Switch Theme:

Have necrons just stopped winning?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:

^This is a VERY IMPORTANT THING TO CONSIDER WHEN LOOKING AT OLDER EDITION'S STATS.

The oft-cited example is the (still available online) data from 5th edition where at some major tournament (nova I think) the top winrate was GK at like 58%.

What people tend to 'conveniently' ignore about that datapoint is the play data, i.e., how many people actually brought which armies. The top three armies combined at the time accounted for 80% of the playerbase. Every other army in the game, combined, accounted for 20% of the players at that tournament - we're talking like, two tyranid players, two craftworld eldar players, three chaos space marine players out of the like 250 players in attendance at the GT.

you get more 'reasonable looking' winrate numbers, when entire armies are actually so underpowered that literally nobody at all is playing them.


I've always wondered that, and I hate to be that guy on the internet, but do you have a source for this? Or for, like, the 7e LVOs and things? I'm not being combative, just curious (if your answer is your memory, that's fine).


Here's data for the 2011 NOVA that is not the exact event I was thinking of, but illustrates the point: http://whiskey40k.blogspot.com/2011/09/nova-open-warhammer-40k-gt-results.html

85 players playing the, what were at the time, almost identical various space marine armies
32 players playing specifically GK, who I'll separate because even at the time they worked completely differently than every otehr SM faction
21 imperial guard
14 dark eldar

everything else: 51 total. 25% of the playerbase representing all of chaos, all nids, all orks, all eldar, all necrons and all tau.

"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in us
Sneaky Striking Scorpion




North Carolina

 the_scotsman wrote:
 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:

^This is a VERY IMPORTANT THING TO CONSIDER WHEN LOOKING AT OLDER EDITION'S STATS.

The oft-cited example is the (still available online) data from 5th edition where at some major tournament (nova I think) the top winrate was GK at like 58%.

What people tend to 'conveniently' ignore about that datapoint is the play data, i.e., how many people actually brought which armies. The top three armies combined at the time accounted for 80% of the playerbase. Every other army in the game, combined, accounted for 20% of the players at that tournament - we're talking like, two tyranid players, two craftworld eldar players, three chaos space marine players out of the like 250 players in attendance at the GT.

you get more 'reasonable looking' winrate numbers, when entire armies are actually so underpowered that literally nobody at all is playing them.


I've always wondered that, and I hate to be that guy on the internet, but do you have a source for this? Or for, like, the 7e LVOs and things? I'm not being combative, just curious (if your answer is your memory, that's fine).


Here's data for the 2011 NOVA that is not the exact event I was thinking of, but illustrates the point: http://whiskey40k.blogspot.com/2011/09/nova-open-warhammer-40k-gt-results.html

85 players playing the, what were at the time, almost identical various space marine armies
32 players playing specifically GK, who I'll separate because even at the time they worked completely differently than every otehr SM faction
21 imperial guard
14 dark eldar

everything else: 51 total. 25% of the playerbase representing all of chaos, all nids, all orks, all eldar, all necrons and all tau.


Ooof, that's v. v. sad. Thanks for pulling that up, how fascinating!
   
Made in us
Omnipotent Necron Overlord






 Daedalus81 wrote:
 iGuy91 wrote:
The Necron Codex is fundamentally different than the other 9th codexes.

The thing this codex does well, is take and hold ground, and win on the mission. As lethality continues to climb with each new release, this capability erodes somewhat, requiring tighter, more careful play to win. Most lists pack just enough melee muscle, or shooting to remove key units that would remove your holding units, but this army isn't going to table anyone reliably.

Its not a comparatively killy codex. And it still bothers me from time to time regarding how grindy it can be. Good guns are swingy (d6/d6), and are on flawed platforms (moving screws up their profiles, LHDs are very fragile) which you pay a premium for.


