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.
wtf is a 'first attack'? Does this mean you ignores invuns with only 1 of its attacks? Seems like very clumsy wording - why not just say 'roll one of its attacks separately- this attack ignores invuns'. If you can ignore invuns with all attacks, it's stupidly good, to the point where I guess it must be meant for only 1 single attack. But the fact that there's a stratagem to fight again makes this a bit unclear.
Some good stratagems there (e.g. reroll hits and wounds with Destroyers for 1CP!). Sad that the fight again strat is tied to one dynasty. Some awful strats too (e.g. Improve Lychguard invun to 3++ for 2CP. Wtf?!). Disappointing that the majority of the unit entries are just copied with minimal or no changes from the index. No change to RP is TERRIBLE. I notice they didn't bother to fix the schizophrenic destroyer lord either.
Lychguard are still bland, so are Praetorians. No boost to psychic defence except a warlord trait for 1 deny. Triarch Stalkers are still bland too.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/12 15:12:36
Yes this is a beta copy (as the video states) but knowing GW they didn't listen to any play testers and probably will just use this. I did notice going through it that it's 100% kinda a copy and paste... I thought there was going to be a huge overhaul and everything! Would be epic if they got told this was dumb and then they were all like "Yes... this si dumb! Let's remake it from ground up right now!!!" bt then again.... gw....
Going to try and update thread. Home sick so be a bit slow. Please bear with me. I can't update the title of the thread?
Agies Grimm:The "Learn to play, bro" mentality is mostly just a way for someone to try to shame you by implying that their metaphorical nerd-wiener is bigger than yours. Which, ironically, I think nerds do even more vehemently than jocks.
Everything is made up and the points don't matter. 40K or Who's Line is it Anyway?
Auticus wrote: Or in summation: its ok to exploit shoddy points because those are rules and gamers exist to find rules loopholes (they are still "legal"), but if the same force can be composed without structure, it emotionally feels "wrong".
Agies Grimm:The "Learn to play, bro" mentality is mostly just a way for someone to try to shame you by implying that their metaphorical nerd-wiener is bigger than yours. Which, ironically, I think nerds do even more vehemently than jocks.
Everything is made up and the points don't matter. 40K or Who's Line is it Anyway?
Auticus wrote: Or in summation: its ok to exploit shoddy points because those are rules and gamers exist to find rules loopholes (they are still "legal"), but if the same force can be composed without structure, it emotionally feels "wrong".
Also the difference between an Obelisk and Tesseract Vault is so big now I can't see anyone ever taking the Obelisk. It's slightly cheaper and has +1T, but the Vault gets 3 super-enhanced C'tan powers that utterly leave the Obelisk in the dust as far as damage potential goes...
Cheeslord wrote: Also the difference between an Obelisk and Tesseract Vault is so big now I can't see anyone ever taking the Obelisk. It's slightly cheaper and has +1T, but the Vault gets 3 super-enhanced C'tan powers that utterly leave the Obelisk in the dust as far as damage potential goes...
Vault is ugly as sin, impossible to transport and the extra damage is just typical light mortal wound powers, nothing to write home about.
The vault is absolutely superior for it's invulnerable save, but I'll stick to my obelisk when I feel like deploying ominously floating architecture.
At first glance the leaked Codex looks pretty disappointing and definitely not the major overhaul that was being mooted.
However, having just put my current 1750 point list into the new Codex I'm coming out at 115 points cheaper, which is a pretty significant saving. While there haven't been a huge number of price drops, some of them have been pretty substantial, including Destroyers and Overlords. Lords now seem pretty good too and a good portion of those extra points will be going back into a Lord for re-roll 1s to wound.
The stratagems seem like a mixed bag but there's some good ones in there for sure. I'm most disappointed about the lack of change to RP and our anti-tank still looks pretty weak. On the plus side, Destroyers and Wraiths look pretty good now. Yes, Wraiths are more expensive but extra AP and Damage is great as is the ability to fall back and assault.
