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.

I think when assault armies get tremorstave spammed and shooting armies get Stormlorded then Necrons will be a bit more respected

I didn't read any of that nor do i play necron but at least you guys got a new dex. I'm sure if you take what you have and think optimistically there will be some pretty good lists created. Just look at the tau. Damn old dex and some people are able to work wonders with finely tuned lists.

They don't even need to be Stormlorded. I played a game yesterday wielding two Solar Pulses, and that alone is enough to seriously aggravate any army based on shooting. The Stormlord just brings the lightning strikes and 4+ seize the initiative...which are pretty awesome tbh.

StormStrikr wrote:....the new necron codex is good, or even OP. I can assure you this is FAR from the case and that the new codex is GARBAGE from a competitive standpoint. Im not talking about fluff here, Im not talking about friendly games. Sure, its fine for basic hobbystore play. Im talking about straight up tourniment style competitive...

Ok, and here's the fatal flaw. In the first paragraph.

If a codex is good for 'basic hobbystore play', then IT IS GOOD. Because that's the sort of play that involves 99% of games and gamers. Basic hobbystore play IS the game. GW do not care about competitive play.

Now, if you want to play competitively, then that's aboslutely fine. Nothing wrong with that. I enjoy tournaments, too. But suggesting that a Codex is garbage just because it doesn't work for our tiny minority of 'tournament gamers' doesn't make any sense...

Arandmoor wrote:

Ghost Arks:[...] Also, you seem to be under the impression they can only transport warriors, which is incorrect. They can transport anything a 10-seat transport can take. They can only be *taken* by warrior squads, and they can only *repair* warriors. You could shove immortals into them if you wanted after the game had started (don't know why you would want to. If you're taking them for their transport capacity you're taking them for the wrong reason.

Actually you can't put immortals in them, their rules list what they can transport and it is basically warriors and anything that might attach to them.

You can however take them with larger squads, so you could take a 20 warrior squad and its Ark for the repairs.

dbsamurai wrote:Love how this started turning into a hate GW thread lol
I have to agree, the OP made excellent points. But on an individual basis no army is going to succeed. There's a great dude (who ironically plays nilla marines) and he basically said "don't sweat the big stuff, sweat the little guys", his rationale being that the big unit, the one dude, that scary deathstar, rarely wins this game that revolves around objectives. Instead it's the massive amounts of other troops and units working together. As a tau player I know from experience that you can't win just because you take Dante, or Asteroth, or Shrike. You can make things scarier yea, but you won't win just by taking one unit. That's the same mentality that must be said when analyzing a new codex. It's quite clearly built around the concept of synergy, so that no longer can the same tactics and mentality be used. And in truth that's what upsets so many people. They do hate change. But it's not the kind of change that's gradual, they hate it because they have to learn to play essentially an entirely new army. The old units that you could fall back on aren't the same, they don't work the same, and while yes you do have to go out and buy new models (damn you GW), at the same time you have to THINK again. I don't mean that in a derogatory sense (after all I'm still in 4th edition as far as my tau are concerned) I just mean that I can see why people are upset. They feel like it isn't their army anymore, they basically have to relearn it and relearn the new strategies as opposed to what they could whip up in a list in a few minutes.

Absolutely. And people who've spent hundreds of hours, and in many cases thousands of dollars, on various GW armies (and in my case it's EIGHT such armies (seven 40K, one WHFB), SIX of which have now IMO been expropriated by GW and replaced with impostors I didn't select, don't recognize, don't like and won't play) have every right to be bent about it and make their opinions known, as you'll agree. They're now stuck with (a) finding other players who also think the current codices/rule book suck and want to keep playing the older versions (few and far between), (b) making another huge investment in units (that btw may well suffer the same fate in the next codex/rule book revision), or (c) going to Warmachine or some other game. I find that unsatisfactory.

