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.
Not perhabs because I refuted every one of your pts and you forgot that several other Craftworld units other than the one you mentioned got nerfed? You act like everything you say was handed down by god, saying my arguments and opinions are inherently flawed, do you even know what that means? In case you didn't know subjectivity is implied when you discuss something Except when you just make personal attacks and accusations of wrong-doing, without pointing out exactly when and how that wrong-doing was done. Believe it or not, I don't want to push anyone out of the proposed rules or tactics community nor make anyone feel bad, maybe I do when people call me names and accuse me of doing this that or the other wrong, but I didn't start by saying how your every opinion is gak because it comes out of your keyboard, I said you have some opinions I disagree with and I don't see how that can be controversial when I pointed out exactly how and why you are wrong, meanwhile you say I belittle people? Have you read what YOU are writing?
I believe that Necrons are not the weakest faction because reason A, B and C is different from saying you're a prick for not agreeing with me and your opinions are inherently bad. How were any of my arguments inherently flawed? As long as they do not contradict themselves they are not inherently flawed. Like saying someone is nice and recently killed a dozen good people for fun is inherently flawed. Saying that you believe Necrons are stronger than some people on the internet make them out to be is not inherently a flawed argument.
That's a strawman. I already said that it is the current pts costs of our most competitive units that make it possible for Necrons to do well at tournaments and in general, it doesn't matter where the buffs came from or how big the buffs are in relation to other factions only that our current costs are pretty good in relation to those of other factions, top tier? Maybe not, maybe right below the middle, but saying Necrons are trash tier is ill-informed from all the tournaments Necrons have topped and how few Necron players attend tournaments.
So if Tau had gotten a 1 pt DECREASE on 10 more Drone models they'd have an average reduction of 15 and therefore get less of a buff from CA2018 than Necrons got. You should become a politician. Nice try, now try listing the number of Tau units and Necrons units that went down 0-10%, 10-15%, 15-20% and more than 20% after wargear. The conclusion is as flawed as the methodology, how about you compare twip or win rate of Necrons pre and post CA2018 in tournaments and Tau pre and post CA2018 or your own win rate with Necrons compared to that of your buddies playing Tau.
If you lose more against Tau after CA2018 than before I don't even know what to tell you, my favourite list would be 2200 in old pts, my strongest list would be over 2200 pts, meanwhile Tau can field a triptide list with a bunch of shield drones, fire warriors, an Ethereal, the markerlight HQ, three Commanders using the exact same pts before and after CA2018 and those lists do amazingly well in tournaments, just as good as the other options available to the Tau now. Meanwhile Necrons had absolutely no luck in tournaments without at least two TVaults, that option got slashed and we got new options instead. The Doomwing is nowhere near mandatory. You know what I do want to belittle you if you if you lose more now than you used to, maybe your opponents started taking the game more seriously and trying to win and you got too caught up in whining about your faction not being in the top half and how everything GW ever does to you is gak, so learn to play and stop being an ass at people. You had a bunch of nice suggestions for how Necrons could be changed though
Like I said, nothing new to say, just a whole bunch of projection
You keep wondering why I purposely dug you out - you have an extremely poor attitude toward online discourse which you have displayed several times in the official Necron thread, towards myself and others. It usually goes something like: You're wrong about XYZ but without any kind of logical reasoning, just a snide insistence that your opinion is correct and a snarky remark. That's why I had no problem calling you out in this one (this is the point where you demand evidence, and I roll my eyes) and you don't like it when someone's doing the same to you.
As usual you ignored all the relevant talking points and direct questions relating to your assertions and spun the narrative. Your misinterpretation of my point regarding Tau and subsequent rant is truly baffling.
Since you didn't even try to actually address my post, I won't with yours. I'm done with this little spat, I've said all I need to.
With that out of the way, as you seemed to like my ideas for improving Necrons, why don't we all get back on track and talk about that, the purpose of this thread.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: You're not seriously suggesting Necrons are in even an okay spot?
That depends on what you mean by an okay spot? I don't think the game as a whole is in an okay spot, it's a rocky spot and I still complain and I still make suggestions for improving the game. I'd say things could be a lot worse, but not a lot better without being too good. I'd say Necrons are in a good place when a double Monolith list makes top 5 at a tournament with more than 20 players, what do you mean by good spot? What do you actually demand that GW do for you as a Necron player? Everything in this thread is going to be ignored, it's just pointless wish-listing, I don't mean that in a bad way I enjoy wish-listing and game design, it's just hard to implement and GW probably won't do it within the next 24 months.