A lot of people opt for the super short range reapers and I don't blame them, but it also puts you in an awkward position to push forward as fast as possible and against certain opponents that isn't always a good idea. Some have tried to solve for this by simply just take MORE warriors and hoping to just overwhelm by using SK. Others embrace it and go melee. There's still more to "unearth" for lists, but I haven't been able to buy 80% of the stuff I've wanted until very recently.
Crons are a good example of how a codex should be made. The internal balance is very good. If you are going to make "core" a thing - it should be actually limiting like it is in Necrons. Not like space marines and admech where nearly everything is core...or like admech have the ability to make units you want core - be core (How stupid is this)???

I don't particularly like command protocols BUT - I do like how they are a limiting factor rater than just more free rules.

Correct me if I am wrong...admech can take multiple detachments with different forge worlds for no penalty right?

If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Yes. Necrons and Space Marines are the only ones with super-purity bonuses that apply only if the entire army is the same subfaction, not just the same faction.
   
Made in us
Omnipotent Necron Overlord






yukishiro1 wrote:
Yes. Necrons and Space Marines are the only ones with super-purity bonuses that apply only if the entire army is the same subfaction, not just the same faction.

So uhh...Anyone want to talk about how there isn't power creep?

Necrons have to take a nobel lord in order to get purity bonus as well! It's a joke.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/14 19:31:18


If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut





I'd rather the super bonuses just weren't in the game at all as a I hate them as a concept and mechanic in general but I guess that's beyond the point at this stage
   
Made in au
Growlin' Guntrukk Driver with Killacannon





 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Power creep is normal but 9th's has been quite tremendous. I can recall specific books that were bad but not an edition which it was this severe overall.


Mmm 7th? Some of the detachment books swung wildly in power. And GW got a bit silly by the end of things as I recall. I certainly remember taking a break as my orks became almost worthless.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Yeah, the only thing GW really knows how to do is keep inflating the game till it pops, then hard rebooting it with a bunch of fanfare about how this time it'll be the greatest thing ever.
   
Made in us
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker





 wuestenfux wrote:
Here is the list of the second-ranked at GT Copenhagen recently:

Spoiler:

2nd Place
Martin Buch – Copenhammer GT



== Patrol Detachment == Necrons [39 PL] [760 Points] 0 CP <Eternal Conquerors, Relentlessly Expansionist>

HQ1: Command Barge (145), Gauss Cannon (5), Staff of Light (0), FREE RELIC: Voltaic Staff, FREE WARLORD TRAIT: Enduring Will [9 PL] [150 Points]

TR1: 20x Warriors (260), Gauss Reaper (0) [12 PL] [260 Points]

TR2: 10x Warriors (130), Gauss Reaper (0) [6 PL] [130 Points]

DT1: Ghost Ark (145), 2x Gauss Flayer Array (0) [8 PL] [145 Points]

EL1: Hexmark Destroyer (75), 6x Enmitic Disintegrator Pistol (0), RELIC (-1CP): Gaunlet of Conflaguration


== Outrider Detachment == Necrons [66 PL] [1240 Points] -3 CP <Eternal Conquerors, Relentlessly Expansionist>

HQ1: Chronomancer (80), Chronotendrils (0), Entropic Lance (0), RELIC (-1CP): Veil of Darkness [4 PL] [80 Points]

HQ2: Chronomancer (80), Chronotendrils (0), Entropic Lance (0) [4 PL] [80 Points]

EL1: 5x Lychguards (140), Hyperphase Sword (0), Dispersion Shield (0) [7 PL] [140 Points]

EL2: 5x Lychguards (140), Hyperphase Sword (0), Dispersion Shield (0) [7 PL] [140 Points]

EL3: 2x Cryptothralls (40), Scouring Eye (0), Scythed limbs (0) [4 PL] [40 Points]

FA1: 9x Scarabs (135), Feeder Mandibles (0) [6 PL] [135 Points]

FA2: 9x Scarabs (135), Feeder Mandibles (0) [6 PL] [135 Points]

FA3: 5x Wraiths (175), Vicious Claws (0) [10 PL] [175 Points]

FA4: 5x Wraiths (175), Vicious Claws (0) [10 PL] [175 Points]

FA5: 4x Wraiths (175), Vicious Claws (0) [10 PL] [140 Points]


That is a gak ton of wraiths. Definitely an extremely "play the objectives" list, which is what the Necron dex is for.
   
