Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/12 16:50:45


Post by: Matt Swain


It's been a while since i watched batreps on youtube, and man, i watched a few and it was total devastation for the necrons in each, against all opponents.

I started looking at just the ends of batreps this year and the necrons were getting destroyed in like 90-95% of them.

Have they just stopped winning battles this year?


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/12 17:03:59


Post by: ccs


(Shrugs) YouTube videos =/= reality.

In my circles & at my local shops we Necron players have enjoyed a fair degree of victory here in 2021.
How are they fairing on your groups/shops?


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/12 17:05:10


Post by: yukishiro1


Not completely. But the codex is definitely suffering from the normal GW codex creep syndrome. It is really annoying that they can't seem to resist increasing the power level mid-edition. The contrast between a lot of stuff in the Necron book and their rough equivalents in the Ad Mech book doesn't make for pretty viewing, for example.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/12 17:14:28


Post by: NinthMusketeer


Power creep is normal but 9th's has been quite tremendous. I can recall specific books that were bad but not an edition which it was this severe overall.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/12 17:19:52


Post by: yukishiro1


The Thin the Ranks changes also hit the codex extremely hard for no real reason. That change was so poorly thought out in practice, it ends up hurting a lot of marginal armies while not being enough to make it actually worth taking against elite infantry-based armies.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/12 17:25:13


Post by: a_typical_hero


 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Power creep is normal but 9th's has been quite tremendous. I can recall specific books that were bad but not an edition which it was this severe overall.

What?
Are we playing the same game?

From Necrons to post-nerf Dhrukari all 9th armies are on a roughly even level. I reserve judgment for AdMech and Sisters until I have seen more of them.

If you can't remember an edition where it was worse, try to remember Chaos 3.5 or Eldar 4th, everything in 5th that had a codex compared to non updated armies, several contestors in 8th like Castellan, Ynnari and SM 2.0.

Compared to those times we have a perfect balance right now. For GW standards anyway.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/12 17:29:17


Post by: Karol


Well it is always something like that. X is a problem in prior edition. Instead of fixing the actual problem, GW changes some core rule or mechanic and suddenly some other army gets super nerfed. Or there is some sales enticed stuff in the form, people take librarians and casters in general, but don't take, and more important don't buy, stuff like chaplains. So we nerf the librarians with abhore, nerf the smash hammers with some rules changes. And suddenly you have csm lords getting problems and GK/1ksons getting double dipped on secondaries.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/12 17:31:20


Post by: ERJAK


 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Power creep is normal but 9th's has been quite tremendous. I can recall specific books that were bad but not an edition which it was this severe overall.


The only real powercreep books were the last two. SM was arguably weaker and DG and DA, while stronger than Necrons, weren't quite on the level of the best 8th books.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/12 18:00:10


Post by: yukishiro1


The creep has been there the whole time, it just kicked into overdrive with the DE and Ad Mech releases. It's easy to miss now going back because it wasn't so dramatic before DE, but the general trend of 9th has absolutely been for more power over time (aside from some of the SM supplements, which were pretty much lateral with the SM codex itself). Necrons were moderately weaker than SM, which were moderately weaker than DG, which were moderately weaker than DA (at least as of the release of the book), which were much weaker than DE and ad mech. You can quibble with some of the particular calls there if you really want, but the trend line is pretty clear overall.

Sisters seems to be the first book where it isn't on par or stronger with the prior releases, but that's surely just because of how ridiculous DE and ad mech are.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/12 19:07:56


Post by: Ordana


Sisters is also the first codex of 9th that feels nerfed compared to its 8th edition counterpart.

Which wouldn't be a bad thing considering the power of the Sisters 8th edition codex, if not for DE and Admech.

In general the balance of 9th edition codexes doesn't feel terrible or worst then it past but it certainly has outliers as always.

I just hope that this time GW doesn't screw it all up when they finally get close to a balanced situation by repeating the mistake of Marines 2.0


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/12 19:08:37


Post by: Irbis


 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Power creep is normal but 9th's has been quite tremendous. I can recall specific books that were bad but not an edition which it was this severe overall.

Already forgot 7th edition dekurions?

Not to mention Tau/Eldar in said edition who won by default without even using their rules with unending D spam, and the dekurions making the whole army 2++ or BS 2+, both rerollable, or outright immune to shooting? Nothing in 8th or 9th is even close to that.

a_typical_hero wrote:
Are we playing the same game?

From Necrons to post-nerf Dhrukari all 9th armies are on a roughly even level.

Apparently not, because no one playing 40K could miss Harlequins and Dark Eldar having winrate up to 80+% in some tournaments. But that must be my imagination, I guess, not easily verifiable fact. Oh wait.

And it's cute you think Dark Eldar "nerf" did anything, that tiny point hit and removing abuse sane players weren't even using changed nothing. Oh no, they will have model or two less while the actual big damage dealers remain unchanged, that will sure teach them, eh?

They are still the strongest army in the game even with "nerf", although admech might dethrone them soon, we'll see (although with expensive, rare models no one has, not with transports every DE player has 6+ of and can spam them at will)...


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/12 19:13:08


Post by: Da Boss


Irbis, your posts are funny.

It's good that 7th edition happened, because now all criticisms of any edition of 40K can be compared to it and rendered null. Pretty smart move by GW!


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/12 20:31:41


Post by: a_typical_hero


 Irbis wrote:

Apparently not, because no one playing 40K could miss Harlequins and Dark Eldar having winrate up to 80+% in some tournaments. But that must be my imagination, I guess, not easily verifiable fact. Oh wait.

"80% winrate in some tournaments" is a pretty meaningless metric. If a single Harly player shows up and goes 4-1, the winrate of that faction for the tournament is at 80%. Both factions have a low player rate, so a single good or bad player will have a much bigger impact on it compared to say.. Space Marines.

40kstats.com puts Harlequins at 54% to 57% winrate, looking at the last two months or the whole edition respectively.
(For completeness sake: Pre-nerf Dhrukari are at around 70% for the whole edition, but that is not part of my argument)

And it's cute you think Dark Eldar "nerf" did anything, that tiny point hit and removing abuse sane players weren't even using changed nothing. Oh no, they will have model or two less while the actual big damage dealers remain unchanged, that will sure teach them, eh?

They are still the strongest army in the game even with "nerf", although admech might dethrone them soon, we'll see (although with expensive, rare models no one has, not with transports every DE player has 6+ of and can spam them at will)...

It is highly ironic that in your first paragraph you sarcastically joke about what you say isn't easily verifiable and then in the next you claim "nobody sane" was using the blender Succubus, Dark Technomancer, 2 free CP or conveniently priced units for WWSWF, while we can see those winning Dhrukari lists and they did contain this stuff.

Post-nerf Dhrukari tournament data is next to non existing at this point in time, so we have to wait and see. But the nerfs were exactly what most people on Dakka seemed to agree on.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/12 20:33:14


Post by: Amishprn86


 Irbis wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Power creep is normal but 9th's has been quite tremendous. I can recall specific books that were bad but not an edition which it was this severe overall.

Already forgot 7th edition dekurions?

Not to mention Tau/Eldar in said edition who won by default without even using their rules with unending D spam, and the dekurions making the whole army 2++ or BS 2+, both rerollable, or outright immune to shooting? Nothing in 8th or 9th is even close to that.

a_typical_hero wrote:
Are we playing the same game?

From Necrons to post-nerf Dhrukari all 9th armies are on a roughly even level.

Apparently not, because no one playing 40K could miss Harlequins and Dark Eldar having winrate up to 80+% in some tournaments. But that must be my imagination, I guess, not easily verifiable fact. Oh wait.

And it's cute you think Dark Eldar "nerf" did anything, that tiny point hit and removing abuse sane players weren't even using changed nothing. Oh no, they will have model or two less while the actual big damage dealers remain unchanged, that will sure teach them, eh?

They are still the strongest army in the game even with "nerf", although admech might dethrone them soon, we'll see (although with expensive, rare models no one has, not with transports every DE player has 6+ of and can spam them at will)...


It was the DT nerf that was huge, a 60pts unit with the ability to kill 100pts of marines without trying is why DE was stomping the meta.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/12 20:38:14


Post by: Arachnofiend


Tabletop Titans has fielded some pretty obviously terrible Necron lists against competitive lists for other factions. Bringing a Tesseract Vault against AdMech was... unwise, to say the least.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/12 21:31:33


Post by: Bosskelot


It's mainly Drukhari and Admech that Necrons will struggle with.

The other 9th Codexes are mostly a little more balanced amongst each other, although outliers like Blood Angels and White Scars are both incredibly good into Necrons despite having a concurrent codex and an 8th ed supplement.

However on the whole even a "competitive" Necron list won't actually look or be oppressively strong on the tabletop unless it's being piloted by a very good player. The army has a lot of limitations placed on any potential exploits or strong combinations it can do. 20 Novokh Warriors with Anrakyr, a Chronomancer and TSK nearby are genuinely frightening.... but they've still only got 12" guns, one of its buffing characters is supremely vulnerable to anti-tank fire and you're approaching something like 900 points for all of that to actually work properly.

And to be fair, a lot of 9th ed Codexes and their competitive lists don't really look all that skewed or obscenely oppressive on paper, nor feel absurd to play against in an actual game. It's just Drukhari and now Admech have some dumb interactions within them that lead to 20 ranger blobs just deleting anything in the game they look at. Sisters are a bit more of an unknown quantity at this point since they saw a lot of changes but it's a little eye-raising that all repentia lost were AAC but went down to 14ppm. That's fething nuts.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/12 22:34:03


Post by: yukishiro1


Ad Mech is basically just Necrons, but much better.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/12 22:47:22


Post by: Grimskul


yukishiro1 wrote:
Ad Mech is basically just Necrons, but much better.


It hurts that fluffwise the Admech are way more technological regressive and backwards compared to Necrons but in game the faction is so heads and above superior to what Necrons are limited to.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/12 23:29:28


Post by: ERJAK


 Da Boss wrote:
Irbis, your posts are funny.

It's good that 7th edition happened, because now all criticisms of any edition of 40K can be compared to it and rendered null. Pretty smart move by GW!


When the critique is 'I don't think power creep has ever been this bad before!' 7th edition is a very appropriate answer. Did you read the post or were you just waiting on that zinger? Which was wasted, btw.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/13 06:58:27


Post by: Spoletta


Considering that Necrons are one of the faction that is regularly seen in tournament's top 4s, I would just dismiss this thread as the OP being poorly informed.

Nothing to see here.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/13 07:06:29


Post by: Blackie


 Irbis wrote:


And it's cute you think Dark Eldar "nerf" did anything, that tiny point hit and removing abuse sane players weren't even using changed nothing. Oh no, they will have model or two less while the actual big damage dealers remain unchanged, that will sure teach them, eh?

They are still the strongest army in the game even with "nerf", although admech might dethrone them soon, we'll see (although with expensive, rare models no one has, not with transports every DE player has 6+ of and can spam them at will)...


Drukhari got a massive nerf, and a required one. Now their most OP list (DT liq spam) doesn't exist anymore. It wasn't simply toned down, but completely removed.

Codex Drukhari is good, but really people need to stop overreacting and learn how to play against something that isn't SM (or other elite oriented army like custodes or termy based deathguard) and accept to change their lists accordingly.

As other said Necrons are still very good, even at tournaments levels.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/13 10:27:15


Post by: Matt Swain


ccs wrote:
(Shrugs) YouTube videos =/= reality.

In my circles & at my local shops we Necron players have enjoyed a fair degree of victory here in 2021.
How are they fairing on your groups/shops?


Ok, why would people doing youtube batreps stage them? I mean i can see gw doing it for marketing reasons, but why would independent video makers?


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/13 11:30:22


Post by: ccs


 Matt Swain wrote:
ccs wrote:
(Shrugs) YouTube videos =/= reality.

In my circles & at my local shops we Necron players have enjoyed a fair degree of victory here in 2021.
How are they fairing on your groups/shops?


Ok, why would people doing youtube batreps stage them? I mean i can see gw doing it for marketing reasons, but why would independent video makers?


Ok, let's assume who ever your watching aren't shills casting the new hotness they got sent in favorable light....

You can't watch a handful of vids & seriously draw the conclusion "Necrons aren't winning anymore!" That's absurd.
That's why I asked how the Necron players are fairing in your local scene atm.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/13 11:32:45


Post by: Sarigar


I hope not! I just got my Necron army at the point I can field it, hahaha


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/13 12:38:48


Post by: Slipspace


 Matt Swain wrote:
ccs wrote:
(Shrugs) YouTube videos =/= reality.

In my circles & at my local shops we Necron players have enjoyed a fair degree of victory here in 2021.
How are they fairing on your groups/shops?


Ok, why would people doing youtube batreps stage them? I mean i can see gw doing it for marketing reasons, but why would independent video makers?


They're not staged, it's just a very small sample size you're dealing with. Many batrep channels are limited in what models they have available and also by familiarity with a given army since they usually have to play all armies but may not be that proficient with all of them.

The point is, using YT channel performance as a measure of an army's overall power is a bad idea, especially when there is much better data out there.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/13 14:21:37


Post by: Daedalus81


Still going strong here. I'm not sure what people think should be happening. If you lost and you scored 75 to 90 - that isn't a blow out.

Siegler is presently 6-0 with Tau at ACO having beaten unFAQed DE thrice, DA once, SW, and another Tau. Yes, he's an exceptionally good pilot. He also opted to not do the same old list and is running one Riptide, two Devilfish, tons of Breachers, a huge blob of Crisis, and some other support stuff.

Does that mean you can go out and do awesome with Tau? No. It would be hard mode, but what it should tell you is if you practice and change the way you approach the game you can be more successful.



Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/13 16:14:40


Post by: yukishiro1


What does Richard Siegler finding a Tau list that works in 9th have to do with whether Necrons are suffering from codex creep?

The whole point with Siegler's Tau list is that it is a very particular kind of list designed to do a very particular kind of thing, because the Tau book doesn't work overall in 9th. He'd be the first to tell you that T'au are not in a good place as a whole, even though his particular list works.

If anyone said it's impossible to win with Necrons that is obviously wrong. But if anything, Siegler's Tau list is an illustration of a very similar phenomenon to what is happening to Necrons, though Necrons don't have it as bad as Tau.

You see it with something like CWE too. CWE as a book sucks in 9th, but there are a few good units that do see competitive play. That doesn't mean the book isn't junk, it's actually evidence that the book *is* junk.

Now the Necron book isn't junk the way the CWE and Tau books are junk. But it is already starting to feel dated in some ways, which is a bad sign for a 9th edition book.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/13 16:38:48


Post by: evil_kiwi_60


On defense of some of the YouTube bat reps, I doubt many are staged. Tabletop Titans plays in real time so if they’re editing it, they need to go work for the nfl or something and make an actual fortune.

Necrons do feel very off though. They got murdered with the core keyword. Death guard might be the only other army that had such a limited pull for core. Their protocols are also clearly the worst of the one faction rules. They missed out on the D6 damage overhaul too. A lot of it feels like it was a beta test for the edition.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/13 16:42:54


Post by: yukishiro1


Yep. There's a bunch of stuff in the Necron book that feels like it was never updated to 9th edition v. 1.0.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/13 16:52:03


Post by: Arachnofiend


 evil_kiwi_60 wrote:
On defense of some of the YouTube bat reps, I doubt many are staged. Tabletop Titans plays in real time so if they’re editing it, they need to go work for the nfl or something and make an actual fortune.

Necrons do feel very off though. They got murdered with the core keyword. Death guard might be the only other army that had such a limited pull for core. Their protocols are also clearly the worst of the one faction rules. They missed out on the D6 damage overhaul too. A lot of it feels like it was a beta test for the edition.

Regarding core we kinda got fethed over by our dreadnought equivalent being a Triarch unit. If there was going to be a core vehicle it'd be the Stalker, but it can't be because it's a Dynastic Agent... Really wish we could just pull the damn pilot out and make it an AI like it should be.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/13 17:02:20


Post by: Daedalus81


yukishiro1 wrote:
What does Richard Siegler finding a Tau list that works in 9th have to do with whether Necrons are suffering from codex creep?

The whole point with Siegler's Tau list is that it is a very particular kind of list designed to do a very particular kind of thing, because the Tau book doesn't work overall in 9th. He'd be the first to tell you that T'au are not in a good place as a whole, even though his particular list works.

If anyone said it's impossible to win with Necrons that is obviously wrong. But if anything, Siegler's Tau list is an illustration of a very similar phenomenon to what is happening to Necrons, though Necrons don't have it as bad as Tau.

You see it with something like CWE too. CWE as a book sucks in 9th, but there are a few good units that do see competitive play. That doesn't mean the book isn't junk, it's actually evidence that the book *is* junk.

Now the Necron book isn't junk the way the CWE and Tau books are junk. But it is already starting to feel dated in some ways, which is a bad sign for a 9th edition book.


