Talk:Codex - Necrons Angry Robot Edition

Introduction

• Start each of your posts with *

use : when stating a new line. This way * marks that it´s a new users post and we don´t have to get the mess where

we waste half the space because it´s the seventh reply in a reply chain.

If you use a name, which I would appreciate if you did, just post it at the end of your last line.

I will try to regularly minimize discussions to make it clear what is currently being discussed, if I have minimized your post before replying just remove the minimizing code. - AngryPirate

Monthly Updates

• Starting from Feburary updates for this page will be monthly, all changes should be made between the last day of the month and the first two days of the next month.

The montly updating is to make it easier to play with the codex, it´s a bother to have to check the codex every time you want to play a game.

Wording updates don´t have to be montly and can and should be updated whenever bad wording/writing is found. Angry Pirate (talk) 20:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

January 2017

Sadly I won't be able to make an update.

Febuary 2017

• Big changes are probably going to be coming:

Pariahs and the funky LoW choices are probably no longer going to be a thing

Replace the scarab item the harbinger of emptiness has with a pariah special rule he can give to a unit of lych guard, maybe also warriors, praetorians and immortals

Add option for scythe lychguard

Going to finally add Lord titles

Buyable warlord traits

Changes to the weapon versions of portals

Reasons for changes

T3 FNP We´ll Be Back

I lowered the Toughness of most Necrons from 4 to 3 because Toughness 4 does not say much thematically. FNP gives the image of a unit that ignores even the most grievous injuries. I wanted to reinstate the old We´ll be back/Reanimation Protocols rule in order to give the Necrons a bit more of the necro(n)mantic feel they had in previous codices. The reason why I chose not to give them all of the above is because I think the army becomes too tough. If the units were to be toughness 4 with FNP their cost would have to be increased dramatically, which goes against one of the main things I wished to do, reducing the cost of Necron Warriors to represent they are not elite warriors rather just robotomised peasantry.

No Cover Saves

Low level Necrons have no sense of danger and no fear of death, or if they do it is entirely suppressed by the many protocols that are overwriting the wills of the Warriors. The Nobles of the Necrons do not fear death since they can be almost entirely sure that no part of them is lost in reconstruction, they probably have their memories backed up. This is the thematic reason for the Godless rule. Game wise Godless forces Necrons to not hide behind cover, it seems weak in some way, like they are afraid to lose their life, something that never made sense to me.

Rending instead of Gauss

I don´t think an army should inherently be extremely good at taking out a type of unit, all armies should put in at least some effort into being good at destroying a unit. This is why I changed the Necron Warriors weapon, they are now far less effective against armour 14, I often had upwards of 50 gauss shots in an army and this is by no means a lot, this meant that even if my opponent were to bring 2 land raiders they would be brought down with terrible ease.

You might think Rending presents the same problem, but I haven´t found this to be the case. The amount of firepower Necrons need to pour into an armoured monstrous creature is still fairly high. 20-40 Necron Warriors, which is now mainstay, does not make the Necrons anti-armoured monstrous creatures. 25 of the old gauss shots, which was mainstay, was already enough to dissintivise the opponent from bringing AV 14 vehicles, it was nigh impossible to overload the old Necron anti AV 14, but it is fairly easy to overload the current Necron anti armoured monsters which can be done by bringing armoured infantry, light vehicles in addition to just massing armoured monstrous creatures.

Fearless

While the gameplay of the Necrons was actually quite interesting, having units which were nigh indestructible untill you got into close combat where they blew up, however it made no sense. Also the mere thought of a Necron frantically turning around and racewalking, because that is all Necrons can manage, before swiftly getting cut down, is comical. While I enjoy comedy, it is far preferable if it is one of the younger races not the Necrons who are the laughing stock.

Ghost Arks

TL;DR: Necron warriors need to be on the table. Ghost ark is no longer transport to force necron warriors onto the table. Also why don´t people put these first all the time?

Transports take away from the look and feel of the Necrons. While the idea of a mobile robot hospital is pretty cool, it doesn´t feel very Necron, to ride it. Things get even worse because it is an open-topped transport meaning Necrons are leaning on top of eachother to get a shot in from the right angle, while the models on the ghost ark are clearly dormant. When models are imbarked on a transport you effectively have less models on the board. Even if warriors are cheaper, there won´t be more warriors on the board, which was half the reason this dex was even made, if they are all imbarked upon transports. Besides why would Necrons need mundane transports when they can teleport? I like the ghost arks function as a repair station and secondarilly as mobile cover for my monoliths... The fact is that there is no real reason not to just sit inside the ghost ark all day with the warriors. In the end it just looks like a Dark Eldar open-topped fleet. Well the simple sollution is to simply say that it is no longer a transport. Done. It still serves as a mobile repair station, which is cool. It can still act as mobile cover for monoliths, which is nice. But it no longer makes the number of models on your side of the table go down. It does kill the pirate fleet... But really that whole thing was stolen from Deldar anyway. Don´t want nothing of the Deldars neither their tactics, aesethic not even the slaves #robotsdoitbetter

Questions

Please don´t use this venue, refer to the discussion section instead

• If you are not satisfied with the given answer move the question and answer to the discussion section and reply there.
• Q: This sounds a lot like making a already working faction into a somewhat of Imperial Guardsmen with better guns.

• A: The faction does not work. It is exactly because the army was Space Marines, with anti Land Raider weapons instead of krak- and frag grenades, and Leadership 10 instead of And They Shall Know No Fear. In fact this is making the Necrons far more distinct than they ever were before. The comparison to Astra Militarum/Imperial Guard is not at all fair. Necron Warriors are good against heavily armoured monsters and infantry and light vehicles and are vulnerable to high strength low AP weaponry, Imperial Guard on the other hand are good against all types of Infantry and Monstrous Creatures and are vulnerable to Barrage weapons, Blast and Flamer weapons in general and weapons which ignore cover saves. Necron Warriors couldn´t be further from Imperial Guard than what they are now, they cannot take cover saves, something that is integral to the Imperial Guard. The army now feels like a relentless (or rather Slow and Purposeful...) legion of robots rather than Space Marines with better guns.

• Q: Now all weapons with Strength 6+ cause instant death, negating Feel No Pain. This makes them more squishy, was this intended?

• A: Yes, this represents the Necron being blown to pieces. Necrons can continue fighting even after losing an arm or a leg, but if they are blown to pieces they have to rely on the automatic reassembly of their living metal bodies in order to continue fighting. Note that the Arch Cryptek has a piece of wargear which improves the Necrons toughness against weaponry which causes Instant Death.

• Q: Slow and purposeful means no overwatch, was this intended? Because also not letting Necron units fire overwatch seems a bit Much.

• A: No, it was not intended. Though I would rather lower the points cost of Necrons than giving them back the ability to fire overwatch, right now it seems like Necron Warriors are fairly strong but if it turns out they are not, then I will lower their points rather than give them back overwatch.

• Q: Why make the Tesseract Vault a flyer, without most of the benefits of being a flyer? To make it be unchargable? To force it to move 6" every turn? Forcing it to start in reserves? It seems strange.

• A: It´s too tall to be charged, so I made it unchargeable. The Obelisk is also meant to be an anti-flyer so it should at least have the option of using sky-fire. I have made a rule which allows both the Obelisk and the Tesseract Vault to start on the board.

• Q: The independant characters of this codex (excluding the Destoryer lord) Lacks the Godless special rule. Now, I imagine this is intedend, but how does that affect it when in a unit? Will it be counted as not being able to take a cover save or will save have to be worked out separately If the squad is in cover? (Also the rules name is a bit strange considering C'tan exsists, but isn't really a problem.)

• A: The special rule has been removed from the Destroyer Lord. If the character is 25% covered by terrain then the character gets a cover save from that piece of terrain, regardless of which unit the character is in. This represent the characters ducking behind cover like sensible people robots. I´m still not sure if they should have it, I might just add it on a whim some day or if I find out the characters need a nerf or something. A god is (generally) something larger than yourself, Necrons believe themselves above their gods (C´tan) and above death, they fear neither gods nor death, the name implies the Necrons pride. If you are playing a Dynasty which still revere the C´tan I suggest you call it Stupid Robots or something similar instead of Godless.

Rustling Angry-Pirate's jimmys, written by Trollzyn the Infinite:

He's come to ridicule you!

Vargard Obyron:

Starting off with delightfully broken rules is Vargard Obyron, piling into the ring:

He has Everliving (Ever-Living): In Edition 7 This rule affects reanimation Protocols... but he doesn't have Protocols OR We'll be back... 6th edition relic?

Okay but now the real shit:
Whenever a unit containing Nemesor Zahndrekh is assaulted Obyron must leave his unit and immediately pile into this combat, ignoring intervening terrain, models, or reserves.
TO THE RESCUE 3" AT A TIME:
Piling in is a 3" move towards the combat. To actually reach it Obyron must get into 2" of a engaged friendly unit, or into basecontact with a enemy
BUT WAIT:
If both players’ Pile In moves combined would be insufficient to bring any combatants back together (that’s more than 6" – very unlikely!), the assault comes to an end.
All remaining Initiative steps are lost – work out the assault result as described below.

TLDR:If vargard is more than 6"away the assault will end during the first phase of combat, at I3
Considering that Necrons have I2 this will make you lose any assault OR WILL IT???
I guess this was a flinch I would rather write the rule like:
If Nemesor Zhandrek is engaged in Combat Obyron mustimmediately join Zhandrek (or the unit he has joined) and be placed into basecontact with any enemy that is engaged with Zhandrek.

But right now, if you Combine Zahndrek with Harbingers of Eternity/Orikan (I10) it will give you it's special rule during each new assault and let you charge the other unit during the next turn

Let's Move on here:

• God you´re a drama queen, at least you´re funny. Let me know if my quickfixes aren´t enough.

Orikan the Diviner:

CHOOSE to pass/fail Reserves what the actual f***... I mean I guess he costs the price because he doesn't buff FNP+Wbb but since Crons main weakness is being a footslogging army...
Seriously... take him everygame, deepstrike 3 Monoliths,use the Eternity gates to put immortals into rapide fire range and win everyyyyy game

• I agree that he is OP.

Illuminor Szeras:

Overcosted as f***... where is his 6" +1 on Wbb (and FNP)?
And what is he supposed to do with the 4 attacks? CCW GEQs to death?

• I agree.

Cryptec Faculty/Arch Crypteks(15pts):

First of a good laugh:
Relevant Harbinger Weapon -Is there a irrelevant Harbinger weapon? XD

Arch Cryptek:

40pts heyyyy a price drop lost +1 on Reanimation prots though...
Nanoscarab Swarm->16,666% Tankier units...Autoinclude in 400pts Units/Deathstars ->200pts units if you think the Cryptek will be worth on his own
Orb of Immortality:Ehh for 10 pts... I guess it would be ok on Immortals

• He is armed with a power sword (15 pts) and an assault 3 S5 AP 3 weapon with Blind and anti-stealth. He can easily wack most champions in CC while also having some (very low range) fire power.

The Faculty:
It will not die on models with 1 wound? Noice

Lemme see Despair 15pts... what is that weapon lol worthless
Nightmare Shroud....Abuse it with Im
60points for a buffed veil of Darkness? Pricy

Alternative Opinion:It's 51 points, it comes with 1 wound...

• I don´t get it, you have a deepstriking S 1-4 AP 2 flamer which cannot scatter, how is that not good?
• I am an Idiot, I actually missed the template part:
  

New Opinion: Drop it's like its hot, with some pariahs and have some Disco Inferno

With Ld7 from Pariahs you have a Wounding on 3's Ap 2 Flamer Sororitas wish they could burn heretics with this thing

DEEPSTRIKE, THE REVENGEANCE:

Let's assume we have a 1,85k points game. Your Opponent will be happy and absolutely unsuspecting

Now take Orikan the Diviner for Deepstriking shenanigans (Zahndrehk works too but only on turn 2) and Pray that your opponent gets the initiative. Take 6Crypteks (6+Orikan=7,The first faculty does not count towards HQ)

Buy 4xHarbinger of Despair+Veil of Darkness (60pts,ouch): Buy 2xHarbinger of Eternity+Timesplinter Cloak (40pts) Buy 2x10Pariahs (22pts) Buy 2x20Warriors (9pts) 160+240+80+440+360=1280pts Note:Since beginning the game joined to any unit is legit I would argue that leaving and joining with another Squad before the game starts does not count as leaving/joining in Reserves which is forbidden... Others may not... Attach 1 Eternity and 1 Despair guy to Pariahs Attach 1 Eternity guy to the Warriors Take 570 other points full of Cron Shenanigans (but only if it can Deepstrike) Step 1:Deploy Orikan... ONLY ORIKAN, watch as your Opponents face warps in Terror after you tell him everything will be in Deepstrike Reserves

Opponent Step 1: [Rain]

Opponent Step 2: win

              : ???
              : Want to take another game and drop your silly tactics?

Step 2:Deepstrike all units with Harbingers (and then some) on Turn 1 WITHOUT SCATTER, Rapid Fire at those Transport/Specialist units .... Hey Pariahs have Gauss Blasters?

Step 3:Assault with your Pariahs on Turn 2.... 30 S7 Ap2 I10 attacks for each unit... Possibly Deepstrike Flayed Ones

Opponent step 3: Unless ofcourse those Pariahs got hit by a Large Blast S 9 AP 3... That would be pretty inconvenient, especialy if your elite CC infantry were standing as so close together that you start wondering if they´re gay.... Wait, oh.

Step 4:????

Step 5:Profit PS: Now you could say that doing this is extremely stupid since Harbingers of Despair are practically worthless and with this setup your Deepstriking units cost 50% more. I say: F*** that noise

• Fun tactic, but I think it can be countered.

Harbinger of Destruction:

Ok I am NOT paying 45pts for a single 36" S8 Ap2 shot on a Infantry unit

• 25+10=35.

35=/=45

• I suck at math... =( well it's almost worth it

Gaze of Flame ... great on a unit with CCW
Solar Pulse:This thing is so strong, I feel like i can TAKE OUT THE SUN
I really can't tell how worth it is due to its Sheer awesomness

• I don´t get it, do you think it is OP? Being able to cause nightfighting is practically useless since most Crons can´t make use of cover and night fighting will only be in effect at most half your games. You are going to be wasting those 25 pts in the rest of your games.
• Hell no it isn't usefull but it's epic.... bring back the Snap fire effect

Harbinger of Emptiness:

If you feel like fighting Grey knights...
Cube of Darkness: If you want to be That Guy... seriously this thing is OP
Just for appreciating it's worth: A psyker mastery level usually costs 25pts, this means a Warp Charge is atleast worth 5pts->If you manage to wreck 6 Charges it has paid its cost
Void Scarabs:... If you feel like it?I mean.. it costs basically nothing

• What if you aren´t playing against a psyker? I also don´t mind fucking with grey knights, especially if they aren´t using my codex, which they aren´t because it´s currently on hold. Basically GKs deserve it. As good as it is, you are paying 55 pts for a model which will be next to useless in a lot of games.
• Most anti-psyker gear is not that useful in most Games.

Harbinger of Eternity:

SO OP... Stick it on Pariahs, Triple their efficency
Chronometron:If you are going to build a Deathstar...
Timesplinter Cloak:Incredibly worth if you are fighting something like Tau which will have Ap2 out their ass when fighting Cron's (1850 pts can have 56 S6 Ap2 shots (with split fire))
1/3 Tougher dudes always bring back the cost (Even on Full-Size Warrior Squads)

• Toughness isn´t so simple, your opponent won´t just continue fire his AP 2 weapons into your squad with an invul save. The effeciency of a ranged unit with a harbinger of eternity is signifigant, you are going to be putting out much less firepower than usual (/pt spent on the unit).

I´ll try out the lychguard and see what happens. *I meant Pariahs, I geuss Lychguard would be I 10 though, I hadn´t really thought of that. Perhaps that would be stronger?

• Hmm that will probs also elimate the unwieldy depending on how you rule it Codex>Main Rulebook

Harbinger of Storm:

40pts for 1,5Haywire hits?... Useless considering you are playing cron and the thing has 12" Range...

• Agree
• Isn't it a bad thing that their weapon is mostly useless? -Un'tan
• Sure, it´s getting changed next patch. - Pirate

Ether Crystal:Okay where am I supposed to put these Crypteks???
A.In my Army, B.Infront of Vehicles

• It´s one and the same thing once he leaves the monolith gate, my army is usually within 6" of my opponent on the first turn. One thing you can do is leave him in the back turn 1 to defend against Drop Pods and then have your monoliths enter from Deep Strike turn 2 or you could just wait with teleporting into your opponents face turn 2.

Lightning Field:Haha Assault 30? =P ~1,4 Wounds against MEQs? =P ~0,7 Wounds against Terminators? ~2 Wounds against Dreadnoughts... okay, it helps against charging dreadnoughts... assuming your Opponent does not know about that Harbinger (making it and you That Guy) it will pay back its cost.. otherwise? Fat chance, change to S7/6 Ap- and give it MUCH more dakka (so it's fairer to IG and Mehrines).

• Worth it against MEQs? No. Worth it against Termies? Yes. Worth it against Dreads? To a degree where walkers basically can´t assault his unit. One thing to consider is that if you kill all the models which can reach you (which I don´t think is unlikely if they are making a 5-8" assault, then they´ll fail, and have to endure another round of shooting and 30 more lightning shots.

Harbinger of Transmog....Ehhhh weird rules

I wonder if there is anything in the army that can be abused to break this (Tesseract Ark for example)

• Noted for later ab... Testing, I´ll test this out.

Harp:Ehhh
Seismic Crucible: Interesting but the exception for Assault grenades hampers its usefullness somewhat and Eternity will, instead of preventing assaults, let you win them for 35pts less (no dangerous terrain tests)

• I agree that eternity is far stronger on assault units, but you´ll never know if you´ll be facing an opponent who is going to assault you, in those cases the eternity tek will be useless in a ranged unit.

Quark Weapons:

Lance(7th Edition?):Treat Av13/14 as Av12
On a Strenght 3 Weapon Without Armorbane? Noice, I am gonna call you when I roll 9+ with my single D6

• I once destroyed a Predator with 3 quark shots, hitting on 3s, rending on 6s and glancing on 5s on the rending hits. All three rules were used and the predator went down, point dismissed.
• Oh okay I am an I didn't look extensively on the rending rules

In either case, against vehicles, each armour penetration roll of 6 allows a further D3 to

be rolled, with the result added to the total. These hits are not resolved at AP2, but are

instead resolved using the model/weapon’s AP value.

So you will have to hit with 3 then rend with 6 and 3 with the D3 to get 12 to glance anything...2.777% Chance wth did you do to that land raider?

• I just trashed a Predator by taking off all its HPs with 3 shots, no Land Raider was involved. It can´t penetrate a vehicle, it´s more of a joke to give them lance, a nod to the official codex. I was just really lucky one game. As in really, really super duber lucky.

C'Tan Shard:

Even though it's lacking assault power with most special rules definitively worth the cost considering you can take some insane upgrades with it.

Little question:
Is the essence of fear taking away any special rules that let them pass the tests or just taking away the part which affects ld tests?
They shall know no fear is pretty ambigous with the regrouping part ;^)

• They flat out lose it, it´s gone for as long as the shard is alive.
• Hey did you see that nightmare shroud Making that troop of space Marines run like pussies? (Abu...äh testing incoming with Imotekh)

...wait those already were Space Wolves

BTW: Why no deepstrike?

• It´s a lovecraftian thing, the longer the horror simmers the better it tastes.
• Dude it's literally making me mad
• Not the mad type of Lovecraft more like the fear/horror. I guess Lovecraft is all about people being so afraid/feel so insignificant they go mad? Basically Necron Legions need to march across the board (I know Monoliths don´t really match, but...) with back up from eldritch monsters and machines of unimaginable design.

Tomb blades:

I like 7th ed rules more...

• What do you mean? As in the new ones are more powerful? The old ones were certainly OP so the intention is that they should be weaker.

Doom Scythe:

Uhm is that 6" Range a misstake? Besides: There was a reason Rays got removed in 7th ed... It makes the thing ridiculously dangerous

• Which is why I´ve heavily nerfed it, it´s ray has gotten a much shorter range and the length of the beam has been close to halved, making it fairly easy to spread your vehicles 6,0001" apart to avoid getting hit twice.
• I assume you do not understand what I meant: It has a 6" Range and a 6" Length. The latter is alright but the former means I have to get into 6" Distance of a Vehicle you want to hit, which with a zooming flyer isn't easy to do.

Monolith:

It's cheap and It has truly outrageeeeoouss special rules... |NOICE

• In a world of superheavies Land Raider equavalents need to be much stronger to handle all the D and haywire I´m introducing to counteract those superheavies. This is why it´s so cheap, I also intended for it to be cheap enough that it could be used as a transport and not just a battle tank. In the end it can be destroyed fairly easily by melta weapons from non-imperial races and angry lascannons.

Doomsday Ark:

Ohh it comes with a nice D-Sized Kick me Sign

• Indeed it does. -Un'tan
• I´m going to do some more testing with it at some point, but it´s hard to neglect it when it´s not only a super powerful anti-super heavy but also anti-MC and on top of that has a reasonably powerful secondary profile. You just aren´t going to find that much firepower per point spent anywhere else. - Pirate

Canoptek Spyder:

Why does it have a ccw lol?It's only relevant for Monstrous creatures/Walkers which can take more weps

Imotekh:

Those special rules =DDD

Transcedent C'Tan:

Where is it's It will not die?

Too much points on a too little spot, same thing as with the Doomsday Ark.
Your Opponent WILL BE BRINGING TONS OF HIGH STRENGTH WEAPONS.... so relying on a single Important unit doesn't work.
Uncontrallable doesn't help...neither do the overcosted controllers
It has insane powers... but you could just take 2 or Normal C'tan instead...

• You are wrong, this thing is awesome. While it´s going to go on a rampage more often, it also has a lot more movement so it can seperate itself from the rest of your army. It´s really, really strong. So much so that I usually end up asking if it´s OP after it more or less singlehandedly carries my game.
• I don't really see the trancendant as Much more mobile than a regular shard. It has deep strike, but deep striking a 400 pts model is quite risky. It has the Jump subtype, but, the Cryptek controllers do not. The shard becomes chained to the controllers (approprietly enough) and If it wants to stay in coheresy won't be moving much more than 6". Aspect of Nyadra'zatha is however pretty darn good. I also wonder where "It will not die" is, since that is not included in the gargantuan rules. -Un'tan
• Well if you aren't a complete retard you just buy a single Lord/Arch Cryptek/Overlord to stick onto it...much cheaper

And why not even use a destroyer lord? 140pts is better than 200 for 2 wounds and it gives preferred enemy

Though you have to take the Veil of Darkness on a single Normal Cryptek if you want it to keep Deepstrike and Majority thoughness--Cool3303 (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

• It´s a gargantuan so it can move 12" each turn... So twice as fast as a normal Shard... You also cannot add Independent Characters to a unit with a MC in it, so it´s not really like it´s an option. It´s either the absurdly large but nicely costed box armour, the overcosted (soon to be changed) crypteks or nothing. - Pirate
• It can move 12", the cryptek's cannot. So taking them would slow it down. However since the controllers are getting an adjustment maybe that can be taken up there. -Un'tan
• You are right, I had not thought of that when pricing the Crypteks, but that just makes their cost all the more outrageous. - Pirate
• Citing the rules

Independent Characters can join other units. They cannot, however, join units that contain vehicles or Monstrous Creatures.

Aslong as the unit you are joining does not contain a vehicle or MC you can do so...With a monstrous Creature

So technically the main dish is Cryptek with a little bit C'tan on the side.

• The Transcendent C´tan is not an Independent Character. The controllers are characters but that doesn´t make them independent characters. There is no rule preventing a mixed unit of infantry and monstrous creatures, you cannot however join an independent character with a unit including a monstrous creature. I´m guessing that you thought the T C´tan was an independent character? - Pirate
• I am an Idiot sometimes... I blame the codex for making no conclusive difference between Independent Characters and Characters >_< The IC rule isn't in the Special rules section either...

by the way I just noticed only Nightbringer or Deceiver are unique, so technically Trazyn can replace a Transceden't C'tan and Join a Cryptek

The Command Barge lacks Character. And why are Lychguard Characters???

• What do you mean Trazyn can replace a Transcendent C´tan?

The rider is still a character.

Lychguard are characters so that they can issue and accept challengers for any would be challengers which aren´t worth your Lords time (or that he is scared of, not that he would ever admit the latter).

• Well if Trazyn dies he gets to replace a non unique Character on a 2+ =PPP... Hey it would be Trollworthy enough for Trollzyn.

C'Tan Vault:

Too much points to be really taken.. even though the price to value is insane.
Charging 100pts for a C'tan Controller? Well here, have 6 additional wounds on a It will not die Av14 Slab which let's you choose targets and removes uncontrollabe
It has a 1/3 chance of taking a wound? And?

• You are right about the controllers, their stupendous points cost is probably why I haven´t taken them in any of the games I´ve used the big C´tan. I think you are right, both about its value and its inability to be taken. I think it´s a little too much to fit into an 1850 list, but I don´t think it´s bad, your list just instantly turns into a gimmick when you have a superheavy and a gargantuan packed into a 650 pt model.

Slightly less rustling:

I think lords need more unique gear options. With signature wargear being cannibalized for Crypteks they just don't do it anymore...especially considering how awesome crypteks are now...
IMO Lords are not worth it in the new version... yes you can stick them in your Lychguard with a warscythe but Orikan,Obyron and Zahndrekh are MUCH more attractive due to special rules alone
Transcedent C'Tan has the same problem

• Same points as with the arch cryptek, on top of that if your opponent does not take a 2+ Sv on his characters then a Necron Lord will most likely be able to destroy him, unless the character takes a storm shield, but that´s cheating.

• See... I am a Idiot, I overlooked the melee profile for the Staff Of light.

I will also give you that they are a insane melee HQ, however their utility or Ability to put out Dakka is close to zero.

The Question is... why take them with Lychguard if you could just take Lychguard? Or Pariahs

Why take any additional Lords at all? You.... you are taking a ton of overpowered Crypteks right?

Furthermore I think adding formations from 7th ed would really help to build more diverse lists.

• How so? I don´t get it at all. The formations tie you down to using x-y of 1 unit and x-y of a second unit. It also makes absolutely no sense for the Crons to use these formations.

For the Eldar it forces you to make more themed lists. You can´t just take a little of everything, you have to take multiples of units if you want to include them, which automatically makes your army more fluffy since it will most likely fit a craftworld.

For SM it makes you field a (demi-)company which is just beyond awesome, that is how the SM go to war in the fluff and it makes tons of sense that is how they go to war in the game.

But Necrons? Ehhh, less so. Especially the vehicle formations are irksome.

• I will admit the Necron Formations are not the best... The thing is.. I feel Necrons are a very restricted Army to Build lists with.

I just feel like they require you to much to fill out a single slot with the same choice.I think Elites,Heavy Suppot and Fast attack are overcrowded if you want to concentrate your strategy on a single unit type. I feel like Tau are a good example where you can get away with doing almost anything...Except taking a HQ that isn't a Commander but otherwise? Riptides out the ass? check,a Broad variety of Broadsides? check, Ton of 'Eavy Metal? Check Check Check and Check. only Vehicles or Flyers? Roger.... Footsloggers? Sure! SO MANY DRONESSSSS!!!

Isn't making anything a equal choice independent of availability also falling in line with the objective you laid out to make all choices equal?

• I get the first two points you made, but I don´t get what you mean by the last bit.

Discussion

I hid finished discussions in expandable boxes. If you feel a discussion is unfinished or you wish to add a comment, just remove the text which makes the expandable box.

Formations

Think nothing of this, it´s trash, but might serve to inspire me someday so I´ll keep it.

Raider Force

• 1 unit of Necron Warriors
• 1 unit of Canoptek Scarabs

Primary Awakeners

• 1 unit of Canoptek Spyders
• 1 unit of Canoptek Wraiths
• 1 unit of Canoptek Scarabs

Battleforce

• 1 Necron Lord
• 2 units of Necron Warriors
• 1 unit of Necron Immortals

Core World Army

• 1 Necron Overlord (one must be upgraded to Nemesor)
• 1 Necron Lord (Vargard)
• 1 Overseer
• 1+ Battleforces
• Vehicles

Crown World Army

• 1 Necron Overlord (Phaeron)
• 1+ Overseers
• 1 Necron Lord (Vargard)
• 1+ Battleforces
• Vehicles
• Super-heavies and gargantuan creatures

Misc

Necron Lord Titles: Brainstorm

• I would like Necron Lords to have something like 5-10 titles available to them. All of them should have long and intricate names and then short and underwhelming effects. If you have any ideas please post them below. Angry Pirate (talk) 12:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
• Just trowing out some ideas, since I am not entirely sure what you are looking for. I do however like this idea.

"Vicar Lord, Harbringer of the Endless ranks". Gives a small bonus to Joined warriors/Immortal units. Something boosting overall toughness probably, symbolizing the inevitable awakening and coming of the necron forces.

"Arch Dominus, standing pillar of the War in Heaven". Small personal buff.

"Eternal arbiter. Caller of exctinction on the young races". Negativa aura affecting enemy units.

"Arkhostos (or Akkostos, Arkkuz), marchal of the wars of succession". (Derived from Augusts), small bonus fighting infantry. Possibly aura. Possible strategic effect.

"Akhenaten, Insurgent to the false gods". (Derived from the egyptian pharao who tried to stear the people away from traditional religious practise). Gives a small bonus, bonus increases in effectiveness If the detatchment does not contain any kind of shard.

"Oblivion noble, omen carrier of darker times." Gives night fighting to the squad or simmilar. Maybe something related to despair crypteks.

(Different)"Cursed one, priest of the flayer plague." A bit Strange perhaps, but something to do with Flayed ones, symbolizing a turned Flayed one. Possibly only available to mayark dynasty.

(Different)"Devourer host lord, caller of the skittering swarm Small buff to scarab swarms, like +1 strength. Un'tan (talk)

Those are very nice. Angry Pirate (talk) 09:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you, far from perfect though. I am gonna re read some lore to get more ideas. Wanna Come up with some titles that also sound like them mean something but are just phrases well. Though some titles I feel could have a little bigger effects. But still small. Maybe have some effect relate to other specific units, a certain kind of lord would favour a certain kind of warfare. Un'tan (talk)

Dynasty Variations

• I am considering making a minor effect for dynasties. Like Hatred or Preferred Enemy for all independent characters toward a certain codex. I was also thinking about this: https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Necron_Army_Creation_Tables Would it be cool if there were a number of small effects, I´m thinking mostly about buyable upgrades here, or is that a bad idea?

• Minor effect for dynasties feels good, it seems to be what Gw is doing more and more now as well. The dynasties are distinct and it would make sense for some possible upgrades based on such. Small upgrades I am not as certain. It could be a lot of fun though so depending on what the upgrades would be.

• All of the following names and prices are up in the air, more ideas would be appreciated.
• Only one of each Dynastic Wonder may be taken per army. A Phaeron may take one of the following:

- Stasis Induction Field - ?? pts

One use only. At the start of your psychic phase nominate a single enemy unengaged unit, all models in the target unit count as impassable terrain rather than models until the start of your next psychic phase.

- Gravity Wave Generator - ?? pts

During each of your shooting phases you may nominate an enemy unit with the Jump and/or Jet unit type, the chosen unit loses the Jet and Jump unit type (if it has it) until the start of your next shooting phase.

- Time Modulator - ?? pts

One use only. At the start of your psychic phase you may conduct a second movement phase.

- Phase Capacitor - ?? pts

One Use Only. At the end of your opponents turn you may remove any number of units with the Godless or Independent Character special rule within 12" of the Phaeron, as well as any characters inside the unit(s) , from the board and put them into ongoing reserves.

- Starlight Barrage - ?? pts

Starlight Barrage is a shooting attack with the following profile: S 1 AP - Assault 5, Barrage, Large Blast, Blind

- Fire of the Heavens - ?? pts

Fire of the Heavens is a shooting attack, don´t know what profile it should have.

- Dimensional Collapse - ?? pts

One use only. At the start of your psychic phase you may place a Large Template anywhere on the battlefield at least 1" away from any models. The Large Template counts as an infinitely tall piece of impassable terrain. Remove the template the second psychic phase after its activation.

- Dark Hole - ?? pts

S D small template shooting attack, next turn it becomes a S D large template, all models within 12" of the shooting attack counts as moving through difficult and dangerous terrain and cannot take armour saves against dangerous terrain tests.

- Orbital Laser - ?? pts

Small template starts in your deployment zone, slowly moves across the table and deals damage.

• Was expecting dynasty variations effects first, sort of like space marine chapter tactics. Though this is pretty interesting. Starlight barrage is pretty boring though. But many of these are fun and it is an interesting concept. Stasis Induction Field is the most Hillarious rule I have Ever read. And I approve it wholeheartedly. Orbital laser is also a really fun concept. Ill add to this possible list If I think of something as well. But again, stasis Induction field, magnificent.
• Miscommunication on my part I was more intending for a Orbital Bombardment esque effect triggered by some piece of tech either carried by the phaeron or his flagship.
• You Did mention that too, but in either case having small dynasty variations would be very fun, honestly it is something that should not just belong to space marines, every faction has different groups that do things differently. Although again, stasis Induction field is Hillarious.
• What are you thinking about? I´m not sure if they are really that different? I mean one of them is really rich and then there are the flayer ones which I made a detachment for. The rest of the differences between dynasties could be filled out by simply taking more of a certain unit couldn´t it?
• I was thinking of small army wide buffs, perhars some dynasties unlocks certain upgrades to units. And while I still like that Idea, there really is very little lore about the differing Dynasties so far. If there was more to go on I would argue more for these upgrades, but as it is there just too little to build on.
• One of the abilities should have sonething to do with teleportation, not like phase capacitor, but something allowing one unit to deep strike perfectly, or let a deep striking unit act normally after deep strike. It would be delicious lore wise.
• A suggestion, some special characters could be allowed to take a dynasty wonder for a reduced cost, fitting with their lore. As an example, time modulator could be cheaper for Orikan, or stasis Induction field could be cheaper for Trazyn. It would be a second reason to Wanna take a special character and add to their usefulness without directly making them better. -Un'tan

Artefacts of the Aeons

• Should the option to take the 7th edition be available? There is a maximum of one item and there are very few choices unlike Warhammer Fantasy 7th edition you cannot make psudeo special characters. It´s just another Overlord with an AP 2 flamer I feel, rather than Andrux the Annihilator, the Conflagrator, the burner of a thousand worlds, using his signature Gauntlet of fire which spews flames with the heat of a dying sun. Now feel free to disagree, if you want to play Andrux or just unnamed Lord X using the Gauntlet of the Conflagrator. I do have another idea though, a bit more grand I suppose. A buyable ability akin to what Imotekh the Stormlord has, probably only available to Phaerons, representing your dynasty´s technological gems. Maybe a stop watch for a single unit, an Orbital Strike or something else that could impact the field of battle in a similar grand way.

• Personally I find it fun making necron characters, giving some more uniqueness and possible configurations is something I would approve of. Weather it would be balanced or not testing Will tell. For some reason I always felt it was weird necrons would have artefacts, their technology is uniform already so advanced so it feels a bit strange. I cant deny it would be interesting though.

Warlord Traits

*Endless Legion was a fun warlord trait, and I quite like it. But it really can have a huge impact on the game, more than most any trait. So it was a bit too Much for a warlord trait. Having that rule Come from something else could possibly be quite fun however.

• How about a Legion Detachment, replacing Objective Secured with some sort of unit recovery mechanic?

• Giving up objective secured for such a mechanic would be reasonable. It would be a nice tactical choice I feel.

Detatchments

Immortal Legion

Only having max two units of Godless models on the table can be a pretty big disadvantage in a detatchment that favours many big infantry units. Especially in higher points battles. Perhaps it should be a designadet part of the army only allowed on the table at the start.

Harvest

• Is the "Protocol of war (Charnel Scarabs)" supposed to only apply to the formation's troop choices? If so, why is it so general? The only troop choices are immortals, Warriors and Flayed ones, it could then just say immortals and warriors get shred whilst Flayed ones get fleshbane. Although personally, I think the shred should apply to the detatchment in general, since it adhers to the lore of necron platoons inflicted with the flayer virus. -Un'tan
• It's general because it's copy pasted and "troops choices" is a shorter sentence than "Flayed One Phalanxes, Immortal Phalanxes and Warrior Phalanxes". It only applies to troops choices because otherwise units taken as auxiliary choices would be worse than the ones taken as part of legions.

The intention is also for the Detachment to quite weak, it's main strength is supposed to be the strange army compositions you can make with it, like including 9 Fast Attack choices with only two HQ and three Troops choices. Angry Pirate (talk) 09:03, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• 9 fast attack choices? The harvest detatchment itself can take a maximum of 4 if you consider each tomb blade choice to be a fast attack slot. The detatchments in general are quite restrictive with the amount of points forced to be placed into warrior squads. Also it wasn't the "Troop choices" part that was off to me, bit either way. Why can it not also affect auxillary choices? Or why can't it at least affect the choices within the specific detatchment? Flayed one affected necrons usually don't hold together in a large group, so it wouldn't be weird to have the small section used as the detatchment be affected. Isnt the detachments supposed to symbolise what one lower lord controls? And the Auxillary choices for the larger overall detatchment what the overlord controls? In that case it would be fitting for the harvest detatchment to affect all of its units since they would be outcasts either way. Additionally, since in the larger detachment each core choice id coupled with one auxillary choice, maybe they could be tied together somehow? I think it is sad these detachments doesn't really allow for a fully themed list of flayed one cursed necrons. What if, the lord in the detchment did give his auro to all the detatchments units, and if you too and overlord in the larger detatchment, you had the option to extent that rule to all auxillary choices as well? -Un'tan
• Reclamation Legion with 3 Tomb Blade Phalanxes, 1 Canoptek Wraith Harvest, 1 Canoptek Scarab Swarm Harvest, Canoptek Cohort with 2 Canoptek Wraith Harvests and 2 Canoptek Scarab Swarm Harvests.

You can take a mix of Garrison, Harvest and Reclamation Legions in a single Decurion, which is why it only applies to Troops taken as part of the Formations. There is also the problem of Troops being designed to be weaker than other choices but have the benefit of Objective Secured. If you make formations like the official Canoptek Harvest you will almost certainly make taking the units in the formation outside of the formation a bad idea. If you are going to be bringing Wraiths (and you aren't pulling your punches) you are going to playing a Canoptek Harvest. This is not my intention with the Angry Decurion. I know I didn't really answer all your questions, you'll have to copy paste any you felt went unanswered. Arguing that my view is wrong or flawed is of course always encouraged. Angry Pirate (talk) 23:29, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Quote: "This Detachment must include at least one Core choice and one Command choice. It may any number of additional Core choices and up to one Auxiliary choice for each Core choice taken as part of this Detachment." Which means 1 auxiliary choice per core choice. A reclaimation Legion can take 0-3 tomb blade phalanxes and one other choice. So far we are at 4 total. And for each core (1 so far) we can take 1 Auxiliary. If we take a canoptek Cohort we can take one Scarab unit and one Wraith unit for example, since it offers 0-2 choices. That is a total of 6 fast attack choices. If there is something I am missing then I cannot see it clearly at all. If you could take two extra choices per legion and two auxiliary choices per detachment, then this would make sense, however, that is not what the rules currently state.

So from what you are explaining, you prefer people not get any lore fitting buffs on any other units than the troop choices over the upgrades only being tied to one specific formation?

However, this is not an issue for Garrison or reclamation, as their rules wouldn't be lore fitting if it was to others than the warriors and immortals. It is only the harvest legion where the rule would logically be conferred to everything within that formation. The big problem is that the Harvest line of warriors differs widely from a regular Necron army. They are diseased with the flayer curse, they are outcasts. So, why does a regular Overlord have the option to have a detachment of flayed one legion under his command? When this contradicts the lore?

Since a flayed one harvest differs so much from a regular necron army (And any upstanding Overlord with regular forces still at his command wouldn't have a whole legion of them) I suggest the option on building a harvest list is moved up to the status of a separate Decurion, or a side version of the Decurion we have now. This also helps with theming in building flayer lists, since those who are going to bring in a lot of flayed ones are most likely going for that either way. un'tan (talk) 01:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• You can include one of each of the choices listed in the long list. If the word before the last listing is "or" then you only get to choose one item from the list, if the last word before the last listing is "and" then you can choose up to one of each of the items listed.

I'd prefer if the buffs were inherent in the profile instead of being tied to a formation, like for example, I've thougth about adding an ability for Spyders to be able to give abilities to Canoptek units in their profiles. Exceptions apply, like forcing Eldar players to pick a theme for their craftworld. I suppose much the same argument could be made for Necron Dynasties, but I hadn't yet connected, or was unwilling to connect those dots.

You can choose not to include any Flayed Ones in a Harvest Legion. You could also just make a melee centric warrior blob army supported by eternity crypteks if that was your thing. Angry Pirate (talk) 02:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• Alright, by the way it was worded I had definitely not thought that is how it worked, I do not think I have seen any other decursion or formation worded or looking as such, though now that you have explained it seems more reasonable. Even though the wording is still very confusing and I think that should be changed or set up to convey this thought better.

But it is the formation of the flayed ones that ties in and brings together the army theme, other necron forces can have occassional flayed one units but there should be a formation that gives one the oppertunity to play an army specifically focused around that.

I know you can choose to not take any flayed ones in a harvest list but that is increadibly boring, and warrors with shred is useless because angry warriors are useless. And my "Thing" is not a terrible melee centric warrior unit since warriors are ws2 s3 i1 and ridiculously boring. The Thing is playing with a Flayed one army. One of the basis for Angry rules is being able to go with themed armies that would be playable, and flayed ones in harvest style armies is a pretty clear theme, but just having the formation rule apply to the troops choices is incredibly dull.

But having dynasty upgrades confer similar thematic bonuses is definitely a suitable option for this matter. -Un'tan.

• Maynarkh has very little else other than Flayed Ones as troops choices. They have the Flensing Scarabs, Mark of the Flayer and limited availability of Immortals and Lychguard. I don't really think Mark of the Flayer is worth anything so I'm inclined to just add it as a free option for Lords and Overlords. While flensing scarabs were more or less useless on Troops and Flayed Ones meaning I'd imagine people would only take them on Lychguard, I don't think there is much wrong with moving it to the Troops choices instead of just Lychguard being the only ones truly benefitting from the option.

I've wondered quite a lot about whether there is truly any need for rewarding people for making a themed army when the attempt of this project is balancing codices so that people can use more different armies against eachother and have fun games. By forcing people into a theme I'm limiting people in a way, a more fluffy way to be sure, but it still an unneccessary limit if I could just make the themed army balanced without making it OP compared to something that is close but does not quite fit the theme.

If the Mark of the Flayer becomes an option for all Lords and Overlords you could choose to say you have a partially corrupted court or an entirely corrupted court. Angry Pirate (talk) 09:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• Personally I think having a fluffy army or an army made fluffy is half the fun of playing. Which is why I keep bringing up that it is fun to have a fluffy rule difference between certain forces and dynasties like this. Maybe it should be a dynasty varion thing that is more flavour and very small buff rather than a bigger buff. But, is shred going to make a big doffernece for most necrons? Hmm.. haven't even thought about that. Gauntlet of flame would have fleshbane, though only the close combat part, heavy destroyers would have shred which kinda is good. It would benefit Wraiths a bit, and scarabs a lot if only against infantry and monstrous creatures. Lynchguards and Prestorians too. Hmm... actually it would be good for destroyers. Maybe too good.

I am still in favour of dynasty variations, and curious when those lord titles are coming.

I will be doing a few games, flayed one and not flayed one based, if there are any rules you want some testing, just say so and I will see what I can do. -Un'tan

• It only applies to close combat attacks.

I don't know if I'm even capable of making 5 relevant Lord titles and I would really like to have 6 or 7. 11:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• To be specific, it would help destroyers in close combat, heavy destroyers weapon has shred. In the formation it is stated that a model who has the shred rule instead gets fleshbane, however, flayed ones does not have the shred rule inherently, it is just their wargear that has shred, and the two scenarios are separatly stated in the rule book. Therefore, I assumed since it would give flayed ones fleshbane even if it is their weapon that gets fleshbane, that hypothetically since heavy destroyers have shred on their weapon, they would also recieve this.

The wording doesn't really matter and I am not arguing, just clarifying why I thought so.

Additionally, earlier I have provided 8 potential lord titles, which you said were nice. Since you mentioned in the update for february that you were including lord titles, I thought you already had that sorted. If you need more titles I can help out. -Un'tan

Gauss

• I did not think you would buff the Gauss rule so much. Wounds and hull points in addition to normal damage? That seems a bit much. I understand your reasoning behind the previous destroyer weapons slightly more now, though that made them reliant of Rolling 6's to do anything, and while that was fine for basic weapon, or as an addition to a special weapon, a special weapon that would be built around Rolling 6's, especially when you don't have many shots, wouldn't amount to doing Much damage. Ok got to a sidetrack there. Is that kind of buff to the gauss rule necessary? I would like to hear your opinion on that.

• Gauss Blasters are slightly worse against AV 10 and has Rending against non-vehicles. That is really all the change does since their strength has been reduced. I do think Gauss Blasters needed rending, if you can take down a Land Raider you can certainly also take down Terminators. I could improve the strength of all Gauss weaponry by 1 point and then simply make it the wound AP 2 or cause a minimum of 1 HP against vehicles, it only really has an effect on the Destroyers and Monoliths which already wound on 2+. I don´t care much if you need to roll 5+ 3 times or 6+ 6 times, I just care about the bottom line of my excel document which tells me whether a unit´s average damage output and endurance is OP or nah. The monoliths main gun is far worse than it used to be, so it is definitely not a buff here. The only guns which have been buffed are those of the Destroyers, which would be S 7 Rapid Fire Rending, which is why I am critical of them. They do have re-roll to wound and re-roll armour pen rolls in the official codex. In addition their toughness is significantly lowered because of Godless. As I stated I believe them to be OP right now, I´m just not sure so I want to test them. So to sum it all up only the Destroyers weapons got better and while not strictly necessary I like the tactical impact it has, I don´t really want to change the profile though so if anything I will nerf their pts value, maneuverability or defensive stats. - Angry Pirate

• (2/6) to do a glance or pen on hits, vs (1/6) to do 2 glances on av10. I would say that is a slight buff. Also the monolith's big Gun didn't even have the gauss rule previously. Gauss is upgraded from doing a glance or wound to doing a glance or wound in addition to the normal damage. That is what I am slightly worried about. However, I really have no place to Argue Much about that detail until I have had more test games. Maybe I am just worried over nothing. I think I get pretty invested in this codex because since the 7th edition codex playing necrons have been boring. Strong dependable units, next to no variety. And this codex really makes me want to play again. So, thanks a lot. -Un'tan

• On average you now do 2 glancing hits against AV 10 every 6 hits. Previously on average you did 1 glancing hit and 1 penetrating hit every 6 hits, so strictly worse. Especially against vehicles with 3 hull points since you will be overkilling them by one point. But the strength of Gauss Blasters has been reduced meaning the new weapon is the same as the old weapon except with rending against non-vehicles and then worse against AV 10. The Monolith Crystal does twice it´s previous damage against Land Raiders, but since it´s strength has gone down it is signifigantly worse against armour 10 and 11 because it does less damage and penetrates way less often. It also lost it´s ap entirely so it is no longer strong against any unit type, it just does ok damage against everything.

• Monoliths weren't really used against av 14. But I am not arguing about this, you are right in this. It is going to be very interesting to see how it does in a battle.

Praetorians vs Lychguard

• Why are Lychguards T3 but Praetorians T5? Lychguards should be the tougher ones due to being bodyguards shouldn´t they?

• Praetorians are Toughness 5 to distinguish them from Lychguard, lychguard have a 2+ armour save instead of Toughness 5 to increase the number of shots they deflect with Dispersion Shields. Besides Lychguard are far tougher than termies, pretty sure they are the tougher point for point than any official unit. - Angry Pirate

• How does a 2+ save mean they use their Dispersion Shields more? Any save that is not ap 2 or 1 Will be taken on the armour save and not the inv save. I don't think people are gonna take an ap 3 or 4 hit on their Shields with a less chance of saving just to reflect the shot.

• "Any time a model with this rule successfully makes an armour or invulnerable save against a ranged attack, choose one enemy unit within..." Because successful armour saves also reflect hits now, it´s quite devestating when used against light infantry in fact. - Angry Pirate

• Alright that is Justified. Even though I think lore wise it doesn't entirely make sense for tha armour to reflect shots, mechanics wise it is interesting, and I Will be doing some games with them to try it out.

• Armour saves and invulnerable saves don´t make sense in the first place, why would one negate the other. My thinking is they always use their shield and their shield is part of their 2+ Sv. It would be silly to keep the shield down until someone points a lascannon at your face.

• I could keep this particular discussion with more than one kind of save and so forth, but thers is not much point to that, you do make a fairly good point, and some field testing Will determine how they turn out.

Ever-Living

• Personally I quite miss Ever-Living. Seems a bit odd now how a warrior can be hit with a demolisher cannon and has a 1/3 chance to stand back up, but an Overlord or Cryptek is just gone. -Un'tan

• I don´t miss it whatsoever. I think it was funny when I randomly passed two Ever Living saves, but it felt gimmicky to me. I also somehow always managed to place my counter in such a way that I was exactly 1,1" away from enemy models which had tried to surround the counter. Take a phylactery next time you feel like tanking demolisher shots with your Overlord.

• Warriors do the same thing just on a bigger scale. I do not feel it was anymore gimmicky than we will be back. Again, which is the same thing just applying to different models. Fact is, If a lowly warrior is destroyed by something it couldnt save against (demolisher, power weapon, strength d) it has a chance to reaninate and stand back up, like what necrons are supposed to do. A Nobel important for the battle necron on the other hand only maybe gets its feel no pain and then it is just gone. It simply seems and feels wrong. The rule could be improved upon.

• Each time a warrior gets back up you gain an extra warrior worth 9 pts. If an overlord stands in the front and fails a look out sir and takes that dreaded demolisher shot, if he has a chance to get back up you regain somewhere between 30 and 80 pts worth + a possible victory point for warlord kill. All of this hinges on a single roll of 5+. I know I said in a previous discussion that what matters is the average, but there is such a thing as a dice having too much power. Also I don´t really want to further improve the durability of Lords and Overlords, they are already ungodly tanky compared to their damage output.

• Crunch wise that makes sense to a fair degree, but it still leaves crypteks and lords more vounerable. I can understand that the old version of eveliving made one dice roll seem to mean a lot more than what it usually should, but again, so far in the Games I have played with these rules I have experienced that they seem a bit to frail. Perhaps have the lords and Crypteks have a feel no pain save that works against instant death, alone to the reanimation protoplasma of seventh edition, this would just increase their survivability slightly, enough to be a bit sturdier without making them rely on lucky we will be back rolls.

• Crypteks have been given the old Reanimation Protocols special rule in favour of FNP, I agree they were too frail, I had been looking for something myself. I still cannot give Overlords and Lords more durability, they are already the HQ choices most heavily weighed towards defense in the game. Lords are really as much a Champion as they are an HQ choice. Even at that they are much tougher in challenges than SM Captains.

Mindshackle Scarabs

• Do we have to use the terribly boring new mindshackle scarabs rule? A 3d6 fear test is so increadibly boring. With its point cost being increased so Much it was fine, the cost reflecting the effect of the wargear. Can we really Remove one of the most fun necron wargears? However letting mindshackles affect the allies chart is nice and fluffy.
• I want to note that I nerfed it as well, the official one affects all enemy in the unit fighting the character with Mindshackle Scarabs. It´s just a little too big of an effect for a piece of wargear, I think 55 pts was a little much, but it is at least worth 30 pts. When it comes into effect it can be a little over the top. You are also incredibly reliant on your opponent failing the leadership test, which is often taken at LD 10, making it little more than a coin flip. If you fail the flip a couple of times your unit gets destroyed, if you make it a couple of times you win the combat.
• But it was fun. It was a cool piece of wargear and it wasnt always as cold as a coin flip If you positioned and Planned for what you were gonna assault. Also without an invounerable save accesible again it was a fair compensation. Besides it was only affecting one model at a time. And the fear test is negated by a lot of units. Its back to being boring.
• I forgot about Fear being negated. How about just making it a Leadership test instead of a Fear test? The impact was just very big, it isn´t extremely good against experienced players but it is fairly punishing against newer players who don´t know how to avoid it. I feel like it´s okay for a unit or item to be punishing when it is miss used, like if you use Scarabs against Ork Boys or something like that. It´s pretty simple to figure out what each unit is good against (well at least it should be since there should be a tactics page for each army) but figuring out how to counter play an opponents items can be more tricky. It isn´t reasonable to expect people to look up guides on the internet on how to play against Mindshackle Scarabs. They essentially become a noob trap, I started telling my opponents when they can do obvious stuff and especially telling them about flaws in my stat line, like you can cause instant death against this unit with this unit, since they haven´t had much chance to figure out the codex. But 1 or 2 years ago I wouldn´t have. You might perfectly position your Mindshackle Carrier to affect the enemy´s power fist, but he might not know or even notice that. I suppose it is kind of demeaning to talk in this way about my gaming group like they are children or something, but not everyone takes the game very seriously and some play primarily for visuals, the setting and the fantasy of being a WH40k Warlord.

• What if mindshackle scarabs took time to take effect? Something like a leadership test on 1d6 plus one more d6 for every round the models were in the same combat. That way your opponent will be warned before anything really bad happens, but if the combat doesn't end quickly the scarabs can become seriously dangerous. I might suggest using the model's normal attack profile for this too, to even out the effect on sergeants and the like over time. -Oedon

• The game should be balanced, but not so simplified. If an oponent is put up against such a unit and then they Will be a Lessons for the future, and they they Will also think around it and maybe even learn more about positioning and play styles. Changing it from something cool to something very mediocre for those reasons is not fun. And everything cant be noob proof in a game this complex. It Will tale trial and error and people learning from mistakes and thinking of counters, that is a lot of the fun in the game. And If people start playing around and do things that negate The scarabs effectiveness they Will be used less with those, creating a meta. I don't think we should sacrifice such a cool mechanic. -Un'tan

• While I think my argument is somewhat true, that isn´t what I dislike the most about Mindshackle Scarabs. It´s the difficulty with which I have at balancing it. I didn´t feel like taking it whatsoever on my Destroyer Lords, maybe I´m just stupid, but 55 pts felt like it was too much. On one hand Mindshackle Scarabs can be extremely powerful, but if your character dies or is engaged against weak enemies or your opponent passes the leadership test then they are useless. What I´m swinging between is 25 pts and 60 pts. The latter is more than double the former, which is unlike any other piece of wargear or unit which usually swings +-5-15%. As long as a unit is within 10% then it is very balanced, but I just don´t know about the price of Mindshackle Scarabs.

• While I haven't been using Lords as HQ choices in My lists so far, the ones where I do have a combat lord I get mindshackle for them. The pricing is an issue but with some more field test with it a more reasonable price can probably be achived. -Un'tan

Shadowloom

• Hey, can somebody explain the deal with the new shadowlooms? I'd like to understand the rationale behind them. 2+ cover seems really good on something like the night scythe (which can fulfill its primary function without shooting). Shrouded was unimpressive as a trade-off to shooting, but a two-up on a flyer seems awfully tough... Maybe I'm missing something? -Oedon

• The Night Scythe can only deploy units while in hover mode, so it is essentially an AV 11 skimmer with Shrouded, and then a little less. If you decide not to shoot with it you are 100% losing out on shooting, but there is no guarantee you will get shot, you might just waste that turn of not shooting. A skimmer which actually had Shrouded would Jink as a reaction and would therefore be sure to get value out of it not shooting. 2+ Cover Save also doesn´t help you against CC attacks and a few No Cover Saves Allowed weapons (thought I admit those are far and few in between).

The only time I can see it being worth it is when deploying troops with the Night Scythe and the turn after jinking with a Death/Doomscythe. I don´t think it´s very powerful and the previous thing was entirely useless. I might consider using the Shadowloom now, but not once did I consider using the previous iteration.

If you disembark a squad and then shoot the gun then you still have the option of Jinking in the next turn, the turn after that, its firepower would still be almost intact because of TL-Tesla. So you are losing out on a 2,75 S 7 AP - hits in order to force your opponent to target another one of your units.

I´m of course not going to argue with you that 2+ on an AV 11 flyer is insanely tough. But you aren´t achieving anything by having an invulnerable Doomscythe if it cannot shoot. Because of Vectordancer Doomscythes now almost never spend turns shooting at not nothing or just turning around to fire at a target, so the only point in which it has downtime where it "only" loses 2,75 S 7 AP - hits is the turn after it has Jinked, which is pretty good, but I don´t think it´s game breaking. Angry Pirate (talk) 00:16, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

• Alright, fair points. Thanks for the explanation! 2+ cover on a flyer or jetbike is indeed tough, but I get the argument for it. -Oedon

• The rule is still untested, I´m planning on spamming flyers soonish though, which should reveal whether it is broken or requires a price increase. Angry Pirate (talk) 09:30, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Resurrection Orb

• Are the two separate abilities on this item significant? The only time the second ability differs from the first is the edge case of a unit that's shot at, not destroyed, then destroyed in the following assault phase, and only when the player is keeping track of how many models are removed over two phases. Anyone disagree with removing the second ability? -Oedon

• If you have 10 Immortals and a Necron Lord in the back and all the Immortals are destroyed you immediately get back 3 Immortals, I think that is significant. The first ability is used at the start of your turn which increases the unit´s overall durability, the second ability protects you from the weakness of We´ll Be Back, if no models survive until the start of your turn all We´ll Be Back counters are lost, unless you have the second ability of the Res Orb, I don´t see how that is insignificant. Your example also doesn´t make any sense. Perhaps you haven´t read the new We´ll Be Back fully, you roll at the start of your turn not at the end of each phase.

• Ah, got it. Yeah, I missed part of the timing change, and my examples are pretty lousy. What I meant with that example is that specifying this affects models that have been around since your last movement phase contracts the tokens on the board in the case of out-of-sequence damage. To give two examples of this, let's say a unit of warriors arrived on the board and was immediately annihilated by interceptor shots or difficult terrain. None of those models have been in play since your last movement phase, so none of them are affected by an orb. As a second example, let's say those same warriors lost nine members to enemy fire (and none of them stood back up). The one remaining warrior dies to dangerous terrain. All nine of his comrades were alive at the end of your last movement phase, so they all get to roll in, despite not having tokens on the board.
  • I was suggesting that these two abilities could really be one. What if the orb just said 'Once per game, before removing we'll be back markers from the board, you may make a new We'll be Back roll for each one, returning models to play immediately.' -Oedon

• I´m not sure that is entirely clear. You remove the WBB-markers after the last model in the unit with WBB has died and then you roll for WBB, but in that case there are no models to place all the resurrected models next to, since you have to place them in unit coherency with a model that is still alive. Angry Pirate (talk) 11:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• Fair point. How about 'Once per game, before removing we'll be back markers from the board (either as a result of failed rolls or removing the last living model in a unit), you may make a new We'll be Back roll for each marker, returning models to play immediately. Each model returned to play may be placed within 2" of any surviving model or within 2" of the last model removed as a casualty.' This gives the player at least one anchor point to place resurrected models around.

• I have been mulling it over and I don´t think a superior solution to what is currently written has been presented. While I appreciate you wish to simplify the codex, I think clarity is more important than conciseness. Angry Pirate (talk) 14:09, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• I'm willing to concede the two separate abilities to promote clarity, but I do want to close up the disconnect between the models to be resurrected. The number of models present at the end of your last movement phase isn't really the set that should be affected. We should be able to solve that with a wording change rather than an ability refactor. -Oedon

• The models we want to reanimate must be the ones with currently extant tokens, right? If that's the case, the second ability might be something like 'Before removing the last remaining model in the bearer´s unit with We´ll Be Back as a casualty you may immediately make a We'll be Back roll for each We'll be Back counter in the bearer´s unit.' This matches the terminology we've used so far for reanimation, and only models with We'll be Back could have a token on the field in the first place. -Oedon

• It´s only a question of 1 model. My reasoning for the shifty wording was that I was thinking if you lost the last remaining 5 models in a unit to a single volley then Res Orbs wouldn´t have much effect. I simply got confused because of the fast dice rule. Angry Pirate (talk) 22:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Staff of Light

• Though a solid weapon, the added Illuminate benefit for a Staff of Light is dubious. Clearing Stealth is neat, but the majority of times a covered unit hangs out within 12" is rare, and in those cases we're usually more concerned with other effects like Shrouded. What if Illuminate forced a target to reroll successful cover saves for the remainder of the turn? It's definitely stronger, making this a more effective support weapon, but it would seem to fit the weapons battlefield role and fluff a little better. In practice, this would be a buff mostly to warriors and immortals, as Arch Crypteks and cheaper Lords could help them rapidfire down tougher targets. -Oedon

• Illuminate is mostly a fluffly thing, Stealth is most commonly found among the Dark Eldar and in the Night Fighting rules, both of which involve darkness, I thought it made sense for a weapon with Blind to cancel it out. Your idea is very interesting, I´ll have to think a bit more about it.

Names

Gauss

Can Gauzz have a name that doesn't make me sound stupid when I say it out loud? Molecular acceleration weapons sounds less...silly.

In the fluff it is described somewhat as if it nullifies the strong force in a small area. Gauss (in real life) is magnet based. Maybe quark weapons? Or quak weapons... Ok i´m just kidding. If you come up with a name that fits the fluff just change your original question and I will change the page. Hadron weaponry would work I suppose, it also fits with tesla. Although naming an aliens race weapon types after 1-2k earth scientist is a bit weird, it really isn´t that far fetched. - Angry Pirate

I fully support the name "Quark" weaponry. based on quarks being the smallest particle and thus sounds like it could have an significant effect on anything in the universe. Besides quarks are cool. /quarks represent. -Un'tan

I am gonna change the name if someone can find me a good replacement name for the Gauss rule. Just calling it Quark doesn´t say much. I imagine Gauss weapons somehow negating the strong force thereby making anything they touch go into their constituent quarks.

My suggestion is that we keep both quark and gauss. Quark weaponry could in that case be cancelling out the weak interaction (the weak fundamental force) while Gauss would be cancelling the strong interaction (the strong fundamental force). The weak force is what changes the properties of quarks, and altered can thus shatter a nucleus. The strong force binds quarks together, so that would shatter the nucular Particles itself. So quark weaponry would affect the properties of quarks while Gauss weaponry breaks up the atoms entirely. This makes sense for the weaponry. Quark weapons would be having rending and lance, while Gauss weaponry keeps the guass rule. So for example, Quark flayer and Gauss blaster. Now, why keep Gauss as the name for that rule? Because Gauss still sounds cool. And this would make a clear distinction between the two types

The request was that the name was changed because OP did not like the name Gauss. I haven´t changed it yet partly because I neither hate it, because it does sound cool, but I don´t love it either because Gauss has to do with magnetism which is not at all how Gauss weaponry is described.

Actually to be fair I am pretty sure op meant gauzz, not Gauss. Since before prelimenary the different weapontype was set out to be gauzz together with gauss. And differentiating between the two in speech sounds kinda silly.

https://translate.google.dk/#en/da/gauss https://translate.google.dk/#en/da/gauzz. I actually always said gauzz. I think Gauss sounds weird. Gauzz is the natural way to say it when you read it in Danish. Whatever, your will shall be done. If OP isn´t satisfied he can further complain.

Carbines vs Blasters

The weapons were clearly made in levels so level 1: Gauss Flayer (Warriors), level 2: Gauss Blaster+Tesla Carbine (Immortals and Tomb Blades), level 3: Gauss Cannons and Tesla Cannons... It is much simpler to identify which tier if each tier has a corresponding name like Blaster or Cannon rather than needlessly putting in names with no meaning. Further it is certainly no carbine "A carbine (/ˈkɑrbiːn/ or /ˈkɑrbaɪn/),[1] from French carabine,[2] is a long arm firearm but with a shorter barrel than a rifle or musket.[3]" - wiki on carbines. Pic of a tesla "carbine" http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/warhammer40k/images/7/7b/Tesla_Carbine.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20130417165557 It looks more like a minigun than a rifle of any kind.

While I agree that the tiers make a bit more sense, The reason I think that shouldn't be changed is because the weapon hasn't been changed much. Quark weaponry is an entirely different weapon that Gauss, so it needed a new name. I don't think tesla carbines should be renamed.

It has gotten 6 additional range and can now use it´s rule while snap firing, both are significant buffs. Not only that but why would there need to be a major change, like what I did to the Gauss Flayer for it to be re-named when the original name makes no sense?

I never implied that the tesla carbines needed a major change. I Said that since they had not gone through a major change I felt it was unneccesary to change its name. Most people know it as a tesla carbine so it feels unessecary to change it. However I do still agree it makes more sense. And it also makes sense that the Gauss flayer are changed to Quark flayers but Gauss blasters stayed the same, since the quark weapons have entirely different rules than the Gauss weapons. So while I don't think tesla carbines have as much reason to be called blasters I don't really have anything directly against it.

Robots vs Zombies (Weapon denominations)

• Throughout Necron nomenclature weapons seem to take their name from either the arcane, technical viewpoint of the Necrons (Transdimensional Beamer, Hyperphase Sword, Tesseract Singularity Chamber) or the horrific, half-informed viewpoint of their victims (Gauss Flayers, Death Ray, Doomsday Cannon).

• As a counterpoint, it seems as though the more highly the owning lord views his trinkets, the more impressive and majestic its name becomes. There seems to be a progression from the lowest, basest tools (flayers, claws) to what the lord considers respectable infantry weapons (blasters, the inexplicably-named carbines, staves, swords) to technical vehicle weapons (cannons of various sorts), and finally prized possessions with ominous names (Death Rays, Annihilators, Orbs of Immortality). We may want to try to adhere to a similar naming scheme.

• Good viewpoints. Also a point to think about is that many of the names come from a time when next to Nothing was known about necrons (3rd edition), most names being the victims names for the weapons. While many of the more 'technoarcane' names comes from 5th edition (some were present back in 3rd however). But keeping the names to fit either is a good point. Hmm... Although we have to remember, Necrons are robots and zombies, not either or. -Un'tan

• Any specifics names which are unsatisfactory? I know the names are a little all over the place, but I think that is fine. Angry Pirate (talk) 07:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

HQ

Overlords

• Why are Overlord now a lord of war choice?
• Because Overlords are not a dime a dozen. Each Overlord is said to have at least a hundred legions under his command and a dozen members of his court (5th ed). What is a legion? It seems to be a platoon-sized fighting unit, the only one currently displayed in the rules is the reclamation legion, which includes between 28 and 273 models (excluding the character, more on him later). However Legions are said to be able to compromise only Warriors, that could be as low as 20 models if we assume CAD with 2 Warrior Phalanxes with 10 models each is a Warrior Legion... So the least powerful Overlord in the universe would command 20*100=2000 Warriors and the most powerful Overlords (still not talking about Phaerons) might command tens of thousands if not more.

Given the fact that one of the Necron dynasties has continent-sized crypts, that further implies that some dynasties would have armies this large for each Overlord. Keep in mind that 7 billion people can be stuffed into a single city-sized area in 2d if you just pack it up, so the Phaeron with continent sized crypts (which could be in 3d...) could have multiple hundreds of trillions of Warriors under his command (if he thought it would be a good idea to build in 2d, otherwise it could be even more) but I do think that's overreaching.

The Overlord should no more be the basic commander of the Necrons than a Chapter Master should be the basic commander of the Space Marines. So being able to include as little a single unit of warriors for each Overlord is just dumb. Where are the other 199+++...+ units? Where is his court of Crypteks and Lords?

You could argue that by including an Overlord in the Reclamation Legion GW has effectively overwritten the fluff with crunch and basically said Overlords = platoon commander, Lords = Sergeants. The Stormlord would then command at most 5000 models, which would imply that the World Engine was as powerful as the rest of the Necron race and a ton of other nonsense, or GW had a brainfart. I'll remove the change if anyone wants me to after reading my argument. Angry Pirate (talk) 10:20, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• Lore wise, this is reasonable. Play wise, this is horrible. Overlords in their current angry state are not worthy of being in a lord of war slot. And, this takes out the capable hq choice the angry necrons had. and now they are toughness 3 with a 2+ save and no invuln base? Lore wise, again, I entirely agree. But game wise, this is not any fun at all. If you are making Overlords a lor of war choice, then actually have them be a huge imposing threath befitting of that status. As is, they won't last. If Overlords are going to be the handful of warleaders for the necrons, then actually make something awesome with them. -Un'tan.
• It's really important that every Necron is T 3. It's incredibly stupid that robots are countered by poison.

I had one idea featuring FNP (3+) and Eternal Warrior, the problem with that is that is that taking these things without an Arch Cryptek with an orb of immortality would be stupid since guarenteeing a 3+ FNP is a pretty big deal.

I do want to point out that Lords of War choices are what you make them out to be. The Angry Genestealers for example can take a single Leman Russ (not even a squadron) as a Lord of War choice.

Giving them an orbital strike-esque ability and/or T 5 and immunity to Poison or 3/4+ FNP and Eternal Warrior are all options.

• First, I have one question: What does poison have to do with toughness 3? And lore wise, in instances with necrons and poison, the posion is lorewise exchamged for a material that degrades metal or similar substance, so that it makes sense. This was explained in the 5th edition codex. -Un'tan
• Poison is less effective against T 3 models with a 2+ Sv than T 5 models with a 3+ Sv. *lore wise, in instances with necrons and poison, the posion is handwaved as being exchanged for a material that degrades metal or similar substance without it having any effect against Save metal or Armour Value metal, only Toughness metal*

I hate it. God damn I hate it. Why are SM flyers built like boxes? Why do Monoliths get stuck on difficult terrain? Why isn't tank armour sloped? How can tracked vehicles turn on the spot without losing movement? Why can't you take both a cover and an armour save?... FUUUUUU.

• Is poison part of the reason you wanted to make Necrons T 3? Also, T 3 still doesn't really make sense, especially not for an Overlord. In a toughness test, an ork boy would have a higher chance to survive than a Necron Overlord. That really doesn't sound reasonable. How models are manufactured and designed I cannot change. Tracked vehicles can rotate because it is a gameplay necessity to have some freedom of movement, if you want you could always limit that to a certain turn radius allowed every turn, adding a layer of complexity a lot of players would ignore for convinience. We can give Monoliths move through cover, it honestly doesn't make much sense they get stuck on difficult terrain. You can't take a cover and an armour save because the values represents the best cover that is availaible, and you always have to take the best cover.

Think about cover like this: and old wall provides a 5+ cover save, representing a rather poor chance of protection. A suit of powerarmour confers a 3+ save because it covers much more and it considerably sturdy. In the best available cover system, you have to roll on your armour save, but if you roll 5 or 6 on that save, it could have been the cover or the armour protecting you, because those rolls represents the situation where the cover could have been able to save the wound.

The system makes sense in that regard. Of course you could say: "I dislike that system" and you are free to think so. However, at least it has an explination for it.

In terms of poison, that is also a necessary evil for game mechanics. Although, I personally do not like it either. While having all necrons poison immune would be lore fitting, it would make dark eldars sad. However, for overlords or even lords and characters, poison immunity seems a lot more reasonable. But don't give them orbital strikes, that is such a boring way to improve a character. -Un'tan

• I'm not entirely sure about my initial reasoning, I didn't outright state it in my reasoning bit so I'm assuming not.

I am aware why vehicles can rotate, because it makes for smooth gameplay. Turn mechanics bogged the game down. Doesn't make it not stupid though, or maybe it does.

I already gave Monoliths Move Through Cover.

Your explanation does not make sense. Think of it like this: Space Marine A is behind cover and gets shot by lasgun, Space Marine B is in the open and gets shot by lasgun. Space Marine A is in no way, not even the tiniest smidgen more likely to survive than Space Marine B. Why? It makes Space Marines less likely to grab cover and instead stand out in the open, which fits the fluff of the verse. It's also bullshit going by the physics and rationality of the real world.

Poison happens on To Wound rolls. Let's say a unit of 2 Warriors and a Lord suffer 17 Wounds the Warriors die and the Lord must take 11 saves. If Poison wouldn't have worked on him then he should have taken 0 saves. Instead he dies. However by using hightened Feel No Pain, additional Wounds and better Sv the Lord will always be resistant to Poison. Making the Lord ignore all the Wounds isn't really make him entirely immune to poison because then models with poisoned melee attacks can't hurt his unit.

Toughness tests don't exist. Angry Pirate (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• I am not sure if you altered or removed toughness tests for weapons like the black mace, but toughness tests do exist.

Is the cover stronger than space marine A's armour? Would a shot that puncture weaker cover be stopped by his armour? Just like if someone was wearing flakk armour over Powerarmour, the powerarmour is what would be accoubted for because it is tougher and would resist more shots. -Un'tan

• Toughness tests practically don't exist was what I meant. Against Lords and Overlords the Black Mace is a power maul with the Daemon Weapon special rule that only causes Instant Death half the time instead of all the time, the number of Wounds is also halved because of the increased save, resulting in Black Mace wielders being only very slightly more likely to win against Lords and Overlords. The same thing applies to most of the Nurgle items from the Daemon dex. Haemorrhage and Rancid Visitations can be ignored by Feel No Pain and any Wounds caused can be regained with It Will Not Die.

High Sv low T = strong against poison and weak against corrosive things, low Sv high T = weak against Poison and strong against corrosive things. Now, should Necrons be weak to corrosive damage or poison damage? I don't really see any problems. I can't tell you why exactly the Black Mace is corrosive.

It's not worth discussing the way saves work here since I won't change it anyway. Angry Pirate (talk) 10:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• Do you think I am discussing how saves are interpreted because I want saves changed? no. However, for overlord I would say an immunity to poison could be valid, and if it is a lord of war making it more in line with the old Overlords with their high toughness and even more a force to be recconed with. In either case, I'll probably be using the pre february update rules for the upcoming battle reports. Also excited to see lord titles added in, if you need more help or assistance with that, just ask. -Un'tan.
• I'm assuming you like the current save system, I'm indifferent. It makes sense for 40k but it doesn't make sense in the real world. It produces the desired kind of game, but the desire is stupid. Stupid, not necessarily bad.

T 5 still isn't out of the question, but 2+ Sv is almost certainly going to be a thing. I just don't see how it makes sense that Poison should be in any way beneficial against Overlords. Another option would be for re-rolling failed saves against Poison weapons that are not at least Strength 4. The end result is just a character that cannot be beaten

I'm not getting anywhere with Lord titles so any ideas and suggestions would be much appreciated.

Would you use the current version if I moved the Overlords to the HQ section?

Vargard Obyron

• Isn't Obyron by definition on his own when fighting in a Challenge? Or does on his own mean that he can't be part of a squad for the rule to apply?
• The and while on his own is not exclusionary it is an addition. He has the ability while fighting in a challenge. He also has the ability while fighting on his own even if he is not in a challenge.
• May I suggest the wording is changed on that. "While fighting in a challenge and while on his own..." seems to imply both of those situations need to be met. As in when he is in a squad of just himself and in a challenge. I suggest its changed to "While fighting in a challenge or on his own..." to show it applies to Both situations. Its more clear that way.
• Whenever you find poor wording on abbilities or special rules feel free to change them. English is my second language and I am only a codex writer for a hobby.

Anrakyr The Traveller

• Anrakyr used to be a decently fun and useful choice for a necron army. He had some utility in making one Immortal squad be a bit better in close combat (with questinoable impact, how often do you prefer to charge with immortals instead of shooting?) he was decently Equipped and he had a fun and useful utility ability. However, In the fifth edition codex this ability was: choose a vehicle within 18", roll 3+ and then you could shoot with said vehicle that turn as If it was yours. Now, this was overpowerd in some situations (cough titans cough), so a nerf was understandable. But, all aspects of his ability got nerfed. Now the vehicle has to be within 12", roll must be made on 4+ and randomly select one weapon. This makes his ability almost useless, and he sees a lot less play because of it. The initial ability was too strong, but to make him a bit more playable I suggest we either give the ability one upgrade. I suggest either: 18-24" range (at least you don't need to go up as close for the possible chance to borrow a vehicle), 3+ to succeed (at least then getting close to the vechicle has a bit more chance to be worthwile) or choose one weapon to fire. Giving it two of the upgrade is a bit much, but could be tinkered with. I Will be playing some Games to see what of these upgrades fits, but opinions and discussions are appreciated.

• Mine has been packing dust, I didn´t even read the rule I just copied it over so I could say that I was finished with this project, as in finished with putting in all the units, which was only really the beginning.

• Looking over the recent change you did I have to say I like it, while it is still risky getting close now it will be a lot more concistently worth it to try in the first place. Ill run some test games with this rule and report how it is in action.

Orikan the Diviner

• Orikan doesn't either strive to get the powers of a C'tan through technology or predictions. First of all Reading his Lore and ability text shows this. As the lore referse to him changing over entirely, while the ability specifically state: "Restore him to a portion of ancient power". We notice something else about this text, "Restore". It is in fact implied in his lore and text that Orikan is/is possesed by a C'tan/Shard. He isnt achiving his power, he is getting it back. What with the time travel, mocking necron nobility, his technomancy being beyond belief (even in terms of Crypteks) and his tendenties to "manipulate" the universe to fot his plans rather than predictions. There is no way to "attain" C'tan powers. Orikan is sometimes simply restored partly to his former self when the right stars align and give him more energy. So Orikan does indeed have reasons for his "Power up".

• That´s not what I´m reading, I aknowledge you can read that. But in the very next line it says "Orikan has unlocked a portion of celestial power" implying not that he has resumed his state of C´tan-hood, but rather he has unlocked the power of the starts and therefore become a C´tan. This makes him all too similar in my opinion to Illuminor Szeras. - Angry Pirate

• I understand where you are coming from. However, If it was only the line "Orikan has unlocked a portion of celestial power" I would agree. However as you said, this line followed after the previous "Restore" line, which puts it in a different context and further supports the theory he already is a shard or a part or connected already to the C'tan. And also he doesn't even "become" a C'tan, not even in the 5th edition book. He simply got the simmilar statline. He didnt gain Any of the special rules associated with the C'tan shards. His rule is not him finally becoming the C'tan, its only a slight returnnto former power for a short while. However, I need to stop arguing about this for a while. I really like what you have Done with the angry necrons codex. While not agreeing with every decision I agree with many. But I do not find changing fundamentals of a characters rules to be justified. Moreover, orikans lore does not give enough support to make anything clear he is a C'tan, even If I read that is hinted, I Will admit that. And I honestly like what you Did with the new Orikan. But as Said with Szeras, don't give him the C'tan transformation because it is fun to have a character that does that. However I would fully support rensning the arch cryptek you created to have that ability. -Un'tan

• Orikan seems to be packing a 3++ in his basic stat line now. With that in mind, is it important to increase his save when he powers up? I mean, 3+ or 4+ will never get rolled... Right? -Oedon

• The armour save would only get used against weapons which ignore or decrease Invulnerable saves, but if you are ever fighting that then it makes sense that he still has an armour save. Upgrading the save from 4+ to 3+ is more of a thematic thing, I hope it is not unclear whether or not he gets a 2++ Invulnerable, because that was not the intention.

Illuminor Szeras

• In my opinion I think you have not read the Lore enough to understand illuminor szeras or Orikan. Ill start with Szeras. Szeras does not only seek to become a being of pure energy, he seeks to solve the mysteries of life itself. It wasn't the C'tan which made Szeras want to strive for godhood, but that he believed the biotransference would be the first step to lead to the ultimate evolution. He doesn't strive to become a C'tan, his goals go beyond the demigoodhood of C'tan or even the Chaos gods. Believeing the secrets of such to be woth the secrets of life. Why he still tinkers with Necrons and other living being If he is reaching for this godhood? Because he is trying to learn the secrets of life, Needing living subjects to experiment on. And during his search for the secret of life he Discovers a lot of other abilities granted to creatures through evolution. For example while disecting Vuzalen Aractoids compound eyes he found a biological structure which he applied to necron optics for improved targeting. So he is searching for the secret of life as the long term goal, but uses the other knowledge he achives in the meaning to improve the current technology. Also, it is outright stated in the lore that Szeras Will in fact never achive this goal. We should not confuse Szeras reach for godhood to be a reach to C'tanhood. Its much more ambitions than becoming a C'tan for a few turns. (I also don't really appreciate you changed the structure of my text to be more about what the difference of C'tan and god is, since that really isnt my main point.)

• Alright, I admit, it has been too long since I read Szeras´ lore. Since it came out in fact and I had entirely forgotten the exact details of his lore. My thinking was: we like the mechanic of a character that turns into a C´tan, we like the mechanic of a character that buffs a unit of warriors/immortals, we like the lore of a character which is a master chronomancer. I now see that it is not my place to replace characters which people like, I changed it on a whim after I got annoyed with the fact that someone searching for goodhood was improving warriors while someone who was fucking with time was becoming a god. Now you say that there is a difference between a god and C´tan, here I must disagree. C´tan are clearly gods. They are near omnipotent. Sure a shard can only do so much, but that much is quite a lot if you put faith in the Shield of Baal. Also a creature of pure energy has to be a C`tan in it´s pre-living metal form, swimming around the cosmos eating stars. Pure energy travelling from one place to another. - Angry Pirate

• I can argue symantics between C'tans and gods, but that is not the point here. The point is that Szeras character represents science, and science goals to improve life (in this case unlife). While reaching for near unreachable goals science can still achive so much on the way. That is progress. That is why Szeras unreachable goal to become a god/C'tan should remain unreachable. And his foremost goals is still discovering all the secrets of life, as it stated in his lore he things he would be a poor god If he didn't know it. -Un'tan

• I apologize for rearanging your post, I have wanted to change the setup of the discussion page for some time, won´t happen again. I did not mean to change your statements and am sorry if I misrepresented your views by rearranging your post.

• I do like the new setup for the discussion page, much more organized. And while I could say give the rule back to orikan, I much prefer your version of Orikan, much better focused on his rank as an astromancer than his possibilty of being a C'tan. But the transformation rule is fun, so seeing it on a new original Cryptek would be a lot of fun.

• 160 points for a model that is going to sit back and shoot one shot a turn the entire game and give some buffs seems a bit much. Szeras as it is now should be cheaper.

• The price has been returned to 110.

• That seems more reasonable in terms of points.

• With the change to immortals (T4 rather than T3), should we modify the Hardened Carapace benefit to 'Hardened Carapace: The unit is Toughness +1 for the duration of the game'? -Oedon

Trazyn the Infinite

• I suggest making it so that Trazyn can also take over the Bodies of Lynchguards, as he does that in the fluff, but also because it makes it a more reasonable gamble, he still has the chance to be in place of another character though. -Un'tan
• A more fluffy suggestion, Trazyn could have two Tesseract labyrinths, he is not one to miss a chance for a collectable because his first didn't capture it. And thus carries a spare. -Un'tan
• Making Lynchguards characters, very cool. Props for that. -Un'tan

Destroyer Lord

• Phylactery for destroyer lords? Or would it be to strong on them.

• I didn´t put it in because it wasn´t an option in the 5th edition codex. Nothing is too powerful or too weak in terms of being on the table. Things can only be too weak/powerful compared to fluff. The points handle the rest. Wraith Knights are VERY powerful, but at 425 pts it hurts a little less to lose half an army to one of them.

• Destroyer lord being S6 T5, the destroyer body should give it more durability than strenght shouldn't it? S8 warscythe sounds quite fun, but durability would make more sense wouldn't it?

• Current profile:

	WS	BS	S	T	W	I	A	Ld	Sv	Unit Type	Composition
Necron Destroyer Lord	5	5	5	6	3	3	3	10	3+	Jump Jet Infantry (C)	1 Necron Destroyer Lord

• Oh, my bad. Looks like I didn't keep myself updated enough. Nevermind in that case. -Blind Un'tan

Crypteks

Cryptek Faculties taking up HQ choices

• An option for perusal: my local group has been playing with the following house rule, that might be an interesting option for the cryptek faculty: "The first selection of Cryptek Faculty in any detachments which include an Arch Cryptek, Illuminor Szeras, or Orikan the Diviner do not count as an HQ choice for your detatchment." It allows a setup like the old royal court system, and allows one to slip in more low-impact Crypteks to support infantry-heavy armies. -Oedon

• It has been done, I wasn´t sure if I liked the idea of Necrons having access to that many HQ choices with so few Troops choices. Angry Pirate (talk) 15:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Harbinger of Emptiness

• So, Voidmancers from the lore and some of the novels Necrons are in are pretty cool. Nullifying psychic powers and being a Cryptek equivilent of a psychic null. A new Cryptek model could also easily be made since people already convert to get different crypteks. Plus necrons only real defense against psychic powers are gloom prism (which were however improved with this version) and pahrias. So that could be a possibility? Possibly having a staff simmilar to a witchhunter weapon, some auras that make psychic abilities harder to cast. This might not be as needed now that we have pahrias back, but the concept of a voidmancer (Harbringer of void?) is still intriguing. -Un'tan

• I don´t think it is neccessary to have 3 anti-psychic things. Dark Eldar have one unique item, Tau have nothing. If you have an idea for the staff and the two upgrades please post them below and if possible the book(s) they appear in. - Angry Pirate

• Perhaps not entirely neccesary, however a Cryptek is more accsessible than pariahs. Anyway, I Know one appears in fall of damnos. Ill put up a wargear concept for them soon.

- Harbinger of Emptiness - 25 pts/model

Harbingers of Emptiness are armed with an anti-materium staff and may take any of the following wargear:

Range	S	AP	Type
-	User	4	Melee, Voidal Disconnect

Voidal Disconnect: If a Psyker/Brotherhood of Psykers sucessfully manifests a power within 18" of a model with this rule, roll a d6. On a result of 5 or more the power is treated as having been denied.

Voidal Disconnect (alternate): Once per turn, If a Psyker/Brotherhood of Psykers sucessully manifests a power within 18" of a model with this rule, roll a d6. On a result of 4 or more the power is treated as having been denied.

- Pariah Orb - 30 pts/model

Psychic powers cannot target a model with the Pariah Orb or its unit. Psykers/Brotherhood of Psykers within 12" of a unit with the Pariah Orb has -1 to their rolls to harness warp charges.

- Null Wave - 20 pts/model

Range	S	AP	Type
24	5	-	Assault 1, Mind Cloud, Precision Shots

Mind Cloud: If a model with the Psyker rule is hit with this weapon they can not add warp charges or harness warp charges until the end of their next turn. If this weapon hits a model in a Brotherhood of Psykers then that unit can not add warp charges to the warp charge pool until the end of their next turn.

Possibly needs some point increases, however the point of this Cryptek would be to offer some anti Psykers to those without the oppertunity to take the much more all around useful Pariahs. It also shows more how necrons deal with psychic powers in the lore, creating null Fields or directly targeting individual Psykers to shut them down. Points wise it would be an expensive utility Cryptek that has little to offer except anti Psyker utility.

• Props for the void scarab concept, quite nice. Will be doing some field test with those rules.

• Soulless Any unit within 12” of a model with this special rule treats its leadership as 7 unless it would normally be lower. Units containing one or more models with the Soulless special rule are unaffected.
• Nullsphere: Models with this rule cannot be targeted by and are never affected by psychic powers. When an enemy psyker or psychic brotherhood attempts to manifest a psychic power within 12” of a model with this rule, they need to roll one higher on their dice to harness warp charges. This usually means only 5s and 6s successfully generate warp charges, however a psyker that normally manifests on a 2+ or 3+ instead manifests warp charges on 3+ or 4+ while within 12” of a model with the Nullsphere rule.

Harbinger of Destruction

• Flame spike not having Lance is fine, but maybe give it a slightly more threatening range than 24"?
• Flame Spike range has been restored to 36" as it was in 5th. - Angry Pirate

Harbinger of Transmogrification

• The Harbinger of Transmogrification seems a little off. His staff weapon sounds pretty fair for 35 points (very nice against assaulting hordes), but the Harp of Dissonance has too many hindrances. At fifty points a one-use, 3-hull-points-or-less, 12" range attack that still relies heavily on supporting fire is a problem, not least of which because the cryptek becomes such a big target. As cool as two armor from all facings is I'd rather see something weaker that complements the Cryptek's other abilities. What if the harp operated at 24" range (without a one-use or hull point limitation) and lowered armor by two until the target next suffered a glancing or penetrating hit? This would functionally resemble a reverse Quantum Shielding, letting heavy destroyers or triarch stalkers get a solid salvo in without allowing warriors or the like to take down a Land Raider any easier.
  • Side note: should the Quake rule read 'All terrain' rather than open? In its current state enemies are actually safer walking into a forest or ruin than slogging out in the open.
  • It also doesn't need to say difficult and dangerous, since dangerous terrain is already difficult terrain. So it just needs to say "treats open ground and difficult terrain as dangerous terrain". I assume that is what it should be at least. The harp is also not that good, i was very excited when I first saw it, but 50 points for such a short range and one use only makes it not really worth it. -Un'tan
• With the change to the harp it has definitely become more useful, but having deployed it I still don't see it as a worthwhile choice. Fifty points for a single-use, 12" range ability is simply not enough. With that range the cryptek has either been dropped from an expensive transport or ground into powder long before firing (or both, with interceptor weapons). Even when it works, many of our weapons don't care much about two armor points: warriors, ghost arks, and immortals can't tell the difference between AV 12 and AV 14, and very few vehicles with lower armor than that are worth 50 points to debuff. This is a specialty tool, one you'll probably only get to apply half the games it's in. -Oedon
• While the 50 pts might only be worth it in very few games I feel like it´s okay for it to be a niche pick, I remembered someone asking about Knight counters so I thought the Harp could be one. - Angry Pirate

The Cryptek Entry

• Have I been misinterpreting the Arch Cryptek rules, or can you only attach special crypteks in pairs or more? An Arch Cryptek definitely can't be one of the other types, and a unit with just one cryptek must be an Arch. That would really crank up the investment on these already-expensive models. -Oedon
• Any number of the Crypteks can be upgraded to Arch Crypteks or any other Harbinger type for that matter and you can mix and match as you like. There is no difference between including two units of two crypteks compared to one unit of 4 crypteks, either way they are treated as a singular Independent Characters once the game starts. The unit entry simply allows you to take multiple Crypteks for one HQ choice and forces you to take at least 1 Arch Cryptek or at least 2 Crypteks. Does that clear things up? If anyone has a suggestion for a better wording to reflect these rules then please present them here. - Angry Pirate
• Perhaps divide them by detachments? Maybe something like "If a detachment contains just one Cryptek it must be upgraded to an Arch Cryptek." -Oedon
• As a separate idea: Arch Crypteks are realistically only going to show up in order to carry in nanoscarabs or orbs of eternity. What if they were an upgrade to any Cryptek type rather than a unique type? Something like "Any Cryptek, regardless of type, may be upgraded to an Arch Cryptek for +15 points. Any Arch Cryptek may select from the following options:..." This lets specifically-typed Crypteks take fancy gear at a moderate cost bump (which, considering the price on most of these pieces, also dangerously stacks more points in a vulnerable model). -Oedon
• You could take a naked Arch Cryptek as a cheap Warlord, as the cheapest possible HQ choice in the codex I think they have a place. The entry is there for those who don´t want to convert any of their models and just want to use the official model as it is in the current official codex.

• While the arch Cryptek does have a place in the codex for that reason it would be cool If a Harbringer could have the possibility to upgrade to an arch Cryptek, most we have seen have had specialisations as well. That or make the arch Cryptek a bit cooler. Like the scarab swarm able to also increase the feel no pain roll of indenpendent characters. -Un'tan

Harbringer of Despair

• While I do like the current Harbringer of despair I have noticed something that is overpowered. Vail of Darkness as it is allows you to perfectly deep strike the Cryptek and its unit. However it also allows you to place them into ongoing reserves at the end of your turn. This means that you can place a unit down next to your opponent at the start of your turn, shoot them, and then go back into ongoing reserves at the turns end. Meaning you can have a unit that can shoot at your opponent every turn but can't be shot back (except for interceptors). Lore wise, I do not doubt that necrons would do this. Crunch wise, it is a bit too much. Perhaps changing it to be that they can deep strike in the movement phase instead, then it would still be a mobile slippery unit, but it could be countered and possibly assaulted the turn they are on the table. -Un'tan

• It was meant to be at the end of your opponents turn, that was a typo, so you cannot perfectly Deep Strike and then disappear without taking damage. I actually forgot they can dissapear every turn when I added in the "even in combat" part, I´m not sure if it´s OP that your unit can only ever be engaged in a single round of close combat. I think what you suggested is pretty much what I meant for the wargear to be able to do. Angry Pirate (talk) 22:35, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• Pariahs being gone is quite disheartning. Their rules were special and interesting, and the lore behind them was very cool and intriguing. The null scarabs were also a pretty darn cool edition and a fun unit. Now it is just an upgrade to a lynchguard squad that gives fear and adamantium will. This is one of the most boring changes I have seen here, and sounds a lot less lore fitting or play fitting, sounding much more like a baseline boring nerf coming directly from gw. Anti psyker options are a bore in this game for nearly every army, Necrons had something interesting with Pariahs and the new scarabs, instead of making everything just have adamantium will, one of the most boring rules of the game. -Un'tan
• I thought the change was fittingly soulless. Badum tch.

The problem with Pariahs is that unless people have the old models there is very little visual difference between warscythe Lychguard and sword & board Lychguard. Even though I do have the old models, I'm planning on upping my number of warscythe Lychguard by 10, which means getting another 10 metal models with bases that are too small for official games. In addition, I'm already using my Lychguard as Crypteks much of the time since they have the correct base size and look somewhat fitting.

I suppose all Lychguard could be Pariahs which would enable me to reinstate the void scarabs. It could also be an option for Lychguard instead of being an option for Harbingers of Emptiness. Both of these options make it very much harder to make it an option for other units to become Pariahs though. Angry Pirate (talk) 15:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• Well, Visually there is a rather sizable difference in that one unit has huge shields and the other carry warscythes. -Un'tan

Troops

Immortals

• From play experience so far Gauss blasters seem to be decent, however without rapidfire Gauss Immortals usefullness is lowered. So much so that at the moment it feels like warriors would have quite a better chance glancing high av. It does however elevate Tesla. So far however there has not been enough field experience for me to be sure.

• Just as a note they have been changed by an anonymous visiter. I really don´t appreciate when things are changed in this way. That being said I geuss I wasn´t very impressed with Immortals so I won´t immediately change it back. I might revert the weapon back to Assault 1 instead of Rapid-fire and lower their price instead, I think you should think at least a little more about throwing your Immortals away than your warriors and the ability to Rapid-fire down a Land Raider with 20 Immortals doesn´t excite me, although this is of course much better than 4 ghost arks doing it at range 24.
  • As the anonymous visitor responsible for that change, I apologize. I'd assumed this was a typo from the tactics comment "When in rapidfire range guass blasters tend to become more effective however, so If you don't plan on moving too close to the enemy tesla might be for you", which I now recognize may have been out of date when I'd seen it. Personally, I do think rapid-fire is the right option for them, as it helps support their role as a more elite counterpart to the massed ranks of warriors and provides a solid contrast to the Tesla Carbine.
  • As the person who wrote that tactics entry back when they were rapidfire and forgot to remove it when the rules was changed I appologize. However I do agree with the user above that Gauss blasters should be rapidfire. I would rather pay a bit more and have rapidfire than for them to be cheaper. Necrons should still have some more elite options, the actual warriors rather than the commonfolk necron warriors are. -Un'tan

Strength 3 Gauss

• Why bring down Gauss blasters to s3? The weapon was already down on strenght. There was a balance between Gauss and Tesla, now tesla is going to most of the time be a better choice.

• Immortals were too offensive, I couldn´t increase their defensiveness without either decreasing their offense or increasing their points. I should not that their strength was not reduced previously, S 4 Gauss is equivalent to S 5 Rending and the old Gauss. I do see that Tesla has become the best option, I don´t want to reduce the strenght because I want Tomb Blades to be able to destroy AV 10 and 11 flyers. I will reduce the range of Tesla Blasters to 24 to bring more balance between the two options. Gauss still does more damage while within 15", so Gauss will be better at ranges 1"-15" and 24"-30".

• Even at S4, I don't really see the argument that immortals were too offensive. Against most infantry targets warriors out-damage them point for point. If we're looking to make these more defensive, maybe it's worth lowering their cost alongside this reduction, and making Tesla a modest cost increase (personally, I'd support keeping Tesla carbines at 30" range and making the cost bump a little bit more). Maybe 15 points, +3 for Tesla? -Oedon

• The unit was reasonably fair at 17 pts. They were glass cannons though, which is something no Necron unit should be, the exception proving the rule being the Doomsday Ark. Necrons should offer no good targets to opponents, nothing should be achieved by attacking Necrons, only minor damage should be caused, this is what gives the rising feeling of dread. As soon as you can slay the zombies they stop being scary. In order to increase their toughness without making them overpowered I decreased their firepower. 15 pts for the current Necron Immortals is OP, +3 for Tesla is also not worth it. Angry Pirate (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• If the unit was reasonably fair at 17 points, why decrease its offense? I never ran into the issue of calm immortals being offensively overpowered, and an S3 blaster, even with the new Gauss, is not stronger than their S5 weapons. With FnP and reanimation protocols atop godless they're modestly tougher defensively, but they haven't picked up firepower. Range, perhaps, but that's really a defensive boost rather than an offensive one. If you see them as glass cannons, what of warriors (which they're unquestionably tougher than)? -Oedon

• The unit was fair at T 3 with S 4 Gauss weapons at 17 pts. I wanted to increase their durability which meant I had to nerf their offensive capabilities. The new Gauss Blaster is still more powerful than the old one against units with anything but Sv 4+/5+ and 6+. So the unit doesn´t counter 4+ saves as hard as it used to, on the other hand they are far stronger against Sv 2+/3+, in a game which is more or less about the SM, I think that´s worth something. People were endlessly whining (justly so I think) about the strength of the Necrons, so them being as good as the official Immortals actually means they on the line of being OP. Warriors are 9 pts/model, a little more than half the price of an Immortal. A glass cannon is something which has much lower durability than offense, which Warriors certainly do not. The problem with the previous Immortals were that they were the weakest link, the thing most worth shooting at, no unit should be more worth shooting at than any other in the Necron army. If 10 Space Marines are presented with the choice of either shooting Warriors or Immortals they should not automatically shoot at Immortals, or Warriors for that case. They should not get significantly more out of shooting one target or the other. Finally their durability just didn´t match their name. They are Necron Immortals not Necron Blasters. Angry Pirate (talk) 10:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• Making necron weapons weaker like this doesn't fit. Immortals before were not glass cannons they were troops, they were more offensiven than defensive for that reason. no one is scared of Immortals in this situation. No one is gonna be scared of s3 weapons. Storm scions walks around with s3 ap3 even. So far no opponent I have played with have been more afraid or even concearned about Warriors or Immortals, because they easily shoot them down. And tesla is the better alternative because of the longer range and now that is gone as well. Why lower everything. Why not just increase the point cost of them slightly for being tougher. If they were almost perfect as they were at 17 points then why not just give them +1 toughness and make them cost 19 points. That would keep with them being elite warriors and doesnt have to draw down the powercurve even further. Having weapons based on their 1/6 chance to hit may make reasonable results statistic wise, but game wise lowering everything around it makes it so that the army is fun 1/6 of the time. Normally the weapons were already decent, but 1/6 of the time were also good. That is more fun. and you don't reach that only by statistics. Downgrading a units offensive capabilities make them even less of a target for the opponent, same as what happened to warriors, and that makes the opponent not shoot at them understandable because they won't do Any guareented damage. Make things actually scary and dangerous. Make things cost more. -Un'tan

• I don´t understand what you mean by "they were more offensive than defensive because they are troops". I don´t see how one follows the other, Tau and Eldar are glass cannons, Necrons shouldn´t be. Of course the T3 3+ FNP models at 17 pts is very little durability per point invested, especially because they won´t get as much use out of WBB as Necron Warriors do. They should definitely have T 4.

I want Necrons to be less elite, meaning they have to cost more, increasing the points cost of units goes against the very reason why the codex was created, to allow me to field more Necrons. 17 pts/model is easily elite, most armies pay 17 pts/model for actual ELITES choices, Immortals are still a troops choice, they are not elite bodyguards, they were merely the common soldiery of the Necrontyr.

The whole point of Angry Necrons is not to make things really killy and scary that way, but to make everything really survivable so they keep on shooting. I suggest you look elsewhere for an army that is elite and is more offensively focused, because that really is not what this dex is about. Now we can argue about whether Necron Immortals should be 15 or 20 pts, but the Necrons main focus should be on defence, that is from whence they draw their power, not overwhelming firepower. I know that Necrons are an army all about shooting and killing things through shooting, but what makes them distinct is their defense, that is what I feel should be in focus. They might not annihilate their foes as fast as other armies, but they´ll pull through in the long run. Angry Pirate (talk) 12:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• I see that argument. Having tested then out with and without these changes... I'm sold on s3 t4. The tipping point, to me, is how much tougher these become against things like our own Annihilation Barges: warriors get rightly shredded, these hardly notice. Their new reliance on sixes is definitely there, but they're still reliably pulling down wounds, and their currently sitting right in a sweet spot of 'not weak enough to ignore, not strong enough to demand focus'. This successfully places the onus on either grinding down units slowly or supplying more firepower through other unit choices. -Oedon

• • To the argument that immortals should be scary... With the exception of flayed ones or wraiths, Necrons never struck me as 'horror movie scary'. They aren't something you fear because they can kill you in horrible ways. They can, but so can about 75% of the other factions too. Leave those scares to the Dark Eldar nuts. The Necrons are scary like aging and the inexorable march of death: not because it's bad (it is), but because you know you can't stop it. -Oedon

• • By the way, I apologize if it sounds like I'm switching sides of the argument a lot, but I really am asking for clarification rather than complaining. The way this codex is evolving is fascinating, and I'd rather adjust my understanding of a change than protest it. -Odeon

Necron Warriors

Are Warriors Truly a Tax?

• Un´tan I think it´s worth talking about Necron Warriors being a tax, you are the second one who says it, but I don´t really think it´s fair to say that. Necron Warriors out-shoot every troops choice in the game while the enemy is standing in ruins or behind an Aegis Defence Line. They are also a nigh impossible to move off an objective, and they have Obec Sec. While it might be hard or take a long time for them to get to enemy objectives, they are very good at sticking to objectives in your or near your deployment zone. The worth of defense vs. offense is debatable, but I think troops choices with objective secured gain more value from defensiveness rather than offensiveness. They easily outgun their predecessors, and yes that is also while their predecessors are in cover, it´s true they are not as good against a few things like heavy tanks, but against every other thing they are better now and people loved the previous ones. I don´t see how it is fair to say they are a tax, they should be fairly good at shooting things like Ork Trukks and they can outgun a non-angry guardsmen squad in cover. The things which counter them are often just as good if not better at countering other things, artillery which shoots at your 9 pt troops is often put to better use shooting at enemy elites.
• Now, you keep mentioning how the angry necron warriors easily outgun simmilar troop options and now even the calm necron warriors. I am not one to argue statistics in this case, even If I really like math I am sure you have run the numbers many times. However, what I said before is just from my experience. I don't see at all how angry necrons outgun calm necrons, and I haven't seen signs of them being close to outgunning other troop choices so far. In none of my games with them they have shown being very useful, and I have used them for Holding objectives as well as going put to test their offensiven capabilities. However, I haven't complained because I like how they are. And I have been thinking that the next time I bring them I will see better results, but so far that hasn't happened. In fact, my opponents have been complaining about angry warriors more than I have, thinking the downgrade was too much and that they don't make as much sense lorewise as calm warriors. I Haven't agreed with them so far, I still don't. I am not arguing statistics, because on paper they are pretty balanced, what I have Said so far about them has just reflected the many Games I have played with them, how that alone has made me feel about them. -Un'tan
• I think you need a dice rolling course more than the Necron Warriors need a change. To reiterate, I did not mean that their damage output is superior, rather that in a 1v1 situation they beat every single Troops choice in the game barring Immortals, because you know... AP 4. I can understand if they don´t perform as well as the old ones against Ork infantry, but on the other hand they should perform way better against their vehicles compared to the official warriors. I also want to take back "they can beat every troops choice even while in cover", they actually lose to Ork shoota boys, but only while the Orks have cover, and only against angry Orks.

• Again, This is my opinion from several games. Nothing more. But I found in neccesary to speak up about it since the feeling of the game is very important. Oh, and one thing I need to make clear again: I do NOT want angry warriors to change. I like them, but I still have to bring up how it feels to play with them, and ot is dramatically less fun than calm warriors. Also, how would I take a dice Rolling course, If anything it is supposed to be random and the average is what we work with making units. There shouldn't be a course to take on the subject. And again, from My own field experience, warriors have not measured up to other troop choices. Do they need to? No, angry warriors do not need too. But claiming they outgun and outpreform other troop choices just doesnt sit right. Angry warriors are not that good. But that is just fine. -Un'tan

• I was implying you are merely bad at rolling dice and that it was a learnable skill, it was a joke, I geuss those have been dropped in the grim darkness of the far future (another joke). Perhabs you need more warriors to really feel how not terrible they are, try filling 25-50% of your army with Warriors, the game in which I did this was what caused them to rise from 8 to 9 pts/model.

• While I partly could agree that maybe they work better in larger amounts (Though almost every time I have used them it has been in squads of 20 each already), brining an army that is 50% warriors... Sounds really dull. And since it is a requirement that you take warriors, the two workable armytypes with warriors would then be either If you have a whole lot more warriors in the army, or if you min the squads in which case they would be a tax. Therefore I don't really like that logic. -Un'tan

Flayed Ones

• Should Flayed ones still have Slow and Purposeful? Lore wise they are described as having gone mad by a hunger that can never be sated. And while they are precise and accurate they would be seeking out and pounicing on their victims rather than the slow moving innevitable doom Necron warriors bring. Not that I really mind that much. They are quite mobile already. But simply brining it up.

• I thought about enabling them to run, which is especially important after Deep Striking, but I don´t think the fluff supports it. "When the moment to strike comes, Flayed Ones scramble madly into battle" - Flayed One fluff bit in the newest codex. I don´t mind them being slow though, they have a Zombie vibe, which plays into the whole C´thulu vibe the Necrons have. They won´t kill you fast, but you have no hope of killing them and eventually they will get you. Now of course this only the feeling we want people to have and not the actual game we want to create. I had 2 games where my opponent had lost all hope of victory only to pull through at the last hour, I didn´t care that I lost, the feeling of my army seeping away all hope from my opponent filled me with joy. I don´t know how powerful they are though, time will tell. - Angry Pirate

• I have to agree with you there. The general asthetic created is very nice. So I supposed some test Games are in order to determine how it works out in the field.

• Without a run the Flayed Ones really need to work those alternate deployment methods, which dovetails very nicely with the new and improved Scent of Blood rule (kudos!). However, no run move makes them extremely vulnerable to blast weapons as they show up from deep strike: a large blast typically wipes out the combat strength of the unit, and they're too expensive to sacrifice to a single Leman Russ shot. Perhaps the group should be allowed to run immediately after a deep strike (but are otherwise Slow and Purposeful)? The idea of a shambling zombie horde is pretty neat, but nine points is just too steep a price to pay for such a slow model.

• Actually that makes a good point I never thought of. I would probably have infiltrate scout deployment ranked over deep strike, but deep strike over outflank, and all of them over regual deployment. But they will be blast vounerable all bundled up like that. Though they serve as distraction better than causing Any damage really. -Un'tan

• I used their Deep Strike against a DE army w. 2 S 4 AP 4 Large Blasts with Shred, the key is to Deep Strike out of sight or not to Deep Strike at all. I don´t mind the unit having hard counters, after all I think it would be quite devestating for an infantry IG army to face down 40+ Flayed Ones Deep Striking 1" away, they should have a way to discourage that. I still haven´t gotten around to using the other deployment methods, but I kind of want to get some converted before I continue playing with them. All I can say is they performed extremely well all the games in which I used them. Don´t take 40+ S 3 Shred attacks for granted. Angry Pirate (talk) 06:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• Ah... hmm. Should we count a pair of flayer claws as two CCWs, or one? And if the former, how should we call it out so it isn't ambiguous?

• A pair of Flayer Claws is indeed two close combat weapons, as it is a pair of two close combat weapons. I don't think it needs to be made less or more Ambiguous. -Un'tan

• Yeah 2 attacks base + 1 for two CCWs so 3 attacks normally and 4 on the charge, they are only strength and WS 3 though.

• Cool. I agree with the setup, I just don't want to do this thing GW does with weapon listings where they sometimes count a pair of claws or something as a single melee weapon.

• Hmm, there is a point to that. Sometimes Gw has put up paired weapons and then Said (extra attack included in profile). However that have been getting better at this, and the only examples I can think of now is possibly tyranids scything talons. However that is more explained. I don't think it needs to be written out more clearly, but maybe it does. Also speaking of that, I actually really liked how Flayed ones were in 7th, they were upgraded from useless to really point effective. Now they are alright, which makes me a bit sad since I liked them so much, I1 actually hurts a lot, considering unwieldy. But oh well.

• I definitely didn´t have the same success that you had with the official flayed ones, on the other hand I have had nothing but success with the new ones. The Old Ones fled too easily, maybe it´s just because I was unlucky, have you tried out the new ones? Also "considering unwield" what are you talking about?

• 5th edition Flayed ones were not useable. I think we can agree they were pretty bad. 7th editions version however made me really like them again. Big enough squads could go up against terminators (which I used them for) and win (which I also Did many Times). Ws4 meant hitting well and they were hit back at usually the same, strenght 4 made them versitile in what they could target and still do damage, and very importantly, i2 let them attack before unwieldy weapons, giving them a slight upper ~hand~ claw. I had a lot of success with that version of the Flayed ones. Maybe a little Much, but I was just thrilled they were playable and good again. So that is why angry Flayed ones have me a bit disappointed. -Un'tan

• I lost two units of 20 to a single unit of Incubi one game... I see the calcuations indeed say the old ones outperform the new ones both against terminators and just old vs new, but the new ones can still easily defeat terminators. S 4 vs S 3 matters very little against anything that doesn´t have T 5 or 7 because of Shred. Also they have increased mobility (only during deployment though) and Fearless, the latter of which matters most to me since I had some... Accidents.

• Well the only problem I would say is I1. In general I am kinda curious why that was changed. Basically every necron unit was made to have I2, and that worked out well. I won't argue to much about it but I find in strange. If the current Flayed ones were I2 I would like them a lot more. Also their detatchment is brutal, in a good way.

• It was intendend to show the difference between the quality of body Necrons got.

• I think save, s and t is enough for that. It could also make sense that Flayed ones initiative was raised with their breaking protocoll and becoming mad. I Will be running some test Games with them as I1 and I2. -Un'tan

• I second the notion that I1 is awfully restrictive. With S6+ attacks ignoring their FnP the ability to strike before unwieldy axes and power fists means that anything, even an isolated assault centurion, will get to deal them damage. S2 is probably low enough, with pretty much anything hitting before them besides things they'll stomp anyway (can anyone think of a melee unit that has a chance at I2? Besides ours?). Fluff-wise, even with inferior bodies these're the more frenzied creatures in our whole empire. It would make sense for them to hit before our warriors do. -Oedon

Elites

Necron Deathmarks

• No Scatter on Deepstrike:

• Just to bring up a general discussion. There is something that have always bothered me with Deathmarks. In the lore they are described as being in a pocket dimension most of the time. Simply waiting and observing their target from their empty empty reality, just to finally step out into the normal universe at precisely the right time to mark and execute their target. And still... They can scatter... While that is the danger of brining deep strike units, If there is any unit the scatter should possibly mot Apple to it is the unit which has spent their existence waiting just for the right moment. In comparison, shopping hawks never scatter, and they actually decent into the battlefield, instead of just steeping out from a pocket dimension. I don't demand change, I simply want to discuss this. I however do like the change to their weaponry. It is actually damaging now. Though I still don't see why they should have rapid fire. Don't get me wrong, that necrons are so advanced their sniper rifles rapidfire is a very amusing thought. Perfect deep strike would be the most lore accurate, and while there are other models that have this it just might make Deathmarks too strong. Any thoughts on this?
• Also, why does the synaptic disintigrator have rending? When it already has poison +4 and ap 1? Seems a bit redundant.
• Whoa whoa whoa, someone made it S 8 AP 1, might have been my mistake but S 8 AP 1 is extremely OP. Who needs knights when you can get rapid-fire missile launchers at 19 pts? They are meant to have their old profile of S 4 AP 5. Rending instead of Sniper enables them to cause damage to vehicles. Deathmarks are extremely powerful they definitely don´t need a buff. Rapid Fire snipers make for a very unique sniper unit, while most snipers sit at the back and hope their target pops up, the Deathmarks seek out their target and destroy it. I don´t like scattering Deep Strikers at all, there are very few units which I would have scatter, probably only Terminators. Units with Jet Packs should be able to guide their descent, even terminator teleport systems should be advanced enough to not randomly scatter and send 2-400 pts into the ground. That said, as I said before I believe Deathmarks to be a very powerful unit, it might be healthy they aren´t guaranteed to land beside their target, even if their points went up. I suppose you would still have to roll for reserves, I will consider it. You could make an excuse like when they leave their pocket dimension space is a bit wobbly and that´s why they scatter. While they might be safe inside their dimension, the travel between dimensions could be perilous.
• About the deep strike, I understand deep strike scatter for jump packs and simmilar, they are entering combat space from above, most likely. Lot of enemy and friendly fire to watch out for, strong currents and Enemies activiely trying to shot them down as well. Though Deathmarks spenes their entire time not assassinsting observing and planning out the preciseness of the assassination, which is why am still bothered by that they deepstrike. I also don't really consider them a powerful unit. Their guns aside from 2+ wound after deep strike are not impressive, precision strikes don't happen often, the fact that they deep strike but needs to be very close to their target to get the use out of their rapidfire guns means they more often scatter onto units and misshap or scatter out of rapidfire range. And they can't move after deep striking, so scattering out of rapidfire range means you lose half of their shots at the point when they are most effective. They aren't really a solid pick and it takes a lot of luck for them to even get those possible wounds in, even then its ap is just 5 so most armour will ignore it. And after that first turn their usefullness drops even more. And why would you shoot synaptic disintigrators on a vehicle? That is not their function.
• Due to the fact that Necron Warriors now have Rending their role has been filled, they are no longer the only choice which can combat monstrous creatures. I just did the math and Necron Warriors are almost as good as Deathmarks on the turn they Deep Strike. I retract my earlier statement, they were a very strong choice. Necron warriors were horrible at killing monstrous creatures.
• I never though Deathmarks were a particularly strong choice. Except for 5th edition when they could handle a monsterous creature decently. With the mark they didnt need to Rely on luck the turn they deep striked and could realiably do something. Warriors now fill the role of hurring infantry and monsterous creatures instead of vehicles, so the Deathmarks lost that as well. I really like the deathmark lore, but Rarely Did I feel they were represented well in the field. (While target data aquired is deliciously robotic sounding, shouldn't that rules name be "Marked for death" considering the unit.)
• Marked for Death could work, but I think a robotic name is more fun. I just saw the pun now, if you can call it that... I am not even gonna say anything about, just going to leave it.
• Marked for death fits very Much lore wise since they are described as actually playing out a mark, a glowing green halo I believe, over their targets.
• I know it fits with the lore but their name already tells us that.
• And they are named that because they do mark out their target. So it makes sense. In either case it is just the name of it.
• If Deathmarks still preform poorly after what has lately been Done to them, pehaps brining back the ethereal interceptors rule could give them more meaning. That way when the oppnent thinks to bring anything in they will have to consider that what they put out could very well immedietly be targeted by Deathmarks. And then even If Deathmarks don't do much real damage, the scare factor still gives value. This is just a thought If Deathmarks underpreform. So far in My opinion they are useful now. But leaving this as a possible suggestion after seeing more in the field.

A new purpose for Deathmarks

• Deathmarks seem to suffer from a lack of defined purpose. They're very expensive to deploy in capacity sufficient to accomplish much, and most of the time will be wiped out in rapid-fire and melee combat the round after deep striking. While not worthless their weapons aren't impressive: even with fleshbane, Deathmarks simply don't destroy their own cost most of the time, as so many targets bear solid saves, multiple wounds, or simply 'look out, sir!' rolls. If the Deathmarks are deployed for against soft characters (like IG commanders) their Fleshbane is hardly relevant, while against monstrous creatures they simply don't deal enough raw damage through any noteworthy save. To operate as threatening character assassins they must have some ability to overcome the defenses that normally shield such targets. I might suggest two potential options:
  • A long-ranged unit that uses a marking system to slowly eliminate high-value targets: In this approach Deathmarks may sacrifice their shooting attack to place their mark on an enemy unit (other deathmarks may not use this mark). Attacks made in successive rounds against this marked unit ignore range, intervening terrain, 'look out, Sir!', and cover saves, as well as always counting as precision hits. This allows them to operate as a slow-acting countermeasure to heavy weapons teams, psykers, and other low-defense models, covering the Necrons' general implacable advance of slow-moving infantry. In exchange, by taking two turns the Deathmarks can't react quickly and make themselves high priority targets every odd-numbered enemy round, while their S4 AP5 rifles aren't noteworthy outside this effect.
  • A short-ranged unit that supplies a capacity the Necrons don't already have filled. Flayed Ones provide positioned pressure options against light infantry, while Praetorians outperform Deathmarks against well-armored targets. The remaining niche would be well-hidden, well-armored targets, suggesting a precision weapon that relies on a characteristic test to remove the target from play (like the Gate of Oblivion) without allowing saves. To fit their listed fluff, a toughness test might make sense, modifying their weapons to 18" Assault 1, S:X, AP:-, Precision Shots, Synaptic Overload. A model that suffers a hit from a weapon with Synaptic Overload must make a toughness test or be removed from play with no saves allowed. It would also make sense to provide Deathmarks with Split Fire, to allow them to operate against multiple low-value targets like sergeants in at least some capacity. At 18" they'll usually be threatened, but losing Rapid Fire lets them at least stand out of easy charge range of their targets.
• Have to admit I rather like those options, but Necron snipers being unique in that they pop out right next to you with well aimed rapidfire shots already painted to your head is something that should be kept in. As that is how the fluff plays out. The fact that they don't have much of a role in the angry codex is a problem however. Split fire is an interesting idea, and fits decently with lore as well, unsure If things can be implemented just like that though. This is not only a Challenge to make Deathmarks good, it is a Challenge to make a sniper unit in 40k good, and that is also difficult. -Un'tan
• They have a very defined role, they are anti monstrous creature and anti armoured and high toughness infantry. They lack the ability to kill independent characters, but no snipers in the game can do so effectively. Your first suggestion thoroughly changes their role, I like the idea on one hand, but on the other hand I also like the fact that they are snipers who get into the thick of it rather than sniping their target from far away, changing that wouldn´t be a good idea in my opinion. Your second suggestion doesn´t work. A 1/9 chance of killing a monster is too good. That effectively make 10 D Marks able to kill any monstrous creature (except gargantuans depending on wording). I think you are underestimating their effect, no noteworthy amount of damage is nowhere near true, they are effective both against unarmoured and armoured monstrous creatures. I reduced their costs because I neglected the fact they had to Deep Strike, which I now think is more of a detriment after rolling poorly for reserves a number of times, as a result I reduced their cost to 17 pts/model. You cannot expect a unit to earn its points home in one turn, if you set them up in a way that warrants an immediate counter attack I believe you are using them in a wrong way.
• I don't know about anti high armoured targets, anti high toughness definitely. And a cost reduction was probably the more reasonable choice. Hmm.... Actually, I thought of something. Would it even make sense for Deathmarks to stay on the battlefield? Coming out and shooting their target, If they succeed they have completed their task and goes back to their pocket dimension waiting for the next target, If they don't succeed should they not go back anyway and prepare for another good situation? Lore wise at least that would make sense. Maybe having them as a unit they counts as destroyed for the purpose of the battle after they had their turn would make sense lore wise. Eh. Maybe for some future thought. Right now they are good at what they need to do.

• I put another couple of test games behind these guys, and I'm going to apologize again for tossing out more concepts ... but here're my findings. The Deathmarks as they are work very well against monstrous creatures, and pretty poorly against infantry, characters, or special weapons. Anti-MC isn't really something this army has a problem with (up to T6 warriors are solid, above that we've got the new and improved immortals and destroyers). The final game I tested we played with the following experimental rule: "Wounds inflicted by shooting attacks from this unit ignore cover, and cannot be redirected with Look Out, Sir unless the target unit has gone to ground." This replaces the regular 'Marked' rule, so Deathmarks don't get fleshbane (their sniper rolls are good enough against high-toughness targets as is) but can be pretty pushy against characters that aren't bubble-wrapped by their unit. The defender may choose to negate this by going to ground, saving some critical character or weapon at the cost of holding the unit still for the Necron ground force, something which can be equally dangerous if the Deathmarks are well-supported. If they're not, pinning the target hardly matters as other enemy units can clean up the T3 Deathmarks and we have almost no cover-ignoring weapons. Finally, it lets Deathmarks that aren't cleaned out by the enemy help fill a natural role by sniping cover-campers.

• I like your new idea. You are right in the fact that their role has been filled by other units, I suppose it is only natural that they get a new role. Just as a note Necron Warriors can wound T 7+ things through Rending which ignores T.

• Was this version of the mark rule only in effect the turn they deep striked or just going on the entire game? Because of it goes on the entire game Would it be better If they Marked a squad as they used to before? Since that would be more fitting with fluff. Though maybe it would make them more restricted. However I do kinda like this version.

• Necron Deathmarks

95 pts.

	WS	BS	S	T	W	I	A	Ld	Sv	Unit Type	Composition
Necron Deathmark	3	4	4	3	1	2	1	10	3+	Infantry	5 Necron Deathmarks

Wargear:

• Synaptic Disintegrator

Range	S	AP	Type
24	x	5	Rapid Fire, Sniper, Ignores Cover, Synaptic Overload

Synaptic Overload: Characters may not make Look Out Sir rolls against weapons with this special rule.

Special Rules:

• Godless
• We´ll Be Back
• Feel No Pain
• Slow and Purposeful
• Fearless
• Deep Strike
• Patience of the Undying: Units consisting entirely of models with this special rule do not scatter when arriving from Deep Strike reserve.
• Hunters from Hyperspace: On the turn this unit arrives from Deep Strike reserve all of their shooting hits are ‘Precision Shots’. Wounds from Precision Shots are allocated against a model (or models) of your choice in the target unit, as long as it is in range and line of sight of the firer, rather than following the normal rules for Wound allocation. Remember the Synaptic Overload special rule does not allow for Look Out Sir rolls. Note that Snap Shots and shots from weapons that scatter, or do not roll To Hit, can never be Precision Shots.

Options:

• May include up to five additional Necron Deathmarks - 19 pts./model

• That is very interesting, it is also very adhering to their fluff. Not sure why the rules names were switched though, hunters from hyperspace is usually the rule considering their deep strike, while the other rule is the "mark" rule. Patience of the undying is quite fluffy though. What I like the most about this version however is that they are still useful on the second turn they are on, they are still battle snipers that can do some damage to other units after taking out their primary target. While I am not fully sure If this Will translate well to table top I am more than willing to try these rules out. -Un'tan

• Hey, anybody mind if I cleared out some of the old talk here? This article is getting lengthy.
• Only If the conversation has reached a clear conclusion, If not then it should remain. -Un'tan
• So, I played another game using the above rules. The going to ground exemption is really important: without it they pay back their cost easily, even without support. It forces the defender to make a hard decision, which in turn means the Necron player needs to support them. We tested at 18 points per model, applying the marked rule every round, which seemed about right. We did, however, lower their strength to three, making an assault counterattack more effective. The result follows:

• Necron Deathmarks

95 pts.

	WS	BS	S	T	W	I	A	Ld	Sv	Unit Type	Composition
Necron Deathmark	3	4	3	3	1	2	1	10	3+	Infantry	5 Necron Deathmarks

Wargear:

• Synaptic Disintegrator

Range	S	AP	Type
24	x	5	Rapid Fire, Sniper, Ignores Cover

Special Rules:

• Godless
• We´ll Be Back
• Feel No Pain
• Slow and Purposeful
• Fearless
• Deep Strike
• Hunters from Hyperspace: Units consisting entirely of models with this special rule do not scatter when arriving from Deep Strike reserve.
• Marked for Death: Wounds inflicted by shooting attacks from this unit may not be redirected by 'Look out, Sir!' Marked for Death does not apply to any unit that has gone to ground.
• Patience of the Undying: During the shooting phase immediately after this unit arrives from deep strike all hits inflicted by it are treated as precision hits.

Options:

• May include up to five additional Necron Deathmarks - 19 pts./model

• I feel the one higher up sits better, giving the go to ground negation option for the one higher up is something I would agree on however. one point here or there doesnt feel like Much of a change though for a unit that is pretty small. Honestly wouldn't mind If they were 20 points.

• The biggest difference is the auto-precision hits on the turn they warp in. When I tested with it this let them easily pull out special weapons and characters even if they'd been carefully wrapped. We felt this was a little too good. Still, I only used that ruling for one game, so if you've got more game experience with it and found different results I'd be more than happy to use that version.

• I haven´t tested the rules. Is there really anything wrong with them being able to kill off special weapons? The official ones just remove a monster from the table, these ones kill a select few special weapons carriers or a character inside a squad. Their effectiveness is severely limited against mechanised armies and armies without weapon upgrades inside squads. I think they should be able to snipe things off, that´s kind of their thing, the question for me is whether their points cost fits and if it needs to be around 21-25 pts then they may be a little too glass cannon for a Necron unit. If their target is inside a relatively small unit then the official ones might actually be better because they can simply eat their way into their target by sheer number of wounds.

• The problem isn't them being able to kill off special weapons, the problem is that they become too good at it: by allowing all shots to precision hit the turn they arrive they're overcoming not one but two of the defences specialists hold (look out sir and also positioning). I was on the defending side against these in a test game yesterday, and the fact that I couldn't hide specialists like an icon carrier or support character by wrapping the unit around them essentially multiplies their alpha strike power by six. With that boost it's almost guaranteed that a squad of five will recoup their cost in the first salvo even without support. I agree that all-precision hits like this is very fluff-accurate, but it's just too much, and they're not fun to play against. Without this ability they can still pick off specialists by deep-striking such that the closest model is the target, but the defender still has a card to play against them while at the same time risking those specialists as the unit gets ground up from the front. They've got sniper, so one in six shots will precision hit anyway. My point is also the one expressed above: with one turn of all-precision spots these guys should definitely be more expensive, something I'd personally like to avoid. It increases the investment for a unit that will most likely get assaulted the turn after they arrive.
• Hey, what happened to the document? Somebody miss a bracket somewhere?
• Yeah... I forgot an ending. instead of . Anyways. I don´t get how 5 of them can earn home their points in a single turn? If 5 Deathmarks kill 2 Plasma guns and a sergeant they have killed 50 pts worth of models. Against SM they kill something like 30-45 pts worth. Can you show me the math that gets you to 95 pts with only 5 deathmarks? Those two situations are as I see it their best bets at earning home their pts and I just don´t get how you make it out to be 95 pts in a single turn even at Rapid-fire range (which is how I got 35-55 pts in one turn).
• Support characters like Illuminor Szeras seem like the most logical targets. Without Look Our, Sir or their bubble-wrapping models it seems like Deathmarks can readily cut them down. On the other hand, doing the math suggests a group of 5 Deathmarks expects just 100/81 wounds on a guy like this. With a 4+ to wound and rending-like they deliver about as well against any supporting IC. Still, while this may have a disproportionate effect against some armies (Tau ethereals, IG commanders), that seems pretty fair given their limitations. Additionally, the sniper rule tends to be less useful against the armies that this helps with. I'm game for keeping it as is. Are we ready to move their current state over to the main rules page?
• I've adjusted the second unit description above to match what I think we've discussed. If we're agreed, I can move it over. Fiddling with points, I think 19-21 is probably about right. What do you think?
• I published it at 19. You do know that you can´t Look Out, Sir special weapons right? It feels like they are completely incompetent at killing characters with the Go to Ground option. If you have something like an Etheral in a 6 man bunker (which reminds me how OP the new Tau are... That can wait) then they lose almost nothing from going to ground and you are wasting your shots on them, the unit can even still aid the Tau by giving other units +1 BS through their formation. I can´t see myself waisting their firepower on that when I could be using them for shooting through drones and killing the juicy suits hiding behind the drones. Against AM I can´t see myself targeting the commander either, instead I would just go for special weapons since they have no way of hiding. Also can we start using some sort of signature? I´m getting confused if everyone agrees and if someone has changed their mind or if it´s a new person. Something like a - #/%/$$$ would be helpful. Angry Pirate (talk) 08:34, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• This turned out to be a more complicated discussion than I thought. I am torn on which version of the rules should be the ones used. Although what is up now I would say could work fairly well, it is just on the field I am still unsure. I will make sure to use a squad of deathmarks in all my coming matches to see how they do. Also in terms of signatures I have been trying to use mine with every post for clarification purposes. -Un'tan

• Yeah, this exemption doesn't apply at all to special weapons, but they're often too inexpensive and scattered to care. Though some plasma-gun plague-marines last game disagreed... I agree that the going-to-ground exemption seems to wreck their ability to target IG and Tau. Where the suppression really comes into play (in the games I've seen it, at least) is against more active, mobile characters like Orks, Marine and Chaos Marine ICs, and especially Eldar characters. Going to ground is really not an option for many of these, especially if it'll mean they get charged a round or two down the line. It also provides a really strong weapon against crypteks of the regular variety, though the Angry kind are normally in Fearless units. All that said, my perspective is skewed by my local meta, which regularly includes neither Tau nor IG, and having just tested against a proxied Tau force I'm less certain of it. If you guys have other data, go with what you're seeing. I'm just always more wary of overpowering a new setup than underpowering it, and we can always revisit the Deathmarks if you find them consistently outperforming their cost. -Oedon

• I removed the part about being able to go to ground. It doesn´t make sense, but that´s the least of it. The unit becomes entirely useless at targeting I(C) in units that don´t mind going to ground (cultists, guardsmen, firewarriors) which is exactly where they should excel. Lets take a Lord Commisar as an example, on average 5 Deathmarks (95 pts) deal 2,6 wounds on the turn they arrive, should they succeed they have earned back 65 pts and are now either going to die, or their effectiveness will drissle away since their ability to target out models is mostly gone. Should they fail, and then be killed, they have achieved nothing. You have wasted 100 pts on a unit which has just attracted a medicore amount of firepower. Since they are in a tight formation a single S 6+ AP 3 shot will more or less wipe them out. Now I`m not saying they are bad in any way, I just don´t think it´s too much to ask for the unit to be able to wipe characters out, if they actually arrive that is. The unit shouldn´t be decent against non-elite characters like Commisars, Ministorum Priests, Etherals and the like, they should counter them. There is a very easy way to counter the Deathmarks, it´s called stay inside and wait till they arrive. The characters which are (and should be) scared of them lose very little from staying inside a building or vehicle.

Points Cost

• I believe the points cost is currently too high, I have tested them in a couple of games and they have underperformed quite a lot, I felt like I was wasting points on a unit I wasn´t even sure whether or not would join the battle. On top of that I played a number of games with the official Deathmarks, they too performed horribly. DSing is IMO enough of a cost (even without the scatter) that I think they should be lowered to 18 pts/model. Feel free to tell me how I should be using them, or that I´m wrong, I have just been having some fairly unsatisfactory games with the Deathmarks. All that said I actually like the way they function, they just seem somewhat overpriced. Angry Pirate (talk) 18:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• I think 17-18 points is probably a reasonable cost. We likely set the price more conservatively when the concept changed so drastically. As far as their use, I've found deathmarks most effective when you've got something like a warlord trait or especially Orikan giving you more control over their arrival as well as at least one other big threat (wraiths or night-scythes with pariahs are my preferred implements). With that backup, they seem worthwhile points-wise, but without the setup I agree that they're not really competitive at 20 each. -Oedon

Shard of the Deceiver

Promise of Power

• Regarding the rule "Promise of Power". If a an enemy model has I5 or higher does it then attack before the Shard of the Decievers special attack?

• I changed the Initative of the attack to 10, that clears the rule up right?

• Yes now it makes more sense. Suggesting the morale test be made on 3d6 however, as othervise there is a very small chance of the attack going off at all.

• It´s funny you say that, that was actually the intent all along, forgot about it when writing it.

How come this rule was removed?

To allow for the new rule to be added. Also, the power basically meant he automatically won every combat. It´s not that it was too powerful, I just don´t think it was fun to play against. - Pirate

Grand Illusion

• One suggestion, switch places with the Illusion rule and the Grand Illusion rule. Grand illusion is a good rule and fits the Deciever very well, while illusion is more on the line of what a single more nameless shard would be able to do. I consider what Grand illusion does very fitting for the Deciever, It is a manifestation of deception after all.

Cosmic Fire and Transcendent C´tan

• about Power of the C'tan, sky of falling stars and Cosmic fire is basically the same profile, with the exception that sky of falling starts have one more strength and is Assault 3. The small difference is one is ignores cover and the other is barrage, but most of the time barrage will Ignore cover anyway. Most other powers are differentiated enough, but sky of falling stars is almost always better than Cosmic fire. An additional note, should not the trancendant shard at least get longer range on the powers, maybe have them be the apocalyptic variants as well like the codex Did.

• I don´t really want to change the profiles of the results, I don´t really mind there is one bad result. Transcendent C´tan do have the bigger profile, having two powers is almost the same effect as one Coalescent, longer range would be negative, it would be almost impossible (for the Necrons) to stay out of range of it´s attacks, on the other hand it can move 12 and has Deep Strike so I haven´t found it to be out of range once, in any of my test games.

• I just think it makes the model, boring. I wouldn't mind it being in range of the necrons, the rule is there to be able to be a threat even to the necrons. Even If in the vaults case perhaps another rule entirely would work better since it is infact "contained". Having Two powers might be almost the same as the upgraded powers, but I feel it isn't as fun. Honestly I don't see why their rules were changed from the 6th editions apocalypse rules. Those felt powerful to have on the table. All the new ones just feel... Disappointing to what it is.

• The apocalypse powers were not only ridiculous for the size of the model they were also severely under-costed. Those powers should have been at least 1,5 times as many points as they were, S D Flamestorm doesn´t belong on a model that is 3,5" tall, it actually doesn´t belong anywhere, especially not for the points cost. It definitely has impact right now, it definitely does feel powerful, on the other hand it isn´t so powerful that it´s an army in itself and it shouldn´t be. It´s neither a warhound nor a reaver, its small stature does not warrant it more power than a Knight.

• Here is a point where we will disagree, but I do not think the size of the model really should have that amount of impact on power. It Will often be like that yes, but it is the implication of the model and not its size that should be such a deciding factor. A trancendant C'tan shard is in My opinion clearly on par or stronger than a knight. Based on what it is. In terms of cost money wise a trancendant shard should also be at least on par or with knight. Now, were they undercosted? Yes.

• I am advocating for it being on par with a knight, which is exactly what it currently is. It´s a copy of the Wraith Knight with some changes. What you are suggesting is giving it weapons on the scale of a Warhound (two of the old Coalescent powers) or a reaver (the Forgeworld rules). People complained about its power compared to its size previously, it was too easy to hide and it didn´t feel right. Now size does not equal power, which is why a 3.5" tall model has the same stat line as a 7-10" model (don´t have the Wraith Knight on me ATM). But things get ridiculous when things get too out of proportion, like a God Emperor or C´tan having the profile and cost of either a Warhound or a Reaver. I think you should be able to play around the range of the Transcendent C´tan, already at 3 wounds it will on average fire one power of the C´tan at the Necrons every single turn it isn´t in CC.

• I suppose I would rather have them at that power level than what they are at now. It would be more deserving of a Trancendant C'tan shard. I think it is a loss for the angry necrons that the rules changes that had been the most bothering won't be adjusted. I was gonna suggest making an even higher rank of shard to be Much more costly and on par with other titans, but really that is just what I want the Tesseract vault and trancendants to be.

• The amount of times you get to include a Warhound titan in a game is fairly limited, the rules I have created are usable in any points game above 1500 pts. I don´t think 3,5" model should = 10,5" model power wise, it´s simply too ridiculous. Maybe if there was a 5" base and it was surrounded by energy like Nagash, so it actually looked powerful, but the Transcendent C´tan doesn´t look that powerful.

• Again with the size and look of the model. I don't see that having any substantial place in a debate about the rules. A C'tan trancendant is a part of a godly being striving to become whole again, that is what I see matters. And making them accessible to lower points games I don't really see as a reason either. To me that is like downgrading a reaver titans power to be played more in regular points Games. Yes it would be cool, but it is not what such a model is meant for. I really miss the time titans were restricted to apocalypse..

• The Transcendent C´tan has not been downgraded, it´s points cost has been increased by 150 pts. It has been upgraded from a monstrous creature to a knight. The size is important because of suspension of disbelief. At that point you could say why can´t a god be inside inside a 0,1" cube? Hell why not just place an empty model on the board and say that your god can take the shape of a a single atom and still fire 2 S D hellstorm templates in a single turn? Because it feels stupid. Dangerous things should look dangerous. You could have a 3.5" tall C´tan on a 5" scenic base suspending a giant boulder in mid air using its otherworldly powers, that would look powerful. The model itself would be 3.5" tall, but it would look powerful. I wouldn´t want to play against a stack of gummy bears, no matter how tall, counting them as a stand in for a titan. It´s just a little too ridiculous. I have gotten tired of ridiculous things, too many regiments of rats being represented by dice, too many dinosaurs represented by a piece of cardboard with the word "stegadon" on it. Ridiculous things don´t belong in any of the angry codicies. A 3,5" model on a >3" base having the same firepower as a 10,5" titan is like putting down two toilet rolls on the table and calling them the feet of a titan, it´s just stupid, it doesn´t look good. The new Nagash model is an example of this done right, GW realised they couldn´t just make the legendary god-necronmancer a 1,5" vampire. It would be stupid when he raised an army and then razed your army, his model is big, but he also has a bunch of ghosts and books flying around giving him even more presence. The Transcendent C´tan has almost no presence, it has its arms stretched out to the sides, but that really isn´t impressive enough to make me think it has the power of a warhound.

Shard of the Nightbringer

• Regarding the Shard of the Nightbringer. Should it really only have ws 5?

• It´s easier to remember if all C´tans have WS and BS 5. Should one god be better at close combat than another? I don´t think so, I think it should more be a question of special powers. Weapon Skill implies skill, I think I invision them more as manifestations of pure power rather than skilled fighters. I will consider if I want the Nightbringer to be more powerful than the Deceiver, as per the 3rd edition fluff.

• Even If all C'tan shards are manifestations of power they differ in what they are manifestations of. In my opinion that changes what form they take and what skill they have. In their purpose it wouldn't represent honed skulle as much as their affinity to certain aspects. Also It feels that the shards of specific C'tan would be slightly more represented to their true forms than the other various shards.

• Regarding the Uncontrollable rule, It looks really good. Gives the opponent a choice between letting it stay as a threat but a potential asset to them or outright Destroying it. Though, wouldn't it ve pretty lore accurate If the C'tan shard got a turn of shooting controller by the opponent after it was destroyed? Representant the shard breaking free of its Bonds entirely before vanishing looking for other shards, rather than it occationally attacking the necrons back. I just wanted to mention this though, I don't think unstable should be changed, as it is now it works quite great.

• Idea: Shattered Shackles: Before removing a model with this special rule from the table, deal a single S 10 AP 2 hit to all units (friend and foe) per model in the unit within D6" of this model, after resolving this your opponent may immediately shoot once with each of the model´s weapons at one of your units, even if the model is currently in close combat.

• Something like that was about what I was thinking. And yes it is quite fluffy and fitting, but again I really like the unstable rule, it gives also a bit more survivability in a way, as keeping it alive becomes a possible asset for the enemy. I haven't been able to have Any test Games with that rule though. So id say testing before changes. Though for shattered shackles to be a bit more scary for Both players maybe make the range 2d6? Might be a bit much, not sure.

• I think I´ll save the 2D6 for the Transcendent C´tan unless 1D6 doesn´t feel impactful/powerful enough. I´m not really sure if I like the rule. I´ll probably test it out in my next game, though my Nightbringer broke in 3 pieces, so I´ll probably be continuing bringing my Deceiver instead. I will say that they already feel scary and powerful on the field, I´m not sure if it becomes too much.

• Your Nightbringer Broke too? Well, you are not alone. Fortunatly the people I play with are understanding and allow me to use the model either way (even If it looks silly). Maybe the range shouldn't be random at all actually? Or just less random. It is ported over from vehicle explosions, but there are many different kinds of vehicle with so many parts which could exlode violently or don't do much damage. Perhaps a C'tans shard should be a static. 3" or something. D3+2 or something.

• Had a few test game with shattered shackles. It Did work quite well, did some damage to the nearby units (sometimes also my own) and the automatic shooting seemed to work fairly well. Not sure weather that one or the current one is preferrable though. -Un'tan

• I was thinking it should have both.

• Oh. Huh, that might actually balances things out.

Triarch Stalker

• Just mentioning since it is a walker it needs its attack initiative and strength characteristics as well. And layered Quantum shielding. On paper to me that sounds overpowered. But its also open topped, so maybe it evens out.

• I forgot those things, I put in the WS just yesterday and somehow managed to forget those, thank you. Next time you can just add them. I just used it and it under performed a lot, that might be because I used it´s two flamers rather than it´s multimeltas.

• It under preformed even when its been buffed with layered Quantum shielding? That is surprising. Though again effectiveness depends on the situation.

• Well I did increase it´s cost by 20 pts. Therefore the demand for effectiveness increases. It never got to use it´s layered quantum shielding, so I effectively payed 20 pts for nothing, or for the skitter ability rather, which didn´t do much of anything either. I used it in a second game which I never got around to finishing, it was against a mass Infantry Daemon army and it never got within flamer range so it mostly just buffed my Immortals with +1 BS, again it didn´t get to use it´s layered quantum shielding, this time because it didn´t get attacked at all. It´s a permanent points increase for a situational buff. While strong in that situation I have now played one and a half games where it didn´t come into play. It also has no effect in close combat, against S D, and it has limited effect on lance weaponry.

• It also got an additional heavy flamer and multimelta for that cost increase in addition to the rules. So its a point increase for situational buff and extra weapons. Though on average its a pretty strong buff. It is a bit of a strange vehicle though, Needing to stay back to buff other units but also needing to move closer to get in range for its weaponry.

• It got an additional flamer, not an additional multimelta. It´s previous melta weapon was assault 2. I just made it somewhat worthwhile for it to use its flamer. It can only fire two weapons so when firing its multimeltas it has no additional firepower. I agree that it is strange, had I been the engineer who were designing a walker I would dedicate the role of support platform to one vehicle and that of fast flanking walker to another. I disagree that it is a strong buff since most of the time it will have no additional firepower and a single penetrating AP 1 weapon still has a 50% chance of blowing it up.

• My mistake, I thought the heat weapon it had before was Assault 1. I also forgot the fact that walkers, unlife other vehicles, can only fire two weapons a turn. My wrong. On the subject of its duality, perhaps going back to a version of its old rule would make more sense, that when it shot at a target all other necron units gets +1 bs shooting at Said target, that would make it want to move up closer so it could buff the other units. It would however decrease the rules versatility.

C'tan shard

Adding back the C´tan Shard entry

• Why replace the customizible C'tan shards for those Nightbringer and Deciever versions. The new rules made here for the C'tan shards were really good and showed just how Much variety there can be in the shards. They were actually one of the best parts of this Codex.

• They didn´t feel right. You might think it´s really cool to customize and represent the variety of C´tan, but that only works for the rules. A flaming, flying shard with cannons might be cool, but ultimately you will end up using either the Deceiver or the Nightbringer, unless you have the time and skill to scratch build and then it will be useless when playing the non-angry Necrons. I felt like I was proxying, I own everything except Flayed Ones, including the Deceiver and the Nightbringer, I proxied all my life and have finally gotten everything, eliminating my need to ever proxy. Their profile worked fairly nicely, but it didn´t feel powerful. It was just a tough monster, it didn´t hurt when I lost it since it was cheap, but that isn´t really what you want to feel when you lose a C´tan is it? Will it satisfy everyone if I allow for both the ones in the official codex, which are present now, and the one I made up?

• I do entirely understand your reasoning behind this, but the costumizable rules were amazingly fun and lore fitting, one could Argue since most C'tan became at least partly a part of the Few more known C'tans that the shards would take their likeness. However, you are still right that model wise their should be the option for the specific Nightbringer and Deciever models. To keep Both rules would be preferrable, the new deciever and Nightbringer rules are pretty good as well. Though in my personal opinion the Deciever should not have as Much strenght as the Nightbringer. Also, again personal preference, really liked the Nightbringer specific power in the latest codex.

C´tan Shard options

• A number of these options seem underwhelming, and several options don't seem to fit the flavor of a C'Tan shard, though I have nothing but praise for a wider breadth of potential setups. Traveler of the Heavens seems somewhat unfinished, thematically overlapping with Ghost Flight while providing a mobility that doesn't seem fitting for a C'Tan Shard. Ghost Flight, meanwhile, provides an initiative bonus which seems like a strange addition to the shard. Perhaps this might simply ignore all terrain (including lethal or impassable, coincidentally, as the shard should be able to move straight through them) and provide an invulnerable save as the shard slips through attacks? Temporal Banishment doesn't seem relevant given the Event Horizon option, as it affects fewer targets with no secondary benefit. Maybe this power should also operate at medium range (specify one model within 24" for the effect)? I might also suggest that Event Horizon could cause Hit and Run attempts against it to automatically fail.

• (Sorry, I accidentally removed some of what you wrote, ill add it back however.) C'tan shards getting an option to be more mobile is quite nice. And they are shard of godly beings of so many variations that a huge variety of powers make sense. Also it is really really fun. All of them are not perfect yet, but it is getting there. Though really, ignorig all terrain I really feel should Come standard on the shards. Changes Suggested for temporal banishment and event horison I am all for, makes sense. Ghost flight and travel of the heavens should stil be seperate. -Un'tan

• Since the Phoenix Spawn rule was changed, perhaps the Trancendant equivilent should have the bubbel of "no saves against gets hot" it makes sense a trancendant would be able to expand on the power. -Un'tan

• Would it be worth giving C'tan shards an option to buy a Powers of the C'tan (and the Uncontrollable rule alongside it)? Random weapon profile aside, they're really fun weapons and they make the shard an undeniable threat. -Oedon

• Also, props to the 'Shard of the Machine God' special power. That is one of the most fun 70 point upgrades in the game. I miiiight suggest limiting it to non-superheavy vehicles, though. On that subject, however, why limit it to friendly vehicles? Our weapons are plenty powerful, so I'm not too worried about overpowering it in the cases one gets within 3" of an enemy tank. -Oedon

S and T of C´tan Shards

• Should the profile of C´tan Shard be the same as the the one that the Deceiver and the Nightbringer has? Angry Pirate (talk) 08:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
• I think there is reason for the focused shards to be stronger than the regular nameless ones. For one the named ones seem to be at least 2 shards (or 1 slightly bigger shard) of the same C'tan, thus able to be closer to the powers they once had, while nameless shards are just one splintered shard. However the nameless shards probably could do with being a little closer to the Nightbringer and Deciever shards. Un'tan (talk)

Necron Pariahs

Lack of We´ll Be Back and Slow and Purposeful

• Pariahs have neither We'll be Back nor Slow and Purposeful. Is this intentional, or an omission? I could see it either way: their origin could explain a lack of reanimation systems and running does seem to suit their role, but being unable to shoot before assaulting seems odd. Not being immune to their own aura is mostly irrelevant, but in a few cases it can be really weird. Thoughts? -Oedon

• It is intentional. I was thinking they are humans who were necronified. I 1-3 is mostly due the the fact that Necrons don´t have reflexes, instead they have to think everything entirely through, the Necrons with better bodies can figure out the best solution to any problem in a split second, while the common Warriors take some time. I imagine Necrons tried taking as much "human" out of a human body until it lost it lost it´s Nullsphere properties and then stuck with that. Therefore they have lost their ability to feel pain, but they still have biological parts which would go flying everywhere should there shell be destroyed, therefore they can´t simply reassemble themselves like other Necrons can. The lack of Relentless was an omission because Gauss Blasters didn´t have Rapid Fire when I wrote the special rules of the Pariahs. I quickly wrote in a clause omitting Pariahs from their own effect, feel free to reword it. - Angry Pirate

Fast Attack

Canoptek Scarabs

• The Scarab's Feel No Pain rule is almost always overwhelmed by incoming damage thanks to their low ID threshold. Does it make sense to increase the required strength to overcome that feel no pain (to perhaps S5 or S6)?

• The way I do it might not be accurate, but the way our group plays it is that If a unit has eternal warrior it can always take a feel no pain save (Unless a 6 on the destroyer table). They are pretty survivable. Had a fun game where a stompa shot at them many many Times and only killed a couple, then the boys assaulted and killed every single one in a turn. - Un'tan

• I think they are fine. T 3 or T 2 FNP is a very small difference IMO. I think they were a little too good in fifth, I consider it a minor nerf. As far as offence they are about as strong as they were in fifth against vehicles and then a lot better against armoured infantry and monstrous creatures and then a lot worse against unarmoured models. I don´t really see them as fighters but more as harvesters and workers, I think it is natural they are better against vehicles than they are against MC.

• I ran a few test games with and without your interpretation of FnP and Eternal Warrior and I agree they're fine with that interpretation, but pretty much any infantry weapon just seems too powerful against them without it (statistically each bolter hit destroys four points worth of scarab). Perhaps it's worth specifically noting it in the unit entry? It's nice not having to add a special rule listing for it, but something to clarify this interaction might be worthwhile, as it's a weakness in the existing wording for the Eternal Warrior and Feel No Pain rules. Something like: "Distributed Network: All Canoptek Scarab Swarms have Feel No Pain and Eternal Warrior. This Feel No Pain roll is not overcome by attacks that would cause instant death, though it is ignored by any weapon with the Destroyer special rule."

• A technicality with that rule, d now only ignores all saves on a result of 6, but perhaps having it be to all d shots makes sense in this particular case. It would possibly be sound. Specifically Stating it sounds like a good idea.

• "If a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound from an attack that inflicts Instant Death, it only reduces its Wounds by 1, instead of automatically reducing its Wounds to 0." - Eternal Warrior. "When a model with this special rule suffers an unsaved Wound, it can make a special Feel No Pain roll to avoid being wounded (this is not a saving throw and so can be used against attacks that state that ‘no saves of any kind are allowed’, for example those inflicted by Perils of the Warp). Feel No Pain saves may not be taken against Destroyer attacks or against unsaved Wounds that have the Instant Death special rule. Roll a D6 each time an unsaved Wound is suffered. On a 4 or less, you must take the Wound as normal. On a 5+, the unsaved Wound is discounted – treat it as having been saved. If a unit has the Feel No Pain special rule with a number in brackets afterwards – Feel No Pain (6+), for example – then the number in brackets is the D6 result needed to discount the Wound." - Feel No Pain. These rules have nothing to do with eachother. I removed their armour save in favour of an extra wound, which fits with the number of scarabs and attacks anyways. I geuss it´s true that they were too vulnerable to bolters and the like. As a side bonus they are also better against monstrous creatures, but a worse against CC units w. S 4+ and AP 6/-. I appreciate you tell me the way you playing things, although it is definitely neither RAW nor RAI.

• I am aware that it is not rules wise correct, however it is a house rule within my group. Within out group we have decided it that If something is an eternal warrior they should also always have the oppertunity to not feel pain. RAW And RAI Nothing supports that, however our group all agreed that rules wise it makes sense. So yes, as I stated, not saying it should be so in every game, just that we do so in our group. Fluff wise it would make sense.

Skittering Swarm and Grenades

• Has someone observed Scarabs being too resistant to blast weapons? The addition of skittering swarm makes an already strong counter to them even stronger. In particular, it results in the common frag grenade typically destroying thirty or more points of scarabs in a single hit. I can only attest to my own experience, but the widespread accessibility (indeed, normally free) of low-power blast weapons seems to underpower Scarabs quite far with this change. Even most comparatively hard counters don't work this well, and this one is available for free in many armies on non-specialized units. -Oedon

• They no longer have the Swarm special rule. A frag grenade will rarely hit more than a single Swarm, should it against all odds hit 3 swarms, you are looking at 2 wounds, 1,33 going through FNP and then multiplied into 4 wounds, killing a single swarm, that is if you clump up your swarm so heavily that your opponent get´s three hits with a small template, well yes I think it is entirely reasonable that a single swarm should be destroyed.

The change was made on the basis of them being changed to 4 wounds, a battle cannonn simply had no impact upon a swarm, with 3 hits you are looking at a maximum of a single dead swarm, which is quite ridiculous. Besides, most units armed wtih assault grenades will be annihilating Scarabs in CC anyways, so I don´t get the big deal. Angry Pirate (talk) 08:00, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

• That's odd. When did scarabs lose the swarms rule? My group has been using it for some time. I agree that without it Scarabs would be too resilient to such weapons, but even with this omission I do not believe your calculation above is correct. Three hits (which seems quite reasonable to expect, given that a blast template may be centered over the edge of a base) expects 15/6 unsaved wounds (2+ to wound, and FnP does not affect s4 grenades), which, following skittering swarm should be 15/2, or just under two full models. Multiple moderate-strength blasts or templates, such as griffons or our own Annihilation Barges should be solid countermeasures, but with 3x wounds either of these platforms expects to destroy its own cost in scarabs in a single salvo. With skittering swarms, these can usually destroy the entirety of the scarab unit in the first turn using spillover wounds, stopping spiders from building new models.

...the loss of the swarms rule also makes scarabs slightly tougher against some units in melee. Because swarms must allocate wounds to already-damaged models first, swarm-less scarabs have the unexpected opportunity to use ablative wounds against targets with a small number of attacks, like dreadnoughts, something they were not otherwise able to do. I suggest that even if scarabs end up keeping the skittering swarms rule, it would probably be best to retain the swarms USR. -Oedon

• The problem is your group has been cheating. Grenades are strength 3 and I just had the larges deja vu, whatever. Plasma grenades are strength 4... But they aren´t as common I´ve found.

My gaming group has been playing with everyone having the Swarm rule, as far as wound allocation goes at least. I geuss every gaming group makes mistakes. - Angry Pirate

• I need to go hit some people with sticks, I guess. This group does actually use a number of plasma grenades, but most of these have been frag. Fascinating how a half-remembered perception on a rule just becomes the local norm, correct or not. Sorry for the confusion, as usual. -Oedon

• I actually thought they were Strength 4 as well, every other SM weapon is Strength 4. It´s just a hobby and nobody likes reading rules, some people like creating rules, some like playing and some like hobbying. But reading rules is just boring and the sheer amount of it makes it an overwhelming task to re-read everything. I´m just glad my Scarabs weren´t the ones getting the bombed to oblivion. - Angry Pirat

Impotence Against Infantry

• I´m not really satisfied with Canoptek Scarabs, they are very strong against a few units but incredibly weak (too much so IMO) against Infantry. So this is my idea for making them better against infantry. The following would replace the Entropic Strike special rule:

The strength of a unit with this special rule is equal to 2+ the unit´s current number of models.

Everything else would remain the same and then I would change points cost accordingly, any thoughts are welcome. I have been thinking of similar things like 1+2*number of models and things like that. Angry Pirate (talk) 19:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

• Scaling the scarabs' strength by their model count is a really cool idea. Fluff-wise, it makes sense that an individual model isn't a significant threat, but that ten or fifteen need to be thinned out before causing havoc. Mechanically, it might also make sense to add armorbane to allow the swarm to threaten vehicles at around the same time they become hazardous to other models.

Numerically, it seems like one scarab should be irrelevant as anything but a tar-pit, three should be modestly dangerous to weaker units, five or six can eat tanks, and about eight becomes a nightmare for anything. Maybe strength equal to the model count? It doesn't feel like they need a +1; s1 shouldn't scare much, s3-s5 should cause some damage with their sheer number of attacks, and s8+ should be largely unmanageable without covering fire.

This would be extremely dangerous to factions like chaos daemons, who largely lack the means to chop out some of the scarabs before hitting melee. If we make this change, maybe it would make sense to lose either a wound or FnP, so that sufficiently large groups of s3 guardsmen or daemons could cull the swarms fairly. Again, this is an awesome idea. -Oedon

• At first when I saw that entropic strike was removed from scarabs I thought: Dang, they seemed to have found their niece with being a treath against almost all monstrous creatures and vehicles. And then I read the new rule. I like it. However, now the only way for them to be effective is in large numbers. (I also think that we should be able to take destroyers and wraiths in squads of 1, now that they Did get a point increase). Thematically I really like this rule, however, it feels like the scarabs become too good. For example: they can threat titans now, along with almost anything. Thus they also become even bigger fire magnets than they already were. I feel really confmicted because I do like this rule, but I also really liked enthropic strike and this just makes them so strong. This still at a sacrifice of possible effectiveness later in the game for a guareented loss of effectiveness. I am going to run a few games with max scarabs and see how they hold up. -Un'tan.

Necron Destroyers

• While I do approve of how Destroyers are now, I have a concearn with the difference between Destroyers and Heavy destroyers. In official codexes the difference between them has been clear. Destroyers are more meant to be effective against infantry of various strengths, with a higher volume of shots. Heavy destroyers meanwhile have been more aimed to be effective against monsters and vehicles, with a stronger weapon but fewer shots. In this version however, the difference between Heavy and not, is simply that the Heavy destroyers are better. Same strenght on the shot, same number of shots but better ap. Heavy destroyers are just better. That is not what it should be like. I suggest we make them more different, prefferably Destroyers having more but weakerr shots, and Heavy destroyers a bit more powerful. -Un'tan

• If the roles of Destroyers and Heavy Destroyers are too far removed from each other will you not see only pure Heavy Destroyer squads and pure Destroyer squads? If you were to bring a mixed squad it would only be for the normal Destroyers to act as meatshields would it not? If you have, as the old codex had, a strength 8 AP 2 weapon next to a strength 5 AP 3 weapon, one weapon is going to go to waste. In no way consider my stance on this anywhere close to final, I will be thinking it over. - Angry Pirate

• Yes you would see more only destroyers or only heavy destroyers If they were more separate. Which makes sense, because they fill different goals. I don't see that as a problem. Destroyers would focus on Killing infantry and heavy destroyers would go after vehicles and monsters. The big problem I see with the setup currently is that no one will bring regular destroyers at all. Heavy destroyers here are a flat upgrade: better range, lance and better ap. They could destroy as Much infantry better than destroyers as well as downing vehicles better. So what then would the point of regular destroyers be, If heavy destroyers outpreform them entirely. That is why they should be different, to fullfil different roles. In the 3rd edition codex they were separate units entirely, which made sense, a destroyer in a heavy destroyer squad would not reach as far or do as much damage, and a heavy destroyer in a destroyer squad, while still able to use its weapon, would not be targeting what it should to be really useful. In the 7th edition they split up destroyers and heavy destroyers again, which made a lot of sense, since while simmilar they do not preforme the same task. -Un'tan

• I really approve of the recent change made to destroyers and heavy destroyers. 36" rapidfire is very interesting, as it still gives destroyers range but they would have to get closer to be more effective, considering their mobility this is a very interesting way of handling them. I will be including destroyers in my upcoming test games and report on how they work in the field. In short, good job. -Un'tan

• I think they are under priced, I just wanted a unit capable of destroying AV 12. I will probably increase them to 45 points, I plan on taking 15 next time I play and see if they are as under costed as I think they are. - Angry Pirate

• Capable of destroying av 12? I don't understand what you mean by that. Immortals would be better for that wouldnt they? Only slightly less rapidfire range and guass rule on 6's while firing more shots than the same amount of points of destroyers? If you meant heavy destroyers then they are more effective on av 12. They might be underpriced though, ill have test games with my 12 to test that. Can I however suggest they are takable in smaller units than 3 If they become more expensive.

• The gauss rule adds 1 pt of hull point damage on top of any other damage the weapon does. So Destroyers now cause 2 glancing hits on any armour penetration roll of a 6. This is also how the monolith works. If I increase their points cost the minimum squad size will be reduced to 1.

• Yeah I think that Gauss buff is a bit to Much, only recently Did you update the rule to show that. And in the Gauss section I talk more about the destroyer weapons, Even with that change in mind the weapons they had first weren't gonna be very effective against Much. And I stand by what I have Said about them earlier. The monolith doing 2 hullpoints on a 6 but nothing on another result on av12 and up is a bit underwhealming, but I have yet to test this monolith so I shall wait until I have tried it.

• Kind of off topic but the monolith is mainly a transport vehicle as opposed to a battle tank. The eternity gate is far more powerful than it used to be. You can move before or after using it. It can now reliably Deep Strike and has the ability to teleport once per game.

• Just saying If it was intended to be used against av12, I don't think many would actually use it for that purpose. The monolith is also kind of Necrons transporter and battle tank, but I digress. This codex fixed a lot of problems the monolith had, and I am excited to play with these rules.

• The Destroyers seem rather underwhelming with just one S6 shot at range (and too expensive to nominally swoop in close), while Heavy Destroyers seem about right. Perhaps it would make sense to reduce the cost of the regular destroyers to little above thirty, increasing the cost of the heavy upgrade to just under 20 in order to compensate?

• You think destroyers now are underwhelming? 2 wounds T5 3+ and feel no pain not sturdy enough? I don't see Destroyers needing much more upgrades now. (and they are one of my favorite units in the game). -Un'tan

• Wow, I completely missed that second wound in my test game (and it really showed). Thanks for pointing that out! Yeah, a second wound would make a huge difference in the mid-range skirmisher role their stat-line suits. Comment rescinded!

• I would agree they would be a bit underwhelming If they only had one wound. But like you Said it makes a lot of difference. However, watch out for S10 ap1, they fall like mayflies to it (like most things should really).

I believe that with the increase in point cost, destroyers should be able to be taken in smaller squads. -Un'tan

• Go ahead and test it out, I´ll add it in next patch. I´ve gotten lost in Total War Warhammer and when I finally get free I´ll have to do my final preperations for my last couple of exams so I haven´t been able to do anything this patch. - Pirate

Ghost Arks

• I agree with this change, Necrons don't need transports, unlike the other races who have yet to master teleportation technology. It is kinda strange imagening Necrons teleporting into position, just to board a transport. However, since necron warriors in this codex are weaker than the non-angry necrons, perhaps the ghost ark should be able to revive more than just d3 warriors? Pehaps d3+1 or maybe even d6?
• I think Ghost Arks have the right amount of impact as far as healing goes, I´m not sure about the price but I feel like 1-3 is right amount. If you roll a 6 it´s going to be a bit too much magic. I removed the need to roll 2+ which does slightly raise the average number of warriors raised.
• Accounting for the ghost ark being cheaper and downdraded along with the warriors I feel that change is well place. Theory wise I agree. (Also I did go a bit overboard with d6 Ill admit that, its a bit too much.) However I Will be including one in the test games to see if it translates well onto the battlefield. See If it does well for its points. -Un'tan

Heavy Support

Monolith

• Am I right to assume that the Monolith is supposed to have the eternity gate? The gate is not listen in the Monoliths wargear, however the rule itself says specifically that a night scythe have to hover to use its eternity gate, which seems to imply that more than just the night scythe is supposed to have that rule. And the rule itself has its origin in the monolith.

• It has both the Eternity Gate and the Gate of Oblivion.

• So, why remove living metal from the monolith? The new version of the rule basically did nothing for It, but I am curious to hear the reasoning.

• That was a mistake. I didn´t think the rule meant anything. - Stupid Pirate

• I was actually going to suggest that the Gauss crystal would be better fitting as a primary weapon than as ordnance, but that change was made before I could suggest it. Looking good. I feel that this monolith has a fair balance of durability and usebility, Nicely Done.

• Hey, just want to confirm wording here. If the gate hits five models, and the first one makes his strength check, does the defender stop rolling checks, does that first model keep rolling up to five times, or do those five models each make one roll?

• Hmm, it might be a bit unclear. However. I think it means that If the unit was hit 5 times it must continue until it has made 5 tests, even If the first one passed. I based this of it saying that the unit takes a number of tests equal to the models hit. -Un'tan

• God, I forgot to reply. You make a test pool which works just like a wound pool. The first in line keeps making tests until it is removed, when the first model is removed you move on to the next. No look out sir rolls are allowed so you probably want to give your opponent a heads up that 3-8 S tests might be coming his character´s way if he doesn´t position them correctly.

• How Come the quark flux arcs were buffed? I am not really against it, but what made you Come to that decision? -Un'tan

• My opponent kept mocking them, saying it was a waste of time. It´s also more in line with the Ghost Arks weapon (now called a Quark Harvester), which has heavy 2 per gun. I was considering whether or not the Monolith was OP or not, I have come to the conclusion that it will not be overpowered with this, buffing it was not the purpose. I don´t really think it has a major impact on its balance. Angry Pirate (talk) 14:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• I kind of forgot to write down one of the Monolith´s special rules... So good news I guess, it has the phase jump special rule, it has been thoroughly tested since that it is how I played with it in all my games. - Angry Imbecile

• Huh. Yeah that was new, I didn't Know about phase jump at all. Though looking at it I kinda feel it makes the monolith a bit too good of a utility option. Before I considered it useful and good to have in many lists, now it is even better. Honestly don't mind too much though, it makes up for how ungodly tanky they used to be, and more use for monoliths is good. Though while we are at it why not buff the obelisks shooting weapons, so that its actually slomewhat good. -Un'tan

• Tesla Sphere is looking a lot better, nice.

Canoptek Spyders

• They are meant to be 2 wounds T 6. They replaced their third wound with FNP, which has the same effect. I now realise the canoptek formation gave them 4+ FNP, but that was horribly overpowered either way. I feel that with actually worthwhile scarabs and a spawning range of 12 they are quite a nice choice, even if they only have 2 W and FNP 5+.

Doomsday Ark

• Just a math dump:
• D Ark compared to Immortals vs 3 HP vehicle

- Avg. Number of Hull points: 1,444444444			
- Number of Immortals needed to do the same dmg: 13	       	      

• D Ark compared to Immortals vs 3 HP vehicle in cover

- Avg. Number of Hull points: 0,888888889		
- Number of Immortals needed to do the same dmg - 16	

• D Ark compared to Immortals vs 4 HP vehicle

- Avg. Number of Hull points: 1,555555556	
- Number of Immortals needed to do the same dmg - 14 

• D Ark compared to Immortals vs 4 HP vehicle in cover

- Avg. Number of Hull points: 1	
- Number of Immortals needed to do the same dmg - 18   

• D Ark compared to Immortals vs 6 HP vehicle in cover (or a knight w. its shield)

- Avg. Number of Hull points: 1,222222222	
- Number of Immortals needed to do the same dmg - 22  

• D Ark compared to Warriors vs 6 wound MC w. FNP and 5+ Inv (Wraithknight w. shield)

- Avg. Number of Hull points: 1,407407407	
- Number of Warriors needed to do the same dmg - 25,33333333  

• The chance of getting at least one HP with 3,7 Immortals is (1-(8/9)^3,7)*100%=35%
• As can be seen from the data the D Ark has a relatively high avg. damage output compared to Immortals against AV 11+ vehicles and against Wraithknights with a shield or in cover, when compared to warriors.

• That math is including the chance of a 6 on the D table, but that is such a massive spike in wounds dealt, from max 3 jumping to min 7, that the statistics become warped. Statictially what is above is correct, but this will not be reflected game wise because of the D spike. Not accounting for a 6 gives a more realistic outcome game wise, and later adding on the D as a possibility. The doomsday ark is something that will be lacking most of the time, and during a slim portion of the time be the most amazing thing. But it is such a gamble. a model that once every three Times you take it you Will be extatic, but the majority of the time will regret taking for something that was much more reliable.

• No it does not, at least not in the way you think it does. I treated a 6 as doing the number of Hull pts the target has, so this would be the avg. number of hull points caused by the first shot, but remember that if the first shot misses or fails to do anything, then the second shot will also do this number of HP on Avg. For example in the second case, Avg. Number of Hull points: 2/3*(3/6+10/6/2)=1,44 So it has a 1/6 chance of doing 3 hull points and a 5/6 chance of doing of doing 2 hull points but these have a 50% chance of being saved by cover. Remember that the 6 result does not allow for saves of any kind, this can be very important. We rarely play with less than 6 big pieces (forests buildings and the like) and then 2-10 pieces of cover (fences, aegis pieces, rubble and small bits of ruins) scattered about. You might leave the D Ark at home if your opponent doesn´t bring Knights or your board is scantily clad, but I think that is fine. I suppose its non-stationary profile could be a Blast or a Large Blast weapon (prolly not S 10 AP 1 though), which would make it more useful on a board without terrain and large monsters and heavy vehicles.

• Not bad. Though the doomsday ark in game Will still be a gamble, a bit too big of a gamble. Especially seeing such an amazing cannon be, lackluster.

• Strength D is hardly lackluster.

• A single strenght d shot is kinda lackluster to me. Especially for that kind of model. If it was the old rules for d, then yeah maybe it would good, but with the d nerf I would never gamble on this model.

• I agree with the above. Don't get me wrong, a D weapon for a little over a hundred points is very tempting, but it's lost defences and will frequently fizzle with no way to twin link or buff it (which, by the way, I think is totally fair). Losing blast makes it more likely than ever that it won't find a suitable target on a board full of lightweights. Maybe it's worth giving it's secondary fire mode much lower strength for a small blast or something, just so it's not completely dead weight against an all infantry army?

• I decreased its points value to 105 pts, my math suggests this is fairly overpowered, my experience on the other hand says they are worth no more than 90 pts. It also has a secondary fire mode which is fairly powerful. It really should be overpowered, I will return its points cost once it does at least decently in a game. Angry Pirate (talk) 10:23, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

• I'll throw in my anecdotal evidence. With the secondary fire mode I found this to be just about right at 120 points. It teams well with warrior groups, succinctly counting many of the things they're bad against. The limitations on movement and moderate defenses stop the focused beam from really dominating the game, and open topped really does make this a pretty short-lived cannon against heavy weapons. I would definitely not lower the points cost unless you're arriving at very different findings. -Oedon

• I have found that it is utterly useless, It´s firepower and defence have in my test games been equal to that of 5 Necron Warriors. I brought 3 of them in one game, they forced a single vehicle to jink and did absolute 0 damage. I brought 2 of them in another game, they inflicted a single wound (total) with their main cannons and then 5-6 wounds with the side guns. In another game I brought only 1, it did 2 wounds to an Avatar. If you are happy with it at 120 then I´ll leave it at that, but I have been unbelievably unlucky with them so far.

• I find Doomsday Arks need some consideration during deployment. I always bring multiple arks, check what I'm fighting, and often aim to deploy second. If I can out-range somebody with them, great, but I'm usually just looking for them to act as unpalatable targets: I want the weapons that work well against them to prefer to engage other threats, like wraiths, praetorians, or ghost arks. If I don't think they'd survive the first salvo (against a lascannon-heavy SM army, for instance), I'm willing to put them out of line of fire to jump in later. They're really scary weapons, on par with vindicators for outright damage but against different foes. I rarely see them recoup their cost in just one shot (realistically, they outright trash a non-jinking vehicle about 30% of the time), but they can pay hell with enemy deployment, forcing people into untenable situations. Plus, these hate on Imperial knights like nothing else short of super-heavies. Again, just my findings, and these are definitely subject to interference, but when they work these are some of the best things in my armies, and even when they don't I get a grade-A distraction out of the deal. -Oedon

• Thank you for your input. That is exactly how the math suggests they should work, I have just been unlucky enough with them to the point that I want to shelf them for a while.

Annihilation Barges

• Do we want to try to provide the traditional Heavy Tesla Cannon loadout for Annihilation Barges? It seems like without this option the Necron ground force is missing its middleweight fire support. I might also posit that these seem like a possible option for a ground-to-air weapon, using Tesla to sporadically multi-hit fliers.
• Also, these things are extremely good at ruining groups of middleweight infantry (like fire warriors or most eldar) for 130 points. In one test game a pair of these supplied enough firepower to make themselves surprisingly higher priority targets than expected. This may be a little too effective, especially with the barrage option of hiding behind monoliths.
• I removed Barrage. Giving it Barrage was a mistake. As far as Tesla, I don´t think that´s possible since there is no way to differentiate between the two weapons. Tesla also doesn´t work at all like how the fluff describes the A Barge. I felt like I was playing Eldar or Tau with how they were moving 12" and jinking each round, I feel that´s fair enough with the flyers, but not for a vehicle which is supposed to be practically imovable. Warriors are good against AV 10. Destructeks, Destroyers, D-scythe, N-scythe, Wraiths and Stalkers are good against anything below 13. Against 13+ you want Immortals, D-Arks or C´tan. Scarabs are good against all vehicles depending on the number of Scarabs. I don´t really think there is anything wrong with them being a high priority target, although I suppose the loss of Barrage is huge against 4+/5+ Sv models.
• The loss of barrage is going to hit it quite hard I believe. Though why would the blaster Ignore cover but not the cannon? Also, what would you take against flyers, besides other flyers.
• I suppose all particle weaponry could ignore cover, but in that case I would have to nerf the Heavy Particle Cannon. Imperial Fortifications and Pylons of both sizes are good against flyers. Against light flyers (AV 11 or preferably 10) you can use Tesla Blasters on Immortals or preferably Tomb Blades. Tomb Blades with Guass can also do some minor damage to flyers, but that obviously isn´t viable as a counter. Flyers can in a lot of cases just be ignored, they arrive on turn 2 and sometimes even later and unlike Necron flyers they can´t just circle around the same target but must instead leave the battlefield or choose a new target each round.
• I disagree that flyers can usually be ignored. They tend to be pretty inexpensive for their firepower, and with such a slow-moving army I'd expect any flier to draw a target three turns out of four. Moreover, flying transports simply can't be ignored by an army whose rear armor tends to be extremely vulnerable. Pylons are a great option, but they're seriously expensive and don't need to be our only practical ground to air option. Tesla barges could fill that gap easily without even giving them skyfire, and as nothing else on the ground uses the same calibre weapons I don't see them crowding out other choices. The only thing close is actually themselves, and this is a well-differentiated weapon with excellent single target damage at the cost of crowd control and AP. As far as the feel of the unit, why not just make them heavy? No jinking at all and a six-inch move seems quite fair for this support fire platform.
  • Side note: I agree completely with particle weapons not ignoring cover. Jetbikes do that with sophisticated targeting and unusual positioning, not the weapons innate capability.
• I forgot to add Harbingers of the Storm which are quite potent anti-flyer models. I do think the Necrons have enough anti-flyer firepower and wishing for the Annihilation Barge to fire against flyers is like wishing for a Whirlwind to be anti-vehicle.

• Harbringers of the storms problem is range 12, no flyer is gonna go near that (which isnt a bad thing). Also, while I really liked the old tesla destructor, I think the annihilation barge makes a lot of sense in this iteration. Also I feel the tesla destructors nerf was unneccesary.

• The harbinger of the storm is an interesting option, (and an awesome unit, by the way. Well done as usual!) but with just twelve inches of range it can't stop offensive flyers. All of our other options rely on dedicating a lot of fire from expensive, low-model-count units in the hope of getting sixes, or pointing enough warriors upwards to overcome 1 in 36+ odds of dealing damage. The only real ranged option we've got besides other flyers (which took serious nerfs that I totally agree with) is the pylon network, which would be great if they weren't expensive, skyfire only, and surprisingly fragile for the regular variety (I guess I should bring that up in their section rather than here, though). If you guys are regularly facing multiple flyers and not having issues, I'll let this point drop, but I just feel we're missing a real anti-air option. That option definitely doesn't need to be an annihilation barge weapon setup, and it sounds like people are pretty strongly set against it being so.

• The pylon is supposed to be that option, I don´t really mind if we argue about it here or there. I guess Tactical Pylons are way too squishy, I´ll improve their durability. It´s also not only capable of firing at flyers and skimmers, it also has a torrent mode with S 5 rending (S 4 Gauss), the superheavy pylon also has a non-skyfire option. Also, you are not forced to take the Tactical Pylons or the Superheavy Pylons in the pylon network, you can bring them on their own if you like.

• Tactical Pylon? Is it the lord of war pylon that is being talked about here? Or is the tactical pylon the sentry pylon with a new name? Sentry pylon BTW way is a good anti air option, however not many have access to it and the base version is only useful for shooting flyers. Even fewer have probably got acess to the real pylon. I have to agree there is a bit of trouble with anti air, for example in My group one player has 3 flyers, and just bought 4 more. I don't have either pylon (though I am gonna buy a sentry pylon).

• The tactical pylon is armed with a Torrent flamer S 5 rending (S 4 Gauss) https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Codex_-_Necrons_Angry_Robot_Edition#Tactical_Pylon. The Lord of War (which is now a Fortification) is armed with a S 5 AP 3 Gauss Flamestorm weapon https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Codex_-_Necrons_Angry_Robot_Edition#Superheavy_Pylon. I´m not saying you should be bringing the big one if you are having trouble with flyers. But if your opponent is bringing 2+ AV 12 flyers in a lot of games you should consider scratch-building the big one, for which there are a ton of guides on the interwebs. If your opponent is bringing AV 10 flyers then Tomb Blades are an absolutely brutal counter, only 9 bikes are needed to take out an AV 10 flyer with 3 HP, if they are AV 11 you need 18 instead, but that still isn´t bad. Even a small amount of Tomb Blades should force jinks, which should heavily hamper any non-Necron flyers damage output.

• Tactical pylon does look decent, but how would one kitbash it? Also why aren't sentry pylons mentioned in the codex? -Un'tan
• What If there was a pylon that was purely support, maybe giving one necron unit skyfire If the pylon shot at it first. And just to mention, the flyers I am up against are av12. -Un'tan

• The tactical pylon is the sentry pylon... I´ll add the two weapon options post haste. I geuss I didn´t like the old name or something, but it has been changed back to Sentry Pylon. I geuss I would just take some bendable plastic and stick a tomb blade gun on it and then stick the contraption on a base. Angry Pirate (talk) 14:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• If you would be alright with that kind of scratchbuilding then you might like my try at a sentry pylon. Oh also btw the old reasources for paper pylons is not as easy to get a hold of now that the site it was on is down. -Un'tan

• That is an expensive AV12 5++ vehicle. I don't know if they needed the strength reduction, but these really can work. Thumbs up. -Oedon

• It is strength 8 Gauss so a 6 will inflict a Penetrating hit AND a glancing hit against AV 13 and below, which is mathematically the same as S 9. No tests have been performed, I probably won´t have time for testing before the 22. and that´s also a little sketchy because of Christmas arrangements.

Tesseract Ark

• Is the 'as if they were fleeing' wording on the Pull special rule necessary? It seems to confuse the rule, as it obfuscates things like whether or not the effect works on vehicles, whether or not a unit that has gone to ground is affected or ends up pinned, and whether or not the target needs a morale test to regroup. Additionally, does this movement allow units to bypass terrain (impassable or otherwise)? If the fleeing terminology does have an impact, perhaps we should specify what happens when a unit that cannot flee (like fearless infantry, an immobilized vehicle, or a structure) is affected.

As one of the Necrons' heaviest vehicles, should the Tesseract Ark have Living Metal? Currently it's only available on the Monolith and Doomsday Ark. Should the other Necron ground vehicles also have the rule? -Oedon

• It isn´t technically fleeing, so it doesn´t suffer from any of the effects of fleeing. The movement effect is just resolved like a flee move is. Units cannot pass through terrain while fleeing, nor while moving like fleeing, so no. Just treat the Tesseract Ark as the board edge and then move the unit "as if it was fleeing".

Honestly I´m not sure if the rule should even be kept. I think it kind of makes sense that a vehicle as large as a Monolith can´t be shaken easily. I don´t really think the Tesseract Ark should have the rule. The Doomsday Ark having it is a mistake. - Angry Pirate (talk) 22:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• A flee move isn't necessarily obstructed by terrain (as in the case of jetpack units or skimmers), and plenty of units aren't capable of fleeing in the first place. Moreover, units with special movement rules (zooming or swooping fliers) couldn't normally move in this way, fleeing or otherwise. If we want the rule to just pull a unit 2d6" closer to the ark, it seems to make sense to fully explain the movement. Telling the player to treat it as a flee movement is expedient, but disingenuous in lots of little ways (as a final example, remember that any unit that cannot make a flee movement due to nearby enemies is completely removed from play). Suggesting the wording "Any unit hit by a weapon with this type are moved up to 2d6" towards the weapon fired at them. The unit may not be moved across impassible terrain or within one inch of enemy units."

• On the subject of Living Metal, I like the rule and find it mostly a flavorful addition to Necron vehicles. Frankly, once our open-topped vehicles start taking penetrating hits they're not going to be around much longer one way or the other. Living Metal helps a half-destroyed vehicle keep delivering until it's actually eradicated, which I feel plays to the signature style of the Necrons (angry or otherwise) and helps reinforce the way one should deal with them (focus one target until it's completely dead). I've never seen it turn a battle, and I wouldn't have even noticed its omission were the rule not still in place on the doomsday ark. I would support reintroducing it to the Necron ground vehicles, but I don't think it's a big deal either way. It could be a neat special for one of the Necron dynasties, perhaps.
• Oh, followup: I agree that the Monolith should be immune to shaken, whether the other vehicles get Living Metal or not. -Oedon

Lords of War

Transcendent C'tan

• I'm sure we're still mulling over them, but the Transcendent C'tan seem pretty malnourished at the moment. 400 points for a model that'll statistically die in nine lascannon hits isn't a bargain anyone's taking, even with a destroyer-strength melee weapon. -Oedon
• 6*6/4*6/5=10.8 (37 pts/hit). It can also easily grab a 4+ or at least a 5+ cover save, which makes it 21.6 or 16,2 Las Cannon... Hits. Which would then be 32,9 or 24,3 shots for SM or 43,2 or 32,4 shots for AM. Knights need to be expensive, because if you don´t have the firepower to reduce them to dust they can destroy your army. A Land Raider requires 7,2 shots to be destroyed from HP (34,7 pts/hit), now you might say that it is terrible to be worse than a Land Raider. But the Land Raider has a much harder time grabbing cover and can blow up, be immobilized and/or lose weaponry from penetrating hits. Knights are also more than the sum of their parts, the Transcendent C´tan loses none of its firepower from losing 5 wounds, while it can shoot at friendly models, that is not what is intended to happen, it is intended to be played around in such a way that you never or rarely get hit by it, which can not only be done by staying 24" away but also by blocking of LOS to friendly units. In addition you can go into CC if your C´tan gets low on wounds. In CC it will also be at full effectiveness even if it has taken a severe beating. The Transcendent C´tan might not be something I would bring to a tournament, but I don´t feel like it is punishingly bad. Knights should not be overly competitive, they should be lurking on the sidelines of power, if you ever find yourself in a meta or against an opponent that lacks the fire power to take it out, then the Knight can shine. Exactly because Knights are often good against Knights, they can create a self sustaining and uncounterable meta or a meta where the best counter to a knight is another knight. Also fuck Wraithknights, which is what the Transcendent C´tan is a copy of and buffing the Transcendent C´tan would mean I´d have to buff the Wraithknight. Our in house GK play picked up Eldar... and started his new collection off with two units of Wraiths and a Wraith Knight. - Angry Pirate
• Hmm. What's the second 6/5 multiple there? I'm seeing 6 wounds * 3/2 to wound. A lascannon ignores its armor save, and it doesn't have an invulnerable save or anything ... unless I'm missing something? -Oedon
• I geuss you are not familiar with the changes I made to the Las Cannon. It´s S 7 Fleshbane Lance and it rolls two dice for armour penetration and picks the highest. Transcendent C´tan have Feel No Pain which is what you are missing. For the official Las Cannon it is 6 /4*6 (Feel No Pain) *3/2 (To Wound) = 13,5 wounds. Just as a note if you didn´t know, all Gargantuan Creatures have Feel No Pain.
• That's a valid point. A Knight takes (1/3 to penetrate * (1 + 1/6 * 3/2 ) for the extra explosion effect + 1/6 to glance) * 1/2 for the save : 7/24 of a hull point per lascannon hit, expecting 20.5 hits to bring it down... but these can arguably project more firepower, and aren't so big that they can't get at least some cover, especially from our Godless zombies. -Oedon
• The Knight Paladin is 425 (I increased its cost by 50) pts and has 2 S 8 Large Blasts and 3 S D CC attacks. In some cases the two battle cannon shots it has will be better than the results of the C´tan, but on the other hand the C´tan has a chance to get a much better result. The Knight Paladin will never be good against hordes, terminators or monstrous creatures at range, on the other hand it is reliably good against MEQs. The thing is that now the Transcendent C´tan can pick its target after rolling, it can now get (often) get full use out of its results, there will seldom be a situation where a result is really bad, sometimes the Battle Cannon will be pretty meh. I think they are both roughly on the same power level (after the 50 pts nerf to Knights).
• The Aspects seem a pretty raw deal. Powers of the C'tan might be randomized, but they're still solid ranged weapons that draw threat to these critters. Mag'ladroth seems really cool but in most cases at least one of your powers will be settling for a heavy bolter (or equivalent). Two flamestorm cannons is neat, but again, outclassed by most of the Powers table. Maybe the aspects should trade out just one of the Powers? -Oedon

Tesseract Vault

• What do we want to do with the rest of the Caged God special rule? Is it complete? Maybe something like: "Inside the Tesseract Vault is a Transcendent C´tan. This C'tan can use ranged attacks, and can be targeted and destroyed independently of the Tesseract Vault. Likewise the Tesseract Vault may be targeted and destroyed independently. While the Tesseract Vault is still operational, ignore the Transcendent C'tan's Rampaging God special rule. If the Tesseract Vault is destroyed prior to the destruction of the C`tan, ignore the Somewhat Under Control special rule." -Oedon
• Sigh... Thanks for pointing it out. - Amnesiac Pirate

Apocalyptic Relics

The following units have not been playtested and most of the points costs where decided more or less on whim. Unfortunately I have been spending too much time writing codices and not enough time scratch-building super-heavies to play with them. Treat them as a fun read rather than balanced and well thought out unit. If you want to play with one of these write in the Discussion section, I will flesh out any unit which someone intends to play with, but otherwise I will leave them as is.

CANOPTEK TOMB STALKER

Pictures, build guide and fluff

http://jodrell.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/img_3976.jpg Canoptek Tomb Stalkers are to Spyders, what Spyders are to Scarabs. http://www.instructables.com/id/Build-a-Necron-Tomb-Stalker/

Spyders can build Tomb Stalkers, Tomb Stalkers then build Spyders, Wraiths, Acanthrites and Centipedes.

1000 pts

	WS	BS	S	T	W	I	A	Ld	Sv	Unit Type	Composition
Canoptek Tomb Stalker	3	3	10	7	10	1	10	10	2+	Gargantuan Creature	1 Canoptek Tomb Stalker

WARGEAR:

• Artificers claw

SPECIAL RULES

• Godless
• Feel No Pain
• It Will Not Die
• Fearless
• Spyder Hive: Once per turn during the movement phase, each model with this rule must choose a Canoptek Spyder unit, roll 1d6 on a 2+ place a new model, with the same name as the chosen unit, within unit coherency, if a 1 is rolled the model with this rule suffers a single wound with no saves allowed.
• Tomb Mother: Once per turn during your shooting phase if the Canoptek Tomb Stalker is not locked in combat, it may summon a new unit of 2d3 Canoptek models with the Jump Infantry type, or 1 Canoptek model with the Monster type. The new unit must be placed entirely within 12” of the Canoptek Tomb Stalker.
• Tomb Orb

ACROPOLIS

The Acropolis´ base forms a rough 12" square (the size of 4 monoliths stuck together), with Tesla Crystals at each corner and Dimensional Gates at the midpoint of each side. Like Tesla Spheres, Tesla Crystals may fire at any angle. The Tachyon Crystal should be considered a turreted weapon capable of firing in any direction, and measures range from the center of the Acropolis (shortening its reach by roughly 6").

		BS	FA	SA	RA	HP	Unit Type
Acropolis	800 pts	4	14(15)	14(15)	14(15)	16	Vehicle (Superheavy, Tank, Skimmer)

Wargear

• Tachyon crystal

Range	S	AP	Type
240"	10	1	Heavy 1, Large Blast

• 4 twin-linked tesla crystals

Range	S	AP	Type
30"	8	-	Heavy 6, Tesla

• Tachyon Shielding

Models with Tachyon Shielding have two armor values listed for some facings. Until the model has suffered an unsaved penetrating hit it uses the higher value for this facing, once it has suffered a penetrating hit it must instead use the lower value until the end of the current turn. An entire unit's attack is resolved simultaneously for this purpose. For example, if a unit of Space Marine Devestators with 3 Las-cannons and one Multi-melta shoot at an Acropolis which has yet to suffer a penetrating hit this turn, the entire unit will count the vehicle as using the higher armor value even if you roll a penetrating hit with the Multi-melta before rolling for the Las-cannons.

• 4 Dimensional Gates

An Acropolis is armed with four Dimensional Gates, one in the middle of each facing. These gates may be attacked separately from the Acropolis. Treat each as a separate Superheavy Vehicle with armor value 11(13), 3 HP, It Will Not Die, and Quantum Shielding. If a template hits both the Acropolis and a Dimensional Gate resolve one hit against the Dimensional Gate and one hit against the Acropolis itself. Melee attacks may be made against the Dimensional Gates as if they were separate vehicles. The Quantum Shielding of all Dimensional Gates with at least one Hull Point is restored at the end of each of your turns.

While active, each Dimensional Gate may be used once each turn either as an Eternity Gate or as a Gate of Oblivion. Dimensional Gates which do not use their Gate of Oblivion may use their Eternity Gate. Unlike units which deploy from Eternity Gates, units that deploy from a Dimensional Gate may assault the same turn they are deployed.

The Dimensional Gates may not be used while the Acropolis has 0 Hull Points. Note that the gates are also affected by the Immortal Machine and Sempiternal Machine special rules.

SPECIAL RULES

• Tremorwave

Whenever an Acropolis moves into base contact with a piece of terrain that piece of terrain is removed from the game along with any models (friendly or otherwise) in base contact with that terrain piece.

• Earthshaking Advance:

An Acropolis may not start in reserves, it must be deployed with its rear touching your table edge and it may not be re-deployed by any means. An Acropolis may never move more than 6" each turn.

• Gigantic:

A model with this rule automatically fails cover saves.

• Exotic Power Core

Whenever an Acropolis loses its last Hull Point roll a D6 and add the number of times it has reached 0 Hull Points, on a roll of 8 or more the Acropolis suffers catastrophic damage as usual, on the roll of 7 or lower the Acropolis is wrecked and does not suffer catastrophic damage.

• Immortal Machine:

Even after this model is wrecked, as long as this model is on the field keep rolling for It Will Not Die. If it regains one or more hull points it comes back into play with that number of hull points. Similarly, models with a fabricator claw array can repair this model even while it has zero hull points. If this model is removed from the table by an effect like the "explodes" result on the vehicle damage table, you do not get to keep rolling for It Will Not Die.

• Sempiternal Machine

You may re-roll failed It Will Not Die rolls for both the Acropolis itself as well as all of its Dimensional Gates. In addition a successful It Will Not Die roll for the Acropolis or any of its Dimensional Gates restores not one but D3 Hull Points.

AEONIC ORB

2500 pts

	BS	FA	SA	RA	HP	Unit Type	Composition
Aeonic Orb	4	12	12	12	30	Vehicle (Superheavy, Heavy, Skimmer)	1 Aeonic Orb

WARGEAR:

• Star heart

SPECIAL RULES

• It Will Not Die
• Deep Strike
• Move Through Cover
• Sunburn: An Aeonic Orb has stealth against any ranged attack coming from less than 24" away, it also has shrouded if the attack is coming from less than 12" away.
• Morning Sunshine: Nightfighting is never in effect while an Aeonic Orb is on the field, no matter what any special characters might think or say.
• Behemoth´s Descent: If a unit with this special rule scatters on top of a model or a piece of impassable terrain while deep striking, reduce the amount it scatters until it is at least 1” from enemy models and it is no longer on top of impassable terrain or models.
• Solar Powered: Before rolling for It Will Not Die for an Aeonic Orb, roll 4d6 and then roll for It Will Not Die that many times.

ABATTOIR

3000 pts

	BS	FA	SA	RA	HP	Unit Type	Composition
Necron Obelisk	4	14	14	14	50	Vehicle (Superheavy, Skimmer)	1 Necron Obelisk

WARGEAR:

• Fifty six ghostly chains

• Ghostly Chain

Range	S	AP	Type
12	6	-	Assault 3, Rending

• Four heavenly chains

Range	S	AP	Type
24	D	1	Assault 1, Destroyer

SPECIAL RULES

• It Will Not Die
• Move Through Cover
• Soul Reaper: Whenever a model with this rule causes a wound place a soul counter on this model.
• Soul Feast: At the start of each turn, you may remove any number of soul counters from this model to heal a single wound lost earlier for every 5 counters removed, on a single C´tan model within 6".

MEGALITH

Large monolith with transport capacity of 9 monoliths, maybe just 4. Maybe 8 transport and then a portal which can bring in more, or just the portal.

Acropolis

Initial Idea called Megalith

• A couple of us were tossing around ideas for a potential Megalith. Here's what we came up with:

Megalith 1650 pts.

	BS	FA	SA	RA	HP	Unit Type
Megalith	4	14(15)	14(15)	14(15)	15	Vehicle (Superheavy, Tank, Skimmer)

Building notes:

• The Megalith's base forms a rough 12" square, with Tesla Crystals at each corner and Dimensional Gates at the midpoint of each side. Like Tesla Spheres, Tesla Crystals may fire at any angle. The Tachyon Crystal should be considered a turreted weapon capable of firing in any direction, and measures range from the center of the Megalith (shortening its reach by about 6").

Wargear

• Tachyon Crystal

Range	S	AP	Type
30"	10	1	Heavy 2, Large Blast

• 4 Twin-linked Tesla Crystals

Range	S	AP	Type
24"	8	-	Heavy 6, Tesla

• 2 Internal Fabricator Arrays

Treat these as Fabricator Claw Arrays that may only affect this Megalith's Dimensional Gates (see below) and automatically operate each shooting phase. The Megalith does not sacrifice its shooting phase to utilize these Fabricator Arrays

• Tachyon Shielding

Treat this as Quantum Shielding (resulting in AV 15). The Megalith automatically restores its Tachyon Shielding at the beginning of each player turn.

• 4 Dimensional Gates
  • The Megalith is armed with four Dimensional Gates, one on each side. These gates may be attacked separately from the Megalith. Treat each as a separate superheavy vehicle with armor value 11(13), 3 HP, It Will Not Die, and Quantum Shielding. Any templates or blast weapons that contact a Dimensional Gate may choose allocate its hit to either the Megalith or the Gate, not both, and does not result in multiple hits. Melee attacks made by models within 2" of a Dimensional Gate may choose to allocate their attacks to either the Gate or the Monolith. At the beginning of each of the Megalith's turns it restores the Quantum Shielding of all Gates, active or not.
  • While active, a Dimensional Gate may be used as an Eternity Gate once each round. Units that deploy from a Dimensional Gate may assault the same turn they deploy.
  • These Gates may be disabled, but not permanently destroyed separately from the Megalith. When destroyed a gate may continue rolling for It Will Not Die: if it regains a hull point it comes back into play with one hull point. Similarly, models with a fabricator claw array (including the Megalith) can repair this model even while it has zero hull points.

Special Rules

• Limitless Empire
  • For each Megalith included in an army you may designate up to 750 points worth of units within the same detachment. This selection cannot include characters, super-heavy vehicles, or C'tan of any sort. Designated units must deploy within 24" of the Megalith. At the beginning of each of the Megalith's turns its controller may choose to replace one or more such units. Remove any survivors of those selected units from the board and immediately deploy the unit again, at full strength, from one of the Megalith's Dimensional Gates.

• Earthshaking Advance
  • The Megalith may never move faster than 6" in one round.
  • The Megalith may move over any terrain, fortification, or even unit as though unimpeded. Furthermore, the Megalith's space-based propulsion shakes the ground and buffets it with continuous waves of exotic energy. Any terrain or fortification the Megalith moves even partially over are immediately flattened (treat them as open ground). Any models, enemy or otherwise, that the Megalith moves over suffer one S6 AP- Armourbane hit each.
  • The Megalith is too ponderous to form the vanguard of any army. At the beginning of the game the Megalith must be deployed on the field, and at least one of its dimensional gates must be touching or off the back of your deployment zone (this is an exception to the normal rule that units must always be placed entirely on the board). A Megalith may never be redeployed by any method, including scout moves or the Grand Illusion C'tan power.

• Sempiternal Machine
  • Due to its immense size and immobility the Megalith fails all cover saves.
  • When the Megalith loses its last hull point it is disabled: do not remove it from the board, but the Megalith may not move, shoot, or use its repair arrays. Any operational Dimensional Gates continue working. At the end of your next turn the Megalith reactivates, regaining four hull points. If it is reduced to zero hull points three times the Megalith cannot reactivate and should be considered destroyed. Once destroyed all remaining Dimensional Gates cease functioning, and the enemy is awarded 2 victory points.

• Phew, that was long. This experimental beast has seen action twice so far, acting very like a slowly-moving factory each time. Its short range and back-end deployment result in it taking a long time to fully come to bear (and a pretty unimpressive arsenal for 1600 points), but it requires real dedication to kill for good. The Megalith relies on its ability to replace casualties, acting something like a huge Ghost Ark, to have a real impact on a battle. The limitation on replacements is actually the number and placement of active gates: because of the size of the Megalith deploying at the back can be very problematic for slower units like warriors, and the gates aren't so tough that they can't be pulled off. If the gates are ignored and the Megalith closes in on something it can pour out Wraiths or Flayed Ones, while Destroyers, Tomb Blades, and Doomsday Arks can make use of longer-ranged openings. To bring it down the attacker is encouraged to focus their attention: one destroyer hit can bring down its Tachyon shields, then Meltaguns, lances, and other anti-tank weapons work well. Melee is also an interesting option, as Meltabombs and the like work well against it ... but if the Megalith isn't disabled they're at risk of being run over, vacuumed up by the gates, then swarmed by newly-arriving troops. Try it out, and let me know what you think! -Oedon

• First off it doesn´t really follow the fluff for the Megalith, I suggest calling it (The) Space Hoover instead, this also describes it since it is really a lot more akin to a hoover than a monolith... I don´t really care about the new name but I don´t think it fits the name of Megalith. I think its gates should be vastly less durable, they don´t really present themselves as opportune targets to me, I think they should have only 1 HP, probably with the same AV as the Vacuum Monstrosity. I don´t really like the Limitless Empire special rule, could it be made so it can heal one unit that it brings through a gate each turn? It isn´t armed with any Gates of Oblivion which is what allows the Monolith to eat stuff. Shouldn´t it be a Super-heavy Vehicle (Skimmer, Tank)? The Earthshaking Advance could do S D hits, to make it more scary, and make it live up to its name of the Daemon Iron, flattener of worlds, devourer of a couple of games. The Tachyon Crystal should be renamed to Particle (Whatever), since it doesn´t have infinite range. It´s pretty cool vehicle, but I thought Super-heavies were supposed to have more firepower... (JK) Angry Pirate (talk) 20:11, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• Fluff-wise (both here and from what I've found), a Megalith is a super-heavy transport first and a mobile fortress second. I'd misread the vacuum ability on the monolith as part of the Eternity Gate, good correction. Still, that's neither a required capability for this nor what it's really here for: to pour out troops. Its ability to dump out troops is equivalent to four monoliths until Gates start getting destroyed, and I haven't once had the vacuum ability I'd mistakenly ascribed to the gates do anything significant.
• The megalith should be 15"^3-24"^3 and have the ability to carry 4-9 monoliths, if it doesn´t have this it isn´t a megalith. http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Megalith Angry Pirate (talk) 23:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
• As far as the vulnerability of the gates, I disagree completely. Try it in combat: any army with offense sufficient to even consider facing super-heavies can obliterate a few AV11 hull points (remember, that shield goes down in one penetrating hit) many times per turn, and when reactivated gates have only as many hull points as they've regained, (normally one). You've suggested that this would be a good example of a very poorly armed super-heavy, and it can direct enough offense to expect to destroy upwards of three such gates, with shielding up, every turn.
• The ability to steamroll units is largely irrelevant to its main purpose, and serves almost exclusively as a fluff point and to make fully surrounding it dangerous. Its weapons are likewise short-ranged supporting armaments not meant to engage other super-heavies. I posit, however, that they are quite capable of swatting down non-super-heavy units, especially more aggressive ones like assault fliers or transports: the Megalith can bring to bear at least two Tesla Crystals at any given target in range, delivering an expected 16 S8 hits. That's easily enough power to cripple or destroy interference units, and if firing from a corner the Megalith expects to about kill a Knight from the front every round. The Tachyon Crystal is named as it is for the stat-line and preferred targets, not the technology. I wouldn't be averse to renaming it. Nevertheless, the Megalith isn't a weapons battery as much as a support unit: if you want to kill super-heavies, designate four Doomsday Arks in your replaceable units and see how it does...
• Yeah... I didn´t see who wrote it. It was a joke directed at Un´tan whom I had presumed had written the unit. it gets really confusing with so many people (not) editing on here. It was perfectly clear what the units role is and I don´t have any problems with its firepower whatsoever. - Stupid Pirate returns
• Giving it the Skimmer and Tank types makes sense. Will do.
• The Limitless Empire rule is functionally very close to a unit repair, but it does so the way an invading Necron army would: not by fixing a destroyed vehicle or squad but by bringing down another one. Remember, this replaces a unit, and is best applied to one that's been completely destroyed, not a half-functional one. That the survivors of a unit are removed by phase-out is irrelevant to the Megalith's Phaeron, who would simply care that they've brought fresh firepower to the field. -Oedon~
• I don´t like the wording on the ability. What is preventing you from using the Infinite Legions formation instead? How about just sorting out any problems the formation has instead of giving this vehicle this special rule. If you don´t like this route I would prefer an ability to create a new unit of xD6 Warriors or xD3 Immortals each turn, for simplicity´s sake. It´s a very unique way to restrict its ability, i´d prefer something more generic, like it only being able to heal units within its own formation/detachment or one of my earlier suggestions. Angry Pirate (talk) 23:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Further Development

• I changed a number of things. Most importantly I removed the limitless empire special rule, I think it´s too complicated. The limitless empire special rule can be mimicked by the Infinite Legions formation. Please discuss whether or not my version can fulfill your idea or whether it has been ruined.

• Props on the Acropolis. This is way more streamlined, and definitely hits the same motifs. I wanted to keep refining the Megalith concept above, but my group couldn't meet to test anything big for this past month or so. Losing the infinite empire effect changes its role and usage fairly little, and really lines it up as a bigger, angrier Monolith. It can no longer gate in vehicles, but that isn't important to its core competency, and the Infinite Legions formation fits the function just fine. Allowing gated-in units to assault is also a nice touch. You make some good stuff.

I'm a little hesitant on the tremorwave rule, though, since some terrain pieces are two feet or more across. Removing the terrain definitely makes sense, but maybe the models removed should be limited to 'in base contact with the terrain piece and within 12" of the Acropolis.'

Also, a point of clarification before I mis-word something: when the Acropolis or one of the gates is at zero hp, and succeeds an it will not die roll, it gets 1d3 back, and comes back online with that many hp, right? I'd like to call that out in the Immortal Machine rule, as this is in the unusual position of potentially returning to play with more than one hull point. -Oedon

• I never considered larger terrain pieces, I also didn´t think of hills, which possibly should be exempt from the rule. Since it is a Relic of the Apocalypse I´m willing to say that it is something to sort out with your individual gaming group. Like what do you do if you can´t remove the terrain? I personally don´t play in an envoirment with really large terrain pieces, I think it would be the most suitable to simply discuss this before you engage in a game on a scale where you wish to include this beast.

Yes that was the intent. I´ll see if I can figure out a solution. Angry Pirate (talk) 17:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Tactics

If you think a unit is overpowered or underpowered discuss this in the Discussion section above rather than below. Below should be listed what each unit is good- and bad against and general tips for how to best use each unit.

Why Play Angry Necrons

Angry Necrons is a different take on how the robotic Necron race could be represented on the table. It feels like you are playing an legion of remorseless robots, the army is no longer elite. The Necrons have a number of weaknesses including Slow and Purposeful and Godless which makes Necrons unable to take cover saves, forcing you to go forward, disabling the option of staying back in cover, your troops feel truly expendable. These weaknesses are weighed up by the fact that their offensive and especially their defensive stats are over the top considering their points cost.

Building an Army

Painting

• Dry Brushing - The only technique you will need to use to paint any sized Necron force.
• Dip - An alternative to Dry Brushing. Spray everything chrome or a shiny metallic color. Then dip all the models in a brown wash. Blam, done. After assembling, you have any sized Necron force done in 30 minutes. Put some green as an added bonus.
• Alternatively - The fact that Necrons are so commonly speed painted does not mean that's your only choice. Don't feel you have to paint them up as T-800 endoskeletons to be doing it right.

Buying & Collecting

The best and easiest way to start is the Battleforce + Catacomb Command Barge combo. This nets you everything you need to play a decent match at 705-955 points depending on how you set up your vehicles and Overlord. The trick is that the Command Barge comes with what amounts to a free HQ character in the included Overlord. That Command Barge alone is one of the best deals out there in the entire Games Workshop lineup.

Special Abilities

• Both the Night Scythe and the Monolith are armed with portals which allow Necron units to teleport from one part of the board to another in an instant, giving an element of speed to an otherwise slow army.

• Godless: This rule makes it impossible for most Necron infantry to have cover saves, representing the Necrons disregard for their own lives.

• Reanimation Protocols: 1/3 of the Necrons that died the previous turn come back at the start of each of the Necron player´s turns.

Unit Analysis

Troops

Necron Warriors

Very strong at shootouts, they will win against most basic ranged units in the game. They are very immobile and cannot take transports, if you are playing with a lot of Necron Warriors you should bring some Night Scythes and/or Monoliths to transport your Necrons around. They shine the brightest when fighting heavily armoured opponents but they have a fairly low damage out put against unarmoured opponents. While they are unable to kill things in close combat, they make for a great tarpit. Send them into your opponents terminators and move on to more important things.

Necron Immortals

Always choose Gauss Blaster, since they cannot fire Overwatch they cannot make very good use of Tesla Blasters. They are fairly decent at destroying heavily armoured vehicles and units in general. Unlike Necron Warriors they do a moderate amount of damage to units that are not heavily armoured. (Don't you mean: that are heavily armoured.) (Although Both Immortals and warriors have ap 2 on wounds of 6, but immortals get another wound from it.)

Gauss blasters will be more effective on foes with a 4+ save or on vehicles with av 11 or higher. Tesla blasters will generally do more wounds to infantry units. At higher armoursaves tesla will do slightly better than gauss. When in rapidfire range guass blasters tend to become more effective however, so If you don't plan on moving too close to the enemy tesla might be for you.

Flayed ones

3 strength 3 ap 5 attacks at initiative 1 isn't impressive for a pure close combat unit, shred does help them out with getting more wounds though. However, Flayed ones are very versitile in where they can attack and have many ways to get close to their target quickly. With sure deepstrike most of the time or using infiltrate and scout to be close to the enemy first or second turn. You could think of them as a sort of melee version of Deathmarks, setting up new threats for the enemy and acting as a in your face kind of distraction. Just don't trust them to do much substantial damage.

Flayed ones can also work well in support of a gunline, because they're great against the lightly-armored hordes that your warriors don't engage well. Despite their relatively modest offensive ability Flayed Ones can trade blows well with ork boys, imperial guardsmen, or enemy necron warriors thanks to their superlative resilience. Just don't expect them to do all the work.

Elites

Triarch Preatorians

Mobile and effective close combat unit. Particle casters make them lovely against infantry. With voidblades they are a viable anti tank unit, seeing as they are some of the few to posses the entropic strike ability. While they can be affective, they are costly, and even loosing one or two can mean substantial loss in efficiency. When going against meq equivilent the rods are a must, but in almost all other circumstances, void blades and particle casters have the advantage. Still, a fun and fluffy unit valid to bring along in several lists.

Triarch Stalkers

Infiltating multi melta, a vehicular nightmare. Having no ap on its close combat attacks make it less than apt in close quarters fighting, but at least heavy flamers accompany it when going that close. Stalkers have the option of being supports, with a heavy gauss cannon sitting in the back marking squads for immortals ans such to shoot, or as an agressive support running in with flamers and multi meltas behind enemy lines. As a support it is very reccomended to bring several into a gunline army, just for the bs buff to warriors alone. It is also onw of the more sturdy vehicles, so it can survive for a while behind enemy lines.

The Nightbringer

Scary. In fact it is terrifying. A manifestation of death brought to the battlefield. Monsterous creatures? It slays with its strength d scythe. Mass infantry? It stares at until they fall over dead. Flyers? It can't do much about. Close combat is The Nightbringers home, and it gets a bad case of homesickness If you don't get it there quick. It has some glaring weaknessess however. First, high strenght low ap. It still only has 4 wounds, feel no pain is not much defense. Second, it is slow, very slow. Deff Dread slow. Getting it home will be difficult with it being such a long walk and constantly attracting every single high strength shot the enemy has. Even getting in shooting range can be hard, since most unit Will flee backwards when The Nightbringer comes. Invest in a deep striking monolith or a night scythe If you want to get it in a good position, othervise it is most likely just getting shot down. Like all shards it comes with powers of the C'tan, which can do some damage at times, If aimed correctly right before it charges.

The Deciever

Grand illusion is great. Or is it? Yes. Yes it is. Like the Nightbringer it is a beast in close combat, not able to do quite as much damage, but nothing is going to want to charge it for risk of unit wide mind shackle scarabs. Grand illusion Is probably the best part. If your opponent knows you can force them to put units from the battlefield back into reserves then they are just gonna put their drop pods/deep strikers on the table, but then you just don't use that part of the ability and your opponent realizes what a grave mistake they have done. Decieving and screwing with the enemy just like it is supposed to. As frail as The Nightbringer and just as slow, but just by brining it The Deciever is making up for part of its points cost.

C'tan Shard

Not nearly as scary as its more focused counterparts above. It is also not as durable, which is saying something. However, the unnamed shards have two big advantages over the named ones: cost, and versatility. With all the powers it has to choose from a shard can take on a number of roles, from fast melee creature, utility, support and even shooter. Taking three powers on one shard is better if you are going for a melee beast, if you have the points to spare it is more useful to split utiliy powers between two or three shards, ensuring some of the abilities survival. Ghost flight, eternal champion/Phoenix spawn and relentless foe is a recipe for a melee beast that will make vehicles, infantry, and monstrous creatures tremble.

Shooty C'tan shards can do well with one or two powers, to minimize cost. A Shard of the Machine God C'tan can stand next to your Doomsday Arks and fire D-strength beams, while an Uncontrollable Power shard works well as an all-round support unit.

Deathmarks

[Statement below is currently in editing limbo, as the Deathmarks are going through changes.]

Deathmarks primary roles are threat, distraction and some removal. An enemy unit suddenly having death marks in front of them will cause a change of their priorities. Good at Drawing enemy fire and attention. The turn they deep strike is the most important, being able to wound anything from a command squad to a gargant on 2+. Lack of decent ap means good armour will reducera the amount of wounds they get, but it is a substantial amount. 5 rapidfiring will result in about 5 wounds, 10 death marks do roughly 11 wounds while rapidfiring (this does not account for armour saves). However after the deep strike turn their usefulness is halved. If they even survive to the next turn considering they do attract enemy fire. However, If they do some damage and distract the enemy, they have done their job well.

Fast Attack

Night Scythe

The Alien Abduction can be used to assasinate characters. Jink whenever your opponent fires upon it, it loses almost no fire power from doing so. Vector Dancer can be used to get into the side or rear armour of enemy vehicles, the Heavy Tesla Cannon usually does a lot more damage here than in the front. Really the main reason you take this flyer over the other ones is that it is flying eternity gate. Let me say that again, a flying eternity gate. The movement utility gotten from the night scythe is usually worth its price alone. For example the Nightbringer enjoys crusin in them. So does ethermancers and Lynchguards. Surprise your enemy with pariahs in the optimal range for their null aura or just let a full squad of Immortals or warriors land at the right range to pour out some delicious science beams at the enemys squads. It isn't the sturdiest flyer though, and getting back in through the gate can be slightly more difficult.

Doom Scythe

• What does this unit counters? - Low AV vehicles.
• What is this unit decent against? - other flyers and heavily armoured infantry.

Ghost Ark

The firepower of 5 rapidfiring warriors in the form of a slightly sturdier vehicle. Keep near the warrior squad you expect will take the most damage to maximize its warrior revival. A good utiliity vehicle, that If your opponent focuses down you won't be missing too much. Rather you should be happy a more important target didn't suffer in its stead.

Canoptek Wraiths

Vulnerable to Bolter fire, can take a lot of punishment from high strength and AP weapons both in melee and at range. Anti-elites.

Destroyers

Regular destroyers excel at hunting MEQs and monstrous creatures while annoyingly staying out of assault range. Don't get too pushy: their weapon is very good but throws just one shot at a time (unless you're dangerously close). You'll need to skirmish near the fringes and take advantage of thrust movements to let their superlative toughness shine through. Heavy destroyers, on the other hand, are your mainline answer to heavy armor. Don't be fooled by the lascannon-like stat-lines on those heavy gauss cannons. They're much better, rerolling armor penetration and to-wound while also rerolling ones to hit and gauss'ing on 6+. Stay at maximum range and pick targets with neither cover nor invulnerable saves, either of which can be seriously detrimental to your offense. Don't forget that these godless killing machines cannot make cover saves, putting the brakes on the Tau jump-shoot-jump playstyle (unless you can hide them entirely behind LOS blocking terrain). Use the extra movement to better reposition for other targets or making a target try and catch them, in that way leading them away from squishier targets.

Canoptek Scarabs

• What does this unit counter? - Vehicles and Monstrous Creatures.
• What is this unit decent against? - 3+ Sv Infantry and 2+ Sv Infantry.
• What is this unit bad against? - Templates, unarmoured infantry and S 4 attacks/shots.
• How many scarabs does it take to destroy a Rhino, Wave Serpent or other AV 10 (in the back) vehicle w. 3 hull points in one round? - 3 Canoptek Scarab Swarms
• How many scarabs does it take to destroy a Land Raider in one round? - 5 Canoptek Scarab Swarms

Very vulnerable to Bolter fire, consider hiding them behind terrain and not just rushing them out. They can be effective at holding up Monstrous Creatures and Terminators with thunderhammers because they have Eternal Warrior. Just don't expect them to hold a unit the entire game, even with eternal warrior their toughness will make sure almost anything will wound them. One tactic to use with scarabs is to make two groups of 3-4 and quickly run them up the table to the nearest biggest vehicle, but keeping the two squads rather separate to avoid as much blast damage. The opponent will have to focus a lot of fire on the two squads to take them out entirely, and chances are a few swarms will make it in either case (they are beasts, and deceptively fast). This means they have taken a lot of enemy fire and still possibly able to eat a vehicle or two. Good job scarabs.

Grey knights got you down? Try the all new flavour of scarabs, void scarabs, annoying and locking Psykers in a close combat they don't wanna be in.

• Entertainingly, these Eternal Warrior grots hold up very like you'd expect cockroaches to. Small numbers of powerful attacks are simply not worthwhile, while loads of lasgun shots will chew them down fairly quickly. T2 means you simply cannot charge these towards a gunline and expect to get even tiny nibbles in, but Rending and Entropic Strike make a surprisingly scary combo despite their S2.

What is this unit good against? - Nearly everything. (While in decently high numbers).

What is this unit decent against? - Most things. (While in medium numbers).

What is this unit bad against? - Blasts, flamers, most things (If under 3 models). High av walkers.

The Scarabs power goes up exponentially with their numbers. Meaning at full squad anything should be at least a bit afraid of them. Therefore, taking anything less than a full squad is hurting them. Scarabs are a huge fire magnet, a squad of 10 has 40 s10 attacks but a squad of 7 has 28 s9 and 6 will have 24 s8 and so on, so taking out scarab bases will be a priority for the opponent. Bringing a full squad is then very useful even just for distraction purposes. Scarabs favorite meal is vehicles, even a squad of 3 can usually chow down a rhino without much issue and at full squads almost all vehicles become snacks. Next up is infantry of various kinds. Monstrous creatures are a bit down in their menu considering they have a bit of a harder time to hit them and need to be of a decent size to hurt them. Their least favorite meal is walkers, harder to hit and forced to hit its front armour meaning they need to be of a good size to take one down. A full squad will still wreck most walkers in one turn. However, once their numbers have thinned they become almost negligible.

Tomb Blades

Tesla Blasters are optimal if you are going to be jinking. Gauss is better against units with armour save 5+ or better and vehicles.

But the real reason to take tomb blades are multiple particle blasters against infantry that utilize cover (tau, guard, eldar, renegade guard). Taken in large numbers they can mulch these infantrysquads without much trouble. Another good use for them is taking them in a small squad with shadowlooms, acting as bait for the opponent so they can suck up shooting turn one, and if not punish the enemy with particle blasters. Nebuloscope and particle blasters are a good combination, nebulosvope and tesla less so.

Heavy Support

Annihilation Barge

Anti Horde

Doomsday Ark

Anti AV 14, superheavy and gargantuan. A single D shot per turn on a very frail vehicle, If it moves for jink save it looses most of its effectiveness. With the D nerf it really isn't anything impressive. Not accounting for a d result of 6 it will do d3 wounds/hullpoints to its target, If it hits. A 6 will indeed bring it down, but most of the time that won't happen. Will probably attract enemy fire, but it is frail and there are cheaper ways to draw enemy shooting. Most of the time it is to unreliable and will let you down. More Immortals or warriors is a more reliable choice, the doomsday arks only reliable advantage against them is its range.

Doomsday Arks lose against most other tanks in a straight up battle, especially if you don´t get the first turn. What you want to do is have an unfair battle! Keep it out of range or hide it behind a monolith, which can then move out of the way, next step is hoping to god you roll that 6, or roll 3 HP with a 2-5, and end the tank battle before it ever begins.

A doomday ark will generally have a 50% to do a single hullpoint/wound, a 30% chance to do 2 and a 15% chance to do 3. 7 Gauss Immortals have a 80% chance to do at least one hullpoint. A doomsday ark is a gamble for a 6, and is othervise not as reliable as other units. If you are Lucky, you Will do good, most of the time you will not however. Unreliable high risk high reward model. But the reward is still high.

The Doomsday Ark now also packs a Leman Russ cannon! No, this isn't world-changing, but don't underestimate it either. Sometimes a S8 AP3 pieplate is exactly what you need to depress some uppity marines, and it makes this boat a far more reliable pick. Don't forget the Quark batteries either: firing both of them is actually a better damage to points ratio than buying warriors even if you never use the main cannon. If you can keep it alive and line up multiple weapons the Doomsday Ark can deliver damage like nothing else in the codex.

Tesseract Ark

As mentioned below, the Monolith is your immovable object, spewing modest death in all directions and pouring out infantry. By contrast, this is your swiss-army gunboat. The Tesseract Ark has some unusual firing modes, each of which bears a clear purpose, be it mulching buildings and infantry hordes, disrupting and dragging targets into charge and rapid-fire ranges, or utterly annihilating terminator groups. Get familiar with the different firing modes and ranges because this vehicle isn't cheap enough to sacrifice to a few lucky meltagun shots. An excellent all-around fire support platform.

Monolith

Transport vehicle with some all around fire power which can cause minor damage to anything, but it will not be destroying any units or vehicles on it´s own. When Deep Striking you can place the Monolith in between two pieces of Impassable terrain and/or units, that way if it scatters in either direction it will just stay in place because of it´s special rule. The eternity gate can be used to great effect on the turn the monlith deep strikes, as it can get one unit in an advantageous position behind the enemy lines, for example brining Immortals into rapid fire range of a poor vehicle. Be careful however, when you bring a squad in close range the enemy can more easily focus them down with their rapidfire and salvo shooting.

Tactics

• Wraithstar: A Destroyer Lord works well with Wraiths since they usually wound on 2+, they will be wounding 97% of the time.
• Time Lord Court: A Cryptek faculty consisting of 4 fully upgraded Harbringers of Eternity and one Arch cryptek with the Orb of immortality. Along with an Overlord with a warscythe and phylactery and 3 necron lords also with warscythes and phylactery. While ridiculusly expensive (680 pts) this squad will prove quite durable and 13 initiative 10 warscythes attacks on the charge is something even titans are scared of. Don't forget to make use of all those rerolls for failed inv saves. Bonus points for brining the Court in through a blue monolith.
• C'tan Transport: One C'tan shard (Nightbringer preffered) plus an eternity gate. Snap a picture of your opponents face when the reaper is in their deployment zone.

Counter-Tactics

• Necrons are vulnerable to weapons with high strength which can disable their Feel No Pain. Remember to bring the big guns, and point them until one target at a time until it actually stops moving. This bears repeating.

• Focus down one squad at a time to disable their We´ll Be Back special rule. Unlike other factions like Tau or Imperial Guard, Necrons feature models that function quite adequately as their units take damage, as they won't rout and don't rely on special weapons. Completely destroy one unit of infantry, then move on to the next.

• As with Necron infantry, make sure you completely destroy Necron vehicles. Many have It Will Not Die, and will regenerate if not finished off. This problem is exacerbated by Canoptek Spyders, which can fix up damaged vehicles, including even a wrecked monolith. Focus your anti-tank weapons on one target at a time.

• Take cover! Necrons have a vast amount of rending weaponry, combat this by bringing an aegis defence line. Remember to roll for night fighting, Necron infantry cannot take cover saves.

• Necron Warriors are tough, but they can easily be tied up in close combat. Killing them is a chore, consider just smacking a weak squad into them and tie them up until the game ends.

• With army-wide Slow and Purposeful, Necrons can be outmaneuvered by less static armies. Fighting from the flanks can protect skirmishing or assault units from the otherwise overwhelming firepower of a large Necron army. Likewise, long-ranged units capable of backpedaling may be able to avoid retaliation for many turns of unopposed fire.

• Necron mobility tends to revolve around the use of eternity gates. With a few Night Scythes or a Monolith on the field a Necron army can quickly hop around the board. Destroying these linchpins can give your army a big mobility edge.

• Use terrain offensively. Necrons don't benefit from cover but also move even slower through it. A gunline advancing through forests is likely to stagnate while also providing your army extra defense. However, beware of Necron vehicles like the Annihilation Barge, which take cover effectively and don't tend to suffer much of a penalty for shooting through it.

• Speciality has priority. Focus down specialized units before you focus down warrior squads. Warriors as a unit may be decently worrysome, but is a lot less threatening than most more specialized choices in a Necron force. That annihilation barge is a bigger threat to your infantry than warriors, so are the scarabs, praetorians, tomb blades and so on. A good way to deal with warriors specifically however, are blasts ignoring their feel no pain.

Common Playstyles

• Silvertide: Play as much infantry as possible and as few vehicles as possible. Necron Infantry can destroy any unit with enough shots, you really don´t have a need for heavy firepower. Make your opponent waste his las-cannons on your infantry. You can bring flyers along since your opponents las-cannons will be snap-firing at them anyway.

• Armoured Advance: Bring a lot of vehicles, since all Necron Vehicles have high armour values, your opponent will most likely be missing enough high strength weaponry to take them all out.

• Masters of Teleportation: Every unit has to be mobile. If a unit is not mobile, add a despair cryptek. Add monoliths to further increase mobility and support units who are not mobile, if there are any. Scarabs, tomb blades, destroyers, flayed ones, deathmarks, Triarch Stalkers (Infiltrating is mobility). Nightscythes and monoliths are not a must for this list, as it is based around being mobile in itself and usually at least getting 12" a turn. However, they increase mobility further, which is what you want anyway, so grab them too. Mobility menas you win positioning, if you win positiong, you are a good way to win the battle.

Alternatively, take any army and add the deciever, then infiltrate evrything. It is fun, I promise.