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.

Something of note is that Sautekh Warriors with Gauss Reapers always get to Rapid Fire with their trait

The custom traits are similar to the AdMech ones, less restrictive though. Pick one from Dynastic Tradition, and one from Circumstances of Awakening

Very fluffy, I like it

Immovable Phalanx isn't really that great for this edition.

I like the interplanetary invaders though. That seems excellent.

As the Immovable Phalanx is written, does that mean if the opponent takes the first turn, you always get the bonus since they begin the battle round and the Necrons cannot have moved that round? Harsh

 Sherrypie wrote:
As the Immovable Phalanx is written, does that mean if the opponent takes the first turn, you always get the bonus since they begin the battle round and the Necrons cannot have moved that round? Harsh

Nevermind, slip upped the slip up. Eternal Guardian and Immovable Phalanxes would give you 2+ Sv Warriors

The only gripe I have with RP, ignoring stratagems/abilities/etc., is that if we're trying to build a list around RP, it backs us into a corner of having to bring max sized units again. MSU can be easily cleaned off the table, with no use of RP as it's currently written. And max sized units opens us up to Blast weapons and locking up larger shooting units in CC.

As un-thematic as it would have been, I would have just preferred a FNP.

 Matt Swain wrote:
Well, warrior blobs become pretty hard to whack totally now as they get to roll over and over to reanimate and reroll ones.

Destroyers, tomb blade, etc now become target priorities. Maybe they will get strats and gear to help them survive longer than 2 turns.

Indeed, I'm absolutely unable to roll 5+, but 4+ I could roll very well.

Necronplayer wrote:
The only gripe I have with RP, ignoring stratagems/abilities/etc., is that if we're trying to build a list around RP, it backs us into a corner of having to bring max sized units again. MSU can be easily cleaned off the table, with no use of RP as it's currently written. And max sized units opens us up to Blast weapons and locking up larger shooting units in CC.

As un-thematic as it would have been, I would have just preferred a FNP.

Yes it's certainly very un-thematic for necrons to be fielded as some kind of...large phalanx of robo-zombies marching implacably toward the enemy.

How terribly out of their theme!

Also maybe building a list entirely around one mechanic isn't a particularly good idea to begin with.

the_scotsman wrote:

Necronplayer wrote:
The only gripe I have with RP, ignoring stratagems/abilities/etc., is that if we're trying to build a list around RP, it backs us into a corner of having to bring max sized units again. MSU can be easily cleaned off the table, with no use of RP as it's currently written. And max sized units opens us up to Blast weapons and locking up larger shooting units in CC.

As un-thematic as it would have been, I would have just preferred a FNP.

Yes it's certainly very un-thematic for necrons to be fielded as some kind of...large phalanx of robo-zombies marching implacably toward the enemy.

How terribly out of their theme!

To be fair RP works rather well for 1 wound models and that's before we consider any buffs/synergies in the codex. So chances are yes you can have your zombie army. It's just if you want to add destroyers and canoptek there are other options and functions beyond RP.

In the end Necron lore has also changed as has their method of battle. They are no longer an army with 3 troop choices, 1 leader and 1 fast attack and one heavy unit spawning monolith. With the number of new destroyer models I'd be surprised if there isn't a Destroyer Cult Dynasty option that lets you take them as troops instead of warriors.

the_scotsman wrote:

Necronplayer wrote:
The only gripe I have with RP, ignoring stratagems/abilities/etc., is that if we're trying to build a list around RP, it backs us into a corner of having to bring max sized units again. MSU can be easily cleaned off the table, with no use of RP as it's currently written. And max sized units opens us up to Blast weapons and locking up larger shooting units in CC.

As un-thematic as it would have been, I would have just preferred a FNP.

Yes it's certainly very un-thematic for necrons to be fielded as some kind of...large phalanx of robo-zombies marching implacably toward the enemy.

How terribly out of their theme!

It's in-theme for Warriors, certainly. But should Destroyers, Praetorians etc. also be punished for not appearing in max-sized units?

They have been for editions now. Has there been edition they havent?

Though still. Max sized or not. You didn't use RP in 8e, you don't get use of it in 9e. It's special rule on paper only. No change there. Question is how much of necron tax they have on points.

 vipoid wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Necronplayer wrote:
The only gripe I have with RP, ignoring stratagems/abilities/etc., is that if we're trying to build a list around RP, it backs us into a corner of having to bring max sized units again. MSU can be easily cleaned off the table, with no use of RP as it's currently written. And max sized units opens us up to Blast weapons and locking up larger shooting units in CC.

