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.

After taking a good break from warhammer I've decided to hop back in, at first I was really excited but that initial "Back in the saddle" drive has left me. I figure starting a new army would do me wonders in getting back into the groove of things.

As I'm not very fond of CC domination I've narrowed it down to two armies Necrons and IG. I like how they both have competitive shooting and necrons were my first army. Some concerns I have on both sides is Necrons seem pretty gimmicky and IG seem like the only way to run them is to pack a bunch of PlasVets in a Chimera and do drive-bys. Any suggestions or favors in either side to help me choose? Did I leave out any information that'd help you guys help me?

You don't need to do mechvets to make IG work. While the most competitive way to run them is by using very efficient units of veterans in vehicles, they can do fine as an infantry horde, infantry with armor support, aircav, a wave of Chimeras with infantry squads, or what have you. They're a very versatile army and you can do a lot with them. The only problem is that you need to be prepared to spend a lot of money, since they either require lots of infantry or lots of dollar-expensive points-cheap tanks.

Brother SRM wrote:You don't need to do mechvets to make IG work. While the most competitive way to run them is by using very efficient units of veterans in vehicles, they can do fine as an infantry horde, infantry with armor support, aircav, a wave of Chimeras with infantry squads, or what have you. They're a very versatile army and you can do a lot with them. The only problem is that you need to be prepared to spend a lot of money, since they either require lots of infantry or lots of dollar-expensive points-cheap tanks.

Yeah, that's what I though. At first I thought I could work around the pricing but then I realized GW priced all your offensive tanks at $50

There are several ways to use IG besides meltavets

1. Tanks, tanks, and more tanks: At lower point levels fielding 3 russes of any kind is outright terrifying, you might spend more than half your points on tanks and upgrades, while using infantry mostly as bubble wrap.

2. Artillery, artillery, and more artillery: We have tons of good artillery, most of which are at least semi-competitive. Generally allows for more troops than the former.

3. Shooty horde: Get platoons, combined squads, and some commissars. FRFSRF and you can expect 90 shots a turn until you start taking casualties. Also you can spam lascannons and autocannons.

4. Choppy horde: Get platoons, combined squad, and some commissars, don't forget PW for the sergeants and commissars. You get up to 18+ str 3 power weapon attacks on the charge as well as plenty of non-power weapon attacks.

Guard is actually pretty versatile and any build can really work.

I'd also say guard over necron. While you're looking for a mostly shooty army, necron have a real weakness in CC. Once those wraiths are killed, you're in a tenuous position, whereas guard has units which are capable of being both shooty and choppy at the same time. Even if you don't want CC to be your primary mechanism, you're going to want to have SOME way of handling it when you come across players who won't be denied the charge.

Certainly you don't need mechvets to play guard. Foot lists are just as competitive in a regular game of 40k as a mech list.

As for the aesthetic choice, it's really up to you. I agree that necron used to be super gimmicky, and from the very limited information I have about them, that hasn't changed much since their new codex came out. It seems like it's still an army based around a few, boring units with a lord that has one cool ability.

That's just me, though.

At the risk of being the only pro necron voice I have just started 40k and blundered into necrons (my boys took space marines, tau and tyranids).

If you want an army which will always have you interested in changing your list to try out new combinations, necrons are for you.

You get the choice of mech, wraith, scarab, as mainstream, but there are so many combinations of units, characters and rules that you can mix and match to your hearts content.

Sure, some of the rules/units are gimmicky, but that doesn't make them less fun to play. Also, finding that new combination and watching the "oh s..." moment hit the opponent....well, that's gold.

As for the "few boring units with a lord that has 1 cool ability" well, guess that depends on where and who you play. You could say similar things for every army.

The new necrons are also quite cost effective. 1 overlord model but 6 (or so, can't remember exactly) different IC to play. 1 model, two awesome (and different use) options (Annihilation barge / CCB).

my 2c


Automatically Appended Next Post:
oops. I forgot foot as a mainstream option!!

MarkCron wrote:You get the choice of mech, wraith, scarab, as mainstream, but there are so many combinations of units, characters and rules that you can mix and match to your hearts content.

I don't know if necron has more builds than guard, given that guard can do shooty horde, power blobs, mechvets, and air cav with either artillery or tanks (or something else).

MarkCron wrote:As for the "few boring units with a lord that has 1 cool ability" well, guess that depends on where and who you play. You could say similar things for every army.

You could say this for a lot of armies (GK pops first to mind...), but it's not true for guard. Guard has interesting units and boring HQs, rather than the other way around.

Ailaros wrote:

MarkCron wrote:You get the choice of mech, wraith, scarab, as mainstream, but there are so many combinations of units, characters and rules that you can mix and match to your hearts content.

