Okay let's go over it. I had this back and forth with someone previously.
First the units:

The Monolith.. nerfed!

Warriors....nerfed

warscythes ...nerfed!

Destroyers...nerfed!

Wraiths....nerfed!

WBB...now RAP... total army nerf.

Bonus: initiative two nerf.

Nerfed all existing Necron Units, and tried to make up for it by having the entire armies chances of winning dependent on cheap tricks and gimmicks from HQ units and other weirdos


Someone replied:

Monolith = can now instakill anything within 6" of the door. Weapon range increase

Warriors = Much cheaper

Warscythes = +2 to strength. Good trade for the ignore invuls.

Destroyers = Standard guns are now AP3, Assault 2. Can now DS.

Wraiths = 2W each with rending, come in bigger squads.

RP = Cannot be ignored, you ALWAYS get the 5+.

I 2 across the board...so what? They are so tough they don't need high ini.

But anyway, are certainly OP. They keep getting back up again and again







But after further analysis


the monolith gets a glowing door. But this Hardly makes up for losing immunity to deepstrike mishaps, and the ability to teleport units out of Close combat and give them another WWB roll and losing the previous effectiveness of "living metal"

"Warriors cheaper", also worse.... net effect there.

Warscythe- plus two strength? who cares! nothing like shredding through a lone wolf with a Warscythe that DIDN'T allow Invulnerable saves!

Destroyers - considering they are not assault units the utility of them being able to deep strike is marginal at best. Beside a stat nerf they are now jump infantry. Not jetbikes! no more turbo boast. (doesn't even make sense that a hovering unit is jump infantry)


"Wraiths = 2W each with rending, come in bigger squads" bigger squads of slower units that are going to be dead before they even get their turn in close combat. Nice!


"RP = Cannot be ignored, you ALWAYS get the 5+" Funny thing there was already something called a resurrection orb that prevented WBB from being ignored. and WWB was 4+.


"I 2 across the board...so what." will that's the bonus. So what is right. that was an unnecessary nerf thrown in as spite.

But I guess when it comes to necrons, GW policy is nerf or nothing

Alright. So you've shown you can spell 'nerf,' but lack the even the most basic example of what it means. Congratulations. You want a lolli?

Bookwrack wrote:Alright. So you've shown you can spell 'nerf,' but lack the even the most basic example of what it means. Congratulations. You want a lolli?

That's all you have to say? Very insightful.

Why would you kill a lone wolf? They don't give you kill points. In fact, it's better to keep them alive at the end of the battle.

Warriors were overpriced before. Now They are 3 points less than a marine with the same stats. Just a worse save now that is still bolter proof. And crappy I but they had that before.

Wraiths can take Lash whips, are fearless and bigger squads = harder to completely kill

Res orb now increases the RP to 4+...so no change. Except you can have ALOT of orbs now.

And necrons were always a slow ass army. They just made it consistent.

<image redacted; if you have nothing to contribute to a thread beyond off-topic images, then please don't post in that thread --Janthkin>

leonard wrote:

Bookwrack wrote:Alright. So you've shown you can spell 'nerf,' but lack the even the most basic example of what it means. Congratulations. You want a lolli?

That's all you have to say? Very insightful.

Nah, Im going to have to go with Bookwrack here. The new army isnt even out yet properly and you're already crying out that the army has been nerfed? You havent even had the chance to properly test out the army and see what the changes have done to it as a whole.

Not to mention you're only looking at a small part of the whole force (i.e, you're discounting all the new units)

Grakmar wrote:

He posted this tirade before on another thread. I think he's serious.

leonard wrote:

Bookwrack wrote:Alright. So you've shown you can spell 'nerf,' but lack the even the most basic example of what it means. Congratulations. You want a lolli?

That's all you have to say? Very insightful.

Given that your OP is nothing but 'abloo abloo abloo, all bad!' What is there to say? How about you give a couple quotes directly from the codex that actually back your points up?

Wow, really?

Did you forget to mention that Necron's don't suffer from phase out anymore? Did you forget to mention Monoliths can still teleport squads from anywhere on the board? Did you forget mentioning what Scarabs can do to now? Did you forget mentioning that you have a unit that has Rapid Fire sniper weapons? Did you forget the 'Tesla' special rule?

You must, for all intensive purposes, be a troll.

StormForged wrote:Wow, really?

Did you forget to mention that Necron's don't suffer from phase out anymore? Did you forget to mention Monoliths can still teleport squads from anywhere on the board? Did you forget mentioning what Scarabs can do to now? Did you forget mentioning that you have a unit that has Rapid Fire sniper weapons? Did you forget the 'Tesla' special rule?

You must, for all intensive purposes, be a troll.

Whoa really? I can't believe I missed that in the rumor thread. If that's true then...damn! Monoliths are still awesome ^^.

No phase out, almost everything cheaper, better CC options, more weapons, transport options, etc.

Just because a units stats were changed doesn't mean it's been nerfed, if it's points go down as well to make it a better buy, you're better off.

The codex isn't actually out yet.

While some design choices on the Necrons come off as lame or meh to me (Wraiths having I2 bothers me, frankly), from what I've seen usually if a single unit loses something, they gain something as well or become cheaper, and the removal of Phase Out is a big helping for the army as a whole.

Even if individual units have been "nerfed," that doesn't mean the army as a whole is, we have to see the codex first. The strength of an army isn't entirely reliant on the strength of individual units, but how the units syngergise as an army.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:Why would you kill a lone wolf? They don't give you kill points. In fact, it's better to keep them alive at the end of the battle.

Warriors were overpriced before. Now They are 3 points less than a marine with the same stats. Just a worse save now that is still bolter proof. And crappy I but they had that before.

Wraiths can take Lash whips and are fearless and bigger squads = harder to completely kill

Res orb now increases the RP to 4+...so no change. Except you can have ALOT of orbs now.

And necrons were always a slow ass army. They just made it consistent.

The warriors: 3 less point than a marine with same stats. But worse saving throw. My question is how much point value do you attach to a 1 better saving throw? Then compare that to their decreased cost. The point value of a better saving throw is greater than the decease in their cost.

And the Resurrection orb, let's talk about that. Previously you had WWB 4+ save and units in range of resurrection orb always got their WWB roll. Now with RP you get a 5+ but they always get their roll. A res orb allows that to be 4+ if within range

Now let's think about this. Under the old dex the only time you couldn't use your WWB was in the event of an instant death, but your WWB was always a 4+.

In the new dex they have essentially switched the old resurrection orb rules with the old 4+ WWB save and included the old resurrection orb rules in the reanimation protocols.

So what do you value more: a better save for WWB/RP or protection WWB/RP immunity from instant death? Put another way is your army more often shot at/assaulted with instant death possibilities or is your army more often just plain shot at and assaulted?

Answer this question and you will see that a 4 + WBB save with a range contingent resurrection orb that protects from instant death, is better than a 5+ RP save that is immune to instant death with range contingent resurrection orb that allows a 4+save.

OK, let me point out an ENORMOUS buff that you didn't even mention: removal of Phase out .

also: Buff to Scarabs, and multiple new units that add a good deal of punch for the necrons.

Vaktathi wrote:No phase out, almost everything cheaper, better CC options, more weapons, transport options, etc.

Just because a units stats were changed doesn't mean it's been nerfed, if it's points go down as well to make it a better buy, you're better off.

It's the ratio of the stat nerf to the point decrease . Not just "o gee, necrons warriors lost a 3+ saving throw but now they're a few less points, so it must be a good tradeoff."

Necron warriors....cheaper...big plue
Monolith...what stormforge said...and I believe their 35 points cheaper
no more phase out
new dedicated transports
sniper units
scarab swarms now seem like their going to be actually useful
and on top of all that, we now have named characters for some good special bonuses...

So please, don't complain...you could at least wait for the codex to come out before you start whining....

bombboy1252 wrote:Necron warriors....cheaper...big plue
Monolith...what stormforge said...and I believe their 35 points cheaper
no more phase out
new dedicated transports
sniper units
scarab swarms now seem like their going to be actually useful
and on top of all that, we now have named characters for some good special bonuses...

So please, don't complain...you could at least wait for the codex to come out before you start whining....

You can bet your sweet weirdboy __ I'll be back on here when I get the new dex telling all the trolls: I told you so!

It's not trolling to disagree with you, especially when we counter the gak awful whine you call OP with actual facts.

If the Necrons were any less competitive than in the last codex they'd pop out at the other end of the scale and be amazing.

leonard wrote:

bombboy1252 wrote:Necron warriors....cheaper...big plue
Monolith...what stormforge said...and I believe their 35 points cheaper
no more phase out
new dedicated transports
sniper units
scarab swarms now seem like their going to be actually useful
and on top of all that, we now have named characters for some good special bonuses...

So please, don't complain...you could at least wait for the codex to come out before you start whining....

You can get your sweet weirdboy __ I'll be back on here when I get the new dex telling all the trolls: I told you so!

You obviously don't know what "trolling" means.

Bookwrack wrote:

Alright. So you've shown you can spell 'nerf,' but lack the even the most basic example of what it means. Congratulations. You want a lolli?

Given that your OP is nothing but 'abloo abloo abloo, all bad!' What is there to say? How about you give a couple quotes directly from the codex that actually back your points up?



It's not trolling to disagree with you, especially when we counter the gak awful whine you call OP with actual facts.

Hey infant, tell me where your "facts" are in any the above statements? or should I defer to the graphic posted by Grakmar? trolls.

Ah Leonard, good run, but i foresee your ban coming soon.

I swear there was another thread like this yesterday. If not, then the day before.

In the end though, just wait for the Codex. And stop getting all hurt if we disagree with you...

I like that the OP doesn't even address Phase Out. Great post, OP. A++ would reply again

Well despite the original post looking quite incoherent, and going on assumptions all the rumours we've had are true, I can only think of two major nerfs: Waryscthes and Living Metal.

Warscythes I really hoped to still remove all saves because heck, it made you think damn twice before you assaulted that unit. And said Necron player can counter all those Hammernator or worse units by removing their saves and causing all kinds of wounds. Instead now we get a Relic Blade with a different name... that's not a great replacement. So instead of not being able to negate all saves we can wound better... that's not a great trade-off to me, personally. Assuming the army has low I values and assuming the warscythe = relic blade, those units using said blade can wound Marines of general sort better but there's no hope of killing the big units. I can see that going well... not.

Living Metal is a bigger gripe for me, assuming what I've read is true. Dropping that beautiful immunity to anti-tank weapons in a nutshell, we get a second-hand version of that Aegis upgrade in the Grey Knights dex (correct me if I'm wrong). Okay the Necrons got more vehicles so they needed a general rule, that I get. The fact said rule is now either on a vehicle or not is a bit concerning since I would imagine people would rather all vehicles had the rule as an option even if it had a small cost with it. But the fact immunity to that extra D6 from weapons, which made sense in fluff since Necrons had the best tech, to be replaced with allowing shaken and stunned rolls to be negated on a dice roll... no. Not a great compromise, even if it's almost army wide. It's a poor revamp of a really good rule. Ok I can see how having the old rule armywide on all vehicles would be seriously overpowered - a transporty Necron army with Monoliths as backup all with immunity to those meltas/lances/whatever would be oozing power. but surely this rumoured revamp is far worse than what some Marine codices have got right?

I recognise my opinion right now is based on a bunch of rumours yet to be confirmed in writing by a book arriving in stores in 2 days time, but should they be what we know right now, I will be very displeased.

Wow you final stated a thread. Feel better. Or maybe the thread that started the same way would of been good to post in.

No more phase out?

