusade roster, so I’m sort of stuck with 3 or 6 man of either due to power. Not that I care much about how good my army is, just wanted to make sure it was competent enough not to get stomped. So 6 of either then?
This is what I’m thinking, it’s about 1000pts (50 power)
Dynasty: Szarekhan
HQ - Overlord (Indomitus loadout) w/ Szarekhan Warlord Trait/Relic
TROOPS
- 10x Gauss Immortals
- 20x Warriors w/ Gauss Flayers (haven’t built any with reapers yet)
ELITE
- 5x Lychguard w/ sword and shield
FAST ATTACK
- 6x Wraiths
HEAVY SUPPORT
- Doomstalker
Tiberius501 wrote: That makes sense. I’m working on a crusade roster, so I’m sort of stuck with 3 or 6 man of either due to power. Not that I care much about how good my army is, just wanted to make sure it was competent enough not to get stomped. So 6 of either then?
Indeed. Another reason is that you can bolster tcc units by stratagems and here its better to bolster larger units.
Depends on personal preference. I always go out with Wraiths. I played them in the 6th and 7th ed in tourneys and they served me very well.
Skorpekh are slower but hit harder. If you play on smaller tables or tables with dense terrain, they are a decent option.
Oh I know he was never good, but he at least had some advantages over an Overlord/CCB.
Now he just seems to be worse in every possible way.
Slipspace wrote: The Nanoscarab Casket made him somewhat useable but he was always outclassed by any of the other options.
I mean, he was the best melee option we had but that really wasn't saying much.
And with the Nanoscarab Casket he was by far our most durable HQ - regaining d3 wounds in each turn and being able to potentially resurrect twice (once with the Casket and once with the Stratagem).
Now he's outclassed in melee by almost anything and he can't even revive once.
Slipspace wrote: Now we have the Skorpekh Lord who actually does well against a variety of targets in close combat and the Casket has been nerfed I really don't know what the D Lord is for. 9th also places more of a premium on HQ slots because there's a cost for adding detachments, unlike 8th, so that's another loss for the D Lord.
The CCB seems like a complete no-brainer to me. You lose a point of invulnerable save compared to an Overlord but gain so much extra it's going to be a rare list that doesn't find the extra 50ish points to upgrade.
Yeah, this is the thing, the D. Lord seems to be outclassed in every possible role - by both the CCB or by the Skorpekh Lord.
The Lokhust Lord is indeed just a completely junk unit now. Shame for people who want to run it, and shame on GW because it looks both lazy and careless on their part
New FW stuff is leaking. The Tomb Sentinel/Stalker got the BS/WS nerfs that we knew they would. But don't seem to have gained any attacks (whyyyy???) like Wraiths did. But they're now pretty damn cheap so eh I guess it's okay..
Cynista wrote: The Lokhust Lord is indeed just a completely junk unit now. Shame for people who want to run it, and shame on GW because it looks both lazy and careless on their part
New FW stuff is leaking. The Tomb Sentinel/Stalker got the BS/WS nerfs that we knew they would. But don't seem to have gained any attacks (whyyyy???) like Wraiths did. But they're now pretty damn cheap so eh I guess it's okay..
FW stuff looks pretty meh honestly. Stalker got very cheap, but it also can't shoot and can't fight well (nerfed to S7, AP2 and WS4 means it is lucky to kill two primaris a turn) and dies super easily. I just don't see the point of the model at all, there is no reliable way to let it charge from DS - even Novokh fails 35% of the time - and it offers nothing else.
Sentinel is an interesting model in theory in that it has a good gun you can deliver from DS, but when you can get a doomstalker for 15 points more...I just don't know. I briefly considered taking 3 and a technomancer with the control node and the DS wargear option...and then realized that's never going to work because the models are so huge that dropping three of them where you want to is not going to work.
