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.

yukishiro1 wrote:
What does Richard Siegler finding a Tau list that works in 9th have to do with whether Necrons are suffering from codex creep?

The whole point with Siegler's Tau list is that it is a very particular kind of list designed to do a very particular kind of thing, because the Tau book doesn't work overall in 9th. He'd be the first to tell you that T'au are not in a good place as a whole, even though his particular list works.

If anyone said it's impossible to win with Necrons that is obviously wrong. But if anything, Siegler's Tau list is an illustration of a very similar phenomenon to what is happening to Necrons, though Necrons don't have it as bad as Tau.

You see it with something like CWE too. CWE as a book sucks in 9th, but there are a few good units that do see competitive play. That doesn't mean the book isn't junk, it's actually evidence that the book *is* junk.

Now the Necron book isn't junk the way the CWE and Tau books are junk. But it is already starting to feel dated in some ways, which is a bad sign for a 9th edition book.

It isn't dated in a way where it isn't a good book. If Siegler can take "trash tier" and bear "S tier" then Necron players can take "Tier 2" and beat "Tier 1" and give a respectable game otherwise.

The "particular kind of thing" Siegler's list does is interact with this edition very well by using the available strengths in a competent way. When the forum says "no one takes vehicles" he still spent 180 on Devilfish.

Devilfish are transports. Please, come on now.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Devilfish are transports. Please, come on now.

Still vehicles.

Are you seriously claiming that "this forum says" that nobody takes transports?

"A good player took 180 points of transports! This shows that people are wrong about vehicles generally being bad!" I mean like I honestly do not know whether to take this seriously or not.

You might as well say "Look! People take dreads! Dreads are vehicles! Haha forum, you're wrong about vehicles in 9th!"

yukishiro1 wrote:
Are you seriously claiming that "this forum says" that nobody takes transports?

"A good player took 180 points of transports! This shows that people are wrong about vehicles generally being bad!" I mean like I honestly do not know whether to take this seriously or not.

It shows that if you have a plan, you can make units work that are deemed unfavourable by the hive mind. Coming back to our initial point of discussion: While not at the top of the foodchain, Necrons are perfectly viable (and don't even rely on a monobuild to get things done).

The point was that "the hive mind" *doesn't* deem transports unfavorable. It is a ridiculous straw man.

Transports have been a staple throughout 9th edition. Siegler's list having transports is, if anything, an example of the hive mind at work, not the opposite. It's taking the generally received wisdom in 9th that transports are good and applying it to Tau. The literal opposite of the point the poster was trying to make.

I don't know. From recent Dhrukari discussions it really felt like the consens was that non open topped transports are inferior to just taking more troops.

Okey, but the hive mind exist, because in general it works. There are more then a few events where strange or wacky lists , or even armies, won events. In 8th GK took two of the biggest GT year after year. The same results couldn't have been replicated in other places. On the other hand something like a 6 raiders, pre nerf DE army worked like a charm. Practicaly played itself. Castellan builds were like that too. If in the future more events will show that necron lists with transports win or place high in big events, then hats off to the guy who did it first. If no one else is going to be able to do it again, including the guy who did it the first time, then the situation is a bit different. No impact or lose on the respect for winning the event, that stays no matter what, of course. But it is kind of a hard to tell people to build lists some way, when no one seems to be able to pilot them.

a_typical_hero wrote:
I don't know. From recent Dhrukari discussions it really felt like the consens was that non open topped transports are inferior to just taking more troops.

Depends on what the troops are. The innovative thing about Siegler's list is spotting that breachers are incredibly deadly for their points from close range, and ob sec, but incredibly squishy, and therefore great candidates for inclusion in transports. The innovation isn't realizing that transports are good for protecting squishy units, that's common wisdom. Why do you think basically every sisters list took rhinos to protect the repentia and retributors?

When people say vehicles are bad they mean vehicles that don't have something special to make them good. My CWE list takes 800 points of vehicles. But not a single point of vehicles that are just "stat brick with guns." General vehicles are bad. That doesn't mean that transports are bad. It doesn't mean that artillery is bad. It doesn't mean that a wraithseer is bad. "The hive mind" recognizes all of this, it's a lot smarter than most people give it credit for.

Siegler's list illustrates that general vehicles are bad, it doesn't disprove it. You don't see any hammerheads in it, because hammerheads are the classic "general vehicle" that is bad in 9th.

The problem is, that marine stuff is general vehicles. An impulsor, who is a new tank, can either have a weaker gun then a raider and no inv, or shield. And he is not open toped, even when the model clearly is. Does not fly. And to top it all of costs a lot more then a raider post points hike. It looks bad comparing to other flying transports too, like the serpent or the tau one. \when the majority of players are marine players, and marine vehicles are bad, it very much become vehicles are bad very fast.

yukishiro1 wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:
I don't know. From recent Dhrukari discussions it really felt like the consens was that non open topped transports are inferior to just taking more troops.

Depends on what the troops are. The innovative thing about Siegler's list is spotting that breachers are incredibly deadly for their points from close range, and ob sec, but incredibly squishy, and therefore great candidates for inclusion in transports. The innovation isn't realizing that transports are good for protecting squishy units, that's common wisdom. Why do you think basically every sisters list took rhinos to protect the repentia and retributors?

When people say vehicles are bad they mean vehicles that don't have something special to make them good. My CWE list takes 800 points of vehicles. But not a single point of vehicles that are just "stat brick with guns." General vehicles are bad. That doesn't mean that transports are bad. It doesn't mean that artillery is bad. It doesn't mean that a wraithseer is bad. "The hive mind" recognizes all of this, it's a lot smarter than most people give it credit for.

Siegler's list illustrates that general vehicles are bad, it doesn't disprove it. You don't see any hammerheads in it, because hammerheads are the classic "general vehicle" that is bad in 9th.

I would wager that had someone posed the question about Devilfish being useful the replies would have centered along the lines of "there is nothing good to put in them" and "they have no invuln".

I am reasonably sure of this, because I've had those discussions here.

That doesn't mean Hammerheads are viable. T'au still needs a lot of work. My larger point is just that Necrons aren't so bad off that they're incapable of winning and if they're still showing up in the top 10 then there's plenty of opportunity for local gamers to do well.

Ok. I'm just glad we established that "someone took 180 points of transports!" does not in any way refute the generally-held opinion that vehicles are usually bad in 9th. Transports are distinct from other vehicles. Artillery is distinct from other vehicles. Dreads are distinct form other vehicles. The general opinion is not that transports are useless. The general opinion is not that artillery is useless. The general opinion is not that dreads are useless. The general opinion is that vehicles that don't have some special thing like one of those categories are usually bad, and Siegler's list if anything reinforces that general opinion, rather than refuting it.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Ok. I'm just glad we established that "someone took 180 points of transports!" does not in any way refute the generally-held opinion that vehicles are usually bad in 9th. Transports are distinct from other vehicles. Artillery is distinct from other vehicles. Dreads are distinct form other vehicles. The general opinion is not that transports are useless. The general opinion is not that artillery is useless. The general opinion is not that dreads are useless. The general opinion is that vehicles that don't have some special thing like one of those categories are usually bad, and Siegler's list if anything reinforces that general opinion, rather than refuting it.

My statement is overly broad, but no without precedent.

I said in October that the Necron book was very mediocre and I stand by that. They feel like they've been an edition behind the curve for years now and the 9th ed book didn't change that, it feels like an 8th edition codex

yukishiro1 wrote:
Ok. I'm just glad we established that "someone took 180 points of transports!" does not in any way refute the generally-held opinion that vehicles are usually bad in 9th. Transports are distinct from other vehicles. Artillery is distinct from other vehicles. Dreads are distinct form other vehicles. The general opinion is not that transports are useless. The general opinion is not that artillery is useless. The general opinion is not that dreads are useless. The general opinion is that vehicles that don't have some special thing like one of those categories are usually bad, and Siegler's list if anything reinforces that general opinion, rather than refuting it.

That doesn't just apply to vehicles. Infantry units without special rules aren't generally considered "good" either. If it doesn't have FLY, or deep strike, or an invul, etc etc, it isn't "good". The only things that generally get by with being "stat blocks with guns" are things that are TROOPS, because you're usually just taking them so that you don't have to pay the CP for a specialist detachment. And even then 99% of them have obsec.

The Necron codex seems fairly tame compared to all the 9th edition codexes that came after it. Necrons can still do well, but it depends on your list and your opponent of course.

IRT OP

Do you even 40k bro?

tournament results show they are still doign pretty well. I do think the book stands on some good for the points units and a lot of chaff. chances are the youtubers are avoiding being called netlisters and so are taking less than ideal units. the aren't a top tier book anymore but they also aren't trash tier more middle of the pack pretty close to dead center if you ask me.

Here is the list of the second-ranked at GT Copenhagen recently:

NinthMusketeer wrote:
Power creep is normal but 9th's has been quite tremendous. I can recall specific books that were bad but not an edition which it was this severe overall.

This quote only makes sense if 9th is the only edition you've played ...


OT - No, I don't think 'Crons have "stopped winning", but my guess is, we're about to enter that phase in the edition where the better Necron players start rising to the top, and the rest of us settle back down to a less frequent win rate. I said when they came out that it was a decent book (insanely good if you set the bar at their 8th ed codex lol), but that as the edition ground on, it would start to struggle, and I think you're seeing that now. I said this because A. Necrons have been out long enough that the good non-'Cron players have begun to work out how to counter them, and B., because their codex was CLEARLY designed along a radically different design aesthetic than everyone else's (my spidey - sense is telling me it's a Phil Kelly special). When you look at the other books we've seen so far, the philosophy is "Show up to the game? Great! Here are your super powers!" But for Necrons it's "Show up to the game? Great! As long as your army is lead by the highest ranking Noble, and as long as there's a "character" within this distance, (3 other clauses later) - YOU GET TO MOVE AN EXTRA INCH ON TURN 2" No one got "Core", the strats are fairly restrained, there are some very clear winners and losers as far as internal balance goes, further limiting what you can reasonably do, and there is a lot of that classic "Phil Kelly Nuance". It LOOKS like an army that's built to be able to do many many things, but the reality is, there's really only two or three units in the entire book, and then a series of ever-so-slightly-different variations on those units.

I think it's a decent book and I've had fun with it, but it will not stand the test of time, and we've just hit that point where it's not enough to turn up with a Necron codex and expect to win anymore. People are catching up and figuring them out (and getting books of their own), and we've hit that point where the extended artificial win rate we had (because for a long time it was only Necrons and Marins who had 9th ed books) is going to erode a bit and go back down to something that looks more reasonable. The better players will continue to have success (because it's less-than all the other 9th ed books but it DOES still have some teeth), and the rest of us will just have to get better.

Tycho wrote:

NinthMusketeer wrote:
Power creep is normal but 9th's has been quite tremendous. I can recall specific books that were bad but not an edition which it was this severe overall.

This quote only makes sense if 9th is the only edition you've played ...

Not really.

In 5th Edition, Mat Ward became the focus of nearly a decade of collective internet hate for his Grey Knight Codex, which ran a shocking (at the time) 55% win rate.

Today's competitive 40K pundits like goonhammer or 40kstats would call that almost perfectly balanced.

7th Edition "broke" the game with things like TauDar and Screamerstar that broke through the previously unheard of 60% win rate, causing thousands to leave the game for the offerings of different companies.

When Ynnari crashed the game at a shocking 69% win rate, most people saw the world ending and still use the word "Ynnari" as synonym for bad 40K-balance.

Late 8th Iron Hands crashed the meta with the first over-70% win rate and caused the entire social media sphere of YouTuber and Podcasts to cry out to GW in anquish.

These days, Drukhari clock in at 76-77% win rate (pre-nerf admittedly), and most people just shrug.

The trend isn't particularly compelling, as far as game quality goes.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Tycho wrote:

NinthMusketeer wrote:
Power creep is normal but 9th's has been quite tremendous. I can recall specific books that were bad but not an edition which it was this severe overall.

This quote only makes sense if 9th is the only edition you've played ...

Not really.

In 5th Edition, Mat Ward became the focus of nearly a decade of collective internet hate for his Grey Knight Codex, which ran a shocking (at the time) 55% win rate.

Today's competitive 40K pundits like goonhammer or 40kstats would call that almost perfectly balanced.

7th Edition "broke" the game with things like TauDar and Screamerstar that broke through the previously unheard of 60% win rate, causing thousands to leave the game for the offerings of different companies.

When Ynnari crashed the game at a shocking 69% win rate, most people saw the world ending and still use the word "Ynnari" as synonym for bad 40K-balance.

Late 8th Iron Hands crashed the meta with the first over-70% win rate and caused the entire social media sphere of YouTuber and Podcasts to cry out to GW in anquish.

These days, Drukhari clock in at 76-77% win rate (pre-nerf admittedly), and most people just shrug.

The trend isn't particularly compelling, as far as game quality goes.

Sigh. Yes. Let's definitely go ahead and call 9th the most unbalanced because the strongest of the new books is still playing against so many 8th ed books in the face of your own stats saying it's actually been similar or worse. Let's also go ahead and rag on the incomplete edition for being "unbalanced" because "LOOK! These 7th ed boogeymen actually had a lower win percentage!" while also ignoring the fact that, if you were to face one of those armies in that edition, and you had not actually brought one of them yourself, it was going to be an auto-lose. There was nothing you could do. Literally nothing.

Meanwhile, if you're bringing an 8th ed book against a strong 9th ed book, yeah, the deck is for sure stacked, but you at least still have a chance. Let's definitely also ignore the fact that you're comparing the stats across a full edition to very limited numbers from an edition that's not even been out a full year yet, and happened during a pandemic. Oh, and for sure let's not mention the fact that, in most of those past editions, once something was broken, it just stayed that way. Definitely don't take that into account either ...

There's a lot of rose-colored glasses type thinking happening here with older editions I think. Balance was never worse than in 7th. It's one of the reasons so many people stopped playing in that edition. If it were still that bad, would we be seeing the game growing like it is? Somehow I doubt that.

Tycho wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Tycho wrote:

NinthMusketeer wrote:
Power creep is normal but 9th's has been quite tremendous. I can recall specific books that were bad but not an edition which it was this severe overall.

This quote only makes sense if 9th is the only edition you've played ...

Not really.

In 5th Edition, Mat Ward became the focus of nearly a decade of collective internet hate for his Grey Knight Codex, which ran a shocking (at the time) 55% win rate.

Today's competitive 40K pundits like goonhammer or 40kstats would call that almost perfectly balanced.

7th Edition "broke" the game with things like TauDar and Screamerstar that broke through the previously unheard of 60% win rate, causing thousands to leave the game for the offerings of different companies.

When Ynnari crashed the game at a shocking 69% win rate, most people saw the world ending and still use the word "Ynnari" as synonym for bad 40K-balance.

Late 8th Iron Hands crashed the meta with the first over-70% win rate and caused the entire social media sphere of YouTuber and Podcasts to cry out to GW in anquish.

These days, Drukhari clock in at 76-77% win rate (pre-nerf admittedly), and most people just shrug.

The trend isn't particularly compelling, as far as game quality goes.

Sigh. Yes. Let's definitely go ahead and call 9th the most unbalanced because the strongest of the new books is still playing against so many 8th ed books in the face of your own stats saying it's actually been similar or worse. Let's also go ahead and rag on the incomplete edition for being "unbalanced" because "LOOK! These 7th ed boogeymen actually had a lower win percentage!" while also ignoring the fact that, if you were to face one of those armies in that edition, and you had not actually brought one of them yourself, it was going to be an auto-lose. There was nothing you could do. Literally nothing.

^This is a VERY IMPORTANT THING TO CONSIDER WHEN LOOKING AT OLDER EDITION'S STATS.

The oft-cited example is the (still available online) data from 5th edition where at some major tournament (nova I think) the top winrate was GK at like 58%.

What people tend to 'conveniently' ignore about that datapoint is the play data, i.e., how many people actually brought which armies. The top three armies combined at the time accounted for 80% of the playerbase. Every other army in the game, combined, accounted for 20% of the players at that tournament - we're talking like, two tyranid players, two craftworld eldar players, three chaos space marine players out of the like 250 players in attendance at the GT.

you get more 'reasonable looking' winrate numbers, when entire armies are actually so underpowered that literally nobody at all is playing them.

The Necron Codex is fundamentally different than the other 9th codexes.

The thing this codex does well, is take and hold ground, and win on the mission. As lethality continues to climb with each new release, this capability erodes somewhat, requiring tighter, more careful play to win. Most lists pack just enough melee muscle, or shooting to remove key units that would remove your holding units, but this army isn't going to table anyone reliably.

Its not a comparatively killy codex. And it still bothers me from time to time regarding how grindy it can be. Good guns are swingy (d6/d6), and are on flawed platforms (moving screws up their profiles, LHDs are very fragile) which you pay a premium for.

 iGuy91 wrote:
The Necron Codex is fundamentally different than the other 9th codexes.

The thing this codex does well, is take and hold ground, and win on the mission. As lethality continues to climb with each new release, this capability erodes somewhat, requiring tighter, more careful play to win. Most lists pack just enough melee muscle, or shooting to remove key units that would remove your holding units, but this army isn't going to table anyone reliably.

Its not a comparatively killy codex. And it still bothers me from time to time regarding how grindy it can be. Good guns are swingy (d6/d6), and are on flawed platforms (moving screws up their profiles, LHDs are very fragile) which you pay a premium for.

A lot of people opt for the super short range reapers and I don't blame them, but it also puts you in an awkward position to push forward as fast as possible and against certain opponents that isn't always a good idea. Some have tried to solve for this by simply just take MORE warriors and hoping to just overwhelm by using SK. Others embrace it and go melee. There's still more to "unearth" for lists, but I haven't been able to buy 80% of the stuff I've wanted until very recently.

 the_scotsman wrote:

^This is a VERY IMPORTANT THING TO CONSIDER WHEN LOOKING AT OLDER EDITION'S STATS.

The oft-cited example is the (still available online) data from 5th edition where at some major tournament (nova I think) the top winrate was GK at like 58%.

What people tend to 'conveniently' ignore about that datapoint is the play data, i.e., how many people actually brought which armies. The top three armies combined at the time accounted for 80% of the playerbase. Every other army in the game, combined, accounted for 20% of the players at that tournament - we're talking like, two tyranid players, two craftworld eldar players, three chaos space marine players out of the like 250 players in attendance at the GT.

you get more 'reasonable looking' winrate numbers, when entire armies are actually so underpowered that literally nobody at all is playing them.

I've always wondered that, and I hate to be that guy on the internet, but do you have a source for this? Or for, like, the 7e LVOs and things? I'm not being combative, just curious (if your answer is your memory, that's fine).

I think the Necrons are suffering abit as the new DE, deathguard, and mechanicus metas have made 1 damage weapons and dedicated anti-tank weapons strong again. Before people were looking to pack as many damage 2 and 3 weapons as possible to squish marines into ceramite goo.

Spoletta wrote:
Considering that Necrons are one of the faction that is regularly seen in tournament's top 4s, I would just dismiss this thread as the OP being poorly informed.

Nothing to see here.

This is hugely false. Of the armies that have received rules. They are the clear bottom faction in terms of placings. Admech just removes them entirely from he competitive picture because they essentially play like necrons except their stratagems and relics are just better. Plus they have better free rules...

Just compare command protocols restrictions to the admech imperatives...laugh a little bit.
Compare Dynasty requirements to Admech.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Considering that Necrons are one of the faction that is regularly seen in tournament's top 4s, I would just dismiss this thread as the OP being poorly informed.

Nothing to see here.

This is hugely false. Of the armies that have received rules. They are the clear bottom faction in terms of placings. Admech just removes them entirely from he competitive picture because they essentially play like necrons except their stratagems and relics are just better. Plus they have better free rules...

Just compare command protocols restrictions to the admech imperatives...laugh a little bit.
Compare Dynasty requirements to Admech.

Long term - Necrons are going to suffer for those exact reasons. Their book doesn't quite "fit" with the others.

 iGuy91 wrote:


Its not a comparatively killy codex. And it still bothers me from time to time regarding how grindy it can be. Good guns are swingy (d6/d6), and are on flawed platforms (moving screws up their profiles, LHDs are very fragile) which you pay a premium for.

Yeah, plus CORE is hugely restrictive compared to other book, command protocols are a bad joke of layered restrictions compared to other factions' purity bonuses, etc. There are a ton of ways that the Necron 9th edition book feels out of place when lined up against the other 9th edition books. At the time we thought maybe that SM was going to be the outlier re: almost everything getting CORE, but it's clear that isn't the case: it's Necrons that is the one out of place in 9th edition. It feels like the beta for 9th edition that never got the 1.0 update.

That doesn't mean the codex won't still be able to compete if you just keep progressively lowering points as it becomes more and more out of date. But it's not a very satisfying way to compete.