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.

...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.

 Yarium wrote:

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.

Play? Or play against? Or both?

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.

 krodarklorr wrote:

 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.

 krodarklorr wrote:

 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:

 krodarklorr wrote:

 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:

 krodarklorr wrote:

 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.

 Grimdark wrote:

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.

 krodarklorr wrote:

 Grimdark wrote:

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

 Grimdark wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

 Grimdark wrote:

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.

Just responding to a few points here.

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.

 Otto Weston wrote:
Just responding to a few points here.

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?

Put it this way:

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.

 krodarklorr wrote:

 Otto Weston wrote:
Just responding to a few points here.

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

"So With All This Power Creep...."

Power Sells