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.

Ok so the decurion isn't as great as everyone is trying to say. First off your lists are gimped by having to take certain units and not being able to spam the armies power units like you can in a CAD.

The decurion changes your 5+ FNP into a 4+ FNP, that's only a 1/6 increase in survivability that's not game breaking. For example;

12 bolter shots vs Warriors: Non-Decurion 1.33 Dead, Decurion 1 Dead

The difference isn't even a model vs standard 5 marines rapid firing with a rhino. It would take 36 bolter shots to really see a difference, which is a lot of shots and the difference is 1 13pt model.

3 Missiles vs Warriors: Non-Decurion 1.388 Dead, Decurion 1.11 Dead

Again a minor increase in damage between the two. To see a difference you'd need to fire about 10 missiles to have a noticeable difference in the durability which again would only be 1 model/1 wound.


The problem people are having is not with the decurion but rather they are having issues with the necrons survivability in general. I would argue that all these people complaining about losing to a decurion would lose to the same people running a CAD instead. Decurion is nice and allows for more fluffy list building but it isn't overpowered. You could argue the necron codex is overpowered but it's not the decurion that is the problem people are having(it's what people complain about but that just people blaming the new thing). People keep thinking necrons should be as "squishy" as they were last edition and then they play people running a decurion and lose to a very durable army and think that it must be because of the decurion but really it's just that FNP makes the army a whole lot tougher to kill than they were last edition not the decurion.

Punisher wrote:
Ok so the decurion isn't as great as everyone is trying to say. First off your lists are gimped by having to take certain units and not being able to spam the armies power units like you can in a CAD.

The decurion changes your 5+ FNP into a 4+ FNP, that's only a 1/6 increase in suitability that's not game breaking. For example;

12 bolter shots vs Warriors: Non-Decurion 1.33 Dead, Decurion 1 Dead

The difference isn't even a model vs standard 5 marines rapid firing with a rhino. It would take 36 bolter shots to really see a difference, which is a lot of shots and the difference is 1 13pt model.

3 Missiles vs Warriors: Non-Decurion 1.388 Dead, Decurion 1.11 Dead

Again a minor increase in damage between the two. To see a difference you'd need to fire about 10 missiles to have a noticeable difference in the durability which again would only be 1 model/1 wound.


The problem people are having is not with the decurion but rather they are having issues with the necrons survivability in general. I would argue that all these people complaining about losing to a decurion would lose to the same people running a CAD instead. Decurion is nice and allows for more fluffy list building but it isn't overpowered. You could argue the necron codex is overpowered but it's not the decurion that is the problem people are having(it's what people complain about but that just people blaming the new thing). People keep thinking necrons should be as "squishy" as they were last edition and then they play people running a decurion and lose to a very durable army and think that it must be because of the decurion but really it's just that FNP makes the army a whole lot tougher to kill than they were last edition not the decurion.

Hmm. I tend to look at FNP from the opposite direction. If I have a 5+ FNP, that means for every 6 models lost, I get 2 back. If I have a 4+ FNP, for every 6 models I lose, I get 3 back. Bigger picture: If I lose 30 models with a 5+ FNP, I get back 10 during the course of a game, and another 1.67 models back from those 10.

If I have a 4+ FNP with 21 models, I get 10 back. I'm using 10 to show that over the course of a game, I'm basically getting back an entire squad of guys. This was huge for Blood Angels Death Company 6th Ed codex where the average cost of a Space Marine was about 23 points. Having 30 of these guys costing about 700 points, and then getting back 230 points meant I was playing with a "Free Squad" of Death Company in a game.

Mathematically, going from 5+ to 4+ FNP doesn't look like much, until you start applying it on a more macro scale of your army.

So look at it this way: If your Decurion has at least 21 models with 4+ FNP, you will "get back" 10 of those models. That's like an extra squad of models during a game. Another way of looking at it, for every 21 models I kill, I have to kill 10 of them again, and then I have to kill another one again.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Grimdark wrote:
If I didn't have my army shelved I would laugh at whoever wanted MSS(which were never an issue to anyone using correct positioning...) and tesla nerf and now has to deal with this monstrosity.

Don't forget "they" also wanted the Transcendent C'Tan toned down (done, big time), Cryptek cheese toned down (done), ABs and NSs to go up in points (done), and "they" complained that RP took too long and should work more like FNP (done).

