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.

Imhotek probably isn't worth it overall. At the same time, he's far from awful.
- He has 2 shooting attacks (and can fire both) and one is arguably the best of all our HQs.
- He still has MWBD.
- He's more resilient than a regular Overlord with an extra wound, a 2+ save and Undying.
- Unlike in prior editions, he's actually decent in melee - with a weapon that's only a little off being a Warscythe.
- Lord of the Storm is pretty decent at putting wounds on something tough.

I don't think he does enough to really justify his cost, but you won't be crippling yourself by including him.

So continuing the talk about the storm lord a thought comes to mind, between him and the C'tans, that is our only access to mortal wounds. With that im mind would you not say that the stormlord has more synergy with the army overall compared to the other c'tans therefore might be a more attractive option?

 Grimgold wrote:
Imotekh is kind of meh [...] his stats are a let down for being the head honcho of a faction. Most chapter masters would leave him in ruins, have better buffs, and to add insult to injury are cheaper.

Again, this is something that GW really should be hearing about in hopes that they actually do something about it for the codex.
Anyone found that contact method to get them to hear out suggestions/complaints?

(Personally, I was hoping the "greatest strategist in the galaxy" might come with something that might reflect that in game, eg. an extra command point to use on his stratagems)

With our codex I wouldn't be surprised if he gets his own strategem. And comparing him to another chapter master isn't really fair if you don't point out that he is much more durable than most of them and therefor you will have a higher chance of using his abilities for longer.
A list using Imotek, a unit of Prats and FO combined with some nice fire support will make a pretty decent list. Especially if you know you'll be going up against a cc heavy list where you can be defensive and you need anti elite and anti chaff. Imotek buffs both. You only need some guns in the back to deal with tanks/flyers and devestatoresque units.

I think it's likely their team checks forums like dakka and warseer, as well as more mainstream sites like reddit. They probably even lurk in /TG/, if only to keep 4chans piracy to a dull roar. The sheer amount of content though means that something really has to have legs to end up catching their attention.

To this end they probably check army lists, skim the threads that have suggestions or issues in the title, and avoid salt piles like the conscript or flyer threads. Anything aimed at new players with good summaries makes for low hanging fruit for them. They also probably rely on aggregators of content like the FLG guys.

I think the best thing we could do for now is to add a current issues section to the first page summary because if they are checking any part of this thread that would be it. To keep it from being a general gripe area limit it to say the three or four most pressing issues currently.

My issues would be:

1.) Tomb world deploy is awful, the risk vs. reward ratio is so unbalanced that the D-Bomb is the only time you'll see it used. Losing all of the units in tomb world deploy is too harsh of a penalty, and the lack of a movement phase for units that just come on the board makes it worse than any other transport.

2.) Vehicles are tougher for us than most armies, this is because we don't have mixed weapon in our units, and our heavy weapon squads are small, fragile, and expensive. We used to get around this with gauss, but since gauss weapons are just an extra AP now we have this hole in our armies abilities that can only be filled by forgeworld, and lots of stores won't allow forge world.

3.) inconsistent faction keywords, many of our abilities are faction keyword dependent, but those keywords have some pretty glaring omissions. Some of our ICs don't have a dynasty keyword at all, praetorians don't have a dynasty keyword (and before you say it's fluffy flayed ones have a dynasty keyword and they are certainly not part of a dynasty). I know sometime in the future dynasty keywords will do something for us, but until that point, maybe just give everyone a dynasty keyword.

4.) lackluster special characters, our special characters are generally worse than their generic counterparts. They can cost almost twice as much as generic HQs and the benefits are pretty minimal. Special characters are supposed to reinforce the fluff of a faction, while adding new options, and that's just not what our special characters do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nagerash wrote:
With our codex I wouldn't be surprised if he gets his own strategem. And comparing him to another chapter master isn't really fair if you don't point out that he is much more durable than most of them and therefor you will have a higher chance of using his abilities for longer.
A list using Imotek, a unit of Prats and FO combined with some nice fire support will make a pretty decent list. Especially if you know you'll be going up against a cc heavy list where you can be defensive and you need anti elite and anti chaff. Imotek buffs both. You only need some guns in the back to deal with tanks/flyers and devestatoresque units.

