PDA

View Full Version : Gauss weapons in 5th



Danny Internet
17-07-2008, 17:29
http://warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=152508

Continuation of a rules thread that ultimately ended up as a general discussion of how the glancing hits nerf affects Necrons, who in 3rd and 4th edition relied almost entirely on glancing hits to kill enemy vehicles.


Anyway, there is no nerf to Gauss weapons. There was a buff to vehicles, wich includes the Monolith. So its not only harder to kill with glances for Guass weapons, its the same with glances on the Monolith. The calculations of the odds of destroying a Land Raider with Heavy Destroyers are the same as for Lascannons on the Monolith. Lascannons arent exactly cheap or versatile weapons either.

Necrons rely almost exclusively on glancing hits (via the gauss rule) to destroy vehicles. Glancing hits are no longer a viable way of destroying vehicles. This affects Necrons much more than armies who rely on a mixture of glancing and penetrating hits and amounts to a relative nerfing of gauss weaponry.

borithan
17-07-2008, 17:43
Erm... can't you still build up "Weapon Destroyed" and "Immoblised" hits until it has no more weapons to destroy and then it dies?

Danny Internet
17-07-2008, 17:49
That requires 3-4 times as much firepower as it did in 4th edition, depending on how many weapons the vehicle has. No other army sees anywhere near the same decrease in effectiveness of their anti-tank capabilities.

PondaNagura
17-07-2008, 18:02
so tanks can fight necrons now and force necron players to rely on heavy-hitting units like [heavy] destroyers/monoliths and other weapons, like any other army in the universe...what's the problem?

AfroCelt
17-07-2008, 18:12
From what I remember you're already scheduled for a new codex in 2009...pretty quick as far as codexes go. Until then, can't you use:

-the gauss cannon (str 6 can penetrate armor 11 and glance armor 12, and you have 3 shots at BS4 per turn with it?!)
-Heavy Gauss Cannon (Str 9, better than anything bar CC/HQ units in my ork codex)
-the particle whip.

You are going to face a short period where you lose a bit of power, but you'll get it back quickly with an updated codex. Until then, I guess the only thing you can do is take units with specialized guns, <gasp> like the rest of us.

<--remembers the waning days of the old ork codex and REAL problems :P

Soupcat
17-07-2008, 18:15
Necrons were designed as a force to rely on glancing... thus our anti-tank options are lackluster at best. The Monolith is a support tank, and the heavy destroyer has a giant hit me sign on it because of the range... yes you can move and fire, but if you miss that single shot, it is toast.

Danny Internet
17-07-2008, 18:31
so tanks can fight necrons now and force necron players to rely on heavy-hitting units like [heavy] destroyers/monoliths and other weapons, like any other army in the universe...what's the problem?

As covered in the other thread, the whole point of the gauss rule is to balance out the fact that Necrons (a) have extremely limited access to weapons over S6, and (b) cannot take specialists with lascannons, meltaguns, etc. Heavy destroyers are expensive, have no ablative wounds, and are easy to deny WBB rolls to unless you take at least 2 squads of them.


You are going to face a short period where you lose a bit of power, but you'll get it back quickly with an updated codex. Until then, I guess the only thing you can do is take units with specialized guns, <gasp> like the rest of us.

A minimum of a year is not a short period and not being able to reliably deal with enemy vehicles (which you will see more of now that they are harder to kill) is not the loss of a "bit" of power. And since when do the vast majority of armies (marines and spikey marines) need to take units with specialized guns? Also, Necron players only have access to one unit with specialized anti-tank guns, and the models are over-costed.

PondaNagura
17-07-2008, 18:56
can't you use the other rules in 5th ed. like get full squads of [heavy] a/o [regular]detroyers, and run or whatever. i'd imagine jetbikes must have some nice rules in this edition. when in doubt get behind tanks, drop in your monolith and rear armor that crap.
think man, use tactics not just point and shoot.

Danny Internet
17-07-2008, 19:08
Considering I haven't lost a game with my Necrons in over 2 years, I think I'm perfectly capable of using tactics, but thanks anyway.

And why would you run with jetbikes (not that you can)? Are you even familiar with the rules (this edition or last)?

EarlGrey
17-07-2008, 19:17
That requires 3-4 times as much firepower as it did in 4th edition, depending on how many weapons the vehicle has. No other army sees anywhere near the same decrease in effectiveness of their anti-tank capabilities.

Haven't heavy weapons gone up in price in for armies such as Chaos Space Marines, Dark Angels, etc? They've certainly become slightly rarer due to the 10 man minimum.
If you you're limited in options, Chaos Daemons have very little in the way of Anti-tank too... and so do Tyranids now where there only "main" anti-tank weapon relied on the 6 on the glancing table.
I don't think Necrons really have too much trouble in 5th. The fact that your entire army can get a glance and thus at least prevent a vehicle from doing something (as well as possible immobilised/weapon destroyed) is still pretty good! :)

PondaNagura
17-07-2008, 19:23
no i'm not, haven't got the RB yet. i just figured there might be some interesting rule changes that can be better used now...for destroyers and the like that move like jetbikes.
but i'm saying if one rule has been nerfed or changed, then adapt your tactics. can't shoot the front of the armor, get behind it. can't rely on all those troop glancing hits, then get vehicles or heavies.

also not losing in 2 years doesn't say much. i've lost all my games this year.
granted i've only played 3 games this year ;)

Danny Internet
17-07-2008, 19:29
Haven't heavy weapons gone up in price in for armies such as Chaos Space Marines, Dark Angels, etc? They've certainly become slightly rarer due to the 10 man minimum.

Space Marines still make up a huge number of armies and only time will tell is prices/rarity of heavy weapons will change in the new book (there are rumors, but they are unsubstantiated so far--correct me if I am wrong). Chaos Marines don't really have to worry about this much as their competitive builds typically have a core of 6 Obliterators (the 2 DP, 6 Oblit template) and because they have many other options, such as small Raptor squads with meltaguns. Guard are unaffected thus far.


If you you're limited in options, Chaos Daemons have very little in the way of Anti-tank too... and so do Tyranids now where there only "main" anti-tank weapon relied on the 6 on the glancing table.

I agree about Chaos Daemons, and I feel they are a very weak army (versus all-comers, such as in a tournament environment) for this very reason.

I disagree about Tyranids, however, because of the fact that close combat attacks now strike rear armor. This combined with the much more punishing close combat resolution lead me to believe that Tyranid builds will forego much of their shooting for more CC strength.


I don't think Necrons really have too much trouble in 5th. The fact that your entire army can get a glance and thus at least prevent a vehicle from doing something (as well as possible immobilised/weapon destroyed) is still pretty good!

This was balanced in 4th, however things have gotten much worse for Necrons while only getting slightly worse for everyone else. Vehicles don't offer up KPs until they are totally destroyed and they can still contest objectives. Furthermore, if you're spending the totality of your firepower turn after turn just to stop vehicles from shooting you then what are you doing about the enemy infantry?

Sekhmet
17-07-2008, 20:15
In the other thread, someone said "monoliths are the best anti-tank unit in the game." I don't understand what's so "best" about them? A broadside with BS4 is better. A space marine / chaos vindicator is better. There's many many things out there that are better at killing tanks than a monolith, and at a much lower cost too.

Also, simply stunning/shaking a tank every turn is not viable for 2 reasons alluded to/mentioned in previous posts:
1. You have to use a unit every single turn to stop a tank from shooting... which means you're neglecting a large part of the rest of their army
2. Pretty much every army has an equivalent of "Extra armor", allowing the vehicle to move even when stunned. Thus, you can't stop them from simply driving ontop of an objective and sitting there to contest it all game.


so tanks can fight necrons now and force necron players to rely on heavy-hitting units like [heavy] destroyers/monoliths and other weapons, like any other army in the universe...what's the problem?
Because Necrons are a shooty army and our only ranged anti-tank is in our heavy support slots.
Let's look at Blood Angels:
Lascannons, melta guns, missile lauchers and multi-meltas in elites (Veteran Assault Squads, Dreadnoughts)
Lascannons, melta guns and missile launchers in troops (razorbacks and tactical squads)
Multi-meltas in fast attack (attack bikes, land speeders)
Devastator squads, Predators, Vindicators and Landraiders in heavy support

Damocles8
17-07-2008, 21:08
I don't honestly know how many units (Warriors and other stuff with Guass) are in a necron army (more than 2 I'd guess), but one unit suppressing a tank, so the heavier weapons can get in there and finish it....doesn't sound too difficult to me....

Sekhmet
17-07-2008, 21:42
I don't honestly know how many units (Warriors and other stuff with Guass) are in a necron army (more than 2 I'd guess), but one unit suppressing a tank, so the heavier weapons can get in there and finish it....doesn't sound too difficult to me....

2 units costing at least 200+ points taking 2 turns if not more to kill a single tank?

Sounds good to me. You do that while I run meltaguns in my infantry squads and take down tanks in 1 turn with 1 squad at less than 150 pts.

Gensuke626
17-07-2008, 22:49
I really don't see why folks are so obsessed with completely destroying tanks. Keeping them suppressed in a place where they don't affect objectives is good enough.

If they're near an objective, then, obviously, they need to die, and while Necrons are going to have a bit of a rough deal with it, a Unit of Heavy destroyers ought to be good.

And @ sekhmet. Yeah, marines can take all that AT gear in their tac squads and dev teams and whatnots, but
1. Marines are 40k's glory boyz. It's unfair what they get compared to pretty much every army. That's how it's been since 4e. Maybe in 2e too...but I know in 3ed vanilla marines were a joke.
2. Any marine squad kitted out for AT duty loses out on AP duty, and visa versa. Sure, combat squads relieves the pressure a bit, but then it's easier to kill the special trooper...
2.

eek107
17-07-2008, 23:36
So the basic Necrons now have it bad because they struggle to wreck vehicles? Sounds like what everyone else goes through with the Monolith... :rolleyes:

But really, it's not that bad, the sky is not falling, Necrons are not completely useless.

1. EVERYTHING in the codex can harm tanks to a degree (IIRC). No matter what's on hand, it can put a tank out of action for at least a turn. Few other armies can boast that flexibility.

2. Start taking Heavy Destroyers. So what if they get shot at and killed, people with tanks are going to target your dedicated anti-tank no matter what army you run. Even Destroyers with their weight of fire will do, especally if you use their maneuverability to hit the side/rear.

3. Glancing stops them shooting for a turn. That's the main threat from them, right? Well every glance means, at the very least, those guns are useless for another turn, so you can focus on something else. Every Weapon Destroyed/Immobilised is merely a bonus, one step closer to wrecked.

4. Assault them. You've got disruption fields, wraiths, pariahs etc, use them. Hitting Av 10 on most things, it ain't that hard to do damage, especially if you have bonuses to armour penetration.

5. What about the Monolith? Hasn't it become nigh-invincible from the new vehicle rules. Can glances (which everyone will get short of having Lascannons and Railguns) come close to killing it? Not to mention it's S whatever AP1 blast weapon, good anti-tank material right there.


Seriously, we all have to rethink our tactics a bit, Necrons by no means have it bad. Tyranids have to change more to adapt to the tank rules and they're coping just fine. My two most common opponents are Tyranids and Necrons, and neither of them failed to adapt and are quite capable of coping with the number of tanks I put on the table.

Danny Internet
17-07-2008, 23:40
I really don't see why folks are so obsessed with completely destroying tanks. Keeping them suppressed in a place where they don't affect objectives is good enough.

Merely suppressing a tank means you're going to need to suppress it again next turn. Destroying a tank means it is a suppressed permenantly while your units can focus on suppressing other tanks or units.

Why are people unable to understand this? You all act like dedicating all of your firepower merely to shake/stun tanks every turn without killing anything is a viable way to win games.


So the basic Necrons now have it bad because they struggle to wreck vehicles? Sounds like what everyone else goes through with the Monolith...

Refer to posts 1, 3, 6, 7, and 12. Furthermore, the Monolith is one vehicle. Necrons now have trouble with everything over AV 11. Advantage: non-Necrons.


4. Assault them. You've got disruption fields, wraiths, pariahs etc, use them. Hitting Av 10 on most things, it ain't that hard to do damage, especially if you have bonuses to armour penetration.

Disruption fields? Pariahs? Grasp at straws much?

eek107
18-07-2008, 00:14
Why are people unable to understand this? You all act like dedicating all of your firepower merely to shake/stun tanks every turn without killing anything is a viable way to win games.

That's because it is. Keep shaking/stunning it and it might as well have been wrecked for all the good it did.


Refer to posts 1, 3, 6, 7, and 12. Furthermore, the Monolith is one vehicle. Necrons now have trouble with everything over AV 11. Advantage: non-Necrons.

All I'm seeing is a bunch of talk about how they rely on glancing which is not true. They are more capable of doing so than anyone else but there are ample means of hitting harder if you actually start using them and it is not their sole method of destroying tanks.

The Monolith is their only vehicle, the only one their opponent will see. It ignores anything S7 or under, and barely has any concern for S8 or most weapons with armour penetration bonuses (which takes a massive chunk out of most armies' anti-tank capability). S9 and 10 are all that really threaten it, and even then on a 5+ at best. It might be all they've got but it invalidates most anti-tank weaponry out there. In addition, no amount of glancing hits will ever kill it, period. There are no lighter targets besides the Necron infantry, which are numerous enough for the anti-tank that the Monolith ignores to hardly make an impact on their numbers.

Compare that to every Necron unit being able to harm tanks, with enough S9+ to cope with anything stubborn. They do not have any more trouble than anyone else does. No advantage to either side. Yes, it's harder for Necrons to glance a tank to death but theirs has become indestructible to glances which is what it suffers most of the time.


Disruption fields? Pariahs? Grasp at straws much?

5+2D6 that's, what, an average of 12. Against Av 10 you've penetrated right away, against 14 you only need 9+ on 2D6 which is hardly beyond the scope of imagination. To put them in perspective, you're getting 2 attacks like that on the charge for quite a bit less than two marines with meltaguns, which is essentially the same thing. Same range for the bonus, and despite the higher strength the marines won't always have the luxury of hitting the rear armour.
Okay, Disruption Fields aren't Railguns I'll give toy that much, but glances add up to destruction for everyone else's tanks.

Sekhmet
18-07-2008, 00:31
The Monolith is their only vehicle, the only one their opponent will see. It ignores anything S7 or under, and barely has any concern for S8 or most weapons with armour penetration bonuses (which takes a massive chunk out of most armies' anti-tank capability). S9 and 10 are all that really threaten it, and even then on a 5+ at best. It might be all they've got but it invalidates most anti-tank weaponry out there. In addition, no amount of glancing hits will ever kill it, period. There are no lighter targets besides the Necron infantry, which are numerous enough for the anti-tank that the Monolith ignores to hardly make an impact on their numbers.

Compare that to every Necron unit being able to harm tanks, with enough S9+ to cope with anything stubborn. They do not have any more trouble than anyone else does. No advantage to either side. Yes, it's harder for Necrons to glance a tank to death but theirs has become indestructible to glances which is what it suffers most of the time.

There is NO correlation whatsoever between the survivability of a monolith and the lack of anti-tank capability with the rest of the army. We're talking about gauss weapons, not "zomg unkillable flying pyramid cry more necron players".

The entire game is not Necrons vs everyone, it's everyone vs everyone. SM, DE, Eldar, Tau, even Orks have a much easier time of killing vehicles in shooting than Necrons. I don't care that the monolith is hard to destroy - that's a topic for another thread. You don't balance it by saying "Well if no one can easily kill Necron vehicles, then Necrons shouldn't be able to kill any vehicle easily either."



And @ sekhmet. Yeah, marines can take all that AT gear in their tac squads and dev teams and whatnots, but
1. Marines are 40k's glory boyz. It's unfair what they get compared to pretty much every army. That's how it's been since 4e. Maybe in 2e too...but I know in 3ed vanilla marines were a joke.
2. Any marine squad kitted out for AT duty loses out on AP duty, and visa versa. Sure, combat squads relieves the pressure a bit, but then it's easier to kill the special trooper...

You may have missed my post in the other thread before it was closed due to drifting away from a rules question, but here's my reply:

Point 1: The fact is that Marines are the most common army in the game, so it's not unfair they get compared all the time. Add to the fact that, yes, they ARE the poster boys of the game, strengthens the argument that they should be the benchmark for which all other armies are judged.

Point 2: Take a 10 man tactical squad, give it a flamer and a lascannon, and it's better at both anti-personnel and anti-tank. Give it a melta gun and a heavy bolter and it's still better in both anti-personnel and anti-tank. Give it just a melta gun and you only lose 1 bolter shot at 12", but gain a S8 AP1 shot, arguably doing more damage in the long run. No, kitting out a marine squad for AT duty loses out on AP only when compared to a marine squad kitted out for AP. Comparing it to Necrons, which this thread is about, sees them not losing any "AP" (bolters basically), but gaining superior anti-tank.



And before you accuse me of crying about my nerfed necrons like you did in another thread, my list has been including a C'tan and heavy destroyers for the last two years. I'm hardly, if at all, nerfed by the changes in 5th, but I can see where other Necron players were unfairly hurt by the changes.

Danny Internet
18-07-2008, 00:55
That's because it is. Keep shaking/stunning it and it might as well have been wrecked for all the good it did.

You forgot the part about having to repeat this process every turn and ignoring the rest of the enemy army. You know, the guys that are going to kill you and capture objectives.


All I'm seeing is a bunch of talk about how they rely on glancing which is not true.

Based on this comment and the fact that you're seriously trying to argue that Pariahs are a capable anti-tank unit, I'm going to go ahead and assume you've never actually seen a Necron army play, which leaves me wondering why you're even posting in this thread. That's kind of like saying Space Marines don't really rely on having 3+ saves. Or that Chaos Spawns are an excellent way of dealing with enemy characters.


