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.

Upcoming Tournament. It's ITC format, which I'm not thrilled about, but it's pretty much the only thing going on, so throwing this out there.

DECURION

RECLAMATION LEGION
Nemesor Zahndrekh
20 Warriors
18 Warriors
18 Warriors
9 Immortals (T)
9 Immortals (T)
5 Tomb Blades (SV,N,PB)
5 Tomb Blades (SV,N,PB)

AUX
16 Flayed Ones

AUX
16 Flayed Ones

I want to run more Flayed Ones, but it's a matter of whether I can get more built before then or not, but I'm happy with these numbers if I don't. If I DO, then I'll drop 2 Immortals and 1 Warrior to add 4 Flayed Ones. If the list looks a little 'Off' it's because I usually play straight 'Maelstrom' missions, and I'm building off that.

They plan on using the new scenarios. I haven't had a chance at them yet, but I'm TRYING to remain optimistic. The other catch is that they're NOT using the ITC FAQ. The only rules they've covered are models outside of the Void Shield don't benefit, even if part of the unit is inside, and that Gargantuan Creatures must be 25% obscured to benefit from cover. I have NO idea if they're going to allow Gauss to affect Void Shields, or if they're going to allow Tau Commanders to buff all units in CF, which would be the only two things I would really be worried about.

Thanks for any feedback.

Looks fun at the least. Reminds me of a genestealer list. THe only thing i might change, is i would use Trazyn, since you have so many troops to choose from. BUT i may be biased towards him. I hate giving up Slay the Warlord.

WikkedTiki wrote:
Looks fun at the least. Reminds me of a genestealer list. THe only thing i might change, is i would use Trazyn, since you have so many troops to choose from. BUT i may be biased towards him. I hate giving up Slay the Warlord.

Trazyn is cool, but he isn't competitive. In this list he is a very poor choice because there aren't any other characters for him to replace after he dies. Zandrekh is by far the best Necron character, he has superior durability and fantastic support abilities.

I ended up not going, but thanks for reading it at least . I'm going to keep this list for the next time some one asks me to practice the ITC scenarios and see how it goes though.

Thank You for reading.

Forgive me if I'm incorrect as I'm actually an Ork player, but don't wraiths fulfil the same role as flayed ones only more effectively?

They have different roles.

Wraiths are a Tarpit unit. They get in, and the opposing army is stuck there until the Wraiths Kill them, they kill the Wraiths, or the game ends. They're fast enough to respond to threats as needed, and opponents have to decide if they want to Ignore them, Feed them something useless, or actually take care of them (which isn't that hard to do). They have decent damage output, but my experience is that they can't reliably put out the damage from game to game. I'm not saying they don't kill stuff. They do kill stuff, but just because they will usually kill something before they get killed, doesn't make them a good damage output unit. While I was glad to see they got a much needed buff (yes, I said it!), they're still not worth fielding. I ran them in the last codex simply because they were the most cost efficient counter assault unit available. Now we have a variety of options that won't cost us too much for what they do.

Flayed Ones are aggressive hunters with insane damage output for their points cost, especially in the current codex. They're one of the best CC units in the game, and it doesn't take many games for players to realize how much of a threat they are. Infiltrate is double edged sword, but they're usually the first unit my opponents are forced to deal with, and can put pressure on enemy gun lines. They don't shoot and can't charge until Turn 2, but they remain just powerful enough to not be ignored. This is extremely frustrating because now your opponent has to invest considerable resources to eliminate a unit that can't do anything on Turn 1, because of what they will do on Turn 2. A full unit of 20 is going to have 100 'Shred' Attacks on the charge. They cause 'Fear' which has worked against non-ATSKNF armies quite nicely. I2 is offset by RP, especially in a Decurion, and unlike the Harvest, they're not dependent on a model to provide them that buff. The larger squad option and Infiltrate has worked well to offset the speed advantage of Wraiths with the smaller 'Footprint'. More importantly, Flayed Ones will die. So it'll eventually get to a point where they won't be locking up a unit for the game. They do enough damage that, the now free opponent unit, isn't that big of a threat.

Really the only advantage that Wraiths have over Flayed Ones is that Flayed Ones can't deal with T8 or AV11. The hardest part is choosing if you need to use Flayed Ones for their Damage, or Wraiths to Tarpit. I honestly believe that you don't see Flayed Ones as often, simply because the Tarpit is what is needed. As you can see on lists like this, I'm investing into enough Gauss to deal with the T8/Any AV, which is something that I find lacking in the more 'competitive' lists out there. Keep in mind that this is my opinion, based off my experience. The current 'Tournament' lists all show that I'm in the minority on this one, but I'm not the only one who thinks that Wraiths are one of the lesser assault units in the Codex. We simply have a better variety now, and that variety allows us to use a unit that complements the rest of our lists, often better than Wraiths.

