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.

torblind wrote:

Rezolut wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Halfpast_Yellow wrote:


I think Deathmarks are too good to leave out, either as 5 or 10. Replace one Scarab unit with 5 Deathmarks. Their defensive ability to interrupt your opponents 'deepstrike' moves is too useful, especially if he's trying to charge - replace one unit of Scarabs for one unit of 5 Deathmarks which can block a charge lane easily.

You dont need deathmarks. You interrupt deepstrikes with scarab buble (maximum distance= phalanx -18" /enemy cant jump between your units/ - scarabs - 9" enemy deepstriking when needed, thats realy big buble when necessary).

5 or 10 deathmarks has only a litlle impact on horde alfa strike army. And dont forget that you put them 9" from enemy, so you have no chance to block charge lane cos enemy is already 9" inches from you and you have no space to put deathmarks there.

Also if you use Ethereal Interception you need to be 12" away from the unit you follow.

You guys need to read your Deathmarks rules again.

When you Ethereal Intercept, you set up within 12" of the unit you are intercepting, not outside 12".

So yes, you can block charge lanes with them.

By all means you can surround yourself up to 360 degrees with scarabs as best you can, or, you can use Deathmarks to achieve the same thing whereever they choose to go. The Deathmarks even get to shoot first. If the Deathmarks are all the placement defense you need, that frees up 9 Scarab bases to do something else. Or, if you have no need for denying placements, you can just use them as a weapon yourself, or objective grab, etc. The point is with both you have some flexibility which is what makes a good tournament list a good tournament list.

Personally I plan on using Deathmarks in a completely different role. This edition has a ton of low wound support characters that enhance army dynamics. Think crypteks, the various wound healing characters (i.e. Apothecaries), IG comissars and order giving characters, psykers, etc. The problem with using snipers to go after the high wound good armor save HQs is that you can't put out enough gas to kill them outright. However, disruption of the enhancement networks could cripple how the army functions as a whole.

And Deathmarks are cheap. Sure, their guns are just Bolters, and may be the weakest baseline guns in our army, but a min squad is a pittance compared to most other min squads in the game, and they'll almost always be set up in Rapid Fire range to get a MW or two in. They're probably one of the more flexible units in our options, all things considered. Low cost, dope mobility, blocking deep strikers, and even though they're only 1W each, they're 3+ and have RP so they do require a reasonable amount of focus fire (especially if you get them in cover for that sweet 2+).

The more I think about Praetorians the more I'm ok with them. They're infantry with a 12" move, so they'll be 2+ in cover, and their guns aren't too bad.

I'm seeing it like this: against opponents that can kill a whole unit in one go, like Tau or gunline SM (which is a very real thing with Bobby G, let me tell you what), Wraiths will be better since they're harder to kill, but against chip damage or in a densely packed board where the Praets can hide from shooting, they'll be better choices, since they have the ability to come back.

Actually does the math back that up? For 6 Wraiths (228) you can only get 6 Praetorians (210). Praets have guns, but 50% less wounds and no Invuln. Weaker attacks, but better AP.

If you give the Wraiths Transdimensional Beamers to give them a shooting attack, you get 6 Wraiths for 312. 9 Praetorians are 315. Wraiths get average of 12 shots, weaker S but same AP and d3 Damage. Hitting on 4+ though since it's heavy...

They're pretty comparable. 3++ is good, but so is AP-3 in combat. If Praets had a way to have a support character or had the ability to DS, I would say it wasn't even a contest, but honestly it's hard to pass up the durability boost from a Wraith.

Maybe if the game goes more Melee focused, with less shooting to kill the Praets before they get in, they'll be the better choice, but this is still 40k and things need to survive until combat.

Deathmarks are nice, but if the enemy knows how they work, it will be very hard to tactically place them. There are only 3inch to squeeze them, between 12 and 9 from the enemy, almost impossible to place 10 models. Lower than 10 deatmarks will never kill W5 or tougher character.

What do you think adding a Particle caster to Wraith. Its basicaly 1 extra S6 shooting and melle attack (pistol) for 4 points. Its an auto include for me.

