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 QS stays the same and melta starts to become more prolific, I can see myself starting to take a more vehicle heavy list for sure.

I'm already planning on taking some Triarch Stalkers regularly after their buff, would not be a biggie to take a few more.

Well, I think triach viability will depend on how many buffs they'll miss out on.

Currently they're exempt from dynasty codes, and I don't see that changing, but we don't know if they will be exempt from the new protocols as well.

My prediction is that, roll 6 for QS will be "always fail"

If Praetorians are costed reasonably I think they'll have a niche, even if they still lose out on Dynastic Codes/buffs. In a world of T4, 2W, 3+ save models, something that's entire damage output is S5 AP -3 D2 will always have a place.

 Bosskelot wrote:
If Praetorians are costed reasonably I think they'll have a niche, even if they still lose out on Dynastic Codes/buffs. In a world of T4, 2W, 3+ save models, something that's entire damage output is S5 AP -3 D2 will always have a place.

Unless it is on a relatively overpriced 2w 3+ body. Pts will determine whether the unit is worth bringing.

 Bosskelot wrote:
If Praetorians are costed reasonably I think they'll have a niche, even if they still lose out on Dynastic Codes/buffs. In a world of T4, 2W, 3+ save models, something that's entire damage output is S5 AP -3 D2 will always have a place.

Is it possible that The Silent King will extend Dynastic Codes/buffs to the Triarch stuff?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
If Praetorians are costed reasonably I think they'll have a niche, even if they still lose out on Dynastic Codes/buffs. In a world of T4, 2W, 3+ save models, something that's entire damage output is S5 AP -3 D2 will always have a place.

Is it possible that The Silent King will extend Dynastic Codes/buffs to the Triarch stuff?

I dont think he'll extend Dynastic Codes, but definitely buffs, I would be shocked if he didnt

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
If Praetorians are costed reasonably I think they'll have a niche, even if they still lose out on Dynastic Codes/buffs. In a world of T4, 2W, 3+ save models, something that's entire damage output is S5 AP -3 D2 will always have a place.

Is it possible that The Silent King will extend Dynastic Codes/buffs to the Triarch stuff?

I don't believe Triarch Praetorians will benefit from the Szarekhan Dynastic Code as I explained back on page 8 of this thread:

 Ghaz wrote:

 Aza'Gorod wrote:

Spoiler:

 Sasori wrote:

 Aza'Gorod wrote:
My guess is the new Scorpekh destroyers and Lords and a new dynasty (hopefully you wont have to play that dynasty to use them) and we will still have the old destroyers in a dual kit as people have already said

The Dynasty that the Silent King hails from is very likely the new bronze color scheme we have seen.

I am hoping they don't lock units behind dynasties. That would be incredibly stupid. It would also be nice if Triarch units can benefit from Dynasty codes now as well.

In the fluff weren't the triarch like the special forces of the silent king? I wonder if they will benefit from just his dynastic code or hopefully they will be able to use everyone's. I mean fluff wise it doesnt make sense but it would make them a hell of a lot more useful

No, not really. From page 55 of Codex Necrons:

In the Necron dynasties, the Praetorians held the responsibility of maintaining the Triarch’s rule, to ensure that wars and politics alike were pursued according to ancient codes. As such, they acted outside the political structures, and held both the right and the means to enforce their will should a Lord, Overlord or even a phaeron’s behaviour contravene the edicts of old. However, the Triarch Praetorians also held a higher responsibility: to ensure that the Necron dynasties never fell, that their codes of law and order did not vanish into the darkness.

So the Praetorians are loyal to the ruling council of the Necrontyr (i.e., the Triarch) and not any particular dynasty. So while Szarekh may have the TRIARCH PRAETORIANS keyword, I seriously doubt the Praetorians will have the SZAREKHAN dynasty keyword.

Which isn't what I asked, Ghaz.

I asked if the Silent King might extend the effects of his dynastic code to the Triarch stuff.

As goofy as it might sound, it would be something on par with a Lord of War/Supreme Commander style unit.

To be clear:
I'm talking about this as a form of aura/army benefit exclusive to him being on the field. Not a "Szarekhan Dynasty codes are the only codes that Triarch Praetorians can get" kind of thing.

