morgendonner wrote:The other thing that confuses me is why on the spyders it makes the back carapace gun mounting so pronounced, as if that was a major feature. Being I have 6 converted spyders, I might get 3 of these eventually, but I fear they will look bad next to each other.
Maybe because it is the only Necron model that doesn't have an underslung weapon, and thus is the only model that can hide behind cover and still shoot with TLOS.
It's not a vehicle so it doesn't draw LOS from the barrel.
Kurgash wrote:I really hope the stalker isn't larger than my custom one. Put alot of work into mine and don't want it invalidated.
Shrug at $33 a pop I have no intention to replace my 6 converted spyders. I might get some of the new ones and used mixed squads, but as long as your model is well done I don't think you'll get too much flack from TO's. At worst case possible, you could play with your regular one in tournaments and if an opponent has a problem with it, swap it out for just that game.
Kurgash wrote:I like Obryon's model for the sake of him looking down trying to hide his face while in the company of "that guy" no one really wants to be around.
You, sir, have a point.
@NecronLord3: His legs look VERY stiff, as do his arms, all outsretched like that, but 'tis just my humble opinion
Kurgash wrote:I like Obryon's model for the sake of him looking down trying to hide his face while in the company of "that guy" no one really wants to be around.
You, sir, have a point.
@NecronLord3: His legs look VERY stiff, as do his arms, all outsretched like that, but 'tis just my humble opinion
To me, he looks like a Bodyguard. Which makes the figure very appropriate to me. The pose is all wrong for the other Necron HQ's. but it's perfect for him.
Sorry, GW youre too late to take any more money from me. Already bought and converted my wraiths and tomb blades, and almost done painting them lol. Took them long enough to produce.
Defeatmyarmy wrote:Sorry, GW youre too late to take any more money from me. Already bought and converted my wraiths and tomb blades, and almost done painting them lol. Took them long enough to produce.
Because making plastic out of thin air is easy...
Now of course you do have to ask why they're sluggish on the fliers
catharsix wrote:$33 for a single Spyder? I was thinking that even if they were $20 I'd balk at paying that price. But $33?! This is ridiculous even for GW.
Really? You would "balk" at them being 20 bucks? The OLD tomb spyders were more than 20 bucks. And you expect the newer, bigger, more material and WAY better ones to be CHEAPER than the old small crappy metal ones?
Matt.Kingsley wrote:Obryon looks way too static to be cool
I think you mean stoic and therefore IS cool!
(remember, this is the patient mother F'er that puts up with all of Zahndrekh's insanity, then just stands there being quietly intimidating as lesser being bang on his armor while he waits for his turn to violate them with his warscythe)
catharsix wrote:$33 for a single Spyder? I was thinking that even if they were $20 I'd balk at paying that price. But $33?! This is ridiculous even for GW.
Yes, but the outrageous price should keep Scarab farm armies, from becoming to prolific. Though, I am willing to admit, the option would be nice. I may buy 3 and convert the rest or use old metal versions. Maybe 1 Plastic GW, 1 Old Metal version, and 1 Puppetwars version for each squad? Hmmm. I see a plan coming together.
catharsix wrote:$33 for a single Spyder? I was thinking that even if they were $20 I'd balk at paying that price. But $33?! This is ridiculous even for GW.
Yes, but the outrageous price should keep Scarab farm armies, from becoming to prolific. Though, I am willing to admit, the option would be nice. I may buy 3 and convert the rest or use old metal versions. Maybe 1 Plastic GW, 1 Old Metal version, and 1 Puppetwars version for each squad? Hmmm. I see a plan coming together.
The puppetswar one is nice too as it's 5 bucks cheaper and comes with 10 scarabs. I already have 9 spyders with my old metals and my puppetswar ones, but these look nice as well. I guess I could hope they add a apoc formation for them so I have a reason to buy some more, lol.
With a standard 30% off discount (Dicebucket, for example), that will put the Spyders at $23 each. That's a perfectly reasonable price.
However, full retail cost? Hell no. But the worst part, is that even as crazy as the Spyder's retail cost is, it still pales in comparison to the price of the Triarch Stalkers.
azazel the cat wrote:With a standard 30% off discount (Dicebucket, for example), that will put the Spyders at $23 each. That's a perfectly reasonable price.
However, full retail cost? Hell no. But the worst part, is that even as crazy as the Spyder's retail cost is, it still pales in comparison to the price of the Triarch Stalkers.
Yeah, but most armies would never field more than 2 Stalkers, compared anywhere from 1-9 spyders.
catharsix wrote:$33 for a single Spyder? I was thinking that even if they were $20 I'd balk at paying that price. But $33?! This is ridiculous even for GW.
Really? You would "balk" at them being 20 bucks? The OLD tomb spyders were more than 20 bucks. And you expect the newer, bigger, more material and WAY better ones to be CHEAPER than the old small crappy metal ones?
My god, some of you people are impossible...
Wow... way to be a complete jerk about someone else expressing their own personal opinion. You don't have to agree with me - but I can't for the life of me understand why you felt you had to be a jerk about it on a forum. Why waste your time?
Back on topic, I also agree that the Stalker is pretty overpriced, and the Tomb Blades - 3 DE Reavers are only $34.75. Why are what are essentially Necron versions of that unit (Fast Attack Jetbikes) 20% more expensive?
Is it just me, or Is GW pricing the really USEFUL units slightly higher than ones which are not must-haves?
catharsix wrote:$33 for a single Spyder? I was thinking that even if they were $20 I'd balk at paying that price. But $33?! This is ridiculous even for GW.
Really? You would "balk" at them being 20 bucks? The OLD tomb spyders were more than 20 bucks. And you expect the newer, bigger, more material and WAY better ones to be CHEAPER than the old small crappy metal ones?
My god, some of you people are impossible...
Wow... way to be a complete jerk about someone else expressing their own personal opinion. You don't have to agree with me - but I can't for the life of me understand why you felt you had to be a jerk about it on a forum. Why waste your time?
Back on topic, I also agree that the Stalker is pretty overpriced, and the Tomb Blades - 3 DE Reavers are only $34.75. Why are what are essentially Necron versions of that unit (Fast Attack Jetbikes) 20% more expensive?
Is it just me, or Is GW pricing the really USEFUL units slightly higher than ones which are not must-haves?
I don't think anyone considers the Tomb Blades to be "really USEFUL".
Now, Wraiths on the other hand, are arguably the best candidate for the "must have" unit, and I believe that $47 for 3 of 'em is cheaper than they have ever been.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sasori wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:With a standard 30% off discount (Dicebucket, for example), that will put the Spyders at $23 each. That's a perfectly reasonable price.
However, full retail cost? Hell no. But the worst part, is that even as crazy as the Spyder's retail cost is, it still pales in comparison to the price of the Triarch Stalkers.
Yeah, but most armies would never field more than 2 Stalkers, compared anywhere from 1-9 spyders.
Fair enough. I'll still maintain that the price of those Stalkers is prohibitively expensive for what they bring to the army.
I agree that obyron looks cool and the stalkers are ok priced(you really wont take more than one anyway) BUT I really wish they releases an Arankyr the traveller model, he's SO badass
catharsix wrote:$33 for a single Spyder? I was thinking that even if they were $20 I'd balk at paying that price. But $33?! This is ridiculous even for GW.
Really? You would "balk" at them being 20 bucks? The OLD tomb spyders were more than 20 bucks. And you expect the newer, bigger, more material and WAY better ones to be CHEAPER than the old small crappy metal ones?
My god, some of you people are impossible...
Wow... way to be a complete jerk about someone else expressing their own personal opinion. You don't have to agree with me - but I can't for the life of me understand why you felt you had to be a jerk about it on a forum. Why waste your time?
Back on topic, I also agree that the Stalker is pretty overpriced, and the Tomb Blades - 3 DE Reavers are only $34.75. Why are what are essentially Necron versions of that unit (Fast Attack Jetbikes) 20% more expensive?
Is it just me, or Is GW pricing the really USEFUL units slightly higher than ones which are not must-haves?
Well, they look like there is quite a bit more size to the Tomb Blades than the reaver Jetbikes, which are slender little buggers.
Exalted Pariah wrote:I agree that obyron looks cool and the stalkers are ok priced(you really wont take more than one anyway) BUT I really wish they releases an Arankyr the traveller model, he's SO badass
I think most people will either take two Stalkers, or none.
And Anrakyr's usefulness has dropped off the map after the FAQ Nerf'd his MitM ability.
skoffs wrote:But, no one has any love for this guy?
I believe myself and several other posters previous to your post indicated they like the sculpt. I know some say he's static, but I prefer "implacable" or "resolute". It's a good model and a good character.
Defeatmyarmy wrote:Sorry, GW youre too late to take any more money from me. Already bought and converted my wraiths and tomb blades, and almost done painting them lol. Took them long enough to produce.
Because making plastic out of thin air is easy...
Hilarious! Its not like GW didnt KNOW that theyd make these when they put the art into the codex, yes?!
They shouldve realized by now that alternative companies simply jump on these opportunities and make a fortune with cool stuff thats available within a short period of time!
Ouze wrote:
skoffs wrote:But, no one has any love for this guy?
I believe myself and several other posters previous to your post indicated they like the sculpt. I know some say he's static, but I prefer "implacable" or "resolute". It's a good model and a good character.