I'm now thinking my last list was a bit too "toy heavy", i.e. tried to do too much. Most of the lists which look strong in 8th have been what I would traditionally call a spam list - in reality, it's just threat redundancy to mitigate damage.

Here's a different take:

Anrakyr the Traveller - 167
Illuminor Szeras - 143

10 Immortals, Tesla - 190
15 Warriors - 180
15 Warriors - 180
10 Warriors - 120

2 Destroyers, 1 Heavy - 201
2 Destroyers, 1 Heavy - 201
4 Tomb Blades, Gauss - 168

3 Heavy Destroyers - 225
3 Heavy Destroyers - 225

Very spammy, quite uninteresting, but a lot of very tough models on the board. I split 10 warriors off the others to run as a screen against heavy assault armies. This list should do pretty well against Guard and Marine armies, just due to the sheer firepower and mobility.

Overlord, Sword - 104
Orikan - 143

20 Warriors - 240
19 Warriors - 228
10 Immortals, Tesla - 190

Triarch Stalker, THGC - 181

3 Canoptek Scarabs - 39
3 Canoptek Scarabs - 39

3 Heavy Destroyers - 225
3 Heavy Destroyers - 225
Monolith - 381

This one feels very 3e to me. I don't think it's all that good, but hey, I got a monolith in it! I think it'd likely be better off with one unit less of Heavy Destroyers and more things like Tomb Blades, but it's a start.

Mostly, I'm worried about making it to the enemy in one piece, and surviving first turn charges. There's not many lists I can build which do both, but I'm gonna keep trying.

Requizen wrote:
The more I think about Praetorians the more I'm ok with them.

The more I think about them, the more I think I need to compare them to Destroyers.
Shooting, their guns have the same base power (S5 AP-3), but Destroyers have 2 shots at 24" (that reroll 1s and deal d3D, possibly rerolling 1s to wound as well) and Praets only have 1 shot at 12" for 1D with no buffs possible unless Anrakyr is somehow near them. Obviously in combat Praets have the clear edge, with another 2 S5 AP-3 attacks vs the Destroyers 2 S4 AP-.
But what works out to be the more effective damage dealer?

5 Destroyers are the same price as 9 Rod Praetorians.

Who's damage to survivability ratio is better?
(and how much would adding a Destroyer Lord or Anrakyr affect them?)

mangar wrote:
Deathmarks are nice, but if the enemy knows how they work, it will be very hard to tactically place them. There are only 3inch to squeeze them, between 12 and 9 from the enemy, almost impossible to place 10 models. Lower than 10 deatmarks will never kill W5 or tougher character.

Units of 5 give you better flexibility, and you can bring down 2 units of 5 for the same shooting as 10 if you think it's needed.

What do you think adding a Particle caster to Wraith. Its basicaly 1 extra S6 shooting and melle attack (pistol) for 4 points. Its an auto include for me.

Eh, it's not the worst idea? AP0 is kind of bad, but 4 points is essentially free, even for a full units that's only a 24 point upgrade. Maybe good? It'll shred light units but won't do much against tougher things.

I feel the meta is going to be very much about T5 3+ multiwound. It was pretty much there in 7th but now without deathstars and summoning and stuff, those are the best all arounder unit type. Particle Caster is 3+/3+ against it, but doesn't do anything about the armor. Transdimensional Beamers are 4+/5+ against them, but potentially more shots and potentially do multi-damage, so more potential for swing shooting.

I suppose the pistols are reliable and can fill out your last few points, so perhaps that's worthwhile, though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skoffs wrote:

Requizen wrote:
The more I think about Praetorians the more I'm ok with them.

The more I think about them, the more I think I need to compare them to Destroyers.
Shooting, their guns have the same base power (S5 AP-3), but Destroyers have 2 shots at 24" (that reroll 1s and deal d3D, possibly rerolling 1s to wound as well) and Praets only have 1 shot at 12" for 1D with no buffs possible unless Anrakyr is somehow near them. Obviously in combat Praets have the clear edge, with another 2 S5 AP-3 attacks vs the Destroyers 2 S4 AP-.
But what works out to be the more effective damage dealer?