Okay, Disruption Fields aren't Railguns I'll give toy that much, but glances add up to destruction for everyone else's tanks.

Actually the scorn expressed for your argument was more directed at the suggestion that Pariahs are anything but laughably ineffective. The only unit Disruption Fields are useful on are Scarabs, however you need this unit to act as a defensive speed bump for assault troops otherwise you risk a very quick Phase Out in 5th edition due to the new combat resolution penalties. Against gunline armies, yes, I will concede that Scarabs with Disruption Fields are another unreliable gimmick in the Necron bag of tricks.

ehlijen
18-07-2008, 01:08
If you have a tac squad with Flamer/LC or Melta/HB, than no matter what you shoot at, you've wasted points on one of the weapons. If you sit there and shoot the heavy, the special will never do anything and if you advance to use the special you'll be in CC before they heavy guys knows it. Remember that any upgrade you don't use is wasted points.

With necrons, every gun is ok at everything. You never have the perfect weapon for the job but you always have a gun that can do something!

What if the LC/melta marine suddenly finds himself fighting a waaaagh! ? What if the HB/flamer SM player finds himself fighting an armoured company?
Necrons are better at AT than an AP SM squad and better at AP than an AT SM squad. Necrons will never find that they paid extra for a useless gun. That is a decent advantge. Add that the necrons are more resilient against most things the marines fear and you have a balanced army.

When you buy 10 warriors you get 10 guns that an hurt anything in the game. When a SM player buys 10 marines, at least 7 will be stuck with guns that can't hurt anything of AV11+ or T8. Yes, gauss isn't as good as a LC, but you get about 10 times as many gauss weapons as the marine player has lascannon!

Danny Internet
18-07-2008, 01:16
What if the LC/melta marine suddenly finds himself fighting a waaaagh! ? What if the HB/flamer SM player finds himself fighting an armoured company?
Necrons are better at AT than an AP SM squad and better at AP than an AT SM squad. Necrons will never find that they paid extra for a useless gun. That is a decent advantge. Add that the necrons are more resilient against most things the marines fear and you have a balanced army.

When you buy 10 warriors you get 10 guns that an hurt anything in the game. When a SM player buys 10 marines, at least 7 will be stuck with guns that can't hurt anything of AV11+ or T8. Yes, gauss isn't as good as a LC, but you get about 10 times as many gauss weapons as the marine player has lascannon!

What you say has a lot of truth to it, which is why Necrons were perfectly balanced in 4th edition. The problem is that Gauss, in general, will only score glancing hits. Glancing hits are MUCH weaker than they were in 4th edition. The balance between Gauss weaponry vs specialist access is therefore radically altered, and not in the Necrons' favor.

PS - The being able to hurt T8 thing is a pretty drastic reach for support considering that 2/3 of the models that even have T8 are in the Necron army.

Royal Tiger
18-07-2008, 01:21
which is why Necrons were perfectly balanced in 4th edition.
what deluded codex have you been reading :confused:
how was the ability to destroy entire tank companies with str4 guns "balanced"??????????????????

Clang
18-07-2008, 01:25
any suggestions for a change to the Gauss Rule to restore the 4th Ed balance (which I agree has been lost in 5th Ed)? The obvious option would be for Gauss to have a -1 modifier on the vehicle damage chart (instead of -2 like a Glancing hit).

Sekhmet
18-07-2008, 01:34
What if the LC/melta marine suddenly finds himself fighting a waaaagh! ?

I didn't say MG/LC or HB/Flamer, I said Flamer/LC or MG/HB. Either of those two squad setups are better at anti-infantry AND anti-tank than Necrons.

"But Sekhmet," you may find yourself typing, "you'll have an inefficient use of weapons if you fire meltaguns at orks or flamers at a tank."
"That is true," I will start to respond, "But Necrons are paying 18 points per Warrior that can barely touch T8 and can only glance vehicles, and thus they aren't efficient either."



But assuming you're using an anti-tank squad against infantry, let's do some quick math here:

We have a 10 man marine squad, all 10 with bolters, firing at Orks without cover saves. Or they could be 10 Necron Warriors... same result.
24": 10 shots, 20/3 hit, 10/3 wound, ~3.3 dead orks
12": 20 shots, 40/3 hit, 20/3 wound, ~6.6 dead orks

Ok, assume we now have a 10 man marine squad, 8 with bolters, 1 with melta gun, 1 with lascannon. And assume the lascannon doesn't shoot until the orks get within 24" for some strange reason.
24": 8 bolter shots, 1 lascannon: 16/3 bolter hits and 2/3 lascannon hits, 8/3+5/9 wounds, ~3.22 dead orks.
You kill 0.11 less orks, and that's assuming the lascannon hasn't been firing at longer range.
12": 16 bolter shots, 1 lascannon, 1 melta gun (these will have the same hit, wound and ignore saves, so i'll count them as the same), 32/3 bolter hits and 4/3 other hits, 16/3 bolter wounds + 10/9 other wounds, ~6.4 dead orks, or .2 less.

.2 less casualties in rapid fire range, but with the ability to destroy tanks and start shooting at the orks at long range? Sounds like a deal to me. What about you?

Gensuke626
18-07-2008, 01:47
The entire game is not Necrons vs everyone, it's everyone vs everyone. SM, DE, Eldar, Tau, even Orks have a much easier time of killing vehicles in shooting than Necrons.
As an ork player, I just wanted to point out that to Kill a Tank, we Orks really need to engage it in Melee. Ork Anti-Tank Shooting is just about as viable as Tau Close Combat. Necrons definately do it better.


You may have missed my post in the other thread before it was closed due to drifting away from a rules question, but here's my reply:

Point 1: The fact is that Marines are the most common army in the game, so it's not unfair they get compared all the time. Add to the fact that, yes, they ARE the poster boys of the game, strengthens the argument that they should be the benchmark for which all other armies are judged.
and they are. Problem is that GW decided that Marines should all have amazing abilities that makes them better than most armies.


Point 2: Take a 10 man tactical squad, give it a flamer and a lascannon, and it's better at both anti-personnel and anti-tank. Give it a melta gun and a heavy bolter and it's still better in both anti-personnel and anti-tank. Give it just a melta gun and you only lose 1 bolter shot at 12", but gain a S8 AP1 shot, arguably doing more damage in the long run. No, kitting out a marine squad for AT duty loses out on AP only when compared to a marine squad kitted out for AP. Comparing it to Necrons, which this thread is about, sees them not losing any "AP" (bolters basically), but gaining superior anti-tank.

Ehlijen responded to this wonderfully...and I agree...Gauss flayers aren't the best tool for taking out tanks, but the fact that they can still hurt tanks makes them more versatile than the Bolter or Shoota...


And before you accuse me of crying about my nerfed necrons like you did in another thread, my list has been including a C'tan and heavy destroyers for the last two years. I'm hardly, if at all, nerfed by the changes in 5th, but I can see where other Necron players were unfairly hurt by the changes.
Dude...Seriously. Don't drag irrelevant things between various threads.

Merely suppressing a tank means you're going to need to suppress it again next turn. Destroying a tank means it is a suppressed permenantly while your units can focus on suppressing other tanks or units.

Why are people unable to understand this? You all act like dedicating all of your firepower merely to shake/stun tanks every turn without killing anything is a viable way to win games.

Well...I don't see tank suppression as an end. It's a means to an end. You suppress the tank and try to get something in there that can rip it up. I told Nid players to do the same thing and I got the same response, but the truth of the matter is, untill you can get something into position to destroy a given tank, you need to keep it from damaging you.

Compared to nids, Necrons have it easy since they have effective Lascannon equivalents...



What you say has a lot of truth to it, which is why Necrons were perfectly balanced in 4th edition. The problem is that Gauss, in general, will only score glancing hits. Glancing hits are MUCH weaker than they were in 4th edition. The balance between Gauss weaponry vs specialist access is therefore radically altered, and not in the Necrons' favor.

Agreed, the Necron community is really going to have problems dealing with tanks...

Welcome to the world of the Orks...Not an insult mind you, but I know the pains of AV14...I relied on glances to take things out, but now a days, I'm having a tough time trying to decided how to kill things. Warboss with klaw seems like a good option, but I can only have 2 and he's kinda pricey for an ork...Mostly worried about LRs and Liths. Man Tank bustas are gonna be sad...

But, Lacking all else, Might I suggest that you adopt the Motto of "Everything counts in Large Amounts" that orks have? Just in terms of Gauss vs Armor mind you...

what deluded codex have you been reading :confused:
how was the ability to destroy entire tank companies with str4 guns "balanced"??????????????????
Last I checked, 4th Ed Tank Companies weren't particularly balanced to begin with...

@Sekh's latest reply: Dude...you forgot to mention that most Marines can also Combat Squad, so you CAN advance with the Flamer and lay out Las Cannon shots...

You know, I tried my hand at forming a Fan based Necron revision not too long ago...I think Rending was mentioned to replace Gauss...

eek107
18-07-2008, 02:03
There is NO correlation whatsoever between the survivability of a monolith and the lack of anti-tank capability with the rest of the army. We're talking about gauss weapons, not "zomg unkillable flying pyramid cry more necron players".

The entire game is not Necrons vs everyone, it's everyone vs everyone. SM, DE, Eldar, Tau, even Orks have a much easier time of killing vehicles in shooting than Necrons. I don't care that the monolith is hard to destroy - that's a topic for another thread. You don't balance it by saying "Well if no one can easily kill Necron vehicles, then Necrons shouldn't be able to kill any vehicle easily either."


That's not my point. I'm saying "join the club" because Necrons aren't the only ones that have to face vehicles getting tougher and, funnily enough, their vehicle benefits the most. And it was hardly an easy kill before. They bring it to the table and all of a sudden everyone else's fancy anti-tank weapons are useless but we just had to deal with it and bring something stronger next time. Guess what, now it's their turn. Stop relying on glances and use the proper high-strength armour penetrating anti-tank weapons.


You forgot the part about having to repeat this process every turn and ignoring the rest of the enemy army. You know, the guys that are going to kill you and capture objectives.

Ignoring the rest of the army? Where did that come from? You shake/stun the tank with one of your units. Okay, not the best result but it's useless for a turn. Now you deal the rest of their army with the rest of yours instead of wasting time on something that's not currently a threat.


Based on this comment and the fact that you're seriously trying to argue that Pariahs are a capable anti-tank unit, I'm going to go ahead and assume you've never actually seen a Necron army play, which leaves me wondering why you're even posting in this thread. That's kind of like saying Space Marines don't really rely on having 3+ saves. Or that Chaos Spawns are an excellent way of dealing with enemy characters.

And if you read my post fully instead of making assumptions halfway through you'd see Necrons are one of my two main opponents, and having played against them for a number of years yes, I have seen them play, although I'll admit Pariahs are a recent addition to my opponent's army. And I have seen that the army does not rely solely on glances to destroy vehicles like everyone's crying here. They have plenty of weapons more than capable of causing penetrating hits, such as the Heavy Destroyers I always see brought to the table. Saying they rely on glances is like saying IG rely on lasguns. It's most of what they've got but it's nowhere near the best way to get the job done.
If Pariahs can assault a vehicle, they are quite capable of killing it.


Actually the scorn expressed for your argument was more directed at the suggestion that Pariahs are anything but laughably ineffective. The only unit Disruption Fields are useful on are Scarabs, however you need this unit to act as a defensive speed bump for assault troops otherwise you risk a very quick Phase Out in 5th edition due to the new combat resolution penalties. Against gunline armies, yes, I will concede that Scarabs with Disruption Fields are another unreliable gimmick in the Necron bag of tricks.

Have you even tried Pariahs under the new rules before calling them "laughably ineffective"? Under 4th I can see it but 5th helps them. Screening, running, hitting a vehicle's rear armour...
I'll admit I've only seen them under one 5th ed game, and caught them out in the open with a very lucky battlecannon shot, so I'm not going to say any more than on paper they look like they can do the job now better than they could before. I'm not going to call them the best tank killers (which it seems I have to point out I am NOT doing, that's the Heavy Destroyers), but I'm not going to say they're useless because I got lucky and killed them before they got me, nor will I judge them because the community seems to regard their apparent uselessness as something every player with two working braincells should know and carry that judgement over into an entirely new set of rules.

ehlijen
18-07-2008, 02:42
Cool, it's .2 casualties less. But for a squad that is 25 points at least more expensive. For those points the ork mob could be 4 models stronger. But I only kill an extra .2 per volley? That means I need to shoot 20 times as often to reach the same end result. And if I shoot tanks, only one model gets to do something at all (I have yet to see someone park within 12" range of a Las/melta squad).
Necrons can hurt vehicles out of the box. They don't pay extra points to do so, which at the same time reduce their AP abilities.

Undertaker
18-07-2008, 03:24
....Got to have some bad with the good I guess.

'Crons still have plenty of ways of dealing with Armor. Its just no longer as simple as having a warrior squad rapid-fire into a tank and have a near-guaranteed kill.

Pretty much every unit in your army can still deal with tanks without even tooling them out, its just that they all can't quickly kill them anymore. That's alot to say, as no other army can really do that.

Sekhmet
18-07-2008, 03:27
Necrons can hurt vehicles out of the box. They don't pay extra points to do so, which at the same time reduce their AP abilities.

Necrons pay to hurt vehicles out of the box, regardless if they actually use the ability or not.

ehlijen
18-07-2008, 03:34
How many points does a necron warrior have to pay to upgrade his gun to hurt vehicles and how much does that reduce his AP firepower by? 0 and 0.

If necrones use that ability, they all get to use it, so you do not end up paying points to make your squad mostly twiddle its thumbs. If they don't use it, they all don't need it and are not reduced in their abilities at other things.

If marines pay for AT firepower, one guy gets to shoot and the rest get to cheer him on. If he doesn't use it, he's wasted points and at the same time became worse at other things.

It's two different approaches and both are about equal, even with the new vehicle damage tables.

Spook101
18-07-2008, 04:03
lets see. how can i rag on the crons today?
oh yes, by comparing them to guard.

your basic weapon could
-punch through my body armor
-destroy all of my vehicles

my basic weapon could
-ummmmmmm, oh, they had a 1 in 36 to kill your basic trooper and keep him down meaning an entire squads double taping fire would kill one necron warrior after your wbb saves.

also
-an annoyingly high cost to upgrade to a weapon that can glance your main vehicle on a 6.
-an excessively high cost to get a weapon that can penetrate that same vehicle.
-an extremely expensive vehicle that can be killed by a frontal hit from your basic, non upgraded infantry, and maybe penetrate your vehicle with the right upgrades.


Do remind me how your one necron warrior that can take an entire squads fire before dying, and kill anything i throw at it is not ******** cheese.

Gensuke626
18-07-2008, 04:13
Spook, don't troll the Necron threads. I've got issues with the crons too, but seriously...at least pretend to have a suggestion to help them, or an arguement to support why their Gauss weapons aren't as badly nerfed as they claim.

Danny Internet
18-07-2008, 04:29
what deluded codex have you been reading :confused:
how was the ability to destroy entire tank companies with str4 guns "balanced"??????????????????

Oh, I don't know, by the fact that they don't have specialists and you only need to kill 75% of them to force a wipe out? Maybe those?

If you seriously think Necrons were overpowered in 4th then you should probably take a look at the European GT results and notice the poor performance of the few Necron players who even made it through the qualifiers.

imweasel
18-07-2008, 04:32
Replace auto-glance/auto-wound with rending and issue is gone.

Sekhmet
18-07-2008, 04:32
lets see. how can i rag on the crons today?
oh yes, by comparing them to guard.

your basic weapon could
-punch through my body armor
-destroy all of my vehicles

my basic weapon could
-ummmmmmm, oh, they had a 1 in 36 to kill your basic trooper and keep him down meaning an entire squads double taping fire would kill one necron warrior after your wbb saves.

IG are.. hm.... 1/3 the cost of Necron Warriors and don't phase out.



-an excessively high cost to get a weapon that can penetrate that same vehicle.

How about a model that costs more than a lascannon sentinel for arguably less survivability as our only anti-tank? Oh, and -12" from the range of said lascannon.



-an extremely expensive vehicle that can be killed by a frontal hit from your basic, non upgraded infantry, and maybe penetrate your vehicle with the right upgrades.

A frontal hit? No. How about 5 frontal hits that roll 6 to penetrate and 5 or 6 for damage? Leman Russes don't come near the cost of a Monolith.



Do remind me how your one necron warrior that can take an entire squads fire before dying, and kill anything i throw at it is not ******** cheese.
:rolleyes:

Overall, I give this troll attempt a C-.

Danny Internet
18-07-2008, 04:35
Ignoring the rest of the army? Where did that come from? You shake/stun the tank with one of your units. Okay, not the best result but it's useless for a turn. Now you deal the rest of their army with the rest of yours instead of wasting time on something that's not currently a threat.

So you assume the enemy has one tank. Funny, my opponents typically take several. Several of them are fully mechanized. Good luck dealing with that as a Necron player in 5th edition.


Have you even tried Pariahs under the new rules before calling them "laughably ineffective"? Under 4th I can see it but 5th helps them. Screening, running, hitting a vehicle's rear armour...
I'll admit I've only seen them under one 5th ed game, and caught them out in the open with a very lucky battlecannon shot, so I'm not going to say any more than on paper they look like they can do the job now better than they could before. I'm not going to call them the best tank killers (which it seems I have to point out I am NOT doing, that's the Heavy Destroyers), but I'm not going to say they're useless because I got lucky and killed them before they got me, nor will I judge them because the community seems to regard their apparent uselessness as something every player with two working braincells should know and carry that judgement over into an entirely new set of rules.

...what exactly are you screening those Pariahs with? Warriors? You realize that running a Necron phalanx forward to get Pariahs in close combat is probably the single worst tactic a Necron player could ever adapt, right? Comments like these, which are totally and completely ignorant to the mechanics of the Necron army, are what make me doubt your experience with Necrons, or the competence of your opponents at the very least.

