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.

punisher357 wrote:
Does anyone have actual game experience using triarch stalkers?

I cant say from my personal experience but I can tell you what other people have said: they're borderline competitive, like a lot of the stuff in the codex.

Way back in the thread people were pretty hot on them, but the meta has changed a lot since. You pay 150pts for a stalker with gauss and a degrading profile, plus they're dynastic agents so don't get any benefits there.

If you really want the re-roll ones, 2 bare bones lords are still cheaper at 140pts and can put the same buff (that also works in combat) onto multiple units albeit core restricted.

I think there's still play for them, especially as a supporting piece for a Mephrit gunline or something, but even then I think you'd need to build around them fairly heavily at which point people forgo them for more powerful synergies

Lord = Reroll 1s for Core, works in melee/shooting
Stalker = Reroll 1s for anybody targeting a specific unit, only shooting, can whiff.

My issue with the stalker is it has a pretty mean melee profile (its effectively our "dread" after all) but it really, really doesnt want melee because of that reroll ability.

Pretty much unless you are using Lokhusts or Doom-toting units the Lord is better since its so much cheaper and can carry an Orb.
Downside is HQ slot...

Ive used the triarch stalker a few times and he hasnt really done that much imo. I find most targets i either mop the floor with without the rerolls, or i wasnt really denting in the first place so the rerolls caused like 1 or 2 more wounds. Though im curious about a pair of them, i need to try that one.

I was considering using a Triarch Stalker with Doomstalkers - very possibly Sautekh ones. The idea would be to take down tough things by having the stalker and some random Sautekh thing fire at them, to get +1 to hit and reroll 1s.

I don't own any of those things though, and I'm not sure it's how I'd like to play my necrons. It could be a viable approach though.

It doesn't combo at all well with Lokhusts, does it? It hands out rerolls of 1s, which they already have by default. Or am I missing something there?

FWIW I think a unit of Lokhust heavies could be a good alternative to this sort of thing. They just work without needing any buffs, supporting characters or whatever. They're also infantry that fly rather than enormous degrading vehicles.

I'm less sure about normal Lokhust destroyers. It feels like you lose a lot for those 15 points. They're enormously shooty though, especially in a marine-heavy meta.

I like the triarch but like many have said it is quite borderline.

IMO always take the heavy gauss. Then It can do some actual damage but it is gonna be really swingy with 3's to hit and 3's or 4's to wound it's prefered targets.

When you get 4-5 wounds with it though - it hurts with ap-3 D3 damage. It's reroll ability is pretty sweet but what I usually find is - You'd be better off finding 40-50 more points in your list to just take a doom scythe or a DDA.

I think their true place lies with monoliths which are also in the borderline area themselves.

The TS is quite good but not for the reroll 1's which is nothing to write home about. I like it as a ground holding unit in support of infantry. It's big, fast, shoots ok, hits ok, demands to be dealt with and can take more effort to kill than people expect. You can use them to block access to objectives quite easily

I wrote a list that has me excited about some stalkers.

Eternal Expansionits

CCB- enduring will, voltaic staff, Rez orb, gauss
CCB- eternal madness, void reaper, Tesla

Chronomancer- entropic lance, veil
Chronomancer- entropic lance

Warriors x 20 reapers
Warriors x 20 reapers
Warriors x 10 flayers
Ghost arc
Warriors x 10 flayers
Ghost arc

Stalker-gauss
Stalker- gauss

Skorpekh x 4

Two warrior bricks that have 5++, quantum shielding spam backing it up. Either try and play peek a boo with the stalkers or deploy right on front line. Hopefully ghost arcs draw some heavy weapons fire, they can die on objectives delivering their warriors. Might get a few rezzes.

Have to ignore really high toughness models or use weight of fire from warriors. Void reaper should be able to carve up at least one priority target.

Skorpekh might be better as wraiths but I’d prefer the melee over the speed.

Hope for the first turn with the pregame move to swamp the board with double obsec.

Warrior blobs and shooty ccb for WWSWF.

Games to come soon-ish.

This is the list I'd like to playtest next time (all models available):

Those are two interesting lists. Some thoughts:

Cauthon I feel like you’re low on melee. I’d probably drop a stalker and maybe some warriors to fill out the Skorpekhs and maybe add wraiths too. Four Skorpekhs will be dealt with very easily, I think, except perhaps as a counter-punch.

I’m also curious to see you putting flayers in the arms and reapers on foot. To me it would make sense to do that the other way round.