And as for the whole "synergy" concept, first of all people who prefer "synergy" could play Eldar or some other army that already relied on it. Every non-SM army should NOT be a "synergy" army. Second, synergy is fine until the one key unit that has to "synergize" is taken out. Then you have a collection of units that don't function by themselves. Robust armies with robust units have been degraded into fragile combo-armies that can only work by a "synergy" that is weak and unreliable. Those players who don't like "synergy" thus get GW's message, and that's, "Sod off."

dbsamurai wrote:While yes that sucks, you can't just go about dissecting a codex on a point by unit by unit basis and say it sucks, because the only army that can actually go unit by unit to determine its worth is a space marine army. Every other one (I'm lumping all those SM knockoffs like my blood angels into the SM category) you have to look at how the units interact. Try playing a tau army without some crisis suits, or without markerlights. Yea you HAVE to take them basically, but they come from DIFFERENT UNITS. the SYNERGY part. if you just look at in on paper, or on a unit by unit basis, the Tau codex sucks because EVERY UNIT SUCKS ON ITS OWN. Firewarriors have nothing besides a devilfish transport, and as far as guns THEY'RE ALL THE SAME. Crisis suits can't do jack for melee combat, and they can't score, they're just big jumpy ogryns. Hammerheads are SOOOOOO EXPENSIVE for what they do, and Broadsides are even worse! pathfinders are the dumbest bs ever, like taking a squad of devestators, EXCEPT THEIR HEAVY WEAPONS DON'T BLOW ANYTHING UP oh and they're even MORE expensive than firewarriors. But you look at how that all fits together, you look at how the units fit together, suddenly having a squad with heavy weapons that don't destroy anything is useful, cause you can buff those broadsides to BS 5, or you can take off the cover save on that unit your hammerhead is shooting its dinky ass large blast at. suddenly crisis suits are usefull, because they can provide fire support for your troops, and your troops can lay down the rapid fire weapons to keep your suits from getting eaten by death company. It's how the units work TOGETHER that matters, so while I (knowing nothing about the new necron dex) believe you are totally right OP and that dex is horrible and I never want to play necrons ever!!! I also know that you're probably wrong. You didn't look at how they work together, you didn't demonstrate a list that would show them working, you didn't bother to really consider the options (while yes there were a lot, and you did write a TON I'm just saying). The newer dexes mean newer tactics, and as GW releases new Non SM material, theres gonna be a lot of meshing, as opposed to older editions where you could just build one great deathstar unit and win.

tl;dr op has a good point but he fails to consider that newer non SM codexes rely on combined arms like a real army rather than one or two big units

To all those who think the new Necron codex is all that, I ask you: Assuming you actually played Necrons with the old codex, and you wanted a new codex, did you want an improved codex that corrected the problems of the old codex, improved your existing units, added some new options, and evolved the existing background? Or did you really want a “balanced” codex that scrapped the old codex, degraded your existing units, added a lot of (expensive) new options that supposedly compensated for the degradation, and trashed the existing background? Were you-- seriously--selfless, compassionate players who were so concerned about not having that OP, I-win unit that your poor overmatched opponents just couldn’t deal with that you’re actually happy you don’t have one now, and the one you used to have has been significantly degraded? Are you doing so now because you think you look cool and with-it by cheerleading for GW?

I say yes to the first question, and excuse me if I don’t believe there were many of you out there who can honestly say yes to the second and third questions. And you yourselves only know what the answer to question four is.

Whine, whine, whine. You have no idea what you're talking about.

LordOfTheSloths wrote:
Assuming you actually played Necrons with the old codex,

Yes I did.

LordOfTheSloths wrote:
and you wanted a new codex,

Yes. Very much so.

LordOfTheSloths wrote:
did you want an improved codex that corrected the problems of the old codex, improved your existing units, added some new options, and evolved the existing background?

Yes. Though primarily the background. Old background was horri-bad. It ret-conned the existing 40K universe in all the wrong ways (C'Tan did it!) and wasn't at all suitable to any sort of hobby-customization, campaign-play or army-personalization. Gotta love the new direction they took. One of the best things GW ever did.

