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.

**z3n1st**

Formation equals Detachment, however Detachment does not equal Formation

**ClockworkZion**

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

EDIT: Ninja'd

We have no proof that it isn't a formation though since currently formations, being detachments, can't be inside regular detachments. Currently the only place we've seen Formations inside of anything has been other formations.

I'm not saying it can't happen, just pointing out that it means making the rules more complicated when we're seeing signs of them doing the opposite at this time.

**Ghaz**

It feels like we're going in circles here. GW calls it a Detachment which is our proof that it is a Detachment and not a Formation. When has GW ever called a Formation a 'Detachment'? So why should we assume its a Formation when its called a Detachment? We shouldn't. There is nothing to back up that assumption.

**ClockworkZion**

Ghaz wrote:
It feels like we're going in circles here. GW calls it a Detachment which is our proof that it is a Detachment and not a Formation. When has GW ever called a Formation a 'Detachment'? So why should we assume its a Formation when its called a Detachment? We shouldn't. There is nothing to back up that assumption.

Show me a Detachment we've gotten made of formations and you have my attention. Until then you're asking me to buy them changing how they approach detachments and formations based on a single word in the WD, which has had errors in it before.

**skoffs**

Here's an idea:
How about we not get our knickers in a twist over something that will likely be cleared up in less than a week's time?

**Ghaz**

ClockworkZion wrote:
Ghaz wrote:
It feels like we're going in circles here. GW calls it a Detachment which is our proof that it is a Detachment and not a Formation. When has GW ever called a Formation a 'Detachment'? So why should we assume its a Formation when its called a Detachment? We shouldn't. There is nothing to back up that assumption.

Show me a Detachment we've gotten made of formations and you have my attention. Until then you're asking me to buy them changing how they approach detachments and formations based on a single word in the WD, which has had errors in it before.

You're the one who's claiming GW has erroneously called a Formation a Detachment. The burden of proof is on you.

**ClockworkZion**

Ghaz wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
Ghaz wrote:
It feels like we're going in circles here. GW calls it a Detachment which is our proof that it is a Detachment and not a Formation. When has GW ever called a Formation a 'Detachment'? So why should we assume its a Formation when its called a Detachment? We shouldn't. There is nothing to back up that assumption.

Show me a Detachment we've gotten made of formations and you have my attention. Until then you're asking me to buy them changing how they approach detachments and formations based on a single word in the WD, which has had errors in it before.

You're the one who's claiming GW has erroneously called a Formation a Detachment. The burden of proof is on you.

Considering the number of times that WD has had mistakes in it in it's run I don't think so bub.

Either way I stand by my position: until I see actual rules saying otherwise I'm not buying the idea of the rules changing drastically just because of a single word in a magazine that doesn't get things right every single time.

**davethepak**

Can you guys take the "its a detachment', "no its not"....to another room?

Thanks.

So, to round up, the only things we really know for sure are;
* wd info (how ctan work, stuff on building lists.
* a few unit costs from previews (ctan, bikes, etc.)
* info on the Gw site (not much).

The rumors from "I have a codex..." of the new stats, while some are good info (new stats, how rp works now,ctan powers) we have not actually had any shots of the new book?

Or have we?

Note: "I thought we had ..." is not "yes, we have, and here is a link to it, and the guy who posted it said....."

thanks

**Ghaz**

ClockworkZion wrote:
Ghaz wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
Ghaz wrote:
It feels like we're going in circles here. GW calls it a Detachment which is our proof that it is a Detachment and not a Formation. When has GW ever called a Formation a 'Detachment'? So why should we assume its a Formation when its called a Detachment? We shouldn't. There is nothing to back up that assumption.

Show me a Detachment we've gotten made of formations and you have my attention. Until then you're asking me to buy them changing how they approach detachments and formations based on a single word in the WD, which has had errors in it before.

You're the one who's claiming GW has erroneously called a Formation a Detachment. The burden of proof is on you.

Considering the number of times that WD has had mistakes in it in it's run I don't think so bub.

Either way I stand by my position: until I see actual rules saying otherwise I'm not buying the idea of the rules changing drastically just because of a single word in a magazine that doesn't get things right every single time.

Without any proof to back up your claims. I'm done if you're not willing to support your position.

**ClockworkZion**

davethepak wrote:
Can you guys take the "its a detachment', "no its not"....to another room?

Thanks.

So, to round up, the only things we really know for sure are;
* wd info (how ctan work, stuff on building lists.
* a few unit costs from previews (ctan, bikes, etc.)
* info on the Gw site (not much).

The rumors from "I have a codex..." of the new stats, while some are good info (new stats, how rp works now,ctan powers) we have not actually had any shots of the new book?

Or have we?

Note: "I thought we had ..." is not "yes, we have, and here is a link to it, and the guy who posted it said....."

thanks

You missed that the Transcendent is a HS now (which means he's probably an MC).

