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.

Disintegration capacitors is one of our best stratagems. The decision tree for it is fairly simple. Does the unit have a lot of shots, if yes, then will they be able to kill the unit they are shooting without the stray, if no, then use the strat.

What other stratagems do you tend to use?

I dunno, the math on disintegration capacitors isn't actually very good except when you're firing a blob of 20 warriors against something with T6 or higher.

From 40 shots, you're getting 6.66 auto wounds on average. But if you were say wounding on 3s anyway, that's only 2.22 more wounds than you would have got anyway. Not great for 1CP.

It does make gauss reapers reasonably good at killing T6+, though. Against that, it's an additional 4.44 wounds for 1CP, which is a pretty good ratio given you'll have at least 2AP on the shots.

Sorry, I had disintegration capacitors confused with the Mephrit specific stratagem, Disintegration capacitors is probably only best used on 20 warrior units anything else just doesn’t have enough volume of fire to be worth it.

Yeah, the mephrit one is good on anything likely to get more than 12ish hits. Too bad they limited it at 3MW max, but it's still quite good.

Since the FW compendium drop soon, does anyone have hope for any of the necron FW units?

I'm hoping the rules will be at least playable

yukishiro1 wrote:
I dunno, the math on disintegration capacitors isn't actually very good except when you're firing a blob of 20 warriors against something with T6 or higher.

From 40 shots, you're getting 6.66 auto wounds on average. But if you were say wounding on 3s anyway, that's only 2.22 more wounds than you would have got anyway. Not great for 1CP.

It does make gauss reapers reasonably good at killing T6+, though. Against that, it's an additional 4.44 wounds for 1CP, which is a pretty good ratio given you'll have at least 2AP on the shots.

Yup, hence my original post about it. It's not great against normal infantry. But it makes the squad sneaky good against monsters and vehicles.

i m really hoping the Tomb Sentinel is good because i wanna make a trio of them with wraith boxes lol

I have zero hope whatsoever for that FW book, I think it is going to be just the bare minimum to justify charging people again for a line they're winding down anyway. But I would be happy to be proved wrong!

The tomb sentinel and stalker are such cool models, it's be nice if they were actually good. And if they actually bring the stalker back for sale, it disappeared months ago but it's in the contents of the new book so presumably it's coming back at some point. Maybe they're just taking out the rods.

I'm curious about the Tesseract Ark since it previously had QS and a native invuln. Given that QS itself is an invuln now, it's likely that it gets the standard 5++ which will be a bit lame. Maybe its Seismic Lash will get anti-vehicle properties again, that would be nice.


At least one gun option for Sentry Pylons was removed from sale, what, 2 years ago? The heat cannon, which is a shame because that one was my favorite.


Acanthrites could be interesting. Assuming they get the same treatment as Wraiths (WS/BS4+, 4 attacks instead of 3) they would be 8 attacks at S5 AP-3 1D, with a 12" assault 1 meltagun equivalent. S/T 5, 3W, 3+ save, and a -1 to be shot aura is not terrible, and that's before considering Dynastic Codes.

Would this list work, trying to make my first 1750 pts list.
Im trying to make the most out of Indomitus and the extra warriors i have.

 Kharne the Befriender wrote:
Since the FW compendium drop soon, does anyone have hope for any of the necron FW units?

I'm hoping the rules will be at least playable

I'm praying and hoping the damn Seraptek will get quantum shielding, and drop in points some or something. There is no universe it justifies a 660 point price tag.

Am I the only one that really hates FW stuff?
Don't get me wrong. I really like how the models look. But thats it.

The rules are always OP. They always has to do more than the GW stuff. At least so it seems.
Better weapons, better special rules.
And most of the time the point cost is just cheap.

No never enjoy playing against FW stuff. So I refuse to use FW rules myself!

Krull wrote:
Am I the only one that really hates FW stuff?...The rules are always OP.

That's just not true any more. I feel like it was a common attitude 5-10+ years ago, but in recent memory FW stuff more often than not is severely underpowered and 'for fun only'. Anything remotely powerful tends to be priced through the roof points-wise.

The craptek heavy construct is crap. It was since its release, which is not 5 years ago. I doubt this will change with the new rules.

The conversation always goes:
FW is OP.
"Its not. Look at X, and Y and Z."
Okay. Do you run them?
"No."

About 10% of FW is overpowered, but it probably makes up 90% of the FW stuff you are ever going to encounter.

What are people thinking on Mephrit? I find it interesting how before the book this was thought as a trap choice, but it increasingly looks like it has legs if you don't want a custom dynasty.

Tyel wrote:
The conversation always goes:
FW is OP.
"Its not. Look at X, and Y and Z."
Okay. Do you run them?
"No."

About 10% of FW is overpowered, but it probably makes up 90% of the FW stuff you are ever going to encounter.

What are people thinking on Mephrit? I find it interesting how before the book this was thought as a trap choice, but it increasingly looks like it has legs if you don't want a custom dynasty.

