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.

tneva82 wrote:
Well that's special excemption for the quantum shield stratagem then. Nice necrons got something.

Deployment is most definitely before battle begins.

How did Obyron change? (not familiar with necron SC's especially as my dynasty doesn't have much access plus noob with necrons anyway waiting for first game. At least models for that are painted)

He is referencing a house rule in a recent tournament where a judge said mwbd went away when the unit was moved with the veil. Claimed to have gw inside connections or something

 iGuy91 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Well that's special excemption for the quantum shield stratagem then. Nice necrons got something.

Deployment is most definitely before battle begins.

How did Obyron change? (not familiar with necron SC's especially as my dynasty doesn't have much access plus noob with necrons anyway waiting for first game. At least models for that are painted)

He is referencing a house rule in a recent tournament where a judge said mwbd went away when the unit was moved with the veil. Claimed to have gw inside connections or something

I too am still trying to figure out how the Quantum shielding question works as I also thought any time a modifier goes below 0 it 'rounds up' to 1. But I am trying to find the exact wording on the idea that anything 0 or less turns into a 1 in the rule book. I found the ST/T/L can never be modified below one, but unable to find any other rule for this.

Well it's pretty much pointless to try to figure out how it works because now it works because GW flat out said it works. If nothing else it works because FAQ overrode basic rules.

It seems that besides a few clarifications, most of our stuff stayed the same, while Knights, Ynarri, Orks, Deathwatch, all got taken down a peg.

The Knights and Ynarri stuff has big implications for the meta I think.

Vehicles become bit more viable with castellan nerf but infantry is going to take a hit if the double 4++ crusaders become a thing.

If I understand correctly, Destroyers can now reroll 1's to hit during overwatch. It's not much but it's small buff at least

Cynista wrote:
If I understand correctly, Destroyers can now reroll 1's to hit during overwatch. It's not much but it's small buff at least

Did you check the wording of this rule as written in the codex?

Destroyers could always reroll 1s during overwatch.

tneva82 wrote:
Vehicles become bit more viable with castellan nerf but infantry is going to take a hit if the double 4++ crusaders become a thing.

I think double crusaders will absolutely be a problem for us, as they shred our infantry AND tanks. Still, not having a 3+ to contend with is good, might bring Pylons back to the board.

I don't get the surprise behind the QS strat clarification. I thought it was obvious that it was supposed to allow you to use QS if you roll a 1 for ignoring damage 1 weapons.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
I don't get the surprise behind the QS strat clarification. I thought it was obvious that it was supposed to allow you to use QS if you roll a 1 for ignoring damage 1 weapons.

Because it breaks up core rules and previous clarifications. Any roll under 1 is modified back to 1. This wasn't even errata to wording so it would work. As it is if there was 2nd ability that was similar it would not apply to it. It's QS specific special excemption without even errating wording to that effect.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
I don't get the surprise behind the QS strat clarification. I thought it was obvious that it was supposed to allow you to use QS if you roll a 1 for ignoring damage 1 weapons.

It didn't work before, as in the designers commentary, they stated that you cant roll lower than a 1. and with the strat subtracting one from the roll. it meant that 1d always went through.

but now they saying it works in this instance

Having played the QS strat "wrong" this entire time, I can honestly say this isn't a big deal. I'd generally rather not spend the CP to ignore damage 1 shots. If they have enough of them, it probably won't matter, and if they don't have many, then it's not worth it.

Well it's till end of phase. If your Warlord CCB got exposed and started taking shots, it'd be nice to also save 1/6 of D1 wounds.

Or a QS unit holding a key objective.

Did we ever get it cleared up on whether or not Imotek can use the Stratagem for a third MWBD?

 Werekill wrote:
Did we ever get it cleared up on whether or not Imotek can use the Stratagem for a third MWBD?

Don't think so. Closest is:

Q: Some abilities can cause extra hits or wounds on a specifc
roll e.g. ‘Each hit roll of 6 scores 2 hits instead of 1’ and ‘Each
hit roll of 6 scores 1 additional hit on the target’. Are these
abilities cumulative?

