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.

So...is the Phylacterine Hive and Severed Dynastic Code just flat out useless?

Phylacterine Hive allows Crypteks to use Rites of Reanimation on a Destroyer Cult or Canoptek as if they were core.
Thing is, those units are already core.

Severed allows you to use Command Protocols at 9" as opposed to 6".
However, since the balance update Command Protocols are now battlefield wide.

Am I missing something, or did GW just done goofed?

Severed and Vassal Kingdom is useless, there's a rumour that Eternal Conquerors will become equally useless. I think Severed would have been more appropriate as the ObSec option thematically. Eternal Conquerors is thematically the exact same as Interplanetary Invaders, that's shoddy writing. Here's how I'd have done it: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/800276.page#11196393

Phylacterine Hive lets a Technomancer heal a Scarab Swarm base once per game. So practically useless.

Was giving Wraiths, Destroyers and Spyders CORE a mistake post release? Yeah, but Necrons ended up being pretty balanced both internally and externally so I wouldn't call it a massive blunder even if Phylacterine Hive became practically useless. Would it have been better if they gave Phylacterine Hive a new use? Not really, Cryptek Arcana and the other faction equivalents adds too much bloat to the game. They should be turned into Relics or added as normal options to individual Crypteks as appropriate. I don't know why the Harbinger wargear was unique in the first place in 5th edition.

The Annihilation Legion is also useless bloat because they decided to remove the Noble keyword post-release. Is it better design to not have the Codex be buried in needless restrictions like CORE and NOBLE? Yeah, but it should have been done early while writing the codex, not after the release.

What Armies of Renown is there a reason to make for the current codex? One for spamming Ghost Arks since having more than two is pretty pointless and I'm sure there are a hundred or so people with 4+ Ghost Arks from 5th when that was briefly meta. Another one for taking Triarch Stalkers and Triarch Praetorians in the same list because they barely synergize currently. These are issues that cannot be fixed with points and that are still problems. Instead the writers created one for Canoptek units and one for Destroyers because of the initial flaws of the NOBLE keyword.

We haven't even discussed the Canoptek one yet, I'm guessing it's as garbage as the other one. A brief glance indicates as much, it's as terribly written as well. Who the heck cares about re-rolling 1s on Reanimation when rolling 3+ dice and you need all of them to be 5s. How about fixing the mechanic for multi-wound models by making them roll one dice each instead? Jeez. You can still get access to Dynasty-specific Strats as well.

They just made it so that you can't combine Eternal Conquerors with a Circumstance of Awakening.
I guess that was the warning.

Yes, I agree that the changes to core was great, but they really should have changed hive to not be useless. Its just a sloppy change.

So I noticed something funny about the Doomstalker and DDA.
It says it can't use High Power if it didn't stay stationary in the previous movement phase.

Which means that if you take Expansionist, you can hide it behind cover, move it out if you get first turn and nuke something with the high power statline as it the move was at the start of the battleround, not during the movement phase.

Also, Protocol of the Conquering Tyrant and Undying Legions seem to be pretty strong picks for a constant Protocol.
The first gives a constant range boost to Aura range to LW, MWBD and Rites of Reanimation. So reanimators can heal at 9" range as opposed to 6". Which...probably isn't enough to make it good, but it might mean you can hide it better?

The second gives permanent rerolls to RP, which seems decent.

I guess which one to pick as a constant depends on who you're fighting and how many auras and crypteks you have running.

Alright everyone, I need some help with this one. With the new Arks of Omen detachment it seems that even though TSK is a Dynastic Agent, having the "Szarekhan" dynasty keyword means we can't actually use him in any lists that aren't "Szarekhan." Obviously this seems like he's gonna start picking up some dust on the shelf, but I'm wondering if anyone can see a reason why this isn't actually true.

If the consensus is that we are stuck building lists without TSK can we all spam post the GW FB page with this question for clarification so that they hopefully FAQ it ASAP? Seems to me that the intent of the detachment is completely at odds with the intent of that rule for characters of this nature but that's just me.

Thoughts?

edit: I realize this may be somewhat premature so forgive my gloom and doom

All units must be from the same faction, that faction is NECRONS. It's the same restriction all the other Detachments have had. Besides SK with Szarekhan vehicles wasn't terrible, do we know what pts changes Necrons are getting yet?

Silent King is an Agent. Agents ignore the different dynasty problem, and also dont benefit from them.
Silent King forces your dynasty-specific strats to be Szar ones. The Agent rule allows him to be in any dynasty without breaking dynasty rules, regardless of the Szar tag. Its always been that way because Necrons are army-wide to break protocols if you do that and part of the reason to bring TSK is protocol shenanigans (whether people use it or not he still has a rule meant for it)

Pretty sure thats the sole reason he has a dynasty tag is because afaik unless you did not include a lord/overlord in your army at ALL none of the other agents could be a warlord, which would throw a weird monkeywrench in which dynasty are your strats from (or relics for that matter as both mention "if your warlord is... then you can use..."

 vict0988 wrote:
All units must be from the same faction, that faction is NECRONS. It's the same restriction all the other Detachments have had. Besides SK with Szarekhan vehicles wasn't terrible, do we know what pts changes Necrons are getting yet?

Weren't they already in the balance update?
Or are they changing the points after they already changed the points?

Parsalian what you say is currently an "issue" but I expect it will get fixed soon. TOs may also decide they don't care, but worth asking about before you show up to the tournament though.

Page 80 of the codex says:

If your army is Battle-forged, you cannot include units from two different dynasties in the same Detachment.

Page 51 of the codex says two things:

Dynastic Codes
All NECRONS units with this ability, and all the models in them, gain a Dynastic Code so long as every unit in that Detachment is from the same dynasty.

Dynastic Agents and Star Gods
DYNASTIC AGENT and C'TAN SHARD units can be included in a NECRONS Detachment without preventing other units in that Detachment from gaining a Dynastic Code.
DYNASTIC AGENT and C'TAN SHARD units never gain a Dynastic Code.
You can include a maximum of one C'TAN SHARD model in each NECRONS Detachment in your army.

Nowhere does it say DYANSTIC AGENTs avoid the Battle-forged purity check, just the Dynastic Code purity check.

For comparison with other codexes:

TSons

If your army is Battle-forged, you cannot include units from two different Great Cults in the same Detachment (AHRIMAN does not belong to any one cult, and so can be included in any THOUSAND SONS Detachment).

Simple enough, Magnus also doesn't have a Cult so we can just say that is an example, but now we try:

Death Guard

If your army is Battle-forged, you cannot include units from two different plague companies in the same Detachment.

Typhus had the following ability on his datasheet:

This model can be included in any Death Guard Detachment without preventing other units in that Detachment from carrying a Plague Company Contagion. This model can only carry a Plague Company Contagion if it is in a Harbingers Detachment.

They FAQ'd it to say:

This model can be included in any Death Guard Detachment, even though you cannot normally include units from two different plague companies in the same Detachment, without preventing other units in that Detachment from carrying a Plague Company Contagion. This model can only carry a Plague Company Contagion if it is in a Harbingers Detachment.

I would say that works, but I could see someone trying to argue against it. However, Typhus is not the best unit in the codex, so no one really cares when DG players take him. Mortarion like Magnus and Ahriman has no Cult/Plague Company so should be ok.

There may be something for Supreme Commanders in the Arks of Omen mission pack that we haven't seen but I don't think so, or they may release a FAQ that says something like "you can take a Supreme Commander detachment but lose one HQ slot from your AoO detachment". Shadowsun and Ghaz would like that FAQ too I'm guessing.

On a differen topic, I would also suggest people not getting too worked up about Phylacterine Hive or Severed. Most of the Arkana and Ancient Dynasties are functionally useless, same as the Warlord Traits and Relics.

Good catch on the SK ban outside Szarekhan.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
All units must be from the same faction, that faction is NECRONS. It's the same restriction all the other Detachments have had. Besides SK with Szarekhan vehicles wasn't terrible, do we know what pts changes Necrons are getting yet?

Weren't they already in the balance update?
Or are they changing the points after they already changed the points?

Oh, Warriors dropped 2 points down to 11. Triarch Stalkers dropped 10 down to 110. Deathmarks dropped 2 down to 13. Tomb Blades dropped 2 down to 18. Triarch Praetorians dropped 2 down to 20. Doomsday Arks dropped 15 down to 145. Ghost Arks dropped 15 down to 115. Monoliths dropped 30/50 (free wargear) down to 270. Obelisks dropped 30 down to 270. Tesseract Vaults dropped 40 down to 360. Convergence of Dominion dropped 20 down to 80.

So let me get this straight, 2 days ago Tomb Blades, one of the most popular competitive units since the last MFM are getting as big a buff as Triarch Praetorians a unit which wasn't included in any competitive top 4 lists in 9th?

The loss of AoC also means Flayed Ones who dissappeared due to it may come back. 10 point FOs vs. 11 point Warriors is my current internal debate.

I think you still need to go Nihilakh (instead of Eternal Conquerors) but upon reading the second half of their dynastic code, their warlord trait and their relic I'm not surprised they weren't seen much. The strategem has some potential (assuming you don't go permanent Sudden Storm).

Are Flayed Ones 10 points now? Thats really cheap

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Are Flayed Ones 10 points now? Thats really cheap

They're cheap, but they are still a close combat unit with poor saves and one wound that take up an elite slot.
If you take them go big I guess and play havoc in your opponent's back line. 20 T4 models in the face is still a problem

What are necrons supposed to do against monster spam these days? Are destroyers still the answer?

The problem Flayed Ones have is that they are a cheap chaff close combat unit in an otherwise mostly ranged army -- being sold by GW as an elite style boxed set.

I'm convinced they were originally conceived this update round as an elite close combat unit and then got bumped down to chaff/standard and either no one told production or it was too late.
The result is an expensive elite troop style box for a chaff unit.

 Overread wrote:
The problem Flayed Ones have is that they are a cheap chaff close combat unit in an otherwise mostly ranged army -- being sold by GW as an elite style boxed set.

I'm convinced they were originally conceived this update round as an elite close combat unit and then got bumped down to chaff/standard and either no one told production or it was too late.
The result is an expensive elite troop style box for a chaff unit.

At least they aren't immortals. They're troop unit that you pay for as if they were elites, because they're a dual kit with deathmarks.

Necrons are already pretty good at clearing chaff anyway; it's monsters and vehicles (ironically) that they have trouble with.
That said, Flayed Ones do have the ability to appear anywhere on the map, and a large blob of models is a sure way to distract your opponent, especially if you manage to get a charge off.

Are heavy destroyers really the only good anti-vehicle / monster option necrons have?
DDA/Doomstalker is too unreliable and better suited against infantry because of blast.

All of the necron close combat options are better suited against infantry due to relatively low damage, number of attacks and little staying power.

I guess the doom scythe is a possibility? Kind of expensive though

considering the Doom weapons are still D6 damage for some reason, yeah the heavy destroyer is still the most reliable.
If they'd change Doom weapons to D3+3 (the Doomscythe is but nothing else weirdly enough) i think Arks or even the Stalkers would be fine at dealing with monsters/vehicles. But nothing hurts more than getting 3-4 wounds through with sheer luck and rolling all 1s and 2s lol.

Biggest thing that comes to mind we can do easier now is Nightscythe dumping Skorpekhs with the stratagem. Nothing changed to disallow the Nightscythe from using it if it comes from reserves, it just couldnt use it turn1. Previously thats a lot of CP to do it because of reserves, now its just 2 and 100% safe from being sniped T1.

Hey guys, been completely out of the 40K scene for close to 6+ months now. Can anyone give me a quick n' dirty run down of how Necrons stand across the meta and some notable changes I should be paying attention to.

 Mixzremixzd wrote:
Hey guys, been completely out of the 40K scene for close to 6+ months now. Can anyone give me a quick n' dirty run down of how Necrons stand across the meta and some notable changes I should be paying attention to.

Points, army construction and missions just changed. I don't think anybody has a clear view of where Necrons are at. Tomb Blades were strong and got stronger and easier to put into lists, so probably going to see tonnes of them (or at least 3x3). More info in the https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/01/05/metawatch-warhammer-40000-new-year-new-balance-dataslate-new-munitorum-field-manual/ article and the pdfs at the bottom.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Overread wrote:
The problem Flayed Ones have is that they are a cheap chaff close combat unit in an otherwise mostly ranged army -- being sold by GW as an elite style boxed set.

I'm convinced they were originally conceived this update round as an elite close combat unit and then got bumped down to chaff/standard and either no one told production or it was too late.
The result is an expensive elite troop style box for a chaff unit.

At least they aren't immortals. They're troop unit that you pay for as if they were elites, because they're a dual kit with deathmarks.

Didn't Deathmarks get cheaper than Immortals too?

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Overread wrote:
The problem Flayed Ones have is that they are a cheap chaff close combat unit in an otherwise mostly ranged army -- being sold by GW as an elite style boxed set.

I'm convinced they were originally conceived this update round as an elite close combat unit and then got bumped down to chaff/standard and either no one told production or it was too late.
The result is an expensive elite troop style box for a chaff unit.

At least they aren't immortals. They're troop unit that you pay for as if they were elites, because they're a dual kit with deathmarks.

Didn't Deathmarks get cheaper than Immortals too?

13 points for a Deathmark is just insane, Immortals are 15 points. Deathmarks were 19 a year at the start of 9th. It shows how bad they were and how much powercreep the game has gone through that 30 Deathmarks isn't an auto-include. Terrible $ value for the kit if you want Deathmarks. I don't think you'd be wrong to include Deathmarks in your list now. A unit of 10 Deathmarks is probably okay, their Stratagem is pretty cool.

Did anyone notice that you cannot use the SK in an AoO detachment, unless you play szarekhan ? There are no allies for necrons, so its only one AoO detachment.

If your army is Battle-forged, you cannot include units from two different dynasties in the same Detachment.

Flayed Ones may still not be in a great place in regular 40k, but they seem like they'll be real good in the new Boarding Action.

 vict0988 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Overread wrote:
The problem Flayed Ones have is that they are a cheap chaff close combat unit in an otherwise mostly ranged army -- being sold by GW as an elite style boxed set.

I'm convinced they were originally conceived this update round as an elite close combat unit and then got bumped down to chaff/standard and either no one told production or it was too late.
The result is an expensive elite troop style box for a chaff unit.

At least they aren't immortals. They're troop unit that you pay for as if they were elites, because they're a dual kit with deathmarks.

Didn't Deathmarks get cheaper than Immortals too?

13 points for a Deathmark is just insane, Immortals are 15 points. Deathmarks were 19 a year at the start of 9th. It shows how bad they were and how much powercreep the game has gone through that 30 Deathmarks isn't an auto-include. Terrible $ value for the kit if you want Deathmarks. I don't think you'd be wrong to include Deathmarks in your list now. A unit of 10 Deathmarks is probably okay, their Stratagem is pretty cool.

Immortals are 16 points, not 15. It is pretty ridiculous how "elite" options are cheaper points wise than the troops. That's not what Elite means.
Flayed Ones need to moved to Troops or be some sort of weird no-slot option, Deathmarks need a buff, because right now they are glorified scouts. Which unless I'm mistaken, are troops.
And yeah, the kit is way too expensive.
If you want immortals, you pay too much.
If you want to run deathmarks you need to run a lot of them to farm MW, and you still pay too much.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mixzremixzd wrote:
Hey guys, been completely out of the 40K scene for close to 6+ months now. Can anyone give me a quick n' dirty run down of how Necrons stand across the meta and some notable changes I should be paying attention to.

The codex is a mess and there's no point going by the hard version because large parts of it have been changed in the Balance sheets, often at the expense of other rules.

- Command Protocols have been rewritten. You no longer need a noble in range to use them, as they affect the entire table. You just need a character.
Which is great, because that range requirement was stupid and necessitated bunching everything up.
- It also renders Severed completely useless, because they didn't think to update that trait with the change. Oops.

-A lot of dataslates now have core. Which is great, because Necron synergies run on Cores and the best units weren't core before the change.
- It also means that nearly every dataslate in the book is inaccurate, and phylacterine hive is practically useless because the point of it was to allow you to ressurect destroyers. Who are now core now and as such eligible to be revived with Rites of Reanimation. Woops.

- RP is terrible for Multiwound models. You need all successes to bring back one. Which means that signature Necron rule is useless on the best necron units. Woops.

They're not terrible and you can get some mileage out of them. Necron shooting is still pretty deadly and technomancers are an amazing support unit, capable of keeping your most expensive and dangerous units alive.
However, the codex itself is absolute gak. If you don't already have it, don't bother getting it and wait for GW to release a new one, hopefully written by someone who doesn't have contempt for Necrons and at least try to make them well designed and functional, so as to not necessitate heavy changes to core faction rules and dataslates in future balance updates.

Gauss weapons should have a special rule considering them literally disassembling enemies atom by atom. What would that rule be except a pathetic little AP reduction?

epaemil wrote:
Gauss weapons should have a special rule considering them literally disassembling enemies atom by atom. What would that rule be except a pathetic little AP reduction?

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/forums/show/16.page -> New Topic

epaemil wrote:
Gauss weapons should have a special rule considering them literally disassembling enemies atom by atom. What would that rule be except a pathetic little AP reduction?

In 3rd ed they used to have a chance to instantly kill vehicles.

Any tips on how to use the transcendent ctan? Really want to field one, am up against orks, ultras, and guard.

epaemil wrote:
Any tips on how to use the transcendent ctan? Really want to field one, am up against orks, ultras, and guard.

Anti-matter Meteor + Sky of Falling Stars + random personality. Park him in range to use Sky of Falling Stars without getting shot all game and try to pick things off in melee if you can overwhelm your opponent or avoid getting shot. Goonhammer should have a Getting Started Necrons article that explores how best to use the units in the codex.

How breakable is the Void Dragon mini? It looks super fragile, even by GW's standards. I kind of want 1 for my army, but not if it's gonna break often.

Its a lot more durable than it looks, but its still thin plastic so if dropped it will most likely break somewhere.
But at least when handling mine i dont feel like i need to be uber careful with it, like simply handling it alone would break it or something.