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.

If this is truly the case (being able to mix units from different dynasties in a single detachment) then it could mean big things for competitive Necron list building (eg. no more having to add Nephrek Destroyers via Outrider or Aux, can just throw them into any list and use the Nephrek strat to deepstrike them in).

What else would be a unit that doesn't really care about its Dynasty's code but really benefits from its strats?

 skoffs wrote:
If this is truly the case (being able to mix units from different dynasties in a single detachment) then it could mean big things for competitive Necron list building (eg. no more having to add Nephrek Destroyers via Outrider or Aux, can just throw them into any list and use the Nephrek strat to deepstrike them in).

What else would be a unit that doesn't really care about its Dynasty's code but really benefits from its strats?

Well he already mentioned some, Nihilakh wraiths getting 2++, Tesla (or assault weapons really) units in Sautekh.

 skoffs wrote:
If this is truly the case (being able to mix units from different dynasties in a single detachment) then it could mean big things for competitive Necron list building (eg. no more having to add Nephrek Destroyers via Outrider or Aux, can just throw them into any list and use the Nephrek strat to deepstrike them in).

What else would be a unit that doesn't really care about its Dynasty's code but really benefits from its strats?

You must have missed this the last couple of times it came up in this thread.

It's good for units that want access to a Dynasties stratagems, but aren't bothered about codes. Destroyers are the main one as they want Nephrek for the deep strike strat but don't care about advancing 6". Nihilak Wraith are another one, the code is useless but the strat is situational but powerful (especially when fighting Knights). I've also given Tesla Tomb blades Sautekh in a mixed outrider to go with a Suatekh battalion- they can benefit from Methodical Destruction but don't need the code.

The other big benefit of a mixed detachment is being able to make the HQ match your other detachment(s) to prevent waste.

Example mixed detachment:

I dont think its worth giving up 6" auto advance or re-roll all failed hit rolls in melee for a 16,7% better inv sv and +1A for wraith.

 p5freak wrote:
I dont think its worth giving up 6" auto advance or re-roll all failed hit rolls in melee for a 16,7% better inv sv and +1A for wraith.

oh its much better than that.

2/6 unsaved becomes 1/6 unsaved. 50% improvement wrt damage taken, and a 100% increase in durability (twice the amount of shooting needed to take them down.

 p5freak wrote:
I dont think its worth giving up 6" auto advance or re-roll all failed hit rolls in melee for a 16,7% better inv sv and +1A for wraith.

As mentioned above, the durability increase is massive. With a 2++ Wraith become effectively immune to any attacks that don't ignore invuls- only a fool would waste their time attacking them.

It is still quite situational though, and the Nephrek 6" advance will be more useful in a lot of games. I don't rate Novokh though, Wraith's strengths are their speed and resilience, not their damage output. I'd rather play to their strengths.

Honestly after Nihilakh I would say Novokh is the best Code for Wraiths for exactly the reason you don't rate it: without it, they can really be a wet blanket for damage output, but with it, they become very reliable offensively, whilst still maintaining excellent durability and mobility. Nihilakh is just wild when you get to use the Strat, and Nephrekh is nice because it synergizes with the Adaptive Subroutines strat well.

I started out playing them as Novokh and they did great damage, but then I switched to Nephrekh because I thought it better overall for the army. With a mixed detachment Nihilakh can be used, but unfortunately the best thing about Novokh is the Code, which is lost unless the entire detachment uses it, and nothing else I take really cares for it.

Novokh Scarabs have been awesome for me, full units backed by a Novokh D Lord, re rolling all failed hits, and generating extras on 6's? Awesome!

Granted, Wraiths work far better as they can fall back and re charge to gain the bonuses every turn, but a ball made of Scarabs, surrounding Wraiths, surrounding a D Lord is a tough nut to crack, and isn't something to be ignored.

 Blndmage wrote:
Novokh Scarabs have been awesome for me, full units backed by a Novokh D Lord, re rolling all failed hits, and generating extras on 6's?

