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.

Yup I said it. Not trying to troll or flame war or whatever this will likely break down into, but what I want to know is:

Who else will laugh as hard as me when all those necron players who got laughed at for the army they played or nay-sayed because they played "the worst army in 40k" are curb stomping and baby eating all the IG, SW, BA powergamers out there ? Ahhh that first month will be glorious for those underdogs... then everyone and there mom will run out and bandwagon on to the FotM army and Ill stop paying attention to 40k again.

Now im not saying they will be broken or cheesy or anything because if anything GW likes to make balanced (orks, DE) or underpowerd (tyranids...poor poor tyranids) xenos dexes. Im just saying you wont hear a peep out of me if they totally upset the current seats of power.

P.S. I fully understand that this games biggest decider on how "good" an army is... is how people play their army. Give a novice a tournament winning list and that guy whos been playing necrons the last 5 years will prolly still beat him. But rules in a dex go a long way in this game of chance and plastic.

Well I'm going to go put some more beastmen together . lol


My Emperors Children look forward to seeing you on the field of battle, Slaanesh be praised!

What an evil thought! Let's have a look at what armies you play...

Ah, right, OK. Carry on.

They should be cheese in the same vein as DE as it's so GODDAMN FETHING ANNOYING TO PLAY AGAINST AASDFLKAJSDF, rather than LOLSPAECWOLFS and Missile Launchers, JOTWW, etc.

Because all GW needs is more bandwagoning...

Laughing God wrote:Who else will laugh as hard as me when all those necron players who got laughed at for the army they played or nay-sayed because they played "the worst army in 40k" are curb stomping and baby eating all the IG, SW, BA powergamers out there ? Ahhh that first month will be glorious for those underdogs... then everyone and there mom will run out and bandwagon on to the FotM army and Ill stop paying attention to 40k again.

I just find it amusing that everyone considers Necrons to be "underpowered" now.

There was a time when even right after the IG had just gotten their brand new Doctrines Codex that Necrons were still walking all over them.

Of course, Necron players were just replying with "NOPE WE'RE PERFECTLY BALANCED!".
Now though they're the "underdogs"?

Now im not saying they will be broken or cheesy or anything because if anything GW likes to make balanced (orks, DE) or underpowered (tyranids...poor poor tyranids) xenos dexes.

This is a fallacious statement.

Tyranids are far from underpowered. They were brought down in terms of power. That's called "balancing".
People like to cry that "Oh my Carnifexes are useless!"--when it's simply been that Carnifexes and the other 'power' no-brainer choices for the Tyranid Codex have been toned down. That's going to happen when the goal is to get rid of mono-build Codices and encourage variation and people actually having to pick and choose what units to use for what role.

I'm just saying you wont hear a peep out of me if they totally upset the current seats of power.

We're already hearing peeps out of you, and the book isn't even out.

People laugh at cron players?
Thats a new one for me

Usually they just start shouting and screaming when 3 lith's get put on the table, then scream even more so when a C'tan also gets used.
Love using my crons, and im yet to have someone call it a weak army.



Its all about how an army is used.
Nids player placed 4th, which for a pretty much "in-the-middle" dex, thats impressive.

Kanluwen wrote:

Laughing God wrote:Who else will laugh as hard as me when all those necron players who got laughed at for the army they played or nay-sayed because they played "the worst army in 40k" are curb stomping and baby eating all the IG, SW, BA powergamers out there ? Ahhh that first month will be glorious for those underdogs... then everyone and there mom will run out and bandwagon on to the FotM army and Ill stop paying attention to 40k again.

I just find it amusing that everyone considers Necrons to be "underpowered" now.

There was a time when even right after the IG had just gotten their brand new Doctrines Codex that Necrons were still walking all over them.

Of course, Necron players were just replying with "NOPE WE'RE PERFECTLY BALANCED!".
Now though they're the "underdogs"?

So your saying they are not underpowered right now? How many units do you usually see in a necron army? 2 monoliths, 5+destroyers, orb lord, possibly C'tan. Only competative build at the moment.