I think stalkers probably combo well with ghost arks. MWBD happens in the command phase, too soon for anyone in a transport, but the stalker’s buff will work. So actually maybe it’s the second CCB that you should drop instead of a stalker. Not sure.

Wuestenfux I like that list. I’m not sure about givi the Veil to the CCB though. The rules on being “wholly within” range are restrictive and I think it’s easier with a smaller model. And I much prefer the voltaic staff on a CCB. The Veil is awesome but I’d probably give it to a random Cryptek instead.

Also, based on the earlier discussion, I think heavy destroyers should probably always have the Gaus Destructors. The Enmitic thing gives you more of what your troops already do.

Oh and the Silent King should be in a supreme command detachment, not a SH auxiliary. Keep your 3CPs.

Wuestenfux I like that list. I’m not sure about givi the Veil to the CCB though. The rules on being “wholly within” range are restrictive and I think it’s easier with a smaller model. And I much prefer the voltaic staff on a CCB. The Veil is awesome but I’d probably give it to a random Cryptek instead.

Also, based on the earlier discussion, I think heavy destroyers should probably always have the Gaus Destructors. The Enmitic thing gives you more of what your troops already do.

Oh and the Silent King should be in a supreme command detachment, not a SH auxiliary. Keep your 3CPs.

Thanks for the insight.
Indeed, CCB is not the ideal model for VoD.
I'd probably give it to the Technomancer.
But this guy is rather precious and I hope to keep him save after redeployment.
LDHs have now all gauss weapons - seems reasonable.

Revised list with 15 CP:

Going back to the double C'tan discussion for a moment, I am trying to figure out what to do with the points besides those two point sinks (VD and Nightbringer in my case).
Here is the list I am thinking about as an all-comers, and I would love any feedback there, but specifically I am worried about two really heavy point investments if they can deal with C'tans. My thought is that there are some armies that might be able to sufficiently deal with one, but will struggle with the second. Still, what are the best ways to protect them a little further? I have a spyder in my list for the gloom prism as one option, but I would love to hear more. Also this list would be 2x Eternal Expansionists.

I think you'd do better with a Veil of Darkness to move the foot warriors up into shooting range instantly. I'd also change them to Reapers, since they'd be getting warped straight into business range.

With no Technomancer giving +1 to hit, I might turn the Canoptek Doomstalker into an Annihilation Barge or another Ghost Ark. d6 attacks that hit on 4's can disappoint you (oh great, they are in a fething forest).

The gussied up Canoptek spyder is *really really close* to being that 90 point forge world monster. If possible, I'd see if I could get the points, it comes with the same guns and gloom prism you've bought that thing, but it burrows and is generally fiercer.

Basically the unifying theme of my commentary is to be faster, minimize time spent not merking enemy units.

teamtigerstripe wrote:
Going back to the double C'tan discussion for a moment, I am trying to figure out what to do with the points besides those two point sinks (VD and Nightbringer in my case).
Here is the list I am thinking about as an all-comers, and I would love any feedback there, but specifically I am worried about two really heavy point investments if they can deal with C'tans. My thought is that there are some armies that might be able to sufficiently deal with one, but will struggle with the second. Still, what are the best ways to protect them a little further? I have a spyder in my list for the gloom prism as one option, but I would love to hear more. Also this list would be 2x Eternal Expansionists.

Spoiler:

HQ
Catacomb Command Barge [9 PL, 180pts]
Selections: Gauss Cannon, Relic: Orb of Eternity, Resurrection Orb, Staff of Light, Warlord, Warlord Trait: Thrall of the Silent King

Troops
20x Necron Warrior (Gauss Flayer) [260pts]

Elites
C'tan Shard of the Void Dragon [18 PL, 350pts]
Selections: Power of the C'tan: Antimatter Meteor
Canoptek Spider: Gloom Prism, Two Particle Beamers [75]

Heavy Support
Canoptek Doomstalker [7 PL, 140pts]

Patrol Detachment -2CP (Necrons) [49 PL, -2CP, 980pts]
Dynasty Choice: Relentlessly Expansionist, Eternal Conquerors

HQ
Chronomancer [4 PL, 80pts]

Troops
10x Necron Warrior (Gauss Reaper) [130pts]

Elites
C'tan Shard of the Nightbringer [19 PL, 370pts]
Selections: Power of the C'tan: Antimatter Meteor
2x Skorpekh Destroyer (Reap-Blade) [70pts]
4x Skorpekh Destroyer (Thresher) [140pts]

Fast Attack
3x Canoptek Scarab Swarm [45pts]

Dedicated Transport
Ghost Ark [8 PL, 145pts]

If you’re taking two c’tan then you need cheap board coverage to compensate for your two big investments. I think the two vehicles in your list are going to have very low impact. Single doomstalkers arnt worth the points IMO. Hitting on 4’s and super swingy after that, can’t be counted on to do anything. The ghost arc seems pretty random. You need more bodies not less. It’s getting in the way of that.