Where's extra hits coming from?

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
Novokh Scarabs have been awesome for me, full units backed by a Novokh D Lord, re rolling all failed hits, and generating extras on 6's?

Where's extra hits coming from?

Novokh Warlord, nat 6's on the hit in the fight phase generate extra attacks, the extras can't generate more. With reroling all failed, then rerolling the failed on the additional hits, I've had some really impressing charges with Scarabs. The sheer number of hits can be amazing, kinda makes up for the drop from WS 3 to 4 with the codex, especially with Fly added. It really makes their whole "wounds everything but T3 or worse on a 5+" thing fun!

I need someone to look at the Sautekh Dynasty Strat, Methodical Destruction, and tell me whether the following works:

Sautekh Unit A fires at Enemy Unit M and causes an unsaved wound; now the Necron Player activates the strat. Then, Sautekh Unit B declares targets for it's shooting attacks: one model will fire at Enemy Unit M, granting the +1 bonus from the strat, and the rest of the unit will fire at a completely different Enemy Unit N, but... Still gaining +1 to Hit for all it's shots?

The bonus seems to be applied at the unit level, but all models in a unit are not required to shoot the same target, so can you split-fire and get the +1 on shots which do not actually target the enemy unit which activates the strat?

 Blndmage wrote:
How worthwhile is the Sef Destruction Stratagem?
I tend to run tons of Scarabs, but I'm usually really low on CP, so I never use it.

It's okay, it's not worth it to just deal damage to something, but if it makes the difference between killing things it's good. It's rarely as good as re-rolling a 1 on a D6 damage weapon, but given how many people re-roll failed hit rolls with CP it's not terrible.

I've used it to make room for my Praetorians once, opponent charged Praetorians and Scarabs, only one Praetorian had room to fight so I sacrificed a Scarab and got to attack with 7 instead.

 Spreelock wrote:
I actually got excited about Sautekh dynasty, and made my first list. Any advise are appreciated;

Spoiler:

NECRON SAUTEKH BATTALION
-HQ- Orikan the Diviner 115
-HQ- Cryptek (staff of light, chronometron) 95
-T- Necron Warriors (20) 240
-T- Necron Warriors (10) 120
-T- Immortals (5, gauss blasters) 85

NECRON SAUTEKH BATTALION
-HQ- Imotekh the Stormlord 200 {warlord}
-HQ- Cryptek (staff of light, chronometron) 95
-T- Necron Warriors (20) 240
-T- Necron Warriors (10) 120
-T- Immortals (5, gauss blasters) 85

NECRON SAUTEKH OUTRIDERS
-HQ- Overlord (resurrection orb, warscythe) 130 {veil of darkness}
-FA- Canoptek Scarabs (3) 39
-FA- Canoptek Scarabs (3) 39
-FA- Canoptek Scarabs (3) 39
-HS- Doomsday Ark (doomsday cannon, 2x gauss flayer array) 193
-FLY- Night Scythe (2x tesla destructor) 160

Too little AT. Nothing is mandatory, we've seen competetive lists do well without Destroyers, without DDAs, without Tesseract Vaults, without Wraiths, but if you don't have any of the above you're probably doing something wrong. I don't think we've seen Wraiths do well since the codex dropped, but they still bring a lot to the table, I'm of the opinion that their price hike was a little too steep when compared to the buffs the other units I listed got.

Won in an ITC match with a no Troops list with a mix of fast ranged units and a couple of DDAs against a Raptors player, he was experimenting with his list and usually plays DA. I went first and only lost a single unit the entire game, part of that was rolling hot but that's just what I do.

 orkdom wrote:
I need someone to look at the Sautekh Dynasty Strat, Methodical Destruction, and tell me whether the following works:

Sautekh Unit A fires at Enemy Unit M and causes an unsaved wound; now the Necron Player activates the strat. Then, Sautekh Unit B declares targets for it's shooting attacks: one model will fire at Enemy Unit M, granting the +1 bonus from the strat, and the rest of the unit will fire at a completely different Enemy Unit N, but... Still gaining +1 to Hit for all it's shots?

The bonus seems to be applied at the unit level, but all models in a unit are not required to shoot the same target, so can you split-fire and get the +1 on shots which do not actually target the enemy unit which activates the strat?

Unit B does get the +1 to hit, but only for models who attack unit M. Models targeting unit N dont get +1 to hit.

Did anyone notice that three tvaults or three pylons get dynasty codes ? Page 108 excludes a super-heavy auxiliary detachment from getting codes. But a super-heavy detachment is not a super-heavy auxiliary detachment.

 p5freak wrote:
Did anyone notice that three tvaults or three pylons get dynasty codes ? Page 108 excludes a super-heavy auxiliary detachment from getting codes. But a super-heavy detachment is not a super-heavy auxiliary detachment.

Well, the situation, as always, is that the T-Vaults still are CTan shards and thus are excluded from dynasty codes. Pylons are fine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Well.. "fine", now you're looking at 1650 points worth of pylons, and what.. a patrol detachment with an OL and 10 immortals?

torblind wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
Did anyone notice that three tvaults or three pylons get dynasty codes ? Page 108 excludes a super-heavy auxiliary detachment from getting codes. But a super-heavy detachment is not a super-heavy auxiliary detachment.

Well, the situation, as always, is that the T-Vaults still are CTan shards and thus are excluded from dynasty codes. Pylons are fine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Well.. "fine", now you're looking at 1650 points worth of pylons, and what.. a patrol detachment with an OL and 10 immortals?

If you look closely you will notice that there are no C'TAN SHARD in the codex. Only C'TAN SHARDS. Page 108 excludes C'TAN SHARD from dynasty codes, not C'TAN SHARDS.

 p5freak wrote:

torblind wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
Did anyone notice that three tvaults or three pylons get dynasty codes ? Page 108 excludes a super-heavy auxiliary detachment from getting codes. But a super-heavy detachment is not a super-heavy auxiliary detachment.

Well, the situation, as always, is that the T-Vaults still are CTan shards and thus are excluded from dynasty codes. Pylons are fine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Well.. "fine", now you're looking at 1650 points worth of pylons, and what.. a patrol detachment with an OL and 10 immortals?

If you look closely you will notice that there are no C'TAN SHARD in the codex. Only C'TAN SHARDS. Page 108 excludes C'TAN SHARD from dynasty codes, not C'TAN SHARDS.

Yeah I'm not going to be that guy.

To be fair, wasnt this the same case with hellbrutes for chaos? except this is more in our favour than against us.

Though agree not going to be that guy

There is no C'TAN SHARD keyword, it's a misprint and was meant to say C'TAN SHARDS. There is being a rules lawyer and then there is using jetbikes for your Rangers because it's listed in their wargear in the digital edition. I sent a mail to GW customer service, it'd be nice if one of you contacted their FB pages so nobody sullies the name of Necron generals by being a massive grot.

 vict0988 wrote:
There is no C'TAN SHARD keyword, it's a misprint and was meant to say C'TAN SHARDS.

True, there is no CTAN SHARD keyword, not even CTAN SHARDS. CTAN SHARDS is a faction, check the codex.

 p5freak wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
There is no C'TAN SHARD keyword, it's a misprint and was meant to say C'TAN SHARDS.

True, there is no CTAN SHARD keyword, not even CTAN SHARDS. CTAN SHARDS is a faction, check the codex.

I dont know what to even make of that. Are you playing with all dynasty bonuses for all C'Tans and the T Vault because none of them have the CTAN SHARD keyword? only the "CTAN SHARDS faction"?

What do you even make of the limitation as its spelled out in the codex then?

torblind wrote:

I dont know what to even make of that. Are you playing with all dynasty bonuses for all C'Tans and the T Vault because none of them have the CTAN SHARD keyword? only the "CTAN SHARDS faction"?

What do you even make of the limitation as its spelled out in the codex then?

I dont know either. Without the right keyword ctans wouldnt be able to pick any of their powers. Is it a mistake ? Is SHARD and SHARDS a mistake ? Neither of the two has been changed in the necron FAQ. Is it intentional ? Are CTAN SHARDS a new faction now ? What are the consequences of that ? Can we use this to our advantage ? Have we played necron wrong ? I have no idea. Another weird thing is on pg. 82. It says keyword <DYNASTY>. No unit in the entire codex has the keyword <DYNASTY>.

 p5freak wrote:

torblind wrote:

I dont know what to even make of that. Are you playing with all dynasty bonuses for all C'Tans and the T Vault because none of them have the CTAN SHARD keyword? only the "CTAN SHARDS faction"?

What do you even make of the limitation as its spelled out in the codex then?

I dont know either. Without the right keyword ctans wouldnt be able to pick any of their powers. Is it a mistake ? Is SHARD and SHARDS a mistake ? Neither of the two has been changed in the necron FAQ. Is it intentional ? Are CTAN SHARDS a new faction now ? What are the consequences of that ? Can we use this to our advantage ? Have we played necron wrong ? I have no idea. Another weird thing is on pg. 82. It says keyword <DYNASTY>. No unit in the entire codex has the keyword <DYNASTY>.

<DYNASTY> just means "insert the dynasty you chose", ie it could mean Sautekh, NIhilakh etc.

If you have a Sautekh cryptek with the Veil, he can no use that on any Sautekh infantry, since they share the same dynasty.

torblind wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

torblind wrote:

I dont know what to even make of that. Are you playing with all dynasty bonuses for all C'Tans and the T Vault because none of them have the CTAN SHARD keyword? only the "CTAN SHARDS faction"?

What do you even make of the limitation as its spelled out in the codex then?

I dont know either. Without the right keyword ctans wouldnt be able to pick any of their powers. Is it a mistake ? Is SHARD and SHARDS a mistake ? Neither of the two has been changed in the necron FAQ. Is it intentional ? Are CTAN SHARDS a new faction now ? What are the consequences of that ? Can we use this to our advantage ? Have we played necron wrong ? I have no idea. Another weird thing is on pg. 82. It says keyword <DYNASTY>. No unit in the entire codex has the keyword <DYNASTY>.

<DYNASTY> just means "insert the dynasty you chose", ie it could mean Sautekh, NIhilakh etc.

If you have a Sautekh cryptek with the Veil, he can no use that on any Sautekh infantry, since they share the same dynasty.

I know what dynasty means, and what the rules are. Or, what we think they are supposed to be. Which may be not the same what GW intended, because of their ridiculous rule writings.

 p5freak wrote:

torblind wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

torblind wrote:

I dont know what to even make of that. Are you playing with all dynasty bonuses for all C'Tans and the T Vault because none of them have the CTAN SHARD keyword? only the "CTAN SHARDS faction"?

What do you even make of the limitation as its spelled out in the codex then?

I dont know either. Without the right keyword ctans wouldnt be able to pick any of their powers. Is it a mistake ? Is SHARD and SHARDS a mistake ? Neither of the two has been changed in the necron FAQ. Is it intentional ? Are CTAN SHARDS a new faction now ? What are the consequences of that ? Can we use this to our advantage ? Have we played necron wrong ? I have no idea. Another weird thing is on pg. 82. It says keyword <DYNASTY>. No unit in the entire codex has the keyword <DYNASTY>.

<DYNASTY> just means "insert the dynasty you chose", ie it could mean Sautekh, NIhilakh etc.

If you have a Sautekh cryptek with the Veil, he can no use that on any Sautekh infantry, since they share the same dynasty.

I know what dynasty means, and what the rules are. Or, what we think they are supposed to be. Which may be not the same what GW intended, because of their ridiculous rule writings.

I feel pretty confident that they meant to address C'Tan shards when they exempted CTAN SHARD from dynasty bonuses. It makes sense in all kinds of ways. They may have unknowingly and unintendedly also included the T Vault in the same operation, it would be nice to have a FAQ answer to that.

Well, if enough people ask about it via the email and on their FB page it might get addressed.

I had a 2k friendly game vs an AM gunline the other day, flying 3 Doom Scythes and 2 DDA's

My list:



His list:



Deployment (my second DDA is just not seen on top of the building on the far left):


We played the Maelstroem mission where you have to hold objectives to get missions. Deployed with arrows pointing towards one another.

TURN 1:

Necrons: I got first turn. Eager to try out the Doom Scythe stratagem, I flew up and found a sweet spot that would hit the 3 tanks on the right flank. I hit two of them dealing 6MW each. One of the DDAs went on to finish one of them off. 9 tomb blades and tesla immortals started working on the entrenched heavy bolter squads in the building straight ahead. Decent start of the match with 1.5 leman russes taken out of the game, a guards squad gone and a couple of wounds on the heavy bolters squads. Held 3 objectives, aiming for the 4th in the center.

AM: Shot the DDA on top of the far left building. Wasted shots trying to take out the flyers, dealt some wounds to several, -1 to hit really helped. Didn't even bother with the tomb blades' -1 to hit, they were now controlling the middle. His chimera with the plasma squads headed forward. I was unaware of the danger inside.

TURN 2 onwards:

Necrons: Flyers moved from right to left, found another sweet spot hitting 3 infantry blobs and 2 HQs with the stratagem. Only rolling to wound the 3 guards units though, killing 19 guardsmen. Their tesla cannons plonked off a few more, including one psyker. Started working ont he chimera but was 1 wound short of killing it.

AM: Killed one flyer finally, after throwing tons of shots at them. SURPRISE: The chimera sped ahead passed the center building, unlloaded two small plasma squads that killed my cryptek (their regiment bonus let them target characters).

Necrons: Withered down the heavy weapons teams and with the infantry squads neutralized on the other side and tanks busy shooting at flyers, the tesla immortals started moving forward, claiming the center objective. Tomb blades jumped ahead just right of the center to claim an objective in AM's deployment zone on my right flank. Doom Scythes finished off another tank and DDA brought one more to the last bracket.

AM: advanced an infantry squad on my right flank, but it was stuck in endless combat with 5 tesla immortals of mine.

After this we called it at end of turn 3. He wasn't getting any objectives and I was dominating the battle field and had a 10 point lead.

---------

Thoughts

The Doom scythes were fun to play with. You have to plan their movement carefully though. Coming turn 4 they would have likely flown out of range.

9 tomb blades were quite the asset too. They have -1 to hit which is awesome against AM. Having 9 of them, with RP, means he is reluctant to start wearing them down. Rather going after flyers and tesla immortals first. Tomb blades jumped all over the place, grabing objectives, withering down heavy squads, finishing off sentinels (which would otherwise prevent my immortals from firing).

DDAs did their job. tesla immortals didn't really get to see any action, but their presence made him hold his guardsmen back until his tanks could clear them, which they never got around to.

We agreed that AM should be able to come back into the game even after my turn 1. A decent list should be able to suffer 1.5 tank casualties and still have a fighting chance. His list over all might not have been the best one. He was really missing Pask.

But all in all fun game. The mission favored the bold, which were the Necrons this game.

That's some nice blue you got going on.

I'll read the report later but seriously excellent paintwork.

To be fair, if he had Pask, you'd have shot and killed pask first, and it'd have been an even better turn 1 for you.

Its also the first time i've read of a bombardment strategem really pulling its weight.

I'd consider running 9 TBs, but man....I hate putting those models together...like good lord they suck to put together

Interesting to try something a bit different. Hopefully we get some points adjustments that would let us use our flyers in competitive play.

Tomb blades are great, so fast! But yeah they suck to put together. I think 6 might be the sweet spot as you don't need to worry about morale then either.

I like how minus 1 to hit was your strongest part of the list, yet factions like Alaitoc and Stygies get it army wide for free (cries in minus 2 to hit Alaitoc flyers).