The necrons are fine if this is true.

spam

Hey guys, we heard you liked nerfs, so we put some more nerfs in your nerfs! o... wait a second, dem here be buffs! IN MOAR BUFFZ!

lol is it possible for the old Necron Codex to get nerfed?

The new necron codex lost the phase out rule. Nothing you can say actually amounts of a real nerfed codex when you take that into account.

spam

To those saying the book isnt out yet, its been out since wednesday at LGSs...

Ravenous D wrote:To those saying the book isnt out yet, its been out since wednesday at LGSs...

pics or didn't happen...

leonard wrote:

Bookwrack wrote:Alright. So you've shown you can spell 'nerf,' but lack the even the most basic example of what it means. Congratulations. You want a lolli?

That's all you have to say? Very insightful.

Hmm... it seems like Bookwrack made a pretty good point. Plus, Bookwrack is only responded to your thread, how much do you want him to say?

I'm REALLY not liking the crowd our epic Necron thread is bringing here ... Bunch of cry babies and potty mouthed jerks complaining about an army that hasn't even been mass released LET ALONE PLAYED!

Necrons are my prime army, have been for over 2 years now and always will be and I'm THRILLED for the changes and new codex...

I got to look at the new dex today and I have to say, I see no bad. I was actually happy with the majority of the unit changes and new ones to boot. I don't play them myself but one of my friends has for years. As soon as the pre-post post summary stated things, I spent the next few nights listening to him grip about how his army got f***ed to the point I told him to stop it until the dex actually came out. Well now he is excited since he got it today. As we looked thru the book he got more evcited especially after I told him to quit comparing it to marines. I see a nicely balanced book just like the DE got. I mean we can all piss and moan about certain things in our dex's but until field time has been acquired, don't bitch. Learn its strengths and weakness and adapt. I do it with my Eldar and DE everytime I play them besides, it's a game, just enjoy playing and being with friends.

Polite reminder that image and youtube posts can be interpreted as spam.

Andilus Greatsword wrote:lol is it possible for the old Necron Codex to get nerfed?

I was about to ask this.

And also...

leonard wrote:
Answer this question and you will see that a 4 + WBB save with a range contingent resurrection orb that protects from instant death, is better than a 5+ RP save that is immune to instant death with range contingent resurrection orb that allows a 4+save.

What? I mean...huh?

Before...After

before
4+ WBB
Rez orb = no instant death

after
5+ wbb no instant death
4+ rez orb

So...you're saying that because it's exactly the same as before in a best case scenario...it's been nerfed. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Non-best case? We trade 1 on a d6 for immunity to negation by double toughness and power weapons.
With all the S10 pie plates flying around these days, I'll take that action and call it a net buff!

Vaktathi wrote:Just because a units stats were changed doesn't mean it's been nerfed, if it's points go down as well to make it a better buy, you're better off. (Emphasis added)

No, GW is better off, because now you have to spend a lot more $$$ to buy all those extra units to get you back to an approximation of the effectiveness you used to get with fewer units. And only an approximation, and worse in many if not most ways.

This is exactly what I was afraid of: Tomb Kings in space. So now I have corresponding nerfed armies in both systems. Won't be writing up my analysis of the new codex, though. Not dropping $33 to give myself agita like TK did.

They keep it up, and I'll be phasing right out of GW gaming.

On the tomb kings in space: there is an explanation for that in the codex and it is awsome.

on the Rp: yes it is 5+, but immune to everything except the entire unit being sweeping advanced. my warriors were always being killed of by my chaos friend with his battle cannon. if my little warriors of doom can get up from that, I''l take the 5+

On the nerfs: in my opinion the necron army is looking to be much more of a "screw with the other guy's people" sort of army. the way the units are looking is perfect for this

and 1 last thing: it a game. no need to go all hulk just cus you get a 4+ instead of a 3+

Arandmoor wrote:

Andilus Greatsword wrote:lol is it possible for the old Necron Codex to get nerfed?

I was about to ask this.

And also...

leonard wrote:
Answer this question and you will see that a 4 + WBB save with a range contingent resurrection orb that protects from instant death, is better than a 5+ RP save that is immune to instant death with range contingent resurrection orb that allows a 4+save.

What? I mean...huh?

Before...After

before
4+ WBB
Rez orb = no instant death

after
5+ wbb no instant death
4+ rez orb

So...you're saying that because it's exactly the same as before in a best case scenario...it's been nerfed. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Non-best case? We trade 1 on a d6 for immunity to negation by double toughness and power weapons.
With all the S10 pie plates flying around these days, I'll take that action and call it a net buff!

No, you WBB 16% less often in exchange for no instant death (the benefit of which is lost if you don't WBB) and a rez orb that only works half the time, if I correctly understand the revision. I don't feel like doing mathhammer right now, but if I had to guess, I'd guess that the effective WBB rate is less than the previous codex, and probably significantly less.

Oh, and explain to me again the justification for de-fluffing relentless, unstoppable, inhuman robots into just another 40K race? And let's not forget the NERF of what's left of the C'tan.

The c'tan can still kill most things. plus i believe the extra powers will help.

Hammer18 wrote:The c'tan can still kill most things. plus i believe the extra powers will help.

IMO, the heart of the problem with GW's approach to codex revision is the word "still". It's as if we players are constantly having to salvage things from new codices and to settle for things that GW feels like giving us, rather than getting revisions that improve all of our units and don't invalidate previous versions and conceptions of armies that many of us (myself included) have spent thousands of dollars on. That's what infuriated me about TK in WHFB, and about C:CSM previously.

At this point, I've got IG and Space Marines, as well as 'Nids and two CSM armies (World Eaters and 1K Sons) which were already butchered in the last round of revisions, and I've got the feeling that each of these will suffer the same fate as my other armies.

So forgive me if I "go Hulk" when every time I turn around another big investment in time and money gets nerfed.

LordOfTheSloths wrote:

No, you WBB 16% less often in exchange for no instant death (the benefit of which is lost if you don't WBB) and a rez orb that only works half the time, if I correctly understand the revision. I don't feel like doing mathhammer right now, but if I had to guess, I'd guess that the effective WBB rate is less than the previous codex, and probably significantly less.

Oh, and explain to me again the justification for de-fluffing relentless, unstoppable, inhuman robots into just another 40K race? And let's not forget the NERF of what's left of the C'tan.

Okay...without a rez orb you WBB 16% less often, but don't get denied the roll by anything less than having the squad completely blown off the board.
With a rez orb you WBB exactly the same as you did before.

In the old codex, you would WBB 50% of the time, unless hit by a double-toughness attack, a power weapon, or didn't qualify due to positioning.
With a rez orb, the only way they could deny you WBB was with a sweeping advance or blowing the squad off the board when it was positioned away from other like models.

With rez orbs, the new WBB is actually MORE powerful because there's no more positioning got'chas. The squad takes the check. Not the model (exception being ICs, but we're not talking about them anyway).
Without rez orbs, the old WBB is better on paper, but not in practice with all the tank template-age flying around these days that flat-out negate the old WBB. Ram a S8 AP3 pie plate down a warrior squad's throat and they still get their 5+ WBB now. Old 'dex, without an orb the parking lot parks YOU.

Basically, the OP was talking out his rear with the original quoted line and basically answered his own challenge.

Arandmoor wrote:

LordOfTheSloths wrote:

No, you WBB 16% less often in exchange for no instant death (the benefit of which is lost if you don't WBB) and a rez orb that only works half the time, if I correctly understand the revision. I don't feel like doing mathhammer right now, but if I had to guess, I'd guess that the effective WBB rate is less than the previous codex, and probably significantly less.

Oh, and explain to me again the justification for de-fluffing relentless, unstoppable, inhuman robots into just another 40K race? And let's not forget the NERF of what's left of the C'tan.

Okay...without a rez orb you WBB 16% less often, but don't get denied the roll by anything less than having the squad completely blown off the board.
With a rez orb you WBB exactly the same as you did before.

In the old codex, you would WBB 50% of the time, unless hit by a double-toughness attack, a power weapon, or didn't qualify due to positioning.
With a rez orb, the only way they could deny you WBB was with a sweeping advance or blowing the squad off the board when it was positioned away from other like models.

With rez orbs, the new WBB is actually MORE powerful because there's no more positioning got'chas. The squad takes the check. Not the model (exception being ICs, but we're not talking about them anyway).
Without rez orbs, the old WBB is better on paper, but not in practice with all the tank template-age flying around these days that flat-out negate the old WBB. Ram a S8 AP3 pie plate down a warrior squad's throat and they still get their 5+ WBB now. Old 'dex, without an orb the parking lot parks YOU.

Basically, the OP was talking out his rear with the original quoted line and basically answered his own challenge.

I'll admit that not being negated by pie-plates is a good thing, especially if you face a lot of them. But how much more do you have to spend now to get that benefit, and does it really compensate? I don't have the points for the new rez orbs at hand.

LordOfTheSloths wrote:

Hammer18 wrote:The c'tan can still kill most things. plus i believe the extra powers will help.

IMO, the heart of the problem with GW's approach to codex revision is the word "still". It's as if we players are constantly having to salvage things from new codices and to settle for things that GW feels like giving us, rather than getting revisions that improve all of our units and don't invalidate previous versions and conceptions of armies that many of us (myself included) have spent thousands of dollars on. That's what infuriated me about TK in WHFB, and about C:CSM previously.

At this point, I've got IG and Space Marines, as well as 'Nids and two CSM armies (World Eaters and 1K Sons) which were already butchered in the last round of revisions, and I've got the feeling that each of these will suffer the same fate as my other armies.

So forgive me if I "go Hulk" when every time I turn around another big investment in time and money gets nerfed.

Really? Are you just using the topic of this thread to backboard some lame attempt at complaining you have to buy models? The Necrons haven't been updated for a decade what the did you think was going to happen?

I swear. I'm not thrilled about prices increasing but in reality its not that much. And what's even funnier, you can actually make conversions for the models you don't have for even cheaper. It's not even that, most Necron players don't even mind paying for brand new units for an army that had literally no units to begin with.

Please stick to the thread or get out.

*Gets down* And I take a small bow.

LordOfTheSloths wrote:
I'll admit that not being negated by pie-plates is a good thing, especially if you face a lot of them. But how much more do you have to spend now to get that benefit, and does it really compensate? I don't have the points for the new rez orbs at hand.

According to the rumor thread, orbs dropped by 10 points.

However they lost their 6" range.

But, we have no idea how much minor lords cost so the vote 's not in yet.

Nerfed doesn't seem like the right word.

Perhaps "Reinvented"?

GW clearly wanted to change what the Necrons were and have become.

I agree with everyone who says...

The book ain't out yet. Calm down.

The book isn't widely out yet, as far as I know, but my FLGS has already sold its copies of the codex. It's got the models on the shelf as of November 3rd.

Honestly, I can't imagine how Necrons could possibly be nerfed. They had a terrible, outdated codex in the first place. Anything is a buff for them.

Bookwrack wrote:

leonard wrote:

Bookwrack wrote:Alright. So you've shown you can spell 'nerf,' but lack the even the most basic example of what it means. Congratulations. You want a lolli?

That's all you have to say? Very insightful.

Given that your OP is nothing but 'abloo abloo abloo, all bad!' What is there to say? How about you give a couple quotes directly from the codex that actually back your points up?

Abloo abloo abloo. There must be a meme in there somewhere. anyhow, back on topic. Necrons aren't marines, so of course their new codex isn't OP. But that doesn't mean it's been nerfed into uselessness.

I don't know, from what I have seen the Nercons have gained quite a lot. From a play perspective I feel that they have become reasonably balanced. The old codex had a mixture of extreme bad, and extreme good. I can remember multiple threads asking how to kill monoliths. As such, the too powerful have been brought back a bit, and the too weak have gotten a major upgrade.

