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.

Obviously an enormous upgrade
I still don't get why they did this.. Or why they nerfed Scarabs.

Could it be that the intern overlooking our codex confused the two?
I can see him sitting there, reading the comments: "Oooh, Canoptek WRAITHS were used in nearly every tournament list!?"

I think the Living Metal rule is a cool upgrade.

Living Tomb looks good to me. Precision entry of 2 units of 20 rapid fire Gauss shots is no joke.

Kangodo wrote:

 Waaagh 18 wrote:
Illuminor looks really good to me. He is basically an extremely powerful Cryptek with a nice gun and a cool buffing ability. I can definitely see myself using him.

My issue with Illuminor is that he comes with a mandatory - arguably worse - Technomancy.
I am probably going to field a Decurion, that means I am paying 30 or so points for an ability that I don't want.
Which is btw my biggest issue with Crypteks!
They give a buff (nice) which I already get from the Detachment (okay..) and it doesn't stack (crap).

A Cryptek with an Eldritch Lance used to be 35 point.
You are now paying 75 points more for the random buff and Technomancy.

Illuminor was bad and he is probably the only special character that hasn't been buffed.

Trazyn looks like he's overpriced by about 30 points, and is really niche. Against Orks he is golden, as he can kill a Nob in a challenge and then explode the rest of the unit. Same goes if he's against guardsmen. His biggest problem is an AP4 weapon, so he lacks effectiveness killing MEQ. He also lacks flavor, now I'm curious what, "another piece for the collection" used to do. I'd say he's good against any army of primarily 4+ saves (on characters), but is lacking against everything else. He's only really useable if you know who you're playing beforehand. Also, his Surrogate Host rule is really ineffective as you are essentially paying 50 more points for Trazyn if you take a Lord as a backup for him.

I agree, but he was always useless like that.
"Another piece" made him and his unit Scoring.
Yes, his replacement sucks now.
Do you believe he used to be 175 points?

If Trazyn was objective secured he would be infinitely more useful, especially since the decurion doesn't have OS. Then he might have a little place, bouncing around claiming objectives. It's hard to believe he used to be 175, I think if he'd kept OS, he would have actually been fairly priced. I think Illuminor is good if you were taking a Cryptek anyway. For 55 points more you get a cool lance thing, buffing units within 6", his buff of a unit, and a better profile. I think that especially in a CAD, he is quite good.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:
nerfs are only nerfs if they arent still good. they are still good

Not really. A nerf is just if something is reduced from its former power. It's effectiveness is irrelevant.

We disagree. this term is so over used and misused. if someone wants to evaluate the codex AS objectively as that's EVEN posible, you gotta' leave yesterday alone and look at it on its own COSt and merits now. That it's NOT as powerful hardly matters because MANY things were simply too much and were FIXED. So why not call it fixed insted of "Nerf'd". Nerf'd seems to indicate to me that someone just LIKED having something broken to use. Lol. That doesnt speak well of the guy saying it. Im not attacking you but I'm jut making the point.

Kangodo wrote:

 Waaagh 18 wrote:
Illuminor looks really good to me. He is basically an extremely powerful Cryptek with a nice gun and a cool buffing ability. I can definitely see myself using him.

My issue with Illuminor is that he comes with a mandatory - arguably worse - Technomancy.
I am probably going to field a Decurion, that means I am paying 30 or so points for an ability that I don't want.
Which is btw my biggest issue with Crypteks!
They give a buff (nice) which I already get from the Detachment (okay..) and it doesn't stack (crap).

A Cryptek with an Eldritch Lance used to be 35 point.
You are now paying 75 points more for the random buff and Technomancy.

Illuminor was bad and he is probably the only special character that hasn't been buffed.

Um, the random buff is awesome. Also, Instant Death? Put a Cryptek, or Illuminor in a unit, even against Instant Death they have a 4+.... Also, Lance on his weapon now....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:
I think the Living Metal rule is a cool upgrade.

Living Tomb looks good to me. Precision entry of 2 units of 20 rapid fire Gauss shots is no joke.

