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.

Yoyoyo wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
by killing the entire unit in one phase the way it used to work

Vak I respect your analysis but I think you are still looking at this the wrong way. You are not supposed to win over the course of one shooting phase. Necrons are supposed to force a grinding war of attrition over 6-7 turns.

The problem is that this isn't really how they work. Essentially, if the army opposing the Necrons doesn't break them in the first turn or two, the game is pretty much over because the Necrons will be in optimal shooting range, their reserves will have arrived, and their CC units will be getting stuck in after that, and you won't have the ability to grind anything down effectively from then on. Almost every game I've seen with the Necrons was clearly decided by the time the third or fourth turn rolled around. They're not an army that drags out to turn 6 or 7 (notwithstanding that the game can end on turn 5), they're an army that usually breaks an opponent fairly decisively turns 2-4.

We need to start getting away from the idea that 40k dogmatically revolves around single turn shooting damage erasing units. Let's look at the issues with movement, damage mitigation, and assault/counter-assault. There is no common "hard counter" in the sense of erasing them for the board in one phase. But if the 6x4 board is often too small to allow us to play a defensive withdrawal to pick apart the advancing horde, there may still be a problem.

There generally isn't room to play a defensive withdrawal, especially in a typical deployment. The other issue is that Necrons do not lack for speed, they've still got some of the best flyers (and probably the best Flyer transport) in the game, some of the fastest and best assault units in the game, a good chunk of Deep Strike capability, Jetbikes, and lots of Relentless. They're not a slow, plodding, methodical army at all, they really are very fast.

Damage mitigation against a Necron army is much more limited next to say something like, IG. Necrons generally rely on simple volume of fire/attacks where most mitigation like armor and cover saves comes into full play, but is simply overwhelmed through numbers (unlike say, IG pie-plates where scatter, spread, and cover still play a huge role, or armies that mass AP2 where cover and limited availability can vastly mitigate its effectiveness). High T and high AV are of limited usefulness due to Gauss. With lots of Fearless/LD10, most Necron units also are fairly hard/impossible to break and function very well as tarpits and Relentless often means your assault units are getting pre-emptively stuck in before they can get off their sweet charge bonuses.

I'm really not trying to just be a debbie-downer chicken little, I'm just not seeing anything that's really going to be consistently effective, especially in a general TAC list.

Yoyoyo wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
by killing the entire unit in one phase the way it used to work

Vak I respect your analysis but I think you are still looking at this the wrong way. You are not supposed to win over the course of one shooting phase. Necrons are supposed to force a grinding war of attrition over 6-7 turns.

We need to start getting away from the idea that 40k dogmatically revolves around single turn shooting damage erasing units. Let's look at the issues with movement, damage mitigation, and assault/counter-assault. There is no common "hard counter" in the sense of erasing them for the board in one phase. But if the 6x4 board is often too small to allow us to play a defensive withdrawal to pick apart the advancing horde, there may still be a problem.

But how does that make sense when necron standard fire is exactly the same as everyone elses. in a war of attrition necron will ALWAYS win if stats across the board are exactly the same except when defense is +1.

And lets not forget the humble ghost ark. flipin av13 that can barrel roll and poop out replacements for broken warriors. saw a fight with ghostark warrior spam vs WS spam the king of pure damage. and the necron player didnt even lose 1 model (except 1 ghost ark IIRC.)

 Desubot wrote:

Yoyoyo wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
by killing the entire unit in one phase the way it used to work

Vak I respect your analysis but I think you are still looking at this the wrong way. You are not supposed to win over the course of one shooting phase. Necrons are supposed to force a grinding war of attrition over 6-7 turns.

We need to start getting away from the idea that 40k dogmatically revolves around single turn shooting damage erasing units. Let's look at the issues with movement, damage mitigation, and assault/counter-assault. There is no common "hard counter" in the sense of erasing them for the board in one phase. But if the 6x4 board is often too small to allow us to play a defensive withdrawal to pick apart the advancing horde, there may still be a problem.

