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.

 EnTyme wrote:
Not to mention Necrons were a powerhouse for a while just last edition (7th).

Indeed, that is what I've heard. I was not playing from 5th through 7th though and I've barely dipped my toe into 8th. I am just a bit curious, what made Necrons so powerful in 7th?

I really only played Necrons in 4th and it some of the hold-over 3rd edition rules that made what was fairly powerful that much so, like the C'Tan's toughness being 8 and the Monolith being very hard to kill, and Destroyers being "jetbikes" and so their movement was pretty absurd (along with long ranges).

Slipspace wrote:
Anyone else worried that being one of the first Codices for a new edition means Necrons are likely to be pretty bad? GW has proven singularly incapable of maintaining balance across an entire edition because they can't stop themselves from making drastic changes to their approach to Codices at some point, usually about halfway through an edition. I'm hoping that 9th retains enough of 8th's DNA to allow GW to make better decisions around what's balanced and what isn't but it's definitely a concern that Necrons could be left behind rather quickly.

Not terribly, particularly when compared to the current situation.

It helps that the GW folks admitted that the PA junk was a global adjustment towards 9th edition rules, and Pariah was/is fairly late in the process for that. That 9th is primarily an errata/tweak edition also makes it less of a problem, as the midpoint approach change has already happened (between the Chaos Codex of Everything is the Same, We're Just Adding a Few Datasheets and the SM Codex of Doctrines and Nonsense).

The speed of the index/codex/PA adjustment cycle also makes it less egregious in many ways. Sucks for anyone who bought a lot of the 8th edition books, but it means that the 9th edition books should be a refinement and error correction. There will still be fail points, but they won't be as bad as they were when the major shift happened at the start of 8th.

Hopefully it means necrons in general will have their durability un-nerfed to actually match the sheer insanity of firepower that is the 8th/9th reality.

 H wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:
Not to mention Necrons were a powerhouse for a while just last edition (7th).

Indeed, that is what I've heard. I was not playing from 5th through 7th though and I've barely dipped my toe into 8th. I am just a bit curious, what made Necrons so powerful in 7th?

I really only played Necrons in 4th and it some of the hold-over 3rd edition rules that made what was fairly powerful that much so, like the C'Tan's toughness being 8 and the Monolith being very hard to kill, and Destroyers being "jetbikes" and so their movement was pretty absurd (along with long ranges).

From what some of the old players in my local group say, it was Decurion detachments.

Voss wrote:
Hopefully it means necrons in general will have their durability un-nerfed to actually match the sheer insanity of firepower that is the 8th/9th reality.

Well, in my mind, Necrons should be high durable, near unbreakable, and very deadly to single targets. That is likely borne out of the 3rd edition ideals, where there was no such thing as tesla. Lots of bodies and volume of fire should be the weakness of Living Metal. Tesla should be a stop-gap, not a Necron main offensive weapon to me. In old terms, I think we should be MEQ-killers and have to sub-optimally deal with GEQ's (or other horde-sort of things like Orks).

In other words, Necrons should have low model counts, low rates of fire that is rather deadly, while being tough to kill and tough to break unless overwhelmed. I guess maybe that sounds or is OP, but I think it could be relatively balanced with point costs.

 Tauris_Blazestar wrote:

 H wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:
Not to mention Necrons were a powerhouse for a while just last edition (7th).

Indeed, that is what I've heard. I was not playing from 5th through 7th though and I've barely dipped my toe into 8th. I am just a bit curious, what made Necrons so powerful in 7th?

I really only played Necrons in 4th and it some of the hold-over 3rd edition rules that made what was fairly powerful that much so, like the C'Tan's toughness being 8 and the Monolith being very hard to kill, and Destroyers being "jetbikes" and so their movement was pretty absurd (along with long ranges).

From what some of the old players in my local group say, it was Decurion detachments.

I remember Necrons being so disappointing that I skipped 7th almost entirely.

Decurions were cool for a short while until other armies got better and more powerful versions.

5th-6th was peak. I liked rolling reanimation protocols at the end of every phase of every turn. Squads could bounce back to full strength real quick if you were not paying attention.