It is the same thing with CA2018, you could either expect to get absolutely canned and for us to get two or three units buffs or you could expect the whole codex to be revived, viable Spyders and RP and Tomb World mechanics fixed. I was pleasantly surprised and at the same time disappointed with CA2018, GW is still gak at balancing the game and creating simple rules that are easy to understand, but they are trying more than ever and the 2020 format will be best we've ever had and it'll still be imperfect.
Cynista wrote: Like I said, nothing new to say, just a whole bunch of projection
You keep wondering why I purposely dug you out - you have an extremely poor attitude toward online discourse which you have displayed several times in the official Necron thread, towards myself and others. It usually goes something like: You're wrong about XYZ but without any kind of logical reasoning, just a snide insistence that your opinion is correct and a snarky remark. That's why I had no problem calling you out in this one (this is the point where you demand evidence, and I roll my eyes) and you don't like it when someone's doing the same to you.
As usual you ignored all the relevant talking points and direct questions relating to your assertions and spun the narrative. Your misinterpretation of my point regarding Tau and subsequent rant is truly baffling.
Since you didn't even try to actually address my post, I won't with yours. I'm done with this little spat, I've said all I need to.
With that out of the way, as you seemed to like my ideas for improving Necrons, why don't we all get back on track and talk about that, the purpose of this thread.
You keep acting like you made any points but you haven't. You still refuse to point how I've ever been nasty or mean to you or anyone else, while continuing being a git toward me for not agreeing with you or your whining. Try looking up the stats for Necrons in 2018 and in 2019 on 40kstatsdotcom, compare that difference to that of Tau. I know you haven't checked these stats, so why don't you tell that to the rest of the thread what exactly happened between those two years to make that discrepancy so huge for the Necrons and so tiny for Tau?
If Necrons were as popular (or as good) as you make them out to be, then they wouldn't need any changes anyways. Mid tier is where all armies should be.
Darsath wrote: If Necrons were as popular (or as good) as you make them out to be, then they wouldn't need any changes anyways. Mid tier is where all armies should be.
Even if every army is mid-tier that does not necessitate good internal balance or well designed rules for the faction. Do you think TBs, Tesla Immortals and DDAs need buffs? I also never said the faction is popular, but 3,7% of the field doesn't sound like too little for me. That's only a bit less than Tau. I'd like Tau to be less popular than Necron because the faction's design is more toxic than that of Necrons, on the other hand Necrons can't be too good because of the snowball effect of all the healing the faction has. It'd just be too frustrating to play against Necrons with a 60% win-rate, unless the winning was based on Canoptek units.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Seeing as Tesla Immortals are only good with MWBD and Arks are only mediocre...yeah.
You honestly feel this way? What would convince you otherwise? In the last 12 big tournaments that took place in the previous 14 days Necrons placed top four 5 times. Tau placed top four 4 times. Tesla Immortals were used in 3 of those lists and Doomsday Arks were used in 3 of those lists. Do Riptides and Fire Warriors need buffs?
Darsath wrote: You make a compelling argument as to why Necrons do not need any buffs. I'm sure Necron buffs would naturally be a negative for you.
Nice strawman buddy. Necrons =/= 5 units. Buffing the remaining units =/= buffing those 5 units. I'm adamant that Tesla Immortals, G/T TBs, DDAs, DScythes, Destroyers don't need buffs.
C'tans are bane to warp forces. They shall be immune to psychic powers whatsoever like Sisters of Silence, OR ignore mortal wounds from psychic powers on a ridiculous roll like 2+.
Er, no actually. The warp is an anathema to the C'tan, it's the other way round to how you've got it (think how the Blackstone Fortresses, that use warp energy, were made to kill C'tan or how the Old Ones specifically made warp sensitive races to confound their might. This is in addition to it actually being stated). C'tan/Necron technology can be a bane to the warp existing in real space but that's about as close as it gets.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/07/31 12:07:23
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Seeing as Tesla Immortals are only good with MWBD and Arks are only mediocre...yeah.