I don't know if necron has more builds than guard, given that guard can do shooty horde, power blobs, mechvets, and air cav with either artillery or tanks (or something else).

I wasn't implying that Necrons had more builds. I was simply saying that Necrons have these different builds and you could mix and match depending on what you wanted.

Ailaros wrote:

MarkCron wrote:As for the "few boring units with a lord that has 1 cool ability" well, guess that depends on where and who you play. You could say similar things for every army.

You could say this for a lot of armies (GK pops first to mind...), but it's not true for guard. Guard has interesting units and boring HQs, rather than the other way around.

I'd say that the Necrons have interesting units and interesting HQ. Course depends on your definition of interesting. Rather let me say that Necrons have units with distinct capabilities which you need to think carefully how to mix together and match with HQ to get the best out of any unit (and your overall army).

Now I'm not saying that other armies and IG don't have similar complexities. All I'm saying is don't write off the new Necron codex because of the historical view of them (which I have only web search experience of). In fact, the main thing I have to do when I try and research something Necron is to make sure I'm not searching back more than about 9 months.

I'd say, play the army that is going to keep you interested. (its cheaper than having to buy new armies ); for me that army is the NEW necrons.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ailaros wrote:I'd also say guard over necron. While you're looking for a mostly shooty army, necron have a real weakness in CC. Once those wraiths are killed, you're in a tenuous position, whereas guard has units which are capable of being both shooty and choppy at the same time. Even if you don't want CC to be your primary mechanism, you're going to want to have SOME way of handling it when you come across players who won't be denied the charge.

Hmmm, from my experience I wouldn't say that Necrons don't have a way of handling close combat without wraiths. There are a number of units which handle CC/counter assault quite well. Sure we have I2, but we get can get back up when we get killed. Also, the LD 10 helps to stop sweeping advances (sometimes!!). I think a fairer way of putting it is that you have to think more carefully about your positioning during the game to make sure that warriors don't go up against termies (or the IG equivalent (sorry but I don't know what that equivalent is)).

Again, I'm not trying to say that Necrons are the best, just trying to give viewpoints from a new necron player point of view.

PS....Feel free to concentrate fire on the wraiths.

I'd go with the army you like the look/fluff of first, then perhaps do some play-testing using Counts As with other models if you can. That way you spend no money, and also end up with an army that you are actually motivated to play with.

I was put off collecting guard after buying my first platoon and realising just how bad my choice of units was (or perhaps I just suck at using them properly), and also the amount of money I would need to spend compared to other armies. Afterwards I amassed an apocalyptic Necron army and am still going, but that's my own taste.

Commander Jimbob wrote:I'd go with the army you like the look/fluff of first, then perhaps do some play-testing using Counts As with other models if you can. That way you spend no money, and also end up with an army that you are actually motivated to play with.

This, pretty much.

Feth these people and their opinions. You do what you like, or what interests you both aesthetically and gameplay wise.

KplKeegan wrote:

Commander Jimbob wrote:I'd go with the army you like the look/fluff of first, then perhaps do some play-testing using Counts As with other models if you can. That way you spend no money, and also end up with an army that you are actually motivated to play with.

This, pretty much.

Feth these people and their opinions. You do what you like, or what interests you both aesthetically and gameplay wise.

Completely true. If you are split on this, I suggest you take Commander Jimbob's idea and run with it. Heck, if you wanted play-testing then you can just play with your friends and use rippy bits of paper to signify units, no models required! For quite a while my friends and I slowly built our armies and when we played at home we never used the models because we had so few and we wanted to swap out armies and play styles.

Grab some binder or printer paper, cut out inch-by-inch squares for infantry and appropriate sized pieces for vehicles, and write a letter on each to signify the unit. I do not recommend using Conscripts with this method, however. 50 little paper bits in one unit are not easy to keep in one pile coherently.

Just keep in mind that generally what one army has is almost always balanced by what another army has, and most modern armies have a good level of versatility. I haven't looked at the new 'Crons codex extensively, but it seemed to me that they are much more mobile and capable of quick reaction to different circumstance than they used to be.

That being said, Guard at its core is one of the most versatile armies available IMHO simply due to the sheer number of different variants of vehicles, tanks, artillery, and weapons within squads. A Vet squad could be an effective fire support squad with an autocannon and plasmas, or just as useful as a CC assault squad in a Chimera with 4 flamers, melta bombs, and a demo charge.

All in all, just remember that it's your choice as to how you want to play the game too. Do you WANT to be the commander of a wall of iron lumbering forward across the field, or instead an overlord driving your undying soldiers to prey upon the weak mortal meatbags?