Matt.Kingsley wrote:Obryon looks way too static to be cool
I think you mean stoic and therefore IS cool!
(remember, this is the patient mother F'er that puts up with all of Zahndrekh's insanity, then just stands there being quietly intimidating as lesser being bang on his armor while he waits for his turn to violate them with his warscythe)
I see obyron more like gokus stnace from dragon ball(looks like he's standing there but has no weaknesses) besides, he's a necron that accepts that he goes last in CC but his cleaving counter-blow will make your opponent wish he went last instead...
P.S. I disagree that arankyr is no longer useful aftter that FAQ, now when his CCB is destroyed he's MORE dangerous...
Exalted Pariah wrote:P.S. I disagree that arankyr is no longer useful aftter that FAQ, now when his CCB is destroyed he's MORE dangerous...
Off topic, is this the finalized ruling? Someone was explaining to me that it may not apply to that situation. The FAQ says you can't use abilities out of firing points, but open-topped vehicles don't have "firing points", they just allow models to shoot out of them; no firing points = FAQ regarding firing points doesn't apply. Or at least that's what he tried to explain.
Exalted Pariah wrote:P.S. I disagree that arankyr is no longer useful aftter that FAQ, now when his CCB is destroyed he's MORE dangerous...
Off topic, is this the finalized ruling? Someone was explaining to me that it may not apply to that situation. The FAQ says you can't use abilities out of firing points, but open-topped vehicles don't have "firing points", they just allow models to shoot out of them; no firing points = FAQ regarding firing points doesn't apply. Or at least that's what he tried to explain.
Dear god man, don't bring that up here! This thread is long enough already.
While your friend may have a point, or may not (the FAQ is sufficiently vague on the matter that when combined with the rules both sides of the argument think they're right) it's a simple forum search to find the thousand-odd post in YMDC and save all of us from the horror of it resurfacing.
A mass emailing of GW from several thousand people all asking for clarification on that exact point may prompt them to put it into their FAQs next update, so get clicking.
Exalted Pariah wrote:P.S. I disagree that arankyr is no longer useful aftter that FAQ, now when his CCB is destroyed he's MORE dangerous...
Off topic, is this the finalized ruling? Someone was explaining to me that it may not apply to that situation. The FAQ says you can't use abilities out of firing points, but open-topped vehicles don't have "firing points", they just allow models to shoot out of them; no firing points = FAQ regarding firing points doesn't apply. Or at least that's what he tried to explain.
Open-topped vehicles have infinite firepoints, not none.
Personally I was going to buy Obyron and use him as Anrakyr/Obyron dependant on if Nemesor is in the list.
Also, I like Anrakyr MitM no matter what the FAQ says (I also think Nightbringer's Chosen's friend is correct). But then again, the number of IG players at my FLGS is through the roof, so I am spoilt for choice.
Now please don't continue this MitM argument here.
Exalted Pariah wrote:I agree that obyron looks cool and the stalkers are ok priced(you really wont take more than one anyway) BUT I really wish they releases an Arankyr the traveller model, he's SO badass
<insert=tongue in cheek> They did... who do you think comes with the CCBarge?
catharsix wrote:the Tomb Blades - 3 DE Reavers are only $34.75. Why are what are essentially Necron versions of that unit (Fast Attack Jetbikes) 20% more expensive?
Is it just me, or Is GW pricing the really USEFUL units slightly higher than ones which are not must-haves?
I don't think anyone considers the Tomb Blades to be "really USEFUL".
I'll agree with the Tomb Blades not being the most useful unit in the Fast Attack slot... but with them being fairly highly priced (at least in comparison to the DE Reavers), I'm beginning to see a trend developing here...
Tomb Blades: slightly expensive, especially considering how "less-useful" people consider them. Lowly tier in the Fast Attack slot.
Flayed Ones: extremely expensive, especially considering how "un-useful" people consider them. Lowest tier in the Elite slot.
Monolith: rather expensive, especially considering how "barely-useful" people consider them. Very low tier in the Heavy Support slot.
...
Guys, what is the logic behind GW's tactic to charge a lot of money for models people don't really want very much?
I can see a typical GW pricing meeting-
Spoiler:
Guy: "Oh, wow, this unit sucks... we should probably make them really cheap so people will reconsider buying them."
Ward: "NOES! MAKE THEM COST MOAR!!"
Guy: "B-but, that doesn't make any sense. If we charge more for a model that no one wants in the first place, people will want it even less!"
GW CEO: "Hmmmm... I think we should do it Matt's way."
Guy: *throws hands up in the air*
Ward: "YESSSSSS, SUCK IT, XENO SCUM!!! SPESS MAHRENS R DA BEST'EST!!!"
GW CEO: "Hahaha, yes they are, Matt. Yes they are... Tell you what, lad. I'm gonna let you write the next 3 codexes, all by yourself! How does that sound?
Ward: "*GASP!* CAN I KILL THE SISTERS MOAR?!"
GW CEO: "Hohoho, that's my Matty!"
Open-topped vehicles have infinite firepoints, not none.
Source?
Seems a wierd interpretation. Empty space doesn't have "infinite" holes. It has none.
It's in the main rulebook. It's why 20 Ork boyz can shoot out of a battlewagon.
Not true at all I'm afraid, there are not infinite fire points, if you subscribe to the second interpretation (explained in spoiler tags) then there are a number equal to the transport capacity of the vehicle.
Spoiler:
The argument boils down to interpretation, the rules say:
40k rulebook(p.70) wrote:
Open-topped vehicles do not have specific fire points. Instead, all passengers in an open-topped vehicle may fire, measuring range and line of sight from the hull of the vehicle.
You can read this to mean two things.
1. Open-topped vehicles have no fire points but all passengers are allowed to fire out anyway 2. Open-topped vehicles have unspecified fire points that allow passengers to all fire out
These mutually exclusive but neither can be solely inferred from the statement in the rulebook (ie, you can't say one is more correct than the other).
Assuming 1. Then the vehicle’s open-topped rule allows embarked models to draw LOS and fire, it doesn’t need fire points as all the necessary mechanics are covered in the open-topped rules
Assuming 2. Then the unspecified fire points work exactly like a normal fire point, but have no restrictions on the number of embarked models that can shoot or the direction that they can draw LOS.
Frankly, at this point, I’m more inclined to believe 1. it needs fewer new rules to be made up by the reader.
But up to this point, it doesn't matter, they function the same for shooting regardless of which you believe.
Now, given the FAQ:
GWFAQs wrote:
Q: Can models embarked upon a vehicle use its fire points to draw line of sight to a unit to use special rules or wargear (other than shooting)? (p66)
A: No.
We have another problem.
The supporters of Anrakyr’s MITM claim, since the vehicle has no fire points, he’s not using one to draw LOS, hence this FAQ has no effect. Indeed, if it had intended to apply to all embarked models, it need not have specified fire points at all and would have been just as prohibitive if it had been “Q: Can models embarked upon a vehicle use special rules or wargear (other than shooting) that require line of sight? (p66) A: No”
The opponents claim that since an open-topped vehicle has an unspecified fire point, then Anrakyr can’t use it to draw LOS per this FAQ entry.
Now, it would seem that the precedent GW is setting here is that the only thing you can do while embarked is shoot or use psychic shooting attacks. Maybe open-topped was an oversight, maybe it was deliberate, the argument gets circular quickly and no-one budges from their position. Safe answer, don’t use MITM when embarked and hope 6th edition clears this up.
I drop off of the map for a couple of days and suddenly we get a flood of new 'Cron stuff!
I know that I'm in the minority here, but I like the Tomb Blades. They're unique, almost like hover pods instead of jet bikes, and I think they'll look good next to the rest of the Necron kits. Not a fan of the Spyders or the Wraiths. The Wraiths are decent but unspectacular (they could have made them quite a bit more dynamic and menacing), but the Spyder looks like a bits box project. The Stalker is a great kit, but it looks far too large for its statistics in the game itself. I've made my own Stalker conversion which is the same height and will go on the same base, so I'm not too worried about the presence of the official model. Zandrekh and Obyron are about what I expect from GW Special Character models (read: boring), but Szeras looks fantastic. I may have to pick up that model, though I have no idea what I would use him for (since Szeras isn't going in my Necron army).
I really like the Tomb Blades too, which is odd as they're the models I really wasn't bothered about.
The Wraiths aren't that big a disappointment, I'll probably pick up a box, but I don't think they're as good as either their artwork or the cyber arthropods from Puppets War.
The Spyder is a big improvement, but looks to be too expensive to pick up and as I want to avoid Scarab Farm lists, I'll probably only get one for completeness.
Honestly, the model I'm least impressed with is the Stalker, I think it's just "meh". Maybe it's all the scratch builds I've seen (including my own) but there is nothing new or exciting about it at all, it looks exactly like the artwork and those of us who tried, managed that with bits and pieces. It's a "is that all?" model, though I'm not sure what else I was hoping for (though a turret mounted tesla destructor or death ray in place of the pilot would have been a nice surprise).
catharsix wrote:$33 for a single Spyder? I was thinking that even if they were $20 I'd balk at paying that price. But $33?! This is ridiculous even for GW.
Really? You would "balk" at them being 20 bucks? The OLD tomb spyders were more than 20 bucks. And you expect the newer, bigger, more material and WAY better ones to be CHEAPER than the old small crappy metal ones?
My god, some of you people are impossible...
