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.
col_impact wrote: I am curious - does anyone think that the tesla sphere is not intended to be able to rotate, ie that the tesla sphere is fixed in place both RAW and RAI?
Yes, I don't think its intended to rotate. If they had wanted it to, the model would have been designed to have rotating weapons (like with the monolith)
It's visually designed like an eyeball in an eye socket. That would actually be something challenging to mechanically design without it being something that would break pretty easily or slip around too much. Not to mention the big cost savings of simply providing a visual design.
The Monolith turret works exactly the same way (ball in socket) and they did it 10 years ago. If they wanted it to be moveable they could have done it but they chose not to.
Do you own an Obelisk? I do and it would not be an easy mechanical design. They made the right choice cost-wise to represent the rotation visually.
col_impact wrote: I am curious - does anyone think that the tesla sphere is not intended to be able to rotate, ie that the tesla sphere is fixed in place both RAW and RAI?
Yes, I don't think its intended to rotate. If they had wanted it to, the model would have been designed to have rotating weapons (like with the monolith)
It's visually designed like an eyeball in an eye socket. That would actually be something challenging to mechanically design without it being something that would break pretty easily or slip around too much. Not to mention the big cost savings of simply providing a visual design.
The Monolith turret works exactly the same way (ball in socket) and they did it 10 years ago. If they wanted it to be moveable they could have done it but they chose not to.
Do you own an Obelisk? I do and it would not be an easy mechanical design. They made the right choice cost-wise to represent the rotation visually.
Yes I do, And considering how easy it was for the monolith to do it, it would be just as easy to have done in on the obelisk
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/19 06:49:24
How many people have tried a Tomb Blade heavy Decurion or CAD? Heavy as in 2-3 units of 5+ Blades each? Useful, useless or meh? Double-CAD for twice the fun?
Also do you think it's a waste of points to ally in a Renegade Knight? At any game point level?
CrownAxe wrote: If they wanted it to be moveable they could have done it but they chose not to.
Why would a sphere need to rotate ?
The monolith's Gauss turrets have obvious barrels that need to be pointed at something to shoot it.
Tesla Spheres do not require a barrel to function
Spoiler:
real life examples are a very poor reasoning for how things in a game works. According to RAW, Tesla Spheres (in game) need barrels to work.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nightfish wrote: And now for something completely different.....
How many people have tried a Tomb Blade heavy Decurion or CAD? Heavy as in 2-3 units of 5+ Blades each? Useful, useless or meh? Double-CAD for twice the fun?
Also do you think it's a waste of points to ally in a Renegade Knight? At any game point level?
I don't run TB as much as I should but I feel they don't bring enough "work" for them to be useful.
As for a Renegade knight, no way its a great addition, Even more so if you mod the knight to look like a necron knight or something.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/19 04:01:48
It's easy to assume that people arguing an interpretation you disagree with are just looking for an advantage for themselves... But it's quite often not the case.
I run 12 blades in my games, normally in 3x4 squads but sometimes 2x6. Amazing board control in maelstrom games, turbo boosting to grab late game objectives is fun. Plus I've found I HATE immobile lists, so the more mobility the better imo
Why not both?
(spam Tomb Blades & Destroyers)
- Lots of extremely mobile stuff
- Anti-infantry guns for every occasion (AP4, AP3, AP2)
- Everybody's pretty accurate (twin linked & PE)
- So much T5/3+ on the table
skoffs wrote: Why not both?
(spam Tomb Blades & Destroyers)
- Lots of extremely mobile stuff
- Anti-infantry guns for every occasion (AP4, AP3, AP2)
- Everybody's pretty accurate (twin linked & PE)
- So much T5/3+ on the table
That would be the dream. I just wish the Destroyer Cult had less of a buy-in. I'd run it every time if I were just able to do two squads of 5 Destroyers and then a squad of Heavy Destroyers. Then flavor with Death marks and Wraiths for the Destroyer Lord.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
Nightfish wrote: Working on a list that has 3x5 Tomb Blades (vanes, scopes and gauss) and a 9D3H Cult.
Also throwing in 2x5 Deathmarks for kicks.
This is a very good shooty army, honestly. Especially if you do things like hold everything possible in Reserve and just hide bikes and stuff, you can DS most of the army and spread out a lot, very MSU styled rather than relying on a Deathstar or gimmick.
