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.

I think an important observation that needs to be made here. Space marine auras while a nerfed a little a great deal (still affect most of their army) while MWBD has been massively nerfed and can't be used on many really powerful units (just troop squads and tombblades moslty). I think this has to be an error as the intention of core...had to be an attempt to reduce the abuse of auras (which space marines were the main offender).

When a fix goes so far from fixing the problem it was attempting to fix and makes things worse. It makes you scratch your head a little. It gives me hope though that this is an oversite and it will be fixed.

I think it shows that the designers of the two books had vastly different visions for how <CORE> was supposed to work. The Necron designers took the whole <CORE> thing seriously and interpreted it restrictively to limit many of the more powerful effects in the codex to pretty much only the basic troops of the faction.

The SM designers, meanwhile, seem to have thought that <CORE> was just supposed to stop a chapter master being a buffbot for a bunch of repulsors (ironically not an issue for years now) and that was it, it wasn't supposed to do anything more than that. As a result, they designed a book where <CORE> was the default, with only a small handful of exceptions.

The place you can see this most clearly is in allowing the Chapter master reroll buff to hit characters in addition to <CORE>. This makes no sense in the context of the way the Necron book deals with <CORE>.

It's hardly the first time GW has been caught with its employees not singing off the same hymn sheet, but it's disappointing to see it still happening, especially with concurrently released flagship books for the new edition.

Mixed views really.

I think the Necron codex is great - and if everyone got a similar sort of codex, I think the game would be in a great spot. I'm not quite sure on "the tournament build" - but most things feel on the healthier side of viable, as opposed to "I cannot stop laughing".

Marines unfortunately feels like a minor tone down and GW probably needed to go further. Its going to prompt a shuffling of the deck (well, I say that, eradicators were already here) and will still be the army to beat. I don't really want marines to be nerfed into oblivion (well, not all the time) - but the prospect of another year of marine meta kind of sucks.

GW need to add a gangbusters style secondary ASAP.

yukishiro1 wrote:
I think it shows that the designers of the two books had vastly different visions for how <CORE> was supposed to work. The Necron designers took the whole <CORE> thing seriously and interpreted it restrictively to limit many of the more powerful effects in the codex to pretty much only the basic troops of the faction.

The SM designers, meanwhile, seem to have thought that <CORE> was just supposed to stop a chapter master being a buffbot for a bunch of repulsors (ironically not an issue for years now) and that was it, it wasn't supposed to do anything more than that. As a result, they designed a book where <CORE> was the default, with only a small handful of exceptions.

The place you can see this most clearly is in allowing the Chapter master reroll buff to hit characters in addition to <CORE>. This makes no sense in the context of the way the Necron book deals with <CORE>.

It's hardly the first time GW has been caught with its employees not singing off the same hymn sheet, but it's disappointing to see it still happening, especially with concurrently released flagship books for the new edition.

core being this widespread to marines honestly doesn't suprise me, in part because GW had already defined what was core for marines some time ago in codex 8.0 (hence why chapter tactics initally was infantry dreads and bikes only) with that in mind I think the armies that emerge well from core will be the armies with a large well defined core. armies with a poorly defined core on the other hand, may have some issues.

But that shouldn't be the case. Any time a new concept is introduced into the game, it should be introduced into the game in a balance-neutral way. Armies that are almost all <CORE> should pay for that advantage with units that are less efficient base-line. <CORE> shouldn't end up screwing over some factions and helping others balance wise because <reasons>, it should be pointed for like anything else.

GW screws up the balance of its game time and time again by failing to follow this most basic of game design concepts. They throw stuff into the game willy-nilly without regard for the balance, and then try to fix it afterwards.

A Sautekh 9th edition army gets:
51 data sheets (best of any dynasty by a good few)
35 strategems
7 warlord traits
9 relics
21 extras (12 arkana + 9 c'tan powers)

An Ultramarines 9th edition army gets (I ran out of fingers and toes several times so may have miscounted):
110 data sheets (116% more)
50 strategems (42% more)
18 warlord traits (157% more)
30 relics (233% more)
45 extras (7 chapter command upgrades with 7 more warlord traits and 7 more relics, 18 psychic powers, 6 litanies) (114% more)

The supplements are the mistake that keeps on giving.

Also, don't worry forgeworld will be coming soon to give Space Marines a much needed helping hand.

For Necrons in general:

Only 5 out of 51 data sheets are Core. Then they have Capotek and Destroyer Cult as alternatives. This is bad, as it splits the book into three groups that don't work with each other.