After giving it some thought I'm cautiously optimistic.
How can people complain about this?!?! The army is bananans now! We've gone from a durable army in 7th to an even more durable army now! your all looking at it wrong. New cryptek buffs vehicles, which are also buffed. They are a good backbone to an army that now VOMITS mortal wounds. Look at everything besides the boring normal stuff, C'tan spew them, imotekh, relics, etc etc.
It's codex: Sautekh C'tan and friends but holy hell it looks amazing. Fast, hardhitting necrons are here to stay babay!!!
docdoom77 wrote: Too much salt. Between the Dynastic Codes, Stratagems, Warlord Traits and Artefacts, it looks pretty damn good!
It looks competitive, it's probably going to be a pretty strong codex. But, bland as all hell.
It's a game and the majority of people don't go to tournaments, sadly to me this just doesn't look fun.
I hate to break it to you, but basically every one of the 'powerful' codices have had this issue of being bland. It comes down simply to Necrons, like Guard or Tau or AdMech, didn't have a whole lot of unit choice to begin with and without introducing a whole slew of new stuff we just weren't going to see a whole lot of interestingly different builds IMO.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/12 16:25:05
Mephrit dynasty's trait makes me feel sad for the MEQ - and even a little dirty for considering using it. An extra -1AP at half range makes warriors incredibly deadly to the MEQ, and we get it on all Dynasty units too! Immortals at AP3, Destroyers (who can use their speed to reliably get to half range) at AP4...even Tesla at -1...
docdoom77 wrote: Too much salt. Between the Dynastic Codes, Stratagems, Warlord Traits and Artefacts, it looks pretty damn good!
It looks competitive, it's probably going to be a pretty strong codex. But, bland as all hell.
It's a game and the majority of people don't go to tournaments, sadly to me this just doesn't look fun.
What did you expect that wouldn't be 'bland'? Beyond making new entries or a load of equipment options that weren't present before, I aren't sure what people expected?
The Gauss Cannon buff: from Heavy 2 to Heavy 3 and from S5 to S6. Not so bad for Destroyers, considering they saw a decrease in point cost and their dedicated stratagem.
docdoom77 wrote: Too much salt. Between the Dynastic Codes, Stratagems, Warlord Traits and Artefacts, it looks pretty damn good!
It looks competitive, it's probably going to be a pretty strong codex. But, bland as all hell.
It's a game and the majority of people don't go to tournaments, sadly to me this just doesn't look fun.
I hate to break it to you, but basically every one of the 'powerful' codices have had this issue of being bland. It comes down simply to Necrons, like Guard or Tau or AdMech, didn't have a whole lot of unit choice to begin with and without introducing a whole slew of new stuff we just weren't going to see a whole lot of interestingly different builds IMO.
Look at the Legions of Nagash book that came out for Death in AoS. It's got plenty flavour, it's fun and appropriate and gives tons of options plus it's pretty strong. GW can make strong books that have flavour to them, it's not like that's impossible. Would it really hurt this book to give crypteks a few more options for wargear, make C'tan powers not the same thing repeated 6 times and maybe change reanimation protocols a bit? Necrons used to have flavour, in the form of the 5th ed book, I don't see why they couldn't have brought forward some things from that book.
Well no, I do see actually. I think it was probably to make it more streamlined, easy to understand and quicker to play. Which is a real shame, for soulless robots necrons actually had tons of flavour, at one point.
docdoom77 wrote: Too much salt. Between the Dynastic Codes, Stratagems, Warlord Traits and Artefacts, it looks pretty damn good!
It looks competitive, it's probably going to be a pretty strong codex. But, bland as all hell.
It's a game and the majority of people don't go to tournaments, sadly to me this just doesn't look fun.
What did you expect that wouldn't be 'bland'? Beyond making new entries or a load of equipment options that weren't present before, I aren't sure what people expected?
