Let's get back to the topic, which includes don't start a full blown YMDC argument, especially one that has been done and redone such that threads are often locked just as it starts now.

THANK YOU.

...
Actually, maybe we should start a new Necron Tactics thread once the FAQ drops. This one is kind of a hot mess (anyone who actually comes here hoping to find useful tactics information will have to wade through page after page of useless garbage like we just witnessed just to find a few nuggets of wisdom... which might in all likelihood become obsolete once they clarify / change things)

col_impact wrote:
Point to the rule which says I cannot add more Spyders.
.

As has just been explained, they answer quite clearly in the FAQ.

As shown above.

Further "discussion" on this point from hereon in will be treated as spam.

My apologies guys. I did not mean to spark that hot mess again, just wanted to say I hope they clear it up in the FAQ, didn't realise they already had.

Which codex haven't been done yet?
If they do them every Wednesday, what's the projected final date for the last one? (trying to figure out the worst case scenario for us)

You can see a list of what FAQs have been done and in what order HERE.

Ok, getting back on topic - I am presently trying to write an 1850 list for a team event locally and keep hitting road blocks... mainly due to the limits imposed on the way you build armies due to comp...

I am having to think outside the usual Decurion builds.

Star Gods - any good?

I wrote this list which meets all the requirements but have no idea if its any good...

Decurion. (Reclamation Legion, Annihilation Nexus, Flayed Ones)

Overlord, War scythe
5 Immortals, Gauss, Night Scythe
10 Warriors, Ghost Ark
10 Warriors, Ghost Ark
3 Tomb Blades, Gauss, Shields
12 Flayed Ones
2 Annihilation Barges, tesla
Doomsday Ark

Conclave of the Burning One
Night Bringer
Cryptek (God Shackle)
Cryptek (Chronometron, Veil)

1841 total.

Does this look any good?

What are the comp rules?

The annihilation nexus is generally bad.

Also, you have to choose either the Mephrit relics or the Necron codex relics for the Conclave of the Burning One. To have the God's Shackle you can't run the Veil.

If the comp rules forbid GMCs and SHVs then the Conclave could be something worth sinking a lot of points into.

You would need to add a minimum allied force of Necrons with a Cryptek equipped with the God's shackle and a unit of immortals. That way you can load up the Crypteks in the Conclave with the normal Necron relics (Veil, Nightmare Shroud, Solar Staff, etc.)

The mephrit dynasty has nothing forbidding using the standard relics that I can see?

Why is the nexus bad? I saw it as relatively cheap, Av13, decent fire power. I am not fussed on the whole hand back quantum shielding - this just seemed a good way to add fire power to the army.

The comp rules are the Australian Community Comp - http://communitycomp.org/

Its long and fairly complex (that's a lie - its hugely complex!) but essentially I have 14 credits to spend... and every list I write breaks 20 easy...

As an example, Orikan costs 4 credits and for every 2+save character he CAN join (not does - just can) its another 3 credits. Zandrek? add 2 more. In a Decurion - 3 more! The standard deathstars are basically unplayable.

You can get 6-8 wraiths max in this format typically, and things like the solar staff are heavily comped as well - 3 for the staff alone!

Flyers get hit hard as well with each one costing more than the last (night scythes are 0-2-4-6-8-etc while the doom scythes are 1-3-5-7-etc).

The only saving grace is that EVERY list is hit in similar ways - a WKnight for example starts at 5 credits with the sword and its 3 more for the D cannons. Just the chance to roll for invisibility (as in you are allowed to take it) is 8 credits!

So the typical power builds are not really in play - and you have to be creative in list building and play style!

 Massaen wrote:
The mephrit dynasty has nothing forbidding using the standard relics that I can see?

The Draft BRB FAQ clarifies that a detachment can only pull from one source for relics. So it the Draft BRB FAQ is under effect for the tournament you will need to adjust your list. If it's not in effect you are good.

Ah - cool. Missed that! Thanks for the heads up!

Every list I write seems to really lack ranged fire support - is that just a necron thing?

 Massaen wrote:
Ah - cool. Missed that! Thanks for the heads up!

Every list I write seems to really lack ranged fire support - is that just a necron thing?

You should probably check with the TO to see if the Draft FAQ is in effect or not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
With those comp rules I would probably go with something like this


RetributionPhalanx

Overlord (Phase Shifter, The Nightmare Shroud, Warscythe, Gauntlet of Fire)
Triarch Stalker (Heat Ray)
10x Necron Warrior
9x Canoptek Scarab

Necron CAD

Orikan the Diviner
5x Immortal
5x Immortal
6x Canoptek Wraith
4x Tomb Blades (Shadowloom, Shield Vanes, Twin-linked Gauss Blaster)
4x Tomb Blades (Shadowloom, Shield Vanes, Twin-linked Gauss Blaster)

Destroyer Cult

Destroyer Lord (Phase Shifter, Warscythe)
3x Destroyers (1 Heavy Destroyer)
3x Destroyers (1 Heavy Destroyer)
3x Destroyers (1 Heavy Destroyer)

1848 points
20 comp points

I would like to ask a quick question. Since gw stated that we can use any book we want(old or late) can I use the ctan from the escalation as a lord of war?

 bloodoffi wrote:
I would like to ask a quick question. Since gw stated that we can use any book we want(old or late) can I use the ctan from the escalation as a lord of war?

A few people actually asked if the T-C'tan from Escalation was still a viable option during the FAQ roundup. At the moment, most people say no, but it's a bit ambiguous (common sense would say no, but RAW is iffy here). Wait for our FAQ, probably either this week or soon after, and we'll see for sure. If you want to use it in the meantime, ask your opponent if they're ok with it.

 bloodoffi wrote:
I would like to ask a quick question. Since gw stated that we can use any book we want(old or late) can I use the ctan from the escalation as a lord of war?

Until a FAQ draft comes out for it it is in a grey area like Requizen said.

Currently there is a FAQ for escalation that says you are able to use it and it has not been updated since the necron codex came out. But on the safe side always ask before using it.

https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/Errata/Warhammer_40000/Escalation_EN.pdf

Oberron wrote:

 bloodoffi wrote:
I would like to ask a quick question. Since gw stated that we can use any book we want(old or late) can I use the ctan from the escalation as a lord of war?

Until a FAQ draft comes out for it it is in a grey area like Requizen said.

Currently there is a FAQ for escalation that says you are able to use it and it has not been updated since the necron codex came out. But on the safe side always ask before using it.

https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/PDF/Errata/Warhammer_40000/Escalation_EN.pdf

Technically, you can use it, since Escalation is a legal source. If you buy it through the Necron codex you use up a Heavy Support slot. If you buy it through Escalation you use up a Lord of War slot.

It's one of those issues where no one would care if the Transcendant C'tan was a relatively weak or fair GMC, but because of the power level of the Escalation Transcendant C'tan, it is something that can surely become a heated issue between you and your opponent.

Check with the T.O. or your opponent. Who knows, maybe your opponent wants to use a Revenant Titan and the Escalation Transcendant C'tan will give your Necron force a better chance at making it to turn 3. Power level is all relative to what your opponent is allowed to bring and what figures in to the grand scope of fairness.

The ITC format disallows the Escalation Transcendant C'tan entirely. The Nova format similarly does not allow the Transcendant C'tan as a Lord of War.

Hey everyone, total newbie here. Just started playing a few months ago. I'm going to an event in a few weeks and I'm wondering what your thoughts would be on a question I've been wrestling with.

The event is 3 rounds. Starts at 850 points, next game is 1050 points, and the third is 1250 points. The kicker is that from game to game you can only ADD to the list and can never remove anything from the list you had before.

The list I'm looking at is a CAD which heavily features a large sword+board Lychguard unit. The question I'm wrestling over is whether to stick them with Vargard Obyron and deepstrike them across the table or stick them with Orikan and give them a 4+ RP and re rolling 1s. I'm leaning toward Orikan but I'm afraid that they won't be mobile enough to get anything done. At the same time, if I go Obyron they might just lose too much survivability to make much of a difference. Especially on the turn they deepstrike when they are just sitting around. There isn't really enough wiggle room to take a cryptek w/ solar staff in the first round to make up for it.

Interested to hear some thoughts.

Qlanth wrote:
a CAD which heavily features a large sword+board Lychguard unit

Would not recommend.
(what exactly do you intend to do with this unit? Because I can tell you, unless your opponent is completely inept, you'll be lucky to kill anything more than one enemy unit with them. If you invest all your points in something extremely slow and neglect adding things that might actually be an effective use of points, I don't see you winning a lot of games)

Qlanth wrote:
Hey everyone, total newbie here. Just started playing a few months ago. I'm going to an event in a few weeks and I'm wondering what your thoughts would be on a question I've been wrestling with.

The event is 3 rounds. Starts at 850 points, next game is 1050 points, and the third is 1250 points. The kicker is that from game to game you can only ADD to the list and can never remove anything from the list you had before.

The list I'm looking at is a CAD which heavily features a large sword+board Lychguard unit. The question I'm wrestling over is whether to stick them with Vargard Obyron and deepstrike them across the table or stick them with Orikan and give them a 4+ RP and re rolling 1s. I'm leaning toward Orikan but I'm afraid that they won't be mobile enough to get anything done. At the same time, if I go Obyron they might just lose too much survivability to make much of a difference. Especially on the turn they deepstrike when they are just sitting around. There isn't really enough wiggle room to take a cryptek w/ solar staff in the first round to make up for it.

Interested to hear some thoughts.

Does the tourney format allow you to re-define your list? For example, let's say you start with a CAD and some Wraiths. Can those Wraiths be organized into a Harvest for round 2?

 skoffs wrote:

Qlanth wrote:
a CAD which heavily features a large sword+board Lychguard unit

Would not recommend.
(what exactly do you intend to do with this unit? Because I can tell you, unless your opponent is completely inept, you'll be lucky to kill anything more than one enemy unit with them. If you invest all your points in something extremely slow and neglect adding things that might actually be an effective use of points, I don't see you winning a lot of games)

Well the rules of the event are fairly strict. Only one vehicle with AV14 OR one model with 4+ wounds. Can have one or the other but not both. No non-codex formations with the single exception of Start Collecting! formations. No supplements. No white dwarf. No FW. No Lords of War. No allied detachments.

So Basically I'm looking to move 3x 10 man warrior units to objectives while the lychguard roll through on points the warriors can't get to. I also planned to bring 3 Tomb Blades (shield vanes+nebulocscopes) since the points work out for it and they can add some extra mobility.

If that makes no sense, I'm totally open to hearing some suggestions for a better list. I'm still very new (started collecting in march and played my first game at the end of May) and I'm mostly just reading and guessing. Thanks!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:

Qlanth wrote:
Hey everyone, total newbie here. Just started playing a few months ago. I'm going to an event in a few weeks and I'm wondering what your thoughts would be on a question I've been wrestling with.

The event is 3 rounds. Starts at 850 points, next game is 1050 points, and the third is 1250 points. The kicker is that from game to game you can only ADD to the list and can never remove anything from the list you had before.

The list I'm looking at is a CAD which heavily features a large sword+board Lychguard unit. The question I'm wrestling over is whether to stick them with Vargard Obyron and deepstrike them across the table or stick them with Orikan and give them a 4+ RP and re rolling 1s. I'm leaning toward Orikan but I'm afraid that they won't be mobile enough to get anything done. At the same time, if I go Obyron they might just lose too much survivability to make much of a difference. Especially on the turn they deepstrike when they are just sitting around. There isn't really enough wiggle room to take a cryptek w/ solar staff in the first round to make up for it.

Interested to hear some thoughts.

Does the tourney format allow you to re-define your list? For example, let's say you start with a CAD and some Wraiths. Can those Wraiths be organized into a Harvest for round 2?

Nope. Once it's added it can't be adjusted.

You might want to ask for clarification on the rules then. Because if you start with say...

Overlord
2 units of Warriors
3 Wraiths
3 Tomb Blades

Then that can only be organized into a CAD. But later you might add...

1 Tomb Spyder
3 Scarabs
1 unit of Immortals

And now you can organize that into a Decurion Detachment with a Harvest formation as the auxilary. It's all from the codex and you're not 'removing' anything from the list. You're just re-organizing the detachment.

So unless they specifically say you can't change how your units are organized in the detachment, I don't see how it conflicts with their rules.

However, back to your question... I wouldn't include lychguard. Expensive and slow and melee... all attributes of a really bad unit. It takes other things such as veil to give them mobility in order to shore up their major weakness. Instead, you could take a unit of Immortals in order to start with a Reclamation Legion formation right off the bat. That way, you can add other formation later in order to form the Decurion Detachment. This will also avoid any conflicts with the rules about changing you list from a CAD to Decurion by shuffling some units around.

I think your best bang for the buck would be to take a min Canoptek Harvest and min Destroyer cult at 850 and then max them out at 1250


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Zimko wrote:
You might want to ask for clarification on the rules then. Because if you start with say...

Overlord
2 units of Warriors
3 Wraiths
3 Tomb Blades

Then that can only be organized into a CAD. But later you might add...

1 Tomb Spyder
3 Scarabs
1 unit of Immortals

And now you can organize that into a Decurion Detachment with a Harvest formation as the auxilary. It's all from the codex and you're not 'removing' anything from the list. You're just re-organizing the detachment.

So unless they specifically say you can't change how your units are organized in the detachment, I don't see how it conflicts with their rules.

However, back to your question... I wouldn't include lychguard. Expensive and slow and melee... all attributes of a really bad unit. It takes other things such as veil to give them mobility in order to shore up their major weakness. Instead, you could take a unit of Immortals in order to start with a Reclamation Legion formation right off the bat. That way, you can add other formation later in order to form the Decurion Detachment. This will also avoid any conflicts with the rules about changing you list from a CAD to Decurion by shuffling some units around.

Maybe someone could post the Tourney rules in question?

Sure thing, here are the rules as posted:



Lots of questions were posted and answered. For instance, they will be allowing Start Collecting! formations. Decurion style detachments ARE allowed so long as they meet all other rules. No allied detachments allowed. Missions will be Maelstrom and a special homebrew mession from the TO in round 3.

I posted the question about reorganizing and I'll be at the store tonight anyway so I'll see if they have an answer about that.