It would be real easy for them to make a lore blimp to justify Triarch Units getting dynasty code, I don't view that as an obstacle.

Not having the dynasty codes for Triarch units would be annoying, but if they priced them low enough I'd be okay.

I'm with Sasori, I think QS will change, probably to a flat invul. I think this for two reasons, first QS is kind of a janky rule, which punishes you for having the right weapon, but I've thought that since before we got our 8th ed codex. The real indicator is the comparison between the DDA and the new canoptek Doomstalker. Any time we've looked at one of the new units and said "that isn't as good as the existing option" it's turned out that there was a rules change we didn't know about. Examples include reaper vs flayer and skorpekh destroyer vs wraiths. So when we look at the doom stalker, we see it as overlapping the role of the DDA, similar main gun, same force org slot (heavy support) but but the DDA is way ahead in terms of defenses because QS is much better than a 5++. So why waste a heavy support slot on a doom stalker when you could take a DDA.

The only answer I can see to that question is that QS is going to change, probably to a flat invul. If they both have similar defenses the Doomstalker vs DDA debate becomes nuanced, because now you have to weigh the extra points vs the flayer array and extra wounds.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Which isn't what I asked, Ghaz.

I asked if the Silent King might extend the effects of his dynastic code to the Triarch stuff.

Which is what I answered The Triarch Praetorians are not a part of any Dynasty, not even the Silent King's own SZAREKHAN dynasty so they will not have a <DYNASTY> keyword. Szarekh may have rules that allow him to buff models with the TRIARCH PRAETORIANS keyword, but it will be a separate buff from the one for the SZAREKHAN keyword.

 Grimgold wrote:
I'm with Sasori, I think QS will change, probably to a flat invul. I think this for two reasons, first QS is kind of a janky rule, which punishes you for having the right weapon, but I've thought that since before we got our 8th ed codex. The real indicator is the comparison between the DDA and the new canoptek Doomstalker. Any time we've looked at one of the new units and said "that isn't as good as the existing option" it's turned out that there was a rules change we didn't know about. Examples include reaper vs flayer and skorpekh destroyer vs wraiths. So when we look at the doom stalker, we see it as overlapping the role of the DDA, similar main gun, same force org slot (heavy support) but but the DDA is way ahead in terms of defenses because QS is much better than a 5++. So why waste a heavy support slot on a doom stalker when you could take a DDA.

The only answer I can see to that question is that QS is going to change, probably to a flat invul. If they both have similar defenses the Doomstalker vs DDA debate becomes nuanced, because now you have to weigh the extra points vs the flayer array and extra wounds.

Instead of an Invulnerable, I would think a more logical effect would be to reduce incoming damage by 1 or 2pts.

 vipoid wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:
I'm with Sasori, I think QS will change, probably to a flat invul. I think this for two reasons, first QS is kind of a janky rule, which punishes you for having the right weapon, but I've thought that since before we got our 8th ed codex. The real indicator is the comparison between the DDA and the new canoptek Doomstalker. Any time we've looked at one of the new units and said "that isn't as good as the existing option" it's turned out that there was a rules change we didn't know about. Examples include reaper vs flayer and skorpekh destroyer vs wraiths. So when we look at the doom stalker, we see it as overlapping the role of the DDA, similar main gun, same force org slot (heavy support) but but the DDA is way ahead in terms of defenses because QS is much better than a 5++. So why waste a heavy support slot on a doom stalker when you could take a DDA.

The only answer I can see to that question is that QS is going to change, probably to a flat invul. If they both have similar defenses the Doomstalker vs DDA debate becomes nuanced, because now you have to weigh the extra points vs the flayer array and extra wounds.

Instead of an Invulnerable, I would think a more logical effect would be to reduce incoming damage by 1 or 2pts.

It's kind of samey, a lascannon (3.5 average damage) does 2.31 vs a 5++ or 2.5 if it's a flat minus one damage. Ethier are significant downgrades from QS which ends up with 1.55 average damage per lascannon hit/wound. Against the new melta (5.5 average damage) the invul suffers 3.63 damage, and the -1 damage lets through a whopping 4.5. The -1 is better against two damage weapons, which considering every marine has 2 wounds now and is the army to beat, I expect we'll see a fair number of those.