But how does that make sense when necron standard fire is exactly the same as everyone elses. in a war of attrition necron will ALWAYS win if stats across the board are exactly the same except when defense is +1.

And lets not forget the humble ghost ark. flipin av13 that can barrel roll and poop out replacements for broken warriors. saw a fight with ghostark warrior spam vs WS spam the king of pure damage. and the necron player didnt even lose 1 model (except 1 ghost ark IIRC.)

Are you comparing ten warriors + ghost ark versus a falcon? Because that outcome is pretty obvious.
Considering that 13 only lasts only the first pen, a WS will ALWAYS win over a Ghost Ark, particularly given it can fire at what, double the range?

Ferros wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

Yoyoyo wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
by killing the entire unit in one phase the way it used to work

Vak I respect your analysis but I think you are still looking at this the wrong way. You are not supposed to win over the course of one shooting phase. Necrons are supposed to force a grinding war of attrition over 6-7 turns.

We need to start getting away from the idea that 40k dogmatically revolves around single turn shooting damage erasing units. Let's look at the issues with movement, damage mitigation, and assault/counter-assault. There is no common "hard counter" in the sense of erasing them for the board in one phase. But if the 6x4 board is often too small to allow us to play a defensive withdrawal to pick apart the advancing horde, there may still be a problem.

But how does that make sense when necron standard fire is exactly the same as everyone elses. in a war of attrition necron will ALWAYS win if stats across the board are exactly the same except when defense is +1.

And lets not forget the humble ghost ark. flipin av13 that can barrel roll and poop out replacements for broken warriors. saw a fight with ghostark warrior spam vs WS spam the king of pure damage. and the necron player didnt even lose 1 model (except 1 ghost ark IIRC.)

Are you comparing ten warriors + ghost ark versus a falcon? Because that outcome is pretty obvious.
Considering that 13 only lasts only the first pen, a WS will ALWAYS win over a Ghost Ark, particularly given it can fire at what, double the range?

You're talking two different tanks here, the Falcon and Wave Serpent. The Wave Serpent is almost always kitted with a scatterlaser, 99% of the time.

In such a configuration, it excels against most targets, but is completely unable to penetrate a Ghost Ark, making that point moot, it's strongest attack is S7, which can only glance on 6's while the other weapons do nothing. The Ghost Ark will never lose that AV13 against a Wave Serpent the way 99% of them are kitted.

Even if ti's carrying a Bright Lance however (and reducing that shield to AV12), it's still going to need 7 shots to average that one penetration if the Ghost Ark is jinking.

Meanwhile, the Falcon has an S8 weapon that gets two shots, but isn't Lance, and takes a dedicated HS slot and nobody uses them when they can just take Wave Serpents.

." Of course it's easy to flank knights when there aren't buildings to get in the way of your ghost arks...

This Works both ways though.

If there is enough room for the ghost ark to stop on top of a building, then there is no way for your knight to get it in close combat. Enough terrain may also mean that the ghost arks wouldn't need to jink, and may actually be getting a 3+ cover save (and cover saves are the ultimate protection from knight shooting). Destroyers may be able to JSJ you with no risk to themselves.

Speaking of which, destroyers are not as bad as you think at stripping armour.
Whilst 3 warriors (the equivalent points) are better at rapid fire range, a destroyer (with preferred enemy, and re-rolls on armour pens) is actually better at mid range.

3 warriors at 13-24: 0.333 HP
A destroyer at 0-24: 0.475 HP
3 warriors at rapid fire range: 0.666 HP

Adamantine lance is good vs almost all armies. But are you really suggesting it is a hard counter to an army where practically every single gun can harm a knight?

 Vaktathi wrote:

Ferros wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

Yoyoyo wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
by killing the entire unit in one phase the way it used to work

Vak I respect your analysis but I think you are still looking at this the wrong way. You are not supposed to win over the course of one shooting phase. Necrons are supposed to force a grinding war of attrition over 6-7 turns.

