Talk:Warhammer 40,000/Tactics/Necrons(8E)

From 1d4chan

Discussion[edit]

Why Play Necrons?[edit]

  • I really like the Dark Eldar intro, I thought it would be neat if we made something similar.
Dark Eldar are steeped in ancient and unnatural evil. They have chosen this path for themselves, and revel in their own cruelty, drawing physical sustenance from the infliction of pain. They inhabit a realm known as Commorragh, the Dark City, an impossibly vast stronghold from which they launch piratical raids across the length and breadth of the galaxy. The Dark Eldar live to inflict misery and death; what happens to the captives they bring back to Commorragh is best left undescribed. They are vain, devious and utterly self-serving, with no respect for any living creatures except themselves, though each individual Dark Eldar typically views every other member of their race with uncaring contempt.
Because of this the Dark Eldar have a diabolical appeal. They are the evil kings and super-villains of the 41st Millennium, and they have all the right tools for the job. The Dark Eldar are very fast-moving, have lots of firepower, and boast some of the most lethal close combat units in the game. However, because they conduct their raids at lightning speed, the Dark Eldar lack any real heavy armor and are hence quite fragile - it takes guile and cunning to use them well. If you possess the skill, though, your Dark Eldar army can run rings around its opponents, leaving them shell-shocked, terrified and utterly defeated. Best of all, the models in the Dark Eldar range are truly jaw-dropping examples of the sculptor's craft. In just about every way, the Dark Eldar are an army for the true connoisseur!
After selling the souls of trillions of Necrontyr to the C'tan star-gods in an effort to win his war against the Old Ones the Silent King relinquished his control of the Necrons, but not before sending them into a billion-year slumber, hoping they'd have forgotten all about the whole selling of souls bit by the time they woke up. Necrons are the 500 pound sleeping gorilla of the 40k setting, their technologies are the most advanced the galaxy has ever seen, the future can be predicted, the speed of light is an afterthought, enemy armour might as well be cardboard. Necrons are awakening from their slumber finding their once great empire fractured into dozens of dynasties warring with each other and Lords and Overlords vie for positions of power in these newly awakened empires, the galaxy quakes as the Necrons begin to reconquer what was once theirs.
Playing Necrons is taking the mantle of Nemesor, a commander of untold legions of mindless Warriors and slightly less mindless Immortals, it is about choosing whether to coldly calculate the damage output of your doomsday weapons as they turn enemy tanks to smoldering ruin or to cackle maniacally as you unleash your star-gods turned Pokémon and roll to see which random personality traits they have this game. It's about a slow unyielding march of metallic feet and about shimmering green lights heralding units stepping through captive wormholes into your opponent's midst. Necron models go from simplistic to extravagant, but they all share a common toughness, whether through Living Metal and Reanimation Protocols meaning your units regenerate wounds and models lost earlier in the battle or through good saves and high toughness or through abilities that shit all over your opponent's heaviest weapons. Necrons is an army for someone who doesn't want to be blown of the board turn one or turn two but still wants to have units with cool movement options.
I don't think what I've written is all that great and I hope someone can do something better, but selling a faction on a single special character doesn't seem ideal and the pity or remorse thing is from Black Templars. Angry Pirate (talk) 19:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Because you like insane ancient Egyptian space robots, who do not know pity or remorse or fear and absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead. Also because you enjoy assaulting people to steal their clothing, footwear, and two-wheeled powered land conveyances so you can put them in your ancient Egyptian kleptomaniac Tesseract Vault next to your Primarch collection.

Powers of the C'tan[edit]

  • The list is broken. It is something with the breaks in the texts but I am not sure how to mend it.
  • I fixed it for you. Now the actual body info needs both completing and condensing, because it's a total mess. Maximum one or two lines of text per power, the giant tables and wound calculations go here with a link on the page, or inside a collapsed section. People reading this for advice don't want to see a colossal wall of text with huge number tables in. PercussiveMaintenance (talk) 17:42, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  1. Antimatter Meteor: Roll 1d6; on a 2+, the closest visible enemy unit within 24" suffers 1d3 mortal wounds; on a 6, they suffer 1d6 mortal wounds instead. If the user is a Tesseract Vault it does D6 damage on a 5+.
    • Expected mortal wounds: 1.92 if not a Tesseract Vault, 2.17 if a Tesseract Vault. Note that an unopposed, basic Smite deals, on average, 1.79.
    • Better than Seismic Assault against any unit of 10 models or less.
    • What it is good against: General utility, vehicles, expensive units who like charging.
  2. Time's Arrow: Choose a visible enemy unit within 24" and roll 1d6, adding 1 if the caster is a Tesseract Vault. If the roll exceeds that unit's highest Wound characteristic, one model is instantly slain; you automatically fail on an unmodified 1, so a Vault still has a 1/6 chance to fail against W1 units (which is most of them).
    • Expected output: it deals better than mortal wounds (since e.g. FNP won't stop it, and it ignores any other rules that trigger on losing wounds, such as Acid Blood from Tyranids), but is useless against anything with more than 5 wounds (6 wounds for a Vault), and, in general, never keeps up with Antimatter Meteor against targets without such rules. Expressed as "super-mortal wounds" (how many wounds the power expects to remove from the table), its output varies by the Wounds of the target, assuming your target is at full health:
    Wound Characteristic 1 2 3 4 5 6
    Non-Vault 0.83 1.33 1.5 1.33 0.83 0
    Vault 0.83 1.67 2 2 1.67 1
    • Notable because it just kills a model outright, which means it bypasses FNP, or any other rules that trigger on losing wounds, such as Tyranid's Acid Blood or Eldar Ghosthelms. Useless against anything with more than 6 wounds, though. It is less effective against graia adeptus mechanicus as they have a 6+ roll to ignore dying but you're never going to see them so don't plan around it.
    • What it is good against: 3-4 Wound Character sniping.
  3. Sky of Falling Stars: Pick 3 enemy units within 18", and roll 1d6 for each; Tesseract Vaults subtract 1 from each roll. If the result is less than the number of models in the unit, they suffer 1d3 mortal wounds. An unmodified roll of 6 always fails.
    • A unit of only 1 model, like most Characters, is immune to this power unless a Vault is casting it; units of size 6 (5 for Vaults) or larger all suffer the same amount. The expected number of mortal wounds by unit size, assuming you have three targets of the same size (and assuming all target units have at least 3 wounds in them):
        • Non-Vault:
          1. 0
          2. 1
          3. 2
          4. 3
          5. 4
          6. 5 (and 5 for all larger units)
        • Vault:
          1. 1
          2. 2
          3. 3
          4. 4
          5. 5 (and 5 for all larger units)
    • Like Cosmic Fire but longer range, limited to only 3 units at a time, and you'll hit any unit of 5+ models on anything but a 1, Better than antimatter meteor unless hitting single model units.
    • What it is good against: Multiple large units.
  4. Cosmic Fire: Roll 1d6 for each enemy unit within 9", adding 1 to each roll for a Vault; on a 4+, they suffer 1d3 mortal wounds.
    • This power deals a straightforward 1 mortal wound (1.33 if a Vault) per target unit on average. Accordingly, even against larger units, a Vault using this power does more damage than with Sky against 4 or more units, while a non-Vault breaks even at 5 and pulls ahead at 6.
    • This power excels at dishing out mortal wounds to MSU, and if any custodian terminator squad tries to use its "split into 1-man units" stratagem near a shard with this... this will make them regret it sooo much.
    • What it is good against: MSU of any sort, including Character spam, provided the units are all within a roughly 19.6" bubble for a non-Vault (and an even larger, squarish bubble if a Vault). Er... scary.
  5. Seismic Assault: Pick an enemy unit within 24" and roll 1d6 (did you spot the theme here yet?) for every model in it. The unit suffers a mortal wound for every 6+ rolled. Tesseract Vaults inflict mortal wounds on 5+.
    • This behaves like Sky of Falling Stars, in that larger units take more damage, but with superior scaling and a worse starting point, and it targets 1 unit, not 3. With only 1 target unit available, Seismic Assault breaks even with Sky at only 2 models in the target (1 model for Vaults!), and immediately starts beating it. Since it's also greater range, this should be your go-to power for targeting one large unit.
      • With 2 target units in range, Seismic Assault is better than Sky when each unit has 11+ units (breaking even at 10) for a Vault, 21+ (breaking even at 20) for a non-Vault.
      • With 3 target units in range, Seismic Assault is better than Sky when each unit has 16+ units (breaking even at 15), 31+ (breaking even at 30) for a non-Vault.
    • Unlike almost every other ability of this type (mostly aircraft bombs), there's no upper limit on the number of dice. Statistically, this beats Antimatter Meteor in expected damage whenever targeting a unit with 12 or more models for a non-Vault... which means it's pretty rare. For a Vault, Seismic Assault wins out at 7 or more (due to double output).
    • What it is good against: Single large units, as explained above.
  6. Transdimensional Thunderbolt: Pick an enemy unit within 24"; normal Character targeting rules apply. Roll 1d6, adding 1 if the user is a Tesseract Vault. On a 4+, the enemy unit suffers 1d3 mortal wounds. Then, whether or not the target suffered any mortal wounds, roll 1d6 for every other enemy unit within 3" of the target unit. On a 4+, they suffer a mortal wound (regardless of the caster being a Vault or not). POWER. UNLIMITED POWER.
    • Like Cosmic Fire, except instead of a 9" radius bubble around the shard, it's a 3" radius bubble around the entire target unit. Excellent for making the enemy not want to bunch up their units so much, or punishing them for trying to maximize the utility of their character buff-auras. Note that any given "splash" unit expects to suffer only half a mortal wound, so unless you've brought many Shards, splashed units typically won't just evaporate (they have to be on their last wound to even have a chance to).
    • Vault or not, the caster will do more damage (nearly double for a non-Vault, and much more than double - nearly 2.67 times - for a Vault) with Cosmic Fire, provided enough targets are within range. The benefit of this power over Cosmic Fire is the range.
    • Because most of its output is from the "splash", which does not care about being cast from a Vault, this is a prime candidate for assigning to a non-Vault Shard.
    • If you lob this into a conga line of conscripts stretching across the board, any enemy unit within 3" of any of those conscripts is at risk of damage; this is double awesome, because sure... you can't target a character directly, but you CAN target any non-character unit they are standing too close to. This is a great way to punish the enemy's big unit that is enjoying buffs from multiple characters nearby.
    • What it is good against: The same things Cosmic Fire is good against, but from much farther away - reliant on having an enemy unit in position to use as the target.

In summary:

  • Antimatter Meteor is the best output against one small unit that happens to be nearby.
  • Time's Arrow is never the best output, but lets you snipe units or characters and lets you bypass rules that trigger on wound loss, like Feel No Pain.
  • Sky of Falling Stars is the best output against 2-3 medium-sized units.
  • Cosmic Fire is the best output against many units at once.
  • Seismic Assault is the best output against one large unit.
  • Transdimensional Thunderbolt is Cosmic Fire with worse output at better range, and is the only power where you have no good reason to care if a Vault is casting it.

TLDR Section[edit]

Why did it get deleted? It's especially helpful for new players, or just in general to get an overview of the units. Arahknxs (talk) 02:03, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I explained my reasoning on the Space Marines' talk page, but it can be summed up as "it's just a useless list without a word of explanation as to why a given unit is in a given category. As it is now, it's only use would be to tell people what's popular, not what's good. --Newerfag (talk) 04:04, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
It has no explanation because the in-depth explanations follow. That's the point? --Arahknxs (talk) 04:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I personally have no problem with you summarising a section; talking about good/bad units IN GENERAL and giving brief BUT QUALIFIED pointers. The problem with writing up a simple list of good/viable/OP/trash units is that it comes all the way down to the opinion of the writer, which by its nature is subjective and you will find different opinions. So who becomes the final arbitrator of that? You? For example:
    1. The designation doesn't match the description: Let's just take one example from this Necron tactics page ALONE (though this can apply to the other TL;DR sections) it categorises the Obelisk as "Trash" but when you scroll down to the section it literally opens with the words "the Obelisk got a HUGE buff" and gushes about how it affects the FLY key word, rather than just flyers. Yes, there is a perfectly valid counterpoint further into the unit analysis, but is that enough to relegate the Obelisk to the Trash category? Who decides that? Personally, I don't play Necrons, so to me it just sounds like the unit analysis is balanced, while whoever wrote the TL;DR section doesn't know what they're talking about.
    2. The designation cannot be made with confidence: As a second example: there were literally question marks on certain units, as if the author doesn't even know if it deserves to be in that category. That's hardly confidence inspiring. But to add to the confusion there are units in multiple categories, so a unit can be trash, unless backed up by some other unit that makes it good? This is the WHOLE POINT of the tactics article: to draw out the good points of every unit and show the synergies. Quite literally any unit in any army can be made better when synergised with something else. Doesn't that defeat the purpose of a hard-and-fast list? You might say this is indicative of the fact that the sections are incomplete, but that's not actually an excuse. Bad information shouldn't be uploaded in the first place.
  • So back to my original point; the TL:DR sections are subjective, boiling down to the opinion of the user on that particular day. You want to make a quick list of the best units? FINE But qualify it more than just "these are trash" > "these are good"... it is far better to say that "Orks are good in melee" or "Tau are good at shooting" that way these new or inexperienced players that keep getting referred to actually have an idea of what TL;DR authors are talking about, rather than taking these authors at their word that [Insert unit here] are crap. Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 08:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
  • While I understand your reason on this matter over all and agree with that the section does more harm with first impression than good, the unit that was listed with another unit beside it was so for a good reason. One of Obyron's Abilities, the deepstrike 1" away from enemy models abbility, can only be used in conjunction with Zandrekh and without him the ability doesn't work. It isn't as much of a unit buffing another or worling well with another, but a units main ability being restricted unless the other unit is also included. This isn't enough reason to keep the tldr section, but I wanted it said.
    • Yes, you can use Zandrekh in this instance, but my point was meant to be more wide ranging than that: I could go to other instances of this section and see the same issues I've raised above, just a quick glance over other examples immediately gives me Assault Centurions (with Transport) or Hammerhead (with Longstrike) or equally unhelpful "HUGE mobs of Boys", all of which just highlight my point. My first example about the Obelisk is really my main issue: people are just arbitrarily assigning values based on their opinion, irrespective of what has actually been written about the unit itself. One word summations of a unit simply doesn't cut it. --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 10:19, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
      • I set myself a little challenge earlier and just randomly picked a unit that was listed as OP, just as a way to prove how off point the determinations are. So I picked the Changeling from Chaos Daemons: So I acquainted myself with the rules (I don't play daemons or actually know anyone who plays Tzeentch) and found out the flaw in this supposedly OP unit: that it can only transform when it fights in the fight phase, meaning it is still subject to all the pistol shooting in the phase prior and is vulnerable when opponents strike before it. This isn't a situational thing where I've contrived a bizarre circumstance to beat it but is inherent to itself. Do I think the Changeling is OP? Not in the slightest, but someone did and might still do even after I've pointed it out. So the one word determination reaches an impasse. Yeah, the -1 hit modifier is really good as a support function, but the Dark Shroud Land Speeder has a similar ability. And guess what? With twice the toughness, more wounds, attacks and strength, plus the fact it's not INFANTRY then the Dark Shroud beats the Changeling in a fist fight! So is the Dark Shroud more OP than the Changeling? (this is now one of those bizarre contrived circumstances) I think the both units have definitely have got their place and will happily point out their good and bad points, I just haven't presumed to use a divisive label that people can disagree with. --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 17:47, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
        • I think the problem was that the previous TL;DR was bad and written by someone who hadn't researched the topic well enough and that the article as a whole referenced 7th edition faaar too much to be useful for someone who just wanted to play Necrons in 8th, rather than getting an update on what changed. I think the following version alleviates the problems with the previous one. I'll implement this unelss anyone has problems with this one as well. Who gets to decide what's good on the normal wiki pages? The one with the facts. So anyone who wants to change a grade has to point to tournament results or needs to have playtested the unit several times. If you aren't interested in how good a unit is relative to other units you can read the unit entry which talks about how to make the unit work rather than how well it works in comparison to our other units. I don't think it makes sense to say that we can't say which units are worse or better just because people disagree. If Flayed One anon wants to bump Flayed Ones and Night Scythes up to an A all we need is 3 short battle reports or reference to a list making top 10 at a tournament. Angry Pirate (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Unit Grading Guide[edit]

