Codex: Necrons faq/errata

[Vardus]

Just phased in https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/S5ThB5tL9CLxVU3a.pdf

[Tyriks]

Territorial Obsession makes sense. Was clearly a mistake. Cynosure of Eradication probably makes sense. It was very good in a unit of Immortals with an Overlord and Plasmancer.

 

Cosmic Precision is an interesting answer too.

Edited January 10 by Tyriks
typo

[TrawlingCleaner]

This is the most impactful thing on here, before it was CRYPTEK or CANOPTEK units now it's models in that unit. You could put a Cryptek character in a unit of Immortals to give it the Cryptek keyword and then use this stratagem to give the whole unit Dev Wounds. You could stack Re-rolls to hit, wound and Crit Wounds Hits on a 5+ on a unit of Immortals and then also give them DevWounds which averaged to be about 10(?) Dev Wounds a shooting phase plus normal wounds if they were smaller targets

Edited January 10 by TrawlingCleaner
Hits not Wounds

[Vassakov]

So UKTC have said that the FAQ's will apply, but the Errata's won't for Nottingham (this weekend) which is fine.

 

For what it's worth, I've got Triple C'tan Hypercrypt locked in and the FAQ answer that essentially adds Deep Strike to Cosmic Precision is very tasty, and probably where most of my CP will go.

 

A ruling on how the reanimation when in Strat reserves stratagem is intended to work would have been nice - as it is, it currently only works on damaged multi-wound models in reserve which whilst alright doesn't feel like it's the intent. 

[Tyriks]

4 minutes ago, Vassakov said:

So UKTC have said that the FAQ's will apply, but the Errata's won't for Nottingham (this weekend) which is fine.

 

For what it's worth, I've got Triple C'tan Hypercrypt locked in and the FAQ answer that essentially adds Deep Strike to Cosmic Precision is very tasty, and probably where most of my CP will go.

 

A ruling on how the reanimation when in Strat reserves stratagem is intended to work would have been nice - as it is, it currently only works on damaged multi-wound models in reserve which whilst alright doesn't feel like it's the intent. 

Why would it only work on multi-wound models? I'm not seeing anything to suggest that.

[Vassakov]

The core rules say that you can't add models to a unit in reserve as they must be set up in coherency with the unit, which isn't on the table. 

 

So you can spend 1 CP on an understrength unit of Immortals, but you aren't actually allowed to add the models back to the unit. I don't think this is the intent, and most opponents have allowed it, but technically you can't. 

[Tyriks]

10 minutes ago, Vassakov said:

The core rules say that you can't add models to a unit in reserve as they must be set up in coherency with the unit, which isn't on the table. 

 

So you can spend 1 CP on an understrength unit of Immortals, but you aren't actually allowed to add the models back to the unit. I don't think this is the intent, and most opponents have allowed it, but technically you can't. 

Where do the rules say this? Coherency only specifies when a model is set up. The rules for set up specify the battlefield, and RP doesn't say you set it up.

[Vassakov]

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/z4s1GbINmCU4NGXs.pdf

 

Rules commentary, "Adding models to a unit" and "Returning models to a unit."

Specifically: Adding Models to a Unit: Some rules allow you to add models to a unit during the battle; such models must be set up in Unit Coherency with models in their unit that started that phase on the battlefield (i.e. models that were already on the battlefield when that rule was used). A model added to a unit during the battle can be set up within Engagement Range of one or more enemy units, but only if those enemy units are already within Engagement Range of the unit that model is being added to. When adding models to a unit as described above, any models that cannot be set up due to insufficient space are considered to have been destroyed, but do not trigger any rules that are triggered when a model is destroyed.

[Tyriks]

Ok, I see. That makes more sense. I would still not read it as the strategem onky works on multi wound models, but I see that you can read it that way. Since the stratagem already ignores the normal rules for RP I would read it as ignoring that restriction as well, but it's not clearly laid out, so that makes sense. Would be worth emailing that to them!

[Emperor Ming]

Good

 

Rerolls are getting out of hand this ed

[DemonGSides]

On 1/10/2024 at 10:43 AM, TrawlingCleaner said:

This is the most impactful thing on here, before it was CRYPTEK or CANOPTEK units now it's models in that unit. You could put a Cryptek character in a unit of Immortals to give it the Cryptek keyword and then use this stratagem to give the whole unit Dev Wounds. You could stack Re-rolls to hit, wound and Crit Wounds Hits on a 5+ on a unit of Immortals and then also give them DevWounds which averaged to be about 10(?) Dev Wounds a shooting phase plus normal wounds if they were smaller targets

 

10?  Try 21.  (Fat fingered, was supposed to be 12)

 

It was a supremely unfun situation to watch Tesla immortals destroy a land raider. Supremely unfun.

Edited January 15 by DemonGSides

[Tyriks]

21 is way above average, even with a Plasmancer and full rerolls.

[Cenobite Terminator]

It needed to be nerfed.

[OttoVonAwesome]

On 1/10/2024 at 11:45 AM, DemonGSides said:

 

10?  Try 21.

 

It was a supremely unfun situation to watch Tesla immortals destroy a land raider. Supremely unfun.

I geuss you weren't around when all necron guns popped glancing hits on vehicles on a 6.

[DemonGSides]

17 hours ago, OttoVonAwesome said:

I geuss you weren't around when all necron guns popped glancing hits on vehicles on a 6.

 

Believe it or not, :cuss: can suck at two different points in time :P

[Karhedron]

19 hours ago, OttoVonAwesome said:

I geuss you weren't around when all necron guns popped glancing hits on vehicles on a 6.

 

That was a cludge to get around the fact that the Necrons back then had almost no proper heavy weapons. Now they have a properly fleshed out roster, this is not such as issue.

 

Besides everything can wound on a 6 and has been able to since 8th.

[Daimyo-Phaeron Lenoch]

Also, Necrons still kinda have that in the form of Lethal Hits on all their gauss weapons now? It's not as good as it used to be, but it's still pretty decent.

 

(That said, tesla should not have been melting armor right off the table. That was gauss's job. Tesla is much more for cleaning up the hordes that pop out of a gauss-slagged transport, for instance.)

[Vassakov]

So I think there's a difference between Gauss weapons being able to do chip damage to vehicles on mass, and the effect that Dev Wounds has is it makes volume fire incredibly good into *any* target, which seems to be something GW wanted to minimise. In 3rd they effectively had "Lethal Hits," but generally poor AP so it wasn't a significant threat to infantry (particularly heavy infantry) but was more of a threat to vehicles - compensating for the fact that outside of Heavy Destroyers, Necrons didn't really have dedicated anti-tank. It was also the case that most infantry weapons couldn't hurt tanks at all, which gave Necrons an interesting niche.

 

Massed Devastating Wounds on units with easy access to full hit and wound re-rolls, especially on Sustained Hits 2 and critting on 5's was a bit much and probably not entirely intended, hence the errata.

 

Interestingly LVO has FAQ'd that Reanimation Crypts can add models to a unit in reserve, so it'll be interesting to see if it's ruled that way elsewhere.