Acanthrites are still a schizophrenic, bad version of eradicators that pay a lot of points for stuff that doesn't improve their ability to kill. Who wants single-shot melta weapons that only hit on 4s? They also oddly *lost* an attack, in addition to the WS nerf, making them 45 points a model for something that can't shoot or fight with any degree of reliability.
To be fair the Stalker is now just a pure distraction carnifex. Cheap, looks scary, can drop onto an objective turn 2 or 3 and demands to be shot at. I do wish the rules reflected the model though
Yeah, but it isn't *actually* scary at all, which is kinda problematic. If it has ob-sec, half the time it fails the charge from DS, so it doesn't get onto an objective until T3 minimum; if it is novokh, it fails 35% instead, but it doesn't have ob-sec, and it will struggle to reliably kill more than two models a turn - even 5 point junk - so that's not much of a threat either.
Probably they are best just started on the table, since their primary value at this point seems to be hoping your opponent will shoot at them instead of something else. But then you're paying the points for the DS that you aren't using.
Cynista wrote: To be fair the Stalker is now just a pure distraction carnifex. Cheap, looks scary, can drop onto an objective turn 2 or 3 and demands to be shot at. I do wish the rules reflected the model though
I found it deeply frustrating in 7th when I bought mine because it got shot on turn one every single time for its appearance despite not warranting such a reaction. “Good” to know some things never change...
I actually want to highlight the sentry pylons. They're fortifications now, and their guns aren't terrible for 100 points per pylon. Honestly, I might even contend that two with the focused death ray might steal a slot from a doomsday ark. they hit hard, with very little RNG to screw you, and offer pretty decent area denial. They're not nearly as durable, though, which is a point against them, as is their inability to move. Not degrading feels pretty okay too, though.
Cynista wrote: To be fair the Stalker is now just a pure distraction carnifex. Cheap, looks scary, can drop onto an objective turn 2 or 3 and demands to be shot at. I do wish the rules reflected the model though
I found it deeply frustrating in 7th when I bought mine because it got shot on turn one every single time for its appearance despite not warranting such a reaction. “Good” to know some things never change...
Hey. the best game I ever played was against knights when they decided to pump an entire round of fire from three knights into my tomb stalker. Anything that people will blow out while leaving the things you care about alone is a good thing in my book.
Cynista wrote: To be fair the Stalker is now just a pure distraction carnifex. Cheap, looks scary, can drop onto an objective turn 2 or 3 and demands to be shot at. I do wish the rules reflected the model though
I found it deeply frustrating in 7th when I bought mine because it got shot on turn one every single time for its appearance despite not warranting such a reaction. “Good” to know some things never change...
Hey. the best game I ever played was against knights when they decided to pump an entire round of fire from three knights into my tomb stalker. Anything that people will blow out while leaving the things you care about alone is a good thing in my book.
What if it 1: Was one of the things I cared about and 2: I literally never got to use it?
Oh I know he was never good, but he at least had some advantages over an Overlord/CCB.
Now he just seems to be worse in every possible way.
Slipspace wrote: The Nanoscarab Casket made him somewhat useable but he was always outclassed by any of the other options.
I mean, he was the best melee option we had but that really wasn't saying much.
And with the Nanoscarab Casket he was by far our most durable HQ - regaining d3 wounds in each turn and being able to potentially resurrect twice (once with the Casket and once with the Stratagem).
Now he's outclassed in melee by almost anything and he can't even revive once.
Slipspace wrote: Now we have the Skorpekh Lord who actually does well against a variety of targets in close combat and the Casket has been nerfed I really don't know what the D Lord is for. 9th also places more of a premium on HQ slots because there's a cost for adding detachments, unlike 8th, so that's another loss for the D Lord.
The CCB seems like a complete no-brainer to me. You lose a point of invulnerable save compared to an Overlord but gain so much extra it's going to be a rare list that doesn't find the extra 50ish points to upgrade.
Yeah, this is the thing, the D. Lord seems to be outclassed in every possible role - by both the CCB or by the Skorpekh Lord.
