Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So I have a friend with a massive Necron army he's trying to get rid of, and I'm looking for something new.

I already have some of my own ideas, but I'd like to hear from the general populace as well. See if anyone has any cool ideas that I haven't thought of.

Concerning 5th edition, what are some strengths/weaknesses/good builds for Necrons in your opinion?

Competive Necrons come in 2 flavors:

1. Defensive Crons: 2 teleport mechanisms (whether this is 2 Liths, Lith and Veil), and shooty Necrons (including warriors), the notion is to pull your troopers out of combat with your teleport mechanisms and rapid fire the enemy until victorious.

2. Offensive Crons: 0-1 teleport mechanisms (either ROVOD Lord or C'tan) and shooty Necrons (not including warriors), the notion is to win a shooting game while your Lord/C'tan keeps the enemy from melee.

The current rules rumors for 5th edition suggest a far less merciful combat resolution method, which would essentially kill defensive crons. I'd suggest a build emphasizing Immortals and Destroyers, with either the Deceiver or a ROVOD lord for your HQ.

only Warriors can take objectives will kill Necron , drop more killers( immortal, destoryer) ,or you have only two units can score .Along with nerfed glancing , the Necron need a new codex asap .

btw, the C'tan will be ideed better than now.

Necrons would probably become a one-trick pony. They will be forced into the massive warrior phalanxes because otherwise they are threatened by the lack of scoring units and phase out. They are going to be arty bait for sure; a whirlwind gunned by ray charles couldn't miss them.

It is extremely likely that WBB will change. Who knows how, the front runner is FNP right now. But that takes a new codex, and that is probably going to be at the ass end of the edition.

Have you heard any official news of that? I know there is a lot of speculation going on about 5th edition, but changing WBB to FNP would be a major game-play change to the necrons without re-writing their codex.

Monoliths are even harder then before and necrons have one of the most resilient troops.. they are definenlty not so screwed as many scream. Ctan running isnt bad either. Hwy destroyers are about as effective as any other armys anti-tank so I dont see why everyone is crying. Ohh yeah, the redeployment of the ctan is now invaluable if you have first turns.

Their only real problem is CC wich it always have been.

I think CC will be even more of a problem now as you'll have to field more troops and won't be able to field as many supporting units. But I am stoked about a C'tan being able to run.

I've heard rumor that they're going to be releasing a lot of updates for various codices, including the Necrons. Hopefully we won't have to wait for the tail end of the new edition for an update.

ED209 wrote:.Along with nerfed glancing , the Necron need a new codex asap .

I couldn't disagree more. Yes the gauss weapons will no longer be able to outright destroy vehicles, but with the ammount of glances you can get out of a warrior unit you stand a very good chance to destroying it through attrition (cumulative damage). 5th edition will emphasise the need for *gasp* heavy destroyers, and other things that can actually penetrate armor. While I am of the opinion that WBB needs a revision, the codex is by no means obsolete.

Kallbrand wrote:Monoliths are even harder then before and necrons have one of the most resilient troops.. they are definenlty not so screwed as many scream. Ctan running isnt bad either. Hwy destroyers are about as effective as any other armys anti-tank so I dont see why everyone is crying. Ohh yeah, the redeployment of the ctan is now invaluable if you have first turns.

Their only real problem is CC wich it always have been.

You could analyse them one by one on paper all day, but think about put them together friend

Dakkaladd wrote:

ED209 wrote:.Along with nerfed glancing , the Necron need a new codex asap .

I couldn't disagree more. Yes the gauss weapons will no longer be able to outright destroy vehicles, but with the ammount of glances you can get out of a warrior unit you stand a very good chance to destroying it through attrition (cumulative damage). 5th edition will emphasise the need for *gasp* heavy destroyers, and other things that can actually penetrate armor. While I am of the opinion that WBB needs a revision, the codex is by no means obsolete.

Any suggestions for those other things? 'Cause as it stands now the only other option I can see is a 24" range ordance blast mounted on the slowest vehicle in the 5e game.

Believe me only being able to glance is weak tea when it comes to destroying vehicles. Removing the ability to get a destroyed result is a serious nerf to the Necron army. I'm hoping the 5e FAQ gives us something back in this regard or between this and the much more deadly CC means mech infantry are going to get early game massacres against us on a regular basis.