Made in au
Repentia Mistress




 Bosskelot wrote:
It's mainly Drukhari and Admech that Necrons will struggle with.

The other 9th Codexes are mostly a little more balanced amongst each other, although outliers like Blood Angels and White Scars are both incredibly good into Necrons despite having a concurrent codex and an 8th ed supplement.

However on the whole even a "competitive" Necron list won't actually look or be oppressively strong on the tabletop unless it's being piloted by a very good player. The army has a lot of limitations placed on any potential exploits or strong combinations it can do. 20 Novokh Warriors with Anrakyr, a Chronomancer and TSK nearby are genuinely frightening.... but they've still only got 12" guns, one of its buffing characters is supremely vulnerable to anti-tank fire and you're approaching something like 900 points for all of that to actually work properly.

And to be fair, a lot of 9th ed Codexes and their competitive lists don't really look all that skewed or obscenely oppressive on paper, nor feel absurd to play against in an actual game. It's just Drukhari and now Admech have some dumb interactions within them that lead to 20 ranger blobs just deleting anything in the game they look at. Sisters are a bit more of an unknown quantity at this point since they saw a lot of changes but it's a little eye-raising that all repentia lost were AAC but went down to 14ppm. That's fething nuts.
Repentia got a lot of other nerfs too. They'll still see plenty of play 'cause the 'almost good' stuff got kicked too. But they lost more than that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote:
Yes. Necrons and Space Marines are the only ones with super-purity bonuses that apply only if the entire army is the same subfaction, not just the same faction.
I expect other xeno factions to follow suit. Elves being the only possible outlier.

The changes to how they did things for AdMech and Sisters Purity was weird in that it made the not function as a faction without them so they made a trade. Dark Eldar otoh have the problem of being explicitly designed to take multiple subfactions, making such rules self-defeating

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/15 05:08:54


   
Made in fi
Ye Lord of The End Times (and a good guy)





 Matt Swain wrote:
It's been a while since i watched batreps on youtube, and man, i watched a few and it was total devastation for the necrons in each, against all opponents.

I started looking at just the ends of batreps this year and the necrons were getting destroyed in like 90-95% of them.

Have they just stopped winning battles this year?


Well. How many of those been vs newer codexes? Power creep is strong as hell in 9e. By the time edition is end I wouldn't be surprised if there would be army with super transhuman(cannot be wounded by better than 6) as base ability...

2021 painted/bought: 538/575 
   
Made in gb
Killer Klaivex




The dark behind the eyes.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Yes. Necrons and Space Marines are the only ones with super-purity bonuses that apply only if the entire army is the same subfaction, not just the same faction.


Actually, Dark Eldar do have their own weird version of this. They get extra bonuses if they're taking a RSR detachment *and* using Kabal of the Black Heart in said detachment.

I don't know why Black Heart and only Black Heart gives an extra bonus but there you go.

 the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"

 Argive wrote:
GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.


 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"


Akiasura wrote:
I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.


 insaniak wrote:

You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.

Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
 
   
Made in de
Dakka Veteran



Bamberg / Erlangen

tneva82 wrote:
Well. How many of those been vs newer codexes? Power creep is strong as hell in 9e. By the time edition is end I wouldn't be surprised if there would be army with super transhuman(cannot be wounded by better than 6) as base ability...

Is it, actually?

Looking at the past 2 months we have:
Dhrukari - 123 lists, 69% wr, obviously too high and already nerfed. Waiting for new tournament data for verification.
Death Guard - 114 lists, 52% wr.
Space Marines - 403 lists, ranges from 49% wr (White Scars) to 37% wr (Raven Guard). Not a single list played Crimson Fists
Necrons - 119 lists, 48% wr.
AdMech - no tournament data for new codex
Sisters - no tournament data for new codex

Now the situation for Space Marines is complex to analyse correctly. I assume Chapters that are perceived as being weaker aren't played as much by the more win oriented players.

BT, Salamanders, SW, IF, RG and CF (all 43% and below winrate) together had 125 lists, while Dark Angels (48%) alone had 101.

