Necrons NEW 8th ed. Codex tactica - [please post lists under spoilers]

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.

**Xenomancers**

yukishiro1 wrote:
There's no way you're going to be able to get 20 deathmarks able to shoot a character your opponent cares about. Even 10 is pushing it. They need to be combined with other stuff that can put MWs on characters IMO, otherwise they're just going to be ineffective.

I don't want to take over the thread with the "are deathmarks good" discussion and tactics for using them. Lets just agree that they can kill characters pretty easy if they are visable. They aren't bad shoot at anything really. Pretty comparable to gauss immortals all things considered.

**Drakmord**

Deathmarks do have the advantage of native deep-strike and an intercept stratagem, that can be used while on or off the board.

Their usefulness comes from being annoying for the opponent -- though I think that Flayed Ones are a better irritant as they cost less for a unit of 10.

You could hold Deathmarks in units of 5 to drop on home objectives and take pot-shots, and perform actions when nothing is in range. That would be my preferred use in say, an aggressive, forward-moving list.

**yukishiro1**

Yeah I like a unit of 5 as an annoyance, that's a small enough footprint that you can bring it down lots of useful places, whether using the strat or not.

**Cynista**

If Warriors are just there for Battalion tax and are taking backfield objectives then flayers are absolutely fine, in fact they are better. If Warriors are 50% of your army and you are pushing them up the board with dedicated support, then yeah Reapers are better.

**yukishiro1**

But if you're taking them as a tax to hold backfield objectives, immortals are almost always just better at that.

There doesn't seem a huge role for the flayers on warriors as a result. Except maybe 10 and 10 in a big unit of 20, since you probably can't get all 20 within 12".

**Matt Swain**

Surtr wrote:
Hey Guys.

I hated the three-arm design of the skorpekh Lord.
A friend of mine made a tail with his 3-D-Printer for me to make him look more scorpion like.

Thought you guys would like it.
Will post again after finished painting if you want.

That's what it should have been.

**tneva82**

Tiberius501 wrote:
One pretty big advantage of the Doomstalkers is that they don’t reduce in BS. So all 3 near a Technomancer giving them +1BS means they’ll be at 3+ BS all game until they die.

But is a 4+ Invuln as good as Quantum Shielding?
.

Pretty same yes. 4+ 3+(since opponent not　rolling 5+ is same odds as you　rolling 3+) is same as 3+ 4+. Qs is better only if he was rolling 2+ to wound or would be wounding 3+ or better and have ap-1. 4++ better vs s6 or less ap2 weapons.

**Surtr**

Little question about RP.

If one Model with multiple weapons shoots at one unit with RP. Do i roll for RP after every weapon or after it has shoot every weapon?

**Marshal Loss**

Surtr wrote:
Little question about RP.

If one Model with multiple weapons shoots at one unit with RP. Do i roll for RP after every weapon or after it has shoot every weapon?

After the unit has concluded its attacks (the latter). E.G. you get shot by a Tactical Squad: they fire their bolters, missile launcher, and flamer - everything they've got - before you roll RP. Rinse & repeat

**p5freak**

Surtr wrote:
Little question about RP.

If one Model with multiple weapons shoots at one unit with RP. Do i roll for RP after every weapon or after it has shoot every weapon?

We dont know. GW cant write rules properly. It doesnt say "after a unit finished all of its attacks", instead it simply says "after it makes it attacks".

**Drakmord**

When considering we have access to two options for armywide ObSec, how important are Troops to such armylists?

They count as ObSec +1 when up against other Troops, but how often does armywide ObSec come up for other codices? Would it be better to invest in aggressive picks while using MSU troops like Immortals, instead?

**Sasori**

Drakmord wrote:
When considering we have access to two options for armywide ObSec, how important are Troops to such armylists?

They count as ObSec +1 when up against other Troops, but how often does armywide ObSec come up for other codices? Would it be better to invest in aggressive picks while using MSU troops like Immortals, instead?

That's not exactly how Obsec works. Obsec is just a check to see if both have it, it doesn't compare how many Obsec models you have. If you both have at least 1 Obsec models in range, in then counts how many models are in range for determining who controls it. This is where the Double count comes in handy for the Obsec dynasty.

That being said, there is nothing wrong with MSU immortals, is just that our codex mechanics have us generally looking for larger squads of 1W models to benefit the most from RP.