It isn't dated in a way where it isn't a good book. If Siegler can take "trash tier" and bear "S tier" then Necron players can take "Tier 2" and beat "Tier 1" and give a respectable game otherwise.

The "particular kind of thing" Siegler's list does is interact with this edition very well by using the available strengths in a competent way. When the forum says "no one takes vehicles" he still spent 180 on Devilfish.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/13 17:16:10


Post by: yukishiro1


Devilfish are transports. Please, come on now.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/13 17:29:47


Post by: JNAProductions


yukishiro1 wrote:
Devilfish are transports. Please, come on now.
Still vehicles.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/13 17:33:54


Post by: yukishiro1


Are you seriously claiming that "this forum says" that nobody takes transports?

"A good player took 180 points of transports! This shows that people are wrong about vehicles generally being bad!" I mean like I honestly do not know whether to take this seriously or not.

You might as well say "Look! People take dreads! Dreads are vehicles! Haha forum, you're wrong about vehicles in 9th!"



Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/13 17:47:23


Post by: a_typical_hero


yukishiro1 wrote:
Are you seriously claiming that "this forum says" that nobody takes transports?

"A good player took 180 points of transports! This shows that people are wrong about vehicles generally being bad!" I mean like I honestly do not know whether to take this seriously or not.

It shows that if you have a plan, you can make units work that are deemed unfavourable by the hive mind. Coming back to our initial point of discussion: While not at the top of the foodchain, Necrons are perfectly viable (and don't even rely on a monobuild to get things done).


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/13 17:48:19


Post by: yukishiro1


The point was that "the hive mind" *doesn't* deem transports unfavorable. It is a ridiculous straw man.

Transports have been a staple throughout 9th edition. Siegler's list having transports is, if anything, an example of the hive mind at work, not the opposite. It's taking the generally received wisdom in 9th that transports are good and applying it to Tau. The literal opposite of the point the poster was trying to make.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/13 17:53:22


Post by: a_typical_hero


I don't know. From recent Dhrukari discussions it really felt like the consens was that non open topped transports are inferior to just taking more troops.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/13 17:53:34


Post by: Karol


Okey, but the hive mind exist, because in general it works. There are more then a few events where strange or wacky lists , or even armies, won events. In 8th GK took two of the biggest GT year after year. The same results couldn't have been replicated in other places. On the other hand something like a 6 raiders, pre nerf DE army worked like a charm. Practicaly played itself. Castellan builds were like that too. If in the future more events will show that necron lists with transports win or place high in big events, then hats off to the guy who did it first. If no one else is going to be able to do it again, including the guy who did it the first time, then the situation is a bit different. No impact or lose on the respect for winning the event, that stays no matter what, of course. But it is kind of a hard to tell people to build lists some way, when no one seems to be able to pilot them.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/13 18:03:44


Post by: yukishiro1


a_typical_hero wrote:
I don't know. From recent Dhrukari discussions it really felt like the consens was that non open topped transports are inferior to just taking more troops.


Depends on what the troops are. The innovative thing about Siegler's list is spotting that breachers are incredibly deadly for their points from close range, and ob sec, but incredibly squishy, and therefore great candidates for inclusion in transports. The innovation isn't realizing that transports are good for protecting squishy units, that's common wisdom. Why do you think basically every sisters list took rhinos to protect the repentia and retributors?

When people say vehicles are bad they mean vehicles that don't have something special to make them good. My CWE list takes 800 points of vehicles. But not a single point of vehicles that are just "stat brick with guns." General vehicles are bad. That doesn't mean that transports are bad. It doesn't mean that artillery is bad. It doesn't mean that a wraithseer is bad. "The hive mind" recognizes all of this, it's a lot smarter than most people give it credit for.

Siegler's list illustrates that general vehicles are bad, it doesn't disprove it. You don't see any hammerheads in it, because hammerheads are the classic "general vehicle" that is bad in 9th.





Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/13 18:07:42


Post by: Karol


The problem is, that marine stuff is general vehicles. An impulsor, who is a new tank, can either have a weaker gun then a raider and no inv, or shield. And he is not open toped, even when the model clearly is. Does not fly. And to top it all of costs a lot more then a raider post points hike. It looks bad comparing to other flying transports too, like the serpent or the tau one. \when the majority of players are marine players, and marine vehicles are bad, it very much become vehicles are bad very fast.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/13 20:31:45


Post by: Daedalus81


yukishiro1 wrote:
a_typical_hero wrote:
I don't know. From recent Dhrukari discussions it really felt like the consens was that non open topped transports are inferior to just taking more troops.


Depends on what the troops are. The innovative thing about Siegler's list is spotting that breachers are incredibly deadly for their points from close range, and ob sec, but incredibly squishy, and therefore great candidates for inclusion in transports. The innovation isn't realizing that transports are good for protecting squishy units, that's common wisdom. Why do you think basically every sisters list took rhinos to protect the repentia and retributors?

When people say vehicles are bad they mean vehicles that don't have something special to make them good. My CWE list takes 800 points of vehicles. But not a single point of vehicles that are just "stat brick with guns." General vehicles are bad. That doesn't mean that transports are bad. It doesn't mean that artillery is bad. It doesn't mean that a wraithseer is bad. "The hive mind" recognizes all of this, it's a lot smarter than most people give it credit for.

Siegler's list illustrates that general vehicles are bad, it doesn't disprove it. You don't see any hammerheads in it, because hammerheads are the classic "general vehicle" that is bad in 9th.


I would wager that had someone posed the question about Devilfish being useful the replies would have centered along the lines of "there is nothing good to put in them" and "they have no invuln".

I am reasonably sure of this, because I've had those discussions here.

That doesn't mean Hammerheads are viable. T'au still needs a lot of work. My larger point is just that Necrons aren't so bad off that they're incapable of winning and if they're still showing up in the top 10 then there's plenty of opportunity for local gamers to do well.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/13 21:43:36


Post by: yukishiro1


Ok. I'm just glad we established that "someone took 180 points of transports!" does not in any way refute the generally-held opinion that vehicles are usually bad in 9th. Transports are distinct from other vehicles. Artillery is distinct from other vehicles. Dreads are distinct form other vehicles. The general opinion is not that transports are useless. The general opinion is not that artillery is useless. The general opinion is not that dreads are useless. The general opinion is that vehicles that don't have some special thing like one of those categories are usually bad, and Siegler's list if anything reinforces that general opinion, rather than refuting it.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/13 23:17:14


Post by: Daedalus81


yukishiro1 wrote:
Ok. I'm just glad we established that "someone took 180 points of transports!" does not in any way refute the generally-held opinion that vehicles are usually bad in 9th. Transports are distinct from other vehicles. Artillery is distinct from other vehicles. Dreads are distinct form other vehicles. The general opinion is not that transports are useless. The general opinion is not that artillery is useless. The general opinion is not that dreads are useless. The general opinion is that vehicles that don't have some special thing like one of those categories are usually bad, and Siegler's list if anything reinforces that general opinion, rather than refuting it.


My statement is overly broad, but no without precedent.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/13 23:38:37


Post by: Cynista


I said in October that the Necron book was very mediocre and I stand by that. They feel like they've been an edition behind the curve for years now and the 9th ed book didn't change that, it feels like an 8th edition codex


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/14 01:04:48


Post by: Gadzilla666


yukishiro1 wrote:
Ok. I'm just glad we established that "someone took 180 points of transports!" does not in any way refute the generally-held opinion that vehicles are usually bad in 9th. Transports are distinct from other vehicles. Artillery is distinct from other vehicles. Dreads are distinct form other vehicles. The general opinion is not that transports are useless. The general opinion is not that artillery is useless. The general opinion is not that dreads are useless. The general opinion is that vehicles that don't have some special thing like one of those categories are usually bad, and Siegler's list if anything reinforces that general opinion, rather than refuting it.

That doesn't just apply to vehicles. Infantry units without special rules aren't generally considered "good" either. If it doesn't have FLY, or deep strike, or an invul, etc etc, it isn't "good". The only things that generally get by with being "stat blocks with guns" are things that are TROOPS, because you're usually just taking them so that you don't have to pay the CP for a specialist detachment. And even then 99% of them have obsec.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/14 01:15:51


Post by: Jarms48


The Necron codex seems fairly tame compared to all the 9th edition codexes that came after it. Necrons can still do well, but it depends on your list and your opponent of course.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/14 02:08:03


Post by: Seabass


IRT OP

Do you even 40k bro?


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/14 12:22:27


Post by: G00fySmiley


tournament results show they are still doign pretty well. I do think the book stands on some good for the points units and a lot of chaff. chances are the youtubers are avoiding being called netlisters and so are taking less than ideal units. the aren't a top tier book anymore but they also aren't trash tier more middle of the pack pretty close to dead center if you ask me.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/14 12:31:02


Post by: wuestenfux


Here is the list of the second-ranked at GT Copenhagen recently:

Spoiler:

2nd Place
Martin Buch – Copenhammer GT



== Patrol Detachment == Necrons [39 PL] [760 Points] 0 CP <Eternal Conquerors, Relentlessly Expansionist>

HQ1: Command Barge (145), Gauss Cannon (5), Staff of Light (0), FREE RELIC: Voltaic Staff, FREE WARLORD TRAIT: Enduring Will [9 PL] [150 Points]

TR1: 20x Warriors (260), Gauss Reaper (0) [12 PL] [260 Points]

TR2: 10x Warriors (130), Gauss Reaper (0) [6 PL] [130 Points]

DT1: Ghost Ark (145), 2x Gauss Flayer Array (0) [8 PL] [145 Points]

EL1: Hexmark Destroyer (75), 6x Enmitic Disintegrator Pistol (0), RELIC (-1CP): Gaunlet of Conflaguration


== Outrider Detachment == Necrons [66 PL] [1240 Points] -3 CP <Eternal Conquerors, Relentlessly Expansionist>

HQ1: Chronomancer (80), Chronotendrils (0), Entropic Lance (0), RELIC (-1CP): Veil of Darkness [4 PL] [80 Points]

HQ2: Chronomancer (80), Chronotendrils (0), Entropic Lance (0) [4 PL] [80 Points]

EL1: 5x Lychguards (140), Hyperphase Sword (0), Dispersion Shield (0) [7 PL] [140 Points]

EL2: 5x Lychguards (140), Hyperphase Sword (0), Dispersion Shield (0) [7 PL] [140 Points]

EL3: 2x Cryptothralls (40), Scouring Eye (0), Scythed limbs (0) [4 PL] [40 Points]

FA1: 9x Scarabs (135), Feeder Mandibles (0) [6 PL] [135 Points]

FA2: 9x Scarabs (135), Feeder Mandibles (0) [6 PL] [135 Points]

FA3: 5x Wraiths (175), Vicious Claws (0) [10 PL] [175 Points]

FA4: 5x Wraiths (175), Vicious Claws (0) [10 PL] [175 Points]

FA5: 4x Wraiths (175), Vicious Claws (0) [10 PL] [140 Points]



Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/14 13:26:10


Post by: Tycho


NinthMusketeer wrote:
Power creep is normal but 9th's has been quite tremendous. I can recall specific books that were bad but not an edition which it was this severe overall.


This quote only makes sense if 9th is the only edition you've played ...


OT - No, I don't think 'Crons have "stopped winning", but my guess is, we're about to enter that phase in the edition where the better Necron players start rising to the top, and the rest of us settle back down to a less frequent win rate. I said when they came out that it was a decent book (insanely good if you set the bar at their 8th ed codex lol), but that as the edition ground on, it would start to struggle, and I think you're seeing that now. I said this because A. Necrons have been out long enough that the good non-'Cron players have begun to work out how to counter them, and B., because their codex was CLEARLY designed along a radically different design aesthetic than everyone else's (my spidey - sense is telling me it's a Phil Kelly special). When you look at the other books we've seen so far, the philosophy is "Show up to the game? Great! Here are your super powers!" But for Necrons it's "Show up to the game? Great! As long as your army is lead by the highest ranking Noble, and as long as there's a "character" within this distance, (3 other clauses later) - YOU GET TO MOVE AN EXTRA INCH ON TURN 2" No one got "Core", the strats are fairly restrained, there are some very clear winners and losers as far as internal balance goes, further limiting what you can reasonably do, and there is a lot of that classic "Phil Kelly Nuance". It LOOKS like an army that's built to be able to do many many things, but the reality is, there's really only two or three units in the entire book, and then a series of ever-so-slightly-different variations on those units.

I think it's a decent book and I've had fun with it, but it will not stand the test of time, and we've just hit that point where it's not enough to turn up with a Necron codex and expect to win anymore. People are catching up and figuring them out (and getting books of their own), and we've hit that point where the extended artificial win rate we had (because for a long time it was only Necrons and Marins who had 9th ed books) is going to erode a bit and go back down to something that looks more reasonable. The better players will continue to have success (because it's less-than all the other 9th ed books but it DOES still have some teeth), and the rest of us will just have to get better.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/14 13:48:18


Post by: Sunny Side Up


Tycho wrote:
NinthMusketeer wrote:
Power creep is normal but 9th's has been quite tremendous. I can recall specific books that were bad but not an edition which it was this severe overall.


This quote only makes sense if 9th is the only edition you've played ...


Not really.

In 5th Edition, Mat Ward became the focus of nearly a decade of collective internet hate for his Grey Knight Codex, which ran a shocking (at the time) 55% win rate.

Today's competitive 40K pundits like goonhammer or 40kstats would call that almost perfectly balanced.

7th Edition "broke" the game with things like TauDar and Screamerstar that broke through the previously unheard of 60% win rate, causing thousands to leave the game for the offerings of different companies.

When Ynnari crashed the game at a shocking 69% win rate, most people saw the world ending and still use the word "Ynnari" as synonym for bad 40K-balance.

Late 8th Iron Hands crashed the meta with the first over-70% win rate and caused the entire social media sphere of YouTuber and Podcasts to cry out to GW in anquish.

These days, Drukhari clock in at 76-77% win rate (pre-nerf admittedly), and most people just shrug.

The trend isn't particularly compelling, as far as game quality goes.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/14 13:58:54


Post by: Tycho


Sunny Side Up wrote:
Tycho wrote:
NinthMusketeer wrote:
Power creep is normal but 9th's has been quite tremendous. I can recall specific books that were bad but not an edition which it was this severe overall.


This quote only makes sense if 9th is the only edition you've played ...


Not really.

In 5th Edition, Mat Ward became the focus of nearly a decade of collective internet hate for his Grey Knight Codex, which ran a shocking (at the time) 55% win rate.

Today's competitive 40K pundits like goonhammer or 40kstats would call that almost perfectly balanced.

7th Edition "broke" the game with things like TauDar and Screamerstar that broke through the previously unheard of 60% win rate, causing thousands to leave the game for the offerings of different companies.

When Ynnari crashed the game at a shocking 69% win rate, most people saw the world ending and still use the word "Ynnari" as synonym for bad 40K-balance.

Late 8th Iron Hands crashed the meta with the first over-70% win rate and caused the entire social media sphere of YouTuber and Podcasts to cry out to GW in anquish.

These days, Drukhari clock in at 76-77% win rate (pre-nerf admittedly), and most people just shrug.

The trend isn't particularly compelling, as far as game quality goes.


Sigh. Yes. Let's definitely go ahead and call 9th the most unbalanced because the strongest of the new books is still playing against so many 8th ed books in the face of your own stats saying it's actually been similar or worse. Let's also go ahead and rag on the incomplete edition for being "unbalanced" because "LOOK! These 7th ed boogeymen actually had a lower win percentage!" while also ignoring the fact that, if you were to face one of those armies in that edition, and you had not actually brought one of them yourself, it was going to be an auto-lose. There was nothing you could do. Literally nothing.

Meanwhile, if you're bringing an 8th ed book against a strong 9th ed book, yeah, the deck is for sure stacked, but you at least still have a chance. Let's definitely also ignore the fact that you're comparing the stats across a full edition to very limited numbers from an edition that's not even been out a full year yet, and happened during a pandemic. Oh, and for sure let's not mention the fact that, in most of those past editions, once something was broken, it just stayed that way. Definitely don't take that into account either ...

There's a lot of rose-colored glasses type thinking happening here with older editions I think. Balance was never worse than in 7th. It's one of the reasons so many people stopped playing in that edition. If it were still that bad, would we be seeing the game growing like it is? Somehow I doubt that.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/14 14:13:53


Post by: the_scotsman


Tycho wrote:
Sunny Side Up wrote:
Tycho wrote:
NinthMusketeer wrote:
Power creep is normal but 9th's has been quite tremendous. I can recall specific books that were bad but not an edition which it was this severe overall.


This quote only makes sense if 9th is the only edition you've played ...


Not really.

In 5th Edition, Mat Ward became the focus of nearly a decade of collective internet hate for his Grey Knight Codex, which ran a shocking (at the time) 55% win rate.

Today's competitive 40K pundits like goonhammer or 40kstats would call that almost perfectly balanced.

7th Edition "broke" the game with things like TauDar and Screamerstar that broke through the previously unheard of 60% win rate, causing thousands to leave the game for the offerings of different companies.

When Ynnari crashed the game at a shocking 69% win rate, most people saw the world ending and still use the word "Ynnari" as synonym for bad 40K-balance.

Late 8th Iron Hands crashed the meta with the first over-70% win rate and caused the entire social media sphere of YouTuber and Podcasts to cry out to GW in anquish.

These days, Drukhari clock in at 76-77% win rate (pre-nerf admittedly), and most people just shrug.

The trend isn't particularly compelling, as far as game quality goes.


Sigh. Yes. Let's definitely go ahead and call 9th the most unbalanced because the strongest of the new books is still playing against so many 8th ed books in the face of your own stats saying it's actually been similar or worse. Let's also go ahead and rag on the incomplete edition for being "unbalanced" because "LOOK! These 7th ed boogeymen actually had a lower win percentage!" while also ignoring the fact that, if you were to face one of those armies in that edition, and you had not actually brought one of them yourself, it was going to be an auto-lose. There was nothing you could do. Literally nothing.


^This is a VERY IMPORTANT THING TO CONSIDER WHEN LOOKING AT OLDER EDITION'S STATS.

The oft-cited example is the (still available online) data from 5th edition where at some major tournament (nova I think) the top winrate was GK at like 58%.

What people tend to 'conveniently' ignore about that datapoint is the play data, i.e., how many people actually brought which armies. The top three armies combined at the time accounted for 80% of the playerbase. Every other army in the game, combined, accounted for 20% of the players at that tournament - we're talking like, two tyranid players, two craftworld eldar players, three chaos space marine players out of the like 250 players in attendance at the GT.

you get more 'reasonable looking' winrate numbers, when entire armies are actually so underpowered that literally nobody at all is playing them.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/14 14:22:48


Post by: iGuy91


The Necron Codex is fundamentally different than the other 9th codexes.

The thing this codex does well, is take and hold ground, and win on the mission. As lethality continues to climb with each new release, this capability erodes somewhat, requiring tighter, more careful play to win. Most lists pack just enough melee muscle, or shooting to remove key units that would remove your holding units, but this army isn't going to table anyone reliably.

Its not a comparatively killy codex. And it still bothers me from time to time regarding how grindy it can be. Good guns are swingy (d6/d6), and are on flawed platforms (moving screws up their profiles, LHDs are very fragile) which you pay a premium for.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/14 14:43:24


Post by: Daedalus81


 iGuy91 wrote:
The Necron Codex is fundamentally different than the other 9th codexes.

The thing this codex does well, is take and hold ground, and win on the mission. As lethality continues to climb with each new release, this capability erodes somewhat, requiring tighter, more careful play to win. Most lists pack just enough melee muscle, or shooting to remove key units that would remove your holding units, but this army isn't going to table anyone reliably.

Its not a comparatively killy codex. And it still bothers me from time to time regarding how grindy it can be. Good guns are swingy (d6/d6), and are on flawed platforms (moving screws up their profiles, LHDs are very fragile) which you pay a premium for.


A lot of people opt for the super short range reapers and I don't blame them, but it also puts you in an awkward position to push forward as fast as possible and against certain opponents that isn't always a good idea. Some have tried to solve for this by simply just take MORE warriors and hoping to just overwhelm by using SK. Others embrace it and go melee. There's still more to "unearth" for lists, but I haven't been able to buy 80% of the stuff I've wanted until very recently.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/14 15:18:20


Post by: Gene St. Ealer


 the_scotsman wrote:

^This is a VERY IMPORTANT THING TO CONSIDER WHEN LOOKING AT OLDER EDITION'S STATS.

The oft-cited example is the (still available online) data from 5th edition where at some major tournament (nova I think) the top winrate was GK at like 58%.

What people tend to 'conveniently' ignore about that datapoint is the play data, i.e., how many people actually brought which armies. The top three armies combined at the time accounted for 80% of the playerbase. Every other army in the game, combined, accounted for 20% of the players at that tournament - we're talking like, two tyranid players, two craftworld eldar players, three chaos space marine players out of the like 250 players in attendance at the GT.

you get more 'reasonable looking' winrate numbers, when entire armies are actually so underpowered that literally nobody at all is playing them.


I've always wondered that, and I hate to be that guy on the internet, but do you have a source for this? Or for, like, the 7e LVOs and things? I'm not being combative, just curious (if your answer is your memory, that's fine).


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/14 15:27:32


Post by: bat702


I think the Necrons are suffering abit as the new DE, deathguard, and mechanicus metas have made 1 damage weapons and dedicated anti-tank weapons strong again. Before people were looking to pack as many damage 2 and 3 weapons as possible to squish marines into ceramite goo.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/14 15:39:36


Post by: Xenomancers


Spoletta wrote:
Considering that Necrons are one of the faction that is regularly seen in tournament's top 4s, I would just dismiss this thread as the OP being poorly informed.

Nothing to see here.

This is hugely false. Of the armies that have received rules. They are the clear bottom faction in terms of placings. Admech just removes them entirely from he competitive picture because they essentially play like necrons except their stratagems and relics are just better. Plus they have better free rules...

Just compare command protocols restrictions to the admech imperatives...laugh a little bit.
Compare Dynasty requirements to Admech.



Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/14 16:35:39


Post by: Tycho


 Xenomancers wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Considering that Necrons are one of the faction that is regularly seen in tournament's top 4s, I would just dismiss this thread as the OP being poorly informed.

Nothing to see here.

This is hugely false. Of the armies that have received rules. They are the clear bottom faction in terms of placings. Admech just removes them entirely from he competitive picture because they essentially play like necrons except their stratagems and relics are just better. Plus they have better free rules...

Just compare command protocols restrictions to the admech imperatives...laugh a little bit.
Compare Dynasty requirements to Admech.



Long term - Necrons are going to suffer for those exact reasons. Their book doesn't quite "fit" with the others.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/14 16:43:22


Post by: yukishiro1


 iGuy91 wrote:


Its not a comparatively killy codex. And it still bothers me from time to time regarding how grindy it can be. Good guns are swingy (d6/d6), and are on flawed platforms (moving screws up their profiles, LHDs are very fragile) which you pay a premium for.


Yeah, plus CORE is hugely restrictive compared to other book, command protocols are a bad joke of layered restrictions compared to other factions' purity bonuses, etc. There are a ton of ways that the Necron 9th edition book feels out of place when lined up against the other 9th edition books. At the time we thought maybe that SM was going to be the outlier re: almost everything getting CORE, but it's clear that isn't the case: it's Necrons that is the one out of place in 9th edition. It feels like the beta for 9th edition that never got the 1.0 update.

That doesn't mean the codex won't still be able to compete if you just keep progressively lowering points as it becomes more and more out of date. But it's not a very satisfying way to compete.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/14 17:37:47


Post by: the_scotsman


 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:

^This is a VERY IMPORTANT THING TO CONSIDER WHEN LOOKING AT OLDER EDITION'S STATS.

The oft-cited example is the (still available online) data from 5th edition where at some major tournament (nova I think) the top winrate was GK at like 58%.

What people tend to 'conveniently' ignore about that datapoint is the play data, i.e., how many people actually brought which armies. The top three armies combined at the time accounted for 80% of the playerbase. Every other army in the game, combined, accounted for 20% of the players at that tournament - we're talking like, two tyranid players, two craftworld eldar players, three chaos space marine players out of the like 250 players in attendance at the GT.

you get more 'reasonable looking' winrate numbers, when entire armies are actually so underpowered that literally nobody at all is playing them.


I've always wondered that, and I hate to be that guy on the internet, but do you have a source for this? Or for, like, the 7e LVOs and things? I'm not being combative, just curious (if your answer is your memory, that's fine).


Here's data for the 2011 NOVA that is not the exact event I was thinking of, but illustrates the point: http://whiskey40k.blogspot.com/2011/09/nova-open-warhammer-40k-gt-results.html

85 players playing the, what were at the time, almost identical various space marine armies
32 players playing specifically GK, who I'll separate because even at the time they worked completely differently than every otehr SM faction
21 imperial guard
14 dark eldar

everything else: 51 total. 25% of the playerbase representing all of chaos, all nids, all orks, all eldar, all necrons and all tau.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/14 17:56:25


Post by: Gene St. Ealer


 the_scotsman wrote:
 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:

^This is a VERY IMPORTANT THING TO CONSIDER WHEN LOOKING AT OLDER EDITION'S STATS.

The oft-cited example is the (still available online) data from 5th edition where at some major tournament (nova I think) the top winrate was GK at like 58%.

What people tend to 'conveniently' ignore about that datapoint is the play data, i.e., how many people actually brought which armies. The top three armies combined at the time accounted for 80% of the playerbase. Every other army in the game, combined, accounted for 20% of the players at that tournament - we're talking like, two tyranid players, two craftworld eldar players, three chaos space marine players out of the like 250 players in attendance at the GT.

you get more 'reasonable looking' winrate numbers, when entire armies are actually so underpowered that literally nobody at all is playing them.


I've always wondered that, and I hate to be that guy on the internet, but do you have a source for this? Or for, like, the 7e LVOs and things? I'm not being combative, just curious (if your answer is your memory, that's fine).


Here's data for the 2011 NOVA that is not the exact event I was thinking of, but illustrates the point: http://whiskey40k.blogspot.com/2011/09/nova-open-warhammer-40k-gt-results.html

85 players playing the, what were at the time, almost identical various space marine armies
32 players playing specifically GK, who I'll separate because even at the time they worked completely differently than every otehr SM faction
21 imperial guard
14 dark eldar

everything else: 51 total. 25% of the playerbase representing all of chaos, all nids, all orks, all eldar, all necrons and all tau.


Ooof, that's v. v. sad. Thanks for pulling that up, how fascinating!


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/14 18:02:09


Post by: Xenomancers


 Daedalus81 wrote:
 iGuy91 wrote:
The Necron Codex is fundamentally different than the other 9th codexes.

The thing this codex does well, is take and hold ground, and win on the mission. As lethality continues to climb with each new release, this capability erodes somewhat, requiring tighter, more careful play to win. Most lists pack just enough melee muscle, or shooting to remove key units that would remove your holding units, but this army isn't going to table anyone reliably.

Its not a comparatively killy codex. And it still bothers me from time to time regarding how grindy it can be. Good guns are swingy (d6/d6), and are on flawed platforms (moving screws up their profiles, LHDs are very fragile) which you pay a premium for.


A lot of people opt for the super short range reapers and I don't blame them, but it also puts you in an awkward position to push forward as fast as possible and against certain opponents that isn't always a good idea. Some have tried to solve for this by simply just take MORE warriors and hoping to just overwhelm by using SK. Others embrace it and go melee. There's still more to "unearth" for lists, but I haven't been able to buy 80% of the stuff I've wanted until very recently.
Crons are a good example of how a codex should be made. The internal balance is very good. If you are going to make "core" a thing - it should be actually limiting like it is in Necrons. Not like space marines and admech where nearly everything is core...or like admech have the ability to make units you want core - be core (How stupid is this)???

I don't particularly like command protocols BUT - I do like how they are a limiting factor rater than just more free rules.

Correct me if I am wrong...admech can take multiple detachments with different forge worlds for no penalty right?


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/14 18:11:45


Post by: yukishiro1


Yes. Necrons and Space Marines are the only ones with super-purity bonuses that apply only if the entire army is the same subfaction, not just the same faction.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/14 19:29:58


Post by: Xenomancers


yukishiro1 wrote:
Yes. Necrons and Space Marines are the only ones with super-purity bonuses that apply only if the entire army is the same subfaction, not just the same faction.

So uhh...Anyone want to talk about how there isn't power creep?

Necrons have to take a nobel lord in order to get purity bonus as well! It's a joke.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/14 20:08:21


Post by: Cynista


I'd rather the super bonuses just weren't in the game at all as a I hate them as a concept and mechanic in general but I guess that's beyond the point at this stage


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/15 02:37:48


Post by: cody.d.


 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Power creep is normal but 9th's has been quite tremendous. I can recall specific books that were bad but not an edition which it was this severe overall.


Mmm 7th? Some of the detachment books swung wildly in power. And GW got a bit silly by the end of things as I recall. I certainly remember taking a break as my orks became almost worthless.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/15 02:57:36


Post by: yukishiro1


Yeah, the only thing GW really knows how to do is keep inflating the game till it pops, then hard rebooting it with a bunch of fanfare about how this time it'll be the greatest thing ever.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/15 03:30:51


Post by: Arachnofiend


 wuestenfux wrote:
Here is the list of the second-ranked at GT Copenhagen recently:

Spoiler:

2nd Place
Martin Buch – Copenhammer GT



== Patrol Detachment == Necrons [39 PL] [760 Points] 0 CP <Eternal Conquerors, Relentlessly Expansionist>

HQ1: Command Barge (145), Gauss Cannon (5), Staff of Light (0), FREE RELIC: Voltaic Staff, FREE WARLORD TRAIT: Enduring Will [9 PL] [150 Points]

TR1: 20x Warriors (260), Gauss Reaper (0) [12 PL] [260 Points]

TR2: 10x Warriors (130), Gauss Reaper (0) [6 PL] [130 Points]

DT1: Ghost Ark (145), 2x Gauss Flayer Array (0) [8 PL] [145 Points]

EL1: Hexmark Destroyer (75), 6x Enmitic Disintegrator Pistol (0), RELIC (-1CP): Gaunlet of Conflaguration


== Outrider Detachment == Necrons [66 PL] [1240 Points] -3 CP <Eternal Conquerors, Relentlessly Expansionist>

HQ1: Chronomancer (80), Chronotendrils (0), Entropic Lance (0), RELIC (-1CP): Veil of Darkness [4 PL] [80 Points]

HQ2: Chronomancer (80), Chronotendrils (0), Entropic Lance (0) [4 PL] [80 Points]

EL1: 5x Lychguards (140), Hyperphase Sword (0), Dispersion Shield (0) [7 PL] [140 Points]

EL2: 5x Lychguards (140), Hyperphase Sword (0), Dispersion Shield (0) [7 PL] [140 Points]

EL3: 2x Cryptothralls (40), Scouring Eye (0), Scythed limbs (0) [4 PL] [40 Points]

FA1: 9x Scarabs (135), Feeder Mandibles (0) [6 PL] [135 Points]

FA2: 9x Scarabs (135), Feeder Mandibles (0) [6 PL] [135 Points]

FA3: 5x Wraiths (175), Vicious Claws (0) [10 PL] [175 Points]

FA4: 5x Wraiths (175), Vicious Claws (0) [10 PL] [175 Points]

FA5: 4x Wraiths (175), Vicious Claws (0) [10 PL] [140 Points]


That is a gak ton of wraiths. Definitely an extremely "play the objectives" list, which is what the Necron dex is for.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/15 04:49:12


Post by: Lammia


 Bosskelot wrote:
It's mainly Drukhari and Admech that Necrons will struggle with.

The other 9th Codexes are mostly a little more balanced amongst each other, although outliers like Blood Angels and White Scars are both incredibly good into Necrons despite having a concurrent codex and an 8th ed supplement.

However on the whole even a "competitive" Necron list won't actually look or be oppressively strong on the tabletop unless it's being piloted by a very good player. The army has a lot of limitations placed on any potential exploits or strong combinations it can do. 20 Novokh Warriors with Anrakyr, a Chronomancer and TSK nearby are genuinely frightening.... but they've still only got 12" guns, one of its buffing characters is supremely vulnerable to anti-tank fire and you're approaching something like 900 points for all of that to actually work properly.

And to be fair, a lot of 9th ed Codexes and their competitive lists don't really look all that skewed or obscenely oppressive on paper, nor feel absurd to play against in an actual game. It's just Drukhari and now Admech have some dumb interactions within them that lead to 20 ranger blobs just deleting anything in the game they look at. Sisters are a bit more of an unknown quantity at this point since they saw a lot of changes but it's a little eye-raising that all repentia lost were AAC but went down to 14ppm. That's fething nuts.
Repentia got a lot of other nerfs too. They'll still see plenty of play 'cause the 'almost good' stuff got kicked too. But they lost more than that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote:
Yes. Necrons and Space Marines are the only ones with super-purity bonuses that apply only if the entire army is the same subfaction, not just the same faction.
I expect other xeno factions to follow suit. Elves being the only possible outlier.

The changes to how they did things for AdMech and Sisters Purity was weird in that it made the not function as a faction without them so they made a trade. Dark Eldar otoh have the problem of being explicitly designed to take multiple subfactions, making such rules self-defeating


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/15 06:09:09


Post by: tneva82


 Matt Swain wrote:
It's been a while since i watched batreps on youtube, and man, i watched a few and it was total devastation for the necrons in each, against all opponents.

