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.

Hox wrote:Anyone as curious as I am why the deathmarks are said to be also CC assassins yet the statline and models dont reflect it at all?

I think they are meant to counter deep striking assailants. They wont beat them in CC but they will counter CC units via rapid fire spam snipping.

lazarian wrote:

Hox wrote:Anyone as curious as I am why the deathmarks are said to be also CC assassins yet the statline and models dont reflect it at all?

I think they are meant to counter deep striking assailants. They wont beat them in CC but they will counter CC units via rapid fire spam snipping.

Fluff story has them teleport into a guard base and start slicing people up. Specifically says they used blades.

From everything I am reading they look like they will be a fun army to play. As far as being competitive I am sure we will see the "uber internet lists" soon enough but my opinion is that they will be a strong army.

Hox wrote:

lazarian wrote:

Hox wrote:Anyone as curious as I am why the deathmarks are said to be also CC assassins yet the statline and models dont reflect it at all?

I think they are meant to counter deep striking assailants. They wont beat them in CC but they will counter CC units via rapid fire spam snipping.

Fluff story has them teleport into a guard base and start slicing people up. Specifically says they used blades.

hrmm well they will be in prime locations to counter people, especially if they can drag along a cc specialist from the court with them maybe.

Hox wrote:

lazarian wrote:

Hox wrote:Anyone as curious as I am why the deathmarks are said to be also CC assassins yet the statline and models dont reflect it at all?

I think they are meant to counter deep striking assailants. They wont beat them in CC but they will counter CC units via rapid fire spam snipping.

Fluff story has them teleport into a guard base and start slicing people up. Specifically says they used blades.

They're essentially slow, reviving Tactical Marines in assault. More than enough to kill guardsmen.

Hmmm, I still wonder what the snipers will be worth. Unfortunately, they come in the same box as Immortals and thus make Immortals a lot more expensive than they should be despite Deathmarks being a lot weaker...then again, when I already have those spare parts, I wonder if I should assemble them in order to use Deathmarks one day or just try to sell them / trade them with others for Immortal parts (unlikely though).

The problem I currently see is that they are rather expensive, have a small range and Deepstriking might just get them close enough to be shot at in return...and 19 pts / model is really expensive...

Most of my enemies are MEQ and while the 2+ to wound is ok, their weapons only have AP5 and against a 3+ sv, they aren't really worth it imo.

Anyone else considered fielding 120 warriors and a Lord in a 1,750 game?

or is it just me....

Now I know why I spent that money on army builder. Trying to type out a list with an actual book is impossible. It takes at least one hand to hold the damn things open.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sigvatr wrote:Hmmm, I still wonder what the snipers will be worth. Unfortunately, they come in the same box as Immortals and thus make Immortals a lot more expensive than they should be despite Deathmarks being a lot weaker...then again, when I already have those spare parts, I wonder if I should assemble them in order to use Deathmarks one day or just try to sell them / trade them with others for Immortal parts (unlikely though).

The problem I currently see is that they are rather expensive, have a small range and Deepstriking might just get them close enough to be shot at in return...and 19 pts / model is really expensive...

Most of my enemies are MEQ and while the 2+ to wound is ok, their weapons only have AP5 and against a 3+ sv, they aren't really worth it imo.

I don't really see myself using them at all. I do however, see myself using the heads that come in the box. They are really cool.

Yeah, but I'd have much preferred getting 10 Immortals over getting 5 Immortals and a lot of bitz to play around with.

I plan on making lithe snipers using warrior bodies/ legs with deathmark heads/ guns

tetrisphreak wrote:I plan on making lithe snipers using warrior bodies/ legs with deathmark heads/ guns

i'll second this idea; very cheap, and really easy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Scoffer wrote:
Anyone else considered fielding 120 warriors and a Lord in a 1,750 game?

or is it just me....

That's the old codex win strategy, it could work, but you'll be lacking some much needed higher strength weapons and durable units. the warriors 4+/5+++ isn't going to be enough.

tetrisphreak wrote:I plan on making lithe snipers using warrior bodies/ legs with deathmark heads/ guns

Well yes, that's what I'd do too, but when I am not going to field them, I could just try to get rid of them in order to buy more (important) stuff. I'll get my codex tomorrow and will start buying more troops in December, until then, maybe people found a use for them or the FAQ suddenly makes them useful...