The chance for a mirror match between single Space Marines Chapters overall isn't higher than for other 9th edition armies. Individual tournament attention might look differently, though.

This is not something I would call "power creep is strong as hell this edition".

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/15 09:31:53


Grey Knights Imperial Guard Space Marines
 
   
Made in fr
Mutilatin' Mad Dok






There is a "perceived" power creep: when you read some of the new rules, some units/combos seem very strong.
Then there is the game experience, and you realise the actual power creep is not that strong really in 9th (I speak from my own exp when I say "game experience", for more objective data, read tourney results don't show a clear power creep trend anyways).
Post nerf Druk is IMO above ad mech and sisters, but lets wait and see.
I do think post nerf Druk is still too strong overall, but until mid july we may have some suprises.

Unfun rules (I play DA, the transhuman is unfun for sure, but does it make the army overly strong... Probably not) may be mistaken for power creep, I know I do, and with nearly every new release, I make the mistake again ("what is this OP gak GW has relased yet again... Maaan...". So I try to take a step back, play the army i suspect has crept up in power, or try to watch/read (read preferably, less time consuming) a batrep.

If you play X or Y army, you also won't experience power creep the same way. Power creep is a very complex issue IMHO, and I would avoid saying "this due is wrong" or anything like that

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/15 09:53:01


Ere we go ere we go ere we go
Corona Givin’ Umies Da good ol Krulpin they deserve huh huh 
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
Spoiler:
 the_scotsman wrote:
 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
 the_scotsman wrote:

^This is a VERY IMPORTANT THING TO CONSIDER WHEN LOOKING AT OLDER EDITION'S STATS.

The oft-cited example is the (still available online) data from 5th edition where at some major tournament (nova I think) the top winrate was GK at like 58%.

What people tend to 'conveniently' ignore about that datapoint is the play data, i.e., how many people actually brought which armies. The top three armies combined at the time accounted for 80% of the playerbase. Every other army in the game, combined, accounted for 20% of the players at that tournament - we're talking like, two tyranid players, two craftworld eldar players, three chaos space marine players out of the like 250 players in attendance at the GT.

you get more 'reasonable looking' winrate numbers, when entire armies are actually so underpowered that literally nobody at all is playing them.


I've always wondered that, and I hate to be that guy on the internet, but do you have a source for this? Or for, like, the 7e LVOs and things? I'm not being combative, just curious (if your answer is your memory, that's fine).


Here's data for the 2011 NOVA that is not the exact event I was thinking of, but illustrates the point: http://whiskey40k.blogspot.com/2011/09/nova-open-warhammer-40k-gt-results.html

85 players playing the, what were at the time, almost identical various space marine armies
32 players playing specifically GK, who I'll separate because even at the time they worked completely differently than every otehr SM faction
21 imperial guard
14 dark eldar

everything else: 51 total. 25% of the playerbase representing all of chaos, all nids, all orks, all eldar, all necrons and all tau.


Ooof, that's v. v. sad. Thanks for pulling that up, how fascinating!


Exalted for asking the question and also exalted scotsman for finding that data. It was so much worse than I remembered...

It's never wrong to ask for proof!

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/15 10:02:21


Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in us
Omnipotent Necron Overlord






cody.d. wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Power creep is normal but 9th's has been quite tremendous. I can recall specific books that were bad but not an edition which it was this severe overall.


Mmm 7th? Some of the detachment books swung wildly in power. And GW got a bit silly by the end of things as I recall. I certainly remember taking a break as my orks became almost worthless.

7.5 is widely regarded as "fun rules" at this point. Anyone who took them competitively serious was trolling. It was OP cheese and everyone knew it - what is funny though - some of the most fun 40k games I've ever had. Once everyone had their gladius formation (ect) - the games were actually...kinda balanced (excluding Ynnari - which was utterly bonkers and unable to be played against). It's not like that in this edition. If you have an infantry list vs admech - you are just gonna lose 100% of the time. It is a simple factor of dice pips. Stratagems are a lot worse than formations ever were.

If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
Made in de
Dakka Veteran



Bamberg / Erlangen

Don't trip guys, the hyperbole and generalisation barrels are leaking again.