The command protocols are also really hard to use effectively, you are constantly thinking "wish I had this one last turn/ext turn". Then when you do get the right protocol, your unit isn't in range of any characters... Can't I just I have an extra AP on all my rapid fire and assault guns turn 2 and 3 no matter where I am standing?

No. Instead you get an extra 1AP when you roll 6s to wound...an ability so powerful it has to be gated behind a once per game limitation you decide at the start of the game, and that you need a character within 9" to proc.

Space marines 1AP period in predictable ways is not nearly as powerful, and therefore just activates automatically with no thought required.

Oh, wait.

Protocols are an interesting idea and some of them are actually good, but man did they go overboard with the terms and conditions, and man a lot of them sure are duds. After all the T&Cs you would think that the +1AP ones could just be +1AP for shooting, or for melee, period...but no, instead it's only on a 6 to wound, i.e. like 1/10th as powerful.

yukishiro1 wrote:
No. Instead you get an extra 1AP when you roll 6s to wound...an ability so powerful it has to be gated behind a once per game limitation you decide at the start of the game, and that you need a character within 9" to proc.

Space marines 1AP period in predictable ways is not nearly as powerful, and therefore just activates automatically with no thought required.

Oh, wait.

Protocols are an interesting idea and some of them are actually good, but man did they go overboard with the terms and conditions, and man a lot of them sure are duds. After all the T&Cs you would think that the +1AP ones could just be +1AP for shooting, or for melee, period...but no, instead it's only on a 6 to wound, i.e. like 1/10th as powerful.

1/6th. It's a d6 system. Just saying :p
But yeah , I was massively underwhelmed by the protocols.

EightFoldPath wrote:
A Sautekh 9th edition army gets:
51 data sheets (best of any dynasty by a good few)
35 strategems
7 warlord traits
9 relics
21 extras (12 arkana + 9 c'tan powers)

An Ultramarines 9th edition army gets (I ran out of fingers and toes several times so may have miscounted):
110 data sheets (116% more)
50 strategems (42% more)
18 warlord traits (157% more)
30 relics (233% more)
45 extras (7 chapter command upgrades with 7 more warlord traits and 7 more relics, 18 psychic powers, 6 litanies) (114% more)

If you think that's bad, a Poison Tongue DE army gets:
15 data sheets
18 strategems
4 warlord traits
5 relics
0 extras

I realise they haven't had a 9th edition codex yet, but still.

TBH I believe the problem are not protocols or Grey Knights tides or Sisters of Battle stuff. Those are all mono-codex buffs that actually make the player to chose stuff and plan ahead. They are engaging and fun.

Space Marine doctrines are an aberration. In their basical form, they are the most boring stuff possible, and the most powerfull one, a direct +1 AP for a whole army for free. The super doctrines are pure cheese that feel like they are designed to be "fluffy" but in practice are just the cherry on top of the cheesecake thats the supplements.

EightFoldPath wrote:
Only 5 out of 51 data sheets are Core. Then they have Capotek and Destroyer Cult as alternatives. This is bad, as it splits the book into three groups that don't work with each other.

The problem here is they weren't brave enough with Crypteks and the whole army has suffered for it. Cryptek's should be the links holding everything together but there's not quite enough meat on the bone. All Cryptek's should be able to interact with all 3 army sections IMO

nekooni wrote:

1/6th. It's a d6 system. Just saying :p
But yeah , I was massively underwhelmed by the protocols.

Actually more like 1/3, assuming you wound on average on a 4+; only things that actually wound get the AP. I dunno where I pulled 1/10th from.

There are some good protocols. Fall back and shoot is hard to time right, but it's a very powerful effect if you can make use of it. +1STR varies a lot, but if it translates into a break point, it's huge. Being able to shoot and do an action is usually meh but sometimes game-winning.

But yes, in general they feel a bit underpowered for how many T&Cs they are hidden behind. Frankly, they aren't any more powerful than canticles typically, so I'm not sure why they're locked in before the game, AND limited by dynasty. For that level of limitation, you'd expect a commensurate increase in power, and they don't get it. If you're taking the Silent King they're worth it because of how much he lets you manipulate them, but without that, frankly I think splashing in a Sautek patrol for the free vect on Nemesor Zandy may be more powerful.

I think a lot of people are vastly overestimating the gulf between Space Marines and Necrons right now.

Is the Space Marine Book stronger than the Necron book? Yeah, for sure. Can the Necron book compete with Space Marines? Absolutely.

The new Necron book is strong, and I think we're going to start seeing it pop up on top tables before too long.

That being said, it is not near as point as click as Space Marines. You have to do a lot of preplanning and execution is harder.

The new Necron book is excellent at killing Space Marines, so it'd be hugely problematic if it couldn't compete with the one faction it is best designed to beat.

I do think it's a good book. We won't know whether it's strong till we have something besides the SM codex to compare it to.

 vipoid wrote:

EightFoldPath wrote:
A Sautekh 9th edition army gets:
51 data sheets (best of any dynasty by a good few)
35 strategems
7 warlord traits
9 relics
21 extras (12 arkana + 9 c'tan powers)

An Ultramarines 9th edition army gets (I ran out of fingers and toes several times so may have miscounted):
110 data sheets (116% more)
50 strategems (42% more)
18 warlord traits (157% more)
30 relics (233% more)
45 extras (7 chapter command upgrades with 7 more warlord traits and 7 more relics, 18 psychic powers, 6 litanies) (114% more)

If you think that's bad, a Poison Tongue DE army gets:
15 data sheets
18 strategems
4 warlord traits
5 relics
0 extras

I realise they haven't had a 9th edition codex yet, but still.

Agreed, there are plenty of similar 8th edition codexes like that.

As the first non SM 9th edition codex I was expecting at least an extra page of strategems, warlord traits and relics in the Necron book to help "keep up" with the space marine supplements.

I guess we now look towards the Death Guard codex to see if this is what all non SM factions should expect. It could be really painful for DG because they had a really limited 8th edition codex for so long and had just got some actual options with War of the Spider. If their 9th codex is as stingy as Necrons they may lose some of them due to lack of space.

How many total stratagems do Deathguard have now, including WotS?

Necrons got 40, that seems pretty reasonable for a codex. Nothing is going to compare to how many SM are getting with their supplements.

I want to know why they made even more equipment into strats (Meltabombs, smoke launchers, etc.).

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I want to know why they made even more equipment into strats (Meltabombs, smoke launchers, etc.).

gotta spend that CP on something...I guess? Lame nonetheless.

I have been trying to figure out what makes Space Marines so popular. I believe it is the fact that their troop choices are easier to use
.

The usual suspects are strangely silent..

Couple of unit comparisons:

Land Raider. A unit that's pretty universally regarded as not great. 285pts. T8 2+ W16. 4 lascannons, 6 S5 AP-1 D2 heavy bolter shots.

Monolith with Death Rays. 380pts. 8 more wounds, regenerates 1 wound per turn, 4 3+D3 damage antitank shots, D6 S8 Ap-3 D3 shots. Does have a nice autohitting melee attack.

The monolith is a LOW slot, so basically will never get a doctrine, deep strikes (if you want to leave nearly 400pts off the board just for fun) and does have the ability to transport 1 unit onto the board per turn, but can't move if it does so.

Basically it's a land raider you pour 1/3 more points into, gaining approximately 1 eradicator's shooting worth of extra durability and all your guns become 24" range, so you have to be closer. Is it worth 100pts and 3CP over the already bad LR?

IMO: Nope.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In order to steelman the 'crons, i'll assume every single time they always benefit from RPs.

Lychguard: 28pts per model. T5 W2 Sv3+, A3. Can either be outfitted with Scythes for S7 Ap-4 D2 or Blades for S6 Ap-3 D1 and gain a storm shield, becoming Sv2+ and 4++.

compare sword-and-board to an assault terminator with LCs.

The Lychguard are:

-Less durable vs boltguns/lasguns/other basic d1 fire
-identically durable vs heavy bolters, plasma, other D2 weaponry
-More durable vs D3 and D6 damage weaponry

The terminators deal more damage vs everything. 5A on the charge, less strength but reroll wounds more than makes up for that, and AP-1

Also, small note for a slow melee unit: The terminators deep strike.

For 1 point more than scythe lychguard, you can have jump pack vanvets with power fists. Basically, you get 12" move, fly, and native deep strike with essentially the same damage for 1pt, and only lose out on a small bit of durability.

It really feels like GW just doesn't understand how their own game works with large models. For every one they get basically right - the Silent King, for example - there are at least 5 that are just a complete mess.

 Xenomancers wrote:
The monolith is good LOL.

The monolith is a Lord of War, so uh, I'm really not feeling it. It might be okay as a Heavy Support [with d6+4 pretty strong AT shots], but for 3 [or even 6] CP on top of it's extant cost? My bet is Nah.

It's also like a weak Lord of War. Like, it's not a Knight, and Knights are the bar for the slot it's in. It doesn't gak 36 mortal wound a turn either. So like, it's in a high value high expectation Lord of War slot that costs extra to unlock with the general performance of a big Heavy Support.

Praetorians compare even worse to vanvets. vanvets with 1 LC and jump pack are 24pts vs the praetorians at 25, praetorians have worse damage vs almost everything again thanks to the reroll wounds, move 10" instead of move 12" , no deep strike, and the same slight durability increase.

Pretty sure that was a Stompa joke...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:
Praetorians compare even worse to vanvets. vanvets with 1 LC and jump pack are 24pts vs the praetorians at 25, praetorians have worse damage vs almost everything again thanks to the reroll wounds, move 10" instead of move 12" , no deep strike, and the same slight durability increase.

I mostly agree re: your prior post on the lycheguard, this one seems more off to me. Praetorians have 2D (including S5 -3AP 2d shooting attacks), vanvets with LCs don't. But they do lose dynasty bonuses, and <CORE>, which is significant. I mean I guess technically they have the 1D loadout too, but literally nobody would ever take them that way because it's straight-up worse.

Now whitescars in assault doctrine make everything in the necron book look terrible, but they do that to pretty much everything in the game, sooo....

Deathmarks: At 18ppm, they are in essence the same as a space marine sniper scout with slightly better damage (S5 Ap-2 vs S4 AP-1), for a couple points.

The 'huge buff' to deathmarks that necron players are supposed to get excited for is essentially the same thing as the 'soft squatting' of oldmarine scouts that marine players are claiming.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
There are a few things in this book I think do compare favorably to the marine book just on the core statline - Immortals are fairly solid, Warriors are fairly solid, Ctan look good - but in general, the units are just to the same double standard that pretty much everything in the game seems to be now vs marines.

the_scotsman wrote:
Praetorians compare even worse to vanvets. vanvets with 1 LC and jump pack are 24pts vs the praetorians at 25, praetorians have worse damage vs almost everything again thanks to the reroll wounds, move 10" instead of move 12" , no deep strike, and the same slight durability increase.

Can you show your math for this, This doesn't look correct to me at face value. The Rod has Strength 5 -3 AP Flat Damage 2 in shooting and in melee. Even with the Reroll to wound and extra attack from the lighting claws it doesn't seem like on face value that Vangets get more damage through.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:
Deathmarks: At 18ppm, they are in essence the same as a space marine sniper scout with slightly better damage (S5 Ap-2 vs S4 AP-1), for a couple points.

The 'huge buff' to deathmarks that necron players are supposed to get excited for is essentially the same thing as the 'soft squatting' of oldmarine scouts that marine players are claiming.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
There are a few things in this book I think do compare favorably to the marine book just on the core statline - Immortals are fairly solid, Warriors are fairly solid, Ctan look good - but in general, the units are just to the same double standard that pretty much everything in the game seems to be now vs marines.

Deathmarks also Have BS 2, T5 and a better base save. They also have their intercept stratagem as well, which can be used even when they are on the board.

I was comparing the variant with the pistol and blade to the unit with the pistol and blade. now I see that the rod is indeed 100% better for the same cost, and I would concede that praetorians except for not getting dynasty codes, Deep Strike or CORE do appear to be fairly comparable to vanvets.

There isn't really a good way to compare rod praets with vanvets truth be told. Vanvets don't have a mid-s multidamage weapon option.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sasori wrote:


Deathmarks also Have BS 2, T5 and a better base save. They also have their intercept stratagem as well, which can be used even when they are on the board.

Better base save, but scouts can just have 2+ in cover with camo cloaks.

Slightly more durability, slightly more damage, couple points more expensive.

They're basic D1 snipers with MW on a 6. Those have existed since the index and have been nonfunctional since the index, because they simply do not kill characters fast enough to matter.

the_scotsman wrote:
I was comparing the variant with the pistol and blade to the unit with the pistol and blade. now I see that the rod is indeed 100% better for the same cost, and I would concede that praetorians except for not getting dynasty codes, Deep Strike or CORE do appear to be fairly comparable to vanvets.

There isn't really a good way to compare rod praets with vanvets truth be told. Vanvets don't have a mid-s multidamage weapon option.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sasori wrote:


Deathmarks also Have BS 2, T5 and a better base save. They also have their intercept stratagem as well, which can be used even when they are on the board.

Better base save, but scouts can just have 2+ in cover with camo cloaks.

Slightly more durability, slightly more damage, couple points more expensive.

They're basic D1 snipers with MW on a 6. Those have existed since the index and have been nonfunctional since the index, because they simply do not kill characters fast enough to matter.

I mean, BS 2, T5 and base 3+ save with RP, +1 S and -1 AP on the sniper rifle is a pretty significant difference for 2 PPM more than sniper scouts. I don't disagree that Deathmarks are not amazing, but it feels like most snipers in the game really are not in a great spot.

The nerfs to Necrons were absolutely hilarious and out of whack, no matter the buffs that single wound models got.