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.
2018/04/17 19:40:04
Subject: Necrons NEW 8th ed. Codex tactica - New FAQ discussion p.72
Anpu-adom wrote: I'm really surprised that we didn't get a strategem that allows you to make reanimation protocol rolls for a unit that was destroyed during the last battle round. Maybe limited to Warriors and Immortals, and maybe only in your deployment zone... but still.
I would have just liked to see a negative modifier for a unit that been wiped out, I.E. they make their RP at -1, so a 6+ normally or 5+ if near a cryptek. Any models that don't make their RP this way are permanently destroyed. Makes sense to me at least.
So i finally got my hands on a third tesseract vault. On sale no less. Im wondering which dynasty to make my super heavy detatchment. Im aware i get nothing from codes but i still get the strats. Im thinking either nihilakh or sautekh. Nihilakh lets me bump it up to a 3++ for a turn and sautekh gets me the +1 to hit strat so the vaults tesla can pop on 5s.Thoughts?
2018/04/17 19:54:06
Subject: Necrons NEW 8th ed. Codex tactica - New FAQ discussion p.72
My Project Blog: Necrons, Orks, Sisters, Blood Angels, and X-Wing "
"One morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How it got into my pajamas, I'll never know." Groucho Marx
~A grammatically correct sentence can have multiple, valid interpretations.
Arguing over the facts is the lowest form of debate.
2018/04/17 19:58:23
Subject: Re:Necrons NEW 8th ed. Codex tactica - New FAQ discussion p.72
My Project Blog: Necrons, Orks, Sisters, Blood Angels, and X-Wing "
"One morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How it got into my pajamas, I'll never know." Groucho Marx
~A grammatically correct sentence can have multiple, valid interpretations.
Arguing over the facts is the lowest form of debate.
2018/04/17 20:04:20
Subject: Necrons NEW 8th ed. Codex tactica - New FAQ discussion p.72
Anpu-adom wrote: I'm really surprised that we didn't get a strategem that allows you to make reanimation protocol rolls for a unit that was destroyed during the last battle round. Maybe limited to Warriors and Immortals, and maybe only in your deployment zone... but still.
I would have just liked to see a negative modifier for a unit that been wiped out, I.E. they make their RP at -1, so a 6+ normally or 5+ if near a cryptek. Any models that don't make their RP this way are permanently destroyed. Makes sense to me at least.
I think you’re the only one, then...because what you’re effectively asking for are immortal units. That sort of rule would be horrifically overpowered, not to mention cause all sorts of havoc with melee, obsec, and player fun. Hell, imagine trying to balance *that* mess.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/17 20:04:47
2018/04/17 20:08:09
Subject: Necrons NEW 8th ed. Codex tactica - New FAQ discussion p.72
My Project Blog: Necrons, Orks, Sisters, Blood Angels, and X-Wing "
"One morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How it got into my pajamas, I'll never know." Groucho Marx
~A grammatically correct sentence can have multiple, valid interpretations.
Arguing over the facts is the lowest form of debate.
2018/04/17 20:11:03
Subject: Re:Necrons NEW 8th ed. Codex tactica - New FAQ discussion p.72
Inevitableq wrote: So i finally got my hands on a third tesseract vault. On sale no less. Im wondering which dynasty to make my super heavy detatchment. Im aware i get nothing from codes but i still get the strats. Im thinking either nihilakh or sautekh. Nihilakh lets me bump it up to a 3++ for a turn and sautekh gets me the +1 to hit strat so the vaults tesla can pop on 5s.Thoughts?
Untrue, the Superheavy Detachment (SHD, 3-5 Lords of War) is different from a Superheavy Auxiliary Detachment (SHAD, 1 Lord of War). Only the latter is excluded from Codes, a SHD gets Codes normally.
With that in mind, a SHD with 3 Vaults should likely take Mephrit since you'll be relying on your Spheres for damage and will be close enough for the AP-1 to be consistent.
2018/04/17 20:12:44
Subject: Necrons NEW 8th ed. Codex tactica - New FAQ discussion p.72
Anpu-adom wrote: I'm really surprised that we didn't get a strategem that allows you to make reanimation protocol rolls for a unit that was destroyed during the last battle round. Maybe limited to Warriors and Immortals, and maybe only in your deployment zone... but still.
I would have just liked to see a negative modifier for a unit that been wiped out, I.E. they make their RP at -1, so a 6+ normally or 5+ if near a cryptek. Any models that don't make their RP this way are permanently destroyed. Makes sense to me at least.