With the possible of to the Wraith T buff, this update could read like a Necron nerf wishlist. And in return, we got Decurion.

MSS was definitely not an issue. It was a giant "shoot me from range" sign.

All I cared about was nerfing Wraiths' 3++ to a 4++ at best. We all know how that went. The rest of the previous codex was not bad.

"The decurion changes your 5+ FNP into a 4+ FNP, that's only a 1/6 increase in suitability that's not game breaking. For example;"

That's so true as Iron Hands aren't game breaking and they have a 1/6 increase in survivability too, so stupid Space Marines are to blame!

 Tamwulf wrote:

Punisher wrote:
Ok so the decurion isn't as great as everyone is trying to say. First off your lists are gimped by having to take certain units and not being able to spam the armies power units like you can in a CAD.

The decurion changes your 5+ FNP into a 4+ FNP, that's only a 1/6 increase in suitability that's not game breaking. For example;

12 bolter shots vs Warriors: Non-Decurion 1.33 Dead, Decurion 1 Dead

The difference isn't even a model vs standard 5 marines rapid firing with a rhino. It would take 36 bolter shots to really see a difference, which is a lot of shots and the difference is 1 13pt model.

3 Missiles vs Warriors: Non-Decurion 1.388 Dead, Decurion 1.11 Dead

Again a minor increase in damage between the two. To see a difference you'd need to fire about 10 missiles to have a noticeable difference in the durability which again would only be 1 model/1 wound.


The problem people are having is not with the decurion but rather they are having issues with the necrons survivability in general. I would argue that all these people complaining about losing to a decurion would lose to the same people running a CAD instead. Decurion is nice and allows for more fluffy list building but it isn't overpowered. You could argue the necron codex is overpowered but it's not the decurion that is the problem people are having(it's what people complain about but that just people blaming the new thing). People keep thinking necrons should be as "squishy" as they were last edition and then they play people running a decurion and lose to a very durable army and think that it must be because of the decurion but really it's just that FNP makes the army a whole lot tougher to kill than they were last edition not the decurion.

Hmm. I tend to look at FNP from the opposite direction. If I have a 5+ FNP, that means for every 6 models lost, I get 2 back. If I have a 4+ FNP, for every 6 models I lose, I get 3 back. Bigger picture: If I lose 30 models with a 5+ FNP, I get back 10 during the course of a game, and another 1.67 models back from those 10.

If I have a 4+ FNP with 21 models, I get 10 back. I'm using 10 to show that over the course of a game, I'm basically getting back an entire squad of guys. This was huge for Blood Angels Death Company 6th Ed codex where the average cost of a Space Marine was about 23 points. Having 30 of these guys costing about 700 points, and then getting back 230 points meant I was playing with a "Free Squad" of Death Company in a game.

Mathematically, going from 5+ to 4+ FNP doesn't look like much, until you start applying it on a more macro scale of your army.

So look at it this way: If your Decurion has at least 21 models with 4+ FNP, you will "get back" 10 of those models. That's like an extra squad of models during a game. Another way of looking at it, for every 21 models I kill, I have to kill 10 of them again, and then I have to kill another one again.

It's not quite as good as you say, because you don't ever use FNP when you make your armor save.

At least now when you kill a Necron, you know its gone for the rest game. No more bouncing back up at the end of a phase, and no more old-school Ever Living counters with Lords, Overlords, and Crypteks that survive multiple deaths. I swear one game my DLord got killed 4 times in a 6 round game and just kept on reanimating with EL. The point here is that being removed from play with EL used to shield you from more wounds that your EL model would otherwise encounter, forcing 1 EL-RP rather than 1 RP per killing Wound.

Can Necron opponents find some comfort in that?

 Tamwulf wrote:


Hmm. I tend to look at FNP from the opposite direction. If I have a 5+ FNP, that means for every 6 models lost, I get 2 back. If I have a 4+ FNP, for every 6 models I lose, I get 3 back. Bigger picture: If I lose 30 models with a 5+ FNP, I get back 10 during the course of a game, and another 1.67 models back from those 10.

If I have a 4+ FNP with 21 models, I get 10 back. I'm using 10 to show that over the course of a game, I'm basically getting back an entire squad of guys. This was huge for Blood Angels Death Company 6th Ed codex where the average cost of a Space Marine was about 23 points. Having 30 of these guys costing about 700 points, and then getting back 230 points meant I was playing with a "Free Squad" of Death Company in a game.

