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.

 skoffs wrote:
"Look at the wording for the Tesseract Vault. Now look at the wording for the Transcedent C'tan. Note how they differ. Final verdict: RAW dictates the C'tan can take two of the same power."

Well look at that. I was wrong, and you guys were right.

Sorry!

 Sasori wrote:
Hah, that's what I said earlier, but I got called out for "Bringing up seniority"

How dare you flaunt your experience in front of these new kids!
Such flagrant experience-ism!
/s

But seriously, though. When people who have been playing for longer than you have tell you "this is the way everyone plays this thing", it usually pays to take their word for it... unless they're trolling you.

Roger that, Grand Puba!

 jasper76 wrote:
Yeah, I don't know. I've become confused to the point of not caring. Like I said, I'll play my Transecendent C'Tan with 2 unique powers, (a) because ity makes more tactical sense, (b) is more fun, (c) is less cheesy, and (d) its how I read the rules.

Without an FAQ clarifying, honestly I think I'd read your Tau book the same way.

But I don't want to argue about it, for real. You can have the last word. This thread was originally intended to be about Arankyr the Traveler and his Mind in the Machine rule, nothing to do with Transcendent CTan.

Did you really just go there? Every Tau list that includes a crisis suit would be illegal in your opinion because the VAST majority of tau players equip them with two of the same weapon. It really doesn't make sense to do it the other way.

do they need anything else besides big fat packs of warriors? 10 glances will stop every SHV...

This thread has been most enlightening.

Not getting involved in the cheese of the thread, nor about the rules and how people read / interpret the same sentences differently, but just to throw this out there;

I know plenty of 40+ year olds who act like children

 astro_nomicon wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Yeah, I don't know. I've become confused to the point of not caring. Like I said, I'll play my Transecendent C'Tan with 2 unique powers, (a) because ity makes more tactical sense, (b) is more fun, (c) is less cheesy, and (d) its how I read the rules.

Without an FAQ clarifying, honestly I think I'd read your Tau book the same way.

But I don't want to argue about it, for real. You can have the last word. This thread was originally intended to be about Arankyr the Traveler and his Mind in the Machine rule, nothing to do with Transcendent CTan.

Did you really just go there? Every Tau list that includes a crisis suit would be illegal in your opinion because the VAST majority of tau players equip them with two of the same weapon. It really doesn't make sense to do it the other way.

Hey man, I admitted I was wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 viewfinder wrote:
do they need anything else besides big fat packs of warriors? 10 glances will stop every SHV...

It wont stop a Stompa. 12 HP. It took me a couple Heavy Support shots, 20 Warriors with 4 Vlotaic staffs mixed in, to bring it down.

He also killed my Trancendent C'Tan, so there were 2 Super Heavy explosions in 1 game, which is a first for me.

 viewfinder wrote:
do they need anything else besides big fat packs of warriors? 10 glances will stop every SHV...

Any Necron player worth his dice knows you do NOT simply rely on Gauss for anti-AV.
As OP listed, Warriors/Gauss Immortals supplemented by Storm-teks riding in Nightscythes are the premier tank busters in our codex.

 viewfinder wrote:
do they need anything else besides big fat packs of warriors? 10 glances will stop every SHV...

Yes, because glances are too unreliable. A blob of 20 warriors (260 points) would inflict on average ~4.5 hull points in rapid fire range, and that's assuming that the SHVs do not have any defensive buffs. The lowest amount of HP a SHV could have is 6, meaning that you need about 520 points of warriors to score enough HPs to wreck it. A knight (6 HP) is less than 400 points.

Gauss is not a replacement for dedicated Anti-Tank; it just helps.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skoffs wrote:

 viewfinder wrote:
do they need anything else besides big fat packs of warriors? 10 glances will stop every SHV...

Any Necron player worth his dice knows you do NOT simply rely on Gauss for anti-AV.
As OP listed, Warriors/Gauss Immortals supplemented by Storm-teks riding in Nightscythes are the premier tank busters in our codex.

I personally prefer heavy destroyers and lances.
Not quite as reliable as the storm tek, but they do have plenty of range, and unlike Gauss can still get pens.
I don't like my crons getting too close; a throwback from 4th ed, really.

I want to like H.Destroyers, but... they're just so expensive, I can't bring myself to include them in any lists.
(granted, in Apocalypse it'll be different because you don't have to worry about point limitations so much, but if you're at that point, you might as well just play with the Tesseract Ark and Sentry Pylons, let alone regular Pylons, so you can wipe out super heavies from extreme distance).

Oh yeah, they're over priced for a T5 1W model with a 3+ save. Their bulk should warrant an extra wound, imo.

But they are still pretty cool. I might be biased though; destroyers were my favorite units back when I started playing necrons.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Oh yeah, they're over priced for a T5 1W model with a 3+ save. Their bulk should warrant an extra wound, imo.

Perhaps, either that or an increased armor save.
Really, the only thing needed to balance them would be a price drop. Both for them and regular Destroyers.
45 points for a the HEAVY Destroyers would be just about right, with 30 for regulars.

Actually, just 30 points for Destroyers, but make them Build-A-Bears! (add on points for different weapon loadouts, eg. +15 pts for Heavy Gauss Cannon, +15 for Transdimensional Beamer, +10 for Particle Beamer, +0 for Tesla Cannon, +5 for... Hyperphase Sword? :O ).
I still say they missed a golden opportunity to make the fluff match the model (fluff says they're customization junkies, always trying upgrade themselves for optimum killing efficiency. For the model itself, this translates to... a choice between one gun or a bigger version of that gun... really, Ward? That's the way you decided to make that work? Despite having just introduced a bunch of new weapons in the codex? ... disappointing).
Then giving them the monicker "Heavy" can be a 5 to 10 point upgrade which gives them an increased armor save and Relentless (to make the most of those "heavy" weapons they might now be packing)

My meta has changed significantly enough, that it warranted an Overlord, and royal court. Mainly for the Stormteks.

This really isn't to bad, when you take someone Like Kutlakh, who can beast out on a lot of things.