I started looking at just the ends of batreps this year and the necrons were getting destroyed in like 90-95% of them.

Have they just stopped winning battles this year?


Well. How many of those been vs newer codexes? Power creep is strong as hell in 9e. By the time edition is end I wouldn't be surprised if there would be army with super transhuman(cannot be wounded by better than 6) as base ability...


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/15 09:23:29


Post by: vipoid


yukishiro1 wrote:
Yes. Necrons and Space Marines are the only ones with super-purity bonuses that apply only if the entire army is the same subfaction, not just the same faction.


Actually, Dark Eldar do have their own weird version of this. They get extra bonuses if they're taking a RSR detachment *and* using Kabal of the Black Heart in said detachment.

I don't know why Black Heart and only Black Heart gives an extra bonus but there you go.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/15 09:27:02


Post by: a_typical_hero


tneva82 wrote:
Well. How many of those been vs newer codexes? Power creep is strong as hell in 9e. By the time edition is end I wouldn't be surprised if there would be army with super transhuman(cannot be wounded by better than 6) as base ability...

Is it, actually?

Looking at the past 2 months we have:
Dhrukari - 123 lists, 69% wr, obviously too high and already nerfed. Waiting for new tournament data for verification.
Death Guard - 114 lists, 52% wr.
Space Marines - 403 lists, ranges from 49% wr (White Scars) to 37% wr (Raven Guard). Not a single list played Crimson Fists
Necrons - 119 lists, 48% wr.
AdMech - no tournament data for new codex
Sisters - no tournament data for new codex

Now the situation for Space Marines is complex to analyse correctly. I assume Chapters that are perceived as being weaker aren't played as much by the more win oriented players.

BT, Salamanders, SW, IF, RG and CF (all 43% and below winrate) together had 125 lists, while Dark Angels (48%) alone had 101.

The chance for a mirror match between single Space Marines Chapters overall isn't higher than for other 9th edition armies. Individual tournament attention might look differently, though.

This is not something I would call "power creep is strong as hell this edition".


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/15 09:50:13


Post by: addnid


There is a "perceived" power creep: when you read some of the new rules, some units/combos seem very strong.
Then there is the game experience, and you realise the actual power creep is not that strong really in 9th (I speak from my own exp when I say "game experience", for more objective data, read tourney results don't show a clear power creep trend anyways).
Post nerf Druk is IMO above ad mech and sisters, but lets wait and see.
I do think post nerf Druk is still too strong overall, but until mid july we may have some suprises.

Unfun rules (I play DA, the transhuman is unfun for sure, but does it make the army overly strong... Probably not) may be mistaken for power creep, I know I do, and with nearly every new release, I make the mistake again ("what is this OP gak GW has relased yet again... Maaan...". So I try to take a step back, play the army i suspect has crept up in power, or try to watch/read (read preferably, less time consuming) a batrep.

If you play X or Y army, you also won't experience power creep the same way. Power creep is a very complex issue IMHO, and I would avoid saying "this due is wrong" or anything like that


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/15 10:02:02


Post by: Jidmah


 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
Spoiler:
 the_scotsman wrote:
 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:

^This is a VERY IMPORTANT THING TO CONSIDER WHEN LOOKING AT OLDER EDITION'S STATS.

The oft-cited example is the (still available online) data from 5th edition where at some major tournament (nova I think) the top winrate was GK at like 58%.

What people tend to 'conveniently' ignore about that datapoint is the play data, i.e., how many people actually brought which armies. The top three armies combined at the time accounted for 80% of the playerbase. Every other army in the game, combined, accounted for 20% of the players at that tournament - we're talking like, two tyranid players, two craftworld eldar players, three chaos space marine players out of the like 250 players in attendance at the GT.

you get more 'reasonable looking' winrate numbers, when entire armies are actually so underpowered that literally nobody at all is playing them.


I've always wondered that, and I hate to be that guy on the internet, but do you have a source for this? Or for, like, the 7e LVOs and things? I'm not being combative, just curious (if your answer is your memory, that's fine).


Here's data for the 2011 NOVA that is not the exact event I was thinking of, but illustrates the point: http://whiskey40k.blogspot.com/2011/09/nova-open-warhammer-40k-gt-results.html

85 players playing the, what were at the time, almost identical various space marine armies
32 players playing specifically GK, who I'll separate because even at the time they worked completely differently than every otehr SM faction
21 imperial guard
14 dark eldar

everything else: 51 total. 25% of the playerbase representing all of chaos, all nids, all orks, all eldar, all necrons and all tau.


Ooof, that's v. v. sad. Thanks for pulling that up, how fascinating!


Exalted for asking the question and also exalted scotsman for finding that data. It was so much worse than I remembered...

It's never wrong to ask for proof!


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/15 14:10:45


Post by: Xenomancers


cody.d. wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Power creep is normal but 9th's has been quite tremendous. I can recall specific books that were bad but not an edition which it was this severe overall.


Mmm 7th? Some of the detachment books swung wildly in power. And GW got a bit silly by the end of things as I recall. I certainly remember taking a break as my orks became almost worthless.

7.5 is widely regarded as "fun rules" at this point. Anyone who took them competitively serious was trolling. It was OP cheese and everyone knew it - what is funny though - some of the most fun 40k games I've ever had. Once everyone had their gladius formation (ect) - the games were actually...kinda balanced (excluding Ynnari - which was utterly bonkers and unable to be played against). It's not like that in this edition. If you have an infantry list vs admech - you are just gonna lose 100% of the time. It is a simple factor of dice pips. Stratagems are a lot worse than formations ever were.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/15 14:17:06


Post by: a_typical_hero


Don't trip guys, the hyperbole and generalisation barrels are leaking again.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/15 14:37:04


Post by: Jidmah


 Xenomancers wrote:
cody.d. wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Power creep is normal but 9th's has been quite tremendous. I can recall specific books that were bad but not an edition which it was this severe overall.


Mmm 7th? Some of the detachment books swung wildly in power. And GW got a bit silly by the end of things as I recall. I certainly remember taking a break as my orks became almost worthless.

7.5 is widely regarded as "fun rules" at this point. Anyone who took them competitively serious was trolling. It was OP cheese and everyone knew it - what is funny though - some of the most fun 40k games I've ever had. Once everyone had their gladius formation (ect) - the games were actually...kinda balanced (excluding Ynnari - which was utterly bonkers and unable to be played against). It's not like that in this edition. If you have an infantry list vs admech - you are just gonna lose 100% of the time. It is a simple factor of dice pips. Stratagems are a lot worse than formations ever were.


Since you are so well-versed in ork rules... do you remember what the ork variant of the gladius formation did?


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/15 14:41:55


Post by: Daedalus81


yukishiro1 wrote:
 iGuy91 wrote:


Its not a comparatively killy codex. And it still bothers me from time to time regarding how grindy it can be. Good guns are swingy (d6/d6), and are on flawed platforms (moving screws up their profiles, LHDs are very fragile) which you pay a premium for.


Yeah, plus CORE is hugely restrictive compared to other book, command protocols are a bad joke of layered restrictions compared to other factions' purity bonuses, etc. There are a ton of ways that the Necron 9th edition book feels out of place when lined up against the other 9th edition books. At the time we thought maybe that SM was going to be the outlier re: almost everything getting CORE, but it's clear that isn't the case: it's Necrons that is the one out of place in 9th edition. It feels like the beta for 9th edition that never got the 1.0 update.

That doesn't mean the codex won't still be able to compete if you just keep progressively lowering points as it becomes more and more out of date. But it's not a very satisfying way to compete.


It feels out of place, because it is fluff aligned. Cult stuff does not interact with the normies and characters are crucial to "control" the army.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/15 15:14:36


Post by: Xenomancers


 Jidmah wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
cody.d. wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Power creep is normal but 9th's has been quite tremendous. I can recall specific books that were bad but not an edition which it was this severe overall.


Mmm 7th? Some of the detachment books swung wildly in power. And GW got a bit silly by the end of things as I recall. I certainly remember taking a break as my orks became almost worthless.

7.5 is widely regarded as "fun rules" at this point. Anyone who took them competitively serious was trolling. It was OP cheese and everyone knew it - what is funny though - some of the most fun 40k games I've ever had. Once everyone had their gladius formation (ect) - the games were actually...kinda balanced (excluding Ynnari - which was utterly bonkers and unable to be played against). It's not like that in this edition. If you have an infantry list vs admech - you are just gonna lose 100% of the time. It is a simple factor of dice pips. Stratagems are a lot worse than formations ever were.


Since you are so well-versed in ork rules... do you remember what the ork variant of the gladius formation did?

Is that the only army you play? None of your armies got updates at that time?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
a_typical_hero wrote:
Don't trip guys, the hyperbole and generalisation barrels are leaking again.

Generalization is pretty normal in human interactions. The idea here is people had fun playing with formations. IMO it sparked huge interest in the game. The game stores were full. Most importantly - I had fun. It is not hyperbole to say Ynnari was next level OP. Because it was. Wanna know something funny? The 8th edition ynnari which utterly dominated competitive 40k for over a year. Was limited to 1 soul burst per turn. in 7.5 every unit in your army could soulburst and they had a formation that killing a unit would proc 2 units soul burst. The army literally had 3 shooting phases - their main shooting phase/ shooting twice with the majority of their units/ then shooting with most of their army in the opponents turn. It is not Hyperbole...It really happened.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/15 15:27:04


Post by: Spoletta


Decurion level formations were limited to very few factions in 7th. If you were one of the lucky ones, then good for you, but most of the faction didn't have one.

Even if you had one, you had very few choices in list building.

No, it wasn't a good era for the game.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/15 15:34:57


Post by: Tycho


 Daedalus81 wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
 iGuy91 wrote:


Its not a comparatively killy codex. And it still bothers me from time to time regarding how grindy it can be. Good guns are swingy (d6/d6), and are on flawed platforms (moving screws up their profiles, LHDs are very fragile) which you pay a premium for.


Yeah, plus CORE is hugely restrictive compared to other book, command protocols are a bad joke of layered restrictions compared to other factions' purity bonuses, etc. There are a ton of ways that the Necron 9th edition book feels out of place when lined up against the other 9th edition books. At the time we thought maybe that SM was going to be the outlier re: almost everything getting CORE, but it's clear that isn't the case: it's Necrons that is the one out of place in 9th edition. It feels like the beta for 9th edition that never got the 1.0 update.

That doesn't mean the codex won't still be able to compete if you just keep progressively lowering points as it becomes more and more out of date. But it's not a very satisfying way to compete.


It feels out of place, because it is fluff aligned. Cult stuff does not interact with the normies and characters are crucial to "control" the army.


Until you read the books and see the Cult stuff interacting directly and intelligently with the "normies" and characters who "control" the army. lol

But that's a nit. GW gonna GW. I actually think that over-all, the books should be more like the Necron one. Except for Command Protocols. Command Protocols is kind of useless. But otherwise, I do wish the other books were conducting themselves more like the Necrons.



Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/15 15:43:00


Post by: a_typical_hero


 Xenomancers wrote:
Generalization is pretty normal in human interactions. The idea here is people had fun playing with formations. IMO it sparked huge interest in the game. The game stores were full.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't 7th the edition that saw alot of people quitting the game? For the exact reason that it was so wildly unbalanced?

It is not Hyperbole

I'm sure not every infantry list will automatically lose against every AdMech list 100% of the time. Saying "Stratagems are worse than formations ever were" is controversial, too.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/15 15:46:55


Post by: Xenomancers


Spoletta wrote:
Decurion level formations were limited to very few factions in 7th. If you were one of the lucky ones, then good for you, but most of the faction didn't have one.

Even if you had one, you had very few choices in list building.

No, it wasn't a good era for the game.

Most armies got formations actually. Including orks. Just looked it up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
a_typical_hero wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Generalization is pretty normal in human interactions. The idea here is people had fun playing with formations. IMO it sparked huge interest in the game. The game stores were full.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't 7th the edition that saw alot of people quitting the game? For the exact reason that it was so wildly unbalanced?

It is not Hyperbole

I'm sure not every infantry list will automatically lose against every AdMech list 100% of the time. Saying "Stratagems are worse than formations ever were" is controversial, too.

Speaking competitively. Admech legit have a combo that is nearly impossible to lose with. They could struggle to kill tanks. But they are removing infantry at will with no counter. Plus like...they have the most undercosted anti tank platform in the game. 2 d3+3 lascannons for 75 points. Yeah...As is we are gonna be seeing lots of undefeated admech at tournaments. 3-4 top 4 placings will be common for a month until it gets nerfed just like with darkari...but worse.

7th was by far the most popular edition until 8th edition.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/15 15:58:44


Post by: Spoletta


 Xenomancers wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Decurion level formations were limited to very few factions in 7th. If you were one of the lucky ones, then good for you, but most of the faction didn't have one.

Even if you had one, you had very few choices in list building.

No, it wasn't a good era for the game.

Most armies got formations actually. Including orks. Just looked it up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
a_typical_hero wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Generalization is pretty normal in human interactions. The idea here is people had fun playing with formations. IMO it sparked huge interest in the game. The game stores were full.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't 7th the edition that saw alot of people quitting the game? For the exact reason that it was so wildly unbalanced?

It is not Hyperbole

I'm sure not every infantry list will automatically lose against every AdMech list 100% of the time. Saying "Stratagems are worse than formations ever were" is controversial, too.

Speaking competitively. Admech legit have a combo that is nearly impossible to lose with. They could struggle to kill tanks. But they are removing infantry at will with no counter. Plus like...they have the most undercosted anti tank platform in the game. 2 d3+3 lascannons for 75 points. Yeah...As is we are gonna be seeing lots of undefeated admech at tournaments. 3-4 top 4 placings will be common for a month until it gets nerfed just like with darkari...but worse.

7th was by far the most popular edition until 8th edition.


Formations are one thing.
Decurions were a completely different design. As far as I remember only DA, SM, Admech and Necrons received one.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/15 16:04:04


Post by: yukishiro1


 Daedalus81 wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
 iGuy91 wrote:


Its not a comparatively killy codex. And it still bothers me from time to time regarding how grindy it can be. Good guns are swingy (d6/d6), and are on flawed platforms (moving screws up their profiles, LHDs are very fragile) which you pay a premium for.


Yeah, plus CORE is hugely restrictive compared to other book, command protocols are a bad joke of layered restrictions compared to other factions' purity bonuses, etc. There are a ton of ways that the Necron 9th edition book feels out of place when lined up against the other 9th edition books. At the time we thought maybe that SM was going to be the outlier re: almost everything getting CORE, but it's clear that isn't the case: it's Necrons that is the one out of place in 9th edition. It feels like the beta for 9th edition that never got the 1.0 update.

That doesn't mean the codex won't still be able to compete if you just keep progressively lowering points as it becomes more and more out of date. But it's not a very satisfying way to compete.


It feels out of place, because it is fluff aligned. Cult stuff does not interact with the normies and characters are crucial to "control" the army.


But that's my point. That approach was largely abandoned or at least seriously toned down for newer 9th edition codexes. It feels like beta version of 9th edition. DE has <CORE> all over the place for stuff that wouldn't have it going by the Necron Codex standards. Ditto Ad Mech and Sisters. Would Repentia have had <CORE> based on the Necron codex standards? Why do Blades for Hire have <CORE> when that is literally the opposite of what <CORE> is supposed to be? Why do Ironstriders get core but Dunecrawlers do not? They're both Skitarii controlled vehicles.

At some point they essentially gave up on fluff as the basis for <CORE> and changed it to a balance-based thing.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/15 16:15:09


Post by: Spoletta


CORE is a half baked concept.
It works well for faction with a very straightforward image, and less well for those factions that are a big soup of freak shows.

Marines really fit well with CORE.
Necrons too.
DG too.

DE, Admech and sisters don't, because they are composed by small mini factions. They already have inbuilt limitations on interactions. Sisters have CORE on everything and yet have a big part of the codex which is unaffected by most of interactions because they lack Order or Adepta Sororitas keywords.

I expect GK and TS to follow the CORE design more linearly.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/15 16:18:35


Post by: Xenomancers


Spoletta wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Decurion level formations were limited to very few factions in 7th. If you were one of the lucky ones, then good for you, but most of the faction didn't have one.

Even if you had one, you had very few choices in list building.

No, it wasn't a good era for the game.

Most armies got formations actually. Including orks. Just looked it up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
a_typical_hero wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Generalization is pretty normal in human interactions. The idea here is people had fun playing with formations. IMO it sparked huge interest in the game. The game stores were full.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't 7th the edition that saw alot of people quitting the game? For the exact reason that it was so wildly unbalanced?

It is not Hyperbole

I'm sure not every infantry list will automatically lose against every AdMech list 100% of the time. Saying "Stratagems are worse than formations ever were" is controversial, too.

Speaking competitively. Admech legit have a combo that is nearly impossible to lose with. They could struggle to kill tanks. But they are removing infantry at will with no counter. Plus like...they have the most undercosted anti tank platform in the game. 2 d3+3 lascannons for 75 points. Yeah...As is we are gonna be seeing lots of undefeated admech at tournaments. 3-4 top 4 placings will be common for a month until it gets nerfed just like with darkari...but worse.

7th was by far the most popular edition until 8th edition.


Formations are one thing.
Decurions were a completely different design. As far as I remember only DA, SM, Admech and Necrons received one.

There is functionally no difference other than the number of units required to get field the formation between smaller formations and "super formations/decurions". Formations just give units in the formation special rules and bonuses. Essentially - detachment bonuses kind of like we have now with purity bonus. Most armies got some love at this time.

Problem is now...we have stratagems on top of formations. Stratagems which can mean..."this unit does double or tripple damage this turn/ stacked with another stratagem that increases their damage/ then this stratagem removes them from the table so they can do it again and again..." - how does that even compare to gladius formation which pretty much gave you 300ish points of bad units for free...for taking other bad units. Like...it's not even close.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoletta wrote:
CORE is a half baked concept.
It works well for faction with a very straightforward image, and less well for those factions that are a big soup of freak shows.

Marines really fit well with CORE.
Necrons too.
DG too.

DE, Admech and sisters don't, because they are composed by small mini factions. They already have inbuilt limitations on interactions. Sisters have CORE on everything and yet have a big part of the codex which is unaffected by most of interactions because they lack Order or Adepta Sororitas keywords.

I expect GK and TS to follow the CORE design more linearly.

Core is just bad because it doesn't seem to interact with points at all. Units that don't have core should be a lot cheaper...they aren't.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/15 16:44:07


Post by: Daedalus81


yukishiro1 wrote:
But that's my point. That approach was largely abandoned or at least seriously toned down for newer 9th edition codexes. It feels like beta version of 9th edition. DE has <CORE> all over the place for stuff that wouldn't have it going by the Necron Codex standards. Ditto Ad Mech and Sisters. Would Repentia have had <CORE> based on the Necron codex standards? Why do Blades for Hire have <CORE> when that is literally the opposite of what <CORE> is supposed to be? Why do Ironstriders get core but Dunecrawlers do not? They're both Skitarii controlled vehicles.

At some point they essentially gave up on fluff as the basis for <CORE> and changed it to a balance-based thing.


I think chickens should probably lose core, but I haven't done a deep dive on the codex yet nor have I played them enough yet. Though pre-codex they were a huge pain in the ass ( with a lot more rerolls ).

The balance considerations for some units as CORE are not negligible.

If Skorpekhs had CORE you'd see a CCB trailing them making them basically auto-hit with the +1 and their own RR1s as well as pushing them up to M9. You could also push them up 1S without a plasmacyte, drop them in from a Monolith while being 1" away or pick them up and drop them 9" away, get veiled, fallback and charge, get augmented by Szeras, and a Techno could res a full model ( on top of healing one ).

I could see 2x6 with two chronos applying the invuln and reroll charges, one group veils in and the other warps to the monolith. Then you have a massive threat that can't generally be interacted with while everything hides until it's ready.

Would it be worse than what other armies have? I don't know. It would certainly make internal balance harder.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/15 17:11:04


Post by: Matt.Kingsley


Spoletta wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Decurion level formations were limited to very few factions in 7th. If you were one of the lucky ones, then good for you, but most of the faction didn't have one.

Even if you had one, you had very few choices in list building.

No, it wasn't a good era for the game.

Most armies got formations actually. Including orks. Just looked it up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
a_typical_hero wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Generalization is pretty normal in human interactions. The idea here is people had fun playing with formations. IMO it sparked huge interest in the game. The game stores were full.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't 7th the edition that saw alot of people quitting the game? For the exact reason that it was so wildly unbalanced?

It is not Hyperbole

I'm sure not every infantry list will automatically lose against every AdMech list 100% of the time. Saying "Stratagems are worse than formations ever were" is controversial, too.

Speaking competitively. Admech legit have a combo that is nearly impossible to lose with. They could struggle to kill tanks. But they are removing infantry at will with no counter. Plus like...they have the most undercosted anti tank platform in the game. 2 d3+3 lascannons for 75 points. Yeah...As is we are gonna be seeing lots of undefeated admech at tournaments. 3-4 top 4 placings will be common for a month until it gets nerfed just like with darkari...but worse.

7th was by far the most popular edition until 8th edition.


Formations are one thing.
Decurions were a completely different design. As far as I remember only DA, SM, Admech and Necrons received one.

The campaign books that came out toward the end of 7th also gave a bunch of other armies Decurion-style detachments.
Daemons and Space Wolves for example got theirs in the same book that brought Wulfen into the game.

Now whether said Decurions were actually as good as what Space Marines or Necrons got varied


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/16 06:35:29


Post by: Jidmah


 Xenomancers wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
cody.d. wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Power creep is normal but 9th's has been quite tremendous. I can recall specific books that were bad but not an edition which it was this severe overall.


Mmm 7th? Some of the detachment books swung wildly in power. And GW got a bit silly by the end of things as I recall. I certainly remember taking a break as my orks became almost worthless.

7.5 is widely regarded as "fun rules" at this point. Anyone who took them competitively serious was trolling. It was OP cheese and everyone knew it - what is funny though - some of the most fun 40k games I've ever had. Once everyone had their gladius formation (ect) - the games were actually...kinda balanced (excluding Ynnari - which was utterly bonkers and unable to be played against). It's not like that in this edition. If you have an infantry list vs admech - you are just gonna lose 100% of the time. It is a simple factor of dice pips. Stratagems are a lot worse than formations ever were.


Since you are so well-versed in ork rules... do you remember what the ork variant of the gladius formation did?

Is that the only army you play? None of your armies got updates at that time?

Yes? That's how the game works for most people. Until the mid of 8th I owned "just" roughly 8k points of orks


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Decurion level formations were limited to very few factions in 7th. If you were one of the lucky ones, then good for you, but most of the faction didn't have one.

Even if you had one, you had very few choices in list building.

No, it wasn't a good era for the game.

Most armies got formations actually. Including orks. Just looked it up.


Oh, please do quote the benefits of the ork decurion.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/16 15:50:22


Post by: Tycho


 Jidmah wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
cody.d. wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Power creep is normal but 9th's has been quite tremendous. I can recall specific books that were bad but not an edition which it was this severe overall.


Mmm 7th? Some of the detachment books swung wildly in power. And GW got a bit silly by the end of things as I recall. I certainly remember taking a break as my orks became almost worthless.

7.5 is widely regarded as "fun rules" at this point. Anyone who took them competitively serious was trolling. It was OP cheese and everyone knew it - what is funny though - some of the most fun 40k games I've ever had. Once everyone had their gladius formation (ect) - the games were actually...kinda balanced (excluding Ynnari - which was utterly bonkers and unable to be played against). It's not like that in this edition. If you have an infantry list vs admech - you are just gonna lose 100% of the time. It is a simple factor of dice pips. Stratagems are a lot worse than formations ever were.


Since you are so well-versed in ork rules... do you remember what the ork variant of the gladius formation did?

Is that the only army you play? None of your armies got updates at that time?

Yes? That's how the game works for most people. Until the mid of 8th I owned "just" roughly 8k points of orks


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Decurion level formations were limited to very few factions in 7th. If you were one of the lucky ones, then good for you, but most of the faction didn't have one.

Even if you had one, you had very few choices in list building.

No, it wasn't a good era for the game.

Most armies got formations actually. Including orks. Just looked it up.


Oh, please do quote the benefits of the ork decurion.



I mean, he didn't say they got a BENEFICIAL decurion ....


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/16 16:56:28


Post by: Xenomancers


 Jidmah wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
cody.d. wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Power creep is normal but 9th's has been quite tremendous. I can recall specific books that were bad but not an edition which it was this severe overall.


Mmm 7th? Some of the detachment books swung wildly in power. And GW got a bit silly by the end of things as I recall. I certainly remember taking a break as my orks became almost worthless.

7.5 is widely regarded as "fun rules" at this point. Anyone who took them competitively serious was trolling. It was OP cheese and everyone knew it - what is funny though - some of the most fun 40k games I've ever had. Once everyone had their gladius formation (ect) - the games were actually...kinda balanced (excluding Ynnari - which was utterly bonkers and unable to be played against). It's not like that in this edition. If you have an infantry list vs admech - you are just gonna lose 100% of the time. It is a simple factor of dice pips. Stratagems are a lot worse than formations ever were.


Since you are so well-versed in ork rules... do you remember what the ork variant of the gladius formation did?

Is that the only army you play? None of your armies got updates at that time?

Yes? That's how the game works for most people. Until the mid of 8th I owned "just" roughly 8k points of orks


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Decurion level formations were limited to very few factions in 7th. If you were one of the lucky ones, then good for you, but most of the faction didn't have one.

Even if you had one, you had very few choices in list building.

No, it wasn't a good era for the game.

Most armies got formations actually. Including orks. Just looked it up.


Oh, please do quote the benefits of the ork decurion.

People who own only 1 army are actually in the minority. The average number of armies is 3.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/16 22:26:03


Post by: pothocboots


 Xenomancers wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Most armies got formations actually. Including orks. Just looked it up.


Oh, please do quote the benefits of the ork decurion.

People who own only 1 army are actually in the minority. The average number of armies is 3.


Cool.

So what are the benefits of the Ork decurion?


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/17 00:24:08


Post by: JakeSiren


pothocboots wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Most armies got formations actually. Including orks. Just looked it up.


Oh, please do quote the benefits of the ork decurion.

People who own only 1 army are actually in the minority. The average number of armies is 3.


Cool.

So what are the benefits of the Ork decurion?

Blood of Kittens still has the data available. The Great Waaagh! Band Detachment had the following:

Blood of Kittens wrote:Da Big Boss: If this Detachment is chosen as your Primary Detachment, you can choose to re-roll the result on the Warlord Traits table.

Da Great Waaagh!: If this Detachment contains your Warlord and he has the Waaagh! special rule, he can call a Waaagh! each and every turn, including the first turn.

Da Green Horde: Every unit with 10 or more models in this Detachment gains the Hammer of Wrath special rule in any Assault phase in which it successfully charges an enemy unit. This doesn’t matter if reduced to below 10 models as a result of Overwatch, Dangerous Terrain tests. etc.


The source book is Supplement: Waaagh! Ghazghkull


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/17 07:27:13


Post by: Blackie


It was a retorical question. Of course ork decurion gave some bonuses but the tax units were so high in points invested that a standard CAD was soooooo much better than using the decurion.

Waaaghing every turn and getting hammer of wrath on infantries is good when you play some sort of green tide which was a terrible list archetype back in 7th.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/17 08:56:01


Post by: Dysartes


 Xenomancers wrote:
Spoiler:
 Jidmah wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
cody.d. wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Power creep is normal but 9th's has been quite tremendous. I can recall specific books that were bad but not an edition which it was this severe overall.


Mmm 7th? Some of the detachment books swung wildly in power. And GW got a bit silly by the end of things as I recall. I certainly remember taking a break as my orks became almost worthless.

7.5 is widely regarded as "fun rules" at this point. Anyone who took them competitively serious was trolling. It was OP cheese and everyone knew it - what is funny though - some of the most fun 40k games I've ever had. Once everyone had their gladius formation (ect) - the games were actually...kinda balanced (excluding Ynnari - which was utterly bonkers and unable to be played against). It's not like that in this edition. If you have an infantry list vs admech - you are just gonna lose 100% of the time. It is a simple factor of dice pips. Stratagems are a lot worse than formations ever were.


Since you are so well-versed in ork rules... do you remember what the ork variant of the gladius formation did?

Is that the only army you play? None of your armies got updates at that time?

Yes? That's how the game works for most people. Until the mid of 8th I owned "just" roughly 8k points of orks


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Decurion level formations were limited to very few factions in 7th. If you were one of the lucky ones, then good for you, but most of the faction didn't have one.

Even if you had one, you had very few choices in list building.

No, it wasn't a good era for the game.

Most armies got formations actually. Including orks. Just looked it up.


Oh, please do quote the benefits of the ork decurion.

People who own only 1 army are actually in the minority. The average number of armies is 3.


And according to Abraham Lincoln, 82.7% of statistics quoted on the internet are made up on the spot.

In other words, [* Citation required]...


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/17 09:51:12


Post by: Jidmah


JakeSiren wrote:
Blood of Kittens still has the data available. The Great Waaagh! Band Detachment had the following:

Blood of Kittens wrote:Da Big Boss: If this Detachment is chosen as your Primary Detachment, you can choose to re-roll the result on the Warlord Traits table.

Da Great Waaagh!: If this Detachment contains your Warlord and he has the Waaagh! special rule, he can call a Waaagh! each and every turn, including the first turn.

Da Green Horde: Every unit with 10 or more models in this Detachment gains the Hammer of Wrath special rule in any Assault phase in which it successfully charges an enemy unit. This doesn’t matter if reduced to below 10 models as a result of Overwatch, Dangerous Terrain tests. etc.


The source book is Supplement: Waaagh! Ghazghkull


Thank you for posting, but as Blackie pointed out, I knew the answer. I have the ebook v2 (the "orkurion" was only available from the digital version) still on my hard-drive and my avatar is actually a picture from that book that is color-realigned to be more nurgly. The only reason why I haven't deleted that dumpster fire of horrible rules is because it actually has some cool fluff and art inside.

There are also some hidden "benefits" that came with that decurion, which was being forced to run a Da Great Waaagh! detachment, which gave your entire army Biggest an’ da Best and Da Boss iz Watchin’.
The first one forced your warlord to automatically accept challenges, meaning he died instantly against any combatant that knew how to fight, rendering that entire "call a Waaagh! every turn" thing worthless.
The second one made mob rule worthless on all units with less than 10 models, which tends to be everything but boyz. If you happend to pass mob rule anyways, it also did more damage to your unit.

In addition to that, "re-rolling warlord traits" is rather hilarious, as the core formation (which you could run all by itself) already allowed you to do that, but it fits in well with the theme of the author of that book not giving a feth about whether the rules actually work.
Hammer of wrath once again is mostly a boyz only thing that only triggers for models actually connecting with the enemy (good luck with that) and causes S4 AP0 hits when it does.

It's also worth noting that the orkurion had extremely expensive core formations which ate up most of your points and forced you to take tons of useless units. All formations in the orkurion could already be taken without it or provided no command benefit on their own whatsoever. Most formations in that book required you to invest heavily into new models, as almost all of them required to field multiple max sized units and provided either minimal or worthless command benefits. My favorite one was the 91 storm boy formation that was forced to deep strike as one unit, closely followed by the formation that forced you to roll the shots of 20 flash gits one model at a time.
Shout out to Bully Boyz, as being one of the few good formations in that book - assuming you bought 5 boxes of brand new plastic MANz kit to field it.

The update of the ebook also deleted the one competitive formation orks had up till that point, the green tide. It's benefits were *drum roll* providing hammer of wrath to all boyz in that formation and calling the Waaagh! every turn.

TL;DR:
- The orkurion made your army worse, not better as a reward for following all the insane restrictions.
- There were no benefits in the formations that couldn't be gained without the orkurion.
- Almost all the formations were horribly bad, not just from a competitive point of view
- The green tide formation was better than the orkurion in every way, but got removed when the orkurion was added

Writing "feth you, you don't get a decurion" in a PDF and making it available for download would have objectively been better for orks and more honest.

The release of the ork decurion after having experienced what eldar and necrons got actually was the last straw that made me quit the game at that time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Xenomancers wrote:
People who own only 1 army are actually in the minority. The average number of armies is 3.


Assuming you didn't pull that number out of your ass, and that people actually have invested into three different factions to a point where they can field competitive armies from each of them...

... am I now allowed to tell you to just pick one of your other two armies each time you whine about marines? This is going to be awesome


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/17 10:24:22


Post by: wuestenfux


People who own only 1 army are actually in the minority. The average number of armies is 3.

We should have a poll here.
Only armies ready for game play at the 2000 pt level or so should be counted.
Would be interesting to see the outcome.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/17 10:32:10


Post by: Jidmah


 wuestenfux wrote:
People who own only 1 army are actually in the minority. The average number of armies is 3.

We should have a poll here.
Only armies ready for game play at the 2000 pt level or so should be counted.
Would be interesting to see the outcome.


I'm curious about that as well. Please post a link when you have created it.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/17 10:35:12


Post by: AduroT


How long can an army sit in a box on a closet shelf before it stops counting? I don’t think my ‘Nids have seen a table in the last decade.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/17 10:39:13


Post by: Jidmah


 AduroT wrote:
How long can an army sit in a box on a closet shelf before it stops counting? I don’t think my ‘Nids have seen a table in the last decade.


