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.

So, I saw on different site that apparently, the Silent King does NOT have an Invulnerable save?

Can anyone confirm or deny that? Because if that's true... That's dumb. That's really, really dumb.

 JNAProductions wrote:
So, I saw on different site that apparently, the Silent King does NOT have an Invulnerable save?

Can anyone confirm or deny that? Because if that's true... That's dumb. That's really, really dumb.

He has a 4++ invuln.

 iGuy91 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
So, I saw on different site that apparently, the Silent King does NOT have an Invulnerable save?

Can anyone confirm or deny that? Because if that's true... That's dumb. That's really, really dumb.

He has a 4++ invuln.

Okay, yeah. Said poster apparently was reading a bad leak.

Whew-that would've been absolutely stupid.

The more I see of the necron codex, the more it feels like the Kharadron Overlord battletome--extremely restrictive with buffs and abilities, but possibly very powerful nonetheless.

Makes the "list building stage" of 40k feel frustrating, but actually playing the game feels fine.

I've got about 1300 points painted for necrons now so I'm at the point where I can at least give it a go.

I am starting to think that the Technomancer is a bit of a trap unless he is babysitting 3 Doomstalkers. FLY, repair and +1 attack for Canoptek's sounds great on paper but it's 110 points. You're probably just better off taking more Wraiths or Scarabs

Listbuilding on the one hand feels restrictive but also at the same time you legitimately feel like you have more options and ways to run different kinds of armies now.

I think what a lot of people also miss with the non-Core units is how insanely cheap they are for what they offer. Skorpekhs and Wraiths at 35 ppm, Praetorians at 25 ppm, Triarch Stalkers and Doomstalkers at 140. These are all very generous price points on the whole and despite lacking core, you have several ways to buff the units up still.

 JNAProductions wrote:
So, I saw on different site that apparently, the Silent King does NOT have an Invulnerable save?

Can anyone confirm or deny that? Because if that's true... That's dumb. That's really, really dumb.

He does have a 4++ but hes pretty bad still though.

His cost is outrageous.

Main reasoning. The way he degrades.
His 2 main guns with 5 wounds each are pretty good. But after 10 wounds they are gone. At this point silent king becomes a 450 point buff bot. (The buffs are decent) but they are also not even remotely worth the cost considering they only affect core (and praetorians) by the time praetorians make it into melee (at the same time silent king is in there) it's turn 3 or 4 and the game has already been decided.

IMO - he is inferior to the monolith even if he was the same cost at 380 (granted there is some CP differential) The best Cron stratagems right now are 1/2 CP anyways.

It's pretty sad that a 110 point technomancer and a 140-155 point triarch stalker is a better buffer than the silent king.

 Bosskelot wrote:
Listbuilding on the one hand feels restrictive but also at the same time you legitimately feel like you have more options and ways to run different kinds of armies now.

I think what a lot of people also miss with the non-Core units is how insanely cheap they are for what they offer. Skorpekhs and Wraiths at 35 ppm, Praetorians at 25 ppm, Triarch Stalkers and Doomstalkers at 140. These are all very generous price points on the whole and despite lacking core, you have several ways to buff the units up still.

Not particularly generous compared to space marine alternatives, which are of course all <CORE> because the modern design approach for Space Marines seems to be a faction that gets to ignore the stuff everybody else has to deal with.

Bladeguard dunk on skorpekhs because of the 4++, eradicators make any anti-tank in the necron book look laughable, etc etc.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
Listbuilding on the one hand feels restrictive but also at the same time you legitimately feel like you have more options and ways to run different kinds of armies now.

I think what a lot of people also miss with the non-Core units is how insanely cheap they are for what they offer. Skorpekhs and Wraiths at 35 ppm, Praetorians at 25 ppm, Triarch Stalkers and Doomstalkers at 140. These are all very generous price points on the whole and despite lacking core, you have several ways to buff the units up still.

Not particularly generous compared to space marine alternatives, which are of course all <CORE> because the modern design approach for Space Marines seems to be a faction that gets to ignore the stuff everybody else has to deal with.

