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.

Jpr wrote:
Can you take more than 1 relic on the same character?

The Codex relics specifically state "A Model may take one of the following", so you can't take more than one Relic per Character. The Mephrit Dynasty Relics in Exterminatus have no such sentence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:

Hollismason wrote:

Can we talk about how the Destroyer Lords are unbelievably insane now with getting RP on each of their T6 wounds.

Crazy good.

Destroyer Lord w/ War Scythe , Phylactery,, Nightmare Shroud, Phase Shifter

Total : 205

2+, 4++, 5++, 5+ It will not die. T6.

Which would be awsome *if* it could still move 12".

There are other uses. Attach him to a blob of Lychguard or Flayed Ones to get him to challenges (where he's still pretty sick). Stick him with Destroyers and let him tank things for them on his saves (of course, using T5, but still, lots of saves). The old standard of putting him with Deathmarks for PE and now a AP2 Flamer is still nice as well.

You can put a Destroyer Lord with wraiths and use the assault move to catch him up so that the wraiths aren't slowed down. It's perfectly RAW and the way the large tourneys play it.

col_impact wrote:
You can put a Destroyer Lord with wraiths and use the assault move to catch him up so that the wraiths aren't slowed down. It's perfectly RAW and the way the large tourneys play it.

"Perfectly RAW" is stretching it. If you move out of coherency in the Movement/Shooting phase, he's no longer part of the unit. He can't reattach to the unit in the Assault phase, only in the Movement Phase. So unless you're making a conga line out of your Wraiths to keep him in coherency during Movement, he'll lag behind in ~2~3 turns.

Requizen wrote:

col_impact wrote:
You can put a Destroyer Lord with wraiths and use the assault move to catch him up so that the wraiths aren't slowed down. It's perfectly RAW and the way the large tourneys play it.

"Perfectly RAW" is stretching it. If you move out of coherency in the Movement/Shooting phase, he's no longer part of the unit. He can't reattach to the unit in the Assault phase, only in the Movement Phase. So unless you're making a conga line out of your Wraiths to keep him in coherency during Movement, he'll lag behind in ~2~3 turns.

That should be perfectly doable though. He can use his jump move to move further up in the formation again after staying barely in coherency during regular move and run.

On another note: the damn decurion detachment is dangling like a carrot in front of me... but it wouldn't allow for something like a D-Lord without also paying a 9 destroyer tax... sigh...
I think it's actually great codex design to make sure that if you want all the cakes, you won't have too much of any single one.

Requizen wrote:

col_impact wrote:
You can put a Destroyer Lord with wraiths and use the assault move to catch him up so that the wraiths aren't slowed down. It's perfectly RAW and the way the large tourneys play it.

"Perfectly RAW" is stretching it. If you move out of coherency in the Movement/Shooting phase, he's no longer part of the unit. He can't reattach to the unit in the Assault phase, only in the Movement Phase. So unless you're making a conga line out of your Wraiths to keep him in coherency during Movement, he'll lag behind in ~2~3 turns.

The wraiths stretch out about 4" to make it happen.

They move 12" with the trailing wraith at the 8" mark. The D Lord winds up at the 6" mark.

You lose fleet and roll for the run move during the shooting phase.

During assault you use the jet pack. Roll 2d6 and move him average 7" but no more than 2" in front of the wraith pack.

And it's perfectly RAW. You are dealing with a mixed unit.

It's BAO/LVO/Adepticon legal.

There's a Tau crisis suit issue and Tau drone issue which blazed the way for this to happen.

I suppose, I've never had to deal with it. Seems like a lot of work, though likely worth it if you want that Warscythe and PE.

except (yay GW rule-writing) only Jet Infantry units can thrust.

is a Wraith unit a JI unit? is a DLord/Wraith combined unit a JI unit? The first one is obviously a No but the second is unclear, some say yes some say no. Not everyone will agree he CAN make a thrust move.