Gensuke626
18-07-2008, 04:46
can a Veil lord Teleport with Pariahs?

Danny Internet
18-07-2008, 04:49
can a Veil lord Teleport with Pariahs?

No, because they don't have the Necron special rule (and therefore cannot be teleported through the monolith and do not get WBB rolls). It's one of several reasons why they are so terrible.

Gensuke626
18-07-2008, 04:55
hmm...Prediction for next cron dex...Pariahs will be Necrons...or at least can be ported.

vladsimpaler
18-07-2008, 04:56
what deluded codex have you been reading :confused:
how was the ability to destroy entire tank companies with str4 guns "balanced"??????????????????

Err...don't use as many tanks? :rolleyes:

shaso_iceborn
18-07-2008, 05:04
I have been looking over this thread and debating if I should replyor no, here is my Humble opinion on the matter.

In 4th edition my heavily mechanised Tau force (13 tanks)were usually tankless by turn 3 from Guass flayers. My Opponnet and I used the exact same lists to try 5th edition with and guess what I was still tankless in turn 3 due to all the weapon destroyed/ immobilised results. (My opponent does not use a 'lith or hvy destroyers)

My conclusion necron are basically just as effective as before. However tactics did change now you have to "Leapfrog" units so you have that 24" range on tanks while running closer with the forward unit to position a kill shot.

Personally I love the way 5th edition means we actually have to think out our moves rather than point and click (though some armies are still point and click)

to answer the question on configuration of my opponents army I know will invaritably come up he takes

2 lords 1 with orb pylactery and something else on foot and the other with veil and destroyer body

6 squads of 20 warriors

3 squads of 10 immortals

15 destroyers and 3 squads of tomb spiders (when we do force org not points)

at around 3000 pnts he took both lords 6 squads of 10 warriors and some destroyers and 1 squad of 3 spiders(not next to each other) that was about it and he slaughtered me

Damocles8
18-07-2008, 05:09
Replace auto-glance/auto-wound with rending and issue is gone.

great idea...but you'd **** off the 'Nids even more :)

Iron Father
18-07-2008, 05:20
Necrons dont scare me anymore :) My 3 LRC's can zip across the battlefield and unlaod the assault termies and then the termies procede to rip through the crons and all is well.


Until the necrons get back up, get teleported away, and get pulled through a near undestructable tank. All for 18pts a model, and a tank thats cheaper than a LRC.



Oh and did I mention the ability to ignore both armor saves and invul saves?



Really, both sides are beating a dead horse.



Are necrons nerfed? Possibly, but they are now feelings the sting that the rest of us have felt regarding the lith. The necron players in my area don't seem to have an issue with the gauss "nerf". If I have 795 points locked up in vehicles, why not focus your efforts on the other 1205 you can actually kill? Its that set of points thats going to win me the games, not the 3 LRCs....

Danny Internet
18-07-2008, 05:29
If I have 795 points locked up in vehicles, why not focus your efforts on the other 1205 you can actually kill? Its that set of points thats going to win me the games, not the 3 LRCs....

Because ignoring multiple transports filled with incredibly dead assault units is a viable tactic? Gotcha. I'll be sure to try that next week. :rolleyes:

Iron Father
18-07-2008, 05:34
Because ignoring multiple transports filled with incredibly dead assault units is a viable tactic? Gotcha. I'll be sure to try that next week. :rolleyes:


Who cant consoldiate into new combats..... are only 5 models per unit, and cost over twice as much as your basic soldiers???

And your troops get back up..... marines dont :D

pwrgmrguard
18-07-2008, 05:37
I don't get the obsession with kill the tank. A shake makes it just as useless for a turn , which was a major major gripe of mine in 4th, and thank god fifth took a small step towards fixing that. Playing three tank guard gets very frustrating fast, as for six turns it's just shaken or stunned after another, and my big beautiful gunwagons sit there, like gunless bunkers.

Shake the tank and and you deny any usability for a turn making getting into a position to destroy it that much easier. Tanks (IG Tanks atleast), arereally not that hard to nuetralize.

Railgunner
18-07-2008, 05:39
So does this mean i'm allowed to complain because i can't use my Grey Knight teleport squad to get behing the rear armour of tanks and use storm bolters to hope for a glancing hit?
Also pure Grey Knight armies are even more limited for Anti-Tank than necrons...so it would seem me and all other pure Grey Knight players have even more reason to complain than Necron players.

Personally i'm not going to complain about it here, i'm going to adapt my army to work in the new edition until a new codex comes out...which is going to be alot longer time to wait than you necron players.

RG

Iron Father
18-07-2008, 05:41
I don't get the obsession with kill the tank. A shake makes it just as useless for a turn , which was a major major gripe of mine in 4th, and thank god fifth took a small step towards fixing that. Playing three tank guard gets very frustrating fast, as for six turns it's just shaken or stunned after another, and my big beautiful gunwagons sit there, like gunless bunkers.

Shake the tank and and you deny any usability for a turn making getting into a position to destroy it that much easier. Tanks (IG Tanks atleast), arereally not that hard to nuetralize.



The complaint about shaking a tank was that every army has the equivelent of extra armor and makes shaking useless

Sahansral
18-07-2008, 05:51
As already written: Surpessing a transport means nothing if it can continue to transport melee units to you! Especially with the new combat resolution

Sekhmet
18-07-2008, 06:00
So does this mean i'm allowed to complain because i can't use my Grey Knight teleport squad to get behing the rear armour of tanks and use storm bolters to hope for a glancing hit?
Also pure Grey Knight armies are even more limited for Anti-Tank than necrons...so it would seem me and all other pure Grey Knight players have even more reason to complain than Necron players.

Personally i'm not going to complain about it here, i'm going to adapt my army to work in the new edition until a new codex comes out...which is going to be alot longer time to wait than you necron players.

RG

Well in close combat, a GK squad will rip apart anything barring a land raider, monolith, and some walkers.

Iron Father
18-07-2008, 06:06
I still happy PFs and the like can now affect the monolith :D Im actually surprised I haven't seen any Cron players whine about this one.

Sekhmet
18-07-2008, 07:05
I still happy PFs and the like can now affect the monolith :D Im actually surprised I haven't seen any Cron players whine about this one.

Well there's 2 reasons.
1. There hasn't been any whining by Necron players regarding any subject.
2. PFs have always been able to hurt the monolith.

Iron Father
18-07-2008, 07:15
Well there's 2 reasons.
1. There hasn't been any whining by Necron players regarding any subject.
2. PFs have always been able to hurt the monolith.



1. This thread begs to differ.

2. And much like the RAW WBB thread listed in your sig, it all depends on how its read. I dont recall ever being given a clear cut answer, regardless of weither or not it it could be done before, we now have an FAQ that says it can be done and I am happy for it :D

Gensuke626
18-07-2008, 07:32
1. This thread begs to differ.

2. And much like the RAW WBB thread listed in your sig, it all depends on how its read. I dont recall ever being given a clear cut answer, regardless of weither or not it it could be done before, we now have an FAQ that says it can be done and I am happy for it :D

The issue, as far as I can remember, was agreed upon that No Melee weapon by Strict RAW has a strength value to being with, and thus, the Strength value of the model was what was used. If this was modified by the weapon, then that's fine, but the Actual Penetration roll can't be modified.

So it's like:
X+D6+Y= Armor Pen, where X is the strength of the attack and Y is modifiers like Melta, Tank Hunters, and rending.
Basically we agreed that Monoliths ignore Y.

The alternative was Power Fists and all other Melee weapons don't affect Monoliths, but the Anti-Necron Community would be allowed to bring Craftsman hammers to their games and could use them against said Monoliths.:evilgrin:

azimaith
18-07-2008, 07:36
Necrons dont scare me anymore :) My 3 LRC's can zip across the battlefield and unlaod the assault termies and then the termies procede to rip through the crons and all is well.


Until the necrons get back up, get teleported away, and get pulled through a near undestructable tank. All for 18pts a model, and a tank thats cheaper than a LRC.

And somehow 50% of necron recovery is going to win the game when you ripped through units of 20 necrons? Some squads won't even get the chance to get back up at all due to mass carnage removing them entirely.



Oh and did I mention the ability to ignore both armor saves and invul saves?

On 3+ save units with WS4 and 1 attack, and 3+ save with no invul and at walking speed.
Or perhaps on a 100 point base model with WS4, I4, 3, attacks, and a 3+ save. I'm sure all your terminators are shaking in their boots. Better hope those termis don't use LCs and furious charge or you'll be dead before you get to swing around your shiny "deny invulnerable saves" weapon at all.



Really, both sides are beating a dead horse.

Its frustrating when people bring up random, completely irrelevant things to the topic at hand as if its justification for action.

"Hey you just ran over my cat and shot my dog!"
"Well I saw you key your ex's car!"

Does one really excuse the other? Of course not, they're not even related. Its ridiculous.
How does a war scythe make gauss better against vehicles?
How does it make it worse?
It plain old has no effect at all. Were not even talking about broad necron vehicle killing, were talking about "gauss weapons in 5th."



Are necrons nerfed? Possibly, but they are now feelings the sting that the rest of us have felt regarding the lith. The necron players in my area don't seem to have an issue with the gauss "nerf". If I have 795 points locked up in vehicles, why not focus your efforts on the other 1205 you can actually kill? Its that set of points thats going to win me the games, not the 3 LRCs....
Because those 765 points have a cargo that will phase us out in 1 or 2 turns making us instantly lose the game giving a total victory. Not to mention the LRCs can contest objectives on their own, which may well win you the game.

Hell don't even use LRCs and use the las cannons against the lith and you're even better off.


Who cant consoldiate into new combats..... are only 5 models per unit, and cost over twice as much as your basic soldiers???

Why would they need to. At 2000 points those 3 squads would target warriors and wipe them out entirely. If you went warrior heavy as the designer seem to want you to, you probably straight phase out nearly immediately.



And your troops get back up..... marines dont :D
Our 10 necron warriors with 3+ armor and a glorified bolter cost 20 points less than your 5 2+ save marines with storm bolters and powerfists.

If its 10 necrons vs 5 terminators in CC, the terminators are going to wipe them out.

If its 20 necrons vs 5 terminators in cc, the terminators are still probably going to wipe them as they will be unable to rally with terminators chasing them around. (and if your unlucky enough not to run, they're going to mostly be elimated on the necron assault phase.


You can cut it as many ways as you like but it still stands. Every weapon you have denies WBB (res orbs only go so far, god forbid the enemy just say: "I wanna shoot your lord" since ICs don't get any special shooting protection any more, then proceed to just hose him with LRC assault cannon or LR lascannon shots before the terminators move in to wipe out everyone who remains completely denying WBB.

Sekhmet
18-07-2008, 07:37
1. This thread begs to differ.

There's a difference between informed disagreement with a rule and whining without any real evidence. It can be subtle at times, but recognizing it is a sign of intelligence.



2. And much like the RAW WBB thread listed in your sig, it all depends on how its read. I dont recall ever being given a clear cut answer, regardless of weither or not it it could be done before, we now have an FAQ that says it can be done and I am happy for it :D
The RAW WBB thread was never meant to be a serious attempt to change the rules, it was me making fun of GW. Every tournament FAQ that addressed the rule favored power fists. The argument was quite simple - power fists modify the model's strength, not the strength of the attack.

Iron Father
18-07-2008, 07:37
The alternative was Power Fists and all other Melee weapons don't affect Monoliths, but the Anti-Necron Community would be allowed to bring Craftsman hammers to their games and could use them against said Monoliths.:evilgrin:


Lol nice house rule there ;) The monoliths have never been an issue with me regardless. I've seen necron armies run more effective without monoliths vs with.


Honestly, I find it funny you guys are finally getting a taste of what the rest of us have been dealing with. Buck up, your codex is on its way. :chrome:

Gensuke626
18-07-2008, 07:45
There's a difference between informed disagreement with a rule and whining without any real evidence. It can be subtle at times, but recognizing it is a sign of intelligence.


The problem with most forums is that it's exceedingly difficult to tell the two apart. Most people don't know how to phrase their text in such a way that they don't come off as whining. It's an error on everyone's part, I'm afraid...

Sekhmet
18-07-2008, 08:03
Honestly, I find it funny you guys are finally getting a taste of what the rest of us have been dealing with. Buck up, your codex is on its way. :chrome:

Just curious - How many people do you know with only 1 army? How many people do you know with multiple armies?

azimaith
18-07-2008, 08:18
I have been looking over this thread and debating if I should replyor no, here is my Humble opinion on the matter.

In 4th edition my heavily mechanised Tau force (13 tanks)were usually tankless by turn 3 from Guass flayers. My Opponnet and I used the exact same lists to try 5th edition with and guess what I was still tankless in turn 3 due to all the weapon destroyed/ immobilised results. (My opponent does not use a 'lith or hvy destroyers)

Sounds like you are either doing something terribly wrong (or were terribly unlucky) or hes reading something terribly wrong. Your tanks are *3 times harder to destroy* than they were before (hell SMF is actually *boosted now* and somehow nothing happens. As popular as it may be to share anecdotes about unlikely events the numbers are plain to see.



My conclusion necron are basically just as effective as before. However tactics did change now you have to "Leapfrog" units so you have that 24" range on tanks while running closer with the forward unit to position a kill shot.

My conclusion is that you did something horribly wrong (Or were horribly unlucky) or misread the rules if tanks that now require 3-4 times more glances are suddenly all dead at the same time as if there was no difference. Thats like saying "Well we put 3 times as many cars on the road but theres no traffic change."



Personally I love the way 5th edition means we actually have to think out our moves rather than point and click (though some armies are still point and click)

Uh, its not 5th edition that does that. Its novelty. Forcing people to leap frog units instead just makes it point and click "leap frog" rather than "point and click, march".

New doesn't equate to more strategic or indepth, its just new.



to answer the question on configuration of my opponents army I know will invaritably come up he takes

2 lords 1 with orb pylactery and something else on foot and the other with veil and destroyer body

6 squads of 20 warriors

3 squads of 10 immortals

15 destroyers and 3 squads of tomb spiders (when we do force org not points)

at around 3000 pnts he took both lords 6 squads of 10 warriors and some destroyers and 1 squad of 3 spiders(not next to each other) that was about it and he slaughtered me

Thats over 4500 points of necrons.

With 13 185 point rail heads your only at 2405. He'd outpoint you by about 2200 points, or in short, 13 more tanks. Is it any suprise that an army twice your size will wipe you out?

With maxed force org and described units at 3k list the necrons only come out to 2400 points, far under the 3k points you described. All in all your bizarre example makes me wonder how in the world you actually play and to call into doubt the actual validty of your experiment in the same way a person wearing a canteloup on their head would be questioned if claiming he was an astrophysicist.


Lol nice house rule there ;) The monoliths have never been an issue with me regardless. I've seen necron armies run more effective without monoliths vs with.


Honestly, I find it funny you guys are finally getting a taste of what the rest of us have been dealing with. Buck up, your codex is on its way. :chrome:

Uh, you mean the orks and tyranids both of which I play, and probably many other necron players play?

I'm quite aware of whats being dealt with, theres some saving graces for other lists.

Orks: Weird boyz are a *huge one*.
Death Rollas on Red Paint Job vehicles have done well along with tank bustas riding in trucks (just deploy the shoota boyz outside during deployment then jump in with the tank bustas on turn 1, 5th ed doesn't stop dedicated transports from driving whoever they like.

Zzap gun batteries. Actually quite affordable now and fairly good anti-tank at BS3. Their survivability issue is much less now with screening.

Running walkers and dreads. Last choice for "destruction" beyond rokkits. But still handy.

All of those have relatively good survivability.
Weirdboyz do well embedded in a larger squad.
Death Rollas do well in shock assaults utilizing a number of trukks to try and screen it. Its great at *killing tanks* and it moves quickly. It just needs to get there without being blown to bits, which is either really hard or relatively easy, depening on what model you base your wagon off of.
Zzap gun batteries, much much better, especially over what they used to be.

Tyranids:
The flyrant is still a flyrant. I'd rather use him to kill troops who are either too dangerous for normal units or no threat to the tyrant.
Running Fex's, a lower tier choice. Not as low as warp blast, but relatively slow, because its still relatively slow.
Bioacid mines (Ok, still not especially good)

and the first and still king. The venom cannon.
It doesn't kill much, but its high strength allows it to supress for a relatively low cost on a mobile, tough, platform at long range. 3 things that necrons don't do. (Destroyers are mobile and long ranged, but they aren't tough enough to sutain it like a fex, which is kind of important as your only suppressing it.)

I've had relatively good success with the venom cannon. Against light armor, its still very effective at stopping incoming fire. Against heavy platforms it really shines do to its very high strength.

The necrons have:
Gauss flayers
Low range, low mobility unless you teleport them around, especially with monos, at which point you may just want to use the particle whip.

Gauss blasters: High cost, good range, same crappy performance against armors above 10 as the gauss flayer. Your still shooting for 6s.

Gauss Cannon: High cost, good range, same crappy performance against armors of AV12 or greater as gauss flayers. Still shooting 6s.

Pariahs: Low mobility, very high cost, gauss blaster problems, survivability problems, one attack, best effect in melee rather than at range.

C'tan: High cost, mostly CC ability.

Monolith: High cost, single gun, too many needed to achieve desired affect on vehicles.

Heavy Gauss Cannon:
High cost, low survivability.

Basically we've still got all these guns, but they all have some fatal flaw to them which prevents us from actually having a good general purpose anti-tank gun, which is really the entire source of the problem.

They guns are either rapid fire, in small numbers without much protection, extremely high in cost.

Every armies got their survivable long ranged firepower for tanks but necrons.
Even suppression wise we come out behind because of the inefficient nature at which we deliver it.
Imperials have lascannons. They're either buried in squads to make them hard to stop or carried by troopers to tough to easily take down due to their numbers combined with armor.
Tau have multiple rail gun platforms.
The platforms are tough either through armor, or a combination of armor and speed. (Broadsides and hammer heads)

Eldar have a wide variety of lance platforms and solid prism weapons.
These are either buried in squads with large numbers of ablatives or put on very fast, very tough skimmers.