**Moosatronic Warrior**

p5freak wrote:
Surtr wrote:
Little question about RP.

If one Model with multiple weapons shoots at one unit with RP. Do i roll for RP after every weapon or after it has shoot every weapon?

We dont know. GW cant write rules properly. It doesnt say "after a unit finished all of its attacks", instead it simply says "after it makes it attacks".

It's written fine. It says "unit".

**Darsath**

Sasori wrote:
Drakmord wrote:
When considering we have access to two options for armywide ObSec, how important are Troops to such armylists?

They count as ObSec +1 when up against other Troops, but how often does armywide ObSec come up for other codices? Would it be better to invest in aggressive picks while using MSU troops like Immortals, instead?

That's not exactly how Obsec works. Obsec is just a check to see if both have it, it doesn't compare how many Obsec models you have. If you both have at least 1 Obsec models in range, in then counts how many models are in range for determining who controls it. This is where the Double count comes in handy for the Obsec dynasty.

That being said, there is nothing wrong with MSU immortals, is just that our codex mechanics have us generally looking for larger squads of 1W models to benefit the most from RP.

I wouldn't worry too much about building around RP. Having more board control is a lot more important.

**Overread**

p5freak wrote:
Surtr wrote:
Little question about RP.

If one Model with multiple weapons shoots at one unit with RP. Do i roll for RP after every weapon or after it has shoot every weapon?

We dont know. GW cant write rules properly. It doesnt say "after a unit finished all of its attacks", instead it simply says "after it makes it attacks".

"After a unit makes its attacks" would presume that its made all of its attacks and that the game state has moved to the stage after the unit has completed its last attack. If it was after each attack with a different weapon it would specifically say so.

**Drakmord**

Sasori wrote:
Drakmord wrote:
When considering we have access to two options for armywide ObSec, how important are Troops to such armylists?

They count as ObSec +1 when up against other Troops, but how often does armywide ObSec come up for other codices? Would it be better to invest in aggressive picks while using MSU troops like Immortals, instead?

That's not exactly how Obsec works. Obsec is just a check to see if both have it, it doesn't compare how many Obsec models you have. If you both have at least 1 Obsec models in range, in then counts how many models are in range for determining who controls it. This is where the Double count comes in handy for the Obsec dynasty.

That being said, there is nothing wrong with MSU immortals, is just that our codex mechanics have us generally looking for larger squads of 1W models to benefit the most from RP.

By ObSec +1, I meant that they count as two units rather than one when running into another ObSec unit.

Having 5 Nihilakh Warriors on an objective and 5 regular tac marines get within range, the Nihilakh Warriors maintain control of the objective by counting as an additional unit, right? The verbiage is that each model with that rule that already has ObSec, counts as an additional model.

I was curious as to how relevant that specific interaction is -- will having more Troops to leverage that interaction on objectives be more useful than the general, normal ObSec that the rest of my army now has?

**CKO**

Slipspace wrote:
CKO wrote:
Ophydian's with the -1 toughness dynastic tradition is good if you know how to use their 10-inch movement to protect them using terrain or keeping them in combat. The average player will not be able to get the most out of this unit.

The problem is they're the same cost as the other 2 units that share the same role: Wraiths and Skorpekhs. Wraiths are faster and more durable and get fall back and charge as well as their very useful movement buffs from their pseudo-Fly rules. They're not as good in combat but still not completely terrible. Skorpekhs are slightly slower but more durable and hit hard enough to be scary. Ophydians just don't really offer anything the other 2 near-identical options do at least as well. If you Deep Strike them you either make the charge or die because T4, W3 4+ save is not a defensive profile you want to rely on. If you start them on the board they're slightly faster Skorpekhs without the durability.

This is the problem with comments like "they're good if you know how to use them". That applies equally to the other units that are just better to start with. If you know how to use Ophydians you can use exactly the same tactics to keep Skorpekhs alive too, so the question becomes which unit is better and the answer is most likely Skorpekhs because they aren't so easy to just delete with relatively light, common shooting.

It's annoying because I love the models but it feels like GW had no real idea what role they wanted them to have in the army.

