[40K] So what are the Tournament folks thoughts on the Necron Decurion Detachment?

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.

**Dozer Blades**

Banning them all because you don't like a couple isn't a solution. It's like the ostrich sticking its head in the sand.

**PanzerLeader**

So after reading the Codex and looking at the Decurion Detachment in-depth, I see no reason to panic. The Decurion detachment has so many taxes built in, any 1850 Decurion list will be more or less balanced with any other 2 source list you can field against it. No worries at all.

**Dozer Blades**

Yeah it's not overpowered by any means at all.

**Dude_I_Suck**

To make the reclamation legion, the primary formation of the detachment that you need at least one of, you have about 1/4 of your points in a normal GT point value if you give them no upgrades. The other formations that you can bring, if you want to maximize them to their fullest, are roughly and 1/4 to 1/2 of your total points, and honestly, not that scary. The wraith one might be a little scary, esp with them now T5, but take out the tomb spyder and it loses its benefit.

Honestly, the only thing I could see tournaments doing is not allowing the tessaract vault, like they do already.

**Crablezworth**

Dozer Blades wrote:
Banning them all because you don't like a couple isn't a solution.

It's a solution to me, hence me saying it.

**RobPro**

After reading the Decurion and the formations, I don't think there's anything especially gamebreaking. You pay quite a bit of points tax to get anything that's even a little useful.

**krootman.**

RobPro wrote:
After reading the Decurion and the formations, I don't think there's anything especially gamebreaking. You pay quite a bit of points tax to get anything that's even a little useful.

Exactly, plus you have zero objsec.. Honestly my first impression leads me to believe a necron cad, plus say one of these formations will be the way to go in a 2 source format.

**Hollismason**

yeah but are they going to allow it, it's kind of strange as BAO allows two source, but what does that mean in terms of the Decurion which is a Special Detachment that has multiple formations.

**Therion**

Hollismason wrote:
yeah but are they going to allow it, it's kind of strange as BAO allows two source, but what does that mean in terms of the Decurion which is a Special Detachment that has multiple formations.

I think the Decurion formation says that as a whole it's a detachment, and if your warlord is from within then it's your primary detachment. So the whole Decurion is one detachment, and one source, even if it had 100 formations within. And I can't see how that's a problem.

**easysauce**

I played against two decurion detachments at LVO,

all I can say is, as far as killy ness, they are very powerfull,

as far as durability... holy frick.... out of two games, against 36 ish wraiths with spiders... .I killed maybe 6?

the only saving grace was no ob sec so plahying to the mission over tabling is the way to go....

It did feel very OP with 4+ RP's and rerolling 1's on pretty much every thing.

I feel like if there wasnt maelstorm modified objectives that this kind of "tabling only' army would be extremly OP, but with the mission objectives actually matttering, the loss of OB sec almost balances it out.

almost lol....

still very simple to use for very good effect.

that you get many formations in a single detachment is....

let just say its icing on a cake that already had icing....

**Deep Male Voice**

If they are keeping their entire army within 12" of their warlord that is a pretty crazy approach to a game...

**Therion**

Deep Male Voice wrote:
If they are keeping their entire army within 12" of their warlord that is a pretty crazy approach to a game...

And if you look at the current meta it's questionable if the Decurions can deal with Flyrants, Daemons, and other armies that clearly just play the mission. Air seems to be a bit of a weakness. CAD Necrons can fix it by allying.

**Johnnytorrance**

why bring that detatchment when you can bring:

120 Warriors, 6x20
1 overlord
1 triach stalker

1850 OBJ Secured

**schadenfreude**

The taxes are huge, but they are useful units.

Trading obsec for improved rp is a tough call. I think the rp is better unless the necron player is spamming troops.

The main counter play I see against it is to go 2nd in an LVO tournament setting. Decurion tends to have less shooting than regular cons and us unlikely to draw 1st blood. Play maelstrom and play objectives.