 H wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:
Not to mention Necrons were a powerhouse for a while just last edition (7th).

Indeed, that is what I've heard. I was not playing from 5th through 7th though and I've barely dipped my toe into 8th. I am just a bit curious, what made Necrons so powerful in 7th?

I really only played Necrons in 4th and it some of the hold-over 3rd edition rules that made what was fairly powerful that much so, like the C'Tan's toughness being 8 and the Monolith being very hard to kill, and Destroyers being "jetbikes" and so their movement was pretty absurd (along with long ranges).

The Decurion Detachment was frustratingly durable when it launched. The entire army straight up shrugged off wounds on a 4+. Couple that with the Canoptek Harvest and suddenly our Wraiths with the 3+/3+ saves were borderline unkillable. Most armies caught up eventually when they got their on multi-formation detachments, and we became just another strong army, though.

 Tauris_Blazestar wrote:

 H wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:
Not to mention Necrons were a powerhouse for a while just last edition (7th).

Indeed, that is what I've heard. I was not playing from 5th through 7th though and I've barely dipped my toe into 8th. I am just a bit curious, what made Necrons so powerful in 7th?

I really only played Necrons in 4th and it some of the hold-over 3rd edition rules that made what was fairly powerful that much so, like the C'Tan's toughness being 8 and the Monolith being very hard to kill, and Destroyers being "jetbikes" and so their movement was pretty absurd (along with long ranges).

From what some of the old players in my local group say, it was Decurion detachments.

It was from 7.5th basically. They were redoing how each codex functioned with the introduction of the SUPER Formations. Necrons got the first one and it gave everyone the equivalent of a FNP4+++. However, GW being GW, ended up breaking everyone else further via free units and upgrades, Gargantuan Monstrous Creatures, even MORE offensive firepower, etc. Necrons were almost broken with the 7.5 codex, but ended up being a laughing stock anyway, with a 4+++. THAT is how bad 7th had gotten.

BrotherGecko wrote:I remember Necrons being so disappointing that I skipped 7th almost entirely.

Decurions were cool for a short while until other armies got better and more powerful versions.

5th-6th was peak. I liked rolling reanimation protocols at the end of every phase of every turn. Squads could bounce back to full strength real quick if you were not paying attention.

EnTyme wrote:The Decurion Detachment was frustratingly durable when it launched. The entire army straight up shrugged off wounds on a 4+. Couple that with the Canoptek Harvest and suddenly our Wraiths with the 3+/3+ saves were borderline unkillable. Most armies caught up eventually when they got their on multi-formation detachments, and we became just another strong army, though.

Interesting. Seems like durability and resurrecting were pretty key. The old 3rd edition book was the same sort of way, in a sense, but it really only had a couple of possible builds that could realistically compete. You had C'Tan and the Monolith that were somewhat durable, but Destroyers were absurdly evasive (and everything laughed at vehicle armor).

Perhaps we see something like a return to this sort of thing, I mean, 7th wasn't that long ago. I mean, I am not going to say I am optimistic. But I am curious what they do and what all these new units actually have as battlefield roles. On a related note, I have a feeling that Flayed Ones might be on the Legends chopping block though. Seems like too many CC units coming with the new edition to still support them too (plus they don't really fit what seems to be the "new" design aesthetic).

A recent WarCom short story focused on a Flayed One. I doubt they're going anywhere.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Tauris_Blazestar wrote:

 H wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:
Not to mention Necrons were a powerhouse for a while just last edition (7th).

Indeed, that is what I've heard. I was not playing from 5th through 7th though and I've barely dipped my toe into 8th. I am just a bit curious, what made Necrons so powerful in 7th?

I really only played Necrons in 4th and it some of the hold-over 3rd edition rules that made what was fairly powerful that much so, like the C'Tan's toughness being 8 and the Monolith being very hard to kill, and Destroyers being "jetbikes" and so their movement was pretty absurd (along with long ranges).

From what some of the old players in my local group say, it was Decurion detachments.

