Why necrons got 46th at the BAO, Parts 1-4 in OP, conversation follows

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.

**Marmatag**

Grimgold wrote:
Marmatag wrote:
Grimgold wrote:

Marmatag wrote:
Can someone please share a link to the results which show them ranked 46th? It's not that I doubt that, I just want to see where Grey Knights, Blood Angels, and other factions measured up.

I linked it six posts ago, but I guess I should probably put it in the OP:

https://www.bestcoastpairings.com/r/79exy3cp

Exalted, thank you.

And WOOT! Grey Knights had someone at 49! We got one in the top 50!!!! Yeah he was running conscripts in a GK list, but who cares, top 50 is so much better than i expected.

49, 72, 114 = Grey Knights placings
46, 85, 98 = Necrons placings

Grey Knights, overall, did worse than Necrons.

True but grey knights get the next codex after chaos, so things are probably looking up. As for the necron codex, I'm sure it won't be as long as the necrons were asleep for, but it might feel longer.

Honestly I sympathize with you. It's good knowing we're in the same ball-park. Necrons had a 40% win rate at the BAO, Grey Knights had 38%.

Let's soak in the hot tub of misery together! I hope that (a) my codex is awesome and (b) your codex is awesome, and that we can all compete with Imperial Guarddar

**silentone2k**

I mentioned before that I expect some of the weakness Necrons are experiencing right now might fade when our codex drops. One of the things that we should get from that is Dynasty abilities, which can reasonably be expected to look like the Chapter Tactics that Space Marines are already rolling around with.
Reviewing a few of those that seem necron-appropriate or specific dynasty appropriate;
6+ FNP
+1 saves from >12"
reroll charges (lychguard-heavy dynasty)
Morale damage (the night lords ability seems perfect for the Maynarkh)
Reroll hit or damage once for each unit (Salamanders ability, fits a couple options, including the Mephrit, d-arks have dynasties...)

Thinking about how some of these will synergize with what we already put on the table gives me some hope.

We just need, y'know, that codex.

**Aren73**

Slightly off topic but dynasties have been mentioned - anyone think the Charnovokh will get rules? I was surprised when they were mentioned in the rulebook, always thought they were just a small not really developed dynasty just for variety but have seen them pop up a few times and now in the 8th rulebook...gets my hopes up.

Asking because I play Charnovokh.

**Arandmoor**

Klowny wrote:
Additionally, our infantry guns have lost their oomph. 20 warriors dont scare much anymore, sure the -1 rend is okay but I cant put my finger on it, our lethality across the board just isnt what is was in 7th. I know comparing the two editions is frivolous, and we were very strong in 7th. But now, we dont have the durability we once had *and that was meant to be our whole army identity* and we dont pack the offensive firepower we used to have, meaning were a slow, weak, and fragile army.

My cron's are undefeated atm but in no part due to my armies strength, I just have been lucky to avoid tablings/outscored/played the game better than my opponents.

My most cherished unit in 7th was Tomb Blades, and while they still are good this edition, even they have lost some of their damage, while also costing around 500 points for a squad of 9.

We got the better end of the stick in the FW index, but our main index is very far down the ladder.

Currently we are paying a heavy premium for literally nothing. We have a damage output akin to a horde army, yet we have the body count of an elite army. Either they want us to be a more silver tide army (very boring IMO) and have a substantial points decrease across the board, or they keep the identity they've always had of an elite army and give us our damage back. Giving us a -1 increase on our rend to compensate for us losing gauss isn't enough. If str, rend and damage were all increased I can see it being more viable, but again I dont know how far over the edge that would push us.

Note: I ended up going on a rant. Sorry.

eh, I wouldn't say that warriors, or gauss flayers, are bad. The -1 ap is huge as long as you're not in a cityfight.

I think that the necron army is incomplete. They've got all these special characters, and that's it. Also, their unclear transport rules are a huge disadvantage. I don't have my books in front of me, but I think people might be misinterpreting how the night scythe and monolith portal work. Or, at the very least, they way they run by the RAW aren't how they're supposed to work by the RAI. They way they're written, you're never actually embarked on your transport, so it's exactly like deepstriking, with the idea that Invasion Beams can put you on the board with a LOT less restriction than normal deep strike (3" from enemies rather than 9", which is a trivial charge). Sure you can't move after you come onto the board, but the idea is that you shouldn't have to. If anything, the invasion beams should have a longer range. Especially given how vulnerable necrons tend to be if they have more than one or two units in portal reserve. Goes double if they're using a monolith as a backup portal because of how expensive the freaking thing is.

