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.

I regret making my lone squad of 10 immortals gauss... I hope they'll do fine against the dark angels I'm going up against anyway. Aggressive is the way to go if you happen to use gauss immortals right?

Imo I like having both, as both gauss and tesla have ideal targets that can compliment each other. The other thing you should remember is that MWBD isn't available for everyone. Taking Tesla because it's much better vs a lot of targets with MWBD doesn't mean you should have 3x10 Teslamortals. Unless you plan on spending 1cp each turn to double your MWBD, or have Immotekh or 2 OL's, I wouldn't say having 20 or 30 Tesla immortals is the best way to go.

If you have easy access to 2 MWBD, then I'd def go for 20 Tesla immortals and 10 Gauss immortals. I only really like going for 20 Warriors if I have the ignore morale trait, which a lot of the times, I don't.

There are also a lot of armies where you will be lucky to get 1 round of 24" shooting. the <12" range usually comes up in games quite a lot. Which is why it's nice to both have a unit that you want to sit back in your deployment zone and shoot at full effect at 24, and also one that you want to move up with the rest of the army to get into the juicy 12 inch range.

For Mephrit, it's a hard one. as -1 ap affects telsa much more than it does gauss, so you could be fine with going all tesla with mephrit.

For Tomb blades, I'd always go for gauss I think. No MWBD + there are a lot of heavy weapon type teams that enjoy a 3+ save and staying in cover, having a -4ap gun (for cover) is very handy. although I'm not 100% sure on the math of Mephrit gauss blades and Mephrit tesla blades. Since Tesla also would get an -2ap to anything that is in cover in rapid fire.

Tesla is better in general but I think 2:1 Tesla to Gauss is a good ratio. so a Battalion of 2x10 Tesla and 1x10 Gauss Immortals.

epaemil wrote:
I regret making my lone squad of 10 immortals gauss... I hope they'll do fine against the dark angels I'm going up against anyway. Aggressive is the way to go if you happen to use gauss immortals right?

As soon as your targets are in cover, you'd be glad you brought gauss (if you veil them into RF range).

torblind wrote:

epaemil wrote:
I regret making my lone squad of 10 immortals gauss... I hope they'll do fine against the dark angels I'm going up against anyway. Aggressive is the way to go if you happen to use gauss immortals right?

As soon as your targets are in cover, you'd be glad you brought gauss (if you veil them into RF range).

Solar Pulse says hello.

Remember, if he's beaming in terminators in your backfield - knowing that you are all tesla. he could place them wherever he likes without a care in the world. if you have gauss, he has to put them well out side their RF range, or attack them hard.

torblind wrote:
Remember, if he's beaming in terminators in your backfield - knowing that you are all tesla. he could place them wherever he likes without a care in the world. if you have gauss, he has to put them well out side their RF range, or attack them hard.

or screen better and let them have to go into chaff?

moonsmite wrote:

torblind wrote:
Remember, if he's beaming in terminators in your backfield - knowing that you are all tesla. he could place them wherever he likes without a care in the world. if you have gauss, he has to put them well out side their RF range, or attack them hard.

or screen better and let them have to go into chaff?

sure, if there is chaff left when they come.

10 Gauss Imms in rapids will only kill a couple of Terminators anyway. They'll be much more concerned with the destroyers. My D's got the drop on a unit of 10 Scarab Occult once. That was fun.

Moosatronic Warrior wrote:

chaddwick2005 wrote:

Moosatronic Warrior wrote:

-Lord of the storm + Methodical Destruction DDAs- This can be a hell of a slap to any vehicle/monster on turn one: D6 Mortal Wounds + 2D6 DDA shots hitting on 2's. That's an average of about 18 wounds to anything without an invul.

I saw this a few pages back and thought that it was a good tactic, until I read the Necron Codex FAQ and Methodical Destruction you now have to do an unsaved wound by an attack. So like shooting or melee. Imotekhs Lord of the Storm isn't an attack, just an ability that triggers in the shooting phase. So you can't use the mortal wounds it causes as unsaved wounds to trigger Methodical Destruction.

I just wanted to point it out so people don't get called out for it during a game.

You are trying to treat "attack" as a specific term with it's own definition in the rules. It is not defined in this way by the rules, merely used with it's normal meaning in the English language. This is commonly known as rules lawyering.

I've gotta agree. You're looking way too far into it.... It's rules lawyering, but I don't think your intention was that.

I have a question 're rule interactions post faq (apologies if answered already) -
So I 'embark' a unit onto a Monolith or Scythe.
I use the deceiver to slingshot them up the board
Can i beam the unit out of the gate/scythe in turn 1?
Does the beaming out conditions override the faq restriction?
Or do they prevent the unit from showing up, as it is technically arriving from reserves rather than embarked on a transport?

 japehlio wrote:
I have a question 're rule interactions post faq (apologies if answered already) -
So I 'embark' a unit onto a Monolith or Scythe.
I use the deceiver to slingshot them up the board
Can i beam the unit out of the gate/scythe in turn 1?
Does the beaming out conditions override the faq restriction?
Or do they prevent the unit from showing up, as it is technically arriving from reserves rather than embarked on a transport?

the latter, it would no longer be allowed in turn 1

TBH, despite the hate, my Gauss Immortals have been excellent every time I run them. Immortals and Warriors are two of the most reliable infantry units in the game.

