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.

Depending on their cost, I can see 3 Monolith's rushing up the board, then summoning 3 squads of slow reaper Warriors from across the board to them so they can unload mass gauss.

 Lord Clinto wrote:
Depending on their cost, I can see 3 Monolith's rushing up the board, then summoning 3 squads of slow reaper Warriors from across the board to them so they can unload mass gauss.

That would only happen in 3000 point games.
Monoliths have never been cheap, even in 3rd ed.

Also nice to see that TOWERING and TITANIC are separate keywords. So TOWERING isn't the "new TITANIC", and it's possible that not every TITANIC unit is also TOWERING. Let's see how they use that.

And wait a minute. Why do Necron Warriors have inferior Leadership to Legionaries? Necrons have always been the "max Leadership" faction.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Also nice to see that TOWERING and TITANIC are separate keywords. So TOWERING isn't the "new TITANIC", and it's possible that not every TITANIC unit is also TOWERING. Let's see how they use that.

And wait a minute. Why do Necron Warriors have inferior Leadership to Legionaries? Necrons have always been the "max Leadership" faction.

They've apparently decided to lean into warriors as basically scrapbots. Worse BS and leadership to match the armor decrease from a couple editions back. Fluffwise too- 'little more than mindless automatons'
So they get easily confused about orders and strategic holds on objectives. I'm not really a fan

Huh. The monolith is also 7+ leadership. That... bleh, got nothing. [Though it should be noted that genestealers (formerly leadership 10 back in the day) are also 7+ now. Better than termagants at 8+, but really synapse skews tyranid leadership numbers- they're can be made much more reliable than they appear].


On the one hand, 10th is making armies more distinct, but I personally don't find some of the new roles appealling. Not the CSM gambling mechanic nor the character heavy emphasis for necrons. (For clarity- neither is inherently bad, I just don't like playing that kind of thing)

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
And wait a minute. Why do Necron Warriors have inferior Leadership to Legionaries? Necrons have always been the "max Leadership" faction.

They've always had low leadership, just like the core aspect of Marines has always been Oaths of Moments, and Chaos Marines throughout the millennia have always found themselves dying randomly because they occasionally pray to their guns before shooting.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Also nice to see that TOWERING and TITANIC are separate keywords. So TOWERING isn't the "new TITANIC", and it's possible that not every TITANIC unit is also TOWERING. Let's see how they use that.

And wait a minute. Why do Necron Warriors have inferior Leadership to Legionaries? Necrons have always been the "max Leadership" faction.

Oof yeah I just noticed that. That's not great. Hopefully characters and immortals will have proper leadership values.
Characters impart their leadership to the unit they're leading, right?

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Also nice to see that TOWERING and TITANIC are separate keywords. So TOWERING isn't the "new TITANIC", and it's possible that not every TITANIC unit is also TOWERING. Let's see how they use that.

And wait a minute. Why do Necron Warriors have inferior Leadership to Legionaries? Necrons have always been the "max Leadership" faction.

Oof yeah I just noticed that. That's not great. Hopefully characters and immortals will have proper leadership values.
Characters impart their leadership to the unit they're leading, right?

Nah, mixed LD stats in a unit is too confusing

Well that's silly. You mean a leader leading a unit can't use his leadership stat to lead them?
That's like, a mechanic from a decade ago.

Surely it wouldn't be "mixed" if there's a character joined to the unit. Their Leadership would just be the character's leadership until that character died (or left, even assuming characters can leave units).

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Well that's silly. You mean a leader leading a unit can't use his leadership stat to lead them?
That's like, a mechanic from a decade ago.

It's a condescending comment towards the folks here that can't grasp why a non-Terminator character should be able to join a Terminator unit.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Well that's silly. You mean a leader leading a unit can't use his leadership stat to lead them?
That's like, a mechanic from a decade ago.

im guessing that EviscerationPlague is being facetious. we dont know definitively they do or don't, hes just taking a cheap shot at the "simplifed" game design choices.


on the LD drops, my guess (and its only a guess) is that they felt theirs no point having impactful penalties for failing LD tests if multiple factions can flat stonewall LD because they too cool for that stuff, so they lowered LDs so its more likely to matter and the LD manipulation factions dont have "feelsbad" games that cripple thier intended and designed playstyle.

or, as i speculated on the BS4+ thing, its another area intended to encourage you to run heros in squads, and make unled warrior units much more like old school fantasy skeletons: a source of "mass" to hold areas and screen, but of only limited ability beyond that unless boosted by a hero of some sort.

xerxeskingofking wrote:

on the LD drops, my guess (and its only a guess) is that they felt theirs no point having impactful penalties for failing LD tests if multiple factions can flat stonewall LD because they too cool for that stuff.

Which IS a valid thing to takeaway tbh, Leadership has been mostly ignored for far too long, launching a new edition with the whole leadership revamp means they want it to actually be a thing. Does it make sense for necrons not to have a very easy to pass LD score, absolutely not. However, if we follow the lore, too many armies would never fail morale.

LD isn't just morale, but it is also meant to represent cohesion and friction.

And relatively recent lore changes to Necrons have painted them as really struggling with both because the whole faction is made of mindless automatons and half crazy nobles.

 Tyran wrote:
LD isn't just morale, but it is also meant to represent cohesion and friction.

And relatively recent lore changes to Necrons have painted them as really struggling with both because the whole faction is made of mindless automatons and half crazy nobles.

I agree, its possible to justify it in those terms, but I would understand if players felt that they were getting nerfed and suddenly had to care about LD in a way they never had to before, and if rubbed them the wrong way if their perception of the faction of mindless automatons and half crazy nobles was that they shouldn't care about LD, cos the drones don't matter than the nobles don't care.

espically as marines now have better LD than necrons, its not hard to build a case for "special treatment" in this regard....were one so inclined. im not, for the record, at least not until/unless the full codexes drop and we have 8 months straight of marines winning every event or simmilar. just pointing out its not unreasonable for a player to upset about a previous strength of the faction being flipped to apparent middling ability..

Sure, but everyone is being nerfed in that way.

Marines lost ATSKNF, Synapse is no longer immunity, vehicles and monsters have to take break tests now.
There is a blatant design intent that everyone has to care about LD.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Also nice to see that TOWERING and TITANIC are separate keywords. So TOWERING isn't the "new TITANIC", and it's possible that not every TITANIC unit is also TOWERING. Let's see how they use that.

And wait a minute. Why do Necron Warriors have inferior Leadership to Legionaries? Necrons have always been the "max Leadership" faction.

I think that's somewhat promising for battleshock in general. Necrons can being lots of "weak" units as opposed to Custodes. So giving them high LD on top of the ability to swarm would make it really hard to get them off objectives -- especially if a chronomancer and reanimator are equally useful to the squads.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Well that's silly. You mean a leader leading a unit can't use his leadership stat to lead them?
That's like, a mechanic from a decade ago.

We don't have a ruling on if that happens or not. That said - the termie lib is the same LD as the marines, terminators, and all vehicles shown.

ONLY Abby and Bobby have been lower so far. ( Oh and Termagants are higher than Stealers or Swarmy )

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
Yeah they all should worship Chaos.

It’s only recent lore that’s tried to insist that Black Legion, Iron Warriors, Alpha Legion and Night Lords; they’re just using Chaos for their own ends. Half the traitor legions BTW. Basically they don’t like the idea of the villains not being their own men and being pawns of the Chaos Gods. Same reason Archaon is always set up as challenging the Chaos Gods even though he never acts against their interests. So it’s a false conflict just to make the villain seem badass for “defying” the Gods.

Also, I really want to hear the bull explanation for how Perturabo isn’t chaos when he’s a Daemon Primarch on a Daemon World in the Eye of Terror. They’ve really been pushing that in HH and Siege of Terra that he’s his own man.

They can be their "own man" and still worship Chaos. The number of televangelists here in the US who are using Christianity for their own ends is pretty high; the problem is that since about 5e there have been people at GW portraying Chaos as being both evil and stupid, and the Imperium as being justified and righteous. When you stick with the characterization of the Imperium as having absolutely no moral ground to stand on, you lose that reason.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Voss wrote:
They've apparently decided to lean into warriors as basically scrapbots. Worse BS and leadership to match the armor decrease from a couple editions back. Fluffwise too- 'little more than mindless automatons'
So they get easily confused about orders and strategic holds on objectives. I'm not really a fan

Can't make those Astartes players feel inadequate by having worse stats than anything.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Also nice to see that TOWERING and TITANIC are separate keywords. So TOWERING isn't the "new TITANIC", and it's possible that not every TITANIC unit is also TOWERING. Let's see how they use that.

And wait a minute. Why do Necron Warriors have inferior Leadership to Legionaries? Necrons have always been the "max Leadership" faction.

Oof yeah I just noticed that. That's not great. Hopefully characters and immortals will have proper leadership values.
Characters impart their leadership to the unit they're leading, right?

Yes, the direct wording from Warhammer-Community is "if the result is equal to or greater than the highest leadership in the unit", and with characters now joining units, it can be safely assumed that this is the case.

There is clearly a push to make LD a real stat. My nids have lost immunity to it, which absolutely makes no sense, but I'm 100% fine with it, because really too many factions were immune to it.

Also, failing LD no longer means that you are running away, it simply means that you lost your formation cohesion and can't act as a group.

This is perfectly applicable to everyone, even a bug under synapse can go in disarray. Even with perfect organization and communication given by the hive mind, if the conditions simply don't allow it, then the bugs can't act as a group.

In this view, it makes sense that marines (and probably custodes) are the best at passing LD tests, because they are very highly trained soldiers with a high level of independence on the field.

We wanted something to make elite units feel elite apart from having more HPs and DPS, well this is one way to do it. Even in turn 5 when everyone is in crappy conditions, they keep fighting efficiently.

Whoops read that wrong

Also indicates Leaders joined to the unit will pass on their Ld, as the test is against The Best Ld in the unit.

Spoletta wrote:
There is clearly a push to make LD a real stat. My nids have lost immunity to it, which absolutely makes no sense, but I'm 100% fine with it, because really too many factions were immune to it.

Also, failing LD no longer means that you are running away, it simply means that you lost your formation cohesion and can't act as a group.

This is perfectly applicable to everyone, even a bug under synapse can go in disarray. Even with perfect organization and communication given by the hive mind, if the conditions simply don't allow it, then the bugs can't act as a group.

In this view, it makes sense that marines (and probably custodes) are the best at passing LD tests, because they are very highly trained soldiers with a high level of independence on the field.

We wanted something to make elite units feel elite apart from having more HPs and DPS, well this is one way to do it. Even in turn 5 when everyone is in crappy conditions, they keep fighting efficiently.

Like i said, I'm not opposed to it myself, I merely understand that people might be opposed to it, because it breaks their verisimilitude understanding of their faction.

I agree you can't have ld tests be a core mechanic that half the armies ignore, especially if factions like nids, dark eldar or night Lords CSM built heavily on LD manipulation as a faction mechanic.

Mildly curious if they are changing wound allocation again. Reanimation protocols specifically notes the possibility of having multiple wounded models in a unit. I'm wondering if they are going to allow you to spread wounds, if its going to be location based (like 7th and closest models), or if that it to just cover some very niche cases where a weapon can wound multiple models in a single unit.

 kurhanik wrote:
Mildly curious if they are changing wound allocation again. Reanimation protocols specifically notes the possibility of having multiple wounded models in a unit. I'm wondering if they are going to allow you to spread wounds, if its going to be location based (like 7th and closest models), or if that it to just cover some very niche cases where a weapon can wound multiple models in a single unit.

I have a hard time thinking of how such a thing would be useful either for balance or mechanics. Theoretically you could snipe a character down a bit and hit the unit hard thereby forcing all RP to go to the character. But then would a character heal even more attached to warriors on an objective? That sort of seems silly. So the other end is that multi-wound models might be able to spread stuff out, but...why? I don't think terminators would need such a thing at T5 4++.

Very confusing.

 kurhanik wrote:
Mildly curious if they are changing wound allocation again. Reanimation protocols specifically notes the possibility of having multiple wounded models in a unit.

It actually doesn't.
It says to first fully heal all wounded models, then revive dead models with one wound, and if there's any RP points left heal that revived model.
So if you have three RP points for a unit of 2 dead destroyers and one destroyer on 2 wound, you would first fully heal the wounded destroyer with 1 point and revive one of them with 2 points.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 kurhanik wrote:
Mildly curious if they are changing wound allocation again. Reanimation protocols specifically notes the possibility of having multiple wounded models in a unit.

It actually doesn't.
It says to first fully heal all wounded models, then revive dead models with one wound, and if there's any RP points left heal that revived model.
So if you have three RP points for a unit of 2 dead destroyers and one destroyer on 2 wound, you would first fully heal the wounded destroyer with 1 point and revive one of them with 2 points.

??




Automatically Appended Next Post:
I wonder if characters will still count as a separate unit when joined for this purpose. As noted in the article -- everything heals. Overlords, Monoliths, etc.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 kurhanik wrote:
Mildly curious if they are changing wound allocation again. Reanimation protocols specifically notes the possibility of having multiple wounded models in a unit.

It actually doesn't.
It says to first fully heal all wounded models, then revive dead models with one wound, and if there's any RP points left heal that revived model.
So if you have three RP points for a unit of 2 dead destroyers and one destroyer on 2 wound, you would first fully heal the wounded destroyer with 1 point and revive one of them with 2 points.

??




Automatically Appended Next Post:
I wonder if characters will still count as a separate unit when joined for this purpose. As noted in the article -- everything heals. Overlords, Monoliths, etc.

Ah, I see. Yeah that is curious wording. I assume its just to cover any strange edge cases, but you never know.

Huh, that's a good point, how would characters be handled?
I would assume they still work like they did in 8th-9th ed where they don't actually have the Reanimation Protocol rule but living metal instead.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

I would assume they still work like they did in 8th-9th ed where they don't actually have the Reanimation Protocol rule but living metal instead.

Living metal is most certainly gone and replaced with this rule since it's army wide with no restrictions.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

I would assume they still work like they did in 8th-9th ed where they don't actually have the Reanimation Protocol rule but living metal instead.

Living metal is most certainly gone and replaced with this rule since it's army wide with no restrictions.

So it is, I just checked the Monolith preview and it does have RP now. So they folded Living Metal in with RP.
That makes it even more curious.
I assume that characters count as their own unit for the purposes of RP, otherwise they will always come back with up to three wounds when in a unit, much like how you can't have immortal monoliths returning with 3 wounds remaining.

Voss wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Also nice to see that TOWERING and TITANIC are separate keywords. So TOWERING isn't the "new TITANIC", and it's possible that not every TITANIC unit is also TOWERING. Let's see how they use that.

And wait a minute. Why do Necron Warriors have inferior Leadership to Legionaries? Necrons have always been the "max Leadership" faction.

They've apparently decided to lean into warriors as basically scrapbots. Worse BS and leadership to match the armor decrease from a couple editions back. Fluffwise too- 'little more than mindless automatons'
So they get easily confused about orders and strategic holds on objectives. I'm not really a fan

Yeah. . . I was going to pick up Necrons again, and then noticed how much they've been even further degraded over the years. It's not the army that I played back in 3rd-4th, that's for sure.

Full size in spoiler:





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Lord Clinto wrote:
Depending on their cost, I can see 3 Monolith's rushing up the board, then summoning 3 squads of slow reaper Warriors from across the board to them so they can unload mass gauss.

That would only happen in 3000 point games.
Monoliths have never been cheap, even in 3rd ed.

The three Monolith build was possible in 3rd, the weakness was Phase Out from low Necron numbers though. Two Monoliths made for a pretty fun build though.