I think that would be a great game mechanic! The models that fail and are permanently destroyed would balance it so that the units aren't "immortal".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/17 20:14:17
2018/04/17 20:13:47
Subject: Re:Necrons NEW 8th ed. Codex tactica - New FAQ discussion p.72
Inevitableq wrote: So i finally got my hands on a third tesseract vault. On sale no less. Im wondering which dynasty to make my super heavy detatchment. Im aware i get nothing from codes but i still get the strats. Im thinking either nihilakh or sautekh. Nihilakh lets me bump it up to a 3++ for a turn and sautekh gets me the +1 to hit strat so the vaults tesla can pop on 5s.Thoughts?
Untrue, the Superheavy Detachment (SHD, 3-5 Lords of War) is different from a Superheavy Auxiliary Detachment (SHAD, 1 Lord of War). Only the latter is excluded from Codes, a SHD gets Codes normally.
With that in mind, a SHD with 3 Vaults should likely take Mephrit since you'll be relying on your Spheres for damage and will be close enough for the AP-1 to be consistent.
You arent wrong about the SHD not excluding codes. The part you are missing is that the tesseract vault has the C'tan shard keyword. Which makes it not benefit from codes.
2018/04/17 20:16:50
Subject: Re:Necrons NEW 8th ed. Codex tactica - New FAQ discussion p.72
Novokh Outrider Destoyer Lord (Blood Scythe, Crimson Haze) C'tan shard of the Nightbringer Transcedant C'tan Transcedant C'tan 6x Scarabs 6x Scarabs
Fyi that second list is not a legal outrider. Its only got two fast attacks. I would definetly condider making one of the T'ctan into the deciever. The quicker you get those t'ctan and night bringer into combat the better.
Oh sorry it was missing a single Destroyer and, yeah, I think I'll add the deceiver for that. Might change the Warlord trait to re-roll charges so he can help then.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/17 20:17:01
Every ability needs to have a counter. that's what tactics are for. And if he needs to fire almost his entire army to whipe a unit, then a) your other units can punish him for it and kill his important bits and b) if he has to fire this entire army to deal with 1 unit that unit must be very bady positioned to be in range and sight of everyone.
You can always use the tactic of hiding 1 or 2 models where none can see them, so if one enemy unit kills all but 1 or 2. the rest of his army can't see the other models and leave you to res in peace. It's really not that hard.
Any ability which has no counterplay is just OP and no fun to play against/to easy to play with. where's the challange?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/17 20:19:12
- Power corrupts, Absolute power.... is a whole lot of fun...-
2018/04/17 20:19:24
Subject: Re:Necrons NEW 8th ed. Codex tactica - New FAQ discussion p.72
Inevitableq wrote: So i finally got my hands on a third tesseract vault. On sale no less. Im wondering which dynasty to make my super heavy detatchment. Im aware i get nothing from codes but i still get the strats. Im thinking either nihilakh or sautekh. Nihilakh lets me bump it up to a 3++ for a turn and sautekh gets me the +1 to hit strat so the vaults tesla can pop on 5s.Thoughts?
Untrue, the Superheavy Detachment (SHD, 3-5 Lords of War) is different from a Superheavy Auxiliary Detachment (SHAD, 1 Lord of War). Only the latter is excluded from Codes, a SHD gets Codes normally.
With that in mind, a SHD with 3 Vaults should likely take Mephrit since you'll be relying on your Spheres for damage and will be close enough for the AP-1 to be consistent.
You arent wrong about the SHD not excluding codes. The part you are missing is that the tesseract vault has the C'tan shard keyword. Which makes it not benefit from codes.
Ah, interesting edge case. Sautekh is likely the best then.
2018/04/18 05:00:28
Subject: Re:Necrons NEW 8th ed. Codex tactica - New FAQ discussion p.72
Ah, interesting edge case. Sautekh is likely the best then.
Why Sautekh? Sure you can get +1 for tesla, but in a 3 vault list then you will already have shot with a vault to get the bonus, and you can't fit imotekh in the list to make this easier. The best to me would seem to be nihalkh, popping the 3++ strat just seems too god for preventing your opponent from shooting one that is right in their face turn 1. I run a sautekh detachment with hyperlogical strategist with my super heavy detachment. If you run a cryptek warlord to heal them, then you are just healing wounds that will result in barely any difference in result, and placing your warlord up the front will just result in it being charged or shot by close by enemies
Giving +1 to hit does not affect the abyssal staff in any way, it automatically hits, the roll you make for the leadership and mortal wounds are both generic rolls, not hit rolls, not to mention that the weapon already has an actual to hit roll, it just passes automatically
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/04/18 05:57:51
2018/04/18 07:14:19
Subject: Necrons NEW 8th ed. Codex tactica - New FAQ discussion p.72
The intent is to use the Abyssal Staff as a trigger for methodical destruction, as it's a fairly reliable wound generator that isn't a unit you'd want to benefit from the buff itself.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Skullhammer wrote: I keep seeing deepstriking destroyers but cant find an ability in thd dex to allow this, how are people doing this?
Nephkreh Dynasty Stratagem
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/18 07:19:12
2018/04/18 07:38:36
Subject: Necrons NEW 8th ed. Codex tactica - New FAQ discussion p.72
Anpu-adom wrote: I'm really surprised that we didn't get a strategem that allows you to make reanimation protocol rolls for a unit that was destroyed during the last battle round. Maybe limited to Warriors and Immortals, and maybe only in your deployment zone... but still.
I would have just liked to see a negative modifier for a unit that been wiped out, I.E. they make their RP at -1, so a 6+ normally or 5+ if near a cryptek. Any models that don't make their RP this way are permanently destroyed. Makes sense to me at least.
I think you’re the only one, then...because what you’re effectively asking for are immortal units. That sort of rule would be horrifically overpowered, not to mention cause all sorts of havoc with melee, obsec, and player fun. Hell, imagine trying to balance *that* mess.
Right, it's much more fun to have a special rule that defines the army being completely negated by the other player while having the points costs baked in, is just loads of fun. Our characters don't even get to benefit from it anymore. We should also reintroduce phase-out while we are at it. My suggestion is not perfect I'll admit, but RP as it is right now sucks. I'd rather have the FNP version of 5th and 6th edition over what we have now any day of the week. Something needed to be done, maybe a -2 modifier to my idea, this would easily prevent the immortal units, while still allowing units a chance to get back up if near a cryptek, as well as leaving room for new stratagems to work around it. Just about anything is better than the current solution, as you can never rely on our army defining special rule.
So,
With the increase in available CP, what are people's thoughts on Nephrekh reserving half of its forces to come onto the table turn 2?
Pros: keep your guys safe from long range fire.
Cons: if they DO manage to kill the stuff you have on the table turn one, that's a quick game over.
The other question would be, what starts on the table and what comes in later?
I'm almost tempted to see if I can fit a Deceiver Super-Heavy Bomb™ in with a minimum Nephrekh Battalion, dropping the three troop units on to objectives instead of having them march there.
2018/04/18 09:47:26
Subject: Re:Necrons NEW 8th ed. Codex tactica - New FAQ discussion p.72
Regarding our rp I think the best solution would be a startagem to roll rp for a wiped out unit (placing as close as possible to last location) Either as a normal roll or at a penalty at the start of your movement phase. Gets round the current problem of denying us our rp at all without immortal units (due to extra cp cost). This is something i expected to be in the codex and i'm surprised such a simple solution wasn't.
2018/04/18 09:58:26
Subject: Necrons NEW 8th ed. Codex tactica - New FAQ discussion p.72
skoffs wrote:So,
With the increase in available CP, what are people's thoughts on Nephrekh reserving half of its forces to come onto the table turn 2?
Pros: keep your guys safe from long range fire.
Cons: if they DO manage to kill the stuff you have on the table turn one, that's a quick game over.
The other question would be, what starts on the table and what comes in later?
I'm almost tempted to see if I can fit a Deceiver Super-Heavy Bomb™ in with a minimum Nephrekh Battalion, dropping the three troop units on to objectives instead of having them march there.
I don't know if Nephrekh is really worth the battalion. How many of our units really benefit from it? I am just not sold on them as anything more than a destroyer auxillary detachment.
zacharia wrote:Regarding our rp I think the best solution would be a startagem to roll rp for a wiped out unit (placing as close as possible to last location) Either as a normal roll or at a penalty at the start of your movement phase. Gets round the current problem of denying us our rp at all without immortal units (due to extra cp cost). This is something i expected to be in the codex and i'm surprised such a simple solution wasn't.
Guys,
What is the point of talking about "it should be like this"-isms now?
The codex is out. The FAQ is out. There's nothing we can do about it. Going on comment after comment about how you feel they should done things is pointless, and more importantly, completely irrelevant to the tactics thread.
Now, if you want to discuss things they could do to make future updates better, there is a place for that on Dakka-
skoffs wrote:So,
With the increase in available CP, what are people's thoughts on Nephrekh reserving half of its forces to come onto the table turn 2?
Pros: keep your guys safe from long range fire.
Cons: if they DO manage to kill the stuff you have on the table turn one, that's a quick game over.
The other question would be, what starts on the table and what comes in later?
I'm almost tempted to see if I can fit a Deceiver Super-Heavy Bomb™ in with a minimum Nephrekh Battalion, dropping the three troop units on to objectives instead of having them march there.
I don't know if Nephrekh is really worth the battalion. How many of our units really benefit from it? I am just not sold on them as anything more than a destroyer auxillary detachment.
zacharia wrote:Regarding our rp I think the best solution would be a startagem to roll rp for a wiped out unit (placing as close as possible to last location) Either as a normal roll or at a penalty at the start of your movement phase. Gets round the current problem of denying us our rp at all without immortal units (due to extra cp cost). This is something i expected to be in the codex and i'm surprised such a simple solution wasn't.
This would seem like a fair compromise.
Wraiths could advance 18", not bad, and still charge for an extra CP. Scarabs would also like the extra 6". Most C'Tans too, since they can still fire their powers at end of move phase.
Immortals could move 11" and still shoot twice, albeit with -1 to hit.
Same with tesla tomb blades. Characters could get places to provide buffs.
You get the solar staff, which is not too shabby.
The vault could get in position for his CTan powers and still shoot decently.
2018/04/18 10:45:33
Subject: Necrons NEW 8th ed. Codex tactica - New FAQ discussion p.72
With the FaQ finally out and the changes it has brought I had to change my tournament list a good bit to adjust with everything that has changed e.g. 1st turn alpha strike nearly extinct, gun-line going to be more popular, board control before T2 etc.
I think a Nephrekh Outrider Detachment should be in everyones lists.
My build consists of;
HQ - Szeras
Fast - 9x Scarabs
9x Scarabs
6x Destroyers
Scarabs for board control on T1 to make opponents Dsing on t2 less viable and to make sure I have room to Ds my Destroyers where they need to be. You can also swap out Szeras for a Cloaktek if your not running a Battalion from a different Dynasty.
To make sure you get board control you could bring the Deceiver to GI the Scarabs before they get to move+advance 16" up to your opponents deployment zone so that they can only DS in their deployment zone in their T2 (people gonna hate us).
The FaQ has defiantly made the Deceiver a way more important model now.
Anpu-adom wrote: I'm really surprised that we didn't get a strategem that allows you to make reanimation protocol rolls for a unit that was destroyed during the last battle round. Maybe limited to Warriors and Immortals, and maybe only in your deployment zone... but still.
I would have just liked to see a negative modifier for a unit that been wiped out, I.E. they make their RP at -1, so a 6+ normally or 5+ if near a cryptek. Any models that don't make their RP this way are permanently destroyed. Makes sense to me at least.
I think you’re the only one, then...because what you’re effectively asking for are immortal units. That sort of rule would be horrifically overpowered, not to mention cause all sorts of havoc with melee, obsec, and player fun. Hell, imagine trying to balance *that* mess.
Not the only one. Could have been a 2-3CP stratagem. Heck they've given one such a thing to canoptek (yeah RP to 3++ wraith).
2018/04/18 12:28:03
Subject: Necrons NEW 8th ed. Codex tactica - New FAQ discussion p.72
Wraiths could advance 18", not bad, and still charge for an extra CP. Scarabs would also like the extra 6". Most C'Tans too, since they can still fire their powers at end of move phase.
Immortals could move 11" and still shoot twice, albeit with -1 to hit.
Same with tesla tomb blades. Characters could get places to provide buffs.
You get the solar staff, which is not too shabby.
The vault could get in position for his CTan powers and still shoot decently.
Its not extra 6". Dont think about this bonus that way. With normal advance you get medium 3,5". So you get extra 2,5" and fly.
Most units prefere sautekh dynasty with better shoot after 3,5" advance.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/18 12:28:24
2018/04/18 12:34:31
Subject: Necrons NEW 8th ed. Codex tactica - New FAQ discussion p.72
skoffs wrote: So,
With the increase in available CP, what are people's thoughts on Nephrekh reserving half of its forces to come onto the table turn 2?
Pros: keep your guys safe from long range fire.
Cons: if they DO manage to kill the stuff you have on the table turn one, that's a quick game over.
The other question would be, what starts on the table and what comes in later?
I'm almost tempted to see if I can fit a Deceiver Super-Heavy Bomb™ in with a minimum Nephrekh Battalion, dropping the three troop units on to objectives instead of having them march there.
I almost see no point of taking a 1CP force when you can just add 3X5 immortals and a cryptek for 5CP. That's +340pts for +4CP and its not like those points will do nothing on the table! You at least need a bataillon, i think you waste enormous potential if you do not. I played with 15CP yesterday and spent them all by turn 3!!! All our stratagems are good.
If anything the DDA 72'' range has just got better since you can't deepstrike on turn 1. I rate it now in the best pieces of our army and its hard to build a list without one or 2.
Replaced a DDA for a stalker. Its official, stalker sucks.
Monolith deserves a 2nd look with close combat elites, dimensional corridor and Novokh.
How can you NOT use a deceiver now?
People talk gunlines are good now since you won't see T1 deepstrike, but so is SPEED. How about armies that can charge you on T1 (nids)? I think a few scarab screens are mandatory. Also warrior + Anarkzyr and+1Str stratagem can help you out survive a charge. Or even Novokh. I wouldn't bring a Novokh army to a tournament, but against some specific opponents, i'm thinking about it.
2018/04/18 13:42:53
Subject: Necrons NEW 8th ed. Codex tactica - New FAQ discussion p.72
Wraiths could advance 18", not bad, and still charge for an extra CP. Scarabs would also like the extra 6". Most C'Tans too, since they can still fire their powers at end of move phase.
Immortals could move 11" and still shoot twice, albeit with -1 to hit.
Same with tesla tomb blades. Characters could get places to provide buffs.
You get the solar staff, which is not too shabby.
The vault could get in position for his CTan powers and still shoot decently.
Its not extra 6". Dont think about this bonus that way. With normal advance you get medium 3,5". So you get extra 2,5" and fly.
Most units prefere sautekh dynasty with better shoot after 3,5" advance.
Feel this dynasty should only be for scarabs, wraiths, destroyers (for deep strike)
I know its not an extra 6" advance, but the fact its a garanteed 6" makes a huge difference for moving wraiths up (anyone rolling 1's will know that feeling)
(ctan dont benefit from the 6" advance)
anything else outside of them 3 units, go into sautekh, for the cp bonus mainly, but also allowing everything to advance and still shoot is huge.
2018/04/18 13:57:28
Subject: Necrons NEW 8th ed. Codex tactica - New FAQ discussion p.72
Da W wrote: I almost see no point of taking a 1CP force when you can just add 3X5 immortals and a cryptek for 5CP. That's +340pts for +4CP and its not like those points will do nothing on the table! You at least need a bataillon, i think you waste enormous potential if you do not.
Uh, yeah, that's why I said,
skoffs wrote: see if I can fit a Deceiver Super-Heavy Bomb™ in with a minimum Nephrekh Battalion, dropping the three troop units on to objectives instead of having them march there.
However, after doing the math, it looks like the cheapest Battalion load out (2x Sword Lords, 3x 5 Immortals) that includes the Deceiver + Vaults is 2120 points, so the Super-Heavy Bomb build isn't going to work (you could technically still fit a Super-Heavy Detachment and a bare minimum requirements Battalion together in one 2000 point list... but to do so you would need to take 2 Obelisks with the Vault, so that's definitely not worth it.)
If you're going for a Battalion to try for maximum CP, looks like you're restricted to taking the Vault as an Auxiliary only. (which is fine).
If you want 3x Vaults + The Deceiver you're going to have to opt for an Outrider.
2018/04/18 14:04:04
Subject: Necrons NEW 8th ed. Codex tactica - New FAQ discussion p.72
skoffs wrote: So,
With the increase in available CP, what are people's thoughts on Nephrekh reserving half of its forces to come onto the table turn 2?
Pros: keep your guys safe from long range fire.
Cons: if they DO manage to kill the stuff you have on the table turn one, that's a quick game over.
The other question would be, what starts on the table and what comes in later?
I'm almost tempted to see if I can fit a Deceiver Super-Heavy Bomb™ in with a minimum Nephrekh Battalion, dropping the three troop units on to objectives instead of having them march there.
With how quickly things die in 8th I wouldn't risk having only half of my units on the board against a powerful shooting army unless there were ample cover and LOS blocking terrain pieces. Another con to consider, which could also be a pro depending on how you look at it, would be that your opponent won't have much difficulty with target priority, the most valuable units on the table will be what are targeted/eliminated. The pro side is you can effectively choose what they are going to target and shoot at assuming they get first turn or that you don't deepstrike units in your own deployment zone if you end up going first.
Sounds like it might be fun for a casual game.....I'm not sure how it would work competitively. I think what might end up happening is a battle of deployment.......the person who deepstrikes first (after the first turn) is potentially at a disadvantage against a counter deepstrike. It definitely adds another strategic consideration to the game. Do you strike first and hope to inflict heavy casualties and possibly suffer significant casualties from the counter deepstrike or do you hold out and try to counter their deepstrike with one of your own? I think a big determining factor will be what units you leave on the board.
4000+
6000+ Order. Unity. Obedience.
Thousand Sons 4000+
