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.

Just had a thought to reconsider the Doomsday Ark. Now that it has a 4+ jink and it doesn't have to move would you consider it? I've found the Ghost Arks to be far superior in this edition due to having jink and being obj. sec.

 NecronLord3 wrote:
Just had a thought to reconsider the Doomsday Ark. Now that it has a 4+ jink and it doesn't have to move would you consider it? I've found the Ghost Arks to be far superior in this edition due to having jink and being obj. sec.

It doesn't have to move to jink?
Are you sure that's right?

He's correct, but it does have to Jink, to Jink, which means it couldn't fire at all the following phase (it could snap fire it's Gauss Arrays...). If you run DA's you pretty much have to screen them with your GAs and the like to get them cover saves, because relying in Jink is pretty problematic.

I would like to see the secondary fire mode turn into 7 4 Heavy 3 or something. Something you wouldn't be entirely upset about having to snap shoot, particularly when re positioning or Jinking would critically change effect the unit.

 skoffs wrote:

 NecronLord3 wrote:
Just had a thought to reconsider the Doomsday Ark. Now that it has a 4+ jink and it doesn't have to move would you consider it? I've found the Ghost Arks to be far superior in this edition due to having jink and being obj. sec.

It doesn't have to move to jink?
Are you sure that's right?

Yep even immobilized skimmers get a jink in 7th. It's kinda dumb but mitigates the first turn advantage a bit since it can be presumed that your skimmers haven't just been parked there for a week waiting to be shot by the enemy before the battle began.

But upon further consideration the Doomsday Ark is still garbage because if you do jink you can only fire snaps and both firing modes are blast and large blast templates, which can't fire snap shots. Though being camped at 72" is still nice.

But upon further consideration the Doomsday Ark is still garbage because if you do jink you can only fire snaps and both firing modes are blast and large blast templates, which can't fire snap shots. Though being camped at 72" is still nice.

Yeah, it's pretty far from garbage, as those cove saves can certainly come elsewhere, and one parked in the corner will generally cause a severe amount of pain every turn. Also, with cover saves generally being lowered a bit, it's wounds will get through more consistently.

If you are going double CAD I would recommend one over more ABs. It diversifies your firepower, and with it's range they tend to hang around a bit longer then the ABs do.

Well, there's still the option to deploy it with a Skyshield to give it a firing platform with an inv save... but for that price you might as well be bringing a Tesseract Ark instead.

 skoffs wrote:
Well, there's still the option to deploy it with a Skyshield to give it a firing platform with an inv save... but for that price you might as well be bringing a Tesseract Ark instead.

If FW is allowed. But I like this already. I always liked the look of the doomsday ark but after painting one ghost ark and it being garbage compared to Nightscythes in 6th I never wanted to touch the kit again. Now that they have been improved in 7th, considerably, I painted a second one with a more reasonable paint job that I might do a Doomsday ark. The benefit of making it actually useful is gravy.

col_impact wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

luke1705 wrote:
I am trying out a combination of the AV 13 wall and wraith wing. Although I like the Barge Lord, he is SO EXPENSIVE. Taking a Destroyer Lord is, at least, 95 points cheaper, and more likely 125 points cheaper. Maybe I'm in the minority running 2+ wraith squads, but giving them a 2+ at the front to tank plus that war scythe hitting from the back, not to mention preferred enemy: everything makes keeping D Lord(s) in my list pretty attractive. I think I'll pick up another barge to try a Barge Lord at 1850 but I don't know if I can justify it at points values lower than that.

Well, I'm not running the barge Lord - too expensive for my liking.
I still prefer DLord, Wraiths, Night Scythes, and Annihilation Barges as in the 6th ed.

The bargeLord is the way to go unless or until the meta starts running fast armourbane CC or lots of good CC MCs with smash (e.g. Wraithknights). A good tactically flexible compromise is 1 bargeLord and 1 D Lord with 6 wraiths so you can try to force favorable matchups. A 1x bargeLord/1x D Lord mix is preferred over 2x D Lord since you will want to enable at least one Royal Court to unlock StormTeks which are really, really good in 7th ed. I like to run 4 x StormTek at least attached to my N Scythe cavalry troops to be able to delete opponent's dedicated transports.

So the viable HQ choices seem to be . . .