As un-thematic as it would have been, I would have just preferred a FNP.

Yes it's certainly very un-thematic for necrons to be fielded as some kind of...large phalanx of robo-zombies marching implacably toward the enemy.

How terribly out of their theme!

It's in-theme for Warriors, certainly. But should Destroyers, Praetorians etc. also be punished for not appearing in max-sized units?

I think the post was misunderstood. Un-thematic with FNP as opposed to RP and standing back up. I agree the theme of warriors is a large phalanx.

The foundation of most of my lists, and I imagine others, is troops with ObSec, so we'd want to try to optimize the survivability of those troops. My point is that MSU gives up that survivability as it's less likely to roll for RP.

I'm okay with them punishing them, as long as the point costs reflects that.

 vipoid wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Necronplayer wrote:
The only gripe I have with RP, ignoring stratagems/abilities/etc., is that if we're trying to build a list around RP, it backs us into a corner of having to bring max sized units again. MSU can be easily cleaned off the table, with no use of RP as it's currently written. And max sized units opens us up to Blast weapons and locking up larger shooting units in CC.

As un-thematic as it would have been, I would have just preferred a FNP.

Yes it's certainly very un-thematic for necrons to be fielded as some kind of...large phalanx of robo-zombies marching implacably toward the enemy.

How terribly out of their theme!

It's in-theme for Warriors, certainly. But should Destroyers, Praetorians etc. also be punished for not appearing in max-sized units?

This reminds me of the argument from the space marine players that their army is punished by not having doctrines if they take soup.

The current resurrection protocol rule does not allow you to roll for it if your opponent wipes your unit given their ENTIRE TURN to do so.

The new resurrection protocol rule does not allow you to roll for it if your opponent wipes your unit with A SINGLE ATTACK.

necrons have, since 2nd edition, not gotten to get up by default if there's no nearby unit to get up to. Older editions, your dead 'crons would actually be at a fixed position on the field, and if you wanted them back you had to either have a spyder collect them, or keep the unit hanging around the dead guys - otherwise, they'd be gone.

So what you have is an army-wide rule that certain units (the units whose theme arguably fits the concept of being destroyed and getting back up to fight like zombies) take advantage of better than other units.

And currently, we also know how exactly 1 mechanic - the baseline rule - actually works. We know of at least one new rule where we know the name, but don't know how the mechanic functions. And we know from obvious context clues that "+1 to Rule" is going to be a rule, probably on the units like the Cryptek and Reanimator that already do that thing.

Regardless, small units of necrons function better with the new rule, than they did with the old rule. Just because a mechanic that's already been there - the fact that wiping the unit out entirely prevents them from reanimating - still exists, does not mean that smaller units are being "punished."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Necronplayer wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Necronplayer wrote:
The only gripe I have with RP, ignoring stratagems/abilities/etc., is that if we're trying to build a list around RP, it backs us into a corner of having to bring max sized units again. MSU can be easily cleaned off the table, with no use of RP as it's currently written. And max sized units opens us up to Blast weapons and locking up larger shooting units in CC.

As un-thematic as it would have been, I would have just preferred a FNP.

Yes it's certainly very un-thematic for necrons to be fielded as some kind of...large phalanx of robo-zombies marching implacably toward the enemy.

How terribly out of their theme!

It's in-theme for Warriors, certainly. But should Destroyers, Praetorians etc. also be punished for not appearing in max-sized units?

I think the post was misunderstood. Un-thematic with FNP as opposed to RP and standing back up. I agree the theme of warriors is a large phalanx.

The foundation of most of my lists, and I imagine others, is troops with ObSec, so we'd want to try to optimize the survivability of those troops. My point is that MSU gives up that survivability as it's less likely to roll for RP.

I'm okay with them punishing them, as long as the point costs reflects that.

Ideally yeah, units that will rarely benefit from new RP should not be costed heavily with new RP in mind.

...or a mechanic should exist, say, on res orbs, that allows you to 'round up' the roll and get 1 more duder.

personally I think it'd be funny if res orbs were fluffed as like, a way for a noble to resurrect his particularly special favorite necron, so they let you resurrect 1 extra guy or round up the roll. So the Overlord's favorite Lychguard goes down and he's like 'no, Steve! I liked Steve, his head crest was my favorite. Get back here Steve."

the_scotsman wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Necronplayer wrote:
The only gripe I have with RP, ignoring stratagems/abilities/etc., is that if we're trying to build a list around RP, it backs us into a corner of having to bring max sized units again. MSU can be easily cleaned off the table, with no use of RP as it's currently written. And max sized units opens us up to Blast weapons and locking up larger shooting units in CC.

As un-thematic as it would have been, I would have just preferred a FNP.

Yes it's certainly very un-thematic for necrons to be fielded as some kind of...large phalanx of robo-zombies marching implacably toward the enemy.

How terribly out of their theme!

It's in-theme for Warriors, certainly. But should Destroyers, Praetorians etc. also be punished for not appearing in max-sized units?

This reminds me of the argument from the space marine players that their army is punished by not having doctrines if they take soup.

The current resurrection protocol rule does not allow you to roll for it if your opponent wipes your unit given their ENTIRE TURN to do so.

The new resurrection protocol rule does not allow you to roll for it if your opponent wipes your unit with A SINGLE ATTACK.

necrons have, since 2nd edition, not gotten to get up by default if there's no nearby unit to get up to. Older editions, your dead 'crons would actually be at a fixed position on the field, and if you wanted them back you had to either have a spyder collect them, or keep the unit hanging around the dead guys - otherwise, they'd be gone.

So what you have is an army-wide rule that certain units (the units whose theme arguably fits the concept of being destroyed and getting back up to fight like zombies) take advantage of better than other units.

And currently, we also know how exactly 1 mechanic - the baseline rule - actually works. We know of at least one new rule where we know the name, but don't know how the mechanic functions. And we know from obvious context clues that "+1 to Rule" is going to be a rule, probably on the units like the Cryptek and Reanimator that already do that thing.

Regardless, small units of necrons function better with the new rule, than they did with the old rule. Just because a mechanic that's already been there - the fact that wiping the unit out entirely prevents them from reanimating - still exists, does not mean that smaller units are being "punished."

I wasn't comparing the new mechanic to the current one. I was just saying I wish the mechanic didn't strongly discourage MSU builds, which I enjoyed in 5th.

I would say that ATSKNF and Combat Squads not working on them does not discourage marine players from going for an MSU build.

It's a universal rule that applies to larger units.

the_scotsman wrote:
I would say that ATSKNF and Combat Squads not working on them does not discourage marine players from going for an MSU build.

It's a universal rule that applies to larger units.

I see your point, but I think it's more appropriate to look at something similar to RP, DG's Disgustingly Resilient. A unit will be able to use that ability at min and max size.

To a degree I think its a trade off. If you take 5 immortals you get the added flexibility, and lower investment cost, and, to a very small degree, your opponent is concerned with overkilling them massively. (Although really lets say worst case, they kill 4, you resurrect 2, oh no.)

I think this rule will help 1-2 wound models in bigger squads compared to what they have now. Its a less obvious boost for 3+ wound models, which *feels* bad as its the major faction rule, but if the points reflect that fact its not the end of the world.

Much like Protocols in general really. It feels like a weak incarnation of a rule - but if the units themselves are pointed aggressively it won't matter.

 Kharne the Befriender wrote:
Something of note is that Sautekh Warriors with Gauss Reapers always get to Rapid Fire with their trait

The custom traits are similar to the AdMech ones, less restrictive though. Pick one from Dynastic Tradition, and one from Circumstances of Awakening

Very fluffy, I like it

Always ? I thought I read 18" ?

the_scotsman wrote:
I would say that ATSKNF and Combat Squads not working on them does not discourage marine players from going for an MSU build.

I don't think that's a fair comparison.

I mean, Combat Squads is literally about turning a Marine army MSU.

And using small units basically negates any need for ATSKNF.

In contrast, Necrons tend to be built much more heavily around RPs, in the same way that Death Guard are priced with their 5+++ in mind.

Now, you might well be right in that it might not be as bad as I fear (or perhaps Necrons will get a way to bring back destroyed units). I was just hoping that the new mechanic wouldn't still discourage MSU armies.

Tyel wrote:
To a degree I think its a trade off. If you take 5 immortals you get the added flexibility, and lower investment cost, and, to a very small degree, your opponent is concerned with overkilling them massively. (Although really lets say worst case, they kill 4, you resurrect 2, oh no.)

Surely the worst case scenario would be your opponent killing all 5? In which case you get to resurrect 0.

Fair point on the flexibility aspect, though.

Also, on a side note, a big complaint of 8th edition RP was that it was strong in small games (<1000), and weak in large games (2000+).

Doesn't the new 9th RP exacerbate this issue even more for smaller point games?

Necronplayer wrote:
Also, on a side note, a big complaint of 8th edition RP was that it was strong in small games (<1000), and weak in large games (2000+).

Doesn't the new 9th RP exacerbate this issue even more for smaller point games?

I don't think so.

The issue with the old one was that in small games you could reach the point where squads were effectively immortal - as you'd reach the point where you simply couldn't kill enough to wipe out the squad.

However, with the new rules, models that fail their saves stay dead permanently. So even if some end up coming back, the squad is still going to be permanently shrinking in size whenever it takes damage.

 vipoid wrote:

Necronplayer wrote:
Also, on a side note, a big complaint of 8th edition RP was that it was strong in small games (<1000), and weak in large games (2000+).

Doesn't the new 9th RP exacerbate this issue even more for smaller point games?

I don't think so.

The issue with the old one was that in small games you could reach the point where squads were effectively immortal - as you'd reach the point where you simply couldn't kill enough to wipe out the squad.

However, with the new rules, models that fail their saves stay dead permanently. So even if some end up coming back, the squad is still going to be permanently shrinking in size whenever it takes damage.

Yeah, that's true. I was thinking in a 1k game with 8th RP, they may just be able to wipe a full squad of immortals or warriors with all their offense. In 9th, that doesn't seem possible after every attack RP procs.

 godardc wrote:

 Kharne the Befriender wrote:
Something of note is that Sautekh Warriors with Gauss Reapers always get to Rapid Fire with their trait

The custom traits are similar to the AdMech ones, less restrictive though. Pick one from Dynastic Tradition, and one from Circumstances of Awakening

Very fluffy, I like it

Always ? I thought I read 18" ?

Gauss Reapers only have a 14" range.

Yeah, Sautekh warriors are the best option for reapers.

Mephrit, imo, isn't really in the running for anything, despite their own way of bumping range (and AP). 3" just doesn't make enough difference.

I'm leaning towards Nephrekh making for a better melee army than Novokh. A little extra protection for the multiwound models especially and the ability to close the distance faster with utterly reliable 6" advances. Helps grab objectives early too.

Voss wrote:
Yeah, Sautekh warriors are the best option for reapers.

Mephrit, imo, isn't really in the running for anything, despite their own way of bumping range (and AP). 3" just doesn't make enough difference.

I'm leaning towards Nephrekh making for a better melee army than Novokh. A little extra protection for the multiwound models especially and the ability to close the distance faster with utterly reliable 6" advances. Helps grab objectives early too.

The Translocate for the move is also very nice, means models without fly can reliably move across units and terrain with no problem. I like Nephrekh a lot. Doesn't hurt that both directives of the Sudden Storm is very good. I plan to playtest it and Nihilakh.

I agree with Mephirt, it feels like the trap dynasty (again). Vengeful Stars is really good, but that's not anywhere enough reason to take Mephrit when the other Dynasties seem much better.

I'm not seeing much to convince me not to run mixed lists. The command protocols are neat but not good enough.

If marine’s doctrine stay the same. I feel that command protocol has far more restriction and less benefit compare to the doctrine.

armisael wrote:
If marine’s doctrine stay the same. I feel that command protocol has far more restriction and less benefit compare to the doctrine.

Especially with the ones that are absolutely stupid good like Ultramarines and Raven Guard (my absolute favorite)

Whats the likelihood our C'tan powers change?

It'd be nice for it to feel like a real choice rather than 6 types of smite.

Maybe even some buffing ones? But I feel a star god would be hard pressed to help its enslavers

 Kharne the Befriender wrote:
Whats the likelihood our C'tan powers change?

It'd be nice for it to feel like a real choice rather than 6 types of smite.

Maybe even some buffing ones? But I feel a star god would be hard pressed to help its enslavers

Very likely. We've got 2 good powers, and the rest range from really bad, to mediocre.

With the Void Dragon, and likely the Silent King being able to use Silent kings I expect an overhaul and more powers.

I think at this point it's more of a question of what didn't change, as so far nearly every single weapon and datasheet has. Tesla Carbines and Gauss flayers are about the only thing that appears to have not changed! haha.