(For the record RAW I'd say No as ICs are treated as being a part of the unit and as the unit is a Beast Unit, he couldn't Thrust Move, however HIWPI, he can trust)

Nebuloscope only give ignore cover for the weapons of the model. I dont think they work on quad gun as they are not weapons of the tomb blade, just used by them

The Rule Says: "..all his wepaons have the.......ignore cover rule"

col_impact wrote:
You can put a Destroyer Lord with wraiths and use the assault move to catch him up so that the wraiths aren't slowed down. It's perfectly RAW and the way the large tourneys play it.

I'd argue that RAW is most certainly not on your side.

"While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters."

So, that destroyer lord is counted as part of a beast unit - not a jet pack unit. And, only jet pack units can make thrust moves.

At the very least, the RAW is not as clear-cut as you make it out to be.

Though, even if people accept your RAW, it still sounds like a dubious strategy.

For one, whatever else happens, you've lost fleet. And, with a unit dragging you back, this could scupper you on a crucial turn.

For two, it seems like you'll really struggle to make the Destroyer Lord keep up without also slowing the Wraiths down. In particular, I'm struggling to see how you'll maintain coherency, whilst still moving the wraiths their full distance. Maybe if you run them in a line, though that in turn leaves you open to your opponent pushing you back by killing the front wraith. And, this is all assuming the lord never once fluffs his thrust move. If he rolls snake-eyes then you're stuck either barely moving next turn or else breaking off the lord.

stormcraft wrote:
Nebuloscope only give ignore cover for the weapons of the model. I dont think they work on quad gun as they are not weapons of the tomb blade, just used by them

The Rule Says: "..all his wepaons have the.......ignore cover rule"

Nebuloscope says "If the model has this, all his Ranged Weapons have the Ignores Cover special rule". I guess it depends, when a model controls an emplaced weapon, does hit because "his weapon"?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:

col_impact wrote:
You can put a Destroyer Lord with wraiths and use the assault move to catch him up so that the wraiths aren't slowed down. It's perfectly RAW and the way the large tourneys play it.

I'd argue that RAW is most certainly not on your side.

"While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters."

So, that destroyer lord is counted as part of a beast unit - not a jet pack unit. And, only jet pack units can make thrust moves.

At the very least, the RAW is not as clear-cut as you make it out to be.

Though, even if people accept your RAW, it still sounds like a dubious strategy.

For one, whatever else happens, you've lost fleet. And, with a unit dragging you back, this could scupper you on a crucial turn.

For two, it seems like you'll really struggle to make the Destroyer Lord keep up without also slowing the Wraiths down. In particular, I'm struggling to see how you'll maintain coherency, whilst still moving the wraiths their full distance. Maybe if you run them in a line, though that in turn leaves you open to your opponent pushing you back by killing the front wraith. And, this is all assuming the lord never once fluffs his thrust move. If he rolls snake-eyes then you're stuck either barely moving next turn or else breaking off the lord.

Well, that's an interesting question. When a Jump Character is part of an Infantry unit, does he Hammer of Wrath? Can a Jetbike in a non-Jetbike squad jink?

 vipoid wrote:

col_impact wrote:
You can put a Destroyer Lord with wraiths and use the assault move to catch him up so that the wraiths aren't slowed down. It's perfectly RAW and the way the large tourneys play it.

I'd argue that RAW is most certainly not on your side.

"While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters."

So, that destroyer lord is counted as part of a beast unit - not a jet pack unit. And, only jet pack units can make thrust moves.

At the very least, the RAW is not as clear-cut as you make it out to be.

Though, even if people accept your RAW, it still sounds like a dubious strategy.

For one, whatever else happens, you've lost fleet. And, with a unit dragging you back, this could scupper you on a crucial turn.

For two, it seems like you'll really struggle to make the Destroyer Lord keep up without also slowing the Wraiths down. In particular, I'm struggling to see how you'll maintain coherency, whilst still moving the wraiths their full distance. Maybe if you run them in a line, though that in turn leaves you open to your opponent pushing you back by killing the front wraith. And, this is all assuming the lord never once fluffs his thrust move. If he rolls snake-eyes then you're stuck either barely moving next turn or else breaking off the lord.

Issue has already been on YMDC.

You need to key in on the fact that at root is an issue about dealing with mixed units.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/570779.page

Again, all the major tourneys support this. It fixes a broken Tau situation.