Which is why I'm happy immortals went a different way than marines. We are going to see a flood of 2 (or more) damage weapons to deal with marines, be they heavy bolters, plasma, autocannons, etc. The common thread in all of those is they are not as good against immortals as they are against marines. All of them waste damage down range, which is an opportunity cost, and plasma and heavy bolters have a harder time wounding immortals.

Good analysis

 Grimgold wrote:
I'm with Sasori, I think QS will change, probably to a flat invul. I think this for two reasons, first QS is kind of a janky rule, which punishes you for having the right weapon, but I've thought that since before we got our 8th ed codex. The real indicator is the comparison between the DDA and the new canoptek Doomstalker. Any time we've looked at one of the new units and said "that isn't as good as the existing option" it's turned out that there was a rules change we didn't know about. Examples include reaper vs flayer and skorpekh destroyer vs wraiths. So when we look at the doom stalker, we see it as overlapping the role of the DDA, similar main gun, same force org slot (heavy support) but but the DDA is way ahead in terms of defenses because QS is much better than a 5++. So why waste a heavy support slot on a doom stalker when you could take a DDA.

The only answer I can see to that question is that QS is going to change, probably to a flat invul. If they both have similar defenses the Doomstalker vs DDA debate becomes nuanced, because now you have to weigh the extra points vs the flayer array and extra wounds.

Inv punishes you for having right weapon as well.

DDA better get some sort of buff if it becomes just inv save unless it's 4++ as a bare minimum and still would be weak.

And doomstalker...uhhuh? People are saying why take DDA with stalker out there...If DDA becomes even worse what's the point in taking DDA?

I like quantum shieldjng as it is now. The vehicles its on are all T6 which isnt particularly tough anyway. It just means yoy want to fire lots of high strength low damage and space marines for example have that in spades with plasma or for tau they can just make use of a Heavy burst cannon riptide.

Effectively against 2 D its a 6++, 3 5++, 4 4++. Etc so it increases incrementally the harder you hit it (like some weird non utopian liquid) and i think this is nice for necrons as they are meant to have weird technology other armies only dream of.

Maybe they'll make it so a roll of a 6 always fails not matter what which I think will be fair enough

tneva82 wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:
I'm with Sasori, I think QS will change, probably to a flat invul. I think this for two reasons, first QS is kind of a janky rule, which punishes you for having the right weapon, but I've thought that since before we got our 8th ed codex. The real indicator is the comparison between the DDA and the new canoptek Doomstalker. Any time we've looked at one of the new units and said "that isn't as good as the existing option" it's turned out that there was a rules change we didn't know about. Examples include reaper vs flayer and skorpekh destroyer vs wraiths. So when we look at the doom stalker, we see it as overlapping the role of the DDA, similar main gun, same force org slot (heavy support) but but the DDA is way ahead in terms of defenses because QS is much better than a 5++. So why waste a heavy support slot on a doom stalker when you could take a DDA.

The only answer I can see to that question is that QS is going to change, probably to a flat invul. If they both have similar defenses the Doomstalker vs DDA debate becomes nuanced, because now you have to weigh the extra points vs the flayer array and extra wounds.

Inv punishes you for having right weapon as well.

DDA better get some sort of buff if it becomes just inv save unless it's 4++ as a bare minimum and still would be weak.

And doomstalker...uhhuh? People are saying why take DDA with stalker out there...If DDA becomes even worse what's the point in taking DDA?

TL;DR - I'm not arguing for a nerf, I'm trying to predict a rule change from our upcoming codex.

By punishing you for bringing the right weapon I mean that the strength of the QS rule is proportional to the damage of the weapon used against it, it's useless against damage 1 and equivalent to a 2++ against anything damage 6+. An invul is equivalent in effectiveness against all damage amounts, doesn't matter if it's 1 damage or 100.

The reason this is important is that one of the founding pillars of 8th/9th ed is bring the right weapon for the target. That's why 40k treats multi damage different than AoS, In AoS damage carriers through to other models when you exceed the wound characteristic of one of the models in the unit so something that does 6 damage could kill 6 pikemen. That does not happen in 40k in order to make different amounts of damage work more or less effectively against different targets. So we have weapons like metlas and las cannons that work poorly against units of 1 wound models, but are very effective at taking out units with a high toughness and multiple wounds.