Equipment options similar to 5ed codex for crypteks, varied C'tan powers because what there is now is incredibly dull and basically the same effect at different ranges/different targets. Making Monoliths tougher (as they used to be, slow, not that powerful but damn near impossible to kill). Things like the solar pulse making it night fighting. And yes, maybe controversilal, but I really enjoyed line attacks when they were a thing (draw a line between two points and deal damage to models under it).
If this was an online game, the necrons almost feel like a reskin of the generic faction. Almost. We still have a few fun things, it's not as bad as it might sound from my replies but it's pretty depressing seeing this after there were rumours of major reworks.
This leak is really weird. Super Wargamer claims he was authorized to publish the entire (beta) codex weeks in advance of release. This is unprecedented, there's always been an embargo until pre-orders go live, and reviewers weren't permitted to outright show the pages. And he might be off his rocker, saying in Discord he was authorized by "my scarab". And yet GW hasn't yet asked YouTube to remove this video that clearly violates their copyright. None of this makes sense.
docdoom77 wrote: Too much salt. Between the Dynastic Codes, Stratagems, Warlord Traits and Artefacts, it looks pretty damn good!
It looks competitive, it's probably going to be a pretty strong codex. But, bland as all hell.
It's a game and the majority of people don't go to tournaments, sadly to me this just doesn't look fun.
I hate to break it to you, but basically every one of the 'powerful' codices have had this issue of being bland. It comes down simply to Necrons, like Guard or Tau or AdMech, didn't have a whole lot of unit choice to begin with and without introducing a whole slew of new stuff we just weren't going to see a whole lot of interestingly different builds IMO.
Look at the Legions of Nagash book that came out for Death in AoS. It's got plenty flavour, it's fun and appropriate and gives tons of options plus it's pretty strong. GW can make strong books that have flavour to them, it's not like that's impossible. Would it really hurt this book to give crypteks a few more options for wargear, make C'tan powers not the same thing repeated 6 times and maybe change reanimation protocols a bit? Necrons used to have flavour, in the form of the 5th ed book, I don't see why they couldn't have brought forward some things from that book.
Well no, I do see actually. I think it was probably to make it more streamlined, easy to understand and quicker to play. Which is a real shame, for soulless robots necrons actually had tons of flavour, at one point.
Legions of Nagash also incorporates six different factions into one book. Basically everything in there was, potentially, going to be its own army at one point.
docdoom77 wrote: Too much salt. Between the Dynastic Codes, Stratagems, Warlord Traits and Artefacts, it looks pretty damn good!
It looks competitive, it's probably going to be a pretty strong codex. But, bland as all hell.
It's a game and the majority of people don't go to tournaments, sadly to me this just doesn't look fun.
I hate to break it to you, but basically every one of the 'powerful' codices have had this issue of being bland. It comes down simply to Necrons, like Guard or Tau or AdMech, didn't have a whole lot of unit choice to begin with and without introducing a whole slew of new stuff we just weren't going to see a whole lot of interestingly different builds IMO.
Look at the Legions of Nagash book that came out for Death in AoS. It's got plenty flavour, it's fun and appropriate and gives tons of options plus it's pretty strong. GW can make strong books that have flavour to them, it's not like that's impossible. Would it really hurt this book to give crypteks a few more options for wargear, make C'tan powers not the same thing repeated 6 times and maybe change reanimation protocols a bit? Necrons used to have flavour, in the form of the 5th ed book, I don't see why they couldn't have brought forward some things from that book.
Well no, I do see actually. I think it was probably to make it more streamlined, easy to understand and quicker to play. Which is a real shame, for soulless robots necrons actually had tons of flavour, at one point.
docdoom77 wrote: Too much salt. Between the Dynastic Codes, Stratagems, Warlord Traits and Artefacts, it looks pretty damn good!
It looks competitive, it's probably going to be a pretty strong codex. But, bland as all hell.
It's a game and the majority of people don't go to tournaments, sadly to me this just doesn't look fun.