Grey Knights Imperial Guard Space Marines
 
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






 Xenomancers wrote:
cody.d. wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Power creep is normal but 9th's has been quite tremendous. I can recall specific books that were bad but not an edition which it was this severe overall.


Mmm 7th? Some of the detachment books swung wildly in power. And GW got a bit silly by the end of things as I recall. I certainly remember taking a break as my orks became almost worthless.

7.5 is widely regarded as "fun rules" at this point. Anyone who took them competitively serious was trolling. It was OP cheese and everyone knew it - what is funny though - some of the most fun 40k games I've ever had. Once everyone had their gladius formation (ect) - the games were actually...kinda balanced (excluding Ynnari - which was utterly bonkers and unable to be played against). It's not like that in this edition. If you have an infantry list vs admech - you are just gonna lose 100% of the time. It is a simple factor of dice pips. Stratagems are a lot worse than formations ever were.


Since you are so well-versed in ork rules... do you remember what the ork variant of the gladius formation did?

Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





yukishiro1 wrote:
 iGuy91 wrote:


Its not a comparatively killy codex. And it still bothers me from time to time regarding how grindy it can be. Good guns are swingy (d6/d6), and are on flawed platforms (moving screws up their profiles, LHDs are very fragile) which you pay a premium for.


Yeah, plus CORE is hugely restrictive compared to other book, command protocols are a bad joke of layered restrictions compared to other factions' purity bonuses, etc. There are a ton of ways that the Necron 9th edition book feels out of place when lined up against the other 9th edition books. At the time we thought maybe that SM was going to be the outlier re: almost everything getting CORE, but it's clear that isn't the case: it's Necrons that is the one out of place in 9th edition. It feels like the beta for 9th edition that never got the 1.0 update.

That doesn't mean the codex won't still be able to compete if you just keep progressively lowering points as it becomes more and more out of date. But it's not a very satisfying way to compete.


It feels out of place, because it is fluff aligned. Cult stuff does not interact with the normies and characters are crucial to "control" the army.

   
Made in us
Omnipotent Necron Overlord






 Jidmah wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
cody.d. wrote:
 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Power creep is normal but 9th's has been quite tremendous. I can recall specific books that were bad but not an edition which it was this severe overall.


Mmm 7th? Some of the detachment books swung wildly in power. And GW got a bit silly by the end of things as I recall. I certainly remember taking a break as my orks became almost worthless.

7.5 is widely regarded as "fun rules" at this point. Anyone who took them competitively serious was trolling. It was OP cheese and everyone knew it - what is funny though - some of the most fun 40k games I've ever had. Once everyone had their gladius formation (ect) - the games were actually...kinda balanced (excluding Ynnari - which was utterly bonkers and unable to be played against). It's not like that in this edition. If you have an infantry list vs admech - you are just gonna lose 100% of the time. It is a simple factor of dice pips. Stratagems are a lot worse than formations ever were.


Since you are so well-versed in ork rules... do you remember what the ork variant of the gladius formation did?

Is that the only army you play? None of your armies got updates at that time?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
a_typical_hero wrote:
Don't trip guys, the hyperbole and generalisation barrels are leaking again.

Generalization is pretty normal in human interactions. The idea here is people had fun playing with formations. IMO it sparked huge interest in the game. The game stores were full. Most importantly - I had fun. It is not hyperbole to say Ynnari was next level OP. Because it was. Wanna know something funny? The 8th edition ynnari which utterly dominated competitive 40k for over a year. Was limited to 1 soul burst per turn. in 7.5 every unit in your army could soulburst and they had a formation that killing a unit would proc 2 units soul burst. The army literally had 3 shooting phases - their main shooting phase/ shooting twice with the majority of their units/ then shooting with most of their army in the opponents turn. It is not Hyperbole...It really happened.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/15 15:22:48


If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





Decurion level formations were limited to very few factions in 7th. If you were one of the lucky ones, then good for you, but most of the faction didn't have one.

Even if you had one, you had very few choices in list building.

No, it wasn't a good era for the game.
   