We need to start getting away from the idea that 40k dogmatically revolves around single turn shooting damage erasing units. Let's look at the issues with movement, damage mitigation, and assault/counter-assault. There is no common "hard counter" in the sense of erasing them for the board in one phase. But if the 6x4 board is often too small to allow us to play a defensive withdrawal to pick apart the advancing horde, there may still be a problem.

But how does that make sense when necron standard fire is exactly the same as everyone elses. in a war of attrition necron will ALWAYS win if stats across the board are exactly the same except when defense is +1.

And lets not forget the humble ghost ark. flipin av13 that can barrel roll and poop out replacements for broken warriors. saw a fight with ghostark warrior spam vs WS spam the king of pure damage. and the necron player didnt even lose 1 model (except 1 ghost ark IIRC.)

Are you comparing ten warriors + ghost ark versus a falcon? Because that outcome is pretty obvious.
Considering that 13 only lasts only the first pen, a WS will ALWAYS win over a Ghost Ark, particularly given it can fire at what, double the range?

You're talking two different tanks here, the Falcon and Wave Serpent. The Wave Serpent is almost always kitted with a scatterlaser, 99% of the time.

In such a configuration, it excels against most targets, but is completely unable to penetrate a Ghost Ark, making that point moot, it's strongest attack is S7, which can only glance on 6's while the other weapons do nothing. The Ghost Ark will never lose that AV13 against a Wave Serpent the way 99% of them are kitted.

Even if ti's carrying a Bright Lance however (and reducing that shield to AV12), it's still going to need 7 shots to average that one penetration if the Ghost Ark is jinking.

Meanwhile, the Falcon has an S8 weapon that gets two shots, but isn't Lance, and takes a dedicated HS slot and nobody uses them when they can just take Wave Serpents.

My brain definitely hiccup'd, thank you for catching that and explaining. :]

Yeah, they're very similar vehicles, you just never see the Falcon anymore

From what I've picked up by checking out Necron tactics threads, most of their power comes really down to three units, which are Tomb Blades, Destroyers, and Wraiths. All of these have been cruising through conventional lists for easy wins because there's not an established counter. Often what occurs, these units jump into the backfield on turn 2-3 and opposing players simply crumble given the destruction/disruption of a few key units. They're not surviving to the late game, at least not in any effective capacity. The Warriors are really more of a clean-up crew.

Orks seem to have done ok on occasion because they don't present great targets (like a 200+ point AM command tank) and have the speed and saturation to get into assault against faster units. They're not shooting them off the table so maybe there's a lesson to be learned somewhere?

These things need to be worked out on the tabletop but right now "force protection" seems to be the big issue. Necrons are getting way too much traction in the early game.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
My Wraiths fear S10 weapons and massive small arms fire.
The latter they can avoided as they are fast enough to pick their target.
The S10 problem (e.g. Manticore, DK, and WK) can be hard to counter as a Necron player.

They should be practically immune to small arms fire. A single Wraith, without RP, should require an average of 27 BS4 Bolter shots to take down. A unit of 6 in a Harvest formation within a Decurion will require an average of 324 BS4 Bolter shots, or 864 BS3 Lasgun shots. They're one of the most small-arms resistant units in the game.

Even S10, with that 3++ save, they're falling a lot less than something like TWC's typically (especially for their base cost), and if they're getting Decurion 4+ RP (downgraded to 5+), you're needing an average of 5.4 S10 hits to kill a single Wraith.

Indeed, the math has changed in favor of the Wraiths, thanks to T5 and 4+/5+ FnP.
In my recent game vs. Eldar, one of my Wraith units got stuck against a WK in cc.
There was no coming out before the battle has ended.

Ferros wrote:

Are you comparing ten warriors + ghost ark versus a falcon? Because that outcome is pretty obvious.
Considering that 13 only lasts only the first pen, a WS will ALWAYS win over a Ghost Ark, particularly given it can fire at what, double the range?

