...do people still complain about Necrons? I just recently started playing a few games after a little break and being away from the 40k scene. I played a game this weekend using a relatively strong list (I made sure to tell my friend beforehand that I was using my Judicator Cult list, as I felt like bringing Destroyers, but wanted to let him know it was a strong list). He used his Tau, with Missilesides, a Riptide, bunch of Crisis suits with Shadowsun and a Commander, bunch of Fire Warriors, and some Stealth suits. He gave me a little scare in the beginning, but I ended up tabling him around turn 4 with about 70% of my Army still alive (That's better than other armies have faired against that list, surprisingly).
Then another friend proceeded to talk about "Well duh, you used Necrons. And Destroyers at that..." and then both friends talked about how my Tau friend should've brought more "cheese" to combat my "cheese", because it was justified. My question for you guys is, are Necrons really that bad anymore? I thought people would get over them, now that Eldar, Space Marines, and Dark Angels are all out. Necrons shouldn't be all that. What do you guys think? Are people still complaining about Necrons in your gaming groups? Is the Decurion still considered cheese? Half the reason I took a little break was to wait for more codexes to come out so I wouldn't be branded "that guy", but I dunno....
I think necrons are going to be forever labeled the ultimate stinking cheese mostly because it was the first one to really make people gawk. It is a powerful formation but also one that I feel if fluffy for their army.
I've fielded decurion in a few games against nids and guard and eldar and been tabled. I've also had the reverse. Heck I've played against a decurion destroyer list with my sisters in a couple of games, one I tabled him, the other he tabled me. (Karamazov mvp)
Point is, its a strong formation but it can be worked around but because it was such a shock its stuck in everybody's minds.
The other thing about tabling your buddy is that it seems to be much more common than it was in 5th. I only got tabled once during all of 5th edition, but during our first few games of 6th and 7th, it happened more often.
For your friend, you warned him that you were bringing a "hard list". You were both on the same page going in.
Did he not bring enough marker lights? Did you kill the ones he brought early? When I played against my buddy's Tau, killing the marker lights was the first priority.
Giantwalkingchair wrote: I think necrons are going to be forever labeled the ultimate stinking cheese mostly because it was the first one to really make people gawk. It is a powerful formation but also one that I feel if fluffy for their army.
I've fielded decurion in a few games against nids and guard and eldar and been tabled. I've also had the reverse. Heck I've played against a decurion destroyer list with my sisters in a couple of games, one I tabled him, the other he tabled me. (Karamazov mvp)
Point is, its a strong formation but it can be worked around but because it was such a shock its stuck in everybody's minds.
I suppose that makes sense. And I'm sure no one likes fighting against models that won't die. I just figured a lot of armies now have things to fight against them easily.
The main reason why people dislike playing against Necrons is that the survivability of your list creates a sense of non-interactive gameplay. Players enjoy moving their models around, and responding to shifting circumstances. Seeing their opponent have to do the same is enjoyable. It's a reward, and Necrons mess this dynamic up by removing that sense of rewarding play.
If you're playing Imperial Guard to my Harlequins, as a Harlequin player I have to move cautiously to keep away from being hit by your overwhelming numbers and powerful guns - but my nimbleness helps me do that. It's very enjoyable for me as the Harlequin player to feel like my smarts with the game has beaten yours. Then, you catch me out of position, and almost instantly annihilate half my force. Now you feel good, since you "caught" me - either by a longer term plan, or capitalizing on my mistake, and that feeling is rewarding to you.
But against Necrons, even if I catch you in a mistake, you just don't die, and next turn's the same, and I've been denied that reward. I may eventually chip away at you and win, but it doesn't *feel* that way. Even if I win, I don't feel like I've beaten your smarts - I only feel like I've beaten your dice rolls. If you beat me, I don't feel like your smarts beat me, only your dice rolls.
But against Necrons, even if I catch you in a mistake, you just don't die, and next turn's the same, and I've been denied that reward. I may eventually chip away at you and win, but it doesn't *feel* that way. Even if I win, I don't feel like I've beaten your smarts - I only feel like I've beaten your dice rolls. If you beat me, I don't feel like your smarts beat me, only your dice rolls.
That's a very interesting way to look at it, I've never really thought of that. There actually has been a few times where I've had to buckle down and think strategically to win, but you're right. Most of the time, regardless of the list I play, I just walk at you, don't die, and shoot you off the board. 8/10 times that's the game. And the very few times I've lost, I had pretty bad dice rolls. So yeah, I didn't think about it that way. Hmm....
The alternative is simply just to field non-decurion necrons and save formations for versing formations. Personally I like to do this now as I find my opponents whining a bit less.
Necrons just started a new era of 40k - Decurian is a tough list - but there is plenty of ways to beat it now. It is however still - an extremely boring army to play.
Xenomancers wrote: Necrons just started a new era of 40k - Decurian is a tough list - but there is plenty of ways to beat it now. It is however still - an extremely boring army to play.
I think it depends on what army you're against. If you're fighting one of the 6th edition or older 7th edition books (DE, BA, Orks etc.) then your opponent may well feel outmatched.
But, I don't think any of the 7.5 army books have much grounds for complaint in terms of power level.
Xenomancers wrote: Necrons just started a new era of 40k - Decurian is a tough list - but there is plenty of ways to beat it now. It is however still - an extremely boring army to play.
Play? Or play against? Or both?
I can't speak for Xenomancers, but I find them a bit dull to both play and play against. Playing against Necrons - especially with an older army - often feels like smashing your head against a brick wall. I think there's just something inherently un-fun about not being able to kill your enemy (which, incidentally, is another reason IK armies can go die in a fire). When you pour a ton of firepower into a unit, only to see 90-100% of it bounce off toughness, invulnerable saves or Necro-no-Pain, it's just not fun.
I find them un-fun to play for similar reasons. Whilst it's quite fun for a specific character or unit to refuse to die, it gets quickly gets old when *every* unit - including basic infantry - is doing it. I just can't share the feeling that I'm playing a Mary Sue army, with its 'protection from everything' armour. Or, to put it another way, i end up feeling that my victory was entirely due to my choice of army - rather than any tactical decisions on my part. But then, this is common feeling in 7th anyway...
As i said earlier though, this is usually more of an issue when fighting older armies - which didn't receive the massive buffs the 7.5 edition codices did.
Xenomancers wrote: Necrons just started a new era of 40k - Decurian is a tough list - but there is plenty of ways to beat it now. It is however still - an extremely boring army to play.
Play? Or play against? Or both?
More so to play against. I imagine playing it is quite fun. Also I would never refuse a game. Hiding in corners and blasting away at an advancing hoard of machines doesn't really have a lot of interesting game decisions.
Xenomancers wrote: Necrons just started a new era of 40k - Decurian is a tough list - but there is plenty of ways to beat it now. It is however still - an extremely boring army to play.
Play? Or play against? Or both?
More so to play against. I imagine playing it is quite fun. Also I would never refuse a game. Hiding in corners and blasting away at an advancing hoard of machines doesn't really have a lot of interesting game decisions.
Ah, yeah. I was gonna say, I certainly enjoy playing them, for the most part. But I can see where you're coming from.
Xenomancers wrote: Necrons just started a new era of 40k - Decurian is a tough list - but there is plenty of ways to beat it now. It is however still - an extremely boring army to play.
Play? Or play against? Or both?
More so to play against. I imagine playing it is quite fun. Also I would never refuse a game. Hiding in corners and blasting away at an advancing hoard of machines doesn't really have a lot of interesting game decisions.
After a few games they become boring to play as well.
They are now even more straightforward and there's even less customization than in 5th.
They are now even more straightforward and there's even less customization than in 5th.
Really?
More units are viable than in 5th (i.e Flayed Ones, C'Tans, Praetorians, Lychguard, ext), we gained synergy (i.e Crypteks, Named Characters, Triarch Stalker, ext.), we have Relics, different weapon options are viable, and we have Relics.
The 5th ed. book was the straightforward boring codex. I put my A-barges and Wraiths on the board. Boom, you're playing Necrons.
Yeah SMs only have one OTT formation other than that their power level is about the same. Crons and Eldar are equivalent in terms of obnoxiousness but crons are worse IMO due to the fact that it's your choice to use their Decurion and make them broken instead of reasonable.
Eldar are broken due to units so their Warhost is just icing on the cake.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah SMs only have one OTT formation other than that their power level is about the same. Crons and Eldar are equivalent in terms of obnoxiousness but crons are worse IMO due to the fact that it's your choice to use their Decurion and make them broken instead of reasonable.
Eldar are broken due to units so their Warhost is just icing on the cake.
So wait, how are Crons worse then? They have the option to only be good, not OTT. Eldar don't have the option....
It destroyed my favourite unit in the game - cryptek royal courts. No more stormteks jumping around with a shroud buddy.
Less customistaion of courts, overlords and of C'tans.
Poly Ranger wrote: It destroyed my favourite unit in the game - cryptek royal courts. No more stormteks jumping around with a shroud buddy.
Less customistaion of courts, overlords and of C'tans.
I agree the loss of the Cryptek customization kind of sucked, but everyone only used 2, maybe 3 of the crypteks anyway, and only for one piece of wargear. And I personally like what they did with the current Cryptek.
Overlords were more of a lateral move. Yeah, they lost the Tesseract Labyrinth, but who used it anyway? And the loss of a 2+ save is understandable, as it would be ridiculous with a 4+++. Other than that, what changed? They gained BS, so using a Staff of Light is a viable option now. Voidblades are free and better. The Phylactery is worth taking, and they now have relics.
Yeah, we can't customize the C'Tans, but the customization was terrible in the last book anyway. 66% of those powers were never used.
They are now even more straightforward and there's even less customization than in 5th.
Really?
More units are viable than in 5th (i.e Flayed Ones, C'Tans, Praetorians, Lychguard, ext), we gained synergy (i.e Crypteks, Named Characters, Triarch Stalker, ext.), we have Relics, different weapon options are viable, and we have Relics.
The 5th ed. book was the straightforward boring codex. I put my A-barges and Wraiths on the board. Boom, you're playing Necrons.
I'm happy you like the new book, really.
I also understand I'm a minority in disliking the new codex.
I liked crypteks with goodies that signified what they were great at. They also had far more synergy than the new one.
I liked having an ark for my overlord and retinue to go around for drive-by shootings.
Scarabs The list goes on.
I agree that many units are now viable (I don't agree on C'Tans). It's a good book mechanically, I just don't like it on the tabletop and neither do my opponents.
I actually fielded a very fluffy silvertide out of the old necron images. It didn't go well for the other guy
They are now even more straightforward and there's even less customization than in 5th.
Really?
More units are viable than in 5th (i.e Flayed Ones, C'Tans, Praetorians, Lychguard, ext), we gained synergy (i.e Crypteks, Named Characters, Triarch Stalker, ext.), we have Relics, different weapon options are viable, and we have Relics.
The 5th ed. book was the straightforward boring codex. I put my A-barges and Wraiths on the board. Boom, you're playing Necrons.
I'm happy you like the new book, really.
I also understand I'm a minority in disliking the new codex.
I liked crypteks with goodies that signified what they were great at. They also had far more synergy than the new one.
I liked having an ark for my overlord and retinue to go around for drive-by shootings.
Scarabs The list goes on.
I agree that many units are now viable (I don't agree on C'Tans). It's a good book mechanically, I just don't like it on the tabletop and neither do my opponents.
I actually fielded a very fluffy silvertide out of the old necron images. It didn't go well for the other guy
I mean, yeah, I'm sure a lot of people miss some old stuff from that codex. I sure as hell do.
I just think the new codex has far more synergy, and the options they took away were mostly (not entirely) options that no one used anyway.
And yeah, why did they nerf scarabs? I'll never understand that.
I think another main point is that you don´t forget bad experiences as fast as you forget good ones. Everyone will remind that one time when he/she was younger and did something stupid or bad.
Tau may not be one of the top armies right now but they are most of the time still uncool to play against. There will still be riptides with ion accelerators shooting 60", the same with hammerheads. Most people haven´t forgotten the Missile broadsides just spamming that strenght 7 all over the place or the krisis who just show you the finger after they evaded all your shooting with their jsj move. Overall these things might not be the strongest anymore but people will still remember the bad times they had, when playing against these factions.
Same goes with Necrons as Yarium said. It is not a fun to play against army. You won´t kill that much, you can´t really work with the mistakes your opponent did and so on. What I hate about Necrons the most is, that most of the time you can´t use their weaknesses against them. Strength D is only possible if you are an Eldar player, and if you want to overrun them in the close combat phase there are either Phantoms who can´t be overrun or Zandrek who just gives the whole squad Zelot. It´s the same with Tau, you can still beat them, but the experience will still be not as satisfying as when you play against another army.
Fauk wrote: I think another main point is that you don´t forget bad experiences as fast as you forget good ones. Everyone will remind that one time when he/she was younger and did something stupid or bad.
Tau may not be one of the top armies right now but they are most of the time still uncool to play against. There will still be riptides with ion accelerators shooting 60", the same with hammerheads. Most people haven´t forgotten the Missile broadsides just spamming that strenght 7 all over the place or the krisis who just show you the finger after they evaded all your shooting with their jsj move. Overall these things might not be the strongest anymore but people will still remember the bad times they had, when playing against these factions.
Same goes with Necrons as Yarium said. It is not a fun to play against army. You won´t kill that much, you can´t really work with the mistakes your opponent did and so on. What I hate about Necrons the most is, that most of the time you can´t use their weaknesses against them. Strength D is only possible if you are an Eldar player, and if you want to overrun them in the close combat phase there are either Phantoms who can´t be overrun or Zandrek who just gives the whole squad Zelot. It´s the same with Tau, you can still beat them, but the experience will still be not as satisfying as when you play against another army.
I will admit, I agree that you can't use their weaknesses against them. Sweeping them is all well and good, if you can kill them. Staying out of their short range is great, if you can kill them before they get to you.
I think the reason people dislike playing necrons is the reverse of why people enjoy playing against orks.
Even if you get swamped by the green tide you've likely still killed a ton of enemy models and had to think around how they are approaching where you can create choke points etc.
To the OP -
I walked into my flgs the other day and went to the cashier to checkout with a box of Necrons and two guys behind me sighed,
"Oh I hate Necron Players. OOooh look at me, I have a Resurrection orb that you can't get and makes my stuff invincible!"
I haven't played them before and don't even use a Res Orb in my army and yet they categorized me simply as a Cheesy Necron player.
I believe this extends from the fact that the Decurion Formation is more than just overpowered, it's one of the strongest formations, which leads to loads of people using it in their army lists and so it takes the fun away from people playing against Necrons. Maybe this extends to Warrior/ Immortal spam backed up with Res Orbs too but I'm not sure.
If you don't run either of those things in your army.. maybe make it known in your local community to make people more interested in playing with you.
To GrimDark -
Tbh, I don't like the 7th ed codex compared with the 6th ed codex either. I loved the customization of the crypteks and the teleportation build you could set up. Now (disregarding Deathmarks) I can have a maximum of only 2 teleporting units and they can only teleport once per game... not every movement phase like in 6th ed. I felt that the 7th Codex kinda ruined my playstyle and I've had to make sweeping changes to my force in order to try bringing it back to something I can enjoy.
To the OP -
I walked into my flgs the other day and went to the cashier to checkout with a box of Necrons and two guys behind me sighed,
"Oh I hate Necron Players. OOooh look at me, I have a Resurrection orb that you can't get and makes my stuff invincible!"
I haven't played them before and don't even use a Res Orb in my army and yet they categorized me simply as a Cheesy Necron player.
I believe this extends from the fact that the Decurion Formation is on the wrong side of overpowered, which leads to loads of people using it in their army lists and so it takes the fun away from people playing against Necrons. Maybe this extends to Warrior/ Immortal spam backed up with Res Orbs too but I'm not sure.
If you don't run either of those things in your army.. maybe make it known in your local community to make people more interested in playing with you.
To GrimDark -
Tbh, I don't like the 7th ed codex compared with the 6th ed codex either. I loved the customization of the crypteks and the teleportation build you could set up. Now (disregarding Deathmarks) I can have a maximum of only 2 teleporting units and they can only teleport once per game... not every movement phase like in 6th ed. I felt that the 7th Codex kinda ruined my playstyle and I've had to make sweeping changes to my force in order to try bringing it back to something I can enjoy.
Can you define "wrong side of overpowered"? I'm just curious as to what that means. And on that note, what do those players think of Eldar then?
Everyone at my store knows me and what I play, which varying Necron lists. I own everything in the codex, and like to play with everything when I can. That doesn't stop the hate though.
I have changed my view on formations but as others have said it can feel like a large handicap when your army does not have access to formations yet. As for giving a heads up on how strong your list is before the game then I don't see how your opponent can complain. He/she could of asked to tone things down or make a list that is just as powerful.
The decurian is a very forgiving army to play and it can be very frustrating to play against when nothing dies no matter what you throw at it. I find the most important thing with 40k is agreeing what kind of game before hand to play whether it is competitive, casual, or fluffy. The first time I faced the decurian it had 2 wraith formations and when I asked to change my casual list I was told no and just deal with it.
This is DakkaDakka. People complain about everything around here.
People don't like Necrons because they're the most durable army and they started the trend toward the new design philosophy GW has been implementing with the new "formation of formations" way of building an army.
Some people might not want to play against the Decurion, and that's fine. But avoiding Necron players specifically is going a step too far.
It also doesn't hurt that the Internet has moved on from Necrons. Why hate on them when you can hate on the AdMech, Eldar, Space Marines, and Dark Angels?
1 army is ridiculous no matter what. Whether in cad or Warhost, playing against Eldar is likely going to suck.
3 armies have completely broken formations composed of non-broken units. That's War Convocation and Gladius (Lolol I'm fielding a 2000pt list with 2700 points in it) and Decurion.
And a couple other armies have 1 or 2 broken units that when spammed make an obnoxious experience. Flyrants, certain daemon builds, etc.
Necrons are strong without decurion, OTT with it. Just because they can be beaten by a meta that's anticipating and tailoring against them doesn't make them not crazy.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The reason Necrons are hated is because they were the first, so they were the army that effectively shut out a good quarter of the codexes from being usable in competitive play. Had Eldar or SMs come first, they'd have done the same and encountered that same elevated hatred.
To the OP -
I walked into my flgs the other day and went to the cashier to checkout with a box of Necrons and two guys behind me sighed,
"Oh I hate Necron Players. OOooh look at me, I have a Resurrection orb that you can't get and makes my stuff invincible!"
I haven't played them before and don't even use a Res Orb in my army and yet they categorized me simply as a Cheesy Necron player.
I believe this extends from the fact that the Decurion Formation is on the wrong side of overpowered, which leads to loads of people using it in their army lists and so it takes the fun away from people playing against Necrons. Maybe this extends to Warrior/ Immortal spam backed up with Res Orbs too but I'm not sure.
If you don't run either of those things in your army.. maybe make it known in your local community to make people more interested in playing with you.
To GrimDark -
Tbh, I don't like the 7th ed codex compared with the 6th ed codex either. I loved the customization of the crypteks and the teleportation build you could set up. Now (disregarding Deathmarks) I can have a maximum of only 2 teleporting units and they can only teleport once per game... not every movement phase like in 6th ed. I felt that the 7th Codex kinda ruined my playstyle and I've had to make sweeping changes to my force in order to try bringing it back to something I can enjoy.
Can you define "wrong side of overpowered"? I'm just curious as to what that means. And on that note, what do those players think of Eldar then?
Everyone at my store knows me and what I play, which varying Necron lists. I own everything in the codex, and like to play with everything when I can. That doesn't stop the hate though.
Sorry, reading that statement I made, I realize it was quite ambiguous. I mean it is more than overpowered, it's one of the strongest formations.
It does seem that each edition, a couple races gets all the hate
I haven't really noticed a lot of cron hate. Eldar hate was rampant, and dear god marines seem to be witch hunted if they ever get anything whatsoever, but necrons seem to have snuck under the radar for a lot of people.
