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.

Hey Everyone!
I am getting my GF back into 40k after a very long hiatus and she wants us to be on a somewhat level ground. In stating this, I figured now is a good time to start a new army. I have been staring at Necrons and think now is the time to pull the trigger. I have a few questions for those who have been playing them for some time:

1. Are they a fun army to play?
2. Do they have multiple builds that are viable?
3. I wanted to build around Imotekh. Is that a bad choice?
4. Have they aged well into 7th edition?

Thanks all!!!

1) I like 'em. The most fun Necrons, to me, are the builds/lists where you do safe but low damage at 24", absurd damage at 12", and DIE if you let the enemy get into melee. I use a Royal Court who teleports around the board like crazy, a ghost ark stuffed with warriors, a plane full of immortals, deep striking Deathmarks, and a lord on a command barge.
2) They do, AND so do their kits! Let me explain. Most newcron kits (barge, Deathmark/immortals, Scythe, and Praet/Lych) have the ability to become either a swapping kit or a dual kit with some extra warrior bits. Necron Warrior boxes, for their part, just give more models than any other basic troop box in the game (along with bonus scaraby goodness). The Barge comes with a free HQ model, and the gun doesn't have to be glued down so you can choose what to play it as, same deal with the luvverly plane. The Praets and Lychguard are AWFUL in game, buuuut the kit can easily be bashed to give you a 5 man Royal Court of Crypteks, who are amazing. The Deathmarks can be assembled and the Immortal Heads/Arms can be stuck on warrior legs and torsos for both kits. They're an easy army to get lots of fun options for.

As for list builds, I've seen "oodles of vehicle spam" featuring Ghost Arks, Annhi Barges, and Command Barges (the most competitive option ATM), Canoptek Scary Fast Rush featuring Wraiths lead by a Destroyer Lord and tons of Canoptek Scarabs, as well as Super Mobile Flying Shenanigan Hour with Night Scythes, Telecourt, Tomb Blades and Destroyers.

3) For a while, Imotekh was considered the necron Uber-HQ. He's still quite good, but now you're more likely to face a much sturdier opposition who is less likely to die by your lightning storm. On top of that, the Catacomb Command Barge got buffed, so the HQ Du Jour tends to be a normal Overlord with Scythe and some extra equipment. If you do pick up a barge (which you totally should, everything in that box is pure excellent), he comes free with it.

4) sure. They aren't *amazing* against monstrous critters like Riptides and Wraithknights, but they have AV13 kinking transports, the ability to demolish vehicles easily thanks to gauss and scarabs, and they got a Superheavy to rival any that anyone else can bring to the table (though I would only bring the Transcendant Ctan in reaction to other players beating on you with super heavies. He's a great way to make people want to never play you again if you're not judicious in your usage of him.)

UNITS TO AVOID: the internal balance of the codex isn't amazing. Stay away from: Lychguard, Flayed Ones, Praetorians, Death Arks, Monoliths, Regular Ctan and Heavy Destroyers for best results.

Yes, yes, no, yes.
Necrons, in my opinion, are extremely well to play casually with. It's hard to go wrong with them.

One bit of advice would be to read the big tactic-thread, they have almost everything.
I also think that 1d4chan usually has good descriptions of all Necron-units.
And they will probably get a new Codex in the coming months, so if you are going to buy a codex I would advice you to get a cheap second hand.

Well, Kangodo is right.
It's my favorite army atm and it has been in the 6th.
I felt that my Eldar is too strong and so I shelved it.

1. Yes. Necrons are fun to play. They are sturdy and shoot pretty hard. At the same time they have limited long range shooting and movement, so you need to think a fair bit of your movement, as well as predicting that of your oppononents.
2. No, they have limited amounts of viable builds. This of course depends on how hard lists the two of you plan on facing, but the current level of internal balance in the Necron codex is problematic. Relies heavily on a few units, while some variation is possible.
3. Maybe? His lightning can still be good. He got some decent CC benefits but is pretty awful in CC. Night fighting is no longer as good for necrons in 7th. The main draw for Imotekh was attempting to shut down opponents shooting while you move up the board.
4. Necrons are currently strong. They have transitioned well to 7th, but a new codex can be expected within half a year.

While not entirely as optimistic as the other posts, I think these views are rather balanced. I am waiting for the new codex myself to decide what to do with my necrons. I would suggest either holding off a little or starting slow.

This is all great info. Thanks to everyone for their posts and insights! I have had the codex since it came out, but never had the opportunity to dive into analyzing the units and how they transitioned to 7th. I am going to play test a little with some of the lists I came up with and will read the novel that is the tactics thread.