**Therion**

schadenfreude wrote:
The taxes are huge, but they are useful units.

Trading obsec for improved rp is a tough call. I think the rp is better unless the necron player is spamming troops.

The main counter play I see against it is to go 2nd in an LVO tournament setting. Decurion tends to have less shooting than regular cons and us unlikely to draw 1st blood. Play maelstrom and play objectives.

I agree.

The units that are being labeled 'the tax', meaning the 20 Warriors and 5 Immortals, actually have a 4+ RP and re-roll 1's. They can be given Night Scythes or Ghost Arks, and those 'tax' transports have an improved Living Metal rule (ignore stuns and shakes and of course regenerate lost hull points on a 6). I probably wouldn't use 20 Warriors if they weren't mandatory, but 260 points for 20 LD10 wounds that are ridiculously hard to kill can't be useless.

The Tomb Blades at 22 points per model are T5 jetbikes with 3+ saves, 4+ RP's rerolling 1's, and rapid firing twin-linked S5 AP4 guns that ignore cover and always wound/glance on 6's to wound/pen. That has to be the best deal in the game. There's a lot of units in the Necron Codex (and even more so Decurion) that simply has to be the best deal in the game.

Now it's up to the players to find a good combination of all the units and win some tournaments with them, whether with allies or without, but the codex certainly is strong enough. Personally, I'd say all the whine about Wave Serpents should just stop, as there's a lot more frustrating units in the Necron codex.

**Deep Male Voice**

Therion wrote:
Deep Male Voice wrote:
If they are keeping their entire army within 12" of their warlord that is a pretty crazy approach to a game...

And if you look at the current meta it's questionable if the Decurions can deal with Flyrants, Daemons, and other armies that clearly just play the mission. Air seems to be a bit of a weakness. CAD Necrons can fix it by allying.

I don't think you will have tons of issues even with the Detachment because of your options in the detachement itself. The fact you can take the destroyer cult with t5 models with a 4+ FNP, Preferred Enemy and reroll wound/pen on a str 5/ap3 weapon that auto wounds on a 6 for the high tough creatures isnt a bad thing at all

**Warmonger2757**

Therion wrote:
Deep Male Voice wrote:
If they are keeping their entire army within 12" of their warlord that is a pretty crazy approach to a game...

And if you look at the current meta it's questionable if the Decurions can deal with Flyrants, Daemons, and other armies that clearly just play the mission. Air seems to be a bit of a weakness. CAD Necrons can fix it by allying.

The Decurion beats those flying formations by killing all the ground troops and forcing the flyers to land to take objectives. Once they are on the ground, they aren't hard to kill.

**easysauce**

Deep Male Voice wrote:
If they are keeping their entire army within 12" of their warlord that is a pretty crazy approach to a game...

12" radius, is 24" diameter circle,

6 wraiths only need one model within that 12", and can themselves space out apprx 12"

so thats about 48" of table you can cover with one guy for the buffs, and that is *just* laterally, front and back should factor into it as well.

it certainly does mean they might have to make concessions (like playing to table vs playing objectives) but you will generally have all your necron buffs on 90% of your army.

I beat this detachment twice, simply by getting objectives with obsec, and not being tabled by turn 5 or six or whatever. if it was KP's id have lost both as I had very little on the table at the end. I will admit to being very scared of this list though, it was more that I had 14+ units to kill holding objectives, vs his 3 units that while durable, still take a turn or two to chew through tac squads.

its a really mean list for durability, but as others have said, it lacks OB sec which is IMO the most important thing in games where objectives matter,

not sure where the lack of anti flyer comes from though, you can ignore flyers as they wont score, if they do score, they are vulnerable.

I really think/hope that this list encourages some of the less used tactics like hordes/tarpits to come out of the wood work a bit.

**Deep Male Voice**

I honestly think the wraith formation is going to be a quick dying fad. Once people realize that they cant bump up the spyder unit size and losing the spyder quickly will make the formation a waste. I look forward to testing out my theory crafting with this formation, it should be interesting to see how it will hold up against the way serp spam lists and knight titans which are the current "standard" meta near me

**buddha**

easysauce wrote:
Deep Male Voice wrote:
If they are keeping their entire army within 12" of their warlord that is a pretty crazy approach to a game...

12" radius, is 24" diameter circle,

6 wraiths only need one model within that 12", and can themselves space out apprx 12"

so thats about 48" of table you can cover with one guy for the buffs, and that is *just* laterally, front and back should factor into it as well.

it certainly does mean they might have to make concessions (like playing to table vs playing objectives) but you will generally have all your necron buffs on 90% of your army.

I beat this detachment twice, simply by getting objectives with obsec, and not being tabled by turn 5 or six or whatever. if it was KP's id have lost both as I had very little on the table at the end. I will admit to being very scared of this list though, it was more that I had 14+ units to kill holding objectives, vs his 3 units that while durable, still take a turn or two to chew through tac squads.

its a really mean list for durability, but as others have said, it lacks OB sec which is IMO the most important thing in games where objectives matter,

not sure where the lack of anti flyer comes from though, you can ignore flyers as they wont score, if they do score, they are vulnerable.

I really think/hope that this list encourages some of the less used tactics like hordes/tarpits to come out of the wood work a bit.

Just a note that the 're-rolls of one's from the overlord only applies to the reclamation legion so no worries on the wraiths receiving that benefit.

On topic it's a formation like any other with its strengths and taxes. I actually see decurion + CAD being popular for the two source tournaments.

**easysauce**

well decurion lets you smush in multiple detachments into one detachment (if im not mistaken, I had a little trouble wrapping my head around a necron opponend having the decurion detach, which contained two of the spider wraith detachments) so defiantly will be popular in comped tournies where they limit you to two.

you are correct, the rerolls do only apply to reclamation legion, I was told that the sub detachments were also a part of this though, not sure if there is a YMDC on this, but i find the whole idea poorly worded by GW.

my opponents didnt rerol ones on wraiths IIIRC they were both very good about explaining their codex rules to me. So i guess its not even as good as people think.

flash in the pan, good for lots, but not auto win or OP by far.

**Dozer Blades**

I think GW will go this way again to say FO to TOs.

**Akar**

TO's should allow it, and while they're at it, they need to remove the silly 2 'Source' restriction. I don't see that happening, but what they'll probably end up doing is allowing the Decurion with the Reclamation Legion and one other formation. A majority of the other options are just Unit Entries anyways.

As above, it does have it's flaws. Right now mostly being the Fad armies of Destroyers or Wraith spam. Even outside of the Decurion, we're seeing Destroyer Cult lists and Canoptek Formations are showing up in other armies like Tau and Eldar. Necron players are guilty as well, we're also struggling to remember which units in the Decurion have which rules, which will also sort itself out with practice. I myself have been 'cheating' when I thought that I had 'Move Through Cover' on my Flayed Ones when I didn't. Not a critical error by any means.

/Rant

Spoiler:

I currently run the Decurion, since it allows me to play my army like I did before the 3rd Ed Codex. In the few games I've had, I've been able to recapture how I used to play back in 3rd, and actually having fun. Also, I don't run anything in my list that feels like a 'Tax', and use every model in the army that I field. Sure the formations are great, but any unit or model that as treated as Tax, means that the player should be looking at anything. This is true for any army, not just Necrons, but I hope I made my point.

Where I'm getting frustrated is that I have had 2 guys say they'll never play a Decurion again after the one game against it. A few others won't play against it at all just because they heard or read 'Decurion'. This sounds VERY much like the same situation we had when the edition changed. UNBOUND. Yeah, I said it.

I currently have 2 Unbound 'Armies'. One is definitely Unbound and I only bring it out against friends where I don't have to have a 30 min debate about whether it's even a legal Unbound army. The other is only Unbound until I get my 2nd and 3rd Units of Grotz built, but the feeling is exactly the same. When I say, mention, or they see the note at the top of my list 'Unbound' they immediately think that I'm TRYING to break the game and it somehow gives them permission to run the most broken thing they can think of.

THIS is the same thing that is already happening when I say 'Decurion', and honestly, it really sucks. For casual games, I can understand not wanting to play against it. Especially AFTER you've played against it. More so if you're not one of those players who has other units lying around to change up lists to TRY and take care of it. 'Netlisting' is not my choice, and yeah sometimes I feel like it sucks when I have restrictions placed on my army, so that you can win with yours.

I know the army fairly well, and have a variety of units at my disposal so don't normally have an issue changing my list to a CAD if you just ask. I don't need a rant about how broken it is, or anything like that. A simple 'Hey would you mind playing something OTHER than a Decurion' won't be an issue. In fact, I was talking about it the other day and my friend pointed out that my Decurion lists are already setup for a CAD, I just lose the bonuses. Then I get around to playing, and the last nerve that puts my blood into boiling point happens. FORGEWORLD.

Forgeworld is a sensitive topic, and I won't go into why I don't use it or play against it here. I only mention it because I REALLY don't understand the mentality. Why do you NOT allow me to use something that is in my Codex, while you use something that isn't? You're going to ban/restrict the use of a Decurion and still allow Forgeworld models/units/rules which offset the internal balance of the codex rules? The same goes for Unbound. Why are we allowing Forgeworld at events, which aren't in any Codex, and not allowing Unbound which is in the rules? It... Blows... My... Mind...

NOTE: I KNOW why Unbound isn't allowed, and I see it on every forum I read when someone posts an Unbound list. A guy will post an Unbound list with the models he has, and he'll get told to just buy models that he wouldn't buy normally, or he'll just get destroyed by someone who has built an Unbroken army specifically to win. I was just showing that I see a similar frustration.

/Rant off

**Peregrine**

Akar wrote:
Forgeworld is a sensitive topic, and I won't go into why I don't use it or play against it here. I only mention it because I REALLY don't understand the mentality. Why do you NOT allow me to use something that is in my Codex, while you use something that isn't? You're going to ban/restrict the use of a Decurion and still allow Forgeworld models/units/rules which offset the internal balance of the codex rules? The same goes for Unbound. Why are we allowing Forgeworld at events, which aren't in any Codex, and not allowing Unbound which is in the rules? It... Blows... My... Mind...

Because "codex" isn't a magic word that makes something worth including. The idea that there's a hierarchy of "officialness" with codex rules at the top is something that certain players have invented with no support at all in the actual rules of the game. In this case it's very simple: FW rules add more options to your army (and additional army lists), but they still work within the limits of the FOC. Taking a FW unit is no different than taking a scout squad instead of a tactical squad in your C:SM army, it's still a normal unit that uses up an appropriate FOC slot like any other unit and still (usually) shares the strengths and weaknesses and general themes of the rest of your army. Formations, on the other hand, break that structure. You get to ignore the former limits of the FOC and effectively take whatever you want, without even the token HQ + troops tax of an allied army. And then they break the rule that upgrades cost points by giving out free bonuses, often for taking powerful units that you were going to spam anyway.

**Therion**

Akar wrote:
TO's should allow it, and while they're at it, they need to remove the silly 2 'Source' restriction. I don't see that happening, but what they'll probably end up doing is allowing the Decurion with the Reclamation Legion and one other formation. A majority of the other options are just Unit Entries anyways.

I don't see why they would restrict the Decurion to one formation. Consider Reclamation Legion the mandatory 'troops choice' and the rest the optional 'heavy support' and 'fast attack' options. Not allowing a Decurion to use for example one Canoptek Harvest and one Destroyer Cult (and an allied CAD) is like saying someone's army is only allowed one heavy support choice because they are so good. At this point we don't even know if the Decurion is the most competitive option, yet people are jumping to ban something because it's different. It's a new force organisation chart (cores, command and auxilias) and it forms battle-forged armies. I suggest that people actually read the 2 pages of Decurion rules in the codex before jumping to make judgment.

If it was restricted like you said, a Decurion would not be able to have Wraiths and Destroyers in the same army, or multiple units of Wraiths or Destroyers. All it does is shifts the goal posts, as likely everyone playing Decurion would then do some silly mass Tomb Blade spam lists (as they're part of the Reclamation Legion) with added MSU Flayed Ones everywhere.

**buddha**

Therion wrote:
Akar wrote:
TO's should allow it, and while they're at it, they need to remove the silly 2 'Source' restriction. I don't see that happening, but what they'll probably end up doing is allowing the Decurion with the Reclamation Legion and one other formation. A majority of the other options are just Unit Entries anyways.

I don't see why they would restrict the Decurion to one formation. Consider Reclamation Legion the mandatory 'troops choice' and the rest the optional 'heavy support' and 'fast attack' options. Not allowing a Decurion to use for example one Canoptek Harvest and one Destroyer Cult (and an allied CAD) is like saying someone's army is only allowed one heavy support choice because they are so good. At this point we don't even know if the Decurion is the most competitive option, yet people are jumping to ban something because it's different. It's a new force organisation chart (cores, command and auxilias) and it forms battle-forged armies. I suggest that people actually read the 2 pages of Decurion rules in the codex before jumping to make judgment.

If it was restricted like you said, a Decurion would not be able to have Wraiths and Destroyers in the same army, or multiple units of Wraiths or Destroyers. All it does is shifts the goal posts, as likely everyone playing Decurion would then do some silly mass Tomb Blade spam lists (as they're part of the Reclamation Legion) with added MSU Flayed Ones everywhere.

Agreed. The whole point of the decurion is that you have mutltiple formations to build your list. Limiting that to 2 (which is mandatory anyway) is beyond silly. The decurion, no matter how many sub detachments, is still just one formation and I can't imagine TOs wouldn't recognize that.

**MVBrandt**

FWIW after LVO and continued playtest, NOVA's 40K GT is still planning on treating the Decurion as a single Detachment, pursuant to our 2 Detachment limit.

**Therion**

MVBrandt wrote:
FWIW after LVO and continued playtest, NOVA's 40K GT is still planning on treating the Decurion as a single Detachment, pursuant to our 2 Detachment limit.

So in fact treating Decurion like it's written in the rules. It's one detachment (primary if the warlord is from the Decurion), no matter how many optional formations you choose to include within it. In short, a detachment that consists of a variety of formations (and dataslates) instead of the usual force organisation choices (troops, heavies, etc).

FWIW I plan to run Necrons in a CAD format with allies at first, but it's good to hear that people are given the chance to play the codex as written and see how well it does.

**Glitcha**

In my local scene, I help organize events and I've read the Necron codex. Decurion Detachment would be allowed for our events. The new necron codex is pretty amazing. Honestly, I can see 40k going to this kind of army building. We've, also, talked about the limitations of detachments and formations. Necron codex can get a little tricky but nothing is OP in it. Most Necron players will use the Decurion Detachment plus a CAD to get objective secure on some units, or Decurion and Decurion, or Any codex detachment (CAD) + Necron formation.

**Hollismason**

MVBrandt wrote:
FWIW after LVO and continued playtest, NOVA's 40K GT is still planning on treating the Decurion as a single Detachment, pursuant to our 2 Detachment limit.

Oh that's good to know, so we can have duplicates in the list like Reclamation , 2 Canoptek Harvests, I'd honestly read it the other way and that LVO allowed Decurion but you allowed 1 Formation from it so it wouldn't be playable.