Ah, to clarify I hope and pray they won't change WBB to FNP without major points reworking which will likely require a new codex. However, I won't be surprised if it goes by faq at the start. WBB is one of the most annoying rules in 40k right now.

The problem with Heavy Ds is that you have the army's main AT gun on a 1W chassis in squads. It's like Long Fangs, you know, that HW unit that never gets fielded? With WBB you'll have to field 2 units of one to avoid having them knocked down immediately. Likely two units of two to have a real effect. FNP would make small units of Ds and Heavy Ds much better, as you no long have to worry about them just getting knocked down in one go.

A running C'tan is a scary thought.

triple monoliths in 5th is going to be amazingly good. In fact, how would you stop that?

What's the fun playing with three monolith?

yes that will be hard to deal with except TAU.

extrenm(54) wrote:triple monoliths in 5th is going to be amazingly good. In fact, how would you stop that?

If i were playing a shooty army, I'd just focus on the objectives of the game, and win on scoring.

If i were a close combat army I'd lol as i abuse the new combat resolution system. Can't really monolith portal warriors out of combat when they all get sweeping advanced off the table.

in all seriousness... I've written one list that i think has barely a chance in 5th edition. Its 3 monoliths, 3x10 scarabs, and the rest in a rovod lord and warriors.

__M_M_M__
SWWWWWS
SWWWWWS
SWWWWWS
SSSSSSSSS

there is the deployment phase and the movement phase. veil a warrior unit to an objective (as late as possible) and march over another objective... Only the liths shoot, warriors are just bodies to be cradled and protected like newborns.

Without FNP and stubborn i couldn't imagine having serious aspirations at a tourney with necrons.

Your monoliths simply wouldnt die, that is a deadly list.

I wonder what a whirlwind would thing?

They would probably think the same thing they do now...3+ saves are hard to get through, particularly when they get a 4+ we'll be back afterwards.

assuming that 5th ed rules looked exactly like they've been rumored to, and that there is no ravenous hordes style errata / FAQ released, then necrons would indeed be very weak until getting a new codex.

i know that some people who don't play them don't quite understand why, but that's ok. because the odds of the rules being released as rumored AND there being no update are slim to none. necrons aren't the only army that would be screwed: kill points hurt guard as badly as new combat resolution hurts necrons.

extrenm(54) wrote:triple monoliths in 5th is going to be amazingly good. In fact, how would you stop that?

You phase the Necrons out.

I gotta agree with Stelek on this one. Ignore the liths and shoot the warriors out of existence. At 1750 points, the list described has a grand total of 30 actual necrons (29 Warriors and 1 Lord). My marine army can quite easily kill 23 necrons and force the phase out.

Is it just me, or does 5th Edition help Necrons more then hurts them.

The core of the army is large warrior blocks like before, but careful deployment and movement of the squads can insure that most of the Warriors can receive cover saves.

Monoliths got a boast in survivability.

Necrons can still bust tanks through cumulative effects.

Heavy Destroyers are actually useful now that the strength matters.

Pariahs might actually be field able, being able to "hide" behind Warriors and play a counter assault game. (Since most things that hurt Necrons the most in a combat have Invulnerable saves).

Using a Veil is a little more riskier, as with all Deepstrike, but still worth it.



I see Necrons pretty much play the war of attrition in most games, getting to objectives and daring the opponent of them. They will have trouble with some armies, but overall they will still be about as effective as they ever where.

I find things about 5th hard to predict. Will the focus on Troops in other armies give Necrons some sort of advantage? I know myself that my orks were easily destroying necrons in 4th with the new codex. In 5th, I don't see that changing much.

I'm kind of Torn on how Necrons will fare-on the one hand they have very expensive troops really, which makes it hard to get lots of them to take objectives-without compromising the rest of the army

But with the troops being very resiliant it will be ahrd to kill them all in a squad in order to take away scoring status-and of course Monoliths will rock!