A) 2x bargeLord (maximum AV 13 pressure but watch out for fast armourbane CC)
B) 1x bargeLord and 1 D Lord (for shore up your weaknesses type list)
C) 1x bargeLord + 1 Nemesor Zandrekh + 1 Vargard Obyron (for an uber tactics list)
D) Vargard Obyron + Phaeron Overlord (for Sentry Pylon Star)

I think you're right that Storm Teks are very good, especially since everyone will be inclined to take objective: secured transports, or just more tanks in general. Out of curiosity, how many have you been running?

The Doomsday Ark is utter trash. It's the worst model in the entire codex and one of the worst models in the entire game.

It has a single actual weapon that forces you to not move and not jink in order to shoot, and all it brings is a S10 AP1 big blast template. And, of course, it's open-topped. And it comes at a huge price. In a slot that is heavily contested by MUCH superior choices.

Use the kit to build a Ghost Ark, an actually very good model in 7th, and use the extra parts from the Ghost Ark kit (read: the cannon) to build a scratch-built Sentry Pylon.

luke1705 wrote:
I think you're right that Storm Teks are very good, especially since everyone will be inclined to take objective: secured transports, or just more tanks in general. Out of curiosity, how many have you been running?

Typically there are two ways to take Storm-teks:

"Storm-Scythe" - Attached to a unit of Warriors/Immortals inside a Nightscythe.
• Pro: Allows you to safely pinpoint insert them next to their target. Increases troop survivability thanks to Ever Living.
• Con: Only available from turn 2. Not so cheap, around 200 points.

"Storm-Court" - A Royal Court unit comprised of two Storm-teks and one Veil-tek.
• Pro: Can alpha strike your opponent's best vehicle on turn 1. Cheap.
• Con: Potential to mishap when deep strike/Veil-ing. Kamikaze unit.

You can put them inside of Ghost Arks, too, but with the reduced movement of the vehicle combined with the short range of their weapon, it doesn't usually work out as well (though, Destruct-teks are good for putting in Ghost Arks).

 Sigvatr wrote:
The Doomsday Ark is utter trash. It's the worst model in the entire codex and one of the worst models in the entire game.

It has a single actual weapon that forces you to not move and not jink in order to shoot, and all it brings is a S10 AP1 big blast template. And, of course, it's open-topped. And it comes at a huge price. In a slot that is heavily contested by MUCH superior choices.

Use the kit to build a Ghost Ark, an actually very good model in 7th, and use the extra parts from the Ghost Ark kit (read: the cannon) to build a scratch-built Sentry Pylon.

I take it you don't use them then ?

I think that Doomsday Arks with the right combo can be very effective. For example, a pair (or three!) of them, a couple of stalkers for TL, some scarabs for tarpitting and spyders to repair hull points would form a nasty firebase. Supplement with a Bargelord, maybe a GA or two and I think you'd have a workable list which would hand out a nasty surprise to anyone not expecting TL S9AP1 Large blast templates from across the board.

Just to clarify a couple of your points.:

The DA has the Doomsday Cannon, plus a pair of flayer arrays. So it has more weaponry than the GA.
The Doomsday Cannon has 2 profiles, the non moving S9AP1 72" one, plus a 24" S7AP4 Blast template. Granted, jinking is not a great idea with either of these profiles.
The DA has exactly the same AV as the GA
All Necron skimmers are open topped, including the Anni Barges - I'm not sure what your point was with that.

For those of us without the desire to leap into forgeworld, the DA is a viable alternative which contributes very well in the right hands and with the right combos. For sure, anyone taking stalkers should definitely consider taking a DA.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
PS, you can magnetise the GA/DA so you can get the best of both worlds!

MarkCron wrote:

I think that Doomsday Arks with the right combo can be very effective. For example, a pair (or three!) of them, a couple of stalkers for TL, some scarabs for tarpitting and spyders to repair hull points would form a nasty firebase.

So basically, you go into double CAD territory and just spent about 1100 points to fire 3 S9 AP1 big blast templates per turn. Take the bar minimum of HQ and troops and you have roughly 550 points to spend on anything that can capture objectives. You got 1100 points sitting on a single objective for the entire game. 60% of your points sitting around. Sounds great! To add on that, it's one of the easiest thing to counter in the entire game. Drop high S/AP templates and you will always hit at least 1 barge. Hell, I would have won the game by the end of turn 1 with my SP lasering straight into it. Hit a few scarabs, spyders and 1-2 barges and you're looking at 10+ S10 AP1 hits for each of the models. Game won turn 1

Supplement with a Bargelord, maybe a GA or two and I think you'd have a workable list which would hand out a nasty surprise to anyone not expecting TL S9AP1 Large blast templates from across the board.