5 Destroyers are the same price as 9 Rod Praetorians.

Who's damage to survivability ratio is better?
(and how much would adding a Destroyer Lord or Anrakyr affect them?)

Depends on how fast things get into combat with them. Praets will do way better in the actual melee, but both can fall back and shoot. Destroyer's range and mobility is good, but there's only so much board and if a WK or Knight is getting up in your biz, then even with 10" move and 24" shooting, things will start to feel very claustrophobic.

Durability is such a crazy thing to math out now. 5 Destroyers gives you 15W, 9 Praets 18W. Same Save. If the damage on the weapons is 2, Destroyers are a bit more survivable - four 2D shots kills 2 Destroyers but 4 Praets. But if the damage is 3 or more, Praets are better because those shots are killing one model per pop either way. Destroyers come back with more wounds, but Praets will roll more dice and have more models to clear before they're fully gone.

Makes my head hurt. Both seem good? Agh.

 skoffs wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The rules allow you to field a 9 man unit of warriors as long as you pay for the 10th warrior.

So you could run 9 man units + HQ in each Ghost Ark.

Is this for the "Advanced" (matched) rules too or just the basic rules?
If available for all game types, yeah, this opens up a lot of possibility, particularly with the Deceiver Bomb.

It's part of the Matched Play rules, but there is a catch in the Understrength Units rule...

Each unit's datasheet will describe how many models make up that unit. Sometimes you may find that you do not have enough models to field a minimum-sized unit; if this is the case, you can still include one unit of that type in your army with as many models as you have available.

Eyjio: The lists look not very promising. I'm sure successful Necron lists will look differently.
The phalanx is too vulnerable to play. There are several fast moving units out there which will hit a phalanx very hard.

 wuestenfux wrote:
Eyjio: The lists look not very promising. I'm sure successful Necron lists will look differently.
The phalanx is too vulnerable to play. There are several fast moving units out there which will hit a phalanx very hard.

What sort of lists do you think will do better?

 Ghaz wrote:

 skoffs wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The rules allow you to field a 9 man unit of warriors as long as you pay for the 10th warrior.

So you could run 9 man units + HQ in each Ghost Ark.

Is this for the "Advanced" (matched) rules too or just the basic rules?
If available for all game types, yeah, this opens up a lot of possibility, particularly with the Deceiver Bomb.

It's part of the Matched Play rules, but there is a catch in the Understrength Units rule...

Each unit's datasheet will describe how many models make up that unit. Sometimes you may find that you do not have enough models to field a minimum-sized unit; if this is the case, you can still include one unit of that type in your army with as many models as you have available.

That's really cool of them to include that.

WELP, looks like units of 9 Warriors + an HQ all in a Ghost Ark are completely fine... but will it be worth it? (no open topped, so those 9 Warriors aren't really going to be doing much)

torblind wrote:

Spoiler:

Rezolut wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Halfpast_Yellow wrote:


I think Deathmarks are too good to leave out, either as 5 or 10. Replace one Scarab unit with 5 Deathmarks. Their defensive ability to interrupt your opponents 'deepstrike' moves is too useful, especially if he's trying to charge - replace one unit of Scarabs for one unit of 5 Deathmarks which can block a charge lane easily.

You dont need deathmarks. You interrupt deepstrikes with scarab buble (maximum distance= phalanx -18" /enemy cant jump between your units/ - scarabs - 9" enemy deepstriking when needed, thats realy big buble when necessary).

5 or 10 deathmarks has only a litlle impact on horde alfa strike army. And dont forget that you put them 9" from enemy, so you have no chance to block charge lane cos enemy is already 9" inches from you and you have no space to put deathmarks there.

Also if you use Ethereal Interception you need to be 12" away from the unit you follow.

Actually you need to be within 12" of the unit you follow. Either way, Deathmarks aren't blocking DS charges. If they could I'd all over a unit or two. I think Scarabs is the way to go. A lot of other armies seem to looking hard at DS type deployment (AM and Scions, and SM in general come to mind) and I think Scarabs are a pretty cost effective way of throwing a wrench in those plans. Units in reserves need to be on the board by turn three, so it's a little easier to plan out DS denial. It own't be 100% effective. obviously, but anything that forces sub-optimal deployment is fine. What the Necrons need is to gain an extra turn of close range shooting whenever possible, and the scarab bubble does that nicely for DS deployed enemy units.

Sure, your opponent can shoot them, but does anyone really care if someone spends shooting on 56 pts worth of scarabs? I know I don't. Also, against horde HtH armies that don't have DS, those scarabs can all be front facing and act as a nice little speed bump

Speaking of Scarabs, you know, we can use them to spam command points for 190 points...
[Outrider Detachment]
HQ
- Lord (73 pts)
FAST
- 3x Scarabs (39 pts)
- 3x Scarabs (39 pts)
- 3x Scarabs (39 pts)

An Overlord would probably be better, so as to lend more MWBD buffs to the rest of the army (Canopteks can't get). That would still only be 218.
But if you just want cheap access to extra command points with a bunch of models to tarpit/clog deepstrike routes, this might be our go-to.

 skoffs wrote:
Speaking of Scarabs, you know, we can use them to spam command points for 190 points...
[Outrider Detachment]
HQ
- Lord (73 pts)
FAST
- 3x Scarabs (39 pts)
- 3x Scarabs (39 pts)
- 3x Scarabs (39 pts)

An Overlord would probably be better, so as to lend more MWBD buffs to the rest of the army (Canopteks can't get). That would still only be 218.
But if you just want cheap access to extra command points with a bunch of models to tarpit/clog deepstrike routes, this might be our go-to.

Lords, ugh. Not my favorite HQ choice. This is a good place to take that second Cryptek that appears in a lot of lists though. If you were planning on scarabs anyway, and weren't going for the 9 CP formation (hah!) then yeah, it's pretty much a free CP. I like it.

A lot of players seem to be looking at 3 HQs anyway (Overlord, 2 x Cryptek) so why not split one off for extra CP goodness?

Here's my overall feelings-

Ghost Arks are out. I know it seems dumb that we wouldn't include a transport for our troops, but the limitations are too much. It's generally agreed that we need to maximize unit sizes to utilize the potential of Reanimation Protocols, and 10-Warrior units just do not cut it. They'll get focused and taken out in no time. I'm pretty sure that's why the Ghost Ark offers the extra RP; to counter the fact that you have a smaller unit and need to hit all the RP rolls, so I do not see it as a bonus ability... I see it as just a necessity to make it semi-viable. Not to mention no more open-top. Plus, 170 pts can be used it a lot of other places. Instead, put 20-man squads and huff it across the board.

Triarch Praetorians aren't worth it. I'm upset about this, as I just bought 3 boxes (but such is the perils of buying units before edition drops). The biggest hit is that Praetorians do not include a <DYNASTY> tag, meaning we cannot cast MWBD from Zahndrekh, nor RP and Invuln buffs from Crypteks/Orikan. They just come as they are. They're not BAD units... but a max-sized 10-man squad is 350 points...

Orikan The Diviner is an absolute MUST pick. Just a few more points than a regular Cryptek, and he provides +1 to RP and gives your infantry a 5++. Definitely worth the points. I see armies also utilizing additional Crypteks to further increase the RP buff.

Nemesor Zahndrekh is... alright. Transient Madness is just ok. "Quell the Rebellion" is the ideal roll. "Avenge the Fallen" is ok if you're about to charge, or are in melee combat. "Solarmills" is just very situational. Certainly not as good as Tactics from 7th where we could pick Target Priority for +1BS by default. Counter Tactics will be nice when fighting certain characters... but the wording is what makes the ability hard. It states "At the beginning of your opponent's turn..." which is where the fault lies. If the opponent's character ALSO has an aura that states "At the beginning of your turn", the rules state they get to choose the order in which the "Beginning of turn" abilities activate. Thus, "Counter Tactics" will only be good against active auras, and not any auras that require something done at the start of the turn (if that is how certain auras work). Overall, Zahndrekh seems to be a better Overlord for an extra 60 points. Probably worth it for the buffs, but definitely not as good as he used to be.