Oh, good to know. FOs would definitely put the hurt on my boyz but lucky for me I just haven't seen any. (My regular cron player goes with wraiths, which annoy me greatly but it sounds like a win-win for the cron whichever.)

FOs are fantastic for infiltrating into midfield, especially if there is an objective there, or potentially Outflanking into the enemy DZ in Hammer and Anvil, and just causing a ruckus.

I wouldnt expect them to kill a ton of stuff, but I would expect them to win the game through other means, in the hands of a savvy player.

Interesting list! A bit lacking in speed, but Tomb Blades are in there, and what Necrons aren't?

Look forward to hearing how it all goes

This list does well in normal 'Maelstrom' missions, and is about 50/50 in 'Eternal War' Missions. So I have experience with it, and though the list varies sometimes, it's usually this same setup. The only thing I've done differently here is that I'm fielding all the Flayed Ones I currently own. The plan is to get to 40, but my bitz came in for my Praetorians so the FO's are on the back burner.

What I don't know, is how this list will do in ITC. I have little experience with it, as I usually only play them when someone is is practicing for the ITC wants to play me. I usually just do whatever I'm going to do anyways, and haven't really paid attention to the objectives. So I was hoping for some light on how it would actually do if anyone had any feedback.

Thanks

Well this I can help with.

Maelstrom has more objective markers, so it favours armies that more resemble MSU lists. There is a factor of luck involved, but not to the extent that it's unfair. (Okay, sometimes you'll pull two easy D3 cards turn one, roll max points, and have an insurmountable six point lead before the other guy even goes, but that's a pretty severe statistical outlier. Any results should regress to the mean % chance, but it is a small sample size so irregularities are inevitable and statistically should afflict both sides roughly evenly.) The luck allows both teams to play at a tactical advantage and disadvantage. If you can make something happen at a disadvantage (Distant objective, killing a tough character, succeed in a phase you aren't so good at, etc.), and hold on to your advantage (An objective you already hold, two objectives, succeed in a phase you're good at, etc.) you'll end up ahead. Both players simply hold on to their advantage is essentially a draw, and so on. If you make too much stuff happen at the beginning, will you have enough to hold on for the random game length, or vice versa? It's much more risk/reward. Think about how overextending or lower priority threat targeting occur because of first blood? How many models could die holding on to this sabotaged objective another turn? The inconsistent varying nature and space/# of tactical objectives favours mobility as well. The 40k version of shooting the moon is the sudden death victory. Each VP requires to some varying degree to take some of the heat off the enemy to and focus on a goal other than removing opponent's models. If you ignore all that, you can caught a opponent off guard who took the heat off you, wipe him to the man, and the objectives were for nothing. Going first has the most advantage here, You can deploy toward neutral objectives more aggressively and you get a chance to counter your opponent's deployment. This is also the game type that rewards improvisation the most and has less emphasis on army lists and game planning. Comebacks happen the most often here.

Eternal War has the fewest objectives. It favours units that work in synergy together and have a high damage output. (Deathstars, superfriends, alpha strike.) Speed is de emphasised slightly in favour of cohesion. At it's core it's basically a balancing act. The fewest amount of objective markers that only score at the end of the game favours the players with the highest damage output. This will tip the game in their favour by crippling an opponent or by clearing one of the extremely few objectives. Bonus and secondary objectives have more importance. These tend along First Blood, Kill Points, Kingslayer etc. Which also favour higher damage output. This one favours game planning the most, and the game can be decided by the time you've decided which parts of your force are going after which objective. Going second carries the biggest advantage in this game type, you will have the last moves and chances to clear out enemies before scoring the lonely end game objective vps. Comebacks are the toughest here. Sudden death is on, and the fewer objectives mean less spread out, more concentrated forces, less need to focus anywhere but the opponent. Game planning what to do over the course vs your specific opponent has more value than improvisation or the bare army list. Sudden deaths are most common here, it might be the best strategy for the player with the first turn. What combination of units can most effectively take out the opponents combinations? Oops, you lost the moment you sent unit B after opposing unit D in turn 2, it's a slow death for the last 2-3 turns.

