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.

 Sasori wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
From the 'Last of the Silent Kings' article in the January 2020 White Dwarf:

The Silent King took his ship, a vast sepulchral engine, black as night and as massive as a planetoid, and set out into the depths of the intergalactic void. Perhaps out there, a measure of solace or penance could be found. With him went legions of his own Szarekhan Dynasty, entombed in stasis-crypts like their kin.

'Skorpekh' would appear to be the name of the unit and has nothing to do with the Silent King's dynasty.

I hope that's not the final name, and just saying his dynasty by using his name. If it is, it's pretty lame.

As opposed to the Tudor Dynasty, founded by Henry Tudor, aka Henry VII of England, or Ptolomaic dynasty, founded by Ptolomy I Soter?
Dynasty Founders tend to name dynasties after themselves, and their descendants share the same name. There really isn't anything wrong with what GW did here.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Sasori wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
From the 'Last of the Silent Kings' article in the January 2020 White Dwarf:

The Silent King took his ship, a vast sepulchral engine, black as night and as massive as a planetoid, and set out into the depths of the intergalactic void. Perhaps out there, a measure of solace or penance could be found. With him went legions of his own Szarekhan Dynasty, entombed in stasis-crypts like their kin.

'Skorpekh' would appear to be the name of the unit and has nothing to do with the Silent King's dynasty.

I hope that's not the final name, and just saying his dynasty by using his name. If it is, it's pretty lame.

As opposed to the Tudor Dynasty, founded by Henry Tudor, aka Henry VII of England, or Ptolomaic dynasty, founded by Ptolomy I Soter?
Dynasty Founders tend to name dynasties after themselves, and their descendants share the same name. There really isn't anything wrong with what GW did here.

I don't think Szarekh founded that dynasty, unless every Silent King used the same name, which is possible. I also never said GW did anything wrong historically... I said that it sounds lame for a dynasty name.

Remember that the Silent King and the Triach weren't always from the same Dynasties:

All three ruling positions were nominally hereditary – though the uncertain life spans of the Necrontyr ensured that the title of Silent King had passed from one dynasty to another many times...

 Ghaz wrote:
Remember that the Silent King and the Triach weren't always from the same Dynasties:

All three ruling positions were nominally hereditary – though the uncertain life spans of the Necrontyr ensured that the title of Silent King had passed from one dynasty to another many times...

This is a fair point. Either way, I'm hoping they have a different name for the dynasty.

 Sasori wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Sasori wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
From the 'Last of the Silent Kings' article in the January 2020 White Dwarf:

The Silent King took his ship, a vast sepulchral engine, black as night and as massive as a planetoid, and set out into the depths of the intergalactic void. Perhaps out there, a measure of solace or penance could be found. With him went legions of his own Szarekhan Dynasty, entombed in stasis-crypts like their kin.

'Skorpekh' would appear to be the name of the unit and has nothing to do with the Silent King's dynasty.

I hope that's not the final name, and just saying his dynasty by using his name. If it is, it's pretty lame.

As opposed to the Tudor Dynasty, founded by Henry Tudor, aka Henry VII of England, or Ptolomaic dynasty, founded by Ptolomy I Soter?
Dynasty Founders tend to name dynasties after themselves, and their descendants share the same name. There really isn't anything wrong with what GW did here.

I don't think Szarekh founded that dynasty, unless every Silent King used the same name, which is possible. I also never said GW did anything wrong historically... I said that it sounds lame for a dynasty name.

The French seemed to only use like three different names for their kings. They had 18 Louis's, 9 Charles's, and the occasional Phillip.

Something I've been thinking on, is it possible for Skorpekh destroyers to be any good? If they have the same unit size as destroyers (6), similar stat lines as destroyers, and no invul, they don't have the staying power to take a charge or a good overwatch.

 Grimgold wrote:
Something I've been thinking on, is it possible for Skorpekh destroyers to be any good? If they have the same unit size as destroyers (6), similar stat lines as destroyers, and no invul, they don't have the staying power to take a charge or a good overwatch.

I find it unlikely that they will have the same stats as destroyers. I'm thinking they will be a more elite destroyer with better stats as their models are a lot more ornate compared to the rugged look of normal destroyers

Maybe T5 with a 2+ (literally nothing in our codex has this so they should throw us a bone here) 2+ WS and some special rules to back them up.

 Grimgold wrote:
Something I've been thinking on, is it possible for Skorpekh destroyers to be any good? If they have the same unit size as destroyers (6), similar stat lines as destroyers, and no invul, they don't have the staying power to take a charge or a good overwatch.