I agree that it just kills the "interactive" aspect of the game similar to tau. The decurion doesn't care what you're doing, just tell it where to roll saves and rp's, have almost nothing die, and then move towards you with a superior army. You can easily play a single player game against them by just having them walk towards you and shoot.
Frozocrone wrote: It shouldn't be like that though, every army should be balanced against each other.
That's partly why I believe people still hate on Necrons, because the scale tilts in their favour when almost nothing dies.
It's more like a hunting ground for the Necrons as opposed to war.
Tilts in their favor. So, which is more powerful, having the biggest "cannon" in the game but being squishy (Eldar), or having an okay "cannon" but never dying?
Frozocrone wrote: It shouldn't be like that though, every army should be balanced against each other.
That's partly why I believe people still hate on Necrons, because the scale tilts in their favour when almost nothing dies.
It's more like a hunting ground for the Necrons as opposed to war.
Tilts in their favor. So, which is more powerful, having the biggest "cannon" in the game but being squishy (Eldar), or having an okay "cannon" but never dying?
The one that negates the entirety of the opposing army.
(aka the one that stops 90% of there guns but still can hurt the enemy in return) necron fire power is nothing to laugh at.
Frozocrone wrote: It shouldn't be like that though, every army should be balanced against each other.
That's partly why I believe people still hate on Necrons, because the scale tilts in their favour when almost nothing dies.
It's more like a hunting ground for the Necrons as opposed to war.
Tilts in their favor. So, which is more powerful, having the biggest "cannon" in the game but being squishy (Eldar), or having an okay "cannon" but never dying?
The one that negates the entirety of the opposing army.
(aka the one that stops 90% of there guns but still can hurt the enemy in return) necron fire power is nothing to laugh at.
Oh I agree about the firepower. People don't give it enough credit.
My buddy has stopped playing Decurion/Havest, and now he has to think to beat me (which he does a lot.) If he loses the wraiths and the lychguard, and the warriors and immortals are thinned out, he'll have to actually DO something other than "walk forward."
It's kind of funny that "walk forward" beat "stand at the edge of the board and shoot". Once the Taucurion comes out (probably giving marker lights to everybody) the Decurion might get curb-stomped again.
One other reason I don't like Decurion is that it makes terrain completely irrelevant. The warriors just walk forward through the open spaces, and wraiths just walk forward. Terrain makes the game interesting, IMHO. If it only applies to one side what good is it?
JimOnMars wrote: My buddy has stopped playing Decurion/Havest, and now he has to think to beat me (which he does a lot.) If he loses the wraiths and the lychguard, and the warriors and immortals are thinned out, he'll have to actually DO something other than "walk forward."
It's kind of funny that "walk forward" beat "stand at the edge of the board and shoot". Once the Taucurion comes out (probably giving marker lights to everybody) the Decurion might get curb-stomped again.
One other reason I don't like Decurion is that it makes terrain completely irrelevant. The warriors just walk forward through the open spaces, and wraiths just walk forward. Terrain makes the game interesting, IMHO. If it only applies to one side what good is it?
Yeah, and them having Move Through Cover doesn't help either. All Jump/Jet pack/Jetbike models literally ignore all downsides of terrain, and the infantry just walk through it.
Necrons would of been perfectly fine without Decurion or if Decurion didn't give the +1 to RP. With the improved RP it just makes them insanely difficult to kill and frees up points from not needing crypteks for the improved RP. Honestly Decurion fells like something upper management threw at them as a requirement after they wrote the cron codex.
Vankraken wrote: Necrons would of been perfectly fine without Decurion or if Decurion didn't give the +1 to RP. With the improved RP it just makes them insanely difficult to kill and frees up points from not needing crypteks for the improved RP. Honestly Decurion fells like something upper management threw at them as a requirement after they wrote the cron codex.
I agree they would've been fine without it, but what if Eldar were still going to be as they are now. Necrons need the Decurion to stand up to that. Against most power lists, Necrons need that durability to compete. Plus, Crons still aren't dominating the competitive scene.
Vankraken wrote: Necrons would of been perfectly fine without Decurion or if Decurion didn't give the +1 to RP. With the improved RP it just makes them insanely difficult to kill and frees up points from not needing crypteks for the improved RP. Honestly Decurion fells like something upper management threw at them as a requirement after they wrote the cron codex.
I agree they would've been fine without it, but what if Eldar were still going to be as they are now. Necrons need the Decurion to stand up to that. Against most power lists, Necrons need that durability to compete. Plus, Crons still aren't dominating the competitive scene.
The fact that they still show up in the competitive scene at all is actually pretty indicative of their power level, even if they are not dominating it. That said, I think the Decurion is good for tourney-play - even healthy for the game because of it! I compare it to Red Deck Wins (RDW) in Magic: The Gathering.
In Magic, RDW is a style of deck that just throws as much damage at the opponent as fast as possible. You start with 20 life, and Lightning Bolt deals 3 damage. If every card in your deck were as efficient as Lightning Bolt, you'd only need to cast 7 of them to win the game - even if you were down to just 1 life left when you did so. It's a simply, straightforward strategy. It's not sexy, not nuanced, and not tricky. In fact, because it's so consistent, if the tournament scene becomes too full of cute other styles of deck, a RDW deck might just win the tournament! Is RDW broken? Absolutely not - it's just powerful and consistent. By being like it is, it provides a restriction of sorts on what kinds of decks can exist. Its existence is ultimately healthy for the game.
Necrons feel similar to me for tournament play. Sure there's lots of ways to beat them, just like RDW, but if you can't consistently beat the Decurion, you'll have to be very serious about your chances against everything else at tournament-level play. Necrons are just that consistent.
Yeah, they definitely do still complain about Necrons, I've seen it.
Very frequently I hear " Necrons" and " Eldar".
Shocked me when I first joined here because I was told that the best armies in terms of strength were Tau and Chaos Space Marines (the latter only if built in a really un-fluffy way).
I suppose it is all about buying something shiny and making others wish they had that bling.
I have my own problems of analysis paralysis with my space marines: I have way too many models so I have formations to choose from that confuse.
Amazing how if you hold an army as far back as 2nd edition, the variety of models I can field confuses the HECK out of new players.
Think of power creep as the inflation of gaming.
Eventually a correction will come into play.
They need to release rock, paper, scissors formations for all armies simultaneously so the wining is less.
Should be able to whip that up in an evening or two.
It is painful but I do "like" playing Necrons: if I see any more eye-rolling over my "whack-a-mole!" references and "they are like zombies: they need head-shots!".
In find it rather short sighted and bizarre that players associate the army you play with a behavior or personality type.
I have enough varying armies I would be considered schizophrenic.
The trick is, quickly painting them up to size as they become the new "hotness": welcome to long term 40k play...
Vankraken wrote: Necrons would of been perfectly fine without Decurion or if Decurion didn't give the +1 to RP. With the improved RP it just makes them insanely difficult to kill and frees up points from not needing crypteks for the improved RP. Honestly Decurion fells like something upper management threw at them as a requirement after they wrote the cron codex.
I agree they would've been fine without it, but what if Eldar were still going to be as they are now. Necrons need the Decurion to stand up to that. Against most power lists, Necrons need that durability to compete. Plus, Crons still aren't dominating the competitive scene.
The fact that they still show up in the competitive scene at all is actually pretty indicative of their power level, even if they are not dominating it. That said, I think the Decurion is good for tourney-play - even healthy for the game because of it! I compare it to Red Deck Wins (RDW) in Magic: The Gathering.
In Magic, RDW is a style of deck that just throws as much damage at the opponent as fast as possible. You start with 20 life, and Lightning Bolt deals 3 damage. If every card in your deck were as efficient as Lightning Bolt, you'd only need to cast 7 of them to win the game - even if you were down to just 1 life left when you did so. It's a simply, straightforward strategy. It's not sexy, not nuanced, and not tricky. In fact, because it's so consistent, if the tournament scene becomes too full of cute other styles of deck, a RDW deck might just win the tournament! Is RDW broken? Absolutely not - it's just powerful and consistent. By being like it is, it provides a restriction of sorts on what kinds of decks can exist. Its existence is ultimately healthy for the game.
Necrons feel similar to me for tournament play. Sure there's lots of ways to beat them, just like RDW, but if you can't consistently beat the Decurion, you'll have to be very serious about your chances against everything else at tournament-level play. Necrons are just that consistent.
Or, we could just have balanced armies that are all fun to play against and not have to put up with boring, frustrating armies anytime we want to play competitively.
Why did RP have to be something that couldn't be denied, why not just be FnP? I think that's the main thing that makes Necrons frustrating to play against.
The argument that "Eldar has better firepower so we need the unkillable stuff" falls flat when you realise your guns are on the same tier as Eldar and nobody even comes close to your durability.
Breton wrote:I want to question the premise. How do you know this is a power creep up, and not an adjustment back from a power decline in the past?
I haven't done research on the subject, but my understanding of the 40k business model is that always-on power creep incentivizes the purchase of the next edition.
Breton wrote:I want to question the premise. How do you know this is a power creep up, and not an adjustment back from a power decline in the past?
I haven't done research on the subject, but my understanding of the 40k business model is that always-on power creep incentivizes the purchase of the next edition.
Im pretty sure the only real exception to this was the chaos codex.
It also sounds like scale creep, the first version was apparently a strictly skirmish-level game and now it's to the point where people can't distinguish between Apocalypse and normal 40k anymore.
MarsNZ wrote: Why did RP have to be something that couldn't be denied, why not just be FnP? I think that's the main thing that makes Necrons frustrating to play against.
The argument that "Eldar has better firepower so we need the unkillable stuff" falls flat when you realise your guns are on the same tier as Eldar and nobody even comes close to your durability.
I disagree our guns are on the same tier. Their good, but not that good.
And no, I played with Necron's 5th edition book for long enough to know that if your only special rule is ignorable half of the time, what's the point? I played games where I felt like I was just playing 3+ armor save dudes. No flavor, nothing. Can I ignore Battle Focus? No. Can I ignore ATSKNF? Nope. Can I take away your 'Ere We Go!? Nada. Plus, why would an army's special rule be the same thing as a standard special rule from the rulebook? That's just poppycock in my opinion.
MarsNZ wrote: Why did RP have to be something that couldn't be denied, why not just be FnP? I think that's the main thing that makes Necrons frustrating to play against.
The argument that "Eldar has better firepower so we need the unkillable stuff" falls flat when you realise your guns are on the same tier as Eldar and nobody even comes close to your durability.
I disagree our guns are on the same tier. Their good, but not that good.
And no, I played with Necron's 5th edition book for long enough to know that if your only special rule is ignorable half of the time, what's the point? I played games where I felt like I was just playing 3+ armor save dudes. No flavor, nothing. Can I ignore Battle Focus? No. Can I ignore ATSKNF? Nope. Can I take away your 'Ere We Go!? Nada. Plus, why would an army's special rule be the same thing as a standard special rule from the rulebook? That's just poppycock in my opinion.
A rule which is only used half the time is better than a pointless rule (ie, half the chaos marks).
MarsNZ wrote: Why did RP have to be something that couldn't be denied, why not just be FnP? I think that's the main thing that makes Necrons frustrating to play against.
The argument that "Eldar has better firepower so we need the unkillable stuff" falls flat when you realise your guns are on the same tier as Eldar and nobody even comes close to your durability.
I disagree our guns are on the same tier. Their good, but not that good.
And no, I played with Necron's 5th edition book for long enough to know that if your only special rule is ignorable half of the time, what's the point? I played games where I felt like I was just playing 3+ armor save dudes. No flavor, nothing. Can I ignore Battle Focus? No. Can I ignore ATSKNF? Nope. Can I take away your 'Ere We Go!? Nada. Plus, why would an army's special rule be the same thing as a standard special rule from the rulebook? That's just poppycock in my opinion.
A rule which is only used half the time is better than a pointless rule (ie, half the chaos marks).
Well, CSM are on their own tier of just "WTF?" right now. They need a new codex badly. Honestly, I'd like to see their marks revamped a bit, and one of their "decurion" requirement formations give all the models in it a Mark for free.
Breton wrote:I want to question the premise. How do you know this is a power creep up, and not an adjustment back from a power decline in the past?
I haven't done research on the subject, but my understanding of the 40k business model is that always-on power creep incentivizes the purchase of the next edition.
Im pretty sure the only real exception to this was the chaos codex.
I hear terrible things about 3rd chaos.
3rd Ed doesn't count. Everyone took it in the shorts on 3rd as they over-corrected for 2nd- which makes me smile as people talk about power creep today.
Vankraken wrote: Necrons would of been perfectly fine without Decurion or if Decurion didn't give the +1 to RP. With the improved RP it just makes them insanely difficult to kill and frees up points from not needing crypteks for the improved RP. Honestly Decurion fells like something upper management threw at them as a requirement after they wrote the cron codex.
I agree they would've been fine without it, but what if Eldar were still going to be as they are now. Necrons need the Decurion to stand up to that. Against most power lists, Necrons need that durability to compete. Plus, Crons still aren't dominating the competitive scene.
The fact that they still show up in the competitive scene at all is actually pretty indicative of their power level, even if they are not dominating it. That said, I think the Decurion is good for tourney-play - even healthy for the game because of it! I compare it to Red Deck Wins (RDW) in Magic: The Gathering.
In Magic, RDW is a style of deck that just throws as much damage at the opponent as fast as possible. You start with 20 life, and Lightning Bolt deals 3 damage. If every card in your deck were as efficient as Lightning Bolt, you'd only need to cast 7 of them to win the game - even if you were down to just 1 life left when you did so. It's a simply, straightforward strategy. It's not sexy, not nuanced, and not tricky. In fact, because it's so consistent, if the tournament scene becomes too full of cute other styles of deck, a RDW deck might just win the tournament! Is RDW broken? Absolutely not - it's just powerful and consistent. By being like it is, it provides a restriction of sorts on what kinds of decks can exist. Its existence is ultimately healthy for the game.
Necrons feel similar to me for tournament play. Sure there's lots of ways to beat them, just like RDW, but if you can't consistently beat the Decurion, you'll have to be very serious about your chances against everything else at tournament-level play. Necrons are just that consistent.
While I agree with the premise RDW style lists, I think you're ascribing GW far too much competence by saying Decurion was deliberately designed to be that. Decurion was just a way to sell model bundles by giving away free special rules - effectively increasing the durability of the army by 50% for no cost and no regard for balance.
The problem with pointing out RDW (or 'Perfect Imbalance') lists is that it requires a lot of effort by the designer to pull off, and if it isn't done PERFECTLY then it just becomes, well, 'Imbalance'. At that point it becomes impossible to say whether X is unbalanced on purpose or accidentally; if it is providing a check on the system, what is it a check against?
You could pick out ANY current power build and declare it a restriction on the system: but IMO its getting more and more obvious that the power builds exist because GW dislikes competitive gaming and is doing everything in their power to implement 'Chaotic Imbalance' to get competitive players off their back.
MarsNZ wrote: Why did RP have to be something that couldn't be denied, why not just be FnP? I think that's the main thing that makes Necrons frustrating to play against.
The argument that "Eldar has better firepower so we need the unkillable stuff" falls flat when you realise your guns are on the same tier as Eldar and nobody even comes close to your durability.
I disagree our guns are on the same tier. Their good, but not that good.
And no, I played with Necron's 5th edition book for long enough to know that if your only special rule is ignorable half of the time, what's the point? I played games where I felt like I was just playing 3+ armor save dudes. No flavor, nothing. Can I ignore Battle Focus? No. Can I ignore ATSKNF? Nope. Can I take away your 'Ere We Go!? Nada. Plus, why would an army's special rule be the same thing as a standard special rule from the rulebook? That's just poppycock in my opinion.
A rule which is only used half the time is better than a pointless rule (ie, half the chaos marks).
Well, CSM are on their own tier of just "WTF?" right now. They need a new codex badly. Honestly, I'd like to see their marks revamped a bit, and one of their "decurion" requirement formations give all the models in it a Mark for free.
Man, that'd be sweet. With GW though they'd probably just start a power reduction cycle and get Nada.
Breton wrote:I want to question the premise. How do you know this is a power creep up, and not an adjustment back from a power decline in the past?
I haven't done research on the subject, but my understanding of the 40k business model is that always-on power creep incentivizes the purchase of the next edition.
then the change from 2nd to 3rd was an anomaly? The power creep there went far and away backwards.
Breton wrote:I want to question the premise. How do you know this is a power creep up, and not an adjustment back from a power decline in the past?
I haven't done research on the subject, but my understanding of the 40k business model is that always-on power creep incentivizes the purchase of the next edition.
then the change from 2nd to 3rd was an anomaly? The power creep there went far and away backwards.
Naw, when they reach Tyranids, they'll power plunge back down :X
But seriously, post 2015, I think they're pretty balanced, minus harlequins, which are just too few models to make a good go of it.
Frozocrone wrote:It shouldn't be like that though, every army should be balanced against each other.
That's partly why I believe people still hate on Necrons, because the scale tilts in their favour when almost nothing dies.
It's more like a hunting ground for the Necrons as opposed to war.
In an ideal game, even a fundamentally imbalanced game like 40k, the factions would be balanced against each other. Unfortunately, this isn't the case. Better to deal with the game we have now than wish for a game that we don't. Necrons are powerful, but not OP or broken. The best way to kill them is either with lots of high-strength AP4 or lower shots or blasts. Assaulting them with dedicated CC units also works well against everything except Wraiths.
I do agree that it can be demoralizing at how hard it is to kill Necrons. Fortuately, 5/6 games aren't won by killing Necrons.
CrashGordon94 wrote:Yeah, they definitely do still complain about Necrons, I've seen it.
Very frequently I hear " Necrons" and " Eldar".
Shocked me when I first joined here because I was told that the best armies in terms of strength were Tau and Chaos Space Marines (the latter only if built in a really un-fluffy way).
The current top-tier armies are the Tetrarchy of Cheese: Eldar, Necrons, Tau, and Chaos Daemons. Space Marines and Tyranids are right below them, enough that with a skillful player they can beat on of the top four armies. At a hyper-competitive level, every other army stands virtually no chance of winning. Luckily, most people don't play at that level. If you remove the tournament-grade power builds, the armies are relatively balanced for more casual play.
Everything has been hated on here on DakkaDakka. The reason it hasn't been as obvious recently is because people are burned out due to the release schedule and the reasons why people scream that Dark Angels are "OP" and "broken" are the same reasons people scream that Space Marines are "OP" and "broken". I guarantee you that the same thing will happen with the next codex release.
vipoid wrote:It would also be nice if GW could balance codices in the same bloody edition.
Unfortunately, GW being GW, they decided to change up their design philosophy regarding army construction halfway through the codex cycle. This is why the newer codexes are on a new level of power: the underlying design philosophies behind the armies have changed. Plus, formations sell models, usually models that just so happened to not be selling well...
I do, however, think that the older codexes can stand up to the post-Necron books under the right contexts/atmosphere and the right tactics.
Trasvi wrote: While I agree with the premise RDW style lists, I think you're ascribing GW far too much competence by saying Decurion was deliberately designed to be that.
I have to agree. ;-), it's highly unlikely this was done on purpose - but it is somewhat in that ball park nonetheless.
I see Necrons as zombies with guns. Shoot them all you like, they'll just keep coming. Barges and stuff are extra, and ruins the theme, but playing against them like that makes it worth playing.
The additional objective is to survive.
Frozocrone wrote:It shouldn't be like that though, every army should be balanced against each other.
That's partly why I believe people still hate on Necrons, because the scale tilts in their favour when almost nothing dies.
It's more like a hunting ground for the Necrons as opposed to war.
In an ideal game, even a fundamentally imbalanced game like 40k, the factions would be balanced against each other. Unfortunately, this isn't the case. Better to deal with the game we have now than wish for a game that we don't. Necrons are powerful, but not OP or broken.
Next to Eldar? Maybe, but that's not saying much. Next to The pre-2015 7E armies and remaining 6E armies? They're damn near impossible to beat. Try finding a battle report where the current IG book beats the current Necron book, last time I checked about a month ago I couldn't find one after about 40 minutes of looking through various forums and Youtube. There may be some, but not many...and there's a reason for that.
he best way to kill them is either with lots of high-strength AP4 or lower shots or blasts.
Even that's not always tremendously productive, particularly if they're able to finagle any sort of cover save, and you've still often got 3+ sv units to deal with as well.
Assaulting them with dedicated CC units also works well against everything except Wraiths.
Wraiths are a big problem, there's no effective way to kill them, they're absurdly resistant to both quantity and quality of firepower.
I do agree that it can be demoralizing at how hard it is to kill Necrons. Fortuately, 5/6 games aren't won by killing Necrons.
If they're not dead they're not being pushed off of objectives, and they're still alive to kill you.
The current top-tier armies are the Tetrarchy of Cheese: Eldar, Necrons, Tau, and Chaos Daemons. Space Marines and Tyranids are right below them, enough that with a skillful player they can beat on of the top four armies. At a hyper-competitive level, every other army stands virtually no chance of winning. Luckily, most people don't play at that level. If you remove the tournament-grade power builds, the armies are relatively balanced for more casual play.
Wait, Daemons and Nids are high-ranking armies? I heard they were awful when ranked against other stuff, this is news to me!
The current top-tier armies are the Tetrarchy of Cheese: Eldar, Necrons, Tau, and Chaos Daemons. Space Marines and Tyranids are right below them, enough that with a skillful player they can beat on of the top four armies. At a hyper-competitive level, every other army stands virtually no chance of winning. Luckily, most people don't play at that level. If you remove the tournament-grade power builds, the armies are relatively balanced for more casual play.
Wait, Daemons and Nids are high-ranking armies? I heard they were awful when ranked against other stuff, this is news to me!
Nids have won a lot of tourneys, and Daemons are still Daemons. They're not top tier, but certainly upper-mid.
I do, however, think that the older codexes can stand up to the post-Necron books under the right contexts/atmosphere and the right tactics.
I'm dubious about this. Unless it's because your opponent dies of congenital heart-failure half way through the game.
There are uphill struggles and then there's trying to climb a sheer cliff and having to dodge sniper rounds at the same time. Old books vs. 7.5 books tend to fall into the latter category (especially Eldar and Necrons).
Frozocrone wrote: Just wait until Tau get their Decurion and everyone gets Ignore Cover for free and completely invalidate armies
Not as good as they were before but still a tough match up for some armies.
I honestly see them getting something like +1 BS for certain formations, and the overall benefit will be a minimum 7" Jetpack move or something like that. Or Move Through Cover. Something along those lines.
The current top-tier armies are the Tetrarchy of Cheese: Eldar, Necrons, Tau, and Chaos Daemons. Space Marines and Tyranids are right below them, enough that with a skillful player they can beat on of the top four armies. At a hyper-competitive level, every other army stands virtually no chance of winning. Luckily, most people don't play at that level. If you remove the tournament-grade power builds, the armies are relatively balanced for more casual play.
Wait, Daemons and Nids are high-ranking armies? I heard they were awful when ranked against other stuff, this is news to me!
Nids have won a lot of tourneys, and Daemons are still Daemons. They're not top tier, but certainly upper-mid.
I'd argue that Tyranids still have a garbage Codex - particularly when the lists winning tournaments are all the same. I like to call it Codex: Flyrants, since that's the one thing you can be sure of facing when playing against them It's so horribly internally balanced that I've stopped playing them until they get their new one and even then it better be on the same level as the 7.5 Codexes, or else I might just have to sell my collection.
Frozocrone wrote: Just wait until Tau get their Decurion and everyone gets Ignore Cover for free and completely invalidate armies
Not as good as they were before but still a tough match up for some armies.
I honestly see them getting something like +1 BS for certain formations, and the overall benefit will be a minimum 7" Jetpack move or something like that. Or Move Through Cover. Something along those lines.
Oh, my Tau friend would enjoy BS4 Pathfinders...less Marklerlights for BS, more for Ignore Cover, haha. My Nids and DE shall assume the fetal position, my Orks shall blindly run through the bullets
The current top-tier armies are the Tetrarchy of Cheese: Eldar, Necrons, Tau, and Chaos Daemons. Space Marines and Tyranids are right below them, enough that with a skillful player they can beat on of the top four armies. At a hyper-competitive level, every other army stands virtually no chance of winning. Luckily, most people don't play at that level. If you remove the tournament-grade power builds, the armies are relatively balanced for more casual play.
Wait, Daemons and Nids are high-ranking armies? I heard they were awful when ranked against other stuff, this is news to me!
Nids have won a lot of tourneys, and Daemons are still Daemons. They're not top tier, but certainly upper-mid.
I'd argue that Tyranids still have a garbage Codex - particularly when the lists winning tournaments are all the same. I like to call it Codex: Flyrants, since that's the one thing you can be sure of facing when playing against them It's so horribly internally balanced that I've stopped playing them until they get their new one and even then it better be on the same level as the 7.5 Codexes, or else I might just have to sell my collection.
Oh, I completely agree their codex is trash. But, then again, I'm the person who uses gaunts, Warriors, Trygon Primes, Tyranid Prime, and other assorted MCs instead of spamming Flyrants. I've done rather well overall, but there's still a ton of "meh" units in that book.
Oh, my Tau friend would enjoy BS4 Pathfinders...less Marklerlights for BS, more for Ignore Cover, haha. My Nids and DE shall assume the fetal position, my Orks shall blindly run through the bullets
I honestly hope they get less Ignores Cover. That rule should not be used to things like AP2/1 weapons.
I honestly hope they get less Ignores Cover. That rule should not be used to things like AP2/1 weapons.
I'd like to see Ignores Cover become a modifier. So, Ignores Cover (2) would turn a 3+ cover save into a 5+ cover save. Similarly, I'd like to see a lot less in the way of stacking cover saves.
Basically, I'd like more middle-ground - rather than a ton of units that get either 3+ or 2+ cover saves, or else no cover save at all.
I honestly hope they get less Ignores Cover. That rule should not be used to things like AP2/1 weapons.
I'd like to see Ignores Cover become a modifier. So, Ignores Cover (2) would turn a 3+ cover save into a 5+ cover save. Similarly, I'd like to see a lot less in the way of stacking cover saves.
Basically, I'd like more middle-ground - rather than a ton of units that get either 3+ or 2+ cover saves, or else no cover save at all.
That would make sense, but would require an update in the core rulebook. So, what I would hope for more is Markerlights do something along the lines of "For each Markerlight spent, reduce the target's cover save by 1"
I'm dubious about this. Unless it's because your opponent dies of congenital heart-failure half way through the game.
There are uphill struggles and then there's trying to climb a sheer cliff and having to dodge sniper rounds at the same time. Old books vs. 7.5 books tend to fall into the latter category (especially Eldar and Necrons).
Like I said, it depends on the context, especially on how reasonable the Eldar, Necron, Admech, or Space Marine player is willing to be with their list. Against the full-power 7.5 edition codexes, I would agree that the game can be pointlessly one-sided. Again, it's a matter of toning down the new books so that the older ones can still put up a fight.
@Vaktathi: most of the points you listed have to do with problems with the IG codex. They aren't mobile enough, lack effective CC units, and their best units are tanks and veterans (artillery to a lesser extent). Necrons a good at killing all of those. But again, that's a problem with the design of the IG book, not the Necron one.
I'm dubious about this. Unless it's because your opponent dies of congenital heart-failure half way through the game.
There are uphill struggles and then there's trying to climb a sheer cliff and having to dodge sniper rounds at the same time. Old books vs. 7.5 books tend to fall into the latter category (especially Eldar and Necrons).
Like I said, it depends on the context, especially on how reasonable the Eldar, Necron, Admech, or Space Marine player is willing to be with their list. Against the full-power 7.5 edition codexes, I would agree that the game can be pointlessly one-sided. Again, it's a matter of toning down the new books so that the older ones can still put up a fight.
@Vaktathi: most of the points you listed have to do with problems with the IG codex. They aren't mobile enough, lack effective CC units, and their best units are tanks and veterans (artillery to a lesser extent). Necrons a good at killing all of those. But again, that's a problem with the design of the IG book, not the Necron one.
Like I said, it depends on the context, especially on how reasonable the Eldar, Necron, Admech, or Space Marine player is willing to be with their list.
That's the point though - those players shouldn't need to tone down their lists and arbitrarily restrict themselves, just to give older codices a fighting chance.
Like I said, it depends on the context, especially on how reasonable the Eldar, Necron, Admech, or Space Marine player is willing to be with their list.
That's the point though - those players shouldn't need to tone down their lists and arbitrarily restrict themselves, just to give older codices a fighting chance.
I mean, they should and they shouldn't. A game itself should not have that be an aspect of it, but at the same time, I personally wouldn't like feeling like I could never bring units I like because no one can deal with them.
the_scotsman wrote: Just to note: right now, the most hyper competitive tournament includes zero Necrons in the top 8, only 1 in the top 16.
And no Canoptek harvest in that list.
Top 8 is Daemons/CSM, Tau, Eldar/Tau, Eldar/Dark Eldar, Orks, 2 SM battle companies, and a Cult Mech War Convocation list.
It is worth noting that when it comes to actual tournament wins, the tier list is:
-Necrons
-Nids
-Daemons
-Marines
-Orks
In that order. Eldar have not taken an event since their mew 'dex.
So wait, if I'm understanding right, Necrons have the most wins then? Yet they're not in the top 8? I'm not too familiar with how all this tourney stuff works.
And Eldar aren't really doing that well with their new dex? Any idea why?
krodarklorr wrote: So wait, if I'm understanding right, Necrons have the most wins then? Yet they're not in the top 8? I'm not too familiar with how all this tourney stuff works.
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm guessing that first list without Crons was a specific list while the second where they top is in general.
krodarklorr wrote: And Eldar aren't really doing that well with their new dex? Any idea why?
Again, someone please correct me if I'm wrong but I'm guessing because everyone expects them and thus prepares for them. Or potentially tourney rulings nerf them to make it more balanced, though that would be quite a surprising choice.
krodarklorr wrote: So wait, if I'm understanding right, Necrons have the most wins then? Yet they're not in the top 8? I'm not too familiar with how all this tourney stuff works.
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm guessing that first list without Crons was a specific list while the second where they top is in general.
krodarklorr wrote: And Eldar aren't really doing that well with their new dex? Any idea why?
Again, someone please correct me if I'm wrong but I'm guessing because everyone expects them and thus prepares for them. Or potentially tourney rulings nerf them to make it more balanced, though that would be quite a surprising choice.
I mean, from what I've heard, most tourneys put limits on GCs or Super Heavies mainly because of Eldar. So Eldar players can't spam Wraithknights. That would make it so Eldar players would actually have to try and play the game.
I'm talking overall in all the major tournaments. Necrons had a really strong period before Eldar dropped, there were a couple tourneys where 6-7 out of 8 armies at the top tables were crons.
I'm unsure exactly, but I think the ITC format nerfs or disallows ranged strength: D.
Automatically Appended Next Post: There is some sort of D nerf, but the article I read mentioned one of the players tabled a five-IK list so I don't think there's a limit on LoWs.
There's also the fact that Eldar is strongest spamming like, three CADs to get Obsec Scatterbikes, as the Windrider host gives them nothing, and ITC has a 2-detachment limit.
the_scotsman wrote: I'm talking overall in all the major tournaments. Necrons had a really strong period before Eldar dropped, there were a couple tourneys where 6-7 out of 8 armies at the top tables were crons.
I'm unsure exactly, but I think the ITC format nerfs or disallows ranged strength: D.
Automatically Appended Next Post: There is some sort of D nerf, but the article I read mentioned one of the players tabled a five-IK list so I don't think there's a limit on LoWs.
There's also the fact that Eldar is strongest spamming like, three CADs to get Obsec Scatterbikes, as the Windrider host gives them nothing, and ITC has a 2-detachment limit.
Well, Scatterbikes I don't see doing well in top tournaments anyway. Ignores Cover plasma cannons from admech and unkillable Necrons means they won't really do that much.
Pfff. Ignores cover plasma cannons. They're only ignores cover IF they're in formation AND IF the Kastelan bots from the formation cause a wound with their phosphor guns first, and only against the unit that took the phosphor wound (which would get -1 to cover saves anyway from Luminagen.)
That is a seriously overrated formation. Shootybots are 130 points for the firepower of two Scatbikes, plus 50 points for the worthless Techpriest you gotta buy with them. Plus, if you can wound something with the Shootybots, shooting the servitors after them tends to waste the firepower of the servitors. That's dedicated shooting from at least 500 points of models right there.
And durable crons? Eh. Yeah. I mean mass S6 shooting is probably the best answer to Canoptek harvest which is probably the reason it didn't fare as well in that tourney and they largely switched to a Lychstar.
the_scotsman wrote: Pfff. Ignores cover plasma cannons. They're only ignores cover IF they're in formation AND IF the Kastelan bots from the formation cause a wound with their phosphor guns first, and only against the unit that took the phosphor wound (which would get -1 to cover saves anyway from Luminagen.)
That is a seriously overrated formation. Shootybots are 130 points for the firepower of two Scatbikes, plus 50 points for the worthless Techpriest you gotta buy with them. Plus, if you can wound something with the Shootybots, shooting the servitors after them tends to waste the firepower of the servitors. That's dedicated shooting from at least 500 points of models right there.
And durable crons? Eh. Yeah. I mean mass S6 shooting is probably the best answer to Canoptek harvest which is probably the reason it didn't fare as well in that tourney and they largely switched to a Lychstar.
Eh, I prefer Lychstar anyway, only because of the stigma attached to Wraiths.
The current top-tier armies are the Tetrarchy of Cheese: Eldar, Necrons, Tau, and Chaos Daemons.
I thought Tau had sunk quite a bit in terms of power. Was I misinformed?
Codex Tau are pretty low. Gunline Tau, while feared at a garage game level, has never done well at tournaments because it simply isn't fast enough. Farsight Enclaves do reasonably well, as they can spam MSU Obsec Crisis suits. Firebase Cadre still does well as an ally because it contains the two best units of the codex and is completely self contained; and its presence will only increase with the new Space Marine codex.
Wait, Daemons and Nids are high-ranking armies? I heard they were awful when ranked against other stuff, this is news to me!
Nids have won a lot of tourneys, and Daemons are still Daemons. They're not top tier, but certainly upper-mid.
If you ONLY take the winner of table 1 as the 'best codex evar', Daemons have cleaned up most of the last big tournaments.
The builds all start with Fateweaver + 2x11 horrors.
Then you can either go:
2-3x Tzeentch Heralds, 2x Screamer Squads, 1x Plague Drone or Fleshhound deathstar with 1-2 Heralds
or the list that just won BAO Bloodthirster, Prince of Tzeentch, allied CSM with Belakor, Helldrake, Cultists.
On the other hand: the claim that the winner of table 1 has the OP codex and every other codex in the game is fine, is pretty lacking. The upper-middle tables of a tournament tend to be full of powerful netlists piloted by middling players; the top tables tend to get a few of those netlists by good players, but also a few meta-rocking lists (like the Lictor/Scout-shame matches) specifically designed to counter most of the power codex netlists.
Eldar getting the strength D house rule nerfbat and other weakening adjustments (can't take second Wraithknight ever) immediately due to the internet outrage was fun to see.
Yet, they've not won a single meaningful tournament anywhere now, while all the same old usual suspects keep racking GT victories. Who would've thought? When GW releases a codex that might be a threat to you, just nerf it fast so the same old Flying Circus guys can keep stacking the trophy shelf.
Therion wrote: Eldar getting the strength D house rule nerfbat and other weakening adjustments (can't take second Wraithknight ever) immediately due to the internet outrage was fun to see.
Yet, they've not won a single meaningful tournament anywhere now, while all the same old usual suspects keep racking GT victories. Who would've thought? When GW releases a codex that might be a threat to you, just nerf it fast so the same old Flying Circus guys can keep stacking the trophy shelf.
Personally I would have preferred to see it reverted to 6th edition Distort rules, but I'll take what I can get.
Ranged D, Wraithknights, and Scatbikers are overpowered and broken. Flyrants are merely undercosted, and allow what is otherwise a mediocre book to win major tournaments.
Necron's are nasty but can easily be overestimated. I went to a 2000 pt tournament at my local game store a month or so ago and when I got there everyone thought I took a really cheesy list. It's what I had at the time so I worked with it., well needless to say I came in last because everyone made cheesy space marine list armed with nothing but meltas and lascannons (they were prepared for it). In turn though I faced one of them later on with the same list I almost tabled his troop heavy IG list by the end of the game and only lost my destroyer squad.
Therion wrote: Eldar getting the strength D house rule nerfbat and other weakening adjustments (can't take second Wraithknight ever) immediately due to the internet outrage was fun to see.
Therion wrote: Eldar getting the strength D house rule nerfbat and other weakening adjustments (can't take second Wraithknight ever) immediately due to the internet outrage was fun to see.
What was the nerf to Strength D weapons?
Considering all Eldar players would have to do to win tourneys is bring Obj Sec Scatriders and 3-4 Wraithknights, I'm glad they've put restrictions on things.
D-Weapons also no longer cause Instant Death. As you can see, this is a substantial nerf.
This is the Internet; every faction gets their own share of hate. People hate on Necrons because they were the first to get the new Formation-of-formations and because of their sheer level of durability. Just shrug it off and keep on playing. Anyone who refuses a game based solely on the faction they are potentially facing is a great candidate for TFG.
D-Weapons also no longer cause Instant Death. As you can see, this is a substantial nerf.
This is the Internet; every faction gets their own share of hate. People hate on Necrons because they were the first to get the new Formation-of-formations and because of their sheer level of durability. Just shrug it off and keep on playing. Anyone who refuses a game based solely on the faction they are potentially facing is a great candidate for TFG.
Yarium wrote: The main reason why people dislike playing against Necrons is that the survivability of your list creates a sense of non-interactive gameplay. Players enjoy moving their models around, and responding to shifting circumstances. Seeing their opponent have to do the same is enjoyable. It's a reward, and Necrons mess this dynamic up by removing that sense of rewarding play.
If you're playing Imperial Guard to my Harlequins, as a Harlequin player I have to move cautiously to keep away from being hit by your overwhelming numbers and powerful guns - but my nimbleness helps me do that. It's very enjoyable for me as the Harlequin player to feel like my smarts with the game has beaten yours. Then, you catch me out of position, and almost instantly annihilate half my force. Now you feel good, since you "caught" me - either by a longer term plan, or capitalizing on my mistake, and that feeling is rewarding to you.
But against Necrons, even if I catch you in a mistake, you just don't die, and next turn's the same, and I've been denied that reward. I may eventually chip away at you and win, but it doesn't *feel* that way. Even if I win, I don't feel like I've beaten your smarts - I only feel like I've beaten your dice rolls. If you beat me, I don't feel like your smarts beat me, only your dice rolls.
I could not agree more with you.
If people start to ban and/or refusing to play necron it is not because the chance of loosing is high (anyway if high possibilities of loosing make you refuse a game it mean that you are either a mediocre player or scare to face a challenge) but because the way Necrons work remove all the fun (and dynamic as you explained it so well).
In addition, I also think that the Decurion style detachment we now can see in several armies took the fun out. Before, you had to test several units and see what combination goes best in order to come up with a good army list. Nowadays, if you play a 1000 PTS game and you field Necron, finish. Your reclamation formation and the Cannopek formation will already fill all the available points. Where is the versatility? Now every Necrons player bring the exact same on the table. Came to the point where many Battle report channel (i.e. Miniwargaming, Tabletoptactic…) on Youtube ban the Decurion formation since nobody will watch a report with the same units everybody use.
D-Weapons also no longer cause Instant Death. As you can see, this is a substantial nerf.
Indeed. Just a shame that it's only a house rule...
Thanks for posting that.
A house rule that you can adopt to be your own house rule. [/quote?