Mathematically, going from 5+ to 4+ FNP doesn't look like much, until you start applying it on a more macro scale of your army.

So look at it this way: If your Decurion has at least 21 models with 4+ FNP, you will "get back" 10 of those models. That's like an extra squad of models during a game. Another way of looking at it, for every 21 models I kill, I have to kill 10 of them again, and then I have to kill another one again.

Fair enough but that's looking at it from a perspective that your entire army needs to make those FNP saves which rarely occurs. I honestly don't see many people getting tabled these days and the losing player is more likely to lose 50-75% of their army rather than getting tabled. So weighing FNP like you are only works in a if I'm tabled scenario this buff would save 10 models.

The buff is so small that in the course of a turn it's unlikely to make a large difference for that turn so it won't really change how it's played based on the 1 less wound the unit suffered.

Basically, your whole army doesn't need the FNP upgrade because there will be units in your army that don't even have to make a FNP save, since their armour save will be enough or they just aren't attacked. Can't assume going into battle that you'll be tabled, so the death company example only works if you plan on losing the whole squad, but there will be games where you don't so the "free" unit you get isn't as great as you thought. This works doubly for decurion crons since they are only receiving an increase of 1/6 over CAD crons and that's only when they fail their armour save.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:
At least now when you kill a Necron, you know its gone for the rest game. No more bouncing back up at the end of a phase, and no more old-school Ever Living counters with Lords, Overlords, and Crypteks that survive multiple deaths. I swear one game my DLord got killed 4 times in a 6 round game and just kept on reanimating with EL. The point here is that being removed from play with EL used to shield you from more wounds that your EL model would otherwise encounter, forcing 1 EL-RP rather than 1 RP per killing Wound.

Can Necron opponents find some comfort in that?

If you want to go real old school, back in 3rd necrons had 4+ WBB (which was basically RP except on a 4+ and some other limitations) and if you failed that you could recycle them in a monolith to re-roll the failed rolls.

Punisher wrote:
Ok so the decurion isn't as great as everyone is trying to say. First off your lists are gimped by having to take certain units and not being able to spam the armies power units like you can in a CAD.

Oh no, you have to take other powerful unkillable units instead of just spamming Wraiths and being done with it?



Forced unit choices are not "gimping" anything unless those units suck, eg Possessed for Daemonkin, Tac squads for CAD marines, etc. If you don't want to field Tomb Blades, then don't play Decurion and everyone will be happy.

lustigjh wrote:

Punisher wrote:
Ok so the decurion isn't as great as everyone is trying to say. First off your lists are gimped by having to take certain units and not being able to spam the armies power units like you can in a CAD.

Oh no, you have to take other powerful unkillable units instead of just spamming Wraiths and being done with it?



Forced unit choices are not "gimping" anything unless those units suck, eg Possessed for Daemonkin, Tac squads for CAD marines, etc. If you don't want to field Tomb Blades, then don't play Decurion and everyone will be happy.

Ok but if you can just make a stronger list with the CAD then the decurion is gimped in comparison. This isn't about exterior balance in the game which is all over the place it's about the decurion which is gimped vs the CAD due the choices you are forced to make. For instance the CAD you have to take 2 troops which get Objective secured, in the decurion you have to take 3 troops and they don't get objective secured. That is a tax, furthermore you are forced to take auxiliaries from the book which come with their own taxes. For instance the destroyer cult you have to take destroyer lord(which isn't a terrible unit but you won't see anyone fielding one outside of the destroyer cult so it's a tax), in the Canoptek harvest you have to take a unit of scarabs which are a tax(sure they have uses but in a decurion it is really difficult to run a farm without allying in a CAD and the farm is the only spot scarabs are competitive in), in the deathbringer flight you have to take 2 which eats up your points quickly, in the judicator the synergy is poor between the stalker and praets so you need to take another formation like the destroyer cult to make proper use of the stalker, the annhilation nexus requires you to take 2 heavily nerfed annihilation barges which will rarely see play in a CAD since you can just get a night scythe for 10pts more which is just better.

My point is that the decurion is gimped in comparison to the CAD for a list building scenario(forcing you to take more troops even though more troops do gak in comparison to any other unit once you remove objective secured from them) not whether or not you can still make a good list with a decurion which you can, you can just make a better one using a CAD.

 Tamwulf wrote:

Punisher wrote:
The decurion changes your 5+ FNP into a 4+ FNP, that's only a 1/6 increase in suitability that's not game breaking.