Dante, Azrael, Calgar, and Logan Grimnar all have better generic buffs (reroll misses to hit) in addition to two character specific buffs apiece. Tougher is iffy since an apothecary can bring them back, but once imotek is out of wounds he is done.

Imhotek is absolutely beast

I tested this guy a lot and he has great potential. Is very good in CC and very good in shooting - our only HQ good in both phases. And his storm is wonderfull ability how criple anoying havocs, devastators and similar weak glas cannon. This ability has also great strategic potencial when you need kill units on objectives or finish some importent wounded unit - for complete maestrom card point or similar situation. IMHO Imhotek is wort his cost and is my favorite HQ in 8th edition.

A "top 10 units we feel need work" section for the OP might not be a bad idea (at least until we start a new thread once the codex comes out).
Even if GW doesn't see it, at least new players will have a better idea of why people don't recommend certain units.

Sorry if it's been asked before but when does the new codex for crons come out?

We don't know yet.

So i have been thinking in the competitive scene, we know that scarabs are great as a multi-purpose option but i have been thinking more and more on the wraiths as a great objective holder unit. granted alone cant do squat but supported with our vehicles i think these guys have some potential. I am thinking more in a spam sense, maybe 3-4 units of 3-4 models. that 3+ inv save is nothing to sneeze at. Plus combo this with the deceiver and set them up already on objectives since his grand illusion states that you need only be away from the enemy 12" or more

I really like destroyers and would appreciate a price decrease. :/

Biasn wrote:
I really like destroyers and would appreciate a price decrease. :/

Do you mean price as in points/PL or price as in the cost of the actual models?

Blueguy203 wrote:
So i have been thinking in the competitive scene, we know that scarabs are great as a multi-purpose option but i have been thinking more and more on the wraiths as a great objective holder unit. granted alone cant do squat but supported with our vehicles i think these guys have some potential. I am thinking more in a spam sense, maybe 3-4 units of 3-4 models. that 3+ inv save is nothing to sneeze at. Plus combo this with the deceiver and set them up already on objectives since his grand illusion states that you need only be away from the enemy 12"

They are too expensive for not really being able to do what they did in the last edition, which is hold units down and stay alive aa a thorn in their side all game. With Smite that every other army has they die way too easy foe the points. Scarabs are way more cost effective and saddly just about as killy to boot.

Blueguy203 wrote:
So i have been thinking in the competitive scene, we know that scarabs are great as a multi-purpose option but i have been thinking more and more on the wraiths as a great objective holder unit. granted alone cant do squat but supported with our vehicles i think these guys have some potential. I am thinking more in a spam sense, maybe 3-4 units of 3-4 models. that 3+ inv save is nothing to sneeze at. Plus combo this with the deceiver and set them up already on objectives since his grand illusion states that you need only be away from the enemy 12" or more

I've never been a fan of using melee units to hold objectives as it basically takes them out of the game.

I'd much rather use 5-man squads of Tesla Immortals or the like.

Why not both? I mean they are to pricey for their purpose and die way to fast.

 skoffs wrote:
A "top 10 units we feel need work" section for the OP might not be a bad idea (at least until we start a new thread once the codex comes out).
Even if GW doesn't see it, at least new players will have a better idea of why people don't recommend certain units.