List + Bargelord + 1 GA with 2 min. Warrior squads = 1600 points. 250 points left to be able to capture objectives. Not gonna happen.

The DA has the Doomsday Cannon, plus a pair of flayer arrays. So it has more weaponry than the GA.

I don't get your point. Are you saying that a dedicated shooting model is better than a dedicated transport?

The Doomsday Cannon has 2 profiles, the non moving S9AP1 72" one, plus a 24" S7AP4 Blast template. Granted, jinking is not a great idea with either of these profiles.

Great, it has one good profile and one utterly useless profile. Worth the points!

The DA has exactly the same AV as the GA

Again, not seeing the point...

All Necron skimmers are open topped, including the Anni Barges - I'm not sure what your point was with that.

AB has Tesla weaponry that still allows for good shooting when Jinking. How much shooting can you do when jinking with a Crap Ark? Zero.

For those of us without the desire to leap into forgeworld, the DA is a viable alternative which contributes very well in the right hands and with the right combos. For sure, anyone taking stalkers should definitely consider taking a DA.

For casual players against incompetent opponents, the DA is a great addition to a list, I give you that.

And to add injury to insult: check how much a Leman Russ tank is. A far superior weapons platform. With a superior fun. That can be taken in squads. Hint: cheaper.

@ Sigvatr, I posted an example list in the army list section - two DA fit fine. For the list, I ditched the spyders and scarabs for an extra bargelord, but people can season to taste.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/604869.page

Re your other comments, it's great you choose to play forgeworld, however, the fact that you choose to take sentry pylons doesn't make everything else other than AB, trash.

Given that some people may actually like the DDA model (I do for example) and want to use it, comments like "make sentry pylons" probably aren't overly helpful. Comparisons to units we can't take at all (unless you're suggesting that taking AM CotA allies is a tactical option) is definitely not helpful.

Tactically, if I were going to take DA, I wouldn't put them anywhere near an objective. I'd use them as bait to force the opponent to devote resources to the farthest flung corners of the board just to get rid of them. And I'd put them in cover so I didn't have to jink.

That might sound odd but that's because I've been trying to make GK work for 8 weeks using minimal henchmen, so sacrificing 150-175 points is becoming a norm. Crons have it sooooo much better it isn't funny.

my 2c

 Sigvatr wrote:
The Doomsday Ark is utter trash. It's the worst model in the entire codex and one of the worst models in the entire game.

It has a single actual weapon that forces you to not move and not jink in order to shoot, and all it brings is a S10 AP1 big blast template. And, of course, it's open-topped. And it comes at a huge price. In a slot that is heavily contested by MUCH superior choices.

Use the kit to build a Ghost Ark, an actually very good model in 7th, and use the extra parts from the Ghost Ark kit (read: the cannon) to build a scratch-built Sentry Pylon.

Totally disagree with you. The Doomsday Ark has its place, and can be very deadly and/or useful if you know what you're doing with it. It's a distraction carnifex. I use it as bait that can still kill stuff, or deny areas of the board if they leave it.

I plonk him down on the opposite side of the board to my army, generally covering a side or giving him a good firing lane. If they leave him, he'll be a thorn in their side for the entire game and S10 AP1 Big blast is a pretty big thorn. Generally my opponents focus it, (it is the big beatstick after all), and every shot fired at him isn't going for my vulnerable/ important units. If the opponent uses for example a cheap melta drop pod etc. to take it out.., again they didn't use those meltas on my Spyders or Lychguard or other important units. If the opponent splits off some of his forces to go and try taking it out, I've split that force off from the rest of his army and I can teleport/ relocate over to obliterate it with minimal casualties of my own.

I've found it to be a very good model.

 Otto Weston wrote:
Totally disagree with you. The Doomsday Ark has its place, and can be very deadly and/or useful if you know what you're doing with it.

"Okay, I'll hear this guy out. Maybe he's got something valid to--"

Lychguard

"... nope. Never mind."

 skoffs wrote:

 Otto Weston wrote:
Totally disagree with you. The Doomsday Ark has its place, and can be very deadly and/or useful if you know what you're doing with it.

"Okay, I'll hear this guy out. Maybe he's got something valid to--"

Lychguard

"... nope. Never mind."