Mathematically, going from 5+ to 4+ FNP doesn't look like much, until you start applying it on a more macro scale of your army.

The jump from 5+ to 4+ is actually a large one. It represents a 50% higher chance of saving, or thinking of it another way it's 25% less dead models (what previously would have killed 4 now only kills 3). It's less useful on stuff that would have caused ID, as that's only a 20% decrease in the number of kills, but still enough to be significant IMO.

Of course I have no idea how good decurion is as I haven't played against one, I simply came to offer a different perspective on the maths of it

 jasper76 wrote:
At least now when you kill a Necron, you know its gone for the rest game. No more bouncing back up at the end of a phase, and no more old-school Ever Living counters with Lords, Overlords, and Crypteks that survive multiple deaths. I swear one game my DLord got killed 4 times in a 6 round game and just kept on reanimating with EL. The point here is that being removed from play with EL used to shield you from more wounds that your EL model would otherwise encounter, forcing 1 EL-RP rather than 1 RP per killing Wound.

Can Necron opponents find some comfort in that?

Probably not. The book is just too good compared to the eggs laid for the BA and Orks.

Actually, its the Warriors that are the rubbish must-takes. Tomb Blades are awesome. :p

Anyway, something people are neglecting when talking about how the Decurion "isn't that bad" is that having the Decurion also means that your infantry have the Reclamation Legion benefit of rerolling ones for RP.

In my experience the Decurion's +1 RP isn't what up the Necron power level, it's the added effect of formation rules that can make it ridiculous. Not like you can't take them outside of a Decurion anyway. Add the fact that the Decurion doesn't really do anything to gimp the collection for most Necron players or the way they field models just makes the whole army that much more dangerous.

That being said, I have never used the harvest formation (not that I can't).

What made Necron so much harder to kill overall was the change to how RP works. I've had battles that using the old codex would of wiped out units while now I only lose a few models. (which I then replaced thanks of Ghost Arks)

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Tamwulf wrote:

Punisher wrote:
The decurion changes your 5+ FNP into a 4+ FNP, that's only a 1/6 increase in suitability that's not game breaking.

Mathematically, going from 5+ to 4+ FNP doesn't look like much, until you start applying it on a more macro scale of your army.

The jump from 5+ to 4+ is actually a large one. It represents a 50% higher chance of saving, or thinking of it another way it's 25% less dead models (what previously would have killed 4 now only kills 3). It's less useful on stuff that would have caused ID, as that's only a 20% decrease in the number of kills, but still enough to be significant IMO.

Of course I have no idea how good decurion is as I haven't played against one, I simply came to offer a different perspective on the maths of it

yes each save below the last gets better and better.

ignoring AP, a 2+ save is twice as good as a 3+ save. In the same way as a 3+ save is twice as good as a 5+ save.

6+ from nothing is really small
5+ from 6+ is something
4+ from 5+ is rather good

Punisher wrote:

Spoiler:

lustigjh wrote:

Punisher wrote:
Ok so the decurion isn't as great as everyone is trying to say. First off your lists are gimped by having to take certain units and not being able to spam the armies power units like you can in a CAD.

Oh no, you have to take other powerful unkillable units instead of just spamming Wraiths and being done with it?



Forced unit choices are not "gimping" anything unless those units suck, eg Possessed for Daemonkin, Tac squads for CAD marines, etc. If you don't want to field Tomb Blades, then don't play Decurion and everyone will be happy.

Ok but if you can just make a stronger list with the CAD then the decurion is gimped in comparison. This isn't about exterior balance in the game which is all over the place it's about the decurion which is gimped vs the CAD due the choices you are forced to make. For instance the CAD you have to take 2 troops which get Objective secured, in the decurion you have to take 3 troops and they don't get objective secured. That is a tax, furthermore you are forced to take auxiliaries from the book which come with their own taxes. For instance the destroyer cult you have to take destroyer lord(which isn't a terrible unit but you won't see anyone fielding one outside of the destroyer cult so it's a tax), in the Canoptek harvest you have to take a unit of scarabs which are a tax(sure they have uses but in a decurion it is really difficult to run a farm without allying in a CAD and the farm is the only spot scarabs are competitive in), in the deathbringer flight you have to take 2 which eats up your points quickly, in the judicator the synergy is poor between the stalker and praets so you need to take another formation like the destroyer cult to make proper use of the stalker, the annhilation nexus requires you to take 2 heavily nerfed annihilation barges which will rarely see play in a CAD since you can just get a night scythe for 10pts more which is just better.