IMO, Necrons, Nids, and Orks need varied codicies that all specialize in different ways of waging war. The armies also need to be shown making a difference in the universe. They need to wage war against not just the imperium, but also each other. And they also need to take large actions that shake the rest of the galaxy because, as it stands, the only armies that get to do that are the imperium and chaos. Everyone else gets left out.

If you want to know why *I* think necrons are in 46th place, it's because they're in the GW Xenos-trap. They're not a well-developed army with multiple grand strategies available to them. They're a one-trick army (Damage resistant phalanx) with a shallow bag of options and variation (deep strike deploy with portals and/or the Deceiver, or mobile melee flankers with wraiths and paretorians).

The detachment system fixes some of this. All destroyers and tomb blades? You can do that.Godzilla list? You can do that too.

However, this is only a partial fix. Space marines are an extremely healthy army, and they almost have more elite choices than Necrons have non-character units across their entire army.

Why does this matter? It matters because small armies like Necrons suffer more from bad rules and units than more healthy armies. If Space Marines have a bad unit in their codex, there are easily another 4 to 6 units that can fill the same slot in their force.

Necrons have a transport that doesn't work. That means they don't have transports.

Orks have a similar issue with Boyz being hands-down better than everything else. If an army like space marines gets a single unit that can handle hordes, and that unit becomes popular, Orks are suddenly completely dead against half of the armies on the board (the issue is reversible). At least with an army like nids you might be bringing a nidzill list that can ignore the SM AI firepower. But if you're Orks, you've lose before you take your models out of the case.

Why are Necrons doing poorly? For the same reason they were doing poorly in 4th edition. A limited army in a limited codex where other more popular armies have the tools necessary to adapt that Necrons simply do not. Out of all the armies in the game, IMO, Necrons are at the top of the "needs codex" list. They're up there with T'au and Orks. The one thing I'm happy about with marines and chaos being first is that early in a process like this, mistakes will be made. I'd rather those mistakes be made with SM than with a Xenos faction that won't see attention for another 5-6 years.

**Klowny**

Arandmoor wrote:
Klowny wrote:
Additionally, our infantry guns have lost their oomph. 20 warriors dont scare much anymore, sure the -1 rend is okay but I cant put my finger on it, our lethality across the board just isnt what is was in 7th. I know comparing the two editions is frivolous, and we were very strong in 7th. But now, we dont have the durability we once had *and that was meant to be our whole army identity* and we dont pack the offensive firepower we used to have, meaning were a slow, weak, and fragile army.

My cron's are undefeated atm but in no part due to my armies strength, I just have been lucky to avoid tablings/outscored/played the game better than my opponents.

My most cherished unit in 7th was Tomb Blades, and while they still are good this edition, even they have lost some of their damage, while also costing around 500 points for a squad of 9.

We got the better end of the stick in the FW index, but our main index is very far down the ladder.

Currently we are paying a heavy premium for literally nothing. We have a damage output akin to a horde army, yet we have the body count of an elite army. Either they want us to be a more silver tide army (very boring IMO) and have a substantial points decrease across the board, or they keep the identity they've always had of an elite army and give us our damage back. Giving us a -1 increase on our rend to compensate for us losing gauss isn't enough. If str, rend and damage were all increased I can see it being more viable, but again I dont know how far over the edge that would push us.

Note: I ended up going on a rant. Sorry.

eh, I wouldn't say that warriors, or gauss flayers, are bad. The -1 ap is huge as long as you're not in a cityfight.

I think that the necron army is incomplete. They've got all these special characters, and that's it. Also, their unclear transport rules are a huge disadvantage. I don't have my books in front of me, but I think people might be misinterpreting how the night scythe and monolith portal work. Or, at the very least, they way they run by the RAW aren't how they're supposed to work by the RAI. They way they're written, you're never actually embarked on your transport, so it's exactly like deepstriking, with the idea that Invasion Beams can put you on the board with a LOT less restriction than normal deep strike (3" from enemies rather than 9", which is a trivial charge). Sure you can't move after you come onto the board, but the idea is that you shouldn't have to. If anything, the invasion beams should have a longer range. Especially given how vulnerable necrons tend to be if they have more than one or two units in portal reserve. Goes double if they're using a monolith as a backup portal because of how expensive the freaking thing is.