Honestly, I would bet money on the CCB going up in points in the next CA. It's pure upside to field it.
It's more just that the destroyer lord is flat-out terrible than that the CCB is undercosted. I have no clue why they didn't buff it to 2+ WS/BS and give it the extra attack, it's just downright weird. There is no reason you would ever, ever take it.
I can't believe they actually NERFED the Acanthrites! Well actually I can, since they've had bad rules since IA12 first came out. If it had gotten the Wraith treatment of -1 BS/WS but +1 attack (a second shot on the meltagun is probably TOO generous for xenos) they could have been interesting for Canoptek lists.
Sentry Pylons are about the same as they've always been but I don't think we need them yet. Each costs less than a Doomstalker, but the Pylons are artillery pieces that can't move or ignore LOS.
If the meta eventually includes some T8 20+ wound monstrosities that the Nightbringer can't kill, then I'll bring some Sentry Pylons for a suicide drop.
EDIT: Did the Acanthrites get a (pitiful) points drop to make up for -1A? I'd gladly trade the Acanthrites' master mold to the Krieg players to melt down into one of their arbitrarily removed units.
Drakmord wrote: I can't believe they actually NERFED the Acanthrites! Well actually I can, since they've had bad rules since IA12 first came out. If it had gotten the Wraith treatment of -1 BS/WS but +1 attack (a second shot on the meltagun is probably TOO generous for xenos) they could have been interesting for Canoptek lists.
Sentry Pylons are about the same as they've always been but I don't think we need them yet. Each costs less than a Doomstalker, but the Pylons are artillery pieces that can't move or ignore LOS.
If the meta eventually includes some T8 20+ wound monstrosities that the Nightbringer can't kill, then I'll bring some Sentry Pylons for a suicide drop.
EDIT: Did the Acanthrites get a (pitiful) points drop to make up for -1A? I'd gladly trade the Acanthrites' master mold to the Krieg players to melt down into one of their arbitrarily removed units.
Acanthrites are down 10 points to 45 each, but losing 1A AND 1 WS/BS really makes that drop a joke. BS 4 single-shot melta guns at 45 points a pop is just sad. They end up a schizophrenic unit that doesn't know whether it's coming or going and does nothing well.
The Necron FW models are so cool to look at, it's a shame they seem determined to make them total meh on the table.
Drakmord wrote: I can't believe they actually NERFED the Acanthrites! Well actually I can, since they've had bad rules since IA12 first came out. If it had gotten the Wraith treatment of -1 BS/WS but +1 attack (a second shot on the meltagun is probably TOO generous for xenos) they could have been interesting for Canoptek lists.
Sentry Pylons are about the same as they've always been but I don't think we need them yet. Each costs less than a Doomstalker, but the Pylons are artillery pieces that can't move or ignore LOS.
If the meta eventually includes some T8 20+ wound monstrosities that the Nightbringer can't kill, then I'll bring some Sentry Pylons for a suicide drop.
EDIT: Did the Acanthrites get a (pitiful) points drop to make up for -1A? I'd gladly trade the Acanthrites' master mold to the Krieg players to melt down into one of their arbitrarily removed units.
Acanthrites are down 10 points to 45 each, but losing 1A AND 1 WS/BS really makes that drop a joke. BS 4 single-shot melta guns at 45 points a pop is just sad. They end up a schizophrenic unit that doesn't know whether it's coming or going and does nothing well.
The Necron FW models are so cool to look at, it's a shame they seem determined to make them total meh on the table.
Same story with the monolith. I don't understand why GW has such a hard time getting the monolith to a usable state. Literally,
just give it the Fly keyword and get rid of the LOW crap.
So what's the best close combat Overlord/CCB we can build that still synergises well with the rest of the army? I'm interested in running a CC and or short ranged Dynasty for my semi-competitive group and I want to plan out my purchases and builds.