My point is that the decurion is gimped in comparison to the CAD for a list building scenario(forcing you to take more troops even though more troops do gak in comparison to any other unit once you remove objective secured from them) not whether or not you can still make a good list with a decurion which you can, you can just make a better one using a CAD.

Gonna wade into this mess and point a few things out.

First, basic math mistake: a save going from 5+ to 4+ isn't a 1/6 increase in survivability, it's a 50% increase. You used to make 2 out of 6 of the RP saves you tried, now you make 3 out of 6, which is 50% more. It's nothing to sneeze at when it's applied to your entire army at a low cost.

Second, that cost (being forced to take certain units) isn't as high as you're making it out to be in most cases. Maybe there are more overpowered builds that are possible, but none of the units you're forced to take in the Decurion are bad, the formation overall is still fairly flexible, and the benefits certainly seem worth it. Substantial army-wide buffs to durability are more powerful than getting Objective Secured on a few units (which I hear is pretty overrated anyway).

Third, even if it is possible to make slightly better lists by min-maxing a CAD, the biggest issue with the decurion is it seems to give people an easy cookbook to follow to build a very strong list with some minor variations. The decurion certainly doesn't seem "gimped" given the win/loss records people have been posting. You're not gimping yourself at all if using the decurion means easily putting together a list that can beat anything but a min-maxed list; in most people's gaming groups that's a recipe for getting the decurion banned.

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

Punisher wrote:

Spoiler:

lustigjh wrote:

Punisher wrote:
Ok so the decurion isn't as great as everyone is trying to say. First off your lists are gimped by having to take certain units and not being able to spam the armies power units like you can in a CAD.

Oh no, you have to take other powerful unkillable units instead of just spamming Wraiths and being done with it?



Forced unit choices are not "gimping" anything unless those units suck, eg Possessed for Daemonkin, Tac squads for CAD marines, etc. If you don't want to field Tomb Blades, then don't play Decurion and everyone will be happy.

Ok but if you can just make a stronger list with the CAD then the decurion is gimped in comparison. This isn't about exterior balance in the game which is all over the place it's about the decurion which is gimped vs the CAD due the choices you are forced to make. For instance the CAD you have to take 2 troops which get Objective secured, in the decurion you have to take 3 troops and they don't get objective secured. That is a tax, furthermore you are forced to take auxiliaries from the book which come with their own taxes. For instance the destroyer cult you have to take destroyer lord(which isn't a terrible unit but you won't see anyone fielding one outside of the destroyer cult so it's a tax), in the Canoptek harvest you have to take a unit of scarabs which are a tax(sure they have uses but in a decurion it is really difficult to run a farm without allying in a CAD and the farm is the only spot scarabs are competitive in), in the deathbringer flight you have to take 2 which eats up your points quickly, in the judicator the synergy is poor between the stalker and praets so you need to take another formation like the destroyer cult to make proper use of the stalker, the annhilation nexus requires you to take 2 heavily nerfed annihilation barges which will rarely see play in a CAD since you can just get a night scythe for 10pts more which is just better.

My point is that the decurion is gimped in comparison to the CAD for a list building scenario(forcing you to take more troops even though more troops do gak in comparison to any other unit once you remove objective secured from them) not whether or not you can still make a good list with a decurion which you can, you can just make a better one using a CAD.

Gonna wade into this mess and point a few things out.

First, basic math mistake: a save going from 5+ to 4+ isn't a 1/6 increase in survivability, it's a 50% increase. You used to make 2 out of 6 of the RP saves you tried, now you make 3 out of 6, which is 50% more. It's nothing to sneeze at when it's applied to your entire army at a low cost.

Second, that cost (being forced to take certain units) isn't as high as you're making it out to be in most cases. Maybe there are more overpowered builds that are possible, but none of the units you're forced to take in the Decurion are bad, the formation overall is still fairly flexible, and the benefits certainly seem worth it. Substantial army-wide buffs to durability are more powerful than getting Objective Secured on a few units (which I hear is pretty overrated anyway).

Third, even if it is possible to make slightly better lists by min-maxing a CAD, the biggest issue with the decurion is it seems to give people an easy cookbook to follow to build a very strong list with some minor variations. The decurion certainly doesn't seem "gimped" given the win/loss records people have been posting. You're not gimping yourself at all if using the decurion means easily putting together a list that can beat anything but a min-maxed list; in most people's gaming groups that's a recipe for getting the decurion banned.