Destroyer Cult
····Destroyer Lord [Phase Shifter, Warscythe]
····Destroyers [5x Destroyer]
····Destroyers [3x Destroyer, Heavy Destroyer]
····Destroyers [3x Destroyer, Heavy Destroyer]
····Heavy Destroyers [2x Heavy Destroyer]
Notes:
- Possibly switch CCB out for a regular Overlord or Zahndrekh.
- Immortals don't really need NS, but *shrug* what else would I use the points on?
- Each TB unit has a Beamer in it because I like having that one grenade-esque blast available to me (has come in handy).
- Did they clarify whether the Destroyer Lord could come in with the Deathmarks? If yes, is there a catch to it?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Actually, would it be bad to go CAD with this instead of Decurion?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/08/19 18:09:36
Destroyer Cult
····Destroyer Lord [Phase Shifter, Warscythe]
····Destroyers [5x Destroyer]
····Destroyers [3x Destroyer, Heavy Destroyer]
····Destroyers [3x Destroyer, Heavy Destroyer]
····Heavy Destroyers [2x Heavy Destroyer]
Notes:
- Possibly switch CCB out for a regular Overlord or Zahndrekh.
Eh, maybe. You make a unit of Warriors or Immortals slightly better, but the CCB protects the Tomb Blades with some Assault power and also makes them essentially Fearless.
- Immortals don't really need NS, but *shrug* what else would I use the points on?
I like it. The point is to make a fast list, and if you can make your foot dudes quicker, it's a bonus. People are used to Necrons being slow and steady, but this flies in the face of that, though doesn't have the power units either (Deahtstars, Wraiths, etc).
On the other hand, though, I'd put Warriors in there instead. 5 Tesla Immortals holding down a backfield spot is better than 10 Gauss Warriors (cheaper, Tesla good at long ranges, etc), and 10 Warriors dropping out of a NS does more damage than 5 Immortals.
- Each TB unit has a Beamer in it because I like having that one grenade-esque blast available to me (has come in handy).
In general, I hate mixing weapons. It's bad. If you could make a unit full of them, I'd prefer that.
- Did they clarify whether the Destroyer Lord could come in with the Deathmarks? If yes, is there a catch to it?
Yes, but you can't do Ethereal Interception. So, take that tradeoff as you will.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Actually, would it be bad to go CAD with this instead of Decurion?
No way, man. Tomb Blades and Destroyers are not ObSec anyway, so if they're the core of your army, you would much rather have the bonuses. MTC and 4+++ is the big thing for Destroyers and Tomb Blades, missing out on those will make them much less effective.
The thing I worry about is, with the CCB being the only vehicle on the table it'll be highly unlikely to survive long, even with hit allocation shenanigans.
If I were to switch it out, maybe I could free up enough points to give both Warrior units a NS? (Ghost Arks would easily be fittable... but after the nerfs it got, not sure if it'd be worth it).
If I could also spare enough points to give the Overlord (now attached to the Immortals) a Veil, BAM, everyone in the entire list just became super mobile.
Destroyer Cult
····Destroyer Lord [Phase Shifter, Phylactery, Warscythe]
····Destroyers [3x Destroyer, Heavy Destroyer]
····Destroyers [3x Destroyer, Heavy Destroyer]
····Destroyers [3x Destroyer, Heavy Destroyer]
····Heavy Destroyers [2x Heavy Destroyer]
Lacks the assault punch of the previous version, but still looks solid.
If needs be, can easily replace both Night Scythes with small C.Harvest in case tying up trouble units quickly would be more pressing than being able to drop Warriors anywhere (trading killy yet unreliable Tesla destructors out for survivable dependable tarpits)
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/08/19 21:04:36
Yeah looks interesting. Assault power lacking isn't an issue when that's not the point of the army, you want to spread out, shoot things that can die, and just be generally annoying and unkillable because you're Decurion Crons that are hiding in cover and taking objectives.
Even against armies that are good at taking objectives like Bikes or Pods, you should have the staying power to grind them down. Seems good.
It has got me thinking, though.
How bad is the Ghost Ark, now?
Does it still have a decent strategic competitive role, or has it been relegated to the same fate as all the rest of our vehicles? ("Not worth it, use the points for something better.")
I feel like I missed the nerf you're referring to for the Ghost Ark. Are you talking about the lance faq? The snapshooting passengers if you jink?