Actually got me my hull point back on my Monolith yesterday. Pretty Sweet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Deraiderspam wrote:
Just a quick question that I haven't seen brought up. Wraith's with whipcoils. 3 point upgrade as appossed to 10? Feels like Wraiths really need to take them. Makes them I5 which is striking before most things that they will be attacking anyway. Now, do you feel this is improved? Before was 45 Points a coil wraith and is now 43 with an extra toughness and potential RP. What do you guys think?

They are cheaper, and better against most targets, except some MCs. But, I'll be honest with you guys. I'll be running some with Particle Caster and at least 1 with a Transdimensional Beamer. Maybe a whole squad, to hell with it.

 Jancoran wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:
nerfs are only nerfs if they arent still good. they are still good

Not really. A nerf is just if something is reduced from its former power. It's effectiveness is irrelevant.

We disagree. this term is so over used and misused. if someone wants to evaluate the codex AS objectively as that's EVEN posible, you gotta' leave yesterday alone and look at it on its own COSt and merits now. That it's NOT as powerful hardly matters because MANY things were simply too much and were FIXED. So why not call it fixed insted of "Nerf'd". Nerf'd seems to indicate to me that someone just LIKED having something broken to use. Lol. That doesnt speak well of the guy saying it. Im not attacking you but I'm jut making the point.

That logic would only apply if the game was symmetrical and the new Necron codex was playing only itself... which we all know this game is not. You have to compare it to the other choices because of that.

 Jancoran wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:
nerfs are only nerfs if they arent still good. they are still good

Not really. A nerf is just if something is reduced from its former power. It's effectiveness is irrelevant.

We disagree. this term is so over used and misused. if someone wants to evaluate the codex AS objectively as that's EVEN posible, you gotta' leave yesterday alone and look at it on its own COSt and merits now. That it's NOT as powerful hardly matters because MANY things were simply too much and were FIXED. So why not call it fixed insted of "Nerf'd". Nerf'd seems to indicate to me that someone just LIKED having something broken to use. Lol. That doesnt speak well of the guy saying it. Im not attacking you but I'm jut making the point.

I'm not even getting into game mechanics, I'm going off basic language. To nerf something literally means to reduce it's power or effectiveness. Whether that's fixed or justified or however you want to spin it is fine, but don't try to redefine the term.

JReilly89 is correct. To "nerf" something is to reduce it's effectiveness, especially when discussing damage potential.

The term comes from the MMORPG community. It refered to the developers reducing the damage of particular items or combos and the new versions being compared to NERF toys by the payers.

It basically became known that any reduction in damage output is refered to as a nerf.

 MajorStoffer wrote:

Indeed,

I didn't imply that the weaknesses in deathstars are easily exploited; invisible centstar relies on throwing a billion deny dice and hitting them with St10 Ap2 large blasts, Seer Councils require catching them in melee, etc, but there are usually some weaknesses of some kind to a deathstar, especially as they usually take a king's ransom in points.

A flat-out overpowered codex like Eldar has the issue of everything simply being better than yours, which doesn't leave angles to exploit, which is a risk I can see with Necrons (though by no means to the same extent).

Did you know that in the English Speaking world, Eldar aren't as dominant as in France ?

I mean, you French have this impression that Eldar have 70+% win rates when the ToF statistics are at 55% or something.

Necrons were very powerful before this new codex (50+% win rate), if the codex happens to be an overall buff, they will be just as problematic as Eldar.

ToF had them at 70%, not sure what you are aiming at?

Kangodo wrote:
ToF had them at 70%, not sure what you are aiming at?

Get your facts up to date...

ToF had the Eldar at 66% during the end of sixth edition, thanks to BeastStars and SeerStars.

Since 7th, they've been at 55% or something, and recently Necrons rank even higher (read the post about the meta for 2015).

Who cares if the Eldar used to be crazy good six months ago.

You seem to be implying Eldar are no longer a good army...
If that was the case, why are the the 2nd highest ranked?

may be second highest, but even with necrons being the highest they are still not as widely played as other top tier armies. idk, regardless of stats I feel necrons are very lackluster.. they just don't bring that scare factor tau or eldar or marines do.

Look at threads like "How to counter Wraiths" and you'll find out lots of scared people. Including me

On the sidenote, newcrons are super durable and the rules have lots of loopholes. I think it's gona be a top-tier hated army like eldar used to be.

Eh. I play orks. We aren't scared of anything :/ you always win when you play orks.

Yeah I predict that Wraiths, Canoptek Harvest, Destroyer Cults and Tomb Blades (and possibly Flayed Ones... I'm surprised I'm actually saying that) will receive the most hate.

So the AnniBarge/Night Scythe hate is replaced with 1 (maybe 2) units and two fairly expensive formations.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
You seem to be implying Eldar are no longer a good army...
If that was the case, why are the the 2nd highest ranked?

I am implying that they're a good army, like many others.

When you have IK at 62%, Eldar at 56%, Tau at 54% and Necrons at 52%, it doesn't make sense to consider any of these separately and to give them special treatment (like "Eldar is a crazy overpowered codex").

They're much weaker than they've been for sure, and if (IF) the Necron Codex ends up being stronger than the previous one, they'll be at 56+% and Eldar are going to go down for it.

That's what i'm talking about.

It remains to be seen whether Wraiths and other buffs will be enough to compensate for the nerf of the Scythes, AB, Tesla and MSS.

One thing thats wierd about this codex. There are all these doodads that improve RP by 1 conditionally. Or you can add 1 unit of Immortals and 1 unit of Tomb Blades, and you improve RP by 1 army-wide, unconditionally. I don't mind...but why? What is it about those Immortals and Tomb Blades that's supposed to work this kind of magic army-wide? I guess this amounts to an aesthetic complaint, but the Decurion seems to good to pass up, when compared to buying all these expensive doodads for each unit to get the improved RP. I suppose if you run vehicle-heavy, it might be worth not going the Decurion-route.

Unrelated, I bet people who run Necrons as Allies will be please by the availability of a low cost HQ.

Overall, this codex indeed seems more powerful, but mostly due to the formation benefits. This makes the army much more restrictive, because some of these formation benefits are too good to pass up.

Losing Cryptek variety IMO is my biggest gripe. If you run Decurion (which I plan on doing), I really can't think of a good reason to bring Crypteks (or a Royal Court for that matter). The only real reason I could think to do so is to spread a little daemon-style invul around, but it seems very expensive points-wise to do that, considering you'd also need to buy another Overlord and one Lord just to do so. I suppose outside of Decurion, the Crypteks will be quite valuable because of their RP buff and availability of 5++, but I'm just not seeing any added value within a Decurion.
I really liked Crypteks. They were our "psykers"...now that falls to CTans with decent powers but randomized to make them unpredictable and unreliable.

Oh well, overall I think my army is stronger. There's really not much outside of certain HQ choices I wouldn't consider taking at this point.

Hell, even the Doomsday Ark looks pretty good to me know.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I think the Decurion's 4+ RP army-wide (and conditionally rereollable) will be the most hated element of the new codex.

Things I won't miss: arguing about the old "Ever Living". Dealing with RP counters. Figuring out who's in base contact with Whip Coil Wraiths (unwieldy, model-wise). Arguing about Death Ray.

Also, is it just me, or does NZ seem even better than he was before? Picking a new Warlord Trait every turn, from either the codex or BRB, seems pretty damn powerful to me, and he's cheaper too! And still 2+!!!

Necrons lost offensive punch for better internal balance and stronger defense.

What I predict Necrons will do to competitive scene is force other armies away from fielding Multiple Small Units, if they want to remain competitive.

Duricon is good for vehicales if in one of the formations as they then ignore stunned and shaken (still lose hull points). As said the duricon is just good. But to get any crypteks you need to get the royal court and all that comes with it, and the formations arnt cheap (minimum 230 for harvest with no upgrades or 405 for basic judacare) plus there quite restrictive and you lose obsec.
Saying all that i'll still run it. The new crons are insanly durable and could if you get the mix right hit like a brick.

 adamsouza wrote:
Necrons lost offensive punch for better internal balance and stronger defense.

What I predict Necrons will do to competitive scene is force other armies away from fielding Multiple Small Units, if they want to remain competitive.

Do you really feel that they really lost that much offensive punch?

To me, it feels like Abarges and Nightscythes got taken down a notch. However, now we have stuff like the Obelisk, useful Flayed ones, Praetorians, better destroyers etc, that will fill that void.

Only punch I feel I've lost is the T CTan but everybody whined about him anyway.

I'll miss Destruktek "sniper" squads too.

And Haywire.

This codex was my starting point for Necrons. I flipped through the previous codex for fluff purposes awhile back and had heard whispers of a new codex around the corner, so i waited. Now looking through this book, I feel like its possibly too strong. I didn't want to be that guy who started a new army with the new shiny possibly OP dex, but o well.

I guess i can truly play with what i want now, and not be forced to play a cookie cutter list to be competitive

I'm going to research and test the use of a D-Lord with the Relic as our new AP2-Flamer that wounds on a 2+

Kangodo wrote:
I'm going to research and test the use of a D-Lord with the Relic as our new AP2-Flamer that wounds on a 2+

Wouldn't that be a really good swiss knife type of upgrade to one of your wraith packs ?

 Sasori wrote:


Do you really feel that they really lost that much offensive punch?

Tesla Nerf weakened Anti Air and combined with the points increase makes Annhilation barges much less competitive.

Entropic Touch nerfed down to Gauss. It's not useless, but nowhere near as good.

Cryptek offensive Nerf cost us ranged haywire and the ability to repeatedly deep strike around the board.

The net effect is we need to attack many more times to achieve the same results.

To be honest, I feel it was probably a fair trade, and most likely warrented.

To get back to your original question, yeah we definitely lost some punch.

My old Royal Court would bring Imperial Knights to tears in a single shooting phase, and scarabs would munch any vehicle in a single assault. Now the answer to those threats is tons of attacks hoping for 6s on damage rolls.

 adamsouza wrote:

 Sasori wrote:


Do you really feel that they really lost that much offensive punch?

Tesla Nerf weakened Anti Air and combined with the points increase makes Annhilation barges much less competitive.

Entropic Touch nerfed down to Gauss. It's not useless, but nowhere near as good.

Cryptek offensive Nerf cost us ranged haywire and the ability to repeatedly deep strike around the board.

The net effect is we need to attack many more times to achieve the same results.

To be honest, I feel it was probably a fair trade, and most likely warrented.

To get back to your original question, yeah we definitely lost some punch.

My old Royal Court would bring Imperial Knights to tears in a single shooting phase, and scarabs would munch any vehicle in a single assault. Now the answer to those threats is tons of attacks hoping for 6s on damage rolls.

These are some fair points.

The Haywire nerf is probably the worst. I feel we really lost our main way to deal with IK. That's still the biggest issue I'm having trouble with in my lists is dealing with them.

I feel a lot of the other stuff we just traded. for instance, instead of 3 abarges, we can just take an Obelisk now.

 Quickjager wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:
nerfs are only nerfs if they arent still good. they are still good

Not really. A nerf is just if something is reduced from its former power. It's effectiveness is irrelevant.

We disagree. this term is so over used and misused. if someone wants to evaluate the codex AS objectively as that's EVEN posible, you gotta' leave yesterday alone and look at it on its own COSt and merits now. That it's NOT as powerful hardly matters because MANY things were simply too much and were FIXED. So why not call it fixed insted of "Nerf'd". Nerf'd seems to indicate to me that someone just LIKED having something broken to use. Lol. That doesnt speak well of the guy saying it. Im not attacking you but I'm jut making the point.

That logic would only apply if the game was symmetrical and the new Necron codex was playing only itself... which we all know this game is not. You have to compare it to the other choices because of that.

Not really. You are either fixing something thats not right or you are buffing it. A nerf is a very bad way to put this.

and symmetrical means zilch. Not even sure why that would enter this conversation. but whatevs. My point is solid. "NERF'ing something has been used to mean more than it should,. But hey its YMMV

 Mojo1jojo wrote:
Did minshackles really get nerfed ohhh I hope soo

It did!!

Played new necrons yesterday and it was lots of fun they got a awesome formation where they can reanimate on a 4+

It was a hard fought game and alot of new rules make it less complicated then the last time I played them. Only complaint was the lack of new units for the codex.

Mindshackle got nerfed to extinction, IMO.