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.

iGuy91 wrote:Got a sisters player who is planning on running scion plasma spam and Celestine + Retibutors in the transport with firing ports. Any suggestions to deal with the alpha strike cheese since its darn near impossible to get away from Celestine?

This ones fairly easy, you need scarabs, and lots of them. I fielded 13 of them last time, it almost took up my entire deployment zone, meaning his scions had to ds WELL away from the stuff they wanted to get to, effectively neutering them for the entire game. I would bring 2x9 squads though, I felt I wanted more that game.

vipoid wrote:

 Cptn_Snuggles wrote:
How has everyone been handling the required 2 HQ's for a Batallion. I feel one overlord is a must paired with MWBD with a tesla immortal squad.

For the second, I'm torn. I'm not completely sold on a cryptek. Are you going with a destroyer lord with some synergy with destroyers or going with a second overlord with more MWBD goodness?

With my (admittedly limited) experience so far, I can safely say that I'm really not fond of regular crypteks.

I think I'll be favouring 1 Overlord and 1 D. Lord. However, part of the reason why I'm taking the D. Lord is because I want to use my conversion whenever possible. If I wasn't taking him I could definitely see myself including a second Overlord instead.

Yeah, I'm not sold at all on warriors, their damage output is pretty atrocious IMO, nothing like it was in 7th, and 20 of them isn't that hard to blast through, meaning you aren't getting RP at all most of the time, and the 5++ almost never comes into play, making the cryptek almost useless. A second O/Lord is good if you want to double down on immortals, or a D/Lord with Res orb is a good buff for your destroyers. The named crypteks are better if you want to stick with the warriors however, szerath is good for multiple infantry squads.

Cmdr_Sune wrote:About the Tomb Blades. I'm not really seeing any place for them in my army.

With gauss they need to be in rapid fire range to be optimal and that takes them out of their comfort zone.

With tesla three TB's costs more than one A Barge with tesla cannon. The AB has more wounds, QS and higher strength weapons.

BTW, have you guys watched Super Wargamers latest battle report on youtube where he uses Kutlakh with 3 max sized units of Lychguard (2 board and shield, 1WS) and 1 unit of 9 Tomb Blades with gauss. He seems to be a very good Necron player compared to most other battle report Necron players.

Have you tried out the TB's? I was also taken back at their points cost initially, but after running them a few times, they are worth it. They are our primary anti horde infantry killers this edition, same as flayed ones but much, much more versatile/fast/durable. Run them with scarabs for a nasty 1-2 combo. We play with a lot of terrain normally, so the nebuloscopes are phenomenal. Ive wiped a 30 man strong boyz squad in one volley of gauss, them and a scarab squad will wipe a 50 man conscript blob in 1 round. I haven't run the tesla yet, math says they get a ridiculous amount of shots, I prefer the good rend, coupled with the ignores cover. Theyre fast, fairly durable (I've had 2x6 man squads survive a whole round of focused shooting from an entire AdMech army). They are just, very expensive. I feel they are more appropriately cosed vs 7th (criminally undercosted then) but I feel theyve gone too far the other way now, a kitted out squad shouldnt cost 1/4 of a 2k army. Maybe if you could take them in squads of 12 I'd be happy to pay 500 points, but currently you have to be very smart with how you play them as its a large points investment.

Comp is ready. Mad rush but it looks pretty all together

Sentry pylons lack QS, have less wounds and range, the flayer arrays and mobility (even though when you move the arks you lose damage). I feel even a DDA spam list lacks enough horde killing power, and if your moving to get the flayed arrays you lose the big gun. If you want a vehicle only spam list it has to be the TA's, they have the most versatile weaponry, best save etc.

