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 was talking to my brother the other day about him starting to play. While going over the different armies, the one that appealed to him the most was Necron's. Seeing as I just recently got back from a deployment, and have played very limited number of games, I really could not give him an honest answer as how they would fare in 5th Ed. Would anyone be willing to elaborate? Thanks.

They're not the most competative (they are due for a new codex soon though). Assuming he isn't going up against WAAC top-o'-the-line metagaming lists, I think your bro should do okay.

Well necrons are interesting as many new theories on how to play them are starting to surface. For instance, one major disadvantage that has always been seen in the necrons is CC, yet many people have posted fairly competetive lists that are nearly entirely CC oriented. I say go for it, and as has been said, new codex in the near future.

In no way whatsoever.

I played against a1000 point list with my Tyranids against Crons the other day and i very nearly got ass handed to me, the only reason i won was because of the phase out rule I think that they are still a very viable army if they are played right.

On a scale of one to ten, necrons fail to meet the requirements to register on the scale.

slop27 wrote:I played against a1000 point list with my Tyranids against Crons the other day and i very nearly got ass handed to me, the only reason i won was because of the phase out rule I think that they are still a very viable army if they are played right.

Either that guy is very very good or your list / tactics were very very bad.

EzeKK wrote:In no way whatsoever.

Completely agree. In a competitive environment, Necrons get curb-stomped by anything and everything they come across.

I tend to disagree.

I can curb-stomp pretty much anyone with Tau (underwhelming as they are now) and do the same with Necron. It *really* depends on your army composition and more importantly, your tactics. Probably not a good starting army for your brother; neither would Dark Eldar or Tau; they're unforgiving armies.

For a starting player, you may want to pick Space marines or Orks. Most of my professional life has been wrapped up in infantry and armored tactics (7-8 anyone? =p) and army life, and I tend to have an advantage on the table regardless of the army I play; I find necrons to be quite powerful. People generally don't take necrons because its *easier* to win with other armies.

Then again, you probably shouldn't take my advice; I'm trying to trade out to get Dark Eldar despite their irrelevance to the 40k universe because I'm convinced that they're the best army in 40k. =p