IMO, Necrons, Nids, and Orks need varied codicies that all specialize in different ways of waging war. The armies also need to be shown making a difference in the universe. They need to wage war against not just the imperium, but also each other. And they also need to take large actions that shake the rest of the galaxy because, as it stands, the only armies that get to do that are the imperium and chaos. Everyone else gets left out.

If you want to know why *I* think necrons are in 46th place, it's because they're in the GW Xenos-trap. They're not a well-developed army with multiple grand strategies available to them. They're a one-trick army (Damage resistant phalanx) with a shallow bag of options and variation (deep strike deploy with portals and/or the Deceiver, or mobile melee flankers with wraiths and paretorians).

The detachment system fixes some of this. All destroyers and tomb blades? You can do that.Godzilla list? You can do that too.

However, this is only a partial fix. Space marines are an extremely healthy army, and they almost have more elite choices than Necrons have non-character units across their entire army.

Why does this matter? It matters because small armies like Necrons suffer more from bad rules and units than more healthy armies. If Space Marines have a bad unit in their codex, there are easily another 4 to 6 units that can fill the same slot in their force.

Necrons have a transport that doesn't work. That means they don't have transports.

Orks have a similar issue with Boyz being hands-down better than everything else. If an army like space marines gets a single unit that can handle hordes, and that unit becomes popular, Orks are suddenly completely dead against half of the armies on the board (the issue is reversible). At least with an army like nids you might be bringing a nidzill list that can ignore the SM AI firepower. But if you're Orks, you've lose before you take your models out of the case.

Why are Necrons doing poorly? For the same reason they were doing poorly in 4th edition. A limited army in a limited codex where other more popular armies have the tools necessary to adapt that Necrons simply do not. Out of all the armies in the game, IMO, Necrons are at the top of the "needs codex" list. They're up there with T'au and Orks. The one thing I'm happy about with marines and chaos being first is that early in a process like this, mistakes will be made. I'd rather those mistakes be made with SM than with a Xenos faction that won't see attention for another 5-6 years.

I agree with this, I think our codex will shore up a lot of problems. I also hope for a price drop across the army, otherwise getting access to CP to do almost anything will force us into Battalions, something which I dont like doing as I feel warriors are terrible.

The only thing that bugs me is our supposed 'durability'.

The only durability mechanic that works well is QS. Living metal is 1 wound a turn, not really counteracting much at all, and RP is completely negatable almost all of the time. If you take away RP, we have fragile infantry for the most part. With only 2 units having an invuln, and not many multi wound models.

**Arachnofiend**

Necrons are definitely a durability faction; being a phalanx of warriors that don't die when they are killed is one of the prime selling points of the faction, and that extreme resiliency is why I played them in 7th. Reanimation Protocols is still as army defining as it was in 7th (even more so really, since it requires you to build your list with max size squads) , the problem is that now the ability sucks. Of course a durability army with a poor durability rule is going to be bad.

**Klowny**

Arachnofiend wrote:
Necrons are definitely a durability faction; being a phalanx of warriors that don't die when they are killed is one of the prime selling points of the faction, and that extreme resiliency is why I played them in 7th. Reanimation Protocols is still as army defining as it was in 7th (even more so really, since it requires you to build your list with max size squads) , the problem is that now the ability sucks. Of course a durability army with a poor durability rule is going to be bad.

Yep I'm in the same boat. I loved our durability in 7th (much to the chargrin of my opponents however) and now that we've lost our durability, we don't have anything. No offensive piwer, no durability, no speed, not many special weaponry. I had hopes we were going to do well this edition, initial reports looked dire, my win rate said otherwise, but now a clearer picture is out it's making me sad again

**vipoid**

Arandmoor wrote:

Note: I ended up going on a rant. Sorry.

eh, I wouldn't say that warriors, or gauss flayers, are bad. The -1 ap is huge as long as you're not in a cityfight.