The ability to give your shooting units the ability to basically 'smite' once per turn for a CP is solid.
The increased range is a nice to have, which makes you more likely to benefit from your bonus Ap-1 in half range.
The protocol of vengeful stars giving bonus AP, AND ignoring cover is excellent, making Mephrit Gauss really strong against power armor, which right now, is the king of 9th ed.
Its basically my go-to dynasty if I'm not doing a DIY dynasty.

Tyel wrote:


What are people thinking on Mephrit? I find it interesting how before the book this was thought as a trap choice, but it increasingly looks like it has legs if you don't want a custom dynasty.

Mephrit is ok. The issue has always been It's just doubling down on an area Necrons already do reasonably well at, close range firepower, it doesn't actually help the areas where Necrons tend to need help. I feel like its a dynasty that looks great on paper because it synergises with the concept of fielding a lot of Gauss/tesla weaponry, but then when you actually play it out you realise you opponent isn't just going to let you shoot them point blank all game long.

I'd argue of the non army wide obsec factions Novohk is among the strongest contenders for the following reasons

- The strongest troop choices in the codex are Gauss Reaper Warriors & Gauss Immortals. Gauss flayer warriors tend to not contribute sufficient firepower to justify their price tag and tesla is currently 2points overcosted. Due to the short range of Gauss Reaper warriors and their high durability to ranged firepower it is almost enviable they will see close combat whether they want initiate it themselves or not. Unlike every other sub-faction, the Novohk dynasty allows them to actually become a melee unit. Blood Rites, My Will be Done, Disruption Fields, Novohk Code -1AP, Hungry void both protocols and suddenly you opponent is wondering the how the hell Necron warriors are throwing out 40 WS2+ Strength 6 attacks with -1AP and 6's going to -2AP. The same can be said for Immortals that now have base 2 attacks in combat.

- Many of the very best units in the Necron Codex are currently melee units, Wraiths, Scarabs, Skorpekh, Lychguard. They all benefit greatly from Novohks +1 to charge, -1AP and the blood rites stratagem.

- Novohk double dipping on the hungry void protocol is probably among the best command protocols.

Anyway, all the lists I make currently boil down to trying to dominate on the primary objectives by using either:

- Novohk Battalion and muscling opponents off objectives.

- Eternal Conquerors/Relentless Expansion Outriders with no troops and a lot of tomb blades/scarabs/wraiths and just grabbing the objectives with units disproportionally fast, durable and ob sec.

@Asymmetric, I agree with you.

I focused on the custom dynasty combo initially but it doesn't fit my style. Novokh actually encourages warrior bricks and makes assaulting the line much more problematic. As Necrons are a midrange army being danger close is part of the gig and Novokh really compensates and compliments the playstyle.

Here's a good example of a Novohk 60 warrior list making mince meat out of harlequins:

What do players think of masters of the martial? Is it better than other dynasty’s?

Wakshaani wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Can 1 action teleport 2? As same action(raise banners excluded) can be done only 1 at same time and teleporting forts is action

also each terrain piece　is 10 wounds no inv saves. People gear up to kill minimum 1 knigh' with 24w and 4++. You can easily lose all 6 parts in 2 turns. Albeit is nice firepower soaking

1 per Cryptek, so you need two to move two, but that's a LOT of footprint to stick into lanes.

Same action can only be done once. You need specific excetion to allow more than one(see raise flag). Is there such wording or 2+ different named actions?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Krull wrote:
Am I the only one that really hates FW stuff?
Don't get me wrong. I really like how the models look. But thats it.

The rules are always OP. They always has to do more than the GW stuff. At least so it seems.
Better weapons, better special rules.
And most of the time the point cost is just cheap.

No never enjoy playing against FW stuff. So I refuse to use FW rules myself!

Uuh fw stuff is by majority inferior. Especially once gw took control as gw wants players to buy plastic which is more profitable.

Been decades since fw was main source of balance issues

The same action can only be done once thing was faq'd out....

If you look at the FAQ related to actions, it tells you to change the part describing actions to a much smaller paragraph, which doesnt have the "one action only" part.



And since the CoD's special action is on a different unit, and there has never been a rule that only one unit can do it no matter how many have access to it, you can do it multiple times you just need multiple crypteks.

Hmnm, that's an interesting point. I think you're right: RAW the "one CRYPTEK" thing just means only one CRYPTEK can attempt it per pillar you want to move. If you have multiple pillars you want to move, I guess you could have one CRYPTEK do the action to move each one each turn.

I hadn't considered that each pillar enables a separate instance of the action.

Correct.

There are rules that disallow you from stacking it onto other units (i.e. Rites or various repairs) but theres never a rule that universally cannot be done because another unit did it period.

A 2nd cryptek cannot action the same pillar due to the "one cryptek unit" bit but since they deploy fairly close to each other thats not a problem.

Actually, now that I look at the text again, I'm back to only one attempt of the action per turn. It says "if there any any STARSTELE units on the battlefield, CRYPTEK units can attempt the following action" blah blah blah. It's not an action that's actually attached to the datasheet of each pillar, and therefore you don't actually get one instance per pillar. It's just if you have any pillars on the battlefield, the action is enabled, and the action says "one CRYPTEK unit" so it can only be done once. I'm back to it being like Psychic Ritual or Deploy Scramblers - only once per turn.

It's also interestingly not tied to any specific pillar. The CRYPTEK can do the action if it's within 3" of any, and you don't pick which to teleport until the action resolves at the end of the turn, if you're in range of more than one.

There has to have been a less confusing way to word the thing.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Actually, now that I look at the text again, I'm back to only one attempt of the action per turn. It says "if there any any STARSTELE units on the battlefield, CRYPTEK units can attempt the following action" blah blah blah. It's not an action that's actually attached to the datasheet of each pillar, and therefore you don't actually get one instance per pillar. It's just if you have any pillars on the battlefield, the action is enabled, and the action says "one CRYPTEK unit" so it can only be done once. I'm back to it being like Psychic Ritual or Deploy Scramblers - only once per turn.

It's also interestingly not tied to any specific pillar. The CRYPTEK can do the action if it's within 3" of any, and you don't pick which to teleport until the action resolves at the end of the turn, if you're in range of more than one.

There has to have been a less confusing way to word the thing.

It gets better... taking the Convergence gives all of your Crypteks the action, which can be used to do blah blah blah. So, by adding them to your list, all of your Crypteks get that action added to their sheet.

The big thing to untangle is how the Stelae being vehicles and terrain and fortifications, but can be teleported, interacts with the rules.

Complicated unit!

Araablane wrote:
Would this list work, trying to make my first 1750 pts list.
Im trying to make the most out of Indomitus and the extra warriors i have.

Spoiler:

++ Battalion Detachment 0CP (Necrons) [85 PL, 1,750pts] ++

+ Configuration +

Detachment CP

Dynasty Choice: Circumstance of Awakening: Relentlessly Expansionist, Dynastic Tradition: Eternal Conquerors, Dynasty: <Custom>

+ HQ +

Catacomb Command Barge [9 PL, 180pts]: Gauss Cannon, Relic: Orb of Eternity, Resurrection Orb, Staff of Light, Warlord, Warlord Trait (Codex 4): Thrall of the Silent King

Crypteks [5 PL, 95pts]
. Chronomancer: Aeonstave, Arkana: Cryptogeometric Adjuster

Skorpekh Lord [7 PL, 130pts]

+ Troops +

Immortals [4 PL, 85pts]: Gauss Blaster, 5x Immortal

Necron Warriors [12 PL, 260pts]
. 20x Necron Warrior (Gauss Reaper): 20x Gauss Reaper

Necron Warriors [12 PL, 260pts]
. 20x Necron Warrior (Gauss Reaper): 20x Gauss Reaper

+ Elites +

C'tan Shard of the Nightbringer [18 PL, 350pts]: Power of the C'tan: Antimatter Meteor

Skorpekh Destroyers [10 PL, 210pts]
. 2x Skorpekh Destroyer (Reap-Blade): 2x Hyperphase Reap-Blade
. 4x Skorpekh Destroyer (Thresher): 4x Hyperphase Threshers

+ Fast Attack +

Canoptek Scarab Swarms [4 PL, 90pts]
. 6x Canoptek Scarab Swarm: 6x Feeder Mandibles

Canoptek Scarab Swarms [4 PL, 90pts]
. 6x Canoptek Scarab Swarm: 6x Feeder Mandibles

++ Total: [85 PL, 1,750pts] ++

Created with BattleScribe

It seems strictly okay, although I think you only need one squad with flayers at most. They favor repositioning tricks with stuff like the veil, in my opinion, and are less good for general use. I also think you need at least one heavier gun somewhere in that list. The Nightbringer is choppy and high damage, but is fragile and will almost always die round two or three.

Troops Questions-

Should I take large groups of warriors for securing objectives or use medium sized ones? I feel like small ones would just get shot to pieces and fail.

Is it better to take 5 Immortals vs 10? I like the durability of immortals so It think smaller groups of them are okay while holding objectives, plus 5 getting locked up in close combat isn’t as bad as 10.

Just thought I’d mention that I’ll be using Void Dragon as well. Just think it’s a cool model and will be fun to use.

Garukadon wrote:
Troops Questions-

Should I take large groups of warriors for securing objectives or use medium sized ones? I feel like small ones would just get shot to pieces and fail.

Is it better to take 5 Immortals vs 10? I like the durability of immortals so It think smaller groups of them are okay while holding objectives, plus 5 getting locked up in close combat isn’t as bad as 10.

Just thought I’d mention that I’ll be using Void Dragon as well. Just think it’s a cool model and will be fun to use.

With Warriors, if you're going to take 11+ you're usually better going for 20. If you need to cut some points in your list taking a few Warriors out of a 20-man unit is usually fine though. For Immortals, 5 is probably too small. It's not that difficult for opponents to remove 5 T5 3+ save models with one unit and RP gets better the more models you have in the unit. If you're holding midfield objectives with 5 Immortals they're going to die very quickly and if you want to hold your home objectives you usually don't need Troops for that.