Orks either bury their weapons in squads (less effective), use large quantites of weapons (such as multiple weapons batteries), or utilize harder to stop systems (battlewagon) (Note, orks are probably some of the weakest anti-tank users besides necrons now)

And then theres nids.
Their platforms are few, but they're very tough and excellent suppressors. Unlike most races they lack variety. But the main choice they does its job very well (decent BS, longer range, move and fire, very high strength)

Until you start seeing very durable (that means not toughness 5 with one wound and a 3+) necron platforms with long range this will be a problem.

IJW
18-07-2008, 10:23
Your tanks are *3 times harder to destroy* than they were before (hell SMF is actually *boosted now* and somehow nothing happens.
Most Tau tanks are skimmers, not fast skimmers, and therefore can't go flat-out to be able to gain the new equivalent of SMF.
Regardless of whether covers saves are better than SMF (arguable, to say the least), they don't get a benefit for moving fast in 5th, but did in 4th.

No comments on the rest of the post, though.

Brimweave
18-07-2008, 10:48
Just curious - How many people do you know with only 1 army? How many people do you know with multiple armies?

Well I personally only have one 40k army(Necrons) but I also have One Fantasy Army(Dwarfs).

My friend has two armies both 40k, Tau & CSM. However my other friend only has Dark Angles. Its a kinda random thing and also depends on how much cash you have to you disposal.

Royal Tiger
18-07-2008, 11:11
Err...don't use as many tanks? :rolleyes:
thats not the point, a basic trooper with a str4 rifle, should NOT be allowed to destroy entire armored regiments, or even only 1 vehicle so easily as they did in 4th.

now they can't do it so easily, but can still effect them, and still can destroy them with difficulty, which is good, its SLIGHTLY more balanced than it was

ahh whats the point
*walks away muttering how Necron players want everything without any sacrifices*

Doomseer
18-07-2008, 11:19
I think S4 weapons leaving Vehicles Stunned, Immobilised and Weapon Destroyed all over the battlefield is more than enough.

Bookwrak
18-07-2008, 12:13
ahh whats the point
*walks away muttering how Necron players want everything without any sacrifices*
You see, making posts that are arguing things only said by the voices in your head is the reason why you're not making any sense.

Stingray_tm
18-07-2008, 12:26
thats not the point, a basic trooper with a str4 rifle, should NOT be allowed to destroy entire armored regiments, or even only 1 vehicle so easily as they did in 4th.


Why?

<Second line due to stupid 10 characters limitation.>

march10k
18-07-2008, 12:39
Considering I haven't lost a game with my Necrons in over 2 years


This was balanced in 4th, however things have gotten much worse for Necrons while only getting slightly worse for everyone else.

Methinks thou dost protest too much! ;)


Until you start seeing very durable (that means not toughness 5 with one wound and a 3+) necron platforms with long range this will be a problem.


Here's a thought, though. Put those "oh, they'll be target number one, it isn't fair" heavy destroyers behind a cheap unit of, say ten warriors? Presto, 4+ cover save. T5/3+/4+ is quite enviable, IMHO...especially with a destroyer body to get you around as needed...far less chance of getting run down by an assault squad than, say, a devastator suffers!

Azulthar
18-07-2008, 12:51
Really people, it's not that bad. I still fire my gauss at vehicles when they're annoying. Sure, the chances of permanently killing them are small (not impossible), but you'll likely disable their shooting and/or movement. It's not that huge a nerf.

And people are being too hard on Heavy Destroyers. Compared to a Marine Devastator squad, they're decent.

Necrons could do a lot worse, I still hate tanks more when I play my Tyranids.

Danny Internet
18-07-2008, 13:22
I love how Azimaith's carefully crafted, intelligent post is completely ignored by the dissenters who have no reasonable response to it.


now they can't do it so easily, but can still effect them, and still can destroy them with difficulty, which is good, its SLIGHTLY more balanced than it was

So hitting a middle of the road army in terms of competitiveness with a huge nerf makes things slightly more balanced? Are we even playing the same game? Necrons have never been a powerful army relative to the other power builds that exist. The only really easy wins in 4th came from non-nidzilla Tyranids, Orks, and players who had no idea what they were doing.

Your comment is kind of like saying Grey Knight Terminators should have their nemesis force weapons lowered to S5 because S6 power weapons on rank-and-file infantry are just way too overpowered, despite the fact that the army as a whole is terrible.


Really people, it's not that bad. I still fire my gauss at vehicles when they're annoying. Sure, the chances of permanently killing them are small (not impossible), but you'll likely disable their shooting and/or movement. It's not that huge a nerf.

Math disagrees with you. Refer to the dozen or so posts in this thread for more information.

Lord Damocles
18-07-2008, 13:37
And people are being too hard on Heavy Destroyers. Compared to a Marine Devastator squad, they're decent.

The Devs will outnumber, out-range, and out-gun the HDs. The only thing the HDs have going for them is manouverability, and even then they need to stay close to other HDs to stop them being blasted out of existance...

Znail
18-07-2008, 14:04
and the first and still king. The venom cannon.

I find this part highly amusing in a post and thread that complains about the innefectiveness of the glancing hits of the Guass weapons. How can the Venom Cannon be king while the Gauss are useless?;)

Azulthar
18-07-2008, 14:10
Math disagrees with you. Refer to the dozen or so posts in this thread for more information.
Math disagrees with my statement that glancing hits will likely disable shooting and/or movement? I sure hope not. It's just as likely to get a Weapon Destroyed or Immobilized result with the new table as it is with the old one.

Then again, if you considered Necron anti-tank capabilities only "average" or "just right" before, you're going to be disappointed. I believe we had it good though. Now, we're just average.

Standard gauss fire can still disrupt enemy vehicles. If you want to do more than just disrupt, take dedicated troops like Heavy Destroyers. Why else is this unit even in the list?

Azulthar
18-07-2008, 14:27
The Devs will outnumber, out-range, and out-gun the HDs. The only thing the HDs have going for them is manouverability, and even then they need to stay close to other HDs to stop them being blasted out of existance...
HDs have higher Toughness and WBB alongside the added movement. The moving can also help them to get side-armour shots in. They can turbo-boost to get in position, gaining a 3+ invulnerable save and a 4+ WBB. Their 36" range will still allow you to keep them out of most mass-fire range. You do need to keep them together, yeah, but Devs have that problems as well. You'll likely want to focus fire anyway.

Of course they can be killed, but you'll find that trait quite common among 40k units.

Angelwing
18-07-2008, 14:50
what deluded codex have you been reading :confused:
how was the ability to destroy entire tank companies with str4 guns "balanced"??????????????????

The exact same time that someone designed an army list that threw away the whole point of the FOC and chucked in an army of tanks.

However, I disagree that the necron codex is balanced. It was written for 3rd ed! It's inevitable that some stuff has ceased to work as intended with the passing of editions. Such is the case with Gauss weapons with the change to 5th ed. So what can we do? Wait and see if any relief is offered in the FAQ's. The space marine FAQ has already been updated with ATSKNF. Beyond that, wait for the new codex. We are in the same boat as many other armies. Until then, grit your (mechanical) teeth :chrome:, play some games and find out what works best for you.

UrbanKnight
18-07-2008, 15:16
..... seems like a lot of excessive bellyaching. I mean, sorry your nigh invincible regenerating robots can't kill EVERYTHING and be scoring units. Sounds like the occasion of a pity party, I mean really.. your codex could have been the beta test for the ultramarines, like the dark angels.

Danny Internet
18-07-2008, 15:31
Math disagrees with my statement that glancing hits will likely disable shooting and/or movement? I sure hope not. It's just as likely to get a Weapon Destroyed or Immobilized result with the new table as it is with the old one.

Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear.

Math shows that vehicles are now at least 3 times as difficult to destroy as they were in 4th edition for Necrons. Common sense says this is a huge nerf. If a three-fold increase in difficulty isn't considered a big deal to you then it leaves me wondering exactly what IS considered a big deal.

Mitheral
18-07-2008, 15:58
From what I remember you're already scheduled for a new codex in 2009...pretty quick as far as codexes go. Until then, can't you use:

Quick? You're aware we're playing with a 3rd edition codex right?


But, Lacking all else, Might I suggest that you adopt the Motto of "Everything counts in Large Amounts" that orks have? Just in terms of Gauss vs Armor mind you...

A basic Ork is what, 6 pts? Or a 1/3rd of a Warrior. 18 points per puts quite a crimp in large amounts. Necrons can't even fill the troop slots at less than 2000 points (+plus a kick to an expensive mandatory HQ). How much does it cost to fill the Troops slot with the cheapest ork troop?


How many points does a necron warrior have to pay to upgrade his gun to hurt vehicles and how much does that reduce his AP firepower by? 0 and 0.

Are you somehow ignorant of the fact that, in theory anyways, mandatory equipment is factored into the cost of a unit. Your statement makes as much sense as saying Devastator Squads don't have to pay for CC upgrades in the form of frag and krak grenades and pistols.


All for 18pts a model, and a tank thats cheaper than a LRC.

By 15 points or less than 7%. Boy I sure am glad we've got that huge point advantage over Marines.


Here's a thought, though. Put those "oh, they'll be target number one, it isn't fair" heavy destroyers behind a cheap unit of, say ten warriors? Presto, 4+ cover save. T5/3+/4+ is quite enviable, IMHO...especially with a destroyer body to get you around as needed...far less chance of getting run down by an assault squad than, say, a devastator suffers!

First off we already have a 3+ armour save so a 4+ cover only comes into play when we're being hit by high AP stuff. Second you can't have it both ways: either we cower HDs behind 6" move troops or we take advantage of the HDs jet bike move.

Also the devastator squad has more range than destroyers letting them stay out of assault range an extra turn. An assault which won't nearly as deadly relatively in the first place.

Znail
18-07-2008, 16:32
Also the devastator squad has more range than destroyers letting them stay out of assault range an extra turn. An assault which won't nearly as deadly relatively in the first place.
You are reaching quite far from the truth when you claim that an infantry unit that has to be stationary to fire can somehow stay out of assault longer then jetbikes.

Sekhmet
18-07-2008, 19:35
thats not the point, a basic trooper with a str4 rifle, should NOT be allowed to destroy entire armored regiments, or even only 1 vehicle so easily as they did in 4th.

By "a basic trooper with a Str4 rifle" you mean a trooper that costs more than a Marine because it has to buy a mandatory "upgrade" which most Necron players would rather not buy and save points? And by the singular usage, are you trying to make it seem like 1 Necron Warrior will destroy entire armored regiments before he dies? Why are you letting Necron Warriors get so close to your tanks?



now they can't do it so easily, but can still effect them, and still can destroy them with difficulty, which is good, its SLIGHTLY more balanced than it was

What are you smoking, cause I'd like some too. You just keep ignoring all the evidence presented here by many different people and rewording your same arguments over and over.



ahh whats the point
*walks away muttering how Necron players want everything without any sacrifices*
1 less troll sounds good to me.
But sacrifices? Ok, how about no 48" weapons? How about no cheap troop or hq choices? How about no cheap transports for my walking infantry? How about the lowest initiative in the game? How about the fact that our only chance to penetrate a vehicle in shooting (and this is a SHOOTING ARMY, not a close combat army like nids), comes from our heavy support slots? I could go on and on about the downsides to playing Necrons. But you have wax in your ears and are blinded by your own preconceptions of the army without trying to really figure out what's going on... which is why I'm glad you're not going to post in this thread anymore.


..... seems like a lot of excessive bellyaching. I mean, sorry your nigh invincible regenerating robots can't kill EVERYTHING and be scoring units. Sounds like the occasion of a pity party, I mean really.. your codex could have been the beta test for the ultramarines, like the dark angels.
Nigh invincible army that can kill everything? Take a Plague Marine squad and give it a melta gun - you have a MORE survivable squad that can kill everything BETTER and is also scoring.
I'm guessing you play Dark Angels. What about terminator squads? 2+/5+*, power fists, storm bolters, rending assault cannons, lightning claws, thunder hammers... I'm sorry your invincible suits of armor that CAN kill everything and are scoring were a "beta test" for ultramarines.

ehlijen
18-07-2008, 20:18
There is no evidence. It's all just opinions. Yes, destroying vehicles is more difficult now: it's meant to be so! Everyone has an opinion about it, wanting to change things isn't going to change things, while adpating will let you keep on with playing games.

You'll notice that both the chances of killing a vehicle with glancing and penetrating hit have gone down by the same amount: 1/6. It was 1/6 and 3/6 respectively, now it's 0/6 and 2/6. The relative power between both is maintained.

You keep insisting that poor poor necrons have it too hard now while everyone else keeps insisting that they had it too easy so far. You want to kill heavy vehicles (AV 13 is heavy), use heavy support for shooting them or fast atttack for hunting them. That's how everyone else is supposed to do it and how the necrons can still do it.

Just because you now need to use more different troop types (and figure out how to do it effectively) that you didn't want to use before is no reason the necrons need a freebie. They are doing fine. There is finally a point in taking heavy vehicles against them! In 4th ed the odds of loosing a land raider were just as good as loosing a rhino when facing gauss because any vehicle protection was just pointless against "I gauss you lots". Now, a rhino is as well protected as a land raider unless the necron player uses actual AT weapons and that, to me, makes an enormously bigger amount of sense!
You're refusal to consider heavy destroyers viable makes as much sense as a tau player not liking or taking railguns and then complaining they can't kill landraiders with anything other than fusion blasters. The book has given you options: refuse to take them and you must learn to work around them. The way around actual AT is to use baby AT, and that's just what gauss is.

Some of you will yell 'wrong', I and some others are yelling 'right'. Neither side is going to convince the other, but calling the opposition trolls isn't going to help you. In fact, your latest post suggests that you're just going to keep branding people as 'non-listeners' until they all leave and you 'win' by default. Neatly ignoring the fact that you're also not listening much.

How about we go on about the upsides about playing necrons?
High ld all round
WBB. It's far better than FnP can hope to be as a single 4+ roll will ignore all failed saves, not just one.
Gauss! Any gun can hurt any vehicle! How awesome is that! (The answer is very!)
Very good mobility! Teleporting, jetbikes galore, and a fairly decent dose of medium range move and shoot weapons. Only orks and eldar can rival you in that!

Yes, these are all balanced out by downsides. The downside of being able to hurt anything with any gun is that most guns aren't terribly good at hurting all the things it can hurt. It's called game balance and it's a good thing.

Everyone else has a harder time killing vehicles now, necrons should too. As glancings and penetrations have become equally less likely to kill a vehicle outright, there is no difference for races using more glancings than penetratitions. There fore necrons are affected to exactly the same degree as everyone else. That's what I say.

What are the odds of being able to kill a tooled carnifex in one round of gauss fire? Not great. Why should it be any different than that for land raiders?

Spook101
18-07-2008, 20:37
Spook, don't troll the Necron threads. I've got issues with the crons too, but seriously...at least pretend to have a suggestion to help them, or an arguement to support why their Gauss weapons aren't as badly nerfed as they claim.

you want a reason eh.

crons now have two or three weapons that can reliably kill my tanks, plus their basic weaponry can still render them helpless before the onslaught.

Guard have always had only three weapons (lets list them. lascannon, earthshaker, domolisher)that could reliably kill their tank, but are/were too easy to kill. and we cant glance your tank into oblivion the slow, hard way. the above three weapons are now our ONLY monolith killing weapons.

so i say once again, how can you say the necron are not cheese?

Danny Internet
18-07-2008, 20:53
You'll notice that both the chances of killing a vehicle with glancing and penetrating hit have gone down by the same amount: 1/6. It was 1/6 and 3/6 respectively, now it's 0/6 and 2/6. The relative power between both is maintained.


Everyone else has a harder time killing vehicles now, necrons should too. As glancings and penetrations have become equally less likely to kill a vehicle outright, there is no difference for races using more glancings than penetratitions. There fore necrons are affected to exactly the same degree as everyone else. That's what I say.

And if you compare the the two relative to one another you see that glancing hits are 100% less effective at destroying vehicles outright in 5th edition as opposed to 4th. Penetrating hits are only 33% less effective. Furthermore, penetrating hits are infinitely more effective at destroying vehicles outright in 5th edition compared to glancing hits.

See? I can present biased numbers to support my argument too.


Yes, these are all balanced out by downsides. The downside of being able to hurt anything with any gun is that most guns aren't terribly good at hurting all the things it can hurt. It's called game balance and it's a good thing.

What you say is also true of Necrons in 4th edition.

You say that all of the Necron advantages are balanced out by their downsides, which leads me to believe that you think Necrons are a balanced army in 5th edition. Given the fact that Necrons have overall been affected negatively by 5th edition (due to the new close combat resolution and the glancing hit nerf, which affects Necrons more than other armies), you must have believed Necrons were overpowered in 4th edition, which would lead any competent player to question your judgment and understanding of 40k. If they were so powerful in 4th that only after large 5th edition nerfs are they balanced then why haven't they ever had a strong presence in the tournament scene?


WBB. It's far better than FNP can hope to be as a single 4+ roll will ignore all failed saves, not just one.

FNP is far superior in assaults because it helps to mitigate the combat results and therefore the leadership modifier. Sweeping Advances are the #1 enemy of Necrons in 5th edition, not enemy shooting.

Stingray_tm
18-07-2008, 21:39
What are the odds of being able to kill a tooled carnifex in one round of gauss fire? Not great. Why should it be any different than that for land raiders?

The point is, that it is EXTREMELY UNLIKELY, that all a Necrons army Gauss fire will destroy a Land Raider in 6 turns, while Gauss can realistically kill a Carnifex in a game.