Take into consideration that many people here think on a competitive level. You can field and play Imotekh on many occasions when not playing competitively. Especially if your GF is getting started (once again) the focus is not on winning, but playing and getting into it. It's better if she has fun with an army she likes and keeps playing than to give her a competitive list which isn't really to her liking.

Necrons are fun, and they do have lots of ways to play them, even if some people will tell you otherwise because they only look at who won what tournament to decide what's a good army and what isn't.

What's the girlfriend playing this time? (what did she play before)? No need for the answer, I'm just gathering research data.

1. Speaking personally, Necrons weren't that fun for me unil I kind of figured out how they work, if that makes sense. After that, they were great fun. I have played so many games with them at this point that I am a bit burnt out, and therefore I am looking forward to a new codex to make things fresh again.

2. They do. You wouldn't think so from reading these boards (not this thread happily). But I am able to win competitive games with units that are regularly dismissed on these boards (Monoliths are Exhibit A). However, they do have some units that are all but worthless with the current codex (Flayed Ones especially), and the 3-4 builds that everyone does agree are competitive are very comptetive indeed.

3. Against horde armies, Imotek is priceless. If you end up playing Necrons, and you want to focus on Imotek, my recommendation is to also have a generic Overlord on a CCB. The Annihilation Barge/Catacomb Command Barge box comes with a generic Overlord. You can have him be Imotek's 'Vice President' or whatever in your personal fluff. This way you can have a second HQ choice at your disposal for armies that you find Imotek is not so good for the points against. A Destroyer Lord would also be a good backup option...IMO Destroyer Lords are still the best HQ choice in the current Necron Codex.

Also, its possible (not saying probable, but possible) that Imotek could become a Lord of War in the next codex...they turned Ghazgul (sp?) from an HQ into a Lord of War with the new Ork Codex.

4. In my estimation, disregarding the new Psychic Phase which doesn't apply much to Necrons anyhow (at present anyway), 7th is just a modest update to 6th. Necrons were good in 6th, and there still good in 7th.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Necrons are fun, and they do have lots of ways to play them, even if some people will tell you otherwise because they only look at who won what tournament to decide what's a good army and what isn't.

What's the girlfriend playing this time? (what did she play before)? No need for the answer, I'm just gathering research data.

She started with Sisters and have since moved on to Dark Eldar. Her current interest lies in Tyranids.

That matches my other data, thanks.

If you want to make Imotekh work, I find that the best thing to do is to take a second Overlord for double Royal Courts, then put Imotekh and both Chronoteks (Harbinger of Eternity with Chronometron) in the same unit. I like Immortals, other people use a big Warrior blob. If you want to be semi-fluffy, sword-and-board Lychguard could do the job, but at a high premium for a unit that won't do much except protect Imotekh and the Chronoteks (The Teks? Imotekh and the Chronos? sounds like a band, anyway).

That said, I don't have much experience with Imotekh since I prefer a Zahndrek/Anrakyr mix.

Nobody has love for the Monolith but I love 'em. Makes for a good distraction, nobody can resist such a huge bullet magnet.

On the contrary, lots of people love the Monolith... for some inexplicable reason... they just want them to be better.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
That matches my other data, thanks.

If you want to make Imotekh work, I find that the best thing to do is to take a second Overlord for double Royal Courts, then put Imotekh and both Chronoteks (Harbinger of Eternity with Chronometron) in the same unit. I like Immortals, other people use a big Warrior blob. If you want to be semi-fluffy, sword-and-board Lychguard could do the job, but at a high premium for a unit that won't do much except protect Imotekh and the Chronoteks (The Teks? Imotekh and the Chronos? sounds like a band, anyway).

That said, I don't have much experience with Imotekh since I prefer a Zahndrek/Anrakyr mix.

I would love to do an Anrakyr based army, but the general vibe I have gotten is that he is pretty meh.

