Insectum7 wrote: Can someone give me a rundown on how the Monolith turned out? I'm real.curious.
It's strong, I mean if it had been kept in heavy support or if you could take a single LOW in a battalion I'd argue it was pretty damned nice. but now... it's expensive AND costs you CPs.. not sure it's worth it.
380 points for the only loadout worth considering, T8 24W 2+ save, BS3 degrading to 5, 4 death rays that are each S9 -3AP 3+D3 damage, one big gun that's D6 shots S12 -3 3 flat blast, and an auto-hitting S8 AP 3 3 damage melee weapon (6/d6/d3 attacks depending on how degraded). Lets you summon in a <CORE> if it didn't move, can deep strike. No invuln.
It's not terrible, but in a world with eradicators, I don't see how it ever sees play, even if it wasn't a LoW. No quantum shielding and no ability to hide behind obscuring = no thanks IMO.
Oh and it doesn't even have <FLY> any more and moves only 8/6/4, so good luck actually moving it at all on a table with decent terrain. LOL.
yukishiro1 wrote: 380 points for the only loadout worth considering, T8 24W 2+ save, BS3 degrading to 5, 4 death rays that are each S9 -3AP 3+D3 damage, one big gun that's D6 shots S12 -3 3 flat blast, and an auto-hitting S8 AP 3 3 damage melee weapon (6/d6/d3 attacks depending on how degraded). Lets you summon in a <CORE> if it didn't move, can deep strike. No invuln.
It's not terrible, but in a world with eradicators, I don't see how it ever sees play, even if it wasn't a LoW. No quantum shielding and no ability to hide behind obscuring = no thanks IMO.
Oh and it doesn't even have <FLY> any more and moves only 8/6/4, so good luck actually moving it at all on a table with decent terrain. LOL.
I personally think the Flux Arcs are better, 20pts less for 12 or 24 S5 Ap2 D1 damage shots will mulch chaff allowing your other units (or the monolith if you're feeling cheeky) to charge something. But the Death Rays are the better choice if you want it to just kill larger things
I agree that, generally, the monolith is outpaced by other units for it's cost.
But if you build your list around 2 or 3 of them, they can be utterly horrifying.
The problem with building a list with any Monoliths, much less multiple ones, is that no table I’ve played on in the last two years (which is basically only 16 months due to COVID, would have allowed it to move in any sort of tactical way without fly.
This is of course regarding the new ones, which although amazing sculpts, are infuriatingly priced.
caladancid wrote: The problem with building a list with any Monoliths, much less multiple ones, is that no table I’ve played on in the last two years (which is basically only 16 months due to COVID, would have allowed it to move in any sort of tactical way without fly.
This is of course regarding the new ones, which although amazing sculpts, are infuriatingly priced.
I keep forgetting that they lost FLY, which is a massive nerf.
Although it would have been hysterical to watch it eat flyers
I'm confident there is at least one way to run a monolith (Maybe multiple) in a competent form.
lord_blackfang wrote: Sorry to interrupt this discussion on Space Marine chapter organization and the tabletop representation thereof, but are the Cron units going on preorder next worth getting?
yukishiro1 wrote: I think skorpekhs are quite a solid unit, mainly due to the -1 to wound strat. They aren't blade-guard level broken, but very little is (thankfully). They're right about where units should be.
The best thing about the Necron book IMO is that there are a ton of viable things in it, but not a single thing in the whole book that screams out as being obviously broken. It's just too bad they were unable to deliver the same kind of product in the Space Marine codex.
Lets get real here. The issue with scorpecks is they are slow and don't have a gun or an invune save = they are garabge.
Wraiths actually have both. While they might not hit as hard - it doesn't matter because they live more than twice as long - plus they can fall back and charge.
In my book, scorpekhs are out for exactly these reasons.
I prefer Wraiths all the way.
Removing Fly from the Primaris vehicles actually makes complete sense because they are not capable of flight whatsoever. They can't vault over buildings or bridge gigantic chasms. They basically crush the ground 1 metre beneath them and that's about all they can manage.
All other Necron vehicles kept Fly and when you look at other Xenos armies vehicles, they are all true anti-grav technology and capable of proper flight within the lore. Falcon-chassis vehicles are described as being able to fly and frequently engage enemy aircraft, Devilfish and their variants drop out of Manta dropships and Drukhari are nuff' said.
Also anyone who thinks Skorpekhs are garbage should try using them sometime. The -1 to wound strat really does make the unit viable and actually one of the best units in the Codex.
Wraith had 3 attacks hitting on 3s before, thats 2 hits, now they have 4 attacks, hitting on 4s, thats 2 hits, the same as before. And Monolith still suck. GW has the ridiculous ability to create great looking models, and the give them crap rules.
epronovost wrote: About CORE keyword, wouldn't the broad range of CORE units be accounted in the price of the buffer instead of the recipient of the buff? I would personnaly do it this way. You don't price a unit in function of a potential buff it might receive from an outside source. It's simpler to price the source of the buff in question. How does Space Marines HQ compare to the Necron's one in terms of price and buffing capabilities?
If the buff is fairly specific and targeted, like the Technomancer, it's fair to include the price of the buff in the buffing model. When it's something like SM <CORE>, which applies to almost every non-vehicle, non-character model, you should be expecting those units to be buffed pretty consistently, especially when those buffs are auras that affect every unit, as is the case with SM. Therefore you should cost those <CORE> units higher because of the vastly increased likelihood of them receiving one or more buffs. Sadly, not only did the SM Codex hand out <CORE> to pretty much everyone for no good reason, it also didn't account for that in the cost.
As far as the Monolith and Skorpekhs go, I think the former is bad almost entirely because it's a LoW. In isolation it's actually not terrible but the cost of including one is too high, I think. It also melts against some of the OP anti-tank that exists right now, so that isn't great. Skorpekhs are fine, I think. You can give them the 5++ in the first turn after starting them hidden and they have a decent chance of threatening a worthwhile charge in the second turn. They're a unit with definite strengths and weaknesses but I think they can find a place in some lists. I think Praetorians and Lychguard may turn out to be better CC options than them though.
Vaktathi wrote: I'm unsure as to why Games Workshop has decided that, post-2011, the Monolith isn't something people are supposed to actually use
The cynic in me suspects that the new GW staff have vietnam flashbacks of how the monolith used to be in 3rd ed, and so try their damnedest to make it unusable.
It would also explain why necrons seem to get worse stuff compared to marines, and why destroyers now can't have nice things.
I think the Monolith lost fly primarily so it couldnt pac-man aircraft. Needs to get some sort of errata to help it navigate, because the LoW categorization, price hike, point cost, dollar cost, AND awkward movement is just too much to bear.
I dont see its sales being too stellar without some wiggle room on all that.
TrueSlaya wrote: What's people's take on lokhust destroyers now? I feel they are still viable despite the slight nerf.
They are still good damage dealers, but the move to Heavy Support makes them a harder choice to pick because there are so many Heavy Support options and you have few slots, and they are a lot less resilient now due to the change to RP and lack of Rites of Reanimation.
I think they have living metal, so you can probably keep them alive with the canoptek cloak, but that doesn't really help models that have already been killed or increase their RP chances.
Also pretty disappointed they didnt give the Obelisk some form of crazy melee attack like the Monolith, to represent its gravity powers. Or another always attacks last aura.
The bonus from sitting still going to 24 str8 d2 shots is nice... but still just not enough to justify a LoW or its point cost
TrueSlaya wrote: What's people's take on lokhust destroyers now? I feel they are still viable despite the slight nerf.
They are still good damage dealers, but the move to Heavy Support makes them a harder choice to pick because there are so many Heavy Support options and you have few slots, and they are a lot less resilient now due to the change to RP and lack of Rites of Reanimation.
I think they have living metal, so you can probably keep them alive with the canoptek cloak, but that doesn't really help models that have already been killed or increase their RP chances.
Absoloutely agree. The cryptek arcana that allows a single non-core reanimation should have at least been a once per turn. Its not hard to kill more than one destroyer per turn.
Also, its possible to boost Immortal/Tomb Blade blasters to either ap -3 in Mephrit or Str6 with Isolationist Awakening, making them quite close to Lokhust hitting power
Pael wrote: What makes skorpekhs so bad? They seem pretty solid to me. Good support for non melee units
They are a close combat unit with moderate speed and no invul that have to walk across the board?
At what point in the last 2 editions have those ever been good?
Excactly my point. Maybe if that is your only option you try to make it work. Or load the table with them and maybe it can work if they do enough damage efficently but Crons have Wraiths which are very comparable but the wraith covers both weakness. Has a good Invune. Much faster. Moves through anything.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Insectum7 wrote: Can someone give me a rundown on how the Monolith turned out? I'm real.curious.
24 wounds T8 2+ save. Which is a big improvement.
Guns 4x str 9 ap -4 d3+3 damage guns 24"
Main gun is d6str 10 ap-4 (I think It could be 3) d6 damage 36" range.
In melee it has 6 auto hit attacks at str 8 ap-3 flat 3 damage.
If stationary it can bring a core unit from reserve to it.
For stratagem you can bring a core unit from reserve even if you moved.
For a stratagem you can bring a core unit from the table to it.
TrueSlaya wrote: What's people's take on lokhust destroyers now? I feel they are still viable despite the slight nerf.
You gotta take max units of them. Hit them with chornomancer 5++. Their biggest nerf is they cant take MWBD. Better off taking DDA/DoomStalker/Night Scythes for damage dealing IMO.
Normal Lokhusts are in the trash as far as I'm concerned. They got strictly worse for a multitude of reasons but are still 55 ppm which even before the Codex was far too many points. A strength 6 Damage D3 weapon just isn't good enough for that cost.
My continued advice would be to not sleep on Skorpekhs. They've been the star unit for me in my 2 games with the Dex so far. They absolutely blend Marines into paste even without buffs and the -1 to wound strat is incredibly strong. If you're playing with proper Terrain density you should have no issues hiding them and this is 9th edition: a 8" move combat unit works perfectly fine since BOTH armies are barrelling towards the middle of the board to take and contest objectives.
I'm assuming so, because god forbid our tanks and heavy weapons are accurate.
Yes indeed. Core only.
Figures
I mean, I guess we havent shifted in relative power as far as that was concerned,if anything slightly improved given that Executioners dont reroll everything
p5freak wrote: Wraith had 3 attacks hitting on 3s before, thats 2 hits, now they have 4 attacks, hitting on 4s, thats 2 hits, the same as before. And Monolith still suck. GW has the ridiculous ability to create great looking models, and the give them crap rules.
Except when GW makes a new model with good rules, then GW always uses rules to push you to buy the new models :^)
p5freak wrote: Wraith had 3 attacks hitting on 3s before, thats 2 hits, now they have 4 attacks, hitting on 4s, thats 2 hits, the same as before. And Monolith still suck. GW has the ridiculous ability to create great looking models, and the give them crap rules.
Except when GW makes a new model with good rules, then GW always uses rules to push you to buy the new models :^)
Bosskelot wrote: Normal Lokhusts are in the trash as far as I'm concerned. They got strictly worse for a multitude of reasons but are still 55 ppm which even before the Codex was far too many points.
dOn'T wOrRy ThEy'Re BaLaNcEd FoR nEw ReSuRrEcTiOn PrOtOcOlS.
I'm assuming so, because god forbid our tanks and heavy weapons are accurate.
Yes indeed. Core only.
Figures
I mean, I guess we havent shifted in relative power as far as that was concerned,if anything slightly improved given that Executioners dont reroll everything
But hey, I'm still mildly miffed.....
I don't think there is any reason to be too miffed. Not a perfect codex but massive improvement. You can play games against marines they are just going to be able to field larger variety of lists.
Even though erradicators are OP. You could take Immortal and deathmark spam with Multiple ctans and just walk over them. For 1 wound units new Reanimation protcols is quite strong.
Bosskelot wrote: Normal Lokhusts are in the trash as far as I'm concerned. They got strictly worse for a multitude of reasons but are still 55 ppm which even before the Codex was far too many points.
dOn'T wOrRy ThEy'Re BaLaNcEd FoR nEw ReSuRrEcTiOn PrOtOcOlS.
