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.

Poly Ranger wrote:
Quad heavy bolters. 3 in a battery. No gauss benefit as T7 and not a vehicle. Puts out 18 tl bs4 st5 ap4 shots. That's an average of 16hits. 5.33 dead warriors after 4+rp (assuming no chronometron or res orb). Makes it's points back in 2 turns.

Yoyoyo is right in the fact that it will help change the meta - hard hitting reliable assault units could sweep most crons units fairly easily. As long as the opponent doesn't have many wraiths, lychguard or praetorians.

Not even that, sadly. I've had warriors charged by Bloodcrushers and Nobz....and I've come out on top.

Quad heavy bolters sound great against warriors standing in the open with no cover. Terrible against the entire remainder of the codex though. People forget most Necrons units have a 3+.

Good point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Although they are so far as I've found, mathmatically the best weapon point for point against wraiths.

The problem with the Decurion really isn't its power on its own, but rather it represents the same league of power as IK, Eldar, Daemons and Tau, the clear outlying codexes. Guard, SM (and their colours), GK, Tyranids, Dark Eldar and so on are all going to get wrecked, most of the time, by their dramatically higher power. Even without the Decurion, it would be very difficult for these codexes if not tailored, the Decurion just makes it obscene.

The really damning thing is this came after so many codexes got the "blandification," with little to no customization, cut characters, removed rules or special abilities and added maybe one or two "meh" units. It wasn't very exciting, but it looked like there was some effort to balance things out. Necrons destroyed that trend, and make it exceptionally clear that balance isn't on the agenda, and only some armies will get to have fun (I mean that both in fluff/flexibility, as the Decurion is great for that, but also power. Hard to build a bad Necron, Eldar, Tau, etc army, so you can really use whatever units you like. That is patently untrue for other codexes).

As to whether one should feel bad about using the Decurion, depends entirely on the foe. Using it against a fluffy Guard or Ork player should make you feel bad, and people should call you out on being unfair, against power-gaming Eldar or Tau? All the power to you, it's clearly what it was designed around.

I do not feel bad AT ALL! :-)

I am an infantry player, do not like maxed or broken list so I played the Necron list in the previous codex and it was useless. I refused to play flying circus.
I will not change it because it now seems to work just as it did 2 editions and 2 codex ago and how Necrons are supposed to work.
But i do keep my list flexible and a bit of everythng, nothing maxed.
And when i faced a 6 Eldar Wave serpents + 2 wraithknights list, the Necrons did not stand a chance because they were not fast enough to get close enough to the wave serpents standing on the table edge: 0 killpoints.

The Necron lists where people max out on wraiths are too extreme for my taste though.
Same players that played croissants and barges with the previous codex.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Additional...

In regard to other armies. I play most of them too.

Orks are the worst codex IMO. The boyz are less reliable than ever (and i play them since they exist) and they are vulnerable to many of the current broken units:
Wave serpents, thunderfire cannons, Knights with big template weapons etc.

IG has a problem indeed, unless you play mass infantry with psykers.

SM can do well enough especially with all allllied combos and the thunderfire cannons (they are so common, they bore me...).

Dark Eldar have changed. But they are not a bad army and allways were an army that needed a good player.

I don't find Tau that much of a problem to play against, especially the riptides and suits, they are SOOoo predictable.
And my own Tau are, since day 1 of the Tau, a drone and kroot heavy army that is above all flexible and large.

Eldar without Wave Serpents are not a problem either.

Imperial Knights have only 1 problem: the fact that they explode. IMO that is the most dangerous and rediculous thing about them really. They do best when they go down.

Daemons have been a problem for several years now.
Unless you make an army that is prepared against them, they can be a big problem.

And to get back to the original question: i don't feel bad in regard to my Necron.

I don't feel to bad about running necrons. I can't run decurion because I have no tomb blades (i just really don't like the look of the model....)