It was from 7.5th basically. They were redoing how each codex functioned with the introduction of the SUPER Formations. Necrons got the first one and it gave everyone the equivalent of a FNP4+++. However, GW being GW, ended up breaking everyone else further via free units and upgrades, Gargantuan Monstrous Creatures, even MORE offensive firepower, etc. Necrons were almost broken with the 7.5 codex, but ended up being a laughing stock anyway, with a 4+++. THAT is how bad 7th had gotten.

I really don't recall Necrons ever being a laughing stock in 7E, they placed rather well through the whole edition, as well as through the preceding 6th edition. At worst they were knocked off being *the* top army, but never were they a "laughing stock", and many armies didn't get broken free special rules. The only armies able to challenge Necrons on power level at any point in 7E were Marines, AdMech, Eldar, Knights, 2++ deathstar Daemons, and Tau, and even that was only after some of them got insane freebies. Orks, Guard, DE (without CWE allies), Nids, CSM's, most Daemons, Sisters, etc were never even close.

Tesla, access to Jink (and TL Tesla weapons still working exceedingly well in conjunction with it), flyer transports that didn't suffer any of the downsides of flyer transports, unkillable Wraiths, Quantum Shielding and reinforced rear vehicle armor that made them largely immune to HP stripping mid-strength attacks and massed infantry CC, etc made them very powerful through the entirety of 6th and 7th even before the Decurion and Canoptek Harvest.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Tauris_Blazestar wrote:

 H wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:
Not to mention Necrons were a powerhouse for a while just last edition (7th).

Indeed, that is what I've heard. I was not playing from 5th through 7th though and I've barely dipped my toe into 8th. I am just a bit curious, what made Necrons so powerful in 7th?

I really only played Necrons in 4th and it some of the hold-over 3rd edition rules that made what was fairly powerful that much so, like the C'Tan's toughness being 8 and the Monolith being very hard to kill, and Destroyers being "jetbikes" and so their movement was pretty absurd (along with long ranges).

From what some of the old players in my local group say, it was Decurion detachments.

It was from 7.5th basically. They were redoing how each codex functioned with the introduction of the SUPER Formations. Necrons got the first one and it gave everyone the equivalent of a FNP4+++. However, GW being GW, ended up breaking everyone else further via free units and upgrades, Gargantuan Monstrous Creatures, even MORE offensive firepower, etc. Necrons were almost broken with the 7.5 codex, but ended up being a laughing stock anyway, with a 4+++. THAT is how bad 7th had gotten.

I really don't recall Necrons ever being a laughing stock in 7E, they placed rather well through the whole edition, as well as through the preceding 6th edition. At worst they were knocked off being *the* top army, but never were they a "laughing stock", and many armies didn't get broken free special rules. The only armies able to challenge Necrons on power level at any point in 7E were Marines, AdMech, Eldar, Knights, 2++ deathstar Daemons, and Tau, and even that was only after some of them got insane freebies. Orks, Guard, DE (without CWE allies), Nids, CSM's, most Daemons, Sisters, etc were never even close.

Tesla, access to Jink (and TL Tesla weapons still working exceedingly well in conjunction with it), flyer transports that didn't suffer any of the downsides of flyer transports, unkillable Wraiths, Quantum Shielding and reinforced rear vehicle armor that made them largely immune to HP stripping mid-strength attacks and massed infantry CC, etc made them very powerful through the entirety of 6th and 7th even before the Decurion and Canoptek Harvest.

It is a laughing stock to be knocked from the top to the middle as quickly as they were. For how FNP was working at the time compared to later editions, if you told someone playing an older edition Necrons had a 4+++ and vehicles had the HP system and still were knocked way from the top, people would've laughed at you.

Topping were going down with each new release and that's a fact.

So what're the odds that we haven't seen anything on pariahs/flayed ones because they might release with pariah? It sounds less than probable to me, but still possible.

Also, the shorter Canoptek Walker thing seems to have a host of tool dangling underneath it, is it possible that it'll have the same repair ability as spyders?

Yeah, 7E got ridiculous (well, moreso than it had started at), but I'm not sure I'd call simply not being at the *top* of the heap being a "Laughing Stock", especially at the tail end of an edition and game that was arguably in a death spiral where they'd been among the top for most of it, as well as the entire preceding edition.

There were armies that were legitimate laughing stocks that were incapable of competing, and Necrons were never one of them

 Vaktathi wrote:
Yeah, 7E got ridiculous (well, moreso than it had started at), but I'm not sure I'd call simply not being at the *top* of the heap being a "Laughing Stock", especially at the tail end of an edition and game that was arguably in a death spiral where they'd been among the top for most of it, as well as the entire preceding edition.

There were armies that were legitimate laughing stocks that were incapable of competing, and Necrons were never one of them

Yeah, Vakathi has got the jist of it.

Necrons have either been in a good spot or a dominating spot since their 5th edition codex. Even after the 7th edition codex creep, we were never a laughing stock or a trash army.


With that being said, on the topic of Skorpeh destroyers, I think to make them distinct from wraiths they should be heavy hitting, a bit slower, and durable in different ways. I wouldn't mind seeing them with a 2+ armor save and no invul. This trades off well with the Wraiths Invul and lack of RP, assuming they fix RP in the next codex..

Slipspace wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:
Something I've been thinking on, is it possible for Skorpekh destroyers to be any good? If they have the same unit size as destroyers (6), similar stat lines as destroyers, and no invul, they don't have the staying power to take a charge or a good overwatch.

They're going to have to do something to make them fill a different niche to Wraiths. They look like fairly fast close combat infantry to me and at the moment Wraiths are the fastest non-vehicle thing in the Codex. They're not fantastic in combat but pretty decent and they're one of the few easy ways to get D2 where we want it (Lychguard are far too slow for that and I don't think Necrons currently have any D2 ranged weapons). If they're some sort of halfway house between Wraiths and Lychguard they'll be...weird. I can see them getting something like D3 damage on their big swords but I do worry they'll be really easy to kill. I could also see them getting at least 3A, if not more.

The reveal stream did mention something about Reanimation Protocols possibly being different for different units so I wonder if they might use that to help out something like the Skorpekhs? Maybe buff Reanimation when near a Skorpekh Lord or a Cryptek?

They could all be armed with 7th ed D weapons and still be a poor investment if they can't get into melee. Normally I wouldn't be concerned, because if we can see the problem GW can as well. However GW releases units like infiltrators, which could charitably be called an awesome model with bad rules. We already have every flavor of melee, from hordes of scarabs, to flayed ones, to lychguard and prats, to wraiths, to double rez destroyer lords, to CCBs with invuls and QS, and that's not even counting the weird options we can get from forge world. It's just hard to imagine that a melee focused destroyer doing something that isn't already being done.

The only possible way I can see them being good is if they had quantum shielding, or some other super strong defensive rule.

With warscythes going from bamf anti-tank glaives to tickle sticks, skorpekh could definitely fill the role of big boi killers. Give them hand to hand meltaguns and I will run them as a distraction carnifex at least once an a while.

Necrons do kind of lack any real CC threat to CC beat sticks. HQs produce too few attacks to be real threats, flayed ones not durable enough and better vs horde, wraiths are tanky but not as killy as they used to be. Lychguard are either a joke or defensive. Praetorians are nothing special and nobody fears them.

Take the destroyer and make it do what it does at a distance and change it to CC you have yourself a niche necrons lack.

 Kharne the Befriender wrote:
So what're the odds that we haven't seen anything on pariahs/flayed ones because they might release with pariah? It sounds less than probable to me, but still possible.

Also, the shorter Canoptek Walker thing seems to have a host of tool dangling underneath it, is it possible that it'll have the same repair ability as spyders?

That's actually a good point, flayed ones are effectively the Pariahs of the necrontyr as no one wants anything to do with them and Pariahs of course share the name. Guess well have to wait and see

On the point of the Skorpekh, if they were able to be decent anti-vehicle options, thinking the two handed glaive to be like a thunder hammer, would that make them viable. I agree that we have a myriad of melee units already, but nothing strikes me as good anti vehicle other than warscythes being good with the +1S strat

I miss Warscythes having 2D6 armour penetration and ignoring invuln saves; they've fallen a long way since the days of 3e.

