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.

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Well . . . There was the C'tan blades, Necrodermis, and the Pariah weapon. Very limited though.

I think the important thing here is how rare they were. Back then, it was extremely unlikely you'd see these weapons in a standard game and even if you did there weren't actually that many Invulnerable saves anyway, so they would have limited - but potentially very impactful - effect. The problem with modern 40k is how any new mechanic seems to multiply quickly and go from a rare, interesting rule to common enough that you need to consider how to counter it, even in relatively small, closed metas. -1 damage is a good example, and now the various "ignore Invulnerables" weapons too. The only reason we "need" so many weapons that ignore Invulnerables is because of the proliferation in them we've seen in the last few editions. If there'd been more restraint there, and more restraint in stacking both offensive and defensive buffs, there wouldn't be the same need for all these additional rules to get around the original additional rules.

An invulnerable save being ignored makes it no more irrelevant than armour saves being ignored. Invulnerable saves on models with decent saves are already ignored most of the time. Big guns ignoring invulnerable saves to make them more powerful rather than as a way to show narrative through gameplay is no worse than arbitrarily letting weapons ignore Toughness like HotE does or arbitrarily increasing AP of Necrons Flayed Ones melee weapons,

Just more of the same 9th edition bad codex writing.

The rarity of weapons that ignored Invuls made those occasional exceptions more palatable. They felt significant, and not just "Shoots metal more fasterer than other weapons that shoot metal really fast!" like the current fething incongruence of the Hammerhead Railgun rules.

A C'Tan phase-blade or a Psycannon ignoring invulnerables was something special, not just the next level of escalation in an ever and increasingly worse and badly written set of rules.

 aphyon wrote:
Same with psy-cannons (demon hunters codex) designed specifically to kill demons that only have an invul save (except khorne). in the latter case having grey knights on the table means they get to come back on the table the next turn for free (demonic infestation). so, it is kind of a wash.

And as a weird side effect, the Psycannon was the most effective anti-Eldar weapon there was. Grey Knights were pretty good against Daemons. They were great against Eldar, Ulthwe especially.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
A C'Tan phase-blade or a Psycannon ignoring invulnerables was something special, not just the next level of escalation in an ever and increasingly worse and badly written set of rules.

Yup, and as corollary, invulns were special too when they were rare, and moderated by generally topping out at 5++. It cut your casualties a bit and gave characters a chance to survive Instant Death, but wasn't as powerful (or annoying to play against!) as the 3++s all over 8th or the 4++ that many have been toned down to in 9th.

The one-upmanship has been a recurring problem in 40K's writing history; it's a classic symptom of too many cooks in the kitchen and lack of coherent vision for how the game ought to work.

Yeah it's true that the invulns were pretty rare back then too, and they were pretty solidly capped iirc. I think the first 3++s showed up in 5th with the Storm Shield. (Another reason I didn't like that edition too much.)

As for one-upmanship, I'm mostly against the idea of codex creep for much of earlier 40k, as most of the time there were new increases to power, they tended to go along with high costs and drawbacks. Like those Pariahs who ignored invulns, they were not only expensive, but also had significant limitations such as not benefitting from WBB (resurrection) and incompatible with teleport mechanics.

If GW had been keen on updating points back then like they are now, I'm convinced the few problem units/choices that were around (starcannons) could have been adequately dealt with.

3rd ed had 3++ on Necron Wraiths.

 vict0988 wrote:
3rd ed had 3++ on Necron Wraiths.

Oh yeah! I should have remembered that, having actually fielded them.

Expensive models though, and no Power Weapons. They hit a nice balance imo.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
3rd ed had 3++ on Necron Wraiths.

Oh yeah! I should have remembered that, having actually fielded them.

Expensive models though, and no Power Weapons. They hit a nice balance imo.

It wasn't a nice balance, there wasn't a reason to use them period over Scarabs. Max squad of 3, had no capability to do anything against a unit with a 4+, and HOLY HELL not durable.

Necron Destroyer Lord with the Lightning Field and Scarabs with DisFields was a lot more fun and effective.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
3rd ed had 3++ on Necron Wraiths.

Oh yeah! I should have remembered that, having actually fielded them.

Expensive models though, and no Power Weapons. They hit a nice balance imo.

It wasn't a nice balance, there wasn't a reason to use them period over Scarabs. Max squad of 3, had no capability to do anything against a unit with a 4+, and HOLY HELL not durable.