Made in us
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus




 Daedalus81 wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
 iGuy91 wrote:


Its not a comparatively killy codex. And it still bothers me from time to time regarding how grindy it can be. Good guns are swingy (d6/d6), and are on flawed platforms (moving screws up their profiles, LHDs are very fragile) which you pay a premium for.


Yeah, plus CORE is hugely restrictive compared to other book, command protocols are a bad joke of layered restrictions compared to other factions' purity bonuses, etc. There are a ton of ways that the Necron 9th edition book feels out of place when lined up against the other 9th edition books. At the time we thought maybe that SM was going to be the outlier re: almost everything getting CORE, but it's clear that isn't the case: it's Necrons that is the one out of place in 9th edition. It feels like the beta for 9th edition that never got the 1.0 update.

That doesn't mean the codex won't still be able to compete if you just keep progressively lowering points as it becomes more and more out of date. But it's not a very satisfying way to compete.


It feels out of place, because it is fluff aligned. Cult stuff does not interact with the normies and characters are crucial to "control" the army.


Until you read the books and see the Cult stuff interacting directly and intelligently with the "normies" and characters who "control" the army. lol

But that's a nit. GW gonna GW. I actually think that over-all, the books should be more like the Necron one. Except for Command Protocols. Command Protocols is kind of useless. But otherwise, I do wish the other books were conducting themselves more like the Necrons.


Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug

Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..." 
   
Made in de
Dakka Veteran



Bamberg / Erlangen

 Xenomancers wrote:
Generalization is pretty normal in human interactions. The idea here is people had fun playing with formations. IMO it sparked huge interest in the game. The game stores were full.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't 7th the edition that saw alot of people quitting the game? For the exact reason that it was so wildly unbalanced?

It is not Hyperbole

I'm sure not every infantry list will automatically lose against every AdMech list 100% of the time. Saying "Stratagems are worse than formations ever were" is controversial, too.

Grey Knights Imperial Guard Space Marines
 
   
Made in us
Omnipotent Necron Overlord






Spoletta wrote:
Decurion level formations were limited to very few factions in 7th. If you were one of the lucky ones, then good for you, but most of the faction didn't have one.

Even if you had one, you had very few choices in list building.

No, it wasn't a good era for the game.

Most armies got formations actually. Including orks. Just looked it up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
a_typical_hero wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Generalization is pretty normal in human interactions. The idea here is people had fun playing with formations. IMO it sparked huge interest in the game. The game stores were full.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't 7th the edition that saw alot of people quitting the game? For the exact reason that it was so wildly unbalanced?

It is not Hyperbole

I'm sure not every infantry list will automatically lose against every AdMech list 100% of the time. Saying "Stratagems are worse than formations ever were" is controversial, too.

Speaking competitively. Admech legit have a combo that is nearly impossible to lose with. They could struggle to kill tanks. But they are removing infantry at will with no counter. Plus like...they have the most undercosted anti tank platform in the game. 2 d3+3 lascannons for 75 points. Yeah...As is we are gonna be seeing lots of undefeated admech at tournaments. 3-4 top 4 placings will be common for a month until it gets nerfed just like with darkari...but worse.

7th was by far the most popular edition until 8th edition.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/15 15:57:08


If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Xenomancers wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Decurion level formations were limited to very few factions in 7th. If you were one of the lucky ones, then good for you, but most of the faction didn't have one.

Even if you had one, you had very few choices in list building.

No, it wasn't a good era for the game.

Most armies got formations actually. Including orks. Just looked it up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
a_typical_hero wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Generalization is pretty normal in human interactions. The idea here is people had fun playing with formations. IMO it sparked huge interest in the game. The game stores were full.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't 7th the edition that saw alot of people quitting the game? For the exact reason that it was so wildly unbalanced?

It is not Hyperbole

I'm sure not every infantry list will automatically lose against every AdMech list 100% of the time. Saying "Stratagems are worse than formations ever were" is controversial, too.

