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.

In 3rd Edition, I could castle up my Necrons and blow the other guy off the table. This was my first army, and I won so many games in a row, I got bored of it and shelved it. Maybe the talent wasn't there on the other side of the table, but being able to screen with Warriors makes Necrons very tough to deal with.

The new rules don't seem to be quite as forgiving for the castle, but you can still screen your Destroyers and have them shoot off the edges of the packs of Warriors. It's a useful addition to the army to be sure.

Necrons also don't depend on heavy weapons or specialized models. The new wound allocation rules won't bother them at all.

Also, the increased toughness of the Monolith is, as has been said, making an already mean model even worse.

Finally, everyone has known forever that Warriors are among the hardest models for the points in the game. The lament has always been "so what if they're tough, they can't do anything." Now they can grab objectives, and indeed are the only way to do so. As troops become more of a focus, you get Necrons with some of the hardest Troops to move off an objective in the game. Slow, sure, but Troops choices aren't the fastest in the game anyway.

I'm not sure they're necessarily moving up in the army rankings, but to suggest they're getting totally nerfed... I don't think that's accurate.

It doesn't matter how many tiny 'boosts' you can find such as a tougher monolith or "we don't care about the new wound allocation rules", which isn't even really a boost, just an avoidance of someone else's problem.

Any army that relies on multiple 200+ pt highly fragile troops units and is also saddled with the phase out rule will not be competitive.

You say Necron Warriors are one of the hardest units for the points in the game. That will be an utter falsehood if the PDF becomes accurate. You do realise the implications of the new combat rules do you not?

Necrap are just that. Crap.

They badly need a Codex rewrite.

5th edition rules allow them to use units they otherwise would not be able to, but that's not a Codex rewrite.

There are serious limits to what the Necrons can do, and it shows in 5th edition.

Granted, I've not had the chance to play the 5th ed pdf at this time, but overall, I'm willing to bet these will be the armies that people will be calling top tier this time next year:

Orks
shooty Eldar
Tyranids

I think there will be some good Black Templar builds. They lose their target priority drawback. Mixed armor looks to have changed so you can peal off cheaper Neophytes. Land Raider Crusaders can be troop transports (which will give up only one KP in a particular mission IIRC) If S4 will be the defensive weapon strength, the LRC still makes for a decent tank. But, I'm having doubts the army will be popular enough to be seen in many tourneys. Lots of armies will have psychers, and they can capitalize on it as well as benefit from it.

I've left Necrons out as I believe they rumored to be getting a rewrite (not soon enought IMO).

Halfpast_yellow is absolutely correct. This new codex is much more difficult to win with Necrons in. He's stated the reasons, succintly and correctly.

I just made my tier list the other night, really focusing on exactly what everyone should be focusing on. Flexible troops that don't lose their effectiveness on the move. Troops that are looking to initiate assaults or, at very least, are unafraid of assaults.

Outside of the "hold" objective in 'Take and Hold', there are no objectives to claim while in your deployment zone. this fact, coupled with the random game length means mid-range troops with good anti-assault and mobile firepower or just straight up CC killers will be better than any static longer range firepower troop choices. It is frustrating to think that my imperial guard army is going to have to move CLOSER to all other armies in the game 66% of the games I play, forgoing the shots of their heavy weapons to get to an objective on turn 5 at the latest.

TIER 1
Orks
Chaos
Dark Angels
Space Marines
Black Templars
Blood Angels
Space Wolves

Thanks to random game length, you can't come to an objective light. Since you may need to fight off opposing troops for 2 more turns, so the tier 2 armies have good troops, but not good troops for 7 turn games with bloody grinds for objectives.

TIER 2
Eldar
Tyranids
Necrons
Dark Eldar

The last group are full of easy to kill slow troops. They can't repel an assaulting unit, especially with a troops choice. it will be a frustrating wait for a new codex for these guys.

TIER 3
Tau
Imperial Guard

Without a list of all armies in front of me, I'm sure I forgot some armies.

I love the screening rules (once clarified), I love the simplicity yet tactical depth of the new missions (in theory).

Why is it that I'm drawn to the long range shooty armies (IG, Cygnar) and whenever a new tourney focused rule set comes out the short sighted designers decide that in order to make the game "fair" all units are going to have to run at each other like a scene from Braveheart. The "Steamroller" format in Warmachine put a nail in my long gunner based haley army. And now these new missions put a nail in my 160 model IG company.