I don't think a single person has stated the current Lokhusts are balanced for RP or costed well.
Nurglitch wrote: Has anyone figured out how the new Resurrection Protocols is supposed to work?
Yes, its actually explained quite clearly in the book.
A unit gets shot at. You roll for RP afterwards. For each lost wound you roll a die. On a 5+ you get a wound back, and apply it to models. If you get enough successes to restore a model to full health it avoids death. If you don't have enough successes it stays dead. Unlike in 8th ed, dead models do not have a chance to come back later. That I admit they could have been clearer on, but if you look at the other abilities that buff / supplement RP it becomes clearer.
yukishiro1 wrote: Regular destroyers are just bad right now IMO, sadly.
Very Bad.
Heavy Destroyers are in the wouldn't be that bad in single units as Szarekhan with the reroll wounds ability but they are in heavy support and doing that is just crazy - too many other good HS options.
I'm assuming so, because god forbid our tanks and heavy weapons are accurate.
Yes indeed. Core only.
Figures
I mean, I guess we havent shifted in relative power as far as that was concerned,if anything slightly improved given that Executioners dont reroll everything
But hey, I'm still mildly miffed.....
I don't think there is any reason to be too miffed. Not a perfect codex but massive improvement. You can play games against marines they are just going to be able to field larger variety of lists.
Even though erradicators are OP. You could take Immortal and deathmark spam with Multiple ctans and just walk over them. For 1 wound units new Reanimation protcols is quite strong.
Oh, I'm not too miffed at all, I'm just mildly miffed, mostly about this whoe "Core" thing. Seeing how frugal it is for Marines, and how tight it is for us, I am really worried about what will be Core for other things.
Russes? Broadsides? Anything Wraithbone?
All could be considered core in a generic definition.... I just dont know what to expect.
I think it's a pretty safe bet that Space Marines getting <CORE> on essentially the whole army is just another case of the protagonist faction getting to ignore the rules everyone else plays by. Xenos in particular I'm sure will still have very restrictive <CORE> lists because, well, NPC faction syndrome and all that.
Bosskelot wrote: Normal Lokhusts are in the trash as far as I'm concerned. They got strictly worse for a multitude of reasons but are still 55 ppm which even before the Codex was far too many points.
dOn'T wOrRy ThEy'Re BaLaNcEd FoR nEw ReSuRrEcTiOn PrOtOcOlS.
I don't think a single person has stated the current Lokhusts are balanced for RP or costed well.
That was *exactly* what people were saying when everyone started pointing out how worthless the new RP rules are for multi-wound units.
The response I heard over and over was "No, no, it'll be fine, because the points for Destroyers and such will definitely take that into account."
Bosskelot wrote: Normal Lokhusts are in the trash as far as I'm concerned. They got strictly worse for a multitude of reasons but are still 55 ppm which even before the Codex was far too many points.
dOn'T wOrRy ThEy'Re BaLaNcEd FoR nEw ReSuRrEcTiOn PrOtOcOlS.
I don't think a single person has stated the current Lokhusts are balanced for RP or costed well.
That was *exactly* what people were saying when everyone started pointing out how worthless the new RP rules are for multi-wound units.
The response I heard over and over was "No, no, it'll be fine, because the points for Destroyers and such will definitely take that into account."
Regular Lokhuts are horribly overpriced, and no one has defended and said that their price was balanced for RP.
Most destroyers however are priced in without paying a serious tax on RP. Skorpekhs, Ophydians and LHD do not appear to be paying much, if at all. The LHD looks to be a over costed, but it's clearly paying for the gun and not RP.
yukishiro1 wrote: I think it's a pretty safe bet that Space Marines getting <CORE> on essentially the whole army is just another case of the protagonist faction getting to ignore the rules everyone else plays by. Xenos in particular I'm sure will still have very restrictive <CORE> lists because, well, NPC faction syndrome and all that.
dude, people where, ACCURATELY, guessing what would be core and what wouldn't over a month ago.
yukishiro1 wrote: I think it's a pretty safe bet that Space Marines getting <CORE> on essentially the whole army is just another case of the protagonist faction getting to ignore the rules everyone else plays by. Xenos in particular I'm sure will still have very restrictive <CORE> lists because, well, NPC faction syndrome and all that.
dude, people where, ACCURATELY, guessing what would be core and what wouldn't over a month ago.
I mean, all of us were *joking* when we were saying everything muhreen would be core, whereas every other faction struggles.
We. Were. Joking.
yukishiro1 wrote: I think it's a pretty safe bet that Space Marines getting <CORE> on essentially the whole army is just another case of the protagonist faction getting to ignore the rules everyone else plays by. Xenos in particular I'm sure will still have very restrictive <CORE> lists because, well, NPC faction syndrome and all that.
dude, people where, ACCURATELY, guessing what would be core and what wouldn't over a month ago.
I mean, all of us were *joking* when we were saying everything muhreen would be core, whereas every other faction struggles.
We. Were. Joking.
Eonfuzz, I specificly noted that marine core units would be most infantry bikes and dreads. why? because Marines ahve dealt with "core restructions" before. codex 8.0 restricted our chapter tactics to infantry, bikes and dreads. it was a safe bet thats what GW sees as the "marine core"
yukishiro1 wrote: I think it's a pretty safe bet that Space Marines getting <CORE> on essentially the whole army is just another case of the protagonist faction getting to ignore the rules everyone else plays by. Xenos in particular I'm sure will still have very restrictive <CORE> lists because, well, NPC faction syndrome and all that.
dude, people where, ACCURATELY, guessing what would be core and what wouldn't over a month ago.
I mean, all of us were *joking* when we were saying everything muhreen would be core, whereas every other faction struggles.
We. Were. Joking.
Eonfuzz, I specificly noted that marine core units would be most infantry bikes and dreads. why? because Marines ahve dealt with "core restructions" before. codex 8.0 restricted our chapter tactics to infantry, bikes and dreads. it was a safe bet thats what GW sees as the "marine core"
Which doesn't feel great when Terminators and Bikes are Core when Destroyers and Praetorians are not.
Well, except that they can just shoot the praetorians dead quite easily. They're a fantastically deadly unit, but a real glass cannon too. The sort of unit that needs a careful plan to get the best out of them, so they don't end up just being killed before they can do anything.
yukishiro1 wrote: I think it's a pretty safe bet that Space Marines getting <CORE> on essentially the whole army is just another case of the protagonist faction getting to ignore the rules everyone else plays by. Xenos in particular I'm sure will still have very restrictive <CORE> lists because, well, NPC faction syndrome and all that.
The only inconsistency concerning CORE for Marines and CORE for Necrons is that the Centurion by the standards they're obviously operating with should have it.
All the Marines that are CORE are so because they are all some variation of dudes in the open field. Infantry, bikers, and dreadnoughts whose metal frame essentially is their body. They are core because all can be directly coordinated by a Spess Mehreen commander.
The Necron units that are CORE are all of the units the Necron nobility can directly coordinate. So just warriors, immortal, deathmark, tomb blades, and lych guard. Destroyers and Flayed Ones are insane, and Canoptek are mindless and working within the pre-set parameters of their design.
It makes perfect sense that Eradicators are CORE, even if it's bad for game balance, just like it makes perfect sense that flayed ones aren't core, even if it would be fine for balance.
The mistake is in assuming that GW designated units as core according to game balance; with the exception of Centurions they didn't, it was a narrative decision. What "feels" right. Because 40k is a narrative game.
I don't like it very much myself, but there isn't any double standard that benefits Marines. The one time they went against that obvious design philosophy was in a hamfisted attempt to gut the Centurion.
yukishiro1 wrote: I think it's a pretty safe bet that Space Marines getting <CORE> on essentially the whole army is just another case of the protagonist faction getting to ignore the rules everyone else plays by. Xenos in particular I'm sure will still have very restrictive <CORE> lists because, well, NPC faction syndrome and all that.
dude, people where, ACCURATELY, guessing what would be core and what wouldn't over a month ago.
I mean, all of us were *joking* when we were saying everything muhreen would be core, whereas every other faction struggles.
We. Were. Joking.
Eonfuzz, I specificly noted that marine core units would be most infantry bikes and dreads. why? because Marines ahve dealt with "core restructions" before. codex 8.0 restricted our chapter tactics to infantry, bikes and dreads. it was a safe bet thats what GW sees as the "marine core"
Which doesn't feel great when Terminators and Bikes are Core when Destroyers and Praetorians are not.
Hush now.. wait and see.. nothing wrong.. its a all totaly balnced. We dont know enough.
yukishiro1 wrote: I think it's a pretty safe bet that Space Marines getting <CORE> on essentially the whole army is just another case of the protagonist faction getting to ignore the rules everyone else plays by. Xenos in particular I'm sure will still have very restrictive <CORE> lists because, well, NPC faction syndrome and all that.
The only inconsistency concerning CORE for Marines and CORE for Necrons is that the Centurion by the standards they're obviously operating with should have it.
All the Marines that are CORE are so because they are all some variation of dudes in the open field. Infantry, bikers, and dreadnoughts whose metal frame essentially is their body. They are core because all can be directly coordinated by a Spess Mehreen commander.
The Necron units that are CORE are all of the units the Necron nobility can directly coordinate. So just warriors, immortal, deathmark, tomb blades, and lych guard. Destroyers and Flayed Ones are insane, and Canoptek are mindless and working within the pre-set parameters of their design.
It makes perfect sense that Eradicators are CORE, even if it's bad for game balance, just like it makes perfect sense that flayed ones aren't core, even if it would be fine for balance.
The mistake is in assuming that GW designated units as core according to game balance; with the exception of Centurions they didn't, it was a narrative decision. What "feels" right. Because 40k is a narrative game.
I don't like it very much myself, but there isn't any double standard that benefits Marines. The one time they went against that obvious design philosophy was in a hamfisted attempt to gut the Centurion.
The mistake is in assuming that GW designated units as core according to game balance; with the exception of Centurions they didn't, it was a narrative decision. What "feels" right. Because 40k is a narrative game.
But that's just silly, like saying "it's not inconsistent that Space Marines stomp everybody else competitively because that fits the narrative and 40k is a narrative game! Space Marines are supposed to win most of the time! It's not a problem if they're overpowered relative to everyone else!"
<CORE> is a gameplay restriction. It needs to be pointed for, just like anything else is. If GW wants to put <CORE> on some whole armies and then use it super restrictively on others that's fine in principle, but it needs to be accounted for in the game balance, and it's a problem that it isn't. If GW really has slapped <CORE> onto things without regard to game balance just because it's fluffy, that's a huge indictment of their design philosophy, not an explanation for it.
But that's just silly, like saying "it's not inconsistent that Space Marines stomp everybody else competitively because that fits the narrative and 40k is a narrative game! Space Marines are supposed to win most of the time! It's not a problem if they're overpowered relative to everyone else!"
So what? You argued they were ignoring the "rules" for CORE when they applied it to Space Marines but that isn't the case. Whether or not how they applied CORE to both armies is good for the game (it isn't) is irrelevant to that point. I've just seen this misconception that there were two different design philosophies at work in each codex and that simply is not the case.
<CORE> is a gameplay restriction. It needs to be pointed for, just like anything else is. If GW wants to put <CORE> on some whole armies and then use it super restrictively on others that's fine in principle, but it needs to be accounted for in the game balance, and it's a problem that it isn't. If GW really has slapped <CORE> onto things without regard to game balance just because it's fluffy, that's a huge indictment of their design philosophy, not an explanation for it.
There *are* two different design philosophies at work in the two codexes. You can try to explain that by saying it's fluffy for them to be designed totally differently, but that doesn't mean they aren't designed in two different ways from a gameplay point of view.
In fact saying "they're designed differently from a gameplay point of view because that fits the fluff" only reinforces that point. Just like the fact that it's "fluffy" for space marines to ignore the restrictions that other factions face again only reinforces the point that they are singing to a different hymn sheet as the protagonist faction.