Gauss weapons... I'm neither upset nor happy. I mean, there's no Gauss special rule like we used to have, and some see the fact that everyone now wounds on 6 to be an overall nerf to Gauss, but there's another way of looking at it. That rule only helped against vehicles. Against infantry, it did nothing. The new AP-1 on Flayers and -2 on Blasters helps on everything. Overall that will help us out in most fights rather than just against vehicles. I guess if anything, I think this was a win.

I believe that Doomsday Arks are going to be a new staple.
Anti-tank is going to be rough. This is definitely going to be our new weakness. Mathhammer has shown that just shooting Gauss Flayers takes too many shots. We need specialization. Heavy Destroyers are an immediate thought. However, their unit size is small, so RP won't be particularly useful, and their point cost is high. 203pts for a Doomsday Ark or two is manageable. 14 wounds with a 4+ save and Quantum Shielding are going to make this a good pick.

Tomb Blades are fantastic. It's basically two Immortals squished together. Allow me to explain... Two Immortals with Gauss Blasters is 34 points (17 per). A base Tomb Blade with two Gauss Blasters is 42 points. This means an extra 8 points gets you 14" of movement instead of 5", and +1 toughness. However, they do have a -1 to their save throw for some reason. Another benefit is the unit size. Immortals can have 10-man units. At one wound per model, this is 10 wounds per max unit size. Tomb Blades have a max unit size of 6, and at 2 wounds per model, we're now at 12 wounds per unit. Additionally, Immortals having only 1 wound mean you'll be more likely to roll RP for lost models, meaning your more often in the 1/3 chance of bringing back a wound. TB having 2 wounds keeps them out of RP as often, and generates more wound regeneration per RP roll. Quick math on this: A unit of Immortals and Tomb Blades both suffer 4 wounds. This takes away 4 immortals, and 2 tomb blades. RP rolls occur. Immortals must roll FOUR 5+ to bring 4 wounds back. Tomb Blades must roll TWO 5+ to bring 4 wounds back. Mathmatically, the chance of rolling four 5+ at once is 1/3 x 1/3 x 1/3 x 1/3 = 1/81. The chance of rolling two 5+ at once is 1/9. Now, of course with more rolls you'll have more opportunities as turns come and go, but I'm more inclined to want to raise my whole unit up in one turn before they are focused down.

Deathmarks are interesting. I want to see some play with them before I pass judgement. There is nothing fantastic about their stats. Their sniper has less Strength than a Gauss Blaster, and no -AP. Basically you're really betting on hitting a 6 to cause the mortal wound. Also you're probably only going to use them to target characters. The 24" doesn't make them special either. That's the same range as everything else. They'd be overly deadly at 36". I would have rather seen them split the difference at 30" range. Really the only way I see them as being very viable is putting MWBD on them to make their mortal wound a 5+. Otherwise I see them being focused and taken out rather fast before doing anything serious. Again, I'd like to see the meta before I pass judgement.

Flayed Ones seem pretty dang good. They're just over half the cost of Canoptek Wraiths. They have 4 attacks (compared to 3 on Wraiths), and while they lack the Invuln save that Wraiths have, they do have RP that Wraiths lack. The deep strike landing wherever you want also really helps with placement. A 15-man unit has the potential of 60 attacks. That's crazy.

Canoptek Wraiths seem to be about the same, but I'm curious as to how they will fit in with the new playstyle of the new Necrons. The 12" movement is great with Wraithform. The 4+/3++ makes them very survivable. The 3 attacks, while not as many as from Flayed Ones, come in at 6 strength, AP -1. So they're definitely going to do some damage if they get in range. The cost is what hurts. 38 points base, 47 with Whip Coils... A unit of 6 comes in at 282 points. Doable, but definitely may change the playstyle of your army. No RP hurts as well.