But it feels good to shove it to a local SW player who spams TWC and other stuff. Last game I played him he used his demon army and pulled out the 2++ re-roll bs and when I asked what the toughness for what one of his guys where he said four and purposely neglected to tell me he had a toughness bump from being on a mount so when i was rolling to wound with my warriors he "corrected" me saying that they wound on 5+ instead of 4+. He gave up the game after failing to kill my sword and board lychguard with orkan in them with his nurgle plague guys in cc

 MajorStoffer wrote:
The problem with the Decurion really isn't its power on its own, but rather it represents the same league of power as IK, Eldar, Daemons and Tau, the clear outlying codexes. Guard, SM (and their colours), GK, Tyranids, Dark Eldar and so on are all going to get wrecked, most of the time, by their dramatically higher power. Even without the Decurion, it would be very difficult for these codexes if not tailored, the Decurion just makes it obscene.

In what world are Tau (and IK) in the same league as Eldar and Daemons but SM and Codrx: Flyrants aren't?

I do agree that Necrons break a lower-powered Codex trend.

However, maybe it's.tine for IoM players stop judging stuff on a codex vs. codex base exclusivly. 'Half of the factions in this game are my Battle-Brothers' is a rule IoM armies have, and as such it should be taken into account in.balance discussion.

 krodarklorr wrote:
I don't see how the units are an issue, other than Wraiths, who could've easily been 5-10 points more expensive. Every unit got cheaper than in the previous codex and most received buffs, but none of them are undercosted in my opinion.

I think Warriors, surprisingly, are undercosted. They cost less than a tac marine, but have the same or better statline in all respects except for I and armour save -- and they are about as durable as a marine even with that worse armour save due to RP. In the Decurion with a Cryptek they are more durable than a tac. Due to how RP now works, in the Decurion they will now stand up to said marines in close combat, meaning that equivalent numbers of marines pretty muuch have no way to reliably take down warriors.

What I would have down is bring their WS and BS to 3 (shuffling zombies!) and cost to 10 ppm. I think.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MajorStoffer wrote:
The problem with the Decurion really isn't its power on its own, but rather it represents the same league of power as IK, Eldar, Daemons and Tau, the clear outlying codexes. Guard, SM (and their colours), GK, Tyranids, Dark Eldar and so on are all going to get wrecked, most of the time, by their dramatically higher power. Even without the Decurion, it would be very difficult for these codexes if not tailored, the Decurion just makes it obscene.

Intuitively, Dark Eldar and Tyranids seem the best against Wraiths, at least. Due to high volume of poison attacks.

The issue facing the necron decurion is similar to that which effects SM white scars.

The listed points in the codex tend to be fair, but they do not take into account army-wide special rules that dramatically alter the power of a unit.

For example: SM bikes for 21 points are fine, but SM bikes with scout, hit and run, +1 str hammer of wrath and pseudo skilled rider for the same cost are not.

Similarly then, increasing the RP roll of an entire necron army, as well as providing formation special rules like moves through cover, relentless, destroyer protocols etc, for no extra cost is where a lot of the imbalance arises.

 Sir Arun wrote:
@rhavien: are you kidding me? dark angels Deathwing lists are going to have a field day against Necrons

How do Deathwing lists have a field day against anything?

Their ranged weapons are too sparse, so they're relying on Power Fists or Thunder Hammers to actually kill enemy units. Despite being low I, Necrons will strike first, and you get RP against their H2H attacks. Necrons will roflstomp Deathwing all day long even if played by a 5 year old.

 Big Blind Bill wrote:
The issue facing the necron decurion is similar to that which effects SM white scars.

The listed points in the codex tend to be fair, but they do not take into account army-wide special rules that dramatically alter the power of a unit.

For example: SM bikes for 21 points are fine, but SM bikes with scout, hit and run, +1 str hammer of wrath and pseudo skilled rider for the same cost are not.

Similarly then, increasing the RP roll of an entire necron army, as well as providing formation special rules like moves through cover, relentless, destroyer protocols etc, for no extra cost is where a lot of the imbalance arises.

Good summary. This is essentially the issue with all the Necron formations, the Decurian especially.

Even as it stands in the main codex, WITHOUT any formations, most of the Necron infantry are under-costed, IMO.