I don't think we actually really disagree here, it's more a case of how high-up you're looking at things from. It's not a coincidence that the fluffy new mechanic they've decided to put into the game balance just happens to impact Marines less than other factions, because that's what happens when you have a protagonist faction. It may not even be a conscious thing. It kinda just happens when one faction has such an outsized game presence - everything tends to kind-of work out in its favor unless you go out of your way for it not to, because the fundamental contours of the game are shaped by that prominence.
yukishiro1 wrote: There *are* two different design philosophies at work in the two codexes. You can try to explain that by saying it's fluffy for them to be designed totally differently, but that doesn't mean they aren't designed in two different ways from a gameplay point of view.
dude the only two differant design philosophies at work here is what Core actually is, and what you WISH it was.
Core is intended as a nerf to unfluffy lists,not to, whatever faction is over or under performing
Argive wrote: Hush now.. wait and see.. nothing wrong.. its a all totaly balnced. We dont know enough.
Since you are still misrepresenting this, let me break it down for you one more time:
- "Wait and see" means you should stop getting your knickers twisted and panic post on Dakka about X being broken beyond comparison or DOA as it can be, based on rumours and previews. There is simply no reason for it.
- Now that both codizes are fully revealed, you are welcome to come to an informed conclusion and share your opinion on the balance of everything in those books and how it compares to the rest of the game.
I haven't seen any post refuting balance concerns with a "wait and see for [the next release]" afterwards anymore. If so, then that person refuting the points does not get "wait and see", either. In my opinion, anyway.
There are absolutely two different design philosophies at work in the Codexes. The Marine one and it's supplements are still all about easy power and lack of tough decisions in list-building. This shines through in the prevalence of the Core keyword, effects that interact with it and easy ways to run the buffs and auras that you need without really having to make sacrifices and compromises. To really buff up and make a Canoptek heavy force viable, you need to jump through a lot of hoops and run 2 different versions of the same datasheet in order to get the appropriate buffs off. With Blood Angels you just slap a jump pack on your priest, pay 20 pts for the rez upgrade and just blend the opposing army up in CC because that one character now gives a unit its super doctrine whenever they need it, which is on top of the obscene Angels of Death buffs they get anyway without having to do anything. And AoD and Savage Echoes whenever you want is ALSO far stronger than any Canoptek buffs you can pump out.
And to make myself clear, I prefer the Necron approach. It's far more interesting and healthy for the game as a whole. Decision making is crucial to how enjoyable and good 40k is as a game system. But with the way Core specifically in the Marine Codex has been implemented, a little like the over the top Centurion nerfs, it feels more like a balancing attempt that is a year out of date.
On the flipside, lack of Core in the Necron book actually makes perfect narrative sense, but what makes less and less sense is some of the abilities and strats which require it. And while a lot of these are balance related, when you see the kind of gak Marines are still capable of pulling it feels a little distasteful. I might be able to stomach Destroyers being incapable of using Night Scythes if Marines didn't have even stronger melee units that have delivery systems built in, with much more accessible power buffs that ALSO have the Core keyword and are ALSO cheaper. And this isn't a Necron problem (I think the new book is great); this is a Marine problem.
Argive wrote: Hush now.. wait and see.. nothing wrong.. its a all totaly balnced. We dont know enough.
Since you are still misrepresenting this, let me break it down for you one more time:
- "Wait and see" means you should stop getting your knickers twisted and panic post on Dakka about X being broken beyond comparison or DOA as it can be, based on rumours and previews. There is simply no reason for it.
- Now that both codizes are fully revealed, you are welcome to come to an informed conclusion and share your opinion on the balance of everything in those books and how it compares to the rest of the game.
I haven't seen any post refuting balance concerns with a "wait and see for [the next release]" afterwards anymore. If so, then that person refuting the points does not get "wait and see", either. In my opinion, anyway.
Indeed. when people say "wait and see" what they where saying is "wait until the codex is in your hands so that you're not just talking out of your ass"
judging a 40k codex based on the WHC previews is like proclaiming you 100% know the plot of a movie based on it's trailer
Nurglitch wrote: Has anyone figured out how the new Resurrection Protocols is supposed to work?
Yes, its actually explained quite clearly in the book.
A unit gets shot at. You roll for RP afterwards. For each lost wound you roll a die. On a 5+ you get a wound back, and apply it to models. If you get enough successes to restore a model to full health it avoids death. If you don't have enough successes it stays dead. Unlike in 8th ed, dead models do not have a chance to come back later. That I admit they could have been clearer on, but if you look at the other abilities that buff / supplement RP it becomes clearer.
So it's basically FNP, but doesn't work if the number of unsaved wounds is equal or greater than the number of wounds left on the unit?
Nurglitch wrote: Has anyone figured out how the new Resurrection Protocols is supposed to work?
Yes, its actually explained quite clearly in the book.
A unit gets shot at. You roll for RP afterwards. For each lost wound you roll a die. On a 5+ you get a wound back, and apply it to models. If you get enough successes to restore a model to full health it avoids death. If you don't have enough successes it stays dead. Unlike in 8th ed, dead models do not have a chance to come back later. That I admit they could have been clearer on, but if you look at the other abilities that buff / supplement RP it becomes clearer.
So it's basically FNP, but doesn't work if the number of unsaved wounds is equal or greater than the number of wounds left on the unit?
It's FNP but:
Doesn't work if the number of unsaved wounds is equal or greater than the number of wounds left on the unit
Works if you roll a number of successes equal to the model's W value rather than the weapon's Damage
Nurglitch wrote: Has anyone figured out how the new Resurrection Protocols is supposed to work?
Yes, its actually explained quite clearly in the book.
A unit gets shot at. You roll for RP afterwards. For each lost wound you roll a die. On a 5+ you get a wound back, and apply it to models. If you get enough successes to restore a model to full health it avoids death. If you don't have enough successes it stays dead. Unlike in 8th ed, dead models do not have a chance to come back later. That I admit they could have been clearer on, but if you look at the other abilities that buff / supplement RP it becomes clearer.
So it's basically FNP, but doesn't work if the number of unsaved wounds is equal or greater than the number of wounds left on the unit?
Not really, no. RP doesn't care how much damage was inflicted on a single model, it just cares how many wounds are on their profile when you try to reanimate. So you could do 6 Damage to a Warrior but he still gets up on a 5+, whereas if it was a FNP you'd need to pass all 6 5+ rolls to stay alive. RP is really good for single-wound models and pretty decent on W2 units, but pretty terrible for things like Destroyers with W3.
I hope this isn't off topic, but asking for a friend. Are the necrons in the 10 man box different from those in the recruit box? Because we aren't sure if it is an error or something, because the box of warriors costs 140 here, while the recruit box that has the hero+warriors, and all the marines costs 150. Are the recruit boxs on limited short time order too or did GW give the wrong price for 10 warriors.
Karol wrote: I hope this isn't off topic, but asking for a friend. Are the necrons in the 10 man box different from those in the recruit box? Because we aren't sure if it is an error or something, because the box of warriors costs 140 here, while the recruit box that has the hero+warriors, and all the marines costs 150. Are the recruit boxs on limited short time order too or did GW give the wrong price for 10 warriors.
Eh its more that GW has a long term product - Warriors in a box - priced up at the same time as they've a short term discount product - the starter sets. Heck even without the starters there's a lot of Indomitus stuff still kicking around (and likely to be more once the second wave hits). So there's plenty of cheap warriors.
GW does the same with DEATH in that there's a getting started set that's only a few £ more than a single model included in the site which they also sell on its own.
but yep the warriors in the box are the very same pushfit designs with scarabs. No difference, its just odd pricing.
Karol wrote: Okey thanks. You guys saved my friend a lot of money.
Right now if I were (ok I am) getting necrons I'd be on facebook/forums/ebay for half splits of Indomitus to get things. Right now you can get a whole Indomitus Necron half for the same or less than two boxes of warriors from GW. Heck even if you just want the warriors alone the split set is worth it and you get some spare parts/extra models on top which you can use for spares or sell on.
Basically right now is the time to be dealing secondhand not new with regard to Necron stuff - at least for anything in Indomitus. Sure fastforward and in 12 months chances are most of that stock will be long gone, so it won't be like this forever.
yukishiro1 wrote: I think it's a pretty safe bet that Space Marines getting <CORE> on essentially the whole army is just another case of the protagonist faction getting to ignore the rules everyone else plays by. Xenos in particular I'm sure will still have very restrictive <CORE> lists because, well, NPC faction syndrome and all that.
The only inconsistency concerning CORE for Marines and CORE for Necrons is that the Centurion by the standards they're obviously operating with should have it.
All the Marines that are CORE are so because they are all some variation of dudes in the open field. Infantry, bikers, and dreadnoughts whose metal frame essentially is their body. They are core because all can be directly coordinated by a Spess Mehreen commander.
The Necron units that are CORE are all of the units the Necron nobility can directly coordinate. So just warriors, immortal, deathmark, tomb blades, and lych guard. Destroyers and Flayed Ones are insane, and Canoptek are mindless and working within the pre-set parameters of their design.
It makes perfect sense that Eradicators are CORE, even if it's bad for game balance, just like it makes perfect sense that flayed ones aren't core, even if it would be fine for balance.
The mistake is in assuming that GW designated units as core according to game balance; with the exception of Centurions they didn't, it was a narrative decision. What "feels" right. Because 40k is a narrative game.
I don't like it very much myself, but there isn't any double standard that benefits Marines. The one time they went against that obvious design philosophy was in a hamfisted attempt to gut the Centurion.
Oh I understand the reasons WHY. It just doesn't stop it from feeling really crappy from a game standpoint, to the point where I think it should have been handled differently.
One faction get a broad selection of "elite" and even "rare" units being marked as Core, and another faction doesn't. That's how it manifests at the end of the day, regardless of justification, and it looks kinda crappy. When you add that to the Relics, Supplements, Warlord Traits, etc. It's just a bad look overall. Like, are Relic Terminators "Core"? There's a dissonance to that, especially when Necron Destroyers are far more numerous/common/whatever.
Karol wrote: Okey thanks. You guys saved my friend a lot of money.
Right now if I were (ok I am) getting necrons I'd be on facebook/forums/ebay for half splits of Indomitus to get things. Right now you can get a whole Indomitus Necron half for the same or less than two boxes of warriors from GW. Heck even if you just want the warriors alone the split set is worth it and you get some spare parts/extra models on top which you can use for spares or sell on.
Basically right now is the time to be dealing secondhand not new with regard to Necron stuff - at least for anything in Indomitus. Sure fastforward and in 12 months chances are most of that stock will be long gone, so it won't be like this forever.
That's exactly what I'm doing. Not even actively playing, just grabbing some for the off chance that I feel like throwing together a traditional looking Cron Army.
Karol wrote: Okey thanks. You guys saved my friend a lot of money.
Right now if I were (ok I am) getting necrons I'd be on facebook/forums/ebay for half splits of Indomitus to get things. Right now you can get a whole Indomitus Necron half for the same or less than two boxes of warriors from GW. Heck even if you just want the warriors alone the split set is worth it and you get some spare parts/extra models on top which you can use for spares or sell on.
Basically right now is the time to be dealing secondhand not new with regard to Necron stuff - at least for anything in Indomitus. Sure fastforward and in 12 months chances are most of that stock will be long gone, so it won't be like this forever.
I was checking Ebay not too long ago, and it already looks like stock from Indomitus is starting to get thin and prices are going up.
So, it’s a rare thing that I weigh in on unit comparisons. Generally, I’m an adherent to the Rule of Cool, and simply taking whatever tickles your fancy, and a pox upon list efficiency.
But.....Doomsday Ark vs Canoptek Doomestalker.....
I just cannot conceive of taking the ark over the Canoptek.
Same primary weapon, and the Canoptek is far far easier to hide when we need to. Yes, it’s tall. But the Ark is seriously, seriously long.
Karol wrote: Okey thanks. You guys saved my friend a lot of money.
Right now if I were (ok I am) getting necrons I'd be on facebook/forums/ebay for half splits of Indomitus to get things. Right now you can get a whole Indomitus Necron half for the same or less than two boxes of warriors from GW. Heck even if you just want the warriors alone the split set is worth it and you get some spare parts/extra models on top which you can use for spares or sell on.