Looking through myself it seems weird that the Mephrit WT gives +1 to Str & A (things the Overlord desperately needs for CC) for a shooty Dynasty. I'm not sure if it's worth it to bite the bullet and give up Novokh's +1 to charge dynasty trait or the Rad-Wreathed/Relentless Expansionists combo to beef up the Overlord, buuuut I can't help but think about a CCB with Merciless Tyrant and Voidreaper/Voltaic Staff relics.
That being said, the Novokh Blood Scythe relic does solve the number of attacks issue and could be an interesting pairing with Honourable Combatant (+2 attacks against <Characters> ) or Eternal Madness (Re-roll wound rolls for melee attacks.)
These are just some spitballing ideas that I had but I want to know what others think and also what has actually worked well in games.
iGuy91 wrote: What have they done to my poor Seraptek?
I heard it got more expensive. AND it got nerfed.
What on god's green earth made them go THAT route?
Mixzremixzd wrote: So what's the best close combat Overlord/CCB we can build that still synergises well with the rest of the army? I'm interested in running a CC and or short ranged Dynasty for my semi-competitive group and I want to plan out my purchases and builds.
Looking through myself it seems weird that the Mephrit WT gives +1 to Str & A (things the Overlord desperately needs for CC) for a shooty Dynasty. I'm not sure if it's worth it to bite the bullet and give up Novokh's +1 to charge dynasty trait or the Rad-Wreathed/Relentless Expansionists combo to beef up the Overlord, buuuut I can't help but think about a CCB with Merciless Tyrant and Voidreaper/Voltaic Staff relics.
That being said, the Novokh Blood Scythe relic does solve the number of attacks issue and could be an interesting pairing with Honourable Combatant (+2 attacks against <Characters> or Eternal Madness (Re-roll wound rolls for melee attacks.)
These are just some spitballing ideas that I had but I want to know what others think and also what has actually worked well in games.
If you ignore specific dynasties the best CCB is going to be gauss, voltic staff, enduring will. The thing is scary in CC and shooting, fast, and durable, and a steal at 150pts.
Mixzremixzd wrote: So what's the best close combat Overlord/CCB we can build that still synergises well with the rest of the army? I'm interested in running a CC and or short ranged Dynasty for my semi-competitive group and I want to plan out my purchases and builds.
Looking through myself it seems weird that the Mephrit WT gives +1 to Str & A (things the Overlord desperately needs for CC) for a shooty Dynasty. I'm not sure if it's worth it to bite the bullet and give up Novokh's +1 to charge dynasty trait or the Rad-Wreathed/Relentless Expansionists combo to beef up the Overlord, buuuut I can't help but think about a CCB with Merciless Tyrant and Voidreaper/Voltaic Staff relics.
That being said, the Novokh Blood Scythe relic does solve the number of attacks issue and could be an interesting pairing with Honourable Combatant (+2 attacks against <Characters> or Eternal Madness (Re-roll wound rolls for melee attacks.)
These are just some spitballing ideas that I had but I want to know what others think and also what has actually worked well in games.
If you ignore specific dynasties the best CCB is going to be gauss, voltic staff, enduring will. The thing is scary in CC and shooting, fast, and durable, and a steal at 150pts.
Yeah, I don't think either of the actual melee weapons are worth taking over the Voltic Staff.
The Voidreaper has good damage, but I don't think it's worth giving up the shooting profile of the staff for (and to my mind +1S and -2AP over the staff don't make a whole lot of difference). Maybe if it ignored invulnerable saves instead of FNP.
As for the Blood Scythe... I just think it's crap in general.
Necrons can't make good melee beatstick characters, the book just doesn't allow it. You'll get totally dunked on by anything that actually is a melee specialist.
By far the best character you can make in the book is the difficult to kill CCB with the Voltaic staff. It can shoot a bit, it can fight a bit, and very few characters can kill it in one round of combat when for 1CP you can make it a T6 transhuman -1D 4++ 9W model. No other combo in the book even comes close.