I think that the necron army is incomplete. They've got all these special characters, and that's it. Also, their unclear transport rules are a huge disadvantage. I don't have my books in front of me, but I think people might be misinterpreting how the night scythe and monolith portal work. Or, at the very least, they way they run by the RAW aren't how they're supposed to work by the RAI. They way they're written, you're never actually embarked on your transport, so it's exactly like deepstriking, with the idea that Invasion Beams can put you on the board with a LOT less restriction than normal deep strike (3" from enemies rather than 9", which is a trivial charge). Sure you can't move after you come onto the board, but the idea is that you shouldn't have to. If anything, the invasion beams should have a longer range. Especially given how vulnerable necrons tend to be if they have more than one or two units in portal reserve. Goes double if they're using a monolith as a backup portal because of how expensive the freaking thing is.

IMO, Necrons, Nids, and Orks need varied codicies that all specialize in different ways of waging war. The armies also need to be shown making a difference in the universe. They need to wage war against not just the imperium, but also each other. And they also need to take large actions that shake the rest of the galaxy because, as it stands, the only armies that get to do that are the imperium and chaos. Everyone else gets left out.

If you want to know why *I* think necrons are in 46th place, it's because they're in the GW Xenos-trap. They're not a well-developed army with multiple grand strategies available to them. They're a one-trick army (Damage resistant phalanx) with a shallow bag of options and variation (deep strike deploy with portals and/or the Deceiver, or mobile melee flankers with wraiths and paretorians).

The detachment system fixes some of this. All destroyers and tomb blades? You can do that.Godzilla list? You can do that too.

However, this is only a partial fix. Space marines are an extremely healthy army, and they almost have more elite choices than Necrons have non-character units across their entire army.

Why does this matter? It matters because small armies like Necrons suffer more from bad rules and units than more healthy armies. If Space Marines have a bad unit in their codex, there are easily another 4 to 6 units that can fill the same slot in their force.

Necrons have a transport that doesn't work. That means they don't have transports.

Orks have a similar issue with Boyz being hands-down better than everything else. If an army like space marines gets a single unit that can handle hordes, and that unit becomes popular, Orks are suddenly completely dead against half of the armies on the board (the issue is reversible). At least with an army like nids you might be bringing a nidzill list that can ignore the SM AI firepower. But if you're Orks, you've lose before you take your models out of the case.

Why are Necrons doing poorly? For the same reason they were doing poorly in 4th edition. A limited army in a limited codex where other more popular armies have the tools necessary to adapt that Necrons simply do not. Out of all the armies in the game, IMO, Necrons are at the top of the "needs codex" list. They're up there with T'au and Orks. The one thing I'm happy about with marines and chaos being first is that early in a process like this, mistakes will be made. I'd rather those mistakes be made with SM than with a Xenos faction that won't see attention for another 5-6 years.

I think this is a good point.

I mean, which is your favourite Necron Troop choice? The slow, shooty, infantry or the other slow, shooty infantry?

**Arandmoor**

Arachnofiend wrote:Necrons are definitely a durability faction; being a phalanx of warriors that don't die when they are killed is one of the prime selling points of the faction, and that extreme resiliency is why I played them in 7th. Reanimation Protocols is still as army defining as it was in 7th (even more so really, since it requires you to build your list with max size squads) , the problem is that now the ability sucks. Of course a durability army with a poor durability rule is going to be bad.

It sucks, yet it's better than ever. This describes Necrons since 4th edition.

"But WBB is so GOOD!"

Sure...except when you completely ignore it. At which point I'm removing a squad I should have paid about 200 points for, except I actually paid 360 points for them.

Klowny wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Necrons are definitely a durability faction; being a phalanx of warriors that don't die when they are killed is one of the prime selling points of the faction, and that extreme resiliency is why I played them in 7th. Reanimation Protocols is still as army defining as it was in 7th (even more so really, since it requires you to build your list with max size squads) , the problem is that now the ability sucks. Of course a durability army with a poor durability rule is going to be bad.

Yep I'm in the same boat. I loved our durability in 7th (much to the chargrin of my opponents however) and now that we've lost our durability, we don't have anything. No offensive piwer, no durability, no speed, not many special weaponry. I had hopes we were going to do well this edition, initial reports looked dire, my win rate said otherwise, but now a clearer picture is out it's making me sad again

Well, I think we've still got some very deceptive mobility going for us. It's just held in units necron players have been avoiding since 5th edition or before.

Wraiths and Praetorians are highly mobile, and hit very, very hard.

The Deceiver is better than he has ever been.

Same with Flayed ones, who pair beautifully with a command barge for that potential 1st turn charge (use a reroll die if you have to) and can take more advantage of the +1 to hit than even a squad of Warriors with their 4 attacks per model, wound rerolls, and huge squad size.

Also, I would argue that the monolith and invasion beams are not as bad as has been made out. You can't move after you come onto the board, but the only placement restrictions are 3" coherency to the scythe or monolith, and not directly into melee. You can pull some wacky conga-line shenanigans, and charging out of either is trivial if you're positioned correctly. My only complaint here is that the monolith is WAAAAAAY too expensive for what it does. It's the same price as an IG super-heavy with a quarter of the firepower, a third to half of the movement, even fewer wounds, and no options. I mean, it's a Necron vehicle, and it doesn't even get a 4+ BS. For 381 points, it's freaking garbage. The sad part is I don't want it to get cheaper. What I want is a new mold with more guns and a few options. I'd like some variations on the 'lith a lot more than I'd like seeing it drop back to it's ~235 point price-tag.

However, honestly, I think the most humiliating thing in the index is how Necron flyers are strictly inferior to pretty much every other flyer in the game. We're talking about a race that has mastered a FTL inertialess drive. The damn things make them absolute nightmares to fight in BFG. Yet their 40k flyers pack less firepower, less effective range, no shields, cost more points, and are still limited to the same supersonic rules AND cannot hover? Immortal androids with unlimited technology capable of killing gods, and it took a human tech-priest to think of pointing a thruster down?

However the flyers are my pet peeve. Especially the difference in price between the Night Scythe and the Doom Scythe. It made sense originally that the doom scythe would be about 50 points more, because the Death Ray was just obscene. However, every time they've iterated on it, it's been heavily nerfed. However the price has never come down, and the doom scythe has never gotten any better in any other area. The invasion beamers on the night scythe are worth the price as long as you're packing enough scythes into your list that they're immune to being entirely wiped out in a first turn alpha, however the doom scythe is just garbage no matter how you build it into your army. For comparison, the SM Stormtalon is roughly the equivalent to the Doomscythe for basic loadout. Trade the two heavy bolters in for two lascannons and you get roughly the same loadout. Except it gets compensated for all the heavy weapons, can choose to hover, the tesla cannon is strictly inferior to the twin assault cannons, and Necrons pay roughly 20 points more overall.

**Klowny**

Necrons can be fast, but especially in this edition, we pay through the nose for it. Wraiths hit okay, as do praets (1 damage hurts so bad). TB are good, as are flayed ones, but not for their price.

The good is too expensive, the bad is too expensive and also bad.

**vipoid**

Just had a thought regarding RPs. What if, instead of being done on a unit-by-unit basis they were instead done on an army-wide basis?

I don't know exactly how it would work, but the idea is that you'd roll dice based on the number of models you'd lost (perhaps with some qualifiers) and then you could assign the successes to whichever units you liked.

Or, perhaps you could have a number of points each turn for RPs (these could be based on number of units or such, so that they'd scale with game size), and you use these each turn to revive a set number of wounds of models. So, for 6 points you could revive 6 warriors or 2 Destroyers. There could also be a way to pay extra points in order to bring a dead unit back. Perhaps dead characters, too.

I haven't had a chance to work out some of the details yet, but do you think one of the above might be a better way of running RPs?

**silentone2k**

vipoid wrote:

I think this is a good point.

I mean, which is your favourite Necron Troop choice? The slow, shooty, infantry or the other slow, shooty infantry?

I think Immortals should go back to being elites (woth the power bump that entails) and Scarabs should be troop choices... Those would make some interesting choices.

Klowny wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Necrons are definitely a durability faction; being a phalanx of warriors that don't die when they are killed is one of the prime selling points of the faction, and that extreme resiliency is why I played them in 7th. Reanimation Protocols is still as army defining as it was in 7th (even more so really, since it requires you to build your list with max size squads) , the problem is that now the ability sucks. Of course a durability army with a poor durability rule is going to be bad.

Yep I'm in the same boat. I loved our durability in 7th (much to the chargrin of my opponents however) and now that we've lost our durability, we don't have anything. No offensive piwer, no durability, no speed, not many special weaponry. I had hopes we were going to do well this edition, initial reports looked dire, my win rate said otherwise, but now a clearer picture is out it's making me sad again

Lots of this.
Necrons key, defining feature as an army is overwhelming durability... with long aeons even death may die type durability. In practice it feels more like "until someone pays attention" durability without some of the things that make other armies credible threats. (range, mobility, massed fire...)