Basically right now is the time to be dealing secondhand not new with regard to Necron stuff - at least for anything in Indomitus. Sure fastforward and in 12 months chances are most of that stock will be long gone, so it won't be like this forever.
I was checking Ebay not too long ago, and it already looks like stock from Indomitus is starting to get thin and prices are going up.
The UK price appears to have jumped after the codex dropped - to be expected. That siad there's a bulk seller on there with a LOT of kits that was at £45 and is now at £65. So there's some of that going on where there's jsut a few power-sellers making prices look like they are making a mass rise/fall. That said iwth the prices of models in the set now being known its no surprise that the secondhand prices are going to creep up. That and demand will rise with the codex out and stocks steadily diminish.
I'd wager perhaps a small spike of lower prices when the secondwave hits and then a gradual decline. Of course different countries might well react faster/slower.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: So, it’s a rare thing that I weigh in on unit comparisons. Generally, I’m an adherent to the Rule of Cool, and simply taking whatever tickles your fancy, and a pox upon list efficiency.
But.....Doomsday Ark vs Canoptek Doomestalker.....
I just cannot conceive of taking the ark over the Canoptek.
Same primary weapon, and the Canoptek is far far easier to hide when we need to. Yes, it’s tall. But the Ark is seriously, seriously long.
BS is the main difference so far as I can see?
BS, quantum shielding, More wounds, FLY and the Flayer Arrays. You generally want to be moving the ark and using the Flayer Arrays to get the most out of it. It's much easier to reposition if you need it as well.
yukishiro1 wrote: I think it's a pretty safe bet that Space Marines getting <CORE> on essentially the whole army is just another case of the protagonist faction getting to ignore the rules everyone else plays by. Xenos in particular I'm sure will still have very restrictive <CORE> lists because, well, NPC faction syndrome and all that.
The only inconsistency concerning CORE for Marines and CORE for Necrons is that the Centurion by the standards they're obviously operating with should have it.
All the Marines that are CORE are so because they are all some variation of dudes in the open field. Infantry, bikers, and dreadnoughts whose metal frame essentially is their body. They are core because all can be directly coordinated by a Spess Mehreen commander.
The Necron units that are CORE are all of the units the Necron nobility can directly coordinate. So just warriors, immortal, deathmark, tomb blades, and lych guard. Destroyers and Flayed Ones are insane, and Canoptek are mindless and working within the pre-set parameters of their design.
It makes perfect sense that Eradicators are CORE, even if it's bad for game balance, just like it makes perfect sense that flayed ones aren't core, even if it would be fine for balance.
The mistake is in assuming that GW designated units as core according to game balance; with the exception of Centurions they didn't, it was a narrative decision. What "feels" right. Because 40k is a narrative game.
I don't like it very much myself, but there isn't any double standard that benefits Marines. The one time they went against that obvious design philosophy was in a hamfisted attempt to gut the Centurion.
Oh I understand the reasons WHY. It just doesn't stop it from feeling really crappy from a game standpoint, to the point where I think it should have been handled differently.
One faction get a broad selection of "elite" and even "rare" units being marked as Core, and another faction doesn't. That's how it manifests at the end of the day, regardless of justification, and it looks kinda crappy. When you add that to the Relics, Supplements, Warlord Traits, etc. It's just a bad look overall. Like, are Relic Terminators "Core"? There's a dissonance to that, especially when Necron Destroyers are far more numerous/common/whatever.
it's not rarity so much as how they interact. what's more "core" A space Marine captain running forward and leading a charge of terminators, or a buncha necron destroyers hanging out with an Overlord?
Normal necrons don't like being AROUND destroyers IIRC they're basicly afraid they might catch something
Argive wrote: Hush now.. wait and see.. nothing wrong.. its a all totaly balnced. We dont know enough.
Since you are still misrepresenting this, let me break it down for you one more time:
- "Wait and see" means you should stop getting your knickers twisted and panic post on Dakka about X being broken beyond comparison or DOA as it can be, based on rumours and previews. There is simply no reason for it.
- Now that both codizes are fully revealed, you are welcome to come to an informed conclusion and share your opinion on the balance of everything in those books and how it compares to the rest of the game.
I haven't seen any post refuting balance concerns with a "wait and see for [the next release]" afterwards anymore. If so, then that person refuting the points does not get "wait and see", either. In my opinion, anyway.
Indeed. when people say "wait and see" what they where saying is "wait until the codex is in your hands so that you're not just talking out of your ass"
judging a 40k codex based on the WHC previews is like proclaiming you 100% know the plot of a movie based on it's trailer
So what you are saying is.... Marines are okay because we only need to wait and see for other codexes to get released which will obviously be better designed than necrons was... amIright??
In my humble (and probably wrong) opinion, I think the design philosophy for marines is what it’s always been. Easy to get into and play for anyone getting into the hobby or has been playing the hobby for a while. They’re the jack-of-all-trades poster boiz.
This doesn’t excuse their power though, I’m not saying that. But I think that’s the intention behind how easy they are to plug and play compared to a Necron army, or other armies in general, who require more thought and planning and combos to reach the same ballpark of power.
I am really tired of this "Core" debate. Having more Core units doesn't automatically make your army better. Its not like Core units automatically have objective secured or help fill out a detachment. Its just a way to narrow/focus different abilities. Have you looked at quality of these ability instead of just who can benefit from them or should Space Marine players be complaining that their Techmarine can only D3 fix vehicles but a Necron CloakTech can D3 fix vehicles, bikes, anything Canoptek, Destroyers, other characters, and random infantry models with 2 or more wounds.
it's not rarity so much as how they interact. what's more "core" A space Marine captain running forward and leading a charge of terminators, or a buncha necron destroyers hanging out with an Overlord?
Normal necrons don't like being AROUND destroyers IIRC they're basicly afraid they might catch something
The problem, then, is that the space marine faction identity is based around winning games of 40k more easily.
it's not rarity so much as how they interact. what's more "core" A space Marine captain running forward and leading a charge of terminators, or a buncha necron destroyers hanging out with an Overlord?
Normal necrons don't like being AROUND destroyers IIRC they're basicly afraid they might catch something
The problem, then, is that the space marine faction identity is based around winning games of 40k more easily.
so, do you know what rules affect core in both codices?
Now that the new monolity is apparently going to be 170USD and the silent king is going to be 150USD do you think many of the new monolith models will be selling?
I just see the silent king as a better buy if i had to pick one.
Matt Swain wrote: Now that the new monolity is apparently going to be 170USD and the silent king is going to be 150USD do you think many of the new monolith models will be selling?
I just see the silent king as a better buy if i had to pick one.
the only way the Monolith will sell is if they tweek detachments to enchourage people to be able to take a LOW. put a single LOW slot in a battalion and it'll be a bit tempting to take that and then a supreme command detachment with the SK
Matt Swain wrote: Now that the new monolity is apparently going to be 170USD and the silent king is going to be 150USD do you think many of the new monolith models will be selling?
I just see the silent king as a better buy if i had to pick one.
the only way the Monolith will sell is if they tweek detachments to enchourage people to be able to take a LOW. put a single LOW slot in a battalion and it'll be a bit tempting to take that and then a supreme command detachment with the SK
Nah, it's fine, they'll just FAQ-nerf everything else until it sells.
yukishiro1 wrote: I think it's a pretty safe bet that Space Marines getting <CORE> on essentially the whole army is just another case of the protagonist faction getting to ignore the rules everyone else plays by. Xenos in particular I'm sure will still have very restrictive <CORE> lists because, well, NPC faction syndrome and all that.
The only inconsistency concerning CORE for Marines and CORE for Necrons is that the Centurion by the standards they're obviously operating with should have it.
All the Marines that are CORE are so because they are all some variation of dudes in the open field. Infantry, bikers, and dreadnoughts whose metal frame essentially is their body. They are core because all can be directly coordinated by a Spess Mehreen commander.
The Necron units that are CORE are all of the units the Necron nobility can directly coordinate. So just warriors, immortal, deathmark, tomb blades, and lych guard. Destroyers and Flayed Ones are insane, and Canoptek are mindless and working within the pre-set parameters of their design.
It makes perfect sense that Eradicators are CORE, even if it's bad for game balance, just like it makes perfect sense that flayed ones aren't core, even if it would be fine for balance.
The mistake is in assuming that GW designated units as core according to game balance; with the exception of Centurions they didn't, it was a narrative decision. What "feels" right. Because 40k is a narrative game.
I don't like it very much myself, but there isn't any double standard that benefits Marines. The one time they went against that obvious design philosophy was in a hamfisted attempt to gut the Centurion.
Oh I understand the reasons WHY. It just doesn't stop it from feeling really crappy from a game standpoint, to the point where I think it should have been handled differently.
One faction get a broad selection of "elite" and even "rare" units being marked as Core, and another faction doesn't. That's how it manifests at the end of the day, regardless of justification, and it looks kinda crappy. When you add that to the Relics, Supplements, Warlord Traits, etc. It's just a bad look overall. Like, are Relic Terminators "Core"? There's a dissonance to that, especially when Necron Destroyers are far more numerous/common/whatever.
it's not rarity so much as how they interact. what's more "core" A space Marine captain running forward and leading a charge of terminators, or a buncha necron destroyers hanging out with an Overlord?
Normal necrons don't like being AROUND destroyers IIRC they're basicly afraid they might catch something
Like I said, I understand WHY. But looking at it from a game standpoint it looks bad.
Although if it's about who's hanging around the Overlord, you'd think Praetorians and Lychguard would have made the cut. . .
Matt Swain wrote: Now that the new monolity is apparently going to be 170USD and the silent king is going to be 150USD do you think many of the new monolith models will be selling?
I just see the silent king as a better buy if i had to pick one.
the only way the Monolith will sell is if they tweek detachments to enchourage people to be able to take a LOW. put a single LOW slot in a battalion and it'll be a bit tempting to take that and then a supreme command detachment with the SK
Even then i will not buy the monolith, because it has no FLY, and its nearly impossible to move it around the battlefield with its huge 130, or 160mm base. Cant end its movement on top of a fuel pipe, or barricade, because of unstable position. Has to subtract 2" from its movement when it moves across craters, fuel pipes, barricades, because of difficult ground. Cant move over/through a ruin.
Basically, necrons have 5 core units (~1/10). SM are all core, except characters, vehicles that arent dreadnoughts and centurions (~8/10). Necrons do have other buffing characters for their other units. But this requires an additional model, like a skorpekh lord for skorpekh destroyers. When the destroyers die the lord has no buffing unit anymore. A SM captain can buff everything that has core, greater flexibility. When its buffed unit dies he can simply move on to buff another core unit.
Generally speaking, if the necron unit in question is :
Not a HQ Not an aberration (Destroyer or flayed one) Not a dynastic agent Not a canoptek Not a vehicle
Then its core. So basically "ordinary" necrons.
Vehicles not being core is an odd one because they're being piloted by ordinary Necrons, which are supposed to be core.
Lorewise its fine, but gameplay wise its a little clunky because Necron buffs are more limited compared to say, marines, and that's a huge weakness. Rites of Reanimation may seem good, until you remember that it doesn't work on the true damage dealers of a necron force, destroyer units.
changemod wrote: What units are we still waiting on (after Saturday’s preorders) besides flayed ones?
Flayed ones and the two new Cryptek variations.
After that we should have everything from this update that GW has shown released. If there is any more GW hasn't shown it and there's no other new units in the book - and none of the other kit options are removed from sale on the GW webstore (eg finecast being updated to plastic).
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Generally speaking, if the necron unit in question is :
Not a HQ Not an aberration (Destroyer or flayed one)
Not a dynastic agent
Not a canoptek
Not a vehicle
Then its core. So basically "ordinary" necrons.
Vehicles not being core is an odd one because they're being piloted by ordinary Necrons, which are supposed to be core.
Lorewise its fine, but gameplay wise its a little clunky because Necron buffs are more limited compared to say, marines, and that's a huge weakness.
Rites of Reanimation may seem good, until you remember that it doesn't work on the true damage dealers of a necron force, destroyer units.
vehicles not being core is by design, space marine vehicles aren't core eaither.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Generally speaking, if the necron unit in question is :
Not a HQ Not an aberration (Destroyer or flayed one)
Not a dynastic agent
Not a canoptek
Not a vehicle
Then its core. So basically "ordinary" necrons.
Vehicles not being core is an odd one because they're being piloted by ordinary Necrons, which are supposed to be core.
Lorewise its fine, but gameplay wise its a little clunky because Necron buffs are more limited compared to say, marines, and that's a huge weakness.
Rites of Reanimation may seem good, until you remember that it doesn't work on the true damage dealers of a necron force, destroyer units.
vehicles not being core is by design, space marine vehicles aren't core eaither.
I can understand most vehicles not being Core, but fluffwise it seems odd that Monoliths aren't the exception.
I don't know if I'm thinking of the old fluff, but weren't almost all Necron invasions spearheaded by the arrival of Monoliths?
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Generally speaking, if the necron unit in question is :
Not a HQ Not an aberration (Destroyer or flayed one)
Not a dynastic agent
Not a canoptek
Not a vehicle
Then its core. So basically "ordinary" necrons.
Vehicles not being core is an odd one because they're being piloted by ordinary Necrons, which are supposed to be core.
Lorewise its fine, but gameplay wise its a little clunky because Necron buffs are more limited compared to say, marines, and that's a huge weakness.
Rites of Reanimation may seem good, until you remember that it doesn't work on the true damage dealers of a necron force, destroyer units.
vehicles not being core is by design, space marine vehicles aren't core eaither.
I can understand most vehicles not being Core, but fluffwise it seems odd that Monoliths aren't the exception.
I don't know if I'm thinking of the old fluff, but weren't almost all Necron invasions spearheaded by the arrival of Monoliths?
By that logic shouldn't a space marine Thunderhawk be core?
Well the old fluff was partly for the old army which only had monoliths, warriors, immortals, destroyers and lords. The Monolith was also one of the biggest models of its time and a big "showpiece" so yeah they were fairly common back then.
But then Necrons didn't have arks and airships and more infantry and other vehicles. So like a lot of armies what was once a common "every army pretty much has one or wants one" option has now become more optional. Which is a good thing because the monolith now is more powerful and expensive to take in points and command points.
So you don't want that as an "auto include" you want it as an option you can take and build around, but which you can leave out without being weakened.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Generally speaking, if the necron unit in question is :
Not a HQ Not an aberration (Destroyer or flayed one)
Not a dynastic agent
Not a canoptek
Not a vehicle
Then its core. So basically "ordinary" necrons.
Vehicles not being core is an odd one because they're being piloted by ordinary Necrons, which are supposed to be core.
Lorewise its fine, but gameplay wise its a little clunky because Necron buffs are more limited compared to say, marines, and that's a huge weakness.
Rites of Reanimation may seem good, until you remember that it doesn't work on the true damage dealers of a necron force, destroyer units.
vehicles not being core is by design, space marine vehicles aren't core eaither.
The CORE argument makes me laugh to be honest, especially all the SM apologists on here saying it's because it's fluffy blah blah blah. Like yeah, sure. Because GW write the fluff as well as the rules lol. They can make anything fluffy by simply rewriting it.
You know, like how they retcon Necrons. Every. Single. Edition.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Generally speaking, if the necron unit in question is :
Not a HQ Not an aberration (Destroyer or flayed one)
Not a dynastic agent
Not a canoptek
Not a vehicle
Then its core. So basically "ordinary" necrons.
Vehicles not being core is an odd one because they're being piloted by ordinary Necrons, which are supposed to be core.
Lorewise its fine, but gameplay wise its a little clunky because Necron buffs are more limited compared to say, marines, and that's a huge weakness.
Rites of Reanimation may seem good, until you remember that it doesn't work on the true damage dealers of a necron force, destroyer units.
vehicles not being core is by design, space marine vehicles aren't core eaither.
I can understand most vehicles not being Core, but fluffwise it seems odd that Monoliths aren't the exception.
I don't know if I'm thinking of the old fluff, but weren't almost all Necron invasions spearheaded by the arrival of Monoliths?
By that logic shouldn't a space marine Thunderhawk be core?
I have absolutely no idea. I don't know the fluff for Thunderhawks.
I'll say again, though, that 'Core' just seems to be a terribly non-descriptive keyword.
And that most of the supposed problems could have been expunged by simply removing auras from the game.
The issue is not lack of Core in the Necron book, it's that a handful of abilities and stratagems are locked behind a Core requirement when they really shouldn't be.
It doesn't make any narrative or gameplay sense that the +1 S stratagem is Core only since there's only one dedicated melee Core unit, so they may as well have just restricted it to Lychguard anyway. Even the fluff behind the strat should not preclude other units from making use of it either.
Rites of Reanimation having no actual way to benefit Canoptek units inherently, despite the control of Canoptek constructs being entirely the realm of Crypteks and Technomancer's specializing in resurrection, also makes no narrative sense. If it's a gameplay concern then there could easily be an exclusion for Monster keyword units to stop free Spyder rezzes every turn and the Cryptekm Arkana would enable you to do it once per game still.
Destroyers not listening to MWBD makes perfect sense because they wouldn't listen to what the Overlord has to say, but a Technomancer would have no difficulties or obstacles in reconstructing one. Yet currently you have to pay 20 pts for the opportunity to do it once per game, whereas Marines are paying 15 pts to let them do it every single turn on more expensive models.
Bosskelot wrote: The issue is not lack of Core in the Necron book, it's that a handful of abilities and stratagems are locked behind a Core requirement when they really shouldn't be.
It doesn't make any narrative or gameplay sense that the +1 S stratagem is Core only since there's only one dedicated melee Core unit, so they may as well have just restricted it to Lychguard anyway. Even the fluff behind the strat should not preclude other units from making use of it either.
Rites of Reanimation having no actual way to benefit Canoptek units inherently, despite the control of Canoptek constructs being entirely the realm of Crypteks and Technomancer's specializing in resurrection, also makes no narrative sense. If it's a gameplay concern then there could easily be an exclusion for Monster keyword units to stop free Spyder rezzes every turn and the Cryptekm Arkana would enable you to do it once per game still.
Destroyers not listening to MWBD makes perfect sense because they wouldn't listen to what the Overlord has to say, but a Technomancer would have no difficulties or obstacles in reconstructing one. Yet currently you have to pay 20 pts for the opportunity to do it once per game, whereas Marines are paying 15 pts to let them do it every single turn on more expensive models.
Agreed, I think this is the problem, and here we get to the confluence of inane game mechanics:
1) Targeting stratagems to a specific keyword is fine in theory if the stratagems made sense. Making things stratagems that should really be pieces of gear or unit special rules (and then putting targeting restrictions on it because fluff I guess) is less sensible.
2) The Core mechanic is so ill-defined that I'm not sure the Designers themselves know what it means. It's entirely possible that a designer might say "Well, in my opinion, Tomb Spyders and other canoptek units are Core, since the tomb world cannot function without them and almost every necron force brings loads" so they make a stratagem to target CORE on the assumption that includes Canoptek units. One other designer might say "Well, canoptek units aren't real necrons and aren't beholden to the Overlord through fealty, but rather the Tomb World through algorithm. Therefore, I don't think they're core!" and then exclude the Core keyword from their datasheet.
changemod wrote: What units are we still waiting on (after Saturday’s preorders) besides flayed ones?
Flayed ones and the two new Cryptek variations.
After that we should have everything from this update that GW has shown released. If there is any more GW hasn't shown it and there's no other new units in the book - and none of the other kit options are removed from sale on the GW webstore (eg finecast being updated to plastic).
Necrons still have the new Overlord, Royal Warden, Skorpekh Lord, Psychomancer, Chronomancer, Plasmancer, Canoptek Reanimator and the Cryptothralls all potentially awaiting release (a few models from Indomitus may not see a separate release for a while)
So, what do you guys think of normal lords with a veil taking 20 Gauss Reaper Warriors across the map? The overlord and the lord can buff them to make them 2+ BS rerolling, and with a lord there they can get command protocols. I was orginally thinking of sending my Skorpekh lord forward but I plan on playing Nephrekh so I don’t think I’ll have any issues getting him forward.
Tiberius501 wrote: Wait... Flayed Ones can’t make use of the +1S Strat? Lol that seems really dumb.
Perhaps, but it's exactly the sort of nonsense that happens when GW insists on vomiting pointless keywords all over their game.
It's like GW saw other games doing keywords and decided to shove them in with no real idea of how to implement them.
Exactly.
I think a big part of the problem is that GW keeps changing design philosophies. So rather than having a single, small group of commonly-used keywords, we instead have an ever-expanding mess of niche ones.
First it was the broad allegiances that were important (Imperium, Chaos, Eldar etc.). Plus Infantry, Vehicle, Monster, and all the other things that should have just been unit-types.
Then they narrowed it down and made individual armies important (Space Marines, Sisters of Battle, IG etc.)
Then it was narrowed even more and the most vital thing was what subfaction a given unit was <Chapter>. Except in the case of Dark Eldar, which cared not only about a given unit's subfaction but also about its sub-subfaction. Because that is totally necessary for a codex with fewer total entries than the Marine codex has HQs. Incidentally, the DE codex also has the 'Incubi' keyword. A Keyword that applies to all of 2 units.
Now we seem to be moving towards each army having keywords based on subfactions of units, except that these are a different sort of subfaction to the <chapter>-type ones (do keep up, old boy).
But at the same time, we're also basing things around the new and entirely arbitrary keyword 'Core'. Except that, even though there are only 2 codices out at the moment, the question of what 'Core' is supposed to mean and why it is necessary seem entirely up in the air.
Oh, and we've also got keywords like 'Noble' and 'Phaeron', because that's something else we really needed, apparently.
It just seems that the game is accumulating more and more redundant keywords (either new ones that serve no purpose or old ones that have been effectively replaced), because GW still haven't made up their minds about how they want to use them.
I really do like the idea behind keywords, they are just executed badly. Which is classic GW. Add a new mechanic to bestow special rules and slowly but surely fiddle with it until it's a mutated husk of what it should have been
Having no "clear best" is a good state for a codex with armies as diverse in models as 40K has. Sure power-game wise chances are only a few will be viable, but having several viable builds means there's going to be a good healthy bulk of middleweight lists that will have a variety of units and strategies.
That's basically the near ideal you want for a codex/battletome. Nothing that is an auto-include; nothing that's an auto-win or superpower compared to everything else.
It lets you have variety, choice and a degree of versatility.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Generally speaking, if the necron unit in question is :
Not a HQ Not an aberration (Destroyer or flayed one)
Not a dynastic agent
Not a canoptek
Not a vehicle
Then its core. So basically "ordinary" necrons.
Vehicles not being core is an odd one because they're being piloted by ordinary Necrons, which are supposed to be core.
Lorewise its fine, but gameplay wise its a little clunky because Necron buffs are more limited compared to say, marines, and that's a huge weakness.
Rites of Reanimation may seem good, until you remember that it doesn't work on the true damage dealers of a necron force, destroyer units.
vehicles not being core is by design, space marine vehicles aren't core eaither.
I can understand most vehicles not being Core, but fluffwise it seems odd that Monoliths aren't the exception.
I don't know if I'm thinking of the old fluff, but weren't almost all Necron invasions spearheaded by the arrival of Monoliths?
That was the idea, yeah. Monoliths descend from the sky and just start teleporting armies onto the ground.
Matt Swain wrote: Now that the new monolity is apparently going to be 170USD and the silent king is going to be 150USD do you think many of the new monolith models will be selling?
I just see the silent king as a better buy if i had to pick one.
the only way the Monolith will sell is if they tweek detachments to enchourage people to be able to take a LOW. put a single LOW slot in a battalion and it'll be a bit tempting to take that and then a supreme command detachment with the SK
Even then i will not buy the monolith, because it has no FLY, and its nearly impossible to move it around the battlefield with its huge 130, or 160mm base. Cant end its movement on top of a fuel pipe, or barricade, because of unstable position. Has to subtract 2" from its movement when it moves across craters, fuel pipes, barricades, because of difficult ground. Cant move over/through a ruin.
