Here come the pointy elves

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.

**vipoid**

the_scotsman wrote:
I'm pretty pleased with Wyches out of all this. +1A and AP-1 hekatarii blades mean that while they still can't fight astartes hyper longrange shooting specialists (what dedicated all-melee unit can though!) when equipped with a suitable anti-marine special weapon they can at least give MEQ something to think about and they absolutely carve up GEQ.

Just a point but you might want to make sure Wyches still get +1A from their blades before celebrating.

It's possible GW just moved the extra attack from their blades to their statline.

**the_scotsman**

vipoid wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
I'm pretty pleased with Wyches out of all this. +1A and AP-1 hekatarii blades mean that while they still can't fight astartes hyper longrange shooting specialists (what dedicated all-melee unit can though!) when equipped with a suitable anti-marine special weapon they can at least give MEQ something to think about and they absolutely carve up GEQ.

Just a point but you might want to make sure Wyches still get +1A from their blades before celebrating.

It's possible GW just moved the extra attack from their blades to their statline.

True I suppose.Obviously, we don't know how the various special rules work.

**Imateria**

the_scotsman wrote:
I'm pretty pleased with Wyches out of all this. +1A and AP-1 hekatarii blades mean that while they still can't fight astartes hyper longrange shooting specialists (what dedicated all-melee unit can though!) when equipped with a suitable anti-marine special weapon they can at least give MEQ something to think about and they absolutely carve up GEQ.

4A AP-1 is exactly enough for a full 10 wych squad to be able to basically overwhelm a standard 5-man 2 wound MEQ squad, which is just about where they need to be to be a useful semi-glass cannon unit that can pull some tricks with Dodge.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

bullyboy wrote:
I think what is going to be interesting is how this new book is received/performs. I'm not familiar with Necrons to know how their book landed, and each other book so far has been power armour based. And as much as people don't like them, marines actually finally feel like they are portrayed in the fluff. I'm sorry that you don't think they should be destroying Orks in melee, but that's pretty much what I read all the time....now numbers, different story. Just take away the double shoot of the Erads like you did the Aggies and all good, but I don't want to make this a marine love/hate thread, too many of those.
The next series of books (barring Chaos) will showcase armies that are not marine based, and it's going to be interesting (and game defining) how they perform in this edition. Drukhari are the first on the list and they will show what GW thinks a T3 1W based force needs to win in 9th, so it's a pretty important book, even though I'm more of a craftworlder myself. I think it boils down to more than just Drukhari players being happy, it basically sheds light on how other non marine players can expect to play in this edition (hopefully not the NPC trope)

Necron players in my experience are pretty unimpressed. Mathematically, warriors and immortals are fine, but they're not representing what necron players in my area think they ought to be compared to the baseline of astartes. Chalk that up to the fact that, pound for pound, immortals are exactly identical durability-wise to baseline astartes vs almost every type of weapon. Vs the current durability-focused marine units - DA terminators, DW vets with storm shields, plague marines - nothing necron even comes close to holding a candle.

Theyve also got the same old problem they've had since their 5th ed redesign which is that they've got sooooooooooooo many units trying to do the exact same thing of being "beefy mid-T infantry with good save and RP with anti elite gun and no melee or with anti-elite melee and no gun." That ends up leaving holes in their roster that can really only be filled by 1 or 2 units that inevitably show up in every list or whole swathes of units that dont get used because there's one "best" for the category, like Wraiths were for the longest time the best all-melee-mid-strength-anti-elite category unit, so nobody used Flayed Ones Lychguard Praetorians etc.

If anything GW doubled down on that setup - the new walker thing is near-identical to the doomsday arc, the 2 new forms of destroyers are just "wraiths again, twice", the new hexmark looked at what deathmarks were doing and was like 'hey bro can i borrow that exact play pattern from you for a sec, you can have this bland generic sniper statline"

The most meaningful addition was something they had in the original 5e book - all the different types of cryptek. So while it's a nice add, it's more just something they get back than something that's really new.

Too early to get excited about the Wyche profiles, as Vipoid said we don't no if the Heketarii blade keeps it's +1A or not, though Hydra Gauntlets going to +2, -2 is pretty tasty allround. This unit and it's weapons relies so heavily on it's abilities that we wont know if they're any good until we see the full rules for them, they've also been historically the most overcosted of our troops choices for what they do.

I also completely disagree with you on the Necron codex, despite some early gripping about Reanimation it has been very well received. The internal balance is actually pretty good with only a few outliers being notably bad (such as the Hexmark you mentioned) and most of them are Lords of War and are suffering more due to the rules regarding the super heavy detachments than their own stats (the Obelisk seems to be the only one unsalvagable). You mention all of their combat units but have missed that they all play pretty differently, with Lychguard either being a defencive screen unit for characters or a scalpel used to hit specific targets when buffed up (at their most buffed they can have 6 S9, AP-4, D2 attacks each hitting on 2's, rerolling 1's, though they are more likely to have 4 S8 attacks hitting on 2's), Praetorians are a good bully unit to be sent up the flanks and do damage without support, Wraiths are still used to tie up the midfield as usual, Skorpeks are more like shock troops and Ophydians are best for harrasing the backfield.

Honestly, though I haven't had much chance to play due to lockdown, Necrons look like the most fun army to play that I've had since Corsairs, certainly a lot more fun than the other Xenos armies have been through 8th and 9th, even Drukhari. In fact I'd say that was the biggest criticism of Drukhari, while the 8th ed codex was certainly strong, GW has streamlined the faction so much that hasn't really got any tricks left and even the 7th ed codex was more fun despite being weaker.

**harlokin**

vipoid wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
I'm pretty pleased with Wyches out of all this. +1A and AP-1 hekatarii blades mean that while they still can't fight astartes hyper longrange shooting specialists (what dedicated all-melee unit can though!) when equipped with a suitable anti-marine special weapon they can at least give MEQ something to think about and they absolutely carve up GEQ.

Just a point but you might want to make sure Wyches still get +1A from their blades before celebrating.

It's possible GW just moved the extra attack from their blades to their statline.

I'm trying to stay positive, but I suspect that is what this is.

**vipoid**

I mean, I hope that's not the case as +1A, -1AP might actually make me consider dusting off my Wyches.

I'm just wary of GW robbing Peter to pay Paul.

**the_scotsman**

I'm not saying your opinion is wrong or even not reflective of the overall necron player community - I'm just mentioning what I've heard said by the 3 necron players in my area.

Personally, I played the absolute gak out of the 8th drukhari book - possibly one of my favorite codexes in 8th overall for my various factions. The fact that my wych cults felt like by the end of 8th they had 4 distinct, meaningfully different, and in my area at least equally useful/viable army setups made them totally unique among my 40k armies where most often it felt like there was one 'right' choice of subfaction setups and all the best ways to build and use the units were the best ways with any subfaction. Really only my orks were the other army I play where I felt like I could goof around with various subfactions and like them for different reasons.

Throughout 8th I played my wyches as:

-Foot Horde/hellion and reaver horde with Cursed Blade
-Glass cannon with Test of skill/Slashing Impact
-Super high speed alpha strike with red grief
-Mechanized infantry focused with actually functional duellist HQs wtih Strife

It's 100% showing its age now, but from a purely gameplay standpoint I felt like I had far more options with my drukhari than I did throughout 7h ed as a whole. Most of my frustrations are just with core statlines and the various annoyances with the HQs.

**Imateria**

the_scotsman wrote:
I'm not saying your opinion is wrong or even not reflective of the overall necron player community - I'm just mentioning what I've heard said by the 3 necron players in my area.

Personally, I played the absolute gak out of the 8th drukhari book - possibly one of my favorite codexes in 8th overall for my various factions. The fact that my wych cults felt like by the end of 8th they had 4 distinct, meaningfully different, and in my area at least equally useful/viable army setups made them totally unique among my 40k armies where most often it felt like there was one 'right' choice of subfaction setups and all the best ways to build and use the units were the best ways with any subfaction. Really only my orks were the other army I play where I felt like I could goof around with various subfactions and like them for different reasons.

Throughout 8th I played my wyches as:

-Foot Horde/hellion and reaver horde with Cursed Blade
-Glass cannon with Test of skill/Slashing Impact
-Super high speed alpha strike with red grief
-Mechanized infantry focused with actually functional duellist HQs wtih Strife

It's 100% showing its age now, but from a purely gameplay standpoint I felt like I had far more options with my drukhari than I did throughout 7h ed as a whole. Most of my frustrations are just with core statlines and the various annoyances with the HQs.

Personally I never liked to run just 1 of the subfactions and felt incredibly hamstrung by the forced speration, I could never just slot in a unit of Reavers or Talos, I had to build entire detachments around them and usually being forced to take more units than I wanted. By the end of the edition my lists were all feeling samey and I was rather tired of the faction.

**vipoid**

Imateria wrote:

Personally I never liked to run just 1 of the subfactions and felt incredibly hamstrung by the forced speration, I could never just slot in a unit of Reavers or Talos, I had to build entire detachments around them and usually being forced to take more units than I wanted. By the end of the edition my lists were all feeling samey and I was rather tired of the faction.

I'm in the same boat.

In 7th, I could have a Grotesquerie with one set of Grotesques led by a Haemonculus and another by an Archon. Now, if I try to do the same, that Archon exists only for decoration.

I could have a unit of Wyches or Incubi led by a Haemonculus, who would boost their PfP as well as increasing their Ld. Now he's as helpful to those squads as a walking doorknob.

I could also mix it up with units - I could have an Archon as my HQ, leading Kabalite warriors in Venoms, backed up by three Reaver squads and a Talos. Now, if I want to do the same, I need to separate those into different detachments, add HQs to each and also troops or extra Heavy Support units to the Talos.

I just find it to be a lot of unintuitive faffing that makes list-building far limited and far more of a pain, whilst adding nothing positive in return.

Even if I'm primarily running just one subfaction, I still like retaining the option to add in a Haemonculus or a Talos or whatever. Maybe I have some extra points, maybe it's thematic for the list I'm running, maybe I just think it will be fun.

**Daedalus81**

the_scotsman wrote:

Necron players in my experience are pretty unimpressed. Mathematically, warriors and immortals are fine, but they're not representing what necron players in my area think they ought to be compared to the baseline of astartes. Chalk that up to the fact that, pound for pound, immortals are exactly identical durability-wise to baseline astartes vs almost every type of weapon. Vs the current durability-focused marine units - DA terminators, DW vets with storm shields, plague marines - nothing necron even comes close to holding a candle.

Theyve also got the same old problem they've had since their 5th ed redesign which is that they've got sooooooooooooo many units trying to do the exact same thing of being "beefy mid-T infantry with good save and RP with anti elite gun and no melee or with anti-elite melee and no gun." That ends up leaving holes in their roster that can really only be filled by 1 or 2 units that inevitably show up in every list or whole swathes of units that dont get used because there's one "best" for the category, like Wraiths were for the longest time the best all-melee-mid-strength-anti-elite category unit, so nobody used Flayed Ones Lychguard Praetorians etc.

If anything GW doubled down on that setup - the new walker thing is near-identical to the doomsday arc, the 2 new forms of destroyers are just "wraiths again, twice", the new hexmark looked at what deathmarks were doing and was like 'hey bro can i borrow that exact play pattern from you for a sec, you can have this bland generic sniper statline"

The most meaningful addition was something they had in the original 5e book - all the different types of cryptek. So while it's a nice add, it's more just something they get back than something that's really new.

I don't really agree with this assessment and the devil is in the details. Note - based solely on personal experience.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

vipoid wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
I'm pretty pleased with Wyches out of all this. +1A and AP-1 hekatarii blades mean that while they still can't fight astartes hyper longrange shooting specialists (what dedicated all-melee unit can though!) when equipped with a suitable anti-marine special weapon they can at least give MEQ something to think about and they absolutely carve up GEQ.

Just a point but you might want to make sure Wyches still get +1A from their blades before celebrating.

It's possible GW just moved the extra attack from their blades to their statline.

I think this is less likely (but not impossible) due to the Kabalite and Incubi +1A without other baggage.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Imateria wrote:

I also completely disagree with you on the Necron codex, despite some early gripping about Reanimation it has been very well received. The internal balance is actually pretty good with only a few outliers being notably bad (such as the Hexmark you mentioned) and most of them are Lords of War and are suffering more due to the rules regarding the super heavy detachments than their own stats (the Obelisk seems to be the only one unsalvagable). You mention all of their combat units but have missed that they all play pretty differently, with Lychguard either being a defencive screen unit for characters or a scalpel used to hit specific targets when buffed up (at their most buffed they can have 6 S9, AP-4, D2 attacks each hitting on 2's, rerolling 1's, though they are more likely to have 4 S8 attacks hitting on 2's), Praetorians are a good bully unit to be sent up the flanks and do damage without support, Wraiths are still used to tie up the midfield as usual, Skorpeks are more like shock troops and Ophydians are best for harrasing the backfield.

This matches my feelings on Necrons.

**Tyel**

I think DE are getting an extra attack to represent "stabbyness" - because someone at GW really wants them to be a stabby faction (see... PA) and with the existing rules they weren't really.

The trade off might be losing the 6+++. Not for any real reason - but it would arguably streamline the game, and has always been a bit of an odd ability for a supposedly glass cannon faction.

But really, DE have had power from pain and drugs to get where they are. They sort of need a new mechanic to stand up to combat doctrines, nurgle's gift, command protocols and whatever the Sister's rule is called for why they get moar buffs. Its interesting how little speculation I've seen on that - perhaps because no one believes DE can have nice things. Admittedly, perhaps that's just "you get 1 more attack, gg".

**Imateria**

Daedalus81 wrote:

vipoid wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
I'm pretty pleased with Wyches out of all this. +1A and AP-1 hekatarii blades mean that while they still can't fight astartes hyper longrange shooting specialists (what dedicated all-melee unit can though!) when equipped with a suitable anti-marine special weapon they can at least give MEQ something to think about and they absolutely carve up GEQ.

Just a point but you might want to make sure Wyches still get +1A from their blades before celebrating.

It's possible GW just moved the extra attack from their blades to their statline.

I think this is less likely (but not impossible) due to the Kabalite and Incubi +1A without other baggage.

Incubi did not gain an extra attack, they have been A3 since the start of 8th, they gained S and D on their swords. Remember that Death Guard had the +1 attack on the charge moved to their stat profile with their new codex, not exactly a like for like comparison but pretty close.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyel wrote:
I think DE are getting an extra attack to represent "stabbyness" - because someone at GW really wants them to be a stabby faction (see... PA) and with the existing rules they weren't really.

The trade off might be losing the 6+++. Not for any real reason - but it would arguably streamline the game, and has always been a bit of an odd ability for a supposedly glass cannon faction.

But really, DE have had power from pain and drugs to get where they are. They sort of need a new mechanic to stand up to combat doctrines, nurgle's gift, command protocols and whatever the Sister's rule is called for why they get moar buffs. Its interesting how little speculation I've seen on that - perhaps because no one believes DE can have nice things. Admittedly, perhaps that's just "you get 1 more attack, gg".

I'd say it was pretty much guaranteed they are going to get an army wide ability like Command Protocols, Contagions or Combat Doctrines, I just haven't for the life of me got any idea what it would be.

**PenitentJake**

Imateria wrote:

Incubi did not gain an extra attack, they have been A3 since the start of 8th, they gained S and D on their swords. Remember that Death Guard had the +1 attack on the charge moved to their stat profile with their new codex, not exactly a like for like comparison but pretty close.