I would drop the ghost arc for a max unit of scarabs, drop the doomstalker for a max unit of scarabs. Drop the 3 scarabs and spyder and max out the second unit of warriors. If you want to keep the spyder then use the points from three scarabs and swap out for cryptothralls. They’re infantry so their more helpful for secondaries.

Cauthon wrote:

teamtigerstripe wrote:
Going back to the double C'tan discussion for a moment, I am trying to figure out what to do with the points besides those two point sinks (VD and Nightbringer in my case).
Here is the list I am thinking about as an all-comers, and I would love any feedback there, but specifically I am worried about two really heavy point investments if they can deal with C'tans. My thought is that there are some armies that might be able to sufficiently deal with one, but will struggle with the second. Still, what are the best ways to protect them a little further? I have a spyder in my list for the gloom prism as one option, but I would love to hear more. Also this list would be 2x Eternal Expansionists.

Spoiler:

HQ
Catacomb Command Barge [9 PL, 180pts]
Selections: Gauss Cannon, Relic: Orb of Eternity, Resurrection Orb, Staff of Light, Warlord, Warlord Trait: Thrall of the Silent King

Troops
20x Necron Warrior (Gauss Flayer) [260pts]

Elites
C'tan Shard of the Void Dragon [18 PL, 350pts]
Selections: Power of the C'tan: Antimatter Meteor
Canoptek Spider: Gloom Prism, Two Particle Beamers [75]

Heavy Support
Canoptek Doomstalker [7 PL, 140pts]

Patrol Detachment -2CP (Necrons) [49 PL, -2CP, 980pts]
Dynasty Choice: Relentlessly Expansionist, Eternal Conquerors

HQ
Chronomancer [4 PL, 80pts]

Troops
10x Necron Warrior (Gauss Reaper) [130pts]

Elites
C'tan Shard of the Nightbringer [19 PL, 370pts]
Selections: Power of the C'tan: Antimatter Meteor
2x Skorpekh Destroyer (Reap-Blade) [70pts]
4x Skorpekh Destroyer (Thresher) [140pts]

Fast Attack
3x Canoptek Scarab Swarm [45pts]

Dedicated Transport
Ghost Ark [8 PL, 145pts]

If you’re taking two c’tan then you need cheap board coverage to compensate for your two big investments. I think the two vehicles in your list are going to have very low impact. Single doomstalkers arnt worth the points IMO. Hitting on 4’s and super swingy after that, can’t be counted on to do anything. The ghost arc seems pretty random. You need more bodies not less. It’s getting in the way of that.

I would drop the ghost arc for a max unit of scarabs, drop the doomstalker for a max unit of scarabs. Drop the 3 scarabs and spyder and max out the second unit of warriors. If you want to keep the spyder then use the points from three scarabs and swap out for cryptothralls. They’re infantry so their more helpful for secondaries.

I think I mostly agree with this. I don't know if board coverage is what you need to prioritise (though it certainly makes sense) but you definitely need to do something. Other than the C'tan, this list looks to me like kind of a random collection of stuff, rather than anything in particular.

If you're going for eternal expansionists then to me it makes sense to flood the board with either warrior bodies or threats like wraiths and skorpekh destroyers. Either option would take the heat off the C'tan.

I see the logic behind things like the spyder with the gloom prism, but I don't really think it'll work. An enemy with lots of psykers probably won't struggle that much to kill it. Someone without them won't care much about it. And anyway, a single deny is hardly a reliable psychic defence. I'd sooner use those points for more stuff to threaten the enemy.

The logic behind the double c'tan list I wrote was to spam mortal wounds. That's what the c'tan themselves do after all, so I think it makes sense to go a bit deeper into that stuff. That's why I took Imotekh, the voltaic staff for malevolent arcing and why I'd consider things like plasmancers and a psychomancer with atavindicator (a targeted smite) to go with them. You lose command protocols for souping but they aren't that big a deal - especially when you're taking >700pts of C'tan who don't get them.

I am also looking at an eternal expansionist list. This is themed around maximum aggression, basically. Throw too many threats at the enemy for all of them to be dealt with... hopefully.

Overlord
Res orb
Voltaic Staff
Enduring Will

Chronomancer
Veil of Darkness

Chronomancer

5 Immortals (Gauss)

20 Warriors (Reapers)

20 Warriors (Reapers)

6 Skorpekh Destroyers

6 Skorpekh Destroyers

Plasmacyte

C'tan Shard of the Nightbringer

5 Wraiths

5 Triarch Praetorians or 5 Deathmarks and 2 Cryptothralls

Not too sure about this last choice. The Praetorians give me another threat that can follow up behind my main guys. They're reasonably cheap so it wouldn't be a huge loss for them to do actions like deploying scramblers. The deathmarks give me a deep strike option and both they and the cryptothralls can do actions. I think the C'tan, deathmarks and malevolent arcing could combine to make life a bit awkward for support characters but I'm not sure it'd do all that much good.

Thanks for the super helpful thoughts.
I am going to look at cutting the ghost ark/doomstalker first to free up some points and get a VoD for warping right into position, but are immortals worthwhile in a list like this in addition to the scarabs and more warriors that you have recommended?

teamtigerstripe wrote:
Thanks for the super helpful thoughts.
I am going to look at cutting the ghost ark/doomstalker first to free up some points and get a VoD for warping right into position, but are immortals worthwhile in a list like this in addition to the scarabs and more warriors that you have recommended?

Immortals are fundamentally quite good I think. They're a cheap unit that can sit on objectives and do actions, but which actually has a respectable amount of firepower for their cost. I've put some in my list for this reason, and to fill a troop slot.

For your double patrol list I don't know if they'd be the best option in that role. You don't need more troops. There are various alternative units that can do the action monkey role somewhat better. For example they might be faster (praetorians), cheaper (cryptothralls), be able to deep strike (deathmarks/flayed ones) or have more firepower (LHDs).

I do like the idea of a Sautekh patrol if going for this double patrol option. Your 20 guys with flayers would be way better if they could rapid fire at 18". Imotekh is great for dropping his mortal wound bomb, which combos nicely with your c'tan throwing mortal wounds around too. Imotekh also brings 2CPs if he's your warlord, and has a good trait for regenerating CPs too. So that's what I'd do if playing double c'tan.

I'd also look at your relic choice. Your CCB's relic orb is nice but the problem is it leaves you with just a staff of light, and that's a very weak weapon for a nearly 200 point unit. The voltaic staff is far more powerful and can also use malevolent arcing to splash a few mortal wounds around. I'd definitely recommend having some source of tesla for malevolent arcing in any necron list, since blobbing up with characters all near one big unit is pretty common.

Here's a version of how that list could look

Sautekh Patrol

Imotekh the Stormlord (Warlord)

20 Warriors (Flayers)

C'tan Shard of the Void Dragon

Eternal Expansionist Patrol

Overlord
Voltaic Staff

Chronomancer
Veil of Darkness

2 Cryptothralls

20 Warriors (Reapers)

6 Skorpekh Destroyers

Plasmacyte

C'tan shard of the Nightbringer

5 Wraiths

The idea is that the 20 warriors with reapers will often get moved by the veil, whereas the Sautekh flayer ones will just walk around using their 18" rapid fire. Midfield is contested by two C'tan, the wraiths and skorpekh's.

You dont get command protocols with different dynasties.

 p5freak wrote:
You dont get command protocols with different dynasties.

Right, I should have mentioned that. I don’t really care about losing them. They don’t do all that much anyway. They matter even less if you’re running two C’tan, since they don’t ever benefit from them. That’s 720 points worth of this 2k list that doesn’t miss protocols at all.

I’m doing this to get Imotekh because I want the CPs back from taking extra detachments. He actually combos quite nicely with C’tan thanks to chucking mortal wounds around and I like that unit of warriors with 18” rapid fire.

The rest of the list can be eternal expansionist. I don’t think Sautekh is really good and units like the wraiths and destroyers clearly benefit far more from being eternal expansionists. I think it could work quite well as more of a gunline, with a lot of dakka warriors or immortals and some doomstalkers. Those gain a lot from the Sautekh +1 to hit strat. I’m not sure I’d run that with two C’tan though.

Mandragola wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
You dont get command protocols with different dynasties.

Right, I should have mentioned that. I don’t really care about losing them. They don’t do all that much anyway. They matter even less if you’re running two C’tan, since they don’t ever benefit from them. That’s 720 points worth of this 2k list that doesn’t miss protocols at all.

I agree. Command protocols didnt do much for me either. Most of the time i have the wrong protocol active.

 p5freak wrote:

Mandragola wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
You dont get command protocols with different dynasties.

Right, I should have mentioned that. I don’t really care about losing them. They don’t do all that much anyway. They matter even less if you’re running two C’tan, since they don’t ever benefit from them. That’s 720 points worth of this 2k list that doesn’t miss protocols at all.

I agree. Command protocols didnt do much for me either. Most of the time i have the wrong protocol active.

It's a shame about this. Overall I find the detachment abilities available to necrons are pretty insiginficant. The dynasties are quite weak, as are the warlord traits. There aren't many relics, most aren't great and 100% of lists will have the Veil. Command protocols could have been a really interesting signature ability but they end up feeling like a pretty random benefit after the first couple of turns. It's a hassle to get characters near enough to use them anyway.

Maybe it's a good thing that the list includes so many ways to basically ignore most of this. For example there are special character dynastic agent overlords that you can take in soup lists, to buff everyone.

 p5freak wrote:

Mandragola wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
You dont get command protocols with different dynasties.

Right, I should have mentioned that. I don’t really care about losing them. They don’t do all that much anyway. They matter even less if you’re running two C’tan, since they don’t ever benefit from them. That’s 720 points worth of this 2k list that doesn’t miss protocols at all.

I agree. Command protocols didnt do much for me either. Most of the time i have the wrong protocol active.

Here the TSK comes in handy if you can afford to field him.

Mandragola wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

Mandragola wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
You dont get command protocols with different dynasties.

Right, I should have mentioned that. I don’t really care about losing them. They don’t do all that much anyway. They matter even less if you’re running two C’tan, since they don’t ever benefit from them. That’s 720 points worth of this 2k list that doesn’t miss protocols at all.

I agree. Command protocols didnt do much for me either. Most of the time i have the wrong protocol active.

It's a shame about this. Overall I find the detachment abilities available to necrons are pretty insiginficant. The dynasties are quite weak, as are the warlord traits. There aren't many relics, most aren't great and 100% of lists will have the Veil. Command protocols could have been a really interesting signature ability but they end up feeling like a pretty random benefit after the first couple of turns. It's a hassle to get characters near enough to use them anyway.

Maybe it's a good thing that the list includes so many ways to basically ignore most of this. For example there are special character dynastic agent overlords that you can take in soup lists, to buff everyone.

This is basically why I'm certain that once every other faction has a codex, Necrons will be comfortably bottom tier. Every other army book/supplement released in 9th so far is better

Mandragola wrote:

It's a shame about this. Overall I find the detachment abilities available to necrons are pretty insiginficant. The dynasties are quite weak, as are the warlord traits. There aren't many relics, most aren't great and 100% of lists will have the Veil. Command protocols could have been a really interesting signature ability but they end up feeling like a pretty random benefit after the first couple of turns. It's a hassle to get characters near enough to use them anyway.

Agreed. I feel like the only warlord traits worth using are thrall of the silent king and enduring. Same with relics, the veil and voltaic staff are probably the best.

 wuestenfux wrote:

Here the TSK comes in handy if you can afford to field him.

I could, but i dont want to. Those primarchs dont belong in a small skirmish fight, thats what a 40k game is. You need to build your list around them, which is quite limiting.

Cynista wrote:

Mandragola wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

Mandragola wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
You dont get command protocols with different dynasties.

Right, I should have mentioned that. I don’t really care about losing them. They don’t do all that much anyway. They matter even less if you’re running two C’tan, since they don’t ever benefit from them. That’s 720 points worth of this 2k list that doesn’t miss protocols at all.

I agree. Command protocols didnt do much for me either. Most of the time i have the wrong protocol active.

It's a shame about this. Overall I find the detachment abilities available to necrons are pretty insiginficant. The dynasties are quite weak, as are the warlord traits. There aren't many relics, most aren't great and 100% of lists will have the Veil. Command protocols could have been a really interesting signature ability but they end up feeling like a pretty random benefit after the first couple of turns. It's a hassle to get characters near enough to use them anyway.

Maybe it's a good thing that the list includes so many ways to basically ignore most of this. For example there are special character dynastic agent overlords that you can take in soup lists, to buff everyone.

