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.

Well it feels like all the other armies are getting some type of big scary.

 Avidem wrote:
Well it feels like all the other armies are getting some type of big scary.

The Trans. Ctan is big and scary, not big as a model but it's rules are scary.

I did state a few pages back that a new lord was coming with book but nothing else. In fairness bar flayed ones and destroyer options the army is spot on.

Those asking for something big, necrons are gifted the transcendent c'tan and tesseract vault. If monoliths gain ceramite armour equivalent theyd be on the way to sorted. Army doesn't news new but some small tweaks would make it feel new (eg praetorians)

 wuestenfux wrote:

 Avidem wrote:
Well it feels like all the other armies are getting some type of big scary.

The Trans. Ctan is big and scary, not big as a model but it's rules are scary.

played a friendly game with my buddy and his Necrons. he brought his T-C'tan in his list.

1850 against my grey nights.

He was testing out his FLGS tournament list and I had never played against a C'tan before. I new it was going to be rough from the get go.

the hailstorm flame is the bomb and he was avg about 18 shots from his other attack.

Johnnytorrance wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

 Avidem wrote:
Well it feels like all the other armies are getting some type of big scary.

The Trans. Ctan is big and scary, not big as a model but it's rules are scary.

played a friendly game with my buddy and his Necrons. he brought his T-C'tan in his list.

1850 against my grey nights.

He was testing out his FLGS tournament list and I had never played against a C'tan before. I new it was going to be rough from the get go.

the hailstorm flame is the bomb and he was avg about 18 shots from his other attack.

Watch out when this guy dies.
Make sure this happens when he's among the enemy.

I don't particularly want new models, I want what we have to become useful. I feel that there are a lot of models in our book that are just on the cusp of being very good, and only need small changes (points, rules updates, slight wargear boosts) to be truly usable. Monoliths, Tomb Blades, Lychguard, Praetorians, Triarch Stalkers, and C'Tan Shards don't need really big, sweeping changes - their roles are clear and defined and they nearly do them perfectly. But they're just not quite there yet, so it'll be interesting to see if they change enough.

Requizen wrote:
I don't particularly want new models, I want what we have to become useful.

Well...hate to disappoint you but that's not how GW works. Regardless of how little tweaking the army actually needs, GW is going to make sure that there are enough sweeping changes in a codex update to force existing players to spend several hundreds of dollars buying new models to keep using what they already have.

 Kelly502 wrote:

Vash108 wrote:I would like to see a new MC of some sort. Big ol Necron stomping around

Avidem wrote:It would be nice to see something equal to a Tau Riptide or Eldar Wraithknight. I know we have the Tomb Stalker and Sentinal, but we are lacking in the monstrous creature department.

I remember the first appearance of the Monolith, it was a scary thing on the table. Something like what you guys mentioned would only seem right since everyone else has big scaries.

... or the Monolith could rebecome our big scary?
(highly unlikely)

In fact, the only thing in our army that does reliably increase shooting output is the Stalker, which is oftentimes a waste of points since our Destructors are Twin Linked anyway and the Stalker has a tendency to be targeted and die immediately in a lot of games.

 Sidstyler wrote:

Requizen wrote:
I don't particularly want new models, I want what we have to become useful.

Well...hate to disappoint you but that's not how GW works. Regardless of how little tweaking the army actually needs, GW is going to make sure that there are enough sweeping changes in a codex update to force existing players to spend several hundreds of dollars buying new models to keep using what they already have.

GW hasn't really been doing that with the latest releaes though. The balance has been so haphazard, that half the time the new models aren't even any good. For Every Wraithknight, we got a Hemlock Wraithfighter.

 skoffs wrote:

 Kelly502 wrote:

Vash108 wrote:I would like to see a new MC of some sort. Big ol Necron stomping around

Avidem wrote:It would be nice to see something equal to a Tau Riptide or Eldar Wraithknight. I know we have the Tomb Stalker and Sentinal, but we are lacking in the monstrous creature department.

I remember the first appearance of the Monolith, it was a scary thing on the table. Something like what you guys mentioned would only seem right since everyone else has big scaries.

... or the Monolith could rebecome our big scary?
(highly unlikely)

Why not?
The Monolith and Destroyers could become the new black.

 wuestenfux wrote:

 skoffs wrote:

 Kelly502 wrote:

Vash108 wrote:I would like to see a new MC of some sort. Big ol Necron stomping around

Avidem wrote:It would be nice to see something equal to a Tau Riptide or Eldar Wraithknight. I know we have the Tomb Stalker and Sentinal, but we are lacking in the monstrous creature department.

I remember the first appearance of the Monolith, it was a scary thing on the table. Something like what you guys mentioned would only seem right since everyone else has big scaries.

... or the Monolith could rebecome our big scary?
(highly unlikely)

Why not?
The Monolith and Destroyers could become the new black.

I honestly hope so. I have a lot of Destroyers, and all they have to do (in my book) is just decrease their cost to like, 25-30. 20 would make more sense, but for some reason they seem to overcost Reanimation Protocols super high.

I think it is more the Jump that they costed too high.
The Codex is from around the same time where Death Company paid 15 and Vanguard Veterans paid 10 points per jump pack.
Reduce Destroyers with 10 or 12 points and they'd be priced more fairly.

Kangodo wrote:
I think it is more the Jump that they costed too high.
The Codex is from around the same time where Death Company paid 15 and Vanguard Veterans paid 10 points per jump pack.
Reduce Destroyers with 10 or 12 points and they'd be priced more fairly.

Destroyers are largely overcosted.
I'd price them at 20 to 25 pts.

For T5 Jump Infantry with S5, AP3, Assault 2-shooting and Preferred Enemy?
28 a 30 points is where I'd rate them, they don't need to be an auto-include in every list.

I'd be satisfied with 30 ppm for Destroyers, with an additional 10 points for Heavy Gauss Cannon upgrade.
(though HGC might be given the "Heavy" weapon type in the new codex (come on, it makes sense), so there would need to be some way for Destroyers to gain relentless... an additional 10 point upgrade that gives them Slow And Purposeful and a 2+ save would be pretty useful AND fluffy. Throw in additional weapon options (Tesla Cannon for 0 points, Particle Beamer for 0 points, Heat Beamer (melta/flamer) for 5 points, Transdimensional Beamer for 10 points) and you'd have a really good unit, though not quite broken, that fits the fluff really well (Destroyers are upgrade junkies, so it would make more sense if they had a TON of upgrade options instead of... 2).)

How big is the Trans C'tan compared to the other two?

Relapse wrote:
How big is the Trans C'tan compared to the other two?

It looks like the other two are a bit taller models.
http://s868.photobucket.com/user/jy2cool/media/P1190089_zps4f7de50e.jpg.html

I feel with how hard armies like nids and orks were hit, with mid level power, that the upper level boos, which make no mistake necrons can compete at top levels, are going to be hit even harder. Honestly I feel its going to be heartbreak for a lot of people in this thread.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:

Kangodo wrote:
Yes, sometimes your 300 point model should refrain from going into CC with a specific unit.
That is what we call 'tactics', or do you charge your Riptides into a unit of Death Company?

Is a Riptide designed exclusively for melee combat and completely useless and not making its points back every round that it isn't in melee combat?

And for the record, I lick my lips hourly waiting for the day that Wraiths get crapped on in the new codex. Everything else in the codex could stay the same and I'd still be happy if Wraiths were nerfed.

Because Wraiths need a nerf? Wraiths are fine as is.

No.

Toughness 4, 2 wounds with a 3+/3++ save and 3 WS4 strength 6 rending attacks base, on top of a fearless 12'' moving chassis that also ignores terrain/intervening models... and all costing 5ppm points less then naked terminators, is not "fine".

You also have to take into account what an army has to back units up. Marines have tons to cheaply back up terminators.

"Oh well, I guess GW feels they've made enough money selling Necron models and have decided they don't want any more now, if the stuff in this book is any indication."
- Me, when I retire my army if the codex turns out the way we're fearing it will

Relapse wrote:

You also have to take into account what an army has to back units up. Marines have tons to cheaply back up terminators.

Marines have more point efficient support options than the codex with Night Scythes and Annihilation Barges?

 Eldarain wrote:

Relapse wrote:

You also have to take into account what an army has to back units up. Marines have tons to cheaply back up terminators.

Marines have more point efficient support options than the codex with Night Scythes and Annihilation Barges?

They have a lot, actually, if you consider the fact that they can drop units right into a target area with no mishaps. That's just for openers.

 Eldarain wrote:
Marines have more point efficient support options than the codex with Night Scythes and Annihilation Barges?

I guess so, seeing as Marines are higher ranked than Necrons

 skoffs wrote:
I'd be satisfied with 30 ppm for Destroyers, with an additional 10 points for Heavy Gauss Cannon upgrade.
(though HGC might be given the "Heavy" weapon type in the new codex (come on, it makes sense), so there would need to be some way for Destroyers to gain relentless... an additional 10 point upgrade that gives them Slow And Purposeful and a 2+ save would be pretty useful AND fluffy. Throw in additional weapon options (Tesla Cannon for 0 points, Particle Beamer for 0 points, Heat Beamer (melta/flamer) for 5 points, Transdimensional Beamer for 10 points) and you'd have a really good unit, though not quite broken, that fits the fluff really well (Destroyers are upgrade junkies, so it would make more sense if they had a TON of upgrade options instead of... 2).)

That would require a new box, which could be cool too. Destroyers are one of the few units I could like with more options.
Relentless could be given by Phaeron in some way or the other, though I am still secretly hoping that they change this ability or make it worthwhile in another way.

I wonder if the Trans C'tan will be sold as an individual model.

 Vash108 wrote:

Relapse wrote:
How big is the Trans C'tan compared to the other two?

It looks like the other two are a bit taller models.
http://s868.photobucket.com/user/jy2cool/media/P1190089_zps4f7de50e.jpg.html

Do note that the Transcendent C'Tan is provided with (and usually utilized with) a flyer/hover base, so is normally a few inches taller.

 skoffs wrote:
"Oh well, I guess GW feels they've made enough money selling Necron models and have decided they don't want any more now, if the stuff in this book is any indication."
- Me, when I retire my army if the codex turns out the way we're fearing it will

I dunno, there's a few models that only need slight tweaks and then they'll be viable enough to be bought/used. Halve the prices on Lychguard/Praetorians and I'll make full squads of them. Ditto for Stalkers, I love the model and it'll only take a decent buff to make me buy another.

Requizen wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:

Relapse wrote:
How big is the Trans C'tan compared to the other two?

It looks like the other two are a bit taller models.
http://s868.photobucket.com/user/jy2cool/media/P1190089_zps4f7de50e.jpg.html

Do note that the Transcendent C'Tan is provided with (and usually utilized with) a flyer/hover base, so is normally a few inches taller.

 skoffs wrote:
"Oh well, I guess GW feels they've made enough money selling Necron models and have decided they don't want any more now, if the stuff in this book is any indication."
- Me, when I retire my army if the codex turns out the way we're fearing it will

I dunno, there's a few models that only need slight tweaks and then they'll be viable enough to be bought/used. Halve the prices on Lychguard/Praetorians and I'll make full squads of them. Ditto for Stalkers, I love the model and it'll only take a decent buff to make me buy another.

You think like me in this regard.

When you say flying base, do you mean big oval one like the Scythes come one, 32mm like jump pack troops, or 50/60mm like Canopteck Spyders ?

 adamsouza wrote:
When you say flying base, do you mean big oval one like the Scythes come one, 32mm like jump pack troops, or 50/60mm like Canopteck Spyders ?

Oh, I guess Skimmer bases is better. Barge/Ark/Destroyer base.

Requizen wrote:

 adamsouza wrote:
When you say flying base, do you mean big oval one like the Scythes come one, 32mm like jump pack troops, or 50/60mm like Canopteck Spyders ?

Oh, I guess Skimmer bases is better. Barge/Ark/Destroyer base.

Thats a Tomb Blade/Jet Bike base right?