What house rule nerfs are in place for some of the OP spacemarine builds? Nothing for skyhammer, multiple command sqd bike grav units, anything? With the new marine dexes and formations, I wonder if the knee jerk reactions to eldar should be retracted.
Yarium wrote: The main reason why people dislike playing against Necrons is that the survivability of your list creates a sense of non-interactive gameplay. Players enjoy moving their models around, and responding to shifting circumstances. Seeing their opponent have to do the same is enjoyable. It's a reward, and Necrons mess this dynamic up by removing that sense of rewarding play.
If you're playing Imperial Guard to my Harlequins, as a Harlequin player I have to move cautiously to keep away from being hit by your overwhelming numbers and powerful guns - but my nimbleness helps me do that. It's very enjoyable for me as the Harlequin player to feel like my smarts with the game has beaten yours. Then, you catch me out of position, and almost instantly annihilate half my force. Now you feel good, since you "caught" me - either by a longer term plan, or capitalizing on my mistake, and that feeling is rewarding to you.
But against Necrons, even if I catch you in a mistake, you just don't die, and next turn's the same, and I've been denied that reward. I may eventually chip away at you and win, but it doesn't *feel* that way. Even if I win, I don't feel like I've beaten your smarts - I only feel like I've beaten your dice rolls. If you beat me, I don't feel like your smarts beat me, only your dice rolls.
I could not agree more with you.
If people start to ban and/or refusing to play necron it is not because the chance of loosing is high (anyway if high possibilities of loosing make you refuse a game it mean that you are either a mediocre player or scare to face a challenge) but because the way Necrons work remove all the fun (and dynamic as you explained it so well).
In addition, I also think that the Decurion style detachment we now can see in several armies took the fun out. Before, you had to test several units and see what combination goes best in order to come up with a good army list. Nowadays, if you play a 1000 PTS game and you field Necron, finish. Your reclamation formation and the Cannopek formation will already fill all the available points. Where is the versatility? Now every Necrons player bring the exact same on the table. Came to the point where many Battle report channel (i.e. Miniwargaming, Tabletoptactic…) on Youtube ban the Decurion formation since nobody will watch a report with the same units everybody use.
I use nothing but Decurion, and I still bring a variety of units, and do well with them. I've used every formation at least twice, and I also like to bring different named characters. There's a ton of stuff to do with Necrons. If someone plays them and thinks "Well, all I need is the minimum requirements and my Canoptek Harvest and then I'm good" then shame on them. They give Cron players a bad name, and they, themselves, are boring to play against.
If people start to ban and/or refusing to play necron it is not because the chance of loosing is high (anyway if high possibilities of loosing make you refuse a game it mean that you are either a mediocre player or scare to face a challenge) but because the way Necrons work remove all the fun (and dynamic as you explained it so well).
In addition, I also think that the Decurion style detachment we now can see in several armies took the fun out. Before, you had to test several units and see what combination goes best in order to come up with a good army list. Nowadays, if you play a 1000 PTS game and you field Necron, finish. Your reclamation formation and the Cannopek formation will already fill all the available points. Where is the versatility? Now every Necrons player bring the exact same on the table. Came to the point where many Battle report channel (i.e. Miniwargaming, Tabletoptactic…) on Youtube ban the Decurion formation since nobody will watch a report with the same units everybody use.
At a purely competitive level, you also saw only a few specific units being used. That is simply the most optimal way to play/build lists from a competitive standpoint.
I actually like the new Decurion-style detachments and formations, and don't think that any of them are OP (except for the Canoptek Harvest). It gives people a reason to field units that were previously sub-optimal, and allows for more lore-friendly list building.
Believe it or not, I do find that Necrons can be fun to play against. Dealing with them is simply a matter of playing to the objective and concentrating fire on one unit at a time. If all else fails, you can deal with most non-Wraith units pretty well by assaulting them to rip and tear.
At a purely competitive level, you also saw only a few specific units being used. That is simply the most optimal way to play/build lists from a competitive standpoint.
I actually like the new Decurion-style detachments and formations, and don't think that any of them are OP (except for the Canoptek Harvest). It gives people a reason to field units that were previously sub-optimal, and allows for more lore-friendly list building.
Believe it or not, I do find that Necrons can be fun to play against. Dealing with them is simply a matter of playing to the objective and concentrating fire on one unit at a time. If all else fails, you can deal with most non-Wraith units pretty well by assaulting them to rip and tear.
krodarklorr wrote: I use nothing but Decurion, and I still bring a variety of units, and do well with them. I've used every formation at least twice, and I also like to bring different named characters. There's a ton of stuff to do with Necrons. If someone plays them and thinks "Well, all I need is the minimum requirements and my Canoptek Harvest and then I'm good" then shame on them. They give Cron players a bad name, and they, themselves, are boring to play against.
Exactly. I feel that the Decurion-style detachments actually increase the amount of versatility in list-building. The only reason people tend toward monobuilding and netlisting is because they are interested only in putting down the most powerful and effective units on the table to win at a competitive level.
krodarklorr wrote: I use nothing but Decurion, and I still bring a variety of units, and do well with them. I've used every formation at least twice, and I also like to bring different named characters. There's a ton of stuff to do with Necrons. If someone plays them and thinks "Well, all I need is the minimum requirements and my Canoptek Harvest and then I'm good" then shame on them. They give Cron players a bad name, and they, themselves, are boring to play against.
Exactly. I feel that the Decurion-style detachments actually increase the amount of versatility in list-building. The only reason people tend toward monobuilding and netlisting is because they are interested only in putting down the most powerful and effective units on the table to win at a competitive level.
Yeah, if you ask my friends up at my local shop, they'll say that they don't like playing against my Living Tomb. Yeah, I'm one of the few people who use it. And yeah, it's wrecked many a face when fielded.
Yarium wrote: The main reason why people dislike playing against Necrons is that the survivability of your list creates a sense of non-interactive gameplay. Players enjoy moving their models around, and responding to shifting circumstances. Seeing their opponent have to do the same is enjoyable. It's a reward, and Necrons mess this dynamic up by removing that sense of rewarding play.
If you're playing Imperial Guard to my Harlequins, as a Harlequin player I have to move cautiously to keep away from being hit by your overwhelming numbers and powerful guns - but my nimbleness helps me do that. It's very enjoyable for me as the Harlequin player to feel like my smarts with the game has beaten yours. Then, you catch me out of position, and almost instantly annihilate half my force. Now you feel good, since you "caught" me - either by a longer term plan, or capitalizing on my mistake, and that feeling is rewarding to you.
But against Necrons, even if I catch you in a mistake, you just don't die, and next turn's the same, and I've been denied that reward. I may eventually chip away at you and win, but it doesn't *feel* that way. Even if I win, I don't feel like I've beaten your smarts - I only feel like I've beaten your dice rolls. If you beat me, I don't feel like your smarts beat me, only your dice rolls.
I could not agree more with you.
If people start to ban and/or refusing to play necron it is not because the chance of loosing is high (anyway if high possibilities of loosing make you refuse a game it mean that you are either a mediocre player or scare to face a challenge) but because the way Necrons work remove all the fun (and dynamic as you explained it so well).
In addition, I also think that the Decurion style detachment we now can see in several armies took the fun out. Before, you had to test several units and see what combination goes best in order to come up with a good army list. Nowadays, if you play a 1000 PTS game and you field Necron, finish. Your reclamation formation and the Cannopek formation will already fill all the available points. Where is the versatility? Now every Necrons player bring the exact same on the table. Came to the point where many Battle report channel (i.e. Miniwargaming, Tabletoptactic…) on Youtube ban the Decurion formation since nobody will watch a report with the same units everybody use.
I use nothing but Decurion, and I still bring a variety of units, and do well with them. I've used every formation at least twice, and I also like to bring different named characters. There's a ton of stuff to do with Necrons. If someone plays them and thinks "Well, all I need is the minimum requirements and my Canoptek Harvest and then I'm good" then shame on them. They give Cron players a bad name, and they, themselves, are boring to play against.
If you do so then good. You might be interesting to play with/against. Unfortunately most other Necrons player are not like you. But talking about all the formation, have you ever try a CAD? You will lose all those benefits the Decurion provide but did you? That is what I mean. Those new formation Decurion type (not only Necrons, SM as well) kind of push you toward this schematic direction. I do not blame you for taking advantage of a system offered to you. Just saying that is why I think those formation style remove some part of the fun.
I use to play 40k back from 4th Edition and stop at the end of 5th edition. Only restart recently with 7th. I remember before every time I showed up at my FLGS I knew that I had 50% chance facing a SM player, but because the formation structure was the same for every body, I did not know how many terminators he will bring, how many devastator squad, how many Vindicators… Same for all armies. Now in the very same FLGS, I know that I will either face a demi-company, a Decurion, A Wraith Host, a Skyhammer….. I still accept any game anyway but every time on my way I wish that I face Orcs, DE, SW or IG. Why? Because those faction kept a big part of randomness in they Army structure. You and I can make millions of different CAD with those armies.
Again, apparently you don't but most players nowadays will always bring the same on the table because of those bloody formation. Might be my frustration of being a SoB player and knowing that we will never have such things, but I really think that it make the game more boring (even through I still love it).
If you do so then good. You might be interesting to play with/against. Unfortunately most other Necrons player are not like you.
But talking about all the formation, have you ever try a CAD? You will lose all those benefits the Decurion provide but did you? That is what I mean. Those new formation Decurion type (not only Necrons, SM as well) kind of push you toward this schematic direction. I do not blame you for taking advantage of a system offered to you. Just saying that is why I think those formation style remove some part of the fun.
I use to play 40k back from 4th Edition and stop at the end of 5th edition. Only restart recently with 7th. I remember before every time I showed up at my FLGS I knew that I had 50% chance facing a SM player, but because the formation structure was the same for every body, I did not know how many terminators he will bring, how many devastator squad, how many Vindicators… Same for all armies.
Now in the very same FLGS, I know that I will either face a demi-company, a Decurion, A Wraith Host, a Skyhammer….. I still accept any game anyway but every time on my way I wish that I face Orcs, DE, SW or IG. Why? Because those faction kept a big part of randomness in they Army structure. You and I can make millions of different CAD with those armies.
Again, apparently you don't but most players nowadays will always bring the same on the table because of those bloody formation.
Might be my frustration of being a SoB player and knowing that we will never have such things, but I really think that it make the game more boring (even through I still love it).
Well to be honest I have used a CAD 2-3 times. In fact, through the use of Anrakyr, Szeras, and Crypteks, I can essentially get most of the same benefits, and still make fluffy lists and do well. In fact, one of those times, using the characters I mentioned, I played a Footcron list against my friend's SoB. That was the closest game I think I've had in a long time. It came down to trying to survive and think tactically the last few turns, and last turn I got a few lucky Tactical Objectives and pulled quite a lead with points, and started to outlive what was left of his. But it was a great game. I'm not opposed to using the CAD, by no means. My main reason I love the codex is because the Decurion was the answer to my woes about the last codex. No flavor, no reason to run fluffy lists, my army didn't feel like Necrons, ext. The Decurion is now the most fluffy way to build a Necron list, ever. And I love it for that. Other people don't though, because it happens to be ridiculously powerful.
Plus, I respect the Necron formations because of the options within them. Yeah, you might bring a Reclamation Legion, but you can add more units, add Lychguard, and even Monoliths. And then add in Transports. So there's still a bunch you can do with it.
Immortals and (god forbid) Wraiths are a different story, but Deucrion Warriors really are mathematically not that much tougher than MEQ except against AP1-3 (less tough vs. AP4). They're not really that tough.
In fact, quick mathety-math tells me that a squad of Skitarii Vanguard shooting + assaulting an equal number of Warriors will probably beat them. I'm... reasonably sure that the same would apply to bolter marines using Tactical Doctrine (?).
Alcibiades wrote: Immortals and (god forbid) Wraiths are a different story, but Deucrion Warriors really are mathematically not that much tougher than MEQ except against AP1-3 (less tough vs. AP4). They're not really that tough.
In fact, quick mathety-math tells me that a squad of Skitarii Vanguard shooting + assaulting an equal number of Warriors will probably beat them. I'm... reasonably sure that the same would apply to bolter marines using Tactical Doctrine (?).
I'd rather have a 4+ rerollable then a regular 3+. And which ones are the Vanguard? I haven't played against Skitarii enough to know yet.
Alcibiades wrote: Immortals and (god forbid) Wraiths are a different story, but Deucrion Warriors really are mathematically not that much tougher than MEQ except against AP1-3 (less tough vs. AP4). They're not really that tough.
In fact, quick mathety-math tells me that a squad of Skitarii Vanguard shooting + assaulting an equal number of Warriors will probably beat them. I'm... reasonably sure that the same would apply to bolter marines using Tactical Doctrine (?).
I'd rather have a 4+ rerollable then a regular 3+. And which ones are the Vanguard? I haven't played against Skitarii enough to know yet.
The math puts Decurion warriors (IIRC, I haven't done the math in a while, and I am not factoring in the RL reroll) as a bit tougher than MEQ vs. AP 5 and 6, weaker vs. AP4, and tougher vs. AP1-3.
Vanguard have the 18" Assault 3 guns that score 2 wounds on a 6 regardless of T, S3 T3 I3 4+/6+ FNP model with the special ability to reduce the T of units they are locked in combat with by 1. They outshoot Necron Warriors in the 12"-18" range; I think that if you shot and then assaulted they would win (and they cost 2/3 as much), especially if you use one of the imperatives that increase your BS. At least they did when I did the math on my phone on the way home today.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Yeah I just checked. With their BS up to 5, shooting and then assaulting, Vanguard Skitarii beat an equal number of Decurion Necron Warriors (including the reroll of 1s) by 1 or 2, with some give and take depending on how effective the Warriors are in Overwatch.
They'd better sweep the warriors though; if not, in the following turn, they're in trouble.
This is the Internet; every faction gets their own share of hate. People hate on Necrons because they were the first to get the new Formation-of-formations and because of their sheer level of durability. Just shrug it off and keep on playing. Anyone who refuses a game based solely on the faction they are potentially facing is a great candidate for TFG.
Occasionally, there's nothing wrong with a player with Army 'A' outright refusing to play against anyone using Army 'B' when 'B' outright hard counters anything 'A' can do.
Remember Daemons vs. Grey Knights in 5th? Pretty much the perfect definition of a pointless waste of time, especially if/when the GK player knew how to really maximise the effectiveness of 1-2 Warp Quake capable squads...
Same deal again with Venom spam Dark Eldar vs. Tyranids back in the day. That much poisoned shooting against an army that had little to no ranged anti-tank capabilities + a book full of overcosted units stood pretty much 0 chance at ever scratching the Dark Eldar...
Granted there's far less of these match-ups now, with likely the only main one being the weaker 6th ed codicies, (namely CSM's, or non-Flying Circus 'Nids), going up against a 7.5 codex that's throwing down an optimised Decurion/Gladius Strike Force, etc...
I know for example that I wouldn't bother playing even a so-called 'friendly' game against a Gladius Strike Force army that's full of Grav spam & free Drop Pods if I was using Chaos Marines... Just the codex match-up alone is bad enough due to Grav being the perfect counter to anything CSM's can field. Now add in army-wide Obsec + MSU spam + 'free' Drop Pods and there's just no point.
IMHO, this isn't being TFG at all. No one can force an opponent to play a game, especially if you know full well going into the game that the codex disparity is such that one player has pretty much 0 chance of even doing much of anything beyond removing handfuls of models wholesale.
TFG attitude would actually be insisting that the disadvantaged player is being a weeny/bad sport for refusing a game they're never going to enjoy, just so you can stroke your man dollies ego.
Experiment 626 wrote:Occasionally, there's nothing wrong with a player with Army 'A' outright refusing to play against anyone using Army 'B' when 'B' outright hard counters anything 'A' can do.
Remember Daemons vs. Grey Knights in 5th? Pretty much the perfect definition of a pointless waste of time, especially if/when the GK player knew how to really maximise the effectiveness of 1-2 Warp Quake capable squads...
Same deal again with Venom spam Dark Eldar vs. Tyranids back in the day. That much poisoned shooting against an army that had little to no ranged anti-tank capabilities + a book full of overcosted units stood pretty much 0 chance at ever scratching the Dark Eldar...
Granted there's far less of these match-ups now, with likely the only main one being the weaker 6th ed codicies, (namely CSM's, or non-Flying Circus 'Nids), going up against a 7.5 codex that's throwing down an optimised Decurion/Gladius Strike Force, etc...
I know for example that I wouldn't bother playing even a so-called 'friendly' game against a Gladius Strike Force army that's full of Grav spam & free Drop Pods if I was using Chaos Marines... Just the codex match-up alone is bad enough due to Grav being the perfect counter to anything CSM's can field. Now add in army-wide Obsec + MSU spam + 'free' Drop Pods and there's just no point.
IMHO, this isn't being TFG at all. No one can force an opponent to play a game, especially if you know full well going into the game that the codex disparity is such that one player has pretty much 0 chance of even doing much of anything beyond removing handfuls of models wholesale.
TFG attitude would actually be insisting that the disadvantaged player is being a weeny/bad sport for refusing a game they're never going to enjoy, just so you can stroke your man dollies ego.
You bring up a good point. I can definitely understand why people might want to avoid certain matchups in a non-tournament context, and that's perfectly fine. To be honest, I would understand if people with pre-Necron books only want to play with a CAD/modified CAD, as this tends to even the playing field in most cases (except for Eldar, who can be even more broken in a CAD than in a Warhost). It's simply avoiding playing a faction for no other reason than an irrational prejudice against that faction that qualifies as TFG behavior.
Ferros wrote:I like the guy who validated this thread when he suggested Necrons had remotely similar firepower, much less mobility or PHSYCHIC POWERS, to Eldar.
Absurd and irrational hate is alive and well because of the emotional scars caused by being the first true 7th Edition codex.
If there's one thing I've learned playing 40k, it's to never underestimate your opponent. Well, that and always playing the objective. Necrons have strong mid- to short-range firepower. It's not the obscene levels of Eldar Scatbikers, but more than enough to pose a serious threat. Believe it or not, Necrons can be very mobile. Between Tomb Blades, Veil of Darkness, Monoliths, skimmers, and flyer transports Necrons have a variety of ways of getting around the battlefield quickly. I will, however, concede that Necrons lack the psychic potential to compare to Eldar. Very few armies do.
Necrons really were the first true 7th edition codex: they introduced a totally new way of structuring an army, and one that is massively powerful. It's only natural that some people would be jealous of the Necrons until their codex gets updated. The pre-Necron codexes have taken it in the shorts unfortunately; I don't think I've seen this great of a shift in power disparity since 6th edition Eldar and Tau.
Even with their new book Eldar are still third rate compared Space Marines, Grey Knights, and Necrons.
But the top of the top does belong to the Necrons and Grey Knights. Both are nigh on unstoppable for different reasons. And they have a firm death grip at the top slot.
KingmanHighborn wrote: Even with their new book Eldar are still third rate compared Space Marines, Grey Knights, and Necrons.
But the top of the top does belong to the Necrons and Grey Knights. Both are nigh on unstoppable for different reasons. And they have a firm death grip at the top slot.
Have you checked out recent tournament rankings? Necrons and Grey Knights are showing up and placing, but hardly dominating. The only reason Eldar aren't dominating every tournament has house-ruled them into the dirt, and rightly so given how broken the Eldar codex is. Most of the top tables have been taken up by Space Marines and Tyranids, with Tau and Daemons placing solidly along with Eldar. An Ork player even won a major tournament recently as well.
I suspect there might be some lingering resentment toward Grey Knights and Necrons on your part...
I prefer to run my army in a Gladius formation because it's just neat. However, if I'm facing an opponent that would prefer not to fight against the formation bonuses, I've cleverly designed my list so that it will also work as a traditional CAD with only minimal changes. If anything, my CAD list is actually a little tougher because it replaces 4 Librarians with a second Stormraven and a punchier Captain.
j31c3n wrote: I prefer to run my army in a Gladius formation because it's just neat. However, if I'm facing an opponent that would prefer not to fight against the formation bonuses, I've cleverly designed my list so that it will also work as a traditional CAD with only minimal changes. If anything, my CAD list is actually a little tougher because it replaces 4 Librarians with a second Stormraven and a punchier Captain.
