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.

Kevin949 wrote:

targetawg wrote:

Reflex wrote:A single style? That would be what? While there is a mega difference between effective lists and non effective lists, for the purpose of this argument that will be irrelevant. There is: warrior horde, wraithwing, destroyer wing, phalanx and mc list.

I'd say that's more then one playstyle.

What I was trying to say in my post, and what I was unclear about, was that a 35-75 point transport would turn necrons into a mash up of guard and spesh mureheeens. That's super flavorsome and totally what crons are about. A vehicle that is a portal is a different kettle of fish. But either way, necrons have never tasted like then need tons of veichles. They have 2, the monolith and pylon. If you got into crons for and are a tread head, seriously gtfo because necrons don't need transports! A few tanks I get, but full mech crons tastes as awesome as lame cake. Not even fat kids would eat that.

Why take the bus when you can be zaped there in an instant.
To sum up: an obelisk type gun tank, Ye cool. A portal tank, yea ok, makes sense. The parking lot at your local super market? Gtfo...

I'm not seeing your "effective and non effective". There are ZERO effective necron lists at present. The only one thats even playable is the monolith spam list that forces draws (yay...forcing draws...). Those may be different playstyles, but they're all ineffective. You can always make a 100 different playstyles if you play every different combo of junk options.

As far as real "builds" necrons have now? 1 to none.

And if warriors get to be 12 points and scarabs are the anti-armor nuts we're hearing about, the best build will likely be some sort of foot list!

I for one have played 'crons for a loonnnngg time, and would love the option run barges of the undead, slowly hovering closer to the enemy, or to run a foot list, or etc etc.

I disagree with the bolded statement 110%.

Then can you tell us what the "effective" Necron list is these days because, if it's out there, I haven't seen it yet.

targetawg wrote:
Disagree however much you want, even a non-real amount, doesn't change the truth.

Necrons may be fun in a "play with your friends", but in any sort of even moderately competitive environment, they're absolute junk.

How about some reasoning with why you "disagree". Find me a single top 10 finish of necrons from 2010 or 2011 at the GT level, barring events where the success was purely based on a comp score (and I can't think of any of these, but I know that some events it can make an army that lost most games it played still win).

And mind you, most gt's are 50~ players, so thats only top 20%.

Heck, I'm pretty positive you couldn't find me a single top 20 finish either.

So your definition of "effective" is "useful at tournaments" then? Good to know, but still an incorrect definition.

And ya, you're right, I couldn't find an example for you. Mainly because no one actually plays necrons in tournaments anymore. Either way, I don't follow the tournament crap at all so I really couldn't care less about who wins what and where with what army.

Your statement of having "ZERO effective necron lists" is just invalid, and I disagree because there are a number of people on here that are playing necrons and winning games. Even myself, and I mainly play against MEQ's and still win/draw quite a number of times. I don't get phased out either. And I don't take the standard lists that have been mentioned either. Is there one list of necrons that will be good against everything? No. But I'm sure the same could be said about any army. As usual, you're just another person that thinks only the models and rules play a factor in whether or not an army is good, never do you consider the tactician.

And THAT is why I disagree with you 120% now.

In reference to effectiveness of Necrons, since I began playing in 2009 I've won 2 games. 2. And one of them wasn't a game, it was a turn 3 wipe bloodbath against DE being run by a player with absolutely no tactical knowledge. I'm not a bad player by any means, it's just that Necrons currently suck, and suck hard.

Zathras wrote:
Then can you tell us what the "effective" Necron list is these days because, if it's out there, I haven't seen it yet.

Yes, anything that wins games. /discussion


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Scarey Nerd wrote:In reference to effectiveness of Necrons, since I began playing in 2009 I've won 2 games. 2. And one of them wasn't a game, it was a turn 3 wipe bloodbath against DE being run by a player with absolutely no tactical knowledge. I'm not a bad player by any means, it's just that Necrons currently suck, and suck hard.

Sorry to hear that. I'm about 50/50 with my friend who plays BT. Undefeated against his nids(Edit: come to think, I *may* have lost or drawn one game against his nids) and tau. My other buddy has vanilla marines and nids and I'm undefeated against them. And another guy has chaos (and eldar, but I haven't played his eldar) (though his armies are SORELY lacking, from what I understand) and I'm undefeated against him as well. Been playing about as long as you, maybe a little longer.

