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.

I disagree with the DL doing more for the TP. You need to keep in mind that Wraiths have Rending and thus every re-roll means another potential 6. I'd say they are about equal. The thing is that TP are useless wtihout a DL whereas Wraiths can hold fine on their own.

Agree with most of what you said except this last bit. The T's can use the RO and the PE, while the Wraiths can only use the PE. The TP always have a shooting weapon (to take advantage of the PE in shooting), the Wraiths seldom have one. You can give 10 TP bases RO and PE at once, you can only give 6 Wraith bases PE. Also, they can both have Rending, and the TPs can have Rending and Entropic, which also ultimately would benefit from the re-rolls (not the actual Entropic roll, just the to-hit roll preceding it). It's pretty clear which one benefits more from the DLord's presence.

And the TPs are far from "useless" without it, although I do agree I would generally prefer the Wraiths if the DLord wasn't part of the equation. Even straight up with no Res Orb, the TPs are a little more resilient to small arms fire and AP4 or worse CC attacks, the VB/PC TPs are more lethal against vehicles of all kinds and the Rod are more lethal against not SS Terms. That being said, the Wraiths are clearly the general safer bet in CC as the Whips give them a clear advantage there.

Quick note on the Whips, people seem to assume they will always cover every model at initiative order, that's really far from the case in actually practical terms, in particular when the Wraiths are being assaulted.

I am very critical towards the RO as it's 30 points and barely makes up its cost. I always take one in my Silver Tide list and it might be worth it with TP as they are Fearless.

With saying they're "useless" I meant that without a DL, they are inferior to Wraiths in most, if not all, regards. VB / PC is a really bad choice for TP as you absolutely do not need anti-vehicle cc units with stuff like Scarabs, Gauss and Heavy Destroyers. Furthermore, paying so many points for a 1W model with AP3 is pretty lackluster. I'd rather take WS LG then

Agree with the latter part. In my eyes, the whip's main advantage is letting those juicy targets strike at I1 while letting the others strike first.

 Sigvatr wrote:
I am very critical towards the RO as it's 30 points and barely makes up its cost. I always take one in my Silver Tide list and it might be worth it with TP as they are Fearless.

I have to say, been bringing an RO on my DLord in every game I've played with him just about and I never leave home with out it now. That amazing thing about having it on the DLord is you can stretch it much farther then just his initial squad. You get just one TP on a "4" RP roll and it's already paid for itself, anything above and beyond that is just gravy.

With saying they're "useless" I meant that without a DL, they are inferior to Wraiths in most, if not all, regards.

Except, of course, getting shot at, killing vehicles (VB/PC) or terms/MeQ (Rod).

VB / PC is a really bad choice for TP as you absolutely do not need anti-vehicle cc units with stuff like Scarabs, Gauss and Heavy Destroyers.

Well, you don't need Scarabs or Heavy Ds if you have VB/PC TPs either. They are all strong anti-tank, although the TPs don't come from the FA slot like the other two do. VB/PC TPs run a lot like Scarabs in fact, except they don't just melt if your opponent has a lot of high strength templates, and then they can also handle themselves in CC against a wider variety of targets.

So, anyone can say what is the ideal number of necron warrios to have in a squad for it to be effective? 10? 12? 15?

Eldenfirefly wrote:
So, anyone can say what is the ideal number of necron warrios to have in a squad for it to be effective? 10? 12? 15?

Generally it depends on how you plan on using them. In most situations, I have found the sweet spot to be 10. 10 fit in a Ghost ark, 10 hold an objective easily and losing 10 to falling back or sweeping is better than losing 15-20 from the same result. Though often I will have 1-2 min squads who's sole purpose is to stay back, out of LOS and just claim objectives.

But is 10 warriors enough to be effective? 10 shots isn't going to do much. (though 20 at rapid fire might do more). 10 shots probably aren't going to glance a vehicle to death. 15 shots will statistically do 2 hull points for sure, and 3 if you are lucky.