Kanluwen wrote:

Now im not saying they will be broken or cheesy or anything because if anything GW likes to make balanced (orks, DE) or underpowered (tyranids...poor poor tyranids) xenos dexes.

This is a fallacious statement.

Tyranids are far from underpowered. They were brought down in terms of power. That's called "balancing".
People like to cry that "Oh my Carnifexes are useless!"--when it's simply been that Carnifexes and the other 'power' no-brainer choices for the Tyranid Codex have been toned down. That's going to happen when the goal is to get rid of mono-build Codices and encourage variation and people actually having to pick and choose what units to use for what role.

GW nerfed canifexes more to sell trygons than anything else. lol they went from one mono-build dex to another: Hive guard, tervigons, trygons. You will see them in almost every list. Nids are a one trick pony, just like the necrons. Run one build or fight an uphill battle. I call that underpowered. While you see with orks- Green tide, kan wall, speed freaks, all winning lists. But like I said before its not the weapon but the warrior.

Kanluwen wrote:

I'm just saying you wont hear a peep out of me if they totally upset the current seats of power.

We're already hearing peeps out of you, and the book isn't even out.

peep=complaint of Necron OP. I'll remember to be more specific from now on

Jackal wrote:People laugh at cron players?
Thats a new one for me

Usually they just start shouting and screaming when 3 lith's get put on the table, then scream even more so when a C'tan also gets used.
Love using my crons, and im yet to have someone call it a weak army.



Its all about how an army is used.
Nids player placed 4th, which for a pretty much "in-the-middle" dex, thats impressive.

I agree. But you have been playing necrons a long time no? Were im from if your not playing that build you described then your a joke. I also agree with the fact that its about how the army is played, experience, and that nids are about mid tier now, but deffinately cast down from what they were. BEAT DOWN with the nerf bat.

Laughing God wrote:So your saying they are not underpowered right now? How many units do you usually see in a necron army? 2 monoliths, 5+destroyers, orb lord, possibly C'tan. Only competative build at the moment.

I don't see much diversity in Space Wolf builds either.

Having few effective builds doesn't make you underpowered. I went 3-1 at Adepticon with my Necrons.

Monster Rain wrote:

Laughing God wrote:So your saying they are not underpowered right now? How many units do you usually see in a necron army? 2 monoliths, 5+destroyers, orb lord, possibly C'tan. Only competative build at the moment.

I don't see much diversity in Space Wolf builds either.

Having few effective builds doesn't make you underpowered. I went 3-1 at Adepticon with my Necrons.

No it doesnt and I know that sounded like the point I was trying to make but it wasnt. SW can run a variety of lists and still win most of there games. Razor back spam, long fang spam, logan wing, even a standard SM like with lots of grey hunters. But most people will run the same no brainer list at tournaments because... well people are unorigional.

What was your list for the tournament if you dont mind me asking?

Necrons are ONLY competative with a handfull of units. While SW have a plethora of good units to choose from and still be competative.

Alot of veteran necron players seem angry I think that the common view is that necrons are currently underpowered. Any other thread and its a common joke. lol

Laughing God wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Laughing God wrote:Who else will laugh as hard as me when all those necron players who got laughed at for the army they played or nay-sayed because they played "the worst army in 40k" are curb stomping and baby eating all the IG, SW, BA powergamers out there ? Ahhh that first month will be glorious for those underdogs... then everyone and there mom will run out and bandwagon on to the FotM army and Ill stop paying attention to 40k again.

I just find it amusing that everyone considers Necrons to be "underpowered" now.

There was a time when even right after the IG had just gotten their brand new Doctrines Codex that Necrons were still walking all over them.

Of course, Necron players were just replying with "NOPE WE'RE PERFECTLY BALANCED!".
Now though they're the "underdogs"?

So your saying they are not underpowered right now? How many units do you usually see in a necron army? 2 monoliths, 5+destroyers, orb lord, possibly C'tan. Only competitive build at the moment.

...And?

To build off what Monster Rain said: there's always going to be an 'optimal' build that people are going to flock to. There's a mistaken belief that 'optimal'='only competitive'.

Kanluwen wrote:

Now im not saying they will be broken or cheesy or anything because if anything GW likes to make balanced (orks, DE) or underpowered (tyranids...poor poor tyranids) xenos dexes.

This is a fallacious statement.

Tyranids are far from underpowered. They were brought down in terms of power. That's called "balancing".
People like to cry that "Oh my Carnifexes are useless!"--when it's simply been that Carnifexes and the other 'power' no-brainer choices for the Tyranid Codex have been toned down. That's going to happen when the goal is to get rid of mono-build Codices and encourage variation and people actually having to pick and choose what units to use for what role.

GW nerfed canifexes more to sell trygons than anything else. lol they went from one mono-build dex to another: Hive guard, tervigons, trygons. You will see them in almost every list. Nids are a one trick pony, just like the necrons. Run one build or fight an uphill battle. I call that underpowered. While you see with orks- Green tide, kan wall, speed freaks, all winning lists. But like I said before its not the weapon but the warrior.

Nids are far from a 'one trick pony', just like Necrons.

GW nerfed Carnifexes because they were, simply put, too good for the value.

Kanluwen wrote:

I'm just saying you wont hear a peep out of me if they totally upset the current seats of power.

We're already hearing peeps out of you, and the book isn't even out.

peep=complaint of Necron OP. I'll remember to be more specific from now on

You're also saying the same thing in another thread.

I can even link to the message, if you'd like.

So your saying they are not underpowered right now? How many units do you usually see in a necron army? 2 monoliths, 5+destroyers, orb lord, possibly C'tan. Only competative build at the moment.

Well, the unit choice isnt the highest is it?
Like all other armies, there are alot of units you ignore.

I agree. But you have been playing necrons a long time no? Were im from if your not playing that build you described then your a joke. I also agree with the fact that its about how the army is played, experience, and that nids are about mid tier now, but deffinately cast down from what they were. BEAT DOWN with the nerf bat.

Then the people in your area are the joke and need to learn a bit more about crons i would say.

Castle spam, destroyer spam, wraithwing, theres 3 builds that are competative.
So IG have what? blower and Powerblob spam?

There are only a few power builds for each book, but crons arent short of them once you learn to use them.

Destroyers arent needed in a cron list to play competative.
Plenty of people prefer wraiths, me included now after talking with dash and testing them out a bit more.




Edit:

Nids are far from a 'one trick pony', just like Necrons.

Your wrong going by what he said though mate
Nids must be a 1 trick pony that allways fight uphill battles.
Im guessing thats how they placed 4th in the finals right?

Laughing God wrote:What was your list for the tournament if you dont mind me asking?

2X 10 Warriors

The Nightbringer
Lord with Res Orb and Veil of Darkness

4 Destroyers
4 Destroyers

Monolith
Monolith
Tomb Spyder

It was only 1850, so I had to drop the 4 Pariahs I like to keep behind the Monoliths and near the Nightbringer. I played against Battlewagon Orks (twice, nearly tabled one and lost a heartbreaker to the second when the Nightbringer decided to fail 4 out of four 4+ saves ), Nurgle-Khorne CSM and Mech Eldar.

While Necrons have it bad now, lets be honest, they have not been a terrible army for that long, especially not as long as other armies have been. IG was widely held to be a punching bag army for over ten years and were never seen as a great army even in 2nd Ed, DE went many moons as a neglected army, etc. Necrons were a *very* strong army in 3rd and were still one of the better armies all through 4th edition. I never beat Necrons in 4th Edition.

So yes, while they're bad now, they haven't been awful all *that* long, and were at one time in fact a "Cheese" army.

Jackal wrote:People laugh at cron players?
Thats a new one for me

Usually they just start shouting and screaming when 3 lith's get put on the table, then scream even more so when a C'tan also gets used.
Love using my crons, and im yet to have someone call it a weak army.

This is generally the easiest type of Necron army to beat in my experience. 3 Monolits and a C'tan make it exceedingly easy to phase the army out as all one needs to do from there is basically kill ~700ish points of such an army to beat it in a 2000pt game, or in a 1500pt game, all one needs to do is kill ~16 Warriors to phase that army out typically. When taking that much non-necron stuff, you're basically ensuring the opponent needs to only kill about a third of the points of your army to beat you.

Vaktathi wrote:This is generally the easiest type of Necron army to beat in my experience. 3 Monolits and a C'tan make it exceedingly easy to phase the army out as all one needs to do from there is basically kill ~700ish points of such an army to beat it in a 2000pt game, or in a 1500pt game, all one needs to do is kill ~16 Warriors to phase that army out typically. When taking that much non-necron stuff, you're basically ensuring the opponent needs to only kill about a third of the points of your army to beat you.

If the killy stuff is between your opponent and the warriors, that's not all that easy to do.

Between the armies I play the most, Eldar, CSM's and Imperial Guard, with all the Deep Striking units, melta weapons,Transports, long range guns, ordnance, barrage, outflanking, etc I've never found it to be a problem to reach out and hurt the Warriors. If they are held in reserve to avoid destruction, then they aren't on the table doing harm or capturing objectives and I can concentrate all my firepower on the Monolith's and killy stuff, meaning the killy stuff is going to be severly depleted if not destroyed by the time the Warriors come on, and thus easily destroyed.

I think that the disagreements in this thread come from a basic lack of agreement about what "competitive" means.

So lets start there. My definition of a competitive army is one with the capability of taking the tools to potentially (and reasonably) deal with any threat on the tabletop.

Example: A Dark Eldar army full of lances without haywire weaponry is not a competitive army, because it does not have the ability to deal with Blessed Hull Land Raiders or Monoliths.
Example: A Dark Eldar army full of lances with SOME haywire weaponry is a competitive army, because it has reasonable potential to kill anything in 40k.

Necrons are not competitive because they lack this ability.

Blood Angels for example: Mephiston, 3 triple-lascannon predators, 3 Baal predators with flamestorm cannons, and a few Las/plas razorbacks.

There is no Necron build that can reasonably counter that. Destroyers won't win the glancing game against 6 predators, who have a fair shake at destroying monoliths, C'Tans don't have Eternal Warrior to fend off Mephiston, etc.

There are several armies out there against which Necrons don't have the ability to bring the tools needed to kill it. That's why Necrons aren't competitive.

Necrons can win. Good players can win with Necrons. However, a good player with Necrons cannot win EVERY game against ANYONE using ANY list.

@Monster Rain: Grats on 3-1 at Adepticon with Necrons. I'd be interested to see what kind of Battlewagon Orks you faced off against; my own Battlewagon Orks have yet to conceptualize or meet a Necron army that they didn't laugh off the table.

I hope necrons get competative in thier next dex. they have alot of fluff and look nice.

they are in the running for my next army due to the models.. its them or eldar (classic not dark)

both seem liek they'd be fun to play as and look good with awsome fluff only downside to necrons is the limited functionality vs eldar which can be awsome but zero room for error, don't think i'm good enough to play as them yet

Dashofpepper wrote:@Monster Rain: Grats on 3-1 at Adepticon with Necrons. I'd be interested to see what kind of Battlewagon Orks you faced off against; my own Battlewagon Orks have yet to conceptualize or meet a Necron army that they didn't laugh off the table.

Thanks buddy!

The orks were pretty standard, really. 3-4 Wagons with Deffrollas, a few squads of Lootas, Nobz, Ghazkull and a KFF Mek and as many boyz as would fit after that.

In the first game I wrecked the Nobz wagon with Particle whips on turn one, so ghaz and the lads had to walk. I shot them up while the Nightbringer kept the boyz from assaulting my lines. After that it was just pretty much mopping up. He didn't expect the Etheric Tempest though, so I'm sure the next time he'd take a turn to move the Nobz into another wagon like I thought he would. If that had happened I would have bubblewrapped my warriors with Destroyers and the Spyder and its babies and set up the Nightbringer for a nasty countercharge.

I hope that they will be a power codex, but not a cheese codex. Like, really, with spacewolves you kinda have to try to build a bad list to to do badly. They just have so many ridiculous units and powers that even a beginner can throw together something competitive on their own, because everything in there is basically better space marines for less points.

Dashofpepper wrote:I think that the disagreements in this thread come from a basic lack of agreement about what "competitive" means.

So lets start there. My definition of a competitive army is one with the capability of taking the tools to potentially (and reasonably) deal with any threat on the tabletop.

Example: A Dark Eldar army full of lances without haywire weaponry is not a competitive army, because it does not have the ability to deal with Blessed Hull Land Raiders or Monoliths.
Example: A Dark Eldar army full of lances with SOME haywire weaponry is a competitive army, because it has reasonable potential to kill anything in 40k.

Necrons are not competitive because they lack this ability.

Blood Angels for example: Mephiston, 3 triple-lascannon predators, 3 Baal predators with flamestorm cannons, and a few Las/plas razorbacks.

There is no Necron build that can reasonably counter that. Destroyers won't win the glancing game against 6 predators, who have a fair shake at destroying monoliths, C'Tans don't have Eternal Warrior to fend off Mephiston, etc.

There are several armies out there against which Necrons don't have the ability to bring the tools needed to kill it. That's why Necrons aren't competitive.

Necrons can win. Good players can win with Necrons. However, a good player with Necrons cannot win EVERY game against ANYONE using ANY list.

@Monster Rain: Grats on 3-1 at Adepticon with Necrons. I'd be interested to see what kind of Battlewagon Orks you faced off against; my own Battlewagon Orks have yet to conceptualize or meet a Necron army that they didn't laugh off the table.

DoP said it better than I was managing to. lol But the whole argument was besides the point. As necron players wouldnt you like necrons to get all of the variety and new flashy toys and rules that other codexes are getting these days? Or do you feel your codex is competative enough that it could do without an update for a while longer?

You know what I want?

I want Necrons to be the 'ridiculous matchup army'.

I want any necron player to be able to put down his army against alpha-strike guard, longfangspam spacewolves, mechfiston BA or dreadspam Grey knights, and regardless of whether he goes first or second, feel confident of tabling them by turn four.

BUT I want necrons to quiver in their booties at the though of playing Tau, quake in fear when they see Chaos marines across the table, run away from Orks, and complain bitterly about Eldar.

I think that would be a really nice way to shake up the meta.

I agree with the OP...I need a good challenge for my DE...eating guardsmen and marines of all kinds does get quite boring

I've never laughed at a Necron.

Then again I only played one once... and was left mentally scarred by the experience as my stationary guard gunline was unable to kill his hiding warriors and swiftly got pwned by a Monolith...




They're so cheese it's err.... cake?

I don't think that Necrons are as bad as everyone is saying. They've not the best by any means, but at least the inbalance in armies in GW games is not as bad as some other games.

But do I want the new Codex to be full of cheese? YES. Why not. If BA & Grey Knights get it then why not Necrons. And if GW follow the market trend (nearly all games have 'power creep' not just GW ones) then it should be good. Here's hoping it is good.

Well, Necrons Are pretty damn awful and to be honest a boring army to play and look at. Mind you I would like to see them get back into the meta like they were in third ed. Hope they get some sort of transport or better tankbusting

Yes Raise my necron players bwhahaha! Actually I agree with frogii they really need some spice in it because then it will most likely be destroyer wing for necrons joy....

So "some spice in it"="destroyer wing"?

I thought the goal was to make more variety, not less.

Kan, you know as well as i do that crons could have 10 units under each choice, and only a small few would be used anyway
GW tend to have alot of "packing" units that just fill up space.

I'm fine with it as long as BT get just as much.

I really agree with Warboss Gutrip's wish to make Necrons the "ridiculous matchup army.