Bladeguard dunk on skorpekhs because of the 4++, eradicators make any anti-tank in the necron book look laughable, etc etc.

Not that I’m utterly bored of your contributions, but I cannot help but notice you always seem to play the army you figured just got dunked on. And indeed, turn up for less focussed diatribes.

Have......and stop me if being radical....tried literally anything else in life in the pursuit of happiness?

When you make things personal, all you're doing is admitting you've lost the argument. Please stop wasting everyone's time and just don't engage in the first place if all you can do is make personal attacks.

It's also ironically totally inaccurate in this case. If you had actually bothered to read some of my posts before making a personal attack, you'd realize I'm actually super positive on the Necron book overall. It's not Space Marines level overpowered, but it's a solid book with good internal balance. I'd much rather most books were like the Necron one than like the SM one.

I responded to that post because it was claiming that they were "insanely cheap" as compensation for losing <CORE>. That point doesn't hold up, because the releases in the other book released on the same day are more efficient despite having <CORE> themselves. If he had said "skorpekhs are a good unit, not having <CORE> isn't the end of the world" I would have agreed. Things don't have to be totally terrible or insanely awesome with nothing in-between, nor does someone have to be an unthinking fanboi who loves everything GW ever put out or else be a total hater.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
Listbuilding on the one hand feels restrictive but also at the same time you legitimately feel like you have more options and ways to run different kinds of armies now.

I think what a lot of people also miss with the non-Core units is how insanely cheap they are for what they offer. Skorpekhs and Wraiths at 35 ppm, Praetorians at 25 ppm, Triarch Stalkers and Doomstalkers at 140. These are all very generous price points on the whole and despite lacking core, you have several ways to buff the units up still.

Not particularly generous compared to space marine alternatives, which are of course all <CORE> because the modern design approach for Space Marines seems to be a faction that gets to ignore the stuff everybody else has to deal with.

Bladeguard dunk on skorpekhs because of the 4++, eradicators make any anti-tank in the necron book look laughable, etc etc.

Yeah but...A Ctan makes bladegaurd laughable.
Skorpekhs are just a bad unit.

IMO yukishiro has had some of the best, well reasoned and enlightening takes on 9th Necrons so far, not really sure where you're coming from Doc.

yukishiro1 wrote:
When you make things personal, all you're doing is admitting you've lost the argument. Please stop wasting everyone's time and just don't engage in the first place if all you can do is make personal attacks.

It's also ironically totally inaccurate in this case. If you had actually bothered to read some of my posts before making a personal attack, you'd realize I'm actually super positive on the Necron book overall. It's not Space Marines level overpowered, but it's a solid book with good internal balance. I'd much rather most books were like the Necron one than like the SM one.

I responded to that post because it was claiming that they were "insanely cheap" as compensation for losing <CORE>. That point doesn't hold up, because the releases in the other book released on the same day are more efficient despite having <CORE> themselves. If he had said "skorpekhs are a good unit, not having <CORE> isn't the end of the world" I would have agreed. Things don't have to be totally terrible or insanely awesome with nothing in-between, nor does someone have to be an unthinking fanboi who loves everything GW ever put out or else be a total hater.

You aren't alone in being disappointed about the over liberal core units in the marine codex compared to the Necrons. I think thats probably not going anywhere. It's not an issue if the price is right though. The issue is. It's not like marines are paying more for having to many unit types as core options.

On top of things like dynastic agents not getting the armies core rules. There should be some advantage to being a dynastic agent - Maybe they should have their own dynasty type trait like they always benifit from both codes if they have command protocols or something.

I think skorpekhs are quite a solid unit, mainly due to the -1 to wound strat. They aren't blade-guard level broken, but very little is (thankfully). They're right about where units should be.

The best thing about the Necron book IMO is that there are a ton of viable things in it, but not a single thing in the whole book that screams out as being obviously broken. It's just too bad they were unable to deliver the same kind of product in the Space Marine codex.

yukishiro1 wrote:
I think skorpekhs are quite a solid unit, mainly due to the -1 to wound strat. They aren't blade-guard level broken, but very little is (thankfully). They're right about where units should be.