I also use Flayed ones... so feel free to comment on that as well I like using units that others consider under-powered or inferior... and then winning.

MarkCron wrote:


Re your other comments, it's great you choose to play forgeworld, however, the fact that you choose to take sentry pylons doesn't make everything else other than AB, trash.

Given that some people may actually like the DDA model (I do for example) and want to use it, comments like "make sentry pylons" probably aren't overly helpful. Comparisons to units we can't take at all (unless you're suggesting that taking AM CotA allies is a tactical option) is definitely not helpful.

There is no choice to use FW, the choice is to not use FW - just to get that out of the way. Comparison to SP are fully valid as they are part of the Necron army and, as I might add, a far superior one. The comparison to the LR was made to illustrate the points cost difference.

Tactically, if I were going to take DA, I wouldn't put them anywhere near an objective. I'd use them as bait to force the opponent to devote resources to the farthest flung corners of the board just to get rid of them. And I'd put them in cover so I didn't have to jink.

Have you ever actually played with a DA? I am under the impression that this is not the case. First of all, you would have to be at least 25% obscured, as usual, with a very narrow front and, worse, the really weird gunpoint. "Weird" because it's rather low. So if you want it to be in cover, you have to find a cover that does not block the gun itself, not to mention that you heavily limit your own area of firing by finding a suitable cover.

How are you going to "split the enemy out"? Remember the DA do not ignore cover. Any decent enemy can outplay such a list extremely easily just by hogging objectives. You will not be able to get any far-field objectives and your troops are extremely light. By limiting yourself to GA, you can only realistically cover the mid-field. And pray your opponent does not have any template weapon. Hit the GA with 1 template weapon and you lose your entire squad of Necron Warriors.

Mind you, my point of view is different from yours. I play in a highly competitive environment and Doomsday Arks simply do not fit in here. They are extremely overcosted, immobile and their weapon is not even S10 (I still don't get this...). No ignore cover either. They might be fitting for your considerably more casual environment, but against decent opponents, they are a huge points sink.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Otto Weston wrote:


I plonk him down on the opposite side of the board to my army, generally covering a side or giving him a good firing lane. If they leave him, he'll be a thorn in their side for the entire game and S10 AP1 Big blast is a pretty big thorn. Generally my opponents focus it, (it is the big beatstick after all), and every shot fired at him isn't going for my vulnerable/ important units. If the opponent uses for example a cheap melta drop pod etc. to take it out.., again they didn't use those meltas on my Spyders or Lychguard or other important units. If the opponent splits off some of his forces to go and try taking it out, I've split that force off from the rest of his army and I can teleport/ relocate over to obliterate it with minimal casualties of my own.

I've found it to be a very good model.

To sum it up: you play in a meta where enemies use Melta weaponry to fight Spyders and Lychguard and the latter are considered an "important unit". You, personally, found it a very good model. That's good for you, but against decent opponents or in another, competitive, meta, that opinion will change

..and I do hope you're not telling your opponents you hit them with S10AP1 weapons.

 skoffs wrote:

luke1705 wrote:
I think you're right that Storm Teks are very good, especially since everyone will be inclined to take objective: secured transports, or just more tanks in general. Out of curiosity, how many have you been running?

Typically there are two ways to take Storm-teks:

"Storm-Scythe" - Attached to a unit of Warriors/Immortals inside a Nightscythe.
• Pro: Allows you to safely pinpoint insert them next to their target. Increases troop survivability thanks to Ever Living.
• Con: Only available from turn 2. Not so cheap, around 200 points.

"Storm-Court" - A Royal Court unit comprised of two Storm-teks and one Veil-tek.
• Pro: Can alpha strike your opponent's best vehicle on turn 1. Cheap.
• Con: Potential to mishap when deep strike/Veil-ing. Kamikaze unit.

You can put them inside of Ghost Arks, too, but with the reduced movement of the vehicle combined with the short range of their weapon, it doesn't usually work out as well (though, Destruct-teks are good for putting in Ghost Arks).