Sunoccard wrote:

Scoffer wrote:
Anyone else considered fielding 120 warriors and a Lord in a 1,750 game?

or is it just me....

That's the old codex win strategy, it could work, but you'll be lacking some much needed higher strength weapons and durable units. the warriors 4+/5+++ isn't going to be enough.

Not really. Old codex would have got you maybe 80-90 warriors that were more durable than the new codex.

I just think it would look very intimidating to have that many warriors lined up in a silent wall of death while the lord sits behind them on his command barge looking impressive.....

Sigvatr wrote:

tetrisphreak wrote:I plan on making lithe snipers using warrior bodies/ legs with deathmark heads/ guns

Well yes, that's what I'd do too, but when I am not going to field them, I could just try to get rid of them in order to buy more (important) stuff. I'll get my codex tomorrow and will start buying more troops in December, until then, maybe people found a use for them or the FAQ suddenly makes them useful...

That's a great idea! Combine that with some homemade Cryptek from similar parts, and you have a great use for those leftover bits.

I was looking forward to taking some C'tan Shards, but my god are they overcosted.

Hox wrote:Anyone as curious as I am why the deathmarks are said to be also CC assassins yet the statline and models dont reflect it at all?

The "Hunters from Hyperspace" rule also applies in close combat - they can wound one particular unit on a 2+. Not that it really matters with 1A and rapid fire weapons, but they do have it.

Just to point out - move through cover doesnt give you rerolls on terrain, thats Skilled Rider. So no, your gaunts / trygons / etc would NOT get rerolls on dangerous terrain checks.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:

Hox wrote:Anyone as curious as I am why the deathmarks are said to be also CC assassins yet the statline and models dont reflect it at all?

The "Hunters from Hyperspace" rule also applies in close combat - they can wound one particular unit on a 2+. Not that it really matters with 1A and rapid fire weapons, but they do have it.

Yeah thats exactly what I mean. They have that rule, its in the fluff but get one attack and no good CC weapon.

Hox wrote:

Yeah thats exactly what I mean. They have that rule, its in the fluff but get one attack and no good CC weapon.

They don't need anything else to roll guardsman, Tau, guardians, or gaunts. Tactical marines have been doing it for decades.

zacharia wrote:

Just Dave wrote:I think the Necrons have always been like that really; powerful close range firepower and highly durable. That's them at their core anyways IMHO.

The problem is their firepower was reduced when 5th edition came round (gauss v vehicles) and it hasnt been brought back up, instead durability has been reduced

Ostrakon wrote:

Just Dave wrote:I think the Necrons have always been like that really; powerful close range firepower and highly durable. That's them at their core anyways IMHO.

That's pretty much the exact opposite of 3E 'crons. You had to go out of your way for absurdly overcosted models to even stand a chance in melee, as the rest of your force would pretty much roll over due to sweeping advances. 18 points per boltgun was too much, because WBB didn't count for crap if you got swept. The other shooty things were nice (Destroyers and Immortals) but were ultimately vulnerable and overcosted. Anything CC-based bowled right over us and our guns costed more that MEQ equivalents.

Sorry, I'll clarify, when I said 'at their core' I meant this was the heart of the intention/game play for Necrons IMHO. They don't really have any ranged weapons (2 over 24" in the previous 'dex) and obviously they were not going to excel in close combat.
IMHO the INTENTIONS (and the core of their gameplay) from the designers was that they would be a close ranged, naturally tough, shooty army. WBB, MeQ statlines, Gauss weaponry all indicates this IMHO.
However, this didn't exactly 'age' well with different editions as glancing became unable to destroy a tank (therefore damaging Gauss compensating for their lack of anti-tank) and that they were priced for their individual rules, rather than context within the entire army, really hindered them as a whole. The need for troops was just another nail in the coffin IMHO.

Again, this is just my opinion and I wasn't trying to state that they genuinely are a "powerful close range firepower and highly durable" army, but this was how they were intended to be at least...

DarknessEternal wrote:

Hox wrote:

Yeah thats exactly what I mean. They have that rule, its in the fluff but get one attack and no good CC weapon.

They don't need anything else to roll guardsman, Tau, guardians, or gaunts. Tactical marines have been doing it for decades.

Yeah but they are the ultra assassins who live in another dimension waiting for the exact second to appear out of nowhere and destroy people. They are so sinister and good at killing that its considered wrong to use them against honorable opponents because you should honor them with a fair fight. So what does this mean? Mega assassin appears out of nowhere and goes DERP and punches you in the face. The epitome of badassedness.

On another note, I think the loss of Warscythes old rules may be over-played.
Str6/7 against all enemies, still ignoring armour saves and with a higher strength to go with that additional D6 armour penetration means that they are now better against a greater number of enemies IMHO.
Obviously ignoring invulnerables was a big ability, but it was limited in its application and was never really that likely to stay, whereas the new warscythe could actually be better against a greater number of enemies and even better at popping tanks.

Just Dave wrote:On another note, I think the loss of Warscythes old rules may be over-played.
Str6/7 against all enemies, still ignoring armour saves and with a higher strength to go with that additional D6 armour penetration means that they are now better against a greater number of enemies IMHO.
Obviously ignoring invulnerables was a big ability, but it was limited in its application and was never really that likely to stay, whereas the new warscythe could actually be better against a greater number of enemies and even better at popping tanks.

Old Warscyth had the 2D6 Armor Penetration as well but I tend to agree with your point. The higher strength will have a more universal benefit then the old ignoring invulnerable saves.

More importantly they can be wielded by more models that will actually be given an opportunity to use them. The old Pariahs with no invulnerable save over there own tended to die before having a chance to swing at I2. Lords can hide in units now (and be given Invuln's) and of course Overlords can have 2+/3++ which should keep it around against most opponents long enough to swing. Lychguard is the one unit I would most likely bring shield instead on. 5T and 3+ Armor won't be sufficient against most strong CC opponents, however Lychguard in conjunction with Wraiths has potential.

I think it is sad that we did not see a gravity displacement pack upgrade for lords and crypteks in royal courts. If their had been they could have attached to praetorians, making the unit even better.

I would say making praetorians usable.

As it stands, I will not be using them.

Elite hand to hand unit with 1 attack is sad.

New Codex and Overlord model in hand!!!

ShadarLogoth wrote:

Just Dave wrote:On another note, I think the loss of Warscythes old rules may be over-played.
Str6/7 against all enemies, still ignoring armour saves and with a higher strength to go with that additional D6 armour penetration means that they are now better against a greater number of enemies IMHO.
Obviously ignoring invulnerables was a big ability, but it was limited in its application and was never really that likely to stay, whereas the new warscythe could actually be better against a greater number of enemies and even better at popping tanks.

Old Warscyth had the 2D6 Armor Penetration as well but I tend to agree with your point. The higher strength will have a more universal benefit then the old ignoring invulnerable saves.

True, but they didn't have the +2 strength (or base strength 5) to go with it, no?

Just Dave wrote:

ShadarLogoth wrote:

Just Dave wrote:On another note, I think the loss of Warscythes old rules may be over-played.
Str6/7 against all enemies, still ignoring armour saves and with a higher strength to go with that additional D6 armour penetration means that they are now better against a greater number of enemies IMHO.
Obviously ignoring invulnerables was a big ability, but it was limited in its application and was never really that likely to stay, whereas the new warscythe could actually be better against a greater number of enemies and even better at popping tanks.

Old Warscyth had the 2D6 Armor Penetration as well but I tend to agree with your point. The higher strength will have a more universal benefit then the old ignoring invulnerable saves.

True, but they didn't have the +2 strength (or base strength 5) to go with it, no?

It didn't have +2 strength but the units that came with warscythes were strength 5 pariahs and strength 5 lords so they did have strength 5 to go with.

G. Whitenbeard wrote:New Codex and Overlord model in hand!!!

'Gratz! I'm about an hour from my codex, ghost ark, Immortals, Lychguard, Imotech and Trazyn!

darkslife wrote:I would say making praetorians usable.

As it stands, I will not be using them.

Elite hand to hand unit with 1 attack is sad.

They have 2 attacks on the GW profile, I dont have the book till tomorrow so if they were going to be 1 A then my apologies. I will also admit though praetorians seem less useful being multipurpose than other more streamlined units although the entropic strike rules as presented in the book do mean they will mulch vehicles more effectively than most assault forces.