Praxiss wrote:I'm guessing they will be some sort of funky shape that doesn't fit in a frikkin army case like the 'lith. :(

That's what tool boxes, monster cases and good ol' plastic carrier bags ar for I used to just use carrier bags lined with bubble rap to carry two 'Liths. Worked well, until I wasted £50 on a monster case...

Kevin949 wrote:

Scarey Nerd wrote:In reference to effectiveness of Necrons, since I began playing in 2009 I've won 2 games. 2. And one of them wasn't a game, it was a turn 3 wipe bloodbath against DE being run by a player with absolutely no tactical knowledge. I'm not a bad player by any means, it's just that Necrons currently suck, and suck hard.

Sorry to hear that. I'm about 50/50 with my friend who plays BT. Undefeated against his nids(Edit: come to think, I *may* have lost or drawn one game against his nids) and tau. My other buddy has vanilla marines and nids and I'm undefeated against them. And another guy has chaos (and eldar, but I haven't played his eldar) (though his armies are SORELY lacking, from what I understand) and I'm undefeated against him as well. Been playing about as long as you, maybe a little longer.

The DE player is also a 'Nid player, but he won't let me play against him because he knows he'll lose. He's TFG big time. I've never won against Marines, I've won once against IG but it was incredibly close, and his dice rolls were poor in the extreme. I get steamrolled by Chaos Daemons every time. I'm not exactly the luckiest guy in the world, but come on Universe, cut me some slack, huh?

Sort of on topic: Whilst the fluff is being butchered in my opinion, and by no means anyone else's, I think Necrons could make an interesting secondary army. I'll sell up shop, collect Sisters when they come out, and then slowly reintegrate myself with Necrons and come at them with a completely new mindset, as if they're a brand new army.

Scarey Nerd wrote:In reference to effectiveness of Necrons, since I began playing in 2009 I've won 2 games. 2. And one of them wasn't a game, it was a turn 3 wipe bloodbath against DE being run by a player with absolutely no tactical knowledge. I'm not a bad player by any means, it's just that Necrons currently suck, and suck hard.

I've played at least once every two weeks with Necrons until recently (when I sold them) for six months, lost one game, drew one. It's the player not the army, I don't consider myself the best of players either, I just understand how my army works. The majority of these games were against Deathwing, IG and Tau. Of course though, you need the dice behind you.

Kevin949 wrote:

Praxiss wrote:Surely Destroyers becoming Jump Infantry just makes them lose the ability to Turbo Boost. Would they lose anything else?






Ah - unable to fire Heavy gund on the move as well. Which wont be a probelm IF their gun become "Assault"

Ya, having to take dangerous terrain tests when you want to hide them in area terrain or in a ruin for better LOS.

How is that any different from now? In fact it would be better than now as they would have the option to 'walk' in and out of terrain.

Kevin949 wrote:

Zathras wrote:
Then can you tell us what the "effective" Necron list is these days because, if it's out there, I haven't seen it yet.

Yes, anything that wins games. /discussion

Ok, nice non-answer there. Just what is in that "effective" Necron list?

Guys stop derailing the thread and take the "Most effective cron list" topic to army list or tactics, not here.

Neconilis wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:

Praxiss wrote:Surely Destroyers becoming Jump Infantry just makes them lose the ability to Turbo Boost. Would they lose anything else?






Ah - unable to fire Heavy gund on the move as well. Which wont be a probelm IF their gun become "Assault"

Ya, having to take dangerous terrain tests when you want to hide them in area terrain or in a ruin for better LOS.

How is that any different from now? In fact it would be better than now as they would have the option to 'walk' in and out of terrain.

I was being somewhat sarcastic pretty much for the reasons you just mentioned. As it stands now they can't go in area terrain with out taking DT tests. At least as jump infantry though could just climb to the top of the ruin to avoid it all together. The bummer part is that if they are JI they can't be placed on impassable terrain like they can now (with DT test, of course).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Zathras wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:

Zathras wrote:
Then can you tell us what the "effective" Necron list is these days because, if it's out there, I haven't seen it yet.

Yes, anything that wins games. /discussion

Ok, nice non-answer there. Just what is in that "effective" Necron list?

You just don't understand it...and now see below.

Juvieus Kaine wrote:Guys stop derailing the thread and take the "Most effective cron list" topic to army list or tactics, not here.

Agreed, I'm done.