ITC plays as a combination of the two. More objectives than EW, less than MS. Bonus and secondary missions have more importance than MS and less than EW. It favours more resilient elite units with reliable stopping power due the fact you score objectives at the beginning of your next turn. (You can never score on turn 1 technically.) This means your unit has to survive an enemy turn on the objective to score, no last second stealing. The stopping power is required to deny your opponent points and score secondary objectives. There's less variation in the objectives and allows more extensive game planning. As a result it favours min/max'd style army lists. The more static nature of the tactical objectives and their tight point cap make a comeback more difficult, so going first has more importance. It can give you a greater tactical advantage to deploy counter to your opponent and go first. They offer more balanced objectives, such as first strike which is basically both players can score first blood on their first turns and so on. It also has a matchmaking and ranking component for tournament play which basically ranks you by wins, then objectives scored. ITC does not have sudden death. If you score enough objectives that your opponent can't mathematically come back (Max three per turn, Max 11 per game. 2 Maelstrom objectives, 1 bonus per turn.) you win. LOW's, Strength D's, and msu fast attack choices (*coughcoughbikes*) are penalized. A competitive list is the most important part here, you've already got the %'s for certain in game scenarios line up and you're there to watch the dominoes fall. Most games could pretty much be decided just by looking at the lists with the rare sigh from lady luck.

MS and EW play deploy first go first. There is benefit to setting up with your opponent already deployed and having a full turn to counter his deployment, which is amplified by ITC's deploy then roll off to go first style. Puts greater emphasis on thoughtful deployment.

Furthermore, Deployment types usually favour different lists too. Dawn of War is longer and narrower so it favours speed and mid range fire power. Hammer and Anvil is shorter and wider, favouring a spread MSU list with a resilient center or a fast flank attack for LOS/Range denial. It's more forgiving to assault units. (Even if the core rules aren't.) Vanguard has the longest length from the back of both deployments, but the smallest flanks by surface area. It favours long range units or resilient elite units.

It's easier to design a list for ITC rules than a list that could randomly play MS or EW. However whichever list is playing out of their scenario styles is at a disadvantage to a list that is within theirs. This is especially true wrt MS/EW lists which will feature less specialized more adaptable designs and ITC will feature heavier specialization and more predictable units.

Finally, for you list, I think it's strong points are MSU, resiliency, and adaptability. You're army's toughness allow you to take great risks, spread out for greater board control, and can change its battle plan on the fly. It tends to be more tough than killy. Generalists over specialists. Coherency is average, the killy part of your army is deployed away from the rest of your army. This makes makes it harder to coordinate a combined attack on an enemy strong point, causing your troops to come in waves and allowing enemies to prioritize targets to some extent. The trade off is you're better with Hammer & Anvil deployment and you can deploy relatively aggressively. Necrons get a bump across the board for shooting competency and survivability. Considering all this it would make sense that MS would be your strongest scenario, ITC 2nd, EW 3rd. The core design of your list is very MS, but it's low variance reliability and high resilience should benefit you well in ITC. Hammer & Anvil is your strongest deployment, then Dawn of war for it's medium sized flanks and medium ranged firelanes, Vanguard allows your opponent to neutralize your aggressive deployment somewhat, denies your infiltrating melee the flanks, and gives the best arc of fire for long range units which you don't really have. (Relatively, of course.)

Let me know if this syncs with your experience.

In the "Preparing for Battle" portion of the BRB it states:

"These missions are specifically designed for games where the armies are of roughly the same size and the situation gives neither side a particular advantage. We are full of gak a bloo bloo."

There are 3 Aspects of the ITC scenarios I dislike. I don't want this to turn into a 'hate' thread, but the one thing (and I really dislike it), is the 'Modified Maelstrom' system they have setup. When people ask me to play to practice with them, I completely ignore this and try to just play. Everything leading up to this list/post was me ending up having a day off, and there happened to be a Local Tournament. It was just rough since it was a choice between 'Playing 3 games' or 'Enjoying the game.'

So I was just hoping for some tips on this aspect alone, since I've largely ignored it. I've been told repeatedly that my list isn't 'Competitive', but in both MM and EW, I do really well with lists like these, or some variation. I'm always writing up lists and changing them around to try and accomplish the same thing. At the same time, I see another Decurion+DCult+Harvest list, and I think 'How do they even win?'. My feeling is that scenarios like these factor hugely in to that, which is where I get conflicted. The ITC does tend to favor Deathstars, and MSU playstyles and no real reason to plan on tabling your opponent. Which are both options available to players when playing outside of the ITC, but not one that I will enjoy playing. So the alternative is to find something that I both like to play, and will succeed.

None of this is what kept me from going to this particular event though. Since the discussion is up, I'm just trying to keep it going for next time, so that should a situation like this come up, I'll be able to go in with some sort of plan.