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.

That drives me crazy too. Skorpekh might be worth his points if he hit on 2's with the main weapon. I'm going to run him with radiation trait and send him after T5 W3 targets. Would also melt T4 W1 type models with the flensing claw.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Yeah, the CCB is far and away the best noble unit. Not that that is saying much. Lords are meme-level bad, and overlords are only a little better.

Also, why oh why does the Skorpekh lord have a crappier version of the weapon the normal Skorpekh destroyer has? Great going there guys, give the lord the unwieldy crappy version of the weapon, and the normal dude the better one that doesn't have the -1 to hit. I am almost considering ditching the Skorpekh lord entirely and either just putting the -1W on the CCB with the staff, or running 2 CCBs, one with voidreaper and the -1D and the other with the staff and no warlord trait because they're all pants.

It's been pretty typical for weapons that put infantry to strength 8 or double their strength to be at -1 to hit. This is even true in SM. You need a Plasmacyte to buff the regular Skorpekh to get it to strength 8 with the reap blade, which is why it doesn't come with the in built penalty.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Yeah, the CCB is far and away the best noble unit. Not that that is saying much. Lords are meme-level bad, and overlords are only a little better.

Also, why oh why does the Skorpekh lord have a crappier version of the weapon the normal Skorpekh destroyer has? Great going there guys, give the lord the unwieldy crappy version of the weapon, and the normal dude the better one that doesn't have the -1 to hit. I am almost considering ditching the Skorpekh lord entirely and either just putting the -1W on the CCB with the staff, or running 2 CCBs, one with voidreaper and the -1D and the other with the staff and no warlord trait because they're all pants.

Not to mention the classic Destroyer Lords still have the BS/WS3+ for reasons.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Okay-that was not clear.

Yeah it is. Read it again.

Each time an enemy unit shoots or fights, after it makes its attacks, if any models in this unit were destroyed as a result of those attacks but this unit was not destroyed, this unit's reanimation protocols are enacted and those destroyed models begin to reassemble.

They made the whole affair more wordy than it probably needed to be.

There is a WAY more concise summary of the process on the last page of the Codex (page 120), paraphrased below:

1) After any enemy unit attacks, if any models in this unit were destroyed by those attacks, Reanimation Protocol rolls are made.

2) For each model destroyed by those attacks, roll a number of D6 equal to its Wounds characteristic. Each 5+ result is added to a pool.

3) Number of dice in pool ÷ Wounds characteristic = number of models Reanimated and added back to the unit.

Deathseed wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Okay-that was not clear.

Yeah it is. Read it again.

Each time an enemy unit shoots or fights, after it makes its attacks, if any models in this unit were destroyed as a result of those attacks but this unit was not destroyed, this unit's reanimation protocols are enacted and those destroyed models begin to reassemble.

They made the whole affair more wordy than it probably needed to be.

There is a WAY more concise summary of the process on the last page of the Codex (page 120), paraphrased below:

1) After any enemy unit attacks, if any models in this unit were destroyed by those attacks, Reanimation Protocol rolls are made.

2) For each model destroyed by those attacks, roll a number of D6 equal to its Wounds characteristic. Each 5+ result is added to a pool.

3) Number of dice in pool ÷ Wounds characteristic = number of models Reanimated and added back to the unit.

I could be wrong, but I think they were saying that which models reanimated in the play tested verion was unclear, not how current RP works. It seemed like the assumption was that you rolled 8th RP at the end of every phase or something similar. Again, I could be wrong

 Kharne the Befriender wrote:

Deathseed wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Okay-that was not clear.

Yeah it is. Read it again.

Each time an enemy unit shoots or fights, after it makes its attacks, if any models in this unit were destroyed as a result of those attacks but this unit was not destroyed, this unit's reanimation protocols are enacted and those destroyed models begin to reassemble.

They made the whole affair more wordy than it probably needed to be.

There is a WAY more concise summary of the process on the last page of the Codex (page 120), paraphrased below:

1) After any enemy unit attacks, if any models in this unit were destroyed by those attacks, Reanimation Protocol rolls are made.

2) For each model destroyed by those attacks, roll a number of D6 equal to its Wounds characteristic. Each 5+ result is added to a pool.