We already have unit ratings so that might be a bit redundant, so I was thinking a section for non-unit specific issues. Those issues might not be obvious, and getting feedback from actual Necron players as opposed to random theory crafters would probably carry more weight.

 vipoid wrote:

Blueguy203 wrote:
So i have been thinking in the competitive scene, we know that scarabs are great as a multi-purpose option but i have been thinking more and more on the wraiths as a great objective holder unit. granted alone cant do squat but supported with our vehicles i think these guys have some potential. I am thinking more in a spam sense, maybe 3-4 units of 3-4 models. that 3+ inv save is nothing to sneeze at. Plus combo this with the deceiver and set them up already on objectives since his grand illusion states that you need only be away from the enemy 12" or more

I've never been a fan of using melee units to hold objectives as it basically takes them out of the game.

I'd much rather use 5-man squads of Tesla Immortals or the like.

Granted Tesla is cheaper by 19pts but what you would be getting with 1 unit of 3 wraiths is 9 wounds and a 3+ inv save. I think if we were to spam mutli units of wraiths along with scarbs. i think there is potential there. They could fill in as our core troop choice and give us mobility, which will allow us to then fill the rest of the points with vehicles & heavy weapons. Ill write up a list to present my idea abit better.

Blueguy203 wrote:
Granted Tesla is cheaper by 19pts but what you would be getting with 1 unit of 3 wraiths is 9 wounds and a 3+ inv save.

They can't revive though.

More importantly, the Immortals can actually contribute to the battle by shooting at units up to 24" from the objective they're holding, whilst all the Wraiths can do is sit and twiddle their mechanical thumbs.

Blueguy203 wrote:
I think if we were to spam mutli units of wraiths along with scarbs. i think there is potential there. They could fill in as our core troop choice and give us mobility, which will allow us to then fill the rest of the points with vehicles & heavy weapons. Ill write up a list to present my idea abit better.

Oh, I don't deny that such a list has potential - but I would want to be far more aggressive with the wraiths, rather than just sitting them on objectives.

I think though we can agree that Necrons are not going to be an aggressive army, we just do not have enough options out there that will allow us this playstyle. The Deciever bomb is our only choice as an aggressive army and even then its 50/50 as far as actually being successful with it. So i think we need to have the mindset that we will be going 2nd and we will need to play more toward winning the objective rather than wiping our opponents off the table. Plus, you cant tell me that 5 immortals are going withstand shooting long enough to actually use the RP. its just not possible to rely on such things against a competent player. Atleast with Wraiths you have an inv save that does not need support. if its a matter of having troops who can participate in other parts of the battle round we really do not have alot of options that will give us that luxery so we have to really rely on the fact that some options can only do one thing and excel at just that.

The Catacomb Command Barge needs updated in the unit grades list. It's still written as not having a character keyword.

FAQ rating changes

Lord: Now that units lost to morale stay dead, "The Lords Will" is a more important buff for warrior blobs. His main roles are baby sitting blobs and filling an HQ requirement on the cheap, so he is still situational but the round about buff he got from the morale changes might make him a solid B.

Praetorians: Like the lord the morale changes are a roundabout buff for them since they ignore morale, and the change to void blades is a good buff to their CC ability. With three s5/ap -3 CC attacks and a pistol shot each round they are point for point our best CC unit, only rivaled by flayed ones. I might give them a split rating B- for RoC, and a B+ for void blade and particle caster.

Monolith: The buff to their ballistic skill is nice, it makes them better at alpha striking, but that's only part of what a monolith is used for. Also the jump from C+ (conditionally useful) to B- (generally useful) is a big one that I'm not sure the monolith changes warrant it. Stays at a C+.

Night scythes: Having played with night scythes, I feel they are over rated at a B. Tesla can put out a lot of shots but with no AP it tends to inflict few wounds. Every time I use it to drop lychguard off my opponents just move away or move screens into place. It also deploys things one at a time, so an IC takes up an entire turn to deploy, so you just don't use it with ICs. I feel they are conditionally useful, and would probably demote them to a C or a C+.

*edit* also what Commissar ArkhamMade said.

