Necron release rumours (prices and pics in first post)

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.

**SilverDevilfish**

BrotherGecko wrote:
Rod of the Covenant are not power weapons...

Uh... they're the same as power axes in CC... see the FAQ.

http://www.blacklibrary.com/Downloads/Product/PDF/Warhammer-40k/7th-faq/Necrons_v1.0_May14.pdf

**Eyjio**

Gunther wrote:
So, what have I missed?

The FAQ making it effectively an axe apparently. Even so, the issue with Praetorians has never been their effectiveness VS MEQ, it's their effectiveness vs everything else. They die too easily to shooting, are overcosted by a huge factor (maybe fixed) and hit at I1.

That said, if they're REALLY 20 points now... I expect them to be everywhere. After all, they're almost MCs if you take 7+, which is rumoured to be 140 points...
Hmm...

Let's assume the rumours are true - they're buffed to 12" range and cost 20 points. That would actually be insane, right? I mean, that's 10 guys for 200 points, at T5 with 3+ and better FNP who fire 10 S5 AP2 shots and charge with silly amounts of S6 attacks. Either the rumours are bunk, or GW wants to sell Praetorian armies.

**jms40k**

At the moment, Rod of the Covenant is essentially a power axe: STR +1, AP 2, Unwieldly as suggested and as per the Necron FAQ.

**Eyjio**

BlaxicanX wrote:
Eyjio wrote:
Natalya wrote:
t-thats whats being discussed...

Huh? If the model has fleshbane, it applies to his CC attacks alone. It's only if it's on a weapon profile that it can be ranged, etc. I'm not sure I really get this post?
I think what he (she?) is referring to is your comment about the wraiths' wounds.

Ohhhhh. I'm an idiot. Yeah, Wraiths are either a holdout hope VS MCs or dead, depending on their wounds. I hope the former, I expect the latter.

**Ghaz**

BrotherGecko wrote:
Rod of the Covenant are not power weapons...

Yes, they are according to the Triarch Praetorian entry that says "In addition to being a power weapon in close combat..."

**adamsouza**

I don't have the codex in front of me , but army builder lists them as S+1 AP2 unwieldy

**Ghaz**

adamsouza wrote:
I don't have the codex in front of me , but army builder lists them as S+1 AP2 unwieldy

Due to the FAQ, otherwise they would be Unusual Power Weapons.

**adamsouza**

Ghaz wrote:
adamsouza wrote:
I don't have the codex in front of me , but army builder lists them as S+1 AP2 unwieldy

Due to the FAQ, otherwise they would be Unusual Power Weapons.

Assuming the official FAQ is the direction they intend for them in 7th, it may account for some of the rumored points reduction.

**BrotherGecko**

SilverDevilfish wrote:
BrotherGecko wrote:
Rod of the Covenant are not power weapons...

Uh... they're the same as power axes in CC... see the FAQ.

http://www.blacklibrary.com/Downloads/Product/PDF/Warhammer-40k/7th-faq/Necrons_v1.0_May14.pdf

Same effect as power axes in CC does not make them power weapons or power axes. Power axes don't have a shooting attack however Rods of the covenant do.

Ghaz wrote:
BrotherGecko wrote:
Rod of the Covenant are not power weapons...

Yes, they are according to the Triarch Praetorian entry that says "In addition to being a power weapon in close combat..."

Except the FAQ says they are not power weapons...

**Hollismason**

I'm sure it will be fixed to say something else. Regardless if they are 20 points a pop, that's crazzzzy good.

Even 22 PPM would be excellent.

That's not probably going to happen btw, I mean seriously that'd be a 50% reduction in cost. It's more like their 30 points per model now. Watch they'll be Chaos Terminator prices.

**Ghaz**

BrotherGecko wrote:

Except the FAQ says they are not power weapons...

The FAQ replaces the profile only, not the entire entry.

**adamsouza**

Ghaz wrote:
BrotherGecko wrote:

Except the FAQ says they are not power weapons...

The FAQ replaces the profile only, not the entire entry.

BOTH of which won't matter in 5 days

**SilverDevilfish**

adamsouza wrote:
Ghaz wrote:
BrotherGecko wrote:

Except the FAQ says they are not power weapons...

The FAQ replaces the profile only, not the entire entry.

BOTH of which won't matter in 5 days

To be honest it really doesn't matter now...

**BrotherGecko**

Ghaz wrote:
BrotherGecko wrote:

Except the FAQ says they are not power weapons...

The FAQ replaces the profile only, not the entire entry.

Except where it says replace its entry with those FAQ rules.

An really why would we want it to change to become a power weapon and a gun when it can just be what it is right now?

**changemod**

Are we really having a "Is a Rod of the Covenant a shooty power weapon or statistically identical to a shooty power weapon?" discussion?

**Ghaz**

BrotherGecko wrote:
Ghaz wrote:
BrotherGecko wrote:

Except the FAQ says they are not power weapons...

The FAQ replaces the profile only, not the entire entry.

Except where it says replace its entry with those FAQ rules.

An really why would we want it to change to become a power weapon and a gun when it can just be what it is right now?

From the Codex Necrons FAQ:

Page 38 - Triarch Praetorians, Rod of Covenant
Replace with the following profile:

So again, it says it replaces the profile and not the entire entry.

**ClassicCarraway**

Eyjio wrote:
I'm getting seriously worried here. Let's assume that tesla destructors are nerfed to being roughly on par with rifle dreads (frankly, that's probably still optimistic). Let's assume that MSS are going to be neutered and probably pointless.

What's our anti-MC strategy? Like, literally, what do we have? We have neither the plasma of other armies, nor good high strength assault units, nor good MCs of our own. Barges are going to be too unreliable without the inv save in combat, and their major "please don't murder me Mr Wraithknight" MSS staller is gone. Without the mass S7, and assuming we don't get something insane like gauss=rending (we won't, only Eldar are special enough snowflakes for that), how can we possibly compete with these big MC spam armies? Let's be honest, double S on gauss isn't happening, it'll just be copy pasted from the 5e codex. What do we do? What's the answer with these changes?

I don't really understand your fears to be honest. Destroyers are decent at gunning down most MC that aren't Riptides or WraithMCs. Tesla does a bang up job against daemons. Crypteks had all sorts of ways to deal with them. Wraiths remain a viable anti-MC unit, and Nightbringer should be able to deal with them pretty well.

Also, while not in this post, I keep hearing "what are necrons to use as anti-air?" in response to the Tesla nerf....my guess is the same thing most other armies use, other flyers or forge world units (FW loves sky fire). If you had the 15 point flakk missile on one infantry unit option like space wolves, elder, blood angels, dark angels, and chaos marines, would you ever take it?

**Eyjio**

ClassicCarraway wrote:
Eyjio wrote:
I'm getting seriously worried here. Let's assume that tesla destructors are nerfed to being roughly on par with rifle dreads (frankly, that's probably still optimistic). Let's assume that MSS are going to be neutered and probably pointless.

What's our anti-MC strategy? Like, literally, what do we have? We have neither the plasma of other armies, nor good high strength assault units, nor good MCs of our own. Barges are going to be too unreliable without the inv save in combat, and their major "please don't murder me Mr Wraithknight" MSS staller is gone. Without the mass S7, and assuming we don't get something insane like gauss=rending (we won't, only Eldar are special enough snowflakes for that), how can we possibly compete with these big MC spam armies? Let's be honest, double S on gauss isn't happening, it'll just be copy pasted from the 5e codex. What do we do? What's the answer with these changes?

I don't really understand your fears to be honest. Destroyers are decent at gunning down most MC that aren't Riptides or WraithMCs. Tesla does a bang up job against daemons. Crypteks had all sorts of ways to deal with them. Wraiths remain a viable anti-MC unit, and Nightbringer should be able to deal with them pretty well.

Also, while not in this post, I keep hearing "what are necrons to use as anti-air?" in response to the Tesla nerf....my guess is the same thing most other armies use, other flyers or forge world units (FW loves sky fire). If you had the 15 point flakk missile on one infantry unit option like space wolves, elder, blood angels, dark angels, and chaos marines, would you ever take it?

Well, we'll see. I hope destroyers are good, nothing saddened me more about the 5e codex than not having a bunch of them on the table.

On a side note, I'm pretty excited to see what Deathmarks are going to be like. They may not change, but I hope they do. They certainly didn't really see much table time outside of the odd cheese flamers. It would be cool to have a good sniper unit outside of kroot. I figure for 3 times the price, they deserve better than wounding on 2+ vs one unit (which, being AP5 didn't make them much better than Immortals, and in many cases actually made them worse).

**changemod**

I use Deathmarks in almost every game, and I change things up in my lists all the time. They're great: Deep strike aggressively with their small unit footprint(I've mishapped a grand total of twice, It's not a real risk honestly.) , slay or cripple a unit, redirect your opponent's attention with sensible positioning, fire on high toughness things if they outlive their target and get to fire again.

**skoffs**

The main thing Deathmarks desperately need is Interceptor so their damn Ethereal Interceptor ability becomes useful.
(I mean, it's in the name of the friggin ability! How the hell did they not get that USR given that the ability is pretty much useless without it!)

**Hollismason**

If they had interceptor it would they'd go from good to amazing.

**ClockworkZion**

From the Freak Factory Forums:

**mitch_rifle**

Wow actually really excited for this. Got a necron BF plus extras may pull them out and work on them

**MajorWesJanson**

ClockworkZion wrote:

This looks like it should be 10 (assuming the whole Decurion is a formation itself):

Nope, that looks to be the 8.
1 Reclamation Legion
2 Royal Court
3 Destroyer Cult
4 Judicator Battalion
5 Canoptek Harvest
6 Annihilation Nexus
7 Living Tomb
8 Deathbringer Flight

Star God, Flayed Ones, and Death Marks all look to just be units, not formations, and the Decurion is more of a FOC made up of the formations

**ClockworkZion**

MajorWesJanson wrote:

Spoiler:

ClockworkZion wrote:

This looks like it should be 10 (assuming the whole Decurion is a formation itself):

Nope, that looks to be the 8.
1 Reclamation Legion
2 Royal Court
3 Destroyer Cult
4 Judicator Battalion
5 Canoptek Harvest
6 Annihilation Nexus
7 Living Tomb
8 Deathbringer Flight

Star God, Flayed Ones, and Death Marks all look to just be units, not formations, and the Decurion is more of a FOC made up of the formations

We don't have any proof of this just yet as there are single unit formations in the game (like in the Deathstorm rulebook). Until we see rules saying that the Decurion is an FOC not a formation I'm not willing to give that over just yet since the current rules split the game into Battle Forged (FOC Detachment + Allied Detachments + Formation Detachments (and by the rules Formations are Detatchments) and Unbound (anything you want following the rules for that unit + Formation Detachments). So unless the Decurion is the first FOC Detachment made of Formations, I'm assuming it's a Formations made of other Formations that you'd play using the Unbound rules. Basically I'm employing Occam's Razor with what little info we have on how the rules are constructed, and how what little we know.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
From Natka (because I didn't notice this last part here):

The C'tan are not generalized into one generic unit like some people are concerned. Each gets its own entry and costs around the same point costs of a Land Raider, with the Transcendent costing an extra 10pts which also carries with it an extra wound giving it a 5 wounds. I would of expected a higher toughness, but S7 and T7 is all around. Transcendent has an additional Strength.

Powers of the C'tan work like this; Pick your target and then roll for power.

All of them share some powers of eternal warrior, and fearless, Immune to natural law- ignoring terrain, and Necrodermis- 4++ and exploding on death-any models within d6" suffer S4 AP1 hits.

The biggest differences are in their remaining powers
Nightbringer- fleshbane and Gaze of Death targets non-vehicles 12" and takes AP2 wounds equal to 3d6 minus leadership

Deceiver- hit and run, Dread-enemy units within 12" -2 leadership, and Grand Illusion- after scouts redeploy d3 units within 12"and the deceiver through normal deployment or put in reserves.

Transcendent- Deepstrike, and Writhing Worldscape- open ground in 6" is difficult terrain.

Well that's not a bad thing for the Transcendent.

**Ghaz**

ClockworkZion wrote:
Until we see rules saying that the Decurion is an FOC not a formation I'm not willing to give that over just yet since the current rules split the game into Battle Forged (FOC Detachment + Allied Detachments + Formation Detachments (and by the rules Formations are Detatchments) and Unbound (anything you want following the rules for that unit + Formation Detachments). So unless the Decurion is the first FOC Detachment made of Formations, I'm assuming it's a Formations made of other Formations that you'd play using the Unbound rules. Basically I'm employing Occam's Razor with what little info we have on how the rules are constructed, and how what little we know.

I think the fact that they call the Decurion a Detachment and not a Formation is pretty conclusive that its not a Formation. Why else would they call it a Detachment if it were actually a Formation?

**Hulksmash**

Formations are a type of detachment.....

**ClockworkZion**

Ghaz wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
Until we see rules saying that the Decurion is an FOC not a formation I'm not willing to give that over just yet since the current rules split the game into Battle Forged (FOC Detachment + Allied Detachments + Formation Detachments (and by the rules Formations are Detatchments) and Unbound (anything you want following the rules for that unit + Formation Detachments). So unless the Decurion is the first FOC Detachment made of Formations, I'm assuming it's a Formations made of other Formations that you'd play using the Unbound rules. Basically I'm employing Occam's Razor with what little info we have on how the rules are constructed, and how what little we know.

I think the fact that they call the Decurion a Detachment and not a Formation is pretty conclusive that its not a Formation. Why else would they call it a Detachment if it were actually a Formation?

Go look on page 121 of your rulebook again in that black box labeled "formations":

Formations are a special type of Detachment...

Hulksmash wrote:
Formations are a type of detachment.....

Thank you! I was beginning to wonder if I was just yelling into the wind at this point about that.

**Ghaz**

Hulksmash wrote:
Formations are a type of detachment.....

But not all Detachments are Formations. So far GW has named all Detachments as 'Detachments' and all Formations as 'Formations', so there is no reason to believe that the Decurion Detachment is a Formation.

**Matt.Kingsley**

But in that case it would be called a Decurion Formation, like all the other multi-formation formations

EDIT: Ninja'd