I am defending the Ophydian Destroyers, I like the unit most people are dismissing it. We have to take player skill into consideration with our analysis of units. A competitive player and a casual player will get different results if they use these units. I think the Skorpekh unit is easier to use due to its toughness and 3+ save but the Ophydian Destroyers has a purpose.

Ophydian's extra movement is huge because it is a cc unit, 2 inches could mean a 7-inch charge vs a 9-inch charge. Ophidians also have 17 attacks with the chance of exploding 6's vs 11 attacks by the Skorpekhs. With the -1 to hit hordes will hate this unit hitting on 5's. The true purpose of this unit is that they can tunnel up and kill those small units that people like to keep on objectives, you have access to +1 to charge dynasties to make them more effective. A small investment of 105 points for a unit that can pop up and kill stuff is good. ( AP 4 Novokh AP 2 Claws for hordes)

With all that said it still gets a B ish grade. 8 inch charges are not guaranteed and most players have a hard time protecting units

**torblind**

p5freak wrote:
torblind wrote:
p5freak wrote:
Vineheart01 wrote:
the...what...hold on...this cant be intentional..

Ghost Ark can transport <dynasty> warriors or infantry characters.
Guess whats an infantry character and not a free agent? The freaking massive monster that is the Skorph Lord....he is infantry, character, and has dynasties.

Thats hilarious. Theres no way they intended that, he's massive compared to a warrior
Not really all that important as theres no way to put extra bodies in there except more characters (technically nightscythe too but thats less funny)

Its not intended that characters can embark on their faction transport ? Are you serious ?? Every faction with a transport can do that. Lokhust lords can also embark. They couldnt in 8th (they were destroyer lords), but now they can. Still not intended ??

If you re-read his post, you will see that he relates this specificly to the large size of the model, not the fact that he's a character.

Scale is irrelevant. Many models in 40k are not the right size. Try fitting 10 SM in a rhino. Vehicles in general should be a lot bigger.

Oh I'm happy with it, I'm saying he wasn't, and you didn't address it. Just don't throw the wrong explanation at the guy with Are you serious??'s in it. It gets vitriolic in here easily enough as it is already.

**Vineheart01**

Sasori wrote:
Drakmord wrote:
When considering we have access to two options for armywide ObSec, how important are Troops to such armylists?

They count as ObSec +1 when up against other Troops, but how often does armywide ObSec come up for other codices? Would it be better to invest in aggressive picks while using MSU troops like Immortals, instead?

That's not exactly how Obsec works. Obsec is just a check to see if both have it, it doesn't compare how many Obsec models you have. If you both have at least 1 Obsec models in range, in then counts how many models are in range for determining who controls it. This is where the Double count comes in handy for the Obsec dynasty.

That being said, there is nothing wrong with MSU immortals, is just that our codex mechanics have us generally looking for larger squads of 1W models to benefit the most from RP.

Specifically the necron custom dynasty that gives obsec says they count as 2 models if facing another obsec.
Thats what he meant.

**Sasori**

Vineheart01 wrote:
Sasori wrote:
Drakmord wrote:
When considering we have access to two options for armywide ObSec, how important are Troops to such armylists?

They count as ObSec +1 when up against other Troops, but how often does armywide ObSec come up for other codices? Would it be better to invest in aggressive picks while using MSU troops like Immortals, instead?

That's not exactly how Obsec works. Obsec is just a check to see if both have it, it doesn't compare how many Obsec models you have. If you both have at least 1 Obsec models in range, in then counts how many models are in range for determining who controls it. This is where the Double count comes in handy for the Obsec dynasty.

That being said, there is nothing wrong with MSU immortals, is just that our codex mechanics have us generally looking for larger squads of 1W models to benefit the most from RP.

Specifically the necron custom dynasty that gives obsec says they count as 2 models if facing another obsec.
Thats what he meant.

This isn't how Obsec or that obsec trait works. If you have 10 Obsec Models, and an opponent has 1 Obsec Model and 11 non Obsec models in range of the objective, they will control the objective. Obsec doesn't compare how many obsec models vs obsec. It compares if there is any obsec models in range. if you both have any number of obsec, then it moves to just how many total models are in range.

The custom dynasty doesn't double how many models you count for obsec, because that doesn't matter, it just counts as double for control of the objective.

**CKO**

Wait, I am confused so 10 warriors don't count as 20 models?