The difference between A and C is fairly small this edition, if you're not going to a tournament don't worry too much. Note that your mileage may vary, different units are good under different circumstances, these circumstances are described in the individual unit entries, this is just a starting point for you to figure out what works for you. A: awesome. B: beneficial. C: circumstantial. D: deleterious. F: fail.

Unique Units (assuming they fit into the army)

  • Anrakyr the Traveller: B
  • C'tan Shard of the Deceiver: A
  • C'tan Shard of the Nightbringer: B
  • Illuminor Szeras: B
  • Imotekh the Stormlord: B
  • Kutlakh the World Killer: B (D if you have fewer than two units of Lychguard)
  • Nemesor Zahndrekh: C
  • Orikan the Diviner: C
  • Toholk the Blinded: C
  • Trazyn the Infinite: C
  • Vargard Obyron: D (B with Nemesor Zahndrekh)

HQ Units (assuming they fit into the army)

  • Catacomb Command Barge: C
  • Catacomb Command Barge (carrying a relic): B
  • Cryptek (canoptek cloak): B
  • Cryptek (chronometron): B
  • Destroyer Lord: C
  • Lord: B
  • Overlord: A

Troops Units (assuming the right dynasty)

  • Necron Warriors: C
  • Immortals (tesla): A
  • Immortals (gauss: B

Elites Units (assuming the right dynasty)

  • Canoptek Tomb Stalker: D
  • Deathmarks: C
  • Flayed Ones: C
  • Lychguard (swords/shields): C
  • Lychguard (warscythes): C
  • Triarch Praetorians (rods): D
  • Triarch Praetorians (voidblades): C
  • Triarch Stalker (heavy gauss cannon): B
  • Triarch Stalker (heat ray): C
  • Triarch Stalker (particle shredder): D

Fast Attack Units (assuming the right dynasty)

  • Canoptek Acanthrites: D
  • Canoptek Scarabs: A
  • Canoptek Tomb Sentinel: C
  • Canoptek Wraiths: B
  • Destroyers: A
  • Tomb Blades (gauss): A
  • Tomb Blades (particle): B
  • Tomb Blades (tesla): B

Heavy Support Units (assuming the right dynasty)

  • Annihilation Barge: C
  • Canoptek Spyders: D
  • Canoptek Spyders (fabricator claw array): C
  • Doomsday Ark: A
  • Heavy Destroyers: B
  • Monolith: F
  • Sentry Pylon (death): F
  • Sentry Pylon (heat): B
  • Sentry Pylon (gauss): C
  • Tesseract Ark: B
  • Transcendent C'tan: B

Dedicated Transport Units (assuming the right dynasty)

  • Ghost Ark: B (A if you have 40+ Warriors)

Flyers Units (assuming the right dynasty)

  • Doom Scythe: C
  • Night Shroud: D
  • Night Scythe C

Lords of War Units (assuming the right dynasty)

  • Gauss Pylon: B
  • Obelisk: C
  • Tesseract Vault: A

All these values assume you are playing with the beta deep strike rules if you aren't you can bump Vargard Obyron, Canoptek Tomb Stalkers, Flayed Ones, Canoptek Tomb Sentinels, Monoliths and Sentry Pylon (teleportation matrix) up 1 grade. The portal rules that Monoliths and Night Scythes have aren't worth using if you play with these rules since you are at too great a risk of losing units. If you don't play with these rules their abilities are okay and you can bump the Monolith and Night Scythes a grade as well. The Monolith, therefore, becomes a C instead of an F if you don't play with the beta rules.

Artefact Grading Guide[edit]

Don't take an artefact if a character isn't listed, The Nightmare Shroud, for example, should never be taken on a Lord or on a Cryptek and you shouldn't take a resurrection orb just to get The Orb of Eternity.

  • Lightning Field: A (CCB) C (Lord)
  • Sempiternal Weave: D (any model)
  • The Abyssal Staff: C (any model)
  • The Blood Scythe: B (any model)
  • The Gauntlet of the Conflagrator: D (any model)
  • The Nanoscarab Casket: A (Destroyer Lord)
  • The Nightmare Shroud: A (CCB) B (Overlord/Destroyer Lord)
  • The Orb of Eternity: B (model with resurrection orb)
  • The Solar Staff: B (any model)
  • The Veil of Darkness: A (any model)
  • The Voltaic Staff: A (model with the Merciless Tyrant Warlord Trait) B (any model)
  • Timesplinter Cloak: A (Overlord, Destroyer Lord, CCB)
  • Voidreaper: B (model with warscythe) D (model with voidscythe)

C'tan Powers Grading Guide[edit]

The first listing is for a regular C'tan, the second is for a Tesseract Vault.

  • Antimatter Meteor: A/B
  • Time's Arrow: B/A
  • Sky of Falling Stars: A/C
  • Cosmic Fire: B/A
  • Seismic Assault: C/B
  • Transdimensional Thunderbolt: B/C

Warlord Traits Grading Guide[edit]

Don't take a Warlord Trait if a character isn't listed. You never want to take Legendary Fighter on a Cryptek for example. Kutlakh is an Overlord, Toholk is a Cryptek.

  • Legendary Fighter: C (CCB/Overlord/Destroyer Lord)
  • Inspiring Leader: F (any model)
  • Tenacious Survivor: F (any model)
  • Enduring Will: A (CCB/Overlord/Destroyer Lord)
  • Eternal Madness: B (CCB/Overlord/Destroyer Lord)
  • Immortal Pride: A (any model)
  • Thrall of the Silent King: B (Cryptek) C (any model)
  • Implacable Conqueror: A (any model, assuming you have several melee <DYNASTY> units in your army)
  • Honourable Combatant: B (CCB/Overlord/Destroyer Lord)
  • Hyperlogical Strategist: A (any model)
  • Merciless Tyrant: A (model with The Voltaic Staff) C (model with staff of light)
  • Precognitive Strike: B (model with voidscythe/warscythe/The Blood Scythe/Voidreaper) D (any other model)
  • Skin of Living Gold: A (CCB/Overlord/Destroyer Lord)
  • Crimson Haze: B (CCB/Overlord/Destroyer Lord)

Stratagems Grading Guide[edit]

  • New Orders: B (A if it's something you won't be able to do whatsoever or if you don't have any objectives you can complete this turn or the next)
  • Insane Bravery: A
  • Command Re-roll: B (A if you rolled a 1 for D6 dmg or failed to wound on a 3+ with a D6 dmg weapon)
  • Counter Offensive: B (A if you are picking an elite melee unit with 5 or more models that is going to die from enemy units that charged this turn.)
  • Emergency Invasion Beams: A
  • Enhanced Invasion Beam: A
  • Extermination Protocols: A
  • Adaptive Subroutines: A
  • Blood Rites: A
  • Translocation Crypt: A
  • The Phaeron's Will: A (if you are targeting 10 Tesla Immortals) B (otherwise)
  • Dynastic Heirlooms: same rating as the relic you choose, with a -2 to the rating if you are taking a third relic.
  • Dimensional Corridor: A
  • Methodical Destruction: B
  • Reclaim a Lost Empire: B
  • Talent for Annihilation: B
  • Solar Pulse: B
  • Resurrection Protocols: B
  • Dispersion Field Amplification: B
  • Damage Control Override: B
  • Repair Subroutines: B
  • Gravitic Singularity: B
  • Disruption Fields: C
  • Enhanced Reanimation Protocols: C
  • Entropic Strike: C
  • Self-destruction: C
  • Judgement of the Triarch: C
  • Quantum Deflection: C
  • Wrath of the C'tan: C
  • Cosmic Powers: D
  • Amalgamated Targeting Data: D

Unit strength[edit]

Has anyone got any thoughts yet on which units/configurations are tier 1,2,3 etc? I'm curious about stuff like cryptek for RP buff or just more warriors, overlords for MWBD or just more warriors etc. Looks like our best TEQ/monster/tank killer atm is lychguard with scythes? And tesla looks ineffective overall unless facing hordes?

  • I am not sure how the rating works, but max squads of warriors and immortals are almost always prefered because reanimation, Crypteks help full squads quite well though. Tesla is great if buffed with Mwbd. Best TEQ killers is probably not lynchguards. Destroyers do same wounding and same number of attacks/shots at range, d3 damage instead of 2, which isnt equivelent, but ranged makes a difference. Even gauss immortals do the job pretty well. Vehicles, Lynchguards and Heavy Destroyers. Tesla makes orks and gaunts cry when buffed with mwbd, in a game where hordes just got tougher to deal with, one shoudn't diss Tesla.

Tesla vs Gauss[edit]

Tesla is more effective at long ranges and shooting on the run because they're Assault with more shots and similar or higher Strengths than their Rapid Fire/Heavy gauss counterparts while maintaining the same ranges. Gauss, however, ruins armour more effectively and is thus better against targets with a strong saving throw. The triple-shot rule gives Tesla weapons 33% more shots than listed on average, or 66% more shots if it's triggering on a 5+ thanks to MWBD or some other +1 to hit effect. They're more effective against fast targets that hold you at range, or anything with a poor save/large numbers (GEQs) or an invulnerable that Gauss can't remove (lower-T heavies relying on a 3++ or 4++ to save them, like T'au battlesuits with Shield Generators or Space Marine Captains with Storm Shields). Gauss guns are much better at dealing with TEQs, and slightly better at MEQs, thanks to their AP.

  • Gauss base damage against a given target is x, RF gauss does 2x damage.
  • Against units with a 7+ Sv or an invul that is equal to or better than the Sv Tesla does 3x damage. If both have MWBD it's 3,6x.
  • Against units with a 6+ Sv Tesla does 2,5x damage. If both have MWBD it's 3x.
  • Against units with a 5+ Sv Tesla does 2x damage. If both have MWBD it's 2,4x.
  • Against units with a 5+/6++ Tesla does...
  • Against units with a 4+ Sv Tesla does 1,5x damage. If both have MWBD it's 1,8x.
  • Against units with a 4+/5++ Tesla does...
  • Against units with a 3+ Sv Tesla does 1x damage. If both have MWBD it's 1,2x.
  • Against units with a 3+/4++ Tesla does...
  • Against units with a 2+ Sv Tesla does 0,5x damage. If both have MWBD it's 0,6x.
  • Against units with a 2+/3++ Tesla does...

So, in summary: Gauss is better if you're attacking a 3+ or 4+ save at 12" or less, or a 2+ save at 24". Tesla is better between 12" and 24" unless the enemy has a 2+ save, and within 12" for anything with a 5+, 6+ or 7+. Both weapons are decent against 6+ saves, and pretty crap at hurting vehicles of all kinds. Unless you can reliably get into and stay in Rapid Fire range, Gauss is pretty much strictly inferior - sometimes by a huge margin. My Will Be Done is obviously good in all cases, but as it benefits Tesla weapons more thanks to the increased proc chance on triple shots, its use can make up for the areas where Tesla falls behind and make it even more dominant where it's better.

  • it may be worth mentioning here that the My Will Be Done and Wave of Command rules only work on infantry, thus presenting a slightly different conclusion for Tomb Blades as they are unable to benefit from gaining additional tesla hits on 5s.
    • True indeed. Tomb Blades lose out a lot in terms of efficiency for the buffs to speed they recieve. The shooting power of two immortals but nearing the cost of 4. And, yes, without the bonus of being buffed, they lose out on even more. Having a small squad to snag objectives is a decent idea, but then again we have scarabs for that. How much you value Tomb Blades is also how much you value mobility in your list. -Un'tan

I think this it's worth mentioning that the new Nephrekh Dynastic Codes gave Immortals with Tesla a huge buff, as an automatic 6" advance is great with Tesla; Nephrekh Tesla Immortals are now effectively an 11" move unit with a -1 to hit.

Not so great, as that -1 prevent you from getting extra shots, so you are very dependent of MWBD.