Speaking competitively. Admech legit have a combo that is nearly impossible to lose with. They could struggle to kill tanks. But they are removing infantry at will with no counter. Plus like...they have the most undercosted anti tank platform in the game. 2 d3+3 lascannons for 75 points. Yeah...As is we are gonna be seeing lots of undefeated admech at tournaments. 3-4 top 4 placings will be common for a month until it gets nerfed just like with darkari...but worse.

7th was by far the most popular edition until 8th edition.


Formations are one thing.
Decurions were a completely different design. As far as I remember only DA, SM, Admech and Necrons received one.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Daedalus81 wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
 iGuy91 wrote:


Its not a comparatively killy codex. And it still bothers me from time to time regarding how grindy it can be. Good guns are swingy (d6/d6), and are on flawed platforms (moving screws up their profiles, LHDs are very fragile) which you pay a premium for.


Yeah, plus CORE is hugely restrictive compared to other book, command protocols are a bad joke of layered restrictions compared to other factions' purity bonuses, etc. There are a ton of ways that the Necron 9th edition book feels out of place when lined up against the other 9th edition books. At the time we thought maybe that SM was going to be the outlier re: almost everything getting CORE, but it's clear that isn't the case: it's Necrons that is the one out of place in 9th edition. It feels like the beta for 9th edition that never got the 1.0 update.

That doesn't mean the codex won't still be able to compete if you just keep progressively lowering points as it becomes more and more out of date. But it's not a very satisfying way to compete.


It feels out of place, because it is fluff aligned. Cult stuff does not interact with the normies and characters are crucial to "control" the army.


But that's my point. That approach was largely abandoned or at least seriously toned down for newer 9th edition codexes. It feels like beta version of 9th edition. DE has <CORE> all over the place for stuff that wouldn't have it going by the Necron Codex standards. Ditto Ad Mech and Sisters. Would Repentia have had <CORE> based on the Necron codex standards? Why do Blades for Hire have <CORE> when that is literally the opposite of what <CORE> is supposed to be? Why do Ironstriders get core but Dunecrawlers do not? They're both Skitarii controlled vehicles.

At some point they essentially gave up on fluff as the basis for <CORE> and changed it to a balance-based thing.
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





CORE is a half baked concept.
It works well for faction with a very straightforward image, and less well for those factions that are a big soup of freak shows.

Marines really fit well with CORE.
Necrons too.
DG too.

DE, Admech and sisters don't, because they are composed by small mini factions. They already have inbuilt limitations on interactions. Sisters have CORE on everything and yet have a big part of the codex which is unaffected by most of interactions because they lack Order or Adepta Sororitas keywords.

I expect GK and TS to follow the CORE design more linearly.
   
Made in us
Omnipotent Necron Overlord






Spoletta wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Decurion level formations were limited to very few factions in 7th. If you were one of the lucky ones, then good for you, but most of the faction didn't have one.

Even if you had one, you had very few choices in list building.

No, it wasn't a good era for the game.

Most armies got formations actually. Including orks. Just looked it up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
a_typical_hero wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Generalization is pretty normal in human interactions. The idea here is people had fun playing with formations. IMO it sparked huge interest in the game. The game stores were full.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't 7th the edition that saw alot of people quitting the game? For the exact reason that it was so wildly unbalanced?

It is not Hyperbole

I'm sure not every infantry list will automatically lose against every AdMech list 100% of the time. Saying "Stratagems are worse than formations ever were" is controversial, too.

Speaking competitively. Admech legit have a combo that is nearly impossible to lose with. They could struggle to kill tanks. But they are removing infantry at will with no counter. Plus like...they have the most undercosted anti tank platform in the game. 2 d3+3 lascannons for 75 points. Yeah...As is we are gonna be seeing lots of undefeated admech at tournaments. 3-4 top 4 placings will be common for a month until it gets nerfed just like with darkari...but worse.

7th was by far the most popular edition until 8th edition.


Formations are one thing.
Decurions were a completely different design. As far as I remember only DA, SM, Admech and Necrons received one.

There is functionally no difference other than the number of units required to get field the formation between smaller formations and "super formations/decurions". Formations just give units in the formation special rules and bonuses. Essentially - detachment bonuses kind of like we have now with purity bonus. Most armies got some love at this time.