I agree with your points, but I think you're missing the biggest pro of putting them in a GA - they aren't a one-trick pony. With the Storm-Court, they will likely die. Immediately after they make their alpha strike. With the Storm-Scythe, you get the same thing. Sure, they're more resilient than the Storm-Court, but a 5 man squad with 4+ saves? Not exactly hardy. With a GA, they can shoot from the protection of a 4 HP AV 13-ish vehicle with 4+ cover wherever it goes. In my opinion, that's pretty significant. And while it's true that you can't pull that trick first turn, with some decent deployment and maximum ark movement, you should certainly be able to pull it off turn 2 just like the Storm-Scythe (although with a greater chance of getting immobilized/shot off the board before you get a chance). For 15 more points than a Scythe, you get an Objective: Secured open-topped transport, so they never have to disembark to put their full firepower out.

 Sigvatr wrote:

MarkCron wrote:


Re your other comments, it's great you choose to play forgeworld, however, the fact that you choose to take sentry pylons doesn't make everything else other than AB, trash.

Given that some people may actually like the DDA model (I do for example) and want to use it, comments like "make sentry pylons" probably aren't overly helpful. Comparisons to units we can't take at all (unless you're suggesting that taking AM CotA allies is a tactical option) is definitely not helpful.

There is no choice to use FW, the choice is to not use FW - just to get that out of the way. Comparison to SP are fully valid as they are part of the Necron army and, as I might add, a far superior one. The comparison to the LR was made to illustrate the points cost difference.

I have no problems with people using FW, my point was simply that not all people want to use it. And I also have no problems with comparisons to SP, as Cron players can, as you say, take SP.

Re the LR, usage of units from other codexes for comparison is commonplace, but generally irrelevant - unless the comparison unit can be effectively used by the Cron player. So, unless your point was to take LR in an ally detachment instead of a GA, the comparison wasn't helpful.

 Sigvatr wrote:

MarkCron wrote:
Tactically, if I were going to take DA, I wouldn't put them anywhere near an objective. I'd use them as bait to force the opponent to devote resources to the farthest flung corners of the board just to get rid of them. And I'd put them in cover so I didn't have to jink.

Have you ever actually played with a DA? I am under the impression that this is not the case. First of all, you would have to be at least 25% obscured, as usual, with a very narrow front and, worse, the really weird gunpoint. "Weird" because it's rather low. So if you want it to be in cover, you have to find a cover that does not block the gun itself, not to mention that you heavily limit your own area of firing by finding a suitable cover.

How are you going to "split the enemy out"? Remember the DA do not ignore cover. Any decent enemy can outplay such a list extremely easily just by hogging objectives. You will not be able to get any far-field objectives and your troops are extremely light. By limiting yourself to GA, you can only realistically cover the mid-field. And pray your opponent does not have any template weapon. Hit the GA with 1 template weapon and you lose your entire squad of Necron Warriors.

Mind you, my point of view is different from yours. I play in a highly competitive environment and Doomsday Arks simply do not fit in here. They are extremely overcosted, immobile and their weapon is not even S10 (I still don't get this...). No ignore cover either. They might be fitting for your considerably more casual environment, but against decent opponents, they are a huge points sink.

Wow.... If you have finished leaping to conclusions about my competitive environment, the quality of my play and the quality of my opponents perhaps we could continue looking at the tactical advantages of DA.

In response to your comments:

a) I do play them - in fact 7e inspired me to drag out both the DA and my stalkers after a somewhat extended rest for much of 6e. So, when was the last time you played a game with them?
b) The ability to get cover for them is tricky, guess I'm lucky that I play on tables with lots of terrain. However, the most effective cover are the stalkers or the other GAs, because those things can move no problem.
c) Re "splitting the enemy out" - I don't need to do anything. The enemy will go to the DA anyway - it's just a case of waiting for them to come.
d) re Far-field objectives, I have a pair of Bargelords that should cover that pretty well.
e) I don't think you play "No Escape" correctly. Max *hits* is 6 with D6 and I had 7 bodies in each of the GA (5 warriors and 2 Lanceteks). I also had 6 ObSec units, 3 of them GA, which is not exactly "light". Also, remember that you can control two objectives from a GA with embarked warriors, providing they are close enough.
f) Apart from our flamers, there is nothing in the normal codex that has ignores cover, so not sure why you raised that. That's a disadvantage that applies to AB (I believe they are your preferred alternatives) as well, but AB are further penalised because they are only 24" and are AP-. AP4 isn't going to do anything against marines, but xenos and demons aren't going to be happy. Remember that DDA drop the templates from 72" away.
g) Camping objectives isn't a great idea with S9AP1 pie plates raining down, but I suppose if you had foolishly deployed your objectives behind cover where your opponent could get to them, that could take a little longer to kill them all.