You honestly feel this way? What would convince you otherwise? In the last 12 big tournaments that took place in the previous 14 days Necrons placed top four 5 times. Tau placed top four 4 times. Tesla Immortals were used in 3 of those lists and Doomsday Arks were used in 3 of those lists. Do Riptides and Fire Warriors need buffs?
"Big tournaments"
Imma need a source on that.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Seeing as Tesla Immortals are only good with MWBD and Arks are only mediocre...yeah.
You honestly feel this way? What would convince you otherwise? In the last 12 big tournaments that took place in the previous 14 days Necrons placed top four 5 times. Tau placed top four 4 times. Tesla Immortals were used in 3 of those lists and Doomsday Arks were used in 3 of those lists. Do Riptides and Fire Warriors need buffs?
Darsath wrote: You make a compelling argument as to why Necrons do not need any buffs. I'm sure Necron buffs would naturally be a negative for you.
Nice strawman buddy. Necrons =/= 5 units. Buffing the remaining units =/= buffing those 5 units. I'm adamant that Tesla Immortals, G/T TBs, DDAs, DScythes, Destroyers don't need buffs.
You yourself have said that the army is in a fine spot as is in this very thread, dude.
Darsath wrote: You make a compelling argument as to why Necrons do not need any buffs. I'm sure Necron buffs would naturally be a negative for you.
Nice strawman buddy. Necrons =/= 5 units. Buffing the remaining units =/= buffing those 5 units. I'm adamant that Tesla Immortals, G/T TBs, DDAs, DScythes, Destroyers don't need buffs.
You yourself have said that the army is in a fine spot as is in this very thread, dude.
Thats his point.
Our codex seems to exist in varying mixtures of onyl those 5 units, with a few off-picks thrown in by some madlads who know how to use them effectively.
Buffing the rest of the codex would not and should not effect these guys at all
Experience is something you get just after you need it The Narkos Dynasty - 15k Iron Hands - 12k The Shadewatch - 3k Cadmus Outriders - 4k Alpha Legion Raiders - 3k
Darsath wrote: You make a compelling argument as to why Necrons do not need any buffs. I'm sure Necron buffs would naturally be a negative for you.
Nice strawman buddy. Necrons =/= 5 units. Buffing the remaining units =/= buffing those 5 units. I'm adamant that Tesla Immortals, G/T TBs, DDAs, DScythes, Destroyers don't need buffs.
You yourself have said that the army is in a fine spot as is in this very thread, dude.
That depends on what you mean by an okay spot? I don't think the game as a whole is in an okay spot, it's a rocky spot and I still complain and I still make suggestions for improving the game. I'd say things could be a lot worse, but not a lot better without being too good. I'd say Necrons are in a good place when a double Monolith list makes top 5 at a tournament with more than 20 players, what do you mean by good spot? What do you actually demand that GW do for you as a Necron player? Everything in this thread is going to be ignored, it's just pointless wish-listing, I don't mean that in a bad way I enjoy wish-listing and game design, it's just hard to implement and GW probably won't do it within the next 24 months.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Seeing as Tesla Immortals are only good with MWBD and Arks are only mediocre...yeah.
You honestly feel this way? What would convince you otherwise? In the last 12 big tournaments that took place in the previous 14 days Necrons placed top four 5 times. Tau placed top four 4 times. Tesla Immortals were used in 3 of those lists and Doomsday Arks were used in 3 of those lists. Do Riptides and Fire Warriors need buffs?
From what I kept scrolling, Tau popped up a lot and the only one I came across was Westeros, which I've never even heard of. I stopped skimming after a while.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Seeing as Tesla Immortals are only good with MWBD and Arks are only mediocre...yeah.
You honestly feel this way? What would convince you otherwise? In the last 12 big tournaments that took place in the previous 14 days Necrons placed top four 5 times. Tau placed top four 4 times. Tesla Immortals were used in 3 of those lists and Doomsday Arks were used in 3 of those lists. Do Riptides and Fire Warriors need buffs?
From what I kept scrolling, Tau popped up a lot and the only one I came across was Westeros, which I've never even heard of. I stopped skimming after a while.
You have to start at the bottom where the most recent results are, then scroll upwards.