Klowny wrote:

The good is too expensive, the bad is too expensive and also bad.

This is the basic summary. I think that Necrons should be grossly (points) expensive per model. Our troops should be priced the way some other faction's elites are.
But, for the faction to be competitive the models have to be able to be worth their points, whatever level those are set to.

**Halfpast_Yellow**

My thoughts are the 'fix' is quite simple now that the last FAQ went in that morale casualties can't be ressed. Necrons eligible to roll RP regardless of the unit being destroyed.

It's the only way to be able to actually assign a reasonable points value to a mechanic that's powerful, but in it's current form can be completely circumvented by the opposing player doing something they likely want to do anyway, which is concentrate force to wipe out whole units.

**vipoid**

silentone2k wrote:

vipoid wrote:

I think this is a good point.

I mean, which is your favourite Necron Troop choice? The slow, shooty, infantry or the other slow, shooty infantry?

I think Immortals should go back to being elites (woth the power bump that entails) and Scarabs should be troop choices... Those would make some interesting choices.

That would indeed be interesting. I think Flayed Ones should also be troops. They're basically melee-warriors.

**CthuluIsSpy**

Crazy idea, what if you rolled RP after a unit finished inflicting damage on a necron squad?
Its like this -
Enemy Squad Fires at a unit of necrons. If there is at least one necron left in the squad, you can roll for RP. If there are no necrons left in the squad, then no RP.
If there are still necrons left at the beginning of your turn, you can roll RP for any missing models from the squad.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

vipoid wrote:
silentone2k wrote:

vipoid wrote:

I think this is a good point.

I mean, which is your favourite Necron Troop choice? The slow, shooty, infantry or the other slow, shooty infantry?

I think Immortals should go back to being elites (woth the power bump that entails) and Scarabs should be troop choices... Those would make some interesting choices.

That would indeed be interesting. I think Flayed Ones should also be troops. They're basically melee-warriors.

Yeah, I always thought they should be elites. Lore wise they aren't that special either; Immortals were professional soldiers, so it made sense that they would be elites in the 3rd ed book.
Flayed Ones were just crazy necrons.

**Aren73**

I think Immortals are fine as troops and flayed ones as elites. Immortals were just the regular soldiers in the Necrontytr armies (warriors are civilians/militia) and flayed ones are just warriors gone crazy but I'd wager there are a lot more immortals than there are flayed ones. Also no overlord in their correct mind would use them as troops, in fear of the virus spreading. In the lore they are most often used just as shock troops behind enemy lines, far away from the regular army.

So I don't think Necrons ever would build their armies on the backbone of flayed ones, but they sure would on a foundation of Immortals

**CthuluIsSpy**

Oh that's right, Flayed ones are victims of a stupid virus that makes them hungry for some reason now.
I don't know why they changed that from their 3rd ed version, where they were necrons who remembered their past selves and were driven insane by it. Way more disturbing than cannibal zombie robots.

What's really dumb is that the old flayed one lore would have worked perfectly with the Silent King's motivation, as you would then have a concrete example of why bio transference was a bad thing. But no, good writing and consistency is hard, gotta retcon everything.
Granted, it doesn't help that it was in some White Dwarf from 12 years ago, but you'd think that whoever was writing the necron codex would be arsed to actually do some research on the necrons, instead of glancing over the codex. Its been 12 years and I still remember obscure stuff like that.

**Tyel**

People have gone into more detail but I don't think the issue is durability, the issue is that the damage kind of sucks.

Anti-tank is too expensive while tesla is just bad. Give cost reductions on both and this will boost your durability because you will just have more stuff on the table.

I really didn't like the overlapping layers of Necron durability in 7th. It wasn't fun to play against and beyond "but I like winning" I struggle to see how it was especially fun to play. Top tier armies could still wipe you out but everything mid tier and down bounced completely.

**silentone2k**

Aren73 wrote:
I think Immortals are fine as troops and flayed ones as elites
...

So I don't think Necrons ever would build their armies on the backbone of flayed ones, but they sure would on a foundation of Immortals

The counter argument about building a force with flayed ones as troops is one of the forgeworld dynasties which has been described as doing exactly that.
For me, the Immortals as troops v elites more a choices thing. Immortals and warriors are currently too similar. Immortals need a bump in effectiveness/price, warriors need a drop in price, or both. Moving Immortals back to the elite slot where they started would highlight that. There are currently no "regular infantry gunline" elites, while the lychguard and flayers are competing as elite CC and Praetorians as mid-range jumpers. Elite Immortals would compete with Deathmarks, which is not without irony given they come from the same box. But if GW can't distinguish between elite gunline and snipers we have bigger issues.

Let's also remember that in 8e you can build an army on a backbone of elites, whether that's flayers, immortals, or otherwise. Just gives less CP than a troop driven force. Getting fewer CPs for a force of trained soldiers seems weird, but basic mechanics are making them suffer where they are. If GW wants a the professional warriors to be part of a higher CP army even as elites give them a baby version of the ability some characters are getting; for each X in your army (X being; unit, 5 Immortals, something else) you get 1 CP. Bring Gauss Blasters into line with Tesla Carbines and you're off to the races.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Oh that's right, Flayed ones are victims of a stupid virus ...

Even within a given Codex the reason for Dlayed One's degeneration is explained in several contridictory ways, from viruses to biotransference side effects, and even 'a c'tan did it.' Mostly, though, the poont is the 'crons don't know and all the explanations that are given for it are stories they tell to pretend they understand what's happening to them.

Tyel wrote:
People have gone into more detail but I don't think the issue is durability, the issue is that the damage kind of sucks.

Anti-tank is too expensive while tesla is just bad. Give cost reductions on both and this will boost your durability because you will just have more stuff on the table.

I really didn't like the overlapping layers of Necron durability in 7th. It wasn't fun to play against and beyond "but I like winning" I struggle to see how it was especially fun to play. Top tier armies could still wipe you out but everything mid tier and down bounced completely.

A lot of this. Tesla isn't bad, especially at the low end. (Carbine immortals, can throw out 20 shts at range and get 20 hits, 30 with MWBD.) But Tesla isn't the Necron's trademark weapon. I do like the Necron uber-durability. But, by itself, that won't win games or even make for an interesting fight.

**Klowny**

Yea, durability in this edition seems to be not a favourable asset. Both necrons and death guard are at the bottom of the ladder on all metrics... :(

**torblind**

Klowny wrote:
Yea, durability in this edition seems to be not a favourable asset. Both necrons and death guard are at the bottom of the ladder on all metrics... :(

Everything got more durable, vehicles have saves and plenty of wounds to go round. Necron models did not increase their durability proportionally. Perhaps +1W for any RP eligible model could be a thing. Necron warriors with 2W sounds interesting

**Grimgold**

Klowny wrote:
Yea, durability in this edition seems to be not a favourable asset. Both necrons and death guard are at the bottom of the ladder on all metrics... :(

I don't think that's quite the right way to think about it. GW made some large mistakes in regards to durability in the 5th - 7th ed super edition. This lead to an arms race which gave us wide access to rerollable invuls and D-weapons, and finally units that could ignore some aspects of D-weapon shots. That insane toughness is what made deathstars possible, if it weren't for insane durability dropping 1200 points on a unit with 20 wounds would have been a self defeating strategy. So I understand their resistance to make the tough armies truly tough, and it's kind of a moot point given how much offense has increased. For our toughness to be reliable in this edition we'd probably need to be as tough as we were in 7th ed (army wide 4+ FnP), because the Death guard have 2/3 of what we had in 7th ed (maybe almost equal since they can use DR on 8th eds version of d-weapons), and it's not doing them any favors.

Instead of trying to restart that particular arms race, I think they should leave RP as it is, sure it can be bypassed, but it's interesting which is more than we can say for RP in any edition since the phase out days. Instead of trying to turn us back into turtles, they should stick with an interesting if underwhelming defensive aspect and make us offensively interesting/capable. The once and future rulers of the galaxy, who put the old ones to the sword and destroyed living gods, shouldn't have heavy weapons that the average guardsman would find unimpressive. Gauss getting a -1 ap instead of an interesting rule was one of the big disservices done to us this edition. We are also overpaying for all of our heavy weapons, and the rules for Tesla weapons have not aged particularly well. You can also start to see the outlines of a unique movement aspect to the army in tomb world deploy, but it's so incompetently implemented that it was dead on arrival.

Here is what I think we can reasonable hope for before a codex, fix the Dynasty keyword inconsistencies via FAQ, tweak tomb world deploy to not murder our units after three turns and/or if we lose all of our portals, also done via FAQ. Chapter approved will likely come before our codex, so we will probably see a points balance pass there, with gauss cannons and heavy gauss cannons going down in price, as well as some of our heavier units like praetorians, destroyers, and tomb blades also getting a reduction. if we are really lucky we will see tesla destructors get an ap value and a damage boost. Even taken all together we won't be burning down the ITC charts, but that should help us limp along until we get a codex and they can dig in and fix the underlying issues.

**Klowny**

Yeah I fee durability is okay as it is this edition for us, we are more durable than the majority, maybe a +1T across the board at most, considering toughness isn't as big of a safety blanket as it used to be? Either way the more pressing issue is our lethality. A -1 rend increase would help in most cases, stuff that's -5 already goes to a mini macro weapon? And an increase in shots in our heavies, maybe d3+2 or something similar?

**Arandmoor**

I was talking with my brother about Xenox and codicies in 8th edition, and we started wishlisting some things...

Arandmoor's perfect 8th edition necron codex collection:

Codex: Necrons - Base necron codex. The foundation for the entire faction. Basically what we have now but with any index problems balanced. Includes basic rules for the Sautek and Nihilakh Dynasties as well as introducing one or two more. Necron forces represented by this codex are ascendent.

Codex Necrons: The Legion of Rust - Alternate necron army codex for Dynasties completely taken by the destroyer virus. Little shooting that isn't destroyer-mounted. Lots of melee. Necron forces represented by this codex are descendent.

Codex Necrons: The Canoptek Dynasty - Alternate necron army codex that expands the canoptek roster to a full army. Capable of fielding a full army of just canoptek units, but can also ally with necron armies. Canoptek forces represented by this codex are from "dead tombs" that have no functioning Necrons remaining, but have somehow awoken anyway.

In fluff, describe the faction-wide search for a way to reverse the effects of the Destroyer virus as the only possible outcome of a confirmed destroyer virus infection is a steady decline from fully functioning dynasty, to widespread infection, to the extinction of the, otherwise ageless and immortal, Necron race.

**Klowny**

you mean flayer virus yes? Destroyers dont have a 'virus' per se, more so just a bad personality disorder

**Arandmoor**

Klowny wrote:
you mean flayer virus yes? Destroyers dont have a 'virus' per se, more so just a bad personality disorder

IIRC, it's been called both so it just depends on which codexyou consider to be "correct".

**CthuluIsSpy**

Man, the necrons need to update their anti-malware programs. Sure lot of viruses floating around recently.
Maybe their operating system is faulty; they should have stuck with necrodows 7 instead of updating to necrodows 10.

**Aren73**

We are paying for RP and base ld 10 with 3 things really - lack of psykers, slow movement and points.

The ld 10 is nice and comes into play but I wouldn't say it's game winning.

RP...well, it's a type of durability that is delayed and due to its delayed nature sometimes doesn't come into play.

Now, if RP worked like a save like in 7th - wasn't delayed, well I think it would be too powerful and much less fluffy.
Yet with its current delayed nature against a good opponent it won't come into play that much which makes it quite an odd rule - with most faction abilities they can be used nomatter who you're playing agaist.
So how to tweak it?

I'd suggest a faction command point ability:
"2CP
As soon as a unit has finished attacking a NECRON unit with the REANIMATION PROTOCOLS ability and the NECRON unit has suffered any wounds you can use this ability to immediately make Reanimaion Protocol rolls for each model slain as if it wa the beginning of the movement phase. This does not stop you from making any other reanimation protocol rolls"

Also maybe make this ability only usable if the unit is within 12' of a character.

Additionally, res orbs should allow you to make RP rolls even for units that have been wiped out, but one use only.

**Maelstrom808**

Make ghost arks open-topped again and reduce the minimum squad size of warriors to 5 again. This alone would take care of many of my gripes.

**morgoth**

Part Five: no serious competitive player even attempted anything competitive with necrons since they didn't have a shot at top ten.

#46 isn't even terrible for first placement of a faction played by a total of 0 competitive players.