In summary, I think DDA have a place in a correctly structured list. Sure, you have to play it way more carefully than moving wraiths forward and waiting for the NS to come in, but that doesn't make it trash. Take advantage of its strengths (long, long range) and high S/Low AP shots quickly and you can build up a sizeable advantage.

luke1705 wrote:


I agree with your points, but I think you're missing the biggest pro of putting them in a GA - they aren't a one-trick pony. With the Storm-Court, they will likely die. Immediately after they make their alpha strike. With the Storm-Scythe, you get the same thing. Sure, they're more resilient than the Storm-Court, but a 5 man squad with 4+ saves? Not exactly hardy. With a GA, they can shoot from the protection of a 4 HP AV 13-ish vehicle with 4+ cover wherever it goes. In my opinion, that's pretty significant. And while it's true that you can't pull that trick first turn, with some decent deployment and maximum ark movement, you should certainly be able to pull it off turn 2 just like the Storm-Scythe (although with a greater chance of getting immobilized/shot off the board before you get a chance). For 15 more points than a Scythe, you get an Objective: Secured open-topped transport, so they never have to disembark to put their full firepower out.

The 12" range is still negating them. With a night scythe you deploy them so that they can be effective. In a GA the opponent can avoid them with land raiders, imperial knight titans, Super heavies etc. Plus if you flat out the passengers fire snap shots making the max effective range 18".

If you want to make them more survivable you will have to attach a lord/overlord to tank shots on a 2+/3++ or attach them to Lychguard with dispersion shields( or both).

 NecronLord3 wrote:

luke1705 wrote:


I agree with your points, but I think you're missing the biggest pro of putting them in a GA - they aren't a one-trick pony. With the Storm-Court, they will likely die. Immediately after they make their alpha strike. With the Storm-Scythe, you get the same thing. Sure, they're more resilient than the Storm-Court, but a 5 man squad with 4+ saves? Not exactly hardy. With a GA, they can shoot from the protection of a 4 HP AV 13-ish vehicle with 4+ cover wherever it goes. In my opinion, that's pretty significant. And while it's true that you can't pull that trick first turn, with some decent deployment and maximum ark movement, you should certainly be able to pull it off turn 2 just like the Storm-Scythe (although with a greater chance of getting immobilized/shot off the board before you get a chance). For 15 more points than a Scythe, you get an Objective: Secured open-topped transport, so they never have to disembark to put their full firepower out.

The 12" range is still negating them. With a night scythe you deploy them so that they can be effective. In a GA the opponent can avoid them with land raiders, imperial knight titans, Super heavies etc. Plus if you flat out the passengers fire snap shots making the max effective range 18".

If you want to make them more survivable you will have to attach a lord/overlord to tank shots on a 2+/3++ or attach them to Lychguard with dispersion shields( or both).

While running StormTeks, you need to understand the penetration level of the mobility platform you are attaching them to. GA are a midfield penetration platform, while NS and Veiltek/Obyron are deep level penetration. Since lots of target vehicles can be effectively parked in the opponent's deployment zone, the deep penetration platforms are preferred. A NS mobility platform can hit a midfield vehicle on the turn it comes from reserves and then suck back up into a NS the next turn and then hit a deep field target vehicle on the following turn. A veilTek platform can hit any vehicle anywhere each turn, but runs the risk of mishap each turn it teleports around. The NS squad is best run as cheaply as possible while having a solid chance of doing the job it was intended to do immediately out of the gate (5 warriors + 2 stormTek). However, there will be times you may want to be able to disembark the squad from the NS and have it stick and be extra survivable (pop the transport the turn it arrives, absorb the counterfire of the emergency disembarked troop on the opponent's turn, and then have enough remaining to wipe out the opponent on your turn and secure the objective). So maybe you want immortals and lords to boost up the survivability and maybe that fits into your game plan. I find though that running stuff cheap is more flexible since it means more playing pieces and that some other cheap unit from somewhere else can come in and mop up the situation rather than putting points out there into uber units that may or may not get a good return on those points. The veilTek mobility platform however definitely benefits from additional survivability from lords or immortals over warriors or a blob tactic, etc.