So now that we both have a grasp of the basic mechanics of this edition, lets go over that comment again. QS is a rule that disproportionately affects high damage weapons, when something is disproportionately effective against something the gaming vernacular is we say it punishes that thing. So you are being punished for using an anti-vehicle weapon against a vehicle, which goes against the grain of this edition. An Invul is equally effective against all damage amounts, and thus doesn't discourage you from using a particular type of weapon, which respects the specialized roles of certain weapons.

The doomstalker has almost the exact same gun as a DDA, and is also a heavy support choice. Unless you want to pay CP (or pay a dumb amount in troop tax), you only get 3 heavy support options. That means that these two units are in direct competition with each other. The only thing the doomstalker has going for it is it's cheaper, but the DDA is so much more durable because of QS it's basically a non-choice. They could have given the doomstalker QS and none of us would have batted an eye, instead they gave it a 5++. Why would they cripple a new model by using an inferior rule, seems like a really bad sales strategy. Which brings us back to my point, when it seems like GW made a bad choice, it was because we didn't have all of the information. They are not going to release a DoA unit because it doesn't make good business sense. That means that the doomstalker is at least as good as the DDA which it is competing with, which means there is some unknown factor at play. That unknown factor could be one of a number of things, but the most likely answer is if QS was brought into line with a 5++.

I'm not giving a suggestion that QS should be nerfed, we are well past the point of my opinion mattering on that topic. What I'm saying is that based on what we can see from the data sheets so far, it looks likely that there was a change to QS that brings it into line with a 5++.

 Grimgold wrote:

Spoiler:

 vipoid wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:
I'm with Sasori, I think QS will change, probably to a flat invul. I think this for two reasons, first QS is kind of a janky rule, which punishes you for having the right weapon, but I've thought that since before we got our 8th ed codex. The real indicator is the comparison between the DDA and the new canoptek Doomstalker. Any time we've looked at one of the new units and said "that isn't as good as the existing option" it's turned out that there was a rules change we didn't know about. Examples include reaper vs flayer and skorpekh destroyer vs wraiths. So when we look at the doom stalker, we see it as overlapping the role of the DDA, similar main gun, same force org slot (heavy support) but but the DDA is way ahead in terms of defenses because QS is much better than a 5++. So why waste a heavy support slot on a doom stalker when you could take a DDA.

The only answer I can see to that question is that QS is going to change, probably to a flat invul. If they both have similar defenses the Doomstalker vs DDA debate becomes nuanced, because now you have to weigh the extra points vs the flayer array and extra wounds.

Instead of an Invulnerable, I would think a more logical effect would be to reduce incoming damage by 1 or 2pts.

It's kind of samey, a lascannon (3.5 average damage) does 2.31 vs a 5++ or 2.5 if it's a flat minus one damage. Ethier are significant downgrades from QS which ends up with 1.55 average damage per lascannon hit/wound. Against the new melta (5.5 average damage) the invul suffers 3.63 damage, and the -1 damage lets through a whopping 4.5. The -1 is better against two damage weapons, which considering every marine has 2 wounds now and is the army to beat, I expect we'll see a fair number of those.

Which is why I'm happy immortals went a different way than marines. We are going to see a flood of 2 (or more) damage weapons to deal with marines, be they heavy bolters, plasma, autocannons, etc. The common thread in all of those is they are not as good against immortals as they are against marines. All of them waste damage down range, which is an opportunity cost, and plasma and heavy bolters have a harder time wounding immortals.

I find this analysis a little strange, as marine armies are flooded with bolters, and 2w is much more resistant to (very common) S3-4 weapons. There seems to be a pretty small array of weapons where T5 is actually advantageous over T42W. A particularly annoying detail is that there's no benefit to Overcharging Plasma against Immortals as well. So, while it's slightly harder to wound, there's also no risk. "Opportunity cost" for firing Heavy Bolters at them might be a thing, but at D2 they actually become reasonably viable to fire at vehicles, so I'm not sure that particular defensive "advantage" will pan out. HBs can just plug away at multiwound targets like Destroyers etc. anyways.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:


Which is why I'm happy immortals went a different way than marines. We are going to see a flood of 2 (or more) damage weapons to deal with marines, be they heavy bolters, plasma, autocannons, etc. The common thread in all of those is they are not as good against immortals as they are against marines. All of them waste damage down range, which is an opportunity cost, and plasma and heavy bolters have a harder time wounding immortals.