You are totally overestimating the effects of glancing hits. Mathematically you need about 150 shots to kill a Land Raider this way.

Glancing no longer will kill tanks. Accept the facts.

Znail
18-07-2008, 21:46
There were far more changes made in 5E then those two, and even of those so does one help Necrons alot as well. The Monolith has the distinction of being the vehicle hardest to penetrate in 40k and thus benifit alot from the reduced danger of glancing hits.

Other changes that clearly benifit Necrons would for instance be the removal of advancing into new close combats, this is a fairly even compensation for the shorter more dangerous close combats. The change in defensive weaponry for vehicles is a balancing factor for other races for the increased survivability of vehicles, but it doesnt harm Necrons at all. In the end, its just a personal oppinion that Necron was nerfed compared to other races.



FNP is far superior in assaults because it helps to mitigate the combat results and therefore the leadership modifier. Sweeping Advances are the #1 enemy of Necrons in 5th edition, not enemy shooting.
And the flip side is that WBB is alot better against shooting. But the main reason WBB is better is because Necrons can negate the problem of FNP/WBB not working against some weapons and also get a reroll incase an important unit fails.

Sahansral
18-07-2008, 22:24
I play both SoB and Necrons. Both are 3th edition codices.

As a SoB-Player I can tool out every unit with meltas, eviscerators, inferno pistols. There so so many different viable choices to go anti-tank (Oh, not to forget Mulimeltas and Exorzists^^)
The new vehicle damage table means favors me now, since I have more penetrating than glancing hits (+1 for AP1 etc).
The new combat resolution doesn't effect me at all, since I test against Leadership 10 or 9 unmodified.

As Necron player the effiency of glancing hits dropped in the cellar. Combat resolution is a nightmare.

Neither SOBs nor Necrons were over- or underpowered in 4th. Both have been effected extremly(!) by these global changes (Sobs positivly, Necrons negativly).
Just concede it: GW straigthened some global rules without minding some older codices (collateral damage, you know). Just a matter of luck, which army you play.
But don't call it "fixing yearlong imbalances". It's ridiculous.

Gensuke626
18-07-2008, 22:32
A basic Ork is what, 6 pts? Or a 1/3rd of a Warrior. 18 points per puts quite a crimp in large amounts. Necrons can't even fill the troop slots at less than 2000 points (+plus a kick to an expensive mandatory HQ). How much does it cost to fill the Troops slot with the cheapest ork troop?

I never said you should strive to duplicate ork numbers, but rather adopt an Ork numbers mentality. Basically, instead of taking all sorts of neat doo-dads and gadgets (C'tan, Flayed Ones, Wraiths, scarabs) Take the things that are going to matter and actually help your army. In my estimation this comes out to Warriors, Immortals (To a lesser Extent) and heavy destroyers.

Do what you can to mitigate damage and Pour fire into the biggest threat on the board to the exclusion of all else untill the threat is eliminated, either via Multiple weapon destroyed and immobilized results or by it's destruction. Then move on to the next threat.

Is the idea perfect? No, but it's a starting point, and let's face it, untill you get a new codex you either need to adapt a new playstyle, or change armies.


you want a reason eh.

crons now have two or three weapons that can reliably kill my tanks, plus their basic weaponry can still render them helpless before the onslaught.

Guard have always had only three weapons (lets list them. lascannon, earthshaker, domolisher)that could reliably kill their tank, but are/were too easy to kill. and we cant glance your tank into oblivion the slow, hard way. the above three weapons are now our ONLY monolith killing weapons.

so i say once again, how can you say the necron are not cheese?
When did I say that the necrons are not cheese? I just asked you to stop trolling.

To address your points...
1. I've seen my share of Melta guns take down liths in 4th ed because of the AP1 shift to Pens. The +1 via AP1 means that a glancing 6 with a Melta can still kill the Lith.

2. The Earthshaker and Demolisher were never reliable ways to kill the Lith...the deviation due to ordnance rules made them an awkward fit.

3. You're talking to a guy who regularly fields vehicles that are AV10 Open-topped. You get no pity from me about how "Easy" it is for the enemy to kill your tanks. Learn to position and maneuver and learn to prioritize your targets. If you can do both of those right and your tanks still die, then your opponent is a better player than you. That is all.

4. You're still trolling and you still aren't even pretending to be helpful.

Royal Tiger
18-07-2008, 22:35
The exact same time that someone designed an army list that threw away the whole point of the FOC and chucked in an army of tanks.
just wanted to say considering an army of tanks is legal due to an armored company list, I'd like to see how its chucking the FOC away

Quick? You're aware we're playing with a 3rd edition codex right?
actually so do Dark Eldar, but I haven't seen them complaining as much

By "a basic trooper with a Str4 rifle" you mean a trooper that costs more than a Marine because it has to buy a mandatory "upgrade" which most Necron players would rather not buy and save points?
a "mandatory upgrade"? what the heck is that?, necrons have no upgrades that are "mandatory", for 180pts you have 10 warriors which can damage every single vehicle in the game, including titans for christ sake, and when you get killed theres a chance to stand back up against the majority of weapons, in terms of effectiveness, there cheap

and don't gimme that "what if we get in close combat with a vehicle, then we need our upgrades, otherwise were pwnzord!!!!1111!!!!one!!!eleven!!!", I've heard from plenty of necron players and none necron players (some in this very topic) state quite clearly that if your in close combat with Necrons your a ***** who deserves to die a painful slow death and a crap player.


What are you smoking, cause I'd like some too. You just keep ignoring all the evidence presented here by many different people and rewording your same arguments over and over.

Evidence?, you mean necron players whining and presenting pages of maths that basically proves nothing at all except you can't destroy a tank in one turn?.
then yes I am ignoring it


in the end it comes to this
Can your Army still combat vehicles with effectiveness?: YES
can your army still capture objectives?: YES
Has your army been toned down?: YES
is it still however very effective?: YES
however do you want to have your cake and eat it with no negatives?: HELL YES

How about we go on about the upsides about playing necrons?
High ld all round
WBB. It's far better than FnP can hope to be as a single 4+ roll will ignore all failed saves, not just one.
Gauss! Any gun can hurt any vehicle! How awesome is that! (The answer is very!)
Very good mobility! Teleporting, jetbikes galore, and a fairly decent dose of medium range move and shoot weapons. Only orks and eldar can rival you in that!
ehlijen puts it nicely, you still have all these advantages other armies could only wish to have


tell yah what, you wanna see a real army that screwed against vehicles (and pretty much everything that exists), go read a daemonhunter codex

Sahansral
18-07-2008, 22:48
@ Royal Tiger: Following your arguements is like saying "Hey, what's the problem with poverty, just win in the lottery and all is fine."

You ignore the probabilities.

Like I wrote in another thread. DH's AT blows Necron's AT out of the water now (tip: use the whole codex, including allies)

Royal Tiger
18-07-2008, 22:59
@ Royal Tiger: Following your arguments is like saying "Hey, what's the problem with poverty, just win in the lottery and all is fine."
and following their arguments is like saying "life is ruined, I have nothing to live for anymore, everything sucks, my life sucks, I'm gonna go kill myself instead of finding a workable solution to all my problems"


You ignore the probabilities.
just like the necron players who have used maths in there defenses then, maths shows pretty much 1 outcome, 1 probability only 1 thing

using it to show an average outcome is fine, but using it as the main defense of their BS is not, as 40k and any game using dice does not follow the rules, it does not follow the averages

Stingray_tm
18-07-2008, 23:12
a "mandatory upgrade"? what the heck is that?, necrons have no upgrades that are "mandatory", for 180pts you have 10 warriors which can damage every single vehicle in the game, including titans for christ sake, and when you get killed theres a chance to stand back up against the majority of weapons, in terms of effectiveness, there cheap


And for 180 points you get a 10 man squad of Marines, that has a higher probability to kill every single vehicle than 180 points of Necrons. For Marines it is okay, because it is okay and for Necrons it's not okay, because it is not. Nice reasoning. But since you don't understand, what probability means, you probably will be trying to tell us, that 10 Gauss Guns are more powerfull than a a Lascannon.

Also nobody gave anybody a good reason, why Necron Warriors should not be able to destroy Land Raiders.

Railgunner
18-07-2008, 23:31
And for 180 points you get a 10 man squad of Marines, that has a higher probability to kill every single vehicle than 180 points of Necrons. For Marines it is okay, because it is okay and for Necrons it's not okay, because it is not. Nice reasoning. But since you don't understand, what probability means, you probably will be trying to tell us, that 10 Gauss Guns are more powerfull than a a Lascannon.


Yet as people have already stated in this thread, if a marine player wants to use that single Lascannon shot to take down a tank, he is effectively wasting the points he paid on all the other marines because they sit around doing sweet f all, while the lascannon is taking a single potshot a turn.
On the other hand we have the 10 man Necron squad, who, when wanting to shoot at a tank can shoot every gun in their squad without wasting the firepower of a single man.

RG

Stingray_tm
18-07-2008, 23:37
Yet as people have already stated in this thread, if a marine player wants to use that single Lascannon shot to take down a tank, he is effectively wasting the points he paid on all the other marines because they sit around doing sweet f all, while the lascannon is taking a single potshot a turn.
On the other hand we have the 10 man Necron squad, who, when wanting to shoot at a tank can shoot every gun in their squad without wasting the firepower of a single man.

RG

So? What has this to do with Necrons being underpowered or overpowered? My Gaunts can't even SCRATCH tanks. So should i complain about Marines being able to take on everything? Necrons were more versatile (in theory! check the probabilities) than Marines. So what?

starlight
19-07-2008, 00:28
Rude, offensive Posts and personal attacks have been Deleted. They will not be tolerated.


Replying to these Posts will also receive unkind attention from the Staff.:eyebrows: The Proper response is to Report them and move on.


starlight
The Warseer Inquisition

Danny Internet
19-07-2008, 01:46
Other changes that clearly benifit Necrons would for instance be the removal of advancing into new close combats, this is a fairly even compensation for the shorter more dangerous close combats. The change in defensive weaponry for vehicles is a balancing factor for other races for the increased survivability of vehicles, but it doesnt harm Necrons at all. In the end, its just a personal oppinion that Necron was nerfed compared to other races.

This comment shows a fundamental ignorance as to how Necrons function.

Anyone who plays as Necrons or regularly plays against them is aware of the fact that consolidating into new units has NEVER been a problem for Necrons...ever. The reason for this is that virtually every competitive Necron build has either a Veil of Darkness or both a Veil of Darkness and a Monolith, either of which will allow the unit that has been consolidated into to escape combat unscathed. As a result, the consolidation change in 5th edition has almost zero effect on Necrons because they had nothing to fear from consolidation in the first place.

Gensuke626
19-07-2008, 02:00
This comment shows a fundamental ignorance as to how Necrons function.

Anyone who plays as Necrons or regularly plays against them is aware of the fact that consolidating into new units has NEVER been a problem for Necrons...ever. The reason for this is that virtually every competitive Necron build has either a Veil of Darkness or both a Veil of Darkness and a Monolith, either of which will allow the unit that has been consolidated into to escape combat unscathed. As a result, the consolidation change in 5th edition has almost zero effect on Necrons because they had nothing to fear from consolidation in the first place.

actually...since you can't consolidate into fresh assaults, you might be able to save points on the lord by taking kit other than the Veil...

Znail
19-07-2008, 02:02
And for 180 points you get a 10 man squad of Marines, that has a higher probability to kill every single vehicle than 180 points of Necrons. For Marines it is okay, because it is okay and for Necrons it's not okay, because it is not. Nice reasoning. But since you don't understand, what probability means, you probably will be trying to tell us, that 10 Gauss Guns are more powerfull than a a Lascannon.

Also nobody gave anybody a good reason, why Necron Warriors should not be able to destroy Land Raiders.
There are advantages with either. Obviously the Lascannon have a higher chance to outright destroy the Landraider. But 10 Gauss Guns have over 70% chance of doing something, while the Lascannon has only 22% of doing something. So its far easier for Necrons to atleast temporarily disable the Landraider. In 4E so was the Guass guns also more likely to destroy the Landraider, so I can understand that Necrons are a bit nostalgic and want the good old times back.

Mitheral
19-07-2008, 02:17
You are reaching quite far from the truth when you claim that an infantry unit that has to be stationary to fire can somehow stay out of assault longer then jetbikes.

What I meant was if one is in a fire lane firing past oncoming assault squads at a target at maximum range the devastator squad gets an extra turn of shooting compared to the heavy destroyer before getting assaulted.

Dyrnwyn
19-07-2008, 02:45
actually...since you can't consolidate into fresh assaults, you might be able to save points on the lord by taking kit other than the Veil...

You missed the point. Necrons in 4th relied on getting through assaults by doing the following: Get hit in assault, lose by 2-5 wounds, test on Ld 10 and in all likelihood stay there. Next turn, teleport out and hose the assaulters with fire. Now, Necrons are looking at getting hit, losing by the same amount, and testing on LD8-5, probably getting run down, and losing an entire squad with no WBB, a squad that cost 360 points. Consolidation into another unit wasn't the problem for Necrons, and with the new rules, continues to not be a problem.

Gensuke626
19-07-2008, 02:51
Ahh, I see.
Being an ork player I suppose it's easy to miss subtlies in how necrons react to being charged.

Iron Father
19-07-2008, 03:37
Just curious - How many people do you know with only 1 army? How many people do you know with multiple armies?

I have 3, my Necron friend has 3, and at our local stores, everyone has 2+ unless they are noobs.

As for the lith... forgot who called it expensive, but its not. 235 is a nice price for a (near) undestructible tank that can deep strike, and move units about the board. How many other tanks can fire at every unit within 12"?

My LR(C) is 30 points more, can ONLY fire at one target, cannot deepstrike, and doesnt ignore melta, rending, chainfists, etc, etc etc.

Honestly, not to be a dick, you guys don't have my sympathy. Well, maybe a little, because I don't like seeing anyones codex get nerfed. You still have the means to pop tanks, Im not sure on the cost of what an H. Destroyer is but Im sure, while you guys may think its expensive, its costs appropriately considering it can moved and fire with the equivilent of a las-cannon, can get back up, and is a necron.

Feel free to flame, argue or whatever, I don't think Ill be stepping foot back in this thread. If you feel the need to argue against me, you can PM.


Be safe guys, Im sure sure your next codex will be sweet :D


Oh, and our beta test of an army still walks over you guys ;)

General Squeek Squeek
19-07-2008, 05:50
And for 180 points you get a 10 man squad of Marines, that has a higher probability to kill every single vehicle than 180 points of Necrons. For Marines it is okay, because it is okay and for Necrons it's not okay, because it is not. Nice reasoning. But since you don't understand, what probability means, you probably will be trying to tell us, that 10 Gauss Guns are more powerfull than a a Lascannon.

Can I point out that comparing 180pts worth of marines vs 180pts of necrons is somewhat pointless. Statistically the necrons have a higher chance of getting at least shaken, but the lascannon can actually blow the vehicle up, The marines have ATSKNF, and the necrons have WBB, necrons phase out, 9 marines without a lascannon waste shots........ theres just so many other factors that are adding into the points that comparisons don't do much.

Also using how well an army placed in a GT isn't the best way to show balance of an army. GT are cutthroat and only the most competitive builds make it in. Most these builds aren't fun to play against and in my experience these players have a hard time finding people to play. This also means that most builds of any army find themselves obsolete at GT's. it just so happens that necrons have it a little harder. I guess my main point is that if your talking solely about playing in tournaments then yes necrons will have to wait until a new codex comes out to see if they can move up the ranks. Until then though they do just fine in friendly games.

azimaith
19-07-2008, 06:40
I find this part highly amusing in a post and thread that complains about the innefectiveness of the glancing hits of the Guass weapons. How can the Venom Cannon be king while the Gauss are useless?;)

A couple things.
One gauss is not worthless. Its weaker. But that *obvious*.
Two, a venom cannon is a better suppressive weapon as its suppression either costs less or is at longer range with better chances, all on a very tough base unit.

Necron warriors have the tough down but fall down on the range sorely.

Destroyers have the range down, but fall down on the toughness sorely.

Third, theres more effective "gap filler" units for tyranids than necrons.

Fourth, the results of running a transport into a tyranid army full of nasty asasulters is essentially, a total reverse of what happens to a necron army. (Tyranids often get a meal, the necrons get eaten alive.)
Killing in 5th isn't as important against vehicles as it was as they do not score. Its just when what they're toting can hardly be stopped at all that it becomes a problem.

Overall running carnifex are low on the list, but the flyrant is still way up there. And even their low quality anti-tank (zoanthropes) pack a 2+ save and often ID protection) which makes them survive quite a bit longer than heavy destroyers.

The way I see it, gauss as a much weaker rule with the new glancing rules is pretty much indisputable. Its obvious, it takes more shots to achieve a kill.

To be honest I don't care that much about the kills for my necrons. If its a big ol' pie plate lobber I'll try to take off its gun and probably be fine (unless its a dual plasma cannon demolisher! Those hurt!)

If its a nasty transport carrying assault troops, that hurts alot, but their biggest weakness in 5th isn't their glancing. Its just the new assault rules.

If you got assaulted by some nasty combat squad coming out of a land raider in 4th you would lose alot, but probably wouldn't wipe. In 5th your likely to wipe out entirely unless your luckily only assaulted by terminators.
The effects are broad reaching making killing or reliably stopping enemy movement critical when before it was desirable but not crippling if it failed.

Its not even the kills on 5-6's. Its the -2 that turns the 1-5 results (shaken, stunned, weapon destroyed) into mostly irrelevant results to transports toting lethal payloads. To be honest I wouldn't care if they couldn't gauss vehicles to death as long as we had a good chance of immobilizing them.

Its just the combination that hurts alot. With one or the other we would probably be alright.

So basically lets take a basic example, a squad of (packless) assault marines packed into a land raider.