Ok so I see what your saying with the 5+ to a 4+ but when you roll 5/6 of the options you roll have the same result; 1,2,3 would fail regardless and 5 or 6 pass regardless the only difference is a 4 which is a 1/6 increase.

To each their own whether you think certain units are taxing or not. But the stronger lists are definitely built using a CAD, not saying decurion lists are bad but in a discussion about "Is decurion too good?" when lists made without the decurion are stronger than with a decurion then it's necrons that are too good not the decurion. Plus objective secured does make a difference when you don't have it compared to your opponent. It's lack also makes the warriors and immortals a tax on the list since they don't provide anything that you can't get better in another unit choice.

The win-loss record is hard to go by since the new necron codex has a ridiculous win-rate in general decurion or not. It's just regular players haven't adopted to the new codex and aren't playing the mission and instead trying to table the most difficult army in the game to table. As for easy to make competitive lists, ok but I am ok with "good" lists being easy to make since these "good" lists are at least fluffy and not the min-maxing abominations that you usually see outside of very friendly games.

Rapier quad bolters are mathmatically more efficient for their points against wraiths than anything else. They will also shred warrior squads (in comparison to other weapons).

There are 9 ITC tournament results on record ATM.
Crons are in the top 5 at 7 of the 9 tournies. That says something to me. (The other two must've had either some terrible dice, terrible piloting, or terrible list writing )

And I know the one that came in 2nd at the 30 man event I was at was a decurion, and he went 5-0-1 and only drew against 1st place taudar guy.

The average placement of the highest necron player in all 9 so far is 5th place on the dot, (and again, those two poor performances are seriously damaging their average.)
The average highest eldar rank is 4.5, only a little ahead. (And of course, the best eldar are doing the best on average out of all the armies.)
Nids, daemons, marines of any type, even tau are all much worse average highest placement than either of them.

lustigjh wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Grimdark wrote:
If I didn't have my army shelved I would laugh at whoever wanted MSS(which were never an issue to anyone using correct positioning...) and tesla nerf and now has to deal with this monstrosity.

Don't forget "they" also wanted the Transcendent C'Tan toned down (done, big time), Cryptek cheese toned down (done), ABs and NSs to go up in points (done), and "they" complained that RP took too long and should work more like FNP (done).

With the possible of to the Wraith T buff, this update could read like a Necron nerf wishlist. And in return, we got Decurion.

MSS was definitely not an issue. It was a giant "shoot me from range" sign.

All I cared about was nerfing Wraiths' 3++ to a 4++ at best. We all know how that went. The rest of the previous codex was not bad.

As a Chaos Player forced to challenge, MSS was an issue.

Course there's alotta issues for us, being on the low tier end. I feel like Tau in 5th edition.

Why is everyone complaining? Decurions are the necrons special thing, and every army is OP in its own right. Grey knights have Paladins, dreadlnights and psychic, tau have overwhelming firepower, eldar are fast....


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And to everyone thinking the previous codex was balanced.... You're wrong. Most of the elites were nearly unusable and roughly 2/3 of everything else was useless, like tomb blades and lychguard. In a straight fight against terminators, my lychguard lost in the old dex and they're double the price of them. WTF!!!!!!

Necrons have the option to be fast, are incredibly durable, have guns on basic grunts which can effect even land raiders, have marine statlines, have the ability to ignore most slot types, have lychguard, praetorians, wraiths, tomb blades and flayed ones as incredibly strong units and have ld10 all round or fearless. Being durable isn't their only thing.
This is coming from a cron player.

Half of the previous codex was excellent competitively, the other half was utter drivel. It's reasonably balanced internally now, it just has shocking external balance.

Don't the crons also get RR to 1s on RP?

That means an average necron gets a 4+ save another 4+ save and then another 1/6th chance of a 4+ save.

I could have my facts confused though, I don't have the codex

Boniface wrote:
Don't the crons also get RR to 1s on RP?

That means an average necron gets a 4+ save another 4+ save and then another 1/6th chance of a 4+ save.

I could have my facts confused though, I don't have the codex

The reroll 1 RPs is for models in the Reclamation Legion formation who are within 12" of the warlord, IIRC

Maybe you're thinking of the Mephrit Dynasty detachment...IIRC that gives army-wide reroll on RP 1. But units in a Mephrit Dynasty detachment cannot also be part of a Decurion detachment, as far as I know.