Canoptek Scarabs... What can I say... 6+ save means they're barely survivable, and anything with -AP is instant kill. The 5+ wound bonus is nice... but everything else wounds at range on 6. No RP, and a point cost of 13 per model? I'm probably going to skip them.

Canoptek Spyders are crap. The nerf to Scarab Hive hurts. Not being able to take the Scarabs beyond starting size takes out a large benefit of growing your army beyond starting points, and means you have to dedicate points to Scarabs. Just not competitive in my opinion.

Obelisks and Monoliths are going to be interesting. Early playtests show Obelisks as lacking for their points. Monoliths seem alright, but it's a lot of points to sink. 381 points means 1/5 of a 2000 point army is your Monolith. I'll wait and see how it performs.

Warscythes...man... this one hurt. What used to be the desired tank-killing melee weapon of the Necrons is now the point-saving weapon choice. Not bad, but definitely not as good as it used to be.

Doom Scythe seems to be our answer for Anti-Air. Unless you want to grab a Pylon from FW, the Doom Scythe appears to be the main choice vs. just shooting Gauss from the ground and hoping for the best. Also seems to be a pretty viable heavy support with that Death Ray. Also, that Hard To Hit rule is going to be great for avoiding shots.

I think our biggest hit is the new Keyword mechanic... a lot of our Character buffs specify needing to target SAUTEKH or <DYNASTY> infantry/vehicles. Some units do not have a dynasty keyword, meaning they cannot be buffed, which I believe is really going to hurt them. Hopefully that will get changed in the Codex.

 wuestenfux wrote:
Eyjio: The lists look not very promising. I'm sure successful Necron lists will look differently.
The phalanx is too vulnerable to play. There are several fast moving units out there which will hit a phalanx very hard.

I agree, but realistically, what can be done? I don't rate our transports at all, and the troop slots need to be filled. I guess I could just min 3x5 Immortals? I think overall we got hit a bit too hard going into 8e.

 skoffs wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 skoffs wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The rules allow you to field a 9 man unit of warriors as long as you pay for the 10th warrior.

So you could run 9 man units + HQ in each Ghost Ark.

Is this for the "Advanced" (matched) rules too or just the basic rules?
If available for all game types, yeah, this opens up a lot of possibility, particularly with the Deceiver Bomb.

It's part of the Matched Play rules, but there is a catch in the Understrength Units rule...

Each unit's datasheet will describe how many models make up that unit. Sometimes you may find that you do not have enough models to field a minimum-sized unit; if this is the case, you can still include one unit of that type in your army with as many models as you have available.

That's really cool of them to include that.

WELP, looks like units of 9 Warriors + an HQ all in a Ghost Ark are completely fine... but will it be worth it? (no open topped, so those 9 Warriors aren't really going to be doing much)

It looks like your still missing the fact that you can only have a SINGLE UNIT that's understrenght. For example, if you have six units of Warriors in your army, only one of those units can be less than ten models. The rest must be ten models at minimum.

Eyjio wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
Eyjio: The lists look not very promising. I'm sure successful Necron lists will look differently.
The phalanx is too vulnerable to play. There are several fast moving units out there which will hit a phalanx very hard.

I agree, but realistically, what can be done? I don't rate our transports at all, and the troop slots need to be filled. I guess I could just min 3x5 Immortals? I think overall we got hit a bit too hard going into 8e.

Still not sure what's "wrong" with Night Scythes. Extremely fast, pretty hard to kill (yes it lacks QS, but -1 to hit is good and 3+ is as good as we get), and dropping 10 Gauss Immortals in shooting range is never a bad thing. Yes, there's always the chance it just blows up before getting units out, but that's why I'm trying two, unlikely to lose both in a single turn of shooting.

Halfpast_Yellow wrote:

torblind wrote:

Rezolut wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Halfpast_Yellow wrote:


I think Deathmarks are too good to leave out, either as 5 or 10. Replace one Scarab unit with 5 Deathmarks. Their defensive ability to interrupt your opponents 'deepstrike' moves is too useful, especially if he's trying to charge - replace one unit of Scarabs for one unit of 5 Deathmarks which can block a charge lane easily.