In 4th we could score a 5 or 6 to stop the vehicle (either by blowing it up or immobilizing it). If they did get to us and unload we'd probably lose many necrons but hold.
In 5th ed we can stop it on a roll of 6 and if it does get to us, we probably lose the entire unit do to leadership modifiers.

When your squads are minimum size 10, phase out comes up really quickly.

Rectify the leadership penalties for armies like necrons and their glancing vehicles is not the same sort of problem it was and they'll do alright.
They won't kill as many, but they won't be *required to kill them to survive*.


Math disagrees with my statement that glancing hits will likely disable shooting and/or movement? I sure hope not. It's just as likely to get a Weapon Destroyed or Immobilized result with the new table as it is with the old one.

Actually its not.
1-3 is shaken, 4 is stunned, 5-6 is immobilized and weapon destroyed in 5th with a glancing hit.

In 4th ed it was 1-2 is shaken, 3 is stunned. And 4-6 is basically weapon destroyed or immobilized.
Unless of course you want to try and argue that a destroyed vehicle is not immobilized or somehow still has weapons that can fire.

In 4th you had a 50% chance of either scoring an immobilized, weapon destroyed, or a combination of both.
In 5th you have a 33% chance of either getting one or the other.



The immobilized is the big kicker.

Chance of stopping an extra armor vehicle in 4th with a glance.
5-6. (Destroy on a 6, stop on a 5)

Chance of stopping extra armor on vehicles in 5th with a glance.
6 (Immobilized.

1-5 (5 being a 3 after modifiers, equaling weapon destroyed) only result in a shaken, stunned (reduced to shaken) or weapon destroyed result. A 1 shakes, a 2 shakes, a 3 shakes, a 4 stuns, a 5 destroys a weapon with a 5th ed glance.

How in the world is that equal to 4th where:
A 1 shakes, a 2 shakes, a 3 stuns, a 4 weapon destroys, a 5 immobilizes, and a 6 destroys entirely (which of course means it ain't moving anywhere)

Since weapon destroyed doesn't equate to "terminators or assault units not eating my face off" its hardly as important for the necrons over their biggest problem, assault units.



Then again, if you considered Necron anti-tank capabilities only "average" or "just right" before, you're going to be disappointed. I believe we had it good though. Now, we're just average.

Just average? Are you joking? We have one unit thats not a land raider equivalent or a IC to kill av 12+ with at range.

Thats not average, thats just below tyranids in terms of vehicle destruction.
If were average then SM (all flavors), guard, eldar, and tau must be godly amazingly good.



Standard gauss fire can still disrupt enemy vehicles. If you want to do more than just disrupt, take dedicated troops like Heavy Destroyers. Why else is this unit even in the list?
The unit is also there to kill terminators and drop MCs.

In fact I would argue that is the heavy destroyers primary purpose as the gauss would deal with vehicles.


I have 3, my Necron friend has 3, and at our local stores, everyone has 2+ unless they are noobs.

As for the lith... forgot who called it expensive, but its not. 235 is a nice price for a (near) undestructible tank that can deep strike, and move units about the board. How many other tanks can fire at every unit within 12"?

How many other tanks make it easier for your enemy to score a total victory over you?
Its hardly indestructible, tough, obviously, but its really the bar *any* 200+ base cost tank should be looking at. The land raider, to be honest, is rather *overpriced* for what sort of armament it has (its not like a land raider makes its cargo cheaper!)

As for move other units around the board, i'd argue every single transport unit in every single army has that ability :P. Its just faster maximum speed for them while we instead get greater versatility in who moves.

As for shooting at everyone in 12, the D6 S5 shots are hardly very impressive on their own unless your lucky with dice. Your looking at about 3 shots a unit and usually about 3 units. Essentially, a tri heavy bolter tank with shorter range. While we get spread fire as sort of a "bonus to teleporting stuff around" it can't decimate single squads like a heavy bolter dedicated anti-infantry one can.

For its cost its weapon systems really aren't all that incredible, they didn't need to be as it wasn't really made to be a death machine, but rather a utility unit.



My LR(C) is 30 points more, can ONLY fire at one target, cannot deepstrike, and doesnt ignore melta, rending, chainfists, etc, etc etc.

Your LRC can fire all its shots at *one* unit (a bonus! We can't actually shoot all our flux arcs at one as much as we might like to). Must fire at all targets is not the same as can fire at all targets. You've got an assault cannon, hurricane bolters, and a multimelta you can pour onto one unit that you want to kill, we just spray it with D6 heavy bolter equivalent shots and hope it does something.

If theres a carnifex running toward your LRC you can shoot it with 3 TL bolters, an assault cannon, and a multimelta. If a carnifex is coming at us we either get one AP3/1 blast or D6 heavy bolter shots. Suddenly the difference in firepower is rather obvious as yours can focus while ours can not. To be honest thats more or less equal in my opinion. The flux arcs are only good when surrounded by enemy units while your LRC is at its best (and still at its full potential) against single enemy units. If theres one enemy unit near us we get D6 shots. You get all your shots no matter what as long as your movement allows it.

Deepstriking, you can complain about us rolling on reserves hoping we come on when we need it when your LRC is only allowed to move 6 a turn.

Immunities, a mixed bag. You have some protection in the form of your mobility while as a infantry speed vehicle (actually slower than infantry speed now) we sort of *need* to just suck it up and take it.

If theres a melta team nearby you, you can drive 12" the other way and not be worried. If theres one near us we can't possibly outrun it so we need to take it. Same with rending claws, chain fists, any any other bonus damage *save* for lances, which are only ranged where we get the advantage (its hard to run out of range.)

See your comparing base rules without actually looking at your base rules.
Were tougher, were slower.
Were able to shoot lots of shots.
We shoot less shots than you per target.
We deep strike, we can only move 6.

Your not as tough, your twice as fast.
You can't shoot at everyone in 12. You can pick out and shoot everything you have at anyone within range.
You can't deep strike, you move twice as fast, once again.



Honestly, not to be a dick, you guys don't have my sympathy. Well, maybe a little, because I don't like seeing anyones codex get nerfed. You still have the means to pop tanks, Im not sure on the cost of what an H. Destroyer is but Im sure, while you guys may think its expensive, its costs appropriately considering it can moved and fire with the equivilent of a las-cannon, can get back up, and is a necron.

Are you kiding? A lascannon on a jetbike is worth 15 points more than a destroyer? The mobility is great, until you realize with an actual lascannon and permissive 5th ed LOS, you could just be shooting at near anyone the same as the heavy destroyers. In fact, a heavy destroyer and a lascannon have the exact same efffective range. 48". Hell if you don't even know how much one costs how can you even decide its appropiately.
Your lascannon and my heavy destroyers will both give enemies cover saves.
Your lascannons and my heavy destroyers both have the same strength.
Your lascannons and my heavy destroyers have identical effective ranges.
Your lascannons have more ablative wounds than my heavy destroyers do.

The real benefit of HDs (barring that they're our only non vehicle, not god AP2, is that they can change positions quickly. On the flip side, they cost more, thus we have less allowing you to just deploy in more positions.

A good comparison unit is the obliterator. The obliterator moves and fires (but not as fast), deep strikes, has 2 wounds, a 2+ save, and a host of different weapons including a power fist and lascannon.

A heavy destroyer is 10 points less, has one wound, one shorter range lascannon, moves faster, and has a 3+ save with WBB.

Considering the obliterator has several more weapon choices versus the single choice for a heavy destroyer,it would follow that HDs would be considerably cheaper. They aren't.

HDs would be great at 50 points, essentially trading their anti-infantry gun for an anti-heavy/mc/tank gun.



Feel free to flame, argue or whatever, I don't think Ill be stepping foot back in this thread. If you feel the need to argue against me, you can PM.


Be safe guys, Im sure sure your next codex will be sweet :D


Oh, and our beta test of an army still walks over you guys ;)
Why bother flaming, you just admitted you don't even know how much an HD costs then declared its appropriately priced. If your willing to just make giant leaps of logic without even knowing the facts how could anyone even take you seriously on whether necrons are weaker or stronger.

Its a person whose never seen under the hood of a car (much less how it works) talking about how some other car they just saw on the street about has a bad engine.

Seriously, its really a joke.

Daneel2.0
19-07-2008, 08:17
Hello all

I have a couple of things to say about the main topic of the thread, and a couple to say about the various other things that ALWAYS crop up whenever a necron player tries to talk.

Concerning the gauss gimp, the problem is one of perspective; Necron players keep saying "Our main tank busting capability is gone" and Non-Necron players keep saying "adapt and use other units".

For non-necron players: The problem isn't as simple as adapt and go on. The reason you don't see a lot of destroyers or heavy destroyers in most necron lists is the same reason why you don't see a lot of monoliths. They are too expensive to play. I know, everyone, I know. Monoliths only cost 235 which is 15 less than the Land Raider. The problem comes in the point costs of everything else in the army. Necrons HAVE TO take as many necron special rule units as possible to protect against phase out. This means there is correspondingly fewer points for support units such as the destroyer / heavy destroyer / monoliths that have other nice capabilities. You are right, they can pop a tank, even a AV 14 one, but you have to give up a lot to use them. I have played relatively few games in 5th ed (as I suspect is the case for everyone right now :) but it seems to me that most necron lists are going to end up using 3 squads of warriors for 1080 points. Add a 200 point lord to that and you're almost at 1500 already ! ! You then have points for 1 monolith (by eliminating 1 warrior) or 1 squad of 3 heavy destroyers (and 1 tomb spyder). That's it. There are no multiple squads of HDs or multiple monoliths because there are no points for it. When you start adding points, you start wanting to add other necron special rule units with NUMBERS (like immortals, or more necron warriors). Destroyers are really nice, probably my favorite unit even. But there are just too few of them to reliably take on tanks - they are an anti-infantry unit and they are as bad at melee as normal units (yes, +1 T but only 5 in a unit) There are other builds that will probably work, but they all have one thing in common - no points to spare. The nice thing about warriors in 4th was that they could play a more versatile roll and pinch hit when a situation that other units couldn't cope with came up (one of which was vehicles). That option is now severely limited.

For necron players: Until the new codex comes out in 2009 (and don't hold your breath on that one - I already feel the delays coming) we really don't have a whole lot of other options, especially in low point games. In large point games there is more leeway, but for small games, we have always been disadvantaged. My lists have always been destroyer heavy (as I mentioned, they are my favorite unit) but with the change to only Troops hold objectives, this makes things hard. I have a few plans but we'll have to see how they develop before I make any concrete judgment about their effectiveness in actual play. Basically the gauss mechanism has been badly reduced in effect so we have no choice but to grit our teeth and move on. Its not nice but it IS.

Concerning the monolith (which ALWAYS seems to be the object of ire from other players) it is almost exactly as vulnerable as it was in 4th. It benefited very little from the new rules since the only weapons that could effect it in 4th and not in 5th are S8 AP 2+ weapons. The ONLY one I can think of off the top of my head is the Krak missile (and its analogs). There was very minimal change (1/3 difference) with melta- type weapons due to the AP 1 bonus on the damage chart. If someone can think of any other weapons that fall into this category, let me know please :) The monolith is basically a mobile field hospital. It can be used for busting tough units, or for fighting swarms, but its primary utility comes in its WBB re-roll ability. Except in limited cases, using the particle whip is the least effective use of a monolith. Calling it a "AT" capable unit pushes it especially considering the limited range of the particle whip and the 6" limited move. The flux arc is only useful at VERY short ranges and is essentially useless again marine analogs or against units with large numbers.

Concerning the all too frequent (though thankfully limited) cries of cheese. Please be serious. ALL armies can be played with "cheesy" lists, and crying cheese simply marks you as juvenile. The mark of a good player is the ability to analyze the opponent list, match strength vs weakness and nullify strength wherever possible.

Znail
19-07-2008, 13:14
Are you kiding? A lascannon on a jetbike is worth 15 points more than a destroyer? The mobility is great, until you realize with an actual lascannon and permissive 5th ed LOS, you could just be shooting at near anyone the same as the heavy destroyers. In fact, a heavy destroyer and a lascannon have the exact same efffective range. 48". Hell if you don't even know how much one costs how can you even decide its appropiately.
Your lascannon and my heavy destroyers will both give enemies cover saves.
Your lascannons and my heavy destroyers both have the same strength.
Your lascannons and my heavy destroyers have identical effective ranges.
Your lascannons have more ablative wounds than my heavy destroyers do.

The real benefit of HDs (barring that they're our only non vehicle, not god AP2, is that they can change positions quickly. On the flip side, they cost more, thus we have less allowing you to just deploy in more positions.

A good comparison unit is the obliterator. The obliterator moves and fires (but not as fast), deep strikes, has 2 wounds, a 2+ save, and a host of different weapons including a power fist and lascannon.

A heavy destroyer is 10 points less, has one wound, one shorter range lascannon, moves faster, and has a 3+ save with WBB.

Considering the obliterator has several more weapon choices versus the single choice for a heavy destroyer,it would follow that HDs would be considerably cheaper. They aren't.

HDs would be great at 50 points, essentially trading their anti-infantry gun for an anti-heavy/mc/tank gun.

Err, you are actualy want Lascannons to cost the same as Heavy Bolters? The latest SM type codex have them listed at 20 points more, so 15 points more is actualy a bit cheaper then expected. The HD is also cheap if we compare it with attack bikes or landspeeders. This is fairly amusing as atleast I prefeer those over the 300 point devastator squad with lascannons due to them being immobile and only able to hit whatever lets them.

The short story is that HD is quite good compared to what other armies field. The only problem is that 10 guass shots used to be alot better at actualy killing a Landraider then the HD (or a Lascannon) so there was no need for anything else.

imweasel
19-07-2008, 15:58
Just replace auto-glance/auto-wound with rending.

Issue solved. Could have been easily faq'ed, but gw can't seem to write a proper faq.

borithan
19-07-2008, 17:03
Point 2: Take a 10 man tactical squad, give it a flamer and a lascannon, and it's better at both anti-personnel and anti-tank. Give it a melta gun and a heavy bolter and it's still better in both anti-personnel and anti-tank. Give it just a melta gun and you only lose 1 bolter shot at 12", but gain a S8 AP1 shot, arguably doing more damage in the long run.
That is 1 shot per turn. If you are shooting anything more than AV 10 that is one shot a turn that can do anything to the enemy. 10 Necrons have 10 guns that can do something to the enemy armour. If that 1 shot misses then that squad has achieved nothing for the turn, not even glanced. 10 necron have another 9 to 19 shots to work with. A necron squad will normally... wait, I have forgotton. Is it if they get a 6 on the "to hit", or on the armour penetration roll?

If it is a 6 on the hit, a 10 man necron squad will prevent a tank firing more frequently than a 10 man Tac squad with meltagun or lascannon. Yes, they may have a harder time destroying it, but that is not always necessary. Sounds like it would be giving up the easy glancing for a small chance of penetrating AV 11+.



So you assume the enemy has one tank. Funny, my opponents typically take several. Several of them are fully mechanized. Good luck dealing with that as a Necron player in 5th edition.
Well, most people cannot use one squad to take on more than one tank a turn. Nothing new there.



I love how Azimaith's carefully crafted, intelligent post is completely ignored by the dissenters who have no reasonable response to it.
Well, he may have points regarding the survivability of Necrons, or the cost, but that doesn't make the whole change with glancing hits a real breaking change, as seems to have been presented here. It sounds far more like there are other issues with the necrons that need to be fixed, not the fact that they can no longer easily tear apart heavy tanks with their basic rifle.



So hitting a middle of the road army in terms of competitiveness with a huge nerf makes things slightly more balanced?
I think the argument is that it is not a huge nerf. A nerf, yes, but not a huge one. Frankly, sounds like the new combat resolution rules are more of a problem than the thing with glancing.



Math disagrees with you. Refer to the dozen or so posts in this thread for more information.
No, they can. If they build up enough weapon destroyed and immobilised results, they will destroy the vehicle. Small chance, but still possible.



By "a basic trooper with a Str4 rifle" you mean a trooper that costs more than a Marine because it has to buy a mandatory "upgrade" which most Necron players would rather not buy and save points?
I thought this whole thread was how this mandatory upgrade was nerfed? Who would care if they did not want to use it? I haven't seen a demand that necrons have the gauss rule taken away.



Just replace auto-glance/auto-wound with rending.
Frankly that sounds even worse. I am not able to comment certainly though, as I havent worked the maths out.

Danny Internet
19-07-2008, 17:09
actually...since you can't consolidate into fresh assaults, you might be able to save points on the lord by taking kit other than the Veil...

The Veil of Darkness may be the best single piece of wargear in the entire game, regardless of the fact that it allows you to leave close combat. In 5th edition it is arguably more necessary because it provides a very welcome source of mobility for Troops. Being able to teleport to an objective on turn 5/6/7 is an enormous advantage, particularly because Necron Warriors are otherwise extremely slow.

borithan
19-07-2008, 17:37
particularly because Necron Warriors are otherwise extremely slow.
I don't get this. I have seen this before. Do all Necron have Slow and Purposeful or something, because otherwise they move just as fast as any other foot unit? Movement stats have long gone in 40k.

Danny Internet
19-07-2008, 18:06
Relative to just about everything else in the game (the Slow and Purposeful rule is very rare), infantry on foot are the slowest things you can field, hence extremely slow. Infantry with troop transports are much quicker because they can do things like move 6" mount up then move 12", or move 12" disembark 2", and can do so reliably.

The Run rule helps, but trying to argue that foot-slogging troops are anything but slow is absurd at best.

General Squeek Squeek
19-07-2008, 18:35
One thing that may have been mentioned, but I don't think has been properly stated is the the chance of destroying weapons off of vehicles. While there used to be a 1/6 chance of blowing up a vehicle it has been replaced with their being a 1/6 chance of taking its weapon out. With its main weapon removed most (obviously doesn't apply to every vehicle) vehicles have their effectives dramatically reduced. I know this isn't the saving grace for necron players, but it just seems like people are acting like the new rules mean you can only shake a vehicle.

imweasel
19-07-2008, 18:41
I don't get this. I have seen this before. Do all Necron have Slow and Purposeful or something, because otherwise they move just as fast as any other foot unit? Movement stats have long gone in 40k.