A: It depends on the exact wording of the rule in
question. Rules that ‘score 2 (or more) hits instead of
1’ are not cumulative. Rules that ‘score 1 (or more)
additional hits’ are cumulative. Here are some examples
to show how these rules interact:

1. If a model is affected by two different rules that say
that on a hit roll of 6 that attack ‘scores 2 hits instead
of 1’ then a hit roll of 6 will still only result in 2 hits
being scored against the target unit.

2. If a model is affected by two different rules that say
that on a hit roll of 6 that attack ‘scores 1 additional
hit‘ on the target, then a hit roll of 6 will result in 3
hits being scored against the target unit.

3. If a model is affected by two different rules, one that
says that on a hit roll of 6 that attack ‘scores 2 hits
instead of 1’ and one that says that on a hit roll of 6
that attack ‘scores 1 additional hit‘ against the target,
then a hit roll of 6 will result in 3 hits being scored
against the target unit.

Though this is for hits. With same logic though imhotek and stratagem use "twice" and "second time" terms so would indicate "no" according to this FAQ entry.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
BTW emergency beam stratagem. Can you combo with enchanced beam to emergency disembark two units at once? Or is having 2 units offboard sure way to lose one if gate goes boom?

Hm, I haven't played 40k in a while, wonder if Necrons got better with the new big Update that just came out.

*No point adjustments*
*Still can't bring in Mono/Scythe units on T1*
*Some token nerfs on other armies but all the stuff that makes Necrons bad in the meta remains*
*Only viable strategy is still more or less Destroyer spam*

Cool, I'll just keep building Underworlds decks then.

Actually I don't think it was that bad. Necron didn't get much boost but top dogs got hit. Castellan got hit hard and 3++ dying means likely more big AT guns on field which necron vehicles love. Also orks primary shooting unit that's also super good vs necron vehicles got hit real hard. And ynnari which was 2nd strongest dog in tournaments got wiped off.

Requizen wrote:
Hm, I haven't played 40k in a while, wonder if Necrons got better with the new big Update that just came out.

*No point adjustments*
*Still can't bring in Mono/Scythe units on T1*
*Some token nerfs on other armies but all the stuff that makes Necrons bad in the meta remains*
*Only viable strategy is still more or less Destroyer spam*

Cool, I'll just keep building Underworlds decks then.

What? Necrons are certainly viable right now, especially with Knights getting heavy nerfs in this FAQ.

We aren't top tier, but we are firmly mid-high tier. Not to mention how Destroyer spam isn't even close to our only viable strategy.

tneva82 wrote:

 Werekill wrote:
Did we ever get it cleared up on whether or not Imotek can use the Stratagem for a third MWBD?

Don't think so. Closest is:

Q: Some abilities can cause extra hits or wounds on a specifc
roll e.g. ‘Each hit roll of 6 scores 2 hits instead of 1’ and ‘Each
hit roll of 6 scores 1 additional hit on the target’. Are these
abilities cumulative?

A: It depends on the exact wording of the rule in
question. Rules that ‘score 2 (or more) hits instead of
1’ are not cumulative. Rules that ‘score 1 (or more)
additional hits’ are cumulative. Here are some examples
to show how these rules interact:

1. If a model is affected by two different rules that say
that on a hit roll of 6 that attack ‘scores 2 hits instead
of 1’ then a hit roll of 6 will still only result in 2 hits
being scored against the target unit.

2. If a model is affected by two different rules that say
that on a hit roll of 6 that attack ‘scores 1 additional
hit‘ on the target, then a hit roll of 6 will result in 3
hits being scored against the target unit.

3. If a model is affected by two different rules, one that
says that on a hit roll of 6 that attack ‘scores 2 hits
instead of 1’ and one that says that on a hit roll of 6
that attack ‘scores 1 additional hit‘ against the target,
then a hit roll of 6 will result in 3 hits being scored
against the target unit.

Though this is for hits. With same logic though imhotek and stratagem use "twice" and "second time" terms so would indicate "no" according to this FAQ entry.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
BTW emergency beam stratagem. Can you combo with enchanced beam to emergency disembark two units at once? Or is having 2 units offboard sure way to lose one if gate goes boom?

The FAQ does set the when two effects have a similar number of uses, you can't combine them.

And, no to combine emergency with enhanced. As emergency is modifying the normal ability and emergency is using it's own effect.

Bugger. Well max one unit to reserve then. Too risky otherwise

Wrong thread.