Wow... way to be a complete jerk about someone else expressing their own personal opinion.
Thanks!
Also, you weren't really stating an opinion, you were stating an emotion. If you'd simply said "the spyders are too expensive", then that is your opinion. To say "In my opinion this makes me mad." doesn't make any sense, and according to you that's basically what you said.
I'm sorry that you can't engage in conversation where one person doesn't understand your outcry and ludicrous expectations of a business with you being able to successfully defend your thoughts and opinions without resorting to petty name calling.
Have a nice day.
New necron stuff looks pretty awesome if you ask me, glad that I was almost spot on with the cost of the wraith kit! Still not sure what to think of the tomb blades, but 3 to a box when you can only have 5 in a squad? They REALLY want you to buy 15 of them, eh? Well, maybe they'll tandem well with destroyers or act as a decent screen for praetorians (I know, no one really likes them but I do for whatever reason). It's just too bad they look a little silly to me.
I'm in the minority with others in liking Zandrekh and Obyron though, Obyron has a very "Stone Wall" look to him. He's a guardian, he's supposed look like one.
And the stalker...Well, it's not quite the necronaught I was hoping we'd get, but damn if that thing doesn't look awesome.
Digging the new spiders too, now to get rid of the old metal ones. Which I'm ok with anyway, one of them is missing a leg.
Defeatmyarmy wrote:Sorry, GW youre too late to take any more money from me. Already bought and converted my wraiths and tomb blades, and almost done painting them lol. Took them long enough to produce.
Because making plastic out of thin air is easy...
Hilarious! Its not like GW didnt KNOW that theyd make these when they put the art into the codex, yes?!
They shouldve realized by now that alternative companies simply jump on these opportunities and make a fortune with cool stuff thats available within a short period of time!
Well I think what I was trying to say is for all we know GW made 1st wave along with the development of the codex then later on with either more breathing space or something started to develop the 2nd wave. Those can take months/up to a year while making a resin/metal mold takes maybe a month or two
I'm in the minority with others in liking Zandrekh and Obyron though, Obyron has a very "Stone Wall" look to him. He's a guardian, he's supposed look like one.
What minority? Obyron is easily the least controversial and most liked model of this wave if this thread is anything to go by. The only ones who don't like it are almost only people who don't like any of it in the first place.
Necronic Angel wrote:Do we know yet if the new spider model comes with extra scarabs?
I would love to think so.....but i doubt it. It seems that GW want to keep Warrior boxes as the only way to get Scarab models........which seems bti short-sighted as they would sell LOADS of kits if they released them separately.
I'm in the minority with others in liking Zandrekh and Obyron though, Obyron has a very "Stone Wall" look to him. He's a guardian, he's supposed look like one.
What minority? Obyron is easily the least controversial and most liked model of this wave if this thread is anything to go by. The only ones who don't like it are almost only people who don't like any of it in the first place.
Seems that many people in here don't like his model. His rules are top notch, no doubt.
Open-topped vehicles have infinite firepoints, not none.
Source?
Seems a wierd interpretation. Empty space doesn't have "infinite" holes. It has none.
It's in the main rulebook. It's why 20 Ork boyz can shoot out of a battlewagon.
Not true at all I'm afraid, there are not infinite fire points, if you subscribe to the second interpretation (explained in spoiler tags) then there are a number equal to the transport capacity of the vehicle.
Spoiler:
The argument boils down to interpretation, the rules say:
40k rulebook(p.70) wrote:
Open-topped vehicles do not have specific fire points. Instead, all passengers in an open-topped vehicle may fire, measuring range and line of sight from the hull of the vehicle.
You can read this to mean two things.
1. Open-topped vehicles have no fire points but all passengers are allowed to fire out anyway 2. Open-topped vehicles have unspecified fire points that allow passengers to all fire out
These mutually exclusive but neither can be solely inferred from the statement in the rulebook (ie, you can't say one is more correct than the other).
Assuming 1. Then the vehicle’s open-topped rule allows embarked models to draw LOS and fire, it doesn’t need fire points as all the necessary mechanics are covered in the open-topped rules
Assuming 2. Then the unspecified fire points work exactly like a normal fire point, but have no restrictions on the number of embarked models that can shoot or the direction that they can draw LOS.
Frankly, at this point, I’m more inclined to believe 1. it needs fewer new rules to be made up by the reader.
But up to this point, it doesn't matter, they function the same for shooting regardless of which you believe.
Now, given the FAQ:
GWFAQs wrote:
Q: Can models embarked upon a vehicle use its fire points to draw line of sight to a unit to use special rules or wargear (other than shooting)? (p66)
A: No.
We have another problem.
The supporters of Anrakyr’s MITM claim, since the vehicle has no fire points, he’s not using one to draw LOS, hence this FAQ has no effect. Indeed, if it had intended to apply to all embarked models, it need not have specified fire points at all and would have been just as prohibitive if it had been “Q: Can models embarked upon a vehicle use special rules or wargear (other than shooting) that require line of sight? (p66) A: No”
The opponents claim that since an open-topped vehicle has an unspecified fire point, then Anrakyr can’t use it to draw LOS per this FAQ entry.
Now, it would seem that the precedent GW is setting here is that the only thing you can do while embarked is shoot or use psychic shooting attacks. Maybe open-topped was an oversight, maybe it was deliberate, the argument gets circular quickly and no-one budges from their position. Safe answer, don’t use MITM when embarked and hope 6th edition clears this up.
This is a non-issue after the dozen page-long thread on YMDC. As you said in the spoiler, just don't use MitM while embarked and hope 6th doesn't have such glaring oversights.
Praxiss wrote:
I would love to think so.....but i doubt it. It seems that GW want to keep Warrior boxes as the only way to get Scarab models........which seems bti short-sighted as they would sell LOADS of kits if they released them separately.
Most Necron players will probably have piles of Scarabs from their Warrior boxes though, so it might have seemed redundant. I'd rather have more options on the sprue for the kit itself than a fairly redundant unit.
skoffs wrote:
Monolith: rather expensive, especially considering how "barely-useful" people consider them. Very low tier in the Heavy Support slot.
why do so many people say the monolith is so uncompetitive nowadays? It can soak up so much damage and those pie plates are great.. Let alone having scarabs emerge from the portal (most people dont expect that)
skoffs wrote:
Monolith: rather expensive, especially considering how "barely-useful" people consider them. Very low tier in the Heavy Support slot.
why do so many people say the monolith is so uncompetitive nowadays? It can soak up so much damage and those pie plates are great.. Let alone having scarabs emerge from the portal (most people dont expect that)
Because they are still butthurt that it's no longer melta, lance and mishap proof.
I for one don't really care that its no longer melta/lance proof. I do care that its DS protection is gone...but then again, it was designed for 6th in mind. Who knows, maybe DSing vehicles will count as tank shocking?
skoffs wrote:
Monolith: rather expensive, especially considering how "barely-useful" people consider them. Very low tier in the Heavy Support slot.
why do so many people say the monolith is so uncompetitive nowadays? It can soak up so much damage and those pie plates are great.. Let alone having scarabs emerge from the portal (most people dont expect that)
Monoliths die to one well placed shot, and most competitive armies today, have plenty to deal with Monoliths, the new living metal really hurt Monoliths. If units could assault out of the portal they would be deadly. As it is you soak up 3 turns at least to effectively use a unit like scarabs with the Monolith and tie up that many points. The pie plates still drift allot, the Monolith would really benefit from the leaked rifles letting it shoot all the flux arcs, the whip and door.
A lascannon had a 1/27 chance of destroying a monolith.. I'm willing to take that chance so those shots stay the hell away from my doomsday ark or other more vulnerable goodies... Plus a monolith is so big it can pretty much guarantee me getting to shoot my doomsday ark since it can hide behind it at deployment. I just really like them, the people I play against usually really focus on getting the monoliths down because they overasses the threat it poses
I don't get why people don't like tomb blades, jet bikes w/RP and can take TL gauss, TL tesla or Particle beamers( str 6 ap4, blast) They'll rip infantry to shreds
Exalted Pariah wrote:I don't get why people don't like tomb blades, jet bikes w/RP and can take TL gauss, TL tesla or Particle beamers( str 6 ap4, blast) They'll rip infantry to shreds
I think it's because they're competing with Scarabs and Wraiths, the two best units in the codex.
Ask the 'nid players if they liked Ygmarl 'stealers. Chances are they had nothing against them, but couldn't justify taking them in place of Hive Guard and Zoanthropes. Pretty much the same thing, decent unit, well balanced, outshone because of other units in the same slot.
I think that after people have had a few games with/against Tomb Blades then we shall see the merits and disadvantage. I for one am certainly going to run a squad or two, though you are right that they do compete with the totally awesome sauce Wraiths and Scarabs.
The necrons have many viable builds and I think a Necron Bike heavy army could be one of them.
Exalted Pariah wrote:I don't get why people don't like tomb blades, jet bikes w/RP and can take TL gauss, TL tesla or Particle beamers( str 6 ap4, blast) They'll rip infantry to shreds
Particle beamer is ap5. I think its heavy too, so I don't believe they can move and fire them.
Exalted Pariah wrote:I don't get why people don't like tomb blades, jet bikes w/RP and can take TL gauss, TL tesla or Particle beamers( str 6 ap4, blast) They'll rip infantry to shreds
Particle beamer is ap5. I think its heavy too, so I don't believe they can move and fire them.