Are 5 man units of Immortals any good?
I have 15 Of each type, so if I max out one as 10, I just have 5 left - should I bother with them, or do I need to get another 5 to make them usable?

Danny76 wrote:
Are 5 man units of Immortals any good?
I have 15 Of each type, so if I max out one as 10, I just have 5 left - should I bother with them, or do I need to get another 5 to make them usable?

Good for hiding on objectives and filling out battalions in 5 man squads. I like using mine for killing, in which case they work best in groups of 10.

I always try to get them to 10, but in a few lists I have 5 teslamortals just because I didn't have the points for more. They are fine as long as you don't put them in the middel of the fight. And the opponent should have more important targets to worry about than 5 immortals. Hence why you want Tesla instead of gauss if you have fewer numbers.

Danny76 wrote:
Are 5 man units of Immortals any good?
I have 15 Of each type, so if I max out one as 10, I just have 5 left - should I bother with them, or do I need to get another 5 to make them usable?

They are pretty good if you are playing a low point game and need to fill out of the battalion tax. Could be surprisingly durable if you are lucky with your saves.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 iGuy91 wrote:
TBH, despite the hate, my Gauss Immortals have been excellent every time I run them. Immortals and Warriors are two of the most reliable infantry units in the game.

Yeah, I don't get the dislike for gauss immortals. My opponents hate them as they reduce their armor to nearly nothing.
Tesla can be scary, but you really need to 6s for it to shine.

Yeah, I typically want to run my Immortals 2:1 Tesla to Gauss, with the Tesla making their way up the field and the Gauss being Veil'd up into RF range.
Post FAQ I have them popping up in conjunction with Destroyers & Deathmarks. If I have a Lord as the Veil carrier that gives a significant upswing in lethality to the Gauss Immortals and Deathmarks (both Mephrit, so quite painful contenders in RF range, particularly the DMs, who may be getting Talent for Annihilation'd to maximize their character slaying potential).

 Nagerash wrote:
I always try to get them to 10, but in a few lists I have 5 teslamortals just because I didn't have the points for more. They are fine as long as you don't put them in the middel of the fight. And the opponent should have more important targets to worry about than 5 immortals. Hence why you want Tesla instead of gauss if you have fewer numbers.

This is exactly how i been feeling with 5 man units, that and creating screening from deep strikes.

Originally used 2 tesla and 1 gauss. but the rest of the army deals with the higher ap targets. so the tesla is better desired for these units too.

Also the roll you plan on using the immortals and the dynasty trait matters too.

Nephrekh trait tessla immortals can move damn quick (11") and still fire at -1 Ap, obviously losing its pop on 6's but that's a 35" threat range, and once you hit 24" you don't have to go further just sit there and attack. I have used this to catch my opponent off guard because no one expects necrons to move that quick, get into cover t1, then sit there and be a serious pain in the butt with all that tessela.

Is it the "best" option, no, but it is an option that can catch someone who is expecting a "best" setup and not playing the objectives just trying to kill you off the board.

Azuza001 wrote:
Also the roll you plan on using the immortals and the dynasty trait matters too.

Nephrekh trait tessla immortals can move damn quick (11") and still fire at -1 Ap, obviously losing its pop on 6's but that's a 35" threat range, and once you hit 24" you don't have to go further just sit there and attack. I have used this to catch my opponent off guard because no one expects necrons to move that quick, get into cover t1, then sit there and be a serious pain in the butt with all that tessela.

Is it the "best" option, no, but it is an option that can catch someone who is expecting a "best" setup and not playing the objectives just trying to kill you off the board.

Yep, and MWBD shines even more here. 2 Immortal squads with MWBD can move 12" that turn and fire at their normal BS with exploding 6's! I really want to try that out and see my opponents face when that happens ^^

It also gives the option if you dont need screening, to put the immortals in reserve and deep strike where you need them.

am starting to feel Nephrekh is my fav dynasty at the moment, followed closely by Sautekh.

 Nagerash wrote:

Azuza001 wrote:
Also the roll you plan on using the immortals and the dynasty trait matters too.

Nephrekh trait tessla immortals can move damn quick (11") and still fire at -1 Ap, obviously losing its pop on 6's but that's a 35" threat range, and once you hit 24" you don't have to go further just sit there and attack. I have used this to catch my opponent off guard because no one expects necrons to move that quick, get into cover t1, then sit there and be a serious pain in the butt with all that tessela.

Is it the "best" option, no, but it is an option that can catch someone who is expecting a "best" setup and not playing the objectives just trying to kill you off the board.

Yep, and MWBD shines even more here. 2 Immortal squads with MWBD can move 12" that turn and fire at their normal BS with exploding 6's! I really want to try that out and see my opponents face when that happens ^^

Can confirm. This is hilarious to do.