Juvieus Kaine wrote:Guys stop derailing the thread and take the "Most effective cron list" topic to army list or tactics, not here.

i gotta say this comment has always been odd to me. threads evolve in a certain direction. this one has gone in wave back and forth between how people run necrons currently, how they will run them, wild speculation, and hating something about the new codex. if it were to stay on topic, this would be a quiet place.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
as to the rumors: my friend plays ig, and he cannot wait to finish building his second army when the necron dex comes out. necrons are his personal favorite army but he couldnt play with them. when i had barely started the game and 5th just came out my friend loaned me his tau, another friend had nids, and another had vanilla marines. 2v2, necrons/tau vs vanilla/nids, the game ran like this: turn 1 nids destroyed the warriors. turn 1!, some lucky roles, true, but he went straight for the warriors and thus had the necrons phase out.

the reason for my tale is simple, my friend has been waiting for the new update since 5th came out and likes whats up, but hes waiting for the actual release, much like i did with the grey knights, to get excited.

on a side note, my computer freaked out so idk if i posted my earlier comment. looks like it did.

targetawg wrote:
Most people are saying they're LESS MEQ then the were before, which is true. Before they were: marine statline, marine save, one basic bolter esque gun, price of a veteran marine. Now they're a marine statline, 4+ save, cheap, with a better "you can't ever negate this WBB suckah" roll.

They might be saying that it's less MEQ but they're wrong. Fine they don't have a 3+ armor save, but for every basic ranged and close combat weapon in the game they have the same survival rate as a marine. They used to be twice as likely to survive. To put it another way the kill rates for marines, old necrons and new necrons for different AP rates are:

AP 5,6,-
MEQ 33%
Old 17%
New 33%

AP 4
MEQ 33%
Old 17%
New 67%

AP 1,2,3
MEQ 100%
Old 50%
New 67%

So old necrons have different survival rates against every AP value, new necrons are the same for everything but AP4 or better. How is this less MEQ? Because they have to roll 2 dice for the same effect?

Kevin949 wrote:

targetawg wrote:How about some reasoning with why you "disagree". Find me a single top 10 finish of necrons from 2010 or 2011 at the GT level, barring events where the success was purely based on a comp score (and I can't think of any of these, but I know that some events it can make an army that lost most games it played still win).

And mind you, most gt's are 50~ players, so thats only top 20%.

Heck, I'm pretty positive you couldn't find me a single top 20 finish either.

And ya, you're right, I couldn't find an example for you. Mainly because no one actually plays necrons in tournaments anymore. Either way, I don't follow the tournament crap at all so I really couldn't care less about who wins what and where with what army.

It's not to hard here's one posted on Dakka UK GT Finals march 2010

I can probably find more if I really look.

Necrons where designed to be tough but have little offence. Since GW has made other armies tougher in the last decade. It's harder for Necrons to score Massacre results to actually place high in tournies. That does not prevent them from winning compeditive games but does greatly effect tournament results.

*Disclaimer* I did not read that thread just found it.

Kevin949 wrote:

targetawg wrote:
Disagree however much you want, even a non-real amount, doesn't change the truth.

Necrons may be fun in a "play with your friends", but in any sort of even moderately competitive environment, they're absolute junk.

How about some reasoning with why you "disagree". Find me a single top 10 finish of necrons from 2010 or 2011 at the GT level, barring events where the success was purely based on a comp score (and I can't think of any of these, but I know that some events it can make an army that lost most games it played still win).

And mind you, most gt's are 50~ players, so thats only top 20%.

Heck, I'm pretty positive you couldn't find me a single top 20 finish either.

So your definition of "effective" is "useful at tournaments" then? Good to know, but still an incorrect definition.

The fact that you don't play in tournaments means you shouldn't even be commenting on what an "effective" list is. Playing against friends in fun games doesn't mean a list is effective. Effective in the sense that was being referred to originally meant "competitive". They are not in any way, shape, or form a competitive book right now. They don't need to be best, but at present, they just can't compete at all.

Kevin949 wrote:
And ya, you're right, I couldn't find an example for you. Mainly because no one actually plays necrons in tournaments anymore. Either way, I don't follow the tournament crap at all so I really couldn't care less about who wins what and where with what army.

Meaning you shouldn't even be commenting on the effectiveness of a book. Because you have no clue what effectiveness means. The reason that no one plays necrons at tournaments anymore is BECAUSE they aren't effective.

Kevin949 wrote:
Your statement of having "ZERO effective necron lists" is just invalid, and I disagree because there are a number of people on here that are playing necrons and winning games. Even myself, and I mainly play against MEQ's and still win/draw quite a number of times. I don't get phased out either. And I don't take the standard lists that have been mentioned either. Is there one list of necrons that will be good against everything? No. But I'm sure the same could be said about any army. As usual, you're just another person that thinks only the models and rules play a factor in whether or not an army is good, never do you consider the tactician.

All you state is your biased opinion, with absolutely no backing. You refuse to even acknowledge the book needs a major overhaul to have it be competitive or effective in 5th edition. Playing an army and winning games is no proof for anything, since we have no idea WHO you're playing. If you're playing a bunch of inexperienced players or guys that don't like to build competitive/effective lists, it means nothing. Don't assume I'm "just another person" that fits your preconceived perception of anyone that disagrees with you. The tactician is the most important part of the game, however, most tacticians have agreed to move on to armies that have the tools to be competitive, which necrons don't. They lack the utility to play in an "all-comers" environment.

Kevin949 wrote:And THAT is why I disagree with you 120% now.

I accept that statement.

I for one am glad to see Necron's getting an overhaul, as they've needed one from quite some time. Whether you're in it for:

1) The models: the change is currently very limited and lacks variety compared to other ranges. There's 1 troop choice for the love of god.
2) The variety of lists that can be built: Since you have less than half the force org options, and basically no upgrades which would let you differentiate squads, you inherently end up with far fewer builds than other books.
3) The rules/effectiveness: This plays into the above primarily, since the army lacks variety, it lacks the ability to give the general the tools he needs to win a competitive game.

No one likes change, it happens whenever a new book comes out. There will always be those doom-sayers that see it as the end of their beloved army. But as the song goes, "look on the bright side of life". Your book is getting some attention, you're getting your fluff advanced (and before you cry out about it, realize...you haven't read it yet), and you're getting an update which will give you a larger variety of lists, and just new opportunities and options to play with.

All of your old models will still be there for the most part, and it appears the primary model necron players have (warriors) will be one of the absolute best choices. I've got roughly a hundred painted and based warriors, and I'd love for them to be an effective choice again.

Don't let the fact that Matt Ward is writing it make you see everything you read through colored lenses. For the most part, the hate surrounding Matt Ward is just a ridiculous hype that the internet started with a kernel and just ran with to epic proportions.

Unix wrote:They might be saying that it's less MEQ but they're wrong. Fine they don't have a 3+ armor save, but for every basic ranged and close combat weapon in the game they have the same survival rate as a marine. They used to be twice as likely to survive. To put it another way the kill rates for marines, old necrons and new necrons for different AP rates are:

AP 5,6,-
MEQ 33%
Old 17%
New 33%

AP 4
MEQ 33%
Old 17%
New 67%

AP 1,2,3
MEQ 100%
Old 50%
New 67%

So old necrons have different survival rates against every AP value, new necrons are the same for everything but AP4 or better. How is this less MEQ? Because they have to roll 2 dice for the same effect?

How does having a different survival rate to different AP values = "different" from MEQ? Also, those survival rates for old necrons are flawed, since you aren't factoring in what weapons would have negated/not negated WBB under the old rules due to strength values and the like.

Also..if those are kill rates...you said they're the same as marines now. If you compare the numbers under MEQ and NEW...it's different in every instance except for AP 5/6.

Mind you, I find those whole argument pretty flawed since you're basically saying that anything that has a similar armor save to a marine is an equivalent..

targetawg wrote:*Snipped*

Never said I didn't think the necrons needed a new book. I've been pining for a new book since I started getting really familiar with the rules of 5th ed.

Your OPINION that effectiveness is directly correlated to competition is just that, your opinion. Accept that as it is.

I can comment on the book of the army I play and have played for a few years now all I want.

I play against people that have years more experience than I do with WH40K. My main opponent has been playing (off and on, but more regularly the past few years now) for about 13 years or more. I really don't know when he started but we were in high school and that was about 13-15 years ago. So, now you know. And I guess playing against him is not the same as playing against some random guy in a tournament even though other than knowing him for so long there is no difference. We don't run house rules and we generally pick missions at random. Heck, most of the time we're playing pretty close to tournament style games anyway. But whatever.

I'm glad, ecstatic even, that they're getting an overhaul. I love everything I've heard so far about the changes (except maybe the WBB change but I'm glad it's not just blanket FNP). I'm practically giddy with excitement, especially at the prospect of destroying my opponents even more thoroughly than I sometimes do now.

*edit*
as for the matt ward comment, I know absolutely nothing of this guy other than what everyone has complained about, so nothing I say is based off of whatever he is doing or not doing. *Shrug* Again, I just play the game with what I'm given, I don't care who wrote it.

I just wanted to say, that saying someone that does not play in tournaments has no idea what they are talking about is just stupid. Incredibly stupid. Now if you are asking someone that doesnt play in tournies, about their opinions on tourny play, then yea I see your point. But just because 1 person doesnt goto tournies, does not mean they dont know what they are talking about.

I would like to point out that I do agree that necrons are not COMPETITIVE right now for tournament play but I don't believe that means they're ineffective. Can people with them? Sure, I think they could. But a lot of it will rely on luck and very very skillful play. I certainly think it would be much harder for a necron army to win a tourny than most other armies currently. But as KingCracker said, I don't play tournaments so I don't really have a place to comment on tournament play.

Its probably been gone over before, but i dont like the loss of Pariahs, i know they werent the best unit, but i loved their fluff and models

Vhalyar wrote:

The Twisted wrote:I don't think we will see the end of Pariahs at all. The most silly thing I've heard for a long time. You just don't make a pariah the central part of the Necrons story in the Dawn of War video game story line and get rid of them in the next codex.

Dark Crusade is a five year old game, thinking it has any relevance is pretty silly.

I dont think they will cut out Pariahs all to getter, but make them a SGT upgrade for warriors or/and Immortals. But I don't really know so we will see.

Well maybe they are going to be the "Crypteks" or how ever its spelled. So maybe its just a bit of a change. Who knows, maybe they killed off the Ctan (mostly) and when that happened Necrons started getting themselves back, and the Pariahs changed into those thingys.

Yes, thingys is a technical term

I'd wager you could use pariahs as the cryptek models, considering I believe there was mention of the crypteks being able to take warscythes?

Let's hope they retain the Assault 2 status of the current immortals gun as well and not the poop version of the lords warscythe.

Well, there is always this too:

yakface wrote:One of the other new Elite units is also CC oriented, but is very pricey points wise (but is S5/T5/3+save). This unit can wield a Warscythe, but they are not called Pariahs (no idea if that's what Pariahs have 'turned into' or not).

KingCracker wrote:Well maybe they are going to be the "Crypteks" or how ever its spelled. So maybe its just a bit of a change. Who knows, maybe they killed off the Ctan (mostly) and when that happened Necrons started getting themselves back, and the Pariahs changed into those thingys.

Yes, thingys is a technical term

loving thingys!
hope they do keep them and its just a name change

Just Dave wrote:Well, there is always this too:

yakface wrote:One of the other new Elite units is also CC oriented, but is very pricey points wise (but is S5/T5/3+save). This unit can wield a Warscythe, but they are not called Pariahs (no idea if that's what Pariahs have 'turned into' or not).

They sound exactly like the Guard-things in FoD. Sounds like Pariah's transformation, if they haven't been cut alltogether. Plus, they're the unit in FoD that made me realise that Necrons are Daleks.

"WE OBEY."

Sorry pet peeve of mine, people keep saying the Necron save is 16% worse, that is not true, it has been lowered by 16% but it is actually (1/2-1/3)/(1/3) worse. Just like how a terminator is twice as likely to survive a bolter shot as a marine even though the save is only raised by 1/6.

sorry to be off topic...

Just Dave wrote:Well, there is always this too:

yakface wrote:One of the other new Elite units is also CC oriented, but is very pricey points wise (but is S5/T5/3+save). This unit can wield a Warscythe, but they are not called Pariahs (no idea if that's what Pariahs have 'turned into' or not).

I swear I've read the OP over 20 times, and I missed this. This sounds more like the Pariahs than Crypteks to me. I would love for a unit with a transport, that has the ability to shread any dedicated CC units. This is all supposing that Warscythes maintain their current stats.

I'm glad necrons aren't turning into blood angels...we'd see sliver painted marines using the necron codex.

Farmer wrote:I'm glad necrons aren't turning into blood angels...we'd see sliver painted marines using the necron codex.

Even more Grey Knights?

kenzosan wrote:guys, you have to remember that unless its multi wound the scarabs are pretty useless against termis. all we know is they have the remove armor save/lower armor rating. even rending is w/e. just dont get your hopes up on seeing scarbs destory termis or even weaken em more so then a squad of warriors.

Well, they'd be a small sacrificial unit. The scarabs charge, hopefully live until the opponents assault phase, die, and then next shooting phase, no armor saves for mr. termie.