I still like them a lot myself. AV 13 is hard to get through and doesn't need to jink often. Most transports don't even have that option, so I wouldn't feel bad just pushing up and taking my chances on them getting a pen in the first place.
lessthanjeff wrote: I feel like I missed the nerf you're referring to for the Ghost Ark. Are you talking about the lance faq? The snapshooting passengers if you jink?
I still like them a lot myself. AV 13 is hard to get through and doesn't need to jink often. Most transports don't even have that option, so I wouldn't feel bad just pushing up and taking my chances on them getting a pen in the first place.
Snapshooting passengers, likely. It's pretty bad. Also, still have conflicting results on whether or not Lance does anything to Quantum Shielding.
They're... fine. They're relatively cheap-ish and keep your Warriors safe from Scatter Lasers and Tau small-arms fire. They bring dudes back and act as mobile walls for hiding or blocking. If you've got 105 points left kicking around, or really like the models, you could do worse than including one or two. But for just 25 points more, you can fly around.
If you're going CAD, they're better, though. Get that ObSec AV13 on the board and watch people whinge and moan. There's probably a list there, but Necron vehicles aren't really my cup of tea at the moment, just a personal opinion.
lessthanjeff wrote: I feel like I missed the nerf you're referring to for the Ghost Ark. Are you talking about the lance faq? The snapshooting passengers if you jink?
I still like them a lot myself. AV 13 is hard to get through and doesn't need to jink often. Most transports don't even have that option, so I wouldn't feel bad just pushing up and taking my chances on them getting a pen in the first place.
Snapshooting passengers, likely. It's pretty bad. Also, still have conflicting results on whether or not Lance does anything to Quantum Shielding.
They're... fine. They're relatively cheap-ish and keep your Warriors safe from Scatter Lasers and Tau small-arms fire. They bring dudes back and act as mobile walls for hiding or blocking. If you've got 105 points left kicking around, or really like the models, you could do worse than including one or two. But for just 25 points more, you can fly around.
If you're going CAD, they're better, though. Get that ObSec AV13 on the board and watch people whinge and moan. There's probably a list there, but Necron vehicles aren't really my cup of tea at the moment, just a personal opinion.
He is reffering to Snapshooting passengers. It is a knock, but not the end of the road. It is still very durable and makes your warriors even more durable. I still run them.
Lance cancel Quantum Shielding eachother out apparently. Or brings it down to 12. Or just works... depending on the FAQ that you are reading. GRRR.
AV13 Wall is still around in small pockets. I particularly works well with either the Praetorian/Stalker formation or the Start Collecting Formation.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/20 13:51:26
My Project Blog: Necrons, Orks, Sisters, Blood Angels, and X-Wing "
"One morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How it got into my pajamas, I'll never know." Groucho Marx
~A grammatically correct sentence can have multiple, valid interpretations.
Arguing over the facts is the lowest form of debate.
With vehicles I think you need to invest into a lot of ground vehicles or don't use any at all.
A completely ground vehicle free Necron list is just much more potent than a ground vehicle heavy list.
Our infantry is very durable and generally very fast and we are winning when the opponent shoots premium high strength AV or D weaponry at our warriors.
So then, following the update to the FAQ first draft,
2 Night Scythes might be better than 2 Ghost Arks?
(for the Warriors in the Tomb Blade & Destroyer spam list, at least)
skoffs wrote: So then, following the update to the FAQ first draft,
2 Night Scythes might be better than 2 Ghost Arks?
(for the Warriors in the Tomb Blade & Destroyer spam list, at least)
I'd say that they are about the same. It depends on your playstyle. Hell, necron warriors footslogging can make sure your backfield objectives stay yours.
My Project Blog: Necrons, Orks, Sisters, Blood Angels, and X-Wing "
"One morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How it got into my pajamas, I'll never know." Groucho Marx
~A grammatically correct sentence can have multiple, valid interpretations.
Arguing over the facts is the lowest form of debate.
Just had the strangest tournament, didn't loose a match and still finished third (No blow outs/mismatches \_(ツ)_/¯, deathwatch, gladius SM with skyhammer, scatt bike eldar so i took the hard route to the winners circle). I mention it because people were asking about destroyers vs. tomb blades, and my D-cult carried me to all of my wins. Between most of my opponents having 3+ saves, moving in and out of LoS, the heavy destroyers obliterating any vehicles they shot at, and ending unit after unit of scatt bikes, they were out of control tonight. Outside of murdering tau pathfinders I haven't seen as much from tomb blades, and without obsec (and every army I fought tonight had it) they are bad at claiming/contesting objectives. The best they did tonight was tarpit some devastators, and get line breaker, Outside of that they sucked up fire real good. If they weren't cheap, and capable of the occasional shenanigans, I wouldn't take more than the required three.
