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.

EXCELLENT!!!

Whenever people write their Necron Codex reviews, every1 seem to be skipping Tomb Blades, why?

- We get a Jetbike with Warrior (statline wise) on it for 20 pts.
- It can take twin linked Tesla Carbine / Gauss Blaster or Particle Beamer for 10pts. (S6, AP5, Blast)
- Since it's a jetbike we can turboboost which most people miss in Destroyer's disposal
- at this point we have a cheap unit that can attack in 36" range in single turn

Some will say it's crappy, and not enough...

Well look at upgrades:
- Shadowloom (10 pts) gives you Stealth = +1 Cover Save when you're in cover.... TurboBoost Cover at 2+ anyone?
- Nebuloscopes (5 pts) give you BS 5 = you will hit on 2+, AND reroll any misses you got if using Twin-linked weapons listed above. Id's say it's hard to miss now.
- Shield Vane (10 pts) upgrades armor save to 3+, there you have your old warrior statline back, on jetbike

I must say it's a unit worth considering for at least few purposes:
- rushing at enemy to scare him and force allocating shots on swirling Tomb Blades rather then other units (seen this happen, some shooty armies like IG or Tau tend to wet their pants if something is approaching rapidly, and unless you're only playing against seasoned players - this WILL happen)
- chasing down certain, smaller and valuable enemy units - with maximized chance to shoot them down before your Tomb Blades will be shot down.
- excellent choice for small point games where 40 pts per unit is a killer and you weep every time you take and loose a Destroyer

Arandmoor wrote:
Immortals: Add an overlord with Phaeron and they're better than they were in the old codex.

The only way they are any better is that they can RAP twice in a turn vs 1 WBB and that they are scoring. However they lost toughness 5 and their gun was MUCH better as assault 2 24". The lord with Phaeron brings them closer to what they were, not make them better than they were.

Arandmoor wrote:
Also, you seem to be under the impression they can only transport warriors, which is incorrect. They can transport anything a 10-seat transport can take. They can only be *taken* by warrior squads, and they can only *repair* warriors. You could shove immortals into them if you wanted after the game had started (don't know why you would want to. If you're taking them for their transport capacity you're taking them for the wrong reason. They're there to repair warriors and broadside enemy units).

True enough, and in fact it would be nice to have immortals in them. They are not simply there for their repair abilities, their main strength is that they are opened top so your warriors can fire out without taking return fire as warriors are much more fragile than before.

Arandmoor wrote:
Praetorians: Combo them with whip cord wraiths. The new codex was written around unit synergies. Triarch Praetorians playing bodyguard for a destroyer lord with a rez orb is a scary unit. Does the Rod of the Covenant only have a 6" range? Sure...but they're jump infantry. If they need more than that you're doing it wrong. Don't overlook their AP2. They're like our old wraiths only way more dangerous IMO.

Until 1-2 units of longfangs fire missiles at them and wipe the entire squad before it can RAP as they jump up the field towards your opponent. Free victory points baby!

Arandmoor wrote:
Triarch Stalker: If he gets blown off the board before he can be useful, you didn't have enough armor on the board or your opponent got lucky (or he was just that important to kill). Upgrade his weapon to a gauss cannon and hide him during deployment. With move through cover he'll be able to mark something before he goes down, and he's cheap enough that marking the right unit will more than make his points back. Breaking even should not be hard if you have enough other high-value targets for your opponent to shoot at.

You seem to be laboring under the impression that theres enough points to spam some Ghost Arks, fill them, run lords with everything, and still have points for expendable 150+ point walkers. This stuff adds up fast man.

Arandmoor wrote:
Destroyers: Don't knock AP3. It's a magic number to be sure. Also, they shouldn't be nearly as high priority for your opponent as they used to be so they'll be much more likely to earn their points back than they were before. They'll easily be a mainstay in smaller games, and still have a large role to play in larger ones as well.

Again their expensive, and the with the amount of points being spent on other essential units, I dont see how you can justify them as well when they can be blasted appart by a single squad of veterans or long fangs or devastors as your tanks are taking their sweet time getting up the field.

Arandmoor wrote:
Wraiths: Go read them again. Seriously. They're a vital unit now. Their presence on your list tells me you haven't even tried to figure out what they'll be good for. Hint: They'll make all your other nasty-except-for-the-I-2 CC necrons go first. Triarch Praetorians, Lych Guard, Lords, Immortals, Warriors...doesn't matter. If it's in B2B with a wraith, the necrons go first in CC. For 45 points, they're a steal.