Putting stormTeks into a GA is nice hotsauce, but the stormTek on that platform is one that becomes active when the opponent pushes some vehicles in to contest the midfield. That happens often enough naturally, but its hard to force that to happen with the GA platform if the opponent doesn't want it to happen. Astute opponents will notice the stormTeks on your GA and plan out their moves accordingly.

col_impact wrote:

 NecronLord3 wrote:

luke1705 wrote:


....suck back up into a NS the next turn and then hit a deep field target vehicle on the following turn.

Can you tell me where this rule is? "reembarking in NS" Ive had this argued against me in tournaments and for the life of me, I cant ever seem to find the allowance.

 gregor_xenos wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 NecronLord3 wrote:

luke1705 wrote:


....suck back up into a NS the next turn and then hit a deep field target vehicle on the following turn.

Can you tell me where this rule is? "reembarking in NS" Ive had this argued against me in tournaments and for the life of me, I cant ever seem to find the allowance.

The last page of the penultimate Necron FAQ had a Q and A that specifically allowed it.

col_impact wrote:

 gregor_xenos wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 NecronLord3 wrote:

luke1705 wrote:


....suck back up into a NS the next turn and then hit a deep field target vehicle on the following turn.

Can you tell me where this rule is? "reembarking in NS" Ive had this argued against me in tournaments and for the life of me, I cant ever seem to find the allowance.

The last page of the penultimate Necron FAQ had a Q and A that specifically allowed it.

It is NOT possible to re-embark in a NS by the current rules. Please re-check the FAQ.

 Sigvatr wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 gregor_xenos wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 NecronLord3 wrote:

luke1705 wrote:


....suck back up into a NS the next turn and then hit a deep field target vehicle on the following turn.

Can you tell me where this rule is? "reembarking in NS" Ive had this argued against me in tournaments and for the life of me, I cant ever seem to find the allowance.

The last page of the penultimate Necron FAQ had a Q and A that specifically allowed it.

It is NOT possible to re-embark in a NS by the current rules. Please re-check the FAQ.

The last page of the penultimate Necron FAQ had a Q and A that specifically allowed it.

Yes. That is why you cannot re-embark now - the current FAQ does not allow it


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MarkCron wrote:


a) I do play them - in fact 7e inspired me to drag out both the DA and my stalkers after a somewhat extended rest for much of 6e. So, when was the last time you played a game with them?

So, you agree with me?

c) Re "splitting the enemy out" - I don't need to do anything. The enemy will go to the DA anyway - it's just a case of waiting for them to come.

As above, meta, environment, etc.

d) re Far-field objectives, I have a pair of Bargelords that should cover that pretty well.

No OS, far-field objectives are mostly secured by OS.

e) I don't think you play "No Escape" correctly. Max *hits* is 6 with D6 and I had 7 bodies in each of the GA (5 warriors and 2 Lanceteks). I also had 6 ObSec units, 3 of them GA, which is not exactly "light". Also, remember that you can control two objectives from a GA with embarked warriors, providing they are close enough.

GA themselves cannot take out nearby units. You, on the other hand, obscure these units with your very own models and you have to position the blast templates in a less optimal spot in order not to hit your own models. Having two objectives so close together with you having a very vulnerable mid-field isn't a good idea. Against decent opponents. As above.

f) Apart from our flamers, there is nothing in the normal codex that has ignores cover, so not sure why you raised that. That's a disadvantage that applies to AB (I believe they are your preferred alternatives) as well, but AB are further penalised because they are only 24" and are AP-. AP4 isn't going to do anything against marines, but xenos and demons aren't going to be happy. Remember that DDA drop the templates from 72" away.

72'' is wasted range as you never need to shoot that far. Ignoring cover is a problem because the DA is priced as a heavy template thrower but has an inferior weapon and no special abilities. Necrons in general do not have many ignore cover weapons, the only thing that comes to my mind right now is the Deathshroud. Oh well, and the T-C'tan of course.

g) Camping objectives isn't a great idea with S9AP1 pie plates raining down, but I suppose if you had foolishly deployed your objectives behind cover where your opponent could get to them, that could take a little longer to kill them all.

"Raining" S9 AP1 templates down on units with a 4+. Sounds like an awesome plan.

In summary, I think DDA have a place in a correctly structured list. Sure, you have to play it way more carefully than moving wraiths forward and waiting for the NS to come in, but that doesn't make it trash. Take advantage of its strengths (long, long range) and high S/Low AP shots quickly and you can build up a sizeable advantage.

