Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

MarsNZ wrote:

 TheNewBlood wrote:

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?

 jasper76 wrote:
The release of the new Eldar book is right about when my whinier friends stopped bitching about the Necron codex.

Eh, I'm sure they've had enough time to realize that the Eldar codex isn't as bad as we all thought originally.

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".

Ugh, that hurt to write.

 TheNewBlood wrote:

MarsNZ wrote:

 TheNewBlood wrote:

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.

T4 3+ 4+++ infantry and 13/13/11 skimmers are now easy to kill.

More at 11.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheNewBlood wrote:

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.

 TheNewBlood wrote:

You have any better ideas? I'd love to see what you think are effective counters to Necrons.

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.

 TheNewBlood wrote:

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.

 Kiggler wrote:

 TheNewBlood wrote:

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 play Guard.

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.

 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.

ork codex hasn't won a tourny that i have seen, Forgeworld orks and Ghaz supplement orks have but not Codex orks

New personal record for largest multiquote!

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.)

 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.

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?

 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.

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.

 krodarklorr wrote:

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.

Does she not have Helldrakes? Would be amazing against Necrons, denying saves left right and centre.

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.)