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.

Yes, I am very happy with the love the Necrons are getting. I even bought Indomitus, sold off the Marines and can't wait to start my first Necron army .

I fear the Eldar getting new models as my Eldar army was a commision (can't paint all that stuff myself, my Orks asked my undivided painting attention). So when they get news models I'm not only going to buy the new models but also have to get them painted again, which my wallet would not be happy about .

I'm lucky enough that I don't care much for the rules, I'm happy moving my models around, but that could be partly due to the fact that I don't have Marine players in my playing group. I can imagine have a different opinion if your regular opponents play Marines.

a_typical_hero wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Unfortunately, given what we've seen from necron statline improvements vs blanket rule improvements, they're taking a "marines 2.0" approach to improving Necrons, not a "marines 3.0" approach of actually doing a deep dive on the statlines and addressing core inefficiencies. They're getting some improvements mostly in the realms of melee damage and anti tank which is direly needed but the biggest boosts are going to come from Resurrection Protocols and Doctrines, which means just like with Marines 2.0 the best stuff in the necron codex will just get better and the worst stuff will say pointless.

Since Marines 2.0 people can't stop bringing it up that you can take a random assortment of Marine units and have a viable list against anybody. So getting the "Marine 2.0 treatment" seems to me like that's what you want for your army.

Those people are wrong, and those statements are hyperbolic no matter what faction people are talking about. Marines 2.0 made units like Vindicators, Land Speeders, Attack Bikes, Assault Marines, Hammernators etc more tolerable, but they didn't make them internally useful when considered against other options right there in the same book.

Sure, I COULD take a unit of hammernators post-2.0 and conceivably not feel gakky about it, thanks to shock assault, +2" charge chaplain prayer, transhuman phys etc. But I could also take a smashcaptain in their place and he'd be infinitely cheaper, more reliable, and better at his job.

What these kinds of units needed is what they got: in depth core statline improvements.

The SS rework and W3 addressed hammernators' weak spot to ap-1 weaponry. The powerfist and heavy flamer rework additionally made tactical terminators a far more viable option. The multimelta rework massively aided the usefulness of attack bikes. AP-1 chainswords and W2 firstborns greatly improved assault marines.

These are the kinds of improvements that these underperforming units actually needed. Quick fix blanket army wide rules can conceivably improve the situation of underperforming units as compared to other codexes, but it does nothing to address internal balance.

the_scotsman wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Unfortunately, given what we've seen from necron statline improvements vs blanket rule improvements, they're taking a "marines 2.0" approach to improving Necrons, not a "marines 3.0" approach of actually doing a deep dive on the statlines and addressing core inefficiencies. They're getting some improvements mostly in the realms of melee damage and anti tank which is direly needed but the biggest boosts are going to come from Resurrection Protocols and Doctrines, which means just like with Marines 2.0 the best stuff in the necron codex will just get better and the worst stuff will say pointless.

Since Marines 2.0 people can't stop bringing it up that you can take a random assortment of Marine units and have a viable list against anybody. So getting the "Marine 2.0 treatment" seems to me like that's what you want for your army.

Those people are wrong, and those statements are hyperbolic no matter what faction people are talking about. Marines 2.0 made units like Vindicators, Land Speeders, Attack Bikes, Assault Marines, Hammernators etc more tolerable, but they didn't make them internally useful when considered against other options right there in the same book.

Sure, I COULD take a unit of hammernators post-2.0 and conceivably not feel gakky about it, thanks to shock assault, +2" charge chaplain prayer, transhuman phys etc. But I could also take a smashcaptain in their place and he'd be infinitely cheaper, more reliable, and better at his job.

What these kinds of units needed is what they got: in depth core statline improvements.

The SS rework and W3 addressed hammernators' weak spot to ap-1 weaponry. The powerfist and heavy flamer rework additionally made tactical terminators a far more viable option. The multimelta rework massively aided the usefulness of attack bikes. AP-1 chainswords and W2 firstborns greatly improved assault marines.

These are the kinds of improvements that these underperforming units actually needed. Quick fix blanket army wide rules can conceivably improve the situation of underperforming units as compared to other codexes, but it does nothing to address internal balance.

ok, can you take this to one of the many many many space Marine whine threads that litter these fourms and elt this thread be used to discuss all the awesome new necron stuff?

On a "positive for Necrons" note BTW, destroyers could be pretty good, given their innate re-roll 1s, and their HQ's wound re-roll aura.

Also saw them reference a Lokhust Lord; but admittedly that could just be what Destroyer Lords have become

-Ňecrontyr- wrote:
Also saw them reference a Lokhust Lord; but admittedly that could just be what Destroyer Lords have become

Possibly, but I'd hope they'd take the opportunity to sort out the stupid equipment loadout on the old Destroyer (now Lokhust Destroyer) Lord. Having a unit that can buff a ranged unit be a melee beatstick - or as much of a beatstick as Necrons were allowed - makes no sense and makes even less sense now we have the Skorpekh Lord.

Destroyers have always had rr1's and a rr1 aura from their Lords, so the article told us nothing new.

Nice to know the Enmitic Exterminator does actually have Blast though.

BrianDavion wrote:


ok, can you take this to one of the many many many space Marine whine threads that litter these fourms and elt this thread be used to discuss all the awesome new necron stuff?

On a "positive for Necrons" note BTW, destroyers could be pretty good, given their innate re-roll 1s, and their HQ's wound re-roll aura.

It is worth pointing out: This is exactly how destroyers and destroyer lords work right now. This is not a rules change.

From my experience with playing against Skorpekhs, they do solid damage but lack a delivery mechanism or workable defenses. They're extremely easy to just shoot before they get to you.

If the new monolith is good though, they could be useful as you can teleport those bad dudes in.