I was iffy on ghost arks before the nerf, and now I'm off the fence and firmly in the we have better ways to spend our points camp. It's likely to be your only vehicle, so it will be a fire magnet, and if it isn't then your taking our other vehicles which are strictly speaking so so. We have more than enough fast units to make a foot army work, there is no hole it's filling, and it's not under cost, so it doesn't really have much to say for itself other than it's not terrible.
Other random thoughts, death watch aren't so bad for necrons, sure they pack more punch, but they have less dudes, and die just like marines. I Think I agree with the general vibe that they are a great add on force and a lousy main one. It was fun bullying eldar off of objectives, and even more fun we he tried to go toe to toe. Finally, I really hate the skyhammer assault force, I mean as if dropping a full salvo grav devastator squad on my back line with zero chance of mishap isn't bad enough, they also get to first turn assult, and a super annoying special rule. This time I was ready though, tarpitted the lot of them with disordered charging scarabs, after shot the people who got away. IF GW is reading I think SM got their fair share of love like a year ago, and the last 12 months have turned the game into space marines and friends.
Constantly being negative doesn't make you seem erudite, it just makes you look like a curmudgeon.
Alright, definitely leaning towards the Ghost-Arks-not-worth-it side of the fence, now.
So that leaves the Quick-Cron list with three options for what to do with that extra 260 points:
- keep the 2 Night Scythes for the two Warrior units?
- add mini Harvest (1x Spyder, 3x Wraiths w/coils, 4x Scarabs)?
- buff existing units (up to 3x 6 Tomb Blades & 3x 4 Destroyers w/1 Heavy in each + 2x separate Heavies)?
skoffs wrote: Alright, definitely leaning towards the Ghost-Arks-not-worth-it side of the fence, now.
So that leaves the Quick-Cron list with three options for what to do with that extra 260 points:
- keep the 2 Night Scythes for the two Warrior units?
- add mini Harvest (1x Spyder, 3x Wraiths w/coils, 4x Scarabs)?
- buff existing units (up to 3x 6 Tomb Blades & 3x 4 Destroyers w/1 Heavy in each + 2x separate Heavies)?
Mini-harvest will definitely be your best strategic option if this is going to be a serious TAC list. You will need something to tackle any fast assault units coming at your cult or warlord.
tl;dr: Death from the skies killed flyers in 40k, and night scythes just don't do enough to be worth dealing with that baggage.
Despite the FAQ making Night scythes better, they suffer from the same problem all other flyers have after death from the skies, which is a negative feedback cycle that has more or less eliminated flyers from the game. Here it is in a nutshell, fighters hard counter Assault flyers, so people stop taking assault flyers, without assault flyers to prey on fighters are useless so people stop taking them as well. If someone tries to take advantage of the lack of fighters, and plays assault flyers, within a few games someone will start fielding a fighter, then the assault flyer goes away, and the the fighter goes back to collecting dust on the shelf.
GW really screwed the pooch with death from the skies, they overtuned the rules to the point where people are leary of allowing those rules in games, and without a massive advantage from taking flyers, it's a better strategy to just avoid the negative feedback cycle and go with more reliable units. Necrons are no exception, in fact we might have it worse because we have no fighters to counter people coming after our flyers. You might have some success with running night scythes occasionally, but if you do it regularly someone will counter you.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/08/21 23:25:57
Constantly being negative doesn't make you seem erudite, it just makes you look like a curmudgeon.
Check.
Vehicle-less Crons it is.
(guess my foot slogging Warriors just got relegated to bait-mode. "Oh no! Here come my Warriors with their scary Gauss guns! You know, those guns that can kill everything in the game? You better focus your entire army on trying to take them out before they get your important stuff! So scary!")
This really sucks. An army that was once renowned for how tough it's vehicles were never fields a single vehicle. That's sad.
Then again, GW nerfing the ghost ark further, putting open-topped on everything, making vehicles suck in general, and adding D-weapons everywhere that don't care about your AV is just making vehicles more and more worthless.
12,000 