Was gonna say where in the feth did i say anything about falcons? then saw next post

Yoyoyo wrote:
From what I've picked up by checking out Necron tactics threads, most of their power comes really down to three units, which are Tomb Blades, Destroyers, and Wraiths. All of these have been cruising through conventional lists for easy wins because there's not an established counter. Often what occurs, these units jump into the backfield on turn 2-3 and opposing players simply crumble given the destruction/disruption of a few key units. They're not surviving to the late game, at least not in any effective capacity. The Warriors are really more of a clean-up crew.

Orks seem to have done ok on occasion because they don't present great targets (like a 200+ point AM command tank) and have the speed and saturation to get into assault against faster units. They're not shooting them off the table so maybe there's a lesson to be learned somewhere?

These things need to be worked out on the tabletop but right now "force protection" seems to be the big issue. Necrons are getting way too much traction in the early game.

I don't know how Tomb Blades have been doing any real damage. They're great against specific targets, but the same as immortals against Tanks and MEQs. And I don't know who you've seen, but my Destroyers have always survived until late game, and can usually easily take objectives.

Tomb blades are great because they are cheap, fast, durable and have ignores cover. They are rightly considered to be one of the best units in the book.

Consider that their durability is 2x that of a SM bike, for the same cost, and that ignores cover on guns which are ap4 and gauss make them highly effective against some of the tougher units that other armies might struggle with.

It's just a shame how derpy the model is.

 Big Blind Bill wrote:
Tomb blades are great because they are cheap, fast, durable and have ignores cover. They are rightly considered to be one of the best units in the book.

Consider that their durability is 2x that of a SM bike, for the same cost, and that ignores cover on guns which are ap4 and gauss make them highly effective against some of the tougher units that other armies might struggle with.

It's just a shame how derpy the model is.

It's one of the best FA units in the game.
I use a unit of six with particle casters.
They have a decent damage output and are very durable in a decursion.

 krodarklorr wrote:


This post is why Space Marines need a new codex this year.

It should be released, and Issodon will still function the same as he isn't affected by a Space Marines Codex much, if at all, since he is FW. So I'll continue to instadelete those no skill requiring Reclamation Legions you can just push forward to win for years to come.

Next to that, it's merely justice that there are a few ways to destroy them, just like there is for everything else. Nothing less, nothing more.

 krodarklorr wrote:
I don't know how Tomb Blades have been doing any real damage. They're great against specific targets...

That's enough to be very useful. Their threat draws fire and their durability dilutes a shooting army's real offensive output. Shooting Tomb Blades is a terribly ineffective response, but not many lists can catch them in assault, keep them out of 12" with a screen or afford to let their damage go uncontested. Destroyers are the same -- they will do terrible damage against expensive mech units, their mobility makes them hard to lock down, and shooting isn't hitting them at their weak point. Drop them into cover and they're nearly as durable as Tomb Blades, their 24" range makes them much less suicidal than your average DS Melta squad.

So unless players have a lot of fast assault units with the saturation to lock down Destroyers and Tomb Blades in melee, or at least shepherd them away from their targets, opponents end up on the defensive and cannot focus on thinning out Warriors across the board. Wraiths are more or less the same. As they're fast and ignore movement constraints, they stand a good chance of slamming into a soft target without being intercepted. Meanwhile trying to crush them with a counter-assault unit risks sinking points into a tarpit.

I've seen a lot of RTS cheese over the years and many players gravitate to simple strategies that are easier to execute than counter. Tower rushing is a good example -- it drives newbies crazy because the solution is counterintuitive and difficult. Then again, RTS games are competitively balanced, players can dynamically adjust their tools through scouting and unit production, and it's easier to push through a learning curve due to the higher volume of games.

Necrons aren't just strong just due to their units, they're strong because they are meta breaking in a "shooting edition". Players lack the right tools at the table. Necrons *do* require tailoring. I like that to an extent because it gives different units and weapons a chance to shine. On the other hand, it's just more asinine "Rock-Paper-Scissors" frustration for people who can't. Even Necron players recognize this, not everyone wants an easy win from a list mismatch. Given the abandonment of the FOC, and the TAC list that isn't, I wonder if 40k wouldn't be better served by some dynamic drafting system to set up games. That way when one player chooses a 500pt formation to spam bonuses, or starts loading up on AV14 or FMCs, a conventional CAD player sees a very clear red flag to be able to tailor a counter effectively.

 RunicFIN wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:


This post is why Space Marines need a new codex this year.

It should be released, and Issodon will still function the same as he isn't affected by a Space Marines Codex much, if at all, since he is FW. So I'll continue to instadelete those no skill requiring Reclamation Legions you can just push forward to win for years to come.

Next to that, it's merely justice that there are a few ways to destroy them, just like there is for everything else. Nothing less, nothing more.

Well luckily I don't play against people who use Forgeworld models. I think this game is better off without point'n click units.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Yoyoyo wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:
I don't know how Tomb Blades have been doing any real damage. They're great against specific targets...

That's enough to be very useful. Their threat draws fire and their durability dilutes a shooting army's real offensive output. Shooting Tomb Blades is a terribly ineffective response, but not many lists can catch them in assault, keep them out of 12" with a screen or afford to let their damage go uncontested. Destroyers are the same -- they will do terrible damage against expensive mech units, their mobility makes them hard to lock down, and shooting isn't hitting them at their weak point. Drop them into cover and they're nearly as durable as Tomb Blades, their 24" range makes them much less suicidal than your average DS Melta squad.

So unless players have a lot of fast assault units with the saturation to lock down Destroyers and Tomb Blades in melee, or at least shepherd them away from their targets, opponents end up on the defensive and cannot focus on thinning out Warriors across the board. Wraiths are more or less the same. As they're fast and ignore movement constraints, they stand a good chance of slamming into a soft target without being intercepted. Meanwhile trying to crush them with a counter-assault unit risks sinking points into a tarpit.

I've seen a lot of RTS cheese over the years and many players gravitate to simple strategies that are easier to execute than counter. Tower rushing is a good example -- it drives newbies crazy because the solution is counterintuitive and difficult. Then again, RTS games are competitively balanced, players can dynamically adjust their tools through scouting and unit production, and it's easier to push through a learning curve due to the higher volume of games.

Necrons aren't just strong just due to their units, they're strong because they are meta breaking in a "shooting edition". Players lack the right tools at the table. Necrons *do* require tailoring. I like that to an extent because it gives different units and weapons a chance to shine. On the other hand, it's just more asinine "Rock-Paper-Scissors" frustration for people who can't. Even Necron players recognize this, not everyone wants an easy win from a list mismatch. Given the abandonment of the FOC, and the TAC list that isn't, I wonder if 40k wouldn't be better served by some dynamic drafting system to set up games. That way when one player chooses a 500pt formation to spam bonuses, or starts loading up on AV14 or FMCs, a conventional CAD player sees a very clear red flag to be able to tailor a counter effectively.

Well, there was a lot of talking about "sideboards" before 7th edition came out. I think that would be the best thing to do in a tournament situation. Have up to 500 points or so of a sideboard to swap out based on who you're fighting and such.

 RunicFIN wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:


This post is why Space Marines need a new codex this year.

It should be released, and Issodon will still function the same as he isn't affected by a Space Marines Codex much, if at all, since he is FW. So I'll continue to instadelete those no skill requiring Reclamation Legions you can just push forward to win for years to come.

Next to that, it's merely justice that there are a few ways to destroy them, just like there is for everything else. Nothing less, nothing more.

I'd rather play Necrons than FW crap. Winning at 40k shouldn't be who can spend the most.

 krodarklorr wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:


This post is why Space Marines need a new codex this year.

It should be released, and Issodon will still function the same as he isn't affected by a Space Marines Codex much, if at all, since he is FW. So I'll continue to instadelete those no skill requiring Reclamation Legions you can just push forward to win for years to come.

Next to that, it's merely justice that there are a few ways to destroy them, just like there is for everything else. Nothing less, nothing more.

Well luckily I don't play against people who use Forgeworld models. I think this game is better off without point'n click units.

By far the most consistently powerful things in the game are from normal GW books, not FW, and that's backed up pretty consistently by tournament results. Issodon is far from the most powerful SM character out there too, certainly nothing on par with the point-click usage of say, Tigurius or Lysander. Certainly there isn't much FW stuff that's as point-click as something like Wraiths.

As an aside, the itc results for 7 tournaments are currently up.

Out of those, necrons are close to top in 5 of them. (Specifically, 3 2nd places, a 4th, and a 5th.)

Out of all 7, the two tourneys where the best cron player was way down in the pack brings their average placement to 6th.(5.8 or so.)

Eldar top placement is only about 5.2, so closer to 5th on average, for comparison.

That seems pretty competitive to me.

niv-mizzet wrote:
As an aside, the itc results for 7 tournaments are currently up.

Out of those, necrons are close to top in 5 of them. (Specifically, 3 2nd places, a 4th, and a 5th.)

Out of all 7, the two tourneys where the best cron player was way down in the pack brings their average placement to 6th.(5.8 or so.)

Eldar top placement is only about 5.2, so closer to 5th on average, for comparison.

That seems pretty competitive to me.

Now just imagine when Space Marines and Eldar get updated codexes this year.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:


This post is why Space Marines need a new codex this year.

It should be released, and Issodon will still function the same as he isn't affected by a Space Marines Codex much, if at all, since he is FW. So I'll continue to instadelete those no skill requiring Reclamation Legions you can just push forward to win for years to come.

Next to that, it's merely justice that there are a few ways to destroy them, just like there is for everything else. Nothing less, nothing more.

I'd rather play Necrons than FW crap. Winning at 40k shouldn't be who can spend the most.

Like a single infantry sized model costs a lot.

Next to that, asfar as I'm concerned not allowing FW is a reminiscent from 10 years ago. Infact, FW is good for the game in part, since crappy armies like DA and CSM can get something worthwhile going for them. As a sidenote, like mentioned above, the most broken things are from GW codices, not FW. Perhaps you lack the experience of playing against FW extensively and hence the knowledge about this matter.

And the sad truth in the end is, that Warhammer 40,000 is, infact, quite a bit about who can spend the most. Someone buying Dark Vengeance boxes in bulk will never dominate the tournament player with the best tools. In a casual setting it's a different story, as people often play low powered lists on purpose ( personally I think making a powerful list doesn't actually take too much skill. Anyone with half decent knowledge of the game can create one, or for the very least copypaste it from someone who can. )

But that's your opinion, which is just as valid as mine. Playing the Necrons as they currently are requires very little skill at all, I think it's perfectly fine there are ways to obliterate them with similiar ease as they obliterate certain armies. Their power comes from passive resilience which can be boosted further with Reclamation Legion and Canoptek Harvest among other things, and it requires no skill. It requires you to play Necrons.

And this thread was about a hard counter to Necrons. Some exist, and rightfully so. That is all.

9 vauls wrath d cannons? LOL.

 RunicFIN wrote:


But that's your opinion, which is just as valid as mine. Playing the Necrons as they currently are requires very little skill at all, I think it's perfectly fine there are ways to obliterate them with similiar ease as they obliterate certain armies. Their power comes from passive resilience which can be boosted further with Reclamation Legion and Canoptek Harvest among other things, and it requires no skill. It requires you to play Necrons.

And this thread was about a hard counter to Necrons. Some exist, and rightfully so. That is all.