I think there's just a confused interpretation of this passage:

"While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters."


Being part of the unit isn't necessarily the same as being the same type as the unit. It just means he's part of the unit for targeting, testing, rolling reserves, etc. It doesn't state that he changes his type, or loses/gains rules (except in the case of "if one model has this rule the unit does").

Requizen wrote:
I think there's just a confused interpretation of this passage:

"While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters."


Being part of the unit isn't necessarily the same as being the same type as the unit. It just means he's part of the unit for targeting, testing, rolling reserves, etc. It doesn't state that he changes his type, or loses/gains rules (except in the case of "if one model has this rule the unit does").

Yeah, if he counted as part of the unit in that way, he'd become a beast and be able to keep up anyway.

Which would be pretty clearly spelled out if that were the case, as it would have massive implications.

changemod wrote:

Yeah, if he counted as part of the unit in that way, he'd become a beast and be able to keep up anyway.

Which would be pretty clearly spelled out if that were the case, as it would have massive implications.

That's actually an excellent point. Since I can't imagine anyone seriously arguing for that it should pretty much settle that argument.

I think.

This is still the internet though. So I'm probably wrong.

changemod wrote:

Requizen wrote:
I think there's just a confused interpretation of this passage:

"While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters."


Being part of the unit isn't necessarily the same as being the same type as the unit. It just means he's part of the unit for targeting, testing, rolling reserves, etc. It doesn't state that he changes his type, or loses/gains rules (except in the case of "if one model has this rule the unit does").

Yeah, if he counted as part of the unit in that way, he'd become a beast and be able to keep up anyway.

Which would be pretty clearly spelled out if that were the case, as it would have massive implications.

Ha, I didn't even think about that.

col_impact wrote:

Requizen wrote:

col_impact wrote:
You can put a Destroyer Lord with wraiths and use the assault move to catch him up so that the wraiths aren't slowed down. It's perfectly RAW and the way the large tourneys play it.

"Perfectly RAW" is stretching it. If you move out of coherency in the Movement/Shooting phase, he's no longer part of the unit. He can't reattach to the unit in the Assault phase, only in the Movement Phase. So unless you're making a conga line out of your Wraiths to keep him in coherency during Movement, he'll lag behind in ~2~3 turns.

The wraiths stretch out about 4" to make it happen.

They move 12" with the trailing wraith at the 8" mark. The D Lord winds up at the 6" mark.

You lose fleet and roll for the run move during the shooting phase.

During assault you use the jet pack. Roll 2d6 and move him average 7" but no more than 2" in front of the wraith pack.

And it's perfectly RAW. You are dealing with a mixed unit.

It's BAO/LVO/Adepticon legal.

There's a Tau crisis suit issue and Tau drone issue which blazed the way for this to happen.

Thats nice except for the part where BAO/LVO and adepticon =/= RAW in the slightest.

The unit type is not jet pack which is the requirement for the assault move so he can't assault jump.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

col_impact wrote:
You can put a Destroyer Lord with wraiths and use the assault move to catch him up so that the wraiths aren't slowed down. It's perfectly RAW and the way the large tourneys play it.

I'd argue that RAW is most certainly not on your side.

"While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters."

So, that destroyer lord is counted as part of a beast unit - not a jet pack unit. And, only jet pack units can make thrust moves.

At the very least, the RAW is not as clear-cut as you make it out to be.

Though, even if people accept your RAW, it still sounds like a dubious strategy.

For one, whatever else happens, you've lost fleet. And, with a unit dragging you back, this could scupper you on a crucial turn.

For two, it seems like you'll really struggle to make the Destroyer Lord keep up without also slowing the Wraiths down. In particular, I'm struggling to see how you'll maintain coherency, whilst still moving the wraiths their full distance. Maybe if you run them in a line, though that in turn leaves you open to your opponent pushing you back by killing the front wraith. And, this is all assuming the lord never once fluffs his thrust move. If he rolls snake-eyes then you're stuck either barely moving next turn or else breaking off the lord.

Issue has already been on YMDC.

You need to key in on the fact that at root is an issue about dealing with mixed units.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/570779.page

Again, all the major tourneys support this. It fixes a broken Tau situation.