I guess its time for me to lift my no space marine policy, or go back to the orks, after they had left me jilted for 4 years with a dinosaur of a codex.

Wow, i think i have a serious case of the mondays. Please excuse my whining, feel free to discuss my rankings however, I'm gonna stand pretty firm on the power levels i've set there.

Imperial Guard with 3 Russes, sitting in cover, will blow holes in those MEQ's like you wouldn't believe.

And then you get to take a mega-ton of guns to shoot at them with in the multitude of scoring units you can take. With deepstrikers or infiltrating troops, getting objectives not put near your deployment zone.

IG will not be low tier. Especially not "new style" MEQ books where they're finally expensive and don't come in very optimal squad sizes anymore.

Voodoo Boyz wrote:Imperial Guard with 3 Russes, sitting in cover, will blow holes in those MEQ's like you wouldn't believe.

And then you get to take a mega-ton of guns to shoot at them with in the multitude of scoring units you can take. With deepstrikers or infiltrating troops, getting objectives not put near your deployment zone.

IG will not be low tier. Especially not "new style" MEQ books where they're finally expensive and don't come in very optimal squad sizes anymore.

I sure hope you are right. I've put a lot of money into IG. I'm not migrating away from them.

Here are some seldom picked up problems though. Space marine player throws their 2 or 3 recon objectives into some cover. They run over to it and get on it. Once you fire your first battle cannon shell, they just "take cover" improving their cover save to 3+. Every mission is alpha 100% of the time. So my option is to shoot into 10 3+ cover space marines until they are completely dead (not 1 can live) or my other option is for me to take either a 10 man infantry squad or a 5 man infantry command squad over there to initiate an assault on space marines in cover? No. So my best bet there is to keep it completely unscored, if I can get all those marines in cover killed.

Its great fun for me to fantasize about my unkillable leman russes, and my plethora of scoring units. But the fact of the matter is, leman russes don't score, a single pinned tactical marine does. I can have a million 5 or 10 man T3 5+ armor troops choices, if they rely on heavy weapons to hurt people, and will get 86ed out of any close combat they are stupid enough to try under the new more harsh CC rules, then they won't be able to take any objective from anyone in cover, and they won't be able to keep any objective from anyone with a good assault force. Thanks to 'run', uber-landraiders, LOS blocked heavy weapons and other nasty rules changes that favor the mobile, tactical, and "hardcore" armies.

I want to have a tier 1 army. I'm not a defeatist. And, as always reserve the right to be totally wrong. But when you are the worst of the worst in CC and mobility, and then you are instructed to cross the table and stand on an objective with your slowest and least resilient units, you tend to feel a little bit like you are ice-skating uphill...

Halfpast_Yellow wrote:I've already tested my Crons out 'live' and thus have the experience. However it doesn't take a genius to recognise the new combat rules and vehicle rules are a massive nerf to the army.

You know why I always hate phrases like "it doesn't take a genius to recognize...[insert prejudice here]"? I hate them because the speaker seems to implicitly assume not only expertise, but implicitly assumes that whomsoever disagrees is not only not a genius, but stupid as well.

A genius wouldn't count his chickens before they've had time to hatch. It takes someone that's not a genius to think that they can understand the implications of rules circulating as the upcoming 5th edition rules without a scores of games worth of rigorous testing. From what I've seen posted I just think you're giving up early in the face of a new tactical and strategic problem, rather than solving it, because you're not willing to think beyond your experience and do so carefully. Instead you just want to think in catch-phrases, folk wisdom, and dime-store aphorisms.

Still, I submit to your expertise. What was I thinking, after all, to disagree with you? You've certainly demonstrated the rightness of your claims beyond reasonable doubt.

Nurglitch wrote:
Instead you just want to think in catch-phrases, folk wisdom, and dime-store aphorisms.

Nurglitch wrote:
A genius wouldn't count his chickens before they've had time to hatch.

Since when is scores of games worth of rigourous testing required to understand the implication of any new change to an existing system ever? I don't have to have an experience of being a Gorilla's sexual plaything to understand from my limited worldly knowledge the implications that would have and to determine and declare I would not enjoy it. Only a Slaaneshi wouldn't understand the logic of that.