This is the document you really wish to use for your statistics on Necrons being fine? Are you SURE?
Yes, per ITC's definition that's a grand tournament, per my understanding of the English language grand is a synonym of big, using the statistics of big tournaments to prove a point seems perfectly rational. You could limit data to purely majors, supermajors or LVO, but why would you? If Tau Empire is tier 1, Necrons tier 4, what would be the chance they do better in either RTTs, GTs or Majors than them in any given two-week period? I don't attend any majors and the one or two RTTs I attend every year uses a unique mission set, I can't really draw any conclusions from that. My own personal practice and casual games go extremely well, but I'm lucky, so I don't think it's worth more than recommending that people try what I try, I understand if what I do only works because I'm skilled at rolling dice. I never said Necrons are going to win you all the majors you attend, but if you bring the most meta lists and you play well you can top and win the GTs and RTTs you attend and what more do you really need?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/08/01 05:55:48
I would like to see Gauss get a special rule like the following: When attacking a vehicle or monster, on an unmodified roll of a 6 to wound, you deal an additional mortal wound.
casvalremdeikun wrote: I would like to see Gauss get a special rule like the following: When attacking a vehicle or monster, on an unmodified roll of a 6 to wound, you deal an additional mortal wound.
Agreed. This seems like a pretty faithful adaptation of the old gauss rules. Only working on big stuff means it doesn't step on shuriken weapons' toes, and it frees 'cron players to take fewer dedicated anti tank units.
ATTENTION. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
casvalremdeikun wrote: I would like to see Gauss get a special rule like the following: When attacking a vehicle or monster, on an unmodified roll of a 6 to wound, you deal an additional mortal wound.
How to get people hating your army in one easy step.
casvalremdeikun wrote: I would like to see Gauss get a special rule like the following: When attacking a vehicle or monster, on an unmodified roll of a 6 to wound, you deal an additional mortal wound.
How to get people hating your army in one easy step.
What makes you say that?
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
casvalremdeikun wrote: I would like to see Gauss get a special rule like the following: When attacking a vehicle or monster, on an unmodified roll of a 6 to wound, you deal an additional mortal wound.
How to get people hating your army in one easy step.
What makes you say that?
Yeah, personally I don't get it. Necrons really need a significant buff to their atm, since they aren't as resilient as DG, and not nearly as killy as Eldar, so they really aren't able to feel distinct at all this edition besides feeling like a watered down version of what they should really be. Giving Gauss some bite would go a long way to getting back to their role as the premier tech-based army outside of Mechanicus and Tau, and given their lack of upgrade options, gives them the versatility to deal with big targets without having to solely rely on the crutch that is Destroyers.
Res Orbs should have a baseline aura effect of allowing you to make RP rolls even when a unit is wiped if its within 3" of the Lord holding it. Cut down the prices on a few other things like Flayed Ones (which honestly should be a troops option), make the Ghost Ark open-topped as well being able to transport other units other than Warriors and cheaper, and make Heavy Gauss Cannons Damage D6 with each anything below a 3 counting as at least 3 damage, and change up how the Monolith and Invasion Beams reserves rules work so they can come on normally if all transports are destroyed by coming onto your deployment edge. More importantly, cut down the points of the Monolith, give it quantum shielding and let them actually bring in units the turn in comes in from DS. It's sad to see the Monolith lose its status as one of the most iconic and classic Necron units.
While I'm slightly dismayed by the amount of buffs Space Marines get with the new codex, what I do like about it is that it feels like they've tried to make the army play more like the fluff and less like a static castle army.
If you were to take the same approach with Necrons the focus should be on three things:
Weaponry that specializes in defeating armour. I support the MW on 6s to wound when targetting Vehicles or Monsters.
Incredibly advanced science. We already have a few things like this, such as quantum shielding. However, Cryptek's feel under equipped this edition. On top of the Chronometron and their +1 to RP, it'd be good for them to have a suite of abilities that show of their mastery over the physical universe. A way for them to create cover where there is none or reduce the strength of incoming attack. I picture them being sort of like Chaplains for Necrons.
We should be slow, ever advancing, reanimating even as we take losses. RP has been discussed a lot here, in many ways I like the way it works already but there should be the possibility, with the right equipment or strategems for a completely destroyed unit to be reanimated.
Back before the release of the Necron Codex I was toying with ideas of what I'd like to see. I was thinking that since Necrons rely heavily on a command structure of Lords and Overlords, they should be able to give tactical commands to the units around them, enabling Sentry Protocols on the defense or Invasion Protocols on the attack. I figured this might tread on the toes of Imperial Guard a bit too much however.
Incredibly advanced science. We already have a few things like this, such as quantum shielding. However, Cryptek's feel under equipped this edition. On top of the Chronometron and their +1 to RP, it'd be good for them to have a suite of abilities that show of their mastery over the physical universe. A way for them to create cover where there is none or reduce the strength of incoming attack. I picture them being sort of like Chaplains for Necrons.
Yeah. I kind of miss the 5th edition cryptek specializations. It would be neat to bring those back in some fashion. They really drove home just how ridiculous necron science was.
We should be slow, ever advancing, reanimating even as we take losses. RP has been discussed a lot here, in many ways I like the way it works already but there should be the possibility, with the right equipment or strategems for a completely destroyed unit to be reanimated.
Use this stratagem when the last model in a unit would be removed as a casualty. Immediately roll RP for the unit. Costs 2CP or 3CP if the unit's power level is greater than X.
Back before the release of the Necron Codex I was toying with ideas of what I'd like to see. I was thinking that since Necrons rely heavily on a command structure of Lords and Overlords, they should be able to give tactical commands to the units around them, enabling Sentry Protocols on the defense or Invasion Protocols on the attack. I figured this might tread on the toes of Imperial Guard a bit too much however.
Honestly, I kind of wish a lot of the auras in the game worked like orders or My Will Be Done. Rather than clumping armies together into bubbles, you could tactfully select units to benefit from various buffs and potentially more complex/interesting rules. Necrons, ironically, are an army that feels like it might make more sense operating under a generic bubble. It conveys the lack of individuality thing a bit better. Waves of 'crons responding to orders in lockstep rather than specific groups of 'crons executing relatively complex orders.
Also, what you're describing sort of reminds me of the various protocols for the Beymax mechanicus robots. It might be a pain to track different protocols on a bunch of different units at once though.
ATTENTION. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
This is the document you really wish to use for your statistics on Necrons being fine? Are you SURE?
Yes, per ITC's definition that's a grand tournament, per my understanding of the English language grand is a synonym of big, using the statistics of big tournaments to prove a point seems perfectly rational. You could limit data to purely majors, supermajors or LVO, but why would you? If Tau Empire is tier 1, Necrons tier 4, what would be the chance they do better in either RTTs, GTs or Majors than them in any given two-week period? I don't attend any majors and the one or two RTTs I attend every year uses a unique mission set, I can't really draw any conclusions from that. My own personal practice and casual games go extremely well, but I'm lucky, so I don't think it's worth more than recommending that people try what I try, I understand if what I do only works because I'm skilled at rolling dice. I never said Necrons are going to win you all the majors you attend, but if you bring the most meta lists and you play well you can top and win the GTs and RTTs you attend and what more do you really need?
Of the results on that site, it seems 3 were placings by the same player with variations on an army that contains barely any actual Necrons. One of the problems with Necrons right now ids the iconic Warrior is terrible and most successful armies spam 3 DDA and 3 flyers, along with a bunch of Scarabs and Destroyers. This leads many Necron players to feel like their army doesn't represent what they want it to on the tabletop. Necrons simply feel bad to play with if you want to be even slightly successful. I think the main problem is GW seem to be trying to position them as a medium-range shooting army and I don't think the current 40k rules favour that style of play. Theoretically Necrons are really good at about 12"-24" range but you're lucky if you can get even 1 turn at that range before your army is removed from the table.
This is the document you really wish to use for your statistics on Necrons being fine? Are you SURE?
Yes, per ITC's definition that's a grand tournament, per my understanding of the English language grand is a synonym of big, using the statistics of big tournaments to prove a point seems perfectly rational. You could limit data to purely majors, supermajors or LVO, but why would you? If Tau Empire is tier 1, Necrons tier 4, what would be the chance they do better in either RTTs, GTs or Majors than them in any given two-week period? I don't attend any majors and the one or two RTTs I attend every year uses a unique mission set, I can't really draw any conclusions from that. My own personal practice and casual games go extremely well, but I'm lucky, so I don't think it's worth more than recommending that people try what I try, I understand if what I do only works because I'm skilled at rolling dice. I never said Necrons are going to win you all the majors you attend, but if you bring the most meta lists and you play well you can top and win the GTs and RTTs you attend and what more do you really need?