The only gripe I have, is the direction the fluff seems to have gone. It feels like its gotten too much of an Egyptian theme now unlike the previous undead hoard theme. I really liked the concept of this wall of soulless machines that get up again when you kill them slowly advancing on your position. It now feels like tyrannical Egyptian kings with petty squabbles fighting amongst themselves, while before it was this large implacable will and desire to end all life.

TrollPie wrote:If the Necrons were any less competitive than in the last codex they'd pop out at the other end of the scale and be amazing.

This made me lol.

Old Crons were poor but with a ridiculously broken HS choice. Lith is not as good, but it did need a rule re-write.

Before you had to spend 360 points on 2 troop choices that hid the whole game due to phase out. No longer. Immortals as troops with weapon choices is a major move forward. Both troop choices are a lot cheaper.

Heavy destroyer no longer being HS, so you can take 3 liths and still have mobile lascannons!

Troop tranports is a major change that will need to be played to see how it works. Having the repair boost on warrior squads nearby sounds a plus though.

Wraithwing does sound dead though - I2 FTW!

Ah, THAT poster.

No, they havent been nerfed. Loss of phase out ALONE entirely discounts every single "point" you made - no longer are warriors a liability to your army!

18pts - 13pts = 5pt saving, or a 28% reduciton in price, for the loss of a point in save? Bargain. Especially as you now get WBB (not WWB, seriously) against EVERYTHING. And its now per phase, meaning you are more likely to still have bodies around for assaults.

RP is NOT a nerf, unless you dont understand what the term "nerf" actually means.

Monoliths were only immune to DS mishap on a 1,2 result, so not that big a nerf. Oh, theyre also cheaper and can teleport from anywhere, even more than 18" awway. You missed that as well?

Warscythes retain the extra AP and now add 2 S, for the minor loss of no invul saves which were ALWYAS GOING TO BE REMOVED. You understand that, right? S7 power weapons with 2D6 AP is NOT a nerf. Really it isnt.

Across the board I2 may seem like a nerf, but you only high I (wraiths) are now significantly more durable than they were, and can come in more units. Did you forget cheaper and with rending as well now? Of course you did.

In short: nothing you have sid is true or balanced. None of it.

There is one other factor at play here; variety.

Regardless of whether the new book is better or worse, at least it has a greater variety of units.

ruminator wrote:
Wraithwing does sound dead though - I2 FTW!

Not sure if it revives Wraithwing, but Wraiths do after all get the option for the Necron "lash whip" that reduces models in base-contact to I1. They also have a Stormshield-equivalent inv. save and, at base price, cost less than TH/SS-Terminators.

So, to recap
- Cheaper than termies
- Jump Infantry that ignores terrain (thus no need for grenades)
- 3++
- Multi-wound with potential for wound-allocation abuse (optional)
- "lash-whip"-trick to bring opponents' I down to par (optional)
- shooting stuff (Str. 6 too, mind you) (optional)
- FA-slot (ok, probably bad in this case competing with Scarabs, but hey.. stiff FoC-competition in a NECRON(!)-Codex, who would have thought!)

Doesn't sound like a nerf to me.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Warscythes retain the extra AP and now add 2 S, for the minor loss of no invul saves which were ALWYAS GOING TO BE REMOVED. You understand that, right? S7 power weapons with 2D6 AP is NOT a nerf. Really it isnt.

regardless of how correct or incorrect you tactical appraisment is for everything else you said, on an old thread many people said the Warscythe was the best close combat weapon. a Necron Lord would wound most things on a 3+ and then they'd be dead with no armour, no inulnerability, no capacity to not feel the pain. the trade off for the new Warscythe is adding +1 to wound but let the enemy make thier saves. you could say that most enemies don't have an invulnerable save but those units were never a threat to the Necron Lord in the first place. it's not like a Tactical Squad would stop him.

though against Ork and Tyranids it helps, not just against thier HQ. then again, MY Necron Lord would always meet his expensive target but now he has a +17% chance to wound and a -50% chance to get through thier defenses.

They have good shooting...

purplefood wrote:They have good shooting...

/thread

Also, the Necrons ALWAYS had an Egyptian theme. It wasn't as pronounced previously, but you'd have to be blind not to see it. Scarabs, giant pyramid vehicles, resting in their tombs. The old models for the Lords looked very Egyptian. That's like being mad at them for giving GK a book. Way back when GK were just a cool unit of terminators you could add to Imperial armies. How dare they flesh out the concept! Same thing here. Just because you chose to ignore the Egyptian overtones that already existed doesn't make them wrong for expanding upon it.

Well... Has anybody read the new codex? I didn't ... and I think that the majority of people didn't too... And even if you'cve read the dex, have you played'em several times? Simply too soon to state that "they've been nerfed"
Just looking at the fact that they now have transports, cheaper elite units, no PO, entropic weapons etc... I really doubt that they have been nerfed...

Pointless post is Pointless

How can a thread complaining they're OP and one complaining that they're nerfed exist simultaneously? Maybe try playing with or against the army for a while, then decide what it is.

Durza wrote:How can a thread complaining they're OP and one complaining that they're nerfed exist simultaneously? Maybe try playing with or against the army for a while, then decide what it is.

The internet is a strange place, is it not?

This is actually just a little bit painful to read.

I have to agree, some of the things did get nerfed, the monolith got nerfed as I can now actually kill it rather than trying to phase out the army; but then again, the monolith really needed nerfing if you removed phaseout! you can't have your cake and eat it!

destroyers got nerfed, yes, the min size and 1 less shot are pretty bad, but they are cheaper and better against marines, as a trade off, the necrons got some pretty terrifying additional shooting to replace them.

Necron warriors have effectively been replaced by immortals, who are better, and given their name to a new, cheaper but weaker troop choice who represent a new design direction. also, bringing the minimum cost of your troop choices down quite a lot. yes, you can now bring more than a lord and 2 troops to a 500pt game!

Warscythes actually got better IMO, They've gone from the purview of pariahs, who had 1 attack and reduced your phaseout number, (and lords) to better lords and a better elites choice. They improved by virtue of where they are in the army rather than innate ability.

wraiths nerfed? I thought they got better, as now they can strike before things that hit at I6+, rather than simultaneously/after, and got an extra wound... and rending!

on top of that: Scarabs! Boom!

how do you "nerf" a unit that didn't even exist in the old codex?

StormForged wrote:

LordOfTheSloths wrote:

Hammer18 wrote:The c'tan can still kill most things. plus i believe the extra powers will help.

IMO, the heart of the problem with GW's approach to codex revision is the word "still". It's as if we players are constantly having to salvage things from new codices and to settle for things that GW feels like giving us, rather than getting revisions that improve all of our units and don't invalidate previous versions and conceptions of armies that many of us (myself included) have spent thousands of dollars on. That's what infuriated me about TK in WHFB, and about C:CSM previously.

At this point, I've got IG and Space Marines, as well as 'Nids and two CSM armies (World Eaters and 1K Sons) which were already butchered in the last round of revisions, and I've got the feeling that each of these will suffer the same fate as my other armies.

So forgive me if I "go Hulk" when every time I turn around another big investment in time and money gets nerfed.

Really? Are you just using the topic of this thread to backboard some lame attempt at complaining you have to buy models? The Necrons haven't been updated for a decade what the did you think was going to happen?

I swear. I'm not thrilled about prices increasing but in reality its not that much. And what's even funnier, you can actually make conversions for the models you don't have for even cheaper. It's not even that, most Necron players don't even mind paying for brand new units for an army that had literally no units to begin with.

Please stick to the thread or get out.

*Gets down* And I take a small bow.

"Really," before you comment on a post, you should try actually reading the entire post. I am not "just using the topic of this thread to backboard some lame attempt at complaining you have to buy models." As for "what the did I think was going to happen," this is exactly what I thought would happen. That is not the issue. My issue is, it seems to be the case that, whenever a unit (or units, or entire armies) need a revision, the default GW plan seems to be, "Cut its stats and just make it cheaper." Just ONCE I'd like to see something like, oh, "Necrons are too vulnerable to pie plates, so let's just revise WBB, but don't make their basic troops easier to kill in the first place!"

And btw: when I need your permission to post in a thread, I'll ask for it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SylvanaSekNadin wrote:I don't know, from what I have seen the Nercons have gained quite a lot. From a play perspective I feel that they have become reasonably balanced. The old codex had a mixture of extreme bad, and extreme good. I can remember multiple threads asking how to kill monoliths. As such, the too powerful have been brought back a bit, and the too weak have gotten a major upgrade.

I never found monoliths to be too powerful. I lost almost as many of them as I kept at game end. Maybe my opponents were just lucky *heh*

SylvanaSekNadin wrote:The only gripe I have, is the direction the fluff seems to have gone. It feels like its gotten too much of an Egyptian theme now unlike the previous undead hoard theme. I really liked the concept of this wall of soulless machines that get up again when you kill them slowly advancing on your position. It now feels like tyrannical Egyptian kings with petty squabbles fighting amongst themselves, while before it was this large implacable will and desire to end all life.

I couldn't have put it better. My point exactly about "TK in space". And new TK at that.

Nerfed? Oh, come on. I don't deny they were a powerful army back in the day but now they had become a one-trick pony.

Even the (also monstrously outdated) Eldar Codex can produce a nasty surprise or two, while the 'crons were struck with one or two moderately successful configs, and even those weren't competitive anymore. Even my lackluster Ork list could krump through the oh-so-standard Necron warriors+monoliths army with ease.

Warriors needed to be cheaper. Playing low point games with necrons was...boring...to say the least. Now you can at least have a little more wiggle room for list building at lower points.

^

You both officially fail this thread and this argument (Referring to "waaaaahhh Egyptian now")

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?prodId=prod1380050a

bombboy1252 wrote: we now have named characters for some good special bonuses...

Out of curiosity, I thought Necrons were a massive legion of automated, souless, unindividualistic robots led by C'tan. So why do they have named individual characters? What does the new fluff say to explain this? I just want to get to know a brief outline of the new necron fluff?

I'd link you to the rumors thread but, in brief: No so soulless, not led by C'tan anymore.

Motivations changed from soul-munching to political imperialism. Fluff changed from "horde of bots in thrall of the star-gods" to trascendence gone wrong, whole race transferred into undying metal shells, no longer organic but not AI either (this was in the old fluff too but mostly got ignored) and still mostly sentient. C'tan (shards of them, apparently) are now slaves of the Necrons, not the other way around.

What can I say. Haven't read but what's been posted on the rumors section but I like what I have seen so far. Just one day and we'll know more

Basically, GW realized that it's really hard to make interesting, unique armies when the fluff says that they're all identical.

Yes, this does change the tone of the Necrons considerably, but in a good way, IMO.

Fair enough. They seem scarier when they just rise up, kill goons and leave without a trace. Personalities would explain other fluff like alliance with Blood Angels.

And now necrons apparently fight each other! And trade with other races! And work as mercs!

Weird ...

I like the new Codex (from what I've seen, since it isn't actually out yet), and I've been playing Necrons for many years.

The new direction they are taking has seriously reinvigorated my enthusiasm for the hobby.

No more phase out.

Awesome Models.

Anti-tank.

Transports other than a pricey monolyth.

Anyone bitching about the new Necron Codex can go get bent. I'm just not getting the hate.

Monoliths, with the current army structure and still at 220~ pts would be OP, to be honest. I'm not surprised they got rid of melta immunity simply because for it to be characterful, it would have to be on EVERY VEHICLE.

I've never played against the old Necron codex but if the rumours about the new ones are true, then if it's been nerfed, the old one must have been absolutely amazing! And judging by what most people say about how poor it is, it's clearly not amazing.

I think that there's a lot of really cool sounding stuff in the new codex. The big issue for me would be I2 but then I look at their shooting and realise that they are obviously a shooty army anyway. And when some of those Necrons do hit, they hit hard to boot.

Sorry, I don't agree it's been nerfed at all.

I think I like most of the changes I've heard of to date without having read the codex. My opinion may change a little afterwards, but most changes do sound really good. They have always had an Egyption theme, I'm not sure how you can argue against that one. After all their BFG big ships have a huge pyramind mounted on top and they have scarabs. Sound familiar?

Warscythes still ignore FNP, now cause ID on T3 models (T4 if you get the FC guy) meaning only one failed save is enough, and can absolutely shred vehicles in CC. Those extra two pips of strenght make a huuuge difference.

They were always, always, always losing ignore Inv saves. There have only been 3 items which ignored them, and every codex revision has removed them. Dreadaxe -gone. Ctan phase sword - now ID PW. Warscythe was always going to lose it.

In return you get a massive boost in offensive power. Oh, and now you get a 3++ inv save as well. Slightly better, no?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
They were always, always, always losing ignore Inv saves. There have only been 3 items which ignored them, and every codex revision has removed them. Dreadaxe -gone. Ctan phase sword - now ID PW. Warscythe was always going to lose it.

The old psycannons in the Daemonhunters codex also ignored invul saves as did incinerators. They lost those abilities, too :(

Banzaimash wrote:Fair enough. They seem scarier when they just rise up, kill goons and leave without a trace.

Yes. For about 1 game. 2 at most.

Seriously. Every single time anyone ever tried to actually DO something background-related with Necrons, say, play the army in a gaming-club campaign or some such, they howled at in frustration at the simplistic angle given to them faster than you can dip 10 Warriors in Boltgun metal.

I don't get why people are complaining about I2, they are not, and have never been an assault army. Sure they have a few CC units, but having them usually strike last highlights, for me, their theme of a slow, inevitable death brought by lumbering Tomb machines.

Banzaimash wrote:

bombboy1252 wrote: we now have named characters for some good special bonuses...

Out of curiosity, I thought Necrons were a massive legion of automated, souless, unindividualistic robots led by C'tan. So why do they have named individual characters? What does the new fluff say to explain this? I just want to get to know a brief outline of the new necron fluff?

The Necron lords were always individualistic, and self thinking...only things like warriors and scarab swarms and such, are souless unthinking automatons


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kronk wrote:No more phase out.

Awesome Models.

Anti-tank.

Transports other than a pricey monolyth.

Anyone bitching about the new Necron Codex can go get bent. I'm just not getting the hate.

Me either Kronk.......but people love to b tch about anything...

No phase out, I guess thats a good thing, but which models contribute to the %? phase out?

Warscyth Nerf. You are right this is a huge one. Because Pariah was the Crusnik of elite CC units.

so basically storm shield, dodge, and other fluffy invul saves.

LunaHound wrote:Warscyth Nerf. You are right this is a huge one. Because Pariah was the Crusnik of elite CC units.

Crusnik?

What are you saying?

LunaHound wrote:No phase out, I guess thats a good thing, but which models contribute to the %? phase out?

Warscythe Nerf. You are right this is a huge one. Because Pariah was the Crusnik of elite CC units.

so basically storm shield, dodge, and other fluffy invul saves.

It may surprise someone who never saw necrons before but the HQ, the Necron lord, could actually take a Warscythe (with VOD mind you.)

It was good on a Destroyer Lord as well. Ignoring Invul saves and 2d6 armor pen was pretty damn good.

Still, a S7 power weapon is nothing to sneeze at.

Monster Rain wrote:Still, a S7 power weapon is nothing to sneeze at.

Ya, that's going to be killer....even if it is "nerfed"

I dont really get how people are saying warriors are weaker... I dunno I almost want to create a horde warrior army and have like 60 warriors with 6 ghost arks carting them around just for fun lol

Cryage wrote:I dont really get how people are saying warriors are weaker... I dunno I almost want to create a horde warrior army and have like 60 warriors with 6 ghost arks carting them around just for fun lol

That's what I was going to do

Cryage wrote:I dont really get how people are saying warriors are weaker... I dunno I almost want to create a horde warrior army and have like 60 warriors with 6 ghost arks carting them around just for fun lol

I'm still going to run a 40 warrior foot list with the new 'dex, at least till 2nd wave hits and I see all the options.

Just so you all know...new minimum size of a warrior squad is 5, and max is 20....

But I'm either...

A:Running a warrior horde list, running like 120 warriors...
B:6 warrior squads in Ghost arks...
C:Going all Destroyers and Immortals

I don't care about anything else in the 'dex haha

I have an important question.

What are the HQ choices now? Just Lord and Special Character versions there of? Cause IMO they really needed to put another HQ choice in.

Soladrin wrote:I have an important question.

What are the HQ choices now? Just Lord and Special Character versions there of? Cause IMO they really needed to put another HQ choice in.

Lord
Over Lord
Destroyer Lord
Cryptek

You want Nerf, see Tyranid FAQ.

About the warriors, I've heard it all now. So they made them 4+ save but 13 pts. My guardians aren't that good, my dire avengers aren't, DE warriors or alot of the other troop choices in other armies. My friend has played cron's since they came out and all I have heard the past few days is grip grip. So I started showing him the comparisons with my armies and he shut up quickly. It is a very nicely balanced book. I also told him to quit comparing it to the marines. He has come around and I told him to wait til he fields them. We are playing monday night so we will see what happens then.

Can you let me know how the necron play cause i am considering starting a necron army again.

The Necrons Traded some blows defiantly.

A 5+ RP that is immune to everything isnt bad ... a 4+ and a 5++ = 3+ with a chance of negating instant death. Sure we take more from heavy weapons but we are given tools to deal with it.

These changes may not all make sense now but in the rumored 6th Edition alot of things are going to change. Cover and FNP will go down to 5+, preferred enemies (that destroyers have) are supposedly to work on ranged weapons, ect.

So an army with a 5+ FNP that cant be denied will be awesome.

Monolith- They just made it more vulnerable b/c *gasp* we have more then 1 vehicle, all but 2 or 3 of which have 13/13/11 armor till 1st pen!
So we get a LR that can Teleport anything not a vehicle from any where through it, dedicated transports that can raise 1d3 warriors back, and some heavy weapon platforms.
I got mixed feelings here old rule monolith was awesome but more vehicles can be nice.

Wraiths still ignore terrain and now can deep strike with a 3++ save. And they can finally ignore armor on rends, someone else can do the math hammer but thats almost equivalent to Terminators with Storm Shields. (Lacking thunder hammers but they are str 6 at least ...)

In summary: I dont think we have anything to fear, they arent anything particularly broken like some SM armies. They have a new uniqueness to them and will require a little adaptability to play effectively. But they have come a long way from our previous edition, giving them more viable options.

I just played a game verses them and I can tell you they are not nerfed! They are a vast improvement over the old codex, much more effective on the battlefield.

Frankly it'd be fething absurd if the newcrons weren't better than the oldcrons, I never doubted that they would be, lol.

Don't Wraiths get bigger squads now? That was IMO their main weakness in the last codex, so that's a big improvement, especially when an extra wound is considered.

Mr. Self Destruct wrote:Monoliths, with the current army structure and still at 220~ pts would be OP, to be honest. I'm not surprised they got rid of melta immunity simply because for it to be characterful, it would have to be on EVERY VEHICLE.

Not really. Any more than every unit had to have the REAL warscythes to be characterful. Melta immunity could just as well have been a property that required more power to generate than some puny troop carrier could manage. And if 220 pts was undercosted (which I don't buy anyway), then raise the points to something like, say, a Land Raider's cost. Don't nerf it!!!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:It was good on a Destroyer Lord as well. Ignoring Invul saves and 2d6 armor pen was pretty damn good.

Still, a S7 power weapon is nothing to sneeze at.

Again there's that word "still". "Lucky us, we still have something left! Yippee, we can salvage something!"

Please.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyrs13 wrote:
So an army with a 5+ FNP that cant be denied will be awesome.

I find nothing "awesome" about failing two out of three rolls.

Tyrs13 wrote:
Monolith- They just made it more vulnerable b/c *gasp* we have more then 1 vehicle, all but 2 or 3 of which have 13/13/11 armor till 1st pen!
So we get a LR that can Teleport anything not a vehicle from any where through it, dedicated transports that can raise 1d3 warriors back, and some heavy weapon platforms.
I got mixed feelings here old rule monolith was awesome but more vehicles can be nice.

More vehicles are fine, but there was no need to take away what we had before, 6th edition rumors be 'd. IMO this is a chronic problem with GW: always taking away, as if that's a prereq for revising any codex. Add, don't take away! If too many new units would be "OP", then don't add so many new units!

Nerf? NERF? What are you talking about? The old Necrons were, by far, the easiest army to table!

That is, barring a slim few nasty builds played by a slimmer few nasty generals...

Even then.

The Monolith deserved to be cut down to size a bit. It was a relic whose rules were made for a different book. It's still got av 14 all around and getting into the melta sweet spot is dangerous.

Oh no's, my army didn't get more variety and get to keep its old special rules completely the same. I hate change! They should have kept phase out too! My plans are ruined! [/sarcasm]

BrainDeleted wrote:Nerf? NERF? What are you talking about? The old Necrons were, by far, the easiest army to table!

That is, barring a slim few nasty builds played by a slimmer few nasty generals...
[/sarcasm]

The most reliable way necrons could win before was to take full destroyer wings and just kite your opponent with superior maneuverability and 36" range shots... it was actually a VERY boring game of cat and mouse, and I wasn't a fan. I like the new direction the necrons are going

LordOfTheSloths wrote:Again there's that word "still". "Lucky us, we still have something left! Yippee, we can salvage something!"

Please.

I think you're getting a bit too worked up about this.

The army was going to change when the new codex came out. I'll cite every codex ever released as precedent.

To be fair, after getting my hands on my very own copy of the book, Destroyers did in fact pretty much get nerfed (jump infantry instead of jetbikes, -1S/-1Shot/-12" range in exchange for AP3 and 10pts off, not really worth it), but other than that, most of the changes to existing units are fantastic.

ernshmagl wrote:Can you let me know how the necron play cause i am considering starting a necron army again.

Will do. He is putting his Annilation Barge together now so it will be fielded on Monday as well as Imotek.

LordOfTheSloths wrote:

Mr. Self Destruct wrote:Monoliths, with the current army structure and still at 220~ pts would be OP, to be honest. I'm not surprised they got rid of melta immunity simply because for it to be characterful, it would have to be on EVERY VEHICLE.

Not really. Any more than every unit had to have the REAL warscythes to be characterful. Melta immunity could just as well have been a property that required more power to generate than some puny troop carrier could manage. And if 220 pts was undercosted (which I don't buy anyway), then raise the points to something like, say, a Land Raider's cost. Don't nerf it!!!

You had a vechicle that Eldar, Dark Eldar and to a lesser extent Orks could hardly kill and that was a PITA for everyone else. 220 points for the old Monolith was undercosted, unlike most of the other stuff in the old 'Dex.

Something tells me he didn't read the codex entry for the doom scythes.

bombboy1252 wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Still, a S7 power weapon is nothing to sneeze at.

Ya, that's going to be killer....even if it is "nerfed"

I'd like to also point out that he gets preferred enemy too... (i think) Now you're not missing with half of your attacks. What use is a warscythe that ignores invulnerable saves if its only killing one model a turn?
The warscythe got worse against wyches, terminators etc but better against everything else

Has anyone else noticed that Necrons are better at killing daemons than grey knights? They hate deep strike and they've got a bunch of wargear that just removes models from the board without invul saves and without caring about eternal warrior. I'm not trying to troll here, I just thought it was funny.

As far as this codex being somehow a 'nerfed' version of a severely outdated codex, that's ridiculous... now I guess I am trolling. This codex is packed, it is freaking crammed with new and different. Destroyers 'nerfed', maybe, but you know what wasn't nerfed; the four thousand new ways to use your army. Some pre-existing units had their stats and point costs lowered, which actually makes them better, mainly because you don't have to rely on those units exclusively in order to try to squeeze out a win. There are more new units in this codex than there were units in the old codex, and if you brought your old 1500 point list to the table, you'd have enough points left over to field some of them.

As a Necron player i can not understand the NERF statement !!!!

1 All the stuff supposedly nerfing the dex was usless bar the destroyers because of Phase out ,
2 So many new toys with rules lots of people will be call OP
3 More choice


Yes individually things have been dulled down but come on a Melta immune tank with no phase out !!!!!

Nerf no way

I'm not quite ready to say that the Destroyers were nerfed quite yet.

Being able to move and then lay down that many low AP shots, particularly in conjunction with a lot of gubbinz that make your stuff twin-linked... I see potential there.

Vaktathi wrote:To be fair, after getting my hands on my very own copy of the book, Destroyers did in fact pretty much get nerfed (jump infantry instead of jetbikes, -1S/-1Shot/-12" range in exchange for AP3 and 10pts off, not really worth it), but other than that, most of the changes to existing units are fantastic.

The loss of strength isn't a big deal. The loss of 1 shot in exchange for the lower AP, that's a HUGE benefit dude. They just went from 15 shots that don't deny meq saves to 10 shots that DO deny their save. Also factor in the rumor that preferred enemy works in shooting in 6th edition and I hardly doubt you'll see them as being "nerfed" then.

Even still, if you don't see the advantage they got from going from AP4 to AP3 and assault instead of heavy...I don't know what to say.

LunaHound wrote:

Soladrin wrote:I have an important question.

What are the HQ choices now? Just Lord and Special Character versions there of? Cause IMO they really needed to put another HQ choice in.

Lord
Over Lord
Destroyer Lord
Cryptek

Lords and Crypteks aren't HQs actually.

They are more of an...accessory.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

comrade_nikolai wrote:

bombboy1252 wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Still, a S7 power weapon is nothing to sneeze at.

Ya, that's going to be killer....even if it is "nerfed"

I'd like to also point out that he gets preferred enemy too... (i think) Now you're not missing with half of your attacks. What use is a warscythe that ignores invulnerable saves if its only killing one model a turn?
The warscythe got worse against wyches, terminators etc but better against everything else

Actually, since it's S7 you can now one shot eldar.

See that Succubus/Archon? SPLAT! Not anymore ^^

Yeah, the I2 sucks but other then that, I like the changes.

Lol no the old codex was not nerfed it was greatly improved on. Warriors are great the get two saves now a 4 up and then if that fails a 5 up. Monolith was taken down a few pegs but it is still nasty on the battlefield. Plus the monolith has better guns. Carbines are awasome scarabs are awasome crypteks are awasome the new lords are awasome adding some much needed punching power to your units plus a rez orb if your so inclined. I'm loving the new codex. I have been playing necrons for years and this gives me a new love for the army. Oh yea no more phase out too!

Are Necron Lords like Chaos Lieutenants or something now?

Durza wrote:Are Necron Lords like Chaos Lieutenants or something now?

They are closer to Wolf Guard.

Kevin949 wrote:

The loss of strength isn't a big deal.

It is actually, it means they no longer wound T4 on 2's and no longer can adequately engage light vehicles.

The loss of 1 shot in exchange for the lower AP, that's a HUGE benefit dude. They just went from 15 shots that don't deny meq saves to 10 shots that DO deny their save.

-1 shot, -1 S, 12" range loss to go from AP4 to AP3 overall is not a huge benefit. In exchange for being able to better kill marines in the open (in an edition where cover saves are nigh ubiquitous) at shorter ranges, they're less effective than they were against marines in cover, they lose a huge amount of capability against vehicles (no longer able to effectively engage light vehicles with lower S, significantly decreased ability to hamper heavier vehicles with Gauss due to lower number of shots) and are significantly less effective against lighter infantry (lower RoF and Str), they have less mobility/defensive capabilities if they need it (no more turboboost and 3+ cover save) and they must be significantly closer to engage their enemies.

Also factor in the rumor that preferred enemy works in shooting in 6th edition and I hardly doubt you'll see them as being "nerfed" then.

That may be true, but for now all we have to go on is internet rumors for an edition rumored to be 9 or 10 months out.

Even still, if you don't see the advantage they got from going from AP4 to AP3 and assault instead of heavy...I don't know what to say.

Heavy vs Assault was never an issue, they could always move and fire their Gauss Cannons.

Gaining AP3 in this case isn't what people make of it, especially at the cost of Strength, Rate of Fire, Range, Mobility, and Versatility in an edition where cover saves are nigh-ubiquitous on properly set up tables. AP3 is a consistently over-value ability on units and results in units being consistently overcosted as a result, look at IG Stormtroopers, Eldar Dark Reapers, Vespids, etc.

Vaktathi wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:

The loss of strength isn't a big deal.

It is actually, it means they no longer wound T4 on 2's and no longer can adequately engage light vehicles.

The loss of 1 shot in exchange for the lower AP, that's a HUGE benefit dude. They just went from 15 shots that don't deny meq saves to 10 shots that DO deny their save.

-1 shot, -1 S, 12" range loss to go from AP4 to AP3 overall is not a huge benefit. In exchange for being able to better kill marines in the open (in an edition where cover saves are nigh ubiquitous) at shorter ranges, they're less effective than they were against marines in cover, they lose a huge amount of capability against vehicles (no longer able to effectively engage light vehicles with lower S, significantly decreased ability to hamper heavier vehicles with Gauss due to lower number of shots) and are significantly less effective against lighter infantry (lower RoF and Str), they have less mobility/defensive capabilities if they need it (no more turboboost and 3+ cover save) and they must be significantly closer to engage their enemies.

Also factor in the rumor that preferred enemy works in shooting in 6th edition and I hardly doubt you'll see them as being "nerfed" then.

That may be true, but for now all we have to go on is internet rumors for an edition rumored to be 9 or 10 months out.

Even still, if you don't see the advantage they got from going from AP4 to AP3 and assault instead of heavy...I don't know what to say.

Heavy vs Assault was never an issue, they could always move and fire their Gauss Cannons.

Gaining AP3 in this case isn't what people make of it, especially at the cost of Strength, Rate of Fire, Range, Mobility, and Versatility in an edition where cover saves are nigh-ubiquitous on properly set up tables. AP3 is a consistently over-value ability on units and results in units being consistently overcosted as a result, look at IG Stormtroopers, Eldar Dark Reapers, Vespids, etc.

Wounding t4 on 3+ instead of 2+ isn't that big of a loss when all of those wounds won't give an armor save to 90+% of what is on the board as opposed to before when you were probably only denying 40% of what's on the board, at best, and wounding on a 2+ against a 3+ armor save is hardly better than wounding on a 3+ with no armor save. Math hammer it out all you want.

Well, previously marines in cover would still get their armor save so that situation is identical to the above. But now, they only get a 4+ if they're in cover instead of a 3+ armor. Possibly a 5+ depending what is on the board and how you ruled on it prior to game start. So ya, I fail to see still how they were better before.

Very true, we will just have to wait and see I suppose. But at least they can benefit from it in CC at the moment (yes I know that is not where they are supposed to be).

Ah, yes, heavy vs assault wasn't an issue PREVIOUSLY but it would be NOW since they are JI instead of JB.

What mobility and versatility? Destroyers couldn't move over 12" and still fire previously and they can't now. Sure they can't turbo-boost but seriously, why would you turbo-boost and lose out on a round of 15 str6 shots? Unless you REALLY didn't need those shots are you really put them in a bad spot, that was your [the players] fault. So they can't move 24" now, big whoop, there is so much more stuff now to make up for that tiny loss that it hardly matters. Versatility? If nothing, they're more versatile now. With armor reducing units abound, and the gauss rule still in effect, they're still effective against armor and with the lower AP they're much more dangerous to troops.

All I can say is that in the previous codex and in the games I have played I always wished that I had more low AP weapons because it was terribly disheartening to fire 15 shots, hit 10, wound 8 and watch only 1 or maybe 2 guys fall, if any! Keeping in mind, for me at least, I pretty much always played against a marine player. I have played against nids and tau as well and its' a very different story, of course, but I chalk it up to lack of experience with those armies more so than necrons having an advantage.

You have to understand, the codex is going more for synergy between units and rules rather than one unit standing out as an "OMG That's badass!" kind of a thing. Alone, destroyers are good but not amazing. But coupled with a triarch stalker for the twin link advantage they suddenly become amazing (just one example).

Some pre-existing units had their stats and point costs lowered, which actually makes them better

what about when termies became 3+ saves and got a cple points cheaper...

oh wait their marines, they cant meake them weaker...

Necrons troops were a tough all round option, then 5th edition nefed their firepower v vehicles, now new codex nerfs their saves... New codex should have brought them back up not kicked em while they were down.

5pts different for more reliable WBB and -1 Sv, what a nerf.

zacharia wrote:

Some pre-existing units had their stats and point costs lowered, which actually makes them better

what about when termies became 3+ saves and got a cple points cheaper...

oh wait their marines, they cant meake them weaker...

Necrons troops were a tough all round option, then 5th edition nefed their firepower v vehicles, now new codex nerfs their saves... New codex should have brought them back up not kicked em while they were down.

You do realize that 3+ and 4+ unignorable reanimation would mean that Necrons would have troop options with effectively 2+ saves for 15 points a pop, yes? And you don't see anything OP with that?

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

zacharia wrote:

Some pre-existing units had their stats and point costs lowered, which actually makes them better

what about when termies became 3+ saves and got a cple points cheaper...

oh wait their marines, they cant meake them weaker...

Necrons troops were a tough all round option, then 5th edition nefed their firepower v vehicles, now new codex nerfs their saves... New codex should have brought them back up not kicked em while they were down.

You do realize that 3+ and 4+ unignorable reanimation would mean that Necrons would have troop options with effectively 2+ saves for 15 points a pop, yes? And you don't see anything OP with that?

Well that 4+ has a rather large caveat in that the unit can not be wiped out OR retreating to gain that roll. I wouldn't call it unignoreable (not a word).

Kevin949 wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

zacharia wrote:

Some pre-existing units had their stats and point costs lowered, which actually makes them better

what about when termies became 3+ saves and got a cple points cheaper...

oh wait their marines, they cant meake them weaker...

Necrons troops were a tough all round option, then 5th edition nefed their firepower v vehicles, now new codex nerfs their saves... New codex should have brought them back up not kicked em while they were down.

You do realize that 3+ and 4+ unignorable reanimation would mean that Necrons would have troop options with effectively 2+ saves for 15 points a pop, yes? And you don't see anything OP with that?

Well that 4+ has a rather large caveat in that the unit can not be wiped out OR retreating to gain that roll. I wouldn't call it unignoreable (not a word).

You're not getting any 3+ saves if you're wiped out either.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/unignorable

So I misspelt it, big deal. I'm not demanding that you write in Swedish, am I?

Det Necrons är inte svaga. Den ursprungliga författaren är felaktig.

Monster Rain wrote:Det Necrons är inte svaga. Den ursprungliga författaren är felaktig.

I'm pretty sure that's the general consensus, yes.

Monster Rain wrote:Det Necrons är inte svaga. Den ursprungliga författaren är felaktig.

Google Translate, eh? The worst part is, I actually had to translate that back into English to get WTF you were on about!

Im not certain why you would take destroyers now. There are better ways to kill troops and the fast attack could collapse a star with how weighty it is now with choices.

If you are going to take destroyers (why when even cheaper tomb blade template spam is available) then your getting a more focused unit, which is still a fraction as good at killing vehicles as scarabs for more points.

Kevin949 wrote:
Wounding t4 on 3+ instead of 2+ isn't that big of a loss when all of those wounds won't give an armor save to 90+% of what is on the board as opposed to before when you were probably only denying 40% of what's on the board, at best, and wounding on a 2+ against a 3+ armor save is hardly better than wounding on a 3+ with no armor save. Math hammer it out all you want.

There's lots of T4 units where AP3 vs AP4 isn't a meaningful difference anyway (orks, scouts, wracks, bloodletters, etc) and cover is hugely ubiquitous, and with cover factored in, their significantly less capable.

Well, previously marines in cover would still get their armor save so that situation is identical to the above. But now, they only get a 4+ if they're in cover instead of a 3+ armor. Possibly a 5+ depending what is on the board and how you ruled on it prior to game start. So ya, I fail to see still how they were better before.

Because the old S6 3 shot ones inflicted 25% more casualties against marines in cover than the new ones do and could do it 12" further away (e.g. from their deployment zone)

Ah, yes, heavy vs assault wasn't an issue PREVIOUSLY but it would be NOW since they are JI instead of JB.

Right, but effectively nothing changed in that regard.

What mobility and versatility? Destroyers couldn't move over 12" and still fire previously and they can't now.

Right but it meant they had a defense against stuff like battlecannons and the like even in the open if they needed it, and could redeploy to the other side of the board or out of line of sight far easier.

Sure they can't turbo-boost but seriously, why would you turbo-boost and lose out on a round of 15 str6 shots? Unless you REALLY didn't need those shots are you really put them in a bad spot, that was your [the players] fault.

Or there's an ordnance weapon around and that 3+ cover becomes *really* useful, something comes in from reserve that needs to be reacted to (get away from it or get to it), there's a threat on the other side of the board they need to engage because of something unforseen or went wrong, want to pull a last minute objective spoiler, or its Dawn of War and you want to get into a sweet firing position quickly and want a cover save to use against your opponents first turn of shooting?

So they can't move 24" now, big whoop,

See above.

there is so much more stuff now to make up for that tiny loss that it hardly matters.

I'm not arguing that there's a lot more, I'm making the point that Destroyers aren't as good as they used to be. The book as a whole is a lot better, but it's difficult to argue that Destroyers didn't get a nerf.

Versatility? If nothing, they're more versatile now. With armor reducing units abound, and the gauss rule still in effect, they're still effective against armor and with the lower AP they're much more dangerous to troops.

The *ONLY* thing they are more dangerous against is 3+sv troops in the open without a cover save at under 24". Against 6+/5+/4+/2+sv's, anything T4 or higher with the aformentioned saves, any vehicle, and anything 24-36" away, they're noticeably less effective.

You have to understand, the codex is going more for synergy between units and rules rather than one unit standing out as an "OMG That's badass!" kind of a thing. Alone, destroyers are good but not amazing. But coupled with a triarch stalker for the twin link advantage they suddenly become amazing (just one example).

That's requiring a 150pt unit to make them significantly more capable however.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Res orb now increases the RP to 4+...so no change. Except you can have ALOT of orbs now.

And necrons were always a slow ass army. They just made it consistent.

Also you roll after each phase not at the start of your turn

The Metal Tide wrote:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Res orb now increases the RP to 4+...so no change. Except you can have ALOT of orbs now.

And necrons were always a slow ass army. They just made it consistent.

Also you roll after each phase not at the start of your turn

the rerolling after each phase is a very strong improvement. I played a test game earlier where the RP after shooting raised up enough to survive assault and get a nice counter assault, where I would have died if the RP was at start of turn.

I have high hopes for this codex. I think it will play out well.

I've glanced over the codex now, and I have to say, I like it. I love the new units, I love that my friend finds scarabs absolutely terrifying now, and I really like the alterations to some of their rules. It should be an interesting army to go up against.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

zacharia wrote:

Some pre-existing units had their stats and point costs lowered, which actually makes them better

what about when termies became 3+ saves and got a cple points cheaper...

oh wait their marines, they cant meake them weaker...

Necrons troops were a tough all round option, then 5th edition nefed their firepower v vehicles, now new codex nerfs their saves... New codex should have brought them back up not kicked em while they were down.

You do realize that 3+ and 4+ unignorable reanimation would mean that Necrons would have troop options with effectively 2+ saves for 15 points a pop, yes? And you don't see anything OP with that?

Well that 4+ has a rather large caveat in that the unit can not be wiped out OR retreating to gain that roll. I wouldn't call it unignoreable (not a word).

You're not getting any 3+ saves if you're wiped out either.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/unignorable

So I misspelt it, big deal. I'm not demanding that you write in Swedish, am I?

Let me preface by saying I wasn't digging at you about that word, Firefox just didn't recognize it as a word. Secondly, you'd get the 3+ before they're wiped unless its an AP2 massive weapon.

Kevin949 wrote: Well, previously marines in cover would still get their armor save so that situation is identical to the above. But now, they only get a 4+ if they're in cover instead of a 3+ armor. Possibly a 5+ depending what is on the board and how you ruled on it prior to game start. So ya, I fail to see still how they were better before.

You seem to have no clue how the rules work. The rulebook specifically states that any piece of terrain that has a boarder is considered Area Terrain, and Area Terrain is ALWAYS a 4+. The pre-game terrain discussion if for determining what is dangerous, unpassable etc. You DO NOT get to decide what save terrain gives in this edition and if you are you are doing it wrong. So basically every damn thing in this edition gets a 4+

And heres a little math for you on old vs new destroyers shooting marines in cover.

Old: 15 shots hitting on 3s, that means 10 are going to hit. Wounding on 2s, 8 are going to wound. 3+ armor save means 3 die.

New: 10 shots hitting on 3s, that means 7 are going to hit. Wounding on 3s, that means 4 are going to wound. 4+ cover save means 2 die.

Add this to the fact that the reduction in strength and shots gives them MUCH less vehicle threatening power and its clear that they are much worse than before. And don't give me that "well you should twin link them with a Triach Stalker" crap. The destroyer unit already cost 200 points! I should not need to use another 150 point unit to make a 200 f'ing point unit not suck!. 350 points of firepower and you will still not kill that marine squad. Case closed.

StormStrikr wrote:

Kevin949 wrote: Well, previously marines in cover would still get their armor save so that situation is identical to the above. But now, they only get a 4+ if they're in cover instead of a 3+ armor. Possibly a 5+ depending what is on the board and how you ruled on it prior to game start. So ya, I fail to see still how they were better before.

You seem to have no clue how the rules work. The rulebook specifically states that any piece of terrain that has a boarder is considered Area Terrain, and Area Terrain is ALWAYS a 4+. The pre-game terrain discussion if for determining what is dangerous, unpassable etc. You DO NOT get to decide what save terrain gives in this edition and if you are you are doing it wrong. So basically every damn thing in this edition gets a 4+

Except for buildings. And fences. And barricades. And a ton of other stuff that you're clearly ignoring, along with a huge part of the community, creating the cover save fest that is the current meta.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Except for buildings. And fences. And barricades. And a ton of other stuff that you're clearly ignoring, along with a huge part of the community, creating the cover save fest that is the current meta.

Fences and Barricades should not have a boarder on the bottom then. I have modeled terrain as such so they will not count as area terrain, but if they have a boarder, they are area terrain.

I didn't have a lot of nerdy friends growing up, as I didn't really meet any people with similar interests of mine until halfway through high school. I always kind of assumed that nerds were smarter than average people, which is why our hobbies were always viewed with disdain by our peers. At least, that's what I thought until I started reading nerd related boards on the internet (40K, MtG, D&D, etc.) The fact that there are intelligent nerds and fething moron nerds should have been obvious to me from the start, and I feel like an absolute idiot for never realizing it.

The amount of disdain that a lot of 40K players show for things often referred to as "Mathhammer" - basic discrete probability that usually gets taught in middle school, and simple statistical analysis - is absolutely astounding. The propensity to say that Unit X is broken because it has some flashy abilities (a 2+ save, a high S weapon!) or complain that something is "nerfed" because its stats got reduced (let's all ignore a 30% point reduction) leaves me utterly flabbergasted.

The effectiveness of 3E vs. 5.5E Necrons can and should be debated, but I see precious few people in threads here and elsewhere using the very basic mathematical tools we have to use as evidence for their claims.

StormStrikr wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Except for buildings. And fences. And barricades. And a ton of other stuff that you're clearly ignoring, along with a huge part of the community, creating the cover save fest that is the current meta.

Fences and Barricades should not have a boarder on the bottom then. I have modeled terrain as such so they will not count as area terrain, but if they have a boarder, they are area terrain.

No, if you define them as area terrain they are area terrain. Claiming that a fence is area terrain because you gave it a border so it doesn't fall over every 2 seconds is silly at best.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
No, if you define them as area terrain they are area terrain. Claiming that a fence is area terrain because you gave it a border so it doesn't fall over every 2 seconds is silly at best.

Well that is how the rules are written. And GW specifically says to play read as written in tourniment play. Does this make sense that it having a base means it is area terrain? Not really. But that is how the rules are written and you dont get to ignore it just because you think its silly. Believe me I share this frustration but this is how it is. period.

StormStrikr wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
No, if you define them as area terrain they are area terrain. Claiming that a fence is area terrain because you gave it a border so it doesn't fall over every 2 seconds is silly at best.

Well that is how the rules are written. And GW specifically says to play read as written in tourniment play. Does this make sense that it having a base means it is area terrain? Not really. But that is how the rules are written and you dont get to ignore it just because you think its silly. Believe me I share this frustration but this is how it is. period.

BRB page 13 wrote:You should discuss all such terrain features with your opponent before the game and agree exactly what everything counts as and where the boundaries of terrain features lie. When the game is underway, it will be harder to discuss it quite so impartially.

What you're claiming to be the truth is, in fact, NOT "how it is". It is area terrain if you define it as such before the game starts. Full stop.

Ostrakon wrote:I didn't have a lot of nerdy friends growing up, as I didn't really meet any people with similar interests of mine until halfway through high school. I always kind of assumed that nerds were smarter than average people, which is why our hobbies were always viewed with disdain by our peers. At least, that's what I thought until I started reading nerd related boards on the internet (40K, MtG, D&D, etc.) The fact that there are intelligent nerds and fething moron nerds should have been obvious to me from the start, and I feel like an absolute idiot for never realizing it.

The amount of disdain that a lot of 40K players show for things often referred to as "Mathhammer" - basic discrete probability that usually gets taught in middle school, and simple statistical analysis - is absolutely astounding. The propensity to say that Unit X is broken because it has some flashy abilities (a 2+ save, a high S weapon!) or complain that something is "nerfed" because its stats got reduced (let's all ignore a 30% point reduction) leaves me utterly flabbergasted.

The effectiveness of 3E vs. 5.5E Necrons can and should be debated, but I see precious few people in threads here and elsewhere using the very basic mathematical tools we have to use as evidence for their claims.

Hear, hear. or is it hear hear.... or Here hear, or Hear here... Damnit (wiki:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hear,_hear)

Hear, Hear!

I like leonard. he makes me feel smart.

I think it is probably best to speak with opponents as to what terrain is before a game starts. Even if you think the rules clearly state something, best to double check just in case.

CpatTom wrote:

Ostrakon wrote:I didn't have a lot of nerdy friends growing up, as I didn't really meet any people with similar interests of mine until halfway through high school. I always kind of assumed that nerds were smarter than average people, which is why our hobbies were always viewed with disdain by our peers. At least, that's what I thought until I started reading nerd related boards on the internet (40K, MtG, D&D, etc.) The fact that there are intelligent nerds and fething moron nerds should have been obvious to me from the start, and I feel like an absolute idiot for never realizing it.

The amount of disdain that a lot of 40K players show for things often referred to as "Mathhammer" - basic discrete probability that usually gets taught in middle school, and simple statistical analysis - is absolutely astounding. The propensity to say that Unit X is broken because it has some flashy abilities (a 2+ save, a high S weapon!) or complain that something is "nerfed" because its stats got reduced (let's all ignore a 30% point reduction) leaves me utterly flabbergasted.

The effectiveness of 3E vs. 5.5E Necrons can and should be debated, but I see precious few people in threads here and elsewhere using the very basic mathematical tools we have to use as evidence for their claims.

Hear, hear. or is it hear hear.... or Here hear, or Hear here... Damnit (wiki:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hear,_hear)

Hear, Hear!

I like leonard. he makes me feel smart.

I think it is probably best to speak with opponents as to what terrain is before a game starts. Even if you think the rules clearly state something, best to double check just in case.

Super duper important since board control is now a primary Necron trait. I have yet to encounter anyone playing any game whatsoever who likes 'gotchas'.

To mathhammer I am at the point I cant help it. I instinctively look at a situation before I charge and know what the expected outcome is. Its very easy to say 20 gauss (str 4 shots) will cause on average 2-3 dead marines on average, or whatnot. Coupled with the issue that the book from my scant few matches so far seem to be dynamite in synergy makes it even harder to blanket just say x or y is hyperbole.

StormStrikr wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
No, if you define them as area terrain they are area terrain. Claiming that a fence is area terrain because you gave it a border so it doesn't fall over every 2 seconds is silly at best.

Well that is how the rules are written. And GW specifically says to play read as written in tourniment play. Does this make sense that it having a base means it is area terrain? Not really. But that is how the rules are written and you dont get to ignore it just because you think its silly. Believe me I share this frustration but this is how it is. period.

1) Gw do not say, that, period. GW do not make any rules up on how I run MY tournaments, thats for sure

2) No, you decide as per page 13 what is area terrain and what isnt. Also you are using the logical fallacy of A implies B means B implies A. It says in order to show the boundary of area terrain you should put a border on it, not that anything with a border is area terrain.

3) Area terrain is NOT a flat out 4+ save. Remove this concept from your head, as it has no place in real rules. The covre save provided by ANY piece of terrain is listed on p21, box out. So area terrain grass (for some reason) would be 5+, not 4+

nosferatu1001 wrote:

StormStrikr wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
No, if you define them as area terrain they are area terrain. Claiming that a fence is area terrain because you gave it a border so it doesn't fall over every 2 seconds is silly at best.

Well that is how the rules are written. And GW specifically says to play read as written in tourniment play. Does this make sense that it having a base means it is area terrain? Not really. But that is how the rules are written and you dont get to ignore it just because you think its silly. Believe me I share this frustration but this is how it is. period.

1) Gw do not say, that, period. GW do not make any rules up on how I run MY tournaments, thats for sure

2) No, you decide as per page 13 what is area terrain and what isnt. Also you are using the logical fallacy of A implies B means B implies A. It says in order to show the boundary of area terrain you should put a border on it, not that anything with a border is area terrain.

3) Area terrain is NOT a flat out 4+ save. Remove this concept from your head, as it has no place in real rules. The covre save provided by ANY piece of terrain is listed on p21, box out. So area terrain grass (for some reason) would be 5+, not 4+

Of course you can decide whatever you like however in a blind situation two people coming together to make it easy you have to start with the assumption that all based terrain is 4+ area terrain.

StormStrikr wrote:

Kevin949 wrote: Well, previously marines in cover would still get their armor save so that situation is identical to the above. But now, they only get a 4+ if they're in cover instead of a 3+ armor. Possibly a 5+ depending what is on the board and how you ruled on it prior to game start. So ya, I fail to see still how they were better before.

You seem to have no clue how the rules work. The rulebook specifically states that any piece of terrain that has a boarder is considered Area Terrain, and Area Terrain is ALWAYS a 4+. The pre-game terrain discussion if for determining what is dangerous, unpassable etc. You DO NOT get to decide what save terrain gives in this edition and if you are you are doing it wrong. So basically every damn thing in this edition gets a 4+

And heres a little math for you on old vs new destroyers shooting marines in cover.

Old: 15 shots hitting on 3s, that means 10 are going to hit. Wounding on 2s, 8 are going to wound. 3+ armor save means 3 die.

New: 10 shots hitting on 3s, that means 7 are going to hit. Wounding on 3s, that means 4 are going to wound. 4+ cover save means 2 die.

Add this to the fact that the reduction in strength and shots gives them MUCH less vehicle threatening power and its clear that they are much worse than before. And don't give me that "well you should twin link them with a Triach Stalker" crap. The destroyer unit already cost 200 points! I should not need to use another 150 point unit to make a 200 f'ing point unit not suck!. 350 points of firepower and you will still not kill that marine squad. Case closed.

First off, dude shut up. You don't get the right to tell me whether I know the game rules or not. Secondly, where did I say AREA TERRAIN? Huh? Nowhere, so don't put words in my mouth. I said COVER SAVE. And cover saves are achieved through MANY means, NOT JUST AREA TERRAIN.

Also, for reference, the rulebook says nothing about area terrain automatically being a 4+. It ALSO mentions that you should talk about terrain features with your opponent and decide on what counts as what and where the lines are (if not clearly defined). So, you're wrong. Yes, the chart about cover saves has about 90% of terrain features under the 4+ category. But, "area terrain" is not one of them, as I could easily have a piece of "area terrain" that is all high grass. That is classed as a 5+.

Consequently, I used destroyers in a game last night and they thoroughly rocked. But you guys go ahead and not use them and complain about the nerf, I'll continue to laugh at my opponents suffering at the hands of my JI shooters.

Vaktathi wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:
Wounding t4 on 3+ instead of 2+ isn't that big of a loss when all of those wounds won't give an armor save to 90+% of what is on the board as opposed to before when you were probably only denying 40% of what's on the board, at best, and wounding on a 2+ against a 3+ armor save is hardly better than wounding on a 3+ with no armor save. Math hammer it out all you want.

There's lots of T4 units where AP3 vs AP4 isn't a meaningful difference anyway (orks, scouts, wracks, bloodletters, etc) and cover is hugely ubiquitous, and with cover factored in, their significantly less capable.

Well, previously marines in cover would still get their armor save so that situation is identical to the above. But now, they only get a 4+ if they're in cover instead of a 3+ armor. Possibly a 5+ depending what is on the board and how you ruled on it prior to game start. So ya, I fail to see still how they were better before.

Because the old S6 3 shot ones inflicted 25% more casualties against marines in cover than the new ones do and could do it 12" further away (e.g. from their deployment zone)

Ah, yes, heavy vs assault wasn't an issue PREVIOUSLY but it would be NOW since they are JI instead of JB.

Right, but effectively nothing changed in that regard.

What mobility and versatility? Destroyers couldn't move over 12" and still fire previously and they can't now.

Right but it meant they had a defense against stuff like battlecannons and the like even in the open if they needed it, and could redeploy to the other side of the board or out of line of sight far easier.

Sure they can't turbo-boost but seriously, why would you turbo-boost and lose out on a round of 15 str6 shots? Unless you REALLY didn't need those shots are you really put them in a bad spot, that was your [the players] fault.

Or there's an ordnance weapon around and that 3+ cover becomes *really* useful, something comes in from reserve that needs to be reacted to (get away from it or get to it), there's a threat on the other side of the board they need to engage because of something unforseen or went wrong, want to pull a last minute objective spoiler, or its Dawn of War and you want to get into a sweet firing position quickly and want a cover save to use against your opponents first turn of shooting?

So they can't move 24" now, big whoop,

See above.

there is so much more stuff now to make up for that tiny loss that it hardly matters.

I'm not arguing that there's a lot more, I'm making the point that Destroyers aren't as good as they used to be. The book as a whole is a lot better, but it's difficult to argue that Destroyers didn't get a nerf.

Versatility? If nothing, they're more versatile now. With armor reducing units abound, and the gauss rule still in effect, they're still effective against armor and with the lower AP they're much more dangerous to troops.

The *ONLY* thing they are more dangerous against is 3+sv troops in the open without a cover save at under 24". Against 6+/5+/4+/2+sv's, anything T4 or higher with the aformentioned saves, any vehicle, and anything 24-36" away, they're noticeably less effective.

You have to understand, the codex is going more for synergy between units and rules rather than one unit standing out as an "OMG That's badass!" kind of a thing. Alone, destroyers are good but not amazing. But coupled with a triarch stalker for the twin link advantage they suddenly become amazing (just one example).

That's requiring a 150pt unit to make them significantly more capable however.

Ok, starting off with the turbo-boosting thing...here's the problem, so you boost and negate (or heavily diminish) the damage from the battle-cannon, or it fires at something else (most likely scenario). So, next round...what, you do the same thing again? If you don't, that battle cannon is still there (most likely). So, another round of shooting gone. Fat lot of good those extra shots are doing you, right? Also, previously that b.cannon would wipe them with no WBB (barring a res orb present, of course) and that is not the case now. Also, they still have threat from 37-48 inches if you put in heavies (or just 1, whatever). They still have threat from 36" away, they just have to move for that, whereas previously they didn't. Boo-hoo. *Shrug*
All I'm getting at is that the turbo-boost ability was a huge gamble for losing out on those powerful just to possibly not lose quite as many guys if whatever weapon didn't shoot at them. But now, it's not such a big deal. Not with the RP rules anyway. Besides, you shouldn't be bunching them up that close for a b.cannon to hit more than 2 of them anyway.

I'll argue this destroyer nerf until I'm blue in the face because I heartily disagree.

See above, they're still viable up to 36" and up to 48 with heavies present.

If you're going to nitpick about taking another unit that benefits EVERYONE (some more than others) then you obviously don't know what synergy is. I'm not saying to take a stalker because you have destroyers. I'm saying, if a stalker is present then the destroyers suddenly get much more beneficial. More so than the over-hyped Tesla rule that is hugely random.

I'm not happy to sya this to a new user, but it's incredible to see that such a dumb thread is still going on while the much more proficuous "thoughts on the new dex" lies underneath... I can understand the classic "oh the new dex is broken" thread (even if it's absolutely untrue...) But saying that the new dex is worse than the previous one.... it's so absurd...

StormStrikr wrote:
And heres a little math for you on old vs new destroyers shooting marines in cover.

Old: 15 shots hitting on 3s, that means 10 are going to hit. Wounding on 2s, 8 are going to wound. 3+ armor save means 3 die.

New: 10 shots hitting on 3s, that means 7 are going to hit. Wounding on 3s, that means 4 are going to wound. 4+ cover save means 2 die.

I don't have the codex yet, but I'm told the cost of Destroyers went down.

How do the figures pan out if you use equal points of Destroyers?

marv335 wrote:

StormStrikr wrote:
And heres a little math for you on old vs new destroyers shooting marines in cover.

Old: 15 shots hitting on 3s, that means 10 are going to hit. Wounding on 2s, 8 are going to wound. 3+ armor save means 3 die.

New: 10 shots hitting on 3s, that means 7 are going to hit. Wounding on 3s, that means 4 are going to wound. 4+ cover save means 2 die.

I don't have the codex yet, but I'm told the cost of Destroyers went down.

How do the figures pan out if you use equal points of Destroyers?

True, it's pretty much 4 destroyers in the old dex and five in the new.

StormStrikr wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
No, if you define them as area terrain they are area terrain. Claiming that a fence is area terrain because you gave it a border so it doesn't fall over every 2 seconds is silly at best.

Well that is how the rules are written. And GW specifically says to play read as written in tourniment play. Does this make sense that it having a base means it is area terrain? Not really. But that is how the rules are written and you dont get to ignore it just because you think its silly. Believe me I share this frustration but this is how it is. period.

Page number please.

AzureDeath wrote:

ernshmagl wrote:Can you let me know how the necron play cause i am considering starting a necron army again.

Will do. He is putting his Annilation Barge together now so it will be fielded on Monday as well as Imotek.

Well he couldn't play last night so no report yet and I even broke out my nids to use against him.

Davor wrote:

StormStrikr wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
No, if you define them as area terrain they are area terrain. Claiming that a fence is area terrain because you gave it a border so it doesn't fall over every 2 seconds is silly at best.

Well that is how the rules are written. And GW specifically says to play read as written in tourniment play. Does this make sense that it having a base means it is area terrain? Not really. But that is how the rules are written and you dont get to ignore it just because you think its silly. Believe me I share this frustration but this is how it is. period.

Page number please.

As has been stated by myself and at least two other posters already, there is no such rule, so you won't get a page number out of him. If that's what you're hinting at, I fail at internet comprehension.

Across the board price reductions = Nerf?

New units with awesome abilities and insane cohesion = Nerf?

Removal of Phase Out for terrible CC army = Nerf?

BeefCakeSoup wrote:Across the board price reductions = Nerf?

New units with awesome abilities and insane cohesion = Nerf?

Removal of Phase Out for terrible CC army = Nerf?

Dont think of it logically, trolls gonna troll.

Cryage wrote:

BeefCakeSoup wrote:Across the board price reductions = Nerf?

New units with awesome abilities and insane cohesion = Nerf?

Removal of Phase Out for terrible CC army = Nerf?

Dont think of it logically, trolls gonna troll.

Can't believe I bit...

Friggin trolls lol

Step 1: Play a few games with Necrons before complaining about them.

Step 2: ???

Step 3: Profit!

Kevin949 wrote:
If you're going to nitpick about taking another unit that benefits EVERYONE (some more than others) then you obviously don't know what synergy is. I'm not saying to take a stalker because you have destroyers. I'm saying, if a stalker is present then the destroyers suddenly get much more beneficial. More so than the over-hyped Tesla rule that is hugely random.

And as soon as that stalker is taken out, then suddenly those destroyers are reduced to what the new codex makes them, namely crap. And as for "everyone" else who is benefitted by a stalker's presence, similar result. Synergy is inherently unreliable. Every non-SM army should not be forced to rely on "synergy"!

Kevin949 wrote:

marv335 wrote:I don't have the codex yet, but I'm told the cost of Destroyers went down.

How do the figures pan out if you use equal points of Destroyers?

True, it's pretty much 4 destroyers in the old dex and five in the new.

Given that, Mathhammer indicates 5 new destroyers perform equally against Space Marines in Cover as 4 of the older destroyers.

LordOfTheSloths wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:
If you're going to nitpick about taking another unit that benefits EVERYONE (some more than others) then you obviously don't know what synergy is. I'm not saying to take a stalker because you have destroyers. I'm saying, if a stalker is present then the destroyers suddenly get much more beneficial. More so than the over-hyped Tesla rule that is hugely random.

And as soon as that stalker is taken out, then suddenly those destroyers are reduced to what the new codex makes them, namely crap. And as for "everyone" else who is benefitted by a stalker's presence, similar result. Synergy is inherently unreliable. Every non-SM army should not be forced to rely on "synergy"!

Oh god, get off it dude. You're just going to complain no matter what anyone says, so don't use the destroyers. Break down every argument anyone has, that's fine. You're a pessimist, I get it. You don't like having to use units in conjunction with one another and actually use strategy, that's fine. Build your death star and enjoy your game.

I, on the other hand, have used the new destroyers and thoroughly loved the look on my opponents face when I told him "5 wounds, AP3..." on his just arrived via drop pod tac squad with lascannon and other nasties.

Love em, will use em in just about every game.

Kevin949 wrote:

LordOfTheSloths wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:
If you're going to nitpick about taking another unit that benefits EVERYONE (some more than others) then you obviously don't know what synergy is. I'm not saying to take a stalker because you have destroyers. I'm saying, if a stalker is present then the destroyers suddenly get much more beneficial. More so than the over-hyped Tesla rule that is hugely random.

And as soon as that stalker is taken out, then suddenly those destroyers are reduced to what the new codex makes them, namely crap. And as for "everyone" else who is benefitted by a stalker's presence, similar result. Synergy is inherently unreliable. Every non-SM army should not be forced to rely on "synergy"!

Oh god, get off it dude. You're just going to complain no matter what anyone says, so don't use the destroyers. Break down every argument anyone has, that's fine. You're a pessimist, I get it.

No, I don't think you do get it. I'm not "going to complain no matter what anyone says." I'm going to keep arguing against "l-love-'em-and-you-just-hate-change" posters who refuse to acknowledge the obvious no matter what anyone says.

Kevin949 wrote:You don't like having to use units in conjunction with one another and actually use strategy, that's fine. Build your death star and enjoy your game.

Nice straw man you've built, pal. More often than not I didn't use death stars. I only have one monolith. One of my favorite builds combo'd a Lord with a nightmare shroud, pariahs, and flayed ones. But not every time! And now even that army is nerfed out of existence. At considerable expense to me.

Kevin949 wrote:I, on the other hand, have used the new destroyers and thoroughly loved the look on my opponents face when I told him "5 wounds, AP3..." on his just arrived via drop pod tac squad with lascannon and other nasties.

Well, congratulations. You beat an opponent with a new rule he may not even have faced before. Isn't that special? I'm sure he won't repeat that tactic again.

LordOfTheSloths wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:

LordOfTheSloths wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:
If you're going to nitpick about taking another unit that benefits EVERYONE (some more than others) then you obviously don't know what synergy is. I'm not saying to take a stalker because you have destroyers. I'm saying, if a stalker is present then the destroyers suddenly get much more beneficial. More so than the over-hyped Tesla rule that is hugely random.

And as soon as that stalker is taken out, then suddenly those destroyers are reduced to what the new codex makes them, namely crap. And as for "everyone" else who is benefitted by a stalker's presence, similar result. Synergy is inherently unreliable. Every non-SM army should not be forced to rely on "synergy"!

Oh god, get off it dude. You're just going to complain no matter what anyone says, so don't use the destroyers. Break down every argument anyone has, that's fine. You're a pessimist, I get it.

No, I don't think you do get it. I'm not "going to complain no matter what anyone says." I'm going to keep arguing against "l-love-'em-and-you-just-hate-change" posters who refuse to acknowledge the obvious no matter what anyone says.

Kevin949 wrote:You don't like having to use units in conjunction with one another and actually use strategy, that's fine. Build your death star and enjoy your game.

Nice straw man you've built, pal. More often than not I didn't use death stars. I only have one monolith. One of my favorite builds combo'd a Lord with a nightmare shroud, pariahs, and flayed ones. But not every time! And now even that army is nerfed out of existence. At considerable expense to me.

Kevin949 wrote:I, on the other hand, have used the new destroyers and thoroughly loved the look on my opponents face when I told him "5 wounds, AP3..." on his just arrived via drop pod tac squad with lascannon and other nasties.

Well, congratulations. You beat an opponent with a new rule he may not even have faced before. Isn't that special? I'm sure he won't repeat that tactic again.

I never said I love 'em, I said your argument of them being nerfed is ridiculous. Prior to the last game I played over the weekend, I haven't used destroyers in probably 6 months or more.

So you call me a straw man though I made a simple generalized statement? Ok man, whatever floats your boat. That term gets thrown around here so much that it's lost all value and everyone using it thinks they're doing so correctly. If you can't think of anything that actually fits the situation, I guess you can stick with that. And who said I was talking about the previous codex anyway?

A new rule? You mean, the slightly different gun that he was well aware of and is one of my closest friends who also got me into WH40K and taught me the game? Ya, he doesn't know what he's doing at all.

I don't know how many FO's you have but in a large group the FO's can be deadly, even without rending/power weapons or fearless. Your pariahs can be used as lychguard still and the veil still exists, it just can't be used to pull out of CC. Sucks, sure, but you can still use your build if you wanted and I'm sure it would be pretty good too just due to sheer weight of attacks.

So like I said, you don't like the change then don't use them. But when you start pushing your opinion in an aggressive fashion you're going to get resistance. Especially when you're just going off of what's written on paper and not taking into account that the game isn't statistics-hammer, it's fluid and you just don't know what is going to happen. Like the game I mentioned, I made a mistake on my turn and my destroyers ended up getting assaulted by my friends dreadnought. So, that sucked but it was my mistake but the destroyers lasted in CC against him for 2 rounds before we had to quit the game (it was end of the 5th round anyway). If that had happened previously, they would have been whittled down due to the DCCW bypassing WBB. Again though, it was my own stupid fault that they got caught in assault because I forgot to move my c'tan into assault position to go at the dreadnought. I was in a hurry and trying to learn all the new stuff.

Anyway...whatever dude. Have your negative outlook. I feel they're a perfectly viable unit and I welcome the changes to them.

LordOfTheSloths wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:

LordOfTheSloths wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:
If you're going to nitpick about taking another unit that benefits EVERYONE (some more than others) then you obviously don't know what synergy is. I'm not saying to take a stalker because you have destroyers. I'm saying, if a stalker is present then the destroyers suddenly get much more beneficial. More so than the over-hyped Tesla rule that is hugely random.

And as soon as that stalker is taken out, then suddenly those destroyers are reduced to what the new codex makes them, namely crap. And as for "everyone" else who is benefitted by a stalker's presence, similar result. Synergy is inherently unreliable. Every non-SM army should not be forced to rely on "synergy"!

Oh god, get off it dude. You're just going to complain no matter what anyone says, so don't use the destroyers. Break down every argument anyone has, that's fine. You're a pessimist, I get it.

No, I don't think you do get it. I'm not "going to complain no matter what anyone says." I'm going to keep arguing against "l-love-'em-and-you-just-hate-change" posters who refuse to acknowledge the obvious no matter what anyone says.

So what is the obvious? That you have no idea what you're talking about and are likely trolling every thread on the topic?

Kevin949 wrote:You don't like having to use units in conjunction with one another and actually use strategy, that's fine. Build your death star and enjoy your game.

Nice straw man you've built, pal. More often than not I didn't use death stars. I only have one monolith. One of my favorite builds combo'd a Lord with a nightmare shroud, pariahs, and flayed ones. But not every time! And now even that army is nerfed out of existence. At considerable expense to me.

You've undermined any sort of argument you may have had before. With the old Codex you had a regular combo that you like using. For some reason you didn't think a new Codex might just change stuff around so old tactics would no longer be viable. How long have you been in this hobby? You're point is now invalid, you just don't like change.

Kevin949 wrote:I, on the other hand, have used the new destroyers and thoroughly loved the look on my opponents face when I told him "5 wounds, AP3..." on his just arrived via drop pod tac squad with lascannon and other nasties.

Well, congratulations. You beat an opponent with a new rule he may not even have faced before. Isn't that special? I'm sure he won't repeat that tactic again.

Well it refutes any argument that the Destroyers are useless. From my own experiences recently they're a must-have against MEQ armies for this reason. They haven't been nerfed, their role has changed somewhat, and as we've already established, you don't like change.

Yep, apparently change shouldnt occur with a new codex.

And SM armies dont have to work together? What planet are you on, precisely?