You realize that thread is from 6th ed right?

 Red Corsair wrote:

col_impact wrote:

Requizen wrote:

col_impact wrote:
You can put a Destroyer Lord with wraiths and use the assault move to catch him up so that the wraiths aren't slowed down. It's perfectly RAW and the way the large tourneys play it.

"Perfectly RAW" is stretching it. If you move out of coherency in the Movement/Shooting phase, he's no longer part of the unit. He can't reattach to the unit in the Assault phase, only in the Movement Phase. So unless you're making a conga line out of your Wraiths to keep him in coherency during Movement, he'll lag behind in ~2~3 turns.

The wraiths stretch out about 4" to make it happen.

They move 12" with the trailing wraith at the 8" mark. The D Lord winds up at the 6" mark.

You lose fleet and roll for the run move during the shooting phase.

During assault you use the jet pack. Roll 2d6 and move him average 7" but no more than 2" in front of the wraith pack.

And it's perfectly RAW. You are dealing with a mixed unit.

It's BAO/LVO/Adepticon legal.

There's a Tau crisis suit issue and Tau drone issue which blazed the way for this to happen.

Thats nice except for the part where BAO/LVO and adepticon =/= RAW in the slightest.

The unit type is not jet pack which is the requirement for the assault move so he can't assault jump.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

col_impact wrote:
You can put a Destroyer Lord with wraiths and use the assault move to catch him up so that the wraiths aren't slowed down. It's perfectly RAW and the way the large tourneys play it.

I'd argue that RAW is most certainly not on your side.

"While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters."

So, that destroyer lord is counted as part of a beast unit - not a jet pack unit. And, only jet pack units can make thrust moves.

At the very least, the RAW is not as clear-cut as you make it out to be.

Though, even if people accept your RAW, it still sounds like a dubious strategy.

For one, whatever else happens, you've lost fleet. And, with a unit dragging you back, this could scupper you on a crucial turn.

For two, it seems like you'll really struggle to make the Destroyer Lord keep up without also slowing the Wraiths down. In particular, I'm struggling to see how you'll maintain coherency, whilst still moving the wraiths their full distance. Maybe if you run them in a line, though that in turn leaves you open to your opponent pushing you back by killing the front wraith. And, this is all assuming the lord never once fluffs his thrust move. If he rolls snake-eyes then you're stuck either barely moving next turn or else breaking off the lord.

Issue has already been on YMDC.

You need to key in on the fact that at root is an issue about dealing with mixed units.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/570779.page

Again, all the major tourneys support this. It fixes a broken Tau situation.

You realize that thread is from 6th ed right?

RAW you are dealing with a mixed unit - an IC jet pack unit that is attached to a Beast unit.

Not sure you know what RAW means.

Jetpack or jetbike ICs joined to beasts/cavalry etc is something that's been working for quite awhile. It might be new to necrons but it's not new.
There's been plenty of 7th edition discussion on the matter. It's one of the corner stones of nearly all of the nastiest xenos deathstars in this edition and last. Its legal.

On relics, I don't believe the mephrit dynasty relics can be mixed with codex. Reason is the dynasty states they are for use with the detachment and formations below (something to that effect, dont have my rules handy). Id like to be proven wrong though since there are some great relics in there.

dominuschao wrote:
Jetpack or jetbike ICs joined to beasts/cavalry etc is something that's been working for quite awhile. It might be new to necrons but it's not new.
There's been plenty of 7th edition discussion on the matter. It's one of the corner stones of nearly all of the nastiest xenos deathstars in this edition and last. Its legal.

On relics, I don't believe the mephrit dynasty relics can be mixed with codex. Reason is the dynasty states they are for use with the detachment and formations below (something to that effect, dont have my rules handy). Id like to be proven wrong though since there are some great relics in there.

You can mix them only in a Mephrit detachment or formation, effectively.

So for example: A Decurion is not a Mephrit detachment, so you can't take a God Shackle for your C'tan. On the other hand, if you took a Conclave of the Burning One, you could have one of those two Crypteks take a God Shackle.

Hollismason wrote:
The Ghost Ark puts out a fething gak load of shots in the Decurion Formation, Reclamation legion because the Warriors inside it I believe have Relentless. Am I not correct on that? Roll up on someone and dump out 30 Gauss Shots. I guess that's a YMDC question.

I mean 1 Ghost Ark Moving w/ 10 Warriors puts out 50 Gauss shots in 12" and 30 at 24"

Gauss now wounds on a 6 regardless so that's a bonus, but who cares, 50 Gauss Shots should put a dent in just about most things.

can you help me out with the math on this one? how are you getting 50 shots at 12" and 30 shots at 24"?

rapidfire from the 10 warriors inside gets you 20 shots, then each array gets you salvo of 10. so im getting 20+10+10 = 40 at 12" if the GA didnt move (if it did then the GA array puts out 5 shots each instead of 10).

stormcraft wrote:
Nebuloscope only give ignore cover for the weapons of the model. I dont think they work on quad gun as they are not weapons of the tomb blade, just used by them

The Rule Says: "..all his wepaons have the.......ignore cover rule"

I had a similar issue with one of my peeps who was playing DE back in 6th edition. In the previous DE codex one of his HQs was manning the Icarus and one the HQ's rules stated he was a great shot...such and such "with his weapons" and when I brought to the attention of others in our club for a ruling I lost and the DE player got to fire it as if it was "his gun"...but that was at my club so there you go. I don't see that wording in the new dex though.

xpress907 wrote:

Hollismason wrote:
The Ghost Ark puts out a fething gak load of shots in the Decurion Formation, Reclamation legion because the Warriors inside it I believe have Relentless. Am I not correct on that? Roll up on someone and dump out 30 Gauss Shots. I guess that's a YMDC question.

I mean 1 Ghost Ark Moving w/ 10 Warriors puts out 50 Gauss shots in 12" and 30 at 24"

Gauss now wounds on a 6 regardless so that's a bonus, but who cares, 50 Gauss Shots should put a dent in just about most things.

can you help me out with the math on this one? how are you getting 50 shots at 12" and 30 shots at 24"?

rapidfire from the 10 warriors inside gets you 20 shots, then each array gets you salvo of 10. so im getting 20+10+10 = 40 at 12" if the GA didnt move (if it did then the GA array puts out 5 shots each instead of 10).

While I'm not sure what's going on with his math, vehicles are relentless and therefore the ghost ark's Salvo weapons will fire 10 shots regardless of whether or not it moved.

I think he is taking both sides of the ghost ark for the 30 shots.
10+10 for ghost ark +10 for warriors = 30

The 50 10*2 from warriors with rapid fire +10+10 both sides from ghost ark again. Maybe he was thinking of them with rapid fire and forgot to "add" a side?

Also on another note how good is a full unit of flayed ones with a destro lord? SLower than the wraithwing but is it more deadly or as durable/close to as the new wraiths?

Straight up (without artifacts or upgrades) I think wraith's are the most durable non vehicle units in the codex.

You can however get around 2.5 flayed ones for the cost of 1 x wraith.

Point for point I am not sure who is better, wraiths or flayed ones... would love to see someone mathahmmer "Flayed wing" (Fling?) against "Wraithwing"

bodazoka wrote:
Straight up (without artifacts or upgrades) I think wraith's are the most durable non vehicle units in the codex.

You can however get around 2.5 flayed ones for the cost of 1 x wraith.

Point for point I am not sure who is better, wraiths or flayed ones... would love to see someone mathahmmer "Flayed wing" (Fling?) against "Wraithwing"

Also infiltrate and deepstrike for what its worth. I'm thinking flayed ones win out damage wise and wraiths win out toughness wise. Maybe run them to geather as a hammer and anvil strat

In the context of Void Blade / Particle caster TPs, that Triarch formation is still pretty legit, the more I think about it. Obviously effecting all units would have been sweet, but both Rending and Entropic are meaning full rules in conjunction with rerolls.

Obviously not nearly as good as it would have been otherwise, but if you are considering both units, that's a pretty good way to bring them. Marking a target for TP death per turn doesn't take away what the Stalker is doing other wise, both in shooting and buffing with the 6 range. And adding reroll to hit and wound/armor pan to either Praetorian is still pretty legit. In fact, if you had one of each it would be a pretty good way of covering both bases. Giving you a sold medium / heavy infantry counter and a solid heavy vehicle / light infantry counter, depending on which you needed more each turn.

5 VB/PC on the charge against a marked vehicle give you, what, 5.4 HPs? That's not too shabby lol.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sasori wrote:

 buddha wrote:
So my big question is how to equip preatorians. Rod or particle caster and voidblade.

It's not even a contest, the Rod is superior. Increased shooting attack, and you strike with AP2 an Init Value. Easy!

I don't know, man, I thought that at first as well, but at least in the context of the formation, those VB/PCs absolutely shred vehicles. They are also superior to 4+ saves or better, and with rending, are still not awful against harder targets. The pistol is also better at vehicle hunting, with the improved S.

I think the two options are actually pretty well balanced, the more I think about it. Outside of the formation, I might lean toward Rods, in it, though, I'm really liking the Idea of VB/PC.

ShadarLogoth wrote:
In the context of Void Blade / Particle caster TPs, that Triarch formation is still pretty legit, the more I think about it. Obviously effecting all units would have been sweet, but both Rending and Entropic are meaning full rules in conjunction with rerolls.

Obviously not nearly as good as it would have been otherwise, but if you are considering both units, that's a pretty good way to bring them. Marking a target for TP death per turn doesn't take away what the Stalker is doing other wise, both in shooting and buffing with the 6 range. And adding reroll to hit and wound/armor pan to either Praetorian is still pretty legit. In fact, if you had one of each it would be a pretty good way of covering both bases. Giving you a sold medium / heavy infantry counter and a solid heavy vehicle / light infantry counter, depending on which you needed more each turn.

5 VB/PC on the charge against a marked vehicle give you, what, 5.4 HPs? That's not too shabby lol.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sasori wrote:

 buddha wrote:
So my big question is how to equip preatorians. Rod or particle caster and voidblade.

It's not even a contest, the Rod is superior. Increased shooting attack, and you strike with AP2 an Init Value. Easy!

I don't know, man, I thought that at first as well, but at least in the context of the formation, those VB/PCs absolutely shred vehicles. They are also superior to 4+ saves or better, and with rending, are still not awful against harder targets. The pistol is also better at vehicle hunting, with the improved S.

I think the two options are actually pretty well balanced, the more I think about it. Outside of the formation, I might lean toward Rods, in it, though, I'm really liking the Idea of VB/PC.

A couple of things worth noting though, is that most vehicles are AV 10 in the rear anyway, so even with the Rods, you've got a 33% for a glance or a pen on the armor penetration roll anyway. This really only gives the Voidblades an advantage on Vehicles with AV 11+ on the Rear

I think in the context of the whole Necron Army though, the Rods bring something that we don't have a lot of, which is consistent AP2.

Destroyer Lord w/ Veil of Darkness, Warscythe, Phylactery, Phase Shifter , Ressurection Orb , 230

Elites

7 Lychguard w/ Warscythes

Triarch Stalker w/ Heavy Gauss Cannon

Troops

5 Immortals w/ NightScythe (215)

5 Immortals w/ NightScythe

Fast Attack

5 Wraiths w/ Whip Coils

5 Wraiths w/ Whip Coils

8 Tomb Blades w/ Shield Vanes, Nebuloscopes

H. Support

2 H. Destroyers

2 H. Destroyers

I like the list, Hollisman, although I would put one of the Night Scythers with the LG/Dlord.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

A couple of things worth noting though, is that most vehicles are AV 10 in the rear anyway, so even with the Rods, you've got a 33% for a glance or a pen on the armor penetration roll anyway. This really only gives the Voidblades an advantage on Vehicles with AV 11+ on the Rear

I think in the context of the whole Necron Army though, the Rods bring something that we don't have a lot of, which is consistent AP2.

Yeah, that's fair. Still, averaging over an HP per base against AV 12+ is pretty nuts (assuming against a Marked Triarch Formation target). If you got some tough nuts to crack, they're a good option to have. I think it's pretty good Dex design that we have both.

DLord doesn't fit in a night scythe anymore, unfortunately.