Hay, am I reading it incorrectly but DDA get d6 shots against target units >10 no matter if its low or high power?

 Klowny wrote:
Hay, am I reading it incorrectly but DDA get d6 shots against target units >10 no matter if its low or high power?

Nope only on the high power profile.

 Commissar Arkham wrote:
The Catacomb Command Barge needs updated in the unit grades list. It's still written as not having a character keyword.

Not sure what you're talking about, this has been its entry since the previous FAQ-

Other things updated, though.

Also while we are on the subject of grade changes, I think perhaps we should downgrade our troops to B and B+. They aren't auto-include as there are plenty of viable lists without them, and while they tend to be efficient points wise, they are slow and rarely game winning.

A ratings should be reserved for units that are a near auto-include like Doomsday arks, overlords, and crypteks.

 vipoid wrote:
Imhotek probably isn't worth it overall. At the same time, he's far from awful.
- He has 2 shooting attacks (and can fire both) and one is arguably the best of all our HQs.
- He still has MWBD.
- He's more resilient than a regular Overlord with an extra wound, a 2+ save and Undying.
- Unlike in prior editions, he's actually decent in melee - with a weapon that's only a little off being a Warscythe.
- Lord of the Storm is pretty decent at putting wounds on something tough.

I don't think he does enough to really justify his cost, but you won't be crippling yourself by including him.

One thing to not forget is what his Dynasty might do. Granted this will be in the future but it's still worth remembering.

 Grimgold wrote:
Also while we are on the subject of grade changes, I think perhaps we should downgrade our troops to B and B+. They aren't auto-include as there are plenty of viable lists without them, and while they tend to be efficient points wise, they are slow and rarely game winning.

A ratings should be reserved for units that are a near auto-include like Doomsday arks, overlords, and crypteks.

Are crypteks autoinclude though, if troops go down to B? None of his beneficiaries seem to be autoincludes if so, so why keep him around?

I'll hold off on changing any more until you guys hash out what should be what.

torblind wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:
Also while we are on the subject of grade changes, I think perhaps we should downgrade our troops to B and B+. They aren't auto-include as there are plenty of viable lists without them, and while they tend to be efficient points wise, they are slow and rarely game winning.

A ratings should be reserved for units that are a near auto-include like Doomsday arks, overlords, and crypteks.

Are crypteks autoinclude though, if troops go down to B? None of his beneficiaries seem to be autoincludes if so, so why keep him around?

That's a fair point, limited mobility means he is only really good at babysitting blobs which puts him in a similar position as the Lord. The ratings for Warriors, Immortals, and Crypteks all came from fairly early in the meta, when we thought silver tide was the way to go, as the meta has progressed though it seems like silver tide was based on some assumptions on enemy comp that just haven't panned out. Silver tide works great against heavy infantry, but that's not really what people are playing, instead we are seeing lots of vehicles, lots of flyers and lots of assault focused armies. Silver tide is not particularly good against any of those comps. Anrakyr might make silver tide workable against assault armies, but that's probably a different discussion.

Our viable lists seem to be Silver Tide, Quantum shielding spam, Destroyer/Tomb blade spam, and Deceiver/obyron bomb. Did I miss any? Out of those only silver tide involves more than an incidental amount of our troops, and most only need/use a single HQ. Sop we may want to rethink our HQ ratings as well.

The workhorse you'll see in all of those lists is scarabs, being a screen to stop assaults is too valuable a service and scarabs are too good at their job to think about using anything else. So they are a perfect example of a Grade A unit, and a good example of why warriors and immortals don't make the cut.

 Grimgold wrote:
Our viable lists seem to be Silver Tide, Quantum shielding spam, Destroyer/Tomb blade spam, and Deceiver/obyron bomb. Did I miss any? Out of those only silver tide involves more than an incidental amount of our troops, and most only need/use a single HQ. Sop we may want to rethink our HQ ratings as well.

Does Silver Tide include Immortals?