The best thing about the Necron book IMO is that there are a ton of viable things in it, but not a single thing in the whole book that screams out as being obviously broken. It's just too bad they were unable to deliver the same kind of product in the Space Marine codex.

Lets get real here. The issue with scorpecks is they are slow and don't have a gun or an invune save = they are garabge.
Wraiths actually have both. While they might not hit as hard - it doesn't matter because they live more than twice as long - plus they can fall back and charge.

 Xenomancers wrote:
On top of things like dynastic agents not getting the armies core rules. There should be some advantage to being a dynastic agent - Maybe they should have their own dynasty type trait like they always benifit from both codes if they have command protocols or something.

I am surprised they didn't do anything cool with the Triarch keyword. It's an open goal in terms of game design, but nope.... nothing. Aside from 1 strat I think?

 Xenomancers wrote:
The issue is. It's not like marines are paying more for having to many unit types as core options.

Yeah, that's precisely the issue. If you put the Necron codex side-by-side with the SM one, what becomes apparent is that <CORE> wasn't actually pointed for. It's on some stuff and not on other stuff for reasons other than competitive balance, and it doesn't appear to have been taken into account when setting those point values.

It would be one thing if almost the whole SM book was <CORE> but the tradeoff for everything being buffable was that individual units didn't measure up point for point without buffs. But that isn't the case. Bladeguard cost the same as Skorpekhs and have <CORE>, but they're absolutely not any worse off for it. If anything, they're slightly better, even without considering all the stuff they get access to through <CORE>. Eradicators vs destroyers is an even more lopsided comparison. You can go down through pretty much the whole of both books and illustrate that <CORE> hasn't been pointed for on the SM units that get it that have non-CORE equivalents in the Necron book.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
The issue is. It's not like marines are paying more for having to many unit types as core options.

Yeah, that's precisely the issue. If you put the Necron codex side-by-side with the SM one, what becomes apparent is that <CORE> wasn't actually pointed for. It's on some stuff and not on other stuff for reasons other than competitive balance, and it doesn't appear to have been taken into account when setting those point values.

It would be one thing if almost the whole SM book was <CORE> but the tradeoff for everything being buffable was that individual units didn't measure up point for point without buffs. But that isn't the case. Bladeguard cost the same as Skorpekhs and have <CORE>, but they're absolutely not any worse off for it. If anything, they're slightly better, even without considering all the stuff they get access to through <CORE>. Eradicators vs destroyers is an even more lopsided comparison. You can go down through pretty much the whole of both books and illustrate that <CORE> hasn't been pointed for on the SM units that get it that have non-CORE equivalents in the Necron book.

This was my original worry. Whats even more silly. We have new space marine vehicals coming out that aren't core. Like the Gladiator tank. PFF like 230 points for non core tank with 24 str 6 shots ap-1 and potentially 16 more str 4 ap-1 (due to range this will likely just be 8 shots).

Redemptor dread does just about the same amount of firepower. The redemptor dread has almost identical firepower not to mention a -1 to damage (superior to t8) at all times and a d3+3 fist that gets 5 attacks on the charge str 14 lol and core keyword and even an additional wound. Even without core being an issue these units should be within 15 points of each other. Instead we have a 45 point difference with the unit lacking core costing more. Basically none of the units that lost core keyword got compensated with a points drop and most of the best units retained core....it makes no sense.

What makes skorpekhs so bad? They seem pretty solid to me. Good support for non melee units

 Pael wrote:
What makes skorpekhs so bad? They seem pretty solid to me. Good support for non melee units

They're not. They are a good self-sufficient unit with an excellent strat. They compare worse when looking at Blade Guard Vets, but almost all dedicated CC units will. They compare very favorable against other CC Units for the most part across the game.

Yeah, I'm not sure comparing a unit against something that has GW's favor because "poster boys" is fair.

 Pael wrote:
What makes skorpekhs so bad? They seem pretty solid to me. Good support for non melee units

They are a close combat unit with moderate speed and no invul that have to walk across the board?

At what point in the last 2 editions have those ever been good?

About CORE keyword, wouldn't the broad range of CORE units be accounted in the price of the buffer instead of the recipient of the buff? I would personnaly do it this way. You don't price a unit in function of a potential buff it might receive from an outside source. It's simpler to price the source of the buff in question. How does Space Marines HQ compare to the Necron's one in terms of price and buffing capabilities?

It isn't accounted for anywhere; witness the absolute joke comparison of the chief apothecary vs technomancer. Moreover, it doesn't work that way, because <CORE> is as much about stratagems as about buffs.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
So, I saw on different site that apparently, the Silent King does NOT have an Invulnerable save?

Can anyone confirm or deny that? Because if that's true... That's dumb. That's really, really dumb.

He does have a 4++ but hes pretty bad still though.

His cost is outrageous.

Main reasoning. The way he degrades.
His 2 main guns with 5 wounds each are pretty good. But after 10 wounds they are gone. At this point silent king becomes a 450 point buff bot. (The buffs are decent) but they are also not even remotely worth the cost considering they only affect core (and praetorians) by the time praetorians make it into melee (at the same time silent king is in there) it's turn 3 or 4 and the game has already been decided.

IMO - he is inferior to the monolith even if he was the same cost at 380 (granted there is some CP differential) The best Cron stratagems right now are 1/2 CP anyways.

It's pretty sad that a 110 point technomancer and a 140-155 point triarch stalker is a better buffer than the silent king.

it's true his weapons canbe destroyed and he can be degraded or destroyed. But that means the player has ot get as much use out of them as possible first. Just because something can be destroyed doesn;t mean you shouldn;t take it, it just means you need to plan on how to use it best before it is destroyed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ordana wrote:

 Pael wrote:
What makes skorpekhs so bad? They seem pretty solid to me. Good support for non melee units

They are a close combat unit with moderate speed and no invul that have to walk across the board?

At what point in the last 2 editions have those ever been good?

Can a chronomancer give them a 5++ save?

So for people who think Skorpekhs don't cut it because 3 T5 3+ save wounds for 35 points is soft, are we going with Wraiths as the OP hotness then?

WS4+ might be triggering, but you get plenty of attacks, decent mid-level strength and AP, 2 damage and obvious dynastic synergies in a package with a 4++ and incredible movement capability.

Tyel wrote:
So for people who think Skorpekhs don't cut it because 3 T5 3+ save wounds for 35 points is soft

That's not soft that's actually fairly hard. A Guardian is 8 point and has one 1 T3 5+ save wound. A 3.5 points per increase per wound for a two extra point of T and two extra point of save seems a pretty darn good deal.

Wraiths don't actually kill anything, that's the main knock against them. Skorpekhs do kill stuff. They seem to fulfill totally different roles to me. For the most obvious example, 3 Skorpekhs kill 5 MEQ unbuffed; 3 Wraiths kill only 2.67, i.e. just over half as many. That's a massive difference.

It's going to require a lot more experimentation, but right now I am kinda down on wraiths because I feel like scarabs can do most of the same things for way cheaper. The one thing I really like about the wraiths is the fall back and charge, but I'm not sure that's enough to take them over scarabs when you get more than twice as many of the latter for the same price.

 Matt Swain wrote:

Can a chronomancer give them a 5++ save?

Yeah it's the main reason he is viable for me

 Ordana wrote:
So for people who think Skorpekhs don't cut it because 3 T5 3+ save wounds for 35 points is soft, are we going with Wraiths as the OP hotness then?

WS4+ might be triggering, but you get plenty of attacks, decent mid-level strength and AP, 2 damage and obvious dynastic synergies in a package with a 4++ and incredible movement capability.

Definitely not OP. Losing 3+++ and WS3+ and most importantly, their excellent strategem is more than a fair trade for +1 attack & 10 point deduction. I'd like to have seen them at 40 points and less nerfed.

Can someone give me a rundown on how the Monolith turned out? I'm real.curious.