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.

 Esmer wrote:
It is my understanding that Necrons undertook the transference process as a one-time-only thing at a specific point in history and got transferred into their current bodies directly from their biological forms. That's how I remember it from a couple of editions ago - haven't followed the Necron lore too closely since then.

If there is lore stating that they kept modifying themselves up to and including switching bodies for newer fancier models, I stand corrected.

Going right back to the first codex destroyers didn't go directly into destroyer bodies. They altered their own bodies to become more efficiant killers after biotransference made them all screwy.

New destroyers look sweet - their rules are pretty bad though. 4+ save? Maybe it's an invune...

 Xenomancers wrote:
New destroyers look sweet - their rules are pretty bad though. 4+ save? Maybe it's an invune...

Yeah, they are pretty fragile, but they shred just about anything in melee, and look to be about 30-35 points.

 Xenomancers wrote:
New destroyers look sweet - their rules are pretty bad though. 4+ save? Maybe it's an invune...

No, but they are -1 to be Hit in Close Combat and the Chronomancer can give them both Re-Roll Charge and a 5++. Synergistic game play for the win.

Esmer wrote:It is my understanding that Necrons undertook the transference process as a one-time-only thing at a specific point in history and got transferred into their current bodies directly from their biological forms. That's how I remember it from a couple of editions ago - haven't followed the Necron lore too closely since then.

If there is lore stating that they kept modifying themselves up to and including switching bodies for newer fancier models, I stand corrected.

Biotransferance was a one time deal. However:

1) After it was done Necrons could modify their machine bodies. Some remain in the original body, their mind clinging to the last vestiges of their once mortal form; whilst others (eg the destroyer virus) are happy to hack parts off themselves and replace them with machine modifications. To improve themselves, to better their bodies.

2) The Canoptek were built after the great wars and were made to be self sufficient machines that would protect the tombs whilst the Necrons slept. They were likely used before that period as well; but suffice to say that there's no limit for their modification and creation; they are pure machines with no vestiges of the living (although in Severed it is suggested that two Tomb Stalkers did have minds of once living animals put into them).

Lord Damocles wrote:

 Esmer wrote:
I honestly find the ongoing model inflation for Necrons a bit silly from the lore perspective.

Did they really have a bajillion vastly different and slightly different robot bodies crafted before their collective transformation? Were there catalogues where you could pick the exact individualized unit type you wanted to become?

To be fair, there are trillions upon trillions of Necrons, and more variation (destroyers, flayed ones) arose post-biotransference.


It's more annoying to me that there is so much overlap in the units/rules. Four types of Cryptek (plus two characters); wraiths, skorpekh, (acanthrites), and now ophydians too...

Cryptek were always designed to have lots of versions of themselves, I think we lost a lot when GW lost Chapterhouse and removed them, but we are steadily getting them back. Though now instead of one model with a few alternate parts or one model with different themes; they are very flavourful and unique designs on the battlefield.

So on the topic of the Ophydian Destroyers I may be confusing myself with the wording for the weapons but is this intended:

Allocate 2 attacks from its profile to the threshers = 3 total thresher attacks,
Allocate 1 attack from its profile to the claws = 3 total claw attacks for a grand total of 6 attacks?

Edit: Also do you even need to allocate an attack to either of this weapons to get the bonus? As the wording says "each time the bearer fights..." So I could use all 3 attacks with the threshers and still get the bonus 2 from the claws as far as I can tell?

"Hyperphase Reapblade: Each time a model in this unit makes an attack with a hyperphase reapblade, an unmodified hit roll of 6 scores 1 additional hit."

The datasheet says that one destroyer is equipped with 2 reapblades, so does that mean the following is also intended:

Allocate 2 attacks from its profile to the reapblade = 2 total attacks but can proc 2 extra hits on double 6s, one for each reapblade?

 Mixzremixzd wrote:


Edit: Also do you even need to allocate an attack to either of this weapons to get the bonus? As the wording says "each time the bearer fights..." So I could use all 3 attacks with the threshers and still get the bonus 2 from the claws as far as I can tell?

Just like models with Chainswords and another CCW, you don't need to allocate anything to a weapon for the bonus attacks. Every time you fight, you get those attacks using that weapon. Yes, you can use the Thresher with every statline attack and still get the 2 Claw attacks.

As for your 2nd question, you get 1 extra hit per 6, having 2 Reap-Blades literally has no effect because the model lacks a "If this model is armed with 2 of this weapon" rule like having 2 Lightning Claws(as an example).

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Mixzremixzd wrote:


Edit: Also do you even need to allocate an attack to either of this weapons to get the bonus? As the wording says "each time the bearer fights..." So I could use all 3 attacks with the threshers and still get the bonus 2 from the claws as far as I can tell?

Just like models with Chainswords and another CCW, you don't need to allocate anything to a weapon for the bonus attacks. Every time you fight, you get those attacks using that weapon. Yes, you can use the Thresher with every statline attack and still get the 2 Claw attacks.

As for your 2nd question, you get 1 extra hit per 6, having 2 Reap-Blades literally has no effect because the model lacks a "If this model is armed with 2 of this weapon" rule like having 2 Lightning Claws(as an example).

Thanks a lot for clarifying this for me!

