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.

 Overread wrote:
Plus who knows new Ctan might be next year. They already held back and surprised us with new flayed ones.

"New" as in new models of existing Shards, or new Shards that have been brought out of their labyrinths since the Eye blinked across the galaxy?

Seriously, the Nightbringer and Deceiver could use updated models to match other Monstrous Creatures, and I wouldn't be opposed to some that could stand toe to toe with the Knights.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Plus who knows new Ctan might be next year. They already held back and surprised us with new flayed ones.

"New" as in new models of existing Shards, or new Shards that have been brought out of their labyrinths since the Eye blinked across the galaxy?

Seriously, the Nightbringer and Deceiver could use updated models to match other Monstrous Creatures, and I wouldn't be opposed to some that could stand toe to toe with the Knights.

I really like the superhuman aspect of the Deceiver, and the grim reaper ripoff of the Nightbringer. I don't think they need to be updated tbh

With the utterly amazing stuff GW is capable of these days Ide love to see what they would do with the CTan

 Blndmage wrote:
I'm expecting them to not make CANOPTEK units CORE, and, as someone suggested somewhere else, "CORE if", like if there's a new CANOPTEK HQ, they might have a rule "all CANOPTEK units gain the CORE keyword if this model is your Warlord.", similar for Destroyer Lords, foot lords, etc.

Since eradicators and blade veterans are core no reason wraiths shouldn't be.

 Eonfuzz wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Plus who knows new Ctan might be next year. They already held back and surprised us with new flayed ones.

"New" as in new models of existing Shards, or new Shards that have been brought out of their labyrinths since the Eye blinked across the galaxy?

Seriously, the Nightbringer and Deceiver could use updated models to match other Monstrous Creatures, and I wouldn't be opposed to some that could stand toe to toe with the Knights.

I really like the superhuman aspect of the Deceiver, and the grim reaper ripoff of the Nightbringer. I don't think they need to be updated tbh

Ditto.
I actually miss the 3rd ed aesthetic. The new model designs, and not just necrons, feel too showy.
I suspect its because back then the modelers had to work with limitations and so had to make a good looking model that looked simple yet effective.
Nowadays due to the improvements in modeling tools modelers have no limitations and can do what they want, which is why there's a lot of out there that has a bunch of floating bits suspended on thin pieces of plastic that bend and warp, or just plain convoluted kits.

The Deceiver looks great, its like a greek god. The Void Dragon looks ok but it has too much clutter and unneeded detail. I'll get it anyway because I like the concept of C'tan.

tneva82 wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
I'm expecting them to not make CANOPTEK units CORE, and, as someone suggested somewhere else, "CORE if", like if there's a new CANOPTEK HQ, they might have a rule "all CANOPTEK units gain the CORE keyword if this model is your Warlord.", similar for Destroyer Lords, foot lords, etc.

Since eradicators and blade veterans are core no reason wraiths shouldn't be.

I'd expect wraithguard and wraithlords to be given the core keyword, but proably not wraithknights. Remember GW is using the core word as a subtle way to enchourage army list building to be more or less what it should be like via the lore.

CORE feels like a useful balance handle they can turn rather than increasing/decreasing lists of exemptions to Auras, I would say even take where they start with a pinch of salt as they'll want to see what the reaction is. We might even see the regular points reviews also including an updated list of CORE units?

With the new stats for the tomb spider.
If the cost remains the same - I think we are looking at possibly the best melee unit in all of 40k.
5 attacks at str 8 ap-3 with flat 2 damage
Sure it only hits on 4's BUT these are only 50 points currently.

A unit of 3 has 18 wounds t6 with 3+ save. For 150 points. 155 if you take the repair ability (which you should).

Seems viable honestly.

Honestly, with all of this close combat stuff, that one Dynasty's looking way more interesting.

 Xenomancers wrote:
With the new stats for the tomb spider.
If the cost remains the same - I think we are looking at possibly the best melee unit in all of 40k.
5 attacks at str 8 ap-3 with flat 2 damage
Sure it only hits on 4's BUT these are only 50 points currently.

A unit of 3 has 18 wounds t6 with 3+ save. For 150 points. 155 if you take the repair ability (which you should).

Seems viable honestly.

So, for 155 points, you get 18 T6 3+ wounds that dish out 15 WS4+ S8 AP-3 D2 attacks, plus a minor repair ability. Assuming points stay the same.

