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.

lustigjh wrote:


To be fair, I think most armies have basic guns that can shoot up Raiders. It's a pretty big waste of shots to do so, although that will still force jinks. In theory, the "points cost" for gauss will have been wasted on a useless upgrade.

I didn't understand what this comment is referring to? What points cost? Gauss comes standard. Am I misunderstanding?

As for people having guns that can shoot raiders: sure. I see no reason to give them extra turns ot do so though.

 adamsouza wrote:

Not a single Necron list in the top results.

So maybe Necrons aren't the over hyped broken goodness after all ?

Or maybe they haven't had time to paint decurions and practice with them? From all the pics I saw, I only saw two wraithwing armies, which I believe to be totally inferior to a balanced decurion. And still out of several hundred people, you can spot two necron armies around rank 30 iirc. I couldn't pick out any decurions from the army pics, but I may have missed them.

Going off of a sample size of one tournament a few weeks after the codex drops is hardly substantial evidence. I have a feeling if this codex had been switched with say...space wolves back in last year, we'd see a lot stronger necron presence.

More likely to see Necrons placing well in tournaments once players have had time to figure out some lists with allies.

My point was, and still is, that if Necrons were as broken good, as many of their critics here on dakka claim, they would have placed better.

Or maybe they haven't had time to paint decurions and practice with them?

Because no one owned or played Necrons in 6th or 7th edition before the new codex ? It's not like there were any new models.
Any Tounament minded Necron player owned warriors, immortals, and an overlord. Although, I concede that Tomb Blades may not have been in everyones collection.
Even without tomb blades, all you need are Crypteks from a royal court added to your CAD to get that lovely 4+RP.

More likely to see Necrons placing well in tournaments once players have had time to figure out some lists with allies.

I'm sure that will happen in the future. But the LVO results fly counter to the argument that Necrons are so OP that it's an automatic win.

Some people are putting soo much weight on the worst case Math-hammer scenarios that they are psyking themselves out before even facing off against a Necron force.

 adamsouza wrote:
Some people are putting soo much weight on the worst case Math-hammer scenarios that they are psyking themselves out before even facing off against a Necron force.

That's been my take as well. I think every army has the tools to counter Necrons and their durability, it's just a matter of employing them.

Who said they were so OP that they auto win? ANY army can lose. A guardsman can beat abbadon in melee.

If anything, the army win %'s tell us more than which 8 guys played well and were lucky enough to avoid bad matchups and wrath of the dice gods. And those %'s say necrons were doing awesome, with the 4th highest win % at a very competitive event. That speaks a lot louder to me than "a necron list didn't win this ONE tournament so they must not be OP" logic that SOME people are using.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 adamsouza wrote:
Some people are putting soo much weight on the worst case Math-hammer scenarios that they are psyking themselves out before even facing off against a Necron force.

That's been my take as well. I think every army has the tools to counter Necrons and their durability, it's just a matter of employing them.

What I've found in my games so far is that people were using the same tactics to dispatch Space Marines to dispatch Necrons, High Strength/low AP, tryiing to deny saves. That used to work really well against Necrons, and now not so much. I thought my Saturday night opponent was going to call me a witch when my Necron warriors survived plasma and melta attacks. He didn't seem to notice so much when my warrirors fell to his massed bolter fire.

niv-mizzet wrote:
Who said they were so OP that they auto win? ANY army can lose. A guardsman can beat abbadon in melee.

If anything, the army win %'s tell us more than which 8 guys played well and were lucky enough to avoid bad matchups and wrath of the dice gods. And those %'s say necrons were doing awesome, with the 4th highest win % at a very competitive event. That speaks a lot louder to me than "a necron list didn't win this ONE tournament so they must not be OP" logic that SOME people are using.

I was getting browbeat with some claims of it. And even if they didn't win, they didn't take the top spots of the tournament right after we had people saying they would. Maybe that'll change in the future, but the longer we go on, the more practice people will have against them and the better the counters will get.

This was probably the best chance for Crons to drop stuff on people they weren't ready for.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 adamsouza wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 adamsouza wrote:
Some people are putting soo much weight on the worst case Math-hammer scenarios that they are psyking themselves out before even facing off against a Necron force.

That's been my take as well. I think every army has the tools to counter Necrons and their durability, it's just a matter of employing them.

What I've found in my games so far is that people were using the same tactics to dispatch Space Marines to dispatch Necrons, High Strength/low AP, tryiing to deny saves. That used to work really well against Necrons, and now not so much. I thought my Saturday night opponent was going to call me a witch when my Necron warriors survived plasma and melta attacks. He didn't seem to notice so much when my warrirors fell to his massed bolter fire.

Personally I think denying saves is still good as the less saves they can roll the more likely models will die. That said massed wounds are probably the most reliable method unless your opponent's dice are rolling hot.

I agree, it was a good chance to dark horse their way in, unfortunately, it seems less like they failed to, and more like they just decided not to. There were only 13 cron lists on the win % chart, and I saw a few of them from the pics, and they might've been 5crons. They certainly weren't decurions.

If they had the same amount of player representation as eldar or marines, this discussion would probably be very different right now.

Not that different. Bandwagoning doesn't really prove that an army is actually OP, just that it's popular.

It's also possible that, because of the LVO's comp rules, Decurion Necrons may not be an option for many players. Doesn't the LVO only allow two detachments/formations? If so, that puts some hard limits on what the Decurion can do.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Personally I think denying saves is still good as the less saves they can roll the more likely models will die. That said massed wounds are probably the most reliable method unless your opponent's dice are rolling hot.

You are correct. Low AP weapons reduce Necrons to just RP saves, but it's not nearly as effective as it is against Space Marines. I think the main problem, for a lot of people, is they are used to treating Necrons as I2 Space Marines, and they haven't adapted theri tactics yet.

My last opponent tailored his list for fighting Necrons, and still brought devastator squads with missle launchers, instead of Heavy Bolters. He used the Space Marine chapter tactic that let his bolters rend, instead of rapid fire.

 adamsouza wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Personally I think denying saves is still good as the less saves they can roll the more likely models will die. That said massed wounds are probably the most reliable method unless your opponent's dice are rolling hot.

You are correct. Low AP weapons reduce Necrons to just RP saves, but it's not nearly as effective as it is against Space Marines. I think the main problem, for a lot of people, is they are used to treating Necrons as I2 Space Marines, and they haven't adapted theri tactics yet.

My last opponent tailored his list for fighting Necrons, and still brought devastator squads with missle launchers, instead of Heavy Bolters. He used the Space Marine chapter tactic that let his bolters rend, instead of rapid fire.

Yeah, there are some things that need to be tweaked to handle stuff.

The thing is I don't think that it's a lot of stuff that needs to be tweaked in people's lists (especially Guard who are already running large blast templates and Autocannons anyways), but some extra consideration on what you run to deal with the Steel Horde can't hurt.

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/las-vegas-open-hotel-booking/las-vegas-open-2015-warhammer-40k-championships/

Lol ohhh they DO have a formation restriction, which yes hurts decurion, also they are allowing BOTH the 5th and 7th books for necrons (so we dont even know whats what) Also making it very likely there is alot of 5th books there as its what they wouldve practiced for and had models for (tomb blades are sold out if you didnt have them before)

However keep clinging to the hope it has proved youre point though gentlemen. (Lol it hasnt)

So basically the very thing I said tournaments can do to restrict Decurion silliness was the very thing used to prevent Decurion silliness?

Gee, isn't that just interesting?

 ClockworkZion wrote:
So basically the very thing I said tournaments can do to restrict Decurion silliness was the very thing used to prevent Decurion silliness?

Gee, isn't that just interesting?

So we conclusively learned jack gak about the power level of crons through LVO? lel

 Desubot wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
So basically the very thing I said tournaments can do to restrict Decurion silliness was the very thing used to prevent Decurion silliness?

Gee, isn't that just interesting?

So we conclusively learned jack gak about the power level of crons through LVO? lel

We learned that the thing I mentioned more than once to curb potential abuse works.

Also we learned that people who were claiming that this tournament would prove them right about how "broken" the new codex is were so wrong it's not funny.

Mmmmm well by curb stomping the abuse you really didnt get any sort of gauge on its actual power level its pretty moot.

its like banning WS and calling them gak tier.

still waiting and seeing.

What precisely have they done to restrict Decurions in there? I don't see a direct mention.

I wouldn't say nothing. The format still allowed for CAD +1, Decurion + 1, and oldcrons.

CAD + 1 didn't place top 25

Decurion +1 didn't place top 25

Oldcrons - There were Necron players who thought there best chance of winning was with the 5th edition codex, instead of the new codex, still didn't place top 25.

CAD + Canoptek Swarm, allows for the alledged "magic, unkillable" Wraiths and Scarabs with RP

Oldcrons allows Teleporting, Haywire Royal Courts that make vehicles cry

Decurion + Canoptek Swarm, allows for legions of warriors with 4+RP and Ghost Arks, and "unkillable" wraiths, etc...

If the codex is actually broken good, like many have claimed, then all the Necron players at the tournament would either had to have been incompetent, or seriously bad dice rolling, affected all of them.

changemod wrote:
What precisely have they done to restrict Decurions in there? I don't see a direct mention.

Not necessarily Decurion-specfic restrictions, no. You're limited to two detachments. In fact, going by the exact wording of the LVO comp rules, the Decurion may not even be allowed as the restrictions state 0-1 formations, and the Decurion is nothing but formations. Without asking anyone who was there, we don't know if an exception might have been granted (for instance, a "0-1 Codex Specific Detachment" is allowed, so that might be a way for them to allow a Decurion using one Reclamation Legion + one other formation). Who knows? The fact that a Decurion is a detachment made up of formations tends to take the 2-Detachment-Rule and turn it on its ear if it doesn't specifically address it.

What I don't like about a blanket limit on the Decurion to being two formations is that the limit is really only put in place to stop the Wraith spam that some fear. What if I like Deathmarks? Hell, what if I just want to play a Reclamation Legion with a unit of Deathmarks and a unit of Flayed Ones? Can't do that with the 2-formation limit, and yet I doubt anyone is going to say that's a broken selection of formations there. It's a case of one bad apple spoiling the barrel.

Wouldn't Decurion + CH be 2 decurions? or are they doing wonky things with formations.

The Decurion Detachments is ONE Detachment that is made up OF Formations.

So if a tournament allows two detachments, then the Decurion in its entirety would be one of them. Pretty straightforward.

Out of 220something players, there were a grand total of 13 players with a primary detachment of necrons plus one more than brought them as a secondary. It's an event with some not insignificant house rules and army construction restrictions. This is also an event people usually build armies for long in advance and often practice for several months for, switching over to a new book that comes out a couple weeks before the event and expecting lots of players to take full advantage of the new book (often including buying and painting new units, particularly for running a Decurion) in just a few days before traveling cross-country may be expecting a bit much.

Likewise, with a Dark Angels and Sororitas list placing relatively highly, do we conclude these are powerhouse army books? Probably not.

So is the Necrons are broken good club back peddling to Necrons are going to be broken good, a few months from now, if they get to play a Decurion, and get to spam formations ?

 adamsouza wrote:
So is the Necrons are broken good club back peddling to Necrons are going to be broken good, a few months from now, if they get to play a Decurion, and get to spam formations ?

More like Necrons are bad when they are house ruled.

There is no conclusive data to do gak.

 adamsouza wrote:
So is the Necrons are broken good club back peddling to Necrons are going to be broken good, a few months from now, if they get to play a Decurion, and get to spam formations ?

So, we're considering the LVO and the ironclad and definitive determination on Necron power level and calling any points brought up regarding the LVO environment and timing relative to the new codex release date "backpedaling"?

Particularly when (at least to my knowledge) we don't know how many used the new book or what they ran?

 Vaktathi wrote:
Out of 220something players, there were a grand total of 13 players with a primary detachment of necrons plus one more than brought them as a secondary. It's an event with some not insignificant house rules and army construction restrictions. This is also an event people usually build armies for long in advance and often practice for several months for, switching over to a new book that comes out a couple weeks before the event and expecting lots of players to take full advantage of the new book (often including buying and painting new units, particularly for running a Decurion) in just a few days before traveling cross-country may be expecting a bit much.

Likewise, with a Dark Angels and Sororitas list placing relatively highly, do we conclude these are powerhouse army books? Probably not.

Adepta Sororitas are very good. It doesnt surprise me, ever, when they do well.

I mean, all of this arguing over a tournaments results are great, but it really doesn't matter. 13 people had a primary detachment of Necrons? Out of how many people? Over 200? That alone is unlikely to prove much. The higher placed players are obviously Eldar or whatever, because most people are playing them. And we're also talking a brand new codex, with the house rules stated above, against the same cheesy lists people always play (Serpent Spam, Greyknights with IK allies, ext). I'm mainly concerned of the straight up raw power of this codex and nothing else. Adding tournament house rules and judging based on a competitive scene in a game that is unbalanced anyway, is rather pointless. At least that's how I see it.

I'm going to add my two cents here. When I first read the Codex I was disappointed. They took away so much of what I played, I felt robbed even violated. Now that I have played a few games I'm really happy about some of the changes. We are far more durable. Overall I think we lost a bit of our competitive abilities, but like any good Necron I will adapt. The new formations can be really strong. Tournaments will prove which armies are the toughest not personal opinions. I feel GW is trying to simplify all the armies which is a little sad. I liked the different flavors each army had. :-(