I mean, one could say they require the same amount of skill as Eldar and Space Marines. Very little.

 krodarklorr wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:


But that's your opinion, which is just as valid as mine. Playing the Necrons as they currently are requires very little skill at all, I think it's perfectly fine there are ways to obliterate them with similiar ease as they obliterate certain armies. Their power comes from passive resilience which can be boosted further with Reclamation Legion and Canoptek Harvest among other things, and it requires no skill. It requires you to play Necrons.

And this thread was about a hard counter to Necrons. Some exist, and rightfully so. That is all.

I mean, one could say they require the same amount of skill as Eldar and Space Marines. Very little.

I don't think that's a fair equivalency.

If you build a Necron list as the codex is designed for you to do so, you have one of the most powerful armies in the game with no clear weakness.

Eldar require very little more than that; almost every unit on its own is exceptionally good with few "bad" units or objectively bad combos, and the power builds just require using the biggest, baddest units in each category.

Marines require you use the ugliest models in the range, who by themselves are only mediocre combined with some FOC shenanagins to get two otherwise incompatible SCs into a single deathstar reliant on a broken base psychic power. The overwhelming majority of Marine armies don't have grav cents, Issodon or Tigurius, and are a big rad flag to see on the table. One army's deathstar option, no matter how good, is not equivalent to an army where any incarnation of the army is very powerful, if not exceptionally powerful lacking a clear counter or tactic to avoid losing horribly.

 RunicFIN wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:


This post is why Space Marines need a new codex this year.

It should be released, and Issodon will still function the same as he isn't affected by a Space Marines Codex much, if at all, since he is FW. So I'll continue to instadelete those no skill requiring Reclamation Legions you can just push forward to win for years to come.

Next to that, it's merely justice that there are a few ways to destroy them, just like there is for everything else. Nothing less, nothing more.

I'd rather play Necrons than FW crap. Winning at 40k shouldn't be who can spend the most.

Like a single infantry sized model costs a lot.

Next to that, asfar as I'm concerned not allowing FW is a reminiscent from 10 years ago. Infact, FW is good for the game in part, since crappy armies like DA and CSM can get something worthwhile going for them. As a sidenote, like mentioned above, the most broken things are from GW codices, not FW. Perhaps you lack the experience of playing against FW extensively and hence the knowledge about this matter.

And the sad truth in the end is, that Warhammer 40,000 is, infact, quite a bit about who can spend the most. Someone buying Dark Vengeance boxes in bulk will never dominate the tournament player with the best tools. In a casual setting it's a different story, as people often play low powered lists on purpose ( personally I think making a powerful list doesn't actually take too much skill. Anyone with half decent knowledge of the game can create one, or for the very least copypaste it from someone who can. )

But that's your opinion, which is just as valid as mine. Playing the Necrons as they currently are requires very little skill at all, I think it's perfectly fine there are ways to obliterate them with similiar ease as they obliterate certain armies. Their power comes from passive resilience which can be boosted further with Reclamation Legion and Canoptek Harvest among other things, and it requires no skill. It requires you to play Necrons.

And this thread was about a hard counter to Necrons. Some exist, and rightfully so. That is all.

What's the going rate on a Fire Raptor, nigh one of the most useful units for DA? How about a reaver titan? Most armies don't need FW to be competitive, and if you need FW to beat another army, that sounds like terrible design.

Outside of FW, 40k isn't really about who can spend the most, as most things can be bought secondhand for 25-50% off retail.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:


This post is why Space Marines need a new codex this year.

It should be released, and Issodon will still function the same as he isn't affected by a Space Marines Codex much, if at all, since he is FW. So I'll continue to instadelete those no skill requiring Reclamation Legions you can just push forward to win for years to come.

Next to that, it's merely justice that there are a few ways to destroy them, just like there is for everything else. Nothing less, nothing more.

I'd rather play Necrons than FW crap. Winning at 40k shouldn't be who can spend the most.

Like a single infantry sized model costs a lot.

Next to that, asfar as I'm concerned not allowing FW is a reminiscent from 10 years ago. Infact, FW is good for the game in part, since crappy armies like DA and CSM can get something worthwhile going for them. As a sidenote, like mentioned above, the most broken things are from GW codices, not FW. Perhaps you lack the experience of playing against FW extensively and hence the knowledge about this matter.

And the sad truth in the end is, that Warhammer 40,000 is, infact, quite a bit about who can spend the most. Someone buying Dark Vengeance boxes in bulk will never dominate the tournament player with the best tools. In a casual setting it's a different story, as people often play low powered lists on purpose ( personally I think making a powerful list doesn't actually take too much skill. Anyone with half decent knowledge of the game can create one, or for the very least copypaste it from someone who can. )

But that's your opinion, which is just as valid as mine. Playing the Necrons as they currently are requires very little skill at all, I think it's perfectly fine there are ways to obliterate them with similiar ease as they obliterate certain armies. Their power comes from passive resilience which can be boosted further with Reclamation Legion and Canoptek Harvest among other things, and it requires no skill. It requires you to play Necrons.

And this thread was about a hard counter to Necrons. Some exist, and rightfully so. That is all.

What's the going rate on a Fire Raptor, nigh one of the most useful units for DA? How about a reaver titan? Most armies don't need FW to be competitive, and if you need FW to beat another army, that sounds like terrible design.

Outside of FW, 40k isn't really about who can spend the most, as most things can be bought secondhand for 25-50% off retail.

Things can only be bought secondhand once people decide to sell them. The guys running O'Vesa star were doing so when the Riptide had just come out...finding used Riptides wasn't exactly easy. That's just one example.

40k is an exercise in "keeping up with the Joneses" and the more money you throw at the game, the more you can adapt your army to fit the evolving meta (i.e., buy the most powerful units and armies as new codices are released).

It's not about buying minis secondhand...the more you change up your collection, the more powerful your army will be, but the more expensive the game becomes.

 krodarklorr wrote:

I mean, one could say they require the same amount of skill as Eldar and Space Marines. Very little.

I get the Eldar part but not the Marines seriously speaking. Not in a tournament enviroment anyway.

Marines are a pain in the ass to win with barring a few specific builds. The Eldar, at least, can have a multitude of builds around the WS, because it's a transport, not a specific bad model using a broken psychic power.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:


Things can only be bought secondhand once people decide to sell them. The guys running O'Vesa star were doing so when the Riptide had just come out...finding used Riptides wasn't exactly easy. That's just one example.

40k is an exercise in "keeping up with the Joneses" and the more money you throw at the game, the more you can adapt your army to fit the evolving meta (i.e., buy the most powerful units and armies as new codices are released).

It's not about buying minis secondhand...the more you change up your collection, the more powerful your army will be, but the more expensive the game becomes.

I can agree with that. I've invested a ton of money into this game (and fantasy), so I have a ton of options as far as what I can field and experiment with. Whereas my girlfriend has not, so typically can only field roughly the same lists, which kinda sucks sometimes.

Wraiths are hard to kill indeed. Whole armies are based around it.
I fielded 1 unit of them in a tournament and lost them only once to a knight exploding.
Still, i don't like them because they force me to take scarabs and, more importantly, a spider that CAN be targeted and killed which is needed to get a resurrection protocol for the wraiths.
So: If facing wraiths, kill the spider first. After that they have one 3+ save, so no big problem anymore.

Furthermore the obvious Necron downside of decurion slowliness and mid-range firepower can be exploited by many armies.

But IMO decurion Necron ARE an army now that can do reasonably well against anything. I like it, that's the way i want them to play.
But i would love it even more if Space Marine tacticals were this type of army as well. An army that does good enough against anything.

But the meta of the game has changed so much to the current broken type of units that an army like the Necron, average in everything but survivable, is a problem for many now.