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.

So im still relatively new to warhammer ive played a total of maybe 8 games and most of them have been 2 players vs 1 (me). Now im not all too worried about winning, im still having fun, if i wasnt i wouldnt of bought another $1000+ of guys lol. But anyway, ive lost every game, and im still learning and i know i wont always win and that im fallible, but my question is; does playing 2 vs 1 make it that much tougher to play or is it just that im new? so far the games have been this (cant recall setup but i remember points roughly)

the few singles i dont remember points but it was dark eldar vs necron, and a few games of dark angels vs necron and both of them lost.

blood angels (1000) and tyranid (1000) vs necron (2000) necron lost
blood angels (1500) and tyranid (1500) vs necron (3000) necron lost

dark angels (500) and tyranid (500) vs necron (1000 pts) necron lost
dark angels (1500) and tyranid (1500) vs necron (3000 pts) necron lost

dark angels (750) and grey knights (750) vs tau (1500) tau lost
dark angels (1850) and grey knights (1850) vs tau (3700) tau lost


and like i said even tho i lost all of them i still love playing. I do admit i enjoy playing tau more then the necrons and whether it be me learning from my mistakes or just being lucky both the tau games i lost by no more than 100 points. The necrons i remember being almost all wiped out by the 5th turn but a unit or two down to a few guys or completely wiped by the 5th. So is it just an almost impossible task being different armies and me having to defend against so much? or just my lack of strategy and knowing the game?

It depends on the players honestly. I've had 2v1 games where I stomped them because their lists were so disjointed or weak(lack of high value units), and times where I've just not been able to cope with their synergy. I'm not sure what the balance is. :/

Are your opponents designing their lists to work together? I normally find that the 2 side of the 2 vs 1 are usually weaker unless the players are specifically tailoring their lists for the combo.

Either way I wouldn't worry overmuch about it. You will get better and better and the more they throw at you the faster you will learn.

yeah they are working together with their lists. They have played for years and have played way too many games to count. And each time their lists seems strong. I was and probably still am the "weak link" ive tried to be able to spread out my capabilities to match theirs but being both a decent ranged and melee at the same time is tough i think. But i tried anyway and that might of been why i lost, not sure.

And i wouldnt say their specifically tailored their army in the way of talking about it saying you get this guy i get this guy. I think its just they know perfectly how the other army works and can adjust theirs to compliment the others in a very seamless and smooth working machine. and like i said they have 30+ games each on me.

Hmm..
Maybe a stupid question, but why do the two veteran players team up against the 'newbie'?
Because when the teams are at least a bit matched in experience, the Necrons should have won against BA/Nid.

That is very strange that the vets are teaming up against the newb. Normally one vet will team up with the newb and help them out.

Additionally do not try to match 2 opponent lists. Overwhelm one completely and then deal with the other, ie divide and conquer.

Very strange indeed - but as long as you don't mind, carry on. Having fun is the point, after all. Plus it sounds like you'll pick up quite a lot as you're playing games on the larger side of the scale already.

One bit of advice I would give - for now, at least, until you're comfortable otherwise - is not to try and build an army that caters to what your opponents have been bringing. They might decide to change things up a bit and you'd also potentially weaken yourself against the second player. Instead, try to build what's known as a take-all-comers list (or TAC). This means having something that is effective against every conceivable type of unit you could face.

Now, in small to medium size point games, it's not always possible to cover *everything* but it's still good to have the option. You need to take enough Troops to reliably take objectives, and you need to cover the following enemy unit types:

GEQs - Hordes of light infantry
MEQs - middling numbers of decent infantry (3+ saves)
TEQs - elite, heavily armoured infantry (2+ saves)
Monstrous Creatures
Light vehicles
Heavy vehicles
Flyers
Units with decent cover saves

Luckily, as Necrons just about everything you have works well on all kinds of vehicles (Scarabs work best but if all else fails, glance them down with massed gauss fire) so don't worry too much there.

Are they using two Force Organisation Charts or just one? My group normally ends up playing 2v1 as we lost a player due to a new baby.

The two sort of follow the double tournament rules, where they have to take 1 HQ and one troop each, then have to split the remaining chart amongst both forces.