I find this analysis a little strange, as marine armies are flooded with bolters, and 2w is much more resistant to (very common) S3-4 weapons. There seems to be a pretty small array of weapons where T5 is actually advantageous over T42W. A particularly annoying detail is that there's no benefit to Overcharging Plasma against Immortals as well. So, while it's slightly harder to wound, there's also no risk. "Opportunity cost" for firing Heavy Bolters at them might be a thing, but at D2 they actually become reasonably viable to fire at vehicles, so I'm not sure that particular defensive "advantage" will pan out. HBs can just plug away at multiwound targets like Destroyers etc. anyways.

This is one of those things you have to math to show, because twice the wounds is not twice the durability.

str 4 Bolters
2/3 * 1/2 * 1/3 = 1/9 = 18 shots with a bolter to kill a marine
2/3 * 1/3 * 1/3 = 2/27 = 13 shots with a bolter to kill an immortal
with marines at 20 points and immortals at 18, you kill about 1.1 point per bolter shot at marines and 1.3 point per bolter shot at immortals. Against str 4 1 damage weapons marines are about 18% tougher per point. Not insignificant, but the problem is that most single damage weapons are not amazing against either immortals or Marines having low str and low ap values.

Heavy Bolter
2/3 * 2/3 * 2/3 = 8/27 = 3.3 shots to kill so each heavy bolter shot does 6 list building points of damage
2/3 * 1/2 * 2/3 = 2/9 = 4.5 shots to kill so each heavy bolter shot against immortals does 4 list building points of damage.
So against heavy bolters (which are going to be super common in the new edition) immortals have twice the durability advantage marines have on normal bolter shots.

In every case where multi damage is involved Immortals will have an advantage over marines, if only because they are cheaper. With multi damage and some very common weapon strengths (4, 5 and 8) immortals have huge advantages over marines in terms of durability per point of investment. Marines have an advantage against single damage weapons of str 7 or less, and it's not a very large advantage. Single damage weapons are almost all between str 3 and 5, and little in the way of AP. So the weapons marines have an advantage against are not the ideal profile for dealing with immortals or marines, even if they are fairly common. In a marine heavy meta where everyone is brining multi damage weapons to deal with tacticals and intercessors, Immortals will make out like bandits by having a slightly different target profile.

As for your example about plasma, which is kind of a switch hitter:
2/3 * 5/6 * 5/6 * 2 = .93 damage per shot = 2.2 shots to kill an intercessor or 9 points list building points a shot
2/3 * 2/3 * 5/6 = .37 damage per shot = 2.7 shots to kill an immortal or 6.7 list building points a shot

So plasma is way more effective against marines than against Immortals.

^I believe marines are now 18 ppm. Not Intercessors, Tac Marines.

Also something about the math seems suspect. Ignoring save, etc. and doing pure point per wound x chance to wound with bolter I get:

Marine .5x9=4.5
Immortal .333x18=5.99

Even at a 20 pt marine you get a 5, so still more value vs Immortals.

Another thing to recognize is that an Assault Cannon is the same return marines against marines as a Heavy Bolter. Just one Damage but twice the shots. At the same time it's more than twice as effective against Immortals iver the Heavy Bolter, and better against hordes in general. Therefore, a Marine player, I'm still going to be looking at Assault Cannons which will still be better against hordes, Crons, etc. and looking at a .666 to wound against T5.

And of course, against Lasguns marines are twice as durable. The thing is, Marines are more durable vs. every 'basic rifle', the most common weapons in the game.

 Insectum7 wrote:
^I believe marines are now 18 ppm. Not Intercessors, Tac Marines.

Even at equal points, immortals are still tougher against multi-damage at str 4 -5, and 8-9 because of the way the to wound formula works, and those are the most common weapon strengths. Also unlike intercessors, immortals unarguably have a better gun than the bog standard bolter, even if the new bolter is 30". Finally Immortals have an extra attack on first born, which just makes immortals even more efficient for their points. All of that comparison is without new RP, which could be a significant upswing in durability and tip the balance even more in favor of immortals.