I'd rather take on as many Stormravens as possible, because I think they are weak for the points.
j31c3n wrote: I prefer to run my army in a Gladius formation because it's just neat. However, if I'm facing an opponent that would prefer not to fight against the formation bonuses, I've cleverly designed my list so that it will also work as a traditional CAD with only minimal changes. If anything, my CAD list is actually a little tougher because it replaces 4 Librarians with a second Stormraven and a punchier Captain.
I'd rather take on as many Stormravens as possible, because I think they are weak for the points.
KingmanHighborn wrote: Even with their new book Eldar are still third rate compared Space Marines, Grey Knights, and Necrons.
But the top of the top does belong to the Necrons and Grey Knights. Both are nigh on unstoppable for different reasons. And they have a firm death grip at the top slot.
Grey Knights? Really?
I think I've seen them win only two games without running some sort of Draigo 2++-star. I don't think any statistics back up that Grey Knights are that outstandingly powerful.
I'd rather take on as many Stormravens as possible, because I think they are weak for the points.
The advantage of the Stormraven is the ability to transport two units (three with combat squadding), one of which is a dreadnought. Ironclad+ full-sized Vanguard or Honor Guard, with room to take an IC, makes for a nice close combat package.
Martel732 wrote: I'm not as familiar, but since BA don't get it, I'm sure it's good.
Blood Angels can't take the "official" version, that much is true (though I've no clue why not, as the experimental rules actually included special gubbins for BA only). Here are the experimental rules. In this player's opinion, most decent opponents wouldn't have much of a problem with you fielding the experimental rules (I wouldn't.)
That's an advantage? I consider the transport capability a death trap.
It's worked out well for me, though I mostly play pick up games. Ironclad dreadnought with an HF and MG can put on the hurt in close shooting. Salamander CT help me in that area, as well. After that, they have 6 attacks on the charge, 7 if there's Honor Guard nearby. It being an assault transport means there isn't a turn where your assault units are sitting on the board doing nothing useful.
KingmanHighborn wrote: Even with their new book Eldar are still third rate compared Space Marines, Grey Knights, and Necrons.
But the top of the top does belong to the Necrons and Grey Knights. Both are nigh on unstoppable for different reasons. And they have a firm death grip at the top slot.
Wat. Necrons are outstanding yes, the go-to tourney decurion build has very few counters, but GK don't have anything going for them now. A ton of good Tourney players ally in a pod + culexus which can single handedly neuter draigostars, as well as strip off psychic buffs so that the rest of the army can fire in as well. I haven't seen a GK list anywhere near the upper tables in a while. (And I'd love to, because I also always bring a culexus to tourneys!)
Marines got a new competitive build to add to their previous 3, but building a CAD from marines without using one of those competitive blueprints is still just a mediocre flgs army. (The rank and file marines still suck out loud, to be frank.)
Eldar are anything but 3rd rate. If you want an army that can take you on a steamroll spree through day 1 of a big event, (barring running into the future champ out of bad matchup luck,) they are your guys. Every time I've seen eldar lose at the top tables lately, they've JUST BARELY lost, either by one or two dice rolls, or by some unfortunate player error, and always while fighting some other toptable-tier-list like war convo, decurion, daemons etc. I have literally never seen a tourney eldar list with the typical "scat bikes + WK" starting blueprint get rolled. If they do lose, it's always by tiny margins, and again, only to other beast lists piloted by top players.
That's an advantage? I consider the transport capability a death trap.
It's worked out well for me, though I mostly play pick up games.
Yeah there's a world of difference from flgs pug's and tourney level lists. In tourneys, scatbikes, Tau firebase cadres, and enemy flyers are all commonplace. If you tempt the opponent there with a juicy enough passenger list in a raven, they are dead.
KingmanHighborn wrote: Even with their new book Eldar are still third rate compared Space Marines, Grey Knights, and Necrons.
But the top of the top does belong to the Necrons and Grey Knights. Both are nigh on unstoppable for different reasons. And they have a firm death grip at the top slot.
Wat. Necrons are outstanding yes, the go-to tourney decurion build has very few counters, but GK don't have anything going for them now. A ton of good Tourney players ally in a pod + culexus which can single handedly neuter draigostars, as well as strip off psychic buffs so that the rest of the army can fire in as well. I haven't seen a GK list anywhere near the upper tables in a while. (And I'd love to, because I also always bring a culexus to tourneys!)
Marines got a new competitive build to add to their previous 3, but building a CAD from marines without using one of those competitive blueprints is still just a mediocre flgs army. (The rank and file marines still suck out loud, to be frank.)
Eldar are anything but 3rd rate. If you want an army that can take you on a steamroll spree through day 1 of a big event, (barring running into the future champ out of bad matchup luck,) they are your guys. Every time I've seen eldar lose at the top tables lately, they've JUST BARELY lost, either by one or two dice rolls, or by some unfortunate player error, and always while fighting some other toptable-tier-list like war convo, decurion, daemons etc. I have literally never seen a tourney eldar list with the typical "scat bikes + WK" starting blueprint get rolled. If they do lose, it's always by tiny margins, and again, only to other beast lists piloted by top players.
Yeah, Grey Knights can't even really be considered top tier, since they require allies from at least Imperial Knights and Assassins to function in a tournament setting.
And to be honest, we have unhouse-ruled Eldar players at my store (though they both have the mindset to spam Shurikan Cannons instead of Scatter Lasers), and they honestly haven't been doing so hot. I played against a relatively good list (not tourney level, but still really good) including a Wraithknight with Heavy Wraith Cannons, 3 units of 3x Shuricannon bikes, and a ton of BS5 Aspects and Serpents, and after the first turn or 2 of me taking a pounding, I ended up tabling him. In fact, he even lost a game using the same list against my friend's Space Marines (And he uses things like a bunch of Tac squads in Rhinos and Vanguard Vets) before the new Marine codex was out. Then I played a 3000 point game against another friend's Eldar, but he had Dark Eldar and Harlequins with him as well (though had mostly Eldar, including a Wraithknight). The amount of shuricannons in that list was....ugh. And I played a single Canoptek Harvest, a Judicator Battalion, and then brought a Tesseract Vault. I tabled him by turn 5.
Other than that, Eldar as a whole have probably only won maybe half the games they've played at my store, and the Eldar players are by no means bad players. I used to have a lot of Eldar hate, trust me. But the results are in, Eldar are not "dominating" as much as people thought they would.
Experiment 626 wrote:Occasionally, there's nothing wrong with a player with Army 'A' outright refusing to play against anyone using Army 'B' when 'B' outright hard counters anything 'A' can do.
Remember Daemons vs. Grey Knights in 5th? Pretty much the perfect definition of a pointless waste of time, especially if/when the GK player knew how to really maximise the effectiveness of 1-2 Warp Quake capable squads...
Same deal again with Venom spam Dark Eldar vs. Tyranids back in the day. That much poisoned shooting against an army that had little to no ranged anti-tank capabilities + a book full of overcosted units stood pretty much 0 chance at ever scratching the Dark Eldar...
Granted there's far less of these match-ups now, with likely the only main one being the weaker 6th ed codicies, (namely CSM's, or non-Flying Circus 'Nids), going up against a 7.5 codex that's throwing down an optimised Decurion/Gladius Strike Force, etc...
I know for example that I wouldn't bother playing even a so-called 'friendly' game against a Gladius Strike Force army that's full of Grav spam & free Drop Pods if I was using Chaos Marines... Just the codex match-up alone is bad enough due to Grav being the perfect counter to anything CSM's can field. Now add in army-wide Obsec + MSU spam + 'free' Drop Pods and there's just no point.
IMHO, this isn't being TFG at all. No one can force an opponent to play a game, especially if you know full well going into the game that the codex disparity is such that one player has pretty much 0 chance of even doing much of anything beyond removing handfuls of models wholesale.
TFG attitude would actually be insisting that the disadvantaged player is being a weeny/bad sport for refusing a game they're never going to enjoy, just so you can stroke your man dollies ego.
You bring up a good point. I can definitely understand why people might want to avoid certain matchups in a non-tournament context, and that's perfectly fine. To be honest, I would understand if people with pre-Necron books only want to play with a CAD/modified CAD, as this tends to even the playing field in most cases (except for Eldar, who can be even more broken in a CAD than in a Warhost). It's simply avoiding playing a faction for no other reason than an irrational prejudice against that faction that qualifies as TFG behavior.
I strongly agree with this. This game if full of balance issues and with the addition of formations have only made things worse. It is more important then ever for both players to have a little pre-game discussion and agree on what kind of game they want to play. Some players justify their list as being fair since it is legal and follows the rules which is the problem I am having with a couple of friends. I had a couple bad experiences fighting the decurian since I was unprepared and wasn't allowed to change my list.
I am willing to fight the decurian as long as I am given a heads so up so can bring a strong list too. My only issue with this is that I now feel the need to abuse a CAD and take minimum troops so I can fit more fast hard hitting units so I can have a fighting chance.
Experiment 626 wrote:Occasionally, there's nothing wrong with a player with Army 'A' outright refusing to play against anyone using Army 'B' when 'B' outright hard counters anything 'A' can do.
Remember Daemons vs. Grey Knights in 5th? Pretty much the perfect definition of a pointless waste of time, especially if/when the GK player knew how to really maximise the effectiveness of 1-2 Warp Quake capable squads...
Same deal again with Venom spam Dark Eldar vs. Tyranids back in the day. That much poisoned shooting against an army that had little to no ranged anti-tank capabilities + a book full of overcosted units stood pretty much 0 chance at ever scratching the Dark Eldar...
Granted there's far less of these match-ups now, with likely the only main one being the weaker 6th ed codicies, (namely CSM's, or non-Flying Circus 'Nids), going up against a 7.5 codex that's throwing down an optimised Decurion/Gladius Strike Force, etc...
I know for example that I wouldn't bother playing even a so-called 'friendly' game against a Gladius Strike Force army that's full of Grav spam & free Drop Pods if I was using Chaos Marines... Just the codex match-up alone is bad enough due to Grav being the perfect counter to anything CSM's can field. Now add in army-wide Obsec + MSU spam + 'free' Drop Pods and there's just no point.
IMHO, this isn't being TFG at all. No one can force an opponent to play a game, especially if you know full well going into the game that the codex disparity is such that one player has pretty much 0 chance of even doing much of anything beyond removing handfuls of models wholesale.
TFG attitude would actually be insisting that the disadvantaged player is being a weeny/bad sport for refusing a game they're never going to enjoy, just so you can stroke your man dollies ego.
You bring up a good point. I can definitely understand why people might want to avoid certain matchups in a non-tournament context, and that's perfectly fine. To be honest, I would understand if people with pre-Necron books only want to play with a CAD/modified CAD, as this tends to even the playing field in most cases (except for Eldar, who can be even more broken in a CAD than in a Warhost). It's simply avoiding playing a faction for no other reason than an irrational prejudice against that faction that qualifies as TFG behavior.
I strongly agree with this. This game if full of balance issues and with the addition of formations have only made things worse. It is more important then ever for both players to have a little pre-game discussion and agree on what kind of game they want to play. Some players justify their list as being fair since it is legal and follows the rules which is the problem I am having with a couple of friends. I had a couple bad experiences fighting the decurian since I was unprepared and wasn't allowed to change my list.
I am willing to fight the decurian as long as I am given a heads so up so can bring a strong list too. My only issue with this is that I now feel the need to abuse a CAD and take minimum troops so I can fit more fast hard hitting units so I can have a fighting chance.
I really feel bad for other people who have friends that give the Decurion an even worse name. In my group, no one turns down a game from me, simply because I find out what kind of game they want to play, and build a list around that. You want semi-casual? Alright, Nightbringer, Monolith, and Annihilation Nexus it is.
krodarklorr wrote: There actually has been a few times where I've had to buckle down and think strategically to win, but you're right. Most of the time, regardless of the list I play, I just walk at you, don't die, and shoot you off the board. 8/10 times that's the game. And the very few times I've lost, I had pretty bad dice rolls. So yeah, I didn't think about it that way. Hmm....
So, have you answered your own question yet? Are you a good enough general that you can win 80%+ of your games by simply walking your models forward with no thought and table your opponent? If not (I suspect that's the case as it is for >99% of players), then it should be self-evident that 'Crons are still incredibly strong on their own, and easily top tier in a decurion. When pitted against virtually any other army book that came out before 'Crons, yes, they are horrendously overpowered. Are they sweeping tournies? No, but then, tournies don't play the same 40k that everyone else does, do they?
krodarklorr wrote: There actually has been a few times where I've had to buckle down and think strategically to win, but you're right. Most of the time, regardless of the list I play, I just walk at you, don't die, and shoot you off the board. 8/10 times that's the game. And the very few times I've lost, I had pretty bad dice rolls. So yeah, I didn't think about it that way. Hmm....
So, have you answered your own question yet? Are you a good enough general that you can win 80%+ of your games by simply walking your models forward with no thought and table your opponent? If not (I suspect that's the case as it is for >99% of players), then it should be self-evident that 'Crons are still incredibly strong on their own, and easily top tier in a decurion. When pitted against virtually any other army book that came out before 'Crons, yes, they are horrendously overpowered. Are they sweeping tournies? No, but then, tournies don't play the same 40k that everyone else does, do they?
Necrons are horrendously resilient, but not overpowered. If your army is only slowly marching across the board, it's really easy to outmaneuver you. Necrons do have options for greater mobility, but they don't come cheap. Their durability also doesn't work as well in CC, at least for non-Wraith units.
And again, as I've repeated many times before, games are not won by killing Necrons. They are won on objectives. The Necrons have to come to you to win; they don't have the long-range firepower to just sit back and shoot. Kite them to the far corners of the table!
Also, why shouldn't we be playing the same game that tourney's do? They seem to have settled on a good way to play the game competitively. Why not use their missions and FAQs in casual games?
And again, as I've repeated many times before, games are not won by killing Necrons. They are won on objectives. The Necrons have to come to you to win; they don't have the long-range firepower to just sit back and shoot. Kite them to the far corners of the table!
Also, why shouldn't we be playing the same game that tourney's do? They seem to have settled on a good way to play the game competitively. Why not use their missions and FAQs in casual games?
Necrons have no problem closing range, between Wraiths, Jebtikes, flyers & flyer transports, Ghost Arks, and run moves, you can get an entire Necron army to the opponent's side of the board by turn 3, and many by turn 2. Necrons have zero issues with speed. They really only need to get to the middle of the board to be able to engage fully. in most cases.
necrons play to objectives just fine, they have zero problems there. Sure, a Decurion doesn't get ObSec, but neither do many other formations, and ObSec only matters if an opponent is contesting an objective the Necrons are on with unit that has it, if they're contesting it with an Elites or FA unit or something, it doesn't kick in.
TheNewBlood wrote: Necrons are horrendously resilient, but not overpowered. If your army is only slowly marching across the board, it's really easy to outmaneuver you. Necrons do have options for greater mobility, but they don't come cheap. Their durability also doesn't work as well in CC, at least for non-Wraith units.
And again, as I've repeated many times before, games are not won by killing Necrons. They are won on objectives. The Necrons have to come to you to win; they don't have the long-range firepower to just sit back and shoot. Kite them to the far corners of the table!
Also, why shouldn't we be playing the same game that tourney's do? They seem to have settled on a good way to play the game competitively. Why not use their missions and FAQs in casual games?
As I said in my previous post, against armies that came out before the new crons dex, they are horrendously OP. Try having a game or 3 as CSM against crons and then come back here and tell me that 'crons are not in such a different league to the point of there not even being a point to playing.
You might not have much long range firepower, but when you can simply march into range regardless of whatever I throw at you, it doesn't really matter, does it? Not to mention your JSJ destroyers, wraiths, skimmers, fliers and teleporting characters, all of who can manage quite a bit of a hurry when they want to.
Depends on your meta, many tournies have houserules that favour certain armies even more than normal, others make already soft armies even less viable. Why play one set of house rules over another? If you can all agree, then that's fine, but if you can't, then you will have to go back to playing 40k as per the BRB. Take a look around at the half a dozen "top tier" tournies, and most of them have differing rules tweaks to try and improve them. Some work, some don't, everyone thinks theirs is best.
Well, sadly enough, I think another friend is not going to play against me.
He just bought some Orks off another friend, so he made a 1500 point list, and teamed up with my girlfriend's 1500pt list of CSM. I played AV13/14 wall, so little infantry (as that's what most people hate anyway). So I had an Annihilation Nexus, Deathbringer Flight, Living Tomb, Ghost arks, and some Night Scythes. They conceded by turn 3....
It's getting the point where I won't be able to field the Decurion, or even play Necrons, against most people in my gaming gorup.
krodarklorr wrote: Well, sadly enough, I think another friend is not going to play against me.
He just bought some Orks off another friend, so he made a 1500 point list, and teamed up with my girlfriend's 1500pt list of CSM. I played AV13/14 wall, so little infantry (as that's what most people hate anyway). So I had an Annihilation Nexus, Deathbringer Flight, Living Tomb, Ghost arks, and some Night Scythes. They conceded by turn 3....
It's getting the point where I won't be able to field the Decurion, or even play Necrons, against most people in my gaming gorup.
Has she tried Daemonkin? That was designed with the new Decurion-ish paradigm in mind.
By the way, are you that Andrew fellow on Adequate Wargamers by any chance?
krodarklorr wrote: Well, sadly enough, I think another friend is not going to play against me.
He just bought some Orks off another friend, so he made a 1500 point list, and teamed up with my girlfriend's 1500pt list of CSM. I played AV13/14 wall, so little infantry (as that's what most people hate anyway). So I had an Annihilation Nexus, Deathbringer Flight, Living Tomb, Ghost arks, and some Night Scythes. They conceded by turn 3....
It's getting the point where I won't be able to field the Decurion, or even play Necrons, against most people in my gaming gorup.
Has she tried Daemonkin? That was designed with the new Decurion-ish paradigm in mind.
By the way, are you that Andrew fellow on Adequate Wargamers by any chance?
She doesn't like Khorne, she runs Nurgle everything.
krodarklorr wrote: Well, sadly enough, I think another friend is not going to play against me.
He just bought some Orks off another friend, so he made a 1500 point list, and teamed up with my girlfriend's 1500pt list of CSM. I played AV13/14 wall, so little infantry (as that's what most people hate anyway). So I had an Annihilation Nexus, Deathbringer Flight, Living Tomb, Ghost arks, and some Night Scythes. They conceded by turn 3....
It's getting the point where I won't be able to field the Decurion, or even play Necrons, against most people in my gaming gorup.
Has she tried Daemonkin? That was designed with the new Decurion-ish paradigm in mind.
By the way, are you that Andrew fellow on Adequate Wargamers by any chance?
She doesn't like Khorne, she runs Nurgle everything.
And yeah, that would be.
I used my Holmesian deductive powers to deduce it from the mention of the girlfriend who plays Chaos.
krodarklorr wrote: Well, sadly enough, I think another friend is not going to play against me.
He just bought some Orks off another friend, so he made a 1500 point list, and teamed up with my girlfriend's 1500pt list of CSM. I played AV13/14 wall, so little infantry (as that's what most people hate anyway). So I had an Annihilation Nexus, Deathbringer Flight, Living Tomb, Ghost arks, and some Night Scythes. They conceded by turn 3....
It's getting the point where I won't be able to field the Decurion, or even play Necrons, against most people in my gaming gorup.
Has she tried Daemonkin? That was designed with the new Decurion-ish paradigm in mind.
By the way, are you that Andrew fellow on Adequate Wargamers by any chance?
She doesn't like Khorne, she runs Nurgle everything.
And yeah, that would be.
What I found to be effective is IA13 and using The Purge FOC. While a Nurgle Lord is still cool, you might not want one to lead your force. What I ended up doing was taking a MoN Warpsmith, get three MoN Obliterators, 3 Sicarans, and then Plague Marines. This allowed minimal spending on the HQ, yet one that fit the Nurgle theme, and then getting "troop" Plague Marines. 4 Heavy Support slots is nothing to sneeze at, seeing it's a crowded slot.
krodarklorr wrote: Well, sadly enough, I think another friend is not going to play against me.
He just bought some Orks off another friend, so he made a 1500 point list, and teamed up with my girlfriend's 1500pt list of CSM. I played AV13/14 wall, so little infantry (as that's what most people hate anyway). So I had an Annihilation Nexus, Deathbringer Flight, Living Tomb, Ghost arks, and some Night Scythes. They conceded by turn 3....
It's getting the point where I won't be able to field the Decurion, or even play Necrons, against most people in my gaming gorup.
Has she tried Daemonkin? That was designed with the new Decurion-ish paradigm in mind.
By the way, are you that Andrew fellow on Adequate Wargamers by any chance?
She doesn't like Khorne, she runs Nurgle everything.
And yeah, that would be.
I used my Holmesian deductive powers to deduce it from the mention of the girlfriend who plays Chaos.
krodarklorr wrote: Well, sadly enough, I think another friend is not going to play against me.
He just bought some Orks off another friend, so he made a 1500 point list, and teamed up with my girlfriend's 1500pt list of CSM. I played AV13/14 wall, so little infantry (as that's what most people hate anyway). So I had an Annihilation Nexus, Deathbringer Flight, Living Tomb, Ghost arks, and some Night Scythes. They conceded by turn 3....
It's getting the point where I won't be able to field the Decurion, or even play Necrons, against most people in my gaming gorup.
Has she tried Daemonkin? That was designed with the new Decurion-ish paradigm in mind.
By the way, are you that Andrew fellow on Adequate Wargamers by any chance?
She doesn't like Khorne, she runs Nurgle everything.
And yeah, that would be.
What I found to be effective is IA13 and using The Purge FOC. While a Nurgle Lord is still cool, you might not want one to lead your force. What I ended up doing was taking a MoN Warpsmith, get three MoN Obliterators, 3 Sicarans, and then Plague Marines. This allowed minimal spending on the HQ, yet one that fit the Nurgle theme, and then getting "troop" Plague Marines. 4 Heavy Support slots is nothing to sneeze at, seeing it's a crowded slot.
I might have to get her to try that. She needs some help, as she's on the edge of not wanting to play this game anymore.
krodarklorr wrote: Well, sadly enough, I think another friend is not going to play against me.
He just bought some Orks off another friend, so he made a 1500 point list, and teamed up with my girlfriend's 1500pt list of CSM. I played AV13/14 wall, so little infantry (as that's what most people hate anyway). So I had an Annihilation Nexus, Deathbringer Flight, Living Tomb, Ghost arks, and some Night Scythes. They conceded by turn 3....
It's getting the point where I won't be able to field the Decurion, or even play Necrons, against most people in my gaming gorup.
Has she tried Daemonkin? That was designed with the new Decurion-ish paradigm in mind.
By the way, are you that Andrew fellow on Adequate Wargamers by any chance?
She doesn't like Khorne, she runs Nurgle everything.
And yeah, that would be.
What I found to be effective is IA13 and using The Purge FOC. While a Nurgle Lord is still cool, you might not want one to lead your force. What I ended up doing was taking a MoN Warpsmith, get three MoN Obliterators, 3 Sicarans, and then Plague Marines. This allowed minimal spending on the HQ, yet one that fit the Nurgle theme, and then getting "troop" Plague Marines. 4 Heavy Support slots is nothing to sneeze at, seeing it's a crowded slot.
I might have to get her to try that. She needs some help, as she's on the edge of not wanting to play this game anymore.
It'll help considerably. I know that, otherwise, I spend a bunch on a Lord or Typhus. Not having to spend that tax is golden. Plus six Elites is nice with FW Dreads. What point level are you typically at?
I might have to get her to try that. She needs some help, as she's on the edge of not wanting to play this game anymore.
It'll help considerably. I know that, otherwise, I spend a bunch on a Lord or Typhus. Not having to spend that tax is golden. Plus six Elites is nice with FW Dreads. What point level are you typically at?
Usually 2000, with the occasional 1500 point game thrown in.
I might have to get her to try that. She needs some help, as she's on the edge of not wanting to play this game anymore.
It'll help considerably. I know that, otherwise, I spend a bunch on a Lord or Typhus. Not having to spend that tax is golden. Plus six Elites is nice with FW Dreads. What point level are you typically at?
Usually 2000, with the occasional 1500 point game thrown in.
Yeah, do a Purge and CAD. Grab like three Sicarans in the Purge with Obliterators, and then in the CAD get three of those FW LasVindicators. That should work alright.
jasper76 wrote: The release of the new Eldar book is right about when my whinier friends stopped bitching about the Necron codex.
Allow me to hazard a guess: they started complaining about the Eldar book's (legitimate) brokeness, completely skipped over the Mechanicum books until the War Convocation was released, thoroughly complained about the new Space Marine codex, and let Dark Angels slip under the radar.
jasper76 wrote: The release of the new Eldar book is right about when my whinier friends stopped bitching about the Necron codex.
Allow me to hazard a guess: they started complaining about the Eldar book's (legitimate) brokeness, completely skipped over the Mechanicum books until the War Convocation was released, thoroughly complained about the new Space Marine codex, and let Dark Angels slip under the radar.
Its a little more complicated. My gaming group stopped buying new material rules-wise after the last softback-to-hardback codex was released, which just happened to be the Necron book. Even the rumors of the Eldar codex made what they were dealing with in Necrons seem better, at least in my estimation. TBH I only play Necrons against the 3 or 4 really good experienced players, and its because they like the challenge. I wouldn't throw Decurion madness at a "less good" player, because I have and it stopped being fun after about 1.5 games.
Even the Space Marine players haven't bitten on the new SM codex for the new formations yet, which is honestly surprising to me...I think they are just tired of forking over the $$ more than anything else.
TheNewBlood wrote: My comment was more of an impression of what the forums were doing, rather than what people were actually thinking.
Ah, I see. Perhaps I'm not too representative of internet thinking. After the Necron codex came out, I got hold of some of the Horus Heresy books, and now all I care about hobby-wise is Legion gak while GW keeps printing 40k codices by the week, I'm impressed that people can keep up with the rules given the pace at which GW is releasing them.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah SMs only have one OTT formation other than that their power level is about the same. Crons and Eldar are equivalent in terms of obnoxiousness but crons are worse IMO due to the fact that it's your choice to use their Decurion and make them broken instead of reasonable.
Eldar are broken due to units so their Warhost is just icing on the cake.
From even a half competitive standpoint 90% of those options aren't viable. In reality a competitive player is working with far fewer tools than before. Coincidentally these options all lead to one playstyle:
And again, as I've repeated many times before, games are not won by killing Necrons. They are won on objectives. The Necrons have to come to you to win; they don't have the long-range firepower to just sit back and shoot. Kite them to the far corners of the table!
"play the objectives by moving your units to the table corners"
What happens if the objectives aren't in the corners?
And again, as I've repeated many times before, games are not won by killing Necrons. They are won on objectives. The Necrons have to come to you to win; they don't have the long-range firepower to just sit back and shoot. Kite them to the far corners of the table!
"play the objectives by moving your units to the table corners"
What happens if the objectives aren't in the corners?
Why, if you knew that your army would not be able to win a straight up fight on a unit-to-unit basis with Necrons, did you not place the objectives in the corners?
Seriously, objective placement is key in every game, not just against Necrons. You have to place objectives in a manner that can both help you score them and prevent your opponent from scoring them. But that's rather obvious.
I wasn't aware things like the Relic were allowed in the corners. Do you have another oversimplified catch-all strategy for that one too? Also, how do you control which objectives you are going for in Maelstrom to ensure you only have to achieve the 2 in your table corners?
MarsNZ wrote: I wasn't aware things like the Relic were allowed in the corners. Do you have another oversimplified catch-all strategy for that one too? Also, how do you control which objectives you are going for in Maelstrom to ensure you only have to achieve the 2 in your table corners?
I guess all you have to do is L2P and accept that Necrons are "really strong".
And again, as I've repeated many times before, games are not won by killing Necrons. They are won on objectives. The Necrons have to come to you to win; they don't have the long-range firepower to just sit back and shoot. Kite them to the far corners of the table!
"play the objectives by moving your units to the table corners"
What happens if the objectives aren't in the corners?
Why, if you knew that your army would not be able to win a straight up fight on a unit-to-unit basis with Necrons, did you not place the objectives in the corners?
Seriously, objective placement is key in every game, not just against Necrons. You have to place objectives in a manner that can both help you score them and prevent your opponent from scoring them. But that's rather obvious.
You keep treating Necrons like Tomb Blades, Ghost Arks, Flayed Ones, Triarch Praetorians, Destroyers, Wraiths, you know the things that move really fast, don't exist.
Necrons can play to objectives VERY well. They just don't need to.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: You keep treating Necrons like Tomb Blades, Ghost Arks, Flayed Ones, Triarch Praetorians, Destroyers, Wraiths, you know the things that move really fast, don't exist.
Necrons can play to objectives VERY well. They just don't need to.
Yes, Necrons have good mobility in certain units. But here's the thing: with the exception of Wraiths, all of those units you mentioned are easy to kill. Furthermore, every army has to play to the objective. Some armies do this by shooting the enemy off/away from the objective.
Tomb Blades? Ranged AP4 or better, or volume of fire. Force them to jink and they're effectiveness goes down the toilet.
Ghost Arks? Hit them with a high-strength AP2 or better weapon and watch them pop.
Flayed Ones? Massed anti-infantry fire, or counter-charge them if you're going second.
Praetorians? Just as easy to kill as jump pack Marines. Grav, Plasma, or volume of fire.
Destroyers? Yeah they can JSJ, but only go 6" for movement. Also, they die like bikers without the jink.
I don't mean for this to be intended as a "learn to play" comment. But it just seems to me that so many people look at the Necron codex and go "Nope. Can't beat it. Time to complain on the internet!" instead of trying to find where Necrons are weak and using that to their advantage. Believe me, people do the same thing with Eldar.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: You keep treating Necrons like Tomb Blades, Ghost Arks, Flayed Ones, Triarch Praetorians, Destroyers, Wraiths, you know the things that move really fast, don't exist.
Necrons can play to objectives VERY well. They just don't need to.
Yes, Necrons have good mobility in certain units. But here's the thing: with the exception of Wraiths, all of those units you mentioned are easy to kill. Furthermore, every army has to play to the objective. Some armies do this by shooting the enemy off/away from the objective.
Tomb Blades? Ranged AP4 or better, or volume of fire. Force them to jink and they're effectiveness is fine because they just absorbed a bunch of AP4 fire, still have 75% survivability, and their guns are twin linked.
Ghost Arks? Hit them with a high-strength AP2 or better weapon and watch them Jink it. An IG Lascannon has a 1/8 chance of getting to roll on the damage table.
Flayed Ones? Massed anti-infantry fire, or counter-charge them if you're going second.
Praetorians? Just as easy to kill as jump pack Marines. (50% harder to kill than jump pack marines) Grav, Plasma, or volume of fire.
Destroyers? Yeah they can JSJ, but only go 6" for movement. Also, they die like (2W 4+++) bikers without the jink.
I don't mean for this to be intended as a "learn to play" comment. But it just seems to me that so many people look at the Necron codex and go "Nope. Can't beat it. Time to complain on the internet!" instead of trying to find where Necrons are weak and using that to their advantage. Believe me, people do the same thing with Eldar.
FTFY.
I love that your defense is "yeah just do the same things you do to everyone else with approximately 50% reduced effectiveness and it'll work just as well L2P"
the_scotsman wrote: T4 3+ 4+++ infantry and 13/13/11 skimmers are now easy to kill.
More at 11.
FTFY.
I love that your defense is "yeah just do the same things you do to everyone else with approximately 50% reduced effectiveness and it'll work just as well L2P"
You have any better ideas? I'd love to see what you think are effective counters to Necrons.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: You keep treating Necrons like Tomb Blades, Ghost Arks, Flayed Ones, Triarch Praetorians, Destroyers, Wraiths, you know the things that move really fast, don't exist.
Necrons can play to objectives VERY well. They just don't need to.
Yes, Necrons have good mobility in certain units. But here's the thing: with the exception of Wraiths, all of those units you mentioned are easy to kill. Furthermore, every army has to play to the objective. Some armies do this by shooting the enemy off/away from the objective.
Tomb Blades? Ranged AP4 or better, or volume of fire. Force them to jink and they're effectiveness goes down the toilet.
Ghost Arks? Hit them with a high-strength AP2 or better weapon and watch them pop.
Flayed Ones? Massed anti-infantry fire, or counter-charge them if you're going second.
Praetorians? Just as easy to kill as jump pack Marines. Grav, Plasma, or volume of fire.
Destroyers? Yeah they can JSJ, but only go 6" for movement. Also, they die like bikers without the jink.
I don't mean for this to be intended as a "learn to play" comment. But it just seems to me that so many people look at the Necron codex and go "Nope. Can't beat it. Time to complain on the internet!" instead of trying to find where Necrons are weak and using that to their advantage. Believe me, people do the same thing with Eldar.
I disagree. You don't seem to be factoring the RP role which greatly reduces the effect of low ap or volume of fire weaponry. The only solid counter is to sweep them in cc with strong cc units but with the buffs to all of their dedicated cc units makes that even harder. This is why people are complaining, there is no effective counter aside from D weapons. Telling people to play to the objectives is not helpful advise either since the necron player can do the same thing.
GW did a good job balancing the poor units and nerfing the strong ones. I will have faith in GW again if they do the same thing with the chaos codex. What they did wrong was add a formation with a easy to fill core that gives way to much of a bonus for next to no drawbacks. People say they can do the same thing if they just add crypteks but don't realize they cost points, take a HQ slot, is for only one unit, and can be killed to take away the bonus.
I have no issue fighting regular necrons but the decurian makes me want to ask for a extra points to fight it.
Seriously, objective placement is key in every game, not just against Necrons. You have to place objectives in a manner that can both help you score them and prevent your opponent from scoring them. But that's rather obvious.
You keep treating Necrons like Tomb Blades, Ghost Arks, Flayed Ones, Triarch Praetorians, Destroyers, Wraiths, you know the things that move really fast, don't exist.
Necrons can play to objectives VERY well. They just don't need to.
Well, let's look at what you're suggesting here.
Tomb Blades are nice! Not too good for taking out elite units though and completely ineffective against death stars. But that's not saying much in most games and yes, they pack quite a punch for being so mobile! Not exactly Eldar jetbikes, but what is?
Ghost Arks? Ghost Arks explode with a single anti-tank volley. Meh.
No one takes Flayed Ones. I'm aware they're good against things they can hurt - but people don't take them and they can't hurt many of the scarier competitive beasties.
Praetorians? Same thing, rarely taken from what I've seen. Yes, that's anecdotal, but also don't seem to play a big role in tourney lists because they're simply worse than alternatives in most situations.
Destroyers are great, but you're not going to hold an objective with them because the moment they get in melee it's over. You can harass, certainly, but if anything gets close they have to jump away.
Wraiths can certainly contest but in most situations will lack the offensive power to put away strong unit.
Besides, you don't use Wraiths to hold objectives, you use them to tie down big scary things.
Again; Necrons are resilient, but completely lack the firepower of the other 7th Edition Codexes that followed it, barring Destroyers - which have no melee capability.
the_scotsman wrote: T4 3+ 4+++ infantry and 13/13/11 skimmers are now easy to kill. "
Infantry are troublesome but lack firepower of equivalent units and very slow. 13/13/11 skimmer becomes 11/11/11 after one penetrating shot which does not take much effort. -And if you're forcing it to jink, it becomes a very expensive model for what it is doing.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: You keep treating Necrons like Tomb Blades, Ghost Arks, Flayed Ones, Triarch Praetorians, Destroyers, Wraiths, you know the things that move really fast, don't exist.
Necrons can play to objectives VERY well. They just don't need to.
Yes, Necrons have good mobility in certain units. But here's the thing: with the exception of Wraiths, all of those units you mentioned are easy to kill. Furthermore, every army has to play to the objective. Some armies do this by shooting the enemy off/away from the objective.
Tomb Blades? Ranged AP4 or better, or volume of fire. Force them to jink and they're effectiveness goes down the toilet.
Ghost Arks? Hit them with a high-strength AP2 or better weapon and watch them pop.
Flayed Ones? Massed anti-infantry fire, or counter-charge them if you're going second.
Praetorians? Just as easy to kill as jump pack Marines. Grav, Plasma, or volume of fire.
Destroyers? Yeah they can JSJ, but only go 6" for movement. Also, they die like bikers without the jink.
I don't mean for this to be intended as a "learn to play" comment. But it just seems to me that so many people look at the Necron codex and go "Nope. Can't beat it. Time to complain on the internet!" instead of trying to find where Necrons are weak and using that to their advantage. Believe me, people do the same thing with Eldar.
I disagree. You don't seem to be factoring the RP role which greatly reduces the effect of low ap or volume of fire weaponry. The only solid counter is to sweep them in cc with strong cc units but with the buffs to all of their dedicated cc units makes that even harder. This is why people are complaining, there is no effective counter aside from D weapons. Telling people to play to the objectives is not helpful advise either since the necron player can do the same thing.
GW did a good job balancing the poor units and nerfing the strong ones. I will have faith in GW again if they do the same thing with the chaos codex. What they did wrong was add a formation with a easy to fill core that gives way to much of a bonus for next to no drawbacks. People say they can do the same thing if they just add crypteks but don't realize they cost points, take a HQ slot, is for only one unit, and can be killed to take away the bonus.
I have no issue fighting regular necrons but the decurian makes me want to ask for a extra points to fight it.
I ask for extra points to fight Necrons even without the decurion.
And then I still lose horribly within a few turns.
I honestly don't think Guard are capable of fighting the current Necron book. There's just too much resistance to too much firepower and almost everything in the Necron book, particularly when operating in a Decurion, is a hardcounter to IG style units, and the Necrons have the mobility to run circles around anything the IG might try. The Necrons don't even have to bring any specialty weapons, they can just spam relatively basic Gauss weapons in large volume to exceedingly good effect, and coupled with CC attacks, can just steamroll both tanks and infantry with relative ease.
What I find funny through this whole thread is how we all universally agree that at one time Necrons were OP. But now that there are 3-4 codexs on more or less equal terms of power with the Necron codex, that it is no longer OP.
But what about the 14 other codexs/armies that they can curb stomp by just showing up? How can anyone possibly think that Necrons are no longer OP, when they still are massively stronger than 3/4 of the game.
Jayden63 wrote: What I find funny through this whole thread is how we all universally agree that at one time Necrons were OP. But now that there are 3-4 codexs on more or less equal terms of power with the Necron codex, that it is no longer OP.
But what about the 14 other codexs/armies that they can curb stomp by just showing up? How can anyone possibly think that Necrons are no longer OP, when they still are massively stronger than 3/4 of the game.
Because they're not?
What are these 14 codexes?
Space Marine Chapters; Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Dark Angels
Imperial Guard Regiments Ad Mech / Skit
Tau Empire
Eldar Craftworlds
Chaos Space Marine Traitor Legions Daemons
Grey Knights Sisters of Battle (eh...)
Orks
Tyranids
Necrons
Dark Eldar
Of these, you have .. seven bad codexes. Tyranids, Daemons, Orks all have competitive lists that have won recent tournaments. I am NOT saying they are well balanced or offer many choices, but they are competitive.
Meanwhile, every single one of those codexes can ally with the new super powered stuff and in fact, most codexes rely on it to be competitive.
Even if I included each group solo by itself, that sure as Hell isn't 14. Hell, all codexes combined are probably around 14. If you're going to make a point, use proper evidence, because if you can't respect your own argument why should anyone else?
