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.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
My main question is how did the Aggressors make it anywhere

Good placement, aggressive opponents, screening with the guard and other marines perhaps - I don't know, he got DQed for an illegal relic/chapter combination in the final rounds but they seemed to work well enough for him until then.

phillv85 wrote:
What's gone wrong with Necrons? They were being described as lower top tier to solid mid tier on release. Have people just worked out the counter to Necrons now?

It was just laymen overestimating them. They saw some nice strategems (and Necrons do have good ones) and declared the codex was powerful. Whereas many of us actual Necron players knew the book was trash as soon as the beta version was leaked.

I'm just glad that we do have some powerful strats - without them Necrons would be absolute bottom tier, although still better than GK probably...

We overestimated how impactful Extermination Protocols would be, basically. It's a great stratagem but it's not good enough to carry the entire faction by itself.

Yeah, its good, but I don't see how its supposed to fulfil anti-tank roles. I found it way too unreliable.

That's the thing about necrons - for a race obsessed with immortality and stasis, there is an absurd amount of variation. A lot of the rules could be simplified.

Take Quantum Shielding - if you analyse it, you'll find it's actually a highly unreliably and clunky rule, that generally requires 2 variable conditions; your opponent has to roll for damage and then you have to roll under that damage. In practice it hurts the flow of the game as there's an interrupting step at an odd place.

A much more graceful and reliable approach would be to simply give the vehicle an invul save that's the same as the weapon's wounding requirement.
So an annihilation barge, for example, would get a 3+ invul against a lascannon, but a 5+ save against a bolter. Imo, that's a much simpler and more effective solution that still has the feel of how a quantum shield should work, rather than constantly playing the lottery.

I just can’t get my head around every codex being awful? Out of all of the tactics threads I’ve looked at for each of the codex’z is just continuous whining about how there are only 1 to 2 good options in (insert codex) and how Gw hate (insert codex) and we can never have good rules.......then reminisce about the good old days, when everything was just dandy, in such and such edition. If this is the case and every codex is bottom tier, then GW have done a great job of balancing them (not grey knights)

Well done GW, top notch job

I look forward to you justifying to me how bad your codex currently is

 Marklarr wrote:
I just can’t get my head around every codex being awful? Out of all of the tactics threads I’ve looked at for each of the codex’z is just continuous whining about how there are only 1 to 2 good options in (insert codex) and how Gw hate (insert codex) and we can never have good rules.......then reminisce about the good old days, when everything was just dandy, in such and such edition. If this is the case and every codex is bottom tier, then GW have done a great job of balancing them (not grey knights)

Well done GW, top notch job

I look forward to you justifying to me how bad your codex currently is

yeah everyones favourite hobby seems to blaming their army for their losses. Certain races more than others

Bharring wrote:
"The only things that are pure garbage are melle aspect warriors and the avatar."
Storm Guardians say hi. Oh, and Windriders.

And every Phoenix Lord (the CM equivelants).

And Vypers.

But most of the units in the CWE book are above par. I agree that CWE is top tier.

I forgot storm guardians exist. Probably because defenders are so much better but even they are overcosted - they get by though because they have good stratagems and synergize really well with doom. True Baharath and Karandras are really bad. Jinzar/ Aman / Fuegan / Rah - are all decent enough.

Vypers aren't actually bad - Siamhan ones are really good.

People are going to be unhappy about codexes as long as they can make comparisons to other, similar things and point out one as better than the other.

This will always happen. The best we can hope for is good inter-codex balance.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Yeah, its good, but I don't see how its supposed to fulfil anti-tank roles. I found it way too unreliable.

That's the thing about necrons - for a race obsessed with immortality and stasis, there is an absurd amount of variation. A lot of the rules could be simplified.

Take Quantum Shielding - if you analyse it, you'll find it's actually a highly unreliably and clunky rule, that generally requires 2 variable conditions; your opponent has to roll for damage and then you have to roll under that damage. In practice it hurts the flow of the game as there's an interrupting step at an odd place.

A much more graceful and reliable approach would be to simply give the vehicle an invul save that's the same as the weapon's wounding requirement.
So an annihilation barge, for example, would get a 3+ invul against a lascannon, but a 5+ save against a bolter. Imo, that's a much simpler and more effective solution that still has the feel of how a quantum shield should work, rather than constantly playing the lottery.

Now that's some good game design.

Would a flat 5++ be a simpler rule that does basically the same thing? Reduce the impact of strong hits, without impacting light ones? It'd be based on AP instead of S.

Bharring wrote:
Would a flat 5++ be a simpler rule that does basically the same thing? Reduce the impact of strong hits, without impacting light ones? It'd be based on AP instead of S.

It would be simpler, but there are 2 problems

1) It wouldn't accurately demonstrate a defensive system that's supposed to be effective against power hits as opposed to weaker hits. There are low strength / High AP weapons in the game, so I don't think a flat invul save would represent it all that well. Making QS into a simple, flat 5++ save would kill the nuance of that rule. It would be as bad as turning RP into FNP.

2) Its a generic special rule in a game full of generic special rules. As much as I don't like the current QS in practice, I do appreciate they tried to do something different rather than "just reroll 1s". Its a problem I have with the resorb; you have a legacy necron item that's supposed to be a powerful tool...and its an expensive single use item that just confers rerolls, and doesn't really synergize with the RP rule. It would be more interesting and effective if you could activate when a nearby squad gets wiped out and make RP rolls for them at that moment. That would make it worth its points and the single use limitation.

My version is simpler, but it keeps a bit of the nuance as well as making the game a bit more interesting mechanics wise.

A.T. wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
My main question is how did the Aggressors make it anywhere

Good placement, aggressive opponents, screening with the guard and other marines perhaps - I don't know, he got DQed for an illegal relic/chapter combination in the final rounds but they seemed to work well enough for him until then.

OH I heard about that list. What was the relic in question?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

A.T. wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
My main question is how did the Aggressors make it anywhere

Good placement, aggressive opponents, screening with the guard and other marines perhaps - I don't know, he got DQed for an illegal relic/chapter combination in the final rounds but they seemed to work well enough for him until then.

OH I heard about that list. What was the relic in question?

It's on his list as the Standard of Devastation, but would have been the Standard of Sacrifice - in a Flesh Tearers detachment.

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Marklarr wrote:
I just can’t get my head around every codex being awful? Out of all of the tactics threads I’ve looked at for each of the codex’z is just continuous whining about how there are only 1 to 2 good options in (insert codex) and how Gw hate (insert codex) and we can never have good rules.......then reminisce about the good old days, when everything was just dandy, in such and such edition. If this is the case and every codex is bottom tier, then GW have done a great job of balancing them (not grey knights)

Well done GW, top notch job

I look forward to you justifying to me how bad your codex currently is

yeah everyones favourite hobby seems to blaming their army for their losses. Certain races more than others

*cough* SM players *cough*

Necrons are always going to be tricky. Regeneration as a mechanic always threatens with a game hitting an immortality line where the army is invincible against anything below it and folds rapidly to anything above it. Getting it just right against multiple opponents with variable output is extremely tricky.

I think a cheap CP dynasty would go a long way to helping Necrons make the most of what they've got. I'm pretty sure Necrons are the only faction in the game who can't take a 40 point Troop slot. Something that let them take a scarab battalion somehow would be a big help.

Cynista wrote:

phillv85 wrote:
What's gone wrong with Necrons? They were being described as lower top tier to solid mid tier on release. Have people just worked out the counter to Necrons now?

It was just laymen overestimating them. They saw some nice strategems (and Necrons do have good ones) and declared the codex was powerful. Whereas many of us actual Necron players knew the book was trash as soon as the beta version was leaked.

I'm just glad that we do have some powerful strats - without them Necrons would be absolute bottom tier, although still better than GK probably...

This and, people were assuming that you needed to handle MEQ. Necrons were evaluated in comparison to TAC marines, which ended up being essentially the worst troops in the game. Warriors are better than TAC marines, but that really isn't saying much. If you assume TAC marines are middle of the pack, then Necron warriors are trending on the good side of things.

The statline defining 8th edition, in reality is GEQ. And warriors end up getting extra stuff that doesn't really matter, because fighting GEQ is all about killing efficiency not durability.

Worst 2 factions:
GK, Necrons

Factions with most expensive minimum troops:
From what I recall:
GK: 110?
Necrons: 100?
Harlies: 65
CWE: 56
Marines: 55
Guardsmen: 40
Tau: 35?
DE: 30

Some of those numbers might be off, but it's odd that GK and Necrons seem to top that list and be bottom tier.

Why do you think that's odd?

Because those two worked out to about the same points/slot for min troops, with a *very* large gap between them and most of the other armies. I was expecting a more continuious-looking series.

Unless you're saying that having cheaper min troop options makes you more powerful. But I'm not sure that I'd agree that SM are stronger than CWE...

Bharring wrote:
Because those two worked out to about the same points/slot for min troops, with a *very* large gap between them and most of the other armies. I was expecting a more continuious-looking series.

Unless you're saying that having cheaper min troop options makes you more powerful. But I'm not sure that I'd agree that SM are stronger than CWE...

Maybe it's part of the equation. Also, effectiveness of what you are forced to pay for is pretty important, too.

I don't think it's a shock that the bottom three also have the best troops in the game.

Not an expert, but maybe this was a rethorical question.

The problem is that defensive stats outside of toughness and invulnerable saves are totally overvalued as a result of the transition from flat AP to Rend. Subtracting those two things it becomes cost to wound ratio.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
Because those two worked out to about the same points/slot for min troops, with a *very* large gap between them and most of the other armies. I was expecting a more continuious-looking series.

Unless you're saying that having cheaper min troop options makes you more powerful. But I'm not sure that I'd agree that SM are stronger than CWE...

Both of these armies suffer in the HQ slot as well. GK have it worse than Necrons there, by a significant margin.

Bharring wrote:
Worst 2 factions:
GK, Necrons

Factions with most expensive minimum troops:
From what I recall:
GK: 110?
Necrons: 100?
Harlies: 65
CWE: 56
Marines: 55
Guardsmen: 40
Tau: 35?
DE: 30

Some of those numbers might be off, but it's odd that GK and Necrons seem to top that list and be bottom tier.

Necrons are 85.
They have 5 man units of immortals.

That smooths the curve out a bit.

Where are Custodes at?

Bharring wrote:
That smooths the curve out a bit.

Where are Custodes at?

Each dude is 55 points I think? They're expensive that's for sure.

They really wreck the curve.

To be fair, it's really just one guy that's running Custodes troops at all, everyone else that plays them uses the bikes in an otherwise AM list.

 Arachnofiend wrote:
To be fair, it's really just one guy that's running Custodes troops at all, everyone else that plays them uses the bikes in an otherwise AM list.

It's my dream those Gun dudes from 30k are finally ported over so that I can run a brigade for Custodes.

Unfortunately that's probably still gonna be over 2k...

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
To be fair, it's really just one guy that's running Custodes troops at all, everyone else that plays them uses the bikes in an otherwise AM list.

It's my dream those Gun dudes from 30k are finally ported over so that I can run a brigade for Custodes.

Unfortunately that's probably still gonna be over 2k...

A Battalion of those guys would be pushing it already.

Cynista wrote:

phillv85 wrote:
What's gone wrong with Necrons? They were being described as lower top tier to solid mid tier on release. Have people just worked out the counter to Necrons now?

It was just laymen overestimating them. They saw some nice strategems (and Necrons do have good ones) and declared the codex was powerful. Whereas many of us actual Necron players knew the book was trash as soon as the beta version was leaked.

I'm just glad that we do have some powerful strats - without them Necrons would be absolute bottom tier, although still better than GK probably...

As noted previously GK have performed significantly better in the competitive scene than Necrons have. Necrons are the worst codex per tournament stats over the last year.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

My main question is how did the Aggressors make it anywhere. I know they can be surprisingly quick, but no amount of quickness matters if they aren't able to fire twice, which is primarily where their offense comes from.

Wrong. Point for point Aggressors get their value off regular shooting. Even without the double shooting they are one of the fiercest offensive units points wise, having 150% damage output of Devilgants for example, a unit considered a good anti-infantry glass cannon, or almost double the damage output of guard mortar teams. They then, without having had double shot, force your opponents hand in the threat they put down, as that once you get them to this range, they need to be dealt with in some manner immediately or they often outright win the game the next turn, with DOUBLE those numbers in shooting and a fierce melee follow up for the heavy stuff. And dealing with them can be a difficult prospect against BA who aren't going to let you do that for free at all. I think it's an excellent list and I'm entirely unsurprised to see it do well. Their offense is not primarily hinged off getting to double shoot at all, move-shooting is more than worth its points if you get it there and the threat of double shooting the turn before it is often where their strength lies as well even if you don't get to do it.