Not to mention that the necron army's main mobility for it's foot sloggers got nerfed with the new '5th ed' faq...

borithan
19-07-2008, 19:17
Relative to just about everything else in the game (the Slow and Purposeful rule is very rare), infantry on foot are the slowest things you can field, hence extremely slow. Infantry with troop transports are much quicker because they can do things like move 6" mount up then move 12", or move 12" disembark 2", and can do so reliably.

The Run rule helps, but trying to argue that foot-slogging troops are anything but slow is absurd at best.
Well, yes, Infantry are slow relatively, but I thought there might be more to it than just that. Everyone's infantry is slow with that definition, nothing special about necrons (though I accept that the lack of transports is going to hurt in that regard).

Guess it is just because I don't tend to field many transports when I play anyway, so 6" doesn't seem slow, more 12" seems fast.

azimaith
19-07-2008, 20:20
Err, you are actualy want Lascannons to cost the same as Heavy Bolters? The latest SM type codex have them listed at 20 points more, so 15 points more is actualy a bit cheaper then expected.

A gauss cannon is not the equivalent of a heavy bolter. Its a good deal *better*, they're just different roles.
The HGausscannon isn't in the middle of ablative wounds, its not especially tough, and it loses most of its anti-infanty power in trade for a single lascannon style shot. Besides, dark angels lascannons are 10 points more than a heavy bolter. Not 20 points. We pay more by 5 points. Say our extra point of strength is worth 5 points (15 points) we'd be looking at 55 point heavy destroyers, less expensive than they are now.



The HD is also cheap if we compare it with attack bikes or landspeeders. This is fairly amusing as atleast I prefeer those over the 300 point devastator squad with lascannons due to them being immobile and only able to hit whatever lets them.

Land speeders pack nastier weapons and are harder to kill.
You need to be hit, penetrated fail your smf cover save, then get a 5-6 to drop you. I'd count it even 4-6 as you could lose a main gun.

The hd needs a hit, a wound, and a save, if it even gets one.

So if we took a krak missile from a marine and shot it at both the HD the roll wound be:
3, 2, dead, 4+
For your speeder.
3+, 2+, under 5, 4+

You require 4 rolls in a row
HDs take 3 rolls. Thats why Speeders cost more with more than just a multi melta attached.

Your attack bikes with MM's cost the same and tout 2 wounds.
Your regular bikes are less than half the cost.

So do compare them, its easy to proof how much better they are.



The short story is that HD is quite good compared to what other armies field. The only problem is that 10 guass shots used to be alot better at actualy killing a Landraider then the HD (or a Lascannon) so there was no need for anything else.
No, its really not and its for the reasons above. And your argument that 10 gauss shots were better is wrong as well. (10 gauss=1 glance). 10 Gauss just had a better chance of damaging one.

Vandur Last
19-07-2008, 20:30
Even as someone who cant stand the Necrons (for fluff reasons) i have to say its a shame that the Gauss rule has been nerfed in this way.

I really enjoyed the idea of an army where the basic trooper with his basic gun was capable of, and expected to, do the "heavy lifting" for the army. They were like the opposite of those annoying "hero-hammer" style armies where the infantry are mere spectators to the awesomeness of the special characters and super elite units.

In the next Codex i hope they find some way of putting the Necons Warriors back into the position as the workhorse of the army. I also hope they follow on from the BBB and eliminate all the ridonkulos C'tan fluff. :P


LOL, Necrons players are looking at my post right now and thinking, "wait... is he friend or foe...?"

Sekhmet
19-07-2008, 21:22
I'd like to see a movie necrons article, similar to movie marines.

Something where they actually represent the fluff, rather than heroic movie marines. So they wouldn't be quite as ridiculous, but they'd still be crazy.

Znail
19-07-2008, 22:11
A gauss cannon is not the equivalent of a heavy bolter. Its a good deal *better*, they're just different roles.
The HGausscannon isn't in the middle of ablative wounds, its not especially tough, and it loses most of its anti-infanty power in trade for a single lascannon style shot. Besides, dark angels lascannons are 10 points more than a heavy bolter. Not 20 points. We pay more by 5 points. Say our extra point of strength is worth 5 points (15 points) we'd be looking at 55 point heavy destroyers, less expensive than they are now.
You are looking at the costs for Tactical squads, they get a discount for their heavy weapons due to the lost shots from the other 9 marines. If you look at the costs for Devastators or for vehicles so will you see the normal cost for Lascannons. Its the same as in the BA codex.


Land speeders pack nastier weapons and are harder to kill.
You need to be hit, penetrated fail your smf cover save, then get a 5-6 to drop you. I'd count it even 4-6 as you could lose a main gun.

The hd needs a hit, a wound, and a save, if it even gets one.

So if we took a krak missile from a marine and shot it at both the HD the roll wound be:
3, 2, dead, 4+
For your speeder.
3+, 2+, under 5, 4+

You require 4 rolls in a row
HDs take 3 rolls. Thats why Speeders cost more with more than just a multi melta attached.

Your attack bikes with MM's cost the same and tout 2 wounds.
Your regular bikes are less than half the cost.

So do compare them, its easy to proof how much better they are.
You forgot the 3+ save from Turbo boosting your HD as you asumed the Landspeeders went flat out.



No, its really not and its for the reasons above. And your argument that 10 gauss shots were better is wrong as well. (10 gauss=1 glance). 10 Gauss just had a better chance of damaging one.
1 Lascannon shot on a Landraider (or Monolith) in 4E:
2/3 chance to hit.
1/6 chance to penetrate.
1/2 chance to wreck.
plus
1/6 chance to glance.
1/6 chance to wreck.

Total wreck chance for Lascannon: 7.4%

vs

1 glance in 4E: 16.7% chance to wreck.

As I said, its easy to see that Necrons were happy with the previous edition and wants that ownage back. In 5E so is Gauss better at damaging, but worse and wrecking, but it used to be best at everything.

gunbunny242
19-07-2008, 22:14
What the necron warriors lose in anti-tank they gain in the change to scoring units in missions. Plus weapon destroyed is a good result for a S4 basic gun. How many guns do you think tanks have? Average is 2 and only 1 of those is a main gun.
Where necrons do lose out is in CC. Always thought they should be stubborn or something similar, but might get something more exotic in new dex.
In response to the land speeder versus heavy destroyer arguement, if the speeder is going fast enough to get a SMF save then it can't shoot. Speeders can only really mount 1 gun now with the changes in defensive weapons. Also the heavy destroyers can get a 4+ cover save pretty easily.

IJW
19-07-2008, 22:28
I'd like to see a movie necrons article, similar to movie marines.
Sounds like a neat idea. Time for a new thread over in the rules forum?

Danny Internet
20-07-2008, 02:15
As I said, its easy to see that Necrons were happy with the previous edition and wants that ownage back. In 5E so is Gauss better at damaging, but worse and wrecking, but it used to be best at everything.

Once again, if Necrons had such "ownage" in 4th edition then why did they not perform well at tournaments? If you look at the European GT results since Necrons were released you will barely see any Necron armies even qualifing for the tournaments, nevermind doing well in them (European GTs use only battle points, no painting or comp nonsense). You seem to be among the seemingly large number of players who have this perception that Necrons in 4th edition were some unstoppable powerhouse, a position that is sadly out of touch with reality.

ehlijen
20-07-2008, 02:38
Necrons were nigh unstoppable: against vehicles! Tournament armies tended not to include much vehicles apart from nigh invulnerable skimmers because all other vehicles were so easily destroyed.

Now vehicles are harder allround. Necron players will finally have to consider using Heavy destroyers and other tank killers. Yes they have weaknesses, but also strenghts.

On the other hand, necrons don't fare well against MEQs, a populer tournament army. At the same time, they are MEQs and have most of their opposition geared towards killing them.

However the new wound allocation system can make necrons fare better in combat (massed fire, a necron strenght) now has a better chance of taking out vet sarges in anything but huge units).

It all balances.

And if painting and comp are nonsense to you, then I say that's your loss.

Danny Internet
20-07-2008, 02:55
Necrons were nigh unstoppable: against vehicles! Tournament armies tended not to include much vehicles apart from nigh invulnerable skimmers because all other vehicles were so easily destroyed.

Uh...what? I play in a lot of tournaments (every single one in the area which I am eligible to participate in) and I typically see people taking far MORE vehicles in them. The reason for this is that the missions played (if non-standard, which they usually are) have multiple objectives putting mobility at a premium. Furthermore, mechanized Tau and Eldar both represented some of the more powerful tournaments builds in 4th edition.


And if painting and comp are nonsense to you, then I say that's your loss.

To each his own. I feel they have no place in tournament. Games Day? Sure. GT? No thanks. But that's for another thread.

Maguni
20-07-2008, 03:46
What if we considered that the glancing hit nerf wasn't directed at necrons specifically, they just happen to be the most affected by it. Then if we bring up the fact that necrons are slated for a codex update within a year or two (soon by GW standards) we can guess that the update will likely try to fix their lack of dedicated anti-tank choices. That's the point of codex updates. GW can't make the new edition rulesets work perfectly with all the codexes because there are currently some out there that were designed for 3rd, 4th , and now 5th ed.

boreas
20-07-2008, 03:50
Once again, if Necrons had such "ownage" in 4th edition then why did they not perform well at tournaments?


Uh...what? I play in a lot of tournaments (every single one in the area which I am eligible to participate in) ...


Considering I haven't lost a game with my Necrons in over 2 years, I think I'm perfectly capable of using tactics, but thanks anyway.


So, you participate in lots of tournaments, you haven't lost in 2 years, yet you say that Necrons didn't perform well at tournaments(referring to GT)?

Maybe because the players that tried for GT were not good players? Maybe you should try. I have a big necron army (4000 pts). Yet, I have lots of trouble winning with them. But then again, I'm not a very good player. More of a beer and pretzel player. So no, Necrons are not an easy army. But obviously (seeing your winning record), they could very well own at tournaments in 4th ed, no? You'll be getting a codex in a year or so, it's not that bad. Sure, Gauss wasn't was it used to be, but maybe they'll fix it.

Phil

ehlijen
20-07-2008, 07:59
I haven't lost a game with necrons in over 10 years. But then again, I've only played for 5 and don't even own the necron codex...:p

Yes, mechanised Tau and eldar...they are completely not the super skimmer armies of doom at all I meantioned in my post...
Ground transports were often decried as occasionally mobile coffins if I remember correctly, as they didn't only die easily, they entagled squads left and right.

Danny Internet
20-07-2008, 16:02
What if we considered that the glancing hit nerf wasn't directed at necrons specifically, they just happen to be the most affected by it.

Already considered as of the first post in this thread.


So, you participate in lots of tournaments, you haven't lost in 2 years, yet you say that Necrons didn't perform well at tournaments(referring to GT)?

Maybe because the players that tried for GT were not good players? Maybe you should try. I have a big necron army (4000 pts). Yet, I have lots of trouble winning with them. But then again, I'm not a very good player. More of a beer and pretzel player. So no, Necrons are not an easy army. But obviously (seeing your winning record), they could very well own at tournaments in 4th ed, no? You'll be getting a codex in a year or so, it's not that bad. Sure, Gauss wasn't was it used to be, but maybe they'll fix it.

I have more than one army, and I generally don't run my Necrons in tournaments. The reason for this is that I don't believe my particular army would be capable of receiving full battlepoints on most scenarios and therefore would not be likely to win, unlike my usual lists (Salamanders and Chaos). Most of my victories with Necrons are smaller because I find playing conservatively the most effective way to win with this army given its defensive nature.

As for the comment about GTs and the player quality, don't you think it's a little bit ridiculous to claim that no good Necron players have been participating in European GTs over the past several years? Perhaps all of the Iron Warriors players who dominated the scene in 4th edition were just really really talented...


In your head.

Seriously, if you actually have done this then you must either cheat or this is a fabrication.

Sorry, some people just know what they're doing. Thanks for taking the time out of your busy day to stop by and troll this thread though.


Yes, mechanised Tau and eldar...they are completely not the super skimmer armies of doom at all I meantioned in my post...
Ground transports were often decried as occasionally mobile coffins if I remember correctly, as they didn't only die easily, they entagled squads left and right.

Yes, you mentioned skimmers, but you seemed to just blow them off like some kind of rare non-factor. And there was nothing wrong with ground transports in 4th edition other than the fact that they weren't a viable assault platform anymore. Their role changed from getting close combat troops into position to getting rapid firing troops into position, and for mobile cover/objective capturing.

Royal Tiger
20-07-2008, 16:53
I haven't lost a game with necrons in over 10 years. But then again, I've only played for 5 and don't even own the necron codex...:p
wow thats quite some record:D

Znail
20-07-2008, 19:17
Once again, if Necrons had such "ownage" in 4th edition then why did they not perform well at tournaments? If you look at the European GT results since Necrons were released you will barely see any Necron armies even qualifing for the tournaments, nevermind doing well in them (European GTs use only battle points, no painting or comp nonsense). You seem to be among the seemingly large number of players who have this perception that Necrons in 4th edition were some unstoppable powerhouse, a position that is sadly out of touch with reality.
People win tournaments, not races. Or do you claim that your win record using Necrons is only due to using Necrons and has nothing to do with your playing? You can prove alot of things with statistics, but the old saying is still true: Lies, damned lies and statistics.

But I wasnt refeering to ownage of the entire army, just that Necron Warriors and other Gauss weapons owned vehicles in 4E. You needed several Lascannons or HD to just reach equal killing power and still much less disruptive power. Its rather optemistic to expect that kind of anti vehicle power to get FAQ'ed back when everyone got worse.

Son of Makuta
20-07-2008, 21:10
That requires 3-4 times as much firepower as it did in 4th edition, depending on how many weapons the vehicle has. No other army sees anywhere near the same decrease in effectiveness of their anti-tank capabilities.

Ahem.

Tyranids.

Thank you.

Danny Internet
21-07-2008, 02:02
People win tournaments, not races. Or do you claim that your win record using Necrons is only due to using Necrons and has nothing to do with your playing? You can prove alot of things with statistics, but the old saying is still true: Lies, damned lies and statistics.

So all of the Iron Warriors and Eldar (Ulthwe prior to the new codex, flying circus harlequins after) players who dominated tournaments in 4th edition were just really, really talented generals, right? The reality is competitive environments attract competitive players, and competitive players pick competitive armies. If Necrons had really strong powerlists then they would have been better represented at tournaments, but they didn't, and they weren't.


Ahem.

Tyranids.

Thank you.

Ahem.

Close combat attacks always strike rear armor now.

Thank you.

Gensuke626
21-07-2008, 02:14
Admittedly Danny, alot of the best tyranid Anti-tank creatures are very slow...lacking the Deep Strike and teleport abilities of the Necrons...

Flyrants though are pretty nice, but only 1 per army...

ehlijen
21-07-2008, 02:14
Cool, the fight is on!

Nids vs crons, whose actually decent AT is nerfed the brokenest!

Danny Internet
21-07-2008, 02:21
Genestealers aren't slow, they're Fleet and they can infiltrate or scuttle. Then the Flyrant, which is standard in pretty much every competitive Tyranid army. Not sure if Raveners or leaping Tyranid Warriors are any good, but they're options. And only time will tell whether or not running CC carnifexes are worth using (slow, but not as slow as they used to be).

I agree that the heavy hitting nid units are slow, but their shooting has never really been meant to destroy vehicles, but rather to offer suppressing fire thereby allowing thier CC units to get into combat without taking unbearable casualties.

EDIT: I'm not trying to argue that the glancing change doesn't affect Tyranids. In fact, I think they too are hit disproportionately hard by it, but at least they have a major mitigating factor whereas Necrons don't.

Znail
21-07-2008, 03:14
So all of the Iron Warriors and Eldar (Ulthwe prior to the new codex, flying circus harlequins after) players who dominated tournaments in 4th edition were just really, really talented generals, right? The reality is competitive environments attract competitive players, and competitive players pick competitive armies. If Necrons had really strong powerlists then they would have been better represented at tournaments, but they didn't, and they weren't.
Now, I wonder how many armies that fewer participants then Necrons? If you are going to go on about statistics, cant you atleast produce some facts? But in the end it will only show what a small number of people believed were good armies or popular at the time.


Ahem.

Close combat attacks always strike rear armor now.

Thank you.

This may come as a supprice, but Necrons also get to hit rear armor! Wraiths gets 4 str 6 attacks and moves like jetbikes and you can get a Necron Lord with Destroyer body and Warscythe for another jetbike moving vehicle destroyer. Thats actualy pretty good when it comes to killing vehicles in close combat, better then most races have.

azimaith
21-07-2008, 04:27
You are looking at the costs for Tactical squads, they get a discount for their heavy weapons due to the lost shots from the other 9 marines. If you look at the costs for Devastators or for vehicles so will you see the normal cost for Lascannons. Its the same as in the BA codex.

Are those 9 bolters unable to hurt daemon princes, carnifex, hive tyrants, or any other tough big monster? A lascannon (and a heavy destroyer!) shoot at far more than just tanks.
Do I not get to count the 9 extra wounds that lascannon has in front of it? Or should that be ignored too.



You forgot the 3+ save from Turbo boosting your HD as you asumed the Landspeeders went flat out.

Actually, I'd like to retract that entire save entirely. Its rather silly to even worry about "being able to shoot" if your going to be moving in a way that doesn't allow you to shoot anyhow.

Lets leave out the movement entirely, Krak missile.
.66 to hit the land speeder.
.84 to damage it.
5+ to destroy it with a penetrating. (5-6 since you don't crash unless moving flat out.
Overall:18%

HD
.66 to hit.
.84 to wound.
.5 to get back up.
Overall: 27%

Still stands.