Edit:
Before anyone mentions it, I'm not counting super-mini things like Harlequins. Same way I wouldn't count Assassins. -Or that I'm not counting Knights. Those are honest to God supplements, not armies, even if they can be officially fielded as much in most cases.
Jayden63 wrote: What I find funny through this whole thread is how we all universally agree that at one time Necrons were OP. But now that there are 3-4 codexs on more or less equal terms of power with the Necron codex, that it is no longer OP.
But what about the 14 other codexs/armies that they can curb stomp by just showing up? How can anyone possibly think that Necrons are no longer OP, when they still are massively stronger than 3/4 of the game.
Because they're not?
What are these 14 codexes?
Space Marine Chapters; Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Dark Angels
Imperial Guard Regiments Ad Mech / Skit
Tau Empire
Eldar Craftworlds
Chaos Space Marine Traitor Legions Daemons
Grey Knights Sisters of Battle (eh...)
Orks
Tyranids
Necrons
Dark Eldar
Of these, you have .. seven bad codexes. Tyranids, Daemons, Orks all have competitive lists that have won recent tournaments. I am NOT saying they are well balanced or offer many choices, but they are competitive.
Meanwhile, every single one of those codexes can ally with the new super powered stuff and in fact, most codexes rely on it to be competitive.
Even if I included each group solo by itself, that sure as Hell isn't 14. Hell, all codexes combined are probably around 14. If you're going to make a point, use proper evidence, because if you can't respect your own argument why should anyone else?
Edit:
Before anyone mentions it, I'm not counting super-mini things like Harlequins. Same way I wouldn't count Assassins. -Or that I'm not counting Knights. Those are honest to God supplements, not armies, even if they can be officially fielded as much in most cases.
ork codex hasn't won a tourny that i have seen, Forgeworld orks and Ghaz supplement orks have but not Codex orks
CrashGordon94 wrote:I think that's his point: That there AREN'T effective counters.
Not necessarily my view (don't know much about Necrons), but that seems to be the point he's making.
The only 100% effective counter to Necrons is CC; I2 really hurts them both on the offense and on sweeping advances. Even so, it's always better to shoot the choppy and chop the shooty. Lychgaurd and Praetorians can be tough in CC, and Wraiths are just a problem.
Wraiths are undercosted for what they can do, which is mulch through anything that isn't a Bloodthirster. Outside of the Canoptek Harvest formation, they can be dealt with. But the Canoptek Harvest is what makes them truly obscene.
Kiggler wrote:I disagree. You don't seem to be factoring the RP role which greatly reduces the effect of low ap or volume of fire weaponry. The only solid counter is to sweep them in cc with strong cc units but with the buffs to all of their dedicated cc units makes that even harder. This is why people are complaining, there is no effective counter aside from D weapons. Telling people to play to the objectives is not helpful advise either since the necron player can do the same thing.
GW did a good job balancing the poor units and nerfing the strong ones. I will have faith in GW again if they do the same thing with the chaos codex. What they did wrong was add a formation with a easy to fill core that gives way to much of a bonus for next to no drawbacks. People say they can do the same thing if they just add crypteks but don't realize they cost points, take a HQ slot, is for only one unit, and can be killed to take away the bonus.
I have no issue fighting regular necrons but the decurian makes me want to ask for a extra points to fight it.
You're right. I forgot how much RP in a Decurion adds up on average. I guess my Necron players have been having more terrible dice then usual. Still, 50% more durability that can't be negated by anything that isn't the dirty D is nothing to scoff at. It only ends up putting more focus on CC, where most of their units can be tied down or even wiped.
Ferros wrote:
Jayden63 wrote: What I find funny through this whole thread is how we all universally agree that at one time Necrons were OP. But now that there are 3-4 codexs on more or less equal terms of power with the Necron codex, that it is no longer OP.
But what about the 14 other codexs/armies that they can curb stomp by just showing up? How can anyone possibly think that Necrons are no longer OP, when they still are massively stronger than 3/4 of the game.
Because they're not?
What are these 14 codexes?
Space Marine Chapters; Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Dark Angels
Imperial Guard Regiments Ad Mech / Skit
Tau Empire
Eldar Craftworlds
Chaos Space Marine Traitor Legions Daemons
Grey Knights Sisters of Battle (eh...)
Orks
Tyranids
Necrons
Dark Eldar
Of these, you have .. seven bad codexes. Tyranids, Daemons, Orks all have competitive lists that have won recent tournaments. I am NOT saying they are well balanced or offer many choices, but they are competitive.
Meanwhile, every single one of those codexes can ally with the new super powered stuff and in fact, most codexes rely on it to be competitive.
Even if I included each group solo by itself, that sure as Hell isn't 14. Hell, all codexes combined are probably around 14. If you're going to make a point, use proper evidence, because if you can't respect your own argument why should anyone else?
Edit:
Before anyone mentions it, I'm not counting super-mini things like Harlequins. Same way I wouldn't count Assassins. -Or that I'm not counting Knights. Those are honest to God supplements, not armies, even if they can be officially fielded as much in most cases.
Dark Eldar, Space Wolves, and Blood Angels, while at a disadvantage, can still make some solid lists against Necrons. Grey Knights have been hurt a lot, but are far from unplayable against Necrons; they have all the psychic phase to dominate in. Orks, Chaos Space Marines, and IG have it the worst; those books are simply obsolete. The recent showing of an Ork player winning a tournament had more to do with the player than the army. Sisters are the wild card: everyone underestimates them, and they actually have plenty of tools to deal with Necrons. And that doesn't even take into account Knights, Assassins, and Harlequins, which can all lay down a serious hurting on Necrons.
Basically, the books that that fare the worst against Necrons (Chaos, Orks, IG, Tyranids) are the same ones that have been suffering for most of 7th edition; the Necron codex was just the final nail in their coffin. (Yes, I am separating the rest of the Tyranids from Codex: Flyrants. Sue me.)
Jayden63 wrote: What I find funny through this whole thread is how we all universally agree that at one time Necrons were OP. But now that there are 3-4 codexs on more or less equal terms of power with the Necron codex, that it is no longer OP.
But what about the 14 other codexs/armies that they can curb stomp by just showing up? How can anyone possibly think that Necrons are no longer OP, when they still are massively stronger than 3/4 of the game.
Because they're not?
What are these 14 codexes?
Space Marine Chapters; Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Dark Angels
Imperial Guard Regiments Ad Mech / Skit
Tau Empire
Eldar Craftworlds
Chaos Space Marine Traitor Legions Daemons
Grey Knights Sisters of Battle (eh...)
Orks
Tyranids
Necrons
Dark Eldar
Of these, you have .. seven bad codexes. Tyranids, Daemons, Orks all have competitive lists that have won recent tournaments. I am NOT saying they are well balanced or offer many choices, but they are competitive.
Meanwhile, every single one of those codexes can ally with the new super powered stuff and in fact, most codexes rely on it to be competitive.
Even if I included each group solo by itself, that sure as Hell isn't 14. Hell, all codexes combined are probably around 14. If you're going to make a point, use proper evidence, because if you can't respect your own argument why should anyone else?
Edit:
Before anyone mentions it, I'm not counting super-mini things like Harlequins. Same way I wouldn't count Assassins. -Or that I'm not counting Knights. Those are honest to God supplements, not armies, even if they can be officially fielded as much in most cases.
Don't belittle someone for not providing evidence when you haven't provided anything but opinions and conjecture yourself.
"The Orks won a tourney once so they're fine as they are". Which tournament? When? How many players? What percentage of that 1850 force was actually Daemons allied in?
Jayden63 wrote: What I find funny through this whole thread is how we all universally agree that at one time Necrons were OP. But now that there are 3-4 codexs on more or less equal terms of power with the Necron codex, that it is no longer OP.
But what about the 14 other codexs/armies that they can curb stomp by just showing up? How can anyone possibly think that Necrons are no longer OP, when they still are massively stronger than 3/4 of the game.
Because they're not?
What are these 14 codexes?
Space Marine Chapters; Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Dark Angels
Imperial Guard Regiments Ad Mech / Skit
Tau Empire
Eldar Craftworlds
Chaos Space Marine Traitor Legions Daemons
Grey Knights Sisters of Battle (eh...)
Orks
Tyranids
Necrons
Dark Eldar
Of these, you have .. seven bad codexes. Tyranids, Daemons, Orks all have competitive lists that have won recent tournaments. I am NOT saying they are well balanced or offer many choices, but they are competitive.
Meanwhile, every single one of those codexes can ally with the new super powered stuff and in fact, most codexes rely on it to be competitive.
Even if I included each group solo by itself, that sure as Hell isn't 14. Hell, all codexes combined are probably around 14. If you're going to make a point, use proper evidence, because if you can't respect your own argument why should anyone else?
Edit:
Before anyone mentions it, I'm not counting super-mini things like Harlequins. Same way I wouldn't count Assassins. -Or that I'm not counting Knights. Those are honest to God supplements, not armies, even if they can be officially fielded as much in most cases.
Games Workshop lists 23 codexs on their web site. YOU may choose to treat 5-6 of those as combined codexs, but that is your choice, just like its your choice to say because all of IOM can ally in SM, then all IOM codexs can take down Necrons.
News flash... there are those of us who cant stand the current Allies system and refuse to use them to battle cheese with just more cheese. I have a wonderfully painted 2000 point Space Wolf army that never will ally in anything else. Why because I'm a Space Wolf player. Not a Space Wolf with side of assassins and a chunk of Knights.
So yeah, I did give correct numbers, infact IMO I went easy. And even if by your words 7 codexs are poor and have no chance, then we look at the five that you say are competitive if slightly tooled up to deal with necrons, buddy thats 12 armies that Necrons might still seem a little OP against.
Face it, if your a single codex, with no allied shinanigans and your still in the top 5 window against 23 other books. You might be a little OP,
Now, believe me, I feel for you Necron players. Like I said, I'm a Space Wolf player and when our 5th ed codex hit it was as if the cheese floodgates opened wide and the community turned nasty. Things got a little easier when BA came in and added area effect buffs and infantry sized monsterious creatures to the game, but it took GK to drop for people to really stop seeing us as the OP codex. So I know what your going through. Sometimes you would be more than willing to trade in some of that power to just get people to shut up and let you have fun pushing your army around on the table.
Whether or not you like allies, they are a part of the game, a MAJOR part of the competitive scene and they enable other codexes to be competitive. I'm not saying that's the way it should be, I'm just saying that's how it is. This is an argument about if codexes can be competitive, not if their playstyle or treatment is ideal (which I agree, they are at a disadvantage and many codexes need to be brought up to working order, quickly).
For clarification - I included supplements as part of the codexes since they are.. well, they supplement the codex.
As for "I DON'T CONSIDER THESE ARMIES LEGIT CODEXES LOL" I don't think I said that. I was just counting off the top of my head.
And quite frankly, to even suggest that GW considers Legion of the Damned, Harlequins, Inquisition, etc. viable and complete armies in their own right is ridiculous. You might remember Harlequins can't even get an HQ without allying one in or nominating? I mean, if you want to attack me go ahead, but it's absolutely 100% blatantly obvious codexes like those are either so badly mistreated there's no point in comparing them to any full codex or they are so obviously (and necessarily) forced to be allied in that to suggest they're independent armies would be inane.
Again, I didn't mean anything by going off the top of my head. But the ones I remembered and didn't specifically list were for prettttttty obvious reasons.
As for what I said was competitive, the list wasn't limited to those. In fact I only bolded the ones that were in dire need of help - some of which were defended by other posters.
I mean this all in a general sense, not just Necrons. Personally I think we get shafted so mightily by the lack of Psychic powers (or defenses) that by the time the rest of the codexes comes around we'll probably be solidly Mid tier, maybe Mid-lower. That's merely a suspicion given the current power creep, not an argument by itself.
I love Necrons. I love Skitarii. I love what GW is doing with the new codexes - call it power creep, but a lot of these changes have been pretty exciting and added new dynamics. I am very excited to see every other codex brought in to line. Please don't think I'm saying everything is fine and dandy or that codexes which are "competitive" are fun, or that being competitive means they're okay. They aren't. I attacked the notion of "competitive" because it was blatantly untrue. Now, "fun", "balanced", "diverse" on the other hand.. GW needs a Hell of a lot of work done there.
at this stage of the game claimning you hate allies and refuse to deal with them is fine, but it's like refusing to game against monsterous creatures, or fliers (which are also just as new) or tanks,
Some people abuse allies sure. but guess what? most of those people have ALWAYS been cheesing in 40K
however plenty of people also use allies, as they're intended to, to create a narritive friendly force.
I mean is a crusade army consisting of space marines, Imperial guard and admech working together to stop the xenos onslaught bad? while it can be in how it's handled sure (skitarii in pods etc) the general idea is certinly a sound one, both fair and suited to the setting
Seeing a fluffy Allied force is never a bad thing. My friend plays Khorne Daemons allied with Khorne Chaos marines (no, he doesn't really want Khorne Daemonkin), and that's fine. He's also working on Harlequins to run as a full army, but also to supplement his Eldar. There's nothing wrong with this.
The issue is people cheesing it. And then saying that "This cheese can defeat Necrons in a tournament, therefor no one can complain, blah blah". No one at my store "cheeses" anything. We all play narrative, fun lists (which are still relatively powerful). I play Necrons most of the time without Destroyers or Wraiths. In fact, Flayed Ones, Deathmarks, C'Tan shards, massed infantry, and a Decked out Overlord with Lychguard are my preferred units since this codex, as they're all fun and still really good. The problem is, even with this, I'm dominating at my local store. I've beaten Eldar, Eldar with friends, Space Marines, Orks, CSM, Tau, Sisters (without the Decurion, even), Blood Angels, Skitarii, ext.
So, this argument isn't supposed to be about the most competitive builds being able to beat Necrons so it's okay, it's supposed to be about in your average setting, Necrons are among the top armies, and receive a lot of flak because of it. Yeah, at my store, if someone brought some IKs with Grey Knights and Assassins, that'll probably do really well. Or if they added BA drop pods to their Skitarii. But my friends refuse to do dumb stuff like this. The argument is you shouldn't have to to beat anything.
"The only 100% effective counter to Necrons is CC;"
That's cute. You think the average unit can make it to CC in 7th ed. The only 100% effective counter to Necron is TWC or Wraiths in CC. There fixed that for you.
Martel732 wrote: "The only 100% effective counter to Necrons is CC;"
That's cute. You think the average unit can make it to CC in 7th ed. The only 100% effective counter to Necron is TWC or Wraiths in CC. There fixed that for you.
Obligatory mention of Skyhammer Assault Marines. Only applies to SM, obviously, and considered cheesy by many, but it has the slight advantage of being cheese that is also rather fluffy.
asorel wrote: but it has the slight advantage of being cheese that is also rather fluffy.
My thoughts on the Decurion, good sir.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, on a side note, played another game last night against the lady. It has literally come down the game just hating her. She failed soooo many 3+ saves.
My list was a CAD with Trazyn, Cryptek, Lychguard with Scythes, some Deathmarks, Scarabs, 3 Spyders, and a T-C'tan. I can't think of how to dumb my list down even more. She even went with a MSU approach and seemed to have more of an idea of what to do with her army. But her rolls were awful, and I feel terrible. Sadly she might just be quitting the game at this point.
Yeah, if my OP army made someone quit the game because I couldn't figure out out to make it waeker I would feel bad too. I don't mean this to insult you, mearly that your army is so strong that you are having trouble making a list that she can compete with. I have very little knowlege about the internal balance of necrons, as I do not play them and they are not very common in my local meta. Perhaps drop the RP boosting cryptek and take a monolith? I understand many people think they are poor for thier cost. Perhaps help her build a better list, if you are more experienced. Of course, if it is just down to bad rolling you can't help that. What was her list?
Lord Blackscale wrote: Yeah, if my OP army made someone quit the game because I couldn't figure out out to make it waeker I would feel bad too. I don't mean this to insult you, mearly that your army is so strong that you are having trouble making a list that she can compete with. I have very little knowlege about the internal balance of necrons, as I do not play them and they are not very common in my local meta. Perhaps drop the RP boosting cryptek and take a monolith? I understand many people think they are poor for thier cost. Perhaps help her build a better list, if you are more experienced. Of course, if it is just down to bad rolling you can't help that. What was her list?
Her list was a Chaos Lord with Sigil, Black Mace, blight grenades. 6 Plague Marines w/ 2 Plasma guns and a Rhino, 4x 5 man CSM squads with Mark of Nurgle, CCWs and a Plasma gun each, 8 Possessed with Mark of Khorne, 5 Warp Talons with the Mark of Khorne, and 2 Nurgle Biker squads with 2 Plasma guns each.
And I've used the monolith against her, and she also hates it. I've usually done rather well with the Monolith, especially since it hurts her Rhinos easily and destroys her infantry.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, on a side note, played another game last night against the lady. It has literally come down the game just hating her. She failed soooo many 3+ saves.
My list was a CAD with Trazyn, Cryptek, Lychguard with Scythes, some Deathmarks, Scarabs, 3 Spyders, and a T-C'tan. I can't think of how to dumb my list down even more. She even went with a MSU approach and seemed to have more of an idea of what to do with her army. But her rolls were awful, and I feel terrible. Sadly she might just be quitting the game at this point.
Honestly, I'd get her to try something other than a Marine army if the dice seem to really hate her like that...
I'm exactly the same myself! Give me any flavour of Space Marines, and I'll flub so many dice rolls that I typically struggle to run close to 30%'ish success rates on my shooting and especially my armour saves!
After a particularly harsh tabling, where a freaking 10 year old decimated my poor Sallies within barely 3 turns due to me failing just about every roll I made, I decided to give the Marines a rest and picked up IG. (this was back in 4th ed, when they had the super amazing Doctrines!)
I went with a highly unorthodox all Drop Troop army - no armour except Sentinels, and overall, I did pretty well with that army until 5th edition & Kill Points pretty much killed off Guard entirely.
With 5th, I tried Marines again, and yet again, the dice completely kicked my face in. I wanted to stick to Chaos, so I jumped into Daemons thanks to them finally becoming their own standalone army, and other than the GK stupidity of 5th, they've been amazingly fun! I don't know what it is, but when I play Daemons, I'm passing invulns left and right like crazy, and my other rolls tend to normally be about average to above average!
Maybe try her with a Nurgle focused Daemons list? Plaguedrones are frankly an amazing unit, plus Beasts while not super competitive, are still a seriously fun unit due to their rules. She'll have MSU Plaguebearers for camping Objectives, and Nurgle Princes are definitely among the best FMC's in the game still.
Perhaps even branch her a bit into some Slaaneshii units as well? Seekers are again a really, really good unit, especially if you lead them with a Herald. Fiends are similar to Seekers, though not as good, but they still do well with Herald support. The chariots are definitely a sub-optimal choice, but in numbers they're not terrible. (except the Hellflayer - that thing is just plain crap...)
Plus Daemons will give her a big advantage to play off of in the Psychic phase. While Nurgle & Slaanesh aren't quite on the level of Tzeentch, you can still get a tone of WC's through cheap Heralds, and access to solid lores in Biomancy & Telepathy respectively.
I like when people use the ''competitive'' argument like it matter to everybody. In a regular game shop, Orks (and many other) will get crushed.
It's because in tournament, or the competitive scene as some people will call it, you NEED to use everything at your disposition. Supplement, Ally, whatever shenanigans. In casual game, people often just want to pick an army book, make a decent list with it (well-balanced internally and such) and have fun playing close game. Books like Eldar and Necrons keep people from doing that, because you need to really plan against them (and sometime you don't know you are going to play against.)
So please, I'm convince that your argument are valid in some tournament or whatever, but for the casual player (which are the bulk of player) Necrons and Eldar are currently OP.