I'm so oissed at the changed to Spentry Pylons!
They're whole thing was that they're smaller MOBILE (if only just) versions of the big Gauss Pylon.
I have 9
How the feth do I run them now!?
yukishiro1 wrote: Necrons can't make good melee beatstick characters, the book just doesn't allow it. You'll get totally dunked on by anything that actually is a melee specialist.
By far the best character you can make in the book is the difficult to kill CCB with the Voltaic staff. It can shoot a bit, it can fight a bit, and very few characters can kill it in one round of combat when for 1CP you can make it a T6 transhuman -1D 4++ 9W model. No other combo in the book even comes close.
I agree. Even the much-hyped C'Tan aren't really massive beatsticks because of their cost (Nightbringer gets close with the two attack modes). Necron close combat characters are better off trying to win a more prolonged combat and the CCB isn't bad at that. QS stops you getting wounded on anything better than a 4+, which helps against THs, PFs and various other multi-damage combat weapons and Enduring Will means it'll take a few successful attacks to make a dent.
The Voltaic Staff is probably the best relic for a close combat character. It's not as good as the Voidreaper in terms of pure damage in combat but it's so versatile it's hard to see past it for overall damage potential.
Thanks for the replies guys. This is the list I'm currently mulling over as my baseline, we usually play 1500-1750 games, the armies I go up against are BA, DE, TS, Tau, CW, and Necrons.
As I said before we usually play in a semi-competitive environment so I'm not looking to tool up all the way. Still, any glaring things that should be changed? And what are our matchups looking like now?
Are there any more thoughts on a triple Monolith option? The old style monoliths go for £30-50 on eBay, so a lot more affordable, but fundamentally it's a very basic shape and not hard for a competent terrain maker to copy.
So, my thoughts were three monoliths with a huge horde (60+) of warriors... Keep it really basic! With so many warriors, perhaps two lots of deathrays and one lot of flux would be best..
Probably the best option is to deploy all the warriors and deep strike the monoliths, then pull the warriors up the field? CP might be an issue.
Not really sure about dynasties, but obviously obsec would be good, although, again, with lots of warriors, maybe not needed... Novokh might work well to add some bite against melee armies. Mephrit might help tackle that middle ground a little, making warriors better Vs elite armies...
MrPieChee wrote: Are there any more thoughts on a triple Monolith option? The old style monoliths go for £30-50 on eBay, so a lot more affordable, but fundamentally it's a very basic shape and not hard for a competent terrain maker to copy.
So, my thoughts were three monoliths with a huge horde (60+) of warriors... Keep it really basic! With so many warriors, perhaps two lots of deathrays and one lot of flux would be best..
Probably the best option is to deploy all the warriors and deep strike the monoliths, then pull the warriors up the field? CP might be an issue.
Not really sure about dynasties, but obviously obsec would be good, although, again, with lots of warriors, maybe not needed... Novokh might work well to add some bite against melee armies. Mephrit might help tackle that middle ground a little, making warriors better Vs elite armies...
It is not good. Beyond them being too many points, they don't bring enough punch. But the main problem is the size. Monoliths have a hard time on most any table actually moving around.
Yeah the monolith literally just doesn't work in 9th. Taking away fly makes it literally unable to move around boards with the amount of terrain 9th edition calls for. The stats were obviously formulated by someone who does not actually play the game, and playtesters either did not actually playtest them or the developers ignored playtester feedback completely, because it's the sort of rookie mistake you'd realize five minutes into a single playtesting game.
That's on top of all the other problems with the model, mind you. But those things just make it bad; the movement value and lack of fly makes actually unplayable.
MrPieChee wrote: Are there any more thoughts on a triple Monolith option? The old style monoliths go for £30-50 on eBay, so a lot more affordable, but fundamentally it's a very basic shape and not hard for a competent terrain maker to copy.
So, my thoughts were three monoliths with a huge horde (60+) of warriors... Keep it really basic! With so many warriors, perhaps two lots of deathrays and one lot of flux would be best..
Probably the best option is to deploy all the warriors and deep strike the monoliths, then pull the warriors up the field? CP might be an issue.
Not really sure about dynasties, but obviously obsec would be good, although, again, with lots of warriors, maybe not needed... Novokh might work well to add some bite against melee armies. Mephrit might help tackle that middle ground a little, making warriors better Vs elite armies...
MrPieChee wrote: Are there any more thoughts on a triple Monolith option? The old style monoliths go for £30-50 on eBay, so a lot more affordable, but fundamentally it's a very basic shape and not hard for a competent terrain maker to copy.
So, my thoughts were three monoliths with a huge horde (60+) of warriors... Keep it really basic! With so many warriors, perhaps two lots of deathrays and one lot of flux would be best..
Probably the best option is to deploy all the warriors and deep strike the monoliths, then pull the warriors up the field? CP might be an issue.
Not really sure about dynasties, but obviously obsec would be good, although, again, with lots of warriors, maybe not needed... Novokh might work well to add some bite against melee armies. Mephrit might help tackle that middle ground a little, making warriors better Vs elite armies...
Could throw in some Chronomancers to give those monoliths a 5++ amd get them into combat.
Could also do the dynasty trait that allows vehicles to fall back and shoot
Triple Monolith costs a ridiculous amount of CP to run. Even double Monolith+Silent King doesn't work. Plus monoliths just aren't survivable enough once Eradicators get their box, so that's giving up a guaranteed 10VP, probably 15VP in secondaries (cuz now they're TITANIC).
Blndmage wrote: I'm so oissed at the changed to Spentry Pylons!
They're whole thing was that they're smaller MOBILE (if only just) versions of the big Gauss Pylon.
I have 9
How the feth do I run them now!?
On the flip side they don't now take heavily contested heavy support slots being instead in CP free fortification detachments.
Eradicators aren't the be all an end all. You're opponent isn't likely to have enough of them to deal with three monoliths in one turn, and even if they did, you don't have to present their perfect target with a ribbon on. A single unit of 20 warriors is a real pain for Eradicators - if they shoot at the warriors they won't make their points back, and the warriors with a few buffs will whittle them down much quicker point for point.
The biggest problem with tank hunters and the monolith is that they could be forcing a deep strike in a less than ideal location which it's size makes it tough do do enough to make its points back.
However, with an obsec dynasty, that could be a lot easier...
Opponent doesn't shoot warriors. They shoot monolith. With reseve and 24" range easy to target. Especially as big non fly monolith has limited routes it can go
Interesting notation! Hyperphase Hunters (Hexmark and Deathmarks) have the strat to drop down in the reinforcements phase, in response to an enemy unit being set up on the battlefield.
Now, this used to be in response to Deep Strike, but it's now just "Set up" which yes, of course, means Deep Strikers but it *also* triggers off of Strategic reserves, as well as any other effect that's done in the Reinforcement Phase and uses "Set up".
This doesn't trigger on normal transports as they "set up" but are done in the movement phase, rather than reinforcements.
It DOES work on Drop Pods, and the troops inside of Drop Pods, as they *do* get "set up" in the Reinforcements Step. So you can trigger it off the drop Pod (plinking harmlessly off of it) or when the guys inside come out, hopefully netting a body or two.
So you have a defense against some shenanigans including Strategic Reserves.
Your ability to maneuver Monoliths is more limited than the enemy's ability to target them (they are both massive and slow, and their deep strike is still easy to screen off). And they don't need to kill 3 in a single turn, they only need to kill 1 at any point to get 10VP, 2 to get a full 15. And meanwhile you just spent 6 CP on a detachment for them.
Keep in mind your chance of running into a space marine army with lots of eradicators is not actually that high. Plus you can always reserve your monoliths too. For free. You are also t8 so...they wound you on 4's and they aren't going to be getting the bonus if you deploy in the table center. I don't think 3 Monolith is a good idea. 1 is workable but you need to ultize it's abilities. You really want to get it into melee - in melee is where it shines.
I've used the new Monolith a couple of times. Its on the table rules are easily the best they've been for a long time. The 3 CP to field it hurts though. A few points:
Firstly, anyone who sets up a board where there isn't room for models like Land Raiders and Monoliths to move around should not be in charge of terrain, that really shouldn't count against them.
Damage output: The Monolith with 4 Death Rays is a scary model capable of doing serious damage. The Portal of Exile is as hilarious as it is effective, how we laughed when a Hive Tyrant was sucked into it in one of my games.
Durability: The 2+Sv is a big improvement as you only feel the lack of invulnerable save vs. AP4 weapons. A 5++ Invul would be really helpful though (one that doesn't require a dedicated cryptek). In one of my games it did get blown up the turn after it landed by reserved Eradicators, although in it's one turn it teleported out two units, put some holes in a tank, and sucked up a unit of aggressors. It's ability to deepstrike means you can at least expect to get one turn out of it.
Support: It's teleporting abilities finally work! The ones that cost CP anyway. You can Dimensional Corridor and Prismatic Dimensional Breach at the END of the movement phase. This is the biggest difference for me, as it just didn't work with the old rules. You can now deepstrike in and use both of these strats to have ~1000pts show up somewhere.
I don't think it makes the grade for competitive lists but it's the best it's been for years and you can certainley get some work out of it in normal games.
Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll wrote: Your ability to maneuver Monoliths is more limited than the enemy's ability to target them (they are both massive and slow, and their deep strike is still easy to screen off). And they don't need to kill 3 in a single turn, they only need to kill 1 at any point to get 10VP, 2 to get a full 15. And meanwhile you just spent 6 CP on a detachment for them.
To be fair gt20 mission pack that at least here is more common(if for nothing else it's smaller to carry...) its 12vp for 2 and 3 needed for 15
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Moosatronic Warrior wrote: I've used the new Monolith a couple of times. Its on the table rules are easily the best they've been for a long time. The 3 CP to field it hurts though. A few points:
Firstly, anyone who sets up a board where there isn't room for models like Land Raiders and Monoliths to move around should not be in charge of terrain, that really shouldn't count against them.
On flipside if there's monlith moving areas easily without movent issues(especially 3) then it's planet bowling ball with gunlines easy to shoot where-ever they wish
Automatically Appended Next Post: Tried night scythe plus lychguard today. Worked okay though when up against fast assault army putting inside flyer rather than bring via stratagem would have been better. Still was able to do 7" charge out of reserves with it.
After that night scythe became very valuable chasing damaged units from backfield reducing his objective holding. Not enough to prevent him capping but did allow me to cap as well despite getting locked almost to my deployment zone.
The Night Scythe is a actually really interesting model now that it has a 20-man transport capacity AND the strat to bring stuff in. You can do a lot of nifty stuff with it, in a surprisingly wide variety of match-ups, and the gun is actually not bad either. I would say it probably has a good use 75% of the time.
The disadvantage is that against that other 25% - basically lists with good screening capability AND good shooting - it ends up being a waste of space. Against something like a standard competitive ad-mech list, you can't start it on the table because it'll get easily shot down T1, and you can't start it off the table and come down anywhere useful either, because you'll just get screened out. So basically the transport function ends up being a waste and all you can do is DS in somewhere, shoot one volley of 10 mediocre shots, and then die.
I think it can absolutely be a good choice, as long as you have another plan in your list for when you do hit those lists that nullify it completely. Because if your plan against ad-mech is to deliver scytheguard into the heart of your opponent's army and blow up their tanks...that is just not going to work. At all.
yukishiro1 wrote: The Night Scythe is a actually really interesting model now that it has a 20-man transport capacity AND the strat to bring stuff in. You can do a lot of nifty stuff with it, in a surprisingly wide variety of match-ups, and the gun is actually not bad either. I would say it probably has a good use 75% of the time.
Yup. I just misused it so lost some efficiency. I would have been better off using that transport capacity 20 here rather than the stratagem. I could have come on turn 2 and get point blank charge rather than 7"!
Still better than just coming out of reserves but 2" succeed charge vs 7"+ to succeed...
But good thing is I can decide which one to use before deployment when you declare reserves and transports. I just chose wrong one. When he came so fast so forward T2 the minimum move really, really, REALLY hurt. I could have went off board T1 and come T2 and at least do 6" rather than 7" but that would have lost me one turn of shooting.
And yes the gun was good enough. It wasn't killing tons of models as such but it was perfect to go chasing those 1-2 survivors that hid behind terrain. With rest of army I would have had trouble getting LOS. With this park next to target and zzap around. And fairly cheap as well. I would probably still have won without this hunt down but smaller gap for sure.
Also with the other flyer should have been more careful with the tesla stratagem :lol: Didn't know chaos dreadnoughts can get free round of shooting if they get hurt. I went "huh?" when opponent went "YES!" when I caused MW to both of his dreadnoughts plus greater possessed. I think 1CP and risk of free shooting from multi melta dreadnoughts was too high price to pay for those MW's...
But against some castles the fliers tesla's provide good platform for stratagem.
Firstly, anyone who sets up a board where there isn't room for models like Land Raiders and Monoliths to move around should not be in charge of terrain, that really shouldn't count against them.
It's not that you physically can't move them, it's that you can't move them where you actually want to. If a board doesn't have enough terrain that it isn't extremely easy to prevent a monolith from going where it wants to go, it doesn't have enough terrain for 9th edition to work otherwise. The model is just too large. A 6" square footprint with an 8" move without fly cannot move easily around a 9th edition board with the proper amount of terrain; that only allows for 2" of clearance. This means a monolith literally cannot move over a wall that is taller than 1", period, unless it advances. It has to go around essentially every piece of terrain on the table.
Nor can it DS practically anywhere - with the combination of very basic screening and terrain that makes for huge no-go zones, bringing it down anywhere on the table except maybe way off in some empty corner is likely to be literally impossible. Consider a big piece of area terrain - the monolith can't go there at all. Then put a model 9" away from that area terrain - and now the monolith can't come down anywhere between that model or the area terrain, either, nor can it come down within a further 9" bubble of that model. This quickly makes it easy to screen out essentially the entire board.
And then we get to the fact that since it lacks fly and cannot move over other models, even a single guardsmen 1.01" in front of it can effectively halve its movement characteristic in the direction it wants to go.
There are basically no other models in the game that suffer the way the monolith does. Even knights (a) have significantly smaller base size, (b) move faster, and (c) can move over enemy models.
It's probably not a huge deal in casual games with players who don't know how to or don't believe in screening, but against any competent player in a competitive game it'll just get ruthlessly screened out and do nothing except be a gun platform (and even then you will struggle to get it within 24" and in LOS of stuff it actually wants to death ray if you arm it that way).
It is so cumbersome that I have to think that removing <FLY> was some sort of mistake. At the very least, it's a monolithic (ha, ha) oversight. The model just needs <FLY> to work in a basic way.
Xenomancers wrote: Keep in mind your chance of running into a space marine army with lots of eradicators is not actually that high. Plus you can always reserve your monoliths too. For free. You are also t8 so...they wound you on 4's and they aren't going to be getting the bonus if you deploy in the table center. I don't think 3 Monolith is a good idea. 1 is workable but you need to ultize it's abilities. You really want to get it into melee - in melee is where it shines.
Not even one is useful in a competitive setting, since it costs too many points.
Removing one by a Marine army is not a big issue.
Against Marines I'd go for a well-rounded infantry army.
or Eternal Madness (Re-roll wound rolls for melee attacks.)