In all seriousness, I only hope that we get more stuff to deal with high toughness models this time around. I remember calling out when 8e rolled around that the Necron index was DOA because it didn't have enough, and then the only time we've been remotely playable was after the doomsday ark spam took off - because it's our only way to deal with the big stuff in the game. Honestly, I've not got much hope for this new codex, because I really doubt it'll actually fix the issue; the 8e codex didn't fix anything and given the new units look like they have the same issue (i.e. only big expensive models can kill tough models) then we'll stay dead in the meta. Depressing, but it is what it is.

Aza'Gorod wrote:

 Kharne the Befriender wrote:
So what're the odds that we haven't seen anything on pariahs/flayed ones because they might release with pariah? It sounds less than probable to me, but still possible.

Also, the shorter Canoptek Walker thing seems to have a host of tool dangling underneath it, is it possible that it'll have the same repair ability as spyders?

That's actually a good point, flayed ones are effectively the Pariahs of the necrontyr as no one wants anything to do with them and Pariahs of course share the name. Guess well have to wait and see

I would love to see new Flayed ones and Pariahs, but I think all we are going to get is Illuminor Szeras. I would be pretty shocked if we got anything else.

Kharne the Befriender wrote:On the point of the Skorpekh, if they were able to be decent anti-vehicle options, thinking the two handed glaive to be like a thunder hammer, would that make them viable. I agree that we have a myriad of melee units already, but nothing strikes me as good anti vehicle other than warscythes being good with the +1S strat

This is what I am hoping. Perhaps the the two handed one is something similar to a Voidscythe, and the smaller ones look like larger hyperphase swords. If they are priced like destroyers though they need to have a really good statline.

Eyjio wrote:I miss Warscythes having 2D6 armour penetration and ignoring invuln saves; they've fallen a long way since the days of 3e.

In all seriousness, I only hope that we get more stuff to deal with high toughness models this time around. I remember calling out when 8e rolled around that the Necron index was DOA because it didn't have enough, and then the only time we've been remotely playable was after the doomsday ark spam took off - because it's our only way to deal with the big stuff in the game. Honestly, I've not got much hope for this new codex, because I really doubt it'll actually fix the issue; the 8e codex didn't fix anything and given the new units look like they have the same issue (i.e. only big expensive models can kill tough models) then we'll stay dead in the meta. Depressing, but it is what it is.

I dunno, I think we have more reason to be hopeful than pessimistic. Really, the only time Necrons have ever been really bad was the 3E codex in 5th and Right now. I can't imagine the issues that Necrons have been having, have fallen on deaf ears. There is also the possibility that GW may look at pushing more digital updates. The new app and free digital copy of the codex could point to this.

Am I the only one who doesn't like the Skorpekh Destroyers having legs? It's not much about how they look (they are not exceptional, but fine) but about the fluff.
Destroyers are said to adapt and improve their physical bodies in order to better exterminate life forms and therefore "legs are removed in favour of repulsor platforms".
Their look is incredibly iconic to me, having Destroyers with legs (even if they are "Skorpekh" Destroyers) doesn't seem right.

 Aenar wrote:
Am I the only one who doesn't like the Skorpekh Destroyers having legs? It's not much about how they look (they are not exceptional, but fine) but about the fluff.
Destroyers are said to adapt and improve their physical bodies in order to better exterminate life forms and therefore "legs are removed in favour of repulsor platforms".
Their look is incredibly iconic to me, having Destroyers with legs (even if they are "Skorpekh" Destroyers) doesn't seem right.

Eh? Maybe it's subjective. Maybe there are philosophical differences within different Destroyer Cults. Standing outside each others' bases chanting in a robotic drone "No legs good, three legs BETTER!"

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Aenar wrote:
Am I the only one who doesn't like the Skorpekh Destroyers having legs? It's not much about how they look (they are not exceptional, but fine) but about the fluff.
Destroyers are said to adapt and improve their physical bodies in order to better exterminate life forms and therefore "legs are removed in favour of repulsor platforms".
Their look is incredibly iconic to me, having Destroyers with legs (even if they are "Skorpekh" Destroyers) doesn't seem right.

Eh? Maybe it's subjective. Maybe there are philosophical differences within different Destroyer Cults. Standing outside each others' bases chanting in a robotic drone "No legs good, three legs BETTER!"

The last thing Necrons need imo is further humanization.

Or maybe having a grav platform isn't efficient for close quarters combat. Skorpekhs appear to have a smaller profile than their flying counter parts, allowing them to fit into smaller areas, and I would imagine its harder to fight properly in melee if you're floating everywhere.

Yeah, I mean. Imagine trying to fight hand to hand combat on top of a floating board against something like a Tyranid or an Eldar. I don't think that would allow for a good range of reactions and movements. But it is much better to remain at a distance firing enemies. Hellions do it but they are more about gladiatory combat on the skies agaisnt similar enemies and doing runs over their enemies. Necrons lack the speed for that.

 Galas wrote:
Yeah, I mean. Imagine trying to fight hand to hand combat on top of a floating board against something like a Tyranid or an Eldar. I don't think that would allow for a good range of reactions and movements. But it is much better to remain at a distance firing enemies. Hellions do it but they are more about gladiatory combat on the skies agaisnt similar enemies and doing runs over their enemies. Necrons lack the speed for that.

Hellions are more dive bombers, imo. They don't stand and fight, they swoop down from high, try to decapitate a poor git and go for another go.
They don't really seem built for actual close quarters (such as inside a building) or going toe to toe with a combatant. I don't know how it is in 8th, but they once had Hit and Run, iirc, which represented that.

Now, Destroyers could also do that, it even said in the lore that they would strafe targets in range and then dive bomb survivors, but it didn't say they were built for close quarters and I would imagine they would suffer from similar limitations as Hellions.

A destroyer variant with legs would fit a close quarters role a lot better, as they don't have to worry that much about navigating tight corridors, crashing into walls or getting their bearings against enemies at close range.
I think GW thought it through this time.
It also gives them a more distinct look, rather than "lol, just give destroyers swords"

With the new big boi tri legs being a skorpekh destroyer lord I wonder if that new big boi destroyer isn't the new destroyer lord and has been upgraded for shooting rather than punching.

 BrotherGecko wrote:
With the new big boi tri legs being a skorpekh destroyer lord I wonder if that new big boi destroyer isn't the new destroyer lord and has been upgraded for shooting rather than punching.

Could be, yes. But that would be a problem for everyone who has the old Destroyer Lord, which is kitted for melee :/

I personally think the large destroyer we see with the gun is the new heavy destroyer, so fingers crossed for multi kit.

I also think that its possible that that's not a heavy gauss cannon, what're the odds that they've given them new gauss weapons? We have a model for the heavy gauss cannon and normal gauss cannon on the triarch stalker and annihilation barge respectively, perhaps they decided to make them unique and give them crazier weapons, because it looks like a much larger version of the gauss weapon on the Skorpekh Lord, and it cant be the new gauss aesthetic because the large walker has normal flayers as does the new warriors and new monolith in the back ground.

Just spitballing here but I think theyre going to get multiple weapons options

 Kharne the Befriender wrote:
I personally think the large destroyer we see with the gun is the new heavy destroyer, so fingers crossed for multi kit.

I also think that its possible that that's not a heavy gauss cannon, what're the odds that they've given them new gauss weapons? We have a model for the heavy gauss cannon and normal gauss cannon on the triarch stalker and annihilation barge respectively, perhaps they decided to make them unique and give them crazier weapons, because it looks like a much larger version of the gauss weapon on the Skorpekh Lord, and it cant be the new gauss aesthetic because the large walker has normal flayers as does the new warriors and new monolith in the back ground.

Just spitballing here but I think theyre going to get multiple weapons options

Anything but those twisted metal bars that is the current HGC destroyer option