Exalted Pariah wrote:I don't get why people don't like tomb blades, jet bikes w/RP and can take TL gauss, TL tesla or Particle beamers( str 6 ap4, blast) They'll rip infantry to shreds
Particle beamer is ap5. I think its heavy too, so I don't believe they can move and fire them.
Exalted Pariah wrote:I don't get why people don't like tomb blades, jet bikes w/RP and can take TL gauss, TL tesla or Particle beamers( str 6 ap4, blast) They'll rip infantry to shreds
Particle beamer is ap5. I think its heavy too, so I don't believe they can move and fire them.
Jetbikes are relentless, iirc.
Indeed they are, its how Destroyers worked before.
I've gotta admit that I really like the Spyder models. Far more than the last versions. And I'm not a fan of the Puppet'sWar sculpts... they're too adorable looking, as they look like big, happy beetles. These GW versions actually look like mechanized spiders.
With no Scythes in this wave, I think I may end up picking up a few Spyders if discount sellers like Dicebucket end up stocking them. Because I can do $24 per Spyder. That seems perfectly fine to me.
Assuming, of course, the Spyders are plastic kits and NOT Finecast. Is there any word on that yet? (Or am I just not paying enough attention and missed it?)
Zweischneid wrote:The only Necron-list last weekend that made it to Adepticon's top 16, the top 4 infact if I am not mistaken, had, you guessed it, a Monolith in it.
Looks like it might be worth giving it a try from a competitive perspective.
And? We didn't get to see his qualifier games to really tell us if it was a useful or waste of points. That being said, though I admire him for doing as well as he did I did not like his list, at all. He easily could have swapped the Monolith out for a squad of Destroyers with Heavy Gauss Cannons, for range and tank busting which is what the Monolith excels at, but doesn't do as well as other units.
And? We didn't get to see his qualifier games to really tell us if it was a useful or waste of points. That being said, though I admire him for doing as well as he did I did not like his list, at all. He easily could have swapped the Monolith out for a squad of Destroyers with Heavy Gauss Cannons, for range and tank busting which is what the Monolith excels at, but doesn't do as well as other units.
Sure. He could have. But he didn't. I am pretty sure, he put some thought into the list and had his reasons for including a Monolith instead of Destroyers or a Doomsday Arc or whatever. If you don't like it, fine. But if people DO like the Monolith, I find it worthy pointing out that some competitive players consider them well worth the points and prefer them ever over Destroyers with HGC or similar things. Thus, it might be worthwile trying to make the Monolith work for those who like the model as it evidently can work in even the most competitive environments.
And? We didn't get to see his qualifier games to really tell us if it was a useful or waste of points. That being said, though I admire him for doing as well as he did I did not like his list, at all. He easily could have swapped the Monolith out for a squad of Destroyers with Heavy Gauss Cannons, for range and tank busting which is what the Monolith excels at, but doesn't do as well as other units.
Sure. He could have. But he didn't. I am pretty sure, he put some thought into the list and had his reasons for including a Monolith instead of Destroyers or a Doomsday Arc or whatever. If you don't like it, fine. But if people DO like the Monolith, I find it worthy pointing out that some competitive players consider them well worth the points and prefer them ever over Destroyers with HGC or similar things. Thus, it might be worthwile trying to make the Monolith work for those who like the model as it evidently can work in even the most competitive environments.
Or he took it because it was painted. As the Eldar player said, he didn't bring the list he wanted, he brought what he had painted, and still did extremely well.
And? We didn't get to see his qualifier games to really tell us if it was a useful or waste of points. That being said, though I admire him for doing as well as he did I did not like his list, at all. He easily could have swapped the Monolith out for a squad of Destroyers with Heavy Gauss Cannons, for range and tank busting which is what the Monolith excels at, but doesn't do as well as other units.
Sure. He could have. But he didn't. I am pretty sure, he put some thought into the list and had his reasons for including a Monolith instead of Destroyers or a Doomsday Arc or whatever. If you don't like it, fine. But if people DO like the Monolith, I find it worthy pointing out that some competitive players consider them well worth the points and prefer them ever over Destroyers with HGC or similar things. Thus, it might be worthwile trying to make the Monolith work for those who like the model as it evidently can work in even the most competitive environments.
Or he took it because it was painted. As the Eldar player said, he didn't bring the list he wanted, he brought what he had painted, and still did extremely well.
Did you see the paint-job?
Wow!
I'm guessing he took the monolith for psychological reasons, who wouldn't shoot at something that big and pink...
Plus, it leaves a nice, big bit of impassable, LOS-blocking terrain when it dies.
Or he took it because it was painted. As the Eldar player said, he didn't bring the list he wanted, he brought what he had painted, and still did extremely well.
Which wouldn't diminish the point I made in any way.
Besides that, he's been running this 1x Monolith, 2x 2 Spyders for months with great success. He sure would have had time to switch it up if it had failed him before.
Exalted Pariah wrote:I don't get why people don't like tomb blades, jet bikes w/RP and can take TL gauss, TL tesla or Particle beamers( str 6 ap4, blast) They'll rip infantry to shreds
Particle beamer is ap5. I think its heavy too, so I don't believe they can move and fire them.
Jetbikes are relentless, iirc.
Indeed they are, its how Destroyers worked before.
Destroyers actually had a ruling in their profile to allow shooting and assaulting with their heavy weapons, which is why I didn't think it was standard.
Destroyers actually had a ruling in their profile to allow shooting and assaulting with their heavy weapons, which is why I didn't think it was standard.
Perhaps it wasn't way back when the old Codex was published. In 5th, all Bikes are relentless (think Space Marine Attack Bikes). This includes Jetbikes.
Necronic Angel wrote:Do we know yet if the new spider model comes with extra scarabs?
No extra scarabs except a few moulded into the scarab nest.
BTW: The new WD included exact colour lists for the official paint scheme (4 for green armour, 4 for metall, 4 for energy source) and for the turquois one (the latter in a 7-9 page article). Also 18 pages of Necron campaign and Necron Apocalypse formations, so quite fun reading for necron fans (and Fantasy Empire and Storm of Magic players).
Destroyers actually had a ruling in their profile to allow shooting and assaulting with their heavy weapons, which is why I didn't think it was standard.
Perhaps it wasn't way back when the old Codex was published. In 5th, all Bikes are relentless (think Space Marine Attack Bikes). This includes Jetbikes.
Yes, I know that now, but only ever having played necrons and never playing the previous core rules before 5th, I didn't have much experience with bike squads and I forgot they had the relentless rule as standard now. Thanks.
Not really liking the sound of finecast upgrade kits... seems like spending even more money on hybrid models is coming soon, tau players are gunna be disapointed I think :/
Bobug wrote:Not really liking the sound of finecast upgrade kits... seems like spending even more money on hybrid models is coming soon, tau players are gunna be disapointed I think :/
I'd expect Tau to get whole new plastic kits to tell you the truth. The only reason I figure there's no combination Destroyer/Heavy Destroyer kit is because Necrons already got four plastic kits this wave.
I like the new wraiths and spyders! They look pretty menacing and alien, just as they should be.
Tomb blades are a bit derpy, but other with its ok.
The stalker isn't what I expected...I was thinking of something stockier with a larger hood like thing. It still looks neat though. Really looks like something from war of the worlds, which Is what I think they might have been going for (yes, I am aware that it has more than 3 legs...but that's what I think that's where they may have taken the design from) Now how am I going to convert it in such a way that it looks like its being piloted by a drone/c'tan shard...
The SC are fairly cool. I am disappointed to see that I was wrong in my prediction about the szeras/stalker multikit though .
I just started collecting an army. I will be getting a monolith for it as soon as I fell like spending that much money. I have a friend that uses his in every game we play, it is very tough. However everyone has their certain play style. I put my first list together based on what I want to have. No bikes, see no need with all the other trick ponies in the army. Wraiths are a must, spyder if you like running scarabs. Stalker is cool but as the bikes I see no need for it. This is my opinion before I have even played with this army. I have played against it a bunch and still haven't beaten it with DE, Eldar, deathwing, ravenwing or nids. So I jumped ship and decided to join them. Good luck to all and happy gaming!!
Kroothawk wrote:BTW: The new WD included exact colour lists for the official paint scheme (4 for green armour, 4 for metall, 4 for energy source) and for the turquois one (the latter in a 7-9 page article). Also 18 pages of Necron campaign and Necron Apocalypse formations, so quite fun reading for necron fans (and Fantasy Empire and Storm of Magic players).
...And want to pay newrly $20 for only 3 bses worth...
Me, I went to Adepticon, and out of the big tub of Necron bits and bobs in little baggies (the one vendor outside the main hall with tubs for every range, plus Epic etc. and P.Press and more) I got ~16-20 loose, brand new scarabs for about $5. Only one of many awesome purchases (from that vendor and from other attendees at the "Bits Trading.")
I've come around on the Spyders - I'll pick up two, and augment them wth my own converted ones. I've seen articles about it, but is Scarab Farm turning out to be a reliable build?
Necronic Angel wrote:Do we know yet if the new spider model comes with extra scarabs?
No extra scarabs except a few moulded into the scarab nest.
BTW: The new WD included exact colour lists for the official paint scheme (4 for green armour, 4 for metall, 4 for energy source) and for the turquois one (the latter in a 7-9 page article). Also 18 pages of Necron campaign and Necron Apocalypse formations, so quite fun reading for necron fans (and Fantasy Empire and Storm of Magic players).
Well, this hasn't happened for me in quite a long time....2 months in a row where I will be actually buying the WD instead of just reading it and putting it back on the rack at my LFGS.
Zathras wrote:Well, this hasn't happened for me in quite a long time....2 months in a row where I will be actually buying the WD instead of just reading it and putting it back on the rack at my LFGS.
Defeatmyarmy wrote:Sorry, GW youre too late to take any more money from me. Already bought and converted my wraiths and tomb blades, and almost done painting them lol. Took them long enough to produce.
Because making plastic out of thin air is easy...
Hilarious! Its not like GW didnt KNOW that theyd make these when they put the art into the codex, yes?!
They shouldve realized by now that alternative companies simply jump on these opportunities and make a fortune with cool stuff thats available within a short period of time!
Well I think what I was trying to say is for all we know GW made 1st wave along with the development of the codex then later on with either more breathing space or something started to develop the 2nd wave. Those can take months/up to a year while making a resin/metal mold takes maybe a month or two
Fair enough! I actually meant no offence ...
I guess we'll never know how or why GW does releases the way they do! Kenshin does have a point though! A lot of Necron players have everything set up with alternative models, simply because GW still insists on splitting stuff into waves which then get announced a week before you can preorder. Sure, the models are ace! But some people would much rather buy the cheaper, excellent looking puppetswar stuff, especially since some of it was available only a few weeks after the codex release.
I guess theres pros and cons for the wacky schedule. Personally, Im not a fan though.
I like to think i have a fair amount fo scarabs (30 bases after trimming them down to 2 per base) but for apoc games i woudl be tempted field a literal swarm of them for fun.
Defeatmyarmy wrote:Sorry, GW youre too late to take any more money from me. Already bought and converted my wraiths and tomb blades, and almost done painting them lol. Took them long enough to produce.
Because making plastic out of thin air is easy...
Hilarious! Its not like GW didnt KNOW that theyd make these when they put the art into the codex, yes?!
They shouldve realized by now that alternative companies simply jump on these opportunities and make a fortune with cool stuff thats available within a short period of time!
Well I think what I was trying to say is for all we know GW made 1st wave along with the development of the codex then later on with either more breathing space or something started to develop the 2nd wave. Those can take months/up to a year while making a resin/metal mold takes maybe a month or two
Fair enough! I actually meant no offence ...
I guess we'll never know how or why GW does releases the way they do! Kenshin does have a point though! A lot of Necron players have everything set up with alternative models, simply because GW still insists on splitting stuff into waves which then get announced a week before you can preorder. Sure, the models are ace! But some people would much rather buy the cheaper, excellent looking puppetswar stuff, especially since some of it was available only a few weeks after the codex release.
I guess theres pros and cons for the wacky schedule. Personally, Im not a fan though.
True enough. I was willing to wait to see what the new Wraiths looked like before making my decision on which ones to buy but, when I saw the cost of the GW product and how flimsy some of the parts look on the new model, I ordered 9 of the Puppets War Cyber Arthropods to supliment the 3 older metal Wraiths I have now. Perhaps if GW had released these in a more timely manner I would have bought their product but not now when there is a cheaper and more durable alternative from PW.
I don't like it. Machines sitting in other machines using controls to operate them. I want to see necrons integrated with their stuff like destroyers. They're acting way to humanly.
Surtur wrote:I don't like it. Machines sitting in other machines using controls to operate them. I want to see necrons integrated with their stuff like destroyers. They're acting way to humanly.
I dislike this too, but to be fair other classic machine races like the Cylons in Battlestar Galactica (original series and first cylon war models in the modern series) do this same thing.
It is part of the humanization of the Necrons. Ward/GW wanted to make them from a silent machine horde like the machines in the Matrix to an ancient race of noble warriors like the Protoss. Necrons are only machine in terms of their physical body by this point, and Necrons who embrace their machine nature, like Destroyer Lords or what have you, are now considered abnormal.
Surtur wrote:I don't like it. Machines sitting in other machines using controls to operate them. I want to see necrons integrated with their stuff like destroyers. They're acting way to humanly.
I dislike this too, but to be fair other classic machine races like the Cylons in Battlestar Galactica (original series and first cylon war models in the modern series) do this same thing.
It is part of the humanization of the Necrons. Ward/GW wanted to make them from a silent machine horde like the machines in the Matrix to an ancient race of noble warriors like the Protoss. Necrons are only machine in terms of their physical body by this point, and Necrons who embrace their machine nature, like Destroyer Lords or what have you, are now considered abnormal.
Heh, not in my army. I'm going to do what I can to do away with pilots and integrate the ones I can't get rid of altogether. I still love the "destroy all humans" version of necrons, so that is going to get carried over as I'm updating my army to 5th.
Surtur wrote:I don't like it. Machines sitting in other machines using controls to operate them. I want to see necrons integrated with their stuff like destroyers. They're acting way to humanly.
I dislike this too, but to be fair other classic machine races like the Cylons in Battlestar Galactica (original series and first cylon war models in the modern series) do this same thing.
It is part of the humanization of the Necrons. Ward/GW wanted to make them from a silent machine horde like the machines in the Matrix to an ancient race of noble warriors like the Protoss. Necrons are only machine in terms of their physical body by this point, and Necrons who embrace their machine nature, like Destroyer Lords or what have you, are now considered abnormal.
Though I can't imagine it being too hard to get your necron driver to become more built in with his ride. All you probably need is some greenstuff, necron bits, a little love, and boom: instant ancient arachnid death robot as opposed to regular joe necron taking his dad's Stanza to work.
Surtur wrote:I don't like it. Machines sitting in other machines using controls to operate them. I want to see necrons integrated with their stuff like destroyers. They're acting way to humanly.
Necrons are not really machines. Canoptek constructs are machines, and I believe we will never see a Wraith pilot a vehicle! :-)
Necrons are reincarnated/resuscitated Necrontyr who continue to operate machines as they did in their previous life.
Most current Necron vehicles/spaceships are based on the ancient empire design, and that's why they still incorporate space for a crew.
I personally think Destroyers don't make sense, because if you want to go full cyber/robotic/machines then you don't need a humanoid upper body, just implant the Necron's brain inside a drone's fully enclosed hull.
Not to mention that Necrons fight a bio-evolutionary nightmare-swarm, whose greatest biological feat of warfare adaptation is to evolve creatures that.. look, function and feel like guns and ammunition held in hands. Really?
Surtur wrote:I don't like it. Machines sitting in other machines using controls to operate them. I want to see necrons integrated with their stuff like destroyers. They're acting way to humanly.
Necrons are not really machines. Canoptek constructs are machines, and I believe we will never see a Wraith pilot a vehicle! :-) Necrons are reincarnated/resuscitated Necrontyr who continue to operate machines as they did in their previous life. Most current Necron vehicles/spaceships are based on the ancient empire design, and that's why they still incorporate space for a crew.
I personally think Destroyers don't make sense, because if you want to go full cyber/robotic/machines then you don't need a humanoid upper body, just implant the Necron's brain inside a drone's fully enclosed hull.
Agreed. Most Necrons are trying to either hold onto what they had or return to flesh and blood. Destroyers are the anomaly, not the rule. But as always, feel free to model your Tombworld anyway your want. An entire Tombworld falling to the destroyer disease would be interesting. I would like to see rules for destroyer royal courts.
I'm not saying it makes sense from a fluff perspective.
But an entire Tombworld deciding that their mechanical bodies are a gift rather than a curse I think fits perfectly (enough) with the fluff.
The reason is simple having a robot use a machine looks silly and inefficient exactly what a destroyer would want to avoid like the plague.
Personally I think the design of the destroyer was inspired and took real forethought, I am looking forward to my destroyer themed army when it's finsihed.
They're not really Robots, though. Canopteks are Robots. The others are Androids, Gynoids and Cyborgs of varying stripes. There's a significant distinction between the two, mostly dealing with structure and behavior.
Anpu-adom wrote:I would like to see rules for destroyer royal courts.
Meanwhile, I would like to see a Destroyer OVERLORD.
(We know they exist. That what's-his-name guy, of the Red Tide. Come onnnnn, Forgeworld, give us a model and some rules for IA12 !)
I don't think that Forgeworld will head into the Destroyer direction... there isn't as much artistic freedom in that direction. Besides, they've already mentioned MesoAmerica as an inspiration for their TombWorld.
To see a fully, visualized Destroyer TombWorld we'd have to rely on Fan rules... anyone wanna take the lead in the proposed rules forum?
Cryptek taken by the destroyer curse: Really, REALLY big Eldritch Lance
Cryptek taken by flayer virus: crazy looney just like the rest most likely, only the Flayed Lord seems to have some sort of self control and some sanity
I'm hoping in the next version of 40k swarms get eternal warrior, but not against blast weapons (or something like that). Seems like a change to the rules that wouldn't be overpowering and would "make sense".
ceorron wrote:I'm hoping in the next version of 40k swarms get eternal warrior, but not against blast weapons (or something like that). Seems like a change to the rules that wouldn't be overpowering and would "make sense".
Only against certain targets mainly vehicles and multi wounded models with a good save, azazel. Against anything else they pretty much suck. Don't think this rule change makes them really that much more powerful but like I said would "make sense", to me anyway.
King Pariah wrote:Flayed Lord seems to have some sort of self control and some sanity
if you have read the fall of damnos then they have a flayer lord in that. He dose not care about boltguns and takes ages to kill, would love to have a model like this to make flayed ones worth while taking.
ceorron wrote:I'm hoping in the next version of 40k swarms get eternal warrior, but not against blast weapons (or something like that). Seems like a change to the rules that wouldn't be overpowering and would "make sense".
Scarabs as it is now border on overpowering.
*looks around to make sure that there aren't any IG players around...* Scarabs are good, but they aren't all that and a slice of cheese. They can tie up units forever, but they can't take down large units. Period. They are great against armor, but not anything with power weapons. The Pancake rules have swarms gaining Eternal warrior 1, which meant that they couldn't be ID against double strength. They were still vulnerable to blasts. Even without those changes, most armies in my area have flamers or template weapons... they don't have difficulty dealing with scarabs. In fact, many more armies are going foot, and not at all because of the scarabs.
King Pariah wrote:Flayed Lord seems to have some sort of self control and some sanity
if you have read the fall of damnos then they have a flayer lord in that. He dose not care about boltguns and takes ages to kill, would love to have a model like this to make flayed ones worth while taking.
Haven't read FoD, just the Necron Codex in which he seems to be, as the codex put it, possessed by a more... subtle sort of madness.
King Pariah wrote:Flayed Lord seems to have some sort of self control and some sanity
if you have read the fall of damnos then they have a flayer lord in that. He dose not care about boltguns and takes ages to kill, would love to have a model like this to make flayed ones worth while taking.
Haven't read FoD, just the Necron Codex in which he seems to be, as the codex put it, possessed by a more... subtle sort of madness.
In FoD the flayer lord has more inteligence than the normal flayed ones and is a lot stronger and tougher. He has loads of flayed ones with him but they all get killed really quickly by one squad of marines but the lord takes ages for them to kill. He is a lot less subtle than the normal ones.
I don't know if its been mentioned but just picked up the new WD and on different pictures through out the issue they have the spyders on both size bases some small others the same size they were before. and the new Apoc formations are kindda cool one deals with ghost arks and for every other ghost ark in 3" a +1 to quantum shielding max av 15
torch1784 wrote:I don't know if its been mentioned but just picked up the new WD and on different pictures through out the issue they have the spyders on both size bases some small others the same size they were before. and the new Apoc formations are kindda cool one deals with ghost arks and for every other ghost ark in 3" a +1 to quantum shielding max av 15
I call bull. That sounds silly.
Sure its apoc, but it still a bit odd.
torch1784 wrote:I don't know if its been mentioned but just picked up the new WD and on different pictures through out the issue they have the spyders on both size bases some small others the same size they were before. and the new Apoc formations are kindda cool one deals with ghost arks and for every other ghost ark in 3" a +1 to quantum shielding max av 15
I call bull. That sounds silly.
Sure its apoc, but it still a bit odd.
No more odd than the monolith formation reducing weapon strength. This just adds AV and even then it's only to quantum shielding so it only works for 1 pen and it doesn't affect the rear.
torch1784 wrote:I don't know if its been mentioned but just picked up the new WD and on different pictures through out the issue they have the spyders on both size bases some small others the same size they were before. and the new Apoc formations are kindda cool one deals with ghost arks and for every other ghost ark in 3" a +1 to quantum shielding max av 15
I call bull. That sounds silly.
Sure its apoc, but it still a bit odd.
No bull it's called the Ghost Strider Phalanx formation is 1-3 ghost arks, 1-3 necron warrior phalanxes, and 1-3 tomb blade phalanxes
The av is special rule called quantum zone it's one of three rules. Other two are abnegation protocols- which on a 2+ redirects shots at an ark to a tomb blade doesn't effect hits by blast or templet. And Walker in the ether- which allows the whole phalanx a VoD effect as long as the warriors are in the arks.
The other apoc formation in the WD involves 1 triarch stalker and 1-3 praetorian squads. Every turn roll a d3 and gain that many charges. Charges can be spent in 3 ways. First makes the stalkers gun +1 strength stacking, if this causes it to be above str 10 then it counts as D weapon. Second makes praetorians within 6 or 12 inches (cant remember which) reanimation protocol 1 better stacking. Third makes the Stalker gain a armor value 13 void shield per charge for 1 turn. Unused charges are lost at end of turn
The contents description for Spiders on the GW site says they come with a large flying base so I'm pretty sure their product photos are just photographed on the wrong base size. Maybe because it makes the model itself look bigger but thats just silly.
torch1784 wrote:I don't know if its been mentioned but just picked up the new WD and on different pictures through out the issue they have the spyders on both size bases some small others the same size they were before. and the new Apoc formations are kindda cool one deals with ghost arks and for every other ghost ark in 3" a +1 to quantum shielding max av 15
I call bull. That sounds silly.
Sure its apoc, but it still a bit odd.
I hope this means that an Apoc Realignment for 6th will include heavier armor values than 14 for Superheavies.
Holy balls why are the Tomb Blades $41? Dear God that's too much, even for me. It's a good thing I only buy from Dicebucket, otherwise this would cost me a fortune.
Well, from what I can tell, the stuff GW calls "Finecast" is possibly the most horrible resin that they could possibly find. So just about anything else is bound to be better.
Dave-c wrote:Szeras is completely different than the codex art. Not even close...
The face is slightly different, as the Finecast model has a giant eye and an extra optic attachment, and no silly chin extension. Otherwise, I'd say that your standards for comparison are somewhat unreasonable. Even the staff's head is identical.
smUrfsrUs wrote:I was expecting topay about £35 for the stalker and £33.50 for the wraiths, so i'm happy that it is all cheaper. That is except the spyder.
I agree, I thought that even the Tomb Blades would be around the £30 mark because they look like they have alot of parts to them, but they are a reasonable £24. GW have spot on prices with this release, I applaud them
smUrfsrUs wrote:I was expecting topay about £35 for the stalker and £33.50 for the wraiths, so i'm happy that it is all cheaper. That is except the spyder.
I agree, I thought that even the Tomb Blades would be around the £30 mark because they look like they have alot of parts to them, but they are a reasonable £24. GW have spot on prices with this release, I applaud them
For once GW dosn't seemed to have over priced most of their new models (the spyder is way to over priced), this makes me have hope for the future.
Who cares about the character models. They are finecast, personally I don't want to buy them in any case.
What would be great, is if GW would release a royal court plastic kit, with 5 mini-lords/crypteks and options for all wargear upgrades. Of course that's not the way it works, HQ should be finecast and expensive. And I'm actually fine with unique characters and overlords being that way, but royal court is different.
What I don't get, is how the destroyer upgrades are resin. These bits are very long and thin, they aren't that tough even in metal. Isn't resin supposed to be much more brittle?
I hate he way the triarch stalker has the two huge legs at the front. If I ever bought the kit I would either source out two smaller legs to replace them, or two large ones to put at the back (and get rid of the central ones).
Looking at the 360 it wouldn't be hard to do, they're all ball joints.
azazel the cat wrote:
The face is slightly different, as the Finecast model has a giant eye and an extra optic attachment, and no silly chin extension.
Hey, I kinda liked the silly chin extension! Anyway the model looks great, and I also like Zandrekh.
The Wraiths look really menacing, I'm definitely picking up a few and the Spyder looks way too cool to overlook also. Later on I'll be picking up some Blades and a Stalker as well.
Tarrasq wrote:Couldn't fit the scythes in this wave eh? Kind of tired of proxying them.
Dabansheedude wrote:Why no noight scythe though?
I am quite certain they come one month later, together with several other fliers including a SM gunship, an Ork Fighter and maybe something for Dark Eldar and Tyranids.
The stalker is an ideal base for a Renegade stalk tank - leave off the throne, change the guns to autocannons & maybe change the front legs for a smaller pair & viola!
Might have to buy one.
azazel the cat wrote: The face is slightly different, as the Finecast model has a giant eye and an extra optic attachment, and no silly chin extension.
Hey, I kinda liked the silly chin extension!
Well, you'll be happy to know it's still there (check the 360 degree version). I, on the other hand, have to agree with azazel the cat: I think the long chins look stupid.
Gnawer wrote: What would be great, is if GW would release a royal court plastic kit, with 5 mini-lords/crypteks and options for all wargear upgrades. Of course that's not the way it works, HQ should be finecast and expensive. And I'm actually fine with unique characters and overlords being that way, but royal court is different.
Actually, I think Forgeworld said they might be working on something like that (probably due around IA12)
Also, if I take out the driver and seat of the Stalker and replace it with the guns from the belly, do you think people would pack a tantrum? (at the tournament level, anyway. Really, it would be for aesthetic purposes, but I have a feeling changing the placement of the guns on a model affecting LOS for targeting could rub people the wrong way).
Just a thing Szeras Does have the chin thing.
I must say I do like him (?) ,and he upgrades other necrons frenquently, he might have added a lens to his optical sensors?
I must say I think the stalker might look too big for my taste ,
And i'm not sure about the spyder and the way the rear-body is higher than the head section ....
Killian wrote:I also noticed that the Destroyer Lord and Heavy Destroyer upgrade packs are NOT Finecast but just a resin.
GW Site wrote:It is a finely detailed resin cast set that comes in three components
azazel the cat wrote:
Killian wrote:I also noticed that the Destroyer Lord and Heavy Destroyer upgrade packs are NOT Finecast but just a resin.
GW Site wrote:It is a finely detailed resin cast set that comes in three components
What? I'm confused now. GW is using Fincast AND resin? Is there a different between the low-quality Finecast material and this other magical resin?
EDIT: And $41 for 3x Tomb Blades seems like a decent price.
Matt.Kingsley wrote:same thing with the lotr casualties, they're not 'finecast' but they are resin
Anvildude wrote:Well, from what I can tell, the stuff GW calls "Finecast" is possibly the most horrible resin that they could possibly find. So just about anything else is bound to be better.
I was going to say the same thing about this but even though it's not labeled as "finecast" like the full models, they all have the same description stating they are "finely detailed resin casts" or whatever, so even though the bits packs don't say they're finecast in the pictures, they use identical wording to describe them as the finecast models use, so don't get your hopes up. They are most likely the same material as the finecast models.
smUrfsrUs wrote:I was expecting topay about £35 for the stalker and £33.50 for the wraiths, so i'm happy that it is all cheaper. That is except the spyder.
I agree, I thought that even the Tomb Blades would be around the £30 mark because they look like they have alot of parts to them, but they are a reasonable £24. GW have spot on prices with this release, I applaud them
For once GW dosn't seemed to have over priced most of their new models (the spyder is way to over priced), this makes me have hope for the future.
This is when you should buy tons of them.
Show GW that customers are willing to purchase more if the prices are right.
Maybe they'll take that clue and start lowering prices.
Im also disappointed at Szeras, his lower torso. In the concept, he have a beaultiful armor guard the shape of a pelvic bone, wrapped by armor plate.
This new sculpt, it looks like he have a 2nd torso.
Infact, you can almost see it as a necron warrior stick his head up Szera's butt and we only see the neck and the chest.
skoffs wrote:Also, if I take out the driver and seat of the Stalker and replace it with the guns from the belly, do you think people would pack a tantrum? (at the tournament level, anyway. Really, it would be for aesthetic purposes, but I have a feeling changing the placement of the guns on a model affecting LOS for targeting could rub people the wrong way).
May God have mercy upon you, because tournament players won't.
B0B MaRlEy wrote:And i'm not sure about the spyder and the way the rear-body is higher than the head section ....
I guess there's not a lot of spiders where you are. Sounds nice.
skoffs wrote:Also, if I take out the driver and seat of the Stalker and replace it with the guns from the belly, do you think people would pack a tantrum? (at the tournament level, anyway. Really, it would be for aesthetic purposes, but I have a feeling changing the placement of the guns on a model affecting LOS for targeting could rub people the wrong way).
May God have mercy upon you, because tournament players won't.
Ah. Okay.
(._. )
(wasn't sure how tournaments work as far as custom models go... so I take it re-positioning weapons on a vehicle is a major no-no)
skoffs wrote:Also, if I take out the driver and seat of the Stalker and replace it with the guns from the belly, do you think people would pack a tantrum? (at the tournament level, anyway. Really, it would be for aesthetic purposes, but I have a feeling changing the placement of the guns on a model affecting LOS for targeting could rub people the wrong way).
May God have mercy upon you, because tournament players won't.
Ah. Okay.
(._. )
(wasn't sure how tournaments work as far as custom models go... so I take it re-positioning weapons on a vehicle is a major no-no)
True Line of Sight. Let one person go, you have to let others as well ( including TFG ) and before you know it, complete mess from abuses
Actually, now that I think about it, you may be able to get away with it, because the Stalker isn't a vehicle; it's a walker. So I don't believe that TLOS is measured from the guns themselves. If that is the case, then I don't think there will be any problem with it.
However, if TLOS is affected, then do not even attempt this.
You could build the stalker with the guns on top but tell your opponent where they should be and measure from there. This way they can't have a go at you for cheating and you have the model you want.
Or you could tell them to find a good surgeon for the stick up their ass. Now yes it could be modeling for advantage as you are increasing the height of the gun making it easier to negate cover saves but meh, Just know where it is supposed to go and you should be fine.
skoffs wrote:Also, if I take out the driver and seat of the Stalker and replace it with the guns from the belly, do you think people would pack a tantrum? (at the tournament level, anyway. Really, it would be for aesthetic purposes, but I have a feeling changing the placement of the guns on a model affecting LOS for targeting could rub people the wrong way).
May God have mercy upon you, because tournament players won't.
Ah. Okay.
(._. )
(wasn't sure how tournaments work as far as custom models go... so I take it re-positioning weapons on a vehicle is a major no-no)
True Line of Sight. Let one person go, you have to let others as well ( including TFG ) and before you know it, complete mess from abuses
Would TO's and others really make a huge fuss about this? I know i'll be doing something similar, myself. The guns on the bottom are rather meh, and I also will not be having a pilot.
ALSO I'm concerned about my wraith conversions, they're GW legal currently and look like sentinels from the matrix, most are just barley shorter (few mm) than the old wraith models, but at least one of the new wraith models looks absolutely huge...
IronfrontAlex wrote:Would TO's and others really make a huge fuss about this? I know i'll be doing something similar, myself. The guns on the bottom are rather meh, and I also will not be having a pilot.
Well, if it were possible to attach a flagpole to a Razorback and then model the gun on the top so that the Razorback could completely be hidden by a wall and yet still shoot over, then every power gamer at a tournament would do that.
@Slowpoke: thanks for the clarification. I wasn't sure how it actually worked with Dreads, 'cause mine tend to not hide behind rocks
IronfrontAlex wrote:Would TO's and others really make a huge fuss about this? I know i'll be doing something similar, myself. The guns on the bottom are rather meh, and I also will not be having a pilot.
Well, if it were possible to attach a flagpole to a Razorback and then model the gun on the top so that the Razorback could completely be hidden by a wall and yet still shoot over, then every power gamer at a tournament would do that.
Just to be safe, I think I'll look into magnetizing it (so if anyone does have a fit over my "improperly placed weapon", I can just stick it back on the bottom (all the while, giving them the "I've already said I'm going to be measuring LOS from the bottom, are you f*cking seriously going to be this much of a baby over the way my model LOOKS?" look, aka. ಠ_ಠ )
IronfrontAlex wrote:Would TO's and others really make a huge fuss about this? I know i'll be doing something similar, myself. The guns on the bottom are rather meh, and I also will not be having a pilot.
Well, if it were possible to attach a flagpole to a Razorback and then model the gun on the top so that the Razorback could completely be hidden by a wall and yet still shoot over, then every power gamer at a tournament would do that.
Just to be safe, I think I'll look into magnetizing it (so if anyone does have a fit over my "improperly placed weapon", I can just stick it back on the bottom (all the while, giving them the "I've already said I'm going to be measuring LOS from the bottom, are you f*cking seriously going to be this much of a baby over the way my model LOOKS?" look, aka. ಠ_ಠ )
Y'know, if you want to be on the safe side...
What you could do is take the optic section on the Stalker and move it down to where the guns normally would be. That way if anyone chooses to object, you use the optics for the reference point--and make a subtle joke about "true line of sight" to boot.
IronfrontAlex wrote:Would TO's and others really make a huge fuss about this? I know i'll be doing something similar, myself. The guns on the bottom are rather meh, and I also will not be having a pilot.
Well, if it were possible to attach a flagpole to a Razorback and then model the gun on the top so that the Razorback could completely be hidden by a wall and yet still shoot over, then every power gamer at a tournament would do that.
Just to be safe, I think I'll look into magnetizing it (so if anyone does have a fit over my "improperly placed weapon", I can just stick it back on the bottom (all the while, giving them the "I've already said I'm going to be measuring LOS from the bottom, are you f*cking seriously going to be this much of a baby over the way my model LOOKS?" look, aka. ಠ_ಠ )
Y'know, if you want to be on the safe side...
What you could do is take the optic section on the Stalker and move it down to where the guns normally would be. That way if anyone chooses to object, you use the optics for the reference point--and make a subtle joke about "true line of sight" to boot.
Thanks, I do actually like that idea, and if someone objects to the modeling that is a really easy segway. I was also thinking of putting the gun somewhere directly underneath the optics and not under the hull itself.
Question though, would an enemy be able to shoot at this thing's legs, or assault them? or should i take it as "measure from the hull" sorta mentality. If we take the whole model as a target it will be rediculous not to be able to shoot it, if its just the hull then that makes things a bit easier.
IronfrontAlex wrote:Question though, would an enemy be able to shoot at this thing's legs, or assault them? or should i take it as "measure from the hull" sorta mentality. If we take the whole model as a target it will be rediculous not to be able to shoot it, if its just the hull then that makes things a bit easier.
I believe the way it works for Defilers/Soulgrinders is that all of those legs count, as one really oddly-shaped base. The legs count as the model as much as the 'hull' does.
Hold on a sec, don't Tomb Blades come in a max unit size of five? Why would they put three of them in a box?
What's with GW and placing awkward number of models into boxes? First fantasy cav and now this.
CthuluIsSpy wrote:Hold on a sec, don't Tomb Blades come in a max unit size of five? Why would they put three of them in a box?
What's with GW and placing awkward number of models into boxes? First fantasy cav and now this.
CthuluIsSpy wrote:Hold on a sec, don't Tomb Blades come in a max unit size of five? Why would they put three of them in a box?
What's with GW and placing awkward number of models into boxes? First fantasy cav and now this.
Good question. For Wraiths it's 6, but it is indeed 5 for Tomb Blades (and Destroyers)
CthuluIsSpy wrote:Hold on a sec, don't Tomb Blades come in a max unit size of five? Why would they put three of them in a box?
What's with GW and placing awkward number of models into boxes? First fantasy cav and now this.
You obviously want to by 15 of them, don't you?
Was there any doubt about that in the first place? xD
I don't think it was focused on making a low-priced army, it was just on making a well balanced force at 1k and 1.5k points.
They did point out you could use an Overlord model instead of the Nemesor or his Vargard, which was big of them.
So far as how feasible tactically these lists are, I'm not a tournament player so I'll leave that to others, but to a average gamer these look like OK lists. But you wouldn't really expect to see the company that makes the game doing such cheesy crap as scarab farms, would you?
Kanluwen wrote:What's New Today has an article up of showing how 'best' to make an army using a relatively small amount of purchases.
I'm also surprised that the first purchase isn't 2 Battleforces and a CCBarge and a couple cryptek models. That would give you a better basis for an army at 1k and up to 1250 points.
Jeez do GW even know how to play their own game? Those lists are terrible. As posted above, 2 Battle Force Boxes and 1 - 3 CCB/A Barge + Crypteks and you have a good base from which to make a list.
As a side note, consider taking Illuminator Szeras in the army if you can squeeze him in
Lol worst IC in the dex. I know they want to sell models but at least they could give half decent advice.
As a side note, consider taking Illuminator Szeras in the army if you can squeeze him in
Lol worst IC in the dex. I know they want to sell models but at least they could give half decent advice.
Well, to be fair, anybody who would be reading that for ACTUAL LIST BUILDING ADVICE probably doesn't know anything about the game (see: new players), so they can say anything they want, knowing that those inexperienced will just take what they say at face value as "real advice".
Eg.
"This model looks cool, and has an ability that buffs your guys. You got all those Warriors in your Battleforce, right? Well if you use this guy, they won't suck as much! You should totally buy him!" (I can see this monologue becoming a sales pitch Black-shirts at GW stores would be required to say to new customers as an up-sell technique)
Nakor The BlueRider wrote:Lol worst IC in the dex. I know they want to sell models but at least they could give half decent advice.
To be honest he's an interesting choice for low-point games.
At 800 pts. I had a blob of 20 warriors buffed by this guy and rolled +1T. A wall of Warriors with T5, standing up on 4+ is VERY resilent.
Same goes to +1BS = hitting on 2+ TBH, only rolling +1S sucks. In certain builds he's a really useful.
Not to mention he looks badass Though I will replace his head with that of normal finecast cryptec as the big eye is some poor joke.
I'm not using any failcast crypteks in my army (I make mine from lychguard kit) so he's still gonna look unique.
If you consider szeras himself is a 45pt lancetek with gaze and then his extra attacks and armor save is worth about 5pts then his augmentations are worth a full half of his 100pt cost at 50pts. So over a unit of 20 warriors you're paying 2.5pts a guy for s, t, or bs 5 which isn't a bad deal. His major problem is that he cuts off a second royal court but in smaller games he can be a value.
Actinium wrote:If you consider szeras himself is a 45pt lancetek with gaze and then his extra attacks and armor save is worth about 5pts then his augmentations are worth a full half of his 100pt cost at 50pts. So over a unit of 20 warriors you're paying 2.5pts a guy for s, t, or bs 5 which isn't a bad deal. His major problem is that he cuts off a second royal court but in smaller games he can be a value.
To me, not getting a Royal Court takes you out of the running for a competitive list at anywhere above 1000 points.
Monster Rain wrote:To me, not getting a Royal Court takes you out of the running for a competitive list at anywhere above 1000 points.
Exactly why he's not exactly horrible to take along in 500-1000 points games.
(I must admit, I ran him and Anrakyr in a Deathstar with 10 Immortals and a ResOrb Lord in a 1000 point list, and it actually did pretty well).
Monster Rain wrote:To me, not getting a Royal Court takes you out of the running for a competitive list at anywhere above 1000 points.
Exactly why he's not exactly horrible to take along in 500-1000 points games.
(I must admit, I ran him and Anrakyr in a Deathstar with 10 Immortals and a ResOrb Lord in a 1000 point list, and it actually did pretty well).
I hadn't thought of that combo, FC S5 / T4 Immortals has some merit.
I didn't intend to 'slag' of Illuminor Szeras, he does have his uses but it is only a small niche. The problem with this IC is points cost, Doesn't unlock a RC and his ability's can only be given to Warriors and immortals which is also random.
+1 Strength on a Warrior unit is pointless as they should never be relied upon in assault.
+1 Toughness is quite good and one I would certainly use if I could choose.
+1 BS is alight hitting on +2 with a big block of warriors/Immortal can be harsh but its still only Str4/Str5 and with a Stalker it could be TL.
This ability isn't worth 55points (45pts for a Cryptek with GoF) Sure his stats are W2 A4, but as that only favours assault its foolish to be taking him for that benefit.
I do really like his model and will mostly likely get one just to paint.
Monster Rain wrote:To me, not getting a Royal Court takes you out of the running for a competitive list at anywhere above 1000 points.
Exactly why he's not exactly horrible to take along in 500-1000 points games.
(I must admit, I ran him and Anrakyr in a Deathstar with 10 Immortals and a ResOrb Lord in a 1000 point list, and it actually did pretty well).
Heh. At 1000 I like to bring Vargard Obyron (again, because at 1000 points I really don't miss the second court) and a Overlord with a scythe in a barge.
Does nobody play 40K just for fun anymore? Sure, Szeras isn't the best. Maxing royal courts is powerful. But he's fun, has a unique ability, and looks awesome. No, he might not win you any tournaments. But you have plenty of cheese to do that with already, don't you? If all you care about is winning, why do you even care that an army with several competitive strategies has a unit that isn't quite up to par?
For those railing on the GW Necron armies article, you are attacking it from entirely the wrong angle. Saying "Here, buy 2 battleforces and some HQ" is FAR less effective at enticing new buyers than "Battleforce gets you this...and look at this walker! And these wraiths! And the monolith!". These are NOT competitive lists, and they are NOT meant to be - they are meant to be lists that show off some of the coolest looking units in the army so that you can build it and enjoy the game for what it is.
I sure hope I'm not the only one left in this thread who is excited for awesome new models and doesn't give a damn whether or not they will be "top tier".
Oh, for sure all the new stuff looks awesome (even the Tomb Blades, to a degree), but it helps when the things also PLAY awesome.
If GW wants to get new players into the game more, giving them sub-par suggestions on how to build an army may actually HURT their chances, as those new players who take their advice and go to play their first game may be woefully disappointed on how badly their army performs. Yes, a sensible person may realize they need to look at their codex to see what works best with what and adjust their army accordingly, but not everyone is sensible. They may just consider it a waste of money and quit (people do that all the time with hobbies when they start out: either they're immediately hooked, or they come away dissatisfied after their first experience and drop it).
Regarding Szeras, I think we all may still be a little butt hurt over him (awesome looking character in the art from the codex... and then we noticed that he's a "meh" HQ choice. I, for one, was very, "Why would they take such a cool looking and awesomely fluffy character, and make him crap to play with?")
Szeras is one of those characters that I may run when I want to teach other players how to play the game. He's not as good as a lot of the HQs, but he's not unusable either, and he's an all-around "fair" character; no nasty tricks, no leaving the opponent feeling like he's cheesy, nothing like that.
Taking Mindshackle Scarabs in each of your units and having Catacomb Barges flying around everywhere will scare off new players. Szeras will look cool, not be unfair to the opponent, and not completely handicap your own army.
Nightbringer's Chosen wrote:Szeras is one of those characters that I may run when I want to teach other players how to play the game. He's not as good as a lot of the HQs, but he's not unusable either, and he's an all-around "fair" character; no nasty tricks, no leaving the opponent feeling like he's cheesy, nothing like that.
Taking Mindshackle Scarabs in each of your units and having Catacomb Barges flying around everywhere will scare off new players. Szeras will look cool, not be unfair to the opponent, and not completely handicap your own army.
Szeras is definitely cool. I could picture taking him in a scarab farm list in a 20 warrior unit for benefits. I just wish immortals could mob up.
Rofl, suddenly this is a Szeras appreciation thread.
"Let's all gather around and say what we like about Illuminator Szeras. I'll go first. I like that he comes with Gaze of Flame, so when I stick him in a unit of Eternals who are in terrain, it makes that unit even better."
"We have since reached rock bottom and began to dig." :-)
I've resigned myself to buy 2 spyders in the next month... I may have as many as 6 some day. I think that spyders are going to be the Necron equivalent of Rhinos.
As far as Wraiths go... I'm going to continue making my conversions from Praetorian parts. Such things are looked on with favor in my area.
I like the tombblades mostly because they are something very different. Maybe someday, I'll make a Necron on a Hog to Counts-as a Destroyer Lord...
I'll pick up Namesor and Obryon... these are the HQ's that I fell in love with then I first got my codex... They are so flavorful and good!
Szeras doesn't thrill me. I do love the idea of running him with the Traveler... His bonus on Eternals makes me giggle.
Hilarious! Its not like 