MajorStoffer wrote:
The really damning thing is this came after so many codexes got the "blandification," with little to no customization, cut characters, removed rules or special abilities and added maybe one or two "meh" units. It wasn't very exciting, but it looked like there was some effort to balance things out. Necrons destroyed that trend, and make it exceptionally clear that balance isn't on the agenda, and only some armies will get to have fun (I mean that both in fluff/flexibility, as the Decurion is great for that, but also power. Hard to build a bad Necron, Eldar, Tau, etc army, so you can really use whatever units you like. That is patently untrue for other codexes).

This is basically the case. The last few codexes had been doing a great job of leveling the playing field a bit. Not perfectly of course, but better than past codexes like Eldar and Tau. Now suddenly Necrons come along and they throw the whole thing out of proportion.

Warriors, Tomb Blades, Flayed Ones, Destroyers, and Wraiths are ALL under-costed units in the main Necron book. Even with no formations added, Games Workshop put out an obscenely powerful codex that doesn't fall in line with any of the other more recent and better-balanced codexes.

When you add some of their formations, especially Decurian, into the formula which enhances units that are already over-optimized and under-costed, it throws their power-level even higher.

Alcibiades wrote:
I think Warriors, surprisingly, are undercosted. They cost less than a tac marine, but have the same or better statline in all respects except for I and armour save -- and they are about as durable as a marine even with that worse armour save due to RP. In the Decurion with a Cryptek they are more durable than a tac. Due to how RP now works, in the Decurion they will now stand up to said marines in close combat, meaning that equivalent numbers of marines pretty muuch have no way to reliably take down warriors.

What I would have down is bring their WS and BS to 3 (shuffling zombies!) and cost to 10 ppm. I think.

You forgot the fact that they lack ATSKNF, pistols, frag&krak, have +2 LD and their guns can glance vehicles / wound anything on a 6.

Actually I think making the Necron Warrior cost 14 points, the Immortal 18 points and the Tomb Blade 20 points base would have balanced things out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Sir Arun wrote:
@rhavien: are you kidding me? dark angels Deathwing lists are going to have a field day against Necrons

How do Deathwing lists have a field day against anything?

Their ranged weapons are too sparse, so they're relying on Power Fists or Thunder Hammers to actually kill enemy units. Despite being low I, Necrons will strike first, and you get RP against their H2H attacks. Necrons will roflstomp Deathwing all day long even if played by a 5 year old.

you cannot outshoot a decurion. The best way to tackle a decurion is close combat. Necrons in general struggle against massed 2+ save armies. Deathwing is an army that consists entirely of 2+ saves; can get into cc-easily (deepstrike), and can mix-match stormshield guys to tank those few AP2 shots Necrons can throw at them, and twin-linked heavy weapons the turn they DS for some initial ranged firepower.

There are few Necron units that can hurt terminators in cc: Praetorians, the barge lord, the destroyer lord, the c'tan and tomb spyders. When going toe to toe with TH/SS terminators though, these units dont have the upper hand.

 Sir Arun wrote:

Alcibiades wrote:
I think Warriors, surprisingly, are undercosted. They cost less than a tac marine, but have the same or better statline in all respects except for I and armour save -- and they are about as durable as a marine even with that worse armour save due to RP. In the Decurion with a Cryptek they are more durable than a tac. Due to how RP now works, in the Decurion they will now stand up to said marines in close combat, meaning that equivalent numbers of marines pretty muuch have no way to reliably take down warriors.

What I would have down is bring their WS and BS to 3 (shuffling zombies!) and cost to 10 ppm. I think.

You forgot the fact that they lack ATSKNF, pistols, frag&krak, have +2 LD and their guns can glance vehicles / wound anything on a 6.

Actually I think making the Necron Warrior cost 14 points, the Immortal 18 points and the Tomb Blade 20 points base would have balanced things out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Sir Arun wrote:
@rhavien: are you kidding me? dark angels Deathwing lists are going to have a field day against Necrons

How do Deathwing lists have a field day against anything?

