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.

How are World Eaters against Necrons? Should I bring some Daemons or T-sons to support? Ive literally never faced the army before, so im curious how the match up goes.

Frankly the poxwalker nerf was justified, no argument there.

What really breaks the whole comparison is that Cultists will have more actual dmg phases and less dmg taken compared to the melee only poxwalkers.
Simply put: I get approximatly 2 turns of shooting before poxwalkers get into melee. (manouvres might give me a 3rd shooting phase and if that happens the poxwalkers "should"* beginn really to falter compared)
Then there are stratagems involved, at that size we can estimate around 5 cp atleast, more likely 10 + (since both armies will be battleforged) . Now let's assume the cultist player saves 2 cp for tide (to gain 160 pts recycling+ outflanking cultists and to potentially deny further bodies for the poxwalkers) he still has atleast 3x-5x the slaneshy doublefire stratagem avilable if his cultists are slanesh, or VotlW to support his t3 autoguns.

*never underestimate dice luck.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vaklor4 wrote:
How are World Eaters against Necrons? Should I bring some Daemons or T-sons to support? Ive literally never faced the army before, so im curious how the match up goes.

Necrons atm are in a tough spot, destroyers i heard are nasty though so maybee watch out for them.

Also always try to destroy whole units of warriors, else you will have to deal with them again and again.

 vaklor4 wrote:
How are World Eaters against Necrons? Should I bring some Daemons or T-sons to support? Ive literally never faced the army before, so im curious how the match up goes.

I play against Necrons often, and don't usually fare well. Their blobs are usually pretty large, so they take up board space and kinda form natural screens for their units from your melee. Destroyers do a lot of dmg and have a 10" fly move, so they're awfully hard to pin down and kick off the board, especially if they're in cover. Cultists get eaten up by tesla, deathmarks will intercept and ruin your deep strike plans.

A C'tan is a nasty thing and don't underestimate its punchyness.

You'll want to focus on one unit at a time. Zerkers are great but you'll want rhinos to protect them. Most Necron range is 24" so you'll want ways to sprint into melee, like warptime or advance and charge ability/relic. I like the black mace. Bring 2 dmg and d3 dmg weapons to avoid quantum shielding shenanigans and to help with multi-wound models. They have no psyker per se so if you brought some Sons your spells won't be denied, and death hex is nice for wraiths but not much else. I have luck with terminators, daemon prince, contemptor, zerkers, and possessed.

Basically, choose your targets and focus down a unit at a time, try to stay in combat, and make sure you can get past that 24" distance into range. I'd bring a battalion for sure so you can at least once fight again strat and interrupt vs a C'tan or Lord with scythe. Let us know how it goes!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, make sure you understand what his relic does before you start your deployment.

Is there a special Kill Team detachment for 40k matched play? Or do you just run a patrol detachment? I looked at the Gellerpox units and they seem decent for the points.

 vaklor4 wrote:
How are World Eaters against Necrons? Should I bring some Daemons or T-sons to support? Ive literally never faced the army before, so im curious how the match up goes.

Honestly Necrons aren't doing great. Only thing to be wary of is the Vaults, and otherwise you're good to go. You gotta try and wipe out units in one go if they have Fly though. Fly is an obnoxious bonus. Otherwise, the need to wipe out most units is kinda not necessary. Does it matter if Warriors keep coming back when they do absolutely no damage in melee?

 vaklor4 wrote:
How are World Eaters against Necrons? Should I bring some Daemons or T-sons to support? Ive literally never faced the army before, so im curious how the match up goes.

Some math.

A 157 point squad of bezerkers (7 bezerkers all melee, 1 champ pfist, icon)

Is dealing ...

9.4 damage against a T7 4++ model. (Fighting twice)

+ votlw it's 13.2 damage.

+ Dark Apostle it's 17.6 damage

+ Exalted Champion it's 22.3 damage

So if you votlw + fight a third time you'll probably be able to take a Tesseract Vault down multiple profiles for 4CP and 157 points. Dark Apostle and Exalted Champ are just a nice bonus to secure the kill.

Just make sure to put your dudes in rhinos so they survive mortal wounds.

If your opponent isn't using vaults then you'll be find playing normally. Pay attention to gun ranges, and rapidfire.

Niiru wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

BertBert wrote:
So I just impulse-bought Cypher because he looks effin cool. How do I make him work? Just field him with Plasma Fallen and call it a day or are there more intricate tactics involved here?

Cypher tactics are hard because he has to foot slog. Like most other characters, he's going to be moving across the board behind other units.

One of the things he has that no other Chaos unit has is the Imperium keyword. There are a few auras that buff all units with the Imperium keyword and you can take advantage of that. Gulliman, for example, buffs all Imperium units in 12 inches with +1 to advance and charge rolls. Remember, Cypher can fall back & advance AND shoot his pistols, so something like this could actually be useful. I would have to look at the Index, but I'm pretty sure Inquisitors have similar auras.

Using your opponent's auras is not much, but it's something. With regards to Plasma Fallen - they're not worth it. Think about the number of cultists you get for the same cost.

You know, I never considered that Cypher could in theory use enemy auras... don't those I checked and yeh they specify 'friendly imperial' so no Cypher can't use enemy auras against them.

Which is a shame cos that would be an interesting quirk for the character and might actually give him some use. At the moment though the fallen and cypher seem fairly useless. Give them a vehicle though and things would be a bit different.

"Think about the number of cultists you get for the same cost" - This could very easily be the answer any of the unit choices in the codex though, which is why I limit my number of cultists to a sensible number. Otherwise things would be very boring.

(Even though a 2000 point cultist game with ... 10x 40-man squads, so 400 cultists, and a couple of HQ's, does sound like fun in theory, I don't think anyone is going to run that kind of game more than once lol.

Yeah, maybe I should have looked at datasheets before I posted. It's the only theoretical advantage I can see to using Cypher.

Sure, you could replace any unit with Cultists. It just seems so much more logical with Fallen.

Fallen not being mobile basically kills any use for them.

Yeah, one unit of them is a pretty handy plasma gunline. You might be able to make one of that work. Three of them, and Cypher? That’s a hell of an investment. Actually, they don’t get a LEGION trait, so I suppose there’s niche things to do with a single unit. But even then, losing LEGION perks on the rest of the Detachment is probably not worth it?

Tbh the only reason to use Cypher and Fallen is for narrative or open play. Their lack of good keywords neuters them, especially with the battle brothers FAQ rules.

 lindsay40k wrote:
But even then, losing LEGION perks on the rest of the Detachment is probably not worth it?

It's frustrating, because the beta Battle Brothers rule completely undoes the work of this little gem (P157): "The inclusion of Fabius Bile or FALLEN units in a detachment does not prevent other units in that detachment from gaining a legion trait. However Fabius Bile and the FALLEN units can never themselves benefit from a legion trait"

I mean what's the point of that rule if the inclusion of said Fallen unit in a normal Legion detachment stops said detachment from being Battle Forged?

I wonder if the FAQ/Chapter Approved will be updated somehow to allow Fallen to be included in Legion detachments without breaking that detachments eligibility to be Battle Forged? Because currently you're very limited to how you can include Fallen in your army outside of a Patrol or Vanguard detachment?

 Raichase wrote:

 lindsay40k wrote:
But even then, losing LEGION perks on the rest of the Detachment is probably not worth it?

It's frustrating, because the beta Battle Brothers rule completely undoes the work of this little gem (P157): "The inclusion of Fabius Bile or FALLEN units in a detachment does not prevent other units in that detachment from gaining a legion trait. However Fabius Bile and the FALLEN units can never themselves benefit from a legion trait"

I mean what's the point of that rule if the inclusion of said Fallen unit in a normal Legion detachment stops said detachment from being Battle Forged?

I wonder if the FAQ/Chapter Approved will be updated somehow to allow Fallen to be included in Legion detachments without breaking that detachments eligibility to be Battle Forged? Because currently you're very limited to how you can include Fallen in your army outside of a Patrol or Vanguard detachment?

I'm a little confused by this.... I mean yes, battle brothers overrides the previous rules for what makes up a detachment, basically just by removing Imperium and Chaos as usable faction keywords. Fine.

But the Fallen rule states clearly that including them in a detachment does not prevent other units gaining a legion trait. Doesn't put any limits on the rule, just says that including the Fallen does not prevent legion traits.

So I don't see why battle brothers needs to be altered, when the rule for Fallen (and Fabius) already works fine as is.

Even though Fallen only have <Chaos>, their rule specifies that including them doesn't interfere with legion traits. Job already done, isn't it?

(Just to say I haven't played with fabius or fallen, I just don't see the problem raw)

I used to use my fallen and Cypher a lot in small games, they were great extra plasma bodies on a 4x4, especially since I was just getting started in 40k last year. Cypher is really deceptive with how much dmg he dishes against unarmored dudes.

Battle brothers clearly wasn't meant to exclude fallen from a detachment. I don't think GW cares at all though, since no one played them in a competitive table.

I wrote to GW and asked them to clarify, or edit battle brothers to exclude fallen from that exception, or to edit the fallen rules to give them another keyword like mark or astartes or some other special rule. No reply, obviously, but if enough people write maybe they'll throw us a bone.

Wishlist: fallen get heretic astartes and adeptusc astartes and mark keywords, and can infiltrate like raven/alpha.

Niiru wrote:

 Raichase wrote:

 lindsay40k wrote:
But even then, losing LEGION perks on the rest of the Detachment is probably not worth it?

It's frustrating, because the beta Battle Brothers rule completely undoes the work of this little gem (P157): "The inclusion of Fabius Bile or FALLEN units in a detachment does not prevent other units in that detachment from gaining a legion trait. However Fabius Bile and the FALLEN units can never themselves benefit from a legion trait"

I mean what's the point of that rule if the inclusion of said Fallen unit in a normal Legion detachment stops said detachment from being Battle Forged?

I wonder if the FAQ/Chapter Approved will be updated somehow to allow Fallen to be included in Legion detachments without breaking that detachments eligibility to be Battle Forged? Because currently you're very limited to how you can include Fallen in your army outside of a Patrol or Vanguard detachment?

I'm a little confused by this.... I mean yes, battle brothers overrides the previous rules for what makes up a detachment, basically just by removing Imperium and Chaos as usable faction keywords. Fine.

But the Fallen rule states clearly that including them in a detachment does not prevent other units gaining a legion trait. Doesn't put any limits on the rule, just says that including the Fallen does not prevent legion traits.

So I don't see why battle brothers needs to be altered, when the rule for Fallen (and Fabius) already works fine as is.

Even though Fallen only have <Chaos>, their rule specifies that including them doesn't interfere with legion traits. Job already done, isn't it?

(Just to say I haven't played with fabius or fallen, I just don't see the problem raw)

The rule doesn't do anything, because the Battle Brothers rule prevents them from being included in detachments which include anything other than FALLEN models - they can't use their IMPERIUM or CHAOS keywords to join detachments, leaving only FALLEN.

Yes Battle Brothers made Shadowy Allies obsolete until either's adjusted. Can still take a vanguard or auxiliary support of all fallen, or Fabius. Just hope it's adjusted in FAQ or the final version of Battle Brother's text.

Niiru wrote:
I'm a little confused by this.... I mean yes, battle brothers overrides the previous rules for what makes up a detachment, basically just by removing Imperium and Chaos as usable faction keywords. Fine.

As I understand it, the Battle Brothers rule then means that your army is no longer battle forged if you include Fallen/Cypher in an existing detachment, because you can't use the "Chaos" keyword to to bind a detachment. You can take Cypher/Fallen in a Vanguard Detachment (using the keyword "Fallen" to bind the detachment), or simply take them as Aux Support Detachments (but I really don't think either unit is good enough to spend 1CP on...). Of course, if they're a Vanguard Detachment, that's Cypher plus three squads of Fallen which is a huge points sink for a unit that's not much different to Chosen.

Fabius Bile is fine because he still has the Heretic Astartes keyword.

 MinMax wrote:

Niiru wrote:

 Raichase wrote:

 lindsay40k wrote:
But even then, losing LEGION perks on the rest of the Detachment is probably not worth it?

It's frustrating, because the beta Battle Brothers rule completely undoes the work of this little gem (P157): "The inclusion of Fabius Bile or FALLEN units in a detachment does not prevent other units in that detachment from gaining a legion trait. However Fabius Bile and the FALLEN units can never themselves benefit from a legion trait"

I mean what's the point of that rule if the inclusion of said Fallen unit in a normal Legion detachment stops said detachment from being Battle Forged?

I wonder if the FAQ/Chapter Approved will be updated somehow to allow Fallen to be included in Legion detachments without breaking that detachments eligibility to be Battle Forged? Because currently you're very limited to how you can include Fallen in your army outside of a Patrol or Vanguard detachment?

I'm a little confused by this.... I mean yes, battle brothers overrides the previous rules for what makes up a detachment, basically just by removing Imperium and Chaos as usable faction keywords. Fine.

But the Fallen rule states clearly that including them in a detachment does not prevent other units gaining a legion trait. Doesn't put any limits on the rule, just says that including the Fallen does not prevent legion traits.

So I don't see why battle brothers needs to be altered, when the rule for Fallen (and Fabius) already works fine as is.

Even though Fallen only have <Chaos>, their rule specifies that including them doesn't interfere with legion traits. Job already done, isn't it?

(Just to say I haven't played with fabius or fallen, I just don't see the problem raw)

The rule doesn't do anything, because the Battle Brothers rule prevents them from being included in detachments which include anything other than FALLEN models - they can't use their IMPERIUM or CHAOS keywords to join detachments, leaving only FALLEN.

Clearly a case of RAI though. As it's a beta rule anyway and not even official, I can't imagine anyone ruling against you in this way. It's just too obvious how the rule is meant to be used.

I can't even imagine tournament officers ruling against this, except of course noone uses Fallen in tournaments anyway.

My TOs here ruled against it, but it's not ITC.

Who knows - GW may have changed their minds about Fallen since the codex came out, probably not, but they're not saying one way or another.

Fallen should've been handled in the Dark Angel's codex to be honest.

Dactylartha wrote:My TOs here ruled against it, but it's not ITC and they don't know the chaos codecies.

Who knows - GW may have changed their minds about Fallen since the codex came out, probably not, but they're not saying one way or another.

I mean sure, if a tournament judge doesn't know the rules they might well rule badly on something. It is also, technically, RAW - it's just one of those cases where the RAW is so obviously a mistake that it should be ignored.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Fallen should've been handled in the Dark Angel's codex to be honest.

Oddly enough, the Fallen are probably still best off in a Dark Angels (or any Imperium) army. I might be mistaken, but even if you put cypher and some fallen into a detachment in a dark angel army, cypher is still a chaos character... and so can feel free to summon daemons.

Still no transport, but if you're making a stationary plasma gunline with him anyway that means he's not moving, so you can be summoning some 16" movement screamers or something to do your close-up work with.

Edit - Or a Daemon Prince with a skullreaver axe, in your Imperial army.

Cypher can't summon as per faq.

Fallen don't add anything to a DA army their rule is the DA legion trait.

Also, Fallen shouldn't be taken with DA armies just for fluff reasons alone, so they are put in the codex that GW wanted them to be taken with.

Also you can't get a relic on a summoned daemon.

Dactylartha wrote:
Cypher can't summon as per faq.

Fallen don't add anything to a DA army their rule is the DA legion trait.

Also, Fallen shouldn't be taken with DA armies just for fluff reasons alone, so they are put in the codex that GW wanted them to be taken with.

Also you can't get a relic on a summoned daemon.

Ahh, didn't know they faq'd him from being able to summon.

In which case yeh, he's totally useless, as is the fallen.

Kenny Boucher from 'the long war' podcast said on his most recent video that the new chaos list he is writing won't include 3 daemon prince's as he believes the faq will make DP's 1 per detachment.

Have any of you heard anything similar and if this turns out to be true what do you guys think?

 orangebrushminiatures wrote:
Kenny Boucher from 'the long war' podcast said on his most recent video that the new chaos list he is writing won't include 3 daemon prince's as he believes the faq will make DP's 1 per detachment.

Have any of you heard anything similar and if this turns out to be true what do you guys think?

He was wrong.

Niiru wrote:

 orangebrushminiatures wrote:
Kenny Boucher from 'the long war' podcast said on his most recent video that the new chaos list he is writing won't include 3 daemon prince's as he believes the faq will make DP's 1 per detachment.

Have any of you heard anything similar and if this turns out to be true what do you guys think?

He was wrong.

dunno what i was thinkin...

I do not like these apples at all GW. So much for trying to tie up the local armor gun line with infiltrated units. But hey i get a cover save for 2 CP against 8 battle canon and 8 lascannom shots!

Dactylartha wrote:
I do not like these apples at all GW. So much for trying to tie up the local armor gun line with infiltrated units. But hey i get a cover save for 2 CP against 8 battle canon and 8 lascannom shots!

I don't think it's all that bad! my army heavily depends on infiltrating cultists/noise marines to tie up some screens, say i deploy cultists at the edge of my zone and get first turn, free move 9" forward, THEN your normal 6" move w/ potential charges, I can live with that.

I do admire your optimism lol. I struggle here at my flgs events vs russ or predator turtles, the meta.

FAQ link:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/09/28/28th-sept-warhammer-40000-big-faq-2-the-low-downgw-homepage-post-1/



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Niiru wrote:

Dactylartha wrote:
15 bare-bones raptors = 255 pts. With icon and 3 special gear dudes ~300 pts, only a little cheaper than possessed, but a lot more maneuverable.

Seems like a fun trick that I'm not going to buy and paint 2 more boxes of raptors to try out (before it gets FAQd out anyway). Probably not anyway. If I had the models I'd probably go with it.

I don't see why they'd FAQ it out now, every fly unit in the game has been able to do this for over a year now and they haven't done anything about it yet.

And it's in no way overpowered... it's literally the whole point of having a <FLY> character (being able to jump over enemies/obstacles)

So this is quite hilarious - FLY units can't charge over models anymore. Only moving in the movement phase:

Page 177
– Moving
Change the second paragraph to read:
‘If the datasheet for a model says it can Fly, then during the Movement phase it can move across models and terrain as if they were not there.’

Or am I missing something like when you charge, HI, you move as if it's movement phase?

So if everything counts as in cover for 2cp that makes predators 2++ sitting in the open? I like those apples a lot!

As for charging, looks like your right Dactylartha. Charging has to be straight on, or ground path to target as it were. :(

anything stopping us from warptiming say for example a unit of 40 cultists who infiltrated? 9" free move, 6" move, further 6" w/warptime?

The obvious counter to alpha legion infiltrate now is to just sit as far back as you can from them to prevent them wrapping you up, but if you also have oblits/bloodletter bombs they will be forced to screen which is what your infiltrators want.