Bell of Lost Souls - Latest Comments in 40K DISCUSSION: The C'Tan Gods

Re: 40K DISCUSSION: The C'Tan Gods

huttman — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 17:45:40 -0000

I dont think this works against fearless. Can someone point this out

"Deceive - Against low leadership squads/models this power can be pretty devastating. The fact that it even works to pin fearless units can also work in your favor."

Re: 40K DISCUSSION: The C'Tan Gods

acheron — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 03:09:03 -0000

Ive seen my buddy play with his C'tan crawling behind his monolith
it is bigger than the modle so it blocks LOS.

alltho slow he has been pretty sucsesfull in makeing it "the thing you have to deal with" late game and myself and outher players have lost precious held objectives do to this style of play.

im a fan of them

but my 10,000 pts of CSM have my heart.

Re: 40K DISCUSSION: The C'Tan Gods

Maxxximus — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 02:09:11 -0000

im new to necrons. i have played two games and i just had to field nightbringer. i am a romantic player, so if i play undead sci fi robots, i must have the death it self in my army.
the death was dead in the first round :D
in one hand, it soaked every heawy weapon shoot for on round, on the other hand 360 ponts can be spent better than on one round heawy weapon shield.

so here is my question...
how to get nightbringer, best unharmed, to assalut?
i think, one way is to cover him behind a monolith, but they are very slow together. any ideas?

Re: 40K DISCUSSION: The C'Tan Gods

MadDogMike — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 02:18:52 -0000

The Deceiver is better than Nightbringer overall. His relocate unit(s) post-deployment ability makes him do something in any game even if the enemy somehow avoids him, and his ability to instantly jump out of CC at the beginning of the enemy's assault phase means he NEVER fights in CC unless you want him to (moving 2d6 in any direction means an opponent charging him with a Bloodthirster or Skulltaker or whatnot is merely springboarding the Deceiver towards wherever you're heading in the first place while he can only consolidate). Add in his ability to force Morale/Pinning checks even on Fearless models as well as cause any nearby enemies fighting Necrons in CC to only hit on 6s (not TOO useful, but he can at least make any of the Necron close combat unit choices somewhat worth something even when out of range to join the fight), and it's amusing he actually costs LESS than the Nightbringer.

Re: 40K DISCUSSION: The C'Tan Gods

thoughtfoxx — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 13:52:36 -0000

And I just wrote a scathing commentary about this being a poor tactica artile and then read that its a discussion kick off. My apologies. rant retracted.

Re: 40K DISCUSSION: The C'Tan Gods

kobkit — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 13:11:01 -0000

Nope, that's one of the best way to kill them.

Re: 40K DISCUSSION: The C'Tan Gods

BlackSly — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 22:55:52 -0000

Think about it in terms of game theory.
What are the characteristics of infantry units in most games?
Slow. Tough and/or cheap. Sometimes good shooting, rarely while moving. Could be strong in melee, but have to be because they don't pick and choose, or initiate melee.

Now, that leaves you open to the following weaknesses:
1) strong CC units that can assault from more than 12" away. That's most of them.
2) shooting armies that have range on you, because you don't fight well at range, and you don't have the mobility to get to them before you get shot up a lot.

How do you compete? Well, to negate the weakness where the opponent can CC you at will, you almost have to use Monos or Scarabs to block charges, or Destroyers so that you're more mobile than they are. You're not interested in Destroyers or Monos, so that leaves Scarabs. Unfortunately, they're the only blocking units that Necrons have.

To negate the shooting weakness, you need to be able to move fast enough to engage the enemy, or else to outshoot them at long range (since you're too slow to close to within 12" against most armies if they want to avoid it). So that means Destroyers (you don't want), Scarabs (to engage enemy shooters), or Immortals (mobile firepower, shorter range than Destroyers but stronger per point).

So for a viable army, that leaves you building on a core of Immortals and Warriors, supported by Scarabs or Destroyers. Immortals alone can give you enough shooting to make the enemy have to CC you, but if you only run Immortals and Warriors, you're too vulnerable to CC. Flayed Ones and Pariahs are not good enough to cover that hole. So I think you really need Scarabs or Destroyers. You could dump the Destroyers if you want, especially if you give the Scarabs disruption fields. But if you drop both Scarabs and Destroyers, you're really limited because the other options to defend against CC, Flayed Ones and Pariahs, aren't good enough in their role.

Pariahs, BTW, are more of a Terminator-type squad, the shooty Termies, not the CC Termies. So they're usable in CC but hardly focused upon it.

Now, if you're really determined to run a infantry-only army, the only way I can see is to run lots of Immortals and Pariahs. They give you mobile shooting, and without it, you have nothing you can do against a mobile army. That still leaves you vulnerable to a CC army, though, and I'm not sure if you can do anything about it other than sacrifice a squad of Warriors as blockers, and hope that you counter-charge strongly enough. The good news is that you can run 3x Warriors, 2x Immortals (total 15), and 10 Pariahs in 1500 points. That's 25 Gauss Blaster shots, and that's enough firepower to actually dent a good amount of armies. I'm still worried about being hit hard in CC, but if you can survive and lose only one squad of Warriors, you may be fine.

Re: 40K DISCUSSION: The C'Tan Gods

bushidoredpanda — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 19:03:47 -0000

but could she take down _2_ nightbringers :) That's about the same points cost. And it would be EPIC!

Re: 40K DISCUSSION: The C'Tan Gods

Xas — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 18:11:05 -0000

guys, make it fair... dont take subpar wannabe deamons but the REAL things.

the greater slaneshi deamon saskiel-something would own any C'tan prolly the hardest due to her invul-ignoring sword and warptime to reroll everything (while the other biggies woudlnt do too bad either with nurgle causing 2 wounds and haveing 10 with -1A for the enemy and khorneboy haveing an enormous 8+d3A!).

Re: 40K DISCUSSION: The C'Tan Gods

kauyon_la — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 17:57:05 -0000

?? You'd be able to wound him nice and easy but for the Neural Shredder you would still compare Strength and Toughness for instant death not Strength to Leadership.

Re: 40K DISCUSSION: The C'Tan Gods

thedefenestrator — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 17:32:10 -0000

let's mathhammer that one out real quick: assuming the nightbringer gets the charge (likely, since the GUO is going to want to commit sooner or get lascannoned to death, and the nightbringer's faster), he gets his 5 attacks (no bonus attack since the GUO has cloud of flies), which gives 2.5 hits, and 2.0833... wounds. GUO takes 2 wounds.

GUO swings back, hits twice, wounds 1.6667 times, nightbringer saves that down to 0.833... taking 1 wound. GUO makes his no retreat save and this continues for another round or two with the Nightbringer winning with 3 or so wounds left.

Even if you bump to the named GUO, it's just gonna be closer. Ku'gath hits 2.5 times, wounds 2.0833 times, bringer saves it down to 1.04 wounds. Nightbringer will still win, but this time by only 2 wounds or so (since Ku'gath has 6W instead of 5)

Re: 40K DISCUSSION: The C'Tan Gods

muras — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 17:15:10 -0000

It has been updated in the reprint of the Necron Codex. My personal copy is missing a line in the new reprint. It flat out says that the ability doens't affect fearless troops in the rule in the newer version of the codex.

Re: 40K DISCUSSION: The C'Tan Gods

JPMcMillen — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 17:11:17 -0000

"now i suspect that the 5th ed codex will probably ignore all the fluff they outlined in the current codex and make them uber-powerful apocalypse units-o-doom, but ultimately that wasn't the background they outlined in the codex."

Actually, that's the rumors I'd been hearing about the C'Tan for a while. And it could be reasoned that they would get more powerful the longer they have been out of stasis, running around killing people and such.

Re: 40K DISCUSSION: The C'Tan Gods

JPMcMillen — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 16:55:35 -0000

I'd love to have Sisters of Silence mini's.

Re: 40K DISCUSSION: The C'Tan Gods

GarethUK — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 15:46:49 -0000

i see what you guys mean, and i'm aware of not having much shooting/ranged anti-tank.

the problem i have with the list suggested (thanks for the critique blacksky) is that its pretty much a "standard" necron list that you see all over the place, i wanted to try something out using the less common units and go for the all-infantry theme.

Will def have a look at it after a few games and see what i should change/drop. I think a lord probably will get dumped but lets see.

Thanks for the ideas tho guys

Re: 40K DISCUSSION: The C'Tan Gods

BlackSly — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 15:16:42 -0000

Personally, I don't like it.
1) It doesn't have melee hitting power. The Pariahs and Lord have strong weapons, but not enough attacks. Flayed Ones are just average in CC.
2) It doesn't have ranged hitting power. Nothing shoots over 24", nothing can Penetrate on tanks or even AV 11 Vehicles to destroy them if they're not open-topped, and you only have one squad that can move and shoot more than 12", and it's your best CC unit at the same time.

Pariahs are usable, but I don't like them in squads of 10. They should be 4-5, IMO, to help with the Leadership penalty, and as a small counter-attack force. They aren't good enough to throw that many points into them. Immortals are, IMO, way better except as a counter-charge unit, and with your plan of "teleporting Warrior squads away from CC", that means that soon as the enemy nears, you pull out the Warriors so the Pariahs don't get screened. Then they get assaulted, and at only one attack each, will lose combat badly. Keep them small and cheap. Get more Immortals.

Flayed Ones are, IMO, bad bad bad. Their attacks just aren't that good. 2 CC attacks each is just a little better than Warriors Rapid Firing, and the Flayed Ones can charge only 6" while the Warriors can Rapid Fire 12". And if you shoot a nasty CC unit, it doesn't get to attack you back... if you assault a nasty CC unit like Berzerkers, Incubi, Genestealers, etc, with Flayed Ones, you're more likely to get wiped than to win combat and wipe them. And they're not Stubborn or Fearless, unlike many of their CC opponents, so if they do lose, they will flee and could get wiped. A Warrior squad would be better.

And at 1500 points, I think 2 Lords are too many points spent on over-priced characters.

Frankly, Necrons are weak, but they do have some decent units. Unfortunately, 2 of them compete for Fast Attack (Destroyers and Scarabs). You can make a Necron army that's not too bad, if you keep the poor units (Lords, Pariahs, Flayed Ones) to a small number, and take the good ones: Monos, Destroyers and Heavy Destroyers, Scarabs, Immortals.

Simplest fixes for your army would be:
Drop one Lord, you just need one Rez Orb.
Drop Flayed Ones, they do nothing.
Add 2 squads of Scarab Swarms, and increase what you have. Turbo boost them alternating in front of your army so they provide cover saves, and also they will absorb a charge and STOP it before it reaches your Pariahs, enabling the Pariahs to counter attack. If the Scarabs get wiped when they do this even better, as it opens the enemy CC unit to being shot, so I wouldn't go with max squads... 5-6 should be big enough to cover the entire army if spread to max width. Maybe 7-8 if you want to spread the army out a bit to avoid blasts.

1 Lord
3x Warriors
2x Immortals
1x Pariahs
3x Scarabs (4 each)
3x Heavy Destroyer (1 each)

Re: 40K DISCUSSION: The C'Tan Gods

Dooley — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 14:37:33 -0000

Its a basic list but you really dont have a "KILL" mechanism/pop unit. I would worry about template slinging Tanks and a faster Assault force. But I guess if/when you get into rapid fire range 20+ Gauss weapons could put a hurtin on things!

Re: 40K DISCUSSION: The C'Tan Gods

GarethUK — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 13:36:15 -0000

it should be fine, there are 42 "necrons" in the list so i would have to be knocked down to 9 models before i phase out. 2 res orbs should keep them alive :)

Re: 40K DISCUSSION: The C'Tan Gods

UltramarineFan — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 13:21:59 -0000

I'm not a necron player nor do I pretend to know a lot about them but looking at that army wouldn't it be really easy to phase out?

Re: 40K DISCUSSION: The C'Tan Gods

Mark Temple — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 13:18:16 -0000

thing is, they're not avatars, they are the "stargods". but they're only gods in the same way the Goa'uld in stargate are 'gods'. they've got increadibly advanced technology, which to less advanced races (which is basically everyone), looks to be powerful magic. the C'tan, before the necrontyr, were just energy beings that fed on the energy of stars. yes, "fed". they didn't swollow stars, like so many players seem to claim, the codex specifies fed. as in, they ate little inconsiquential chunks of a star. like a leech living off a persons blood. they were insubstantial and pretty weak. then the necrontyr found them and built them bodies of necrodermis, which basically is a kind of 'smart metal', probably like the programmable matter concept we're currently researching. this turned them into giant, extremely tough regenerating giants, which could feed on some sort of biological energy released when people died. the nightbringer, the first to be given a body, killed -thousands- on his first day before the necrontyr could calm him down. thousands aren't much in 40k. given that the necrontyr of the time were frail, sick bodies wracked with sickness, it wouldn't have been a particulalry tough job to kill that many. heck, the nightbringer as currently stated could do the job, considering that the early necrontyr would have had a statline like a guardsman (were basically human). and the current stats are for a nightbringer whose's been asleep for several mellenia, mostly out of energy to fuel all his tricks.

now i suspect that the 5th ed codex will probably ignore all the fluff they outlined in the current codex and make them uber-powerful apocalypse units-o-doom, but ultimately that wasn't the background they outlined in the codex.

Re: 40K DISCUSSION: The C'Tan Gods

Angelic Despot — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 13:07:28 -0000

Thanks guys, but just to be sure: which book has been reprinted? The necron codex or the BRB? Or one of the FAQs?

I can't remember the name of the Flayed Ones' abiltiy. It's not 'Terrifying visage' (like the daemon power), but it is something to that effect (unless this is what's been updated in the reprint). So what does the rule you're telling me about actually say? Because if it specifically says 'terrifying visage' then I guess fearless troops are still not immune.

I had a feeling that I'd read somewhere that fearless troops were immune to this ability, but I can't remember where I read it or on what grounds they were immune.

Re: 40K DISCUSSION: The C'Tan Gods

mathhammer — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 13:00:34 -0000

Sisters of Silence still run all the black ships

Re: 40K DISCUSSION: The C'Tan Gods

morstao — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 12:50:22 -0000

Actually lost nightbringer when he got charged by skulltaker. His instant death causing rending attacks are nothing to laugh at.

Re: 40K DISCUSSION: The C'Tan Gods

Saark — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 12:30:34 -0000

Just found the line in the FAQ re: Neural Shredder. That is a nice trick then.

Re: 40K DISCUSSION: The C'Tan Gods

Saark — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 12:26:21 -0000

You keep saying that, but Instant Death is based on Toughness, not on Leadership. Just because the weapon makes it easier to wound, doesn't mean the target's toughness stat is used.

The Shredder does not include the line "replace the target's Toughness with it's leadership" what it does say is "rather use the target's leadership.." So the flow would be:

Template attack C'Tan = Hit
Use modified leadership instead of Toughness to determine Wound = Wounds on 2+
If a wound is inflicted, make saves as normal = 4++ save
If unsaved wound, compare Strength of the Weapon to Target's Toughness = 8 v. 8 = No Instant Death.

You are just determining the wound. Nothing more.