LordOfTheSloths wrote:
Or did you really want a “balanced” codex that scrapped the old codex, degraded your existing units, added a lot of (expensive) new options that supposedly compensated for the degradation, and trashed the existing background?

I wouldn't have formulated it that way, but I certainly wanted to have new "toys" to play with. Shocking as it may be to you, that's why I am in the hobby (even after 20 years): to rip the box open, assemble new models and awe my playing group with the newest shiny.

LordOfTheSloths wrote:
Were you-- seriously--selfless, compassionate players who were so concerned about not having that OP, I-win unit that your poor overmatched opponents just couldn’t deal with that you’re actually happy you don’t have one now, and the one you used to have has been significantly degraded? Are you doing so now because you think you look cool and with-it by cheerleading for GW?

Not sure what the hell your question is, but I don't care that much about having "that OP, I-win unit". I like stuff that looks cool though. Shame on me I guess.

LordOfTheSloths wrote:
I say yes to the first question, and excuse me if I don’t believe there were many of you out there who can honestly say yes to the second and third questions. And you yourselves only know what the answer to question four is.

So yes to all your question (I think). Still cannot truly figure out the last question of yours about "seriously-selfless, compassionate player" (whatever that is).

iproxtaco wrote:I'm not seeing the word 'still' even used in my post, or anything remotely synonymous to it, therefore you're lovely italics are meaningless.

It's there by implication. Saying a unit (here, destroyers) is useful "in certain combos" implies that it's still good for something, since it's no longer good in other combos or by itself. Nice try.

iproxtaco wrote:

Once again, instead of evolving and improving an existing army concept that many veteran players and long-time customers have worked with and liked, GW has just junked it and replaced it with a ridiculous fluff retcon and a massively and unnecessarily altered concept.

The change isn't huge, read the codex for more.

Turning C'Tan into scraps, turning relentless mechanical hordes into just another faction-ridden race, dumbing down the entire pre-history of the galaxy, turning ultra-advanced technology on its head: yeah, it is a huge change.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Zweischneid wrote:

LordOfTheSloths wrote:
did you want an improved codex that corrected the problems of the old codex, improved your existing units, added some new options, and evolved the existing background?

Yes. Though primarily the background. Old background was horri-bad. It ret-conned the existing 40K universe in all the wrong ways (C'Tan did it!) and wasn't at all suitable to any sort of hobby-customization, campaign-play or army-personalization. Gotta love the new direction they took. One of the best things GW ever did.

OK, you like the new background. Apparently many others do too. I respect your opinion on that point, though I don't share it. BUT . . .

Zweischneid wrote:

LordOfTheSloths wrote:
Or did you really want a “balanced” codex that scrapped the old codex, degraded your existing units, added a lot of (expensive) new options that supposedly compensated for the degradation, and trashed the existing background?

I wouldn't have formulated it that way, but I certainly wanted to have new "toys" to play with. Shocking as it may be to you, that's why I am in the hobby (even after 20 years): to rip the box open, assemble new models and awe my playing group with the newest shiny.

You can get your new toys in many ways. Specifically, by means of the previous scenario of evolution and improvement, together with some new units. Rather than the course imposed.

Zweischneid wrote:

LordOfTheSloths wrote:
Were you-- seriously--selfless, compassionate players who were so concerned about not having that OP, I-win unit that your poor overmatched opponents just couldn’t deal with that you’re actually happy you don’t have one now, and the one you used to have has been significantly degraded? Are you doing so now because you think you look cool and with-it by cheerleading for GW?

Not sure what the hell your question is, but I don't care that much about having "that OP, I-win unit". I like stuff that looks cool though. Shame on me I guess.

The "seriously" is there for emphasis only. And there are two questions there. The second one doesn't ask about whether the new stuff looks cool, but whether the pro-new codex people just want to look cool by praising GW's design decisions.

I axctually like the Factions within the Crons now, AKA, the dynasties. I didn't choose Necrons, one because I didn't want to build such a large and imposing model as the Monolith, or have to paint all my models monchrome.

