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.

 Sasori wrote:

I would say our main weakness is that RP is unreliable at best, and it is baked into our points costs.

Unreliable ? Its a 33,3% chance and its reliable. Its not like there is a random roll if one unit gets it, and the other not..

 Sasori wrote:

We also do not have a lot of high powered, high damage weapons. We really only have DDAs and Destroyers that fill that role.

If i look in my codex i see 12 guns that have S7 and higher.

 p5freak wrote:

Unreliable ? Its a 33,3% chance and its reliable. Its not like there is a random roll if one unit gets it, and the other not..

But that's not the whole picture, it's 33.3% or 0%, since your unit can be wiped out. Which had a few pages of discussion 30 odd pages ago...

The weird thing is, this weakness was one of the main issues the army had in its old 3rd/4th ed incarnation (outside of being outdated and limited in unit choices). They fixed that in 5th, but seeminly went back to the old version that theyd already seen didnt work... Not really sure why. :/

 Tyr13 wrote:
The weird thing is, this weakness was one of the main issues the army had in its old 3rd/4th ed incarnation (outside of being outdated and limited in unit choices). They fixed that in 5th, but seeminly went back to the old version that theyd already seen didnt work... Not really sure why. :/

Yeah, warriors really seem like a 8-9 point model but because they can always come back they get bloated to 12. I'd rather have FnP again, it was much better. I get a lot of cheap wins because people leave one destroyer alive next to crypteks and split fire thinking they can obviously kill off the last one with the final shots only for 4-5 to get back up, which makes them act like my army is broken so I get a lot of complaints. Going back to FnP would be better in most situations (because good players focus fire Necrons) and I never see anyone complain about Death Guard having army wide FnP.

You think wrong. Monoliths can't DS within 12", can't move more than 6" and has nothing worth doing within 12" of an enemy unit. Monoliths are criminally overcosted, hardly any firepower or survivablity for their cost and very little mobility. Everything good about it comes at the cost of CP that could be used to buff the Destroyers that aren't in your list.

It was just a spit balling starter place homie, not an end all be all.

I don't think they are "criminally overcosted," though, I think that's a bit of an overstatement. Compared to a TVault which is 25% more expensive they have a reasonable amount of firepower and resilience, added to the fact that they can bring units into rapid fire or charge range more readily.

However, if you think they have "nothing worth doing within 12"" then I think you are missing the boat entirely with them. A.), if they are Mephirit, which I think is likely their best option, then they definitly want to be close, and B.) the best way to get mileage out of them is absolutely using them to get RF guns and CC units close to the enemy. If you aren't using the portal at all then yes, they could be considered "criminally overcosted" but that's only because you are willfully omitting one of their key capabilities.

That being said, the Beta rules regarding DS aren't doing them in favors, currently. Counting them against the 50% power level and not allowing them to DS outside of the deployment zone on turn one are two really imbalanced nerfs to them. Ideally, you either DS them turn one and drop your cargo turn 2, or you can hold them till 2 with enough carge to drop T3 to make the whole endeavor worth it. If the final ruling of the beta rules disallow both options then I would agree with you, they just wouldn't work correctly in a competitive setting. They also need to clear up the fact that you absolutely should be able to assault out of them, as was the initial intention.

In the meantime, I would recommend all Necron players to ask GW to give the GSC exception to Monos. They need it.

 p5freak wrote:

 Sasori wrote:

I would say our main weakness is that RP is unreliable at best, and it is baked into our points costs.

Unreliable ? Its a 33,3% chance and its reliable. Its not like there is a random roll if one unit gets it, and the other not..

 Sasori wrote:

We also do not have a lot of high powered, high damage weapons. We really only have DDAs and Destroyers that fill that role.

If i look in my codex i see 12 guns that have S7 and higher.

It is unreliable, as it can be negated completely. Any competent player knows this, and will completely wipe out the critical units, to deny RP. It's really not that hard to grasp this, and has been a major topic of discussion. How many games have posters in this thread discussed that they drop destroyers, but they almost never survive to use their RP? Often. This is an issue because the increased points are baked into the units, weather they can end up using the rule or not.