You might also check to see if the Draft FAQ is legal. If it's not, then the Conclave of the Burning One looks especially tasty, since GMCs and SHVs are not allowed.

col_impact wrote:
You might also check to see if the Draft FAQ is legal. If it's not, then the Conclave of the Burning One looks especially tasty, since GMCs and SHVs are not allowed.

No supplement formations allowed unfortunately

Qlanth wrote:
No non-codex formations with the single exception of Start Collecting! formations.

Go with that, then. From The Sands We Rise is incredibly useful in restricted settings... provided you have everything necessary to field it.
(actually, we should probably get a list of everything you've got available to use so we know what you're working with).

When and Where is this Tournament? Sounds like a ton of fun.

Honestly, you'd be just fine running a CAD if you're running Maelstrom missions straight out of the book. Szeras or Zahndrekh as your WL and you're set.

 Akar wrote:
When and Where is this Tournament? Sounds like a ton of fun.

Honestly, you'd be just fine running a CAD if you're running Maelstrom missions straight out of the book. Szeras or Zahndrekh as your WL and you're set.

Tournament is on July 30th at Flatland Games in Wixom, Michigan. Not too far out of Detroit. Great FLGS and the proprietor is a great guy too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skoffs wrote:

Qlanth wrote:
No non-codex formations with the single exception of Start Collecting! formations.

Go with that, then. From The Sands We Rise is incredibly useful in restricted settings... provided you have everything necessary to field it.
(actually, we should probably get a list of everything you've got available to use so we know what you're working with).

Currently:



So basically, no Destroyers, no C'tan. I plan on filling the Destroyer gap first to be able to field the Destroyer Cult. But, I'm not going to manage that before the event.

Dang it... If it were closer...

With what you have here is what I'd run.

 Akar wrote:
Dang it... If it were closer...

With what you have here is what I'd run.

Spoiler:

CAD
----- 850 -----
Zahndrekh or Szeras
18 Warriors (Zahndrekh/Szeras goes here)
Immortals (8 if Zahndrekh, 10 if Szeras)
5 Tomb Blades (G, SV, N)
5 Wraiths
----- 1050 -----
ADD 15 Warriors
----- 1250
ADD 15 Warriors

I'd run a similar list, but I'd have Tesla Immortals (Yes TESLA!) and Flayed Ones instead of Wraiths. At the 1250 point it'd become a Decurion if it's allowed, and if not, it's still a pretty solid CAD. I've been using Szeras and a full unit of Warriors in smaller games and he is great. Having that RP bubble and 'Immortal Hubris' gives your opponent a tough nut to crack.

I dig it! To be honest I'm a little hesitant to roll with Decurion since its such a low point game and stuff like Wraithknights and spamming Riptides won't be possible. I don't want to be That Guy but I do still want to put up a decent fight and get to know some folks in the local community.

BTW I tried out the 9x Lychguard unit with Obyron in an 850 pt game last night and it worked pretty well... but I think everyone here was right. My opponent (Tau) misplayed pretty bad in a few key points which let the Lychguard and Obyron wipe up a Broadside, unit of pathfinders, two units of fire warriors, and an ethereal before he conceded. By the end of the game I had almost nobody left in the unit. The key was he forgot to detach the Ethereal from a unit of Firewarriors which ended up giving me 5 VPs. Prior to that I was down by 3 VPs. So I ended up winning by one VP. I don't think I'll roll with anything like that again unless we're playing a lot more points.

Man, you need to invest in some Destroyers!

I would run the Decurion with a Harvest and Deathmark auxiliaries. It will only be medium strength since you will be lacking the Destroyers.

col_impact wrote:
Man, you need to invest in some Destroyers!

I would run the Decurion with a Harvest and Deathmark auxiliaries. It will only be medium strength since you will be lacking the Destroyers.

How often do you use the heavy destroyers when you run a destroyer cult? I'm going to pick up destroyers eventually but it's going to be at minimum 10 models which comes out to $250 - not cheap... but what is in this game? lol

If the heavies are a huge factor that might set me back a bit more, just wondering how useful you find them in that formation?

Heavies are... complicated. Expensive models with single shots often are. If you miss, they suck. If you fail to wound or they save, they suck.

But, there are few other things in the game that have a high chance of hitting (rerolling 1s, rerolling all wound/pens with the formation on BS4/S9/AP2 is massive), so sometimes they'll just straight remove an important unit or cripple a force.

I love them in theory, but I've also had them shoot at a vehicle for 4 turns and do a single HP. So, use with care. Regular destroyers are much more reliable because cheaper and more shots, but struggle more against hard targets/2+.

Starting with a 3 x 3 regular Destroyers + 1 Destroyer Lord is perfectly legitimate. Regular Destroyers are very potent and consistent in their damage output.

When you can afford it, adding a unit of 3 Heavy Destroyers to the 3 x 3 regular Destroyers will form the optimal Destroyer cult. Even though the regular Destroyers are solid, Heavy Destroyers will perform better than the regular Destroyers against certain targets, and vice versa.

Sounds good. I'll plan on picking some up soon.

Another question for the experts: How do you deal with monstrous creatures like the riptide? The amount of AP 2 shots at my disposal is very low. Is that just going to be a job for wraiths?

Qlanth wrote:
Sounds good. I'll plan on picking some up soon.

Another question for the experts: How do you deal with monstrous creatures like the riptide? The amount of AP 2 shots at my disposal is very low. Is that just going to be a job for wraiths?

Riptides specificially are pretty easy to kill in Assault. Low Initiative, moderate LD, poor in Assault. If you deal any wounds with Wraiths or Lychguard or Praets, you have a pretty non-zero chance of running them over. Non-fearless MCs are pretty poor.

As for other MCs, Destroyers/Heavy Destroyers will do good damage and stay away with Jet Pack moves, but in Assault Wraiths are best for tying them up and surviving. Lychguard and characters with Warscythes will also cut them down to size fairly handily.

With regards to fighting MCs and GMCs, there are additional tools at the Necron general's disposal.

1. Voidreaper adds fleshbane and master crafted to the warscythe.

2. Transdimensional Beamers on Harvest Wraiths are the Necron's ID weapon.

3. A Scarab swarm (from a Spyder farm list or Retribution Phalanx) can drown a MC/GMC in attacks and tarpit them turn after turn.

4. The C'Tan Shard of the Nightbringer is very good at monster-hunting, with fleshbane and a Gaze of Death leadership attack that ignores cover and armor saves and can deal multiple wounds.

5. Deathmarks are also potent at dealing with any one single MC/GMC.

Hey guys, quick question. How many of you guys run CAD's? I generally find Decurion restrictive and bland a lot of the time, wondering if anyone else feels like this?

I agree that the Decurion is restrictive. There are situations where a CAD is more useful - when points are tight, or you don't want to take tax units, or you really really need ObSec - but a lot of the time Necrons like and die by our Durability (no pun intended) and having more is only a good thing. Relentless also makes them scary to approach, and all the bonuses for Tomb Blades make them amazingly good (since you can go into cover with no DT tests, and they're hard to kill when off by themselves). Some units really want the 4+ RP as well, such as Flayed Ones who jump from "pretty good" to "become a target priority because damn" pretty fast.

However, I end up playing a CAD a lot in casual games, since the Decurion can be really frustrating for some people to play against and sometimes fun is more important than only losing 3 models.

Yea 100% agree. Any whiff of a competitive game and Decurion is the only way to go. I just find a lot of the time making random fun lists that have a different playstyle, instead of the same thing all the time.

I just wish the Decurion gave us the option of either 3-8 units of Warriors or Immortals. I know some would've abused the Immortals as a minimum tax, but how cool is a horde of Immortals that are relentless and hard to kill?

I also wish more units could use Ghost Arks but oh well.

I wish Ghost Arks had transport capacity of 12

Klowny wrote:
Hey guys, quick question. How many of you guys run CAD's? I generally find Decurion restrictive and bland a lot of the time, wondering if anyone else feels like this?

I find myself running lists with Formations + CAD. One of my favorite lists features a Retribution Phalanx, a Destroyer Cult, a Harvest, and a CAD with Orikan and min Immortals


A CAD is a good way to avoid several taxes.

1) the Reclamation Legion tax (to directly run Decurion formations like the Harvest or the Cult)

2) the Royal Court tax (to directly purchase Orikan)

3) the D. Cult tax (to directly purchase the D. Lord)

4) the Harvest tax (to directly purchase Wraiths - or Spyders and Scarabs for Scarab farm)


I personally find the Royal Court tax annoying and since I like Orikan I find ways to put a CAD of Necrons or an Allied detachment of Necrons into my lists.

 Anpu-adom wrote:
I wish Ghost Arks had transport capacity of 12

Uh why? There's clearly only room for 10 dudes.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Anpu-adom wrote:
I wish Ghost Arks had transport capacity of 12

Uh why? There's clearly only room for 10 dudes.

Room for a cryptek or lord at deployment.

I feel if the ghost ark could be taken by immortals they would be used a lot more. It's always frustrating using them now as they feel like a useless camping tax. I prefer them to Warriors, but rarely use them offensively.

Unless it's a player who has never played before or is still just learning with a handful of models, I will almost always use a Decurion for the first game against an opponent. Once I've got an idea of where his army is at and how it's built, then I can get a good idea of how to dumb down a list to make the game more fun, which will usually determine what I take in a CAD. Competitively, I've got ZERO issue running a CAD depending on the tournament rules and army list composition. Unfortunately, this has led to a decline in my tournament attendance as it's usually leaning toward a specific format that I don't find enjoyable, and personally feel like they should just play 7th ed.

I also don't have any Tax units, simply because I don't believe they exist. I really don't understand the whole 'Tax' mentality, but I do understand the reasoning behind it. There are units listed in a Formation because they are intended to be used to impact the game. Taking them with the mentality of just getting a bonus for something else is almost depressing in a way. Like putting the Cart before the Horse, and some people go to GREAT lengths to make sure that they have X unit or Formation at the cost of what actually makes the formation great. This applies to all armies, not just Necrons. Im of the strong opinion that if you're treating the unit as a 'Tax' then you're really handicapping yourself by not exploiting the full potential that a list offers.

/rant
Some people, often here on forums, tend to get really out of shape when they think that certain things are a must have no matter the cost. Which is fine, until they think that it is impossible to succeed or be 'competitive' without that specific element.

Common examples:
Canoptek Harvests (or Wraiths in General)
Wraithknights / Scatbikes
Grav Cents
Imp. Knights.

These make an appearance in most competitive armies which is fine. It the assumption that when these elements aren't present that the army can't win, and it's confusing to new players when said element doesn't do what they thought it would do.
/rant off

I agree with the wraith part, I don't really find them that fun to play. They are really good at what they do, but we have so many different options and flavours of army's to run, that and the cult (especially together) get very mono-build-ish and boooooooring.

I too have taking a break for Canoptek Harvest. In part because I'm organizing a new community and there are a lot of newer players and in part because I find it boring.

I'm toying around with a Decurion, Lychstar, Royal Court with Imotekh, and several MSU Flayed One units. The goal is that the Flayed Ones are used to accurately drop on objectives, mess up my opponents backfield units, or to tarpit his deathstar depending on need. Lychstar does as Lychstar wants, and the rest of the army is flexible enough do complete the mission. One thing that it lacks is much AP 2 outside of the Lychstar.

In the vein of trying new things, have you looked into the mephrit dynasty? Flayer ones are troop choices and there is AP2 abound. Also has some cool rules that the standard codex doesn't have. Has all the standard codex entries too

Klowny wrote:
In the vein of trying new things, have you looked into the mephrit dynasty? Flayer ones are troop choices and there is AP2 abound. Also has some cool rules that the standard codex doesn't have. Has all the standard codex entries too

I don't have the Forgeworld book for that (it is also not legal for ITC, which is a consideration). It is also very hard to give up that army-wide 4+ RP save.

I mean it only goes to 5+, same as a CAD, however it is the old style with rolling for it afterwards. But their entropic strike permanently lowers vehicles AV etc. check it out, looks like fun and is pretty different if your bored with Decurion + cult + wraiths

So there is a FW Death from the Skies Update. It says we can take 2-4 Night Shroud Bombers as an auxiliary in a Decurion.

Night Shrouds are alright, but nothing special anyway. Taking 2 at their pricepoint is probably not the smartest move you could make for a Decurion.

On the other hand, it makes me hopeful that this means there are other 7e updates on the way. Make Pylons great again!

Claas wrote:So there is a FW Death from the Skies Update. It says we can take 2-4 Night Shroud Bombers as an auxiliary in a Decurion.

Requizen wrote:Night Shrouds are alright, but nothing special anyway. Taking 2 at their pricepoint is probably not the smartest move you could make for a Decurion.

On the other hand, it makes me hopeful that this means there are other 7e updates on the way. Make Pylons great again!

Yeah, two Night Shroud Bombers would not price nicely on the table... or in the pocket book.

I really hope they don't update the FW stuff. I was planning on saving some money this year lol

Well the Shrouds use the Large Blasts right?

Makes them look attractive against MSU Marines not in their Rhinos or against Scatterbikes. Also works nice against Warp Spiders that already used their Jump.

Otherwise Scythes work fine. Kinda.

col_impact wrote:
With regards to fighting MCs and GMCs, there are additional tools at the Necron general's disposal.

1. Voidreaper adds fleshbane and master crafted to the warscythe.

2. Transdimensional Beamers on Harvest Wraiths are the Necron's ID weapon.

3. A Scarab swarm (from a Spyder farm list or Retribution Phalanx) can drown a MC/GMC in attacks and tarpit them turn after turn.

4. The C'Tan Shard of the Nightbringer is very good at monster-hunting, with fleshbane and a Gaze of Death leadership attack that ignores cover and armor saves and can deal multiple wounds.

5. Deathmarks are also potent at dealing with any one single MC/GMC.

1. Voidreaper adds fleshbane and master crafted to the warscythe. No one uses generic Overlords unless required. Much less give them upgrades such as that. Plus, if he's in CC with a GC, rest in many pieces. He'll likely do 1 or 2 wounds then get stomped out of existence.

2. Transdimensional Beamers on Harvest Wraiths are the Necron's ID weapon. True, but they replace Whip Coils, are more expensive, and are not reliable.