As stated above, they do have a place in certain lists. Casual lists against less experienced opponents. Against decent opponents, they are utter trash. Their best use is building Ghost Arks and using the rest as bits for conversions or scratch-builts.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Yes. That is why you cannot re-embark now - the current FAQ does not allow it

I see what you are saying. The codex line that would also specifically enable it has been FAQed away. Still, this is in TO territory since a conservative approach would allow units to continue to be able to embark on the Night Scythe. I have found that it is more important to predict the conservative TO approach than the RAW or RAI interpretation.

TO trump everything

We are the power!

 Sigvatr wrote:
TO trump everything

We are the power!

Here's the interesting thing. Nothing really has changed from the 6th edition version 1.4 to the current version, except for the dropping of the Q and A entry at the end of that FAQ that clarified that the Night Scythe can have people jump on it. Now, a Q and A entry doesn't specifically provide permission, it only clarifies what is provided elsewhere, i.e. it only clarifies intent. So strictly RAW, units couldn't jump onto a Night Scythe back in 6th edition either - since there wasn't a RAW basis for it and the ability to do so was sloppily provided and not legitimately provided based on a Q and A entry. So it is exceedingly clear in the 6th edition 1.4 what RAI was (the Q and A reveal intent and how we are to apply rules provided elsewhere), even though there wasn't any actual rules justification backing it up.

The Q and A section was chopped down from some 30 entries to 3 entries in some broad stroke of clearcutting the FAQ down to a smaller size.

Some notables that were casualties of the clearcutting were the clarification for Veil of Darkness being able to be used to move from reserve and the clarification that Wraiths don't get +1 attacks from adding a Particle Caster. Do VeilTeks now lose that ability and do Wraiths with particle casters now gain +1 A on the basis that the Q and A entries enforcing those got dropped?

A TO who is comfortable making a common sense judgement call is going to allow units to continue to embark on Night Scythes, since no pertinent FAQ information has changed for them, only a Q and A clarification has been dropped out along with 27 other entries. The editing out of that line has simply brought it to the community's attention that there never was a clear RAW for this to happen in the first place, only a very clear RAI. It's too easy to reconstruct what happened here (GW did too much clearcutting of the prior Q and A info) and very easy to decipher RAI - namely that GW intends for us to play Night Scythes same as always.

But as I said before, its all now in TO territory since it's basically a sloppy mess that needs a ruling.

col_impact wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
TO trump everything

We are the power!

Here's the interesting thing. Nothing really has changed from the 6th edition version 1.4 to the current version, except for the dropping of the Q and A entry at the end of that FAQ that clarified that the Night Scythe can have people jump on it. Now, a Q and A entry doesn't specifically provide permission, it only clarifies what is provided elsewhere, i.e. it only clarifies intent. So strictly RAW, units couldn't jump onto a Night Scythe back in 6th edition either - since there wasn't a RAW basis for it and the ability to do so was sloppily provided and not legitimately provided based on a Q and A entry. So it is exceedingly clear in the 6th edition 1.4 what RAI was (the Q and A reveal intent and how we are to apply rules provided elsewhere), even though there wasn't any actual rules justification backing it up.

The Q and A section was chopped down from some 30 entries to 3 entries in some broad stroke of clearcutting the FAQ down to a smaller size.

Some notables that were casualties of the clearcutting were the clarification for Veil of Darkness being able to be used to move from reserve and the clarification that Wraiths don't get +1 attacks from adding a Particle Caster. Do VeilTeks now lose that ability and do Wraiths with particle casters now gain +1 A on the basis that the Q and A entries enforcing those got dropped?

A TO who is comfortable making a common sense judgement call is going to allow units to continue to embark on Night Scythes, since no pertinent FAQ information has changed for them, only a Q and A clarification has been dropped out along with 27 other entries. The editing out of that line has simply brought it to the community's attention that there never was a clear RAW for this to happen in the first place, only a very clear RAI. It's too easy to reconstruct what happened here (GW did too much clearcutting of the prior Q and A info) and very easy to decipher RAI - namely that GW intends for us to play Night Scythes same as always.

But as I said before, its all now in TO territory since it's basically a sloppy mess that needs a ruling.

RAW-wise, they could never re-embark back onto the night scythe. The 6E FAQ was an exception rather than a clarification. It gave permission for necron warriors to "break the rules" and hop back onto their zooming flyer transports when no other army could. In the absence of this FAQ, they are once again denied permission by RAW. However, I do agree that you should check with a TO to see how he would rule it in his tournament.