FLG has a meta report:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ct-6BTRhNXx46dCxN9f7YxaARRhkUp5Hw0Rypcv3JHs/edit#gid=1657120584

We are the worst ranking major faction.... :( by a long shot

We have a 58% chance of losing and a 41% chance of winning, orks are 47% for both while T'au have a 40% chance of winning but only a 52% chance of losing and a 7% chance of a draw.

 skoffs wrote:
I was about to say Toholk is mandatory if taking a Superheavy Pylon, but then I thought about it a little more.
He costs 165 points. Only one of his abilities will effect the Pylon, the others are useless unless your list includes a lot of Warriors (which, if we've come to a consensus, isn't the best build).
For 3 points more you could get TWO Spyders with Fab.Claws. That would potentially give you significantly more wounds back. Plus, if you're playing a lot of Scarabs (which I think we've all agreed is a good idea) they would have benefit (plus the potential for psychic defense).
The difference would be that once Toholk gives his buff to the Pylon he can be forgotten. The Spyders would need to be next to the Pylon to give it any help, and if killed the Pylon is vulnerable.
On the other hand, if you've got any other vehicles near the Pylon (eg. Doomsday Arks) the Spyders can benefit them as well.
But you're going to need an HQ no matter what, so it might as well be Toholk if you're taking a Pylon, right?

Ugh, I don't know.
What you think?

He's a no brainer if taking a vehicle heavy list, as no other HQ's affect vehicles in any way. He also reroll a seizes, which is handy in a vehicle heavy list as they tend to skew towards an alpha strike. Finally his weaponry is pretty good.

 skoffs wrote:

 Klowny wrote:
He's a no brainer if taking a vehicle heavy list

But he can only affect a single vehicle. Surely a vehicle HEAVY list would want something that can help many vehicles rather than a single one?
(if it was a bubble effect that'd be a completely different story all together).

Then what HQ would serve a vehicle heavy list better?

Spyders aren't really redundancy, as they're easily killed. They will be focused in a list that spams scarabs and vehicles, as they are lynchpin buffing units. Either way, a CCB or D/Lord just dont put out enough offensive power to warrant their points investment in a vehicle heavy list. If your only CC threats are a warlord, any scary CC units your opponent has will be pointed straight at it.

 deltaKshatriya wrote:
I haven't been following the thread, so I'm curious what the general consensus is on Necrons.

Are they better or worse than 7th?

What units seem to really shine?

Which ones not so much?

Horribly worse, bottom tier codex.

Scarabs and vehicles are our best units, infantry is okay, but all combos/fun tricks are too cost prohibitive to pull off.

So I listen to the FLG podcasts a lot. Just listened to the chaos review, and the guys mentioned something curios.

They said in the most recent one that their gag order is now been lifted due to the codex's being available. They also hinted that the codex's were written well after the index's.

In previous times they have mentioned that in their meta, they think necrons are very powerful, maybe bordering on a bit too powerful.

It's pure speculation ATM, but I'm hoping they are referring to playtesting the codex necrons being powerful. It doesn't make sense saying that necrons are very strong in their meta if playing off index. But if our codex is powerful and they've been playtesting that for a while......

torblind wrote:

Propo Fol wrote:

 Klowny wrote:
So I listen to the FLG podcasts a lot. Just listened to the chaos review, and the guys mentioned something curios.

They said in the most recent one that their gag order is now been lifted due to the codex's being available. They also hinted that the codex's were written well after the index's.

In previous times they have mentioned that in their meta, they think necrons are very powerful, maybe bordering on a bit too powerful.

It's pure speculation ATM, but I'm hoping they are referring to playtesting the codex necrons being powerful. It doesn't make sense saying that necrons are very strong in their meta if playing off index. But if our codex is powerful and they've been playtesting that for a while......

Thanks for this info...its very interesting. I really cant imagine theyd be referring to the index list being overpowered, especially given one of the excellent datasets weve seen showing necron index being subpar comes from someone over there. But who knows. So if we really are getting a codex in the distant but not too distant future as is rumored it sure is reasonable to think theyd already be playtesting a version of it.

Honestly i am fearful if so, id hate for gw to drop an op codex on us, people have a lot of negative connotations in regards to necrons as it is, i think id rather be solidly mid tier! I dont think i can deal with another edition of "OP" whines...heck i feel like i still hear them now despite all evidence to the contrary just because RP kinda irritates people!

Nevertheless I have the impression Reece wants to convey that Necrons are a very strong army, but they need to be played right, they're a "finesse army". In the competitive meta this no longer holds true, but who knows if that was all there was to what they now said.