How many of those higher damage weapons are on efficient platforms? Are you going to try to imply that the Doom Scythe is going to be worth taking for ti's weapon? Or the Triarch Stalker with a HGC? The answer is no. We have very limited efficient high strength, high damage weapons.

 Sasori wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

 Sasori wrote:

I would say our main weakness is that RP is unreliable at best, and it is baked into our points costs.

Unreliable ? Its a 33,3% chance and its reliable. Its not like there is a random roll if one unit gets it, and the other not..

 Sasori wrote:

We also do not have a lot of high powered, high damage weapons. We really only have DDAs and Destroyers that fill that role.

If i look in my codex i see 12 guns that have S7 and higher.

It is unreliable, as it can be negated completely. Any competent player knows this, and will completely wipe out the critical units, to deny RP. It's really not that hard to grasp this, and has been a major topic of discussion. How many games have posters in this thread discussed that they drop destroyers, but they almost never survive to use their RP? Often. This is an issue because the increased points are baked into the units, weather they can end up using the rule or not.

How many of those higher damage weapons are on efficient platforms? Are you going to try to imply that the Doom Scythe is going to be worth taking for ti's weapon? Or the Triarch Stalker with a HGC? The answer is no. We have very limited efficient high strength, high damage weapons.

Yeah also a bunch of S7 tesla weapons isn't really what he's talking about I guess

 iGuy91 wrote:
I'd like to think here for a moment. Knowing your weaknesses as a whole is important to improving your game.

What would you say is the biggest weaknesses the Necron codex possesses?

I'd say lack of Psychic Defense or Presence hurts
As well as a lack of a GEQ-level unit to hold objectives while heavy hitters do the killing.

Thoughts?

Nah psychic defence is overrated, my opponents are stupidly bad at rolling for their psychic powers, like 50% success rate and 10% perils rate bad, I'm totally fine. I don't think Necrons have weaknesses after the buffs to HDs and DDAs. Individual lists do, like Mephrit tesla spam will cry against Nids and your opponent has to tailor their list to lose against Kutlakh it seems, but we have enough widely different good units that we can make a list to counter any one thing. Necrons are doing quite alright in tournaments so I think we're in a really good spot, Flayed Ones, Lychguard and Triarch Praetorians have never been meta, AB is better than it was in 7th, C'tan have been amazing all of 8th. Tesseract Vault might be too good, but it's also Titanic, when IK comes out Macro weapons will become more popular and the Tesseract Vault should suffer.

I played a 2k game against Nids in ITC mission #4. He had 40 Genestealers, Swarmlord, 18 Hive Guard and a few other things. I had a Maynarkh (Novokh) Outrider with Kutlakh WL (Conqueror), Lord (Sword/Orb) Relic (Orb of Eternity), 2x10 Lychguard, 6 Scarabs, 3 Scarabs, 6 Destroyers, Mephrit Battalion with Anrakyr, Szeras, 10 Tesla Immortals, 5 Gauss Immortals, 6 Gauss Immortals. I was able to delete his melee but he picked off all units before I was able to get to his ranged units. AP -4 is terrible against 5+ invul, the fact I did okay makes me want to try Novokh Lychguard some more, although I think I'm done with Kutlakh. He's trash. Also done with Orb of Eternity, 4 Destroyers fail 5+ RP, use OoE, get 1 Destroyer back, give me a break.

I also played a 1k game with a Transcendent C'tan (randomly got cosmic tyrant) and the Deceiver against an AM list with three Gorgon artillery tanks, he had first turn and I still didn't lose a single unit in the entire game and did somewhere around 30 MWs with the two C'tan, which sounds like a lot but I was actually really unlucky, spent all my 4 CP on my powers and I think I failed 3 of the re-rolls to do D3 MWs on 4+.

Raxxamous wrote:

 Tyr13 wrote:
The weird thing is, this weakness was one of the main issues the army had in its old 3rd/4th ed incarnation (outside of being outdated and limited in unit choices). They fixed that in 5th, but seeminly went back to the old version that theyd already seen didnt work... Not really sure why. :/

Yeah, warriors really seem like a 8-9 point model but because they can always come back they get bloated to 12.

Oh yeah, Space Marine with -1 Sv and -1 AP Ld 10 instead of 8 ATSKNF is worth 66% of the cost of a Space Marine, wait what? That's ignoring the rule you're complaining is increasing the cost, which you basically get for free. No the unfair thing is that we don't get transports, Warriors seem bad because they don't have any viable transports, because the Monolith is UP.

Shadar_Logoth wrote:

You think wrong. Monoliths can't DS within 12", can't move more than 6" and has nothing worth doing within 12" of an enemy unit. Monoliths are criminally overcosted, hardly any firepower or survivablity for their cost and very little mobility. Everything good about it comes at the cost of CP that could be used to buff the Destroyers that aren't in your list.

It was just a spit balling starter place homie, not an end all be all.

I don't think they are "criminally overcosted," though, I think that's a bit of an overstatement. Compared to a TVault which is 25% more expensive they have a reasonable amount of firepower and resilience, added to the fact that they can bring units into rapid fire or charge range more readily.

However, if you think they have "nothing worth doing within 12"" then I think you are missing the boat entirely with them. A.), if they are Mephirit, which I think is likely their best option, then they definitly want to be close, and B.) the best way to get mileage out of them is absolutely using them to get RF guns and CC units close to the enemy. If you aren't using the portal at all then yes, they could be considered "criminally overcosted" but that's only because you are willfully omitting one of their key capabilities.

That being said, the Beta rules regarding DS aren't doing them in favors, currently. Counting them against the 50% power level and not allowing them to DS outside of the deployment zone on turn one are two really imbalanced nerfs to them. Ideally, you either DS them turn one and drop your cargo turn 2, or you can hold them till 2 with enough carge to drop T3 to make the whole endeavor worth it. If the final ruling of the beta rules disallow both options then I would agree with you, they just wouldn't work correctly in a competitive setting. They also need to clear up the fact that you absolutely should be able to assault out of them, as was the initial intention.

In the meantime, I would recommend all Necron players to ask GW to give the GSC exception to Monos. They need it.

Didn't mean any offence buddy. I'm just salty about Monoliths still not being a core part of Necron lists which I think everyone can agree they're not. I'll buy all the new gak, I'll get a couple of the new Crypteks, I might get some FW, but no matter what I want to field an average of 1 Monolith (mostly 2) each game and I'd be stabbing myself in the foot more than I'm willing to by doing so. You're definitely wrong about them not being criminally overcosted (with the beta rules), but I don't know how many times you fielded Monoliths pre and post codex? If you've actually made your list work a couple of times I'll try it, but I don't think your theory is sound, so unless you have practice to back it up I won't believe in your theory.

You're ignoring the fact that if they get destroyed all units inside are immediately destroyed. Paying 2 CP to transport 3 units is barely worth it when you consider what other factions get or what you can achieve with a Deceiver and a VoD, as I said all the good things they do is based on using CP and Lychguard aren't that great whether you Deceiver/VoD or use a Monolith.

I'm not sure why you say you cannot charge out of them?

Guys who makes a better leader for a Nephrekh outrider detachment? I can't decide between the Destroyer Lord with Nanoscarab Casket or CCB with Lightning Field. There's only the cost of a unit of Scarabs between them so I'm not too worried about the cost. I'm leaning towards the CCB because it has better damage output, wave of command for the destroyers etc. But I've heard good things about the ghetto celestine, any opinions?

 Towenaar wrote:
Guys who makes a better leader for a Nephrekh outrider detachment? I can't decide between the Destroyer Lord with Nanoscarab Casket or CCB with Lightning Field. There's only the cost of a unit of Scarabs between them so I'm not too worried about the cost. I'm leaning towards the CCB because it has better damage output, wave of command for the destroyers etc. But I've heard good things about the ghetto celestine, any opinions?

Keep in mind that with the CCB as Nephrek he only gets to command Nephrek infantry, so only destroyers in said detachment.

Not immortals etc. In the battalion.

 iGuy91 wrote:
I'd like to think here for a moment. Knowing your weaknesses as a whole is important to improving your game.

What would you say is the biggest weaknesses the Necron codex possesses?

I'd say lack of Psychic Defense or Presence hurts
As well as a lack of a GEQ-level unit to hold objectives while heavy hitters do the killing.

Thoughts?

The biggest thing for me without going ForgeWorld Arks is a reliable T7 T8 tank busting unit so what’s the choices
Monolith too squishy for the points hates Plasma Lascannon etc
DDA good for points depend on good dice
HD how many to take you would need to waste ex term strat on them you could lose a normal destroyer for one that’s not really going to cut it
Any ideas???
I have been working on CC strategy that gets round the beta deepstrike is without the deceiver think it’s cheaper maybe and gets a 1st turn charge with warsythe Lychguard can’t post it now will get it on for your thoughts later

 vict0988 wrote:

Oh yeah, Space Marine with -1 Sv and -1 AP Ld 10 instead of 8 ATSKNF is worth 66% of the cost of a Space Marine, wait what? That's ignoring the rule you're complaining is increasing the cost, which you basically get for free. No the unfair thing is that we don't get transports, Warriors seem bad because they don't have any viable transports, because the Monolith is UP.

Comparing in isolation like that is silly. When comparing points between codices you have to take into account what else is avalible. Necrons can only take warriors and scarabs as cheap units - SM have access to 5+ other codices. SM units have loads of weapon options, warriors have none. And then as you yourself say, warriors have no good delivery mechanisms. So yes, making warriors cheaper seems perfectly reasonable. I would have said 10pts was good, but maybe 8 is closer to what they need.

MrPieChee wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Oh yeah, Space Marine with -1 Sv and -1 AP Ld 10 instead of 8 ATSKNF is worth 66% of the cost of a Space Marine, wait what? That's ignoring the rule you're complaining is increasing the cost, which you basically get for free. No the unfair thing is that we don't get transports, Warriors seem bad because they don't have any viable transports, because the Monolith is UP.

Comparing in isolation like that is silly. When comparing points between codices you have to take into account what else is avalible. Necrons can only take warriors and scarabs as cheap units - SM have access to 5+ other codices. SM units have loads of weapon options, warriors have none. And then as you yourself say, warriors have no good delivery mechanisms. So yes, making warriors cheaper seems perfectly reasonable. I would have said 10pts was good, but maybe 8 is closer to what they need.

10ppm warriors might be fair. in fact I think both Tac / Assault marines and Necron Warriors should be at
10ppm range. However 8ppm is tooooo over the top. A Necron Warriors is in every aspect much better than 2 Guardsmen added together, maybe even without RP.

MrPieChee wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Oh yeah, Space Marine with -1 Sv and -1 AP Ld 10 instead of 8 ATSKNF is worth 66% of the cost of a Space Marine, wait what? That's ignoring the rule you're complaining is increasing the cost, which you basically get for free. No the unfair thing is that we don't get transports, Warriors seem bad because they don't have any viable transports, because the Monolith is UP.

Comparing in isolation like that is silly. When comparing points between codices you have to take into account what else is avalible. Necrons can only take warriors and scarabs as cheap units - SM have access to 5+ other codices. SM units have loads of weapon options, warriors have none. And then as you yourself say, warriors have no good delivery mechanisms. So yes, making warriors cheaper seems perfectly reasonable. I would have said 10pts was good, but maybe 8 is closer to what they need.

Yeah the whole transport thing bugs me it would be good to even be able to immortals in a ghost ark even if didn’t benefit from the RP rule also being able to get an HQ to support say a deepstriking unit for CC Eg. The Traveller and Lychguard takes crazy schemes pionts and cp marines here all your re-rolls can happen because their HQs can DS as well sorry rant over

Curious79 wrote:

 skoffs wrote:

Curious79 wrote:
I do have 2 Doomsday Arks

Well, if your points are 2600, it's possible to include both DDAs if you trim some of your numbers here and there-

Spoiler:

+++ 2600 Test (Warhammer 40,000 8th Edition) [143 PL, 2594pts] +++

++ Sautekh Brigade Detachment +12CP (Necrons) [119 PL, 2181pts] ++

+ HQ +
Cryptek [5 PL, 85pts]: Canoptek Cloak, Staff of Light
Cryptek [5 PL, 95pts]: Chronometron, Staff of Light +Veil
Imotekh the Stormlord [10 PL, 200pts]

+ Troops +
6x Immortals [8 PL, 102pts]: Tesla Carbine
6x Immortals [8 PL, 102pts]: Tesla Carbine
5x Immortals [4 PL, 85pts]: Tesla Carbine
5x Immortals [4 PL, 85pts]: Tesla Carbine
5x Immortals [4 PL, 85pts]: Tesla Carbine
5x Immortals [4 PL, 85pts]: Tesla Carbine

+ Elites +
5x Deathmarks [5 PL, 95pts]
5x Deathmarks [5 PL, 95pts]
5x Flayed Ones [4 PL, 85pts]

+ Fast Attack +
3x Canoptek Scarabs [2 PL, 39pts]
6x Destroyers [18 PL, 300pts]
5x Tomb Blades [10 PL, 200pts]: Gauss, Shadowloom, Shieldvanes

+ Heavy Support +
Doomsday Ark [10 PL, 193pts]
Doomsday Ark [10 PL, 193pts]
1x Heavy Destroyers [3 PL, 57pts]


++ Nephrekh Outrider Detachment +1CP (Necrons) [24 PL, 413pts] ++

+ HQ +
Cryptek [5 PL, 85pts]: Canoptek Cloak, Staff of Light

+ Fast Attack +
3x Canoptek Scarabs [2 PL, 39pts]
3x Canoptek Scarabs [2 PL, 39pts]
5x Destroyers [15 PL, 250pts]

+++
6 Sautekh Destroyers Veil with Chrono-tek.
5 Nephrekh Destroyers deepstrike.
Sautekh Cloak-tek stays with DDAs
Imotekh advances with Immortals

Nice I was thinking along thoughs lines my worry is there isn’t enough scarabs to halt his advance and the MWBD will be watered down due to the smaller units of immortals the advantage is it will allow me to fall back and shoot with another unit, I really do like the idea of the blowing up CTan that would be funny as he loves to get into Melee as soon as no matter what
Another question from the noob here who is my objective grabbers then are the destroyers pinging onto them and the tomb blades I put in the deathmarks really just to ping when he deep strikes likewise the Flayed Ones as back line protection and if I can get them to come in 12” from the big man then all the better


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoiler:

++ Brigade Detachment +12CP (Necrons) [135 PL, 2607pts] ++

+ No Force Org Slot +

Dynasty Choice: Dynasty: Sautekh

Gametype: Matched

+ HQ +

Cryptek [5 PL, 85pts]: Canoptek Cloak, Staff of Light

Imotekh the Stormlord [10 PL, 200pts]

Overlord [6 PL, 104pts]: Voidscythe

+ Troops +

Immortals [8 PL, 170pts]: 10x Immortal, Tesla Carbine

Immortals [4 PL, 85pts]: 5x Immortal, Tesla Carbine

Immortals [4 PL, 85pts]: 5x Immortal, Tesla Carbine

Immortals [4 PL, 85pts]: 5x Immortal, Tesla Carbine

Immortals [4 PL, 85pts]: 5x Immortal, Tesla Carbine

Immortals [4 PL, 85pts]: 5x Immortal, Tesla Carbine

+ Elites +

Deathmarks [5 PL, 95pts]: 5x Deathmark

Deathmarks [5 PL, 95pts]: 5x Deathmark

Flayed Ones [4 PL, 85pts]: 5x Flayed One

Triarch Stalker [8 PL, 171pts]: Heat Ray

+ Fast Attack +

Canoptek Scarabs [4 PL, 65pts]: 5x Canoptek Scarab Swarm

Canoptek Scarabs [4 PL, 65pts]: 5x Canoptek Scarab Swarm

Destroyers [15 PL, 250pts]
. 5x Destroyer: 5x Gauss Cannon

Destroyers [15 PL, 250pts]
. 5x Destroyer: 5x Gauss Cannon

Tomb Blades [10 PL, 240pts]
. Tomb Blade: Shadowloom, Shieldvanes
. . Two Tesla Carbines: 2x Tesla Carbine
. Tomb Blade: Shadowloom, Shieldvanes
. . Two Tesla Carbines: 2x Tesla Carbine
. Tomb Blade: Shadowloom, Shieldvanes
. . Two Tesla Carbines: 2x Tesla Carbine
. Tomb Blade: Shadowloom, Shieldvanes
. . Two Tesla Carbines: 2x Tesla Carbine
. Tomb Blade: Shadowloom, Shieldvanes
. . Two Tesla Carbines: 2x Tesla Carbine
. Tomb Blade: Shadowloom, Shieldvanes
. . Two Tesla Carbines: 2x Tesla Carbine

+ Heavy Support +

Doomsday Ark [10 PL, 193pts]

Heavy Destroyers [3 PL, 57pts]
. Heavy Destroyer: Heavy Gauss Cannon

Heavy Destroyers [3 PL, 57pts]
. Heavy Destroyer: Heavy Gauss Cannon

++ Outrider Detachment +1CP (Necrons) ++

+ No Force Org Slot +

Dynasty Choice: Dynasty: Nephrekh

++ Total: [135 PL, 2607pts] ++

Created with BattleScribe (https://battlescribe.net)

So I was thinking I could drop either the Doomsday Ark or the Tomb blades for the transcendent CTan purely because I am up against so many 3++ and need Mortal wounds then fill with scarabs or the Stalker but in this build with so many min troops it’s going to help and then you have the issue of if you drop either the Doom or the Stalker then it leaves one massive target for the enemy my game is first thing tomorrow any thoughts peepz?? Or just leave the hallowed Brigade and go with batt and outrider


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Quick question about MWBD plus method destruct and Tesla I am sure it’s prob been covered does this mean it explodes on 4’s!!!!!

So had my game against the 3++ craziness Space Wolves and short story is he had 4 models left !!!!!! So eventually I went with a sole Sautekh Brigade dropped the tomb blades the Stalker the heavy destroyers and took 2 DDA and transcendent CTan dropped a Cryptek and had Stormlord and another Overlord made up the pionts with scarabs I think I dropped to a 5&6 destroyers I rolled way over average for getting my CP back that is real funny when it happens Tesla was popping all over the place exploding and RP scarabs sooo funny as well there goes another thunderwolf to a suicide scarab

I'm up against Tau in a friendly game soon, thinking of trying this list:



I have been debating weather or not to make it Novokh and swap the CCB for Anrakyr or keep it mephrit, but the warriors are unlikely to reach combat in a timely manner so holding the middle and letting the DLord Blade wing wrap up one of the flanks seems like a better option.

Not sure of I should get another relic to the CCB or shave off more points for wargear for the blades

Plan:

Veil up in prioritized order:

Warriors, wraiths, ??

Ghost ark and CCB advances up to connect with the warriors midfield. Cryptek veils up one unit of warriors. Ghost ark unloads warriors where needed.


Wraiths absorbes fire saving the warriors.


12 blades and DLord causes havoc on one flank.

Then wing it.

Didn't mean any offence buddy. I'm just salty about Monoliths still not being a core part of Necron lists which I think everyone can agree they're not. I'll buy all the new gak, I'll get a couple of the new Crypteks, I might get some FW, but no matter what I want to field an average of 1 Monolith (mostly 2) each game and I'd be stabbing myself in the foot more than I'm willing to by doing so. You're definitely wrong about them not being criminally overcosted (with the beta rules), but I don't know how many times you fielded Monoliths pre and post codex? If you've actually made your list work a couple of times I'll try it, but I don't think your theory is sound, so unless you have practice to back it up I won't believe in your theory.

Outside of a friendly game I haven't use it in 8th, yet. Just mostly glancing over it and theory crafting on how to unlock it's potential. I've had my 2 for so long the rust on them is starting to be real, though, lol.

I certainly understand people's hesitation with them, but I see some potential, still.

You're ignoring the fact that if they get destroyed all units inside are immediately destroyed.

I'm not, I just know the CP can mitigate that...

Paying 2 CP to transport 3 units is barely worth it when you consider what other factions get or what you can achieve with a Deceiver and a VoD, as I said all the good things they do is based on using CP and Lychguard aren't that great whether you Deceiver/VoD or use a Monolith.

I've found that it's pretty easy to get Crons CP in droves, so I don't find that much of an issue. It's a resource we can easily have more then we really need of.

Also, my thinking would to be use them in conjunction with at the very least Veil, if not also Grand Illusion. Bring the whole kit and kabbudle and shove your whole list in their face.

I'm not sure why you say you cannot charge out of them?

You absolutely are suppose to be able to, but some RAWtards are arguing otherwise. Nobody I play with is playing it that way, but I've certainly seen some argue on the internet that you can't.

I've played a grand total of 1 game with a monolith, relatively friendly game. Teleported and VoD'd and Deceivered up 10 Lychguard plus support HQs.

The monolith ate a ton of fire and died to a bolt pistol.

The scytheguard murdered about 1500 points of the enemy army while the big guns shot the monolith.

But that was before the deep strike changes.

It was a little sad tbh that it died so quickly.

So I wanted to discuss whether to take 3x min troops + HQ just for the battalion CP, or invest some more into them and make them into a proper part of your army.

The way I see it is as follows;

Troops as tax:
Cost: 422 points. This consists of 3x 5 Immortals /w Tesla, a Cryptek and an Overlord, all with minimal/no equipment.

So this is the 'cheapest' way to get a battalion. However, the 5 man Immortal squads aren't going to be doing much apart from sitting on objectives and providing medicore fire support. a 5 man squad isn't worth MWBD anyway.
On top of that, the Overlord and the Cryptek are sup-optimal when it comes to supporting the main powerhouses of our army (AKA Destroyers, DDA's, Wraiths & Tomb Blades).

The other option is this:

Troops filled out:
Cost: 762 points. Now it's 3x 10 Immortals, a Cryptek & Overlord /w Staff of Light and 2x3 Scarabs.

Now the troops can actually join the front and get proper support by the two HQ's. However, with them going forward we need new units to sit on the backline points, hence two units of Scarabs.

So, what do you guys think is better? 422 points of meh troops that provide some fire support, and some wasted HQ's?
Or 762 points of a proper HQ + troops core, but less points for our powerful units.

Filled out Troops. Immortals are quite dangerous with MWBD and a Stratagem.

You have to take them, make them useful.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Filled out Troops. Immortals are quite dangerous with MWBD and a Stratagem.

You have to take them, make them useful.

Agreed, 3x10 is the way to roll. Its the core of every Necron list I run. My infantry are pretty much always left alone while my opponent tries to focus destroyers, tomb blades, or wraiths. Lets the immortals do a lion's share of the killing for me.

 iGuy91 wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Filled out Troops. Immortals are quite dangerous with MWBD and a Stratagem.

You have to take them, make them useful.

Agreed, 3x10 is the way to roll. Its the core of every Necron list I run. My infantry are pretty much always left alone while my opponent tries to focus destroyers, tomb blades, or wraiths. Lets the immortals do a lion's share of the killing for me.

A horde of Tzaantch Flamer kills Immortals with ease.

Neophyte2012 wrote:

 iGuy91 wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Filled out Troops. Immortals are quite dangerous with MWBD and a Stratagem.

You have to take them, make them useful.

Agreed, 3x10 is the way to roll. Its the core of every Necron list I run. My infantry are pretty much always left alone while my opponent tries to focus destroyers, tomb blades, or wraiths. Lets the immortals do a lion's share of the killing for me.

A horde of Tzaantch Flamer kills Immortals with ease.

If you run with that reasoning, everything has a hard counter unit in the game. Might as well not play.

Immortals would kill them right back in droves to be fair. With a decent screen, I don't see why they would. All the smites would get wasted on scarabs anyway, and their shooting attack is pretty weak...STR3, Assault 2? Meh.

 iGuy91 wrote:

Neophyte2012 wrote:

 iGuy91 wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Filled out Troops. Immortals are quite dangerous with MWBD and a Stratagem.

You have to take them, make them useful.

Agreed, 3x10 is the way to roll. Its the core of every Necron list I run. My infantry are pretty much always left alone while my opponent tries to focus destroyers, tomb blades, or wraiths. Lets the immortals do a lion's share of the killing for me.

A horde of Tzaantch Flamer kills Immortals with ease.

If you run with that reasoning, everything has a hard counter unit in the game. Might as well not play.

Immortals would kill them right back in droves to be fair. With a decent screen, I don't see why they would. All the smites would get wasted on scarabs anyway, and their shooting attack is pretty weak...STR3, Assault 2? Meh.

Their shooting is very strong. 12" Str User AP-1 D6 auto hit, with a herald nearby they will be Str 5 and psychic power gives them +1 to wound. By math a unit of 9 kills 10 Immortals outright with just a Herald standing at their back.

In reply 10 Immortals with MWBD buff spit out 30 hits, 20 Wounds on Flamer, 10 goes through 4++, killing 5 of them. If they pop the stratagem to make them 3++, then only 3 dead.

Sorry might be a bit emotional at first as still in the shock of my last game as my opponent kills 1/3 of my Necron army with a single squad of 9 Tzeentch Flamers over the game. And laugh off my basically whole armies shooting back even with Methodical Destruction and MWBD. Yes they are expensive at 30ppm. Yes it may be a bit of problem of dices as my opponent consistently score 40+ hits and 30+ wounds with those Flamers in first 2 turns and only failed less than 12 inv saves throughout the game for his flamers (3 flamers lived till end game), but it shows that they are one of the powerful unit we need to pay attention to.

Lol. Tzeentch flamers suck and see no competitive play. They're squishy and have very short range. So you can easily screen them out by just hanging back until your opponent's turn 3.

Doctoralex wrote:
So I wanted to discuss whether to take 3x min troops + HQ just for the battalion CP, or invest some more into them and make them into a proper part of your army.

Actually, I was *just* experimenting with that idea.

I came up with a double battalion that had six 9x Immortal units with 3x Overlords + Imotekh to be able to MWBD every single one of them via Pharons Will. Considering adding a regular Lord for extra to-wound killiness. Was able to fit some DDAs and Scarabs, too.
I don't have that many Immortals on hand so I can't really test it, but if anyone else wants to try-


I toyed with another variation that had four big sized Immortals and two min sized (for babysitting) that had no Imotekh and one less DDA so it could fit a unit of Destroyers in, too. Don't know which would be better-

Neophyte2012 wrote:

A horde of Tzaantch Flamer kills Immortals with ease.

Not in reality. Immortals will shoot first and kill half of that squad, so who cares.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

Neophyte2012 wrote:

A horde of Tzaantch Flamer kills Immortals with ease.

Not in reality. Immortals will shoot first and kill half of that squad, so who cares.

It's not THAT easy. They deepstrike. So you have to keep up a screen for your opponent's 2nd and 3rd turns.

 vict0988 wrote:


Oh yeah, Space Marine with -1 Sv and -1 AP Ld 10 instead of 8 ATSKNF is worth 66% of the cost of a Space Marine, wait what? That's ignoring the rule you're complaining is increasing the cost, which you basically get for free. No the unfair thing is that we don't get transports, Warriors seem bad because they don't have any viable transports, because the Monolith is UP.

I think Tactical Marines are overcosted as well. People should take intercessors or immortals if they want a troop that can fight and still be a troop. Necrons don't have scouts to make up for their terrible troops though. The problem is cheap troops are so far superior to Tactical Marines equivalent models in a match where anyone can think beyond "wow one space marines can sure beat up a guardsmen". You're honestly just deluding yourself if you think a warrior is worth more than two guardsmen on anything but a straight "can fight" level, which is meaningless as I mentioned before. This is why almost every tournament army is just cheap ass troops and the best units after that.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

Neophyte2012 wrote:

A horde of Tzaantch Flamer kills Immortals with ease.

Not in reality. Immortals will shoot first and kill half of that squad, so who cares.

The Flamers can deepstrike into shooting range, guaranteeing them first shot (from turn 2 onwards and assuming you can't screen your immortals from every direction - which you are unlikely to do for troops).

I also play daemons though, and the flamers have not so far impressed me with their killing power. Maybe more of them are needed. An equivalent points value of flamers (6) deepstriking in for first shot but otherwise unsupported would kill about half of a squad of 10 immortals. Of course as a daemon player I could buff them with a herald, warp surge, +1 to wound psychic power, more flamers etc. but I am shoving a large investment to kill off a minor troops squad...I could just charge them with 4 greater daemons...


Mark.