Under that same assumption, you get 10 T4 2+/4++ wounds that dish out 16 S8 AP-3 D2 attacks, hitting on 4s, on a chassis that moves 12". And is less vulnerable to high damage weapons.

 Xenomancers wrote:
With the new stats for the tomb spider.
If the cost remains the same - I think we are looking at possibly the best melee unit in all of 40k.
5 attacks at str 8 ap-3 with flat 2 damage
Sure it only hits on 4's BUT these are only 50 points currently.

A unit of 3 has 18 wounds t6 with 3+ save. For 150 points. 155 if you take the repair ability (which you should).

Seems viable honestly.

Unless you can easily see which one has a Fabricator Claw, I'd suggest taking it on all 3, then you can have a pretty big repair bubble.
Like the Glom Prism, they're per model, not unit, upgrades.

Eonfuzz wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Plus who knows new Ctan might be next year. They already held back and surprised us with new flayed ones.

"New" as in new models of existing Shards, or new Shards that have been brought out of their labyrinths since the Eye blinked across the galaxy?

Seriously, the Nightbringer and Deceiver could use updated models to match other Monstrous Creatures, and I wouldn't be opposed to some that could stand toe to toe with the Knights.

I really like the superhuman aspect of the Deceiver, and the grim reaper ripoff of the Nightbringer. I don't think they need to be updated tbh

In terms of basic design, I agree. In terms of size and presence on the battlefield? That's a different story. A basic resize to justify both being on a 60mm base is all I'd really be asking for.

Not to mention, not all Shards were shattered equally. Why not have Greater C'tan Shards that can tower over a Knight, even if they were still having the basic shape? (of course, the answer would be: because they would actually over do it like the Void Dragon, which may not be a bad thing...)

They said that a lot of the units had been redesigned from the ground up so maybe C'Tan can go toe to toe with a Knight now, I have hopes that the Void Dragon might be able to.

I do agree that next to the Void Dragon the Nightbringer and Deceiver models look dated and a little off scale given the size of the Void Dragon.

From Fear the Reapers – the Necron Destroyer Cult on Warhammer Community:

In the new codex, the Destroyer Cult has branched out into four distinct types – the blade-wielding Skorpekhs, the subterranean, segmented Ophydians, the gunfighting Hexmarks, and the floating weapons platforms that are the Lokhust.

So this says to me that the old Destroyers are either considered to be Lokhust Destroyers or are being removed from the new codex.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/09/23/fear-the-reapers-the-necron-destroyer-cult/

Big new news for me here is that we're going to be getting Lokust Lords? Maybe as the replacement for Destroyer Lords? New models maybe?

Or nothing. The article doesn't address it at all and leaves the ambiguity in place.

Giving they're naming but not showing off a new model, the most likely thing is the locust lord is just a new name for the current destroyer lord,

We are getting new anti armour units, and a new core rules comes, which strengthtens infantry. Are those destroyers going to be useless, because there will be no more vehicles ?

Where do you get the 'no more vehicles' idea from?

 BroodSpawn wrote:
Where do you get the 'no more vehicles' idea from?

I mean I'm not going to be super excited to be bringing vehicles to the table if you've got damage d6+2 meltas and damage 4 thunderhammers and damage 3d3 heavy destroyers running around everywhere. Vehicles are already laughably paper-thin on the tabletop, I think at this point we're pretty close to them just not being worth bothering with in general.

the_scotsman wrote:

 BroodSpawn wrote:
Where do you get the 'no more vehicles' idea from?

I mean I'm not going to be super excited to be bringing vehicles to the table if you've got damage d6+2 meltas and damage 4 thunderhammers and damage 3d3 heavy destroyers running around everywhere. Vehicles are already laughably paper-thin on the tabletop, I think at this point we're pretty close to them just not being worth bothering with in general.

"But blast weapons! 9th edition is the end of hordes and infantry!" they said.

The thread is generally positive - in contrast to much of the forum - so I dislike being negative, but its hard to see the heavy Lokhust in an especially positive light even if I love the model. Rerolls rerolls etc - but you will always have inescapable unreliability on a one shot weapon.

Meanwhile 3D3 S7 AP1 1 damage shots feels like an attack profile from the indexes rather than modern 40k. Enjoy plugging 3 Boyz a turn I guess. "Not everyone's a Marine you know" - sure - but what exactly is this sort of profile meant to be good against?

Dudeface wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 BroodSpawn wrote:
Where do you get the 'no more vehicles' idea from?

I mean I'm not going to be super excited to be bringing vehicles to the table if you've got damage d6+2 meltas and damage 4 thunderhammers and damage 3d3 heavy destroyers running around everywhere. Vehicles are already laughably paper-thin on the tabletop, I think at this point we're pretty close to them just not being worth bothering with in general.

"But blast weapons! 9th edition is the end of hordes and infantry!" they said.

Yeah.

Currently the only role that light infantry has is "Well, I'll bet you brought all your weapons to deal with heavy infantry! Ah-ha, you have, I win on points!"

Otherwise, you might as well take all heavy infantry/bikes/etc, with a variety of weapons to deal with all types of target.

What I notice is that they describe each of the four branches of the Destroyer Cult has having units and lords.

Hexmark for example we only have a Character model for - ergo a lord - so we might see more troop variations of them appear. Meanwhile the hovering destroyers we've only seen the heavy destroyer which leaves things open for a new destroyer lord and that means potential for another kit.


The hexmark might be with the skorpek in a duel kit.

Tyel wrote:
The thread is generally positive - in contrast to much of the forum - so I dislike being negative, but its hard to see the heavy Lokhust in an especially positive light even if I love the model. Rerolls rerolls etc - but you will always have inescapable unreliability on a one shot weapon.

Meanwhile 3D3 S7 AP1 1 damage shots feels like an attack profile from the indexes rather than modern 40k. Enjoy plugging 3 Boyz a turn I guess. "Not everyone's a Marine you know" - sure - but what exactly is this sort of profile meant to be good against?

Anti-horde, guard and eldar. Its just that better weapons exist for the exact same thing, and aren't on that oddly vulnerable platform.
No one needs a special weapon to punch guardians or kabalite warriors in the face.

Voss wrote:

Tyel wrote:
The thread is generally positive - in contrast to much of the forum - so I dislike being negative, but its hard to see the heavy Lokhust in an especially positive light even if I love the model. Rerolls rerolls etc - but you will always have inescapable unreliability on a one shot weapon.

Meanwhile 3D3 S7 AP1 1 damage shots feels like an attack profile from the indexes rather than modern 40k. Enjoy plugging 3 Boyz a turn I guess. "Not everyone's a Marine you know" - sure - but what exactly is this sort of profile meant to be good against?

Anti-horde, guard and eldar. Its just that better weapons exist for the exact same thing, and aren't on that oddly vulnerable platform.
No one needs a special weapon to punch guardians or kabalite warriors in the face.

And in doing so you definitely waste 1 point of strength and probably waste Blast, because you cant run guard in over 10 models and probably won't run guardians, like, at all.

Tyel wrote:
The thread is generally positive - in contrast to much of the forum - so I dislike being negative, but its hard to see the heavy Lokhust in an especially positive light even if I love the model. Rerolls rerolls etc - but you will always have inescapable unreliability on a one shot weapon.

Meanwhile 3D3 S7 AP1 1 damage shots feels like an attack profile from the indexes rather than modern 40k. Enjoy plugging 3 Boyz a turn I guess. "Not everyone's a Marine you know" - sure - but what exactly is this sort of profile meant to be good against?

This was pretty much my exact reaction too, though I also think it's one of the weaker new model releases (stop just adding barrels to make different guns, please...). I've been struggling with Reaper Autocannons in my Chaos army, and these are just slightly better Reapers. I simply don't understand why you would ever want a weapon with a S7 AP1 D1 profile, nothing about it makes sense to me.

So it looks like the old destroyer kits won't be going anywhere:

oooo interesting. The true phase out of the green rod.

Good riddance!

What do you think is useful from the Indomitus box for a competitive Necrons list?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Necrontyr/comments/hjhsl3/indomitus_datasheets/
Skorpekh Destroyers are my favorite. They have some synergy with the Skorpekh Lord.
The rest seems so so.

 McMagnus Mindbullets wrote:
oooo interesting. The true phase out of the green rod.

Good riddance!

What? The grooves to put the green rods are still there. He said the old destroyer sets aren't going away.