What did you expect that wouldn't be 'bland'? Beyond making new entries or a load of equipment options that weren't present before, I aren't sure what people expected?
Equipment options similar to 5ed codex for crypteks, varied C'tan powers because what there is now is incredibly dull and basically the same effect at different ranges/different targets. Making Monoliths tougher (as they used to be, slow, not that powerful but damn near impossible to kill). Things like the solar pulse making it night fighting. And yes, maybe controversilal, but I really enjoyed line attacks when they were a thing (draw a line between two points and deal damage to models under it).
If this was an online game, the necrons almost feel like a reskin of the generic faction. Almost. We still have a few fun things, it's not as bad as it might sound from my replies but it's pretty depressing seeing this after there were rumours of major reworks.
Sorry to say your expectations were wildly out of kilter with the rest of the edition. Yes the c'tan powers could have been a little more varied, but they provide something the army needs and lacks otherwise without being a must take.
The book seems very well thought out and well rounded but it appears people had the idea the book was going to redefine the wheel of 8th.
Arachnofiend wrote: Starting to think "bland" is just a word people use when they want to complain but have nothing to complain about.
That's what I'm thinking too.
In fact I don't have any complaints outside the Flame Gauntlet not coming back and the CTan powers could've been a little more varied. Flayed Ones get a massive price cut, Praetorians got a good dedicated Strategem, Lychguard are cheap enough to be bodyguards again...
Yeah I'm not actually sure what the deal here is for the word "bland".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/12 18:51:58
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.
Arachnofiend wrote: Starting to think "bland" is just a word people use when they want to complain but have nothing to complain about.
I agree. Also the fluff hasn't been leaked out yet that I know of, so how can they say bland? I think anyone who says bland needs to read the 4th edition codices of Dark Angels, Chaos Space Marines, and not sure if Eldar was in there as well. There is no where near bland at all. While I don't know much about the armies, I can tell this is not bland. Lackluster? I wouldn't say so, but maybe that is the word they should be using instead of bland.
Heck Dark Angels 4th edition takes the cake on bland. Nothing like this compares to any of the books I have mentioned.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/12 18:55:06
Agies Grimm:The "Learn to play, bro" mentality is mostly just a way for someone to try to shame you by implying that their metaphorical nerd-wiener is bigger than yours. Which, ironically, I think nerds do even more vehemently than jocks.
Everything is made up and the points don't matter. 40K or Who's Line is it Anyway?
Auticus wrote: Or in summation: its ok to exploit shoddy points because those are rules and gamers exist to find rules loopholes (they are still "legal"), but if the same force can be composed without structure, it emotionally feels "wrong".
I didn't say "bland" but I can see what people are saying.
I'm not seeing any combos of models that make me go "Yeah, I'd love to write a list around that!"
For example, I have a nid list comprised as much as I can of both flying and burrowing models because I like the idea, one comprised of putting as many spore mines as I can into play and the classic Nidzilla where no model has less than 3 wounds. For my daemons I have one with all the non-Greater Daemon characters, one with a focus on mounted models, one based around a bloodthirster with two daemon prince companions.
The necrons I'm struggling to come up with "concepts" I guess. I think a boat list might be cool with lots of barges and arcs. Theres the classic alien invasion list I guess? Maybe stuff will jump out at me later but right now nothing is clicking. I don't like my lists to be "take X amount of a unit, add other units to taste". I like them to feel like they have a reason to exist.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/03/12 19:18:56
Sim-Life wrote: I didn't say "bland" but I can see what people are saying.
I'm not seeing any combos of models that make me go "Yeah, I'd love to write a list around that!"
For example, I have a nid list comprised as much as I can of both flying and burrowing models because I like the idea, one comprised of putting as many spore mines as I can into play and the classic Nidzilla where no model has less than 3 wounds. For my daemons I have one with all the non-Greater Daemon characters, one with a focus on mounted models, one based around a bloodthirster with two daemon prince companions.