 Draco765 wrote:


The FAQ does set the when two effects have a similar number of uses, you can't combine them.

And, no to combine emergency with enhanced. As emergency is modifying the normal ability and emergency is using it's own effect.

Ah, crap. I had hoped for Imotek to be able to do 3, oh well I guess.

 Werekill wrote:

What? Necrons are certainly viable right now, especially with Knights getting heavy nerfs in this FAQ.

We aren't top tier, but we are firmly mid-high tier. Not to mention how Destroyer spam isn't even close to our only viable strategy.

I'm going to quote you on this in a month's time.

Well next tuesday first outing for my necrons. I have overlord, 24 immortals, 3 tomb blades and doomsday ark painted up. Rest are waiting for silver paint so I can get the blue done :-/

Seems I'll be facing imperial guard. Patrol detachment, max 1 vehicle, suspecting basilisk heavily.

Oh and it's cities of death so at least partially obscured at least so -1 to hit. That means basilisk firing indirect is -1 to hit quaranteed.

I'll probably be using the max advance dynasty. I like that one. Current list is overlord, 10 immortals, 3 tomb blades, dda.

Questions are what weapons for tomb blades(I have both gaus and tesla painted and magnetized). For relic veil is obvious. But what for warlord trait? I was considering the reroll charge one if opponent does have that basilisk with weird plan of veiling immortals and overlord there and using overlord to tag the basilisk in combat if opponent is careless with screening. Or at least T2 with T1 shooting holes to screen. Won't kill it but if it falls back no shooting except for overwatch. Though that can be scary...

Alternatively deep strike DDA if terrain looks hard to get LOS traditional way?

Whole game under basilisk fire -1 to hit or not doesn't appeal.

Of course lot depends on what else he has. Though good news is no russ+basilisk combo(max 1 vehicle) so...likely crapload of infantry? Which speaks in favour of tesla for tomb blades...

Forward leading dda is probably good idea. Those gaus flayers there should help with all that infantry.

 Werekill wrote:

Requizen wrote:
Hm, I haven't played 40k in a while, wonder if Necrons got better with the new big Update that just came out.

*No point adjustments*
*Still can't bring in Mono/Scythe units on T1*
*Some token nerfs on other armies but all the stuff that makes Necrons bad in the meta remains*
*Only viable strategy is still more or less Destroyer spam*

Cool, I'll just keep building Underworlds decks then.

What? Necrons are certainly viable right now, especially with Knights getting heavy nerfs in this FAQ.

We aren't top tier, but we are firmly mid-high tier. Not to mention how Destroyer spam isn't even close to our only viable strategy.

I really admire your optimism man. But cmon, Necrons are firmly lower tier.

If we had better internal balance we would be mid-tier. But we don't, not enough of our units are viable and some are just garbage, leading to cookie cutter builds that still can't compete with the best

Sorry but internal balance isn't really measure of competive units. Competive game and most units from every codex goes to garbage bin. No codex has every unit viable in competive enviroment. 'Internal balance matters more for semi competive or casual games.

tneva82 wrote:
Sorry but internal balance isn't really measure of competive units. Competive game and most units from every codex goes to garbage bin. No codex has every unit viable in competive enviroment. 'Internal balance matters more for semi competive or casual games.

Disagree. Like I said, better internal balance would bring us up from low tier to mid tier because we would have more options to deal with a wider variety of threats. This would lead to a better variety of viable tournament lists and would bring Necrons closer to that 50% win rate.

I'm not arguing that it would make us competitive at the top tables. But it would put us on par with the likes of Ad-Mech and Tyranids, the latter of which is an example of a codex that has excellent internal balance and nothing really amazing (except perhaps Genestealers) and so is comfortably mid-tier.

Personally keep seeing us being called the bottom teir, though tend to have a constant higher win than loss ratio. Even my worst tournament recently i went 2-1-2 so came 55 out 110 (yea couldn't be more mid table than that)

Defiantly dont consider the army top teir, though if played well I feel we defiantly deserve to be in the mid teir

Last event i went to, i lost to knights and eldar. While beating tau, guard and custodes. So with the new nerfs, feel i have a better chance of getting a 4-1 at the next weekend event

What list are you running to be doing that?

Guard have forever been a thorn in my side, and now wih ObSec Fire-Twice-On-The-Move Russes it's even worse than before.