" and every army is OP in its own right."

Find it in the BA codex. I dare you.

Boniface wrote:
Don't the crons also get RR to 1s on RP?

That means an average necron gets a 4+ save another 4+ save and then another 1/6th chance of a 4+ save.

I could have my facts confused though, I don't have the codex

You're correct. Although technically you could say that it is a 1/3 of a chance for the further 4+ because anything 4 or more would be a successful rp save anyway.

I find it utterly impossible to fight Decurion as a Khorne daemonkin player with the current model selection I have: Lots of power armor that won't see combat.

 Da Stormlord wrote:
Why is everyone complaining? Decurions are the necrons special thing, and every army is OP in its own right. Grey knights have Paladins, dreadlnights and psychic, tau have overwhelming firepower, eldar are fast....

Wat. Is this another one of those "40k is actually balanced guys!! You just aren't elite enough to see it!!" Posts?

Because dark angels, blood angels, orks, CSM, AM, and any core marine chapter not using centurions would like you to point out their "OP in their own right" bits.

 Da Stormlord wrote:
Why is everyone complaining? Decurions are the necrons special thing, and every army is OP in its own right. Grey knights have Paladins, dreadlnights and psychic, tau have overwhelming firepower, eldar are fast....

No, every army is not OP in its own right, especially not across the codex. GK paladins aren't scary at all anymore, there's no wound allocation gimmicks they can play anymore, and firepower levels have increased such that they're much easier to remove than before. Necrons can match Eldar for speed with their own Jetbikes and more commonly available and more capable Flyers and Beast units.

And to everyone thinking the previous codex was balanced.... You're wrong. Most of the elites were nearly unusable and roughly 2/3 of everything else was useless, like tomb blades and lychguard. In a straight fight against terminators, my lychguard lost in the old dex and they're double the price of them. WTF!!!!!!

nobody thought the previous codex was well balanced. It had tons of unusable junk and a clutch of painfully overcapable units/wargear. This codex solved those issues by making absurdly powerful army-side special rules and formations that enhance them further.

 Vaktathi wrote:
nobody thought the previous codex was well balanced. It had tons of unusable junk and a clutch of painfully overcapable units/wargear. This codex solved those issues by making absurdly powerful army-side special rules and formations that enhance them further.

Actually, I'd say the codex solved the problem by nerfing all the "clutch" units, and buffing the previously bad units.

My guess is the 4+ Decurion RP was offered, because the game designers wanted Necrons to play more like The Terminator. The formations seem like more of a marketting ploy than anything else, and the new Daemonkin codex shows that this strategy is not peculiar to Necrons.

The only headscratcher for me in the whole codex really is Wraith Toughness. That may very well have been an FU to the IoM from a Necron-enthusiast game designer, or some such.

 krodarklorr wrote:

Whiskey144 wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:
2++ rerollable saves from Tzeentch Daemons, and a 2++ save on Draigo (4 wounds and EW) with a psychic power.

I was thinking more "things which come stock as 2++". WRT to Draigo's 2++, the easy way to fix that is to make the Sanctuary power cap at a 3++; still the same "+1 to invuln" effect, but it doesn't improve past a 3++. This prevents it from being stacked up on GKTs/Paladins, as well as preventing Draigo from getting a 2++.

After that, just remove/reword things that allow failed saves to be re-rolled to not apply to invulnerable saves; armor and cover can both be ignored, but invulns can't unless you roll a 6 on Str weapons.

I agree with changing Sanctuary, though a new ruleset is awhile away, and thus won't happen for a long time. And they should just change Invulns to cap at at 3++ in general. That would fix things.

Well, I have to ask then:

How is a 2++ innately broken? I don't really see it- particularly things like Armor Indomitus, where you can only use it on one turn of the game, or the Shadowfield where it's "destroyed" if you fail a save (nevermind that Archons are T3 and are probably going to be dead anyways if they fail the save).

I just don't see how something like the two items I specifically mentioned is even close to broken; Shadowfields are bit of high risk high reward- if you fail the save, you lose the Shadowfield. The Armor Indomitus has that 2++ as a "once per game" type of effect, so you'd hold it until a "clutch" moment against something that can just punch straight through your usual 2+ armor that the Armor Indomitus confers.