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.

I have been toying around with the idea of starting a new army recently. Since I play Necrons, I began to think about which army would provide me with the biggest difference in gameplay.

Along that same train of thought, I started to wonder which armies are the most different from one another as far as how they play on the table top. So, to start, I will do Necrons.

I think the army that is most different from Necrons would have to be a very Slaanesh heavy Demons of Chaos army. You go from good armor saves, medium to high toughness, low initiative, no psychic powers and mostly shooting to no armor saves, low toughness, super high initiative, and getting most of your killing done in close combat.

So to summarize, Necrons are most different from Chaos Demons(Slaanesh heavy).

Grey knight melee paladins, to horde tzeentch daemons.

Paladins have resillience, and melee skill, at the cost of speed and numbers

Tzeentch daemons have speed, numbers, and shooting skill, at the cost of resillience and melee skill.

Well, I'd think about an army that can ally with Necrons. Orks, GK, IG, and CSM come to my mind. Each of them plays differently.

 wuestenfux wrote:
Well, I'd think about an army that can ally with Necrons. Orks, GK, IG, and CSM come to my mind. Each of them plays differently.

I appreciate the advice. But, I am asking what armies everyone thinks are the most different from one another gameplay wise. Evileyes has the right idea.

From a tau player, it seems to be nurgle daemons. You go from fragile, high power, high mobility shooting, to slooooowwww footsloggin HTH combat users that are nearly indestructible.

 Gyrtop wrote:
From a tau player, it seems to be nurgle daemons. You go from fragile, high power, high mobility shooting, to slooooowwww footsloggin HTH combat users that are nearly indestructible.

Aren't the new nurgle daemons kind of squishier than they used to be?

Imperial guard to DE. From tonnes of steel, hundreds of bodies and enough arty to demolish a city and staying 12-24" away to half-nekked BDSM melee fighters on flying paper bags.

 TheCrazyCryptek wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
Well, I'd think about an army that can ally with Necrons. Orks, GK, IG, and CSM come to my mind. Each of them plays differently.

I appreciate the advice. But, I am asking what armies everyone thinks are the most different from one another gameplay wise. Evileyes has the right idea.

What about Orks? I play Necrons aswell, and if there's one thing we can't do, is having massives units of 30+ models who can't wait to enter CC to NOM NOM NOM everything. Likewise, Tyranids. I think the most different armies are Horde style armies if you want. Marines even have almost the same stats as Necrons so stay away from those

Orcs are rush up and get into melee. Orcs are expendable.

Tau - Shoot and protect don't get into melee. Don't expend your troops you need the firepower.

Green Tide foot Orks and Dark Eldar Venom spam.

Green Tide Orks and gunline Orks, FMC & psyker heavy Daermons and foot Tau.