**Sasori**

CKO wrote:
Wait, I am confused so 10 warriors don't count as 20 models?

Okay, let me try to explain this again.

For Objective secured, it doesn't matter how many models you have. If you both have at least 1 model with Obsec in range of the objective it then moves to how many models foro each player are in range for determining control. This is when the already objective secured clause of the rule kicks in, it then counts you as double for control of the objective. So if you have 5 Warriors and they have 6 models, you would then control it.

**Drakmord**

Sasori wrote:
CKO wrote:
Wait, I am confused so 10 warriors don't count as 20 models?

Okay, let me try to explain this again.

For Objective secured, it doesn't matter how many models you have. If you both have at least 1 model with Obsec in range of the objective it then moves to how many models foro each player are in range for determining control. This is when the already objective secured clause of the rule kicks in, it then counts you as double for control of the objective. So if you have 5 Warriors and they have 6 models, you would then control it.

It was never questioned how Objective Secured works, or how the custom Dynasty / Nihilakh work -- the question was, does the improved ObSec given to Warriors and Immortals, by those dynastic rules, become impactful enough to build your list with an emphasis on Troops?

I don't think I can make the question any more clear than this, but if I'm not there yet, it's not worth devoting more posts or page-count to.

**CKO**

deleted

**buddha**

I'm weirdly liking Hexmarks as backfield harassers. They seem like lictors. They are infantry as well so still can perform actions.

For that role I first looked at deathmarks but they don't have a large shot volume. Flayed ones are an option but you risk failing the urge and are limited to CC.

Two for 150pts seems like a good investment for engage, homer, and other secondaries.

Thoughts?

**Vineheart01**

Sasori wrote:
Vineheart01 wrote:
Sasori wrote:
Drakmord wrote:
When considering we have access to two options for armywide ObSec, how important are Troops to such armylists?

They count as ObSec +1 when up against other Troops, but how often does armywide ObSec come up for other codices? Would it be better to invest in aggressive picks while using MSU troops like Immortals, instead?

That's not exactly how Obsec works. Obsec is just a check to see if both have it, it doesn't compare how many Obsec models you have. If you both have at least 1 Obsec models in range, in then counts how many models are in range for determining who controls it. This is where the Double count comes in handy for the Obsec dynasty.

That being said, there is nothing wrong with MSU immortals, is just that our codex mechanics have us generally looking for larger squads of 1W models to benefit the most from RP.

Specifically the necron custom dynasty that gives obsec says they count as 2 models if facing another obsec.
Thats what he meant.

This isn't how Obsec or that obsec trait works. If you have 10 Obsec Models, and an opponent has 1 Obsec Model and 11 non Obsec models in range of the objective, they will control the objective. Obsec doesn't compare how many obsec models vs obsec. It compares if there is any obsec models in range. if you both have any number of obsec, then it moves to just how many total models are in range.

The custom dynasty doesn't double how many models you count for obsec, because that doesn't matter, it just counts as double for control of the objective.

We are not discussing how obsec works, we are discussing the necron specific trait that triggers when its obsec vs obsec....

Under the Dynastic Traditions, Eternal Conquerors reads "Units with this code have the Objective Secured ability (see the Warhammer 40,000 Core book). if a model in such a unit already has this ability, that model counts as one additional model when determining control of an objective marker"

Technically yes its not referring to when it faces other obsec. But that is the ONLY time that bolded bit actually comes into play, so its easier to just say obsec vs obsec.

So our troops count as 2 models if theyre trying to take control of an objective with this code. And if the enemy unit doesnt have obsec, doesnt matter how many there are we get it. If they do, we control it with 2 warriors even if they have 3 obsec troops near it, as we'd count as having 4.

**Sasori**

Vineheart01 wrote:
Sasori wrote:
Vineheart01 wrote:
Sasori wrote:
Drakmord wrote:
When considering we have access to two options for armywide ObSec, how important are Troops to such armylists?

They count as ObSec +1 when up against other Troops, but how often does armywide ObSec come up for other codices? Would it be better to invest in aggressive picks while using MSU troops like Immortals, instead?

That's not exactly how Obsec works. Obsec is just a check to see if both have it, it doesn't compare how many Obsec models you have. If you both have at least 1 Obsec models in range, in then counts how many models are in range for determining who controls it. This is where the Double count comes in handy for the Obsec dynasty.

That being said, there is nothing wrong with MSU immortals, is just that our codex mechanics have us generally looking for larger squads of 1W models to benefit the most from RP.

Specifically the necron custom dynasty that gives obsec says they count as 2 models if facing another obsec.
Thats what he meant.

This isn't how Obsec or that obsec trait works. If you have 10 Obsec Models, and an opponent has 1 Obsec Model and 11 non Obsec models in range of the objective, they will control the objective. Obsec doesn't compare how many obsec models vs obsec. It compares if there is any obsec models in range. if you both have any number of obsec, then it moves to just how many total models are in range.

The custom dynasty doesn't double how many models you count for obsec, because that doesn't matter, it just counts as double for control of the objective.

We are not discussing how obsec works, we are discussing the necron specific trait that triggers when its obsec vs obsec....

Under the Dynastic Traditions, Eternal Conquerors reads "Units with this code have the Objective Secured ability (see the Warhammer 40,000 Core book). if a model in such a unit already has this ability, that model counts as one additional model when determining control of an objective marker"

Technically yes its not referring to when it faces other obsec. But that is the ONLY time that bolded bit actually comes into play, so its easier to just say obsec vs obsec.

So our troops count as 2 models if theyre trying to take control of an objective with this code. And if the enemy unit doesnt have obsec, doesnt matter how many there are we get it. If they do, we control it with 2 warriors even if they have 3 obsec troops near it, as we'd count as having 4.

A lot of people misunderstand how obsec works, this happens all the time in games. When you said Obsec Vs Obsec, I needed to be clear, since that is how a lot of people actually thinks it works.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Drakmord wrote:
Sasori wrote:
CKO wrote:
Wait, I am confused so 10 warriors don't count as 20 models?

Okay, let me try to explain this again.

For Objective secured, it doesn't matter how many models you have. If you both have at least 1 model with Obsec in range of the objective it then moves to how many models foro each player are in range for determining control. This is when the already objective secured clause of the rule kicks in, it then counts you as double for control of the objective. So if you have 5 Warriors and they have 6 models, you would then control it.

It was never questioned how Objective Secured works, or how the custom Dynasty / Nihilakh work -- the question was, does the improved ObSec given to Warriors and Immortals, by those dynastic rules, become impactful enough to build your list with an emphasis on Troops?

I don't think I can make the question any more clear than this, but if I'm not there yet, it's not worth devoting more posts or page-count to.

As I mentioned in my post to Vineheart01 A lot of people don't understand how obsec works, and they way you put it in your first post sounded like the incorrect interruption, so I wanted to ensure that anyone reading it was not confused.

I also responded to your post about the MSU style gameplay in my first post quoting you.

**Drakmord**

buddha wrote:
I'm weirdly liking Hexmarks as backfield harassers. They seem like lictors. They are infantry as well so still can perform actions.

For that role I first looked at deathmarks but they don't have a large shot volume. Flayed ones are an option but you risk failing the urge and are limited to CC.

Two for 150pts seems like a good investment for engage, homer, and other secondaries.

Thoughts?

I like these too, and they also get Ethereal Interception like Deathmarks. I wonder how they compare to Flayed Ones if they both flub on the drop -- say the FO fail their charge or the Hexmark doesn't clear off the objective? Both units are cheap so its not so big of a deal, and the Hexmark at least gets to do some damage, while FO either charge or don't.

**yukishiro1**

I am considering buying a hexmark too, but I don't think you take one to try to clear stuff off objectives, only the very weakest of squads will get wiped by one. What he does do is counter repentia, acolytes, retributors, etc - anything with 1W, T5 or less and a bad save - that relies on coming out of reserves then attacking before dying. Against melee stuff, if you position intelligently you can even bring him in in a place where they have to charge him - so they not only eat his initial volley from the strat, they eat it again on overwatch unless they have a way to turn it off.

**tneva82**

buddha wrote:
I'm weirdly liking Hexmarks as backfield harassers. They seem like lictors. They are infantry as well so still can perform actions.

For that role I first looked at deathmarks but they don't have a large shot volume. Flayed ones are an option but you risk failing the urge and are limited to CC.

6 weak shots vs 5 slightly killier shots. 6 shots isn't that large shot volume either. Especially when your damage output sucks