So apparently the shooting chart didn't recalculate properly. New chart here:
https://imgur.com/a/PDM5Mov

Review updates:
Tomb Blades: UPDATE. Straight up upgrade over non-buffed immortals damage wise(not much but still). Add in the increased mobility leaves Immortals only better with the buffs. Best option: Tesla Carbine
Destroyer: Probably the best thing in the codex. Great against every target. Best anti-tank in the codex with stratagem. Bad durability though (ignoring RP). UPDATE: fall off quite a bit without the stratagem so spamming might not be as good as it seems.
Monolith: UPDATE Just average. Take for abilities only.
Annihilation Barge: UPDATE: Basically straight up worse Tomb Blades. Skip.

Moosatronic Warrior wrote:
Tesla is better in general but I think 2:1 Tesla to Gauss is a good ratio. so a Battalion of 2x10 Tesla and 1x10 Gauss Immortals.

Or 2 units of 10 Tesla immortals and 1 unit of 20 Gauss Warriors.

Sautekh is my favorite dynasty right now... between Imotekh, their auto-wounding relic staff, and their strategem and tesla is hard to beat. Strength 5 Tesla triggering on 4+ without a Triarch Stalker in the list. That a lot of hits.

 rvd1ofakind wrote:
90% of -1s are within 12''. So it's either Tesla vs RF Gauss or no proc Tesla vs Normal Gauss. In both cases Tesla wins a lot more often(especially so considering that most things within 12'' will be low armor screens). Which is what you should build for when creating a list: doing better more often than not.

I disagree. -1 is more likely to be outside 12", which makes the Tesla Immortals unable to use their superior range.

That's what I meant. Basically all -1 to hits are if you're 12''+ away. Meaning its either Tesla with no procs and Gauss with no RF (meaning tesla ALWAYS wins) or Tesla with procs and Gauss with RF (meaning Gauss wins at 4+ normally or at 3+ with MWBD).

hirojlance wrote:


https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2018/04/18/the-celestial-orrery-the-necron-thunderdome-part-1/

Here is the issue with that article, he only counts charge phases and the necrons shooting phase, remember you get to take part in two assault phases per round, and in only get to shoot ranged weapons once a round (if your using the pistol, otherwise it's a one and done with the rod). So a more honest calculation would halve the effect of the ranged weapons. Which leaves Praetorians noticeably worse than lychguard, especially when you consider stratagems like blood rights, which lets novokh attack twice in a single phase. Other issues include using only one wound models, which greatly favors praetorians since they have no means to do multiple wounds. He also uses a very narrow target profile (albeit one that is common), against t3, as well as t5 and up lychguard perform much better due to higher strength of attacks.

Long and short GW screwed the pooch on praetorians, they cost too much, the two configurations are horribly lopsided in effectiveness yet cost the same, and by excluding them from the dynasty keyword they cut off any synergy with the rest of the necron army. FLG and ITC have more or less become a GW marketing asset, so seeing a lame article trying to spin the effectiveness of a bad unit is just par for the course at this point.

They should have dropped the whole triarch thing, honestly.
What's the point of introducing all of these dynasties that are supposedly to add flavor if they are all supposed to bow to this centralized authority we never actually see?

No really, what is the triarch supposed to be? Where do they fit in? Where are they based? It doesn't make sense. I get they are supposed to be inspired Roman Praetorians, but Necrons aren't the Roman Empire in space. They are warring Egyptian flavored states in space.

Praetorians should have been the elite personal guard of a dynasty's phaeron, not some galactic necron police force that's based...somewhere and just pops up now and then. Lychguard should have just been generic bodyguards who guarded anyone important. Lords and Overlords get Lychguard, the Phaeron gets praets.

Who ever thought of the current necron background shouldn't be allowed to write fluff, because it doesn't make sense and it's not that interesting.
Its a complicated solution to a problem that could have easily been solved by introducing more C'tan, making them less powerful (one of the few things the retcon did right) and making them each have their own little army of necron servants that behave according to their master's whims.
Having a group of self serving, quarreling gods who want to eat each other to restore a bit of lost power and forces their necron underlings to do whatever they want is a lot more compelling and offers a lot more variations than Not-Egypt-In-Space, and it solves the massive bleeding plot hole of the C'tan stupidly giving control of their slave race to a slave king who still has his free will for some idiotic reason.

Mexican necrons? A C'tan saw a western when messing around with the space time continium and thought it would be funny to give them sombreros.
Don Quixote Necrons? A C'tan became a huge Cervantes fan when it visited Earth during the 17th century, and decided to program an Overlord to act like him.
Magpie Necrons? A C'tan is a greedy collector and assigned an overlord to curate it's museum, as well as "discover" new acquisitions.

You can do a lot of crazy stuff with a bunch of insane physics warping gods.

I like the idea of having a unit or two that can operate on their own out on a flank or something, but that would require Praets and Stalkers to be good enough to pick, which they are not.

Totally agree with the fluff though, Necron fluff is almost universally boring and unimaginative.