Of the results on that site, it seems 3 were placings by the same player with variations on an army that contains barely any actual Necrons. One of the problems with Necrons right now ids the iconic Warrior is terrible and most successful armies spam 3 DDA and 3 flyers, along with a bunch of Scarabs and Destroyers. This leads many Necron players to feel like their army doesn't represent what they want it to on the tabletop. Necrons simply feel bad to play with if you want to be even slightly successful. I think the main problem is GW seem to be trying to position them as a medium-range shooting army and I don't think the current 40k rules favour that style of play. Theoretically Necrons are really good at about 12"-24" range but you're lucky if you can get even 1 turn at that range before your army is removed from the table.
I'm struggling a bit to come up with ideas on how to provide the staying power to be able to play comfortably in the 12"-24" zone.
With the pull-out-of-combat mechanic that came with 8th, you'd think it could work even better, it's just you need almost wraith-like resilience now, or the FNP based mechanic that RP was in 7th. As much as I like the thematic change of RP with 8th, perhaps FNP-like is the only thing that really works? The inherent power creep of the 40k game system certainly doesn't make the task any easier.
vict0988: I think your skill level and immense experience has the unfortunate side effect that your direct personal experiences are a bit off for general considerations. But it goes to show that if you know the ins and outs of the game well, you can certainly make necrons work. However if you had instead played with one of the topper tier armies, wouldn't you have won against yourself playing necrons most of the times?
This is the document you really wish to use for your statistics on Necrons being fine? Are you SURE?
Yes, per ITC's definition that's a grand tournament, per my understanding of the English language grand is a synonym of big, using the statistics of big tournaments to prove a point seems perfectly rational. You could limit data to purely majors, supermajors or LVO, but why would you? If Tau Empire is tier 1, Necrons tier 4, what would be the chance they do better in either RTTs, GTs or Majors than them in any given two-week period? I don't attend any majors and the one or two RTTs I attend every year uses a unique mission set, I can't really draw any conclusions from that. My own personal practice and casual games go extremely well, but I'm lucky, so I don't think it's worth more than recommending that people try what I try, I understand if what I do only works because I'm skilled at rolling dice. I never said Necrons are going to win you all the majors you attend, but if you bring the most meta lists and you play well you can top and win the GTs and RTTs you attend and what more do you really need?
Of the results on that site, it seems 3 were placings by the same player with variations on an army that contains barely any actual Necrons. One of the problems with Necrons right now ids the iconic Warrior is terrible and most successful armies spam 3 DDA and 3 flyers, along with a bunch of Scarabs and Destroyers. This leads many Necron players to feel like their army doesn't represent what they want it to on the tabletop. Necrons simply feel bad to play with if you want to be even slightly successful. I think the main problem is GW seem to be trying to position them as a medium-range shooting army and I don't think the current 40k rules favour that style of play. Theoretically Necrons are really good at about 12"-24" range but you're lucky if you can get even 1 turn at that range before your army is removed from the table.
I'm struggling a bit to come up with ideas on how to provide the staying power to be able to play comfortably in the 12"-24" zone.
I think that's the biggest problem - 40k doesn't really work well with armies that are shooting based but have so few weapons with ranges above 24". The game's too lethal at the moment and that leads to many fewer chances to operate within that window. I'd also argue that, while Necrons are at their best in that range band, they're still not actually good enough. Their basic troops can put out a lot of damage, but mainly to non-vehicle/non-monster units. Crucially, they lack any real punch in close combat, which means armies can quite easily engage them up close to shut down their shooting and not need to worry too much about return attacks. Even Wraiths are pretty mediocre in combat, especially since, outside of a single Dynasty, they don't get anything to help them with hitting and wounding in close combat.
- 10,000 pts CSM 
The Narkos Dynasty - 15k
The Shadewatch - 3k 
Cadmus Outriders - 4k 
Alpha Legion Raiders - 3k 
5250 pts
3850 pts
2500 pts 
~1660