1. Are they a fun army to play?
They are fun, yes. Though, I have started to dislike the book overall, since I feel they don't have much varying flavor across the army. They have options to deal with a good bit of things, but it will feel as though you're playing pretty much the same thing every time you field them. At least, in my experiences.
2. Do they have multiple builds that are viable?
Hard to answer. I've played a list with Triarch Praetorians, Tomb Blades, and Destroyers, and still tabled my girlfriend, but I wouldn't call that a viable build in most cases. Another downside to their book currently is, if you want to be on the same level of everyone else, you have to bring a lot of vehicles (7th Ed. made them stronger), the CCB, and some Flyers. Without those, well, good luck.
3. I wanted to build around Imotekh. Is that a bad choice?
I personally love Imotekh, and would love to have him be a more powerful LoW with a supplement around the Sautekh Dynasty. He's not bad in game, either. The Lightning thing is nice, and making it night fighting to give your vehicles Stealth is useful. But other than that, that's about it. Sucks in CC (Like Necrons in general), has a Flamer, and makes his squad Relentless (Really good if you wanna unload 40 rapid-fire shot and then charge with a big Warrior blob).
4. Have they aged well into 7th edition?
With the changes to Vehicles and the CCB, that alone has made them more competitive. Other than that, nothing much has changed.

1. Are they a fun army to play?
I've been playing crons since the third edition codex first came out. I don't find them as fun as Daemons, and Grewy Knights this edition. The current meta has Necrons with two many bad matchups and they struggle against the top tier codexes like Eldar and a Tau, IMO, fun armies come from tactics and buffs you get from cohesion in your army build. Necrons only combo well with a small amount of models like D. Lords with scarabs or wraiths. And warrior/nights scythes. Most other models are really on their own and cannot receive buffs except for from Zandrehk(and those are of little use save for maybe tank hunters) and the occasional warlord ability.

2. Do they have multiple builds that are viable?
As a mono build codex, IMO no. Cron air is the only viable build maybe AV13 wall if you don't get countered by Imp. knights or Tau. Multiple viable builds with Necrons really only works with allies.

3. I wanted to build around Imotekh. Is that a bad choice?
If you aren't building to take advantage of his seize the initiative of 4+, don't bother. By himself he is over priced and does very little you can't do with other cheaper characters or generic lords. His lightning strikes are to un reliable or ineffective to be used tactically. Otherwise his other tactical benefit is allieing with Nurgle Daemons to provide more stealth, but easily countered by units ignoring cover.

4. Have they aged well into 7th edition? If you are using LoW, they are the best codex, if you aren't, they are middle tier at best and aren't winning major events. A solid 3rd or half the book is practically useless.

All of my above comments are assuming the T. C'tan isn't allowed. When allowed use it. MIT is super fun, very powerful and counters the best cheese in the game very well.

 NecronLord3 wrote:
1. Are they a fun army to play?
I've been playing crons since the third edition codex first came out. I don't find them as fun as Daemons, and Grewy Knights this edition. The current meta has Necrons with two many bad matchups and they struggle against the top tier codexes like Eldar and a Tau, IMO, fun armies come from tactics and buffs you get from cohesion in your army build. Necrons only combo well with a small amount of models like D. Lords with scarabs or wraiths. And warrior/nights scythes. Most other models are really on their own and cannot receive buffs except for from Zandrehk(and those are of little use save for maybe tank hunters) and the occasional warlord ability.

2. Do they have multiple builds that are viable?
As a mono build codex, IMO no. Cron air is the only viable build maybe AV13 wall if you don't get countered by Imp. knights or Tau. Multiple viable builds with Necrons really only works with allies.

3. I wanted to build around Imotekh. Is that a bad choice?
If you aren't building to take advantage of his seize the initiative of 4+, don't bother. By himself he is over priced and does very little you can't do with other cheaper characters or generic lords. His lightning strikes are to un reliable or ineffective to be used tactically. Otherwise his other tactical benefit is allieing with Nurgle Daemons to provide more stealth, but easily countered by units ignoring cover.

4. Have they aged well into 7th edition? If you are using LoW, they are the best codex, if you aren't, they are middle tier at best and aren't winning major events. A solid 3rd or half the book is practically useless.

All of my above comments are assuming the T. C'tan isn't allowed. When allowed use it. MIT is super fun, very powerful and counters the best cheese in the game very well.

Well damn, I was trying to be a little optimistic, but still truthful, but geez. Everything you said is exactly how I've come to feel with the book. I also dread the new Codex because I have a gut feeling that GW won't really put much effort into giving the army more synergy/flavor.

I love the army I will always be a die hard crons fan but this is the truth.

NecronLord3's post is a load of bull gak.

Trust me, I've played Necrons since second edition!

The key with making Anrakyr less meh is to combo him with infantry instead of trying to turn him into a bargelord. I run a no-vehicle, no-Warrior Necron list most of the time and lose very few of my games... and no, I don't play wraithwing either.

 NecronLord3 wrote:
I love the army I will always be a die hard crons fan but this is the truth.

Same here. I just hope we get a decent codex. Not just power level wise, but I want some kind of flavor to it. A reason to use other models and such.

Cron Air
AV13
Scarab Farm
Wraith Wing
Dr. Who Crons
D&D Squads
Pylon Star

These are all viable competitive builds. Four out of 7 of those have been proven at the top tables of the largest GTs. Very few codexes can claim that many.

This isn't even taking into consideration NecTau, NecrOrk, CronKnights, or CronDrake which also show up at the top tables.

col_impact wrote:
Cron Air
AV13
Scarab Farm
Wraith Wing
Dr. Who Crons
D&D Squads
Pylon Star

These are all viable competitive builds. Four out of 7 of those have been proven at the top tables of the largest GTs. Very few codexes can claim that many.

This isn't even taking into consideration NecTau, NecrOrk, CronKnights, or CronDrake which also show up at the top tables.

1. Spamming Flyers
2. Spamming Ghost Arks and A-barges
3. Spamming Scarabs and Spyders (Which honestly, that's not even that good IMO)
4. Spamming Wraiths
5. whut?
6. Again, huh?
7. Don't wanna have to rely on Forgeworld.

Also, don't wanna have to rely on what pitiful excuses for allies we have.

You just proved the point that Necrons have a very few select units that are worth their salt, and that's it. Hence why they aren't that fun to play. Plus, not everyone wants to play them in die-hard spamming competitive lists.

 krodarklorr wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Cron Air
AV13
Scarab Farm
Wraith Wing
Dr. Who Crons
D&D Squads
Pylon Star

These are all viable competitive builds. Four out of 7 of those have been proven at the top tables of the largest GTs. Very few codexes can claim that many.

This isn't even taking into consideration NecTau, NecrOrk, CronKnights, or CronDrake which also show up at the top tables.

1. Spamming Flyers
2. Spamming Ghost Arks and A-barges
3. Spamming Scarabs and Spyders (Which honestly, that's not even that good IMO)
4. Spamming Wraiths
5. whut?
6. Again, huh?
7. Don't wanna have to rely on Forgeworld.

Also, don't wanna have to rely on what pitiful excuses for allies we have.

You just proved the point that Necrons have a very few select units that are worth their salt, and that's it. Hence why they aren't that fun to play. Plus, not everyone wants to play them in die-hard spamming competitive lists.

Name one codex that has more viable builds. I think you more have a problem with the reality that competitive lists spam the best units of a codex and every codex has stellar units and less than stellar units.

And btw scarab farm is solid. It has the tourney results to prove it and which is better evidence than your opinion.

col_impact wrote:


Name one codex that has more viable builds. I think you more have a problem with the reality that competitive lists spam the best units of a codex and every codex has stellar units and less than stellar units.

And btw scarab farm is solid. It has the tourney results to prove it and which is better evidence than your opinion.

I'm assuming you only play competitively. And if so, good on ya. I don't. And I personally don't feel spamming is a fun way to enjoy the game, and is not how the game was meant to be played. So, I build strong lists that don't spam, and have done very well. My arguments with Necrons is the lack of synergy, and the fact that A-barges, Ghost Arks (mainly because of 7th), Wraiths, CCBs (Again, because of 7th), and Flyers and the only viable units most of the time. Anything else, even from a non-competitive, fluff oriented list perspective, are not worth their salt (I.e Flayed Ones, Destroyers, Lychguard, Praetorians, C'Tan Shards, Tomb Blades, Doomsday Arks, Most named characters, Overlords not on barges, Monoliths, ext). When a codex has that many bad units, there's a problem.

 krodarklorr wrote:

col_impact wrote:


Name one codex that has more viable builds. I think you more have a problem with the reality that competitive lists spam the best units of a codex and every codex has stellar units and less than stellar units.

And btw scarab farm is solid. It has the tourney results to prove it and which is better evidence than your opinion.

I'm assuming you only play competitively. And if so, good on ya. I don't. And I personally don't feel spamming is a fun way to enjoy the game, and is not how the game was meant to be played. So, I build strong lists that don't spam, and have done very well. My arguments with Necrons is the lack of synergy, and the fact that A-barges, Ghost Arks (mainly because of 7th), Wraiths, CCBs (Again, because of 7th), and Flyers and the only viable units most of the time. Anything else, even from a non-competitive, fluff oriented list perspective, are not worth their salt (I.e Flayed Ones, Destroyers, Lychguard, Praetorians, C'Tan Shards, Tomb Blades, Doomsday Arks, Most named characters, Overlords not on barges, Monoliths, ext). When a codex has that many bad units, there's a problem.

Regular destroyers, vanilla tomb blades, doomsday arks, and monoliths are not bad. They just aren't great. You can diversify a list with those inclusions and still pack an undiluted punch.

Lots of players of other codexes wish they had the flexibility of necrons. Again, name a codex that has more flexibility (except SM).

col_impact wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

col_impact wrote:


Name one codex that has more viable builds. I think you more have a problem with the reality that competitive lists spam the best units of a codex and every codex has stellar units and less than stellar units.

And btw scarab farm is solid. It has the tourney results to prove it and which is better evidence than your opinion.

I'm assuming you only play competitively. And if so, good on ya. I don't. And I personally don't feel spamming is a fun way to enjoy the game, and is not how the game was meant to be played. So, I build strong lists that don't spam, and have done very well. My arguments with Necrons is the lack of synergy, and the fact that A-barges, Ghost Arks (mainly because of 7th), Wraiths, CCBs (Again, because of 7th), and Flyers and the only viable units most of the time. Anything else, even from a non-competitive, fluff oriented list perspective, are not worth their salt (I.e Flayed Ones, Destroyers, Lychguard, Praetorians, C'Tan Shards, Tomb Blades, Doomsday Arks, Most named characters, Overlords not on barges, Monoliths, ext). When a codex has that many bad units, there's a problem.

Regular destroyers, vanilla tomb blades, doomsday arks, and monoliths are not bad. They just aren't great. You can diversify a list with those inclusions and still pack an undiluted punch.

Lots of players of other codexes wish they had the flexibility of necrons. Again, name a codex that has more flexibility (except SM).

Eldar, Tau, AM.

And no, Destroyers are too expensive for their damage output. Warriors or Immortals do it for cheaper. Tomb Blades with no upgrades are still too expensive and don't do enough damage to anything. They just fly around and do nothing. Doomsdays Arks aren't terrible, just too expensive, and if it moves, say goodbye to your gun. And the Monolith just....is a points sink that doesn't do that much damage.

 krodarklorr wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

col_impact wrote:


Name one codex that has more viable builds. I think you more have a problem with the reality that competitive lists spam the best units of a codex and every codex has stellar units and less than stellar units.

And btw scarab farm is solid. It has the tourney results to prove it and which is better evidence than your opinion.

I'm assuming you only play competitively. And if so, good on ya. I don't. And I personally don't feel spamming is a fun way to enjoy the game, and is not how the game was meant to be played. So, I build strong lists that don't spam, and have done very well. My arguments with Necrons is the lack of synergy, and the fact that A-barges, Ghost Arks (mainly because of 7th), Wraiths, CCBs (Again, because of 7th), and Flyers and the only viable units most of the time. Anything else, even from a non-competitive, fluff oriented list perspective, are not worth their salt (I.e Flayed Ones, Destroyers, Lychguard, Praetorians, C'Tan Shards, Tomb Blades, Doomsday Arks, Most named characters, Overlords not on barges, Monoliths, ext). When a codex has that many bad units, there's a problem.

Regular destroyers, vanilla tomb blades, doomsday arks, and monoliths are not bad. They just aren't great. You can diversify a list with those inclusions and still pack an undiluted punch.

Lots of players of other codexes wish they had the flexibility of necrons. Again, name a codex that has more flexibility (except SM).

Eldar, Tau, AM.

And no, Destroyers are too expensive for their damage output. Warriors or Immortals do it for cheaper. Tomb Blades with no upgrades are still too expensive and don't do enough damage to anything. They just fly around and do nothing. Doomsdays Arks aren't terrible, just too expensive, and if it moves, say goodbye to your gun. And the Monolith just....is a points sink that doesn't do that much damage.

I guess you are a glass half-empty person. All of those units that I pointed out can fulfill certain roles in creative ways. This is 7th edition. Are Tomb Blades just going to fly around and do nothing? Look at the BRB and take a good long read of the section on Mission Format.

20pts for tomb blade is not that expensive. The problem with tomb blades is you can't take a res orb at all and the squad sizes are way too small. If I could take 10 of them or a necron lord with a res orb, I would take a lot more of them. As it is, I don't use anything in FA and take 1-2 of them as a single man unit to grab objectives.

col_impact wrote:
Cron Air
AV13
Scarab Farm
Wraith Wing
Dr. Who Crons
D&D Squads
Pylon Star

These are all viable competitive builds. Four out of 7 of those have been proven at the top tables of the largest GTs. Very few codexes can claim that many.

This isn't even taking into consideration NecTau, NecrOrk, CronKnights, or CronDrake which also show up at the top tables.

Where are these largest GTs that Necrons did so well at?