 Xenomancers wrote:
New destroyers look sweet - their rules are pretty bad though. 4+ save? Maybe it's an invune...

Don't think so. I think they're 4+ because they have Reanimation Protocols -and- Living Metal. (And -1 to be hit in CC)

Though we still don't know if/how RP & LM have changed so... I guess maybe?



----
I'm still surprised at the flayed ones. Especially with all the new CC units that have high AP and a fair amount of D2.
Unless the point disparity is extreme, I'm still not sure what role they play.

Voss wrote:
I'm still surprised at the flayed ones. Especially with all the new CC units that have high AP and a fair amount of D2.
Unless the point disparity is extreme, I'm still not sure what role they play.

Melee Chaff? Screening maybe?

If they're still keeping their deepstrike ability and 20 squad size for a reasonable price then the instant board control gained from dropping 20 and charging a unit on/near an objective could potentially turn the tides in your favour, or at least up the pressure on your opponent and force a mistake.

If the Chronomancer and Pyschomancer follow the similar design cue from the Plasmancer, we should also expect a "Harbinger of X" ability as well on them.

The new kits look amazing. Wow, I can't believe how much stuff the necrons are gettings.

 Sasori wrote:
If the Chronomancer and Pyschomancer follow the similar design cue from the Plasmancer, we should also expect a "Harbinger of X" ability as well on them.

Which would be the Harbingers of Eternity and Despair respectively. That leaves the Harbinger of the Storm (i.e., the Ethermancer) and the Harbinger of Transmogrification without 9th edition rules and models.

Looks like we’re getting our flavour back!

Ok, who's thinking the five Flayed Ones in the image-roller are the only sculpts, and it'll be five per box?

 Insectum7 wrote:
Ok, who's thinking the five Flayed Ones in the image-roller are the only sculpts, and it'll be five per box?

You also have a price allready , take a Gander to the banshees and slap that Tag on

You don’t need to allocate attack to claw to get its additional attack

 Insectum7 wrote:
Ok, who's thinking the five Flayed Ones in the image-roller are the only sculpts, and it'll be five per box?

I'm leaning that way a little.
Hesitating a bit simply because 5 flayed ones would be wiped off the board in a moment.

Even if they're 10, they'll be really monopose. Several have flesh draped over torso, head and/or an arm, and you can't really do that with the typical 'legs & torso, add heads and arms individually' assembly instructions..

Anything is better than the old finecast flayed ones.

I think they will be boxes of 10 and cheap. We have a ton of midrange melee options.

Claas wrote:
Anything is better than the old finecast flayed ones.

I agree, I just don't want 20 of them to be $140 at $35 per box.

 Egyptian Space Zombie wrote:
I think they will be boxes of 10 and cheap. We have a ton of midrange melee options.

Ahaha. Cheap. That's not word you can use with gw.

It will be around 45e as bare minimum and most likely 5. And with gw ramping up on new sku's could be even more

Am I the only one thinking the *old* metal flayed ones looked the best?


Not sure how I feel about *another* wraith model. I'll kinda miss the ones we have now


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Can we also talk about how the Silent King only has a 3+ save? Lol.

Those ophydian destroyers will die to a soft breeze, unless they get an inv. When you deepstrike them they have to make that 9" charge, and you cant give them a charge reroll and 5+ inv with the chronomancer, because that happens in the command phase. So they must start on the table, which means they get deleted before they charge anything. Another useless melee unit.

The silent king will probably have an inv, and some bodyguards.

 Eonfuzz wrote:
Am I the only one thinking the *old* metal flayed ones looked the best?


Not sure how I feel about *another* wraith model. I'll kinda miss the ones we have now


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Can we also talk about how the Silent King only has a 3+ save? Lol.

No, the old metal Flayed Ones were great.
The new ones aren't as good, but they are better than the crap we got in 5th ed.

Well, the new models look great but the rules are a bit disappointing.
In view of the competitiveness of Necrons, everything will depend on the RP. But we cannot hope for another Decurion.
Nevertheless, Marines will dominate the 9th ed like never before.

Im guessing Flayers Skorpekh and Orphydian will be Troops Elites and Fast Attack, respectivly

Flayers in boxes of 10 and being troops would be amazing - but I'm afraid the cynics almost certainly have the right of this. I am hyped, but at the same time the prospect of it being £35 for 5 hurts.

Also being negative on new models is bad, but its hard to think of how Skorpekhs/Ophydians don't completely cross over in terms of purpose. If they were variants of a single kit that would again perhaps not be surprising but it doesn't appear that's the case.

Anyone else get really old/crappy bases in their Indomitus box?

Mine has 40mm bases from 1999 with sprue marks all over the rim. Is this normal or should I ask for replacements?

Tyel wrote:
Flayers in boxes of 10 and being troops would be amazing - but I'm afraid the cynics almost certainly have the right of this. I am hyped, but at the same time the prospect of it being £35 for 5 hurts.

Also being negative on new models is bad, but its hard to think of how Skorpekhs/Ophydians don't completely cross over in terms of purpose. If they were variants of a single kit that would again perhaps not be surprising but doesn't appear that's the case.

The similar roles is not necessarily a terrible thing because it could help alleviate rules of 3 if both are priced nicely.