You dont need deathmarks. You interrupt deepstrikes with scarab buble (maximum distance= phalanx -18" /enemy cant jump between your units/ - scarabs - 9" enemy deepstriking when needed, thats realy big buble when necessary).

5 or 10 deathmarks has only a litlle impact on horde alfa strike army. And dont forget that you put them 9" from enemy, so you have no chance to block charge lane cos enemy is already 9" inches from you and you have no space to put deathmarks there.

Also if you use Ethereal Interception you need to be 12" away from the unit you follow.

You guys need to read your Deathmarks rules again.

When you Ethereal Intercept, you set up within 12" of the unit you are intercepting, not outside 12".

So yes, you can block charge lanes with them.

Indeed, I stand happily corrected


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Still there's the 9" problem, if he already positioned his unit close to his target as possible

 Ghaz wrote:

It looks like your still missing the fact that you can only have a SINGLE UNIT that's understrenght. For example, if you have six units of Warriors in your army, only one of those units can be less than ten models. The rest must be ten models at minimum.

I cannot find that rule in the BRB in page 242, speaking of Understrenght units. Would you be so kind to point out where I can find it?

Do we think that Whip Coils on Canoptek Wraiths are necessary anymore? The point cost has tripled, and I'm not sure how viable the new ability is. For 9 points (an extra 1/4 of the model cost), it basically allows our Wraiths to swing if they get killed during melee combat on our opponent's turn. Sounds ok, but I don't see many units wanting to charge Wraiths aside from charge armies.

I think Ghost Arks need to be viewed separately from their transport capacity. You can use them for that, but I think they're a solid choice even if they never transport a soul. My thinking...

1. They are only T6 but 14 wounds and have QS and LM, so they're rock hard Also, QS spam is a viable build IMO.

2. They pump out 10-20 dice at short range. Not a tank buster, but not bad at all. Just fine for most infantry and light vehicles. Range synergizes with the infantry it accompanies.

3. A second chance to roll RP (especially at +1) every turn a a huge deal. Between the Cryptek and GA a given unit can shrug off 75% of the dame it takes every turn, plus the sequential turns.

Points-wise, the equivalent shooting from Warriors costs 120 points. So the GA pays 50 pts for 4 more wounds and the re-roll on the RP for warriors (to start). If a Res Orb is 35, the Warrior-only version is at least a 20-30pt ability since its every turn, not once per battle. I think the GA is close to points efficient right there and we haven't even priced out QS or the Fly rule (or transport capacity)..

All that to say that I think the GA is a solid choice.

Eyjio wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
Eyjio: The lists look not very promising. I'm sure successful Necron lists will look differently.
The phalanx is too vulnerable to play. There are several fast moving units out there which will hit a phalanx very hard.

I agree, but realistically, what can be done? I don't rate our transports at all, and the troop slots need to be filled. I guess I could just min 3x5 Immortals? I think overall we got hit a bit too hard going into 8e.

We need to wait and see.
It seems that all armies got nerfed a bit, at least if you look at the pt costs.
Its important to have an army that can battle the opponent at all threat ranges. A phalanx will not really work as it stands. It can be hit hard and you can do not much about it.

 SHADOWSTRIKE1 wrote:
Do we think that Whip Coils on Canoptek Wraiths are necessary anymore? The point cost has tripled, and I'm not sure how viable the new ability is. For 9 points (an extra 1/4 of the model cost), it basically allows our Wraiths to swing if they get killed during melee combat on our opponent's turn. Sounds ok, but I don't see many units wanting to charge Wraiths aside from charge armies.

I really don't see the point of them - especially for such an excessive cost. Why not just put those points towards another Wraith and have more attacks and more wounds?

 SHADOWSTRIKE1 wrote:
Do we think that Whip Coils on Canoptek Wraiths are necessary anymore? The point cost has tripled, and I'm not sure how viable the new ability is. For 9 points (an extra 1/4 of the model cost), it basically allows our Wraiths to swing if they get killed during melee combat on our opponent's turn. Sounds ok, but I don't see many units wanting to charge Wraiths aside from charge armies.