Of course the trade off is that marines have much better in army synergy, with easy access to rerolls and buffs from psychers. That seems like an interesting design choice, one army is more synergistic, the other is more efficient per model. That makes very similar armies play differently from each other. It follows an overall trend of better game balance/design in 9th, for instance I was pleasantly surprised to see that heavy destroyers were pointed to have the same output per point as the old heavy destroyers, and the same amount of durability per point as normal destroyers. That kind of precision isn't an accident, they planned that when they pointed and designed that unit. That same amount of care and attention seems to have been paid when bringing firstborn more into line with primaris options, because it was done while buffing the troop choices of the other faction coming out at the same time. Warriors got a reroll ones on RP (which we don't know how good that is yet, but could be very powerful if RP is strong), and immortals got an extra toughness and an extra attack.

If necrons and marines are an indication, I think we can expect to see the troop choices of all factions get more interesting. Which is why I think all of the whining surrounding firstborn getting an extra wound is premature at best, and counter productive at worst. Of course if dakka was a superhero they would be the inbigantor because this forum has been making molehills into mountains with near supernatural efficiency.

*edit*
math seems pretty clear str 4 has a 50/50 chance of wounding against marines and a 33/66 chance against immortals.

so drum roll 10 wounds divided by .33 = 30 effective wounds, 20 wounds divided by .5 = 40 so if we are comparing 18 point against 20 points (because I used intercessors in my math) that means 30 wounds for 180 points and 40 wounds for 200, which means you are paying 6 per immortal wound and 5 per intercessor wound. For firstborn it would be 18 vs 18 which would mean 6 for immortals and 4.5 for first born. Of course first born have one less attack than immortals, and a garbage gun. Again that's without reanimation which if it turns out like I think it will (a failure removes the model permanently, but you can roll even if the unit is destroyed) then immortals would effectively have up to double their listed amount of wounds. Which would mean they have up to 60 effective wounds to the first borns 40. Again I didn't include that because we don't know for sure, but I'd say the odds are good we will be much tougher than marines.

Also if your relying on lasguns to kill immortals or marines your pretty fethed.

How many multi-damage S4-5 weapons are there (going to be)? 1D in that range is a lot more common.

 Insectum7 wrote:
^I believe marines are now 18 ppm. Not Intercessors, Tac Marines.

Also something about the math seems suspect. Ignoring save, etc. and doing pure point per wound x chance to wound with bolter I get:

Marine .5x9=4.5
Immortal .333x18=5.99

Even at a 20 pt marine you get a 5, so still more value vs Immortals.

Another thing to recognize is that an Assault Cannon is the same return marines against marines as a Heavy Bolter. Just one Damage but twice the shots. At the same time it's more than twice as effective against Immortals iver the Heavy Bolter, and better against hordes in general. Therefore, a Marine player, I'm still going to be looking at Assault Cannons which will still be better against hordes, Crons, etc. and looking at a .666 to wound against T5.

And of course, against Lasguns marines are twice as durable. The thing is, Marines are more durable vs. every 'basic rifle', the most common weapons in the game.

I think this is the wrong way to judge Immortal durability. They have a far superior weapon. They used to be 8+7. Necrons were 11, but Immortals were trading points for the body into the weapon. Realistically an Immortal is worth 13 (or less) when a Necron is worth 12.

Yes, the total price of the unit is the real bearing, but unless you're including damage output you're just skewing against Immortals.

I'm just going to suspect that Reanimation Protocols are improved enough that they decided 2 W Immortals was too durable. Lord knows it won't take much to improve RP over its current level of usefulness.

 alextroy wrote:
I'm just going to suspect that Reanimation Protocols are improved enough that they decided 2 W Immortals was too durable. Lord knows it won't take much to improve RP over its current level of usefulness.

What if they just changed it to a feel no pain sort of thing? Not quite fit the theme, but at least the "just focus fire on a unit to get rid of it so it can't reanimate" thing would go away.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^I believe marines are now 18 ppm. Not Intercessors, Tac Marines.