  • That, or a lucky Szeras or Zandrekh roll. Still, the value of 11" move troops that go through terrain and models should not be underestimated. *Especially since they've effectively got ObSec still. As objective grabbers go, they're fantastic.
  • Someone said the previous math was wrong, I didn't bother checking it all since I don't think the format is ideal anyway, what we care about is not how many wounds they do but how many wounds they do relative to each other. I didn't bother doing the invul calcs, I don't think they're important. - Pirate

Praetorians[edit]

Praetorians make mincemeat of units? I'm concerned that this is way too positive to be helpful, yes the 320 pt melee anti-MEQ unit can kill a 72 pt squad of 5 Tactical Marines, but overall they're crap. 3 attacks on a 32 pt model isn't really solid, they don't have any way to be more mobile or deep strike like Blood Angels do, they don't benefit from any buffs like Blood Angels do. They're pretty bad and saying that 3 attacks is "solid" implies they are an effective choice for their cost, which they aren't. If you disagree feel free to restore your edit. I just want to make sure that you want to say that this unit is actually a good choice rather than somewhere between pretty underpowered to utter crap which I think is the more common sentiment. Angry Pirate (talk) 14:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Praetorians vs Wraiths[edit]

This is an interesting one, wraiths have the upside of more attacks and higher strength, yet praetorians have better ap. Wraiths have a 3++, preatorians have reanimation. Oddly enough it seems that wraiths deal with big weak blobs better in terms of offence, but more protected against high hitting elites, whilst praetorians are the flippside, neither quite filling the role. It seems that in most cases praetorians are the ones who win out, though I may be missing something. They are a lot more comparable then they were previously, and costs nearly the same. Neither can recieve the mwbd buff either, exception with praetorians and Anrakyr or Imothek, which could come up but is rare. Both are also very mobile, and can take particle casters for a close combat buff. From what I can see, Wraiths may be a better match up against eldar, with high ap weapons and weak bodies, though praetorians may win out otherwise?

And with the new Errata (1.1) Praetorians get one extra attack with their voidblades, making them even more of a valid choice.

Wargear[edit]

Thanks whoever switched the crossouy from Voidblade to Hyperphase Sword, I was about to do that myself seeing the new Errata. Altough Hyperphase Sword is still valid in the cases you wanna save points, but even then it is just 3 points for an extra attack so Voidblade really is the superior option, in some cases also better than the Warscythe, who would have guessed it could turn around so easily? user:Un'tan

It was me. I was just going to remove the strikethrough and leave all three options, but then I realised that anyone who thinks saving three points is a good reason to deprive a melee-monster HQ of an extra Attack is bad and should feel bad. The Hyperphase Sword has pretty much become a junk option now, even if you're bulk buying weapons - it's only really going to be used by Lychguard with shields, because they don't have the option to get Voidblades instead. Hyperphase really needs to drop a point to 2 to be worth taking now (can't really increase the cost of Voidblades any more without making Scythes too attractive, unless they boost the Scythe cost too).--PercussiveMaintenance (talk) 11:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Warlord Traits[edit]

  • Quantum Shielding and Enduring Will have negative synergy. Enduring Will says: Reduce any damage inflicted on your Warlord by 1 (to a minimum of 1). For example, if your Warlord fails a saving throw against an attack that inflicts 3 damage, they will only lose 2 wounds. Quantum Shielding says: Each time this model fails a saving throw, roll a D6. If the result is less than the damage inflicted by that attack, the damage is ignored (e.g. if this model suffers 4 damage, if you then roll a 3 or less the damage is ignored). Quantum Shielding cannot prevent damage caused by mortal wounds. So if your opponent attacks your Catacomb Command Barge with a D3 weapon, that damage will be reduced to 2 by Enduring Will, then you will need a 1 to ignore it with Quantum Shielding, rather than a 1 or a 2. The 6+ FNP WL trait in the core rulebook has no such issues. Lightning Field is also of dubious worth, what are you fighting where you want to reduce the effectiveness of your Quantum Shielding but you're also more afraid of AP-3 and AP-4 than AP-1 and AP-2? The 2+ Sv is just better.
  • This was faqqed, Enduring Will does not make Quantum Shielding worse. You reduce the damage after Quantum Shielding fails.
It's already been fixed on the main page ages ago. Before the FAQ it was essentially down to flipping a coin or letting the player whose turn it was decide.

Units[edit]

HQ[edit]

  • Anrakyr's Mind in the Machine states that he can choose an enemy vehicles gun and fire it, however the Deathstrike cannot be fired normally and it even specifies that the roll to see if it can be used is during a friendly shooting phase. So shall we assume Anrakyr can never fire the Deathstrike? -Un'tan
    • You're definitely not able to bypass The Hour is Nigh because, as you say, it's only usable in a friendly Shooting phase. The bit that's unclear is whether or not you even have to obey that rule, because it's a rule that applies to the Deathstrike unit not the Deathstrike Missile weapon (and Mind in the Machine says you select a weapon and fire it, nothing about any rules on the carrying unit). I think RAW you can make a case for being able to use Anrakyr to manually launch a Deathstrike Missile on turn 1 because he's not affected by that ability, but I'd be incredibly surprised if that's intentional. It'll probably get erratad/FAQd out if anyone brings it up.--PercussiveMaintenance (talk) 12:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
    • I was having the same thought, which honestly sounds hillarious, but definitely something that should be erratad out. If not, just another reason for the imperium to not bring Deathstrikes. -Un'tan
    • It's one of those things that's technically legal, but if you do it your opponent will probably be justified in tossing the rulebook back at your head when you try to lawyer it. Definitely needs to be confirmed with and agreed to by your opponent before you start a game, and you should expect them to say no.--PercussiveMaintenance (talk) 12:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Which models are stated to attack with X but don't have it listed as wargear?

"**Note that there is a murky definition of "weapon". Obviously, is a model is stated to be "armed with X", then "X" is a weapon. But some models have stated to "attack with X", in which case a Rules lawyer may argue that you can't use X because it isn't a weapon. Be warned."

Deathmarks[edit]

  • Drop pods. As soon as a unit arrives on the table, Deathmarks can immediately come in and take an out of sequence shooting phase. Does this immidiately happen before the immediately that a squad has to disembark from the droppod, or after? If before, and say somwhow the Deathmarks managed to destroy the drop pod, what happens to the unit inside? I am aware they cant shopt at the unit arrivibg from the droppod, because of the rules wording.
    • The ordering is truly ambiguous, because the disembarkation of the unit in the pod and the Deathmarks' interception both happen "immediately" triggered on the same event (the drop pod being set up). What happens in each circumstance is clear though: If the Deathmarks shoot first and destroy the pod, it's exactly the same as any other transport - the unit inside forcibly disembarks, rolling a D6 per model and having one model slain per 1 rolled (and any units that can't disembark because of space restrictions/ distance to enemies also die). If the squad disembarks first, the Deathmarks still have to shoot the pod (because that's the thing they're intercepting) but blowing it up doesn't do anything to the squad as they're no longer inside it. Personally I'd discuss it with your opponent before the game; flipping a coin each time, or the person whose turn it is (i.e. the Marine player deploying the pod) going first both make sense as options. I'd tend towards the latter personally.--PercussiveMaintenance (talk) 13:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Lore wise I could see the Deathmarks going for the unit inside, but the rules do not support that at all, sadly. With the situation being that Deathmarks are nearly useless against droppods if going after, I wouls argue they get to shoot the pod before disembarking, if only for them to have a chance to hirt the unit inside. However, it is definitely a case by case basis until the faq comes.
  • Rules state that any events triggered simultaneously get resolved in an order chosen by the player whose turn it is. So the SM player would choose to disembark, then let the deathmarks shoot at the droppod. (page 178)
    • I am actually impressed implemented that, that does solve the issue entirely. Deathmarks aren't great againt drop pods, so they'll stick to shooting other targets.

Transports[edit]

Ghost Ark[edit]

  • Hold on. A 20 sized warrior unit can take a ghost arc without riding it. They all are wiped out, then 2 reanimate in the ghost arc. Can't they then just walk out into the field and roll to reanimate the rest of the squad? Because they are back on the table. If so, Ghost arcs may have become increadible.
    • No, they can only make RP rolls and reanimate inside if their unit is embarked, and there's no mention anywhere of them reanimating after the unit is wiped out (that's always impossible). The Ghost Ark just has a special ability that lets you make RP rolls while riding inside it - normally when you're embarked in a transport you can't make rolls as they can only be made when you're on the table.--PercussiveMaintenance (talk) 17:33, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
      • That does make enough sense actually. Since reanimation itself didn't mention anything about being unable to do so when in a transport, I assumed erroniously that the unit not being on the table meant of the unit was wiped out. I suppose that rule was mostly to get around the wording of models being placed in coherency to the unit. Thank you for setting this straight, would have been awkward to deal with the consequences of this after even more games.
        • You're right, RP doesn't mention it - it's more of a byproduct of the way the new rules for Transports work (Core Rules page 183, in a boxout section - we're all still getting used to this, so don't worry about missing things). Units inside of Transports "Cannot normally do anything or be affected in any way" - they basically cease to exist for all game purposes. There's a one common exception - a unit Embarked in a vehicle with the Open-topped ability can shoot as if it was located where the vehicle is, measuring range from any point on the vehicle (it still can't be shot at, is still affected by the vehicle's movement for things like firing Heavy weapons or Advancing, and can still only shoot Pistols if the vehicle is within 1" of an enemy model). Otherwise Embarked units only pop back into existence and start doing things again when they disembark. Repair Barge is another similar ability that's specific to just the Ghost Ark, that lets Embarked Warriors also use Reanimation Protocols. --PercussiveMaintenance (talk) 11:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
          • Feels like I read that in the rules, suppose I just didn't put two and two together. Thank you again for clarifying this.
            • You can also roll RP AGAIN for a unit within 3" of it at the end of the movement phase. It's like a Res Orb you get every turn! It even says you can't do it if you already used a res orb that turn.
              • Might want to slow down on that one, technically the unit Embarked inside the Ark isn't within 3" of it (it's considered to not exist for almost all rule purposes in the aforementioned core rulebook section, and there's no mention of an exception in the Repair Barge rules). It seems a bit silly, but RAW you can't hit the Warriors inside the Ark with either a Res Orb or the extra roll from Repair Barge. They can only make their normal once-per-turn RP roll. --PercussiveMaintenance (talk) 11:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
                • Speaking about Repair Barge I don't see anything in the index that you can't use two separate ghost arcs to reanimate the same squad for 2 additional RP rolls. The only stipulation appears to be that you can't use both a rez orb and Repair Barge on the same unit, have I missed something?
Ehm. Yeah I believe you are correct, there is no definitive restriction on that. So as long as you don't target a unit with a resurrection orb, you can use as many Repair Barge abilities on it as you can fit them on the table. If it is a smart idea to invest that much in ghost arcs or a single squad is another discussion, but this is valuable to know.
    • It's questionable with the codex out. The rule states "In addition... you can make RP rolls for slain models from Warriors units with in 3" of *any* friendly Ghost Ark. (both Ghost Ark & Warrior units are Dynasty tagged). I think it can be argued (not saying I agree) that the "any" in that sentence could mean that you can use an RP roll for each Ghost Ark you have, on each warrior squad within 3" of any ghost ark; so, for instance, if you have 5 Warrior units, each within 3" of 4 Ghost Arks, each of those Warrior units could potentially be able to roll 4 additional times for RP, for total of 25 RP rolls just for those Warrior Units. That's my RAW interpretation, at least. - User:Nemestrinus, 22May2018

Fast Attack[edit]

Wraiths vs Acanthrites[edit]

Just wanted to point out that both Wraiths & Acanthrites are <Beast> units, so if that's the reason Acanthrites can't get cover saves, then Wraiths shouldn't either. I don't have the Acanthrites rules in front of me, but that's the stated reason in the article for Acanthrites not getting cover saves.

And just for the sake of putting everything on the table; Acanthrites can assault Flyers, which is handy, and at S5 AP-3, they're a top-level option for taking out Flyers, though Scarabs are a much cheaper option for that. Wraiths, on the other hand, are 5 points cheaper at base cost, though giving them a s6 pistol attack is only 4 points on a model that's already 55.

Wraiths have a 4+ Sv and a 3+ invul. Cover drops Sv to 3+ which is no better than their invul. With Acanthrites taking cover would be very effective 3+ Sv becomes 2+ and no invul and since the rules for cover are somewhat hidden I thought it would be important to point out that you cannot do this. I don't really think any assault unit is going to be top-level for taking out Flyers, especially not with D1 in melee, Heavy Destroyers, DDAs and the gauss Pylons make for much better anti-flyer units, but it is true that Wraiths are useless against Flyers. I'd just argue that it's unimportant since they are going to charge infantry to hold it up instead of tangling with a flyer. In the interest of full disclosure I'll say I've never playtested Acanthrites and everything I wrote was based on what was previously written and conjecture. All I ask is that we keep the back and forth points to an absolute minimum on the main page and instead just try to weave it in to the existing analysis. Ideally you'll wait to change things until you've brought Acanthrites in at least three games, replacing my untested hypothesis with your own untested hypothesis isn't really helpful unless what the I wrote is clearly bad or wrong (like when I got profiles or rules wrong). Angry Pirate (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Heavy Support[edit]

Heavy Destroyers[edit]

  • So, is it actually true we get to have our cake and eat it too with these guys and My Will Be Done? Recieving both the +1 to hits whilst still be able to reroll ones? I'll believe it, but will probably take a while explaing that to a new opponent every time it comes up. I am happy with it though, makes them even more viable. -Un'tan
    • Yep, it's in the Rerolls sidebar on page 178 of the core book: "...and rerolls happen before modifiers (if any) are applied." At the moment this also has weird as hell effects when you're looking at abilities that let you "reroll misses" - for example, if you have BS4+ and a reroll, an effect that gives you -1 to hit also, RAW, prevents you from rerolling any dice results of exactly 4 even though they miss with the modifier (because an unmodified 4 isn't a miss, and rerolls happen before modifiers). That seems unintuitive and convoluted to me, but it might actually be intentional (so penalties to rolls are significant even if you've got a reroll). I'm pretty sure the +1 to hit and rerolling 1s interaction Destroyers benefit from is intentional though - in fact, I'm pretty sure rerolls work before modifiers like this specifically so this can happen, they just missed the weird consequences in rerolls for misses. --PercussiveMaintenance (talk) 09:28, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Annihilation Barge[edit]

  • Shouldn't the entire bit out of it making mincemeat out of lighter units be removed? While that is probably what its weapon is best used against, that is already pointed out in the initial post and doesn't need the apprehended post. It doesn't actually make mince meat out of lighter units compared to spending an equal amount of points on Immortals. The Immortals put down slightly more wounds than Annihilation Barges against T 7 and way more against everything else for the same amount of points and that's not mentioning the MWBD synergy which is what makes tesla immortals good in the first place. Its (more or less) inability to grab cover is also worth noting, its only strengths are mobility and shooting after Falling Back. Mentioning its ability to do some damage is misleading since it shows a strength (being able to put out a relatively large amount of wounds to low armour units) which it doesn't have. BTW I'm not saying it's bad, I've had a lot of fun with it, but it is sort of awkward and only really good if you roll hot on your Quantum Shielding. Angry Pirate (talk) 11:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I didn't want to remove that part since, it is technically its best target and I err on the side of caution when deleting or modifying other's work. However, you do make a good point, it certainly isn't as good as it once was.

Seraptek[edit]

      • Mephrit: Can be useful, especially on turning the Synaptic Obliterators to AP -5 against anything within 36", but unless you run into a lot of 2+ save vehicles, its probably not worth it. However, the real reason you want this is for the Mephrit stratagem, Talent for Annihilation. Exploding 6s on massively owerful ranged weapons...yes please.
      • Nephrekh: lets your Seraptek cross 24" of board in a single turn, but unless you need to avoid a fast moving melee threat its probably not worth loosing an entire round of shooting and/or the ability to charge
      • Nihilakh: While loosing out on the 16" movement sucks, the ability to reroll 1's when shooting is a huge buff to a units that excels in shooting. This is also the only way to _rotate ion shields_ if you will, for 2CP you can convert your 5++ to a 4++ if your massive footprint is near an objective marker, this also gives +1 Attack; converting the 18 hit rolls for a stomp into 21.
      • Novokh: Surprisingly useful, especially if you plan to play aggressively. The ability of the Seraptek to fall back and still declare a charge lets you trigger this multiple times, practically guaranteeing it will benefit from this rule every round in combat. Furthermore, its ability to fall back over enemy infantry, fire its ranged weapons, and declare a charge means you can drive the Seraptek deep into your enemies back line. Combine with the Novokh Stratagem to let the Seraptek fight a second time for maximum overkill.
      • Sautekh: The ability to advance and still fire your heavy weapons is nice, but only hitting half the time is a bitter pill to swallow. Combine with a Triarch Stalker or the Sautekh stratagem, Methodological destruction, to alleviate the penalty.

FAQ[edit]

Didn't know where else to put this, but the new FAQ changes some stuff. Fled necrons no longer come back, void blades give extra attacks and the monolith now has a BS of 3 base. Tried to add this stuff into the main page but didn't what fuck with it too much

I only see the bit about no RP for fleeing models in faq xenos 1 1.1. Where did you see the other info? Arahknxs (talk) 22:30, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Because it is in the rules Errata section of the Errata, and not in the FAQ section. -Un'tan

Feelin stupid now. I saw spess elf and skipped it. Chur Arahknxs (talk) 23:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing to worry about, it is an easy mistake to ignore the lesser species. Un'tan


Displayed Stats[edit]

Is it really ok to list all the stats and abilities of all wargear? A lot of the time it feels rather stale compared to how tactics were written before, focusing on the strategy and made people actually have to buy the codex.

The rule usually is you can't post pts, what stats are you referring to? I think the amount of information should be such that if you don't play Necrons you can figure out what each unit does and how to counter them and it should help aspiring Necron players avoid excessively bad units and steer towards the more powerful units if they wish to do so as well as build armies that make sense (no use in taking a large amount of MWBD models in a Tomb Blade/Vehicle list).

Invasion beams[edit]

I'm curious why this is considered shit here and elsewhere? Although slightly unclear, the rule appears to be that you can disembark no closer than 1" to enemy models, and while you can't move or advance, you can shoot and charge. I feel like that'd be decent for say, lychguard? Am I missing something? -Arahknxs (talk)

  • Because you can only drop a unit before the vehicle moves in the turn. Meaning you are often getting it off on the second turn at best, giving your opponnent a round of shooting down your flyer. And instead of an emergency disembark, when our flyers are taken down the whole unit can be screwed. Un'tan.

Cleaning[edit]

I started cleaning, didn't want to finish if people don't like what I'm doing. Angry Pirate (talk) 19:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Pylon math got temporarily canned during clean-up Angry Pirate (talk) 10:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Mathhammer:
NB - This is the spread for a single shot, given that the number of attacks is already known (so you can evaluate the worth of spending a CP on a reroll to potentially get more). If you want to know the probabilities for the shot as a whole including rolling the number of attacks, just read the 1D6 column at the end. "Crippled" means hitting any of the deteriorating stat thresholds, which is easier for some units than others - usually after the loss of 10 wounds or half of the unit's maximum, whichever is lower (with some exceptions being easier to damage, e.g. the Thunderhawk and Spartan, or harder to damage e.g. the Manta). Remember that because shots are independent trials, you can also use this table to determine the value of multiple shots (e.g. a 3-attack shot followed by a 2-attack one has identical outcomes to a single 5-attack shot).
Number of Attacks 1 2 3 4 5 6 1D6
Outcome Crippled Killed Crippled Killed Crippled Killed Crippled Killed Crippled Killed Crippled Killed Crippled Killed
Leman Russ (12W) 55% 0% 49% 30% 33% 58% 20% 77% 11% 87% 6% 93% 29% 52.5%
Valkyrie (14W, FLY) 69% 0% 42% 48% 19% 78% 8% 91% 3% 97% 1% 99% 23.6% 68.8%
Baneblade (26W, TITANIC) 55% 0% 49% 30% 33% 58% 20% 77% 11% 87% 6% 93% 29% 57.5%
Marauder Bomber (20W, TITANIC, FLY) 69% 0% 42% 48% 19% 78% 8% 91% 3% 97% 1% 99% 23.6% 68.8%
Land Raider (16W, SV2+) 31% 0% 40% 14% 38% 33% 31% 51% 24% 65% 17% 76% 30.2% 39.8%
Stormraven Gunship (14W, FLY) 69% 0% 42% 48% 19% 78% 8% 91% 3% 97% 1% 99% 24.2% 68.8%
Spartan Assault Tank (20W, TITANIC, SV2+) 46% 0% 50% 21% 40% 44% 29% 63% 19% 76% 12% 85% 32.7% 48.2%
Thunderhawk Assault Gunship (30W, TITANIC, FLY, T9, 5++) 37% 0% 48% 12% 47% 28% 41% 44% 33% 57% 26% 68% 38.7% 34.8%
Battlewagon (16W) 37% 0% 43% 21% 36% 45% 25% 64% 16% 78% 10% 87% 27.8% 49.2%
Wazbom Blastajet with KFF (12W, FLY, 5++) 46% 0% 50% 21% 40% 45% 27% 63% 19% 76% 12% 85% 32.3% 48.3%
Stompa (40W, TITANIC) 56% 0% 80% 0% 74% 17% 56% 40% 38% 60% 24% 75% 54.7% 32%
XV95 Ghostkeel Battlesuit (10W, -2 to hit) 28% 0% 40% 8% 43% 19% 42% 31% 38% 43% 33% 53% 37.3% 25.7%
XV104 Riptide Battlesuit with active Nova Shield (14W, 3++) 12% 0% 20% 3% 25% 9% 27% 16% 27% 23% 27% 31% 23% 13.7%
KX139 Ta'Unar Supremacy Armour (30W, TITANIC, 5++) 37% 0% 48% 12% 47% 28% 41% 44% 33% 57% 26% 68% 38.7% 34.8%
Manta Superheavy Dropship (60W, TITANIC, FLY, 4++) 0% 0% 8% 0% 20% 0% 32% 1% 41% 4% 47% 10% 24.7% 2.5 %
and, just for fun...
Warlord Battle Titan (70W, TITANIC, T16, 3+ Void Shield) 11% 0% 21% 0% 30% 0% 38% 0% 45% 0.01% 51% 0.02% 32.6% 0.004%
Basically, don't shoot anything with a decent invulnerable save or to-hit debuffs. If you want a good shot at killing something, use a CP on the number of attacks if you roll a 1 or 2. As long as you're hitting 4+ attacks you'll delete anything from a Leman Russ to a Spartan each turn, making the Pylon almost certain to earn back its cost before your opponent can chew through its T8 30W 3+/5++ with Living Metal. Further, with the new Damage Override Stratagem, as long as the Pylon is not dead, you can still fire at your full BS.
  • Moved math for Warriors and Force Multipliers here as well. What we want to tell is that a Ghost Ark costs the same as 14 Warriors and can survive 28 Warriors worth of lasguns, 7 Warriors worth of autocannons or 11 Warriors worth of lascannons while outputting 10 Warriors worth of firepower. I'm not sure if we even need it to put it in such mathy terms, it being good against Guardsmen, bad against Autocannons and okay against lascannons is enough IMO. We almost certainly don't need the math in the main article regardless of whether we want the results or just what the results mean.

Cryptek is 86+18=104 points (~9 Warriors), and for that gives them 5++ vs shooting, his single S5 AP-2 Staff shot if they're in Rapid Fire range/a single AP-2 melee hit, makes the RP rolls of all Dynasty units nearby ~50% better, and can't be picked out of the unit normally (although with T4, 4 wounds and a 4+/5++ he's vulnerable to snipers). By himself, to go with a single Warrior squad, he's not worth it unless they're taking a massive amount of hits from AP-2 or better or just lots of casualties in general because his value is entirely defensive; he provides almost no extra firepower for a steep points cost. A second MSU of 10 warriors would bring along almost ten times the firepower and more durability against most infantry weapons (i.e. AP-1 or AP0 where the Cryptek's 5++ is useless). What makes a Cryptek worthwhile is the fact he can buff more than one unit at a time, and can buff things that are much more powerful than warriors. If you can't make that happen then just take more Warriors.

Ghost Ark is 170 points (~14 Warriors), and brings a whole 10 Warriors' worth of shooting and fourteen Warriors' worth of wounds as well as making a single Warrior unit's RP ~60% better. It can be picked out of the squad by shooting as it's a Vehicle, and is only T6 with a 4+, but has Living Metal, Quantum Shielding and the aforementioned 14 wounds. It makes the combined unit a much more attractive target for all that 2-3 Damage firepower that would normally overkill your Warriors (e.g. Overcharged plasma), but in turn it's more resistant to S4-6 weapons. With a single maxed warriors squad, an Ark is approximately equivalent to just buying the same 14 warriors it costs - unless you're taking a lot of infantry-specific casualties (e.g. Deldar poison wounding everything on 2s) or are facing a lot of melee which will allow you to keep the Ark alive at the back of the squad (e.g. Tyranids/Ork melee blobs), in which case an Ark brings most of the normal firepower and a huge durability boost thanks to the improved RP keeping your units on the field (especially scooping up squads that are about to be wiped out so they can roll RP and recover inside it). They don't scale into larger forces or to anything other than warriors though, as their Repair Barge stuff is all limited to a single warrior unit. If you want to use warriors as your army core or anti-charge bubblewrap for more valuable things, you'd be a bit dense not to buy at least one of these to keep them on the field. Shooty armies, on the other hand, will absolutely wreck the thing almost immediately by pounding it with plasma guns.

As an illustration, let's assume a unit of 20 Warriors with an Ark and some differing incoming fire profiles (someone correct the maths if I bugger this up/add more examples if something weird happens with particular units or guns). You'll see the Ark suffers a severe drop-off in durability as soon as the plasma guns come out, but then claws it back again as per-hit damage increases thanks to Quantum Shielding (although of course if you're unlucky those D6 damage hits will pop you very easily, QS performance is highly variable). Conversely, the Warriors tail off much more linearly, and then scale up again as weapon damage goes higher thanks to overkill and reanimation. As a result, it's really important to manipulate your opponent's target selection (via LoS, distraction units, tying guns up in melee etc) dependent on what he has to shoot you with. Bear in mind this only considers one turn's reanimation including the Repair Barge reroll; while a warrior might not reanimate immediately, he might still stand up again later.
  • 10 FRF!SRF! Guardsmen (40 shots, BS4+, S3, AP0): Vs the Warriors will inflict 6.7 wounds, you'll save 3.3 of them and 1.7 casualties will reanimate for 1.7 final damage (and 1.7 lost guns). Vs the Ark will inflict 3.3 wounds, you'll save 1.7 of them, and then regenerate a wound for 0.7 final damage.
  • 10 Rapid Firing Fire Warriors (20 shots, BS4+, S5, AP0): Damage works out identical to the Guardsmen for both targets (1.7 and 0.7), the extra strength is balanced by their lower volume of fire. Their gun drones and Markerlights will make them perform better in practice though.
  • 10 Rapid Firing Marines (20 shots, BS3+, S4, AP0): Vs the Warriors, same as the Guardsmen. Vs the Ark, will inflict 4.4 wounds, you'll save 2.2 of them, and then regenerate one for 1.2 final damage.
  • 10 Rapid Firing Intercessors (20 shots, BS3+, S4, AP-1): Vs the Warriors will inflict 6.7 wounds, you'll save 2.2 of them and 2.5 casualties will reanimate for 2 final damage (and 2 lost guns). Vs the Ark will inflict 4.4 wounds, you'll save 1.5 of them, and then regenerate a wound for 1.9 final damage.
  • 5 Rapid Firing Hellblasters (10 shots, BS3+, S7, AP-4): Vs the Warriors will inflict 4.4 wounds, you'll save none of them, and 2.4 casualties will reanimate for 2 final damage (and 2 lost guns). Vs the Ark will inflict 4.4 wounds, you'll save none of them and then regenerate a wound for 3.4 final damage.
  • 5 Rapid Firing Overcharged Hellblasters (10 shots, BS3+, S8, AP-4, 2D): Vs the Warriors will inflict 5.6 wounds, you'll save none of them, and 3.1 casualties will reanimate for 2.5 final damage (and 2.5 lost guns). Vs the Ark will inflict 4.4 wounds for 2 damage each, you'll save none of them and Quantum Shielding will block 1.5 damage, and you'll suffer 7.3 damage and then regenerate a wound for 6.3 final damage.
  • 15 Tankbustas (15 shots, BS5+, S8, AP-2, 3D): Vs the Warriors will inflict 4.2 wounds, you'll save 0.7, and 1.9 casualties will reanimate for 1.6 final damage (and 1.6 lost guns). Vs the Ark will inflict 3.3 wounds for 3 damage each, you'll save 0.6 of them and Quantum Shielding will block 2.7 damage, and you'll suffer 5.4 damage and then regenerate a wound for 4.4 final damage.
  • 6 IG Special Weapons w/Meltas (6 shots, BS4+, S8, AP-4, D6D): Vs the Warriors will inflict 2.5 wounds, you'll save none of them, and 1.4 casualties will reanimate for 1.1 final damage (and 1.1 lost guns). Vs the Ark will inflict 2 wounds for 3.5 (4.5 w/2D6 keep highest) damage each, you'll save none of them and Quantum Shielding will block 2.8 (5.3) damage, and you'll suffer 4.2 (3.7) damage and then regenerate a wound for 3.2 (2.7) final damage.


<more stuff on overlords etc can go here>

Weapons[edit]

  • It seems redundant to mention dynasties in the weapon sections. In the dynasty section the kinds of units the dynasty is good for is mentioned and in the unit section it is mentioned what dynasty is good for the unit. Do we really need to explain what dynasty is good for a DDA in the Doomsday Cannon section? Angry Pirate (talk) 20:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Why We Don't Put Flayed Ones in Night Scythes[edit]

  • It's dumb. I can elaborate if you can't figure out why investing a Flyer and possibly a Stratagem in Deep Striking a unit that already has the ability to Deep Strike is dumb. Angry Pirate (talk) 16:43, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Army Building[edit]

These sections are super useful, but clutter Tactics pages and seem off topic. It might be a good idea to make a new page just for army building, which would be easier to access and edit. -- Kracked Mynd (talk) 23:21, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Either that or we can just collapse them/tidy them up. -- Triacom (talk) 05:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Individual Army Tactics

Each of these pages contains (or should contain) a section on: "Why Play Them," which briefly summarizes the positive aspects of the army. "Unit Analysis," a brief discussion of the benefits (or lack thereof) and drawbacks of each unit individually. "Building Your Army," suggestions on how to buy, convert, and paint the actual models. "Tactics," suggested viable builds for a complete army.

It'd set the Necron page apart from the rest of the 40k Individual Army Tactics pages. I think the Necron page is already almost as neat and tidy as can be, if you compare it to how previous editions of the Necron article looked. I think these articles are supposed to be a one-stop shop for players considering starting playing Necrons, those who want to take their game from just starting out to getting basic knowledge of their army, those who want to know more about how to beat Necrons. Splitting things up into seperate articles isn't neccessary, it's not like the army building section is a huge part of the article, I'm also afraid it'll fall by the wayside if it's not on this page. Angry Pirate (talk) 09:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm personally a lot more concerned about the Eldar and Tau articles, and CSM and Renegades and Heretics are getting there. But if we give them a new page/collapse them, we'd have to do it for all of them.
Additionally, it concerns me that we have such extensive buying sections, which (except for a few select armies) did not previous to 8th. It's probably the advent of a ton of starter sets, but, either way, the pages are getting cluttered imo. --Kracked Mynd (talk) 13:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm working on the CSM one right now, it's just taking a while because there's so much shit to dig through. -- Triacom (talk) 18:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Comparrisons with Space Marines[edit]

  • How are they as far apart from a Space Marine as they are Infantry Squads? Are you out of your mind? WS, BS, S, T, basic weapon profile except for AP. These are all things that Warriors share with Space Marines they don't share with Infantry Squads. It's very valid because Space Marines are the main protagonists of the lore of 40k. A half dozen differences doesn't mean Warriors aren't MEQs, especially since these are rather small differences. Isn't it worth comparing Chaos Space Marines and Space Marines either then? They have access to different upgrades and chapters after all, why compare anything between codices? The reason it's especially important to make that comparisson is because Warriors are used other places in the article to compare balance within the codex, you just removed the thing that linked all those comparissons with perhabs the most prevalent faction in the game. Angry Pirate (talk) 16:13, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Simple, Space Marines and Necron Warriors have different profiles, weapons, armour saves, points costs, weapon options, ideal unit sizes, and ideal roles. If you need to add an asterisk after saying "These are effectively Marines, only you'll never use them like Marines, cannot have the options Marines are known for and are meant for an entirely different role, etc." Then there is no point in saying any of the above, just skip to what they are instead of wasting time explaining what they're not and are never going to be. There's a reason the phrase MEQ exists, and that's because it refers to a general statline and nothing else, as soon as you try to look beyond MEQ, by saying for example that they are Marines with a shitload of differences, it all falls apart. They're also definitely not small differences, nobody's going to lose a character to a Necron Warrior squad because their unit champion brought along a power fist, nobody's going to be taking glances at a diverse unit loadout that a Necron Warrior squad can bring and nobody's going to be worried about larger Marine Squads to take advantage of a resurrection rule (and higher Leadership). I could go on, but the point is that all of the differences end up leaving them significantly different to Space Marines so the comparison really falls apart and it hurts them in being examined on their own strengths. "Isn't it worth comparing Chaos Space Marines and Space Marines either then?" I think you meant 'not worth comparing', so I'll respond as if you said that: they share several of the same transports, they have access to most of the same wargear, their statlines are virtually identical, a lot of their units share the same unit roles. As I said before, Necrons are so far removed from Marines in what they do/can take that this isn't an apt comparison. Finally, having Warriors be the base that the rest of the Codex is judged by isn't a bad thing, even if the Marines comparison, and the disclaimer that effectively ruins everything about the comparison is removed. If you want to say they've got a MEQ statline then fine, but doing anything more isn't accurate. -- Triacom (talk) 00:28, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
"If you want to say they've got a MEQ statline then fine" that's what I did. I said they have a Marine statline (MEQ is short for Marine Equivalent), except blablabla +1/-1 in a few places, that's the quickest way of explaining to someone who has never played against Warriors what a Warrior is, when I say that Tacticals have wargear options and Warriors don't I'm also saying that you have no powerfists to worry about. I think the question is who this article is for? Why do we explain what Sky of Falling Stars does? Isn't it enough just to make a list of which powers are better on each C'tan unit? We've all read the codex so what's the problem? The answer to that would be that we're not writing this for ourselves to read, but for others. Those people may include people who have never played against Necrons and just want to be a little bit prepared to play against them, give this article a quick read-through and ask a few questions when they first play against Necrons instead of showing up and being totally blank or reading the Necron Codex cover-to cover, which would take longer and would hopefully for us be far less fun and maybe, just maybe less helpful. So I chose to explain what a Warrior is, instead of just how to best pilot Warriors on the battlefield to further promote this new way of writing these articles, just like we started adding weapon entries back in 7th to explain what weapons we have, which is entirely useless if you have already read and memorized every part of the codex like I have. So comparing Warriors to Tacticals is just the natural progression of making the tactics articles more accessible, rather than having that gatekeeper of having read the codex cover-to-cover and having played 10 games with them, which is what the older articles were pretty much exclusively for. Angry Pirate (talk) 08:53, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
You said "They're Marines except for all the ways in which they aren't" so I removed that. Saying that they're Marines instead of a GEQ/MEQ/TEQ makes it sound like they're similar in other ways so you need to add a disclaimer, which then defeats the whole point in saying they're like Marines, which I've already gone over. Saying "Warriors have MEQ stats" does all of that without the disclaimer since now you don't need to say that they have different unit roles, equipment, ideal sizes, special rules, etc. It's also a lot faster and doesn't bog down the entry. We also shouldn't explain what a unit doesn't have in terms of specific wargear, pointing out they don't have a power fist for example doesn't do anything, doesn't help the army and if you want to point out there's no power fists for enemies to be worried about, then that would be a useful tip for other pages in a section on fighting other armies. The tactics pages have always been about playing their specific army and usually how to fight other armies (typically this is added at the bottom), not a guide for what you should do to kill each individual unit. Previous editions tactics pages had a "How to fight X" section on their pages, but it doesn't seem to have made its way into the 8th edition pages just yet. If you want to add that sort of thing, feel free. To give a hand in that, your comparison of Warriors to Tacticals might be handy on the Marine page in fighting against Necrons since that could be altered to say things like "Think of them as basic Marines, they don't come with any of your upgrades and can't pack any surprises like a hidden power fist." It just isn't handy here because there's not really any reason to warn the player that a unit cannot carry a power fist when that's a blanket statement that can be copy-pasted across nearly the entire army, in the off-chance that somebody who wants to play against Necrons is reading this article.
"Why do we explain what Sky of Falling Stars does? Isn't it enough just to make a list of which powers are better on each C'tan unit?" Yes and I completely agree here. Anyone playing the army already has the book and can just read it, so re-posting it word-for-word helps nobody. This is why when I did an overhaul on the CSM tactics page (which is still only half-done) I deleted 124,089 bytes (each byte is one character) from the page, which cut down the size of the page to 61% of what it used to be. In return the page no longer copy-pastes what each unit has, it focuses instead on what they can do for you and how you can use them best, with stuff like arguments between anons, useless entries (one of which wasn't even a unit, it was just a different wargear choice) and useless opining removed. I'd like to do this to all the pages eventually, but each takes about a full day to go over and between home life, work life and home projects, I find it hard to make the time. I'll probably get to the Necrons eventually, sometime after I'm finished on the Space Marine page (the mess I'm currently working on fixing). I also agree on the weapon entries, which I've come to believe was a really bad idea and they need to be changed or just outright removed since any weapon significant enough to mention should be given its own mention in the unit that can take it.
Lastly, the articles assume you're either making a list or have the book in front of you when reading, you don't have to memorize it to use the tactics page effectively, in fact so long as they're written right, you shouldn't need the book either as the tactics pages on their own can tell you what's good against what, who's good and who's bad/overpriced, what roles they excel in, what weapons they can bring and what gear they should skip. The tactics pages are meant to be supplementary to the rulebooks, not a replacement for them. -- Triacom (talk) 00:00, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
If you read the special rules and stratagems sections you'll be ready to play against Necrons, trying to contain all the knowledge of every weapon in the game is too hard. Take the New Custodes FW units, I've played against them 3 times I think, I have a rough idea that they output a relatively large amount of shots between 1-3 damage and good range. But when I face them I can ask my opponenent what their stats is, so I don't need to go check the 1d4chan page or the datasheet and memorize every little detail about them. I do think there is more room for saying that a unit is more or less of a glasscannon, but I think the choice between Tesla and Gauss is pretty clear. For Immortals Gauss is okay, Tesla is good. For Tomb Blades Particle is bad, Tesla is good, Gauss is good. I think the tactics pages should replace the codices, I don't see a need for them in modern 40k, but you'll just have to go to 4chan and find a mega link to the codex and go to page 104 because 1d4chan isn't supposed to be that, alternatively check out wahapedia. Angry Pirate (talk) 09:06, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Armouries on the various army pages.[edit]

This is mostly a repost of a question I had on the main tactics page, but I'll be posting it on all the most frequently updated tacticas because it applies to all of them and I'd like to hear any arguments against it.

I've been wondering this for a while now, but what do the armoury sections add that cannot be covered by unit entries? Everything in them is either stating info that is obvious and redundant to anyone holding the relevant book (which are the people using the tactica in the first place), or it's insight that is restated in the unit entry itself, where it's actually relevant. I get why we list relics since those are usually unique to the army and can be applies to a ton of different characters for different builds, same with Warlord Traits, and both of those are usually not covered in the various unit entries, instead that advice is usually covered in the relic and traits sections which makes sense. But for the regular armouries I'm not really seeing why we keep them around at all to be honest, since they take up so much space and it's annoying to scroll past that kind of bloat. How should we improve them, if possible (so that they're not just restating profiles) or should we just remove them? Personally I'm leaning more towards getting rid of them entirely. -- Triacom (talk) 18:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

  • 1600 words out of 26000, it has value to any that don't have the codex and those that have the codex can scroll past it in 5 clicks or 1 click if they use the contents link to skip past. It'd be stupid to remove it now that it's already been made. Keep them off the pages for next edition, but I think they hold enough value that you shouldn't go around and delete all of them after work has been put into them. If you read a 1d4chan entry you shouldn't need to read the codex unless you play that codex. Angry Pirate (talk)
It might be just 1600 on this page, on other pages it's a hell of a lot more and what value does it provide? There's no info that is given there that isn't also given in the unit entry. The tactics pages were always meant to supplement the codices, not replace them, which is why useless garbage like unit summaries eventually get deleted, they add nothing and only state the obvious which is exactly what the armouries do. Not deleting something because it's been around a while is also a bad argument, by that logic we should leave massive strikethroughs and arguing on the main page where it is. -- Triacom (talk) 09:34, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Let's also not pretend as if you can skip past it by clicking, if you're reading the armoury and then need to go to the unit entries you need to scroll. If you're reading HQ's and want to see which wargear traits they can have you'll also need to scroll, pretending as if you can just keep clicking the navigation links instead of having to scroll around or scroll up to them is bullshit and we both know it. Likewise if you tried your best to prevent scrolling by clicking the links and then backing out to find the new link to click on, that means you're on a badly laid out page and using a shitty workaround. -- Triacom (talk) 09:40, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
The armoury section has been removed, I don't know how much we need to change the unit sections to reflect this. I also removed the Dynasty section for each unit to make the article a little shorter. Angry Pirate (talk) 08:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • If I can add in my thoughts as the target audience rather than a contributor, the armoury was a very useful section to have. I have been playing since 3rd, but I have not played much in the last few years and I don't own Necrons, pretty sure I have never played with or against Necrons, I have read and owned old codices. First, the weapons are not covered very well in any of the units, when they are the weapons are covered as a subject part of the unit. The information tends to be something like "garbage, utterly useless" or "will cause butthurt", not how many shots causing how much damage. In the armoury they tend to be covered rather objectively, which is more informative when you are not looking at how to build an army list but rather at what an army can potentially do and how it fits in the current meta. Months later the "descriptions" of weapons I don't know the names of are still poorly described so in your strive to make the article more efficient you have made it less effective, which seems to be a common issue with 1d4chan and the otherwise good analysis of troops and weapons. The articles that still have armouries (which are most of them) do feel better written and more informative than the couple that have had them removed.
Case and point btw, the Gauss vs Tesla comparison should be in the armoury, as similar things are in other articles, not hidden on the talk page. Maybe it should be expanded to cover other weapons comparisons (not that they come up that much due to the nature of Necron unit customization options), the math should probably be expanded to cover actual GEQs with a 5+ save, what GEQ outside of 'gaunts have a 6+? But hey, I'm not putting the work in here.
How's it more informative than the rulebook it came from? It's a copy-paste and the reason the unit entries don't cover the units options well is because the information is split between the armoury and unit entry, rather than having everything important be located in one spot. The Gauss and Tesla discussion only applies to certain units and doesn't always come with the same recommendation, so why shouldn't that be included in the unit's it affects, rather than scrolling down, seeing which unit it affects, then scrolling back up to find the bit about Gauss vs Tesla? How is that better than just having it where it's relevant? The tactics articles themselves are not meant to be replacements for the rulebooks, They're meant to be used in conjunction with them, which is why we don't list out full unit stats and points values for each individual unit. If we did you could just use this same reasoning for not removing those, even though they're still just copy-pasted info. If all we're doing is copy-pasting what's in the rulebook, then that should be removed because there's no tactical advice to be found there, you're not learning anything new or how to play/counter anything so why keep it? Before you answer, not wanting to read a different rulebook isn't an excuse. The articles are about how to play an army, not how to play against them. If you want that you can look up whichever army you play and scroll to the bottom for counter-play tips. -- Triacom (talk) 02:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Because it usually isn't a copy paste, it usually has opinions. The opinions of a weapon often depend on the model it is on, which is subjective to that unit, the armouries themselves tend to have opinions on the weapons that are not coloured by the specific units, unless they mention the standout weapons. Also for weapon families like meltas, teslas, gauss, plasma, etc. it tends to explain the specific theme.
Most of the people that read these articles do not have the rulebooks and the vast majority of the writings presented as if for someone that does not have the rulebooks, so no, they are not meant to be used in conjunction with the rulebooks, that is a rather naive way of thinking that contradicts the vast amounts of work other people have put into this over the years. They are meant to be information on the armies and how they play, what their gimmicks are, explaining specifics about weapons is important for that, especially for odd armies like Necrons that are not as popular and that do not have weapons that were copy+pasted out of some Imperial faction book.
Many articles also do not have those sections at the end, none of them have a well done version that devotes more than a couple snarky lines about how to beat an army. They also tend to be dismissive of many armies and to present information that is not competitive (army a is bad and you can beat it easy, even though army a has more tournament wins than all the SM factions combined).
You don’t list point values because...oh wait, most articles heavily mention point values and stats and you can figure out the stats of every unit in the codex from reading most articles. You also often list the entire stat block on other pages. Occasionally on the talk page I see someone asking if there are any legal problems with having so much info, although more recognized sites than this frequently show (out of focus) pictures of pages of the rules and stat-blocks, commonly from unreleased books and GW keeps giving them free stuff in advance. This is the single least informative article that I have read and is the only one where I need to check somewhere else to simply find the stats on weapons. Also, many of the unit entries give only a superficial explanation of weapons relevant to them. Maybe you are right and the weapons do belong in the unit entries, but that information is not even there consistently right now, so that is not a real argument. “We should tear down this wooden wall because stone is better” only makes sense if it is replaced with a stone wall, which it is not.
Also, how to play an army is directly linked with how to play against them, that is pretty basic for most games and things in general. Reading an article on Necrons tells me much more about how to beat them than reading the paragraph st the end of the SM article, and all the other articles combined (many of which are just copy pastes).
I am not trying to be confrontational, I am trying to give the argument against deleting all the armouries for no reason beyond your personal desire for neatness, efficiency and being ocd. There should at least be a discussion, so that it is done in the best way to still have the article do what you want it to do but also what the target audience needs out of it. You opinion on how the articles are meant to be used does not match with the reality or with any person I know that reads these and you seem to be rather dogmatic about your opinion and the very limited scope of purpose that you see in these articles. I have no idea where the tilde is on my iPad, nor do I have an account so my signature is useless anyways.
Also if you simply scroll up you can see people who added to this article talk about reading the article to learn how to counter the army, so your opinion is not even consistent with the opinion of this talk page. And people talking about the inclusion of pt values and stats. I actually agree with you on a lot of the other things I have seen you talk about on here, but you really seem to miss the point of these articles.
What does stats actually tell you? You still have to parse and calculate it into something useful, like the average damage against unit A, B and C and compare it with how vulnerable it is to unit A, B and C. I'd like to know if any of the entries are to your liking or how to fix any of them to be more useful, the only weapon option missing from the Lychguard is that their axe is S+1 AP-3, the warscythe is already there. The Doomsday Ark describes everything you would ever want to know as far as I can see, it stands still and shoots a big gun, if it moves it becomes worse, it has some auxiliary firepower if you come close. Shoot it with your 1-3 Damage weapons not d6 damage weapons. You can write your name manually, you don't need to do the tilde thing, your name is unimportant anyway, what's important is the arguement and the flaws in the article. Angry Pirate (talk) 10:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, the Doomsday Ark entry could mention that three of them are an auto include in pretty much every Necron list that has placed in a tournament, that is not specifically relevant to this discussion though. The Triarch Stalker article gives no information on the other weapon options (and perhaps I was not careful enough in my reading but suggests that you can have gauss cannons and the heat ray), it also suggests the heat ray is the worst option when the few lists that have placed with the Stalker use the heat ray, not the other weapons.
Most of the entries do not even explicitly state what weapons are available or what they do, just to take “option a”. I would need to go to a computer to be more comprehensive about which units specifically and have specifically vague the information on their weapons is, which I am too lazy to do right now. Personally the stats tell me what the unit is good against, because I know the stats of most of the models in the game from reading all these articles and fiddling with BattleScribe when I can’t sleep, but in general it gives you a pretty good idea of the role. The new Primaris half-dread thing tells you the two main guns and stats. If written in a format similar to this article it would say it was good at melee rather than that it can punch at S14 and to take the flamer, never mentioning the autocannon option (which is inferior for a unit that can sneak up close and wants to be up close with a flamer, good melee and a Pistol 3 heavy bolter. This article would probably not mention the Pistol 3 option, as it is written now).
I really do appreciate the writing you guys do, things are not perfect but you do put a lot of work in and I am not willing to contribute to wiki articles significantly anymore, I find that there is too much drama and politics, Wikipedia or here. I read through a bunch of talk pages recently and that doesn’t do much to change my opinion on that, and a lot of you guys are not even willing to have a civilized discussion, some writers equate their seniority with authority to delete other, newer people’s things without a discussion even and completely ignoring facts that don’t suit them, or forcing changes.
Agreed with the name, I dont have a name that I am willing to use on here, I have been using this site for years and I would have never even written here if the somewhat recent change of removing the armouries on a couple pages did not have a negative effect on me reading them. Anyways, I appreciate the reply and apologize for anything rude I might say, I am often too blunt.
  • I re-organized this thread because it was getting too squirrely, how Wikipedia and Reddit can function with such garbage comment systems I don't get. I'm pretty zealous with what changes I allow on this page, because I see what dumpsters articles turn into if nobody cracks down on the endless comments and hot takes from people who've played 3 games with a unit. That might be part of why nobody is willing to improve the article, I'll probably get to it soon. That being said I don't think I'm being unfair and I'm open to discussion and to being wrong, I was of the opinion that removing the armoury was a poor idea and let go of that to try something different and I'm here reading your critisism of the article in the hopes it can be improved.
The Doomsday Ark part hasn't been updated since January, I also haven't written anything about the meta lists that have arrived since then. Two players have topped events with a Stalker, one with Gauss and one with Heat, the Heat player has had two successes while the other one had one. I'm not willing to say that Heat is the reason for his increased success since I have no information of whether he has tried the gauss version, the heat version is never stated to be the worst, it's the best at short range. Particle is the worst, it's better against hordes but not to any great degree. Gauss is the best, the extra range and S is important for the reasons listed in the article.
I'd appreciate it if you could look the article over in a couple of weeks when I've maybe had time to go through it and see what I can fix without you pointing it out and then doing it once again on parts of the article that still aren't good enough and perhaps re-instating the armoury, that being said the armoury won't fix the lack of lists of options for units, their up- and downsides or information simply being out of date due mainly to my personal lack of interest in updating this, I've stopped playing 40k between March and May and have only played at half steam since then, nobody else has been willing to include a short snippet in the tactics section about fielding 3 DDAs and 3 Doomscythes, despite anyone following Necron lists the least bit would know about this development. Angry Pirate (talk) 11:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Sorry Angry Pirate but I had to change the indents back. When reading this after the fact I legitimately had a hard time telling who was who. Breaking everything just into blocks with one point at the start of each would work if there were fewer blocks or even just one block, but not when there's three people in a discussion with this many paragraphs and the last blocks in an argument have no signature. Maybe there's a better way of writing it out, but at one point I literally couldn't tell your edit apart from the anon's. -- Triacom (talk) 18:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

To get back to the discussion at hand though, and hopefully we can reach a resolution here:

Please explain to me what opinions it has that are not reposted in the unit discussion and are sound tactical advice that cannot be posted in the unit discussion. Your prime example of Tesla vs Gauss itself fails this since it'll have different value depending on the unit taking it. That's a prime example of something that should be in the unit discussion, and not held far away from the unit. Before posting this I went back through the (now gone) armoury section, and there is literally nothing there that cannot be said in the unit entries. There is no opinion there that warrants a posting in the armoury section but not the unit entry, and the vast majority of opinions have to bring up the units who can take the wargear, while nearly everything that doesn't just says "it's nice". The small portion that aren't covered by the above just restate facts without giving advice.

Most of the people that read these articles do not have the rulebooks- Got a citation? If they do not have the rulebooks and if they are not playing the army then this isn't the page for them. As I brought up before, if you want tactics to counter the army you can look up the page for the army you do play and look at the bottom for tactics against enemy armies. If you feel they're too barebones, then feel free to expand on them. I'm also a little curious how you think you're going to play an army without the army book since the page doesn't list out full unit stats and points values, so yes, they are meant to be used in conjunction with the rulebooks. If you need to explain the specifics about weapons, then that info is useless unless you're taking a unit that can take that weapon, which again leads to it being better suited in the unit entries.

Many articles also do not have those sections at the end- Feel free to add them. If you want them more fleshed out, there's nothing stopping you from doing that. If you really think that mentioning the weapons is so vital for other armies, then that would be the place to do it if you also didn't want to mention that other army's units.

You don’t list point values because...oh wait, most articles heavily mention point values and stats and you can figure out the stats of every unit in the codex from reading most articles. Yeah, that's bullshit. The mentions of points in articles is in no way similar to the listing of that unit's points, and you're not going to figure out unit stats of every unit by their description. There also aren't any pages I'm aware of that list the entire stat block, and the ones that list a partial stat block were written by people who didn't know better, same as the people who thought it was appropriate to have massive strikethrough and paragraph upon paragraph of argument on the main page instead of just correcting the info. It's also the same in pages where they use a table to separate the unit name, the unit description/advice, and an image of the unit instead of learning how to have the image be a thumbnail hugging the righthand side. Just because something's on a page now, doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Occasionally on the talk page I see someone asking if there are any legal problems with having so much info- Do you know why that is? It's because GW has come to the site in the past and demanded certain things be removed. As such, we try not to do something that'll really piss them off. It doesn't matter what other sites do, and it doesn't matter how many of them do it, the point is we shouldn't be doing it. Even if GW did nothing, that doesn't mean we should do it because listing the stats like that is completely pointless. Even if you want to imagine people using the tactics sections don't have the book, how are they going to play the army without the book?

This is the single least informative article that I have read and is the only one where I need to check somewhere else to simply find the stats on weapons. Apparently you haven't read past tactics articles, or even other tactics articles in this same edition. Also, many of the unit entries give only a superficial explanation of weapons relevant to them. They have the same info that was in the armoury section, if you think it's practically nothing, then that further shows how little the armoury section actually contained. If you feel that it should be expanded upon further, what they're good/bad against and ideal matchups as well as their drawbacks and comparative points costs for example, then feel free to expand upon it. I did the same in the pages I've redone (of which the Necron page is not one of them) so you can do the same here.

Playing against an army might be linked with how to play them, but they're not the same thing by any stretch of the imagination. If they were the same thing, then you wouldn't have to think for a second about which units in other armies counter this army. That's why people started adding that sort of entry at the bottom of other tactics pages in the first place. Just because they're a stub now doesn't mean they cannot or should not be improved upon and fleshed out further with advice on which units to bring and which unis to pick off.

I agree that discussion is needed, which is why I asked for discussion on this issue more than a month before I started doing anything about it. The reason my opinion is that the articles are meant for those who played the armies is because that was the point of the articles dating all the way back to 3rd edition, and I don't see why that would change now. If you don't think my opinion is consistent with this talk page, then it is consistent with the 9+ years we've had tactics pages.

Just for the record, I think you're getting the wrong opinion on 1d4chan. I can safely say that I've opened and participated in more discussions than anybody else on the site, and they're usually not even needed for 90% of the edits you're going to make. The parts you see on the talk pages are the exception, not the rule when it comes to making edits, even controversial ones. Also to really quickly look at the Invictor, if it was written in a way that highlighted its strengths you could absolutely mention how the Autocannon's worse than the flamer, since it wants to be up close and mentioning S14 would be absolutely fine if you were to write something like: "S14 means you'll mulch through heavier troops, but its lack of attacks means that even though it's wounding on 2's you don't want it facing off against hordes. It's also a little inferior to the regular Dreadnought when it comes to tearing apart vehicles, but it'll still do the job if you really need to knock a vehicle down on its damage table or finish off an already wounded vehicle. Just don't send it up against enemy walkers who have S8 base, most of the time they'll have more attacks than you, more wounds than you, and they'll have to-wound rolls (if not to-hit rolls), it's not a fight you're likely to win." There you go, you can still mention that sort of thing without writing off their entire stat block first. You also don't need to list out what a power fist is in an entry way above this one to explain how it makes the Invictor stronger. That's why I try to make mention of how the various wargear comes into effect in the unit entries when I redo pages so that you still see how something is effective as it is, rather than just saying it's good.

Also as far as people not willing to have a civilized discussion goes, a lot of it is just blowing off steam. in the vast majority of cases the longer a discussion goes on the more civilized people get. -- Triacom (talk) 18:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Appreciate the well thought out and formatted reply. So I was going to list every unit that had a vague description of what the weapons have or do, but then I read the first entry, Overlord. There is no description of what any weapon it takes can do and why you would take a Hyperphase sword (which is the meta, I assume it is the cheapest but that is not even mentioned, which it usually is in other articles) over a voidblade or voidscythe. The only thing that indicates what a warscythe does in the article is the Lychguard which does state their stats and then states what there stats would be if they had a warscythe. Leads me to believe that a warscythe does +3 S, -4 AP D2. Most unit entries are like that, they mention it as if I should already know what it is, which most people that read the Necron or DEldar or some of the other more uncommon armies will not. In 17 years of playing I have never played with or against them, in a city of over 7 million.
If there was no opinion in the old armoury page then you should have written the opinion in instead of deleting valuable knowledge, as most of the other articles do. I am not suggests paragraphs, but the Space Marine article is probably the most informative, it has all of the weapons, seperated by type and a couple words saying why a Stalker Bolter Rifle is different from a Bolter, and the word "skip" (or some snarky line) if it is bad, what units can take it if the selection is limited and where it stands out. I used Hellblasters in two games before I noticed by reading said article that their Plasma guns have slightly better AP (not that it was relevant against guard or the knight they had shot at in those games). It does need some cleaning and some of that can certainly be condensced, especially with all the new rules and the meta shift with that, but that article is very informative, and that is the real point.
By the way, just while we are in the area, the abbreviations section on this is maybe not needed and does look ugly and messy. Many of the things don't come up enough, "Hyperphase" is used only three times in the article, sword is used seven, including the abbreviations section. MWBD can be figured out without needed it put there by having it written out and explained once in unit entries (and I think it is actually explained in that way multiple times in the Sautekh section and some of the character sections).
So, the argument that I should I should check something that doesn't exist and if it doesn't exist is pretty faulty. It doesn't even exist on this page and I am in no position to make one myself, as I said, I know nothing about Necrons, what I do know if from pirating or buying their previous codices (I am not currently in a state where I am willing to buy codices for armies I do not play, or even all four of the factions I do "play". I own Space Wolves but have not touched them since before the Thunderwolf Cav model was released). And those descriptions of how to play against them are very shallow, you want to learn to play against something you learn how to play it, then work your way back. Lets you understand the thought process of the opponent. I also look at this stuff to decide if I might want to ever play an army like Tau (which I do), Necrons never quite feel right on paper. If this article exists to teach people to play Necrons competitively, then it is worse than I thought, because it recommends things that fly in the face of the Necron lists that win tournaments. Then it should basically just be "Play Sautekh, spam teslas, flyers, etc." Just for instance it suggests repeatedly that Gauss Immortals are better than Tesla against most units (not by a large margin but still), however competitive lists that win rarely take Gauss in meaningful numbers, certainly on Immortals.
And other articles are not formatted in such a way to force someone to check the stats of a bolter or hyperphase sword in the book. The Space Marine article allows me to read everything with out once switching over to read my copy of the codex, even with the new units that are not in my old codex. I need to switch to check the specific wording to see if my Scout sarge can take a bolter and a storm bolter, and to figure out exact costs, but not to decide what function he fills with what weapons. The article does, but with battlescribe.
I want to be polite here, but I call bullshit on your bullshit. Pretty much every Primarch, unique character and unit that has it's own unique article has it's stat block listed in full, currently many have their statblocks listed for 7th and 8th. I will agree that not everything that is on here is a good idea, literally the basis of my argument of not removing the armoury section wholesale. If you feel that strongly about it you should probably fix all those pages that have had those since 7th edition at least, from my perspective they were there when I first found this site in like 2016, maybe 2015, or about since 30k first added in the Primarchs, that is the first time I noticed them as I usually don't read the pages on unique characters, I assume it has the same tactical stuff that is on the tactica pages (because it does whenever I read it) and I don't care much about many of them. The Bjorn one has some good jokes though, and there was a running joke with my friends (who are largely about 7 year younger than me, what you get when you meet people through games. They are in their 20s so it's not creepy, I promise) with us having similar personalities and I often go by Old Man Logan (Logan being a middle name).
As for the point value part, I mean if you read the 3e SM codex and then you read the SM article, you can figure out the stats of most things. Initiative is gone but the stats have been pretty constant over the years, it says +1Ld somewhere I can figure out that they go from 7 to 8. +1 A and W on Primaris tells you their stats. Many unit entries list the point costs of the most relevant weapons but also the models, many entries specifically state the unit cost per model (often in response to the price going up or down in whatever new thing). If you read the articles on every common army certainly this is common and part of the tactic discussion, which often revolves around points per wound, points per weapons and efficiency. This article is fairly unique in that it does not. So the facts are with my bullshit, you might call that an aberration or something that needs to be fixed, but if it is then it seems like you have a lot of things to do other than worry about having an armoury section that takes up less than 10% of the article, because you care a lot more than the rest of the contributors here. From a democratic standpoint kind of suggests you might be on the outs for that argument.
I really can't say anything about the legal actions, if you get a cease and desist you should of course follow through without as much as needed. GW does have a history of going beyond their legal rights, but 1d4chan and it's users should of course not be involved in a court case to fight out anything like that. Still, there are things that have been here for years without change and main stream sites like Belloflostsouls and Spikeybits get away with far more than this article at least, and still have early access to things. This site doesn't need to go over the legal line, but it doesn't need to run from it before it even shows up.
Again, I know nothing about Necrons, I am here reading about Necrons because I don't know about them, so no, I can't add much. I think there is an argument that the armoury sections are largely redundant for some armies. Gonna say mainly the popular ones, before all the Primaris guys Marines had a pretty straight forward and common selection of weapons that needed little explaining. Space Wolves needed a little bit "Frost weapons get +1 over what the power weapon version has" or something. And many of their weapons are widespread, how many units get a bolter or variation. Eldar have a lot of weapons that are re-skinned marine weapons, and most of them are again widespread in the army. If you say a Fusion gun is a melta or that a shuriken catapult is an assault bolter with -3 ap on a 6-to-wound, or that Dark Avenger shuri has +6" the information is pretty well covered and only truly new players will be confused. Then they should probably just read more. Lances are only available to two units, as are reaper launchers (or whatever they are called), talking about them on in their unit article makes perfect sense. But DEldar and Necrons have some fairly specific gear, many of the unit entries don't even mention the names of the weapons, just what the unit does, not even that all the time. Access to big shiny scythes that I assume are good in melee kind of imply Overlords are some kind of beatstick. The 3 attacks disabuses that notion, so what are they good at? Is MWBD all they are good for? I have no idea what the Triarch Praetorians do and what they are good against, or what their weapons are good against, the unit entry for them has no useful information aside from their interactions with MWBD. Are they expensive, cheap, multiwound? The Rod does more damage, is it for killing MEQs, TEQs or vehicles, the strenght, ap, rof and damage are completely unexplained, as their are for their other weapons (seriously I am checking Battlescribe now. So the Rod is Assault S5 Ap-3 1D, MEQ killer. It is not infact more damaging as the unit entry states, it has better AP but it does not do more Damage to multi-wound models, so that is poorly worded. The other options is a S6 Pistol and -3AP chainsword. They are TEQs, none of this basic info is in the article). And many of these weapons are common across the army, you can simply have an armoury section that has the table from the talk here (which is linked from the warrior entry) and explain the difference between tesla and gauss, most shooty units will have one or the other. And then list all four melee weapons that are somewhat widely available (I think everything is available on at least two units) so that the differences become apparent. In the unit entries you can leave the information currently available then, but I would actually explicitly state the names of the weapons that some units use, like Deathmarks, so I at least know what the gun is called other than RF sniper rifle, or the claws on Flayed ones. Most articles do not go out of the way to hide the name of the weapons they use, this seems to, it is not even always specific about which version of a tesla or gauss weapon it has access to.
You are telling me how you see these articles written and for what intent, I am saying that it is something different. Because it is a large collaborative project I doubt either of us is 100% correct, but your stance is far more dogmatic than mine. People use these however they like or feel like, not to fit the limited purpose you lay out. I am in no way suggesting you should ever play an army without actually owning the rulebook or the codex appropriate to your army. I might hate GW as a company a lot of the time and dislike giving them money for making repeated bad choices, or for treating everyone around them like crap, but they still deserve money for their work, at the very least so that the game continues to exist and grow (moment of silence for poor Fantasy). But if you want to fiddle around on with this, Battlescribe and other resources to see what different armies can do on paper and how to play them you certainly don't need a codex for that.
I can also say as a reader for at least a few editions of that, it is not consistent with all 9 years of writing, you might feel that way but your perspective is YOUR perspective, it is narrowed by your experience and what you use the site for, which is not the same as what many people use the site for. Certainly everyone I know that uses this site uses it for comedic value first, the tactical discussions second, and that is rarely limited only the armies they personally play. Right now I can click on the 7e DAngels article and read it and it tells me what weapons do without needing to go the basement to check my old rulebooks (or my old iPad for the old Codex I paid for but that is no longer available, I think it is if I have an older iOS though). Same goes for CSM 6th, but not 5th (does have point values for some things, but not an armoury). They do like nice and clean though. Wow, I take it all back, the 3eR DEldar article is the least informative one. The 4e Necron one is pretty limited, but they didn't have any options, Tesla weapons were from what, 6th? A lot of these old ones are not terribly large, one line per unit entry. The purpose doesn't seem to have been tactics at all but humour, the suggestion that Inquisitional Storm Troopers were bad in 3rd is just wrong. They were a much more efficient way of getting shooty troops and wounds to let your Grey Knights go and smack things. 11pts to 25pts as I recall, with better AP, the Deathcult Assassin note misses the fucktonne (relative to the edition) of powerweapon attacks you get out of them and how cheap they were for what they did (like 40pts with an 5++, great GEQ blender). Man, I miss that army. Anyways, point is, aside from me being lost in nostalgia, that no, not terribly consistent across the editions. Resembles herding cats in many ways. Lol, omg, you guys still have a link to an illegal PDF of the 3e Daemonhunter codex, 10pts for a Stormtrooper. 3 power weapon attacks were kind of a lot in 3e, for a 40pt model.
Anyways man, it is 2am. I had thought that you had more of a hand in this article. I would argue that if the armoury was so useless then the article needs to be improved and it was kind of a low priority to everything else it needs. This article does need a bit of work to actually have useful information comparable to the other articles on here. Btw, I think you split all the Chapter specific stuff away in the SM one, as the Dynasties are here. A little confusing at first but a far superior organization layout, thanks for that (although it took me like 30 minutes to find Abaddon when it first hit the CSM).
~OldManLogan
How is "Your basic HQ choice, and customizable. Your basic Overlord will cost you the same amount of points as 80 searchlights, and there's a small list of wargear upgrades to choose from. In terms of sheer value, this is the best HQ in the codex." more informative and useful than "The once customizable close combat monstrosity can now only replace his Staff of Light with a Hyperphase Sword, a Voidblade, a Voidscythe or a Warscythe, all more or less equally good depending your list and matchups. Phase shifter is already included in the kit. Their only non-weapon upgrade (aside from relics) is the Resurrection Orb, which is pretty meh but good if you have Lychguard or Destroyers. The main reason (and it's a good one) to buy an Overlord instead of a Lord is his buff My Will Be Done. Note that the overlord comes stock with a flat 3 attacks which makes him fairly weak at duelling compared to almost every other HQ. Dont let the 5 wounds fool you, he will go down fast to any decent beatstick character. Think instead of your overlord as a charge deterrent, buffing a blob of immortals and discouraging harassment units like reivers. The only time your overlord should be duelling characters is with supporting lychguard to tank wounds, otherwise you'll watch him die in one round of combat. Also dont forget the stratagem that allows the first attack made by a character to ignore invulnerable saves. While it won't secure the punch up, it will allow your overlord to take a chunk out of whatever special snowflake manages to kill him next turn."?
You say that "Access to big shiny scythes that I assume are good in melee kind of imply Overlords are some kind of beatstick. The 3 attacks disabuses that notion, so what are they good at? Is MWBD all they are good for?" The answer is in the article "The main reason (and it's a good one) to buy an Overlord instead of a Lord is his buff My Will Be Done. Note that the overlord comes stock with a flat 3 attacks which makes him fairly weak at duelling compared to almost every other HQ. Dont let the 5 wounds fool you, he will go down fast to any decent beatstick character. Think instead of your overlord as a charge deterrent, buffing a blob of immortals and discouraging harassment units like reivers." Where in the article does it ever say that taking a warscythe makes him a beatstick or a duelist?
Triarch Praetorians "Praetorians are like Lychguard, except they have Movement 10 FLY and can either have a Rod of Covenant or a Voidblade and a Particle Caster" Lychguard "S and T 5 and 2 Attacks compared to Immortals S and T 4 and 1 Attack, Lychguard are our psudeo-Terminators." So Triarch Praetorians are S and T 5 with 2 attacks. "The Rod of Covenant will deal more damage and then you will either make the charge and the extra attack you get from the Voidblade will make the total damage output of Voidblade/Particle Caster better or you will fail and the Rod of Covenant will have dealt the most damage." It doesn't say every attack does more damage, but that the shooting attack does more damage with rods and that the voidblades do much more damage in close combat. The damage characteristic is never mentioned and them being better against one thing or another is never mentioned because the weapon options are nearly identical, one is a slightly better at shooting, the other is a lot better in melee. I can see how it's lacking information about what it's job is, all of this information is just stuck in my head so I skip over stuff, again, I hope you'll come back and look things over in a couple of weeks. I'm also trying to prevent the article from becoming too dry, because as you can see from previous editions it's already pretty dry.
The number of searchlights or skaven slaves a unit costs is totally irrelevant to you as an opponent and as a player you should just download battlescribe, where you'll find the individual stats as well. 1% of matches actually care about how many pts a unit costs, mostly it's just a question of rules on the table once list building is done, it's done. I agree that it's unfeasible to create counter tactics for every army against every army. That's too much content for us to put out, Necron Destroyers being priority #1 is not something you're going to find when you look around the other tactics pages and a list of important Stratagems is not something you're going to find, it should be here on the Necron Tactics page IMO. I don't necessarily think stats should all be here, but I tried to put in what units are weak against by listing their T, W, Sv and whether they have Quantum Shielding or not and I'll try adding what they're good against as well.
As for the SM page... It doesn't even say what the Captain does except he prevents plasma from exploding, so is that his ability? Makes SM plasma weapons not explode, does it persist after he dies? Are meltaguns a good option for him? I'll take the chainsword as well because it's good against hordes. /s No other articles don't go into any more depth on what to take for each HQ, they just haven't had their armoury yeeted or have been updated to tell you in the unit entry to tell you what the options do. If you're taking the basic Captain what options are good for him specifically? The TH SS is only mentioned to be amazing on jump Captains, so is every other choice perfectly equal? Not a single one of them is negative and the Captain entry mentions nothing. Angry Pirate (talk) 07:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • On the overlord, like I said before it says in his entry what it said in the armoury section. There was no reason given for what weapons were best at or why you'd ever want a Hyperphase sword in there either, however just because it doesn't say that at the moment doesn't mean it would be a bad idea to edit that in. The page itself is still rather lacking in advice, and there isn't any advice found in the former armoury that isn't in the unit entries right now. If there was no opinion in the old armoury page then you should have written the opinion in instead of deleting valuable knowledge- What knowledge? There's nothing there that wasn't already in the book, and again, why would you write an opinion for the Overlord under the Warscythe entry and not in the Overlord entry? Also why would you split this opinion across the Warscythe, the Voidblade, and the Voidscythe entries which would make the reader jump between those three in different sections of the page, as well as the Overlord entry?
For the Hellblasters you mentioned, the extra AP is still something that can and should be mentioned in their unit entry, and at that point it becomes redundant to mention it in their wargear section. Furthermore, why wouldn't you mention it in their unit entry? Furthermore, if a page is so muddled that it doesn't tell you what role a unit fulfills with their weapons, again you can fix that since it certainly wasn't fixed when the weapons stats were listed. The Space Marine article for example doesn't let you use the Scouts without the book and it further illustrates my point. Scouts, which you reference here, have a rule called "concealed positions". What does that do? Check the book. If you really need to be told how powerful a Marine's bolter is then there's nothing stopping the article saying something like how S4 fares against elite troops and typical hordes, it's all in how you work it into the page and breaking it apart doesn't help this.
So, the argument that I should I should check something that doesn't exist and if it doesn't exist is pretty faulty- The page is still in development and requires users like us to update it and make it better. I'm sincere when I say feel free to edit stuff in, because that would help the page out as a whole. Also I can say for a fact you don't have to learn how to play an army to write up how to play against them, you just need to either play against them, or watch several games where people play against them. There's even a Twitch channel called WarhammerTV that has plenty of archived Necron games you can watch where they go over the mechanics of the army very thoroughly and explain what's happening in a way that's meant for people who've never seen the army before. Pay attention and you'll very quickly figure out what's good and what's bad against them, and then you can either check that against this page, or you can use this page to inform you about whether or not the players made sound tactical moves. If the page recommends things that fly in the face of tournament lists, then by all means please correct it.
I want to be polite here, but I call bullshit on your bullshit. Pretty much every Primarch, unique character and unit that has it's own unique article has it's stat block listed in full. If you're calling bullshit, then it's pretty easy to check to see if the pages have statblocks listed in full for unique characters and unique units. Space Marines: Nope. Nearly every single Marine squad has its own article, as do Primaris, but what about characters? Calgar doesn't have his stats listed in full, what's his Movement, what's his Wounds? How many attacks does he have? What Strength is he? What's his Toughness? Certain aspects of his character are highlighted in his entries, but the entire statblock is not listed. The only character here who is fully listed is Roboute Guilliman, but one character does not equal pretty much every Primarch, unique character and unit that has its own unique article. Chaos Space Marines: I was the one who redid them, I know for a fact that's not true. Tau: I redid them although I'd still consider that a half-finished project, so I know that's not true. Sisters of Battle? Nope. Imperial Guard? Nope. NECRONS? Nope. Sure there's other pages that might list the vast majority of stats, but certainly not all and not on every single unit that has its own article. I would feel comfortable in saying less than 1% of units that have their own unique articles have their statblocks listed in full. If you mean to say that those unique articles list their stats in full, then that's a different thing entirely. Those articles are about how those units are purely in a vacuum and not how they perform compared to the rest of the army, similar to the various weapon pages that are also on the site.
If you feel that strongly about it you should probably fix all those pages that have had those since 7th edition at least- I do intend to, the reason why I haven't been able to is purely due to the time required. I'd love to give them the same treatment that I gave the CSM, and even the CSM can still be improved the more I look back on it since I feel I didn't do a good enough job of explaining the 'why' behind some of the advice. To bring up how the Armoury as is would not be needed, there's a discussion there on the Havoc's entry that goes over their various weapons and their strengths, but the bit that actually mentions the stats and uses them comparatively was added by somebody else and I left it because it's worth consideration and helps inform the reader, and the only thing I'd do to clean it up would be to point out targets that it fit the various toughness that the entry describes so that a user might have a better idea of which armies it's better geared to be used towards. That's ideally what I'd like to see all the pages turn into, but it takes literally days if not a solid week for me to go over everything, reformat everything (in the case of adding in the Legion blocks that I made at the bottom), fact-check everything, compare everything with the current meta, add in anything new that wasn't in there before, remove bad advice, etc. There's a lot of work involved and sadly I don't have the time to get it all accomplished in a timely manner. As of the time of writing this I'm also working on a different tactics page, but that's an Age of Sigmar page which also needs some help.
As for the point value part, I mean if you read the 3e SM codex- And here I thought you said the articles weren't meant to be used alongside the books. Stats have been consistent over the years, yet somehow I doubt you'd be able to tell me the stats of the Necrons, even though like the Marines they've gone mostly unchanged past 5e, and even if you'd memorized the 5e book you'd still be thrown off by the changes that have been added. The extra wound on some units has thrown people off in Battle Reports I've watched, just like it did when people were still trying to remember how many Wounds Terminators have now (or Bikers for that matter). The bit you mention about knowing the stats because you're familiar with the base and then the modifier is exactly what the tactics articles are supposed to do, keep you informed about an army you either already play or know very well. I'm also going to point out that the armoury section is the part I worry about last, because when I redo a page I work through each unit, then at the very end I go through the armoury to make sure I've not missed something and that there isn't anything there worth keeping in the unit entries. In short, yes, I do have more to worry about than just the armouries, however just because I prioritize them last in my list doesn't mean they're not on my list, or that they're so low on the radar that they should be ignored.
As far as the legal case goes, we did exactly that. They told the wiki to remove stuff, we removed it. After that we try not to piss them off, in fact on a few of the Primarch pages you'll see older discussions where I was worried about listing the points costs of the Primarchs purely because I was worried about legal action, but enough other users wanted to take the risk that I decided to go with it. If GW came after us for listing their points costs that would be within their right, and we'd pull that immediately, but just because we make an exception for one incredibly popular character doesn't mean we should do it for everyone. That's the sort of thing that makes you go from "tolerated" to "C&D'd", as happened before when too much ended up being posted. Again, it doesn't matter what other sites do, that didn't give us a free pass before and we shouldn't think it gives us a free pass now.
You don't need to remove every mention of every stat from every weapon. That example I gave of the Invictor before is an example of how you work a weapon into a unit entry that keeps the reader informed, and there's no reason we can't do the same thing here. If you really feel the need to mention that Gauss is S4 with AP-1, then you can say "At S4 their guns don't look like much, but with AP-1 against cover-camping guard they're worth more than a Bolter, and they'll also trade evenly with Marines since you'll effectively be hitting each other with the same Strength, and you'll both be taking the same save roll. Better yet, Marines don't have reanimation protocols so you're more likely to win protracted engagements against anyone who isn't geared for melee." (Granted this advice is a little outdated given the Bolter Discipline rule which is now in the game, and the advice could also be written better but I think you get the point.) The questions you ask about the units also show just how much the page is lacking in its unit entries, and those questions were not at all answered when the armoury section was still there. That's still something the unit entries can be expanded upon to flesh it out more, and just because it hasn't been expanded upon yet doesn't mean it cannot or shouldn't be. I also still haven't seen a good reason for why you'd keep the discussion of Gauss vs Tesla away from the actual units who can take Gauss vs Tesla. You say it could be in the armoury section, but for what purpose? It could be just on the unit itself and in a collapsible section if you feel it takes up too much room.
What I'm telling you is the purpose the articles were originally designed for, and I'm sticking to that purpose. I don't see a reason for why the page should focus on giving away weaknesses for other armies to exploit in case somebody who plays another army and wants to learn how to counter this army, especially when there's already a section on their own page that's supposed to fill that role. It being smaller on that page is no argument, since you can just flesh it out and make that page better for it. I also find it very bizarre that you claim GW deserves money for their work, while arguing that the page itself should be able to be used without buying or even using GW's books.
I can also say as a reader for at least a few editions of that, it is not consistent with all 9 years of writing- I never said it was consistent, and certainly because different people work on different tactics pages they're always going to come out differently. That being said, sometimes a thing gets worked into a tactics page and then everyone else thinks it's an acceptable idea, which is why we've had more than a few times we've had to go through our tactics pages and weed out strikethroughs and arguments on the main page that led to more argument than actual discussion or even description of the army in question. Even now we still get that, somebody posts a single counterpoint and within a week you can find several of people giving up a counterpart and advocating for or against advice, instead of just changing the original unit entry to incorporate what they have to say into that entry. As far as I can tell, the Armoury sections is just another one of those, something somebody added in once and then everyone else jumped on. That's why I posted this across every single page and then waited quite a while for any kind of response before doing something about it.
Also just as an aside, in 3e the Inquisitorial Stormtroopers were iffy because you could ally in Imperial Guard if you wanted more guns, or Sisters of Battle/Space Marines if you wanted more armour. About the only thing Stormtroopers did better than either at the time was be a source of cheap plasma. Also that link isn't to an illegal PDF of the 3e Daemonhunter Codex, it links to a PDF that GW released on their website for free, since that's how GW used to do Codex Updates. In the past they'd released the IG Tank List for free, the Feral Orks List for free, the Blood Angels List for free, and the Sisters of Battle Codex for free to name a few (they did the same for Warhammer Fantasy, releasing not just dozens of major characters for free but also entire army lists like the Slayer army and Kislev). The power weapon on the Stormtrooper isn't mentioned for two reasons: trying to take Assault troops in melee with a power weapon will likely result in getting his squad killed and himself run down (when you factor in his squad it makes it a lot pricier, especially when you consider that his squad's likely toting plasma), and the fact that GW FAQ'd out stuff like Thunder Hammers on him despite originally advocating for them.
To finish up, I've barely touched the article. When I'm about to make what I consider to be a major change to the article, or to change something that's been around for a long time I usually drop something in the talk page and then wait somewhere between a week and a month before going through with the actual change, and I hold off even longer if somebody has something to say about it. This bit here: I would argue that if the armoury was so useless then the article needs to be improved and it was kind of a low priority to everything else it needs. I am entirely in agreement with. -- Triacom (talk) 08:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
One more thing, to auto-sign your post, use four tilde strokes (this key: ~ ). Use it four times and hit show preview if you're a little unsure, but I can assure you it'll take care of your full name and time for you. -- Triacom (talk) 08:15, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

When Should Someone be Credited?[edit]

I think it is fair to remove the assertion that Eulis Sanders came up with the idea of using Ghost Arks as speedbumps, it's a tactic that I posted about on the 9th of April 2018 and I probably pirated it from someone earlier, Idic's video came up January 2020. At the same time I'm sure Eulis did not himself make the edit, he's probably travelling back from his nice LVO finish this weekend, I assume that comment was made in jest. Anyways, I was the one who started putting real names on this page when discussing army builds, but that was primarily so people could go and verify that so and so had actually achieved whatever I said they achieved with the specific build that was being discussed, outside of that I don't believe anybody needs credit for anything, in part because it's impossible to verify who came up with it first. If someone believes that all names should be removed from the page they can say so in this thread. - Pirate

I don't feel like any tactics should be ascribed to anyone personally because I can guarantee several people had the same idea even if they weren't on this wiki. For example, as soon as 8th ed came out the first game I saw was using flying vehicles as speed bumps, and I highly doubt they were reading a tactics page online to figure out they could do this. I also think it takes away from the idea that it's a community effort if we attach some people to a specific tactic and not others, so it's better to not do it at all. -- Triacom (talk) 17:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
You don't find value in writing when something has topped a tournament? I see a problem with side-lining Doom6 with Wraithwing because one has had a hundred times more success recently. - Pirate
I don't see any value in saying "This person created this strategy." If you want to give an example of where a strategy was used or how effective it is then that's one thing, it's another to claim somebody made something just because they're using it. -- Triacom (talk) 06:07, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Szeras[edit]

    • Psychic Awakening gave Szeras a SERIOUS buff. Now he's got 8 Wounds and T6, making him tankier, while his Eldritch Lance has AP-3 and D2 in melee and is Assault d3 in shooting - and he can now stab people twice with his spindly AP-2 legs! His mobility also got a boost to M8, which he'll absolutely get more use of now thanks to his Atomic Energy Manipulator rewarding him killing enemy units in melee with an additional use of the Augmentations. To top it all off, he's now threatening to Psykers as well, as he makes any who cast within 9" suffer Perils on ANY doubles. His role is now firmly set at the front lines, accompanying a good vanguard so he can go ripping through enemies and bolstering his troops as they close in.

PA isn't out and you forgot to mention the range of his staff being lowered. Not to mention the fact that you should edit the original text instead of adding an amendment to keep the article neat. Angry Pirate (talk) 18:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)