Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

They made the flayers look horrible. Why? Is this Matt Wards idea! I need answers!

It is highly unlikely that Ward is responsible for how the models look.

XCom wrote:They made the flayers look horrible. Why? Is this Matt Wards idea! I need answers!

They do look bad, but to be honest I think Flayed Ones are a hard concept to pull off anyway. How do you go about sculpting a robot covered in human skin? The last ones were never highly regarded either, it's just now they look like masterpieces compared to the new miniatures. They tried to get around the challenging brief by adding more gore, but it doesn't work.

If they'd made them a decent unit, I'd have a go at doing something with the Necron Warrior and VC Ghoul sprues. But they didn't, so I won't

One thing I dearly miss is the loss of true ability to screw with enemy's morale...

Pariahs with their LD lowering skill were fun, and not OP (unlike IG Psyker Battle Squads)...
Same goes for Flayed Ones who used to scare with their gruesome appearance...

All we have now is a flawed cryptec conclave with 2 skills, of which neither even lowers enemy LD.
Trying to roll to-wound with S8 against LD higher than 7 (most armies) really makes that staff crappy.
Not to mention Nightmare Shroud which also is very much unreliable agains mentioned LD armies...

Sad.

For and army of so called "fearsome undead machines" they aren't fearless in most cases (yay for Weaken Resolve IG spam)
and don't cause much fear apart from lore...

All but the above seems either awesome or at least fully digestible.

New codex seems fine, except the Dolmen Gates.

Deadshot wrote:Yep, I have a nice, but risky and difficult Tactic for Anti Necron GKs.

Basically take a load of Chepa Henchman with Coteaz Spam, and a Libby with Warp Rift. Place some Crusaders, very survivable in a corner with one entrance near your board edge. Use Coteaz's Psychic Commune( IIRC he does have this) and his -1 to reserves to wait in reserve unitll the all get close. Then Bring in you libby. Becausde Necrons have Int 2 across ther board, and Warp Rift causes an Int test or removal from play, it can effectively take out the target, and prevent RAP.

Grey Knights 5th Edition Codex page 25, under the Warp Rift:
For every test that is failed, one model is removed as casualty with no saving throws allowed.

Necrons 5th Edition Codex page 29, under the Reanimation Protocols:
If a model with Reanimation Protocols rule is removed as casualty, there is chance that it will self-repair and return to play at the end of the current phase.

Necrons get their Reanimation Protocols to the Warp Rift, because:
-Reanimation Protocols works when a model is removed as casualty.
-Reanimation Protocols is not a save.

XCom wrote:They made the flayers look horrible. Why? Is this Matt Wards idea! I need answers!

Is Mat Ward a sculptor? No, he is not.

Herr Dexter wrote:One thing I dearly miss is the loss of true ability to screw with enemy's morale...

Pariahs with their LD lowering skill were fun, and not OP (unlike IG Psyker Battle Squads)...
Same goes for Flayed Ones who used to scare with their gruesome appearance...

All we have now is a flawed cryptec conclave with 2 skills, of which neither even lowers enemy LD.
Trying to roll to-wound with S8 against LD higher than 7 (most armies) really makes that staff crappy.
Not to mention Nightmare Shroud which also is very much unreliable agains mentioned LD armies...

Sad.

For and army of so called "fearsome undead machines" they aren't fearless in most cases (yay for Weaken Resolve IG spam)
and don't cause much fear apart from lore...

All but the above seems either awesome or at least fully digestible.

its still strength 8 ap 1 template so you dont need to roll to wound and even against leadership ten on a 6+ you kill a dude....that is not bad by any means, especially if you plan to make a template telport group With a couple lords with guantlets of fire and a few of the crypteks with the template attack which is also the harbinger that gets the veil of darkness. I think it could be nasty to drop all those templates on some dudes!

You mean roll to hit, right?

Herr Dexter wrote:One thing I dearly miss is the loss of true ability to screw with enemy's morale...

Pariahs with their LD lowering skill were fun, and not OP (unlike IG Psyker Battle Squads)...
Same goes for Flayed Ones who used to scare with their gruesome appearance...

All we have now is a flawed cryptec conclave with 2 skills, of which neither even lowers enemy LD.
Trying to roll to-wound with S8 against LD higher than 7 (most armies) really makes that staff crappy.
Not to mention Nightmare Shroud which also is very much unreliable agains mentioned LD armies...

Sad.

For and army of so called "fearsome undead machines" they aren't fearless in most cases (yay for Weaken Resolve IG spam)
and don't cause much fear apart from lore...

All but the above seems either awesome or at least fully digestible.

Well on the brightside about the Abyssal staff is with orks you're getting AP1 wounds often on a 3+

Tau looks like a lot of 2+ and 3+

Dark Eldar looks like mostly 4+

Eldar looks like 5+ :(

Other Crons 6+

Nids are all over the board but it looks like Termagaunt and Hormagaunt spam gets blow away on a 2+ Hell, you get to knock Carnifexes on their asses on a 3+

Daemons are 6+ :(

CSM looks like 50/50 on 5+ and 6+ :(

Grey Knights are also a equal toss up between 5+ and 6+ :(

IG 4+

Average Space Marine (minus named characters) 4+

so all in all an S8 against Leadership AP 1 flamer really isn't that bad, especially since you'd probably mostly use it against hordes which tend NOT to have an invulnerable save

Dont orks have mob rule and thus have leadership 10?

Lamo wrote:Dont orks have mob rule and thus have leadership 10?

Yes, so long as there's 10 or more orks in a mob. Unless the rule is against the unit's unmodified leadership, then it won't work on most ork units

Just Dave wrote:
But why rending? There's other, more suitable ways of changing them to be better in close combat. I agree, they need to be better in close combat, but I don't see the justification behind rending other than seeking a suitably powerful fix-it button to make a unit good in close combat.
Terror/visage, preferred enemy, higher initiative, better infiltration are all more suitable ways of fixing it, and then others too.

Because, IMO rending is not overpowered because it is not an automatic wound. You still need to roll a 6 to wound to get the effects. Anything else and it is a normal attack. So when you roll and you do get that 6 its a happy suprise bonus!

Luke_Prowler wrote:

Lamo wrote:Dont orks have mob rule and thus have leadership 10?

Yes, so long as there's 10 or more orks in a mob. Unless the rule is against the unit's unmodified leadership, then it won't work on most ork units

That's not how Mob Rule works. Orks can choose to use the number of orks in the unit instead of their leadership. Over 11 models they become fearless. There's no note on the Abyssal staff that I can see that mentions how fearless models are affected. The rule on in does, however, say "the target's leadership" not "the target unit's leadership", which may mean mob rule wouldn't come into play.

So I would presume it's against base leadership (though if this was the case it would have been nice for GW to state in the first place). This is pretty muddy water, however, and I expect will be the subject of a GW FAQ in due course !


Automatically Appended Next Post:

lowmanjason wrote:

Just Dave wrote:
But why rending? There's other, more suitable ways of changing them to be better in close combat. I agree, they need to be better in close combat, but I don't see the justification behind rending other than seeking a suitably powerful fix-it button to make a unit good in close combat.
Terror/visage, preferred enemy, higher initiative, better infiltration are all more suitable ways of fixing it, and then others too.

Because, IMO rending is not overpowered because it is not an automatic wound. You still need to roll a 6 to wound to get the effects. Anything else and it is a normal attack. So when you roll and you do get that 6 its a happy suprise bonus!

Flayed ones need Something to make them viable. As they're not fearless and have I2 with 4+ save, they can easily lose an assault and then almost certainly lose any I roll off if they fail morale, and they get wiped out.

Real game example: unit of 10 assault Fuegan (i7 a4) - lose 3 models, fail to wound (2+ save and FNP) despite 28 attacks, roll 8 for morale, Feugan rolls anything but a 1 and the flayed ones are wiped out.

Now Fuegan is special, but you'd have expected he might at least have come out of the fight with at least a scratch or be tied up in CC for a turn or so!

Mob rule replaces the Ld stat on their stat line with the number of models in the unit, so 10+ is Ld10 for the template attack.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Mob rule replaces the Ld stat on their stat line with the number of models in the unit, so 10+ is Ld10 for the template attack.

The rule on it does, however, say "the target's leadership" not "the target unit's leadership", which may mean mob rule wouldn't come into play

I still think this could be argued either way - any GW staff on or asked about this one?

GW staff have absolutely no idea on rules. None. I say this married to an ex GW staff member...

the only GW staff who know anything are the studio, and even THEY get it wrong sometimes!

Mob rule allows you to replace the value at any time you want, and then it IS the targets leadership

nosferatu1001 wrote:GW staff have absolutely no idea on rules. None. I say this married to an ex GW staff member...

the only GW staff who know anything are the studio, and even THEY get it wrong sometimes!

Mob rule allows you to replace the value at any time you want, and then it IS the targets leadership

Fair enough!

I understand your point on this, (and not even saying i disagree) but still think it's ambiguous. When I first saw this war gear description of the staff I thought that though - what about fearless troops - it doesn't say whether it specifically does affect them or not. It's written in a way like it's house rules between two players who know what the boundaries/spirit of the rule were supposed to be, not a general codex entry!

It isnt a leadership test, so fearless does nothing to help you. Same as Doom

alexmann wrote:

Luke_Prowler wrote:

Lamo wrote:Dont orks have mob rule and thus have leadership 10?

Yes, so long as there's 10 or more orks in a mob. Unless the rule is against the unit's unmodified leadership, then it won't work on most ork units

That's not how Mob Rule works. Orks can choose to use the number of orks in the unit instead of their leadership. Over 11 models they become fearless. There's no note on the Abyssal staff that I can see that mentions how fearless models are affected. The rule on in does, however, say "the target's leadership" not "the target unit's leadership", which may mean mob rule wouldn't come into play.

So I would presume it's against base leadership (though if this was the case it would have been nice for GW to state in the first place). This is pretty muddy water, however, and I expect will be the subject of a GW FAQ in due course !

Don't forget that black templar have that rule as well where as long as that one guy is on the field (The Captain or marshall?) then everyone uses his leadership instead of their base leadership, so this would fall under that same Orc issue with the abyssal staff.

*Edit*
Though it appears you all are deciding it would work to the benefit of the defender (though very little else in this game does).

I like it a lot. but the new vehicles don't interest me. they are too expensive point wise IMO