They're going to have to do something to make them fill a different niche to Wraiths. They look like fairly fast close combat infantry to me and at the moment Wraiths are the fastest non-vehicle thing in the Codex. They're not fantastic in combat but pretty decent and they're one of the few easy ways to get D2 where we want it (Lychguard are far too slow for that and I don't think Necrons currently have any D2 ranged weapons). If they're some sort of halfway house between Wraiths and Lychguard they'll be...weird. I can see them getting something like D3 damage on their big swords but I do worry they'll be really easy to kill. I could also see them getting at least 3A, if not more.

The reveal stream did mention something about Reanimation Protocols possibly being different for different units so I wonder if they might use that to help out something like the Skorpekhs? Maybe buff Reanimation when near a Skorpekh Lord or a Cryptek?

I could see the Skorpekh Destroyers hitting way, way harder than Wraiths and also being able to benefit from more relevant character buffs.

 Grimgold wrote:
Something I've been thinking on, is it possible for Skorpekh destroyers to be any good? If they have the same unit size as destroyers (6), similar stat lines as destroyers, and no invul, they don't have the staying power to take a charge or a good overwatch.

Since we don't know what the changes to overwatch, terrain or the new game-wide strats are, we can't really say what will/won't handle overwatch atm

 Grimgold wrote:
Something I've been thinking on, is it possible for Skorpekh destroyers to be any good? If they have the same unit size as destroyers (6), similar stat lines as destroyers, and no invul, they don't have the staying power to take a charge or a good overwatch.

Judging from the trailer a skorpekh destroyer cant even kill a sister. And it gets killed by a chainsword. So no, they wont be any good.

 p5freak wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:
Something I've been thinking on, is it possible for Skorpekh destroyers to be any good? If they have the same unit size as destroyers (6), similar stat lines as destroyers, and no invul, they don't have the staying power to take a charge or a good overwatch.

Judging from the trailer a skorpekh destroyer cant even kill a sister. And it gets killed by a chainsword. So no, they wont be any good.

It's a good thing we aren't playing with your Cinematic House Rules, then.

sieGermans wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:
Something I've been thinking on, is it possible for Skorpekh destroyers to be any good? If they have the same unit size as destroyers (6), similar stat lines as destroyers, and no invul, they don't have the staying power to take a charge or a good overwatch.

Judging from the trailer a skorpekh destroyer cant even kill a sister. And it gets killed by a chainsword. So no, they wont be any good.

It's a good thing we aren't playing with your Cinematic House Rules, then.

So, you already know the rules, and you can confirm they will be almost unkillable ?

 p5freak wrote:

sieGermans wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:
Something I've been thinking on, is it possible for Skorpekh destroyers to be any good? If they have the same unit size as destroyers (6), similar stat lines as destroyers, and no invul, they don't have the staying power to take a charge or a good overwatch.

Judging from the trailer a skorpekh destroyer cant even kill a sister. And it gets killed by a chainsword. So no, they wont be any good.

It's a good thing we aren't playing with your Cinematic House Rules, then.

So, you already know the rules, and you can confirm they will be almost unkillable ?

And you're so certain of the rules that they're easy to kill?
A cinematic trailer does not dictate mechanics of a game. It's there to be showy, to flash, to portray the good guys vs the bad. It's Not an indication of anything rules wise.

 p5freak wrote:

sieGermans wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:
Something I've been thinking on, is it possible for Skorpekh destroyers to be any good? If they have the same unit size as destroyers (6), similar stat lines as destroyers, and no invul, they don't have the staying power to take a charge or a good overwatch.

Judging from the trailer a skorpekh destroyer cant even kill a sister. And it gets killed by a chainsword. So no, they wont be any good.

It's a good thing we aren't playing with your Cinematic House Rules, then.

So, you already know the rules, and you can confirm they will be almost unkillable ?

The irony of this comment is priceless.

I'm sure GW will be revealing more details about the new units in the near future. I'm equally sure it's about 50/50 at this point whether they'll be any good but maybe wait for a bit more info before declaring any of the new units to be underpowered or overpowered?

 Grimgold wrote:
Something I've been thinking on, is it possible for Skorpekh destroyers to be any good? If they have the same unit size as destroyers (6), similar stat lines as destroyers, and no invul, they don't have the staying power to take a charge or a good overwatch.

In what world do 3 wound T5 models struggle to weather overwatch?

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Sasori wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
From the 'Last of the Silent Kings' article in the January 2020 White Dwarf:

The Silent King took his ship, a vast sepulchral engine, black as night and as massive as a planetoid, and set out into the depths of the intergalactic void. Perhaps out there, a measure of solace or penance could be found. With him went legions of his own Szarekhan Dynasty, entombed in stasis-crypts like their kin.