Only time will tell, and overly people will just have to try varying army list until they find one that works, if you really like an army you find ways to make it work, even against all the odds. After all dark Eldar players have managed with an old (Really old) codex

Mahu, since when were Necrons about large Warrior blocks? The meanest lists I saw massed Immortals or Destroyers, not Warriors. Ultimately, Warriors just aren't very killy at all for the points, and aren't that much more durable (point-for-point) than Immortals. The minimum amount of Warriors you can take is plenty IMO, so the need to take more of them to claim objectives is more of a hindrance than anything. Of course, many other armies are in the same position.

Are the heavydestroyers getting better in 5th ? no , they are same as now ,only because others will do the job worse than before. could anyone say this is a buff for Crons?

and what happens when warriors take more than one objectives ? at least one unit will out of the resurrection orb range, unless you have two lords each with an orb ,in which case you have already droped some killers for warriors and then make it worse by adding a lord just for the resurrection orb, oh ye , I'm tough body but without teeth ,please blow me down

"Pariahs might actually be field able, being able to "hide" behind Warriors and play a counter assault game. (Since most things that hurt Necrons the most in a combat have Invulnerable saves)."


Which is much worse , the Pariahs themself or the plan to use them ?

Mahu, since when were Necrons about large Warrior blocks? The meanest lists I saw massed Immortals or Destroyers, not Warriors. Ultimately, Warriors just aren't very killy at all for the points, and aren't that much more durable (point-for-point) than Immortals. The minimum amount of Warriors you can take is plenty IMO, so the need to take more of them to claim objectives is more of a hindrance than anything. Of course, many other armies are in the same position.

I am not trying to invalidate your position, and Immortal heavy 'Crons are pretty competitive. But in the right hands, huge blocks of Warriors are deadly. I am talking about at least 50-60 Warriors. As long as they have the proper support in Monoliths and Resurrection Orb, you should be fine. The point to taking more Warriors then Immortals is make it harder for your opponent to phase you out. Not to mention Necrons have the "I can hurt anything" gun.

I think Warrior heavy becomes almost no brainer for 5th. Not only is most of your army composed of Scoring units, but with other armies starting to rely on more and more larger squads, the quantitiy of firepower becomes more important than the quality. Especially with how wounds are assigned now. A Monolith should have no trouble dropping 20 Necrons in front of a squad and start putting wounds on things like, I dunno, powerfists and plasma, maybe. And if that unit gets assaulted, so what? You pull them out, rinse and repeat.

Are the heavydestroyers getting better in 5th ? no , they are same as now ,only because others will do the job worse than before. could anyone say this is a buff for Crons?

It makes the unit more useful to be sure. I think the problem was with how good the Guass Weapons where not how bad the Heavy Destroyers are. I don't see people fielding them in anything other then a small squad for anti-tank support.

Guass weapons can still punch tank with cumaltive results anyways. Which is why I advocate the quantity versus quality arguement for 5th Edition Necrons. The more shots you put out the greater the results.

and what happens when warriors take more than one objectives ? at least one unit will out of the resurrection orb range, unless you have two lords each with an orb ,in which case you have already droped some killers for warriors and then make it worse by adding a lord just for the resurrection orb, oh ye , I'm tough body but without teeth ,please blow me down

I multiple objective games, it will depend on how many objective there are. If you put fire into enemy troops whilst parking on an objective, then you can use faster units like destroyers to contest objectives that your opponent will then have a hard time holding objectives, whilst you are secured in yours.

Which is much worse , the Pariahs themself or the plan to use them ?

I said might. It would depend on the player and the composition of the list. Again, because I advocate Warrior heavy, Phase out shouldn't be as much of an issue. And now that they can get some decent protection, you may see them fielded. I am not saying that they will be the best choice, but they will no longer be completely useless.


I am not advocating that Necrons will suddenly become a top tier army. But there are things you can do in fifth to maximize on their streangths and put in a good showing at an RTT, but it will take a skilled player to do so.

Mahu wrote:If you put fire into enemy troops whilst parking on an objective, then you can use faster units like destroyers to contest objectives that your opponent will then have a hard time holding objectives, whilst you are secured in yours.

There's the rub. If Troops are the only things that count as scoring, then how are you going to use Destroyers and other fast movers to contest multiple objectives? Unless you can get them below scoring (which might be different in 5th, can't remember).

Well the current rumor is that only troops can hold the objective but other units can contest. So how exactly that plays out is yet to be seen.