And a bit of casualties will drop a 10 men squad to such a level they are irrelevant. A 15 men squad can take some casualties and still contribute a fair amount of firepower.

I second 10. It depends on your list. I run Silver Tide with 20 in a squad, but 10 is a good number for taking your own objective. You do not want to get Warriors at the front, you got Immortals for that job.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Except, of course, getting shot at, killing vehicles (VB/PC) or terms/MeQ (Rod).

Depends on what you're getting shot at. AP3 weapons just melt through TP whereas Wraiths easily shrug them off. I don't get why people keep stating that Wraiths don't do well vs. terms...every 6 to wound is a high chance for a dead terminator whereas Wraiths get a 3++ and 2W in return. They do well vs. terminators. TP suffer from getting shot at before with AP 3 weapons before making it into melee.

What also needs to be kept in mind, and that's a really important point people always forget, is Wraiths ignoring difficult terrain. That's a huge bonus on most battlefields. You can go anywhere, whenever you want with little to no disadvantage.

VB / PC is a really bad choice for TP as you absolutely do not need anti-vehicle cc units with stuff like Scarabs, Gauss and Heavy Destroyers.

/quote]Well, you don't need Scarabs or Heavy Ds if you have VB/PC TPs either.

Depends on what you're getting shot at. AP3 weapons just melt through TP whereas Wraiths easily shrug them off.

Depends on the AP 3 weapons as they are going to have to contend with cover, RP, and either T5 or they will be double T for the Wraiths. Really, when discussing AP 3 weapons we are almost always discussing missiles, which are a wash between the two with normal cover, Wraiths come out ahead with no cover, and TPs come out ahead Stealthed or Shrouded.

I don't get why people keep stating that Wraiths don't do well vs. terms

You're right, Wraiths do fine against Terms, although Rod TPs are a bit more killy against non SS Terms.

TPs are not strong anti-tank. Both scarabs and HD can get rid of even heavy vehicles whereas TP would just look sad

For the record, I was speaking of VB/PC TPs:

5 VB/PC TPs versus Land Raider:

15(2÷3)(1÷2)=5 (Entropic Hits)
so...
15(2÷3)(1÷2)=5 Hull Points (9 armor because of entropic) of which 3.33 are Pens

VP/PC TPs wreck heavy vehicles. Badly. Quicker then Heavy D's, assuming you can get them into CC of course. Not as quickly as Scarabs...but then again you have the aforementioned vulnerabilities, and Scarabs are less punchy against troops.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I'd take S7 AP1 over VB anytime.

Well, in a vacuum, who wouldn't? The TPs tend to be a bit faster then the LG though, and you gotta catch them tanks if you wanna bang on them with your sticks .

Eldenfirefly wrote:
But is 10 warriors enough to be effective? 10 shots isn't going to do much. (though 20 at rapid fire might do more). 10 shots probably aren't going to glance a vehicle to death. 15 shots will statistically do 2 hull points for sure, and 3 if you are lucky.

And a bit of casualties will drop a 10 men squad to such a level they are irrelevant. A 15 men squad can take some casualties and still contribute a fair amount of firepower.

Like I said,it depends on the role you have them play. I always run a squad of Immortals at 8-10( depending on point value) in a Nightscythe. I ran Gauss immortals in the past but have recently switched to Tesla. The Immortals are a little tougher and put out stronger shots, so those are more effectively and precisely deliver. Where as Warriors, fill a more back field and defensive position which you can deploy in harder cover which compensates for the need to,increase their numbers. But it also again really depends on your point value and the entire build of your army. However, as the point value increases I have still found it more effective to split warrior squads up if you are able to increase their squad size to 15+. As you can always choose to run them in tandem with each other and opposing fire can only target one squad at a time, and you can screen warriors with each other and it doesn't much matter if you give opposing units a cover save as gauss flyers are only ap5 anyway, and at worst you give poorly armored units a 5+ cover or if needed you can repositioning the movement phase to reduce the opposing cover save. Otherwise, I deploy them in a way that one squad is able to remain stationary on objectives, one will usually be manning a quad on an ADL near a second objective and that leaves me usually one in a Night scythe or able to back up one of the objectives covered by warriors while one of my Immortals contest or takes opposing objectives.