This is basically why I'm certain that once every other faction has a codex, Necrons will be comfortably bottom tier. Every other army book/supplement released in 9th so far is better

We'll see if CA brings us any points drops, the dakka destroyers especially are in desperate need of it. Tbh though I think theres still a lot of exploring to be done in this codex.

I dont know if you guys saw but a necrons list placed 2nd in a gt recently which was purely mephrit vehicles. 3x DDA, 3x annihilation barges 2x CCB and some other things I can't quite remember. You get -1AP on tesla naturally then, plus ignoring cover and an extra point of AP on 6s to wound in the relevant protocol.

It makes taking purge the vermin real easy as you can blow up anything that's on your side of the table. People have been saying how good Dark angles are with permanent transhuman, we've got it too!

The other thing is, in Szarekhan, their relic let's units within 9" be affected by both directives of the turns protocol. Pare this with thrall of the SK WL trait and a CCB to have a massive 12" aura. Theil Szarekhan WL trait also let's you pick 1 protocol over 2 turns too, so its not just locked to the SK. You can pop that on a chronomancer for example. A bunch of warriors that get the benefit of light cover, can over watch on a 5+ as well as ignore mortals on a 5+ thanks to the dynasty trait, with another 5++ on top of that over 2 turns has been completely un-explored imo!

The point I'm trying to make is that I certainly think it's too early to say crons will be bottom tier. We just haven't been able to keep adapting at the same pace as all the new releases

The point I'm trying to make is that I certainly think it's too early to say crons will be bottom tier. We just haven't been able to keep adapting at the same pace as all the new releases

Bottom tier?
I wouldn't be too fast with such a statement.
I played Necrons in tourneys rather successful in the 6th and 7th ed.
Today, playing 40k is even easier. You just need to hold back- and midfield.

Yeah I don’t think Necrons will be bottom tier. They’re fundamentally pretty good at 9th edition, since they can put tough units on objectives and keep them there.

I think there’s more potential to unlock in the book. There’s some obviously strong stuff like eternal expansionists wraiths, Sautekh destroyers and reaper warriors, but also a lot of tricks. I’m really interested in units like the psychomancer, deathmarks and deceiver that can muck around with the board.

I think the points values are roughly right. Lokhust destroyers are an exception and the destroyer lords probably cost a bit too much but most other stuff is ok. Unfortunately the problematic stuff is stuff that’s free, like the relics and warlord traits. Fixing those would require rewriting text rather than changing points costs, and GW seems a lot more reluctant to do that.

I love the idea of the Mephrit annihilation barges. That’s a great example of how a seemingly rubbish unit can be made to work.

I've long theorized that Necrons are going to round out to low-mid tiers at the end of 9th: not bottom tier, but really not that competitive overall. Power creep is a heck of a drug...
I do think they have enough strong advantages to leverage that they could make some progress, and given the attention given to the last edition's main faction(Death Guard, who were bad in much the same way for awhile but are now top-tier), I hold out hope for Necrons ending up even better in the end.
Although I do wish such balancing was done *during* the initial new big release.

How are people finding the plasmancer? I’m tempted to make an offball 1000 point list with two plasmancer and one (cosmic tyrant) transcendent c’tan... pump out some mortal wounds

I think they’d work well for that purpose. Add a little Tesla for some splash mortal wounds as well perhaps.

I think plasmancers are my least favourite crypteks. It’s they do mortal wounds, but not at all targeted. The orb thing is interesting, with the option of using it for area denial as well as damage.

I’d be interested to see how you’d get on with three of them. They’d sort of erode enemy units and they might accomplish something by going close to enemy characters - so long as they stayed more than 3” away of course.

I mostly prefer the psychomancer with atavindicator for mortal wounds. He gets to allocate them.

 wuestenfux wrote:

The point I'm trying to make is that I certainly think it's too early to say crons will be bottom tier. We just haven't been able to keep adapting at the same pace as all the new releases

Bottom tier?
I wouldn't be too fast with such a statement.
I played Necrons in tourneys rather successful in the 6th and 7th ed.
Today, playing 40k is even easier. You just need to hold back- and midfield.

To me even more bold, I would bet money on Necrons being among the bottom 5 ranked factions in two years time when everyone has a codex. Which isn't to say that it's currently bad, it's not. But so far every other one has been a powerhouse so we're seeing a trend and I don't think we are durable enough to handle such a boost in killing ability across the board.