**Tokhuah**

The rumor war Praetorians and Lychguards at almost/nearly/precipitively close to (can't remember exact word indicating proximity) 50% Reduction. Not reading that as exactly 20, more like 25-27.8653 but who is counting?

**Hollismason**

25 to 28 points is still a vast deal greater than 40. If they're 25 points they'll still see play. If the Praetorians are 25 that's still a steal for a 3+ 5++ with a 12 inch ST5 AP2 weapon and a Power Axe when they charge into combat. Add in the possibility of Ressurection Protocols and whatever else new "stuff" they get , pretty serious.

If your able to put Lychguards in a Ghost Ark, that would pretty much just be amazing.

**nflagey**

z3n1st wrote:
Formation equals Detachment, however Detachment does not equal Formation

This is a mathematical impossibility

**NakedSeamus**

nflagey wrote:
z3n1st wrote:
Formation equals Detachment, however Detachment does not equal Formation

This is a mathematical impossibility

I think he's going with the 'square is a rectangle but a rectangle isn't a square' argument.

**Slayer-Fan123**

nflagey wrote:
z3n1st wrote:
Formation equals Detachment, however Detachment does not equal Formation

This is a mathematical impossibility

An apple is always a fruit, but not all fruits are apples.
Using math, 2+2=4, but 4 can be formed with other equations.

**nflagey**

I know what z3n1st meant, which is what everybody else said:
"a Formation is a Detachment, but a Detachment may not be a Formation"
which is different from "Formation = Detachment but Detachment != Formation"
anyway, what was the point of putting a smiley face at the end of my message again?

**ClockworkZion**

Posted by Natfka:

There has been lots of rumors over the last few weeks regarding Necrons, and many of them directed towards leaks from early looks at the White Dwarf. However, I wanted to make a distinct difference in some of the leaks we have lately, because these are direct codex leaks instead of information from White Dwarf, and are very solid.

Anything that I am not sure of where it came from, or the validity of the information, I am not including. This includes the translated bit from yesterday not being included, although is most likely valid. Its here if you want to add this to your own thoughts. http://natfka.blogspot.com/2015/01/more-necron-information-flowing.html#comment-form

Decurion Detachments

I have the codex, and I know the new decurion detachment has been a hot issue. Here are the rules for it straight from the codex.
-The Decurion Detachment is a special type of detachment that can be included in any battle-forged army
-Units cannot normally belong to more than one detachment, units from a formation that is part of a Decurion Detachment are an exeption and are both part of their formation and the detachment with both command benefits and special rules
-If the Warlord is a part of a Decurion Detachment, that entire Decurion Detachment is your primary detachment
-You can take Combined Arms and Allied Detachments and/or Decurion Detachments for Battle-Forged Armies

Special Rules and Warlord Traits

Necron Special Rules
Reanimation Protocols are for whenever a model suffers an unsaved wound and can be used against "no saves of any kind" as RA is not a saving throw. It also works against instant death weapons, but not destroyer or removed from play. Standard is a 5+ and can never be improved better than a 4+. If you have fnp, and RA, you must choose which one to use., but not both.
Living Metal ignores shaken results but still loses a hull point. On the roll of a 6 at the end of the round, regain a lost hull point.

Warlord Traits
1. Warlord has Eternal Warrior
2. Warlord has Zealot
3. Warlord and friendlies within 12" re-roll failed morale, pinning and fear
4. While warlord is alive, add or subtract 1 to reserve rolls and seize the initiative after the roll is made
5. Warlord and friendles within 12" have relentless and crusader
6. Warlord must accept challenges and re-rollls all failed to hit rolls in challenges. If an enemy refuses a challenge the Warlord gains hatred for rest of game.

Stat Changes

Some stat changes I noticed:
Overlords (and the othet special character overlords)- WS and BS 5 insteadof 4
Lords - 2 wounds instead of 1Cryptek - 2 wounds instead of 1
Orikan the Diviner- once the change in stats happens, it remains for theentire game!
Flayed ones - same stats but now have 2 weapons (flayer claws, AP5, shred)so have 4 attacks total.
Triarch praetorians - 2 attacks instead of 1.
Canoptek Wraiths - Toughness 5 instead of 4Destroyers (both versions) - 2 wounds instead of 1 (finally)
Obelisk - 14 AV all around, instead of 12.
The Phase shifter, which is now 4+ inv save instead of 3+, statesspecifically that it doesnt work on the catacomb Barge, just the Overlord.
Death Ray - now is 24" S10, AP1, Heavy 1, Blast, LanceDoomsday cannon, +1 strength to both profiles (so 8/10)

Powers of the C'tan

Note that the datacards include a deck of the c'tan powers so you can shuffle those and draw a card instead of rolling.
All powers are 24" except the Tesseract Vault which has a range of 48". Tesseract Vault powers are are the same strength and ap, but longer ranged and other changes noted below.
1. Powers of the C'tanAntimatter Meteor -S8 AP3 lg blast-Tesseract Vault Apoc Blast
2. Cosmic Fire - S6 AP4 lg blast ignores cover-Tesseract Vault Apoc blast ignores cover
3. Seismic Assault - S6 AP4 assault 10 strikedown-Tesseract Vault Assault 20 strikedown
4. Sky of Falling Stars - S7 AP4 assault 3 lg blast barrage-Tesseract Vault assault 6 apoc barrage
5. Time's Arrow - SD AP1 precision shot-Tesseract Vault assault 2 precision shots
6. Transdimensional Thunderbolt -S9 AP1 Tesla-Tesseract Vault assault 2 Tesla
*Tesla: When firing this weapon a to hit roll of 6 causes 2 extra hits. Snap shots dont do extra hits.

Specifics about the C'tan

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 powersNightbringer- 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.

**Nilok**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
nflagey wrote:
z3n1st wrote:
Formation equals Detachment, however Detachment does not equal Formation

This is a mathematical impossibility

An apple is always a fruit, but not all fruits are apples.
Using math, 2+2=4, but 4 can be formed with other equations.

I'm sorry, but apple was originally "fruit", which is why Oranges were originally called "The Apple of the Orange Tree"

**Tokhuah**

Hollismason wrote:
25 to 28 points is still a vast deal greater than 40. If they're 25 points they'll still see play. If the Praetorians are 25 that's still a steal for a 3+ 5++ with a 12 inch ST5 AP2 weapon and a Power Axe when they charge into combat. Add in the possibility of Ressurection Protocols and whatever else new "stuff" they get , pretty serious.

If your able to put Lychguards in a Ghost Ark, that would pretty much just be amazing.

Part of the Praetorian rumor is also 2 Attacks, so yeah...

**Sigvatr**

Natfka rumors, so 99% a lie, but it looks like GW continues on their ever-lasting journey to make Living Metal worse with every release

**CthuluIsSpy**

Sigvatr wrote:
Natfka rumors, so 99% a lie, but it looks like GW continues on their ever-lasting journey to make Living Metal worse with every release

Idk, looks better to me.
It loses protection against stun (which was only on a 4+ before), but it does get automatic shaken protection, and it can regenerate hull points.

3rd ed LM was still better though.

**Sigvatr**

Regenerating HP on OT vehicles is kinda...less useful.

**Kangodo**

Hmm, Ghost Arks with AV13, 4 HP's, Jink, regaining HP's on a 6 and we can even get IWND on it.
Sounds quite great to me!

**Nilok**

I think the problem is melta causes it to explode on a 4+

**CthuluIsSpy**

Nilok wrote:
I think the problem is melta causes it to explode on a 4+

I'm not sure how protection against stun prevents that.
Now 3rd ed LM on the other hand...

**angelofvengeance**

I'm glad they fixed the Death Ray on the Doom Scythe. While interesting, the 1mm line was a bit annoying to do in a game. Plus- 2 wounds on Destroyers?! Yes please!
Living metal- sounds like it could be useful assuming your vehicle isn't wrecked by the end of the turn lol.
I honestly don't get people being upset about C'tan. All of those powers are wonderful!

**Kangodo**

Nilok wrote:
I think the problem is melta causes it to explode on a 4+

But only a 23% chance on that.
With BS4 you have a .66 chance to hit; a .5 chance to get through Jink and .72 to actually penetrate.

**Nilok**

Kangodo wrote:
Nilok wrote:
I think the problem is melta causes it to explode on a 4+

But only a 23% chance on that.
With BS4 you have a .66 chance to hit; a .5 chance to get through Jink and .72 to actually penetrate.

That's going a little overboard with the mathhammer.

IWND and the other HP recovery won't matter unless it takes a HP, so you need to factor a hit and a glance or pen to see how well the rule will actually do. By assuming that it won't take the glance or pen in the first place is almost the same as saying it isn't needed. If a dedicated anti-tank unit is shooting at a Ghost Ark, unless it glances, it will at least get a +1 to the chart, this is compounded further with AP.

I think the HP recovery rules are a little wasted on a Ghost Ark unless it takes mostly glances or it regains it's Quantum Shielding at full HP and doesn't immediately explode.

What rumor exactly said that Ghost Arks will get these rules?

**Eyjio**

Yeah, let's be honest, if it's lost a hull point, it may have been penetrated, in which case it'll have no QS. And, as we all know, no QS = dead vehicle. I wish we could just always be AV13...

**skoffs**

angelofvengeance wrote:
I honestly don't get people being upset about C'tan. All of those powers are wonderful!

They might be pretty decent in the right circumstance, but with no way to control what power you're going to get until after you've chosen your target, you might end up not being able to do anything (eg. get the S6 AP4 power when you've chosen to shoot at AV14, or the SD AP1 Assault 1 power when you've chosen to shoot at a unit of 30 Boyz).
Everyone can pretty much agree that was a really bad design idea when coming up with the new rules.
Now had it been the other way around (roll for power then choose target) it might have been worth it... but too late now.
(here's hoping they got it wrong and the entry in the codex actually has it around the right/good way?)