All of that type of ability, whip coils, lash whips, that used to be pretty fantastic for initiative boosting are now pretty irrelevant, yes. If you're an assault unit you're going for the charge and if you don't something has gone wrong, so whilst "get to attack if dead" is a nice enough power if you get it passively, it's nowhere near worth buying as an upgrade. Glad I only modeled my Wraiths with one coil each, trimmed to be partially retracted for easier transport. Easier to ignore.

On a more negative note I have 10 whip Metamorphs in my genecult who are now terrible.

The only wraith upgrade I might consider is Transdimensional Beamers.

What do we conclude about embarked HQs with auras? Can I put Orikan in a Ghost Ark (he wasn't going to be shooting anyway) and let everyone in 6" from my Ark benefit from his "Master Technomancer"? If so, I've found a great use for a single GA.

If not, damn GAs are really hard to field nowadays.

 Fenris-77 wrote:
I think Ghost Arks need to be viewed separately from their transport capacity. You can use them for that, but I think they're a solid choice even if they never transport a soul. My thinking...

1. They are only T6 but 14 wounds and have QS and LM, so they're rock hard Also, QS spam is a viable build IMO.

2. They pump out 10-20 dice at short range. Not a tank buster, but not bad at all. Just fine for most infantry and light vehicles. Range synergizes with the infantry it accompanies.

3. A second chance to roll RP (especially at +1) every turn a a huge deal. Between the Cryptek and GA a given unit can shrug off 75% of the dame it takes every turn, plus the sequential turns.

Points-wise, the equivalent shooting from Warriors costs 120 points. So the GA pays 50 pts for 4 more wounds and the re-roll on the RP for warriors (to start). If a Res Orb is 35, the Warrior-only version is at least a 20-30pt ability since its every turn, not once per battle. I think the GA is close to points efficient right there and we haven't even priced out QS or the Fly rule (or transport capacity)..

All that to say that I think the GA is a solid choice.

I missed that the GA had QS. That puts it as a bit more viable. Honestly, I think the codex needs to make it Open Top. That's the only reason anyone would take it as transport. The reduction in unit size is too much otherwise. I agree that if anything it should be used as a RP-casting support vehicle rather than a transport. My concern is placement. Ideally you'd keep it behind your Warriors, and to keep the GA in rapid-fire range, you'd have to keep your Warriors at about 9" from enemy. Also the GA could explode. If I were to take a GA, I'd probably keep it behind two units of 20 Warriors, giving extra shots and running extra RP. Then if one unit got reduced to ~3 models or so and RP didn't go so well, I'd embark the unit and drive it away out of range for unit repairs. I don't know. It's 170 points though... for 33 more points you can have a Doomsday Ark with the same wounds, LM, and QS, but with a lot more firepower. Basically for 33 points, you drop the RP bonus, and gain a doomsday cannon, which satisfies some anti-tank.

Is there any reason to use Rod of the Covenant over the Voidblades? You get an additional attack because Pistol, but slightly worse shooting (but you didn't take Praetorians for their dank shooting, did you?) all for the same Strength/AP value in melee.

I still am not 100% solid on the new melee rules regarding extra attacks with pistols tho.

 necr0n wrote:
What do we conclude about embarked HQs with auras? Can I put Orikan in a Ghost Ark (he wasn't going to be shooting anyway) and let everyone in 6" from my Ark benefit from his "Master Technomancer"? If so, I've found a great use for a single GA.

If not, damn GAs are really hard to field nowadays.

Nope found out that in the rules it states that embarked characters cannot use their abilities to affect other units outside of the transport, and in reverse, characters on the field cannot use their abilities to affect embarked units.

EDIT: Actual text from rulebook: "Unless specifically stated, abilities that affect other units within a certain range have no effect whilst the unit that has the ability is embarked." and the sentence immediately preceding it states that units embarked in a transport "be affected in any way whilst embarked".

If I understood correctly, they get to shoot the nearest enemy with pistols even if they are in CC. The nearest enemy unit doesn't have to be the one they are in CC with