It's a bit crappy if they have 4 HQ and 6 Heavy Support options firing at you. This does make it harder for the 2 players to pick lists, but we've seen some great combinations and it keeps the playing field a bit fairer

They are teaming up on my cause i have more points to use. Ive got about 6000 points in both tau and necron, the tyranid has 1500 barely, grey knights like 2100 and the dark angels like 1900. and as for the force organization chart it would be like 3-4 hq and 4-6 heavy choice, but that being the higher point games, the lower point ones i think i had more seeing that a hq and a heavy would take up a good portion of their points. And i did play a 1 on 1 with the dark angels player with my tau and im not sure if i actually won or was allowed to win, i "won" by like 60 points. Reason i say this is the last game i played prior to that one i mention that i had not won a game not in a sore looser way just that Ill win eventually . and their response was "no you won a...hmm guess you havent... no wait!... or yeah you havent." lol. But ill try again with necrons soon, now that i feel that i have a slightly better understanding of the army and the rules more.

What are the mission objectives in your games? O_o

Just kill points

 ruthlessgamer wrote:
Just kill points

The game isn't balanced around kill points. You might as well roll dice a few times to see who gets the highest number. Once you play the game as its balanced for (albeit poorly balanced in some cases) you'll see a difference.

Well, if you could give me your average Necron-list I could take a look at that.
Might try the 2k one since that is easier to evaluate.

I'll see if I can find old list and post it here in a few hours.

Yeah, I'd recommend playing a take and hold mission, or something even the vets aren't used to (like night fight by candlelight is great).

Strategically, if I were to recommend any type of gameplay to you in order to win, I'd recommend that you take ultimate target priority on a single player and completely wipe him out before even touching his ally. This done by a case by case basis, but generally with Necrons, your target priority is Assault Armies, Armor, Ranged Armies. So if you're playing DA and Tyranids, kill or at least break the Tyranids, then grind with the DA. It's likely going to be close every game because when players can make unlikely alliances they can field a much more diverse and capable army than you can.

I really recommend not playing kill points. It is horribly unbalancing and overall has very little tactics to it. Book missions or campaign missions are much more interesting and help to balance things out. Playing against 2 FOC with kill points is kinda crazy because they can just minimize objective holders and max out on killy stuff (which is usually located in HS or HQ).

couldnt find older lists but roughly this. and i know missions in rulebook but where campaigns?

hq
- traveller in catacomb barge
- infinite
-lords with mss and orb

troop
- 14 warrior with lord in night scythe
- 14 warrior with lord in night scythe
- 20 warrior

elite
- stalker w/ hgc
- stalker w/ hgc

fast attack
- 5 tomb blades w/ everything and beamer
- 5 tomb blades w/ everything and beamer

heavy
- monolith
- doomsday
- doomsday

Do you have any other models available? I can see a couple of tweaks that may help a bit.

Can you describe your general battle plan a bit?

1 destroyer lord, stormlord, zandrekh, obyron, ctan, traveller, infinate, fw tomb stalker
4 overlords, cryptek, heavy destroyers, spyders
10 deathmark, immortals,destroyers
9 wraith
30 scarabs
15 tomb blades
3 doomsday, fw acanthrites, ghost ark
2 annihilation barge, monolith, stalkers, night scythe, doomscythe
100 warriors

thats everything i can remember.

as for strategy use stalkers to mark units then have night scythe drop warriors in at 24inch away from melee and tl one turn then get in scythe next turn and fly away for next target. use tomb blades to mop up with beamer and use doomsday to take out heavies.and monolith for big target for enemy to shoot for ignoring doomsday.

Where does Trazyn go? With 20 warriors I assume?

With your list, Tarzan doesn't seem to fit. Other than being scoring, he is primarily CC focused, but from the sounds of it you tend not to cc very much. Zandrekh may be more useful for his buffs, patricularly counter attack and tank hunters.

The other thing is that by putting your warrior blobs in scythes, you lose the benefit of their shooting for at least one turn. Have you tried starting them on the table? If you put them on the table, with a bit of tweaking you could use the ghost ark for support and also squeeze in a couple of heavy destroyers for some extra firepower.

Alternatively, leave out the ghost ark and put in deathmarks? They would work well with the stalkers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Btw, why Anrakyr? He can't use the power from the barge and you aren't using immortals?

thought taz was the one that gave the bonuses and took away from the enemy. dont have the book with me so was trying to remember. and anrakyr for the mind of the machine, and i thought he could use the ability in the barge i ts a shooting attack. if not then yeah guess id have to change that. and guess i could swap out the 20 warriors for the 20 immortals(think i have 20 of them, id have to check later). id like to get like 30 more immortals but they a little pricey. and ghost ark i seem to fail miserably for the ability, i usually glance it to death by myself or end up getting a few necrons before its destroyed. but the deathmarks i like but i feel that their a little one use. once the target is marked and destroyed they are not as effective.

You can't have 20 immortals, my ref to immortals was because Anrakyr upgrades immortals to eternals for free,

Anyway, hth somewhat.

thx. and yeah ill try that next game.