3) Number of dice in pool ÷ Wounds characteristic = number of models Reanimated and added back to the unit.

I could be wrong, but I think they were saying that which models reanimated in the play tested verion was unclear, not how current RP works. It seemed like the assumption was that you rolled 8th RP at the end of every phase or something similar. Again, I could be wrong

Could be. However, for those trying to grok it now, I recommend that summary on page 120. It boils down the mechanic to its basic elements.

I know this won't bother a ton of people, but the fact that the fluff section literally is half what it used to be is fairly discouraging.

caladancid wrote:
I know this won't bother a ton of people, but the fact that the fluff section literally is half what it used to be is fairly discouraging.

If it's new lore, that's better than filling the book with slightly reworded versions of the same things we've been reading since 5th.

Having put together a few lists from the leaks, the main limiting factor of the CCB will be its cost. I've often found myself using an Overlord just because it's cheaper.

Agreed, 150pts is quite the investment for necrons now.

The more I think about it the more it looks like most lists will be a core of 20 warriors/10 Immortals in any combo, then a theme or combo that you have to tailor the rest of the list for, then lastly filling in the last points with support characters/arkana/upgrades. That's how all of my lists have built so far.

I'm curious as to how the rest of you have been going about list making? What are your processes and philosophies on list making in the new book beyond plucking chickens?

 Kharne the Befriender wrote:

The more I think about it the more it looks like most lists will be a core of 20 warriors/10 Immortals in any combo, then a theme or combo that you have to tailor the rest of the list for, then lastly filling in the last points with support characters/arkana/upgrades. That's how all of my lists have built so far.

I can't help but notice that, in spite of all the new models, Necrons are still stuck with bugger-all options when it comes to troops.

What's you're favourite Necron troop choice? The mid-range shooty unit or the other mid-range shooty unit?

Considering the codex is now out in the wild perhaps its time for a dedicated 9th edition necron thread? Since the first 100pages of this one are half rumour and leaks and theories and ideas and generally a mishmash.

vipoid wrote:

 Kharne the Befriender wrote:

The more I think about it the more it looks like most lists will be a core of 20 warriors/10 Immortals in any combo, then a theme or combo that you have to tailor the rest of the list for, then lastly filling in the last points with support characters/arkana/upgrades. That's how all of my lists have built so far.

I can't help but notice that, in spite of all the new models, Necrons are still stuck with bugger-all options when it comes to troops.

What's you're favourite Necron troop choice? The mid-range shooty unit or the other mid-range shooty unit?

You make a good point, I remember awhile ago I made some homebrew canoptek units and one of them was a troop choice.

I'm not a huge fan of crossing rules from one game to another, but if they did something similar to AoS or even 30k where your Warlord could influence what was troops and such, that'd be good. I also imagine though it'd hard to balance

Overread wrote:Considering the codex is now out in the wild perhaps its time for a dedicated 9th edition necron thread? Since the first 100pages of this one are half rumour and leaks and theories and ideas and generally a mishmash.

That could be a good idea

Cynista wrote:
Yeah I'm not planning on using a named Dynasty so have to choose from pile of meh. Since the CCB is a vehicle and can shoot in combat I'd say it's the one noble you'll want in melee. 9 wounds and new QS make it pretty tanky against the sort of things that'll be hitting it anyway

I'm really starting to think the CCB will be an allstar again, just like in 7th. Shame I sold mine 6 months ago lol.

Attrition removal isn't that bad if you run 20 blops.　halve guys running away(which won't　be rp'ed) and particularly in future expect more minuses.

Other than that need to load up on melee with reroll charges

There is no melee that rerolls charges from that trait except lycheguard. It's <CORE> only which severely limits its usefulness except maybe in a Novokh list.

 Sasori wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Yeah, the CCB is far and away the best noble unit. Not that that is saying much. Lords are meme-level bad, and overlords are only a little better.

Also, why oh why does the Skorpekh lord have a crappier version of the weapon the normal Skorpekh destroyer has? Great going there guys, give the lord the unwieldy crappy version of the weapon, and the normal dude the better one that doesn't have the -1 to hit. I am almost considering ditching the Skorpekh lord entirely and either just putting the -1W on the CCB with the staff, or running 2 CCBs, one with voidreaper and the -1D and the other with the staff and no warlord trait because they're all pants.

It's been pretty typical for weapons that put infantry to strength 8 or double their strength to be at -1 to hit. This is even true in SM. You need a Plasmacyte to buff the regular Skorpekh to get it to strength 8 with the reap blade, which is why it doesn't come with the in built penalty.

Also the other weapon would need huge buff otherwise. As it is it's too easy choice for s8 as is

So far skorpek lord　has rarely failed me and when it has it's been to wound rolls, whiffing like 4/4 inv saves or opponents inv saves roliing　hot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blndmage wrote:

caladancid wrote:
I know this won't bother a ton of people, but the fact that the fluff section literally is half what it used to be is fairly discouraging.

If it's new lore, that's better than filling the book with slightly reworded versions of the same things we've been reading since 5th.

That assumes you are selling　army just for old veterans

 vipoid wrote:

 Kharne the Befriender wrote:

The more I think about it the more it looks like most lists will be a core of 20 warriors/10 Immortals in any combo, then a theme or combo that you have to tailor the rest of the list for, then lastly filling in the last points with support characters/arkana/upgrades. That's how all of my lists have built so far.

I can't help but notice that, in spite of all the new models, Necrons are still stuck with bugger-all options when it comes to troops.

What's you're favourite Necron troop choice? The mid-range shooty unit or the other mid-range shooty unit?

This is why I was hoping that flayed ones were going to become cheaper, crappier warriors which came in boxes of 10. Almost nobody will use them now.

 Overread wrote:
Considering the codex is now out in the wild perhaps its time for a dedicated 9th edition necron thread? Since the first 100pages of this one are half rumour and leaks and theories and ideas and generally a mishmash.

I think we should and I created a thread.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/792822.page

My folks...... I Am Disappoint.

Whilst the new rules are ace? Why does our spanky new Codex skimp on unit describing background?

Its nice that GW continues the tradition that anrakyr is useless. He has no DYNASTY, he cant embark on a ghost ark, or a night scythe. He cant be teleported to a monolith or night scythe. How does the traveller travel across the galaxy, when he has to walk across the battlefield ?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
My folks...... I Am Disappoint.

Whilst the new rules are ace? Why does our spanky new Codex skimp on unit describing background?

I too thought that was an odd omission considering how great its been in others like Tyranids. I really like the page or so per unit (or group of units) that fleshes them out and puts meat on the stories. The paragraph per unit profile is nice, but its a teaser; a taster for more. That said its overall lay out feels "classic" in codex terms. I have to admit the last few Tyranid ones have been page-flippers in terms of finding information - this codex feels like I can flip through and build a list without having to constantly be going back and forth and all over the place.

Structurally its really sound - lore wise its good but feels like the missing unit profiles are a shame.

 p5freak wrote:
Its nice that GW continues the tradition that anrakyr is useless. He has no DYNASTY, he cant embark on a ghost ark, or a night scythe. He cant be teleported to a monolith or night scythe. How does the traveller travel across the galaxy, when he has to walk across the battlefield ?

He actually can go on the night scythe, it allows dynastic agent infantry.

 vipoid wrote:

 Kharne the Befriender wrote:

The more I think about it the more it looks like most lists will be a core of 20 warriors/10 Immortals in any combo, then a theme or combo that you have to tailor the rest of the list for, then lastly filling in the last points with support characters/arkana/upgrades. That's how all of my lists have built so far.

I can't help but notice that, in spite of all the new models, Necrons are still stuck with bugger-all options when it comes to troops.

What's you're favourite Necron troop choice? The mid-range shooty unit or the other mid-range shooty unit?

Well, we DID get a new gun for warriors (of debatable quality), and Their Number is Legion is a tasty rule for them, so I'll take my small victories where I can get them.

But I'm partial to the Silver Tide, so having my warriors get some new tricks pleases me.

I am irritated that flayed ones are still not troops.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 p5freak wrote:
Its nice that GW continues the tradition that anrakyr is useless. He has no DYNASTY, he cant embark on a ghost ark, or a night scythe. He cant be teleported to a monolith or night scythe. How does the traveller travel across the galaxy, when he has to walk across the battlefield ?

Uber?

Damn Necron tourists...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Egyptian Space Zombie wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Kharne the Befriender wrote:

The more I think about it the more it looks like most lists will be a core of 20 warriors/10 Immortals in any combo, then a theme or combo that you have to tailor the rest of the list for, then lastly filling in the last points with support characters/arkana/upgrades. That's how all of my lists have built so far.

I can't help but notice that, in spite of all the new models, Necrons are still stuck with bugger-all options when it comes to troops.

What's you're favourite Necron troop choice? The mid-range shooty unit or the other mid-range shooty unit?

This is why I was hoping that flayed ones were going to become cheaper, crappier warriors which came in boxes of 10. Almost nobody will use them now.

Yeah, the more I think about it, the more it irritates me that they aren't troops. I even went back and checked all the older codex books, and they never have been, which is just silly. Shambling ranks of skellymen wanting to hack you apart is about as thematic as it gets.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
Its nice that GW continues the tradition that anrakyr is useless. He has no DYNASTY, he cant embark on a ghost ark, or a night scythe. He cant be teleported to a monolith or night scythe. How does the traveller travel across the galaxy, when he has to walk across the battlefield ?

He actually can go on the night scythe, it allows dynastic agent infantry.

Thats true. Shame on you, GW

For breaking with tradition

 Deathseed wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Kharne the Befriender wrote:

The more I think about it the more it looks like most lists will be a core of 20 warriors/10 Immortals in any combo, then a theme or combo that you have to tailor the rest of the list for, then lastly filling in the last points with support characters/arkana/upgrades. That's how all of my lists have built so far.

I can't help but notice that, in spite of all the new models, Necrons are still stuck with bugger-all options when it comes to troops.

What's you're favourite Necron troop choice? The mid-range shooty unit or the other mid-range shooty unit?

Well, we DID get a new gun for warriors (of debatable quality), and Their Number is Legion is a tasty rule for them, so I'll take my small victories where I can get them.

But I'm partial to the Silver Tide, so having my warriors get some new tricks pleases me.

I am irritated that flayed ones are still not troops.

I like Silver Tide as much as the next man, but it would still be nice to have some alternatives.

I agree that Flayed Ones should really be troops. I would also suggest that Scarabs should be troops. They're generally depicted as being as ubiquitous as Warriors and they're about as basic as it gets, so I really see no reason not to have them as troops.

I'm pretty sure the only reason they weren't troops in 5e was due to Phase Out.

Also, if Flayed Ones were given the DESTROYER keyword, then you'd have two 'normal' troop choices, a Destroyer troop choice, and a Canoptek troop choice. Seems like that would be much better for constructing themed armies.

Uhm... you guys realize that GW is doing a pretty agressive push to bring lore, look&feel and rules more in sync with each other, right?

So insane Destroyers, even more insane Flayed Ones or mindless Scarabs are never going to be CORE, and that's alright.

SM should lose CORE on their Dreadnaughts, otherwise both codizes are fine.

They're not talking about making Flayed ones or Scarabs CORE.

Rather changing them from Elite and Fast Attack slots to being Troops.

Acehilator wrote:
SM should lose CORE on their Dreadnaughts, otherwise both codizes are fine.

Dreadnoughts have a (mostly) dead genetically modified superhuman soldier inside, so why should they lose CORE from a fluff standpoint?

I don't think Flayed Ones should be Troops. But Scarabs definitely should be.

"but 4 wound movement 10 would be really powerful for a troop choice!" Yeah, it would be. So?

pothocboots wrote:
They're not talking about making Flayed ones or Scarabs CORE.

Rather changing them from Elite and Fast Attack slots to being Troops.

It's the same reason. Destroyers and Flayed Ones are pariahs in Necron society, and Scarabs are the lowliest of the low.

@Ghaz Because Dreadnaughts are supposed to be ultra rare, only being used under extreme circumstances. They got it right in not making all the characters CORE. But they might have made Dreads CORE to throw them a bone gameplay-wise, to see more of them on the table.