Their ranged weapons are too sparse, so they're relying on Power Fists or Thunder Hammers to actually kill enemy units. Despite being low I, Necrons will strike first, and you get RP against their H2H attacks. Necrons will roflstomp Deathwing all day long even if played by a 5 year old.

you cannot outshoot a decurion. The best way to tackle a decurion is close combat. Necrons in general struggle against massed 2+ save armies. Deathwing is an army that consists entirely of 2+ saves; can get into cc-easily (deepstrike), and can mix-match stormshield guys to tank those few AP2 shots Necrons can throw at them, and twin-linked heavy weapons the turn they DS for some initial ranged firepower.

There are few Necron units that can hurt terminators in cc: Praetorians, the barge lord, the destroyer lord, the c'tan and tomb spyders. When going toe to toe with TH/SS terminators though, these units dont have the upper hand.

Deathwing can't possibly throw enough H2H attacks at Necrons to make a difference, and every Terminator they lose is a severe blow. We're talking about an army that fields under 30 models at 1,500 points.

A full Terminator squad is swinging 3 Powersword attacks and 12 S8 AP2 attacks on the charge. 6 hit, 5 wound, probably 3 or 4 dead Warriors. That's assuming that they even get the charge. More than likely, they DS and the next turn Wraiths charge in and completely roflstomp the squad. Game over, thanks for playing.

DW simply can't touch the better Necron units - Wraiths and Night Scythes laugh at DW. 2+ saves aren't really all that when you're paying over 40 ppm.

Alcibiades wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:
I don't see how the units are an issue, other than Wraiths, who could've easily been 5-10 points more expensive. Every unit got cheaper than in the previous codex and most received buffs, but none of them are undercosted in my opinion.

I think Warriors, surprisingly, are undercosted. They cost less than a tac marine, but have the same or better statline in all respects except for I and armour save -- and they are about as durable as a marine even with that worse armour save due to RP. In the Decurion with a Cryptek they are more durable than a tac. Due to how RP now works, in the Decurion they will now stand up to said marines in close combat, meaning that equivalent numbers of marines pretty muuch have no way to reliably take down warriors.

What I would have down is bring their WS and BS to 3 (shuffling zombies!) and cost to 10 ppm. I think.

I have to respectfully disagree. Warriors aren't bad, by any means of the imagination, but they're not overcosted. The Init and lack of wargear is a big thing. Space Marines have options, good wargear, ATSKNF, and a better armor save. Warriors are durable, yes, but can get swept in CC, and excel at killing vehicles and that's about it. No customization, and they can be tougher, but only with other models to buff them. All Necrons should stay with WS/BS 4, it just makes sense to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Murrdox wrote:


This is basically the case. The last few codexes had been doing a great job of leveling the playing field a bit. Not perfectly of course, but better than past codexes like Eldar and Tau. Now suddenly Necrons come along and they throw the whole thing out of proportion.

Warriors, Tomb Blades, Flayed Ones, Destroyers, and Wraiths are ALL under-costed units in the main Necron book. Even with no formations added, Games Workshop put out an obscenely powerful codex that doesn't fall in line with any of the other more recent and better-balanced codexes.

When you add some of their formations, especially Decurian, into the formula which enhances units that are already over-optimized and under-costed, it throws their power-level even higher.

I won't argue against Wraiths being undercosted, but Flayed Ones? Destroyers? You know these were the same price in the old Codex, and sucked horribly, right? And they had minimal changes, and stayed the same cost. Flayed Ones just gained a CC weapon, and Destroyers are now more mobile, and have an additional wound. That's it. I don't see how they're over-optimized, since we lack variety on most of our units. Destroyers can kill Marines, they've always done that. Flayed Ones have had a ton of attacks, always. Why are we complaining now? Decurion aside.

Oh wait.....you were actually being serious about deathwing......lol.

The only way deathwing can have the slightest chance of winning vs any standard army, is by utilizing their landraiders.
If they don't do this then they are going to be shot off the board and if not totally tabled, then at least dominated in terms of victory points.

Guess with army eats landraiders?

Also, terminators cannot sweeping advance, meaning that winning a combat vs a large necron unit does not result in the unit being removed.



I think with regards to melee a lot of people are still thinking in terms of the old reanimation protocol rules. With 5th ed dex, you really didn't want most of your crons in cc, because losing combat and running meant no RP rolls and a potential wipe.

With the new rules, with RP acting as a super fnp roll, the cron units are more durable meaning they lose less guys, because they lose less guys they get more attacks back, and both of these combined with their str 4 attacks and LD10 make them a challenging opponent for most non dedicated melee units. Beating necrons in cc isn't the great tactic that it once was. I haven;t regretted charging my relentless necron warriors yet.

 Sir Arun wrote:

Alcibiades wrote:
I think Warriors, surprisingly, are undercosted. They cost less than a tac marine, but have the same or better statline in all respects except for I and armour save -- and they are about as durable as a marine even with that worse armour save due to RP. In the Decurion with a Cryptek they are more durable than a tac. Due to how RP now works, in the Decurion they will now stand up to said marines in close combat, meaning that equivalent numbers of marines pretty muuch have no way to reliably take down warriors.

What I would have down is bring their WS and BS to 3 (shuffling zombies!) and cost to 10 ppm. I think.

You forgot the fact that they lack ATSKNF, pistols, frag&krak, have +2 LD and their guns can glance vehicles / wound anything on a 6.

Well yeah but these don't affect the Warriors vs. Marines dynamic,e xcept LD really which I forgot to write. The point is that they are undercosted relative to Marines, or Marines overcosted relative to them.

on the other hand, overly expensive Warriors mean that Undead Zombie Hordes become undoable.

So I suggested reducing WS and BS. Which is irrelevant since GW will not do it.

 krodarklorr wrote:

I won't argue against Wraiths being undercosted, but Flayed Ones? Destroyers? You know these were the same price in the old Codex, and sucked horribly, right? And they had minimal changes, and stayed the same cost. Flayed Ones just gained a CC weapon, and Destroyers are now more mobile, and have an additional wound. That's it.

These aren't exactly minor buffs. Gaining an additional wound is *huge*, and with the way RP works now, applying instantly against each wound and not just at the end of the phase against the last wound, is a gigantic increase in survivability, not to mention being able JSJ move to hide/get cover after shooting. That's an outstandingly gigantic survivability boost. Likewise, for Flayed Ones, the survivability increase offered by the new RP functionality coupled gaining an attack (from two CC weapons) and Shred and AP5 is also gigantic, drastically increasing their killing power, nearly doubling their effectiveness against MEQ's and increasing killing power against GEQ's by 250% (with 5A on a charge each, effectively giving them a wound output against MEQ's equal to 4 charging Tac marines) while increasing their survivability as well.

These aren't minor buffs. One could argue that these units probably needed a bit of boosting, and that would probably be correct, however these went overboard.

Alcibiades wrote:

 Sir Arun wrote:

Alcibiades wrote:
I think Warriors, surprisingly, are undercosted. They cost less than a tac marine, but have the same or better statline in all respects except for I and armour save -- and they are about as durable as a marine even with that worse armour save due to RP. In the Decurion with a Cryptek they are more durable than a tac. Due to how RP now works, in the Decurion they will now stand up to said marines in close combat, meaning that equivalent numbers of marines pretty muuch have no way to reliably take down warriors.

What I would have down is bring their WS and BS to 3 (shuffling zombies!) and cost to 10 ppm. I think.

You forgot the fact that they lack ATSKNF, pistols, frag&krak, have +2 LD and their guns can glance vehicles / wound anything on a 6.

Well yeah but these don't affect the Warriors vs. Marines dynamic,e xcept LD really which I forgot to write. The point is that they are undercosted relative to Marines, or Marines overcosted relative to them.

on the other hand, overly expensive Warriors mean that Undead Zombie Hordes become undoable.

So I suggested reducing WS and BS. Which is irrelevant since GW will not do it.

I'm not seeing necron warriors themselves as being particularly undercosted in comparison to marines.

Marines get:
ATSKNF
pistols (shooting before charge, which warriors cannot do without decurion or warlord trait)
krak grenades (good vs MCs as well as vehicles)
Special/combi/heavy weapons
Sergeants (with potential wargear like meltabombs, good for eating a challenge)
Combat squads
Chapter tactics
Access to (objective secured) drop pods and rhinos
Initiative 4
3+ save

Necron warriors get:
Same durability vs small arms fire (non AP4) for a cheaper price. (It takes 6 bolter hits to take down both a marine and a non-decurion necron warrior)
Better durability vs heavy weapons
Ability to glance vehicles
LD10
Access to ghost arks

When you list it all out, it becomes apparent that the marines do have a lot of small advantages over the necrons. All in all I think the points for the base units are fine.

However, the decurion and formation bonuses really make a difference.
If we include these then the warriors will also get relentless, move through cover, and a much improved RP roll (an increase of around 24% chance if the warriors are within 12 of the overlord, 58% chance of reanimation vs non ID weapons)).

These bonuses are what puts the necron warriors over the top imo, rather than the base cost.

I think that any one of the special rules the Decurion detachment would be fair - 4+ RP, move through cover, relentless. Giving all for free seems more like a apoc ability. Toss in things like destroyers getting extra wounds for free, wraiths getting +1T for free, 3+ invlun shields for free, I really have to wonder who in the hell thought this would be even marginally balanced.

I mean, I played an apoc game where 20 nobz (waaagh banners, eavy armor, power klaws/big choppas, FNP, warboss support) charged 20 warriors, WARRIORS, and lost combat.

If that doesn't illustrate how broken necrons are, I don't know what can.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
I think that any one of the special rules the Decurion detachment would be fair - 4+ RP, move through cover, relentless. Giving all for free seems more like a apoc ability. Toss in things like destroyers getting extra wounds for free, wraiths getting +1T for free, 3+ invlun shields for free, I really have to wonder who in the hell thought this would be even marginally balanced.

I mean, I played an apoc game where 20 nobz (waaagh banners, eavy armor, power klaws/big choppas, FNP, warboss support) charged 20 warriors, WARRIORS, and lost combat.

If that doesn't illustrate how broken necrons are, I don't know what can.

Did he pop a res orb or anything? Because if not, he probably just got really lucky.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

These aren't minor buffs. One could argue that these units probably needed a bit of boosting, and that would probably be correct, however these went overboard.

Well, that what they did, a "bit" of boosting. What other changes would these otherwise lackluster and poor units could have undergone to be more usable?

My thoughts on this:




Naw just kidding.

Meh, I play Ork. Every battle is an uphill battle. 1 day, I will have a decent army and will be able to appreciate the win I get because it won't be 'all luck' (it never is, but it always feel like it).

Before going off on how 'broken' Decurion is, one should spend some time thinking about the United Colors of the Imperium, the United Colors of Eldar, and Chaos Daemon factories.

We Necron players have no Battle Brothers to fill in the gaps.

 krodarklorr wrote:

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
I think that any one of the special rules the Decurion detachment would be fair - 4+ RP, move through cover, relentless. Giving all for free seems more like a apoc ability. Toss in things like destroyers getting extra wounds for free, wraiths getting +1T for free, 3+ invlun shields for free, I really have to wonder who in the hell thought this would be even marginally balanced.

I mean, I played an apoc game where 20 nobz (waaagh banners, eavy armor, power klaws/big choppas, FNP, warboss support) charged 20 warriors, WARRIORS, and lost combat.

If that doesn't illustrate how broken necrons are, I don't know what can.

Did he pop a res orb or anything? Because if not, he probably just got really lucky.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

These aren't minor buffs. One could argue that these units probably needed a bit of boosting, and that would probably be correct, however these went overboard.

Well, that what they did, a "bit" of boosting. What other changes would these otherwise lackluster and poor units could have undergone to be more usable?

Destroyers are, I think, maybe slightly undercosted (consider them as Crisis Suits with FNP and Preferred Enemy instead of possible markerlight support). I think Flayed Ones are just too good. Than again (he says, thinking), an assault unit that cannot take a transport and does not have someting like Fleet or jump ability or any grenades had better be good.

I have to say that at first glance it seemed over powered.

I can also say, that if you happen to want an exact list that a decurion builds, you can make a powerful list.

However, I can also say, that the decurion is incredibly restricting in list building. You might not think so, until you actually try to build some lists with it.

For example; I love destroyers and stalkers (I think the triarch stalker is one of the coolest models I own).

However, what if I just want to field 3 destroyers.
Can't, I have to field 500 points worth (well, 470, but who runs a nakked d lord).
What if I just want a stalker? Can't 400 points.

Now, don't get me wrong, its hard to call the praetorians a "tax" as they are good - but what if you didn't want them?

Likewise, you want a named overlord and a command barge...have to buy the royal court, and the extra lord and cryptek. Again, they are good...but what if you did not want them.?

Imagine building a marine list where if you wanted snipers you had to buy a storm and another squad of scouts.
Or if you wanted a squad of termies you had to buy a land raider?
Are those bad units. No, not at all, but you did not want them.

Oh, and the codex does have bad units - the monliths actually got worse, and ctan still fall like cardboard (not to mention the gack shooting).

So, yeah, I think some of the decurion bonuses are a bit much, but unless its a waac cookie cuter player, he had to give up some things for it.

davethepak wrote:
the monliths actually got worse

explain

davethepak wrote:
I have to say that at first glance it seemed over powered.

I can also say, that if you happen to want an exact list that a decurion builds, you can make a powerful list.

However, I can also say, that the decurion is incredibly restricting in list building. You might not think so, until you actually try to build some lists with it.

Which honestly makes it even sillier. It basically forces you to either build one of a fairly limited set of power builds, or an awkward mess where you minimise formations to try to awkwardly cram more in.

Next time GW, drop the Ever Living bonus, split the core detachment into a choice of two or three interchangable cores and make the command formation mandatory but with low minimums.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sir Arun wrote:

davethepak wrote:
the monliths actually got worse

explain

Their gate lost it's exile mode, and now has extra restrictions.

-Eject units at the beginning of the movement phase rather than at any point.
-Infantry and Jump Infantry only.

In exchange we get to worthlessly snap fire at S5 instead of S4.

 Sir Arun wrote:

davethepak wrote:
the monliths actually got worse

explain

Well, they have a lot of problems
- the biggest of which is they can't shoot their main weapon (S8ap3 large blast, ordnance) without forcing their secondary weapons to snap fire
- they can mishap landing on a guardsman.
- they can't move more than 6 (for heavy, which due to ordnance gives them nothing).
- they can get immobilized on a tuft of grass (which is silly for a flying pyramid).

None of these things got fixed. I mean, most necron players would have happily given up Ordanance on the particle whip - which would have been a buff!

Worse, they lost their warp gate, which at least was a minor threat (and a lot of fun, actually) to assaulting infantry.

I love the model, and the fluff on them is very cool (and them being able to spit out infantry from reserve can be cool) but they are a string of disappointments otherwise.

Overall, the internal balance on the book is VERY good....with few exceptions (monolith and ctan on the bad end, and tomb blades and decurion spiders on the other).

I feel frustrated. The decurion makes Necrons finally feel like Necrons. Reanimation protocols on 5+ was never anything worth relying on. Unfortunately, I've now got a fairly extensive collection of models I can't use due to the restrictive formations. All the extra unit taxes make it difficult to bring in my chaos marine allies too.
I can run non-decurion lists, but I feel like I'm holding back and nerfing my own army by doing so. They made the decurion too good.
I was interested in the daemon kin codex coming out, but it looks like it is doing the same thing. Sigh...

 krodarklorr wrote:

Well, that what they did, a "bit" of boosting. What other changes would these otherwise lackluster and poor units could have undergone to be more usable?

Not made Flayed ones killier than Khorne Berzerkers for one

But to be frank, Shred effectively increases their effectiveness as much as if they were A5 base (even more on a charge), and they just have no business being *that* killy. If they're going to get Shred, I'd dump them down to A2 base instead of A3 (or just not counted Flayer claws as a distinct 2xCCW wargear and made Shred apply to the unit instead of the weapon) and left off the AP5. They'd still be more effective than they were against infantry targets, just not quite so absurdly so.

Likewise, Destroyers, easiest fix would have been to give them an extra shot. 3 S5 AP3 Gauss shots a turn on a T5 RP unit with high mobility & Preferred Enemy Everything would be worth 40pts, and you could have just dropped the price on Heavy Destroyers by 15ppm instead of 10 *and* giving them an extra wound.