3. A Scarab swarm (from a Spyder farm list or Retribution Phalanx) can drown a MC/GMC in attacks and tarpit them turn after turn. They will likely do no damage and then die in droves to stomps. If it's an MC, they may tarpit for a little while.

4. The C'Tan Shard of the Nightbringer is very good at monster-hunting, with fleshbane and a Gaze of Death leadership attack that ignores cover and armor saves and can deal multiple wounds. It's good at monster hunting if he ever gets there. Any other MC/GC worth anything will not let him get close, and watch him die to bolt guns.

5. Deathmarks are also potent at dealing with any one single MC/GMC. Kind of. They can do moderate damage to a single MC/GC.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Klowny wrote:
In the vein of trying new things, have you looked into the mephrit dynasty? Flayer ones are troop choices and there is AP2 abound. Also has some cool rules that the standard codex doesn't have. Has all the standard codex entries too

You're talking about the Fall of Orpheus from Forgeworld? Flayed Ones are technically worse in there (RAW), and what AP2 are you talking about?

Also, by "cool rules" do you mean the thing that causes your characters to potentially go crazy? I'm okay with not having that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Well the Shrouds use the Large Blasts right?

Makes them look attractive against MSU Marines not in their Rhinos or against Scatterbikes. Also works nice against Warp Spiders that already used their Jump.

Otherwise Scythes work fine. Kinda.

It's still too pricey at 225 points. A freaking Storm Raven is 200, for Christ's sake.

Night Shrouds are still fairly durable though compared to other fliers.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Night Shrouds are still fairly durable though compared to other fliers.

Absolutely. And its still too pricey.

 krodarklorr wrote:


1. Voidreaper adds fleshbane and master crafted to the warscythe. No one uses generic Overlords unless required. Much less give them upgrades such as that. Plus, if he's in CC with a GC, rest in many pieces. He'll likely do 1 or 2 wounds then get stomped out of existence.

2. Transdimensional Beamers on Harvest Wraiths are the Necron's ID weapon. True, but they replace Whip Coils, are more expensive, and are not reliable.

3. A Scarab swarm (from a Spyder farm list or Retribution Phalanx) can drown a MC/GMC in attacks and tarpit them turn after turn. They will likely do no damage and then die in droves to stomps. If it's an MC, they may tarpit for a little while.

4. The C'Tan Shard of the Nightbringer is very good at monster-hunting, with fleshbane and a Gaze of Death leadership attack that ignores cover and armor saves and can deal multiple wounds. It's good at monster hunting if he ever gets there. Any other MC/GC worth anything will not let him get close, and watch him die to bolt guns.

5. Deathmarks are also potent at dealing with any one single MC/GMC. Kind of. They can do moderate damage to a single MC/GC.

1. Generic Overlords/D. Lords are much more common than named Overlords. Voidreaper slams MCs and does double/triple damage against GMCs as compared to regular warscythes. Keep the Overlord alive for one turn from Stomps (with LOS) and you can kill a GMC.

2. Beamers are great on Wraiths against an army of multi-wound targets and/or TEQs. Whipcoils are very overrated. Whether or not beamers are a valid choice depends on what you expect to face.

3. The Retribution Phalanx's scarab unit can keep a GMC tied up indefinitely and finish the GMC in 3 turns. Have you even tested the matchup or are you just theory-hammering?

4. I should have included in my original comment that the Conclave is the delivery mechanism for the Nightbringer. If you have good tarpitters in your army then you can force matchups with your Conclave. And any MC/GMC cannot afford to ignore the Gaze of Death attack.

5. Deathmarks are great in terms of points for the amount of damage they deliver to a MC/GMC.

I would just like to add that the Retri. Phalanx scarabs are very useful, for killing MCs and Walkers. There has been 2 occasions that I have killed 2 Imperial Knights with them by getting around behind it, and I have tied up many a MC with them

I orginally posted this in the Army List forum, but realized since I'm using existing models and don't have much room to actually adjust, what I should really be asking for is advice on how necrons play in 7th, especially in a list like I have below.

this will be my first 7th ed game with Necrons (and only a couple removed from my first game of 7th ed period). My grand ambition with this list is to have all 60 of my warriors on the table, which I haven't done since 4th edition.

First question - I've got a Reclamation Legion, and a Flayer Auxillary. Does making a list entirely out of formations that meet the parameters of a CAD mean you get the standard CAD benefits too?

Since it's now it's own entry and not a DT for the HQ, can the Overlord in the Legion get on a command barge?

Reclamation Legion-
HQ
Overlord (with undecided wargear)
Troops
20x Warriors
20x Warriors
20x Warriors
10x Immortals (Gauss Blasters)
10x Immortals (Tesla Carbines)
3x Tomb Blades (gonna have to build and paint these fast)

Flayed One Auxiliary
Elite
14x Flayed Ones

What I'd like most is advice on how to equip the Overlord, and the current state of game for equiping tomb blades. Any general advice on how to play super foot sloggers (98 models T4 models at 1500 points! Woo hoo!). I know that even with the Decurion (along with the +1 to reanimation protocols, everything withing 12' of the overlord gets to reroll 1s on reanimation), this a far from optimum list. Lack of mobility is going to be thing, as well as only having weight of fire to deal with most threats, especially CC pain that might end up sweeping whole warrior squads at once.

My thinking is that the point sacrifice to add a Royal Court formation, bringing in another overlord, lord, and cryptek would not be worth it, considering my goals, as nice as it would be to have a character leading every squad.

Would it be better to run the Flayed Ones as 2 x 7 instead of 1 x 14?

I'm thinking that a Veil of Darkness on the Overlord, and have him deepstrike in, and then the one use teleportation will help with some of the mobility, but I'm behind the curve on how the meta has shaped their gear choices.

Any and all C&C appreciated!

 krodarklorr wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Night Shrouds are still fairly durable though compared to other fliers.

Absolutely. And its still too pricey.

Also do realize that AA isn't used anymore outside of anyone using Onager Dune Crawlers. That enables time for them to bomb things and get their points back.

Am I the only one who misses the fact you can't have veil and shackles in the conclave with the night bringer at the same time anymore?

That's a tough one. T8 is awesome but we need the Veil more for movement.

You can still be equally survivable with a Shroud on one of the Crypteks. That delicious T7 2+/4++/4+++ is great.

col_impact wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:


1. Voidreaper adds fleshbane and master crafted to the warscythe. No one uses generic Overlords unless required. Much less give them upgrades such as that. Plus, if he's in CC with a GC, rest in many pieces. He'll likely do 1 or 2 wounds then get stomped out of existence.

2. Transdimensional Beamers on Harvest Wraiths are the Necron's ID weapon. True, but they replace Whip Coils, are more expensive, and are not reliable.

3. A Scarab swarm (from a Spyder farm list or Retribution Phalanx) can drown a MC/GMC in attacks and tarpit them turn after turn. They will likely do no damage and then die in droves to stomps. If it's an MC, they may tarpit for a little while.

4. The C'Tan Shard of the Nightbringer is very good at monster-hunting, with fleshbane and a Gaze of Death leadership attack that ignores cover and armor saves and can deal multiple wounds. It's good at monster hunting if he ever gets there. Any other MC/GC worth anything will not let him get close, and watch him die to bolt guns.

5. Deathmarks are also potent at dealing with any one single MC/GMC. Kind of. They can do moderate damage to a single MC/GC.

1. Generic Overlords/D. Lords are much more common than named Overlords. Voidreaper slams MCs and does double/triple damage against GMCs as compared to regular warscythes. Keep the Overlord alive for one turn from Stomps (with LOS) and you can kill a GMC.

2. Beamers are great on Wraiths against an army of multi-wound targets and/or TEQs. Whipcoils are very overrated. Whether or not beamers are a valid choice depends on what you expect to face.

3. The Retribution Phalanx's scarab unit can keep a GMC tied up indefinitely and finish the GMC in 3 turns. Have you even tested the matchup or are you just theory-hammering?

4. I should have included in my original comment that the Conclave is the delivery mechanism for the Nightbringer. If you have good tarpitters in your army then you can force matchups with your Conclave. And any MC/GMC cannot afford to ignore the Gaze of Death attack.

5. Deathmarks are great in terms of points for the amount of damage they deliver to a MC/GMC.

1. Depends on the GC. A Wraithknight with Wraithcannons? Maybe. With any other wargear, such as the D weapon in CC? Or a Stormsurge? Highly, highly unlikely. Though I am salty towards the abomination that is the Stormsurge.

2. I wouldn't say great. You have at most 6 shots from a unit, and a measly Strength of 4. So, not the most reliable when it comes to actually hurting anything.

3. I've sent 12+ scarabs at a single Wraithknight and done maybe 1 wound. Wounding on a 6, and trying to get through a 3+ armor and 5+ FNP while then surviving S6 stomps isn't likely to merit much. If they can keep coming back indefinitely, than that helps. I wouldn't rely on it to kill a GC in 3 turns, however.

4. And the conclave received a slight nerf in the FAQ (can't take as many relics as we'd like), as well as still being very over priced and relying on not scattering when using the Veil. It can work, sure. But when you have to roll higher than a 10 on 3 dice (not that hard, I know) but then get through a possible Invuln and then FNP, it is, again, not as reliable as you might think. This is also assuming they don't kill the conclave with fire asap. It's not that hard to kill.

5. They are probably the only option I'd claim as somewhat reliable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Night Shrouds are still fairly durable though compared to other fliers.

Absolutely. And its still too pricey.

Also do realize that AA isn't used anymore outside of anyone using Onager Dune Crawlers. That enables time for them to bomb things and get their points back.

Umm, Crimson Hunters. In fact, those are quite popular.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Massaen wrote:
Am I the only one who misses the fact you can't have veil and shackles in the conclave with the night bringer at the same time anymore?

You are not. It was an unnecessary nerf to the only method of making the C'Tan viable.

My experiences largely match with what Krodarklorr says. We kill vehicles dead. MC's (particularly flying) are our codex's weakness. Do your best to ignore them and mitigate their effect on the game while scoring objectives.
Thank heavens, no one seems to be bringing the "Pacific Rim" list anymore.

 Anpu-adom wrote:
My experiences largely match with what Krodarklorr says. We kill vehicles dead. MC's (particularly flying) are our codex's weakness. Do your best to ignore them and mitigate their effect on the game while scoring objectives.
Thank heavens, no one seems to be bringing the "Pacific Rim" list anymore.

Wait, I've been away for a few months. What is this "Pacific Rim" list you speak of?

Do the shackles have to be in the same detachment as the Ctan?

Could you run a mephrit royal court or CAD with a cryptek with shackles and affect the Conclave while it has veil?

 krodarklorr wrote:

 Anpu-adom wrote:
My experiences largely match with what Krodarklorr says. We kill vehicles dead. MC's (particularly flying) are our codex's weakness. Do your best to ignore them and mitigate their effect on the game while scoring objectives.
Thank heavens, no one seems to be bringing the "Pacific Rim" list anymore.

Wait, I've been away for a few months. What is this "Pacific Rim" list you speak of?

2 Eldar Wraithknights and 2-4 Tau Riptides

 krodarklorr wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:


1. Voidreaper adds fleshbane and master crafted to the warscythe. No one uses generic Overlords unless required. Much less give them upgrades such as that. Plus, if he's in CC with a GC, rest in many pieces. He'll likely do 1 or 2 wounds then get stomped out of existence.

2. Transdimensional Beamers on Harvest Wraiths are the Necron's ID weapon. True, but they replace Whip Coils, are more expensive, and are not reliable.

3. A Scarab swarm (from a Spyder farm list or Retribution Phalanx) can drown a MC/GMC in attacks and tarpit them turn after turn. They will likely do no damage and then die in droves to stomps. If it's an MC, they may tarpit for a little while.

4. The C'Tan Shard of the Nightbringer is very good at monster-hunting, with fleshbane and a Gaze of Death leadership attack that ignores cover and armor saves and can deal multiple wounds. It's good at monster hunting if he ever gets there. Any other MC/GC worth anything will not let him get close, and watch him die to bolt guns.

5. Deathmarks are also potent at dealing with any one single MC/GMC. Kind of. They can do moderate damage to a single MC/GC.

1. Generic Overlords/D. Lords are much more common than named Overlords. Voidreaper slams MCs and does double/triple damage against GMCs as compared to regular warscythes. Keep the Overlord alive for one turn from Stomps (with LOS) and you can kill a GMC.

2. Beamers are great on Wraiths against an army of multi-wound targets and/or TEQs. Whipcoils are very overrated. Whether or not beamers are a valid choice depends on what you expect to face.

3. The Retribution Phalanx's scarab unit can keep a GMC tied up indefinitely and finish the GMC in 3 turns. Have you even tested the matchup or are you just theory-hammering?

4. I should have included in my original comment that the Conclave is the delivery mechanism for the Nightbringer. If you have good tarpitters in your army then you can force matchups with your Conclave. And any MC/GMC cannot afford to ignore the Gaze of Death attack.

5. Deathmarks are great in terms of points for the amount of damage they deliver to a MC/GMC.

1. Depends on the GC. A Wraithknight with Wraithcannons? Maybe. With any other wargear, such as the D weapon in CC? Or a Stormsurge? Highly, highly unlikely. Though I am salty towards the abomination that is the Stormsurge.

2. I wouldn't say great. You have at most 6 shots from a unit, and a measly Strength of 4. So, not the most reliable when it comes to actually hurting anything.

3. I've sent 12+ scarabs at a single Wraithknight and done maybe 1 wound. Wounding on a 6, and trying to get through a 3+ armor and 5+ FNP while then surviving S6 stomps isn't likely to merit much. If they can keep coming back indefinitely, than that helps. I wouldn't rely on it to kill a GC in 3 turns, however.

4. And the conclave received a slight nerf in the FAQ (can't take as many relics as we'd like), as well as still being very over priced and relying on not scattering when using the Veil. It can work, sure. But when you have to roll higher than a 10 on 3 dice (not that hard, I know) but then get through a possible Invuln and then FNP, it is, again, not as reliable as you might think. This is also assuming they don't kill the conclave with fire asap. It's not that hard to kill.

5. They are probably the only option I'd claim as somewhat reliable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Night Shrouds are still fairly durable though compared to other fliers.

Absolutely. And its still too pricey.

Also do realize that AA isn't used anymore outside of anyone using Onager Dune Crawlers. That enables time for them to bomb things and get their points back.

Umm, Crimson Hunters. In fact, those are quite popular.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Massaen wrote:
Am I the only one who misses the fact you can't have veil and shackles in the conclave with the night bringer at the same time anymore?

You are not. It was an unnecessary nerf to the only method of making the C'Tan viable.

Crimson Hunters really aren't that popular because those are points that can go to Warp Spiders or Bikes. You entirely exaggerate on what number of Crimson Hunters we can expect.

 Massaen wrote:
Do the shackles have to be in the same detachment as the Ctan?

Could you run a mephrit royal court or CAD with a cryptek with shackles and affect the Conclave while it has veil?

No, they don't have to be in the same detachment, but there currently is no way to run Meprhit units outside of the detachment (which is meh) or the formations (which all suck aside from the Conclave). There aren't any rules for running a "Meprhit CAD" or "Mephrit Royal Court". Maybe there will be in the FAQ.

 Anpu-adom wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

 Anpu-adom wrote:
My experiences largely match with what Krodarklorr says. We kill vehicles dead. MC's (particularly flying) are our codex's weakness. Do your best to ignore them and mitigate their effect on the game while scoring objectives.
Thank heavens, no one seems to be bringing the "Pacific Rim" list anymore.

Wait, I've been away for a few months. What is this "Pacific Rim" list you speak of?

2 Eldar Wraithknights and 2-4 Tau Riptides

Ha, that's awesome. And by awesome I mean whoever plays that can die in a fire.

I compiled a listing of the Necron armies in the upcoming ETC.

Lots of Harvests, lots of Tomb Blades, and lots of Royal Courts. Destroyer Cult is present but not as popular as I would expect. Culexus, IKs, and Bunkers are popular add-ons. The basic tourney list has 1-3 Harvest and either lots of Tomb Blades or a Destroyer Cult and optionally a Royal Court.

1) Most lists followed the pattern described above. Those that adhered to this pattern were mostly Decurion, but there were a couple of CAD.

This list has Decurion with Harvest and Royal Court and an IK detachment

This list has Decurion with Destroyer Cult and 2 Harvests

This list has a Decurion with 13 Tomb Blades, a Destroyer Cult, and a Harvest

This list has Decurion with 3x5 Tomb Blades and 3 Harvests

This list has Decurion with 3 x 7 Tomb Blades, a Harvest, and a Destroyer Cult

This list has a CAD with 11 Tomb Blades and a Bunker, a Royal Court, A Harvest, and a Culexus

This list has a CAD with a Bunker and a Night Scythe, a Royal Court, and a Harvest

This list has a Decurion with 2 Harvests, an IK, and a Culexus

This list has a Decurion wih a Royal Court, a Harvest, and a Destroyer Cult

This list has a Decurion with 2x3 Tomb Blades, 3 Harvests, and a Psykana Division

This list has a Decurion with 3x3 Tomb Blades and 5 Lychguard, 3 Harvests, and 7 Flayed ones

This list has a Decurion with 3 Harvests and a Destroyer Cult


2) There are a couple of Spyder farm lists.

This list has CAD with 3x3 Tomb Blades, medium Spyder Farm, Harvest, Royal Court, and Culexus

This list has a CAD with 3x3 Tomb Blades and 3x3 Spyders, a Royal Court, and a Harvest with 9 Scarabs



3) There are a couple of Necron Air lists.

This list has CAD with 4x5 Immortals in NS and a Royal Court

This list has a CAD with 15 Tomb Blades, a 4 Doom Scythe Deathbringer Air Superiority Detachment, a Harvest, and a Culexus


4) The Retribution Phalanx makes a showing.

This list has CAD with Praetorians and a Bunker, a Royal Court, a Retribution Phalanx, and a Culexus


5) The Judicator Battalion makes a showing in a couple of lists.

This list has Decurion with 22 Tomb Blades, a Judicator Battalion, and a Harvest

This list has a Decurion with 2 Harvests, a Judicator Battalion, and a Culexus


6) Also the Royal Court Disco makes a showing.

This list has a CAD and Decurion with 8 Tomb Blades, a large Royal Court, and 5 Flayed ones. The list has a whopping 6 war scythes.

That's a lot to compile, and I thank you for it.

I'll give my thoughts on the lists when I get home and have a keyboard in front of me.

ROYAL COURT DISCO INFERNO!
Not how I would have made it, but
<3

is anyone else constantly disappointed with Deathmarks? I play against Tau, Space Wolves, and Skitarii a lot and every time I have brought deathmarks they inflicted a wound or two after DS and immediately died.

How are these supposed to be used? Is DSing the way to use it? What should they be used against?

Qlanth wrote:
is anyone else constantly disappointed with Deathmarks? I play against Tau, Space Wolves, and Skitarii a lot and every time I have brought deathmarks they inflicted a wound or two after DS and immediately died.

How are these supposed to be used? Is DSing the way to use it? What should they be used against?

You're probably just getting unlucky. My Deathmarks usually survive volley after volley of Tau fire before finally kicking the bucket, all while the rest of my forces are walking up the board. And they typically do quite a bit. Heck, my friend had his two drones out front of his Riptide, and after both were killed by my Deathmarks, it ran off the board.

Also, it depends on what you're shooting them at. Typically you wanna aim for higher toughness targets. So, Riptides/Stormsurges, the back end of a group of TWC (since they're more likely not to have Stormshields), and whatever the MC things are for Admech.

I feel like Deathmarks are one of the biggest units in the book when it comes to dice rolls. Your DS scatter has to not be terrible, if it is, they either suck or at the very least are halved in efficiency. If you're shooting at a WK or Riptide, you need those Rends, and if you don't get them, then your're just going to plink off armor and feel pretty pointless.

If you don't feel like you roll average or better normally, they might not be the best choice, Though, statistics say you're probably just focusing on the bad times, but that's just your choice.

How many are you guys usually bringing when you put them on the table? Full sized unit?

I LOVE MSU Deathmarks. It helped against Skitarii Pods (not an issue any longer though), helps with throwing wounds on TWC (as already stated) and allows more wounds against Riptides along with Stormsurges and Wraithknights (for one turn at least).

They're definitely one of the unsung heroes of the codex. They and Destroyers can totally kill anything together.

Qlanth wrote:
How many are you guys usually bringing when you put them on the table? Full sized unit?

I used to do a unit of 10, but after I scattered and destroyed the whole unit, I started doing 2 5 man squads.

I think Deathmarks are one of the units that got worse. When I ran them, my opponents usually just let me go first. They'd show up before anything my opponent had in reserve wanted to kill. Even if I did get them in after, he'd just Deep Strike the unit where it would be risky to put the Deathmarks, especially in larger games where there are 100+ models per side. While they're great at what they do, they're fairly easy to counter now.

 Akar wrote:
I think Deathmarks are one of the units that got worse. When I ran them, my opponents usually just let me go first. They'd show up before anything my opponent had in reserve wanted to kill. Even if I did get them in after, he'd just Deep Strike the unit where it would be risky to put the Deathmarks, especially in larger games where there are 100+ models per side. While they're great at what they do, they're fairly easy to counter now.

I think they got better, imo. The interception is now usable, and they're more durable because of the update to RP. Plus, they got a point cheaper to boot. Sure some armies don't have to worry much about them, but what about armies with Drop Pods? Or stuff that starts on the board in the first place? Like Riptides and Wraithknights.

Still love my Deathmarks + Destroyer Lord combo.
Nothing like rerolling a 1 into a 6.

 skoffs wrote:
Still love my Deathmarks + Destroyer Lord combo.
Nothing like rerolling a 1 into a 6.

The new FAQs heavily imply that a DLord can't do Ethereal Interception with the Deathmarks. Lots of responses have been "unit special rules don't affect ICs unless they explicitly state otherwise". You can still DS them together, though.

Requizen wrote:

 skoffs wrote:
Still love my Deathmarks + Destroyer Lord combo.
Nothing like rerolling a 1 into a 6.

The new FAQs heavily imply that a DLord can't do Ethereal Interception with the Deathmarks. Lots of responses have been "unit special rules don't affect ICs unless they explicitly state otherwise". You can still DS them together, though.

So don't Intercept with them. Problem solved.

 krodarklorr wrote:

Requizen wrote:

 skoffs wrote:
Still love my Deathmarks + Destroyer Lord combo.
Nothing like rerolling a 1 into a 6.

The new FAQs heavily imply that a DLord can't do Ethereal Interception with the Deathmarks. Lots of responses have been "unit special rules don't affect ICs unless they explicitly state otherwise". You can still DS them together, though.

So don't Intercept with them. Problem solved.

Yeah agreed, just saying. I know I was doing it well into the FAQ cycle until someone pointed it out to me, wanted to save others the awkwardness.

 krodarklorr wrote:
I think they got better, imo. The interception is now usable, and they're more durable because of the update to RP. Plus, they got a point cheaper to boot. Sure some armies don't have to worry much about them, but what about armies with Drop Pods? Or stuff that starts on the board in the first place? Like Riptides and Wraithknights.

Against these listed units, you make a case for having them in you list based on two things. How often are you actually playing against these units and you aren't taking something else to deal with them.

Drop Pods in general took a hit with the Draft FAQ changing Battle-Brothers. So the only things to really be afraid of arriving in Drop Pods are Melta's going for First Blood on a vehicle, or the possible Skyhammer formation (or it's variants). Against any of the 'Big' guys, it's a tough call. My local meta doesn't have very many players who run this, and I don't run into them often enough to justify having them in a TAC list. I also run enough Warriors/Tomb Blades/Flayed Ones which do a good enough job when I do. Not everyone's choice, I'm just giving my side.

The 2 advantages of arriving now are that we get to shoot when we arrive, interrupting our opponents turn and it avoids being shot at from Interceptors when we do it. This is more of a personal preference, but I'll take the old Hunters from Hyperspace rule any day. The Deathmarks remain a threat if they didn't kill their target. While most opponents won't like having Rapid Firing snipers in the middle of their army, they are at least free to ignore them under the current rules because they become just another sniper unit after they've done their thing. It also became VERY effective once you started taking multiples, because the units were able to share targets. Marking something you wanted to kill and having the other unit pick a character (taking the 2+ to wound to whatever unit he joined) worry the opponent for the rest of the game was exceptionally great.

Not going to argue that RP made them durable, but it also made the rest of the army durable. So it becomes a simple matter of getting your points back from Deathmarks before they die. As stated for me, my opponents learned simple ways to deal with them to the point where they weren't worth their investment.

I used to think the same thing about Hunters From Hyperspace. However, I realized how little I used it a second time. The tradeoff is more than worth it.

Sounds like I just haven't been using them effectively. Here is a question. If Deathmarks mishap and go into Ongoing Reserves, can they deepstrike from ongoing reserves?

Wtf, are... are we seriously last?
(for FAQs)

Blame the people who jinxed it by asking if the Necron FAQ was coming this week before the FAQ dropped

There are 2 more FAQs to go - Demons and Crons - so we are not necessarily last.

Daemons still need to come out.

I die a little death each Wednesday that the Necron FAQ don't come out.

 Anpu-adom wrote:
I die a little death each Wednesday that the Necron FAQ don't come out.

I mean, we already know whats going to be in it.

 krodarklorr wrote:

 Anpu-adom wrote:
I die a little death each Wednesday that the Necron FAQ don't come out.

I mean, we already know whats going to be in it.

contradictions?

 krodarklorr wrote:

 Anpu-adom wrote:
I die a little death each Wednesday that the Necron FAQ don't come out.

I mean, we already know whats going to be in it.

Oh? Do share.

Other than the slew of "Can I do this thing that the rules say I'm not allowed to do?", what else do you predict?

They'll answer the question about Tesla Sphere firing arc. Firing arc questions seem pretty common among the existing FAQs.

They might address the "within 6''" debate I've heard before. Can a Spyder spawn Scarabs if there is a scarab base 5 and 9/10th inches away or does the entire base need to be within 6''?

The might take another crack at clarifying how RP works against rules like Helfrost. They have been extremely inconsistent with their explanations so far. To quote from another thread:

Bojazz wrote:
4th ruling for FnP/RP vs Special Rules that trigger at the same time which "Remove From Play" after a test. We now have:

- Feel No Pain before Helfrost
- Player chooses the order of Reanimation and Helfrost
- Reanimation and Stasis Bomb cancel each other out
- Feel No Pain and Reanimation before Black Mace

That's 2 rulings towards the potential wound negation effect first. Guess that's how I'm gonna house rule all of them for now, until they decide on a consistent ruling.

The FAQ can clarify whether Adaptive Subroutines is a bubble of influence or an ongoing effect.

The rule is written as if it is an ongoing effect but the ITC plays it as a bubble.



The ITC seems to have gone against RAW and nerfed the Necrons here.

Considering Necron's FAQ is due out in he next two weeks, now would be a great time to ask for a clarification on that, over on facebook

 adamsouza wrote:
Considering Necron's FAQ is due out in he next two weeks, now would be a great time to ask for a clarification on that, over on facebook

I don't have a facebook account so if someone who does have a facebook account can post that question that would be great.

I'm still hoping they clarify whether Praetorians can get into their own transport... not because i plan on using them that way, but because I can't believe they made such a boneheaded mistake in the first place.

 Anpu-adom wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

 Anpu-adom wrote:
I die a little death each Wednesday that the Necron FAQ don't come out.

I mean, we already know whats going to be in it.

Oh? Do share.

Other than the slew of "Can I do this thing that the rules say I'm not allowed to do?", what else do you predict?

Lance vs Quantum Shielding

Clarifying things such as Praetorians shooting and attacking in melee with their weapons, C'tans and Wraiths charging through terrain and striking at their full initiative, and as other people have mentioned, hopefully a few other clarifications.

Granted, this is GW, so they could go way out in left field with something and we'd never see it coming.

 krodarklorr wrote:

 Anpu-adom wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

 Anpu-adom wrote:
I die a little death each Wednesday that the Necron FAQ don't come out.

I mean, we already know whats going to be in it.

Oh? Do share.

Other than the slew of "Can I do this thing that the rules say I'm not allowed to do?", what else do you predict?

Lance vs Quantum Shielding

Clarifying things such as Praetorians shooting and attacking in melee with their weapons, C'tans and Wraiths charging through terrain and striking at their full initiative, and as other people have mentioned, hopefully a few other clarifications.

Granted, this is GW, so they could go way out in left field with something and we'd never see it coming.

Lance Vs. Quantum Shielding was answered in another FAQ... It's AV 12 until a pen.
I don't understand the question about Praetorians. They can shoot because their weapon has a shooting profile... they can attack because their weapon has a melee profile. You cannot shoot while in melee (unless you count the bonus attack having a pistol gives a model).
C'Tans ans Wraiths charging through terrain at full initiative was answered in a previous Necron FAQ... why would these new FAQ invalidate previous FAQ's?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skoffs wrote:
I'm still hoping they clarify whether Praetorians can get into their own transport... not because i plan on using them that way, but because I can't believe they made such a boneheaded mistake in the first place.

Yeah, among the worst examples of proofreading. Once again... I thought that was handleded in a previous FAQ.

 Anpu-adom wrote:
I don't understand the question about Praetorians. They can shoot because their weapon has a shooting profile... they can attack because their weapon has a melee profile. You cannot shoot while in melee (unless you count the bonus attack having a pistol gives a model).

The problem was this passage from page 41 of the main rulebook:

Some weapons can be used in combat as well as shooting. Where this is the case, there will be a separate line in the weapon's profile for each, and you can choose which to use each turn.

As worded, that would prevent the use of the Rod of Covenant as a ranged weapon and melee weapon in the same turn. The draft FAQ answered this back in May:

Q: Can you clarify the use of a weapon as both a ranged and a melee weapon in the same turn?
A: A weapon that can be used as a ranged and a melee weapon can be used as both in the same turn unless specifically noted otherwise.

I wonder if they will clarify the Conclave of the Burning One. The Datasheet says "C'tan Shard", and the closest thing (wording wise) are the Shards of the Nightbringer/Deceiver, which is how the tournament FAQs I have seen, play it. The Nightbringer Conclave seems to be the most desirable version, too. Fluff-wise the Burning One is a different C'tan altogether. If they do address it, I wonder if they will say: "Take any C'tan", "Transcendent only", or "Deceiver/Nightbringer only".

 Anpu-adom wrote:


Lance Vs. Quantum Shielding was answered in another FAQ... It's AV 12 until a pen.
I don't understand the question about Praetorians. They can shoot because their weapon has a shooting profile... they can attack because their weapon has a melee profile. You cannot shoot while in melee (unless you count the bonus attack having a pistol gives a model).
C'Tans ans Wraiths charging through terrain at full initiative was answered in a previous Necron FAQ... why would these new FAQ invalidate previous FAQ's?

Which FAQ stated the AV12 thing? I need to see this, immediately.

The Praetorian/C'tan/Wraith clarifications were from an earlier draft. When the faction specific one comes out, there's not much more I see them adding/changing.

 krodarklorr wrote:

 Anpu-adom wrote:


Lance Vs. Quantum Shielding was answered in another FAQ... It's AV 12 until a pen.
I don't understand the question about Praetorians. They can shoot because their weapon has a shooting profile... they can attack because their weapon has a melee profile. You cannot shoot while in melee (unless you count the bonus attack having a pistol gives a model).
C'Tans ans Wraiths charging through terrain at full initiative was answered in a previous Necron FAQ... why would these new FAQ invalidate previous FAQ's?

Which FAQ stated the AV12 thing? I need to see this, immediately.

The Praetorian/C'tan/Wraith clarifications were from an earlier draft. When the faction specific one comes out, there's not much more I see them adding/changing.

BRB Draft FAQ

Q: Which has precedence between a Lance weapon and quantum shielding? Both rules modify what Armour ‘counts as’.
A: The effects cancel out and the normal Armour Values are used.

Other notables form the BRB FAQ

Q: Can a Jet Pack unit that has joined a different unit (e.g. a Necron Destroyer Lord joining Canoptek Wraiths) still use its jet pack move in the Assault phase?
A: Yes, but the model cannot leave its unit and must stay in unit coherency.

Q: If the Veil of Darkness is used while with a group of warriors and you go into Ongoing Reserves due to a Deep Strike Mishap, can you come in by Deep Striking?
A: Only if all of the models involved have the Deep Strike rule.

col_impact wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

 Anpu-adom wrote:


Lance Vs. Quantum Shielding was answered in another FAQ... It's AV 12 until a pen.
I don't understand the question about Praetorians. They can shoot because their weapon has a shooting profile... they can attack because their weapon has a melee profile. You cannot shoot while in melee (unless you count the bonus attack having a pistol gives a model).
C'Tans ans Wraiths charging through terrain at full initiative was answered in a previous Necron FAQ... why would these new FAQ invalidate previous FAQ's?

Which FAQ stated the AV12 thing? I need to see this, immediately.

The Praetorian/C'tan/Wraith clarifications were from an earlier draft. When the faction specific one comes out, there's not much more I see them adding/changing.

BRB Draft FAQ

Q: Which has precedence between a Lance weapon and quantum shielding? Both rules modify what Armour ‘counts as’.
A: The effects cancel out and the normal Armour Values are used.

Which means its AV11, not 12

 CrownAxe wrote:

Which means its AV11, not 12

Very true, which is all the more reason to keep Necron vehicles on the shelf.



I am hoping they just give us some goodie that makes the Barge good again like some justification that a Barge turns pens to glances or something like that. I mean a man can dream can't he?

my bad

Things I'd like to see:
1- Praetorians and their Nightscythe DT. Again, no real tactical reason to do it, but they should have the option.
2- If the model in the challenge fails the Fear test because of MSS, is the rest of the unit affected? If the unit causes Fear, is it two separate tests? (More for just clarity)
3- Keeping a 4+ RP against ID by stacking bonuses. Rarely comes up, but it'd be nice to just get the remaining few to shut up about it.
4- Nemesor Zahndrekh - Can he repick his starting trait? (Not that there is any reason to do so)
5- Retribution Phalanx - Returning Scarab units are starting size (Again, just to end the debate)
6- Triarch Stalker bonus to BS vs. Invisible units?

Hopeful:
Dreads got more attacks, I feel the Triarch Stalker should. It's bad enough we only have the one weapon, no Dread CCW, and we're paying more than most Dreads. I know it probably won't happen, but I can dream a bit right?

Nemesor definitely can't do that, as otherwise everyone would be infiltrating everything.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Nemesor definitely can't do that, as otherwise everyone would be infiltrating everything.

He can as it stands repick his starting trait though the question is valid. He can't confer infiltrate though so I have no idea what this reference is all about...

I feel that he can't change is Warlord Trait before the game starts. Infiltrators would be chose at deployment, and that is before the start of the first turn, yes?

Correct, though I'd like to see them address that one none the less.

 Anpu-adom wrote:
I feel that he can't change is Warlord Trait before the game starts. Infiltrators would be chose at deployment, and that is before the start of the first turn, yes?

He is only allowed to pick a new one from the second turn onward, the issue is if he can repick his starting one.

So Turn 1 : Zealot
Turn 2 : reserves reroll
Turn 3 : zealot

You may only pick each one once, but you dont pick zealot at the start, you start with it.

harkequin wrote:

 Anpu-adom wrote:
I feel that he can't change is Warlord Trait before the game starts. Infiltrators would be chose at deployment, and that is before the start of the first turn, yes?

He is only allowed to pick a new one from the second turn onward, the issue is if he can repick his starting one.

So Turn 1 : Zealot
Turn 2 : reserves reroll
Turn 3 : zealot

You may only pick each one once, but you dont pick zealot at the start, you start with it.

Misunderstood you, then. Sorry.

That's actually something I've never thought about. Seeing as he never picked it in the first place, I can see that.

Super handy stuff there...

I would say he did pick it because he does have it. Just because it is a forced pick doesn't mean its not a pick. But I am always welcomed for a ruling

 Akar wrote:

6- Triarch Stalker bonus to BS vs. Invisible units?

When has this ever come up? The rule specifically states it doesn't work with Snap Firing, which is what Invis causes you to do.

How do you guys run Tomb Blades? I've only ever run them with Gauss but at a recent event I attended every other Necron player was using the Particle blast weapon. Makes me think I might be missing something.

Qlanth wrote:
How do you guys run Tomb Blades? I've only ever run them with Gauss but at a recent event I attended every other Necron player was using the Particle blast weapon. Makes me think I might be missing something.

I prefer the Gauss with Ignores Cover for hunting vehicles or light infantry. The Particle Beamer is alright, and I plan on running a squad of 10 someday. My goal first is to get 10 with Tesla and run them with the +1 Cover and just have them grab objectives.

I have three built with Tesla in case I want three to stay on a home objective.

Gauss with ignores cover. Tesla broke my heart.

 krodarklorr wrote:

 Akar wrote:
6- Triarch Stalker bonus to BS vs. Invisible units?

When has this ever come up? The rule specifically states it doesn't work with Snap Firing, which is what Invis causes you to do.

My bad, it was in my notes. It's written on an ITC mission, so it was probably meant for that and not the general rules. Funny, because I stopped playing any ITC stuff a long time ago.

Qlanth wrote:
How do you guys run Tomb Blades? I've only ever run them with Gauss but at a recent event I attended every other Necron player was using the Particle blast weapon. Makes me think I might be missing something.

I run 10 with Ignore Cover and Particle Beamers and Vanes. Not being dependent on Rapid Fire to get multiple hits the Blasts will usually hit a few models, which is more reliable than having Tesla. Easier to react to enemy movement or keep in range of Triarch Stalkers if you have them around. Often they'll just force my opponent to spread out, making it easier to clear everything within 24" and stall Assaults. The 'Ignore Cover' on an AP- weapon is to force Armor Saves, so still works well on Stealth stuff or Ravenwing. The S6 is good for inflicting ID on low T units like Scarabs or Admech Infiltrators. I've even used it go glance vehicles up to AV12 when there is a lack of targets. You can still Turbo-boost if you absolutely need to have an objective.

While I have no issue running them all the time, I really only recommend them in a Decurion. With Vanes and the +1 RP, you rarely need to 'jink' to survive which is where the drawback is. Even if you are forced to 'jink', I've found it's only in your favor since whatever your opponent is using to do that isn't hitting something else. Having MTC means I have free reign on mobility in Terrain w/o Penalty. Compared to the Gauss TB's that are usually in the open going after an objective or getting the best angle on their target.

Necron FAQ is up, and wow, I must say...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
RIP Conclave.

-Obelisk firing arcs are fixed by being labeled as Sponsons. Neat. Gravity Pulse forces DT-immune dudes to take it anyway. Also neat.
-Conclave of the Burning One can only use a Transcendent C'tan. It is now pretty freaking terrible. The T-C'tan is the worst of the trio and you were usually using it to get the Nightbringer into Gaze of Death/Assault range. Maybe there's something to be made by using it as a footslogging formation to boost the durability of the T-C'tan... but it's still bad.
-On the other hand, they did clarify that Gaze of Death is broken and can shoot into/out of combat and can't be Flicker Jump'd, so we'll see what happens there. Foot C'tan still aren't good.
-Wraiths and C'tan attack at I1 when charging through cover, despite treating it as open ground per the question right afterwards. Great. Almost makes me want to skip on Coils.
-Night Scythes can carry Praetorians for realsies now, which is nice.
-Only 1 Spyder per Harvest. Now everyone can stop fighting about this.
-You keep Adaptive Subroutines until your next Movement Phase, even if you leave the Spyder. Which means teleporting Orikanstar with Harvest Wraiths is clarified to be super strong.
-Hunters from Hyperspace > Gargantuans, which we all assumed anyway.
-Retribution Phalanx Scarabs that respawn can't charge the turn they come back, which weakens it a bit, though it's still pretty good for what it does.


Some good, some bad. I feel kinda apathetic to this one - most of this was already assumed, there were some nerfs but nothing that makes me want to scream like Drop Pod sharing did for Skitarii players, and no buffs that were big enough to make me want to build something new. Might use the Obelisk a bit more, now that some of the bigger questions are cleared up. Might test the new Conclave a couple times to see what the T-C'tan can do, but I'm not expecting much considering how bad the model is compared to the Nightbringer. I'll probably run a Harvest Orikanstar a few times to see how busted it is.

Also, you can jump back into Night Scythes. That's pretty cool.

But yeah, isn't a sponson mounted weapon, like, 180" or something? I've literally never used one, so yeah. I want to use my Obelisk again.

 krodarklorr wrote:
Also, you can jump back into Night Scythes. That's pretty cool.

But yeah, isn't a sponson mounted weapon, like, 180" or something? I've literally never used one, so yeah. I want to use my Obelisk again.

From what I understand, sponson just means "can rotate but is blocked by the vehicle". I don't know what that means for vertical firing, but if they consider it able to move horizontally I think it would make sense to move vertically as well. Overall, it's a buff either way.

Requizen wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:
Also, you can jump back into Night Scythes. That's pretty cool.

But yeah, isn't a sponson mounted weapon, like, 180" or something? I've literally never used one, so yeah. I want to use my Obelisk again.

From what I understand, sponson just means "can rotate but is blocked by the vehicle". I don't know what that means for vertical firing, but if they consider it able to move horizontally I think it would make sense to move vertically as well. Overall, it's a buff either way.

If it's blocked by the hull, that's awesome. You could get 3 of them firing at one target. Mmmmm

Yeah, my Obelisk might come out of retirement for a bit. I don't think it's tournament worthy (though there was that one dude at LVO), but it's still pretty solid.

 krodarklorr wrote:

Requizen wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:
Also, you can jump back into Night Scythes. That's pretty cool.

But yeah, isn't a sponson mounted weapon, like, 180" or something? I've literally never used one, so yeah. I want to use my Obelisk again.

From what I understand, sponson just means "can rotate but is blocked by the vehicle". I don't know what that means for vertical firing, but if they consider it able to move horizontally I think it would make sense to move vertically as well. Overall, it's a buff either way.

If it's blocked by the hull, that's awesome. You could get 3 of them firing at one target. Mmmmm

No, Sponson means what the gun can physically see. And since the obilisk guns can't physically move that means its 45 degrees

 CrownAxe wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

Requizen wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:
Also, you can jump back into Night Scythes. That's pretty cool.

But yeah, isn't a sponson mounted weapon, like, 180" or something? I've literally never used one, so yeah. I want to use my Obelisk again.

From what I understand, sponson just means "can rotate but is blocked by the vehicle". I don't know what that means for vertical firing, but if they consider it able to move horizontally I think it would make sense to move vertically as well. Overall, it's a buff either way.

If it's blocked by the hull, that's awesome. You could get 3 of them firing at one target. Mmmmm

No, Sponson means what the gun can physically see. And since the obilisk guns can't physically move that means its 45 degrees

I don't have the rulebook in front of me, but i believe you are thinking of Hull Mounted. Sponsons imply some degree of movement.

Requizen wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

Requizen wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:
Also, you can jump back into Night Scythes. That's pretty cool.

But yeah, isn't a sponson mounted weapon, like, 180" or something? I've literally never used one, so yeah. I want to use my Obelisk again.

From what I understand, sponson just means "can rotate but is blocked by the vehicle". I don't know what that means for vertical firing, but if they consider it able to move horizontally I think it would make sense to move vertically as well. Overall, it's a buff either way.

If it's blocked by the hull, that's awesome. You could get 3 of them firing at one target. Mmmmm

No, Sponson means what the gun can physically see. And since the obilisk guns can't physically move that means its 45 degrees

I don't have the rulebook in front of me, but i believe you are thinking of Hull Mounted. Sponsons imply some degree of movement.

Hull mounted mean 45 degrees because its stuck their

Sponsons mean whatever the gun physically sees (which is the the diagram for the leman russ's sponsons are only about 90 degrees because the guns can't physically rotate backwards)

 CrownAxe wrote:

Requizen wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

Requizen wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:
Also, you can jump back into Night Scythes. That's pretty cool.

But yeah, isn't a sponson mounted weapon, like, 180" or something? I've literally never used one, so yeah. I want to use my Obelisk again.

From what I understand, sponson just means "can rotate but is blocked by the vehicle". I don't know what that means for vertical firing, but if they consider it able to move horizontally I think it would make sense to move vertically as well. Overall, it's a buff either way.

If it's blocked by the hull, that's awesome. You could get 3 of them firing at one target. Mmmmm

No, Sponson means what the gun can physically see. And since the obilisk guns can't physically move that means its 45 degrees

I don't have the rulebook in front of me, but i believe you are thinking of Hull Mounted. Sponsons imply some degree of movement.

Hull mounted mean 45 degrees because its stuck their

Sponsons mean whatever the gun physically sees (which is the the diagram for the leman russ's sponsons are only about 90 degrees because the guns can't physically rotate backwards)

So basically the FAQ did nothing to clear it up because we're back to "can the gun actually rotate or not" lol.

Oh well. I think if they had intended for it to "not rotate" they would have said to treat it as Hull-Mounted, but I can see your argument. Hopefully they clarify with the final FAQs.

Sponson mouted means it turns as far as vechicle hull allows for it. Something about 270 degree in horizontal arc for necron Obelisk.
I'm dissapointed that it had to be clarified for this one guy - CorwnAxe

 Xyxel wrote:
Sponson mouted means it turns as far as vechicle hull allows for it. Something about 270 degree in horizontal arc for necron Obelisk.
I'm dissapointed that it had to be clarified for this one guy - CorwnAxe

Except the hull doesn't allow for it to rotate at all, and the only tracks on it go up and down.

Sponson does nothing to clarify it at all.

Haha, so many pages...

Anyway, time to pick them apart!
What needs to be clarified?
What did they leave out?

harkequin wrote:

 Xyxel wrote:
Sponson mouted means it turns as far as vechicle hull allows for it. Something about 270 degree in horizontal arc for necron Obelisk.
I'm dissapointed that it had to be clarified for this one guy - CorwnAxe

Except the hull doesn't allow for it to rotate at all, and the only tracks on it go up and down.

Sponson does nothing to clarify it at all.

Nothing rotates when it is glued though.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

harkequin wrote:

 Xyxel wrote:
Sponson mouted means it turns as far as vechicle hull allows for it. Something about 270 degree in horizontal arc for necron Obelisk.
I'm dissapointed that it had to be clarified for this one guy - CorwnAxe

Except the hull doesn't allow for it to rotate at all, and the only tracks on it go up and down.

Sponson does nothing to clarify it at all.

Nothing rotates when it is glued though.

Nothing rotates when its one solid piece, you physically cannot assemble it to rotate.

There is only one argument for the 270 arc RAW , and that's tracing LoS from the sphere, and assuming the oddly barrel shaped part of it , is not in fact the barrell.
Assuming the barrell is the barrell, then each one has a 45^ arc, like a demolisher cannon, and if a demolisher cannon was a pintle, it wouldn't change anything, same here. It was a really silly FAQ, and hopefully it gets clarified by the final draft.

The weapon is called a Tesla Sphere and the Draft FAQ tells us its sponson-mounted and not hull-mounted. The issue has been settled.

harkequin wrote:
It was a really silly FAQ, and hopefully it gets clarified by the final draft.

Well, I certainly hope you've commented as such on the FB page, then.
The more comments they get about something, the more likely they are to give it further attention.

It was one of the first comments for that page.

I find a few things to be a bit bizarre in the Necron Draft FAQ.

1) The T. C'tan is the only one that can be used in the Conclave when it is the only C'tan that makes no mention of it being a "shard". The Conclave Formation specifies "C'tan Shard"

2) Units can re-embark into a Night Scythe. It's nifty and all to be able to do this, but no amount of stretching the actual written rules in the Necron codex can possibly allow this. This really needs to be an errata.

3) Resolving the Retribution Phalanx's return to play ability as a Deep Strike. No amount of stretching the actual written rules for the Retribution Phalanx comes up with a Deep Strike ability.

Yeah the deep strike thing is weird. Does that also mean they have be deployed as a big pile in base contact?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I just realized they never gave a clarification on what happens if you add scarabs to the unit in a retribution phalanx and they die and come back?

Anyone planning to break out a Canoptek Harvest or 2?
Unless you go second and your opponent kills the Spider before activating RP, we get a whole turn of RP Wraiths even if the Spider dies later.

Qlanth wrote:
I just realized they never gave a clarification on what happens if you add scarabs to the unit in a retribution phalanx and they die and come back?

Whelp, better post a comment about it, then!

 Galef wrote:
Anyone planning to break out a Canoptek Harvest or 2?
Unless you go second and your opponent kills the Spider before activating RP, we get a whole turn of RP Wraiths even if the Spider dies later.

Yeah I might try a Wraith Orikanstar at the 3 game event this weekend. ITC used to rule it that you lost RP as soon as you left the bubble, which makes it quite scary for teleporting, but now you get at least one turn of Orikan-empowered Wraiths, which is good.

col_impact wrote:
The weapon is called a Tesla Sphere and the Draft FAQ tells us its sponson-mounted and not hull-mounted. The issue has been settled.

This is the barrel of the gun, sponson mounted means it can shoot what it can be pointed at.
It only points one direction and literally cannot be moved at all. It is a solid piece.

Arguing that RAW it is allowed to fire 270^ is like arguing RAW a Demolisher cannon could fire 270^ if it was sponson mounted.

I'm not going to argue RAI, because that's not what we're addressing, but it's sponson mounted, whatever you can point the barrel at you can shoot, so when you're playing it you have to point the barrel and what you are shooting to have it in your arc of fire.

harkequin wrote:

Arguing that RAW it is allowed to fire 270^ is like arguing RAW a Demolisher cannon could fire 270^ if it was sponson mounted.

...no it's not because the Demolisher Cannon doesn't say that? What kind of back asswards logic is that? If they suddenly said that the C'tan were FMCs would you say that they don't have wings and therefore can't fly? Hint: it doesn't matter because it doesn't say that so don't use a random ass example to try and prove a point.

Back at home with the book, there is no definitive definition of "sponson weapon". There are a couple drawings with lines for a Leman Russ and a Predator showing how they rotate to shoot things based on their mountings.

I know I'm putting a bit too much faith in GW, but I honestly don't think they would say "Sponson Mounted" if they didn't mean for it to be able to turn at all. There is no example in the game of something Sponson Mounted that is a fixed gun, so in the debate between "it can move" and "it can't move", the standing examples would very much lean towards the former rather than the latter.

And come on. It freaking sucks if they can't rotate, completely useless.

It's called "Living metal" That part that "holds the sphere in place" could easily morph away Terminator 2 style, allowing the Sphere to move side to side.
Just sayin' if you're basing it's movement by what it "looks" like it could do, well, it "looks" like it could do that to me.

...no it's not because the Demolisher Cannon doesn't say that? What kind of back asswards logic is that? If they suddenly said that the C'tan were FMCs would you say that they don't have wings and therefore can't fly? Hint: it doesn't matter because it doesn't say that so don't use a random ass example to try and prove a point

The logic is quite simple. the gun is fixed in place.
It's relevant to the discussion, If the FAQ said the demolisher was sponson mounted, we agree it would be silly to say it can fire 270 or 360, because we know how sponsons work, and it cant rotate.

Yet for the tesla sphere which can't rotate , it's a perfectly valid argument?

It's pointing out the absurdity of the argument, people are ignoring the model itself.

Back at home with the book, there is no definitive definition of "sponson weapon". There are a couple drawings with lines for a Leman Russ and a Predator showing how they rotate to shoot things based on their mountings.

However, I'm going off how they are played locally, and to the best of my knowledge, are played in general.

If you want to argue how to play sponson weapons, that's fine, just let me know.

I know I'm putting a bit too much faith in GW, but I honestly don't think they would say "Sponson Mounted" if they didn't mean for it to be able to turn at all. There is no example in the game of something Sponson Mounted that is a fixed gun, so in the debate between "it can move" and "it can't move", the standing examples would very much lean towards the former rather than the latter.

.... same people who gave the following two answers to "lance vs Quantum shielding"
1. Both cancel (AV11)
2. Lance (AV12)

I play the Vault, I'm not going to take liberties with it's firing arcs, unless its 100% clear. It's a vehicle like any other, with weapons fixed in place with a barrel. You measure Arc like you would for demolishers etc.

And come on. It freaking sucks if they can't rotate, completely useless.

Not really, it just requires more thought, I've used it to great effect, by positioning it midfield, and making liberal use of thunderblitz. You can usually get 3 out of 4 spheres to hit things.

The problem is that wishful thinking like this is what had people arguing its firing arc pre-FAQ

RAW it was ironclad, (RAI not so much, given the look of the weapons) and RAW just got muddied with the whole Sponson thing.

Back to point 1 is that Sponson just does literally nothing (like a sponson demolisher would still have the same fire arc)

There is no difference between sponson and hull mounted , both have 45 fire arc from the barrel, Sponson just usually refers to things with mobile barrels (which the vault does not have)

This has just added confusion with no help whatsoever (much like the lance vs shielding issue).



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:
It's called "Living metal" That part that "holds the sphere in place" could easily morph away Terminator 2 style, allowing the Sphere to move side to side.
Just sayin' if you're basing it's movement by what it "looks" like it could do, well, it "looks" like it could do that to me.

Oh definitely, but that's a RAI issue, the spheres do look awfully mobile, but RAW wise there is nothing for things that "look like they should/could move"

If you and your opponent agree on the intent, then all the power to you.

harkequin wrote:
This is the barrel of the gun, sponson mounted means it can shoot what it can be pointed at.

How do you know this is the 'Barrel' of the weapon and not some other part. I'm asking honestly because I've never put the thing together, so I don't even know if the instructions list the part as a 'barrel'. Or is it just an assumption that everyone will treat this as a barrel, and therefore a part of the weapon? Or that we're actually treating that as just a part of the hull, and keeping the sphere part of the reference to both the weapon and FAQ?

 Akar wrote:
How do you know this is the 'Barrel' of the weapon and not some other part. I'm asking honestly because I've never put the thing together, so I don't even know if the instructions list the part as a 'barrel'. Or is it just an assumption that everyone will treat this as a barrel, and therefore a part of the weapon? Or that we're actually treating that as just a part of the hull, and keeping the sphere part of the reference to both the weapon and FAQ?

Note the metallic part of the Tesla Sphere in the photo and its resemblance to the end of the Tesla Carbine carried by Necron Immortals.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Akar wrote:
How do you know this is the 'Barrel' of the weapon and not some other part. I'm asking honestly because I've never put the thing together, so I don't even know if the instructions list the part as a 'barrel'. Or is it just an assumption that everyone will treat this as a barrel, and therefore a part of the weapon? Or that we're actually treating that as just a part of the hull, and keeping the sphere part of the reference to both the weapon and FAQ?

Note the metallic part of the Tesla Sphere in the photo and its resemblance to the end of the Tesla Carbine carried by Necron Immortals.

I don't own the model. I'd have assumed it shot arcs out of the dark green parts on top of the sphere...

The metallic part I'm referring to is in the center of the dark green part at the top of the sphere.

 Akar wrote:

harkequin wrote:
This is the barrel of the gun, sponson mounted means it can shoot what it can be pointed at.

How do you know this is the 'Barrel' of the weapon and not some other part. I'm asking honestly because I've never put the thing together, so I don't even know if the instructions list the part as a 'barrel'. Or is it just an assumption that everyone will treat this as a barrel, and therefore a part of the weapon? Or that we're actually treating that as just a part of the hull, and keeping the sphere part of the reference to both the weapon and FAQ?

How is that not the barrel? If its not the barrel then what part is the barrel and also what is the purpose of the apparently not barrel?

 CrownAxe wrote:


How is that not the barrel? If its not the barrel then what part is the barrel and also what is the purpose of the apparently not barrel?

That's the muzzle. The barrel is the green sphere.

You shoot the Tesla Sphere.

Without any clear instruction about it being a 'barrel' or not, it could be anything. We're not told in the Codex what it is, which is part of the reason that we needed the FAQ in the first place. If EVERYONE thought the same about that being the barrel, then it's obviously a 'Hull Mounted' weapon with it's limited Arc, and we wouldn't have needed the FAQ in the first place. There were enough confused people to warrant the FAQ. The only other place that it could be listed is in the actual assembly instructions if that piece was defined as 'Barrel' or not.

While it's fine that some assume that it is, others may not. Some will call that a Barrel, when it could just as easily be decoration, an energy vent to direct the build up away from the hull, or even some sort of living jock strap to protect it's balls from taking lasers and rail shots. What is clear is that not everyone agrees about that part being a 'barrel' or not. Something that was stated as a fact, with only an opinion of how they chose to define it.

The FAQ ended the debate. It's a sponson mounted weapon. So we know that it no longer has a fixed arc. Regardless of whether the weapon itself is fixed or not, we have permission to not remain locked into the 45 arc. What isn't clarified is if we go off the Sphere, or the 'Barrel' (if it is in fact a barrel), so we still don't know what the arc is. For those that go off the sphere, RAW or RAI, this is great news, because it fits with what the FAQ states, and makes the Tesla Spheres more user friendly for playing games. For those who want to play the 'Fixed Sponson', they're more than welcome to. Nothing is preventing them from picking targets restricted to that 45 Arc.

All I had asked was for some proof that the part in question is in fact a barrel. Irrelevant to me since I'm not planning to get one, and I won't stop my opponent from using the 270 arc if I actually come up against one. That's what the FAQ tells us to do, fixed barrel or not. I'm not going to get into comparisons to other armies, because no, they probably don't have the Barrel defined on their profiles or kits either. Of course, none of their weapons have 'Sphere' in their name to create as much confusion either.

Like ANY game of 40k, it's going to be up to opponents/TO's to decide what to do with this information.

Sadly with the FAQ on thunderblitz, if the spheres can't rotate to along the hull for fire arcs, the thing is useless

 Akar wrote:
Without any clear instruction about it being a 'barrel' or not, it could be anything.

So we decide that what looks identical to the barrel on a Tesla Carbine is not a barrel on a Tesla Sphere and instead randomly choose something else that doesn't look like a barrel on anything? GW never tells us what the barrel is on a Heavy Bolter is, so should we make the ejection port on the side of the weapon the 'barrel'?

Tesla Sphere - Telsa for lightning, sphere for round thing.

Tesla Sphere - A round thing that shoots lightning.

Imagine it as an eyeball that zaps what it looks at.

The visual field of the human eye spans approximately 120 degrees of arc.

col_impact wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:


How is that not the barrel? If its not the barrel then what part is the barrel and also what is the purpose of the apparently not barrel?

That's the muzzle. The barrel is the green sphere.

You shoot the Tesla Sphere.

weapon name =/= rules, or else a heavy flamer would be a heavy type weapon. Its called a tesla sphere but it isn't a physical sphere at all.

Also muzzle is the end of the barrel, so you are admitting you measure from the metallic section now since you measure "....along its barrel to see if the shot is blocked by intervening terrain or models."?

Oberron wrote:

weapon name =/= rules, or else a heavy flamer would be a heavy type weapon.

You example is terrible. A Heavy Flamer is a Heavy Weapon version of a flamer. Infantry models that carry it are not specialists, but the heavies.

I posted up in regards to the Canoptek buff.

Basically, if wraiths are locked in combat, and out of 12" of spyder at the start of the movement phase, yet after spyder movement, end up inside the 12", do they gain buff for rest of turn?

The rule says a buff is chosen at the start of the movement phase, and everything in the formation within 12" gets the buff, yet it doesn't stipulate if it only applies to things that are within 12 when the rule is chosen or not.

Spyder being outside 12 at the start of the movement phase but being within 12 is a very likely situation to happen, frequently.

 adamsouza wrote:

Oberron wrote:

weapon name =/= rules, or else a heavy flamer would be a heavy type weapon.

You example is terrible. A Heavy Flamer is a Heavy Weapon version of a flamer. Infantry models that carry it are not specialists, but the heavies.

But his point is that being called a Heavy Flamer has no effect on the rules for the weapon

 adamsouza wrote:

Oberron wrote:

weapon name =/= rules, or else a heavy flamer would be a heavy type weapon.

You example is terrible. A Heavy Flamer is a Heavy Weapon version of a flamer. Infantry models that carry it are not specialists, but the heavies.

Except that's not true at all there are several units that can have heavy flamers that are not heavies or specialist. There are basic troops that can carry them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Klowny wrote:
I posted up in regards to the Canoptek buff.

Basically, if wraiths are locked in combat, and out of 12" of spyder at the start of the movement phase, yet after spyder movement, end up inside the 12", do they gain buff for rest of turn?

The rule says a buff is chosen at the start of the movement phase, and everything in the formation within 12" gets the buff, yet it doesn't stipulate if it only applies to things that are within 12 when the rule is chosen or not.

Spyder being outside 12 at the start of the movement phase but being within 12 is a very likely situation to happen, frequently.

I would say if it isn't there at the start when the buff is chosen it doesn't get it because that is the only point where it checks for the 12" range.

This is the fluff description of a tesla sphere.

Yet wonder turns swiftly to horror as the Obelisk’s weapons cycle up, glowing tesla spheres irising open to spit crawling skeins of lightning that reduce those nearby to blackened, twitching husks

Since tesla sphere is not being referred to as a proper noun (ie Tesla Sphere) the weapon really is a physical sphere.

STOP ARGUING ABOUT IT HERE
and start posting MORE comments about it on the FB page (where it might actually do some good)

Klowny wrote:
I posted up in regards to the Canoptek buff.

Basically, if wraiths are locked in combat, and out of 12" of spyder at the start of the movement phase, yet after spyder movement, end up inside the 12", do they gain buff for rest of turn?

The rule says a buff is chosen at the start of the movement phase, and everything in the formation within 12" gets the buff, yet it doesn't stipulate if it only applies to things that are within 12 when the rule is chosen or not.

Spyder being outside 12 at the start of the movement phase but being within 12 is a very likely situation to happen, frequently.

The FAQ says that the effects last until the end of your next movement phase (which is a weird bit of timing, if you ask me). But yes, wraiths can get the benefit on turn A, move out of 12, charge, get locked in combat and have it for all of Turn A (yours and your opponents). At the start of Turn B, if you can move the Spyder back within 12 inches, then you are set for another whole turn. Way better than how I was playing it.

 Anpu-adom wrote:

Klowny wrote:
I posted up in regards to the Canoptek buff.

Basically, if wraiths are locked in combat, and out of 12" of spyder at the start of the movement phase, yet after spyder movement, end up inside the 12", do they gain buff for rest of turn?

The rule says a buff is chosen at the start of the movement phase, and everything in the formation within 12" gets the buff, yet it doesn't stipulate if it only applies to things that are within 12 when the rule is chosen or not.

Spyder being outside 12 at the start of the movement phase but being within 12 is a very likely situation to happen, frequently.

The FAQ says that the effects last until the end of your next movement phase (which is a weird bit of timing, if you ask me). But yes, wraiths can get the benefit on turn A, move out of 12, charge, get locked in combat and have it for all of Turn A (yours and your opponents). At the start of Turn B, if you can move the Spyder back within 12 inches, then you are set for another whole turn. Way better than how I was playing it.

That's a pretty legit buff, though I am very sad that my other 2 Spyders will never be used again.

 krodarklorr wrote:

 Anpu-adom wrote:

Klowny wrote:
I posted up in regards to the Canoptek buff.

Basically, if wraiths are locked in combat, and out of 12" of spyder at the start of the movement phase, yet after spyder movement, end up inside the 12", do they gain buff for rest of turn?

The rule says a buff is chosen at the start of the movement phase, and everything in the formation within 12" gets the buff, yet it doesn't stipulate if it only applies to things that are within 12 when the rule is chosen or not.

Spyder being outside 12 at the start of the movement phase but being within 12 is a very likely situation to happen, frequently.

The FAQ says that the effects last until the end of your next movement phase (which is a weird bit of timing, if you ask me). But yes, wraiths can get the benefit on turn A, move out of 12, charge, get locked in combat and have it for all of Turn A (yours and your opponents). At the start of Turn B, if you can move the Spyder back within 12 inches, then you are set for another whole turn. Way better than how I was playing it.

That's a pretty legit buff, though I am very sad that my other 2 Spyders will never be used again.

Run Three Canoptek Harvest! Just buy 4 more boxes of Wraiths... I'm sure you have another 18 Scarabs kicking around somewhere.

 krodarklorr wrote:

 Anpu-adom wrote:

Klowny wrote:
I posted up in regards to the Canoptek buff.

Basically, if wraiths are locked in combat, and out of 12" of spyder at the start of the movement phase, yet after spyder movement, end up inside the 12", do they gain buff for rest of turn?

The rule says a buff is chosen at the start of the movement phase, and everything in the formation within 12" gets the buff, yet it doesn't stipulate if it only applies to things that are within 12 when the rule is chosen or not.

Spyder being outside 12 at the start of the movement phase but being within 12 is a very likely situation to happen, frequently.

The FAQ says that the effects last until the end of your next movement phase (which is a weird bit of timing, if you ask me). But yes, wraiths can get the benefit on turn A, move out of 12, charge, get locked in combat and have it for all of Turn A (yours and your opponents). At the start of Turn B, if you can move the Spyder back within 12 inches, then you are set for another whole turn. Way better than how I was playing it.

That's a pretty legit buff, though I am very sad that my other 2 Spyders will never be used again.

Honestly? I own nine Spyders and can't imagine myself ever using a Canoptek Harvest again.

It's completely useless for themed list building with one Spyder, relegated to only being any good for power builds where you spam minimum harvests for the buff.

Can't meaningfully scarab farm with one per turn after all.

 Anpu-adom wrote:

Run Three Canoptek Harvest! Just buy 4 more boxes of Wraiths... I'm sure you have another 18 Scarabs kicking around somewhere.

I mean, I do, and I want to, but I'm currently boycotting buying products from GW. Plus, I need to get my army more completed painting wise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

changemod wrote:

Honestly? I own nine Spyders and can't imagine myself ever using a Canoptek Harvest again.

It's completely useless for themed list building with one Spyder, relegated to only being any good for power builds where you spam minimum harvests for the buff.

Can't meaningfully scarab farm with one per turn after all.

I don't really care to scarab farm. When I run Harvests, I keep the scarabs out of LoS in cover, and just spawn 3-4 throughout the game and send them off when I need them to do something.

 krodarklorr wrote:

changemod wrote:

Honestly? I own nine Spyders and can't imagine myself ever using a Canoptek Harvest again.

It's completely useless for themed list building with one Spyder, relegated to only being any good for power builds where you spam minimum harvests for the buff.

Can't meaningfully scarab farm with one per turn after all.

I don't really care to scarab farm. When I run Harvests, I keep the scarabs out of LoS in cover, and just spawn 3-4 throughout the game and send them off when I need them to do something.

Yeah but like I said, I'm more interested in the Canoptek units themselves than the power of the formation bonus, and scarabs are uninteresting without the gimmick of spawning more. Especially now that they cost more, have a smaller base unit cap and entropic strike doesn't strip AV.

They're less spamable by default and lost their unique rule. All they have left from a fun perspective is getting expanded by a ton of Spyders.

changemod wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

changemod wrote:

Honestly? I own nine Spyders and can't imagine myself ever using a Canoptek Harvest again.

It's completely useless for themed list building with one Spyder, relegated to only being any good for power builds where you spam minimum harvests for the buff.

Can't meaningfully scarab farm with one per turn after all.

I don't really care to scarab farm. When I run Harvests, I keep the scarabs out of LoS in cover, and just spawn 3-4 throughout the game and send them off when I need them to do something.

Yeah but like I said, I'm more interested in the Canoptek units themselves than the power of the formation bonus, and scarabs are uninteresting without the gimmick of spawning more. Especially now that they cost more, have a smaller base unit cap and entropic strike doesn't strip AV.

They're less spamable by default and lost their unique rule. All they have left from a fun perspective is getting expanded by a ton of Spyders.

I disagree. Their rule was only usable on vehicles, and you needed a large unit for it to really matter. Now, a small unit can still do damage to vehicles, and I've put wounds on Wraithknights with them (which makes more sense fluff-wise than only being able to hurt vehicles for some reason). I will admit I was sad when they got more expensive and got a worse save, as I didn't think they needed such a nerf, but whatever.

 krodarklorr wrote:

changemod wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

changemod wrote:

Honestly? I own nine Spyders and can't imagine myself ever using a Canoptek Harvest again.

It's completely useless for themed list building with one Spyder, relegated to only being any good for power builds where you spam minimum harvests for the buff.

Can't meaningfully scarab farm with one per turn after all.

I don't really care to scarab farm. When I run Harvests, I keep the scarabs out of LoS in cover, and just spawn 3-4 throughout the game and send them off when I need them to do something.

Yeah but like I said, I'm more interested in the Canoptek units themselves than the power of the formation bonus, and scarabs are uninteresting without the gimmick of spawning more. Especially now that they cost more, have a smaller base unit cap and entropic strike doesn't strip AV.

They're less spamable by default and lost their unique rule. All they have left from a fun perspective is getting expanded by a ton of Spyders.

I disagree. Their rule was only usable on vehicles, and you needed a large unit for it to really matter. Now, a small unit can still do damage to vehicles, and I've put wounds on Wraithknights with them (which makes more sense fluff-wise than only being able to hurt vehicles for some reason). I will admit I was sad when they got more expensive and got a worse save, as I didn't think they needed such a nerf, but whatever.

I said they're less interesting, not less optimal.

I'm... Not actually sure we're even having the same conversation?

changemod wrote:

I said they're less interesting, not less optimal.

I'm... Not actually sure we're even having the same conversation?

You said it doesn't strip AV. I'm pointing out how that doesn't matter. If that's what it takes for you to be interested in a unit, then maybe the 7th edition books aren't for you.

 krodarklorr wrote:

changemod wrote:

I said they're less interesting, not less optimal.

I'm... Not actually sure we're even having the same conversation?

You said it doesn't strip AV. I'm pointing out how that doesn't matter. If that's what it takes for you to be interested in a unit, then maybe the 7th edition books aren't for you.

They are less interesting. People already compared the old entropic strike to Gauss weaponry when the old book was released. The logic was - why use scarabs when you can guass a tank to death from a distance? By changing it from a very unique rule to basically just close-combat gauss weapons it makes them less interesting and even more redundant. Increasing the price and making them worse is just a kick in the head.

I liked the old rule - you didn't need a very large unit to attack a tank before you stripped off enough armor that the rest of the attacks were glancing on 6's anyways and then it got better from then on. I also had a unit of scarabs tie up Mephiston for 2 turns and actually melt his armor off - that's hilarious and I'll never forget that. The new scarabs mostly just collect dust on the shelf. Doesn't mean 7th ed book is bad and I don't enjoy playing it - it just means that it lost a fun and unique unit rule.

Cryptek of Awesome wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

changemod wrote:

I said they're less interesting, not less optimal.

I'm... Not actually sure we're even having the same conversation?

You said it doesn't strip AV. I'm pointing out how that doesn't matter. If that's what it takes for you to be interested in a unit, then maybe the 7th edition books aren't for you.

They are less interesting. People already compared the old entropic strike to Gauss weaponry when the old book was released. The logic was - why use scarabs when you can guass a tank to death from a distance? By changing it from a very unique rule to basically just close-combat gauss weapons it makes them less interesting and even more redundant. Increasing the price and making them worse is just a kick in the head.

I liked the old rule - you didn't need a very large unit to attack a tank before you stripped off enough armor that the rest of the attacks were glancing on 6's anyways and then it got better from then on. I also had a unit of scarabs tie up Mephiston for 2 turns and actually melt his armor off - that's hilarious and I'll never forget that. The new scarabs mostly just collect dust on the shelf. Doesn't mean 7th ed book is bad and I don't enjoy playing it - it just means that it lost a fun and unique unit rule.

Wow. I feel the complete opposite. Sure, the old rule was more "interesting" by being unique, but the old codex in general was bland. 75% of the units were garbage and the whole army lacked unique rules as a whole. This new codex changed all of that for me.

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Akar wrote:

harkequin wrote:
This is the barrel of the gun, sponson mounted means it can shoot what it can be pointed at.

How do you know this is the 'Barrel' of the weapon and not some other part. I'm asking honestly because I've never put the thing together, so I don't even know if the instructions list the part as a 'barrel'. Or is it just an assumption that everyone will treat this as a barrel, and therefore a part of the weapon? Or that we're actually treating that as just a part of the hull, and keeping the sphere part of the reference to both the weapon and FAQ?

How is that not the barrel? If its not the barrel then what part is the barrel and also what is the purpose of the apparently not barrel?

Oooooor the sphere itself is the weapon and the metallic part is a containment field or some other such thing. Maybe a power generator. Ever seen those plasma ball toys? The ones you put your hand on and get to see all the pretty lightning flash around? Maybe the lightning comes out of the metal part and can move at will or upon direction?

 krodarklorr wrote:

Cryptek of Awesome wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

changemod wrote:

I said they're less interesting, not less optimal.

I'm... Not actually sure we're even having the same conversation?

You said it doesn't strip AV. I'm pointing out how that doesn't matter. If that's what it takes for you to be interested in a unit, then maybe the 7th edition books aren't for you.

They are less interesting. People already compared the old entropic strike to Gauss weaponry when the old book was released. The logic was - why use scarabs when you can guass a tank to death from a distance? By changing it from a very unique rule to basically just close-combat gauss weapons it makes them less interesting and even more redundant. Increasing the price and making them worse is just a kick in the head.

I liked the old rule - you didn't need a very large unit to attack a tank before you stripped off enough armor that the rest of the attacks were glancing on 6's anyways and then it got better from then on. I also had a unit of scarabs tie up Mephiston for 2 turns and actually melt his armor off - that's hilarious and I'll never forget that. The new scarabs mostly just collect dust on the shelf. Doesn't mean 7th ed book is bad and I don't enjoy playing it - it just means that it lost a fun and unique unit rule.

Wow. I feel the complete opposite. Sure, the old rule was more "interesting" by being unique, but the old codex in general was bland. 75% of the units were garbage and the whole army lacked unique rules as a whole. This new codex changed all of that for me.

Oh I don't disagree with you there. As a whole, I think the new book is quite a lot better than the old one. This one unit just stands out as losing a lot of it's uniqueness and interestingness - even as the rest of the book improved. Still - no codex is ever perfect and if I had never played the 6th edition scarabs, I probably would have no issue with these ones.

GW also has a long history of tinkering with swarms every single edition in both fantasy and 40k - usually for the worse. :p

So is there really any point of dropping off Praetorians with a Night Scythe or am I missing something?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
So is there really any point of dropping off Praetorians with a Night Scythe or am I missing something?

Just another level of safety while getting across the board. They're ultra safe already with 3+/4+++ and MTC, and pretty fast with their 12" move, but sometimes you want them to not be able to be shot until the very last second. If you bring them in via a Scythe, drop them off 12" away from their target and in cover and then unload with shooting, there are fewer turns of them walking across the board, tempting Tau and Eldar to remove them before they get anywhere useful. Not necessary, but you're encouraged to bring Night Scythes now that they get the bonus from Judicator Battalion, so why not?

Cryptek of Awesome wrote:

Oh I don't disagree with you there. As a whole, I think the new book is quite a lot better than the old one. This one unit just stands out as losing a lot of it's uniqueness and interestingness - even as the rest of the book improved. Still - no codex is ever perfect and if I had never played the 6th edition scarabs, I probably would have no issue with these ones.

GW also has a long history of tinkering with swarms every single edition in both fantasy and 40k - usually for the worse. :p

I'm hoping they do something to swarms, because as of right now, the Swarm special rule is nothing but a hindrance.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
So is there really any point of dropping off Praetorians with a Night Scythe or am I missing something?

Better than deep striking them (removes the worry about scatter/mishap so you can get up close to use their AP2 shots with minimal risk, can spread out instead of being forced to clump together to be template bait).
Plus, confirmed that the NS get the formation bonus, AND the fact that units can re-embark in them (that's anyone, not just the Praets).
Not really any downsides apart from price.

Requizen wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
So is there really any point of dropping off Praetorians with a Night Scythe or am I missing something?

Not necessary, but you're encouraged to bring Night Scythes now that they get the bonus from Judicator Battalion, so why not?

This is exactly my thought process. 8 twin-linked Tesla shots with Shred/Tank Hunters against one target is nasty.

 nintura wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Akar wrote:

harkequin wrote:
This is the barrel of the gun, sponson mounted means it can shoot what it can be pointed at.

How do you know this is the 'Barrel' of the weapon and not some other part. I'm asking honestly because I've never put the thing together, so I don't even know if the instructions list the part as a 'barrel'. Or is it just an assumption that everyone will treat this as a barrel, and therefore a part of the weapon? Or that we're actually treating that as just a part of the hull, and keeping the sphere part of the reference to both the weapon and FAQ?

How is that not the barrel? If its not the barrel then what part is the barrel and also what is the purpose of the apparently not barrel?

Oooooor the sphere itself is the weapon and the metallic part is a containment field or some other such thing. Maybe a power generator. Ever seen those plasma ball toys? The ones you put your hand on and get to see all the pretty lightning flash around? Maybe the lightning comes out of the metal part and can move at will or upon direction?

You can make that argument for every single model though. There are very few models that explicitly state what the barrel is, it is left up to us to determine from the model.

And given that the piece is the exact same as the barrel of other tesla weapons, it's a bigger leap to say it isn't the barrel than is.



This is a monolith. The Flux arc is as far towards the Nightbringer as possible. You can only get 2 Flux arcs on a unit, unless it surrounds you partially.

The arguments made for the vault can be made for the monolith, if you argue one, you must argue the other. The monolith clearly does not have a 270 arc.

"We aren't told what is the barrel"
"maybe it fires from the ball itself"

The Tesla has a tesla barrel, the Gauss has a gauss barrel.

Couple things. The first is you can get three Flux Arcs by aiming a corner at your target. The second is there is nothing calling it a barrel or anything of that type. It's a Tesla Sphere. Therefore the weapon is the sphere itself. The sphere itself has LoS. It doesn't have to have a barrel, you're trying to tie real world logic to an alien race. The flux arc clearly has barrels, the sphere is just bad modeling that they attached rules too. But RAW and RAI, the weapon is the sphere which has a near 360 degree arc, except that the model itself is blocking some of that.

Whatever. Until they clear it up in the final FAQ (if they do), it's clear people won't agree on it. Ask your TO or FLGS opponent if you really want to use one.

This may be irrelevant, but just to point out something with the consistency and clarity on GW's rules to models here. The old Tesseract Vault did not have Tesla Spheres on it's profile, even though they are clearly modeled on it, just as the Obelisk. It couldn't shoot them, because reasons.

This is GW, for cripes sake.

Like, what do we count the Particle Whip as? It's a giant crystal. Is that crystal the barrel? Who knows? And the Triarch Stalker. You can make it so that the weapon is detachable and can be made to somewhat rotate. Or you can glue it in place. Then what? Does it could as Hull mounted if you glued it? Is it 360' if you didn't?

 nintura wrote:
Couple things. The first is you can get three Flux Arcs by aiming a corner at your target.

To get 3 arcs on your target it has to be at about 7" long and pretty close, or really long and far away, you can do the same with the Vault, just bigger distances from a bigger model.

The second is there is nothing calling it a barrel or anything of that type. It's a Tesla Sphere. Therefore the weapon is the sphere itself. The sphere itself has LoS.

Right, and the monolith is a Flux arc, there is nothing calling it a barrel, its a Flux arc, therefore the weapon is the Flux arc, with has LoS

It doesn't have to have a barrel, you're trying to tie real world logic to an alien race.

I'm trying to tie the Rules as written to an alien race. We're not discussing RAI.

"trace line of sight from each weapons mounting along it's barrel"

You dont have a barrel you don't have LoS. Stupid i know, but its a direct quote, rules as written.

The flux arc clearly has barrels,

So does the Tesla Sphere.

But RAW and RAI, the weapon is the sphere which has a near 360 degree arc, except that the model itself is blocking some of that.

Raw the weapon literally can't trace line of sight. RAI , I agree it's probably turret mounted, but we're not discussing RAI.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 krodarklorr wrote:
This may be irrelevant, but just to point out something with the consistency and clarity on GW's rules to models here. The old Tesseract Vault did not have Tesla Spheres on it's profile, even though they are clearly modeled on it, just as the Obelisk. It couldn't shoot them, because reasons.

This is GW, for cripes sake.

Like, what do we count the Particle Whip as? It's a giant crystal. Is that crystal the barrel? Who knows? And the Triarch Stalker. You can make it so that the weapon is detachable and can be made to somewhat rotate. Or you can glue it in place. Then what? Does it could as Hull mounted if you glued it? Is it 360' if you didn't?

Yeah GW writes rules stupidly, without enough forethought. Hell ive heard the monolith argued as 360 arc, or 90 arc from the hole in front of the crystal, GW just arent great at rules....

I'm only poking holes in people arguing that it's ironclad that it can fire 270. I use the model, I'd love it to get FAQd properly, but come on Its got a gun at each corner just like the monolith. i which doesn't get to fire all guns but the one on the opposite corner...

Short ranged fire support deployed where it's needed? I can't imagine prats in scythe would be worth the points though, and they already have deepstrike, so it doesn't seem like a big add.

Also I can't believe we wasted three pages arguing about the Obelisk, even if we took the most lenient interpretation of the rules, it's not exactly a game breaking unit, certainly not worth the effort we've put in the debate. The buff to gravity pulse is nice, but maybe not enough to make it worth it's points as anything but a fire magnet.

Cheese and crackers though, man did they make deathmarks worth their points, looking forward to murdering some wraith knights and hearing eldar players whine about overpowered units (music, sweet music).

The sphere clearly has barrels? Because that seems to be a major question over the last few pages...

Cant draw los from the sphere? Seems pretty easy to me.

 nintura wrote:
The sphere clearly has barrels? Because that seems to be a major question over the last few pages...

Cant draw los from the sphere? Seems pretty easy to me.

You draw LoS from the barrels of a gun. If the sphere part isn't the barrel then you don't have permission to draw LoS from it

 CrownAxe wrote:

 nintura wrote:
The sphere clearly has barrels? Because that seems to be a major question over the last few pages...

Cant draw los from the sphere? Seems pretty easy to me.

You draw LoS from the barrels of a gun. If the sphere part isn't the barrel then you don't have permission to draw LoS from it

Unless the sphere IS the gun. A sphere by definition does not have a barrel or it wouldn't be a sphere. By your definition you couldn't ever use shooting psyker powers because they don't have a barrel.

 nintura wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 nintura wrote:
The sphere clearly has barrels? Because that seems to be a major question over the last few pages...

Cant draw los from the sphere? Seems pretty easy to me.

You draw LoS from the barrels of a gun. If the sphere part isn't the barrel then you don't have permission to draw LoS from it

Unless the sphere IS the gun. A sphere by definition does not have a barrel or it wouldn't be a sphere. By your definition you couldn't ever use shooting psyker powers because they don't have a barrel.

I literally quoted the BRB.
For vehicle fire arcs
"draw line of sight from the mounting along the barrel"

If you just had to draw LoS from the gun itself, and not the barrel, the Doomscythes/Nightscythes would be so broken.

 nintura wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 nintura wrote:
The sphere clearly has barrels? Because that seems to be a major question over the last few pages...

Cant draw los from the sphere? Seems pretty easy to me.

You draw LoS from the barrels of a gun. If the sphere part isn't the barrel then you don't have permission to draw LoS from it

Unless the sphere IS the gun. A sphere by definition does not have a barrel or it wouldn't be a sphere. By your definition you couldn't ever use shooting psyker powers because they don't have a barrel.

Doesn't matter if the sphere IS the gun, The rules tell you have to draw LoS from the barrel of the gun, not just the gun itself

Also these are the rule for drawing LoS FOR VEHICLES. Your psyker example doesn't apply here because they use a completely different rule set

 CrownAxe wrote:

 nintura wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 nintura wrote:
The sphere clearly has barrels? Because that seems to be a major question over the last few pages...

Cant draw los from the sphere? Seems pretty easy to me.

You draw LoS from the barrels of a gun. If the sphere part isn't the barrel then you don't have permission to draw LoS from it

Unless the sphere IS the gun. A sphere by definition does not have a barrel or it wouldn't be a sphere. By your definition you couldn't ever use shooting psyker powers because they don't have a barrel.

Doesn't matter if the sphere IS the gun, The rules tell you have to draw LoS from the barrel of the gun, not just the gun itself

Also these are the rule for drawing LoS FOR VEHICLES. Your psyker example doesn't apply here because they use a completely different rule set

Good luck ever firing Hunter Killer Missles then. Seeing as how they dont have barrels. Or Eldar shield blasts. Or any number of things that don't have barrels.