'Skorpekh' would appear to be the name of the unit and has nothing to do with the Silent King's dynasty.

I hope that's not the final name, and just saying his dynasty by using his name. If it is, it's pretty lame.

As opposed to the Tudor Dynasty, founded by Henry Tudor, aka Henry VII of England, or Ptolomaic dynasty, founded by Ptolomy I Soter?
Dynasty Founders tend to name dynasties after themselves, and their descendants share the same name. There really isn't anything wrong with what GW did here.

Not to disagree with the viability of Szarekhan, but as a point of order, ancient dynasties like the Ptolemies typically had names given to them, not chosen by them. It is a modern naming convention, e.g. the Seleucids had no known name for their family or their empire

source: historian

changemod wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:
Something I've been thinking on, is it possible for Skorpekh destroyers to be any good? If they have the same unit size as destroyers (6), similar stat lines as destroyers, and no invul, they don't have the staying power to take a charge or a good overwatch.

In what world do 3 wound T5 models struggle to weather overwatch?

In current, 8th edition, where that overwatch is coming from a Leviathan drednought standing on top of a chapter master giving it full rerolls on its 20 storm cannon shots.

But I digress. They've already stated 9th ed is going to be toning down overwatch.
I've actually been puzzled myself as to the intended role of the Skorpehk units. I guess if they get the infantry keyword, they'll synergize more easily. If they're not massive, they can hide out of LOS and reanimate. But their introduction is going to step on either Lychguard/Praetorians/Wraiths toes for sure. Just not sure which yet.

 p5freak wrote:

sieGermans wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:
Something I've been thinking on, is it possible for Skorpekh destroyers to be any good? If they have the same unit size as destroyers (6), similar stat lines as destroyers, and no invul, they don't have the staying power to take a charge or a good overwatch.

Judging from the trailer a skorpekh destroyer cant even kill a sister. And it gets killed by a chainsword. So no, they wont be any good.

It's a good thing we aren't playing with your Cinematic House Rules, then.

So, you already know the rules, and you can confirm they will be almost unkillable ?

I can't tell if you are being serious or starting an argument for arguments sake. A trailer is for selling models not to show off the rules. In the trailer we saw scarabs overpower a SM so does that mean they will be strength 4 and have ap -2 attacks?

 iGuy91 wrote:

changemod wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:
Something I've been thinking on, is it possible for Skorpekh destroyers to be any good? If they have the same unit size as destroyers (6), similar stat lines as destroyers, and no invul, they don't have the staying power to take a charge or a good overwatch.

In what world do 3 wound T5 models struggle to weather overwatch?

In current, 8th edition, where that overwatch is coming from a Leviathan drednought standing on top of a chapter master giving it full rerolls on its 20 storm cannon shots.

But I digress. They've already stated 9th ed is going to be toning down overwatch.
I've actually been puzzled myself as to the intended role of the Skorpehk units. I guess if they get the infantry keyword, they'll synergize more easily. If they're not massive, they can hide out of LOS and reanimate. But their introduction is going to step on either Lychguard/Praetorians/Wraiths toes for sure. Just not sure which yet.

I guess the wraiths' toes are the ones most readily avaiable.

wraiths can dynamically move through things, advance and charge, or fall back and charge, wraithing their way deep into enemy ranks, to hold on to a gunline target, while the destroyers punch their way through things, they're in range for infantry buffs from HQs, and reanimate.

Then for the rest, perhaps scarabs can fill a role to keep schaff busy, so they don't drown the destroyers. Flayed ones could threaten flanks. Praetorians.. dunno.. jump around and police things :p .. strike at things that need AP-3. Fly in where needed.

Shieldguard.. more a distraction. Threaten enemy assault units. Hold center objectives.

Then there's scytheguard. no idea.

 BroodSpawn wrote:

And you're so certain of the rules that they're easy to kill?

Yes, because necrons are xenos. GW doesnt let xenos be better than the imperium.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 iGuy91 wrote:

But I digress. They've already stated 9th ed is going to be toning down overwatch.

Overwatch itself isnt the problem. Hitting on 6s is fine, the problem is factions hitting on 5s, or even 4s, with complete rerolls.

Whats with all the nay-saying, dumbifying generalization and pessimism.

Space marines sucked and Eldar was a power-house for who knows how long.

Chill and let it play out.

 p5freak wrote:

 BroodSpawn wrote:

And you're so certain of the rules that they're easy to kill?

Yes, because necrons are xenos. GW doesnt let xenos be better than the imperium.