Necron Destroyer Lord with the Lightning Field and Scarabs with DisFields was a lot more fun and effective.

The reasons to use them over Scarabs were:
1: S 6 vs the Scarabs S 3.
2: I 6 over Scarabs I 3
3: WS 4 over Scarabs WS 2
4: They were Necrons and could therefore be teleported through the Monolith Portal, for extra WBB rolls if necessary, and tremendous potential engagement range (18" distance to Monolith + 6" size of Monolith + 18" Move+Charge from Monolith = 42"), since you could charge after Portal teleportation (and subsequent movement). At 3 attacks per model they was 4 each on the Charge, and 12 Attacks at S6 I6 was pretty solid.

A Destroyer Lord, while also a good model, capped out at 4 Attacks on the Charge and only had S5. It was sorta terrible at dealing with swarms. (and still only had I 4)

The fact that Wraiths were I 6 was a big part of their defense, as you could enter a combined combat against a small part of the target squad, kill just a model or two before anyone else fights, and ensure that the opposing unit could never strike back. I used them in conjunction with Flayed Ones a bunch. The Flayed Ones would soak hits and the Wraiths added extra oomph to the Assault while avoiding attacks in return.

 Insectum7 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
3rd ed had 3++ on Necron Wraiths.

Oh yeah! I should have remembered that, having actually fielded them.

Expensive models though, and no Power Weapons. They hit a nice balance imo.

It wasn't a nice balance, there wasn't a reason to use them period over Scarabs. Max squad of 3, had no capability to do anything against a unit with a 4+, and HOLY HELL not durable.

Necron Destroyer Lord with the Lightning Field and Scarabs with DisFields was a lot more fun and effective.

The reasons to use them over Scarabs were:
1: S 6 vs the Scarabs S 3.
2: I 6 over Scarabs I 3
3: WS 4 over Scarabs WS 2
4: They were Necrons and could therefore be teleported through the Monolith Portal, for extra WBB rolls if necessary, and tremendous potential engagement range (18" distance to Monolith + 6" size of Monolith + 18" Move+Charge from Monolith = 42"), since you could charge after Portal teleportation (and subsequent movement). At 3 attacks per model they was 4 each on the Charge, and 12 Attacks at S6 I6 was pretty solid.

A Destroyer Lord, while also a good model, capped out at 4 Attacks on the Charge and only had S5. It was sorta terrible at dealing with swarms. (and still only had I 4)

The fact that Wraiths were I 6 was a big part of their defense, as you could enter a combined combat against a small part of the target squad, kill just a model or two before anyone else fights, and ensure that the opposing unit could never strike back. I used them in conjunction with Flayed Ones a bunch. The Flayed Ones would soak hits and the Wraiths added extra oomph to the Assault while avoiding attacks in return.

1. S6 doesn't matter when you aren't ignoring saves on what is already an expensive model. S3 on Scarabs doesn't matter either when you're just taking disruption fields.
2. Once again, I6 only matters if you don't hit line a wet noodle
3. So that means the Wraith hits on a 4 vs important targets. So that's already half the attacks gone. At least Scarabs have the weight of attacks.

The fact you just gushed about 3rd edition Flayed Ones though shows you really don't know what you're talking about though.

^Oh I get it. You must be Slayer-Fan . . .

 kodos wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I've never seen AA advocates back up the claims with a functional AA system.

you just always refuse to read them, not even talking about playing them
there are enough examples of system based on 40k (like Bolt Action) or in the same genre (Warpath Firefight) that have a functional AA system

GW had already AA in Space Marine (2nd Epic) during the 90s.

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Oh I get it. You must be Slayer-Fan . . .

I like Slayer, but I don't know what that means.

 Mezmorki wrote:
AA is "one way" to reduce the potential impact of turn 1 alpha strikes. It isn't the only way.

You could incorporate a proper reaction system to allow for some counterplay. You give the second player some bonus concessions like being able to place X-units on overwatch or have them start in a "fortified" state that gives them a defense buff at the start of the game. You cold design missions to use an escalating engagement system where players only start out with a small portion of their army on the board at the same time and are forced to bring others on over via reserves over the course of the next couple of turns. You change core mechanics to require things like declared shooting so you that you can't maximize target deletion. You can also just crank down the lethality of the game across the board. AA is a fine thing, but it isn't the only way to solve 40K's issues.

This all sounds vastly overcomplicated in comparison to a simple AA mechanic. I am reminded of Ork shooting which has been atrocious since 3rd 40K and GW´s solution isn´t the smart choice to give them back BS3 but rather to create a plethora of bad ballistic special rules bloating the rules as a result.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mezmorki wrote:
Orks should hit on a 5+ and ignore all hit modifiers.

Orks are not blessed Khemri archers.

 Strg Alt wrote:

 Mezmorki wrote:
AA is "one way" to reduce the potential impact of turn 1 alpha strikes. It isn't the only way.

You could incorporate a proper reaction system to allow for some counterplay. You give the second player some bonus concessions like being able to place X-units on overwatch or have them start in a "fortified" state that gives them a defense buff at the start of the game. You cold design missions to use an escalating engagement system where players only start out with a small portion of their army on the board at the same time and are forced to bring others on over via reserves over the course of the next couple of turns. You change core mechanics to require things like declared shooting so you that you can't maximize target deletion. You can also just crank down the lethality of the game across the board. AA is a fine thing, but it isn't the only way to solve 40K's issues.

This all sounds vastly overcomplicated in comparison to a simple AA mechanic. I am reminded of Ork shooting which has been atrocious since 3rd 40K and GW´s solution isn´t the smart choice to give them back BS3 but rather to create a plethora of bad ballistic special rules bloating the rules as a result.

Seriously. This is precisely why I think "but legacy" is a garbage argument for anything. Just increase the BS for certain Orks and as they get bigger. I don't think BS3+ or BS4+ Meganobz will break the game.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:

 Mezmorki wrote:
AA is "one way" to reduce the potential impact of turn 1 alpha strikes. It isn't the only way.

You could incorporate a proper reaction system to allow for some counterplay. You give the second player some bonus concessions like being able to place X-units on overwatch or have them start in a "fortified" state that gives them a defense buff at the start of the game. You cold design missions to use an escalating engagement system where players only start out with a small portion of their army on the board at the same time and are forced to bring others on over via reserves over the course of the next couple of turns. You change core mechanics to require things like declared shooting so you that you can't maximize target deletion. You can also just crank down the lethality of the game across the board. AA is a fine thing, but it isn't the only way to solve 40K's issues.

This all sounds vastly overcomplicated in comparison to a simple AA mechanic. I am reminded of Ork shooting which has been atrocious since 3rd 40K and GW´s solution isn´t the smart choice to give them back BS3 but rather to create a plethora of bad ballistic special rules bloating the rules as a result.

Seriously. This is precisely why I think "but legacy" is a garbage argument for anything. Just increase the BS for certain Orks and as they get bigger. I don't think BS3+ or BS4+ Meganobz will break the game.

Weird, your argument for jump pack lords and 10 flamer chaos terminators is based on legacy though. Or do you change stance when it comes to physical models rather than an abstract rules?

It's not legacy keeping orks on a low BS it's their previous editions of fluff and to an extent faction identity. We're already pretty much at the game where everything hits on a 3+ or better, why make it worse and start reducing the number of effective values?

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Oh I get it. You must be Slayer-Fan . . .

I like Slayer, but I don't know what that means.

Oh there used to be a poster who went by Slayer-Fan, and they'd often post hyperbolic garbage such as:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

The fact you just gushed about 3rd edition Flayed Ones though shows you really don't know what you're talking about though.

And I don't pay close attention, but they haven't posted in a while, and sometime after they stopped posting I began to see more posts by you. The totally unwarranted level of rudeness felt familiar. . .

 Insectum7 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Oh I get it. You must be Slayer-Fan . . .

I like Slayer, but I don't know what that means.

Oh there used to be a poster who went by Slayer-Fan, and they'd often post hyperbolic garbage such as:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

The fact you just gushed about 3rd edition Flayed Ones though shows you really don't know what you're talking about though.

And I don't pay close attention, but they haven't posted in a while, and sometime after they stopped posting I began to see more posts by you. The totally unwarranted level of rudeness felt familiar. . .

I found Slayer-Fan more entertaining though and didn't cap most posts off with a LOL.

Orks didn't always have 5+ Ballistic Skill.

Orks suffered from a homogenisation issue when Gorkamorka hit. Everything became a "Generic Goff", and that lasted into 3rd Edition, with so much of their identity taken away (all the nutso Orky field artillery became "Kannon", "Lobba" and "Zzapp Gun"... wow... ). It was a long time before Orks reclaimed their identity (and the various Klanz) in any serious fashion.

By then GW had a brainbug that "Orks = Bad Shots" and wouldn't budge from that position. Situations such as this are why things like him exist.

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:

 Mezmorki wrote:
AA is "one way" to reduce the potential impact of turn 1 alpha strikes. It isn't the only way.

You could incorporate a proper reaction system to allow for some counterplay. You give the second player some bonus concessions like being able to place X-units on overwatch or have them start in a "fortified" state that gives them a defense buff at the start of the game. You cold design missions to use an escalating engagement system where players only start out with a small portion of their army on the board at the same time and are forced to bring others on over via reserves over the course of the next couple of turns. You change core mechanics to require things like declared shooting so you that you can't maximize target deletion. You can also just crank down the lethality of the game across the board. AA is a fine thing, but it isn't the only way to solve 40K's issues.

This all sounds vastly overcomplicated in comparison to a simple AA mechanic. I am reminded of Ork shooting which has been atrocious since 3rd 40K and GW´s solution isn´t the smart choice to give them back BS3 but rather to create a plethora of bad ballistic special rules bloating the rules as a result.

Seriously. This is precisely why I think "but legacy" is a garbage argument for anything. Just increase the BS for certain Orks and as they get bigger. I don't think BS3+ or BS4+ Meganobz will break the game.

Weird, your argument for jump pack lords and 10 flamer chaos terminators is based on legacy though. Or do you change stance when it comes to physical models rather than an abstract rules?

Physical models are more important, but Orks weren't actually always BS5+.

Plus the rules were written just to try to cut off 3rd party bitz sellers, or do you think the new Terminator datasheet was super streamlined?

Plus, in a new ruleset where modifiers are a thing compared to, especially so, 6th and 7th where everyone just got Twin Linked and rerolls to hit, it's important to experiment with statlines. For example, how many people have actually complained about Marines being W2? The Intercessor statline was the best thing that happened to Marines.

The problem with Marines is bloated datasheets when we need consolidation but that's a different topic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Oh I get it. You must be Slayer-Fan . . .

I like Slayer, but I don't know what that means.

Oh there used to be a poster who went by Slayer-Fan, and they'd often post hyperbolic garbage such as:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

The fact you just gushed about 3rd edition Flayed Ones though shows you really don't know what you're talking about though.

And I don't pay close attention, but they haven't posted in a while, and sometime after they stopped posting I began to see more posts by you. The totally unwarranted level of rudeness felt familiar. . .

I'm not being rude. Flayed Ones were legit BAD until the 5th edition codex when they just became sorta mediocre. I don't trust your judgment because of it. It's like the Goonhammer guy that praised the old Wraiths and a Destroyer Lord with them, and I have to question if they've even played the game.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

I'm not being rude. Flayed Ones were legit BAD until the 5th edition codex when they just became sorta mediocre. I don't trust your judgment because of it. It's like the Goonhammer guy that praised the old Wraiths and a Destroyer Lord with them, and I have to question if they've even played the game.

Yeah whatever. I'm thinking you just didn't know how to use them. :p

 Insectum7 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

I'm not being rude. Flayed Ones were legit BAD until the 5th edition codex when they just became sorta mediocre. I don't trust your judgment because of it. It's like the Goonhammer guy that praised the old Wraiths and a Destroyer Lord with them, and I have to question if they've even played the game.

Yeah whatever. I'm thinking you just didn't know how to use them. :p

Now I DO apologize if I am coming across as rude rather than blunt, but it isn't like there's some hidden rules for Flayed Ones I missed. As I recall, my main list in 4th was:
×1 Veillord with Orb
×1 Destroyer Lord w/ Scythe and Lightning Field
2×10 Warriors
×20 Warriors
2×5 Destroyers
×9 Scarabs
×10 Immortals
×1 Monolith

Though the details are hazy, that seems correct in my head.

You're only talking about the third-ed codex when you say Wraiths + Destroyer Lord was bad right? Wraiths + Destroyer Lord was meta from 5th to 7th AFAIK, but you mention a lack of AP so I assume the issues you had might have been fixed when they got rending and of course, they were insane with 4+++.

Phase attacks not being on the datasheet and doing nothing except granting rending to their basic attacks just shows how badly 5th edition codexes were written.

 vict0988 wrote:
You're only talking about the third-ed codex when you say Wraiths + Destroyer Lord was bad right?

Correct. Wraiths in 5th are a whole other can of worms.

Switching gears to a topic we haven't touched on yet from the survey: Mission Design

Where did people land on Mission Design across the various editions? Based on the survey, this is an area where 9th edition in particular tended to out perform past editions. People strongly liked progressive scoring and having troops or other units count in a special way towards objectives. There was a also a preference for asymmetric mission designs - although that runs counter to the matched play missions in 9th, but could be a nod towards crusade/narrative missions? 4th Edition had the best asymmetric mission design of the prior era IMHO.

Secondary objectives were more neutral. Fixed secondary objectives, which presumably included the 6th - 8th era feats, warlord kills, etc. as well as the 9th ed pick your secondaries system was -0.0. Variable Secondary Objectives (e.g. tactical objective cards from Maelstrom) was a bit lower at -0.1.

People also preferred the old board size (6x4) rather strongly.

What do you all think?

Lethality needs to be really low for end-game scoring to be a fun mission mechanic. If most games end with one army being tabled the question of who controls more objectives at the end of the game is a foregone conclusion. There is also the problem of gunlines, which most people dislike playing against, gunlines do better with end-game scoring because it lets them sit in their deployment zone and do nothing, being forced to claim objectives further up the field necessitates a more versatile army that should be more fun to play against.

The old first blood secondary was awfully unfair, free VP to the player going second, unless the player going first played a wrong faction.

Pick your secondary system is a way to punish spam and reward foresight and game knowledge, if it gives too many CP the game can however turn into being all about that and not about anything else, which is bad.

Faction secondaries don't really add much flavour-wise, at the cost of a lot of words and are therefore not worth it IMO. I'm pretty sure I could copy paste 3 of them from different factions and unless you've read them you wouldn't be able to tell who they belong to. It's another lever GW can hammer balance-wise, but it is very broad and many of the secondaries are noob traps.

The old board size was too rough for melee, I think older editions would have had much greater balance on smaller tables. It makes good short-ranged weapons look OP and bad long-ranged weapons look UP, those things could be fixed with pts, the number of models you'd need to make melee effective in 8th without using magic boxes would be rather high. Of course the cost of horde models have skyrocketed because of power creep in 9th, so maybe they'd be better off being a bit weaker and cheaper due to larger tables.

Predicting these large kinds of trends is harder than I anticipated at the start of 9th, Ork Boys surviving the edition change despite the reduced engagement range surprised me, players that continued playing 6x4 at the start of 9th using Ork Boys might have had different experiences, but gathering non-anecdotal information about that would be impossible I am guessing.

Designing balanced asymmetrical missions is hard. Most people want games to feel like they can be won or lost turn 4 or 5, if the mission works in a way that it is decided before turn 1, as I have been told some of the newer ones have, then that is no good for most people.

I think asymmetrical missions belong in one-offs in campaign books instead of mission packs. If Wolflord Bjærke Icewulf and his Terminator Icewuelves have suffered a deepstrike mishap in the Saga of the Beast narrative then print a mission in that book explaining how to recreate something like that. And for Hemingway's sake don't tell players to not put terrain on a quarter of the table when you are writing your missions GW.

 Mezmorki wrote:


People also preferred the old board size (6x4) rather strongly.

What do you all think?

This one I really wanted to touch on. GW constantly increased weapon ranges AND made the board smaller. This leads to super quick shooting and as well made certain weapons useless. At least on a bigger board an argument can be made to buy a Lascannon vs a Multi-Melta because it has twice the range. Now it doesn't even have that supporting factor.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

I'm not being rude. Flayed Ones were legit BAD until the 5th edition codex when they just became sorta mediocre. I don't trust your judgment because of it. It's like the Goonhammer guy that praised the old Wraiths and a Destroyer Lord with them, and I have to question if they've even played the game.

Yeah whatever. I'm thinking you just didn't know how to use them. :p

Now I DO apologize if I am coming across as rude rather than blunt, but it isn't like there's some hidden rules for Flayed Ones I missed.

Well how do you think one interprets "you just gushed about 3rd edition Flayed Ones though shows you really don't know what you're talking about though."? Did I "gush", really? Do you know the context/s in which they were played? I suppose it's just easier to make accusations of ignorance I guess. Where I come from that counts as rude.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

As I recall, my main list in 4th was:
×1 Veillord with Orb 200
×1 Destroyer Lord w/ Scythe and Lightning Field 165
2×10 Warriors 360
×20 Warriors 360
2×5 Destroyers 500
×9 Scarabs 108/144 with Disruption Fields
×10 Immortals 280
×1 Monolith 235

Though the details are hazy, that seems correct in my head.

Now I don't know about YOUR meta, but that's a 2208 point army, 2244 If the Scarabs have the Distortion Fields you mentioned.

The utility I found with Flayed Ones is not that they were necessarily great at killing (although against many targets plenty adequate), but that they were good at tying up units in a shock-assault way that Scarabs couldn't accomplish because Scarabs couldn't teleport through the Monolith. The usual move was to Infiltrate the Flayed Ones forward and into cover, preferably in a way that draws out the opponent or can reinforce the general Necron advance. But then when the Monolith arrived in turn 2-3, drop it into a good vulnerable area of the opposition and throw the Flayed Ones into units in CC to tie them up while the rest of the Necrons engaged favorably. Because of the Teleportation I found I could get much better placement in the opposing army than I could ever get with Scarabs.

Big Warrior blobs could serve that purpose too, except it takes 20 Warriors to do the same number of Attacks as 10 Flayed Ones, and the Warriors couldn't fire and charge to get more damage out. 20 Warriors could Teleport and Rapid Fire for 40 S4 shots, but they could only fire at one unit, they couldn't tie anything down because they're not Assaulting, more expensive, and if things went really south, it's more Necron models to lose if the opposition commits to a good counterassault and Sweeping Advance. The Flayed Ones in Assault could tie down multiple units however, effectively removing them from player control for a bit. And if I was in a good position, Wraiths could either reinforce that Assault, or start a new one while the Flayed Ones pulled out and re-Assaulted a new target using the Monolith again.

I preferred the Wraiths over the Destroyer Lord for the same reason you say you like Scarabs: simple Weight of Attacks. Your Destroyer Lord above cost 165, while the 5 Wraiths I used cost 205 altogether, not a huge difference (actually about the difference of one Wraith). But that group together was 5 wounds at 3++, vs the Destroyer Lords 3 with 3+/4++. The Toughness was lower 4 vs. 6, and that made them more vulnerable to small arms, however imo they made up for that with 20 S6 I6 Attacks on the charge when Assaulting together. And working together with Flayed Ones they could do lovely things.

Here's my favorite Necron 1850 form 4th
Lord, Orb, Veil
Immortals x10
Flayed Ones x10
Warriors x10
Warriors x10
Wraiths x3
Wraiths x2
Heavy Destroyers x3
Heavy Destroyers x3
Monolith
1850

Heavy Destroyers is a whole different discussion. But the long and short of it is that Necrons struggled against 2+ armor, and the Heavy Destroyers solved that issue nicely. In addition, the HDs could more reliably kill vehicles. When I ran normal Destroyers I found that I was fishing for 6s and sometimes waiting along time before a target actually went down. Heavy D's provided AT and anti TEQs nicely.

Happy to continue via PM if you like.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mezmorki wrote:
Switching gears to a topic we haven't touched on yet from the survey: Mission Design

Where did people land on Mission Design across the various editions? Based on the survey, this is an area where 9th edition in particular tended to out perform past editions. People strongly liked progressive scoring and having troops or other units count in a special way towards objectives. There was a also a preference for asymmetric mission designs - although that runs counter to the matched play missions in 9th, but could be a nod towards crusade/narrative missions? 4th Edition had the best asymmetric mission design of the prior era IMHO.

Secondary objectives were more neutral. Fixed secondary objectives, which presumably included the 6th - 8th era feats, warlord kills, etc. as well as the 9th ed pick your secondaries system was -0.0. Variable Secondary Objectives (e.g. tactical objective cards from Maelstrom) was a bit lower at -0.1.

People also preferred the old board size (6x4) rather strongly.

What do you all think?

6x4 is definitely superior. More room to move about, and more space to let little sub-battlefronts develop.

As for mission design, both 3rd and 4th had excellent mission sets, although I don't recall which I liked more. Another big issue with 5th ed is the move to Kill Points for Missions, which unfavorably punished armies which took more numerous, smaller units. That was a terrible move, imo.

6x4 is a tad undersized for the ranges & # of models on the board.

8x4 is really good(if you have room) but need a pretty healthy amount of terrain(differing types) to not be too advantageous to either side.

I miss 6x4 boards.