Plus, one other thing you have to consider, is that matchup is one of the most important thing in 40k. People at my shop like to make their list ahead. So they have their little sheet for a list of 500 up to 2000. They see someone, ask them: yo, want to play a 1500game? Other people say yes, pull out their sheet and setup their model on the board. It's only there, when you start going over each army, that you realise: OMG I'm in sooo much trouble. Haven't you ever prepare a flamer heavy list on your whatever because hordes army are very popular at your shop, just to end up facing a landraider heavy list or a Nidzilla list? Those thing happens, and when those ''bad'' matchup happen ALL the time when you play against Necrons, you either suck it up and carry on, or realise that maybe Necrons are a bit too strong for the casual LGS meta.
ps: This is strickly my opinion, based on my experience in this hobby. I don't do tourney, I just either play with friends or find LGS to pick up some games with randoms in a semi-competitive environment (people do good list, just not TOP list. For exemple, I often have Dakka tweaked my list to make sure it's decent, I don't just throw stuff together and expect it to work.)
I can tell you bringing warptalons, especially with a mark, is a big waste of points, as are possesed. She needs Heldrakes, maulerfiends, and a demon prince. Or if she wants to use Nurgle, then Typhus is a must. For cheap objective grabbers cultists are great. The CSMs are wasted points with bolters and CCWs. Putting the Lord on a bike will help, and give them meltas. I must say, her list was pretty gak. Help her make a list and throw it on the Army List page. Maybe even switch ro Khorne Daemonkin, of she likes CC and wants to tear up your crons. But I will give you props for trying to tone down your lists, and not use the really cheesey things.
...do people still complain about Necrons? I just recently started playing a few games after a little break and being away from the 40k scene. I played a game this weekend using a relatively strong list (I made sure to tell my friend beforehand that I was using my Judicator Cult list, as I felt like bringing Destroyers, but wanted to let him know it was a strong list). He used his Tau, with Missilesides, a Riptide, bunch of Crisis suits with Shadowsun and a Commander, bunch of Fire Warriors, and some Stealth suits. He gave me a little scare in the beginning, but I ended up tabling him around turn 4 with about 70% of my Army still alive (That's better than other armies have faired against that list, surprisingly).
Then another friend proceeded to talk about "Well duh, you used Necrons. And Destroyers at that..." and then both friends talked about how my Tau friend should've brought more "cheese" to combat my "cheese", because it was justified. My question for you guys is, are Necrons really that bad anymore? I thought people would get over them, now that Eldar, Space Marines, and Dark Angels are all out. Necrons shouldn't be all that. What do you guys think? Are people still complaining about Necrons in your gaming groups? Is the Decurion still considered cheese? Half the reason I took a little break was to wait for more codexes to come out so I wouldn't be branded "that guy", but I dunno....
Not much complaining goes on around here honestly, more about GW directly. We're a veteran group been around since 3rd so we remember the BA cheese to the cron relentless infantry cheese, stealer shock cheese and so on, basically all the various chedders. That said it is accepted that necrons/eldar/SM/DA sit a tier higher than the rest right now. Its cyclical. Allies changes things a little but then your really just adding one of those 'parent codexes' . I think some of the bitterness is due to decurion voltron formations which really are a different game to what non decurion dexes can muster. Although honestly tau are right there in the ballpark too and judicator is definitely NOT the high end of what crons can do so its not like their 'sh*t don't stink' to dip into Ebonics a bit.
Sucks to have people complain about your army. Otoh it does suck to fight an uphill battle which is what it is for some (not tau IMO). I'd just try and and accept it graciously since crons are still towards the top of the pile.
One of the biggest problems the OP is having is he is playing a top tier army against a bottom(very bottom) tier army. Playing against one of the other top tier lists would be a different story.
Lord Blackscale wrote: I can tell you bringing warptalons, especially with a mark, is a big waste of points, as are possesed. She needs Heldrakes, maulerfiends, and a demon prince. Or if she wants to use Nurgle, then Typhus is a must. For cheap objective grabbers cultists are great. The CSMs are wasted points with bolters and CCWs. Putting the Lord on a bike will help, and give them meltas. I must say, her list was pretty gak. Help her make a list and throw it on the Army List page. Maybe even switch ro Khorne Daemonkin, of she likes CC and wants to tear up your crons. But I will give you props for trying to tone down your lists, and not use the really cheesey things.
She uses a Daemon Prince, Lord on a bike, Cultists, and Typhus on a regular basis. But, she also likes to try new things. Lately she's even been branching out from Nurgle. But her Warp Talons actually did pretty well. They blinded Trazyn's unit and a unit of 15 warriors when they deep struck, then proceeded to kill my T-Ctan.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frozocrone wrote: Does she not have Helldrakes? Would be amazing against Necrons, denying saves left right and centre.
She has tried to avoid them like the plague (ironically), but last night she said she was gonna try proxying 2 in her next list. At this point, she should try anything.
Lord Blackscale wrote: Yeah, if my OP army made someone quit the game because I couldn't figure out out to make it waeker I would feel bad too. I don't mean this to insult you, mearly that your army is so strong that you are having trouble making a list that she can compete with. I have very little knowlege about the internal balance of necrons, as I do not play them and they are not very common in my local meta. Perhaps drop the RP boosting cryptek and take a monolith? I understand many people think they are poor for thier cost. Perhaps help her build a better list, if you are more experienced. Of course, if it is just down to bad rolling you can't help that. What was her list?
Her list was a Chaos Lord with Sigil, Black Mace, blight grenades. 6 Plague Marines w/ 2 Plasma guns and a Rhino, 4x 5 man CSM squads with Mark of Nurgle, CCWs and a Plasma gun each, 8 Possessed with Mark of Khorne, 5 Warp Talons with the Mark of Khorne, and 2 Nurgle Biker squads with 2 Plasma guns each.
And I've used the monolith against her, and she also hates it. I've usually done rather well with the Monolith, especially since it hurts her Rhinos easily and destroys her infantry.
No offense, but her list is honestly REALLY bad. Plague Marines outperform Vanillas, which will be an issue. Make those Plagues as well.
Lord Blackscale wrote: Yeah, if my OP army made someone quit the game because I couldn't figure out out to make it waeker I would feel bad too. I don't mean this to insult you, mearly that your army is so strong that you are having trouble making a list that she can compete with. I have very little knowlege about the internal balance of necrons, as I do not play them and they are not very common in my local meta. Perhaps drop the RP boosting cryptek and take a monolith? I understand many people think they are poor for thier cost. Perhaps help her build a better list, if you are more experienced. Of course, if it is just down to bad rolling you can't help that. What was her list?
Her list was a Chaos Lord with Sigil, Black Mace, blight grenades. 6 Plague Marines w/ 2 Plasma guns and a Rhino, 4x 5 man CSM squads with Mark of Nurgle, CCWs and a Plasma gun each, 8 Possessed with Mark of Khorne, 5 Warp Talons with the Mark of Khorne, and 2 Nurgle Biker squads with 2 Plasma guns each.
And I've used the monolith against her, and she also hates it. I've usually done rather well with the Monolith, especially since it hurts her Rhinos easily and destroys her infantry.
No offense, but her list is honestly REALLY bad. Plague Marines outperform Vanillas, which will be an issue. Make those Plagues as well.
Its a filthy casual list
I dont think Necrons can make anything more casual before having to just go at skewed points.
Yeah, but warrior blobs are actually really strong, so....
I find them very tough, but pretty awful when it comes to actually doing damage.
That's the opposite of my experience. They usually damage whatever they shoot at. But, then again, I usually shoot like, 15-20 of them within rapid-fire range, so yeah.
I'm starting to think 40k is very much LESS about strategy and MORE about OP unit spam. When I play 40k lately I don't feel any reward for nifty maneuvers or epic outflanking moves. Just get shot up while my opponent re-rolls 3++.
But against Necrons, even if I catch you in a mistake, you just don't die, and next turn's the same, and I've been denied that reward. I may eventually chip away at you and win, but it doesn't *feel* that way. Even if I win, I don't feel like I've beaten your smarts - I only feel like I've beaten your dice rolls. If you beat me, I don't feel like your smarts beat me, only your dice rolls.
That's a very interesting way to look at it, I've never really thought of that. There actually has been a few times where I've had to buckle down and think strategically to win, but you're right. Most of the time, regardless of the list I play, I just walk at you, don't die, and shoot you off the board. 8/10 times that's the game. And the very few times I've lost, I had pretty bad dice rolls. So yeah, I didn't think about it that way. Hmm....
womprat49 wrote: I'm starting to think 40k is very much LESS about strategy and MORE about OP unit spam. When I play 40k lately I don't feel any reward for nifty maneuvers or epic outflanking moves. Just get shot up while my opponent re-rolls 3++.
But against Necrons, even if I catch you in a mistake, you just don't die, and next turn's the same, and I've been denied that reward. I may eventually chip away at you and win, but it doesn't *feel* that way. Even if I win, I don't feel like I've beaten your smarts - I only feel like I've beaten your dice rolls. If you beat me, I don't feel like your smarts beat me, only your dice rolls.
That's a very interesting way to look at it, I've never really thought of that. There actually has been a few times where I've had to buckle down and think strategically to win, but you're right. Most of the time, regardless of the list I play, I just walk at you, don't die, and shoot you off the board. 8/10 times that's the game. And the very few times I've lost, I had pretty bad dice rolls. So yeah, I didn't think about it that way. Hmm....
Its never been about the tactics or the strategeries
Its ALL about the collection of models and legitimately making pew pew noises. (aka its supposed to be played like DnD) and im being serious about this.
womprat49 wrote: I'm starting to think 40k is very much LESS about strategy and MORE about OP unit spam. When I play 40k lately I don't feel any reward for nifty maneuvers or epic outflanking moves. Just get shot up while my opponent re-rolls 3++.
But against Necrons, even if I catch you in a mistake, you just don't die, and next turn's the same, and I've been denied that reward. I may eventually chip away at you and win, but it doesn't *feel* that way. Even if I win, I don't feel like I've beaten your smarts - I only feel like I've beaten your dice rolls. If you beat me, I don't feel like your smarts beat me, only your dice rolls.
That's a very interesting way to look at it, I've never really thought of that. There actually has been a few times where I've had to buckle down and think strategically to win, but you're right. Most of the time, regardless of the list I play, I just walk at you, don't die, and shoot you off the board. 8/10 times that's the game. And the very few times I've lost, I had pretty bad dice rolls. So yeah, I didn't think about it that way. Hmm....
I dunno, honestly. I chose Nids as my second army because I wanted to prove a point (and for other reasons, obviously). I play a single Hive Tyrant, Warriors, 2 full units of gaunts (one of which is Hormagaunts), Hive guard, a Tyranid Prime, a Trygon Prime, and an assortment of a ton of other units. I've even used Deathleaper, full squad of Rippers with Spinefists, and Genestealers against my buddies Guard (he typically brings a good mix of tanks and infantry, and he's a decent player) and I ended up tabling him in the end. Nids make me think tactically, and I've had to do some fancy stuff here and there to win games. But that's the thing, I win most games I play with my Nids (Yeah, not in a super competitive meta, but with a lot of good players and decent lists). And those wins are actually rewarding. Like, I feel good when I do well with Nids.
My Necrons have become, I dunno....
I love them to death, but it's taking a toll on me when people don't enjoy playing them, and when I literally only have to walk forward.
womprat49 wrote: I'm starting to think 40k is very much LESS about strategy and MORE about OP unit spam. When I play 40k lately I don't feel any reward for nifty maneuvers or epic outflanking moves. Just get shot up while my opponent re-rolls 3++.
Technically 40k is all strategy and no tactics. All that matters is who you send to the fight, not what they do during the fight.
This has always been the case. GW's marketing strategy works like this: I just lost a game with my army, so I'm going to buy this cool new model and add it to my army. Then I will win next time.
Then GW will eventually nerf that game-winning model you just bought, not in response to player complaints or some feeble attempt at "balance" but simply to force you to buy another model.
It's a scam, sure. But look at things like card games or that mageknight thing that was popular in the early 00s (do people still play that?) You have to just buy a grab bag of random units/powers/things without any knowledge of what you're getting. Your ability to play depends either on shameless proxying or simple luck of the draw.
womprat49 wrote: I'm starting to think 40k is very much LESS about strategy and MORE about OP unit spam. When I play 40k lately I don't feel any reward for nifty maneuvers or epic outflanking moves. Just get shot up while my opponent re-rolls 3++.
Technically 40k is all strategy and no tactics. All that matters is who you send to the fight, not what they do during the fight.
This has always been the case. GW's marketing strategy works like this: I just lost a game with my army, so I'm going to buy this cool new model and add it to my army. Then I will win next time.
Then GW will eventually nerf that game-winning model you just bought, not in response to player complaints or some feeble attempt at "balance" but simply to force you to buy another model.
It's a scam, sure. But look at things like card games or that mageknight thing that was popular in the early 00s (do people still play that?) You have to just buy a grab bag of random units/powers/things without any knowledge of what you're getting. Your ability to play depends either on shameless proxying or simple luck of the draw.
That's the opposite of my experience. They usually damage whatever they shoot at. But, then again, I usually shoot like, 15-20 of them within rapid-fire range, so yeah.
Really?
Even when rapid firing a large squad, I find that their shots just plink off most things.
non-jinking vehicles are an obvious exception, but I find most can easily stay out of rapid fire range.
That's the opposite of my experience. They usually damage whatever they shoot at. But, then again, I usually shoot like, 15-20 of them within rapid-fire range, so yeah.
Really?
Even when rapid firing a large squad, I find that their shots just plink off most things.
non-jinking vehicles are an obvious exception, but I find most can easily stay out of rapid fire range.
Eh, two days ago my girlfriend lost a squad of 3 Nurgle Bikers to 15 warriors not rapid-firing. And anything T3 they shred through.
That's the opposite of my experience. They usually damage whatever they shoot at. But, then again, I usually shoot like, 15-20 of them within rapid-fire range, so yeah.
Really?
Even when rapid firing a large squad, I find that their shots just plink off most things.
non-jinking vehicles are an obvious exception, but I find most can easily stay out of rapid fire range.
Eh, two days ago my girlfriend lost a squad of 3 Nurgle Bikers to 15 warriors not rapid-firing. And anything T3 they shred through.
Her list was really bad though as you listed. Nurgle Marines are essentially a ridiculously inferior Plague Marine.
That's the opposite of my experience. They usually damage whatever they shoot at. But, then again, I usually shoot like, 15-20 of them within rapid-fire range, so yeah.
Really?
Even when rapid firing a large squad, I find that their shots just plink off most things.
non-jinking vehicles are an obvious exception, but I find most can easily stay out of rapid fire range.
Eh, two days ago my girlfriend lost a squad of 3 Nurgle Bikers to 15 warriors not rapid-firing. And anything T3 they shred through.
Her list was really bad though as you listed. Nurgle Marines are essentially a ridiculously inferior Plague Marine.
Plus Warp Talons aren't exactly good.
Well, I never said they were. They're still usable in casual lists, though.
That's the opposite of my experience. They usually damage whatever they shoot at. But, then again, I usually shoot like, 15-20 of them within rapid-fire range, so yeah.
Really?
Even when rapid firing a large squad, I find that their shots just plink off most things.
non-jinking vehicles are an obvious exception, but I find most can easily stay out of rapid fire range.
Eh, two days ago my girlfriend lost a squad of 3 Nurgle Bikers to 15 warriors not rapid-firing. And anything T3 they shred through.
Her list was really bad though as you listed. Nurgle Marines are essentially a ridiculously inferior Plague Marine.
Plus Warp Talons aren't exactly good.
Well, I never said they were. They're still usable in casual lists, though.
Warptalons I've found really only come into their own when you bring along a healthy does of Daemons and their typical supports. (ie: Grimoire)
Add in some Divination or Santic augments, and/or Cursed Earth and they becomes filthy good. Biomancy is safer, but not nearly as spectacular in what it can achieve when compared to Santic.
That's the opposite of my experience. They usually damage whatever they shoot at. But, then again, I usually shoot like, 15-20 of them within rapid-fire range, so yeah.
Really?
Even when rapid firing a large squad, I find that their shots just plink off most things.
non-jinking vehicles are an obvious exception, but I find most can easily stay out of rapid fire range.
Eh, two days ago my girlfriend lost a squad of 3 Nurgle Bikers to 15 warriors not rapid-firing. And anything T3 they shred through.
Her list was really bad though as you listed. Nurgle Marines are essentially a ridiculously inferior Plague Marine.
Plus Warp Talons aren't exactly good.
Well, I never said they were. They're still usable in casual lists, though.
Warptalons I've found really only come into their own when you bring along a healthy does of Daemons and their typical supports. (ie: Grimoire)
Add in some Divination or Santic augments, and/or Cursed Earth and they becomes filthy good. Biomancy is safer, but not nearly as spectacular in what it can achieve when compared to Santic.
Yeah, I really need to get her to try out Daemon allies. Tzeentch Warp Talons with a 2++ is pretty stupid.
That's the opposite of my experience. They usually damage whatever they shoot at. But, then again, I usually shoot like, 15-20 of them within rapid-fire range, so yeah.
Really?
Even when rapid firing a large squad, I find that their shots just plink off most things.
non-jinking vehicles are an obvious exception, but I find most can easily stay out of rapid fire range.
Eh, two days ago my girlfriend lost a squad of 3 Nurgle Bikers to 15 warriors not rapid-firing. And anything T3 they shred through.
Her list was really bad though as you listed. Nurgle Marines are essentially a ridiculously inferior Plague Marine.
Plus Warp Talons aren't exactly good.
Well, I never said they were. They're still usable in casual lists, though.
Warptalons I've found really only come into their own when you bring along a healthy does of Daemons and their typical supports. (ie: Grimoire)
Add in some Divination or Santic augments, and/or Cursed Earth and they becomes filthy good. Biomancy is safer, but not nearly as spectacular in what it can achieve when compared to Santic.
Yeah, I really need to get her to try out Daemon allies. Tzeentch Warp Talons with a 2++ is pretty stupid.
But THEN you ask why you didn't pour those same resources into a different Daemon unit...
I tried using a Mephrit supplement this past weekend. I used Zarathusa's Decurion formation thing, and a Conclave of the Burning one with the Nightbringer.
My girlfriend was my opponent, and used her normal Chaos. But, she proxied a few things. She used a Forgefiend with 3 Ecoplasm Cannons, 2 Baleflamer Heldrakes, 3 units of Khorne Cultists (yeah, I had the same reaction), 2 units of Plague Marines in Rhinos, A Nurgle Sorcerer with Iron Arm and a Nurgle Chaos Lord in a unit of Nurgle Oblits.
It was kill points, Hammer and Anvil, she deployed first and went first. Her cultists were in reserves, Oblits were deep striking, and she moved her Forgefiend up to shoot at my wraiths, wounding one of them. From there on, my Conclave ran up the board, as did my Wraiths, and everything else simply walked forward.
Turn 2, Everything came in except 1 units of cultists, and her Oblits scattered in my deployment zone to the point where they were pretty much out of the game save for a few shooting phases. Her plague marines and rhinos shot and ended up killing a single wraith from each unit and wounding another one. Her Heldrakes also contributed to that. My Deathmarks and Doom Scythe failed to come in, as per the usual. My Wraiths made it into combat with her Rhinos, killing 1 for First Blood, and immobilizing the second with 1 Hull point left.
Then, to sum up the rest of the game, Cultists and Plague Marines killed all the remaining Wraiths in one turn of shooting, Heldrakes munched most of my Overlord's unit of Immortals, Oblits destroyed most of my Warrior blob, Praetorians also died to Cultist and Plague Marine shooting, Deathmarks mis happed and died. Doom Scythe did very little, but once the Ctan got to her side, he (after being blinded) killed most of her plague marines and Gazed a ton of cultists.
All in all, it was a very fun game. My girlfriend even enjoyed herself quite a bit, and for over half the game, we were tied, and she even took the lead for awhile. Sadly, the game continued after turn 5 and I ended up pulling ahead with kill points, but nonetheless, very fun.
The Mephrit formations really helped toning down my Necrons, and next time I think I'll just stick with the regular detachment and see how that goes.
I just really felt like sharing this with you guys, sorry it was a lot. I was just rather impressed, and I feel like I can still play my Necrons while having fun and being fluffy.
Necrons" and " 