Yes, Eldar and Tau have never been successful in the past

Not to mention Necrons were a powerhouse for a while just last edition (7th).

 p5freak wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:
Something I've been thinking on, is it possible for Skorpekh destroyers to be any good? If they have the same unit size as destroyers (6), similar stat lines as destroyers, and no invul, they don't have the staying power to take a charge or a good overwatch.

Judging from the trailer a skorpekh destroyer cant even kill a sister. And it gets killed by a chainsword. So no, they wont be any good.

You're bringin this up again man? The Skorpehk Destroyers killed several Sisters/Blueberries in that trailer, why are you always trying to gak on the discussions?

At least for getting an early 9th book my personal prediction for skorpekh is 25% chance they are bad, 25% chance they are great and 50% chance on paper they are good but x,y or z is holding them back and so your mileage will vary. Then in 12 months 50/50 chance broken or trash.

But I signed on to Death Guard in the beginning of 8th and every so many months that codex gets a little more sad.


All I want is for mass warriors and monoliths to be cool again but I don't have high hopes.

I think the unit choice overlap question is a good one! Little regarded (because it's not particularly strong) is the fact that Necrons actually do not lack for close combat unit options--they just aren't super effective for their cost.

In the Non-HQ section, we currently have (Details subject to change with 9e):

Per model (not per point cost):

Flayed Ones: 6", Low VoF, Low Strength, Low AP, Low Damage, Low Durability
Lychguard: 6", Low VoF, [Moderate Strength, Low AP, Low Damage, High Durability] / [High Strength, High AP, Low Damage, Low Durability]
C'Tan (T, Deceiver, Nightbringer): 8", Low VoF, High Strength, High AP, Moderate Damage, High Durability
Scarabs: 10", Low VoF, Very Low Strength, Low AP, Low Damage, Low Durability
Wraiths: 10", Low VoF, Moderate Strength, Moderate AP, Low Damage, High Durability
Acanthrites: 10", Low VoF, Moderate Strength, Moderate AP, Low Damage, Low Durability
Praetorians: 12", Low VoF, Moderate Strength, Moderate AP, Low Damage, Low Durability
Seraptek: 12", Moderate VoF, High Strength, High AP, High Damage, Moderate Durability

Costing considerations aside, we have a pretty full range there with very few niches to slot a unit in. We have low, medium, and high mobility options. We have low, moderate, and high strength options.

We have few high volume of attack options, I guess?

Anyone else worried that being one of the first Codices for a new edition means Necrons are likely to be pretty bad? GW has proven singularly incapable of maintaining balance across an entire edition because they can't stop themselves from making drastic changes to their approach to Codices at some point, usually about halfway through an edition. I'm hoping that 9th retains enough of 8th's DNA to allow GW to make better decisions around what's balanced and what isn't but it's definitely a concern that Necrons could be left behind rather quickly.

Slipspace wrote:
Anyone else worried that being one of the first Codices for a new edition means Necrons are likely to be pretty bad? GW has proven singularly incapable of maintaining balance across an entire edition because they can't stop themselves from making drastic changes to their approach to Codices at some point, usually about halfway through an edition. I'm hoping that 9th retains enough of 8th's DNA to allow GW to make better decisions around what's balanced and what isn't but it's definitely a concern that Necrons could be left behind rather quickly.

Right around when Space Marines get their 2nd codex of the edition the number of arguments that people should relax because its a 10th edition codex and everybody will just as strong soon will increase 100%.

But yah unless Necron keep getting accidental busted cheese combos because of CA point adjustments I would say I expect about 1 to 1.5 years of use out of the codex before opening it just makes me sigh and play a different army.

 BrotherGecko wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
Anyone else worried that being one of the first Codices for a new edition means Necrons are likely to be pretty bad? GW has proven singularly incapable of maintaining balance across an entire edition because they can't stop themselves from making drastic changes to their approach to Codices at some point, usually about halfway through an edition. I'm hoping that 9th retains enough of 8th's DNA to allow GW to make better decisions around what's balanced and what isn't but it's definitely a concern that Necrons could be left behind rather quickly.

Right around when Space Marines get their 2nd codex of the edition the number of arguments that people should relax because its a 10th edition codex and everybody will just as strong soon will increase 100%.

But yah unless Necron keep getting accidental busted cheese combos because of CA point adjustments I would say I expect about 1 to 1.5 years of use out of the codex before opening it just makes me sigh and play a different army.

I honestly wouldn't be upset with getting that long out of it, I started playing Necrons right after their 8th ed codex dropped. Being able to bring a decent army with rules to match for any length of time is an improvement.