I don't have to rigorously test the effect changes to the system will have on the Necron codex to use my experience with WH40k, Necrons, research into other's experiences, and couple that with my naturally gifted intelligence to make a pretty well educated estimate on what effect they will have.

Thank you for acknowledging and gracefully bowing my greater expertise on the matter of the Necron ruleset, that would certainly have to be the more noble action to take, as perhaps opposed someone who would attempt to obsfucate their lack of understanding through posts that are wordy but mostly empty of meaning, and who attempts to hold others to an unrealistic standard of definition for what constitutes 'knowledge', therefore making the term and knowledge-based discussion meaningless.

I assume you weren't being sarcastic at all of course

Nurglitch wrote: No, I don't use sarcasm, it interferes with communication

Regardless, it will be difficult for me to not follow the 'ignore nurglitch' trend from here, as your posts seem to be the definition of that 'dime store aphorism' mutton dressed as lamb.

Halfpast_Yellow: Playing scores of games worth of rigorous testing has always been required to understand the implication of any new change to a system. That's what computer science is about, if Alan Turing is to be believed. With regard to your analogy about being a gorilla's plaything all you are doing is making an appeal to our prejudices about gorillas. Without testing all you have done is prejudge the matter. Indeed your ridiculous example could itself be considered to be the fallacy of false analogy. Determining the consequences of a complex of variables in a board-game is unlike determining whether you will enjoy the sexual favours of someone to whom you are presumably not attracted to or sexually compatible with.

I can hardly contest your claim to 'naturally gifted intelligence', since I don't have access to testing that assertion, but I can point out that intelligence is meaningless unless it is focused by good method and intellectual rigour. In good faith I submitted to your expertise about the nature of Necrons, but since you prefer to lambast me for it and make foolish claims about the content of my posts instead of proceeding to demonstrate that expertise it seems I have found reason to doubt the rightness of your claims.

Although we cannot draw an accurate conclusion, it is likely that a person resorting to ad hominem attacks instead of sharing their great wisdom likely has no great wisdom to share. I, on the other hand, have no great wisdom but I do have an enthusiasm for solving tactical and strategic problems. It strikes me that, as usual, Necron players will struggle to adapt to the new set of tactical and strategic problems as people always do when the rules of the game change, but that after a while some clever people will figure it out and that knowledge will gradually spread through the community.

Incidentally that's why I suggest that Necrons will not be top tier, despite my opinion that they will be quite a competitive army under the 5th edition rules: people will give up on them easily and go play easier to learn armies like Space Marines. Since the ability of an army to win games is determined by additional factors such as the player using them, the mission being played, the terrain employed, and the luck of the dice (all things usually abstracted away in forum discussions), the tier rankings of armies will be determined in part by the ability of the players to make the connections between these six factors (the sixth being time), and partly by the transparency or obviousness in combining these factors. Though two armies might lend a player the same 'power' on the table-top, the user-friendliness of the army will be what affects the perception of it being 'top tier'.

Any army can be top tier. Well, most of them anyway. It's really how YOU run them that makes the difference.

I see alot of supposed 'top tier' armies, and it's still a game of me rolling dice just for show--the game was decided not because of list or scenario but superior generalship.

You can often tell when a noob is running the army across from you, right away. It doesn't matter how good or bad the list is, if the guy running it has the mind of a peanut.

Any player can be top tier. The same isn't true of any army. There are definately armies out there that are simply more powerful than others. Some of them are so good that a very new player can win competitive tournaments with them if the experienced players are not also playing top-tier armies.

Good players can overcome this handicap - but that doesn't change the fact that 40K isn't a perfectly balanced wargame.

I think any army with multiwound models in units will be top tier because games workshop can't get their rules straight.

The player must allocate one wound on each model in the target unit before he can allocate a second wound on the same model

When a unit contains several multiple-wound models, and those models take wounds, you must remove whole multiple-wound models from the unit as casualties where possible

Seriously, the new "allocate wounds" phase is such a dumb addition and I really honestly hope they don't put it in. I can see how it's relevant to some unique units, basically mixed armour, single wound models. But to everyone else it's just a load of... well you know.