And I think we're going to find they lost their deadly strike (or whatever their "Extra Damage on a 6" rule was called). The extra point of strength and damage is better, so I'm not going to complain if we lost it. But just thought it would be better for discussion if all the details were on the table.

**Imateria**

PenitentJake wrote:
Imateria wrote:

Incubi did not gain an extra attack, they have been A3 since the start of 8th, they gained S and D on their swords. Remember that Death Guard had the +1 attack on the charge moved to their stat profile with their new codex, not exactly a like for like comparison but pretty close.

And I think we're going to find they lost their deadly strike (or whatever their "Extra Damage on a 6" rule was called). The extra point of strength and damage is better, so I'm not going to complain if we lost it. But just thought it would be better for discussion if all the details were on the table.

We'd actually have to have details to put on the table though, until then it's all speculation.

**harlokin**

PenitentJake wrote:
And I think we're going to find they lost their deadly strike (or whatever their "Extra Damage on a 6" rule was called). The extra point of strength and damage is better, so I'm not going to complain if we lost it. But just thought it would be better for discussion if all the details were on the table.

I agree, and have thought the same......mainly because Lawrence from Tabletop Tactics was a playtester for the 9e Drukhari codex, and he has been getting the Lethal Precision rule wrong in their recent 8e battle reports. So, either he's unfamilar with it cos it wasn't in the 9e document, or the stress of anticipation is turning me into a paranoid consipracy theorist.

......it's probably the latter tbh.

**Tyel**

harlokin wrote:
I agree, and have thought the same......mainly because Lawrence from Tabletop Tactics was playtester for 9e Drukhari codex, and he has been getting the Lethal Precision rule wrong in their recent 8e battle reports. So, either he's unfamilar with it cos it wasn't in the 9e document, or the stress of anticipation is turning me into a paranoid consipracy theorist. ......it's probably the latter tbh.

I guess that beats my take of "right so the new DE hotness is going to be 30 incubi and triple lance ravagers..."

I doubt they are going to keep the rule as it is - because 4 damage feels a bit silly. Could be nerfed to be +1 damage perhaps. Or made into a stratagem. Or who knows.

**the_scotsman**

Tyel wrote:
harlokin wrote:
I agree, and have thought the same......mainly because Lawrence from Tabletop Tactics was playtester for 9e Drukhari codex, and he has been getting the Lethal Precision rule wrong in their recent 8e battle reports. So, either he's unfamilar with it cos it wasn't in the 9e document, or the stress of anticipation is turning me into a paranoid consipracy theorist. ......it's probably the latter tbh.

I guess that beats my take of "right so the new DE hotness is going to be 30 incubi and triple lance ravagers..."

I doubt they are going to keep the rule as it is - because 4 damage feels a bit silly. Could be nerfed to be +1 damage perhaps. Or made into a stratagem. Or who knows.

I will admit I am excited for my pink and white spirals and checker patterns alice in wonderland ravager to finally be maybe not the suboptimal build.

**Daedalus81**

the_scotsman wrote:
I will admit I am excited for my pink and white spirals and checker patterns alice in wonderland ravager to finally be maybe not the suboptimal build.

We need pictures of this, stat!

**Bosskelot**

Actually most Necrons players I know, locally and online, are pretty happy overall with the book. A large amount of it is viable (a pretty shocking percentage for a GW Codex actually) and there's a handful of units that just need points drops before they could be viable and usable. The amount of truly bad, go-back-and-redo-the-datasheet models is actually pretty low and the army now has a few different ways to play along with various list archetypes. Compared to previous editions, 8th especially, it's night and fething day.

Not all of it is a success, the WLT's and Relics have a lot of misses in them, but I'd say in terms of power and fluff being represented well while also being an internally and externally balanced army, it's probably the best Necron book GW have ever written. It's certainly the first time they've managed to actually write functional and non-busted RP rules.

The only people unhappy with the book are people who were legitimately hoping for and betting on some Iron Hands level of brokenness so they could just faceroll through tourneys without having to get any neurons firing. I think there's also a few people who started the army midway through 8th and so built 8th ed style armies that are now not that great under the new rules. The vast majority of Necron players are actually just happy to get a book that is powerful but reasonable, fun and functional and also represents the lore and concept of the army pretty damn well.

**the_scotsman**

The whole srmy is like this. Well not pink and white, but multicolored and with lots of harlequin conversions.

**harlokin**

I hate Ravagers, but that looks really great.

**vipoid**

Oh nice.

As well as the paint scheme, I like the ring of masks around the edge.

harlokin wrote:
I hate Ravagers, but that looks really great.

If you don't mind me asking, why do you hate Ravagers?

**harlokin**

vipoid wrote:

If you don't mind me asking, why do you hate Ravagers?

Not at all. It's petty really, but it bugs me that the turrets on either side somehow preclude the boat from being able to carry troops. I much prefer the look of Reapers

**vipoid**

harlokin wrote:
vipoid wrote:

If you don't mind me asking, why do you hate Ravagers?

Not at all. It's petty really, but it bugs me that the turrets on either side somehow preclude the boat from being able to carry troops. I much prefer the look of Reapers

Ah, I see.

And yeah, now that I come to think about it, that is a little strange.

**Daedalus81**

the_scotsman wrote:
The whole srmy is like this. Well not pink and white, but multicolored and with lots of harlequin conversions.

Love it. How the heck did you so the swirls? My hands suck at painting lines.

**Hellebore**

vipoid wrote:
harlokin wrote:
vipoid wrote:

If you don't mind me asking, why do you hate Ravagers?

Not at all. It's petty really, but it bugs me that the turrets on either side somehow preclude the boat from being able to carry troops. I much prefer the look of Reapers

Ah, I see.

And yeah, now that I come to think about it, that is a little strange.

They should be Falcons - 6 transport with extra guns.

They'd need to build something with a pretty large cannon or generators to take up enough space to prevent any passengers fitting.

**Inevitable_Faith**

Hellebore wrote:
vipoid wrote:
harlokin wrote:
vipoid wrote:

If you don't mind me asking, why do you hate Ravagers?

Not at all. It's petty really, but it bugs me that the turrets on either side somehow preclude the boat from being able to carry troops. I much prefer the look of Reapers

Ah, I see.

And yeah, now that I come to think about it, that is a little strange.

They should be Falcons - 6 transport with extra guns.

They'd need to build something with a pretty large cannon or generators to take up enough space to prevent any passengers fitting.

Oh wow I like that idea, 6 capacity on a gunboat like the ravager sounds pretty decent. Hmm a raider with a large cannon and generator taking up most of the crew space... I'm wondering if we'd ever get to see a model like that made. Perhaps forge world might take a crack at it?

**ccs**

the_scotsman wrote:
The whole srmy is like this. Well not pink and white, but multicolored and with lots of harlequin conversions.

Well that'll certainly show up amongst the typical grey ruins etc everyone uses.

**vipoid**

Hellebore wrote:
vipoid wrote:
harlokin wrote:
vipoid wrote:

If you don't mind me asking, why do you hate Ravagers?

Not at all. It's petty really, but it bugs me that the turrets on either side somehow preclude the boat from being able to carry troops. I much prefer the look of Reapers

Ah, I see.

And yeah, now that I come to think about it, that is a little strange.

They should be Falcons - 6 transport with extra guns.

They'd need to build something with a pretty large cannon or generators to take up enough space to prevent any passengers fitting.

That's a great idea.

Basically turns a Ravager into a mini-Dais.

**the_scotsman**

ccs wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
The whole srmy is like this. Well not pink and white, but multicolored and with lots of harlequin conversions.

Well that'll certainly show up amongst the typical grey ruins etc everyone uses.

Well, I also painted our terrain, so most of it is a little more colorful than gray (because the water and salt double layer spray technique is super OP for painting terrain pieces and making them look instantly cool) but yeah, mostly it does.

**vipoid**

Drazhar: