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.

Acehilator wrote:
@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.

CORE has nothing to do with the frequency a unit would show up in an army. From the Oxford English Dictionary

An important or unchanging group of people forming the central part of a larger body.

A Dreadnought's fluff meets that defintion and thus is a CORE unit of a Space Marine army.

sides dreads AREN'T rare. Most Marine companies seem to have one or two assigned to them on a perminant or near perminant basis

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

I'd take a mix of both, at least 20 Warriors and 20 Immortals.
Variety is key.

Cynista wrote:
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?

What's the defining feature of FAST attack?

Why not have doomsday ark as troop while you are at it?

Cynista wrote:
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?

Yeah, Scarabs should have always been a troop choice.
Lore-wise they are the most common sight in an invasion, even more so than warriors.

A destroyer troop choice would have been cool, as well a destroyer cryptek. I really don't like how GW is handling destroyers; they still have good damage output, but they don't benefit from most abilities, especially survival ones.
The lore is crap too. Destroyers become destroyers because they're edgy, and that edginess makes other necrons become destroyers. I just can't take that seriously. I just can't get the image of a hexmark going "nothing personal kid" out of my head or Lokhusts blaring Pumped up Kicks on repeat.

tneva82 wrote:

Cynista wrote:
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?

What's the defining feature of FAST attack?

Why not have doomsday ark as troop while you are at it?

Because that is completely fething stupid. Unlike what I said.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Cynista wrote:
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?

Yeah, Scarabs should have always been a troop choice.
Lore-wise they are the most common sight in an invasion, even more so than warriors.

A destroyer troop choice would have been cool, as well a destroyer cryptek. I really don't like how GW is handling destroyers; they still have good damage output, but they don't benefit from most abilities, especially survival ones.
The lore is crap too. Destroyers become destroyers because they're edgy, and that edginess makes other necrons become destroyers. I just can't take that seriously. I just can't get the image of a hexmark going "nothing personal kid" out of my head or Lokhusts blaring Pumped up Kicks on repeat.

I miss the times when Destroyers were just the Necron equivalent of Jump Infantry, before they got turned into Daleks.

tneva82 wrote:

Cynista wrote:
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?

What's the defining feature of FAST attack?

Why not have doomsday ark as troop while you are at it?

Genestealers are also troop and they can cross the entire board in a turn. Speed stopped being a relevant qualifier when 8th allowed something like that to happen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Cynista wrote:
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?

Yeah, Scarabs should have always been a troop choice.
Lore-wise they are the most common sight in an invasion, even more so than warriors.

A destroyer troop choice would have been cool, as well a destroyer cryptek. I really don't like how GW is handling destroyers; they still have good damage output, but they don't benefit from most abilities, especially survival ones.
The lore is crap too. Destroyers become destroyers because they're edgy, and that edginess makes other necrons become destroyers. I just can't take that seriously. I just can't get the image of a hexmark going "nothing personal kid" out of my head or Lokhusts blaring Pumped up Kicks on repeat.

I miss the times when Destroyers were just the Necron equivalent of Jump Infantry, before they got turned into Daleks.

I don't mind the dalek aspect per se, its just I find the contagious doomer thing to be silly and lack the true existential dread that necrons used to have.
It would been a lot more haunting if becoming a destroyer is a by-product of biotransference and a fate that all necrons, bar warriors as they are too mindless to fall to it, will fall to unless they can undo biotransference.
As a rough analogy, imagine the Undead Curse from the Dark Souls series, except instead of becoming beef-jerky you become a HK-Tank.

They did the same thing with Flayed Ones; Flayed ones used to be necrons who remembered what they once were and were driven insane by the memories, so they started wearing skins and flesh.
GW got rid of this (though to be fair, not many people knew of this background as it was a footnote in some white dwarf, iirc) and turned them into a bunch of hungry boys.

Who else thinking that Monolith might has the same price as Mega Gargant?

That’s extreamly expensive.

armisael wrote:
Who else thinking that Monolith might has the same price as Mega Gargant?

That’s extreamly expensive.

I sure hope not, that would be nuts. I'd be suprised if it tops the Silent King pricetag.

You mean stompa yes? Mega gargant is imperator level model. Were it to be in 40k about 2m tall probably

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ghaz wrote:

Acehilator wrote:
@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.

CORE has nothing to do with the frequency a unit would show up in an army. From the Oxford English Dictionary

An important or unchanging group of people forming the central part of a larger body.

A Dreadnought's fluff meets that defintion and thus is a CORE unit of a Space Marine army.

BrianDavion wrote:sides dreads AREN'T rare. Most Marine companies seem to have one or two assigned to them on a perminant or near perminant basis

A Space Marine Chapter at maximum strength has roughly 1500 full battle brothers. Even if we're extra generous and say there are two dreadnoughts per (non-Scout) company, that's 18 Dreadnoughts. 1.2% of an organisation is, in my honest opinion, pretty rare and not a core part of the organisation.

They might be considered important as in they are venerated ancients, but they aren't actually important when it comes to the actual fighting effectiveness of a Chapter.

Destroyer lore could be so much cooler. Like instead of the derpy Dalek angle, the Destroyer Cult could have been an underground paramilitary within Necron culture who the Overlord's can call upon for war but do not trust. Turning another to the Destroyer Cult would be more akin to idealogical subversion. They are extremists

Rather than some kind of.. binary virus? Or whatever it's supposed to be

Cynista wrote:
Destroyer lore could be so much cooler. Like instead of the derpy Dalek angle, the Destroyer Cult could have been an underground paramilitary within Necron culture who the Overlord's can call upon for war but do not trust. Turning another to the Destroyer Cult would be more akin to idealogical subversion. They are extremists

Rather than some kind of.. binary virus? Or whatever it's supposed to be

I'm not sure that's it. The flayers are victims of virus created by a c'tan who chose to self desruct rather than be turned into a bunch of pokemon for the necrons, that's some type of virus.

Destroyers are more like a mental condition, a sense of despair, then nihilism then finally a childlike attitude of "If I can't be alive I don't want anyone else to be alive either!"

Even the silent king said they were necrons in form only, and should be expended as weapons.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
A Space Marine Chapter at maximum strength has roughly 1500 full battle brothers. Even if we're extra generous and say there are two dreadnoughts per (non-Scout) company, that's 18 Dreadnoughts. 1.2% of an organisation is, in my honest opinion, pretty rare and not a core part of the organisation.

Again, numbers have nothing to do with being a CORE unit. As an important and regular part of most Space Marine forces, a dreadnought qualifies fluff-wise as being a CORE unit.

 Ghaz wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
A Space Marine Chapter at maximum strength has roughly 1500 full battle brothers. Even if we're extra generous and say there are two dreadnoughts per (non-Scout) company, that's 18 Dreadnoughts. 1.2% of an organisation is, in my honest opinion, pretty rare and not a core part of the organisation.

Again, numbers have nothing to do with being a CORE unit. As an important and regular part of most Space Marine forces, a dreadnought qualifies fluff-wise as being a CORE unit.

So do Rhinos and Drop Pods. Almost everything outside of the command structure can be argued to be "an important and regular part of most Space Marine forces. No Space Marine force outside of emergency deployments of like a single squad are going to go without a Techmarine or Apothecary (or three, making sure the Drop Pods don't burn up on atmospheric entry and retrieving Geneseed are pretty important and regular parts of Adeptus Astartes deployment).

Rhinos and Drop Pods are taxis. Once they get the troops to the target their job is pretty much done. They're also not genetically enhanced superhuman soldiers, they're vehicles.

 Ghaz wrote:
Rhinos and Drop Pods are taxis. Once they get the troops to the target their job is pretty much done. They're also not genetically enhanced superhuman soldiers, they're vehicles.

But they are "an important and regular part of most Space Marine forces." Your standards, not mine.

Again, they're taxis (i.e., support units). They're not the one's doing the fighting unless you're saying a Drop Pod can do a flanking maneuver after it has arrived on the battlefield.

tneva82 wrote:
You mean stompa yes? Mega gargant is imperator level model. Were it to be in 40k about 2m tall probably

The new Age of Sigmar giants are called Mega Gargants

The reasoning for Dreadnoughts being core is that GW (and most players) like Dreadnoughts and GW feels they should be an important part of space marines armies.

Nearly nobody plays space marines to play vehicle heavy armies, and GW agrees with that sentiment. Thats the reason why I always hated Custodes competitive armies, full of vehicles.

 Galas wrote:
The reasoning for Dreadnoughts being core is that GW (and most players) like Dreadnoughts and GW feels they should be an important part of space marines armies.

Nearly nobody plays space marines to play vehicle heavy armies, and GW agrees with that sentiment. Thats the reason why I always hated Custodes competitive armies, full of vehicles.

I don't think its that logical. Its unclear for instance why - in pure fluff terms, or "army realisation terms" - Centurions should be less core than dreadnoughts or Aggressors/Eradicators.
The only logical argument is that GW got the message centurions were a problem (although probably a reduced one given the various changes - but when they were writing the book) so they got the nerf-dart.
Whereas dreads outside of FW ones were kind of meh, so there's no real reason to deny them a spot. In fact don't they deserve a buff?

Well, the new Destroyers look nice and a full Destroyer army could be fluffy.
But from the competitive point of view, I'd stay away from such an enterprise.
Destroyers are too expensive pt wise and despite their larger number of wounds they are vulnerable.

 wuestenfux wrote:
Well, the new Destroyers look nice and a full Destroyer army could be fluffy.
But from the competitive point of view, I'd stay away from such an enterprise.
Destroyers are too expensive pt wise and despite their larger number of wounds they are vulnerable.

They might be more appealing if we stock up on Techno Crypteks? Able to heal wounds and pop models back? Trouble is, the Cryptek would need their cloak, which kinda precludes protective Murder Buckets, leaving them perhaps too exposed for taste?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
Well, the new Destroyers look nice and a full Destroyer army could be fluffy.
But from the competitive point of view, I'd stay away from such an enterprise.
Destroyers are too expensive pt wise and despite their larger number of wounds they are vulnerable.

They might be more appealing if we stock up on Techno Crypteks? Able to heal wounds and pop models back? Trouble is, the Cryptek would need their cloak, which kinda precludes protective Murder Buckets, leaving them perhaps too exposed for taste?

Eh stock up? Technos can just bring Core back and destroyers are not. And the item which enables to bring back ONE destroyer is a one per army only.

I.....may need to revisit my Codex!

Yeah, Rites of Reanimation only works on Core units, which Destroyers are not.
Which really sucks. Maybe they'll release a destroyer cult cryptek at some point, but right now destroyers are pretty fragile. They have a lot of wounds, but RP punishes models with a lot of wounds now, so destroyers can't effectively benefit from the rule that makes necrons necron.

The best thing you can do is use a resurrection orb with a reanimator, but you only get one shot with the orb and you're still only getting back 1 model for every 2 lost on average.

The best you can do is the Hive upgrade for a technomancer. Can revive a heavy destroyer for a 50 point discount (it's a 20 point upgrade).

For me the biggest bummer is you can't give them my will be done.

Sorry to interrupt this discussion on Space Marine chapter organization and the tabletop representation thereof, but are the Cron units going on preorder next worth getting?

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Sorry to interrupt this discussion on Space Marine chapter organization and the tabletop representation thereof, but are the Cron units going on preorder next worth getting?

Well one is the ground lord of war; the other is a vehicle demolishing void dragon and the other is whip wraiths. Honestly from a purely visual perspective YES is the answer. Void Dragon is a one-time purchase; Monolith is functionally a one-time-purchase; perhaps two if you really want to go all out in a skew list. Wraiths by price alone in models might get overshadowed for a while by the new walker destroyers (because those are dirt cheap with Indomitus and starter sets). That said the new Wraiths have deepstriking abilities which makes them valuable as a constant threat to the enemy rear-guard; gunline and artillery.