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.

I like necrons, they have all the tools needed to compete and to form a wide variety of lists with radically different playstiles.
They are overpriced, but if you just shave a few points here and there they can become competitive really fast.

Spoletta wrote:
I like necrons, they have all the tools needed to compete and to form a wide variety of lists with radically different playstiles.
They are overpriced, but if you just shave a few points here and there they can become competitive really fast.

Are they? Their heavy guns and vehicles are approaching 50% more points than other factions. They have very limited access to mortal wounds or psychic powers. It will take more than a few points here and there.

Nerfing re-roll aura ranges to 3" would be a huge positive change for this game.

Tyel wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
I like necrons, they have all the tools needed to compete and to form a wide variety of lists with radically different playstiles.
They are overpriced, but if you just shave a few points here and there they can become competitive really fast.

Are they? Their heavy guns and vehicles are approaching 50% more points than other factions. They have very limited access to mortal wounds or psychic powers. It will take more than a few points here and there.

I think it would be cool if necrons ignored mortal wounds

Tyel wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
I like necrons, they have all the tools needed to compete and to form a wide variety of lists with radically different playstiles.
They are overpriced, but if you just shave a few points here and there they can become competitive really fast.

Are they? Their heavy guns and vehicles are approaching 50% more points than other factions. They have very limited access to mortal wounds or psychic powers. It will take more than a few points here and there.

They have access to some mechanics that are unique to them and that if correctly costed can be scary.

- God Shards
- Transports with delocalized contents
- AP on basic weapons
- Highly durable deep striking transports
- A character that neutralizes Gman like models

Looking at top lists you can easily see that psychic powers and mortal wounds are hardly a need. The usual AM and SM list don't have any.

What necrons need is for their peculiar play style to emerge, and what is needed is IMHO just some point shaving.

Spoletta wrote:

Tyel wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
I like necrons, they have all the tools needed to compete and to form a wide variety of lists with radically different playstiles.
They are overpriced, but if you just shave a few points here and there they can become competitive really fast.

Are they? Their heavy guns and vehicles are approaching 50% more points than other factions. They have very limited access to mortal wounds or psychic powers. It will take more than a few points here and there.

They have access to some mechanics that are unique to them and that if correctly costed can be scary.

- God Shards
- Transports with delocalized contents
- AP on basic weapons
- Highly durable deep striking transports
- A character that neutralizes Gman like models

Looking at top lists you can easily see that psychic powers and mortal wounds are hardly a need. The usual AM and SM list don't have any.

What necrons need is for their peculiar play style to emerge, and what is needed is IMHO just some point shaving.

God Shards are bad.

Their transports are worse than regular transports, by a mile.

Intercessors and Stormtroopers say hi.

Reasonably durable, badly deep striking (12" distance, rather than 9") NOT-Transport. Again, their transports are worse than regualr ones.

And that's one unique character, who, if he's close enough to neutralize the G-Man, is close enough to be charged by him.

Ok, you are not on the right mindset to discuss this and it is OT after all, so i'll just drop this.

 Skawt wrote:
Nerfing re-roll aura ranges to 3" would be a huge positive change for this game.

Would it? Why? It wouldn't effect "problem armies" and would make armies that use but don't rely on the auras worse.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Interestingly, I haven't beat sisters yet with marines of any kind. I consider sisters head and shoulders above any kind of marine list. They just aren't in plastic.

They actually discuss the fact that Sisters were fairly well represented (or at least better represented than they would have expected) and tended to point out in tournament settings pretty well. They did a breakdown of the average points total that various factions ended up with at the end of a tournament, which was very interesting. Basically, Sisters tend to point out in ITC tournament settings at around 60 points or so, which was slightly above average (Necrons tended to point out at 53, which is the lowest). The other thing they mentioned with that though is that there are some really good Sisters players who just know how to use their army well, so you have low representation, but higher average player skill coming into play a bit, whereas with Marines you might just be seeing results that are slanted to a certain extent by simple weight of representation.

Chaos flavors tended to point out of tournaments with the highest average point total (somewhere in the 70s), even though AM won more tournaments, they tended to have a lower average point total across tournaments, this may also have to do with representation and average player skill level.

Edited for clarification and typos.

There is a much more simple explanation for SOB low participation rate. Their models are rare and very few men (the majority of players in this game) want to play an army of girls. They are better than space marines in every way though. Player skill accounts for very little in this game. It is mostly list building -followed by dice rolls. Player skill is basically knowing when you should go for a table or when to win by objectives and what order to kill things in- not very hard to figure out.

K, sooo....no. The majority of men want to play an army that's awesome. How many players do you know happen to be Orkz or Nids IRL?

Some people play SoB because of the Gothicness of the models, some people play them because they like the fluff, some people play them because they're rare, some people play them because they ARE an army of women.

Of the people who DON'T play SoB a small minority don't play them because they're female, sure, but I highly doubt it's a big enough proportion to skew the data that much. It's nowhere near the number of people who don't play them because they're metal. (And Slaanesh is cried about constantly in the community and if plenty of men wanna play that but all but 'a few' get scared off by other types of female characters then there are WAY worse problems than game balance here...)

The last few sentences have me questioning if you even play 40k; and if you do, really go a long way to explain why you hold the beliefs you do. Firstly, yes, in term of speed and firepower within 12" SoB tend to be better than marines but holy crap are we useless outside of that. Maybe he who has abundandt lascannons shouldn't throw stones. SoB are also hilariously terrible in melee, only Tau is worse.

And you try to dismiss player skill and then list a bunch of things that require pinpoit decision making at the competitive level, kill order, when to grab an objective vs when to go for board control, etc are all decisions that make or break games all the time and are almost never cut and dry. (Which is deliberate, if you build a list that loses if your opponent kills unit AB and C in that order, it's a bad army. Even double primarch lists aren't THAT obvious.)

Frankly, it sounds like you're frustrated with the outcome of your games and have looked for, and found, as many external reasons as possible for why you're not winning when most of your problem is the 'not very hard to figure out' player skill stuff.

So it looks like a majority or people agree that the blob is terrible but at the core of some armies.

So whats the answer? As long as auras work they way they do now, BLOBHAMMER will live!!!

Pancakey wrote:
So it looks like a majority or people agree that the blob is terrible but at the core of some armies.

So whats the answer? As long as auras work they way they do now, BLOBHAMMER will live!!!

I don't think there needs to be an answer. Just like a majority of people don't like playing against gunline armies as much as they like playing against mixed combined arms forces, that doesn't change the fact that it is possible to construct gunlines within the rules and that's not a bad thing.

"blobhammer" is just a variation on attached-character megablobs that we had in earlier editions. Just like then, it's possible to set up, but not terribly effective in a competitive sense because you're putting all your eggs in one basket (how many major GTs did we see Jancoran sweeping with his infamous unbeatable guard blob o' doom list in 7th, for instance)

It was a small issue very early in the edition before the influence of the codexes and their powerful stratagems started to appear, but now you rarely see multiple units blobbed around a single character and more frequently see stuff falling back into more of the 7th ed vein with either unsupported spammed MSU units (Infantry squads, brimstone horrors soon to be rest in piece sweet obnoxious princes, eldar rangers) or heavily supported maxed-out units designed to take advantage of stratagems and one-per psychic powers (Ork Boyz mobs, genestealer mobs, maxed Dark Reaper squads, or any of various flavors of superheavies used in the same manner). For the former, no auras are used usually. For the latter, there would be no difference in function if auras worked how they did now or if they did attached characters ala 7th and earlier. If an aura is buffing one big giant unit, it might as well not be an aura.

You're tilting at a windmill here, there is no actual widespread problem outside (most likely) your local meta.

Pancakey wrote:
So whats the answer? As long as auras work they way they do now, BLOBHAMMER will live!!!

You know, I think my problem with this thread is that it seems to suggest that "blobhammer" is something new. It's not. Not even vaguely new.

Tyranids and to a lesser extent Orks (they call it mobz, they even have special rules to let them do it better) have always had a "blobhammer" aesthetic/mechanic, I would argue it's simply the nature of horde armies to mob up.

But now that Death Guard have been designed to favor a mob setup in some configurations, it's this terribly heinous assault on the aesthetics and mechanics of the game? I question the logic of this conclusion.

Then you have the factions that tend to castle, but that's not the same as blobbing? Seems to me a castle is just a blob that doesn't move, or maybe the blob is a castle that moves?

This whole thread really just feels like one gigantic semantics argument.