The necrons I'm struggling to come up with "concepts" I guess. I think a boat list might be cool with lots of barges and arcs. Theres the classic alien invasion list I guess? Maybe stuff will jump out at me later but right now nothing is clicking.
A Canoptek Harvest list pretty immediately comes to mind; Nephrekh wraiths are going to be nasty with their 18+2d6" threat range.
To be honest I believe in AoS they have much bigger room to try different things.
Think about for example the Infestation Points in the Nurgle battletome or the Nurgle wheel with different bonuses. Or things like the Destiny Dice in the Tzeentch Battletomes.
They add much flavour to the armies, but at the same time they are very hard to balance.
The approach 40k is taking is different. Factions don't have crazy unique rules like those, but at the same time they are more balanced. I don't think one way of doing it is better than the other, it comes down to personal tastes.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/12 19:22:49
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
docdoom77 wrote: Too much salt. Between the Dynastic Codes, Stratagems, Warlord Traits and Artefacts, it looks pretty damn good!
It looks competitive, it's probably going to be a pretty strong codex. But, bland as all hell.
It's a game and the majority of people don't go to tournaments, sadly to me this just doesn't look fun.
I hate to break it to you, but basically every one of the 'powerful' codices have had this issue of being bland. It comes down simply to Necrons, like Guard or Tau or AdMech, didn't have a whole lot of unit choice to begin with and without introducing a whole slew of new stuff we just weren't going to see a whole lot of interestingly different builds IMO.
Look at the Legions of Nagash book that came out for Death in AoS. It's got plenty flavour, it's fun and appropriate and gives tons of options plus it's pretty strong. GW can make strong books that have flavour to them, it's not like that's impossible. Would it really hurt this book to give crypteks a few more options for wargear, make C'tan powers not the same thing repeated 6 times and maybe change reanimation protocols a bit? Necrons used to have flavour, in the form of the 5th ed book, I don't see why they couldn't have brought forward some things from that book.
Well no, I do see actually. I think it was probably to make it more streamlined, easy to understand and quicker to play. Which is a real shame, for soulless robots necrons actually had tons of flavour, at one point.
Legions of Nagash also incorporates six different factions into one book. Basically everything in there was, potentially, going to be its own army at one point.
Legions of Nagash is pretty much just Vampire Counts from fantasy. It's not six different factions, it's just the old VC book, which was split into 6 different subfactions for who knows why and then recombined again. The fact that there are multiple different keywords binding certain groups of units has nothing to do with anything.
docdoom77 wrote: Too much salt. Between the Dynastic Codes, Stratagems, Warlord Traits and Artefacts, it looks pretty damn good!
It looks competitive, it's probably going to be a pretty strong codex. But, bland as all hell.
It's a game and the majority of people don't go to tournaments, sadly to me this just doesn't look fun.
I hate to break it to you, but basically every one of the 'powerful' codices have had this issue of being bland. It comes down simply to Necrons, like Guard or Tau or AdMech, didn't have a whole lot of unit choice to begin with and without introducing a whole slew of new stuff we just weren't going to see a whole lot of interestingly different builds IMO.
Look at the Legions of Nagash book that came out for Death in AoS. It's got plenty flavour, it's fun and appropriate and gives tons of options plus it's pretty strong. GW can make strong books that have flavour to them, it's not like that's impossible. Would it really hurt this book to give crypteks a few more options for wargear, make C'tan powers not the same thing repeated 6 times and maybe change reanimation protocols a bit? Necrons used to have flavour, in the form of the 5th ed book, I don't see why they couldn't have brought forward some things from that book.
Well no, I do see actually. I think it was probably to make it more streamlined, easy to understand and quicker to play. Which is a real shame, for soulless robots necrons actually had tons of flavour, at one point.
docdoom77 wrote: Too much salt. Between the Dynastic Codes, Stratagems, Warlord Traits and Artefacts, it looks pretty damn good!
It looks competitive, it's probably going to be a pretty strong codex. But, bland as all hell.
It's a game and the majority of people don't go to tournaments, sadly to me this just doesn't look fun.
What did you expect that wouldn't be 'bland'? Beyond making new entries or a load of equipment options that weren't present before, I aren't sure what people expected?
Equipment options similar to 5ed codex for crypteks, varied C'tan powers because what there is now is incredibly dull and basically the same effect at different ranges/different targets. Making Monoliths tougher (as they used to be, slow, not that powerful but damn near impossible to kill). Things like the solar pulse making it night fighting. And yes, maybe controversilal, but I really enjoyed line attacks when they were a thing (draw a line between two points and deal damage to models under it).
If this was an online game, the necrons almost feel like a reskin of the generic faction. Almost. We still have a few fun things, it's not as bad as it might sound from my replies but it's pretty depressing seeing this after there were rumours of major reworks.
Sorry to say your expectations were wildly out of kilter with the rest of the edition. Yes the c'tan powers could have been a little more varied, but they provide something the army needs and lacks otherwise without being a must take.
The book seems very well thought out and well rounded but it appears people had the idea the book was going to redefine the wheel of 8th.
Look, I have no problem with the book being well thought out, rounded, strong, competitive and balanced. That's fine, it seems like it is, it will probably play very nicely against all the other new codexes and will probably provide intense games that are quite close more often than not.
To me what is there doesn't seem as fun as Necrons used to be though.
Yes maybe my expectations were too high and potentially I just have a problem with 8th, that's quite likely. However based on what I have seen GW capable of printing, what we've seen seems to suggest they focused more on balance than giving the player a unique experience with the army.
It is much easier to say "X is unbalanced" or "Y is too expensive for what it does", you can even be objective up to a point with that. Whether you think an army is "fun" is a lot more subjective. From my perspective, as a big fan of Necron lore and feel I think the new rules that we have seen are boring (although maybe very effective) and there have been more interesting Necron codexes in the past.
I realise this might be very well in keeping with other codex releases for 8th and maybe that's just what the game is now...but does that mean my opinion on the rules is invalid? At the very least it should mean something saying that Necrons were more fun to play in the past than what can be seen coming from this book.
Anyway, sure, the points cost changes are welcome, the buff to destroyers is amazing and the buff to the Vault is very much appreciated. That plus maybe now teleporting something out of a Monolith is viable and I absolutely like that. The book does have its strengths, but I maintain that the rules could have been made more interesting.
Edit: @Galas absolutely I agree. 40k is more balanced, yet less fun, IMO, for my personal taste. I'm not saying this book is bad for every gamer (or that it's bad at all) or that it doesn't fit into 8th, but I prefer what AoS is doing currently which is a shame for me as I really enjoyed playing my Necrons from 5th to 7th.
Plus we can all agree on the C'tan powers at least...right?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/12 19:50:47
Yeah 6 methods of dealing some free wounds seems a bit much, a teleport or some battlefield manipulation or debuffs would have spiced it up a little more.
axisofentropy wrote: This leak is really weird. Super Wargamer claims he was authorized to publish the entire (beta) codex weeks in advance of release. This is unprecedented, there's always been an embargo until pre-orders go live, and reviewers weren't permitted to outright show the pages. And he might be off his rocker, saying in Discord he was authorized by "my scarab". And yet GW hasn't yet asked YouTube to remove this video that clearly violates their copyright. None of this makes sense.
Weird. Maybe they want to build hype for Forgebane? Otherwise I got nothin'.
Slashy McTalons wrote: wtf is a 'first attack'? Does this mean you ignores invuns with only 1 of its attacks? Seems like very clumsy wording - why not just say 'roll one of its attacks separately- this attack ignores invuns'. If you can ignore invuns with all attacks, it's stupidly good, to the point where I guess it must be meant for only 1 single attack. But the fact that there's a stratagem to fight again makes this a bit unclear.
Per rules you roll each attack one at a time, batch rolling is a convience per the Fast Rolling sidebar.
12,000 