Matt Swain wrote: Now that the new monolity is apparently going to be 170USD and the silent king is going to be 150USD do you think many of the new monolith models will be selling?
I just see the silent king as a better buy if i had to pick one.
the only way the Monolith will sell is if they tweek detachments to enchourage people to be able to take a LOW. put a single LOW slot in a battalion and it'll be a bit tempting to take that and then a supreme command detachment with the SK
Even then i will not buy the monolith, because it has no FLY, and its nearly impossible to move it around the battlefield with its huge 130, or 160mm base. Cant end its movement on top of a fuel pipe, or barricade, because of unstable position. Has to subtract 2" from its movement when it moves across craters, fuel pipes, barricades, because of difficult ground. Cant move over/through a ruin.
What does Titanic grant it?
It grants you the cost of CP when you want to use it, and it gives away 10 VP, when your opponent picks titan slayer as secondary.
Matt Swain wrote: Now that the new monolity is apparently going to be 170USD and the silent king is going to be 150USD do you think many of the new monolith models will be selling?
I just see the silent king as a better buy if i had to pick one.
the only way the Monolith will sell is if they tweek detachments to enchourage people to be able to take a LOW. put a single LOW slot in a battalion and it'll be a bit tempting to take that and then a supreme command detachment with the SK
Lol The reason 40k rules are always sub par, and everything thing keeps getting more expensive is because price doesn't matter at all to the fan boys.
GW make a kit, and lots of people buy it. Rules can be crap. Plastic can be ten times the price of gold. They still buy them.
If crap units never sold the GW would put more effort into internal balance. If sales fell as prices went up, they wouldn't go up.
To be fair to GW, they have put more effort into 9th so far... But it looked that way at the beginning of 8th...
What's the opinion about Ophydian Destroyers?
Nice models, nice rules (tunneling horrors, melee rules), but no inv. save.
They compete in the FA slot with Wraiths, Spyders and whatnot.
I sent GW an email about the new Monolith. I've never contacted them about prices before but IMO you need to let them know when they overstep and £105 is a joke for something that is supposed to be a cornerstone of a Necron force.
It's not the same thing as a FW knight Titan or whatever
I think its important to realise that monoliths are no longer a mandatory cornerstone of the army. The army has diversified a lot since its early days and whilst once monoliths were almost mandatory/essential/key; they are now more optional and perhaps even situational.
This happens with any army as it grows in diversity. It's a good thing because otherwise you'd always have to be thinking on taking one and that cuts out potential for taking other options in your army build.
Overread wrote: I think its important to realise that monoliths are no longer a mandatory cornerstone of the army. The army has diversified a lot since its early days and whilst once monoliths were almost mandatory/essential/key; they are now more optional and perhaps even situational.
This happens with any army as it grows in diversity. It's a good thing because otherwise you'd always have to be thinking on taking one and that cuts out potential for taking other options in your army build.
I mean, the Monolith hasn't been a mandatory cornerstone since their 5th edition dex.
That being said, it is by far the most iconic vehicle for the army, and I think it's pretty silly how they managed to make rules and prices to ensure that it's rarely seen.
It's just a procession of bad rules and poor point costs (and now very poor monetary cost) making an iconic unit a paperweight.
Well, that and being helpless in the face of 9th edition firepower levels.
Cynista wrote: I sent GW an email about the new Monolith. I've never contacted them about prices before but IMO you need to let them know when they overstep and £105 is a joke for something that is supposed to be a cornerstone of a Necron force.
It's not the same thing as a FW knight Titan or whatever
Play a Monolith or two in friendly games and have fun with them.
But in competitive games they are shelf sitting.
A $200 (canadian) might be much, but it's in line with the price of other superheavies. It reaches the same price as a Stormsurge and some version of the Imperial Knight in the upper price tags and within $10-15 of a lot of other superheavies. The cheapest one seems to be the Stompa at $150 which is the same price as a GorkaMorkanaught. With the Silent King and the Void Dragon C'tan though, that makes for a lot of very expensive "center table" model though. I personnaly expected the Monolith to be more around $180 dollars though, but at that price, it doesn't make that much of a difference. Anybody willing to spend $180 for one model (and you probably won't buy more than one of those anyway), is probably ready to spend $200. I'm more upset with the price of the Ophidian and Skorpekh which I would have liked a little cheaper, more in line with the Necron Warrior price, since you buy multiple of those.
epronovost wrote: A $200 (can) might be much, but it's in line with the price of other superheavies. It reaches the same price as a Stormsurge and some version of the Imperial Knight in the upper price tags and within $10-15 of a lot of other superheavies. The cheapest one seems to be the Stompa at $150 which is the same price as a GorkaMorkanaught. With the Silent King and the Void Dragon C'tan though, that makes for a lot of very expensive "center table" model though. I personnaly expected the Monolith to be more around $180 dollars though, but at that price, it doesn't make that much of a difference. Anybody willing to spend $180 for one model (and you probably won't buy more than one of those anyway), is probably ready to spend $200. I'm more upset with the price of the Ophidian and Skorpekh which I would have liked a little cheaper, more in line with the Necron Warrior price, since you buy multiple of those.
Shadowsword is $140.
The dissapointing thing about the Monolith is that it's being valued very highly by GW in terms of points and dollars, but it seems to play so much worse than when it originally started out.
Those ophydians... Still don't know what to make of them (they seem a poor choice compared to any other CC option in the book), but with the 360s and sprue pics, wow, I really don't like the models.
Very top heavy and some really bad joins with the tactical ruins (and not the bases). One sits fairly decently in the rubble, but the other two just touch a couple struts.
The dissapointing thing about the Monolith is that it's being valued very highly by GW in terms of points and dollars, but it seems to play so much worse than when it originally started out.
It's just such a shame.
Remember that I'm speaking in terms of Canadian dollars. The Shadowsword is $170 on the Canadian website.
I'm not too worried by the point cost vs monetary cost of thr Monolith. Once you buy a model, they usually last a good 10-15 years before they have to be replaced, sometime much more. Thus, they will pass through about two or three edition change, a whole bunch of faq and errata, etc. Today the Monolith might be slightly underpowered (though not by all that much since it's very usable in a casual meta), but it might change radically in a year or two. The same goes for things for pretty much all superheavies.
Voss wrote: Those ophydians... Still don't know what to make of them (they seem a poor choice compared to any other CC option in the book), but with the 360s and sprue pics, wow, I really don't like the models.
Very top heavy and some really bad joins with the tactical ruins (and not the bases). One sits fairly decently in the rubble, but the other two just touch a couple struts.
Just leave the outer arms off, and snip away the orbs. They are carrying more weight around the shoulders, though. They're a nice callback to the original wraiths.
The dissapointing thing about the Monolith is that it's being valued very highly by GW in terms of points and dollars, but it seems to play so much worse than when it originally started out.
It's just such a shame.
Remember that I'm speaking in terms of Canadian dollars. The Shadowsword is $170 on the Canadian website.
I'm not too worried by the point cost vs monetary cost of thr Monolith. Once you buy a model, they usually last a good 10-15 years before they have to be replaced, sometime much more. Thus, they will pass through about two or three edition change, a whole bunch of faq and errata, etc. Today the Monolith might be slightly underpowered (though not by all that much since it's very usable in a casual meta), but it might change radically in a year or two. The same goes for things for pretty much all superheavies.
Ahh, Canadian. Missed that
The thing is still more than twice as expensive as its former cost, and tha value added just isn't there.
Insectum7 wrote: The thing is still more than twice as expensive as its former cost, and tha value added just isn't there.
well the new Monolith is certainly much bigger and much more detailed than it used too as before it used to be an extremely simplistic design. Plus, forme Necron players used to purchase two or three of those for their army, especially back when it was their only real vehicle so it made sense for them to have a lower price that would be compensated by a higher volume of sales. Now, it has changed and as GW expects a new wave of Necron players to start collecting the army, they go for a different sale's strategy. It still is a bit overpriced to me, but I do believe it's in the correct range.
wuestenfux wrote: What's the opinion about Ophydian Destroyers?
Nice models, nice rules (tunneling horrors, melee rules), but no inv. save.
They compete in the FA slot with Wraiths, Spyders and whatnot.
I like the models(although they seem a bit wobbly) but in crunch terms, while their damage is not to be underestimated, they are definitely behind their competition. Not necessarily bad so much as not as good as their competition. I still feel like people underestimate them too much but I agree they're not exactly a competitive choice.
Kind of wish the Ophydians didn't have the Threshers/Reapblades and were like, sub 25 points. Then they'd have a role in the army and would look better too
Cynista wrote: Kind of wish the Ophydians didn't have the Threshers/Reapblades and were like, sub 25 points. Then they'd have a role in the army and would look better too
Yeah, I really don't like the 4-armed aesthetic. I wish they'd just stuck with the claws (or let you pick between claws and blades).
Cynista wrote: Kind of wish the Ophydians didn't have the Threshers/Reapblades and were like, sub 25 points. Then they'd have a role in the army and would look better too
Yeah, I really don't like the 4-armed aesthetic. I wish they'd just stuck with the claws (or let you pick between claws and blades).
I don't mind the 4 arms, but I do mind that they are coming out the same socket. I have yet to figure out how those arms are supposed to move, and I wonder if the designer actually knows about anatomy.
Cynista wrote: Kind of wish the Ophydians didn't have the Threshers/Reapblades and were like, sub 25 points. Then they'd have a role in the army and would look better too
Yeah, I really don't like the 4-armed aesthetic. I wish they'd just stuck with the claws (or let you pick between claws and blades).
I don't mind the 4 arms, but I do mind that they are coming out the same socket. I have yet to figure out how those arms are supposed to move, and I wonder if the designer actually knows about anatomy.
They don't come out of the same socket...
Spoiler:
Two different sockets on each side, one in front of the other.
I’m not seeing an issue with their design, they look sweet. Being top heavy isn’t an issue when their model is basically the top half with a thin tail hanging out the bottom. And multiple arms makes sense for destroyers who just want more weapons so they can kill people faster.
wuestenfux wrote: What's the opinion about Ophydian Destroyers?
Nice models, nice rules (tunneling horrors, melee rules), but no inv. save.
They compete in the FA slot with Wraiths, Spyders and whatnot.
I like the models(although they seem a bit wobbly) but in crunch terms, while their damage is not to be underestimated, they are definitely behind their competition. Not necessarily bad so much as not as good as their competition. I still feel like people underestimate them too much but I agree they're not exactly a competitive choice.
The problem is they're basically at the same price point as their competition, but don't have any particular advantage over any of them.
They can probably do just fine against some armies, but really they feel like a missed opportunity. There are a pile of new and improved melee units for necrons, and the ophydians feel like 'the other one.'
They just don't have a role. Pretty obvious case of the model team creating something that the rule team didn't know what to do with.
Between wraiths, skorpekhs and flayed ones, there wasn't another niche there, at least not one the rules team was creative enough to come up with. So instead they just kinda stuck a bit from each onto them - the added movement from wraiths, deep strike and lots of low quality attacks from flayed ones, and the weapons from skorpekhs.
This makes them a frankenstein's monster of a unit that isn't particularly good at anything.
What they should have got is advance and charge instead of deep strike, it's literally nowhere in the Necron book any more so it would have created an instant niche for them. And instead of making attacks with claws and blades and the weirdness of 1 in 3 having the 3D attacks, they should have just given them claws and blades and let them choose to use one or the other, with the blades being S5 -3AP 2D with 4 attacks per model, and the claws S4 -2AP 1D but making 2 hit rolls per attack, so 8 attacks per model. Then give them a strat to give them a 4++ from shooting if they advanced that turn, and you have a unit that'd be distinguished from the others and actually worth considering.
I quite like Ophydians. Sure they’re not as durable as their stablemates, but for hurling them into light or medium infantry, they seem to have a decent variety of attacks to do some damage.
Its funny to me that people are saying the monolith is only a bit expensive! Even at half the price I wouldn't consider buying one. GW need to greatly improve their rule writing and bring down the cost of other units to make that kind of investment worth while.
Long and short of it is, stop buying GW models or accept the price increases.
Cynista wrote: Kind of wish the Ophydians didn't have the Threshers/Reapblades and were like, sub 25 points. Then they'd have a role in the army and would look better too
Yeah, I really don't like the 4-armed aesthetic. I wish they'd just stuck with the claws (or let you pick between claws and blades).
I don't mind the 4 arms, but I do mind that they are coming out the same socket. I have yet to figure out how those arms are supposed to move, and I wonder if the designer actually knows about anatomy.
They don't come out of the same socket...
Spoiler:
Two different sockets on each side, one in front of the other.
Oh that's fine then. Still looks a little cramped, but better than the Skorpekh lord at least.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I quite like Ophydians. Sure they’re not as durable as their stablemates, but for hurling them into light or medium infantry, they seem to have a decent variety of attacks to do some damage.
I like the Ophydians in terms of aesthetics. It's a nice throwback to the old Wraiths.
Cynista wrote: Kind of wish the Ophydians didn't have the Threshers/Reapblades and were like, sub 25 points. Then they'd have a role in the army and would look better too
Yeah, I really don't like the 4-armed aesthetic. I wish they'd just stuck with the claws (or let you pick between claws and blades).
I don't mind the 4 arms, but I do mind that they are coming out the same socket. I have yet to figure out how those arms are supposed to move, and I wonder if the designer actually knows about anatomy.
Anatomy isn't really the right term. Engineering and design maybe? Its more like when they design vehicles that shoot into themselves. Necrons are machines after all so you could have as many limbs in one socket as you wanted and dedicate programming to operate each one, how effective that would be is another matter.
Cynista wrote: Kind of wish the Ophydians didn't have the Threshers/Reapblades and were like, sub 25 points. Then they'd have a role in the army and would look better too
Yeah, I really don't like the 4-armed aesthetic. I wish they'd just stuck with the claws (or let you pick between claws and blades).
I don't mind the 4 arms, but I do mind that they are coming out the same socket. I have yet to figure out how those arms are supposed to move, and I wonder if the designer actually knows about anatomy.
Anatomy isn't really the right term. Engineering and design maybe? Its more like when they design vehicles that shoot into themselves. Necrons are machines after all so you could have as many limbs in one socket as you wanted and dedicate programming to operate each one, how effective that would be is another matter.
You could do that, but that won't matter as the arms won't be able to move right as they'll keep grinding or smacking into each other. But that's a moot point, because it would seem that only the Skorpekh lord has that problem.
I have yet to understand how he could bring that gun to bear onto a target with that sword arm in the way.
I'm fairly sure it uses it either as a side gun or holds it in an "above" posture with the elbow sticking out to the side to fire forward. An angle no living creature would use, but which a machine could.
It might also be that the original design had a larger chest segment. It might have been Hive Tyrant sized originally and then got downsized. So what was once a fairly good fitting socket region ended up being a bit cramped as things downsized.
Overread wrote: I'm fairly sure it uses it either as a side gun or holds it in an "above" posture with the elbow sticking out to the side to fire forward. An angle no living creature would use, but which a machine could.
It might also be that the original design had a larger chest segment. It might have been Hive Tyrant sized originally and then got downsized. So what was once a fairly good fitting socket region ended up being a bit cramped as things downsized.
Did GW models have so many practical issues before CAD became more widespread?
Overread wrote: I'm fairly sure it uses it either as a side gun or holds it in an "above" posture with the elbow sticking out to the side to fire forward. An angle no living creature would use, but which a machine could.
It might also be that the original design had a larger chest segment. It might have been Hive Tyrant sized originally and then got downsized. So what was once a fairly good fitting socket region ended up being a bit cramped as things downsized.
Did GW models have so many practical issues before CAD became more widespread?
Sure, we've had complaints about Terminators having odd shoulder positions relative to their heads for decades. Meanwhile most of their tanks are very badly designed for actual battle. It's one of those odd points too as sometimes the rules have had weapon arcs and fixed facing for vehicles, which can, esp in the close distances we game with, mean that things like Leman' Russ tanks can't practically use their side guns on the same target.
It's always been there, it is generally rarer, but it does happen from time to time.
It might also be that the original design had a larger chest segment. It might have been Hive Tyrant sized originally and then got downsized. So what was once a fairly good fitting socket region ended up being a bit cramped as things downsized.
You know, I think that might have been the case. In the trailer the lord looked a lot bigger, enough to kill a marine (or was it a Sister?) just by stepping on him, but the actual model is a lot smaller
yukishiro1 wrote: It's really the worst of both words - push fit means zero customization, but it doesn't even go together easily and obviously.
The new Necron models look good overall, but I hate the way push-fit has been used.
Yup that's about my feelings as well.
I'm planning to do some conversions and I think it will be easier to assemble the whole model and carefully cut off arms and guns because the hassle of trying to figure out what goes where from those crazy puzzle-piece push fit pieces doesn't seem worth it.
Was watching a guy do some conversions and it's like - 'ok I have to cut here and save that bit because that connects to his other weapon arm and I need to glue this in because that little bit here is 1/6th of his head'.
It is an utter pain when you've got an arm that also forms part of a head. One of the new necron destroyers has a piston on one arm and a head on the other and the other half of the head on the back. So to make the 1 head part you have 3 parts. It's a pain to put together.
It's one of the push-fits that feels push-fit rather than using glue because adding glue makes it a high risk of making a mess.
I got a second set of destroyers to make a 5 man unit, I'm kind-of at a loss for how I can assemble them differently, except to try to see if you can swap legs so at least the orientation of the model will be a little different.
yukishiro1 wrote: I got a second set of destroyers to make a 5 man unit, I'm kind-of at a loss for how I can assemble them differently, except to try to see if you can swap legs so at least the orientation of the model will be a little different.
I've assmbled and then cut off arms at the shoulder to reposition. Sometimes you have to use a little wire to hold it in place for the plastic glue to dry as you don't always have a big surface area. In general its all about cutting up the arms. If you were really careful you could cut at the elbow area, but its a curved cut and you really don't have much room for waste - very tricky to pull off.
Personally it doesn't bother me too much, but yeah converting these is a little tricky.
Sasori wrote: Well, looks like we're not finishing out our release next week.
Really annoying because I'm ready to get my hands on some Chronomancers and Pyschomancers.
GW must be really ramping up production on the SM side of things.
Honestly its a fairly big release of specialist game content next week. I do wonder if the flayed ones in the killteam trailer mean that they are coming much later. That said we've had 3 releases for Necrons already over the past month. Chances are if you're buying into them you're already stretched on budget - esp after last week as we now have the Void Dragon, Monolith and Silent King as big expensive new models.
Ahh true I'd sort of mentally glossed over the Indomitus stuff needing a release. That said right now chances are picking up a half set of Indomitus is the cheapest option for them - heck even the overpriced secondhand prices are still a discount deal based on GW's release prices (and you can bet those prices on ebay and the like iwll go up as time passes, stock dwindles and GW ups the price on things).
Heck when the destroyers went on sale I saw the ebay price creep up on the indomitus halves.
yukishiro1 wrote: It's really the worst of both words - push fit means zero customization, but it doesn't even go together easily and obviously.
The new Necron models look good overall, but I hate the way push-fit has been used.
The new Overlord in particular was a real pain to put together for me. My Skorpekh Lord has a customised pose (cut off the push fit pegs) and the gun is a shoulder cannon rather than a third arm. But it took literally a couple of hours to build rather than the 20 minutes it should take.
Xyxel wrote: Why do you think that models from Indomitus will be released in separate boxes?
Skorpekh Lord maybe. Warden, Cryptothralls, Reanimator not so sure.
Skorpekh Lord, Cryptothralls, Reanimator, Plasmancer are all on the same sprue.
Royal Warden and Overlord each had their own sprues, linked to the Marine equivalent.
Xyxel wrote: Why do you think that models from Indomitus will be released in separate boxes?
Skorpekh Lord maybe. Warden, Cryptothralls, Reanimator not so sure.
"On their own" means mostly "outside of Indomitus". Right now its not a huge issue as there are loads of sets around in the market. But in time it will be a demand to have them sold outside of split sets; plus there's the "not online or not online much" market to consider and countries that might not have as big a second hand trade.
Now it might mean some come in a getting started kit deal and such so they won't be "on their own" but they will be retail sold as opposed to special kit sold only.
Sasori wrote: I feel like I'm in the Minority, the Ophydians are among my favorite models this release.
...wouldn't mind to explain?
I like them because they are a callback to the original wraiths, and look really cool. I actually like the edition of the blades.
I don't know whether you meant to put 'edition' or 'addition' here, but with Ophidians and Skorpekhs added and new flayer models 9th is definitely edition of the blades right?
yukishiro1 wrote: It's really the worst of both words - push fit means zero customization, but it doesn't even go together easily and obviously.
The new Necron models look good overall, but I hate the way push-fit has been used.
I really wonder what designer thought putting the chest on AFTER you put the arms on and thus have the gun in the way was a good idea for a model being sold in a STARTER box?
That's an issue with the run of the mill warriors, too. The gun gets in the way of the chest piece that you have to mash in quite forcefully to get it all the way in there. I am good at that sort of stuff so I didn't have any major problems, but I can imagine clumsier people having a hell of a time, and even potentially breaking the models trying to do it. And you need to glue one or sometimes even both arms on almost every one of them anyway, because otherwise they jiggle up and down in the chest cavity after assembly.
Push-fit works (I don't like it, mind you, but it works) for chunky models with lots of solid bits. It really doesn't work well at all for skeletons with spindly arms and empty chest cavities.
I like to paint certain parts of a kit seperatly, the push fit Warden and lord I ended up having to do a lot of cutting and greenstuffing to fix the fact I apparently assembled certain parta out of order. I HATE push fit, especially as an avid conversionist.
What base size would you put a CCB proxy model on? The official one comes on a 60mm flying base of course but the model is much bigger. I sold mine in the summer so can't measure. 100mm?
I am making mine from an Indomitus Overlord and a Reanimator.
Cynista wrote: What base size would you put a CCB proxy model on? The official one comes on a 60mm flying base of course but the model is much bigger. I sold mine in the summer so can't measure. 100mm?
I am making mine from an Indomitus Overlord and a Reanimator.
Are you all assembled? Got any pictures? That sounds awesome and I want to steal your idea!
Cynista wrote: What base size would you put a CCB proxy model on? The official one comes on a 60mm flying base of course but the model is much bigger. I sold mine in the summer so can't measure. 100mm?
I am making mine from an Indomitus Overlord and a Reanimator.
I have just put mine on a 80mm round base.
I don't use the clear flying bases since I magnetize them. I opted for a slightly larger one due to how I ended up attaching the CCB on the base, since the 60mm one I was planning to use would've made it very unstable.
I had my old one pinned to a 60mm scenic resin base. But since the model is way bigger and the rules say measure to hull/base, I think a proxy will need to be on either 80mm or 100mm but not sure which is best
Cynista wrote: What base size would you put a CCB proxy model on? The official one comes on a 60mm flying base of course but the model is much bigger. I sold mine in the summer so can't measure. 100mm?
I am making mine from an Indomitus Overlord and a Reanimator.
Are you all assembled? Got any pictures? That sounds awesome and I want to steal your idea!
Not yet, just starting out. I've also made a custom Skorpekh Lord with a Wraith body and shoulder mounted gun which has come out quite well if you'd like to see
The more I look at them, the more Ophydian Destroyers appeal.
Sure, T4 is a bit weedy, but once stuck in, that -1 to hit is welcome. Plus, they kick out more attacks than Skorpekh, particularly with Exploding Sixes.
They are pleasant happy medium between Flayed Ones and Skorpekhs. They bring muscle to the former, and weight of attacks to the latter.
My problem with Ophydians is they're just a little too much a middle-of-the-road option. They don't really do what Flayed Ones or Skorpekhs do any better than either and mixed attack profiles are generally not great because one or the other is often wasted. In particular, I don't think Necrons struggle with clearing chaff, given the large amount of S4/5 shooting we can muster with minimum -1AP and often hitting on 2s, so the extra attacks on the Ophydians don't seem to fill much of a niche.
Flayed Ones just seem better, especially when you consider they're probably more survivable (they're slightly more expensive per wound but get much more benefit from RP). They can DS, they have loads of attacks and they also have some good stratagems. Speaking of strategems, the Skorpekh one is amazing - possibly the best in the book, which is another plus for them.
Ophydian are probably best as just a little unit for secondary actions, given they can re-deploy themselves and are pretty quick if they move normally.
Sure, they don’t hit quite as hard as Skorpekh, but their additional attacks make it a narrow squeak.
Perhaps they really come into their own in a CC focussed list?
I've actually been comparing them to Triarch Praetorians with Rods of Covenant. The Praetorians are 20 points more and do slightly more damage in melee vs GME (with the reroll 1s ability on Ophydians). Same move, Ophydians can deep strike and get the -1 to hit in combat while the Praetorians have a good shooting attack, are tougher, better save, reanimate easier and can fly. I'm on the praetorian train a little more now.
Slipspace wrote: My problem with Ophydians is they're just a little too much a middle-of-the-road option. They don't really do what Flayed Ones or Skorpekhs do ...
Are they better at doing what Skorpekhs do than Flayed Ones? Are they better at doing what Flayed ones do than Skorpekhs? You can't always customize your list according to your needs based on what your opponent is fielding.
Ghaz gets what I’m (probably hamfistedly) getting at.
I know not everyone likes their Multitools, and prefer their specialist appliances. But Ophydians definitely have a niche, precisely because they don’t have a set niche. If that makes sense?
And in other new, fleshed out my army a bit today with the purchase of two more Heavy Destroyers, a Six Shooter Destroyer, and a Stalkybangbang.
Reckon that’s about plenty for right now. Better I get playing without the really expensive toys first.
Slipspace wrote: My problem with Ophydians is they're just a little too much a middle-of-the-road option. They don't really do what Flayed Ones or Skorpekhs do ...
Are they better at doing what Skorpekhs do than Flayed Ones? Are they better at doing what Flayed ones do than Skorpekhs? You can't always customize your list according to your needs based on what your opponent is fielding.
No but they're worse at both, which is bad for a game that rewards specialization over generalization. Plus they're worse defensively (either lower T and Save or multiwound vs single for RP), which is really bad for actually getting them to a target.
Reconsidering Ophydians, as I’m now leaning toward Canoptek Wraiths.
They’re tougher, and have a 4+ Inv. And their claws can mean they hit harder. Add in the particle weapon (which is Pistol 2), and despite being WS/BS 4+, they just strike me as more fightier?
Yeah, I was a little suprised at the size myself, it really did look bigger in the pictures they were showing.
That being said, I do like the additional detail. The doubling on the price though is nuts. I wish they had at least done a better job at it's data sheet.
Slipspace wrote: My problem with Ophydians is they're just a little too much a middle-of-the-road option. They don't really do what Flayed Ones or Skorpekhs do ...
Are they better at doing what Skorpekhs do than Flayed Ones? Are they better at doing what Flayed ones do than Skorpekhs? You can't always customize your list according to your needs based on what your opponent is fielding.
They do have an option few others do. They can deepstrike, then 're-deepstrike". So you could deploy them on turn 2 and clear off an enemy unit from an objective, play the tunneling horrors on turn 3, then deepstrike them again on turn 4.
So I haven't been able to play since we got the codex (we still can't mix households here), but I had a couple of crusade upgrades to plan after our last game and I'm looking at the new book to see what I can take, and...
...the Undying Revenants upgrade is *really good* right?
It can be taken on core units and essentially gives you a single auto success on RP (it says you 'set any dice to 6' but I don't know how that interacts with rerolls). This is a nice RP boost for two wound Lychguard or Tomb Blades, but feels like it makes Warriors just incredibly hard to shift; essentially you *cannot* kill a single model and you have a better than even chance of 2 models killed both jumping back up. Even if you sweep off 3, there's a decent chance of all of them coming back! I haven't even worked out the odds including rerolls from command protocols as the maths was making my mind boggle.
Has anyone tried using this? Have any of the other crusade upgrades jumped out at folks? The other one catching my eye is the free Malevolent Arcing for Tesla, which makes a 5x Teslamortal pretty appealing to scatter some MWs.
All of my games except one since the book dropped have been crusade games. Undying Revenants is sneaky excellent. My opponents didn't think much of it until they played against it. It basically makes pot shots at the unit to hope to whittle them down pointless. Plus in crusade games it usually takes several units to finish off a unit, you can use it to auto-succeed against every unit's fire. Also, because it replaces a failed dice rather than just making one auto-succeed before rolling, it's great on lychguard. Even if they kill one, you have a decent chance of getting a 5 or 6 on one of the two dice, then you auto-succeed on the other and get the lynchguard back much more often. Lastly, don't forget that it also works when the resurrection orb is activated.
Second, the Supremacy Through Annihilation agenda is fantastic. You have to plan out how you are going to use it, but if you work on focus firing down larger units in single turns you can get a lot of experience. Last game I was able to get every single one of my units 2-4 extra experience through it. Just remember that it is best to use it on units of models since your unit has to destroy a model in that unit rather than damage it to get the experience. If you use it on a vehicle or monster only one unit will get the experience. Lastly, it's for the battle round, so you can plan it through your shooting then the melee phases. Or, if they are going first and an undamaged unit is about to charge your guys, use it on them at the start of the round, take the charge and do damage, then back out of combat (even better if you have your command protocol or a warden to allow them to still shoot) then light them up with the rest of your guys.
Energy Savant for the Cryptek Units can be a nasty surprise when you can shoot that voltaic staff twice in a round.
The Dynastic Epithets for your Noble Warlord are also sneaky good. The ones that allow you to use a free stratagem (and there are 2 of them) represents a 33-50% increase in your starting command points which is impressive. You also have 2 ways to get 3 bonus experience for the noble as well.
Remember that the Eldrich Artifice requisition won't affect a canoptek doomstalker as it is a monster, but you can use it to make that heat ray melta or legs on the triarch stalker terrifying with a +1 to hit, or the flamer version of the heat ray have a 18" range, extra -1 ap and damage 2. Plus you can use that requisition every single time you level up and use it to get 2 weapon upgrades in a single leveling up time for it.
Finally, I just wanted to put up a picture of my crusade army:
Been building my various kits this week, and I’m super chuffed at the overall aesthetic. Lots of different sizes in play, but with a solid, unified look.
Next up, probably some new Canoptek toys, as I’ve none of the original plastic ones.
Size comparison between the old and new Monoliths:
Spoiler:
And a size comparison of the Canoptek Doomstalker and a Starstele...
Spoiler:
I built mine a few days ago and have started painting it. I loaded a pic of the progress in my gallery. One thing I can tell you - it is a lot heavier than the old monolith. This is a really heavy model! Point to be difficult to move it around.
wuestenfux wrote: Can we expect to have models for all four types of *mancers?
This is the Technomancer (specifically the Technomancer with Canoptek cloak). The other three Crypteks (Plasmancer, Chronomancer and Psychomancer) can all be found in the first post. Remember GW has an unwritten policy of 'no model, no rules'.
The new dex makes me glad i built all 9 of my tomb blades with gauss. It makes me regret making my 20 immortals with tesla, but a friend of mine of mine if helping me change those.
I'm pondering a dynasty setup in 9e. In 8e i pretty much played sautekh with a different name.
Now sautekh is even more attractive as you can get back more than 1 cp per turn and up to 1/3 of your original cp, and cp are always good for any army to have anytime.
But there's always the urge to mke your own dynasty, and i was looking at one with the ability to make a 6" pre turn one move and for each unit to reroll one missed attack per phase. The first one saves you from the turn one massacre effect if the other guy goes first, the second one can be useful on your big gun units which i (surprise! surprise!) have several of. Letting a DDA or a monolith reroll a missed heavy shot is never a bad thing. and stays with you thru the whole battle, not just turn one.
But of course you can't take the hyperlogical strategist strait for a non sautekh warlord so no getting cp's back unless you're one of imotekh's bois or playing a 'not sautekh just using their rules' dynasty.
So, rerolling one failed hit per phasr per unit or getting about 1/3 more cp?
I am being pulled in multiple directions here.
Mephrite is just generally great because getting the magic AP-3 is easy.
Szarekhan has some great exclusive access to protocol manipulation and psychic defence (good all arounder stuff) Plus that free reroll to wound per unit (this is amazing).
Custom dynasty is amazing for melee because a free 6" move is nearly a whole free turn of movement.
Sautec is pretty great for horde crons. Just another generally good choice.
My gut tells me mephrite overall is gonna be the best shooting army.
Custom 6" move and objective secured is gonna be top melee.
Right now the absolute most powerful Dynasties are Novokh and a Custom Dynasty that combines Obsec on everything + 6" pregame move. Both of these dynasties have bonuses that synergize brilliantly with how 9th works and also the design of the Necron dex in general. You want to be getting stuck in on Objectives, so things that make you hold them harder or reliably get you on them to remove people from them are overwhelmingly the best choices.
But if you don't want to be playing the "best" choices there are still loads of other interesting options and combinations. A different flavour of CC focus could be utilizing the Rad-Wreathed trait. If your preferred style of play is lots of smaller units or singular models then the re-roll one wound is totally a valid choice and the 6" pregame move is a handy tool. However with the increased cp, cp every turn and general low cost of stratagems in the book Hyperlogical Strategist is really not the be all end all of WLT's either. In fact if you're picking the Dynasty solely for that then it just seems like a big waste. If we take your preferred style of play with lots of big gun units then the entire Dynastic Code is doing precisely nothing for most of them.
One thing to bear in mind though, unless you're running a full Super Heavy Detach, the Monolith isn't getting a Dynastic Code ability.
It's really hard to see past the custom Dynasties for me. I don't think the Protocol bonus is enough to push you towards a named Dynasty over a custom one and the flexibility of the custom ones is rally powerful.
Novokh is good because it provides some genuine close combat improvements that the custom dynasties can't get. Then again, Rad-Wreathed is a really good CC trait that isn't available to non-custom Dynasties either. Of the other options I think Nihilakh is ultimately just a worse version of the custom 6" move/ObSec Dynasty. Other than Mephrit's extra ranged output and Sautekh's similar advantage, the other Dynasties don't stand out.
Mephrit definitely got more interesting thanks to the extra range really helping out all the infantry weapons. The extra AP is great, but a lot of Necron guns already have really good AP anyway so it too often feels like a win-more trait and against some armies it's almost useless anyway. Anything with a 5+ save or worse is pretty much unaffected by the extra AP from Mephrit.
I don't find Hyperlogical Strategist as useful as it once was. You get 5CPs back over the course of the game, most likely, but Necrons now start with more CPs than they used to and everyone gets the 1CP at the start of their turn too. Enduring Will is really good as a WLT as well, so I agree with Bosskelot that taking Sautekh just for HS is a bit of a waste.
Of the other Dynasties, nothing really jumps out too much as essential. I like Szarekhan's strat for denying Psykers but a 50/50 shot is too random for me. In 9th edition mobility and objectives are key so extra move to get your shorter ranged weapons in range and ObSec on everything is just really hard to pass up. Novokh still works well because they help when you need to clear enemies from objectives in the midfield and provide tough shooting units like Immortals with enough of a bump in offensive output that charging them is not always a good choice.
For the various named Traits, Yeah, Novokh seems to be the better of the Named Dynasties right now. Warriors that actually do damage in melee is nice.
But, the other traits I still am testing out.
For custom ones, for me at least, yes, the up to 6" move is great. It get's our normally slowish models to where they need to be, and let's you reposition something that the opponent thought was out in the open. Obsec is nice, but in my testing, it has been not as impactful on the game as I would have liked. Maybe if I play a lot more non-obsec units it would make a difference.
The one that I am currently testing is the Re-roll a wound roll. This one has been saving CPs and gaining the equivalent CPs with the ability to re-roll across multiple units in both melee and shooting, thus saving that CP for a re-roll on number of shots or on those clutch missed To hit rolls.
Doesn't work if the number of unsaved wounds is equal or greater than the number of wounds left on the unit