Seriously, with the old codex, you see one Necron armies and you have seen them all. the all had the same things. A C'tan, a Des/Res Orb Lord, and whole bunch of Warriors, destroyers and Immotals,. with a Monolith or 2, all the same silver, with a little green. Now, you can paint them purple and rainbow with pink rods on the weapons, and call them the Dynasty of fluffy bunny lovers.

IMO the new Codex is an improvement in every way. More selection, and a lot more viable army builds. Having to choose between Wraith wing or the more reliable Destroyer wing in order to be competitive? Boring, dull and in no way good game design. Now we have something no other army has, a ridiculous ability to pull dick moves on the enemy. Manipulate night fighting, manipulate the terrain, eat the armour off everything, mess with deep strike, ruin charging units with lightning.... The list is far more expansive than it was before.

As for the fluff, they may have retconned out the pre-history (though not to too bad an extent. Chaos was still "born" by the war in heaven, the Eldar still hate the Necrons, Necrons still wiped out the Old Ones, etc etc) but that same pre-history had been retconned. And with a poor, poor replacement. Every piece of mystery or intrigue was suddenly replaced by "The C'tan did it". That's just bad writing. This new fluff is imo the best fluff rewrite GW has ever done.

LordOfTheSloths wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:I'm not seeing the word 'still' even used in my post, or anything remotely synonymous to it, therefore you're lovely italics are meaningless.

It's there by implication. Saying a unit (here, destroyers) is useful "in certain combos" implies that it's still good for something, since it's no longer good in other combos or by itself. Nice try.

No, it's not. I'm not implying it at all, you're trying to put that on me. But hell, I'll dance to your tune for a bit. The Destroyers still have a place in the codex, a big one whether you want to admit it or not.

iproxtaco wrote:

Once again, instead of evolving and improving an existing army concept that many veteran players and long-time customers have worked with and liked, GW has just junked it and replaced it with a ridiculous fluff retcon and a massively and unnecessarily altered concept.

The change isn't huge, read the codex for more.

Turning C'Tan into scraps, turning relentless mechanical hordes into just another faction-ridden race, dumbing down the entire pre-history of the galaxy, turning ultra-advanced technology on its head: yeah, it is a huge change

.
Only one of those is valid, the one I said.

Deadshot wrote:I axctually like the Factions within the Crons now, AKA, the dynasties. I didn't choose Necrons, one because I didn't want to build such a large and imposing model as the Monolith, or have to paint all my models monchrome.

Seriously, with the old codex, you see one Necron armies and you have seen them all. the all had the same things. A C'tan, a Des/Res Orb Lord, and whole bunch of Warriors, destroyers and Immotals,. with a Monolith or 2, all the same silver, with a little green. Now, you can paint them purple and rainbow with pink rods on the weapons, and call them the Dynasty of fluffy bunny lovers.

You must have missed the painting section of the old codex, which includes more color schemes than just monochrome silver IIRC. As for army list uniformity, well, I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I made it a point NOT to run C'tan/DesRes Lord/warriors+destroyers+immortals. My favorite Necron list, and one which I actually won games with, featured a Necron Lord with Nightmare Shroud (and other eq), Pariahs (yes, Pariahs!) and Flayed Ones, with Warriors, Immortals and other units, of course. I called it "Scary Necrons." So really, if all you saw was monochrome silver and one build, it's probably because those players just took their lists from the web and didn't want to paint them any differently.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dytalus wrote:IMO the new Codex is an improvement in every way. More selection, and a lot more viable army builds. Having to choose between Wraith wing or the more reliable Destroyer wing in order to be competitive? Boring, dull and in no way good game design.

I agree that the old codex needed replacing. My problem is with what has replaced it.

Dytalus wrote:Now we have something no other army has, a ridiculous ability to pull dick moves on the enemy. Manipulate night fighting, manipulate the terrain, eat the armour off everything, mess with deep strike, ruin charging units with lightning.... The list is far more expansive than it was before.

I agree, it is more expansive.

Dytalus wrote:As for the fluff, they may have retconned out the pre-history (though not to too bad an extent. Chaos was still "born" by the war in heaven, the Eldar still hate the Necrons, Necrons still wiped out the Old Ones, etc etc) but that same pre-history had been retconned. And with a poor, poor replacement. Every piece of mystery or intrigue was suddenly replaced by "The C'tan did it". That's just bad writing. This new fluff is imo the best fluff rewrite GW has ever done.

Well, I can't argue with fluff preference.

LordOfTheSloths wrote:

Deadshot wrote:I axctually like the Factions within the Crons now, AKA, the dynasties. I didn't choose Necrons, one because I didn't want to build such a large and imposing model as the Monolith, or have to paint all my models monchrome.

Seriously, with the old codex, you see one Necron armies and you have seen them all. the all had the same things. A C'tan, a Des/Res Orb Lord, and whole bunch of Warriors, destroyers and Immotals,. with a Monolith or 2, all the same silver, with a little green. Now, you can paint them purple and rainbow with pink rods on the weapons, and call them the Dynasty of fluffy bunny lovers.

You must have missed the painting section of the old codex, which includes more color schemes than just monochrome silver IIRC. As for army list uniformity, well, I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I made it a point NOT to run C'tan/DesRes Lord/warriors+destroyers+immortals. My favorite Necron list, and one which I actually won games with, featured a Necron Lord with Nightmare Shroud (and other eq), Pariahs (yes, Pariahs!) and Flayed Ones, with Warriors, Immortals and other units, of course. I called it "Scary Necrons." So really, if all you saw was monochrome silver and one build, it's probably because those players just took their lists from the web and didn't want to paint them any differently.


[

Its not that you HAD to paint them metallic, it was that if you brought along Necrons of any colour to a game where I play, the first question you were asked was "What the Hell are those abominations!?"

Deadshot wrote:

LordOfTheSloths wrote:

Deadshot wrote:I axctually like the Factions within the Crons now, AKA, the dynasties. I didn't choose Necrons, one because I didn't want to build such a large and imposing model as the Monolith, or have to paint all my models monchrome.

Seriously, with the old codex, you see one Necron armies and you have seen them all. the all had the same things. A C'tan, a Des/Res Orb Lord, and whole bunch of Warriors, destroyers and Immotals,. with a Monolith or 2, all the same silver, with a little green. Now, you can paint them purple and rainbow with pink rods on the weapons, and call them the Dynasty of fluffy bunny lovers.

You must have missed the painting section of the old codex, which includes more color schemes than just monochrome silver IIRC. As for army list uniformity, well, I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I made it a point NOT to run C'tan/DesRes Lord/warriors+destroyers+immortals. My favorite Necron list, and one which I actually won games with, featured a Necron Lord with Nightmare Shroud (and other eq), Pariahs (yes, Pariahs!) and Flayed Ones, with Warriors, Immortals and other units, of course. I called it "Scary Necrons." So really, if all you saw was monochrome silver and one build, it's probably because those players just took their lists from the web and didn't want to paint them any differently.


[

Its not that you HAD to paint them metallic, it was that if you brought along Necrons of any colour to a game where I play, the first question you were asked was "What the Hell are those abominations!?"

Wow, tough crowd

I actually saw non-silver Necrons selling on E-Bay some time back.

BrainDeleted wrote:Just to note, I don't think it's exactly fair or worthwhile to access a unit based on its points and weapons compared to what other codices' have, especially when cherry picking...It's better to access it in terms of its synergy within its actual codex.

I guess i dont see how "average+average+average < great+great+great" is anything different from average<great?>

If you like them, play them. If not, then don't. GW isn't holding a gun to us or anything...

Is the stupid stuff fixed? Monolith rules updated and phase out gone, so yes.

Can you realistically use more than 3-4 units in an army now? Yes.

Is the new dex better than the old one? Yes.

Is it still auto loose in most tourney games?No.

Horde can beat Necrons if they don't take too much Tesla weapons. MEQs can beat them as long as they take lots of Gauss, as guass now does nothing special to T units. Mech can win provided they don't take Entropic Touch or Gauss.

Deadshot wrote:Horde can beat Necrons if they don't take too much Tesla weapons. MEQs can beat them as long as they take lots of Gauss, as guass now does nothing special to T units. Mech can win provided they don't take Entropic Touch or Gauss.

So...Enthropic + Tesla beats everthing?

Deadshot wrote:Horde can beat Necrons if they don't take too much Tesla weapons. MEQs can beat them as long as they take lots of Gauss, as guass now does nothing special to T units. Mech can win provided they don't take Entropic Touch or Gauss.

That can really be said about most armies though... I mean GK's have a headache vs mech, hoards can overwhelm them, etc.

Every army can be beaten if you arm it correctly. Daemions can beat GK depending on what units and wargear each side take.


And no, Entropic+ Tesla does not beat everry thing.


Tesla=Dead Horde
Entropic=Dead MEQ and weaker Mech
Gauss=Dead Light Mech

Tesla+Entropic=Mixed List= Gambling for all, but serve weakness. Mixed Nids would eat(?) them alive(?). They wouldn't have the Entropic Strike to tackle all the MC, and if they did, the Hordes overun them. All Tesla for Anti Horde would mean that the MCs can smash through.

I cannot be bothered to read posts from people who have not played Necrons. As an army they work very well, I know because I've actually been playing the book. Not just reading it and hating it all because *GASP!* it's not another Space Marine book.

You could have simplified that whole rant into one sentence that would have conveyed exactly the same thing (and is probably the reason you posted in the first place).

"Necrons are not Grey Knights, therefore they suck"

You could have just posted that.

What?! Not another SM book? Waht convoluted, dirt mouth blasphemy is this?!


Seriously, I know that. They are not SM, they are meant to kill SM.

Listen, the fact isd this. Either play old 'dex and play with your underpowered, non tournement legal army, or enjoy this one. You could do a different army, or stop plasying altogether. Doesn't matter to me, but the latter 2, you would lose out, and I would rather not see that happen. So if you plan to go to competition, then get over it. If not, then enjoy the old codex or the new one.

The First few post's of this thread were very well done first of all. Very persuasive to each side. As I was reading "Yeah they did kinda get bashed" then "Wow I never thought of that, hell yeah!"

Anyway, I have been playing Necrons for one and a half years or so years now. I really liked simplicity. The Necrons had it. Just very basic troop choice, elites, only one vehicle, etc... But as I played, I realized how limited they were and how it would be nice if I could field something different. Picking up this new Codex, I was overwhelmed! So many choices and builds now. This update has some potential I am realizing. I really enjoying it thoroughly and look foreward to building some new models (that is, once I finally finish the current ones...)

Well I guess Tau must be OP then considring how many times I've seen them whoop GK butt.

Get over it, just because it's not a SM/GK army does not make it trash. Hell, against mech armies, I've been having a blast!

 Razorspirit wrote:
The First few post's of this thread were very well done first of all. Very persuasive to each side. As I was reading "Yeah they did kinda get bashed" then "Wow I never thought of that, hell yeah!"

Anyway, I have been playing Necrons for one and a half years or so years now. I really liked simplicity. The Necrons had it. Just very basic troop choice, elites, only one vehicle, etc... But as I played, I realized how limited they were and how it would be nice if I could field something different. Picking up this new Codex, I was overwhelmed! So many choices and builds now. This update has some potential I am realizing. I really enjoying it thoroughly and look foreward to building some new models (that is, once I finally finish the current ones...)

If your really competitive one of the best builds is flyer spam.

The posts in this were written a year ago so way before 6th edition which made fliers viable. Please don't post in such old threads.

Please don't bring up old threads from the depths of the older pages. If a comment you'd like to raise hasn't been brought up in such a thread, by all means consider starting a new thread discussion. However in general if the last post is over a month old leave it where it is.

Locking thread.