Necron New 9th Edition Codex Tactica: All Hail The Silent King

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**

5 Immortals with MWDB vs MEQ:

old Tesla: 3.1
new Tesla: 2.47
Gauss: 1.85/3.7

The new rule cost Tesla 21% output compared to the old one.

**IHateNids**

Yeah, that sucks, but I'd still like some for the option of clearing out low save troops like Orks and Guard

Especially considering our other options are Annihilation Barges or Enmitic weapons on the Chonkstroyers

Plus, right, I am loath to buy any more of those blasted kits. I have 40 bodies out of that stinking framework already, I cannot be chowed buying more.

**Shappermon**

Question for you phaerons, does the Ghost Ark's Repair Barge rule stack with the Technomancers Rites of Reanimation rule?

I plan on taking two units of 20 gaus flayer warriors and two units of 10 gaus reaper warriors in ghost arks. Hoping I can stack the technomancer rule with the ghost ark one, can't see anything to suggest I can't atm, but I also expect this to be FAQd.

**Kharne the Befriender**

A note on the Silent Kings melee output, had a few games against UM and man, every time Guilliman and the Silent King got into combat guilliman died everytime.

The trick I'm slowly finding to keeping Szarekh alive is give your opponent more pressing things to shoot at, 10 Praetorians, 10 S/B Lychguard, etc..

I think it could be the prospect of what gets killed for the opponent. Do I kill this big thing that can kill maybe a unit, or do I take the same amount of fire power and try to take down the other 3 or 4 units that'll likely do the same.

Here's the list I ran:

Spoiler:

**Emissary**

Kharne the Befriender wrote:
A note on the Silent Kings melee output, had a few games against UM and man, every time Guilliman and the Silent King got into combat guilliman died everytime.

The trick I'm slowly finding to keeping Szarekh alive is give your opponent more pressing things to shoot at, 10 Praetorians, 10 S/B Lychguard, etc..

I think it could be the prospect of what gets killed for the opponent. Do I kill this big thing that can kill maybe a unit, or do I take the same amount of fire power and try to take down the other 3 or 4 units that'll likely do the same.

Here's the list I ran:

Spoiler:

1996/2000 12-4+3: 11CP

Sup. Com
-Silent King
---WL: Triarchs Will

Battalion
-OL - Indomitus loadout
---R: Sovereign Coronal, Strat: Phaeron
-Royal Warden
---R: Veil of Darkness, WL: Implacable Conqueror
-Technomancer
---Cloak
-17x Warriors - Flayers
-10x Immortals - Gauss
-10x Immortals - Gauss
-10x Lychguard - S/B
-10x Praetorians - RoC
-DDA

Quick thing, the Silent King has the Phaeron keyword, so you can't use the strat on your Overlord.

**Kharne the Befriender**

Emissary wrote:
Kharne the Befriender wrote:
A note on the Silent Kings melee output, had a few games against UM and man, every time Guilliman and the Silent King got into combat guilliman died everytime.

The trick I'm slowly finding to keeping Szarekh alive is give your opponent more pressing things to shoot at, 10 Praetorians, 10 S/B Lychguard, etc..

I think it could be the prospect of what gets killed for the opponent. Do I kill this big thing that can kill maybe a unit, or do I take the same amount of fire power and try to take down the other 3 or 4 units that'll likely do the same.

Here's the list I ran:

Spoiler:

1996/2000 12-4+3: 11CP

Sup. Com
-Silent King
---WL: Triarchs Will

Battalion
-OL - Indomitus loadout
---R: Sovereign Coronal, Strat: Phaeron
-Royal Warden
---R: Veil of Darkness, WL: Implacable Conqueror
-Technomancer
---Cloak
-17x Warriors - Flayers
-10x Immortals - Gauss
-10x Immortals - Gauss
-10x Lychguard - S/B
-10x Praetorians - RoC
-DDA

Quick thing, the Silent King has the Phaeron keyword, so you can't use the strat on your Overlord.

I totally missed that part! Thought it was one per detachment. That probably would have changed some things. I'll let my roommate know

Thanks

**Acehilator**

Shappermon wrote:
Question for you phaerons, does the Ghost Ark's Repair Barge rule stack with the Technomancers Rites of Reanimation rule?

I plan on taking two units of 20 gaus flayer warriors and two units of 10 gaus reaper warriors in ghost arks. Hoping I can stack the technomancer rule with the ghost ark one, can't see anything to suggest I can't atm, but I also expect this to be FAQd.

It stacks - it's not the same ability. As such it won't get FAQ'd (and it's the main theme of the army).

I am not sold on using minimum units offensively. Unattractive buff targets, and can be overwhelmed with just a bit of focus fire. I plan on running an empty Ghost Ark and a Triarch Stalker, just to give enemy AT weapons targets (trying to distract them from my Skorpekhs).

**Shappermon**

Acehilator wrote:
Shappermon wrote:
Question for you phaerons, does the Ghost Ark's Repair Barge rule stack with the Technomancers Rites of Reanimation rule?

I plan on taking two units of 20 gaus flayer warriors and two units of 10 gaus reaper warriors in ghost arks. Hoping I can stack the technomancer rule with the ghost ark one, can't see anything to suggest I can't atm, but I also expect this to be FAQd.

It stacks - it's not the same ability. As such it won't get FAQ'd (and it's the main theme of the army).

I am not sold on using minimum units offensively. Unattractive buff targets, and can be overwhelmed with just a bit of focus fire. I plan on running an empty Ghost Ark and a Triarch Stalker, just to give enemy AT weapons targets (trying to distract them from my Skorpekhs).

The reason I think it might get FAQ'd is usually when units have the same ability but it has different names they usually get FAQd or it says in the original rulings that they can't stack. Similar to how -1 to hit spores work between the malanthrope and carnifex carapace for nids.

As for the Ghost arks with the 10 warrior units, I like the idea of quickly dumping them on objectives, getting into range with the reapers and then using the ark, or probably remaining ark after one gets taken down to buff the bigger units with the technomancer.

**yukishiro1**

It's not actually the same ability, though, either in substance or in name. The technomancer can rez any <CORE>, the ghost ark can only rez warriors.

**Shappermon**

yukishiro1 wrote:
It's not actually the same ability, though, either in substance or in name. The technomancer can rez any <CORE>, the ghost ark can only rez warriors.

I suppose you're right, but both res d3 warriors. I just assumed this was too good to be true, and wasn't intended. Resurrecting 2d3 warriors per turn (on one unit) seems super strong.

**Acehilator**

It's a joke compared to what SM have in their arsenal, so no.

(I mean granted, GW loves dunking on Xenos not named Eldar, but still no in this case.)

**TheArchmagos**

Hey all,

Just got my hands on the codex finally and this is the first list idea I came up with as a kind of TAC list that can play objectives. Does this seem like a decent list overall?

Spoiler:

**v0iddrgn**

How does the new RP interact with the Thin their Ranks secondary?

**Sasori**

Here is an Article by Richard Siegler talking about the new Necrons.

https://www.theartofwar40k.com/home/necrons-9th-edition-codex-review

**unitled**

Acehilator wrote:
5 Immortals with MWDB vs MEQ:

old Tesla: 3.1
new Tesla: 2.47
Gauss: 1.85/3.7

The new rule cost Tesla 21% output compared to the old one.

Other thing to note, though, is that while new Tesla gains less from MWBD, it loses less from being in cover.

Honestly, I think the thing that makes it harder for Tesla to compete is smaller board size and the close range fighting around objectives.

It was always king at longer range just through weight of fire, and a meta call at shorter ranges. It's less that Gauss went to 30", more that it went to RF in 15". If your meta is folks playing other Xenos or Guard, go ham on Tesla as it still rocks.

**Matt Swain**

IHateNids wrote:
Yeah, that sucks, but I'd still like some for the option of clearing out low save troops like Orks and Guard

Especially considering our other options are Annihilation Barges or Enmitic weapons on the Chonkstroyers

Plus, right, I am loath to buy any more of those blasted kits. I have 40 bodies out of that stinking framework already, I cannot be chowed buying more.

"Chonkstroyers" What is that even supposed to mean?

**Acehilator**

Regarding matchups, apart from Harlequins I don't think we will have many problems. Power armor remains the thing to beat, not only SM, but CSM and Custodes too. Like I said before, the average armor save on the board is going way up. Stormshield Terminators sitting at an easy 1+ armor save, you need AP -3 to even equalize their invul save. Blightlord Terminators will be terrifying if they don't get shafted by point costs. Guard running Ogryns etc.

For "average" metas, unless Harlequin heavy because of some weird coincidence, the margins for weapons without AP are really slim imho.

**Wakshaani**

Matt Swain wrote:
IHateNids wrote:
Yeah, that sucks, but I'd still like some for the option of clearing out low save troops like Orks and Guard

Especially considering our other options are Annihilation Barges or Enmitic weapons on the Chonkstroyers

Plus, right, I am loath to buy any more of those blasted kits. I have 40 bodies out of that stinking framework already, I cannot be chowed buying more.

"Chonkstroyers" What is that even supposed to mean?

"Chonky" or "Chonk" is newspeak for "fat" or "Thicc" to use a sleightly less-new phrase.

So "Chonky Destroyers" or "Fat Destroyers" aka the new heavy Destroyers.

English Major, AWAYYYyyyyyyyy!!!

**p5freak**

v0iddrgn wrote:
How does the new RP interact with the Thin their Ranks secondary?

Thin their ranks is crystal clear about that. Models that are resurrected count each time they are resurrected, and destroyed again.

**Krull**

TheArchmagos wrote:
Hey all,

Just got my hands on the codex finally and this is the first list idea I came up with as a kind of TAC list that can play objectives. Does this seem like a decent list overall?

Spoiler:

Total Starting CP: 9

Nihilak Outrider Detachment:

HQ
-Catacomb Command Barge (WL) 150
Voltaic Staff, gauss cannon, warlord trait: enduring will

Fast Attack
-5x Wraiths 175
-5x Wraiths 175
-5x Tomb Blades 165
shield vanes
-3x scarabs 45
-3x scarabs 45
-3x scarabs 45

Heavy Support
-Doomstalker 140

Nihilak Patrol Detachment:

HQ
-Technomancer 90
canoptek control node

Elites
-Triarch Stalker 140
heat ray

Troops
-10x warriors 130
probably reapers?
-10x warriors 130

Heavy Support
-Doomstalker 140
-Doomstalker 140

Dedicated Transport
-Ghost Ark 145
-Ghost Ark 145

The Plan:
-Play the objective and dominate the mid board.
-Technomancer sticks with the trio of doomstalkers to provide heavy fire support. Triarch stalker can buff them too.
-Wraiths can bully the mid board, go after characters, or clear screens in a pinch. Or they can just cap objectives.
-Scarabs can hold backfield objectives and screen deepstrikes to protect the doomstalkers.
-Tomb blades, ghost arks, warriors, and CCB can go where needed.
-If I'm worried about snipers I can pay 1CP to give the cryptek the Infinity Mantle.
-Nihilak plus protocol of the eternal guardian means I'm pretty hardy going second against a first turn alpha strike since I can have army wide cover for 2+ saves and ignore -1 AP weapons on everything.
-Also I think the CCB might be able to make use of that secondary where you score points for killing stuff with nobles?
-2000pts on the nose, TT viewers already know this means I auto win

How do you start with 9CP?
I think it is 7 cp.
Your warlord is in the outrider det. It doesnt give you cp back.
So you have to pay for the patrol to. Switch your characters from det. and you have 9cp.
Interesting list btw.
Let me know how it plays out.

**Slipspace**

unitled wrote:
Acehilator wrote:
5 Immortals with MWDB vs MEQ:

old Tesla: 3.1
new Tesla: 2.47
Gauss: 1.85/3.7

The new rule cost Tesla 21% output compared to the old one.

Other thing to note, though, is that while new Tesla gains less from MWBD, it loses less from being in cover.

Honestly, I think the thing that makes it harder for Tesla to compete is smaller board size and the close range fighting around objectives.

It was always king at longer range just through weight of fire, and a meta call at shorter ranges. It's less that Gauss went to 30", more that it went to RF in 15". If your meta is folks playing other Xenos or Guard, go ham on Tesla as it still rocks.

With Tesla in general, it's probably best to completely ignore the maths/experiences from 8th. Dense terrain should be common enough that it messes up the expected damage on the old Tesla and therefore new Tesla using unmodified 6s is not quite as bad as it first seems, though it is overall a very slight net nerf I think. My biggest problem with Tesla is that GW did the classic double-nerf and bumped up the cost while making their rules worse. If Tesla was the same cost as Gauss I think it would be a much more even choice between the two but as it is now I'm not sure we'll see much Tesla on Immortals at the current prices.

**IHateNids**

Slipspace wrote:
unitled wrote:
Acehilator wrote:
5 Immortals with MWDB vs MEQ:

old Tesla: 3.1
new Tesla: 2.47
Gauss: 1.85/3.7

The new rule cost Tesla 21% output compared to the old one.

Other thing to note, though, is that while new Tesla gains less from MWBD, it loses less from being in cover.

Honestly, I think the thing that makes it harder for Tesla to compete is smaller board size and the close range fighting around objectives.

It was always king at longer range just through weight of fire, and a meta call at shorter ranges. It's less that Gauss went to 30", more that it went to RF in 15". If your meta is folks playing other Xenos or Guard, go ham on Tesla as it still rocks.

With Tesla in general, it's probably best to completely ignore the maths/experiences from 8th. Dense terrain should be common enough that it messes up the expected damage on the old Tesla and therefore new Tesla using unmodified 6s is not quite as bad as it first seems, though it is overall a very slight net nerf I think. My biggest problem with Tesla is that GW did the classic double-nerf and bumped up the cost while making their rules worse. If Tesla was the same cost as Gauss I think it would be a much more even choice between the two but as it is now I'm not sure we'll see much Tesla on Immortals at the current prices.

Yeah, that makes sense.

I just think I'll hav Tesla troops because I have Guass-everything-else. But that's just me. Thanks for the clarification though.

Wakshaani wrote:
Matt Swain wrote:
IHateNids wrote:
Yeah, that sucks, but I'd still like some for the option of clearing out low save troops like Orks and Guard

Especially considering our other options are Annihilation Barges or Enmitic weapons on the Chonkstroyers

Plus, right, I am loath to buy any more of those blasted kits. I have 40 bodies out of that stinking framework already, I cannot be chowed buying more.

"Chonkstroyers" What is that even supposed to mean?

"Chonky" or "Chonk" is newspeak for "fat" or "Thicc" to use a sleightly less-new phrase.

So "Chonky Destroyers" or "Fat Destroyers" aka the new heavy Destroyers.

English Major, AWAYYYyyyyyyyy!!!

Yeah, thats bang on. I'll apologise for the choice of words, I keep on forgetting not the entire world is fluent in internet joke culture as my friendship circles.... I just didnt wanna type out Lokhust heavy Destroyer ever time I wanna talk about them....

**tneva82**

Acehilator wrote:
5 Immortals with MWDB vs MEQ:

old Tesla: 3.1
new Tesla: 2.47
Gauss: 1.85/3.7

The new rule cost Tesla 21% output compared to the old one.

Now there's so much -1 to hit though that MWBD basically got you to what you are rolling now. Pre-codex you needed MWBD to get what you get now for free.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Acehilator wrote:
Shappermon wrote:
Question for you phaerons, does the Ghost Ark's Repair Barge rule stack with the Technomancers Rites of Reanimation rule?

I plan on taking two units of 20 gaus flayer warriors and two units of 10 gaus reaper warriors in ghost arks. Hoping I can stack the technomancer rule with the ghost ark one, can't see anything to suggest I can't atm, but I also expect this to be FAQd.

It stacks - it's not the same ability. As such it won't get FAQ'd (and it's the main theme of the army).

I am not sold on using minimum units offensively. Unattractive buff targets, and can be overwhelmed with just a bit of focus fire. I plan on running an empty Ghost Ark and a Triarch Stalker, just to give enemy AT weapons targets (trying to distract them from my Skorpekhs).

Even better. Being same ability doesn't prevent stacking. Same AURA ability prevents.

**Eldenfirefly**

So, I just had a thought, is it worth losing command protocols so that we run two separate necron detachements with different dynasties?

Like while we lose command protocols, we do get to now choose a shooty dynasty (like mephrit) for a shooty detachment, and then maybe a custom dynasty or a melee based dynasty for a more melee oriented detachment that has everything obsec.

Because the command protocols are a pain to use, and kind of dependent on how the game goes each turn. While, if you take a shooty dynasty and a melee based dynasty, you can tailor the units in those detachments to make the best use of the dynasty traits and such.

So, do you think its worth losing command protocols over?

**nintura**

Eldenfirefly wrote:
So, I just had a thought, is it worth losing command protocols so that we run two separate necron detachements with different dynasties?

Like while we lose command protocols, we do get to now choose a shooty dynasty (like mephrit) for a shooty detachment, and then maybe a custom dynasty or a melee based dynasty for a more melee oriented detachment that has everything obsec.

Because the command protocols are a pain to use, and kind of dependent on how the game goes each turn. While, if you take a shooty dynasty and a melee based dynasty, you can tailor the units in those detachments to make the best use of the dynasty traits and such.

So, do you think its worth losing command protocols over?

Several of the articles I"ve read have mentioned that Cron players probably will shy away from the command protocols because they are convoluted and don't really do much. So yeah you'll probably see what you're doing being very common. Sort of like Tyranid players.

**Sasori**

Eldenfirefly wrote:
So, I just had a thought, is it worth losing command protocols so that we run two separate necron detachements with different dynasties?

Like while we lose command protocols, we do get to now choose a shooty dynasty (like mephrit) for a shooty detachment, and then maybe a custom dynasty or a melee based dynasty for a more melee oriented detachment that has everything obsec.

Because the command protocols are a pain to use, and kind of dependent on how the game goes each turn. While, if you take a shooty dynasty and a melee based dynasty, you can tailor the units in those detachments to make the best use of the dynasty traits and such.

So, do you think its worth losing command protocols over?

This is the big question I myself have been asking. I've been leaning toward yes. I've played a few games, and the command protocols have been impactful. That being said, a deatchment without them would likely have been just as impactful without them. Our Dynasty codes are pretty good, taking something like just an Outrider with the Obsec+ 6' move and then a patrol to fill out whatever else you need seems pretty strong.

I'm going to keep play testing with protocols and I enjoy the mechanic. That being said, it's just got way too many hoops to pull out, and you can raise the floor on the army quite a bit by just running two dynasties.

**Eldenfirefly**

Yeah, I mean, with command protocols, maybe they will matter in one or three turns. And even if they do, it probably won't impact your whole army.

But shooty dynasty with shooty units plus melee obsec dynasty with melee based units. Then you basically know that your units will get the best benefit from your two dynasties for all 5 turns.

**dan2026**

I think I'm going to run two different Dynasties.
Command Protocols seem like a pain in the arse and not worth losing what 2 or more Dynasties can do for you.

**buddha**

I think there's a good argument to be made that abandoning command protocols is a smart bet.

You no longer need to take a noble and you can make a mixed detachment to access different dynasties strategems like Nepherkh.

**Cynista**

I'm glad more and more people are seeing that command protocols are crap and best ignored. Been saying it from day 1

A little but surprised that nobody is hot on the Scytheguard bomb yet. Chronomancer with VoD can deep strike them with a 5++ and rerolling charges. Seems like a perfect combination to me. I've rewritten my list to include them at the expense of the Skorpekh's