But I digress, I really think units that can take full advantage of the new Run rules (i.e already mobile infantry) will be the game breakers. They have the mobility for claiming objectives like others have mentioned and it's a whole new game when having units within 24" of such things as raveners is putting them in danger, Perhaps we will see rough riders a bit more. As much as the nerf to venom cannons has hurt nids against tanks I recently developed an interest in using them and I definitely don't feel 5th edition is a nerf but rather just a change.

One question I would like to tag on is this, I see people talking about screening in dubious ways, such as screening necron destroyers with warriors or screening tyranid warriors / raveners with gaunts. Admittedly I can't any of those models right now in front of me but they all seem to be things that would stand significantly above the screening models. I would assume in this situation models eye view would apply but maybe my interpretation is wrong.

I think any army with multiwound models in units will be top tier because games workshop can't get their rules straight.

Anyone think crisis suits will be funny with this? Squads of three slightly different guys can take 3 wounds and not lose a guy. That is crazy.

O, and you can screen necron warriors with scarabs if you model them right...

Stelek wrote:Any army can be top tier. Well, most of them anyway. It's really how YOU run them that makes the difference.

I see alot of supposed 'top tier' armies, and it's still a game of me rolling dice just for show--the game was decided not because of list or scenario but superior generalship.

You can often tell when a noob is running the army across from you, right away. It doesn't matter how good or bad the list is, if the guy running it has the mind of a peanut.

I disagree with this notion.

I believe that "top tier" is an army that can easily handle almost all other army builds, while presenting the controlling player with very simple and easy to execute tactical choices during the game to achieve victory; conversely making it very hard for your opponents army to do much of anything in order to achieve the victory conditions for most normal missions.

There are a number of situations where armies had little to no chance of victory given their opponents army list. Or certain scenarios that make it very hard for armies to win in a normal game given the current rules.

I have no doubt in my mind that in 5th Ed we will see armies that are very easy to use while being extremely powerful and/or resilient. 5th Ed will have it's 4th Ed. Godzilla Nids and Mech Eldar equivalents.

Of course you still have to know a little bit of what you're doing, but one of the problems with 40k is that a mediocre player with a "top tier" (or even "stronger") army list can beat a much better player with a "lesser" army list. This isn't like fantasy where even with the greatest list in the world, a crappy player can get creamed by a better player with a lesser army list. It happens in 40k sometimes, but there are some matchups with just screw certain armies.

Blessed is the mind too small for doubt.

Nurglitch, you killed one of these threads already with the same argument you are trying to drag back out. We are presupposing the existence of 'top tier' alright? If you want to wax intellectual about the nature of truth, start your own thread so we can properly ignore it.

Moz: I didn't kill that thread. Other people uninterested in discussing their hobby like adults did. I'm discussing which army is top tier. Since what is top tier is a collective fantasy, my argument is that what will be top tier will depend the public perception of relative army power, which will in turn depend on a variety of factors such as user-friendliness, player ability, actual use (how far along the learning curve determined by user-friendliness and player ability the army's use is taken), and so on.

But hey, if you want to kill this thread like people killed the last one, feel free to talk about me (or down to me) rather than talk about the topic.

Right right. I'll just hang in there for that ignore feature then.

I'm going to jump on the 'Necrons aint all that' bandwagon here. If the leaked pdf is to be correct, landing the assault and winning it by a large margin is going to greatly counteract any resilience and Ld the necrons currently have going for them. In trying to design a list that accounts for this newfound enormous weakness, you inevitably are pulled away from scoring units. It seems like a double whammy to the list. Coupled with the nerf to glances, it's looking pretty grim for them.

Drunkspleen wrote:
One question I would like to tag on is this, I see people talking about screening in dubious ways, such as screening necron destroyers with warriors or screening tyranid warriors / raveners with gaunts. Admittedly I can't any of those models right now in front of me but they all seem to be things that would stand significantly above the screening models. I would assume in this situation models eye view would apply but maybe my interpretation is wrong.

If only parts of the unit models (warriors/destroyers ect.) are obscured by the intervening models (gaunts/necron warriors) they cannot be shot at. That's why many speculate about "one-way-screening".

cypher wrote: Anyone think crisis suits will be funny with this? Squads of three slightly different guys can take 3 wounds and not lose a guy. That is crazy.

The is the rule that you have to take the inflicted wounds on whole models. So no spreading out, or didn't I misunderstand you there?

I think that it's rather hard to say how the changes will affect the top-tierness, just because the whole scoring aspect adds another decision to the unit-selection. I'm not saying that it's futile to discuss about it, just saying).

Greets
Schepp himself

Voodoo: I think scenarios that change the balance of power are rubbish not worth talking about. As far as certain armies being more top tier than others, well I've had great success with armies that people believe are not 'top tier' while going up against armies that are called 'top tier'. What I am trying to say is, yes some armies have a inherent strength, others do not have that strength but the player is still the deciding factor in games like that. Even two well-matched players with 'top tier' vs 'second tier' (as defined on the internet--a definition I don't agree with) might fight each other to an unexpected result.

Hope that makes sense.

@Stelek: I think i know what you are talking about. I think you are talking about reading the meta-game, and making 'rogue' lists. Good list designers can do that in a surprising number of crappy codecies. They can "spoil" many superior armies with their spamming of certain elements or their suspicious lack of a certain element.

You just recently helped me build a 160 model 30 heavy weapon IG army that has been tearing apart many of my friends local lists. It's a crappy list. In a world where ork hordes had begun running rampant and mechanized or godzilla armies weren't at pandemic proportions, the list would just get decimated. A marine player who puts a couple 10 man dev squads with heavy bolters into cover just craps on the list. This is an example of a low-tier army that has made a meta-game list, sometimes called a 'punisher' list.

Now, back to necrons. if 5th were to come out today, and we had to play a tourney as necrons, I would say that neither of us would fare very well. You can attempt to anticipate a meta-game. good 5th ed armies will be heavily armored troops choices, spammed for max scoring and minimum KP. So I would choose to go with a 3 monolith list probably. I'd try to 'punish' marine tac squad spammers who spent too much on power armor and not enough on lascannons. I'd hide all my warriors from assault behind the wall of lith, and teleport them out after sufficient particle whippings have soften up the marines. Might make for a "good" list agasint this predicted metagame. But what if I'm wrong.... It's not a balanced list, fast assault that can get around my skimmer wall can cripple my scoring units or just phase me out, my high rate of fire gauss weaponry has been traded in for template weapons and warriors. What if i face a player who has either misread the emerging metagame, or is so intimidated by powerful leman russes and monoliths that he overcompensates with 10+ lascannons or 5+ railguns?

I rate "balanced army books" as top tier. ALMOST any codex has the raw materials in their contents to build a 'punisher' army. But a meta-game has to be established before you can truly walk into a tourney with a rogue, and hope to win.

as always YMMV and probably does...

i can't believe someone actually suggested fielding pariahs. the only unit in the necron list that is worse than warriors at both assault and shooting. they had a small niche in 3rd, but nothing about 5th brings that back.

there is imo only one way to save necrons from obliteration at the hands of assault armies: the mighty scarab. still the best unit in the dex in 5th.

Well I lost a post somewhere, guess this was the thread.

I analyze each army book to see if they have what I need to run my 'system'. Virtually all of them do, with the major exception being Necrons. For each piece of the puzzle needed to run a complete army, I find it in each Codex and use it. This is one of my primary advantages.

I suppose one could call most of my lists 'rogue' lists, but I'd say they are 'balanced rogue' not 'punishing rogue'. Not being able to handle an excess of something in an army is what I gear my armies towards. It's difficult to do so, given the wide variety of targets and army types that come along but that's the way the cookie crumbles.

Keeping within my system has allowed me to cultivate my own skill level to a exceedingly high degree, as each army might play differently for other players most of my armies play the same for me. I add the pieces I need for my 'system' to work, out of each army book.

When the pieces are all assembled, the 'army' can have a different name but it functions the same. While it may look 'odd' (or in your terms, 'rogue') it functions so well because it's me running my system.

I hope that makes sense.

Shep wrote: Once you fire your first battle cannon shell, they just "take cover" improving their cover save to 3+. Every mission is alpha 100% of the time. So my option is to shoot into 10 3+ cover space marines until they are completely dead (not 1 can live) or my other option is for me to take either a 10 man infantry squad or a 5 man infantry command squad over there to initiate an assault on space marines in cover? No. So my best bet there is to keep it completely unscored, if I can get all those marines in cover killed.