It seems you dont seem to play many competitive tourniments because you keep going on about how awsome these close combat units are in what amounts to a very shooty army. Most high end competitive armies these days are pure firepower (some exceptions). Wraiths along with and lych guard, Praetorians, or Spyders will almost certainly die long before they reach your opponent, because hes certainly not coming to you.

Arandmoor wrote:
Doomsday Ark: One of like 3 guns in our codex that can fire beyond 24 inches. They don't suck, and with AV13 they'll be more survivable than most big guns barring IG russes. In the context of the necron army, they need to be more expensive. IG don't get back up when you kill them. We do. If they were cheap, they would be severely OP. Same if they could be taken in squadrons. They're not UP. They're in a really vital spot for us, IMO, without being OP.

Never said they were bad, just overpointed. Just because warriors get up doesnt mean you can make tanks stupidly expensive. Else IG tanks should be more expensive because their infantry can also take 5839046789346 special and heavy weapons by that logic.

Arandmoor wrote:
Annihilation Barge: Did you read the WD battle report? Their barge wrecked left and right (including a few of their own immortals...). Combo with a Triarch Stalker and your opponent will be QQing so long as the dice gods don't completely hate you.

Why on earth would you combine them with a Triarch Stalker, the Telsa Destructor is ALREADY twin linked and you can never get multiple rerolls. Also thinking that a WD battle report shows good play makes me giggle.

Arandmoor wrote:
Catacomb Command Barge: You haven't been paying attention. This thing is awesome for AT work, and can snipe sergeants. It's also got a tesla cannon and is amazingly durable with an IC on board (give them a phylactery).

Ok I actually lol'd at this one. Amazing for AT work? it takes a minimum of 2 turns simply floating up the field just to get near a tank. It only picks out stuff on a roll of 6, and is not amazingly durable because its not going to get Weapon Destroyed and Immobalised to death, its gonna get hit with an AT squad and wrecked or exploded and your character cant stop those results. Then he gets to die because he has no squad to soak up fire. Woot for free Victory Points or a Kill Point

Arandmoor wrote:
Why did I type this much? If I had read this entry by itself I would have known you hadn't actually read the codex yet.

You make me LOL, don't post anymore troll.

StormStrikr wrote:
Never said they were bad, just overpointed. Just because warriors get up doesnt mean you can make tanks stupidly expensive. Else IG tanks should be more expensive because their infantry can also take 5839046789346 special and heavy weapons by that logic.

Correct. They should be.

Tomb Blades is something new, so that's why people miss it. When a new codex comes out, people look to see how good or bad the old units are, because these are the ones they have paid for already. If they have been nefrfed they are annoyed because they are now suppossedly "uselss and a ploy by GW to get you to buy other stuff."

If they have been up[graded then they will be more expensive, so people still whine that they can't fit in all 3 Monolithes Immortals because they cost too much.

If they stay roughly the same there is usually a better unit doing their job, maybe even for less. So people still whine that their units arn't competitive because there is a better unit at it.

Theorius wrote:

Zweischneid wrote:I think alot of people get the C'Tan power "Writhing Worldscape" wrong.

That power changes difficult terrain to dangerous terrain. And it changes dangerous terrain to "more" dangerous terrain (1 or 2 on the dice). It does NOTHING to open ground. If it isn't difficult or dangerous to begin with, that single power will not change it.

There's other powers in the book, including another C'Tan power which works only on vehicles within 6", there's a SC that does difficult terrain for the 1st turn, there's that Cryptek staff that lets you hit a unit making it move like difficult terrain, etc.., but a blanket-all-table-difficult terrain is not in the book.

this is how ive understood it as well, dunno where people got the everywhere is difficult thing?

its still awesomely powerful, especially with paired with crypteks with tremorstaves

The crypteks tremorstave forces any unit it hits to roll as if in difficult terrain next turn. The writhing worldscape automatically ups that to dangerous terrain. Essentially anything within 36" of your crypteks is probably going to be doing dangerous terrain tests every single turn. You got it right there, most people are probably referring to the pair vs. the individual power. (I explained it for anyone who hasn't read the codex).

Hox wrote:
The crypteks tremorstave forces any unit it hits to roll as if in difficult terrain next turn. The writhing worldscape automatically ups that to dangerous terrain. Essentially anything within 36" of your crypteks is probably going to be doing dangerous terrain tests every single turn. You got it right there, most people are probably referring to the pair vs. the individual power. (I explained it for anyone who hasn't read the codex).

I know that. You also got the Temporal Snares from Orikan. But it requires more than just the C'Tan power. It requires building pretty much the entire army to that purpose (including forgoing alot of other neat stuff on your Crypteks and/or your C'Tan, etc..). It isn't just "buy that power, everthing is difficult terrain" as it was portrayed by the OP.

From what I've read in the Monolith's rules for teleporting is that you can teleport any friendly Necron unit to it.

Deep strike a Monolith and pull a full squad of Spyders through it, or a Ctan Shard that has Fire Lord. Such a massive fire magnet to let your other forces get into range virtually unmolested.

Nercon players can whine all they want, I've still got my tau codex and am still winning games.

Deep strike a Monolith near a parking lot, pull the Scarabs through and watch the fun.


I think Scarabs and Spyders are going to become an almost compulsary choice. The most common army type is MEQ, so the ability to rob the most well armoured warriors of their armour is amazing.

After that you have Mech Guard or Mech in general. 4+ to reduce AV by one, and wrecked if it hits 0? That will force vehicles to move and lose weapons abilty when there are a lot lot of Entropic units about. a swarm of 3 Scarabs charging a stationary vehicle will deal 15 autohits, so roughly 7.5, which is rounded to 8, AV has been lost. AV 4 Land raider? I'm there. AV 3/3/2 Rhino? I'm there too!

Deadshot wrote:Deep strike a Monolith near a parking lot, pull the Scarabs through and watch the fun.

Yes and no. The Monolith generally cannot Deepstrike first turn. The Scarabs cannot pull through the turn it deepstrikes. And the turn they teleport through, they cannot assault. Thus, you're looking somewhere at turn 4 to 5 using that particular tactic.

Turn 2: Monolith from reserve deepstrikes.
Turn 3: First Scarab-unit uses Monolith to "move through"
Turn 4: Scarabs assault nearby vehicle.

Not saying Scarabs are bad, but just running them across the board (perhaps under Nightfighting) and exploiting their beast-move/charge might be a better way to get them there.

Zweischneid wrote:

Deadshot wrote:Deep strike a Monolith near a parking lot, pull the Scarabs through and watch the fun.

Yes and no. The Monolith generally cannot Deepstrike first turn. The Scarabs cannot pull through the turn it deepstrikes. And the turn they teleport through, they cannot assault. Thus, you're looking somewhere at turn 4 to 5 using that particular tactic.

Turn 2: Monolith from reserve deepstrikes.
Turn 3: First Scarab-unit uses Monolith to "move through"
Turn 4: Scarabs assault nearby vehicle.

Not saying Scarabs are bad, but just running them across the board (perhaps under Nightfighting) and exploiting their beast-move/charge might be a better way to get them there.

Better yet;

Turn 1: Spyders poop more scarabs and scarabs move + fleet.
Turn 2: Guessing where the scarabs might end their movement phase, Deep Strike the Monolith, pull Spyders, move+fleet Scarabs into the projected range, Spyders poop more scarabs.
Turn 3: Should be halway across the board for all your bunches of scarabs to charge stuffs, Tomb Spyders can poop more scarabs and overwhelm the enemy.

StormForged wrote:
Turn 2: Guessing where the scarabs might end their movement phase, Deep Strike the Monolith, pull Spyders, move+fleet Scarabs into the projected range, Spyders poop more scarabs.

Again, I think the Monolith ruling goes against that. It says the Dimensional Corridor has to be used at the very beginning of the Movement Phase. Monolith has to be there already. If you Deepstrike it (or move it), you have to wait a turn before you can "pull" stuff through.

And the Spyder also produces more Scarabs only BEFORE it moves.

StormForged wrote:

Zweischneid wrote:

Deadshot wrote:Deep strike a Monolith near a parking lot, pull the Scarabs through and watch the fun.

Yes and no. The Monolith generally cannot Deepstrike first turn. The Scarabs cannot pull through the turn it deepstrikes. And the turn they teleport through, they cannot assault. Thus, you're looking somewhere at turn 4 to 5 using that particular tactic.

Turn 2: Monolith from reserve deepstrikes.
Turn 3: First Scarab-unit uses Monolith to "move through"
Turn 4: Scarabs assault nearby vehicle.

Not saying Scarabs are bad, but just running them across the board (perhaps under Nightfighting) and exploiting their beast-move/charge might be a better way to get them there.

Better yet;

Turn 1: Spyders poop more scarabs and scarabs move + fleet.
Turn 2: Guessing where the scarabs might end their movement phase, Deep Strike the Monolith, pull Spyders, move+fleet Scarabs into the projected range, Spyders poop more scarabs.
Turn 3: Should be halway across the board for all your bunches of scarabs to charge stuffs, Tomb Spyders can poop more scarabs and overwhelm the enemy.

Not to mention if it's anything like the last one they'll just swarm it with that parking lot and leave no room for reserves to come out of it. If it tries to ram it should be something like a strength 5 bump anyway.

Well, entropic touch will beome something for MEQ and Mech liosts to fear.

Theorius wrote:

Arandmoor wrote:

Necroshea wrote:For what it's worth, I'd like to thank OP for actually putting effort into explaining why he's taking his stance on things.

Lych Guard: I'm honestly not sure how you can have a problem with these guys. Strap a lord with a rez orb to them and break out the shields. If you're running two courts, give them a lord from one and a cryptek from the other. They'll work great with Despair, Destruction, or Eternity. Take the rez orb, shields, and eternity. You've got a 3+ armor save, 4+ invuln save, 4+ RP, one reroll a turn, a hidden S7 power weapon, and a 3+ invuln cryptek that can reduce a nasty multi-wound model to a mewling baby if he wounds them and they fail the save.

I quoted the part I care about, as I agree wth everything you have said!....and Im reading royal court again...and i think you might be right! Is it other peopels opinions? if I have 2 royal courts can I stick a guy from each court into a unit? so we can get 2 into each unit?

That would be correct.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@OP... you can say it's a detailed account when you haven't actually played with or against the list. Until then just be silent.

Not sure if this was ever corrected, but the catacomb command barge is a fast skimmer. Moving 24 and getting those three attacks is cool. as is moving 12, getting three attacks, shooting, then getting out and assaulting.

StormStrikr wrote:So yeah overall this book is pretty much crap. I love the new models, its nice to see my favorite and starting army redone, but it makes me sad how bad it is. Almost everything is overpointed for what it can do, except for a few gems in the mud. So if we do see competitive tournament lists out of the necrons, it will be limited to those couple of units. Uhg. Ok Im done that’s enough typing.

Spot on.

For the second time within six months I have exactly the same feeling. First it was TK's, now it's TK's-in-space.

What adds to the offense IMO is that I (and others) waited SO LONG for new books (both TK and Necrons), and what we got was two gigantic Las Vegas casino buffets of CRAP.

And if I hear one more smug GW shill say "Oh, they just hate change!" I will summon a whole unit of Bloodletters to take his skull for the Blood God . . . er, hold on, GW expropriated real daemons from my World Eaters army too

LordOfTheSloths wrote:

StormStrikr wrote:So yeah overall this book is pretty much crap. I love the new models, its nice to see my favorite and starting army redone, but it makes me sad how bad it is. Almost everything is overpointed for what it can do, except for a few gems in the mud. So if we do see competitive tournament lists out of the necrons, it will be limited to those couple of units. Uhg. Ok Im done that’s enough typing.

Spot on.

For the second time within six months I have exactly the same feeling. First it was TK's, now it's TK's-in-space.

What adds to the offense IMO is that I (and others) waited SO LONG for new books (both TK and Necrons), and what we got was two gigantic Las Vegas casino buffets of CRAP.

And if I hear one more smug GW shill say "Oh, they just hate change!" I will summon a whole unit of Bloodletters to take his skull for the Blood God . . . er, hold on, GW expropriated real daemons from my World Eaters army too

You just hate change then. Oops, I can't hear you over the sound of my Mat Ward approved Paladins taking care of those Bloodletters.

One gigantic flaw in the reasoning of people trying to label the Necron Codex as trash or over powered: you're all taking each unit and concentrating on it like it's the only unit in the codex. This codex is all about coordination and balance between the different units, and you lot are completely ignoring that. Sure, the Destroyers may be worse off when only placed measured against the old ones, but they have their place and they work well with certain combos. My entire gaming group of about 12 people have spent the entire weekend playing around with the book, here's the results in a nutshell.

THEY ARE NOT TRASH, YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOUR TALKING ABOUT.

LordOfTheSloths wrote:

StormStrikr wrote:So yeah overall this book is pretty much crap. I love the new models, its nice to see my favorite and starting army redone, but it makes me sad how bad it is. Almost everything is overpointed for what it can do, except for a few gems in the mud. So if we do see competitive tournament lists out of the necrons, it will be limited to those couple of units. Uhg. Ok Im done that’s enough typing.

Spot on.

For the second time within six months I have exactly the same feeling. First it was TK's, now it's TK's-in-space.

What adds to the offense IMO is that I (and others) waited SO LONG for new books (both TK and Necrons), and what we got was two gigantic Las Vegas casino buffets of CRAP.

And if I hear one more smug GW shill say "Oh, they just hate change!" I will summon a whole unit of Bloodletters to take his skull for the Blood God . . . er, hold on, GW expropriated real daemons from my World Eaters army too

Yea because Egyptian Society and Influence never affected Necrons. Certainly not in their Tomb Worlds or in their Tomb Ships that are just three-dimensional triangles and cresent shaped because they obviously like French Breads. Or that Necron Glyphs aren't similar to Egyptian Iconography.

You do hate change, and hate it despite its a ten year update. Why don't you go play Monopoly or something? That NEVER changes.

There's very little Necron style that's specifically Egyptian. It's all hollywood jumbled stereotype of that entire area within a millenium or so


Automatically Appended Next Post:
There was something the Triarch Praetorians reminded me of and I just remembered.

Vespid!

They're nothing more than Vespid with higher stats and much higher cost. I'm bet they'll get just as much use.

Arandmoor wrote:

Ghost Arks: If you've only got one or two of them, and they're the only vehicles in your army, they're not going to make their points back. However, if you've got more valuable targets for your opponent to shoot at with his AT and they live to revive some fallen warriors, they only need to revive 6 warriors before they buy back enough of their cost to be effectively cheaper than a vanilla rhino. That's two rounds of reviving if you roll good. Also, you seem to be under the impression they can only transport warriors, which is incorrect. They can transport anything a 10-seat transport can take. They can only be *taken* by warrior squads, and they can only *repair* warriors. You could shove immortals into them if you wanted after the game had started (don't know why you would want to. If you're taking them for their transport capacity you're taking them for the wrong reason. They're there to repair warriors and broadside enemy units).

The problem is, if you're taking a ghost ark, you're only taking 10 warriors. It is insanely easy to destroy a squad of 10 warriors in a single phase, let alone turn, to the point that the 115 pt. transport you just bought so you could restore d3 warriors a turn no longer has a squad of warriors left standing that it CAN restore. It would be awesome if you could take ghost arks regardless of the size of a warrior squad, as a larger sized squad of warrior will see the most possible utility from the reanimation ability.

Shadowloom (10 pts) gives you Stealth = +1 Cover Save when you're in cover.... TurboBoost Cover at 2+ anyone?

Because taking dangerous terrain tests is an AWESOME idea! Last I checked stealth doesn't otherwise benefit turboboost as per faq, but i could be wrong.

My only issue with the tomb blades is that they look dumb as hell, and they are competing with scarabs, wraiths, and destroyers, all three of which I consider superior options in that slot given the current meta.

chaos0xomega wrote:...It would be awesome if you could take ghost arks regardless of the size of a warrior squad, as a larger sized squad of warrior will see the most possible utility from the reanimation ability.

There is nothing stopping you from buying a Ghost Ark for a unit of Warriors that can't fit in it. As far as I know, Dark Eldar is the only codex that says the unit must fit in the transport.

Also, I don't think it matters what unit of Warriors the Ghost Ark repairs, just that they are within range.

Crevab wrote:There's very little Necron style that's specifically Egyptian. It's all hollywood jumbled stereotype of that entire area within a millenium or so

So true. Necrons are about as "Egyptian" as Stargate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

iproxtaco wrote:

LordOfTheSloths wrote:

StormStrikr wrote:So yeah overall this book is pretty much crap. I love the new models, its nice to see my favorite and starting army redone, but it makes me sad how bad it is. Almost everything is overpointed for what it can do, except for a few gems in the mud. So if we do see competitive tournament lists out of the necrons, it will be limited to those couple of units. Uhg. Ok Im done that’s enough typing.

Spot on.

For the second time within six months I have exactly the same feeling. First it was TK's, now it's TK's-in-space.

What adds to the offense IMO is that I (and others) waited SO LONG for new books (both TK and Necrons), and what we got was two gigantic Las Vegas casino buffets of CRAP.

And if I hear one more smug GW shill say "Oh, they just hate change!" I will summon a whole unit of Bloodletters to take his skull for the Blood God . . . er, hold on, GW expropriated real daemons from my World Eaters army too

You just hate change then. Oops, I can't hear you over the sound of my Mat Ward approved Paladins taking care of those Bloodletters.

Gee, a Matt Ward groupie on top of that. And whoopie, Paladins "taking care of" Bloodletters. How impressive is that--a specifically anti-Chaos unit, and much higher priced, "taking care of" a unit that doesn't even exist in the current environment.

As for "change," I'm sure GW is planning to massively retcon, say, Vanilla Marines to the same extent they just did Necrons. Oh wait--that would alienate too many customers. Unlike less common armies, whose buyers they can alienate without concern.

iproxtaco wrote:One gigantic flaw in the reasoning of people trying to label the Necron Codex as trash or over powered: you're all taking each unit and concentrating on it like it's the only unit in the codex. This codex is all about coordination and balance between the different units, and you lot are completely ignoring that. Sure, the Destroyers may be worse off when only placed measured against the old ones, but they have their place and they work well with certain combos. My entire gaming group of about 12 people have spent the entire weekend playing around with the book, here's the results in a nutshell.

THEY ARE NOT TRASH, YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOUR TALKING ABOUT.

The "gigantic flaw" in YOUR reasoning is the emphasis on that word "still". As in, "Destroyers still have their place and they work well in certain combos." You and your gaming group may prefer "coordination and balance between different units" to "old" units that actually worked on their own and don't need "coordination and balance" in order to be useful "in certain combos." I, and others I'm sure, do not. I'm not "ignoring that". I don't find it an acceptable trade-off.

Once again, instead of evolving and improving an existing army concept that many veteran players and long-time customers have worked with and liked, GW has just junked it and replaced it with a ridiculous fluff retcon and a massively and unnecessarily altered concept.

I would respect GW a heck of a lot more than I do now (which wouldn't be hard) if they just said, "We're wiping out your army and replacing with with the one we like, because we think it'll sell more product. And if you don't like it, we don't care, because for every one of you old-timers who is sufficiently pissed off to leave, we'll pull in twice as many 9-year-old brats with ADD and fathers who make too much money, so we'll sell way more than enough product even without you--and you don't even buy much stuff anymore anyway ." Instead, they come out with with crap sandwich after crap sandwich, and insult our intelligence by telling us it's actually foie gras on toast.

LordOfTheSloths wrote:The "gigantic flaw" in YOUR reasoning is the emphasis on that word "still". As in, "Destroyers still have their place and they work well in certain combos." You and your gaming group may prefer "coordination and balance between different units" to "old" units that actually worked on their own and don't need "coordination and balance" in order to be useful "in certain combos." I, and others I'm sure, do not. I'm not "ignoring that". I don't find it an acceptable trade-off.

Uhhhhh......

The flaw in these reasoning is that single units do not a battle win.

Yes you can Theorius. But I have to say this, OMG!!, there is already a thread about all this, that's not the OMG part. Here it is, every single codex that comes out has its ups and downs. Until people put them on the table and play til they find their niche all this " my army got screwed" stuff needs to stop. I play eldar and DE, start comparing and you will see the balance. Most people try to compare to SM and that just doesn't cut it, SM are the GW flagship so they will always be "better?" Nids have a different set, Tau, IG, every army has strong points and weak ones. Learning combos and some tactics will help compensate for some of these. My friend has play crons since they came out and the past week has been nothing but grip grip. We are supposed to play tonite and see how accurate his grips maybe but I don't forsee them being as bad as he thinks. I have read the book and done the comparisons to my armies and I see no bad. I am glad that Stromstrikr put up his obsevation but this needs to be treated like a new army that was just created. When I lost my craftworld dex I conformed, when the DE dex came out I didn't even look back at the old one just happy to see some of the new shiny and their rules. My BA, well 'nough said. My SoB, if any complaining should be done. Anyhow I still field them and have fun, that's the point anyway, having fun and hangin' with friends. Good times, winning, losing or even drawing, good times.

My rant, sorry.

Love how this started turning into a hate GW thread lol
I have to agree, the OP made excellent points. But on an individual basis no army is going to succeed. There's a great dude (who ironically plays nilla marines) and he basically said "don't sweat the big stuff, sweat the little guys", his rationale being that the big unit, the one dude, that scary deathstar, rarely wins this game that revolves around objectives. Instead it's the massive amounts of other troops and units working together. As a tau player I know from experience that you can't win just because you take Dante, or Asteroth, or Shrike. You can make things scarier yea, but you won't win just by taking one unit. That's the same mentality that must be said when analyzing a new codex. It's quite clearly built around the concept of synergy, so that no longer can the same tactics and mentality be used. And in truth that's what upsets so many people. They do hate change. But it's not the kind of change that's gradual, they hate it because they have to learn to play essentially an entirely new army. The old units that you could fall back on aren't the same, they don't work the same, and while yes you do have to go out and buy new models (damn you GW), at the same time you have to THINK again. I don't mean that in a derogatory sense (after all I'm still in 4th edition as far as my tau are concerned) I just mean that I can see why people are upset. They feel like it isn't their army anymore, they basically have to relearn it and relearn the new strategies as opposed to what they could whip up in a list in a few minutes. While yes that sucks, you can't just go about dissecting a codex on a point by unit by unit basis and say it sucks, because the only army that can actually go unit by unit to determine its worth is a space marine army. Every other one (I'm lumping all those SM knockoffs like my blood angels into the SM category) you have to look at how the units interact. Try playing a tau army without some crisis suits, or without markerlights. Yea you HAVE to take them basically, but they come from DIFFERENT UNITS. the SYNERGY part. if you just look at in on paper, or on a unit by unit basis, the Tau codex sucks because EVERY UNIT SUCKS ON ITS OWN. Firewarriors have nothing besides a devilfish transport, and as far as guns THEY'RE ALL THE SAME. Crisis suits can't do jack for melee combat, and they can't score, they're just big jumpy ogryns. Hammerheads are SOOOOOO EXPENSIVE for what they do, and Broadsides are even worse! pathfinders are the dumbest bs ever, like taking a squad of devestators, EXCEPT THEIR HEAVY WEAPONS DON'T BLOW ANYTHING UP oh and they're even MORE expensive than firewarriors. But you look at how that all fits together, you look at how the units fit together, suddenly having a squad with heavy weapons that don't destroy anything is useful, cause you can buff those broadsides to BS 5, or you can take off the cover save on that unit your hammerhead is shooting its dinky ass large blast at. suddenly crisis suits are usefull, because they can provide fire support for your troops, and your troops can lay down the rapid fire weapons to keep your suits from getting eaten by death company. It's how the units work TOGETHER that matters, so while I (knowing nothing about the new necron dex) believe you are totally right OP and that dex is horrible and I never want to play necrons ever!!! I also know that you're probably wrong. You didn't look at how they work together, you didn't demonstrate a list that would show them working, you didn't bother to really consider the options (while yes there were a lot, and you did write a TON I'm just saying). The newer dexes mean newer tactics, and as GW releases new Non SM material, theres gonna be a lot of meshing, as opposed to older editions where you could just build one great deathstar unit and win.

tl;dr op has a good point but he fails to consider that newer non SM codexes rely on combined arms like a real army rather than one or two big units

LordOfTheSloths wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:

LordOfTheSloths wrote:

StormStrikr wrote:So yeah overall this book is pretty much crap. I love the new models, its nice to see my favorite and starting army redone, but it makes me sad how bad it is. Almost everything is overpointed for what it can do, except for a few gems in the mud. So if we do see competitive tournament lists out of the necrons, it will be limited to those couple of units. Uhg. Ok Im done that’s enough typing.

Spot on.

For the second time within six months I have exactly the same feeling. First it was TK's, now it's TK's-in-space.

What adds to the offense IMO is that I (and others) waited SO LONG for new books (both TK and Necrons), and what we got was two gigantic Las Vegas casino buffets of CRAP.

And if I hear one more smug GW shill say "Oh, they just hate change!" I will summon a whole unit of Bloodletters to take his skull for the Blood God . . . er, hold on, GW expropriated real daemons from my World Eaters army too

You just hate change then. Oops, I can't hear you over the sound of my Mat Ward approved Paladins taking care of those Bloodletters.

Gee, a Matt Ward groupie on top of that. And whoopie, Paladins "taking care of" Bloodletters. How impressive is that--a specifically anti-Chaos unit, and much higher priced, "taking care of" a unit that doesn't even exist in the current environment.

You crack me up. Take those blinders off, it was a joke.

As for "change," I'm sure GW is planning to massively retcon, say, Vanilla Marines to the same extent they just did Necrons. Oh wait--that would alienate too many customers. Unlike less common armies, whose buyers they can alienate without concern.

Change there is, but some people LIKE change. I like it, I'm a new customer who had literally zero interest in the Necrons before now. Even from looking at the threads there is a considerable number of people that are of the same opinion.

iproxtaco wrote:One gigantic flaw in the reasoning of people trying to label the Necron Codex as trash or over powered: you're all taking each unit and concentrating on it like it's the only unit in the codex. This codex is all about coordination and balance between the different units, and you lot are completely ignoring that. Sure, the Destroyers may be worse off when only placed measured against the old ones, but they have their place and they work well with certain combos. My entire gaming group of about 12 people have spent the entire weekend playing around with the book, here's the results in a nutshell.

THEY ARE NOT TRASH, YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOUR TALKING ABOUT.

The "gigantic flaw" in YOUR reasoning is the emphasis on that word "still". As in, "Destroyers still have their place and they work well in certain combos." You and your gaming group may prefer "coordination and balance between different units" to "old" units that actually worked on their own and don't need "coordination and balance" in order to be useful "in certain combos." I, and others I'm sure, do not. I'm not "ignoring that". I don't find it an acceptable trade-off.

I'm not seeing the word 'still' even used in my post, or anything remotely synonymous to it, therefore you're lovely italics are meaningless. But yes, you are ignoring it. The Destroyers specifically have changed their role. They have one that they're good at, and they work extremely well when taken with X or Y. No unit will win the game on it's own. More than any other this book is about, excuse the cliche, synergy. There's only a single unit that some may think would be an auto-take, and that's Scarabs. The Stormlord honestly didn't shine at the weekend in most games. So that's one or two slots that certainly aren't going to win you the game alone.

Once again, instead of evolving and improving an existing army concept that many veteran players and long-time customers have worked with and liked, GW has just junked it and replaced it with a ridiculous fluff retcon and a massively and unnecessarily altered concept.

The change isn't huge, read the codex for more.

I would respect GW a heck of a lot more than I do now (which wouldn't be hard) if they just said, "We're wiping out your army and replacing with with the one we like, because we think it'll sell more product. And if you don't like it, we don't care, because for every one of you old-timers who is sufficiently pissed off to leave, we'll pull in twice as many 9-year-old brats with ADD and fathers who make too much money, so we'll sell way more than enough product even without you--and you don't even buy much stuff anymore anyway ." Instead, they come out with with crap sandwich after crap sandwich, and insult our intelligence by telling us it's actually foie gras on toast.

I don't think they need to say that for two reasons. Firstly, this massive retcon does not exist, your blowing this to hyperbolic levels without, I suspect, ever having read the damn book yourself. Mat Ward has good ideas, he just needs someone with a literacy level above a lame donkey to write it down in a way most people can actually understand without having to look through with a bucket beside them. This latest codex is a huge step-up for the gibbering imbecile. The writing isn't perfect and there are still the obvious markers of a Ward Work, but it's a solid piece of literature. The design studio collaborates on a Codex, the whole team at least on some level has a hand in it, so obviously they think it was ready to put out, that it was acceptable. It's not like they're trying to fool you.
Secondly, I think one of the reasons for the change IS so that some 9-year old kids will get their needlessly rich parents to buy them heaps of new models, that's as obvious as a fething horse sitting on your car bonnet. But at the same time, it's also obvious that a codex isn't for some 9-year old kids to read, all they're interested in are the models. The Codex is for us, people who can read above Mister-men level and actually want to put a bit of effort into the hobby. So far, their so called ploy has worked, and I'm hooked.

iproxtaco wrote:

Simplified for the OP. Also, I agree wholly with the above poster.

Tee hee, funny ^^ Wrong, but funny.