He did mention exactly that lol.

 iGuy91 wrote:

 deltaKshatriya wrote:

 Klowny wrote:

 deltaKshatriya wrote:
I haven't been following the thread, so I'm curious what the general consensus is on Necrons.

Are they better or worse than 7th?

What units seem to really shine?

Which ones not so much?

Horribly worse, bottom tier codex.

Scarabs and vehicles are our best units, infantry is okay, but all combos/fun tricks are too cost prohibitive to pull off.

Odd. I just played a game at 35 power (approximately 1000 points) and tabled the guy. Might've been a one off. Necrons seemed pretty well rounded to me. I'm curios what specifically got worse? What'd they change that really made Necrons bottom tier?

IMO the reason we struggle is the meta has shifted violently to the strongest possible alpha strike....first turn assaults, massive board wiping shooting
We've always been an mid range shooting attrition army. Keep the enemy at arms length, and shoot them with decent shooting until only we're still standing. We just don't fit well right now in meta...that...and most of our stuff is wildly overpriced for what it brings to the table.

We have a BRUTAL alpha strike if you build it right.....


Automatically Appended Next Post:
also, making whoever finishes deploying first gets +1 to their roll for who goes first means MSU is better than it was before, and reducing your drops to the lowest as possible isnt as necessary now.

Obsec is good sure, but I still dont think it warrants warriors. Immortals yes, but warriors no.

Finally, obsec isnt htat important if you have scarabs surrounding the objective preventing them from getting on it.

Claas wrote:
Some of our lack of power this edition I feel is due to how our units interact with each other. Like Destroyers for example. If you have a QS heavy list along with destroyers, your opponent is going to focus all of their high damage weapons on the destroyers and will remove them quicky instead of wasting high damage shots on QS. On the flip side if you do not have alot of QS in a lost your opponent is still going to use all the higj d weapons on the destroyers.

Destroyers sit in this weird spot, they are very good at what they do if you have a maxed squad with a D/lord around, but also are fragile.

Realistically, we now dont look to T values for safety anymore, you focus on the amount of wounds a model has. 3 base is okay against infantry, but there is a plethora of D6 damage weapons that will 1-shot a destroyer.... these are also easily spammable. Just not okay.

Tomb blades are only slightly better due to having access to an invuln, bigger squad sizes and better movement, but again are expensive.

Our units interact well with each other, we are just paying too much for the interactions (or lack thereof if RP is bypassed). Either RP needs buffing, which I cant see happening due to the outcry from the playerbase as a whole thinking it will make us too OP, or our points need dramatic reductions across the board. The latter is much more likely to happen, and while stuff wont go back to 7th ed cost levels, it needs to get better.

500 points for 9 maxed TB is just way too much, 420 for 20 flayed ones is laughable, Destroyers need much attention.

Like grim said in the other post, we need alot more mobility (cheaply) and damage if we are to stay at our current point cost. By the looks of it CP are going to be very usefull for stratagems once the codexes are out, and we wont have access to many at our current points cost, so we will need alot more bang for our buck.

Their latest podcast he talked quite a bit about the length between the index release and the codex release, and he said in a round about way that the indexes were written WELL before the codexes, and that the fast release between index and these codexes was not indicative of the actual length of time between them being written. FLG has stated multiple times that everything will be a lot better once all the codexes are out, and that there is a lot of stuff that is only a problem due to the imbalance created in the indexes being released at the same time.

Holding out hope that we get a big ol' present in our codex. Until then I've really lost enthusiasm for Necrons :/

I've played them against orks.... not a good idea. I can envisage them being good against power armour, but again Destroyers are just as good. A good list against marines I would see having both Destroyers and praets. But against most other armies, leave them on the bench.

1 damage just doesn't have enough punch to do much work at all.

Also, a big part of the meta currently is hordes. And putting out a bucketload of attacks from scarabs, that wound most hordes on 3/4+ is very beneficial. Dont underestimate the damage scarabs can do, remember, they wound an imperial knight just as efficiently as they do a space marine.

Ive had them shred deffkoptas, nob squads, conscript blobs, seekers.

Additionally, while scarabs will wilt to sustained D3/D6 damage weapons, or a heavy volley from single damage weapons, they are surprisingly durable, especially at their price point.

Yeah so the wording on the scarab hive means you get one scarab base back per turn, not one per spyder.

More spyders mean redundancy if one dies but they do not grant additional bases

Yea dude, welcome to index 'every fun thing is too expensive to use practically'

Omg I'm getting triggered in the Reinforcement Points thread. Its claimed in that thread that necrons RP is the most broken mechanic in the game and as a result we are the most OP faction currently.

Praets or flayed ones, both put out 1 damage, just with more AP on the praets, but the FO put out a shedload of attacks, and reroll wounds. Can DS too.

Yeah I just don't like the 1 damage that praets do now, underwhelming overall. If you want elite killers, lychguard are your boys, if you want horde flayed ones do the job. If you want the small amount of units in between the two praets are the go

Yeah, they're all underwhelming tbh, I dont like running any of them. The extra damage is really noticeable, and if you add in anrakyr the buffs really give lych the edge in combat. But then praets are faster. It depends on what your strategy is with them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
+1 A w/ MWBD is really good. I know he can give it to praets too, just keeping up with them he will have a hard time.

Everything from FW is good, except the tomb citadel. Its like a majillionty points, for a terrible buff to your army. Toholk is good for vehicle heavy armies, ad Kutlakh is good for CC armies. The tomb citadel dies when one component dies from memory, so its not as survivable as you think. Seriously, your hard nerfing yourself if you even consider it, and our army is weak as it is.

Illuminor and Anrakyr have no dynasty, but can be included in any normal dynasty army as you please. For instance, Anrakyr just roams the stars helping out whatever necron dynasty he is near, taking troops as payment for services rendered. So its not unfluffy to include him in whatever you want to. Szerath could just be oiut with whatever Dynasty you want, searching for technology etc.

2 Gauss Pylons each with 6" 5++ bubbles will protect a fair chunk of an army, for cheaper, while doing considerably more damage. If your looking at 3-4k points then yea I suppose it would be okay, I'd rather spend my money on other stuff, 1k is alot of points for something that fragile. Your effectively spending 1k points to do what a monolith, cryptek and Night Scythe can do much more effectively, for considerably cheaper. If it was 500 points, then yes it would be viable, but at its current price point, hilariously overcosted for what its offering unfortunately, which is a shame cus I want to get one

Another thing, the 5++ rarely comes into play for troops, as most people save their high rend weapons for vehicles/monsters, so the save is exponentially better on vehicles. Park a couple DDA next to your Pylon and you have a much, much better short nexus than a big ol city

Grand illusion is before the first battle round begins, Toholks is at the start of the first battle round. :(

Lothmar wrote:

 Klowny wrote:
Grand illusion is before the first battle round begins, Toholks is at the start of the first battle round. :(

Technically Grand illusion is also 'at the beginning of the first battle round' the units just move if they're going to via this mechanic 'before the first round begins'

Im fairly certain you're right but looking at the wording makes me face scrunch wanting to do the mental gymnastics and figure out an articulate explanation of why it works. If only because Toholk is blind and therefor couldn't be deceived by the visual illusion. That and he's insane. *chuckle*

Yea both stipulate that they happen at the start of the first battle round, but GI specifically states this happens before it begins. Yea its confusing and the wording is off, I'd personally love it to be the other way and it is quite confusing.

Nope, infact its actually quite viable tbh. I would consider dropping the GA for scarabs, they are well worth it in this edition, and synergise with the sypders well.

rerolling a reroll has never been a thing unfortunately. same in this edition.

Flayed ones are a much, much better option. This is because they cant be shot off the board T1, as you hold them in DS reserve (if your going second) and you deepstrike them down at the end of the phase next to obryn, then GWM them up to zandrekh who you have Grand Illusioned up the board before the game started.

20 flayed ones will do considerably more damage to most targets than lychguard, as the considerable amount of attacks is delishious. If you somehow get anrakyr up the board too....