1 Lascannon shot on a Landraider (or Monolith) in 4E:
2/3 chance to hit.
1/6 chance to penetrate.
1/2 chance to wreck.
plus
1/6 chance to glance.
1/6 chance to wreck.

Total wreck chance for Lascannon: 7.4%

vs

1 glance in 4E: 16.7% chance to wreck.

Actually its a 5% chance to destroy a land raider with a penetrating lascannon in 4E. Adding the glancing and penetrating together is somewhat bizarre because they aren't cumulative chances and don't improve each other.
1 shot
.66 hit
.16 pen (.10)
.5 destroy.
.05 x100

and a 1% chance to destroy one with a glancing gauss. (as it can only glance) in 4E
1 Shot
.66 hit
.16 glance
.16 destroyed.

10 shots,
7 hits (rounded up)
1 glance
.16% destroyed.
Sounds great right?
Those 10 shots, anywhere from 140 (at 24", assault, the best per points choice) to 200 points (36")
I'm not so sure its *fair* to just throw a single lascannon against about 9 times or more its worth in necrons. Ignoring its superior range entirely.


Thats 5 times greater only counting a lascannon penetrating. (IF you want to count point vs point thats as close as you get.)




As I said, its easy to see that Necrons were happy with the previous edition and wants that ownage back. In 5E so is Gauss better at damaging, but worse and wrecking, but it used to be best at everything.
How is it better at damaging now? 1-4= no damage (stun, shaken) at all (not even counting new obscured) while it was 4+ was damaging in 4th.
We could roll a 1-4 and not do anything permanant (any probably not even stop most vehicles due to EA)
In 4th we could roll a 4-6 and do permanant damage.
Thats a 5-6 to damage in 5th, a 4-6 in 4th. Weirdly enough, this isn't the first time i've seen someone bring up this idea that were better when its so plainly insane.

No, were flat out worse at damaging (by 16%) and many times worse at destroying.

Sekhmet
21-07-2008, 04:42
This may come as a supprice, but Necrons also get to hit rear armor! Wraiths gets 4 str 6 attacks and moves like jetbikes and you can get a Necron Lord with Destroyer body and Warscythe for another jetbike moving vehicle destroyer. Thats actualy pretty good when it comes to killing vehicles in close combat, better then most races have.

This seriously has nothing to do with Gauss. Contrary to popular belief, Gauss has nothing to do with close combat!

Necron Lord with Destroyer Body and Warscythe (140 pts without any other upgrades) is admittedly really good at killing vehicles besides monoliths and land raiders. CSM, Tyranids, and Daemons, do it better and usually cheaper. Eldar, SM, IG, Tau, and DE don't need fast close combat monsters to take down vehicles. It's sad that a shooting army like Necrons is seriously forced to take close combat elements to pose a threat to vehicles.

Danny Internet
21-07-2008, 05:03
Sekhmet said it before I got a chance, good show.

ehlijen
21-07-2008, 05:50
So wraiths, scarabs, flayed ones, pariahs, scythe lords and disruption fields don't actually exist?

There are quite a few combat options in a necron army. A lot more than for tau for example.

Also, you don't have to use CC to threaten vehicles, you can use heavy destroyers or monoliths. Or flank shots with destroyers. Or just rely on gauss to pull you through without taking any real AT.
If you don't like your AT options, don't take them. But don't expect to kill tanks then either. The whole point of AT weapons is their drawbacks in other areas.
Broadsides + devestators and the like: can be locked or beaten in combat bust FA choices
Attack bikes, MM, Heavy destroyer: vulnerable to counter fire (and out of those, the heavy destroyer is the best due to range and WBB)
melta or cc options need to be close with all the risks that entails
AT tanks can be shaken. No squad can be as easily neutralised for a turn as tanks being shaken.

Znail
21-07-2008, 14:40
Are those 9 bolters unable to hurt daemon princes, carnifex, hive tyrants, or any other tough big monster? A lascannon (and a heavy destroyer!) shoot at far more than just tanks.
Do I not get to count the 9 extra wounds that lascannon has in front of it? Or should that be ignored too.
They cant hurt a Wraithlord or C'tan, but others they can, just not very good. They have shorter range thou, so you cant use the Lascannon or HD range advantage if you also want to use the Bolters.


Actually, I'd like to retract that entire save entirely. Its rather silly to even worry about "being able to shoot" if your going to be moving in a way that doesn't allow you to shoot anyhow.

Lets leave out the movement entirely, Krak missile.
.66 to hit the land speeder.
.84 to damage it.
5+ to destroy it with a penetrating. (5-6 since you don't crash unless moving flat out.
Overall:18%

HD
.66 to hit.
.84 to wound.
.5 to get back up.
Overall: 27%

Still stands.
Vehicles in a vehicle squadron dies on immobilised, so the % end up the same. But the main thing you are missing is that a Lascannon is alot more expensive then a Multi-Melta so you are realy comparing the HD with a unit that has a 20 point cheaper weapon.


Actually its a 5% chance to destroy a land raider with a penetrating lascannon in 4E. Adding the glancing and penetrating together is somewhat bizarre because they aren't cumulative chances and don't improve each other.
1 shot
.66 hit
.16 pen (.10)
.5 destroy.
.05 x100

and a 1% chance to destroy one with a glancing gauss. (as it can only glance) in 4E
1 Shot
.66 hit
.16 glance
.16 destroyed.

10 shots,
7 hits (rounded up)
1 glance
.16% destroyed.
Sounds great right?
Those 10 shots, anywhere from 140 (at 24", assault, the best per points choice) to 200 points (36")
I'm not so sure its *fair* to just throw a single lascannon against about 9 times or more its worth in necrons. Ignoring its superior range entirely.


Thats 5 times greater only counting a lascannon penetrating. (IF you want to count point vs point thats as close as you get.)
Trust me, probobalities of things that can happen at the same time are cumulative. This actualy makes the Lascannon look very slightly better, so its not like I am trying to trick you.

10 Necron Warriors cost slightly less then a DA tac squad with a Lascannon. So I dont see any problems at all comparing 10 gauss shots with 1 Lascannon as those cost about the same.


How is it better at damaging now? 1-4= no damage (stun, shaken) at all (not even counting new obscured) while it was 4+ was damaging in 4th.
We could roll a 1-4 and not do anything permanant (any probably not even stop most vehicles due to EA)
In 4th we could roll a 4-6 and do permanant damage.
Thats a 5-6 to damage in 5th, a 4-6 in 4th. Weirdly enough, this isn't the first time i've seen someone bring up this idea that were better when its so plainly insane.

No, were flat out worse at damaging (by 16%) and many times worse at destroying.
I did not imply that it was better then in 4E, what I ment was that (10) Gauss was better at damaging then a Lascannon in 5E. So that balance out that the Lascannon is better at causing a wreck. Remember that when you are asking for the old 4E effectiveness back, then you are asking for your basic 10 Necron Warriors to have about 3 times the AT killing power of 10 man tactical squads with Lascannons.

Znail
21-07-2008, 14:44
This seriously has nothing to do with Gauss. Contrary to popular belief, Gauss has nothing to do with close combat!

Necron Lord with Destroyer Body and Warscythe (140 pts without any other upgrades) is admittedly really good at killing vehicles besides monoliths and land raiders. CSM, Tyranids, and Daemons, do it better and usually cheaper. Eldar, SM, IG, Tau, and DE don't need fast close combat monsters to take down vehicles. It's sad that a shooting army like Necrons is seriously forced to take close combat elements to pose a threat to vehicles.

So, Necron closecombat has nothing to do with things, but Tyranid closecombat does? Can you be more biased then that? Or is the problem that you didnt read the part I replied to?

Sekhmet
21-07-2008, 17:58
So, Necron closecombat has nothing to do with things, but Tyranid closecombat does? Can you be more biased then that? Or is the problem that you didnt read the part I replied to?

"Gauss weapons in 5th"

I'm saying both you and Danny shouldn't be talking about Tyranids nor closecombat in a thread about Gauss weapons. If you want to continue that, maybe you should make a thread called "Tyranid weapons in 5th".

Danny Internet
21-07-2008, 18:26
So wraiths, scarabs, flayed ones, pariahs, scythe lords and disruption fields don't actually exist?

Flayed Ones and Pariahs? Seriously? That's like telling a Witch Hunters army to take Repentia. You need to look at the usefulness of the unit as a whole, not just look at what they can do. If you're taking Pariahs for any reason, including anti-tank, you're doing something seriously wrong and so is your opponent if he is dimwitted enough to let these units get near his tanks. Flayed Ones are only marginally less bad.

Raverrn
21-07-2008, 19:27
"It's harder to blow vehicles up with my basic trooper guns." What? I have never seen such spoiled players in my life!

So you need to roll an Immo and a few Weapon Destroyed results! Big deal! Necrons have gotten the biggest boost in 5th ed, and you guys need to scrape the sand out of your vaginas and start celebrating.

5th is a troops based game. 2/3 of games are based on getting troops onto points, and Necrons have the toughest troops in the game, the ability to take them in massive squads, and the ability for those troops to hurt vehicles. You've got the damn game handed to you on a silver platter!

Seriously, crybabies.

Mitheral
21-07-2008, 19:37
"It's harder to blow vehicles up with my basic trooper guns." What? I have never seen such spoiled players in my life!

Would it make you feel better to rephrase it as "the heaviest guns my troops can field have trouble destroying a vehicle"? 'Cause that is what a lot of this back and forth seems to be about. Space Marine advocates, in typical favoured child manor, are pissed that bolters can't hurt tanks and somebody else's equivilent can. Necron players say sure, but SM troops all take lascannons, meltas, templates and power weapons/fists and we can't; comparing the basic trooper is no comparision at all.

Sekhmet
21-07-2008, 19:59
"It's harder to blow vehicles up with my basic trooper guns." What? I have never seen such spoiled players in my life!

So you need to roll an Immo and a few Weapon Destroyed results! Big deal! Necrons have gotten the biggest boost in 5th ed, and you guys need to scrape the sand out of your vaginas and start celebrating.

5th is a troops based game. 2/3 of games are based on getting troops onto points, and Necrons have the toughest troops in the game, the ability to take them in massive squads, and the ability for those troops to hurt vehicles. You've got the damn game handed to you on a silver platter!

Seriously, crybabies.

Wait, Necrons got a boost? How so?

Necrons don't have the toughest troops in the game - that award goes to Plague Marines, Wraithguard, or Deathwing Terminators.

I'll trade in my basic troop guns that can blow up vehicles for basic troop guns that can't blow up vehicles, a melta gun and a lascannon any day.

Danny Internet
21-07-2008, 20:05
5th is a troops based game. 2/3 of games are based on getting troops onto points, and Necrons have the toughest troops in the game, the ability to take them in massive squads, and the ability for those troops to hurt vehicles. You've got the damn game handed to you on a silver platter!

Seriously, crybabies.

Yeah, because taking huge mobs of Necrons is a great idea in 5th edition. Better hope you don't get assaulted by any capable CC unit; if you do, you're going to lose combat and be overrun, then probably Phase Out shortly thereafter. Generally, only close combat-oriented units want to form massive squads, otherwise you're putting way too many eggs in one basket.

Raverrn
21-07-2008, 23:42
Would it make you feel better to rephrase it as "the heaviest guns my troops can field have trouble destroying a vehicle"? 'Cause that is what a lot of this back and forth seems to be about. Space Marine advocates, in typical favoured child manor, are pissed that bolters can't hurt tanks and somebody else's equivilent can. Necron players say sure, but SM troops all take lascannons, meltas, templates and power weapons/fists and we can't; comparing the basic trooper is no comparision at all.

Oh I'm sorry. I thought this thread was about necrons bitching about thier guns. Why are you bringing marines into it?

But if you insist, then yes, Marines can take Lascannons in squads. So what? Necrons aren't the only army that needs to, I don't know, use the heavy slot for tankhunting, perhaps? I know my Grey Knights do! So do 'nids and Tau!

azimaith
21-07-2008, 23:50
They cant hurt a Wraithlord or C'tan, but others they can, just not very good. They have shorter range thou, so you cant use the Lascannon or HD range advantage if you also want to use the Bolters.

Sure you can. Besides combat squads themselves allowing you to split it entirely, your lascannon still functions at 24"s just like it does at 48". You can start firing sooner and continue firing the entire time. One side gets bolter shots and a lascannon (at 24" they get both) the other gets a lascannon and thats it.



Vehicles in a vehicle squadron dies on immobilised, so the % end up the same. But the main thing you are missing is that a Lascannon is alot more expensive then a Multi-Melta so you are realy comparing the HD with a unit that has a 20 point cheaper weapon.

You don't need to take (and I often don't see them taken in) squadrons.
The multimelta is cheaper but its a different sort of weapon. Its got the AP value and the tank killing power (If not superior tank killing power), its just a shorter max range and maximum tank killing power. If anything I'd probably rather *have* a multimelta on a fast moving platform over a lascannon. The land speeder can't have a lascannon so trying to compare them as if they had lascannons is silly. Its a multimelta, but the multimelta is still great.



Trust me, probobalities of things that can happen at the same time are cumulative. This actualy makes the Lascannon look very slightly better, so its not like I am trying to trick you.

Erm, rolling a 6 on a lascannon penetration roll does not increase the chance of rolling a damaged result on a 5 of a penetration roll. You can certainly look at the overall numbers for glancing *and* penetrating, but adding them together is misleading as it leads people to believe its a x% chance to destroy which it isn't.



10 Necron Warriors cost slightly less then a DA tac squad with a Lascannon. So I dont see any problems at all comparing 10 gauss shots with 1 Lascannon as those cost about the same.

They aren't the same thing. The tac squad is 5 points more but it has an AP2 48" range weapon+9 bolters. The necron squad has only bolters at 24" rapid fire.



I did not imply that it was better then in 4E, what I ment was that (10) Gauss was better at damaging then a Lascannon in 5E.

Blowing off a weapon doesn't exactly stop a vehicle running at you full of high powered assault units. Damaging is mostly irrelevent unless its the right kind of damage. Most necrons don't care if they pop off a lascannon from a land raider (or its assault cannon) they don't do that much. Its whats inside the land raider that guts you.



So that balance out that the Lascannon is better at causing a wreck. Remember that when you are asking for the old 4E effectiveness back, then you are asking for your basic 10 Necron Warriors to have about 3 times the AT killing power of 10 man tactical squads with Lascannons.
No, i'm not asking for 4th ed killing power back. I'm asking for *the ability to have a solid chance of stopping a unit that would otherwise wipe out your army on its own due to its cargo unless you play an exact cookie cutter list.*

Hell I said above that I don't even care very much about killing vehicle. Vehicle guns are the least of any necrons worries. You can take off a LRs battle cannon or shake it. You can barely stop a land raider thats barreling at you carrying the squads that will decimate your army due to new morale modifiers. And even then you'd have to commit much more than any other army to that effort to stop them.

As long as assault vehicles have extra armor and necrons remain as they are *Hopefully only until a new codex* the loss of gausses killing blow will be a severe problem, basically changing the chances of preventing someone from hurling something that will wipe out a 20 man necron unit with a sneeze from a 33% chance of stopping it to a 16% chance.

Raverrn
21-07-2008, 23:52
Wait, Necrons got a boost? How so?

Necrons don't have the toughest troops in the game - that award goes to Plague Marines, Wraithguard, or Deathwing Terminators.

I'll trade in my basic troop guns that can blow up vehicles for basic troop guns that can't blow up vehicles, a melta gun and a lascannon any day.
Wraithguard I'll give you, maybe. But Plauge Marines? Sure they're T5, but FNP is inferior to WBB BEFORE you throw in a rez orb. And deathwing? They die just as easy as marines for twice the price.

And if you want special & heavy weapons in a squad, why don't you, y'know, play marines! There is no rule that says each army has to be exactly alike.


Yeah, because taking huge mobs of Necrons is a great idea in 5th edition. Better hope you don't get assaulted by any capable CC unit; if you do, you're going to lose combat and be overrun, then probably Phase Out shortly thereafter. Generally, only close combat-oriented units want to form massive squads, otherwise you're putting way too many eggs in one basket.
Better hope cc units got a huge nerf in 5th, like giving everyone countercharge or removing consolidating into other units. Oh, yeah, if necrons could teleport out of cc that would be good, too.

azimaith
22-07-2008, 00:06
Wraithguard I'll give you, maybe. But Plauge Marines? Sure they're T5, but FNP is inferior to WBB BEFORE you throw in a rez orb.

It only recently became so *after* 5th edition. Before it was vastly superior, not just add in the fact that they're *fearless* and not I2.

Just the sheer fact they're fearless makes a huge difference. You don't care if a squad of ork boyz plows into you, guts 5 of your guys. The necrons get to test on a nice LD5.



And deathwing? They die just as easy as marines for twice the price.

Since when do normal tactical marines sport 2+ armor and 5+ invulns.



And if you want special & heavy weapons in a squad, why don't you, y'know, play marines! There is no rule that says each army has to be exactly alike.

We want the ability to be competitive in 5th edition, which we were in 4th due to the general purpose gauss ability.
Now that ability is much weaker on the anti-vehicular front making the entire army weaker. Your melta gun is still a melta gun, your lascannon still a lascannon.



Better hope cc units got a huge nerf in 5th, like giving everyone countercharge or removing consolidating into other units. Oh, yeah, if necrons could teleport out of cc that would be good, too.
Well gee, thats great. I'll remember to teleport out *after trying to roll under a 5 on 2 dice!*

Hey everyone! Necrons can just teleport out, all you need to do is roll under the likely -4/5 penalty you get and not get run down!
Thanks for the information! Wow, you are *so* helpful.

Sekhmet
22-07-2008, 00:38
Wraithguard I'll give you, maybe. But Plauge Marines? