"Wish" Codexing

7/19/2012

So, I"m assembling a LRC for a little 5th Edition 1250 point partners game (Yes, 5th). In between gluing bits while I retire from the fumes I've been re-reading Helsreach for the umpteenth time. Now I'm not worried about the various nifty USRs or how badly our vows are going to get hammered or the fact that GW in 6th has painted themselves so far in the corner with 6th they only have two options with most of the middle denied them.

Turn us into some variation of vanilla Marines while they use pages of Helsreach to wipe their arses because its been retconned into worthlessness.
Actually cut us loose to actually match our fluff from both the older codices and Helsreach, which will cause massive shrieks as we get reviled as the "Cheese" Templars.

I'm expecting the former, with AACNMTO continuing to be Rage, which is the equivalent of SW Blood Claw "Headstrong". Righteous Zeal remaining some variant of the current Righteous Mild Enthusiasm (IMO, they should at least go back to the original where we are forced to move, but it only triggers on a failed morale check and then we "fallback" towards the nearest enemy. However, those are special rules, what I want to think about are the actual squads...

Some observations: We have to lose the lack of sergeants in our basic squads. They are just too useful in the current game, although they can be called by a different name. Also, Chaplains have more than just the HQ types, Grimaldus became Reclusiarch, but he had spent decades before that as a squad leader Chaplain-Initiate. Obviously costs and wargear need to be normalized. So some changes:

Sword Brethren: I expect these to become similar to Wolf Guard, where you buy a squad, which can then be put in Terminator armor with varying weapon combinations or handed out to lead squads of Initiates.
Chaplain-Initiates: Bought as individuals, also handed out to squads as leaders. This can either be a "free" HQ choice or perhaps be an upgrade for one or more Sword Brethren.
Crusader Squads: Same as now, but if one of the solutions above is not adopted, then some way to add in a "sergeant" who is a proven Initiate who is being looked at for inclusion into the Sword Brethren, but not quite there yet.
Assault Squads: Perhaps more options for power weapons, but also a shield of some kind for say, 4+ Invulnerable saves.
Biker Squads: I like the old way, where you could have biker Initiates with some biker Neophytes riding along.

Here we are talking about housekeeping trivia though. Our vows and our special rules will define if or if not the next codex is about Black Templars or not.

12 Comments

Slartibartfast

7/21/2012 03:28:25 pm

Need your opinion. Trying to buff up my Templars to survive in 6th, I bought two more LRC for a total of 3. I haven't broken the shrink wrap on the two new LRC's. Looking at your lists I see you run drop pods or rhino's for the most part. You also run multiple Termie squads.

In your opinion - should I return the two unopened LRC's and get some extra Termie squads instead?

Algesan link

7/21/2012 03:58:57 pm

I'm up in the air right now on the Templars. Have you checked out the lists Marshal Laeroth is publishing on Implausible Nature?

I wouldn't crack the plastic on those last two Land Raiders quite yet though, I'm actually more partial to running a LRC plus two Vindicators with some Guard in Chimeras right now. Or a foot list with three Vindicators. The problem right now: everything is in a flux as people find stuff that kicks butt and then find out how to neutralize it. The bonus for the LRC + twin Vindi route is that it only costs you 560 points (including PotMS for the two Vindis, but not blessed hull on the LRC) plus whatever it costs for what you put in the LRC. Problems: You either need to put the LRC on the "inside" to use the board edge to cover the flanks of your Vindis, which can limit their effectiveness, so you need something else to flank your Vindis.

Sorry I cannot give you a straight answer, but I'm not sure what I'm going to do for a "serious" list for the Black Templar.

Slartibartfast

7/22/2012 12:56:54 am

Had my very first victory against Necrons this morning. The game turned on the first shot I took in turn 1 and went downhill for the Necrons from there. My list was:

- EC/AAC
- Castellan/Bolt Pistol, CCW, Storm Shield
- Dread/Autocanon, CCW + Hvy Flamer
- Vindicator/Dozer blade
- Aegis Defense Line with Quad Gun
- 5 Initiate Assault Squad/Power Fist, Plasma Pistol, Melta Bombs
- 5 Initiates/Bolt Pistol, CCW, Flamer, in a Lazerback
- 5 Initiates/Bolters, Heavy Bolter

1,000 points on the nose.

Necrons:
- Overlord/War Scythe, Res Orb, S Weave
- 10 Immortals in a Doom Scythe w/ the Overlord
- 15 Warriors
- 3 Wraiths with Whip Coils in a Doom Scythe
- Annihilation Barge

Turn one first shot I got a lucky shot off with the quad gun and wrecked the Doom Scythe with the Overlord and Immortals. After they took their hits the Immortals got wiped out and the Overlord went back into reserve. That really rocked the Necron plan. They still dropped their Wraith's on me and they popped my Lazerback with the balance of their shooting. That tuned out to be a revelation as my EC and assault squad had to disembark immediately - putting them in perfect position to charge the Wraiths. Since they didn't disembark in my turn I figured they could charge. Legal?

With AAC the little squad and the EC cut down the Wraiths.

The only other thing worthy of note was that the Assault Squad actually worked perfectly - hitting the Annihilation Barge and Melta Bombing it to death.

I realize I had a lot of fluke good luck, but it makes me feel there may be some hope yet.

Slartibartfast

7/22/2012 01:05:13 am

A few lessons learned.

Deep striking Assault Squads with Melta Bombs and maybe a Dread with CCW and Tank Hunters are THE way to take down Necron Vehicles. Forget shooting them. Lascannons are next to useless.

Large Necron infantry squads cannot be assaulted or even approached. Their volume of fire kills any vehicle or assault squad before they can get into the charge. The Vindicator is the answer for them. They HAVE TO be shot down. Counterintuitive - but seem to work out that way.

Necron Wraiths CAN be taken down in the assault if you have a unit that can hit them hard enough. Better yet, have two smaller units hit them over two turns.

Algesan link

7/23/2012 06:16:18 am

First, on the assault after having your transport popped: No, you cannot. Page 79, Disembarking Restrictions says you can shoot or run in your *subsequent* Shooting phase, but not assault in your *subsequent* Assault phase. Which means it doesn't matter if you are disembarking in your turn by choice or forced to in your opponent's turn by him popping the transport. The exception is on page 33 under Assault Vehicles, but a Razorback isn't an assault vehicle. (Note: all open top vehicles are Assault Vehicles.)

Second: Unless you were playing under 5th Ed rules, neither flyer could be on the board on turn one since all flyers start in reserves and I assume you meant Night Scythes (transport) instead of Doom Scythes (gunship).

Third: Yeah, I've read the chicken excrement about how units "embarked" in Night Scythes have to "take the shot" and then go back into reserves, but that is a bunch of crap. I've already shown that if I want to logically extend the justification for that argument, then the unit simply dies because it cannot be placed on the board. <sigh> I'm going to have to reopen that draft post about RAW(ritten), RAD(esigned) and RAI(nterpreted). GW doesn't give much in the way of designers' notes, unlike many games, but sometimes you can still see it. In this case, not only the actual rule, but the fluff for the Night Scythe clearly states that the unit it only technically "embarked", they aren't really there at all.

Wraiths are killable, just consider them as jump troops with a Storm Shield. Make them roll enough 3++ saves and they will die. The few times I've fielded them playing Necrons they were specifically used to cripple big CC units, but I don't usually use them.

The Necrons are one of the more brilliant codices I've seen from GW in some ways. They don't fit any of the usual molds. They are an elite shooting army that doesn't like to assault....except vs PF Terminators, then they love to assault (Necrons strike first, especially WS Overlord & Lord). Assaulting Necrons can be fun...except when they are in big squads and you have small squads, they still hit like Marines, so if there are a bunch of them. Shooting Necron vehicles is a pain, but as you noticed, assaulting them is great as long as you can get at least S5 in the attack.

Your Castellan can only buy two weapons, so lose the CCW.

Otherwise it looks good. My biggest issue is with the Necron list, I wouldn't have two flyers at 1K points, IMO the points would be better spent in another AB.

My 1k Necron list is Overlord (WS, Orb, MSS, Phaeron)
20x NW
10x NI (Tesla)
2x AB
8x Scarabs
1x Spyder

It gives you a wide threat profile and plenty of dakka.

Slartibartfast

7/23/2012 10:40:54 am

"First, on the assault after having your transport popped: No, you cannot. Page 79, Disembarking Restrictions says you can shoot or run in your *subsequent* Shooting phase, but not assault in your *subsequent* Assault phase. Which means it doesn't matter if you are disembarking in your turn by choice or forced to in your opponent's turn by him popping the transport. The exception is on page 33 under Assault Vehicles, but a Razorback isn't an assault vehicle. (Note: all open top vehicles are Assault Vehicles.)"

Not ready to concede that point. In 5th the common practice if you were forced to make a Righteous Zeal move in the opponents' turn due to taking casualties from shooting was that you could still shoot as if not having moved in your turn, even with heavy weapons. The consensus was that if you didn't more in YOUR movement phase you could still shoot your heavy weapons. How is not disembarking in YOUR movement phase any different?

Further, you cannot move after disembarking either. It counts as your movement. Are you saying that you cannot even move in your subsequent movement phase?

I think you're looking at things from a point of view that is debatable there.

Interesting opinion on the Necrons in a destroyed Night Scythe not taking the hit before going into reserve. The consensus on the forms I'm reading have gone against you on that. I do see your argument. It will probably take an FAQ to settle it. I tend to agree with you on that one.

I absolutely disagree with you about the Necrons Wardex being in any way brilliant. I find it so chock full of cheesy unbalance rules as to be disgusting. I personally refuse to play against any Necron player other than my son. That, tied to the fact that I will not field my Templars in battle against any loyal Imperial faction (for fluff reasons) leaves me with a very limited choice of opponents. Everyone is switching to Necrons. Everyone that wants and needs to win at any cost that is. I hate to see the good players falling for GW's obvious ploy to sell more models, but if they don't make the switch to Necrons they will not be competitive in the tournament scene. No other codex holds a candle to Necrons, especially in 6th edition.

In the last tournament we had at our club one of the top players switched to Necrons. He was matched against three other top players. He won all three rounds by wiping out his opponents by the end of Turn 3 at the latest (one by the end of Turn 2). It was no contest for him, and absolutely humiliating to his opponents. It caused such acrimony that we're no longer holding tournaments for the time being - until things cool off a bit. Yet the better players are all switching to Necrons just the same. The writing is on the wall.

Perhaps we can have a special league for Necron players, and another for the rest of us. Grey Knights were bad enough, but GW has gone way, way too far this time. I believe they've damaged the game quite a bit.

Slartibartfast

7/23/2012 11:48:26 am

Terribly sorry about the double post. I didn't intend to do so.

Algesan link

7/23/2012 11:58:55 am

Actually the only prohibition after disembarking is assaulting. You can still move and shoot (or run), but not assault. I will agree if you think it is screwy, but given the anti-assault bias throughout most of the BRB, I'm afraid if it gets FAQ'd, it will stay that way.

I saw the consensus trying to form on that, but they did it by playing "chicken & egg" games and parsing down exactly when all this happened, then pulling up stories about how a "backblast" from an "open portal" does the damage. I pointed out if they were going to all that trouble, they were wasting their time. The codex says they go to reserve and the BRB says that if the unit cannot be deployed on the board, it is destroyed. Cool, if we want to be silly, since the unit goes back into reserve, it obviously cannot be deployed and is therefore destroyed. Stupid, yes, but I can outstupid stupidity if I turn my mind to it.

The problem with GW's ploy is that it happens every time. I've got well over $1000 retail worth of Necrons right before the new codex...and it is set up for the viable lists from the last codex so most of it is worthless. I only use some warriors, scarabs, spyders and a couple of lords, with pariahs & flayed ones for crypteks. The rest is on the shelf.

The reason why I think it is brilliantly written is because of the variety and diversity of the lists, plus the fact that Necrons defy the old "imperial"-style standards. Sure GK fight "imperial" with lots of shooty and some hardcore melee, but even the DE act the same way and can be evaluated using the same tools. Necrons don't fit that mold and if you see people trying to make them do so (I have), they die. Even the Elites, one of the most worthless collections of crap units I've ever seen, can be used for some specialty lists do decent effect. What we need is more codices being written in the same manner.

As for them being too overpowered, yes, there is an edge there, especially now that 6th is out, but in 5th I could beat the other somewhat serious player solo and in team matches with my Deep Strike list. You have to play them somewhat counter-intuitively, but pretty much torrent of fire works well, even if it takes a bit longer and assaults still blow them out. Most of my early victories? Eating MSU lists.

My Necron lists did quite well, but then everyone on the Internet who looked at it said I was stupid or crazy for trying to run that idiot list. Trust them, it will never work and have its butt kicked everywhere.

Yes, I'm swapping to Necrons for NOVA, I owned Necrons before I did Black Templars (and one Exorcist before Necrons), but I never played them until the new codex. Too many anti-Necron rulings based on 4th Edition being applied in 5th Edition. Why the swap? Between the changes in the BRB and FAQ, especially the loss of Drop Pod Assault, just way too many nerfs coming down to the point where I was trying to learn how to play 6th, plus an unfamiliar list style, plus my Initiates weren't performing as they should (loss of PE on that). If I want to do mech, I might as well go Wolves or Vanilla. OTOH, I had been playing my Necrons since the beginning of the year to avoid burnout on my BT list. I don't have time to build and playtest anything else now, so, I'm stuck with this.

Slartibartfast

7/23/2012 02:04:59 pm

I'm glad you've obtained complete certainty on the assault business. I haven't and neither has the debate on the forums I follow. I doubt it's coincidental that mainly Necron players are so zealously defending the "no assault", viewpoint.

I really don't see any sense in the argument that the unit cannot assault. Your contention that only their ability to assault in their turn is effected is wanting to have your cake and eat it too. Disembarking negates their ability to move or assault in the turn they do so. By your logic they would get a 3" disembarkation in the enemy shooting phase and be unable to move or assault in their turn. I'm afraid it's either one way or the other. You can't simply wish away the movement half of the restriction.

No, the codex is written poorly (nothing new for GW!), but the intent is clear and day to me. You cannot voluntarily disembark in your movement phase and subsequently assault. Simple as that. If forced to disembark, or "placed" due to the vehicle being exploded, in the enemy shooting phase; the unit can move, shoot and assault without restriction in their turn. I'm certain the eventual FAQ will bear that out.

Regarding embarked Necron passengers taking a hit: it's a simple case of the BRB and codex conflicting - in which cases the codex governs only on the conflict. The sequence of actions is:

1. The flyer explodes.
2. The embarked unit takes a hit.
3. The embarked unit is placed on the board.

The Necron codex only talks to point 3 and therefore only alters that part of the process for Necrons. The unit is not destroyed because the codex overrides that part of the process in the BRB. All else remains the same.

The argument that the fluff governs over the rules is without precedent. There are numerous examples that can be cited where the fluff is vastly different from the rules. Fluff is fluff. No impact on rules.

All that said, GW did such a poor job on the language in both cases that we could argue indefinitely. Only an FAQ is going to resolve these questions for good. I would be interested how the judges at NOVA call these points as they will likely come up. Please do share.

I shouldn't criticize you for playing Necrons, though I did. I apologize. I play this game for fun and enjoy the story and fluff. I would like to have a shot at winning once in a while too. I don't have to win all the time. It would be a terrible game if I did.

My argument with the Necron codex is that it just seems so obvious that GW balanced it against the other codexes and then pushed the Necron advantage just one item further so they would always have the advantage. Their tracks are all over the place. To cite a few examples:

- They pushed the war scythe to AP1 instead of AP2 like everyone else's halberds.
- They gave the ghost ark 4 hull points instead of the normal 3 everyone else gets for their dedicated transports (the land raider is a heavy support choice for all but Templars).
- They gave wraiths the 3 base attacks instead of the 2 everyone else gets for models with two close combat weapons.

On and on and on. I honestly think they play balanced the Necron codex perfectly and then sat down and went though it adding, "just one more", here and there to throw the advantage to the Necrons in a crass attempt at maximizing profits. Typical greedy corporate thinking invading every corner of our lives. Sad. Warhammer 40K is a really fun hobby. The greedy bastards are wrecking it. Just like they've wrecked everything else in our society.

Algesan link

7/23/2012 04:26:07 pm

After the transport gets popped, you get to disembark (by the new rules on pg 79, which basically says the unit must be within 6" of the disembark point on the hull). You take your pinning check. If you are pinned, then you stay pinned through your next turn. If you are not pinned, then you can move in your next turn, you can shoot (or run) in your next turn, but you cannot assault. Pretty much, the exact same thing that applies if you had simply stepped out of your transport at the end of your movement phase instead of waiting for your opponent to pop you. Well, except for the pinning check and maybe casualties if an explosion. Yes, BT would get RZ if it did take casualties. (Side note: I read the old rules and prefer them, if we make our morale check, we just sit there like all other units, but if we _fail_ our morale check, then we do our "fall back move"...straight towards the nearest enemy unit.)

I agree, it doesn't make sense except that for the most part 6th edition is about more dakka and less choppa. If you come out of reserves now, you cannot assault that turn. Period. Which is BS for outflankers, but there you are.

Gah, I really need to sit down and finish that draft on RAW(ritten), RAD(esigned) and RAI(nterpreted). Yes, GW does have some poorly written stuff, but since I happen to do some writing and textual analysis, a lot of the blame for "poor writing" comes from people trained in "low context" information exchange. In this example, this is not a 1,2,3 thing, it is a simultaneous event. Another failure is to examine consequences to their logical conclusion.

As I pointed out on one forum, if the purpose is really to force Necrons to "take the hit" by setting up chains in simultaneous events to overly parse it, then I don't have to bother. Let the Necrons go into reserve without the hit. Then go with BRB which say survivors must be placed within 3" of the blast marker's final position. The Necron "survivors" are in reserve now and cannot be placed. Therefore, per BRB RAW: "Any models that cannot be placed are removed as casualties." Simple, unit is wiped.

Fluff is a secondary source and it is actually more valid that some of the justifications for consensus misinterpretations we played by in 5th. It can give us insight into the rules if it is well written. It's closeness to the source is also a key to its potential relevance. This is in the same codex (good) and on the same page as the equipment description (better) and is actually part of the description of the particular unit (best). Grab your son's Necron codex, page 51, left column, third paragraph. It clearly states the intention (Design) of the warp portal. It might be "fluff", but it does mean that all that fancy sequence and justification is merely RAI(nterpreted) because it violates the clear design intention AND imposes additional assumptions (the sequence) onto a simultaneous event.

If I shoot you with several different types of ammunition it is totally irrelevant to homogenous units in which order your roll your various saves or pull models for the ones you cannot save against, because it happens all at once.
Oh, and NOVA ruled no hit on the Necrons for this (overall, it is a toss up for Necrons, specifically for my list).

I was winning with BT and if GW hadn't screwed us out of PE and the old Drop Pod Assault rules (and making us the only Marines with no Pods), I'd be taking a version of my Deep Strike list to NOVA because it I think that terrain setup is made for that list.

Seriously. Necrons are more than beatable, you just have to work against their advantages, Low I, Torrent still works, even if it takes a while, etc.

Warscythes have traditionally been the nastiest "generic" power weapon.
Mostly it appears to be add up all the AV of the facings and divide by 4.

I'm tired I'm gonig to finish this later

Slartibartfast

7/23/2012 10:34:09 pm

Hope you got a good rest.

We might as well stop discussing the assault issue. There are various constructs in argumentation (as I'm sure you're aware). Your responses thus far have all used a sales technique called, "The Presumptive Close". The salesman assumes their prospect has already closed on the deal and begins talking and acting like that without any further attempt at argumentation. Thus far you've not come up with any arguments of your own on the issue. You just keep telling me, "how it is". Well, I don't agree. I've stated my arguments. I'd be willing to listen to counter-arguments. There's no point is just repeating your viewpoint to me over and over with ever greater confidence.

On the Necron flyer issue I still tend to agree with you but am not yet convinced. No compelling argument has surfaced in our discussion thus far.

Fluff is fluff. In the very same fluff doesn't it state that scarabs multiply when they eat the armor off of enemy vehicles (or something to that effect)? Well, if fluff is superior to the written rules then why not argue that scarabs should do the same in the game? After all, it's in the fluff and fluff is the superior information - right?

Of course not. Fluff is just what it is. Stories written after the fact to make the game more interesting. Do you seriously think the GW folks write the fluff first and then try to develop rules to match it? Some creative writer at GW could just as easily have written that the embarked passengers on a Nightscythe are in a "beaming buffer", onboard the ship and are beamed back into reserve in the millisecond prior to it being destroyed. Give me some time and I could come up with even more fanciful stories. None of that would matter. The rule system is the game. Not the stories.

Actually I believe your strongest argument is that the Necron codex uses the word, "simply", to describe the process of returning the passengers to reserve if the flyer is destroyed. Like most english words it has many meanings. Does the rule mean they return to reserve without further actions taken? Or does it mean they are returned to reserve without the complexity inherent in placing them on the board in play? Both could be argued. I think the former is the stronger case and thus my belief that they probably don't take the hit. It's not a strong argument though, so I will continue to argue on forums and what not until it's FAQ'd or someone does come up with a strong argument.

What did NOVA have to say on the assault issue?

Algesan

7/27/2012 01:01:22 pm

Yes, I've done sales too, but for this purpose it is more of an appeal to authority fallacy, if I prove not to be an authority on reading comprehension. OTOH, it is a little flakier than I thought because there are some potential contradictions in related rules.

Fluff is not superior to written rules, in fact, as you pointed out, it can have nothing to do with the rules. However, it can be used to support a rules reading because it is the best source we get from GW on the design intent. This case is one where it clearly states the purpose and use of what is in the rule.

Actually I think fluff is written both before and after. The Necrons used to have a fear factor effect in their lists. Glancing through the unit entries you can still read about that fear factor, but in the actual rules, it has been pulled out. In fact, some of what appears to have been pulled for balance is exactly what emasculated the entire Elites section. Sure, I can pull some fancy tricks with combos using Elites (mainly C'Tan shards), but they tend to be one trick ponies and a weakness if your opponent can deal with it.

The other side of the coin on the "take the hit" reading is that you can move past that and still argue that the unit is destroyed. How? The BRB says they must be placed or destroyed. The codex says they cannot be placed and must go to reserves. They cannot be placed, they must be destroyed. Dead Necrons. Yes, stupid but the same kind of overly literal over parsing done to get to taking the hit.

I think they are still working on the assault issue. I don't recall anything definitive.

I'm hoping they go for simplicity, but they don't always.

"Wish" Codexing

Leave a Reply.

Author

Archives

Categories