Hey yo guys! Awesome thread, learned a lot from it!

So question. I bought 20 immortals/deathmarks, but suddenly I have no idea how I want to assemble them. First I figured 20 immortals, but then after reading on the deathmarks, they seem really cool, but is it worth
making all ten of them into deathmarks? Cause it seems improbable to make 15 immortals and 5 deathmarks, since you can't use 15 immortals in a squad, and you'd probably never run with a 5man immortal squad.
Thoughts?

It depends on what you want to do with them and if you mainly play friendlies or competitive games. Overall, especially after the recent huge nerf to Deathmarks, I can hardly recommend them over Immortals anymore. D&D is still cool, but else...very meh.

 Sigvatr wrote:
after the recent huge nerf to Deathmarks.

... what "huge nerf" are you talking about?

 skoffs wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
after the recent huge nerf to Deathmarks.

... what "huge nerf" are you talking about?

^^ This. I seemed to have overlooked it myself.

ShadarLogoth wrote:

 skoffs wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
after the recent huge nerf to Deathmarks.

... what "huge nerf" are you talking about?

^^ This. I seemed to have overlooked it myself.

Each unit of Deathmarks can now only mark a single enemy unit per game. This means that marking yet another unit every single time they use the Veil of Darkness is no longer possible.


However, I don't see that as a 'Nerf', because I never once abused that game-breaking RAW combo. I see the FAQ as instead saying "Deathmarks are just as awesome as they aways were, if you weren't being TFG all along".


That being said, make 10x Deathmarks. I frequently run two units of a Despairtek w/ VoD and 5x Deathmarks. They hunt Long Fangs, and do so very well. (each unit marks a unit of Long Fangs, and then team up against the 3rd)

That wasn't a nerf in that it was simply an official "no" to a question we obviously already knew the answer to. RAI wins again.

What azazel said. Since it was legal RAW-wise, lots of people at local tournaments pulled it off and most of the time (all but 1 tournament) they got through it.

So, yes, it's a nerf. Despair + 5x Deathmarks is the only saving grace those guys have now.

Ah yes, I did see that. Like Az said, I never once attempted to pull that off so I just kind of shrugged when I first read it.

Deathmarks only being allowed to mark a single unit is a "nerf" like not being allowed to Congo line scarabs across the table with 9 Spyders for a first turn assault was a "nerf": only a-holes care.
The rest of us who had already been playing them the way they were MEANT to be played have lost nothing.

(I saw this round of FAQs as a big middle finger to RAW abusing power gamers)

Though in that vein, what were all the FAQ changes that might affect our codex?
- Deathmarks only marking a single unit per game
- Units embarked on Nightscythes don't take crash damage
- ????

Does anyone know if some of the other codex FAQs covered any 'Cron stuff, too?

 skoffs wrote:
Deathmarks only being allowed to mark a single unit is a "nerf" like not being allowed to Congo line scarabs across the table with 9 Spyders for a first turn assault was a "nerf": only a-holes care.
The rest of us who had already been playing them the way they were MEANT to be played have lost nothing.

(I saw this round of FAQs as a big middle finger to RAW abusing power gamers)

Though in that vein, what were all the FAQ changes that might affect our codex?
- Deathmarks only marking a single unit per game
- Units embarked on Nightscythes don't take crash damage
- ????

Does anyone know if some of the other codex FAQs covered any 'Cron stuff, too?

That was pretty much it, at least as far as what directly covered the Necron dex. Some of the BRB rulings might have some impact on them though I don't recall anything off the top of my head.

So... JotWW still affects jump infantry then, I'm guessing?
:/

I agree with Skoffs, the Night Scythe ruling is a total FU to rule lawyers.

As it should be.

 NecronLord3 wrote:
As it should be.

No doubt, finally something we can all agree on . It was pretty baffling that people actually tried to argue otherwise.

Well, what were some of the other changes of note that happened in the other codex/BRB FAQs?
(just so we know what to keep in mind when playing against them)

The biggest change was the clarification that units with weapons that have multiple ranges, can now wound all models in a unit if they have range and LOS with even just 1 model.

For example, if we have a squad of 10 warriors vs a unit of tactical marines; the marines can have range to only 1 of our warriors with all of their bolters but if they have a lascannon in the squad with range to the other 9 warriors, now all of the warriors can be taken as casualties even if the lascanon was firing snaps and it doesn't even need to hit or wound, only to be fired in range.

We Necrons on the other hand don't have acces to many mixed weapon squads, so we are less in a position to take advantage of this rule. Destroyers and squads lead by RC Crypteks, I believe are our only squads that can do this.

NecronLord3 wrote:The biggest change was the clarification that units with weapons that have multiple ranges, can now wound all models in a unit if they have range and LOS with even just 1 model.

For example, if we have a squad of 10 warriors vs a unit of tactical marines; the marines can have range to only 1 of our warriors with all of their bolters but if they have a lascannon in the squad with range to the other 9 warriors, now all of the warriors can be taken as casualties even if the lascanon was firing snaps and it doesn't even need to hit or wound, only to be fired in range.

We Necrons on the other hand don't have acces to many mixed weapon squads, so we are less in a position to take advantage of this rule. Destroyers and squads lead by RC Crypteks, I believe are our only squads that can do this.

But that is still a pretty big boon for the already-super-mobile Destroyers. Now mixed units are even more beneficial.

But that is still a pretty big boon for the already-super-mobile Destroyers. Now mixed units are even more beneficial.

Exactly. Now if you are 23.9" away from the closest model on a flank, and the unit you are shooting at is reasonably spaced, you can easily knock the unit out of their threat range with enough casualties.

Hang on, I think I'm not quite getting it here.
So let's say I've got a unit of 20 Warriors. Attached is a Harbinger of Destruction.
What exactly does the Destr-tek's increased range do for them?

skoffs wrote:Hang on, I think I'm not quite getting it here.
So let's say I've got a unit of 20 Warriors. Attached is a Harbinger of Destruction.
What exactly does the Destr-tek's increased range do for them?

Let's you've got 20 Warriors, and you are 23.9 inches away from them, such that only a single model from the enemy unit is actually within range if your Warriors. Your unit shoots, scoring 13 hits, which results in 6 wounds. All 6 of those wounds must be allocated to the single enemy model that was actually within range of your Warriors. If that model dies to a single wound, then the remaining 5 are lost (or more specifically, they are still allocated to the dead model; making that model, uh, extra dead.)

Now, let's say you've got 20 Warriors and a Destructek, and you are 23.9 inches away from them, such that only a single model from the enemy unit is actually within range of the Warriors. But, thanks for the 36" range of the Destructek, the entire enemy unit is within his range. Your unit shoots, again scoring 13 hits, which results in 6 wounds. Those 6 wounds can now be allocated to the whole unit, because the whole unit is within the range of at least one of your models (the Destructek); even though that model has an entirely different gun.

Even if the Destructek misses and scores not hits of his own, this rule still applies; thus allowing your 20 Necron warriors to effectively allocate wounds to a unit in a similar style as they could back in 5th Edition. However, the enemy unit must still have at least one model within range of the Warriors for this to work. It doesn't affect the actual range of the Warriors; it just affects the manner in which wounds are allocated.

Eh....wait. Does that mean that when I have a squad of 4 normal Destroyers and 1 Heavy Destroyer, my normal Destroyers now get to hit everything at 36''?

I really doubt that's what GW was going for.