Also something about the math seems suspect. Ignoring save, etc. and doing pure point per wound x chance to wound with bolter I get:

Marine .5x9=4.5
Immortal .333x18=5.99

Even at a 20 pt marine you get a 5, so still more value vs Immortals.

Another thing to recognize is that an Assault Cannon is the same return marines against marines as a Heavy Bolter. Just one Damage but twice the shots. At the same time it's more than twice as effective against Immortals iver the Heavy Bolter, and better against hordes in general. Therefore, a Marine player, I'm still going to be looking at Assault Cannons which will still be better against hordes, Crons, etc. and looking at a .666 to wound against T5.

And of course, against Lasguns marines are twice as durable. The thing is, Marines are more durable vs. every 'basic rifle', the most common weapons in the game.

I think this is the wrong way to judge Immortal durability. They have a far superior weapon. They used to be 8+7. Necrons were 11, but Immortals were trading points for the body into the weapon. Realistically an Immortal is worth 13 (or less) when a Necron is worth 12.

Yes, the total price of the unit is the real bearing, but unless you're including damage output you're just skewing against Immortals.

Mmmm. . . I look at it differently. Immortals are now roughly equivalent to marines. Before, Immortals were superior to a marine, and even further back, Immortals were FAR superior to a Marine, and the basic Necron Warrior was equal to/superior to a marine. In my mind this is just a further degradation of the 'Cron.

Back when I played Crons, Marines were 15ppm, Warriors 18, Immortals 28. I preferred that paradigm much more. Warriors would basically be what Immortals are now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grimgold wrote:

Also if your relying on lasguns to kill immortals or marines your pretty fethed.

It's not about relying, it's about how much auxilliary damage is done when there are floods of them around. The pitter patter of basic weapons adds up. Battle cannon fires twice into a unit, then some heavy bolters, then some flashlight rain into them is how it tends to go down. In this case every 7 lasgun shots is worth a single heavy bolter. 2 IS gets you close to another 3 HBs hitting the unit before Orders.

 argonak wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
I'm just going to suspect that Reanimation Protocols are improved enough that they decided 2 W Immortals was too durable. Lord knows it won't take much to improve RP over its current level of usefulness.

What if they just changed it to a feel no pain sort of thing? Not quite fit the theme, but at least the "just focus fire on a unit to get rid of it so it can't reanimate" thing would go away.

I wouldn't mind seeing a 6+++, not replacing RP but in addition. I think it would fit the "unfeeling, crumbling robot" niche Necrons seem to be moving towards, if you are going by the Indominus models.

Additionally wouldn't it be nice to have the ability to field a Phaeron (ala Chapter Master Strat); can dream I guess.

 Lord Clinto wrote:

 argonak wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
I'm just going to suspect that Reanimation Protocols are improved enough that they decided 2 W Immortals was too durable. Lord knows it won't take much to improve RP over its current level of usefulness.

What if they just changed it to a feel no pain sort of thing? Not quite fit the theme, but at least the "just focus fire on a unit to get rid of it so it can't reanimate" thing would go away.

I wouldn't mind seeing a 6+++, not replacing RP but in addition. I think it would fit the "unfeeling, crumbling robot" niche Necrons seem to be moving towards, if you are going by the Indominus models.

Additionally wouldn't it be nice to have the ability to field a Phaeron (ala Chapter Master Strat); can dream I guess.

That and a 'Nemesor' Strat for an extra WL Trait would be amazing

 Lord Clinto wrote:

 argonak wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
I'm just going to suspect that Reanimation Protocols are improved enough that they decided 2 W Immortals was too durable. Lord knows it won't take much to improve RP over its current level of usefulness.

What if they just changed it to a feel no pain sort of thing? Not quite fit the theme, but at least the "just focus fire on a unit to get rid of it so it can't reanimate" thing would go away.

I wouldn't mind seeing a 6+++, not replacing RP but in addition. I think it would fit the "unfeeling, crumbling robot" niche Necrons seem to be moving towards, if you are going by the Indominus models.

Additionally wouldn't it be nice to have the ability to field a Phaeron (ala Chapter Master Strat); can dream I guess.

Yeah, I think we are going to get some kind of 6+++ Deathless minions style save in addition to bringing back models.