Problem is now...we have stratagems on top of formations. Stratagems which can mean..."this unit does double or tripple damage this turn/ stacked with another stratagem that increases their damage/ then this stratagem removes them from the table so they can do it again and again..." - how does that even compare to gladius formation which pretty much gave you 300ish points of bad units for free...for taking other bad units. Like...it's not even close.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoletta wrote:
CORE is a half baked concept.
It works well for faction with a very straightforward image, and less well for those factions that are a big soup of freak shows.

Marines really fit well with CORE.
Necrons too.
DG too.

DE, Admech and sisters don't, because they are composed by small mini factions. They already have inbuilt limitations on interactions. Sisters have CORE on everything and yet have a big part of the codex which is unaffected by most of interactions because they lack Order or Adepta Sororitas keywords.

I expect GK and TS to follow the CORE design more linearly.

Core is just bad because it doesn't seem to interact with points at all. Units that don't have core should be a lot cheaper...they aren't.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/15 16:21:02


If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





yukishiro1 wrote:
But that's my point. That approach was largely abandoned or at least seriously toned down for newer 9th edition codexes. It feels like beta version of 9th edition. DE has <CORE> all over the place for stuff that wouldn't have it going by the Necron Codex standards. Ditto Ad Mech and Sisters. Would Repentia have had <CORE> based on the Necron codex standards? Why do Blades for Hire have <CORE> when that is literally the opposite of what <CORE> is supposed to be? Why do Ironstriders get core but Dunecrawlers do not? They're both Skitarii controlled vehicles.

At some point they essentially gave up on fluff as the basis for <CORE> and changed it to a balance-based thing.


I think chickens should probably lose core, but I haven't done a deep dive on the codex yet nor have I played them enough yet. Though pre-codex they were a huge pain in the ass ( with a lot more rerolls ).

The balance considerations for some units as CORE are not negligible.

If Skorpekhs had CORE you'd see a CCB trailing them making them basically auto-hit with the +1 and their own RR1s as well as pushing them up to M9. You could also push them up 1S without a plasmacyte, drop them in from a Monolith while being 1" away or pick them up and drop them 9" away, get veiled, fallback and charge, get augmented by Szeras, and a Techno could res a full model ( on top of healing one ).

I could see 2x6 with two chronos applying the invuln and reroll charges, one group veils in and the other warps to the monolith. Then you have a massive threat that can't generally be interacted with while everything hides until it's ready.

Would it be worse than what other armies have? I don't know. It would certainly make internal balance harder.

   
Made in au
Witch Hunter Undercover in a Cult







Spoletta wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Decurion level formations were limited to very few factions in 7th. If you were one of the lucky ones, then good for you, but most of the faction didn't have one.

Even if you had one, you had very few choices in list building.

No, it wasn't a good era for the game.

Most armies got formations actually. Including orks. Just looked it up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
a_typical_hero wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Generalization is pretty normal in human interactions. The idea here is people had fun playing with formations. IMO it sparked huge interest in the game. The game stores were full.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't 7th the edition that saw alot of people quitting the game? For the exact reason that it was so wildly unbalanced?

It is not Hyperbole

I'm sure not every infantry list will automatically lose against every AdMech list 100% of the time. Saying "Stratagems are worse than formations ever were" is controversial, too.

Speaking competitively. Admech legit have a combo that is nearly impossible to lose with. They could struggle to kill tanks. But they are removing infantry at will with no counter. Plus like...they have the most undercosted anti tank platform in the game. 2 d3+3 lascannons for 75 points. Yeah...As is we are gonna be seeing lots of undefeated admech at tournaments. 3-4 top 4 placings will be common for a month until it gets nerfed just like with darkari...but worse.

7th was by far the most popular edition until 8th edition.


Formations are one thing.
Decurions were a completely different design. As far as I remember only DA, SM, Admech and Necrons received one.

The campaign books that came out toward the end of 7th also gave a bunch of other armies Decurion-style detachments.
Daemons and Space Wolves for example got theirs in the same book that brought Wulfen into the game.

Now whether said Decurions were actually as good as what Space Marines or Necrons got varied
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: