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.

This is an automated message added by the articles system.

A new article titled Necron tactics for 5th edition has been added to the dakka articles system.

This message thread is for the discussion of content in the article.

If you have anything to add to the article, then just jump in and edit it by going to the actual article page and clicking 'edit' (the link can be found just above the article). If there is no edit link then the article is locked for now, so just add your comments or content to this thread and if they are appropriate then they should eventually get merged in.

If there is something in the article that you wish to debate or comment on, then this is the place to do it. Just hit the reply button and get chatting! You need to be registered and logged in to post in the forums so if you are an anonymous article editor then now would be a great time to register and join in dakka's great forum discussion!

Love that my anonymous is from GB. Could use some pics though.(the article)

Not sure if I agree with heavy destroyers being only semi-competitive...they are the only thing the Necrons have that can actually destroy a vehicle with AV 12 or higher without the annoying ordeal of glancing until you've immobilized and destroyed every weapon on the tank.

But as I said, they only work well in destroyer wings.

Right, but imho I think any Necron army of 1500 points or above needs some.

imark789 wrote:Not sure if I agree with heavy destroyers being only semi-competitive...they are the only thing the Necrons have that can actually destroy a vehicle with AV 12 or higher without the annoying ordeal of glancing until you've immobilized and destroyed every weapon on the tank.

?? Tomb spiders, lords with warscythes, both C'Tan, Pariahs, Tomb Stalkers, the monolith...So, not just heavy D's.

Heavy D's are semi-competitive because they're horrendously over-priced and only being able to take 3 in a squad is a huge detriment, even with T5. 10 lucky bolter shots could remove them from the game. Most outfitted tanks can down them in one alpha-strike as well.

Sorry, I guess I should have clarified at a range. Tomb Stalkers don't have official rules though, the Monolith is hard to count on for heavy AT since the blast will scatter majority of the time. I also don't like relying on CC to take out a tank because from my experience, a Land Raider or Predator won't stick around for a turn of CC with a C'Tan, Tomb Spider, Lord or squad of Pariahs. I guess a Destroyer Lord with a Warscythe could be reliable for AT, but as for the rest of them they just aren't fast enough to get an attack in on a tank. This is one of the reasons I had trouble adjusting to 5th edition rules as a Necron player, because like you guys, I relied on Destroyers as my primary AT.

imark789 wrote:Sorry, I guess I should have clarified at a range. Tomb Stalkers don't have official rules though, the Monolith is hard to count on for heavy AT since the blast will scatter majority of the time. I also don't like relying on CC to take out a tank because from my experience, a Land Raider or Predator won't stick around for a turn of CC with a C'Tan, Tomb Spider, Lord or squad of Pariahs. I guess a Destroyer Lord with a Warscythe could be reliable for AT, but as for the rest of them they just aren't fast enough to get an attack in on a tank. This is one of the reasons I had trouble adjusting to 5th edition rules as a Necron player, because like you guys, I relied on Destroyers as my primary AT.

Ya, I hear ya. But with the C'tan you probably don't need more than 1 round of CC anyway (Str9/10+2d6 is practically a guaranteed pen on anything).

As for the monolith though, sure it will scatter 66% of the time but don't forget that you still have to roll like a 9+ on the 2D6 for it to actually scatter off the vehicle (depending on the size of the vehicle anyway). With the BS subtraction and typically needing more than 2" in any direction to get near the edge of most larger tanks, that's still a 50/50 chance the hit will land even on a scatter. The odds are certainly in your favor, more so than with heavy D's. Heavy D still needs 4+ (50/50) to hit and 5+ to pen AV14 which is the same odds as landing a hit with the monolith (as opposed to rolling a scatter).

Honestly, I never field Heavy D's anymore. Every time I've taken them they either become primary target for my enemy or just whiff big fat air.

Templates miss on a 2" scatter regularly. Rhino and Chimera hulls both have 2" miss arcs, as do Eldar grav tank hulls.

However, the Monolith is still your best anti-tank weapon.

I guess my judgment is tainted by the last game I played- my monolith could not scratch a couple of walkers, but they're also a lot smaller. And doesn't a Heavy Destroyer hit on 3+?

The Grog wrote:Templates miss on a 2" scatter regularly. Rhino and Chimera hulls both have 2" miss arcs, as do Eldar grav tank hulls.

However, the Monolith is still your best anti-tank weapon.

So slightly less than 50% then, still not bad, plus most tanks are longer than they are wide so you have to factor that in too. But ya, I agree the lith is the best ranged anti-tank the necrons have.

imark789 wrote:I guess my judgment is tainted by the last game I played- my monolith could not scratch a couple of walkers, but they're also a lot smaller. And doesn't a Heavy Destroyer hit on 3+?

Sorry, you're right, 3+ to hit.

And I guess if you can destroy the main weapon on most tanks whose main role is firepower (Leman Russ, Predator) with a glancing hit, the tank doesn't really pose a threat anymore. But it is irritating if you're playing for Kill Points.

Well i once killed a baneblade with 7 scarab bases by getting enough glancing hits to immobilise it and destroy all weapons. It was the last time my mate forgot to put heavy armour on his tanks as each turn i stopped him from moving and shooting. So I would say that scarabs are good at tank hunting, if you position them so your opponent doesn't blast them to pieces or kill them before they get to the tank. They are a liability though.

In larger games I tend to run a fully outfitted unit of Scarab Swarms; 160pts for 40 charge attacks, glancing of 6 and turbo-boost? If a tank doesn't move then that gives me... 6-7 glances in my first turn from the Scarabs alone.

I also agree as far as scarabs go. I find them to be a terrific multipurpose unit.

Agreed. I played a game yesterday(1k points) I lost due to being an idiot on deploying, but I took 2 8x scarab swarms with disruption fields and they where the reason I still got some points. First turn one unit turbo boosted and shrugged off everything that was shot at them, the 2nd unit took a demolisher blast and only had 2 left, but they went on to immobolise the vindicator and weapon destroy it. Then on turn 2 the untouched unit completely ate the second vindicator, and then tied up a tactical for 4 turns.

Well worth the 80pts I paid

As a matter of fact, I'd even go so far as to say that I completely disagree with the fact scarabs are casual based on the fact they take a slot that Wraiths could use. I love the model of Wraiths 2x, but I don't think they are really "better".

1 full squad of Scarabs: 120 points. For that you get 30 wounds, can Deep Strike, don't take difficult terrain tests, Fearless, +1 cover save, and 60 attacks on the charge. 40Kcalc says 3.3 unsaved wounds per turn vs MEQ.
1 full squad of Wraiths: 123 points. For that you get 3 wounds, ignore terrain, and 18 attacks on the charge. 40calc says 2.5 unsaved wounds per turn vs MEQ.

At worst, they are completely comparable - that's my non-expert opinion.

Ouze wrote:As a matter of fact, I'd even go so far as to say that I completely disagree with the fact scarabs are casual based on the fact they take a slot that Wraiths could use. I love the model of Wraiths 2x, but I don't think they are really "better".

1 full squad of Scarabs: 120 points. For that you get 30 wounds, can Deep Strike, don't take difficult terrain tests, Fearless, +1 cover save, and 60 attacks on the charge. 40Kcalc says 3.3 unsaved wounds per turn vs MEQ.
1 full squad of Wraiths: 123 points. For that you get 9 wounds, ignore terrain, and 18 attacks on the charge. 40calc says 2.5 unsaved wounds per turn vs MEQ.

At worst, they are completely comparable - that's my non-expert opinion.

They still take dangerous terrain tests though if they stop/start their movement in area terrain, or assault into terrain (which also makes them go last, not that that matters anyway since their initiative is crap).

Also, a full squad of wraiths is 3 wounds, not 9. It just seems like more because they keep getting back up. Also, only 12 attacks on the charge.

a wraith WING is 9 wounds, but that is 369 points.

The largest difference is that wraiths are not good at kiting/tarpitting anything that isn't a vehicle and has power weapons/Str6+ weapons. Those fearless wounds are brutal when you're losing a full base at a time and their save is 5+.

Ouze wrote:As a matter of fact, I'd even go so far as to say that I completely disagree with the fact scarabs are casual based on the fact they take a slot that Wraiths could use. I love the model of Wraiths 2x, but I don't think they are really "better"...

Don't forget that Scarabs are T3, take double wounds from pie plates, and don't have Eternal Warrior. Imagine dropping any S6 pie plate on those poor bugs...

Yea they have weaknesses, but you can add turning tanks to slag in quick order to there list. Im sorry, but personally, I think one of the best AT in the codex right now, is a unit of scarabs.

Kevin949 wrote:

Ouze wrote:As a matter of fact, I'd even go so far as to say that I completely disagree with the fact scarabs are casual based on the fact they take a slot that Wraiths could use. I love the model of Wraiths 2x, but I don't think they are really "better".

1 full squad of Scarabs: 120 points. For that you get 30 wounds, can Deep Strike, don't take difficult terrain tests, Fearless, +1 cover save, and 60 attacks on the charge. 40Kcalc says 3.3 unsaved wounds per turn vs MEQ.
1 full squad of Wraiths: 123 points. For that you get 9 wounds, ignore terrain, and 18 attacks on the charge. 40calc says 2.5 unsaved wounds per turn vs MEQ.

At worst, they are completely comparable - that's my non-expert opinion.

Also, a full squad of wraiths is 3 wounds, not 9. It just seems like more because they keep getting back up. Also, only 12 attacks on the charge.

a wraith WING is 9 wounds, but that is 369 points.

Oops, thanks. I knew they were 3 wounds, but transposed their attacks with wounds. I've edited my post.

the weasel king wrote:

Ouze wrote:As a matter of fact, I'd even go so far as to say that I completely disagree with the fact scarabs are casual based on the fact they take a slot that Wraiths could use. I love the model of Wraiths 2x, but I don't think they are really "better"...

Don't forget that Scarabs are T3, take double wounds from pie plates, and don't have Eternal Warrior. Imagine dropping any S6 pie plate on those poor bugs...

I'm not clear why you're singling out Scarabs for lacking Eternal Warrior, because no Necron unit in the current codex has EW either, including Wraiths (MC's notwithstanding). If you just mean they're gonna get wasted by a single Vindicator shot, then yes, they clearly have a problem. But so would Ork Boyz or Guardsmen or many other troops that might cost as much and serve a similar role.

I'm not saying scarabs are clearly a better choice; as you point out they do clearly and unambiguously have significant drawbacks. I'm saying they are equal to wraiths in spite of them; not better, equal, certainly not significantly worse as the article posits. And sure, it's just my opinion.

Ouze wrote:

the weasel king wrote:

Ouze wrote:As a matter of fact, I'd even go so far as to say that I completely disagree with the fact scarabs are casual based on the fact they take a slot that Wraiths could use. I love the model of Wraiths 2x, but I don't think they are really "better"...

Don't forget that Scarabs are T3, take double wounds from pie plates, and don't have Eternal Warrior. Imagine dropping any S6 pie plate on those poor bugs...

I'm not clear why you're singling out Scarabs for lacking Eternal Warrior, because no Necron unit in the current codex has EW either, including Wraiths (MC's notwithstanding). If you just mean they're gonna get wasted by a single Vindicator shot, then yes, they clearly have a problem. But so would Ork Boyz or Guardsmen or many other troops that might cost as much and serve a similar role.

I'm not saying scarabs are clearly a better choice; as you point out they do clearly and unambiguously have significant drawbacks. I'm saying they are equal to wraiths in spite of them; not better, equal, certainly not significantly worse as the article posits. And sure, it's just my opinion.

It's because they're T3 with a 5+ save. Only time they get to save from most pie plates (which even nids have some of) is after turbo boosting. If they haven't, or if the opponent gets first turn and has range, a well place pie plate will take out your whole 10 man, 30 wound squad in one shot. And with the plethora of power weapons, and s6+ attackers/shots, they die far too early to do well at much of anything.

And why single them out for not having eternal warrior? Because they're really the only unit that needs it. The only other unit that may benefit from it would be the lord (without destroyer body). And even that isn't a big deal since with a rez orb he can wbb for a 75% chance for not dying (monolith portal if needed)

the weasel king wrote:It's because they're T3 with a 5+ save. Only time they get to save from most pie plates (which even nids have some of) is after turbo boosting. If they haven't, or if the opponent gets first turn and has range, a well place pie plate will take out your whole 10 man, 30 wound squad in one shot.

In order for a single 5" blast to take out 10 40mm bases, you'd need to very carefully arrange them, base to base contact, under a blast template to get them to fit. That no longer does into the parameters of a lucky shot. You'd have to be de facto assisting your opponent to arrange them such a configuration: the likelihood any player would intentionally deploy any unit thus is so far-fetched it isn't a fair consideration with regards to the unit in question.

edit: I misunderstood what you meant. Vulnerable to blasts, you don't have to hit 10, you have to hit 5+, which is pretty easy. So yeah, good point.

Weasel King - Your basically saying that if you use scarabs wrong they are terrible, and that if a vindicator drops a template on them they die? Well ya. That happens for EVERYTHING in the game. Use it wrong, and have a vindicator pie plate it, things go wrong.

Ill use scarabs 1 of 2 ways. 1) is easy. I turbo boost them towards vehicles the shortest route possible. That causes my opponents to react to the threat of having 2 tanks ate up by turn two. Problem there is they get a fantastic cover save for doing that, and so either shrug off the shots or the opponent foolishly ignores them and looses tanks on turn 2.

or 2) I use them to tie up/bait-setup a unit. Depending on what you throw them at they can SERIOUSLY tie up a unit in CC. Theres no way to argue against that one (again unless you use them wrong for this as well) or the bait-setup. Ive used this one many times. Move them right infront of a unit, and then stretch out. Usually this is for setting up your units for a perfect chance to unload on them. The unit either has to A assault the scarabs, or B move around them, which normally makes them to far away to assault. This works particularly well on CC oriented units. They will chew up the scarabs in CC and are stuck there letting me have a full shooting phase on them.

KingCracker wrote:Weasel King - Your basically saying that if you use scarabs wrong they are terrible, and that if a vindicator drops a template on them they die? Well ya. That happens for EVERYTHING in the game. Use it wrong, and have a vindicator pie plate it, things go wrong.

Ill use scarabs 1 of 2 ways. 1) is easy. I turbo boost them towards vehicles the shortest route possible. That causes my opponents to react to the threat of having 2 tanks ate up by turn two. Problem there is they get a fantastic cover save for doing that, and so either shrug off the shots or the opponent foolishly ignores them and looses tanks on turn 2.

or 2) I use them to tie up/bait-setup a unit. Depending on what you throw them at they can SERIOUSLY tie up a unit in CC. Theres no way to argue against that one (again unless you use them wrong for this as well) or the bait-setup. Ive used this one many times. Move them right infront of a unit, and then stretch out. Usually this is for setting up your units for a perfect chance to unload on them. The unit either has to A assault the scarabs, or B move around them, which normally makes them to far away to assault. This works particularly well on CC oriented units. They will chew up the scarabs in CC and are stuck there letting me have a full shooting phase on them.

Not true, I don't say using them wrong will get them killed. Even using them right will get them killed quite often. Every army I can think of has at least 1 pie plate with at least S6, AP 5. Which just means they need 1 direct hit on a turn you didn't turbo boost to kill all of them (10 hit, 5/6 chance to wound, double wounds, double toughness, no save).

Using them to tie up a unit in cc is great, but with how armies work today, with all the powerfists and power weps, they don't survive nearly long enough anymore, turn of combat, 2 tops, especially with loosing combat, failing leadership, and having to make a bunch more saves at 5+.

And I don't know about you, but 95% of cc based units I've fought have some kind of transport capability, and spreading out in front of a tank does absolutely nothing (skimmer for a lot of armies, otherwise just tank shock).

The other main thing is they're fast attack which as the article pointed out, draws away from some of the best units in the current codex. Ya, they're cheep, multi wound models, but from my personal experience, they die way too fast. Sure, they can pop a vehicle, but so could a squad of destroyers or wraiths that could go in they're place. And the destroyers and wraiths can kill more.

I've updated the article with a bigger overview on scarabs and flayed ones. If anyone has anything to add to the article, please post it on here, or PM me.( PLEASE don't modify the article your self!)

Addition to the Necron lord.

I like the idea behind this article, but now you need to update it for 6th edition. I've done a similar idea for the Tau, as so many changes have happened for 6th that "didn't change anything" yet "changed it dramatically" at the same time. (Like rapid fire weapons are still rapid fire weapons, but the rapid fire rules changed.)

I hope no one changes your review/guide on you. I've had a few "edits" done to mine, though thankfully they were right and correcting me.

Good luck finishing this. I know, it takes a while. I've done it myself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

woodbok wrote:I've updated the article with a bigger overview on scarabs and flayed ones. If anyone has anything to add to the article, please post it on here, or PM me.( PLEASE don't modify the article your self!)

I SO agree with that. Let the author of the article know of problems, and let THEM change it. (Sorry, read this AFTER I made my last comment...)

Ummm... dude? Your article got redone completely. I think someone by the name of 220.237.29.96 completely rewrote it. I know it's been a while since I last looked at it, but I'm sure you had a lot more than just an army listing and no descriptions in it last time I read it. Otherwise my first comment wouldn't have made any sense at all...

And I've noticed that "name" editing a lot of things all over the place... (Though I guess you personally might have changed the article yourself...)