Well, if you can throw a battalion full of stuff together that actually has a shot at winning a game, I guess that counts.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/17 10:43:00


Post by: AduroT


Do ‘Gaunt swarms still have a shot at winning?


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/17 11:01:53


Post by: Ordana


 wuestenfux wrote:
People who own only 1 army are actually in the minority. The average number of armies is 3.

We should have a poll here.
Only armies ready for game play at the 2000 pt level or so should be counted.
Would be interesting to see the outcome.
Interesting yes, but I would also expect a dedicated forum community to differ from the actual world average.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
 AduroT wrote:
Do ‘Gaunt swarms still have a shot at winning?
I don't know and haven't checked any data since the DE codex came out but my gut tells me its not good.

How many gaunts does a squad of witches delete on the charge?


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/17 12:10:55


Post by: Jidmah


 AduroT wrote:
Do ‘Gaunt swarms still have a shot at winning?


If you have some big bugs that can flatten some stuff from a distance, probably? I don't know a thing about 9th edition's nids though, I have not played a single game against any tyranids so far.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Ordana wrote:
 AduroT wrote:
Do ‘Gaunt swarms still have a shot at winning?
I don't know and haven't checked any data since the DE codex came out but my gut tells me its not good.

How many gaunts does a squad of witches delete on the charge?


Rumor has it that most games actually aren't played against drukhari.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/17 13:19:24


Post by: Tycho


 Jidmah wrote:
 wuestenfux wrote:
People who own only 1 army are actually in the minority. The average number of armies is 3.

We should have a poll here.
Only armies ready for game play at the 2000 pt level or so should be counted.
Would be interesting to see the outcome.


I'm curious about that as well. Please post a link when you have created it.


I'd be curious as well. Outside of a few brand new players, I honestly don't know a single person with less than 2 armies.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/17 13:39:21


Post by: Xenomancers


 Dysartes wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Spoiler:
 Jidmah wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
cody.d. wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Power creep is normal but 9th's has been quite tremendous. I can recall specific books that were bad but not an edition which it was this severe overall.


Mmm 7th? Some of the detachment books swung wildly in power. And GW got a bit silly by the end of things as I recall. I certainly remember taking a break as my orks became almost worthless.

7.5 is widely regarded as "fun rules" at this point. Anyone who took them competitively serious was trolling. It was OP cheese and everyone knew it - what is funny though - some of the most fun 40k games I've ever had. Once everyone had their gladius formation (ect) - the games were actually...kinda balanced (excluding Ynnari - which was utterly bonkers and unable to be played against). It's not like that in this edition. If you have an infantry list vs admech - you are just gonna lose 100% of the time. It is a simple factor of dice pips. Stratagems are a lot worse than formations ever were.


Since you are so well-versed in ork rules... do you remember what the ork variant of the gladius formation did?

Is that the only army you play? None of your armies got updates at that time?

Yes? That's how the game works for most people. Until the mid of 8th I owned "just" roughly 8k points of orks


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Decurion level formations were limited to very few factions in 7th. If you were one of the lucky ones, then good for you, but most of the faction didn't have one.

Even if you had one, you had very few choices in list building.

No, it wasn't a good era for the game.

Most armies got formations actually. Including orks. Just looked it up.


Oh, please do quote the benefits of the ork decurion.

People who own only 1 army are actually in the minority. The average number of armies is 3.


And according to Abraham Lincoln, 82.7% of statistics quoted on the internet are made up on the spot.

In other words, [* Citation required]...
This was from results of a dakka poll.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/17 13:43:57


Post by: JNAProductions


 Xenomancers wrote:
 Dysartes wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Spoiler:
 Jidmah wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
cody.d. wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Power creep is normal but 9th's has been quite tremendous. I can recall specific books that were bad but not an edition which it was this severe overall.


Mmm 7th? Some of the detachment books swung wildly in power. And GW got a bit silly by the end of things as I recall. I certainly remember taking a break as my orks became almost worthless.

7.5 is widely regarded as "fun rules" at this point. Anyone who took them competitively serious was trolling. It was OP cheese and everyone knew it - what is funny though - some of the most fun 40k games I've ever had. Once everyone had their gladius formation (ect) - the games were actually...kinda balanced (excluding Ynnari - which was utterly bonkers and unable to be played against). It's not like that in this edition. If you have an infantry list vs admech - you are just gonna lose 100% of the time. It is a simple factor of dice pips. Stratagems are a lot worse than formations ever were.


Since you are so well-versed in ork rules... do you remember what the ork variant of the gladius formation did?

Is that the only army you play? None of your armies got updates at that time?

Yes? That's how the game works for most people. Until the mid of 8th I owned "just" roughly 8k points of orks


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Decurion level formations were limited to very few factions in 7th. If you were one of the lucky ones, then good for you, but most of the faction didn't have one.

Even if you had one, you had very few choices in list building.

No, it wasn't a good era for the game.

Most armies got formations actually. Including orks. Just looked it up.


Oh, please do quote the benefits of the ork decurion.

People who own only 1 army are actually in the minority. The average number of armies is 3.


And according to Abraham Lincoln, 82.7% of statistics quoted on the internet are made up on the spot.

In other words, [* Citation required]...
This was from results of a dakka poll.
Which is entirely self-reported, and at best, only representative of those who use this forum.

It's an interesting tidbit, but by no means something solid enough to present as hard facts.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/17 14:53:24


Post by: vipoid


Spoletta wrote:
CORE is a half baked concept.
It works well for faction with a very straightforward image, and less well for those factions that are a big soup of freak shows.

Marines really fit well with CORE.
Necrons too.
DG too.

DE, Admech and sisters don't, because they are composed by small mini factions. They already have inbuilt limitations on interactions. Sisters have CORE on everything and yet have a big part of the codex which is unaffected by most of interactions because they lack Order or Adepta Sororitas keywords.

I expect GK and TS to follow the CORE design more linearly.


Eh, tbh I don't think any army really fits CORE because CORE has no actual meaning.

What are the most fundamental units of any army? HQ and Troops.

So they're both CORE, right? Nope, only the troops. This is especially hilarious for a setting with such a massive scale and yet such an intense focus on a tiny handful of characters who appear to be involved in absolutely everything... and yet are in no way integral to anything, according to this rule. Nor, for that matter, are any of the 'generic' characters that can lead armies instead.

SO what other possibilities do we have for CORE? Are they supposed to be units that typically form the CORE of every army in the fluff? No, once again the rule trips and falls at the first hurdle. Leaving aside for a moment that characters are pretty damn integral even in the fluff, there are numerous examples of other units for which this rule makes no sense. Dark Eldar Raiders, for example, are something you can expect to see in basically any DE raiding force. They are (and always have been) a staple of the army - both in the fluff and on the table. So obvious they... aren't CORE units.

Then there's the fact that the Court of the Archon is CORE but Mandrakes are not. Both are mercenaries, yet the Court is CORE in spite of the fact that 3/4 of them aren't even the same species as the rest of the book.

The reason this bugs me is twofold: for one, we seem to be accumulating ever more keywords in 40k, as the designers seem to think that every problem necessitates a new keyword, rather than better use of the ones that already exist. In the case of auras, it seems like a lot of existing problems could have been solved by stipulating that auras don't affect the model emitting them (unless specifically specified otherwise) and by making use of the Infantry, Biker, Monster and Vehicle keywords. For two, it seems like an awful lot of models are adversely affected by this change as the designers allocate CORE almost at random, and ignore the fact that many models are left out in the cold as a result.

It also creates some unbelievably awkward interactions. As an example, DE Mandrakes are not CORE units (because heaven forbid I be allowed to have any fun) and because they're Blades for Hire, they also don't benefit from Kabal/Cult/Coven traits. Okay. However, if you put them in a RSR detachment that's specifically Black Heart, then they treat PfP as being 1 turn higher but still can't benefit from the Archon's aura (because it now affects all CORE units but not Mandrakes, which lack CORE). Right. But now if you give the Archon the Writ of the Living Muse, he'll have a reroll 1s to wound aura that actually does affect Mandrakes (because it affects Blades for Hire - not just CORE ones). So now the Archon has two reroll 1s auras, only one of which affects the Mandrakes.

Surely I can't be the only one who looks at this and sees an absolute mess of rules and exceptions and exceptions to the exceptions?


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/17 15:31:55


Post by: Jidmah


CORE is just shorthand for "non-character infantry or biker. Oh and dreads, because those are cool, but feth centurions"

Essentially they are trying to prevent stratagems and auras from super-charging expensive and durable models, no fluff attached to that whatsoever.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/17 15:52:35


Post by: Tycho


 Jidmah wrote:
CORE is just shorthand for "non-character infantry or biker. Oh and dreads, because those are cool, but feth centurions"

Essentially they are trying to prevent stratagems and auras from super-charging expensive and durable models, no fluff attached to that whatsoever.


Tell that to the Necrons. By your definition, they have PLENTY of units that SHOULD be core and are not.

Honestly, they blew it with core the very instant they gave it to almost everything in the marine book.

I don't necessarily like the way core works in the Necron book, but there's at least an obvious and understandable thought process. It makes sense. Had it been handled the same way in all books, it would be fine. But that's not quite what happened. lol


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/17 16:17:26


Post by: Xenomancers


Tycho wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
CORE is just shorthand for "non-character infantry or biker. Oh and dreads, because those are cool, but feth centurions"

Essentially they are trying to prevent stratagems and auras from super-charging expensive and durable models, no fluff attached to that whatsoever.


Tell that to the Necrons. By your definition, they have PLENTY of units that SHOULD be core and are not.

Honestly, they blew it with core the very instant they gave it to almost everything in the marine book.

I don't necessarily like the way core works in the Necron book, but there's at least an obvious and understandable thought process. It makes sense. Had it been handled the same way in all books, it would be fine. But that's not quite what happened. lol

Yep. Whats weird is Crons and Marines came out at the same time...with an entirely different core philosophy. It made no sense from the start.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/17 17:15:25


Post by: Galas


TBH Necrons don't have that much core but like drukhari they are divided in three """"subfactions"""" each one with their own support HQ's. Canoptek, "Core", and Destroyer.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/18 09:05:14


Post by: Jidmah


Tycho wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
CORE is just shorthand for "non-character infantry or biker. Oh and dreads, because those are cool, but feth centurions"

Essentially they are trying to prevent stratagems and auras from super-charging expensive and durable models, no fluff attached to that whatsoever.


Tell that to the Necrons. By your definition, they have PLENTY of units that SHOULD be core and are not.

Honestly, they blew it with core the very instant they gave it to almost everything in the marine book.

I don't necessarily like the way core works in the Necron book, but there's at least an obvious and understandable thought process. It makes sense. Had it been handled the same way in all books, it would be fine. But that's not quite what happened. lol


I was mostly joking, but I think in this necrons are suffering from the "first implementation" syndrome.
They essentially wanted a keyword that was just regular T-2000 looking guys and used core for that. Without knowing a lot about the new codex, I just opened all the datasheets of units that are essentially a warrior or eternal with extra wargear, and with one exception, all of them have the CORE keyword. The one exception are the Triarch Praetorians - how aren't they CORE while lychguard are?

Anyways, my point is that for Death Guard they introduced the BUBONIC ASTARTES keyword to have a catch-all for "regular plague marine dude" and had all sorts of buffs to required BUBONIC ASTARTES INFANTRY instead of CORE, which in turn allowed them to slap core on poxwalkers and cultists.
So, if Necrons were done today, I doubt that the interaction between models would change a lot, as Flayed Ones or Destroyers not giving a damn about what the Overlord wants seems pretty intentional. But I expect that they would solve the keyword issue more elegantly by adding a UNDYING LEGION keyword or something and actually putting CORE on all "regular dudes".


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/18 09:57:00


Post by: vipoid


To take the Necron example, though, in addition to keywords like INFANTRY, CHARACTER, VEHICLE, BIKER, MONSTER, TITANIC, FLY, NECRON, <DYNASTY> we've also got:
CORE
DESTROYER CULT
OVERLORD
PHAERON
NOBLE
CHRONOMANCER
DYNASTIC AGENT
CRYPTEK
TECHNOMANCER
QUANTUM SHIELDING
HYPERSPACE HUNTER
C'TAN SHARD
ORIKAN THE DIVINER
ANRAKYR THE TRAVELLER
VARGARD OBYRON
IMHOTEKH THE STORMLORD
ILLUMINATOR SZERAS
NEMESSOR ZAHNDREKH
TRAZYN THE INFINITE
ROYAL WARDEN
SKORPHEK LORD
LOKHUST LORD
(etc.)

Are we seriously going to pretend that this is good design?

Do we really need about 12 different commander ranks? Why are there keywords for rules possessed by 1-2 units in the entire codex?

I'd make a joke about keywords going the way of USRs, with every unit having its own keyword and yet that's exactly what GW have done. Why does every unit in the codex need a keyword that just reprints its own name? If a rule refers to Trazyn the Infinite or Imhotekh the Stormlord, are people really not going to know which units that rule refers to unless you also give those units their own names as keywords?

Sorry to harp on this point but we're in the 9th bloody edition of this game and the rules are more expensive than ever, so why does it still look like a first draft by people who've never designed a single game before?


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/18 10:05:22


Post by: Arachnofiend


 Jidmah wrote:
Tycho wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
CORE is just shorthand for "non-character infantry or biker. Oh and dreads, because those are cool, but feth centurions"

Essentially they are trying to prevent stratagems and auras from super-charging expensive and durable models, no fluff attached to that whatsoever.


Tell that to the Necrons. By your definition, they have PLENTY of units that SHOULD be core and are not.

Honestly, they blew it with core the very instant they gave it to almost everything in the marine book.

I don't necessarily like the way core works in the Necron book, but there's at least an obvious and understandable thought process. It makes sense. Had it been handled the same way in all books, it would be fine. But that's not quite what happened. lol


I was mostly joking, but I think in this necrons are suffering from the "first implementation" syndrome.
They essentially wanted a keyword that was just regular T-2000 looking guys and used core for that. Without knowing a lot about the new codex, I just opened all the datasheets of units that are essentially a warrior or eternal with extra wargear, and with one exception, all of them have the CORE keyword. The one exception are the Triarch Praetorians - how aren't they CORE while lychguard are?

Praetorians aren't core because they're triarch units; they don't get the <dynasty> keyword either, they operate outside the typical hierarchy and answer only to the Silent King. Praets and Stalkers not being core despite being our jump pack and walker units is an example of valuing lore over mechanics, for better or worse.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/18 11:12:25


Post by: Jidmah


 vipoid wrote:
Are we seriously going to pretend that this is good design?

Uhm, yes? What else are you going to identify units by? Exhaustive lists of names? GW tried those and failed countless times. Apply common sense? Good one, try reading through YMDC for a couple of hours to cure yourself from that idea.

In software, this type of solution would be called the "open-closed principle", one of five things held in highest regard when it comes to writing good code. Simplified, it says that you should design your code(rule) in a way that you can change what your code(rule) affects without having to change the code(rule) itself.

Do we really need about 12 different commander ranks? Why are there keywords for rules possessed by 1-2 units in the entire codex?

Keywords are the only future-proof way to control which units can be affected by which buffs. And yes, that includes adding a keyword for a single unit - this serves two purposes.
One, you can add variants of that unit or units that work in a very similar way and have full power over whether the are affected by the same stratagems, buffs, relics, etc or not. Any other solution requires you to errata rules that aren't actually affected by your change whenever new rules are added, and we know GW will forget to update some parts of the rules each time you do.
The second is marking unique units as unique. There aren't many instances of this in the game, but we do occasionally have two datasheets used to represent the same thing that only exists once. A keyword is an easy way to make sure that Samael on Sableclaw and Samael on Corvex don't have to fight over who of them is the clone. It also helps to explain to Makari that it doesn't matter whether he follows the Thrakka from SotB or the one from Legends.

I'd make a joke about keywords going the way of USRs, with every unit having its own keyword and yet that's exactly what GW have done.

The huge and important difference to USR is that the keywords do not do anything on their own, and thus do not require you to reference anything but the rule you are currently trying to resolve. Keywords do not add complexity to the datasheet, so while there probably are some that are and never will be used, there is little harm done beside waste ink.
Of course, FLY, AIRCRAFT, CHARACTER and few others are notable exceptions of this rule, but those aren't the ones you are complaining about.

Why does every unit in the codex need a keyword that just reprints its own name? If a rule refers to Trazyn the Infinite or Imhotekh the Stormlord, are people really not going to know which units that rule refers to unless you also give those units their own names as keywords?

The second GW will release a model of Imotekh mounted on his personal command barge, people will argue that the datasheet's name isn't actually "Imotekh the Stormlord" and claim that some rule will not work. The helbrute FAQ for the current CSM book is proof of names being a bad way to identify units.
Adding keywords as identifiable attributes is the right way to go about it.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/18 11:36:07


Post by: Gadzilla666


Keywords can work great, when gw implements them correctly. Leaving that same HELLBRUTE keyword off of the CSM fw dreadnoughts datasheets means they don't get Legion traits, while their loyalist counterparts do get Chapter tactics. Likewise, a whole slew of loyalist fw vehicles have the MACHINE SPIRIT keyword, and can therefore make use of the corresponding strategem, while none of their Chaos counterparts have it, so the Death Guard MACHINE SPIRIT strategem does nothing for them. It's a good system, but they need to keep it straight.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/18 11:46:36


Post by: Jidmah


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Keywords can work great, when gw implements them correctly. Leaving that same HELLBRUTE keyword off of the CSM fw dreadnoughts datasheets means they don't get Legion traits, while their loyalist counterparts do get Chapter tactics. Likewise, a whole slew of loyalist fw vehicles have the MACHINE SPIRIT keyword, and can therefore make use of the corresponding strategem, while none of their Chaos counterparts have it, so the Death Guard MACHINE SPIRIT strategem does nothing for them. It's a good system, but they need to keep it straight.


Keywords aren't a silver bullet that makes all problems go away. The big difference is that it is much easier to fix problems.

Previous solutions would have required them to update the CSM legion rule (and probably some additional ones) with a dozen names of dreads. Most likely, they would have missed a couple of rules, causing conflicts while also forgetting one or two Dreads. And even then the next new FW dread release would still not be allowed in the Death Guard until the next codex update.

Now they just need to fix the rules of the units not properly affected by CSM legion traits or the machine spirit stratagem.

Used properly, they design a new model, slap the correct keywords on, profit. Later they find out that dread with doomsday cannons for eyes, arms and legs should not have the CORE keyword, they can just errata it out.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/18 12:01:56


Post by: Gadzilla666


Exactly, they just need to errata the rules. But two FAQs later and it doesn't look like they're in any kind of a hurry to do it. They have an easily errated system, they just need to use it.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/18 12:35:15


Post by: Jidmah


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Exactly, they just need to errata the rules. But two FAQs later and it doesn't look like they're in any kind of a hurry to do it. They have an easily errated system, they just need to use it.


I think the issue is more about GW not being interested in investing any more into FW 40k than they have to. When was the last time they released anything? They are just maintaining it until it has reached its end of life.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/18 13:03:30


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Jidmah wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Exactly, they just need to errata the rules. But two FAQs later and it doesn't look like they're in any kind of a hurry to do it. They have an easily errated system, they just need to use it.


I think the issue is more about GW not being interested in investing any more into FW 40k than they have to. When was the last time they released anything? They are just maintaining it until it has reached its end of life.

Nah, loyalist's fw units have all of their rules. It's more of how they look at CSM at the moment: "We'll just fix it whenever the codex releases". Same as that second wound.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/18 13:29:48


Post by: Spoletta


Strictly business.

We don't have any official data, but going by PA publications, the 6 codex compliant SM chapters average around double the number of players of another faction, then BA DA and SW each have around as many players as another average faction. CSM have slightly more players than the average faction.

If you run maintenance on the FW rules for loyalists, you score 5$ for each $ you would have scored on the same maintenance on CSM models.

GW has always gone SM first everyone else second.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/18 14:10:24


Post by: Tycho


Praetorians aren't core because they're triarch units; they don't get the <dynasty> keyword either, they operate outside the typical hierarchy and answer only to the Silent King. Praets and Stalkers not being core despite being our jump pack and walker units is an example of valuing lore over mechanics, for better or worse.


And this right here shows exactly how poorly thought out "CORE" is. So you want to play the fluff card? Fair enough. If we go by "fluff" and what units interact with the higher-ups, than EVERY unit in the marine book should have it. All of them. Every. Single. One.

That defeats the purpose though doesn't it? Now, let's ignore the piles and piles of fluff that say you're wrong about certain aspects of the assumptions you're making for Necrons in that post and just assume that you're right about why some units have core and some don't. Anyting answering directly to the Silent King should probably get "CORE" if he's in the army right? If it's about who answers to who, Destroyer cult units should probably get "Destroyer CCORE" if led by a Destroyer or Skorpek lord right? Your reasoning only makes sense if you refuse to look at almost everything else.

So you can't claim "fluff" because that's overwhelmingly, obviously not the answer. So let's look at why they made core. They made it so that Space Marine Captains aren't sitting on the backline babysitting tanks. That's it. Presumably, they also wanted a way to give infantry more "oomph" as well, but that's not what they said when they introduced the rule. So they succeeded on the tank buff deal. They failed everywhere else. Because once again, rather than just adjust the "problem unit/units" they made a blanket rule that hits all other armies/units needlessly. The Necron implementation is probably a lot closer to how it SHOULD be (with the exception that the non-core units should NOT be costed as though they have core), but since they are the lone book running that way (due to core never really being all that well thought out), they have been hamstrung, and the "Core" implementation has been haphazard and lazy as we go.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/18 14:19:46


Post by: Xenomancers


Just had the misfortune of looking through the sisters of battle codex.

Necrons are going to keep losing. SOB has some of the most amazing units I've ever seen. Most the characters are extremely undercosted. The new supreme commander IMO is superior to guilliman for 95 points less plus can be taken with ANY ORDER. St cathrine is extremely busted. This game really has no chance. DOA.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/18 14:26:03


Post by: Seabass


 Xenomancers wrote:
Just had the misfortune of looking through the sisters of battle codex.

Necrons are going to keep losing. SOB has some of the most amazing units I've ever seen. Most the characters are extremely undercosted. The new supreme commander IMO is superior to guilliman for 95 points less plus can be taken with ANY ORDER. St cathrine is extremely busted. This game really has no chance. DOA.


I think the only thing you're missing is *actually* yelling "the sky is falling"


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/18 14:28:41


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Xenomancers wrote:
Just had the misfortune of looking through the sisters of battle codex.

Necrons are going to keep losing. SOB has some of the most amazing units I've ever seen. Most the characters are extremely undercosted. The new supreme commander IMO is superior to guilliman for 95 points less plus can be taken with ANY ORDER. St cathrine is extremely busted. This game really has no chance. DOA.

Are you going to do this for every. Single. New. Codex?


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/18 14:32:41


Post by: Xenomancers


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Just had the misfortune of looking through the sisters of battle codex.

Necrons are going to keep losing. SOB has some of the most amazing units I've ever seen. Most the characters are extremely undercosted. The new supreme commander IMO is superior to guilliman for 95 points less plus can be taken with ANY ORDER. St cathrine is extremely busted. This game really has no chance. DOA.

Are you going to do this for every. Single. New. Codex?

This is what everyone should do.

Gonna be a long wait for CSM also man. You are just gonna quit soon. I beat a CSM player last Saturday with Necrons. He said theres nothing he can really do my army is just that much better. Necrons are terrible compared to Admech and SOB. You should be irate.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seabass wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Just had the misfortune of looking through the sisters of battle codex.

Necrons are going to keep losing. SOB has some of the most amazing units I've ever seen. Most the characters are extremely undercosted. The new supreme commander IMO is superior to guilliman for 95 points less plus can be taken with ANY ORDER. St cathrine is extremely busted. This game really has no chance. DOA.


I think the only thing you're missing is *actually* yelling "the sky is falling"

The sky is falling in regards to 40k. The game is becoming unplayable. The power imbalance is incredibly bad and it's getting phenomenally worse. Did you see the CA - it doesn't even tough 95% of the units that need balancing and they come out with the 3 of the most OP consecutive codex within a few months...


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/18 14:41:42


Post by: a_typical_hero


Xeno, you don't have the best record with your predictions and opinions on what is busted and what isn't.

Maybe take a step back and wait for actual tournament data to come in before you cry wolf for the umpteenth time?

Getting crazy about every single release since lord knows which edition isn't good for your blood pressure.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/18 14:41:57


Post by: Spoletta


Should I act as the straight man and come out and inform everyone that the new SB dex is mostly a nerf compared to the previous one? A side grade at most?

Yeah, Vahl is 30-35 points too cheap. Considering that she can't be spammed, I'd say that it doesn't break the dex.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/18 14:54:09


Post by: Tycho


 Xenomancers wrote:
Just had the misfortune of looking through the sisters of battle codex.

Necrons are going to keep losing. SOB has some of the most amazing units I've ever seen. Most the characters are extremely undercosted. The new supreme commander IMO is superior to guilliman for 95 points less plus can be taken with ANY ORDER. St cathrine is extremely busted. This game really has no chance. DOA.


I do think Necrons will be in a slow decline going forward and end up in mid-to bottom-mid tier. The codex is good, but it's got a ceiling given how different the design approach is compared to the others. But what you have there is ... just a bit much really. lol


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/18 14:57:11


Post by: Xenomancers


a_typical_hero wrote:
Xeno, you don't have the best record with your predictions and opinions on what is busted and what isn't.

Maybe take a step back and wait for actual tournament data to come in before you cry wolf for the umpteenth time?

Getting crazy about every single release since lord knows which edition isn't good for your blood pressure.

Nah man you are in denial. Or - just a meta chasing abuser yourself.

This is the most idiotic stuff I've ever seen. It can be difficult to tell which overpowered free rules are going to be better than others at times...like with DA. There is no question though that the rules DA have are unquestionably better than space marine ones for no additional cost (See definition of OP). There is a question of how to implement those overpowered rules to winning the game. Compared to space marine terminators and characters - DA are unquestionably OP. Just turns out an OP DA terminator isn't a dominating force compared to the other OP stuff like quinns/DE/ and now Admech and SOB.

With each codex upping the ceiling - it makes the previous OP codex look tame. This will be the end of the line. Good for GW though - they are gonna have record sales. Bad for you guys - Just like in MTG your deck needs to be remade every 3-6 months.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/18 15:09:47


Post by: Spoletta


Meanwhile, the game is so broken and the new dexes are on such a huge disparity to the old ones, that a good player with a list of one of the worst factions in the game, with an old 8th edition dex, can ride it to 7-0 in a major (facing pre nerf Drukhari 3 times).

Terrible times. Truly.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/18 15:10:19


Post by: Xenomancers


Spoletta wrote:
Should I act as the straight man and come out and inform everyone that the new SB dex is mostly a nerf compared to the previous one? A side grade at most?

Yeah, Vahl is 30-35 points too cheap. Considering that she can't be spammed, I'd say that it doesn't break the dex.

I'm just saying...If I could take gman with the chapter tactic of my choice and for 100 points less. I'd consider that pretty freaking broken. How this even gets passed the rough draft stage is mind boggling.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoletta wrote:
Meanwhile, the game is so broken and the new dexes are on such a huge disparity to the old ones, that a good player with a list of one of the worst factions in the game, with an old 8th edition dex, can ride it to 7-0 in a major (facing pre nerf Drukhari 3 times).

Terrible times. Truly.

What army is that? What major?


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/18 15:12:22


Post by: Jidmah


 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Just had the misfortune of looking through the sisters of battle codex.

Necrons are going to keep losing. SOB has some of the most amazing units I've ever seen. Most the characters are extremely undercosted. The new supreme commander IMO is superior to guilliman for 95 points less plus can be taken with ANY ORDER. St cathrine is extremely busted. This game really has no chance. DOA.

Are you going to do this for every. Single. New. Codex?


Not for the ones he plays himself. But outside, yes. He has pretty much been doing this for the last five years.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/18 15:17:06


Post by: Spoletta


 Xenomancers wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Should I act as the straight man and come out and inform everyone that the new SB dex is mostly a nerf compared to the previous one? A side grade at most?

Yeah, Vahl is 30-35 points too cheap. Considering that she can't be spammed, I'd say that it doesn't break the dex.

I'm just saying...If I could take gman with the chapter tactic of my choice and for 100 points less. I'd consider that pretty freaking broken. How this even gets passed the rough draft stage is mind boggling.


Because she isn't Gman? I've got to check her again, maybe I missed the part where she gives 3 bonus CPs? Maybe I also missed the part where she gives everyone bonuses to charge and advance? Did she do that at range 12"? I can't really remember! Oh and clearly she gives full rerolls to everyone, not just one unit, right?

Gman and Vahl are VERY different models, it is hard to compare them one to one.
They have different defensive profiles, different buffs and different offensive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Xenomancers wrote:

What army is that? What major?


Tau.

7-0 at Atlantic City open, 255 players.

It finally got knocked down in the semifinals and ended at 7-1.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/18 15:20:34


Post by: Gadzilla666


 Xenomancers wrote:
 Gadzilla666 wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Just had the misfortune of looking through the sisters of battle codex.

Necrons are going to keep losing. SOB has some of the most amazing units I've ever seen. Most the characters are extremely undercosted. The new supreme commander IMO is superior to guilliman for 95 points less plus can be taken with ANY ORDER. St cathrine is extremely busted. This game really has no chance. DOA.

Are you going to do this for every. Single. New. Codex?

This is what everyone should do.

Gonna be a long wait for CSM also man. You are just gonna quit soon. I beat a CSM player last Saturday with Necrons. He said theres nothing he can really do my army is just that much better. Necrons are terrible compared to Admech and SOB. You should be irate.

If the last three garbage codexes they've stuck CSM with haven't made me quit a few T5 Orks and the recently nerfed SoB aren't going to. I've been playing Night Lords for two decades. I'm used to being the underdog. It's the Legions "thing". I'm getting by with a few fw units with 9th edition rules, a handful of strategems and warlord traits from PA, and a codex that's currently tied with GKs for the oldest in the game. You've actually got some armies with 9th edition rules and your freaking out with every new codex. Suck. It. Up. Good thing you don't roll Chaos. You'd never make it.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/18 15:22:25


Post by: Xenomancers


Spoletta wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Should I act as the straight man and come out and inform everyone that the new SB dex is mostly a nerf compared to the previous one? A side grade at most?

Yeah, Vahl is 30-35 points too cheap. Considering that she can't be spammed, I'd say that it doesn't break the dex.

I'm just saying...If I could take gman with the chapter tactic of my choice and for 100 points less. I'd consider that pretty freaking broken. How this even gets passed the rough draft stage is mind boggling.


Because she isn't Gman? I've got to check her again, maybe I missed the part where she gives 3 bonus CPs? Maybe I also missed the part where she gives everyone bonuses to charge and advance? Did she do that at range 12"? I can't really remember! Oh and clearly she gives full rerolls to everyone, not just one unit, right?

Gman and Vahl are VERY different models, it is hard to compare them one to one.
They have different defensive profiles, different buffs and different offensive.

Did you see the part where she can give 1 unit reroll all hits and wounds. and has a reroll 1's to hit and wounds aura? That is pretty comparable. She shoots better / she melees about the same except can attack twice for free 1 turn (so shes actually better) / takes half damage so she is actually more durable too. Maybe you also missed the part where st cathrine gives a +1 to hit aura...so reroll 1's to hit is all you need to hit 35/36.

Oh no! The bonus CPS!!! You think thats worth nearly 100 points? LOL.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/18 15:24:35


Post by: Tycho


Spoletta wrote:
Meanwhile, the game is so broken and the new dexes are on such a huge disparity to the old ones, that a good player with a list of one of the worst factions in the game, with an old 8th edition dex, can ride it to 7-0 in a major (facing pre nerf Drukhari 3 times).

Terrible times. Truly.


Exactly. Remember, balance has never been worse than it is RIGHT NOW, and this is a perfect exa ... oh wait ...



Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/18 15:47:11


Post by: Gene St. Ealer


Tycho wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Meanwhile, the game is so broken and the new dexes are on such a huge disparity to the old ones, that a good player with a list of one of the worst factions in the game, with an old 8th edition dex, can ride it to 7-0 in a major (facing pre nerf Drukhari 3 times).

Terrible times. Truly.


Exactly. Remember, balance has never been worse than it is RIGHT NOW, and this is a perfect exa ... oh wait ...



TBF, I don't think it's exactly insane that Siegler did as well as he did; a) he's Richard Siegler, and b) Tau can quite easily throw out a ton of mid-S, low-AP shooting that is most efficient against DE. Now, that doesn't mean Tau isn't a subpar army or anything, but it's a meta shift that benefited them (and likely will continue to benefit against Admech).

I don't agree with Xeno's point here but I don't think this is a slam dunk refutation.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/18 16:01:26


Post by: Spoletta


 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
Tycho wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Meanwhile, the game is so broken and the new dexes are on such a huge disparity to the old ones, that a good player with a list of one of the worst factions in the game, with an old 8th edition dex, can ride it to 7-0 in a major (facing pre nerf Drukhari 3 times).

Terrible times. Truly.


Exactly. Remember, balance has never been worse than it is RIGHT NOW, and this is a perfect exa ... oh wait ...



TBF, I don't think it's exactly insane that Siegler did as well as he did; a) he's Richard Siegler, and b) Tau can quite easily throw out a ton of mid-S, low-AP shooting that is most efficient against DE. Now, that doesn't mean Tau isn't a subpar army or anything, but it's a meta shift that benefited them (and likely will continue to benefit against Admech).

I don't agree with Xeno's point here but I don't think this is a slam dunk refutation.


Yes, Tau were clearly under favorable conditions in that event. But if all it takes for one of the worse faction in the game to raise to the top is a favourable meta, then the top and bottom of the competitive range can't be that far apart. And this is with pre nerf DE. Sure, Siegler is a good player, but he wasn't the only good player in there.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/18 16:14:42


Post by: Blndmage


My test on Codex to Codex balance for Necrons vs Sisters would be:
Can you run the Massacre of Sanctuary 101?
That was an actual game, played at the studio, that made it into lore.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/18 16:32:10


Post by: Spoletta


 Xenomancers wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Should I act as the straight man and come out and inform everyone that the new SB dex is mostly a nerf compared to the previous one? A side grade at most?

Yeah, Vahl is 30-35 points too cheap. Considering that she can't be spammed, I'd say that it doesn't break the dex.

I'm just saying...If I could take gman with the chapter tactic of my choice and for 100 points less. I'd consider that pretty freaking broken. How this even gets passed the rough draft stage is mind boggling.


Because she isn't Gman? I've got to check her again, maybe I missed the part where she gives 3 bonus CPs? Maybe I also missed the part where she gives everyone bonuses to charge and advance? Did she do that at range 12"? I can't really remember! Oh and clearly she gives full rerolls to everyone, not just one unit, right?

Gman and Vahl are VERY different models, it is hard to compare them one to one.
They have different defensive profiles, different buffs and different offensive.

Did you see the part where she can give 1 unit reroll all hits and wounds. and has a reroll 1's to hit and wounds aura? That is pretty comparable. She shoots better / she melees about the same except can attack twice for free 1 turn (so shes actually better) / takes half damage so she is actually more durable too. Maybe you also missed the part where st cathrine gives a +1 to hit aura...so reroll 1's to hit is all you need to hit 35/36.

Oh no! The bonus CPS!!! You think thats worth nearly 100 points? LOL.


3 bonus CP are worth quite a bit.

And as I said, they have different defensive and offensive profiles and different buffs, so comparing them directly is hard. Since you didn't get the message though, I will actually compare them.

Defensive profiles:
Vahl halves incoming damage, but Gman has a 3++, one more T one more Wound and comes back to life on a 4+. I have a very clear idea who is the hardest to take down, but let's be generous with Vahl and consider this a wash.

Offensive profiles:
Vahl hits with 5 attacks on S8 -3 3, with 1 MW on a 6. Gman hits with 7 attacks, at S8 -4 3 and inflicts d3 MW on a 6. In short, Gman inflicts around 50% more damage on any target compared to Vahl. Vahl can double fight once per game if she survives the fight round. From this you can clearly see that Gman is a better fighter. Vahl is slightly better though if you take in consideration the WLTs.

Shooting:
Quite different profiles here, especially considering that Gman benefits from Doctrines. Both of them don't really shine in terms of ranged firepower, but I'd give this one to Vahl.

Buff:
Apples and oranges, but let's try.
Vahl gives RR1s 6" inches around her to CORE and full RRs to one CORE in 6". She shines when coupled with a big CORE unit.
Gman gives, reroll morale, rr1 to hit and +1 advance and charge to every (even non-CORE) unit within 12". Gives rr1 to wound to any Ultramarine CORE within 6" and full RR hit to one Ultramarine CORE within 6". If we consider WLTs, he also gives heroic intervention to all Ultramarine Infantry and Bikers within 6".

Gman's buffs are clearly much more powerful for the army (and can even be souped). He offers just so much.
Mobility, power, tricks... he provides it all, for everyone and at a huge range. Yes, Vahl provides full RR wounds on one unit... but she simply can't hold a candle to the staggering amount of buffs Gman provides.
On the buff side, Gman wins by a landslide.

All in all, Vahl is a bit better on the offensive than Gman, but she doesn't provide 3 bonus CP and her buffs are a pale imitation to those provided by Gman.
Does this justify being 95 points less? No. As I said I would like to see her costing 30-35 more, because at that cost she is a bit too good.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/18 16:32:15


Post by: Xenomancers


Spoletta wrote:
 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
Tycho wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Meanwhile, the game is so broken and the new dexes are on such a huge disparity to the old ones, that a good player with a list of one of the worst factions in the game, with an old 8th edition dex, can ride it to 7-0 in a major (facing pre nerf Drukhari 3 times).

Terrible times. Truly.


Exactly. Remember, balance has never been worse than it is RIGHT NOW, and this is a perfect exa ... oh wait ...



TBF, I don't think it's exactly insane that Siegler did as well as he did; a) he's Richard Siegler, and b) Tau can quite easily throw out a ton of mid-S, low-AP shooting that is most efficient against DE. Now, that doesn't mean Tau isn't a subpar army or anything, but it's a meta shift that benefited them (and likely will continue to benefit against Admech).

I don't agree with Xeno's point here but I don't think this is a slam dunk refutation.


Yes, Tau were clearly under favorable conditions in that event. But if all it takes for one of the worse faction in the game to raise to the top is a favourable meta, then the top and bottom of the competitive range can't be that far apart. And this is with pre nerf DE. Sure, Siegler is a good player, but he wasn't the only good player in there.

you have to understand first why tau struggle. In terms of ability to kill things. Tau are top end and they are incredibly resilient to anti tank shooting (drones are OP). Their PA book was also extremely OP (no one knows it though because covid.) They struggle because they don't have a single good melee unit in a game you need to stand and hold points. They can easily table an army. I'd imagine one of the better players in the game can win with an army like that where plenty of people cant.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/18 16:36:04


Post by: Spoletta


... I'll let someone else pick you apart for what you just said... I don't have the strenght anymore.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/18 16:48:02


Post by: Tycho


Spoletta wrote:
 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
Tycho wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Meanwhile, the game is so broken and the new dexes are on such a huge disparity to the old ones, that a good player with a list of one of the worst factions in the game, with an old 8th edition dex, can ride it to 7-0 in a major (facing pre nerf Drukhari 3 times).

Terrible times. Truly.


Exactly. Remember, balance has never been worse than it is RIGHT NOW, and this is a perfect exa ... oh wait ...



TBF, I don't think it's exactly insane that Siegler did as well as he did; a) he's Richard Siegler, and b) Tau can quite easily throw out a ton of mid-S, low-AP shooting that is most efficient against DE. Now, that doesn't mean Tau isn't a subpar army or anything, but it's a meta shift that benefited them (and likely will continue to benefit against Admech).

I don't agree with Xeno's point here but I don't think this is a slam dunk refutation.


Yes, Tau were clearly under favorable conditions in that event. But if all it takes for one of the worse faction in the game to raise to the top is a favourable meta, then the top and bottom of the competitive range can't be that far apart. And this is with pre nerf DE. Sure, Siegler is a good player, but he wasn't the only good player in there.


This. Honestly. I've been saying it in multiple threads lately, but even with all its faults, I feel like my worst armies still have a better chance in 9th than some of my BEST armies did in 7th (where bringing the wrong army was often auto-lose in certain circumstances).

Admittedly it took a highly skilled player to do it, but I don't think anything he did was something that REQUIRED someone of his skill to do. He just had the confidence to try it. I think it's a pretty solid example of why balance is a lot better than it has been in a while.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/18 16:48:04


Post by: Ordana


 Xenomancers wrote:
Just had the misfortune of looking through the sisters of battle codex.

Necrons are going to keep losing. SOB has some of the most amazing units I've ever seen. Most the characters are extremely undercosted. The new supreme commander IMO is superior to guilliman for 95 points less plus can be taken with ANY ORDER. St cathrine is extremely busted. This game really has no chance. DOA.
If you think SoB are broken then please for your own health and safety do not read the Admech codex without supervision from a doctor.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/18 16:52:19


Post by: JNAProductions


How do you get GMan doing only one more wound than Vahl against pretty much any target?

He has more attacks with more AP and more mortals. Against a Knight, he does 10-12 damage.
Vahl does 6-7.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/18 16:52:23


Post by: Tycho


 Ordana wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Just had the misfortune of looking through the sisters of battle codex.

Necrons are going to keep losing. SOB has some of the most amazing units I've ever seen. Most the characters are extremely undercosted. The new supreme commander IMO is superior to guilliman for 95 points less plus can be taken with ANY ORDER. St cathrine is extremely busted. This game really has no chance. DOA.
If you think SoB are broken then please for your own health and safety do not read the Admech codex without supervision from a doctor.


What's funny about this is that the majority of opinions from people who actually run the army, or have played against it a few times is that it's actually pretty balanced. Will probably shake out to be about the same power level of the old one (plus or minus some high-end outliers) once the dust settles. Some of the things in it appear OP, and in a vacuum, they might be. But you have to put A LOT of resources into those things to get them to work so it generally balances out.



Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/18 17:15:29


Post by: Xenomancers


 JNAProductions wrote:
How do you get GMan doing only one more wound than Vahl against pretty much any target?

He has more attacks with more AP and more mortals. Against a Knight, he does 10-12 damage.
Vahl does 6-7.

1 more successful wound roll.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Ordana wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Just had the misfortune of looking through the sisters of battle codex.

Necrons are going to keep losing. SOB has some of the most amazing units I've ever seen. Most the characters are extremely undercosted. The new supreme commander IMO is superior to guilliman for 95 points less plus can be taken with ANY ORDER. St cathrine is extremely busted. This game really has no chance. DOA.
If you think SoB are broken then please for your own health and safety do not read the Admech codex without supervision from a doctor.

Oh agreed - ad mech seems worse. Legit broken strats. SOB are more OP in the sense that DE are OP. Their characters are way too strong for their price.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 JNAProductions wrote:
How do you get GMan doing only one more wound than Vahl against pretty much any target?

He has more attacks with more AP and more mortals. Against a Knight, he does 10-12 damage.
Vahl does 6-7.

Also that math seems very off. Do you realize her warlord trait is reroll all hits and wounds?


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/18 19:22:13


Post by: JNAProductions


I was unaware of her warlord trait. That is new info, so yeah, that’d make my math wrong.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/18 20:33:38


Post by: Xenomancers


 JNAProductions wrote:
I was unaware of her warlord trait. That is new info, so yeah, that’d make my math wrong.

Yeah she also fights twice for free 1 time.
Outshoots Gman - has a cyclone missle launcher basically.
She out damages Gman in melee vs hordes hands down - vs hard targets they are about equal with gman having a slight edge. The chances they do equal damage are pretty high.
Outsurvives him. 4++ half damage is better than a 3++ with +1 wound.
Buffs are equal IMO - though not identical. You could give the edge to gman here I suppose - personally I think it is better to be able to give a unit reroll all wounds rather than multiple units reroll all hits. Granted her other ability is at least giving those units reroll 1's. The 12" aura of reroll 1's and +1 to charges is really nice...but still - it's not a huge synergy for what you want from him anyways.

Only really unique feature that Gman has is coming back to life on a 4+ with D6 wounds. No doubt a powerful ability - I'd honestly trade it for a 4++ with half damage anyways.

I'd say - in a fair world - these units are within 20 points of each other. Given the fact that there is no chance the similarities between the units could not have been missed at the rules conception phase. The comparisons were obviously made and they still made her cost nearly 100 points less.

Why do we even play this game?


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/18 20:49:51


Post by: Arachnofiend


Tycho wrote:
Praetorians aren't core because they're triarch units; they don't get the <dynasty> keyword either, they operate outside the typical hierarchy and answer only to the Silent King. Praets and Stalkers not being core despite being our jump pack and walker units is an example of valuing lore over mechanics, for better or worse.


And this right here shows exactly how poorly thought out "CORE" is. So you want to play the fluff card? Fair enough. If we go by "fluff" and what units interact with the higher-ups, than EVERY unit in the marine book should have it. All of them. Every. Single. One.

That defeats the purpose though doesn't it? Now, let's ignore the piles and piles of fluff that say you're wrong about certain aspects of the assumptions you're making for Necrons in that post and just assume that you're right about why some units have core and some don't. Anyting answering directly to the Silent King should probably get "CORE" if he's in the army right? If it's about who answers to who, Destroyer cult units should probably get "Destroyer CCORE" if led by a Destroyer or Skorpek lord right? Your reasoning only makes sense if you refuse to look at almost everything else.

So you can't claim "fluff" because that's overwhelmingly, obviously not the answer. So let's look at why they made core. They made it so that Space Marine Captains aren't sitting on the backline babysitting tanks. That's it. Presumably, they also wanted a way to give infantry more "oomph" as well, but that's not what they said when they introduced the rule. So they succeeded on the tank buff deal. They failed everywhere else. Because once again, rather than just adjust the "problem unit/units" they made a blanket rule that hits all other armies/units needlessly. The Necron implementation is probably a lot closer to how it SHOULD be (with the exception that the non-core units should NOT be costed as though they have core), but since they are the lone book running that way (due to core never really being all that well thought out), they have been hamstrung, and the "Core" implementation has been haphazard and lazy as we go.

Have you actually read the codex? Szarekh buffs triarch units, Destroyer Lords buff destroyers. Not being core means they don't benefit from Overlords and other HQ's in the traditional dynastic hierarchy. I don't appreciate a Blood Angels player pretending he knows more about Necrons than me.


Have necrons just stopped winning? @ 2021/06/18 21:17:36


Post by: Tycho


 Arachnofiend wrote:
Tycho wrote:
Praetorians aren't core because they're triarch units; they don't get the <dynasty> keyword either, they operate outside the typical hierarchy and answer only to the Silent King. Praets and Stalkers not being core despite being our jump pack and walker units is an example of valuing lore over mechanics, for better or worse.


And this right here shows exactly how poorly thought out "CORE" is. So you want to play the fluff card? Fair enough. If we go by "fluff" and what units interact with the higher-ups, than EVERY unit in the marine book should have it. All of them. Every. Single. One.

That defeats the purpose though doesn't it? Now, let's ignore the piles and piles of fluff that say you're wrong about certain aspects of the assumptions you're making for Necrons in that post and just assume that you're right about why some units have core and some don't. Anyting answering directly to the Silent King should probably get "CORE" if he's in the army right? If it's about who answers to who, Destroyer cult units should probably get "Destroyer CCORE" if led by a Destroyer or Skorpek lord right? Your reasoning only makes sense if you refuse to look at almost everything else.

So you can't claim "fluff" because that's overwhelmingly, obviously not the answer. So let's look at why they made core. They made it so that Space Marine Captains aren't sitting on the backline babysitting tanks. That's it. Presumably, they also wanted a way to give infantry more "oomph" as well, but that's not what they said when they introduced the rule. So they succeeded on the tank buff deal. They failed everywhere else. Because once again, rather than just adjust the "problem unit/units" they made a blanket rule that hits all other armies/units needlessly. The Necron implementation is probably a lot closer to how it SHOULD be (with the exception that the non-core units should NOT be costed as though they have core), but since they are the lone book running that way (due to core never really being all that well thought out), they have been hamstrung, and the "Core" implementation has been haphazard and lazy as we go.

Have you actually read the codex? Szarekh buffs triarch units, Destroyer Lords buff destroyers. Not being core means they don't benefit from Overlords and other HQ's in the traditional dynastic hierarchy. I don't appreciate a Blood Angels player pretending he knows more about Necrons than me.


So, you said essentially, that "Core is fluff based". I said it's not and pointed out a bunch of reasons why it ISN'T fluff based if you look at all it's applications. I never said Destroyer Lords don't buff destroyers. I said they should have had their own version of core. So all of what I said still stands. I'm not sure why you're mad? Chip on your shoulder much? lol

I haven't played Blood Angels since the end of 5th. I have played Necrons since 2nd edition. The problem is, the non-core units (in the 'cron dex specifically) are costed like they have core. You're actively shut out of a lot if you don't have core in that 'dex (it's pretty telling too when you look at a lot of the top 'cron lists). Getting the small buffs from Skorpek lords ≠ actually having access to core or a modified core (like I said Destroyer Core or some other similar mechanic). That's cool if you're happy with something like a Skorpek Lord essentially being treated like a less capable Marine LT, but I was hoping for more after having so terrible a book for so long. It feels like they wanted a way to make units like Lychguard better but couldn't figure out how to do it, so they just "took away" form the other units.

Like I said before, it probably is on a better path than the other books, but since it's the lone stand out in that regard, it's going to suffer for its approach in the long term. Mind you, I'm not with Xeno where I think the sky is falling. I still think it's a great book. It's just been artificially hamstrung by how poorly they handled core.

So TL;DR :

You said core is fluff based. I said it's not and listed those reasons. You are now upset because ... why again?