The thing you seem to be missing is that cover doesn't matter...or at least it shouldn't. Look at it this way, when you shoot las guns at marines in cover, what kind of save do they gett? 3+? If you shoot las guns at marines out of cover, what kind of save do they get? 3+? So there is no difference there. If you assault marines in cover, they strike at inish 10 while you go at 3, so they go first. If you assault marines out of cover, they go on 4 while you go on 3, so again they go first. There is no difference. Now if you are shooting battle cannons at them, yes they do get an improved save 3+ or 4+ depending. However, if they want the 3+ save, they have to pin themselves. This has all kinds of bonuses for you since it means you can walk your las guns squads up there and have no fear that they will shoot or assault you the next turn. In your next shooting phase, start the phase off with another battle cannons shot. If they pin themselves, so much the better, you can unload las guns again. If they don't take the pinning, you can have your troops run away from them to avoid getting assaulted the next turn. Either way, you win.

If you find that your battle cannons have better things to do than auto pin some marines, then focus them where they will do the most good. In the mean time, sit some infantry squads back at 20ish inches away from said marines and pepper them with las guns, heavy bolters, auto cannons or whatever else you got that isn't going to ignore their normal armor save anyway. Sure you might take some bolter fire in return, but can they really do enough damage to you for it to matter?

Again, Phoenix I am hoping your right.

I have tons of experience killing marines with heavy bolters, grenade launchers, lasguns, mortars etc. In fact thats how I roll in 4th edition. It does very well. But you have to visualize a table and a deployment in5th edition. My IG test games under 5th ed rules have been disastrous, as far as infantry shooting is concerned. LOS screening by friendly units really limits the amount of "lasgun spam" or "heavy bolter spam" that you can field. You end up spreading units wide, very swiftly losing the firepower density that I previously had in 4th ed. Moving these units makes the problem worse. Now I'm losing the important heavy bolter shots.

I'm not saying I'm not going to be able to clear out any objectives that are just in front of my deployment zone. That would be a ridiculous statement. What I'm saying is that any objective placed by my opponent (if he is any good at all) is going to be centrally located on terrain. I'm going to have to walk over to it, exposing myself to his entire army, and completely shutting down my early turn shooting with infantry (currently my bread and butter) And space marines armies tend to have guns with bullets too. So while I'm 'getting ready to flashlight marines' they'll be removing my scoring units in droves.

I can conceptualize how to kill a space marine unit in cover, I've also tried it in 5th edition. And with friendly troops screening LOS to each other many of the tools I previously used to do that have been taken from me.

Bottom line...

In 5th edition, if given a choice between a resilient compact unit that can put out equivalent shooting to 2 or 3 less resilient units, I will choose the compact unit. Simply because of the new LOS rules. I like these rules, they should exist, but guard infantry is looking for a lot more support from armor now. which is fine, but guard armor makes cover saves matter right?

Discussing whether or not my necrons or my IG are gonna be any good doesn't really seem to be serving a purpose. I've got people agreeing with me and people disagreeing with me. What really matters is when does 5th ed come out, and when do my new army books come out. And what should I do with my hobby time until then.

Well, I can say I'm looking forward to 5th ed for both my Dark Eldar and Dark Angels. For the DA, Scouting bikes and Termies as troops, not to mention that my combat squads just got a lot more useful (they already do really well in Apoc games). And for my Dark Eldar, now my Skimmers are screening (IIRC), sweet!

And Moz, how does Nurglitch respectfully disagreeing with someone ruin a thread? I thought this was a forum for discussion, not everyone agreeing with one "expert" who claims his army is totally destroyed before the actual rules are released.

Back on Topic: As for Top Tier armies, other than Orks clearly taking the lead I think the rest is up in the air. Mech armies seem to be making a comeback with the new and improved vehicle rules (couldn't be happier they are getting rid of entanglement and making it a straight pinning check) and Foot Slogging armies should be doing well with the new Run rules and that Troops are the only scoring units. The real losers seem to be Tau (with the loss of FOF) and Necrons (unless played very carefully with charge blocking scarabs and C'tan).

Ozymandias, King of Kings