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.

asimo77 wrote:I'm actually the opposite here I play Necrons and my friend plays Tau. I don't mean to sound argumentative but to assume that there aren't any balance issues when there are around 9 or so unique factions which also have to consider fluff when it comes to balancing doesn't really seem fair.

You're right, but this is no more true for older codices than it is for new ones, IMO.

asimo77 wrote:Sure necrons can win but it would be nice to have some AP

Heavy Destroyers, Monoliths, Gauss weapons automatically glance on 6s, as do disruption fields

asimo77 wrote:some sort of consistent CC specialist

Flayed Ones, Pariahs, Lords, Wraiths

asimo77 wrote:more mobility outside of Monoliths, and more reliable anti vehicle.

Heavy Destroyers are pretty reliable - a unit of 3 can take down just about any vehicle shy of a Land Raider, and even then it can be done. Monoliths tear vehicles apart.

asimo77 wrote:I can't remember where I saw this but there was some report of tournamnet rankings and Necrons place 8th, I don't think that's quite competitive.

Want me to start quoting tournament rankings where Space Marines or IG come in 8th? This is all about the player, not the army.

asimo77 wrote:Edit- For clarification there are competitive necron lists but tbh they are quite boring

Yes, they are, but...

asimo77 wrote:(maybe all top tier lists are like this?)

Bam. Hit the nail on the head. All top-tier lists are boring and cookie cutter, and only use a few units out of an entire codex. Necrons are no exception.

asimo77 wrote:It would be nice to have different winnable tactics, that way if someone plays casually or gets models based on aesthetics he won't be penalized as much.

I do not play the most competitive list in the world. I still win with my Crons, because I understand them. I'm still relatively new with them, but I guarantee you my buddy could pick up my list and absolutely kick ass with it.

asimo77 wrote:Also I'm not a great player or anything but I don't really enjoy velied insults claiming "I'm not playing the army properly"

There's no veiled insult there. Playing the army properly is a subjective term. You may have a different definition of playing an army properly than I do, but there is in fact a most competitive way to play most armies. But again, it's all about the player, not the codex.

asimo77 wrote:Side note- I agree Tau are ok it would just be nice if they spruced up their codex a bit, but it's not impossible for them to win

I agree here, Tau players like me could make a few changes if nothing else just to update our codex for 5th edition. Things like C&C nodes, Commander Shadowsun's special rules, Space Pope are all useless in the context of 5th edition.

Anyway, I know you're not trying to be argumentative, but I can never resist a friendly debate about the playability of the armies I play.

Alright. I'd say Grey Knights then and only then Black Templars. And then we can go back to Nilla Marines. But this time, instead of Space Wolves next, I say we mix things up and do Dark Angels rather than Space Wolves. I know this will make the Blood Angel crowd upset because they have to go last but man up already.

@ Saint Hazard: I suppose I misinterpreted the playing properly line, some of the finer points of conversation are lost online. I actually would be very keen on the idea of discussing necron strategy and hopefully learn some neat tricks, however that would probably be thread derailment.

asimo77 wrote:@ Saint Hazard: I suppose I misinterpreted the playing properly line, some of the finer points of conversation are lost online. I actually would be very keen on the idea of discussing necron strategy and hopefully learn some neat tricks, however that would probably be thread derailment.

That's the truth, and I take no offense that you misinterpreted what I was saying - it's far too easy to do over the internet.

That said, feel free to PM me if you want to discuss Necrons in depth. Like I said, I'm personally new to Necron tactica, but if you have any specific questions I'd be more than happy to ask my buddy and get back to you with an answer. As for the general Necron tactica, I may be able to answer some questions and give some tips, but I have a feeling most of the stuff I'd have to say, you already know.

SaintHazard wrote:Anyone who claims an army isn't competitive because their codex is old isn't playing the army properly.

Necrons and Tau are both very competitive armies if you know how to run them.

I'd know personally regarding Tau, and I'd know second-hand regarding Necrons - I have a friend who plays them absolutely brilliantly.

You only think so because you're constantly playing Tau vs. Necrons.

Terminus wrote:You only think so because you're constantly playing Tau vs. Necrons.

Actually my Tau typically get stomped by his Crons.

But naw to be serious I do play my Tau against just about everything. Though I've been fielding my Daemons a lot more often recently. Now there's a fun army to play.

SaintHazard wrote:Bam. Hit the nail on the head. All top-tier lists are boring and cookie cutter, and only use a few units out of an entire codex. Necrons are no exception.

Gross generalization. People cry spam if you have more than one of the same thing. I personally feel that armies made out of a hodgepodge of random crap with no real purpose in mind are for idiots.

Terminus wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:Bam. Hit the nail on the head. All top-tier lists are boring and cookie cutter, and only use a few units out of an entire codex. Necrons are no exception.

Gross generalization. People cry spam if you have more than one of the same thing. I personally feel that armies made out of a hodgepodge of random crap with no real purpose in mind are for idiots.

People cry spam until your four Chimeras full of meltavets stomp them into the ground.

Or your four Trukks full of Boyz start crumpin'.

Or your five units of Jetbike Guardians DS in turn 5 and take all the objectives.

You get where I'm goin' with this.

If you want to continue to discuss the merits of different approaches to list-building, I would recommend starting a new topic.


For the topic at hand, I've waxed lyrical in the past about my rather strong feelings that there shouldn't be an update 'order' for codexes... They should be (all) updated when the core rules are updated.

Get everyone playing with the same rules, and use model releases and re-releases instead of new and shiny rules to move buyer interest from army to army

However, if we assume that GW will keep the same market strategy of staggered codex releases as they currently use, to my mind the order should be 'oldest first'...