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.

Back to troll with another epic multiquote!

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.

No Necrons on the BAO top tables FWIW

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.

 TheNewBlood wrote:
Back to troll with another epic multiquote!

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.

 TheNewBlood wrote:

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!

 CrashGordon94 wrote:

 TheNewBlood wrote:

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.

 TheNewBlood wrote:

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?

 TheNewBlood wrote:

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).

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.

 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.

 krodarklorr wrote:

 CrashGordon94 wrote:

 TheNewBlood wrote:

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 krodarklorr wrote:

 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

 Frozocrone wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

 CrashGordon94 wrote:

 TheNewBlood wrote:

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frozocrone wrote:

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.

 krodarklorr wrote:

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.

 vipoid wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

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"

 vipoid wrote:

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.

 TheNewBlood wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

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.

Oh do not start me on the problems with the Imperial Guard codex. There is literally a huge thread about it right http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/651867.page]here

 TheNewBlood wrote:

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.

 vipoid wrote:

 TheNewBlood wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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.

Woh Taudar and Orks are up there?

Im quite surprised about that.

(err Surprised about Orks because orks which is awesome, and Taudar because i though Taudar was dead because of the Ally nerf)

 CrashGordon94 wrote:

 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.

 vipoid wrote:

 TheNewBlood wrote:

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frozocrone wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

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.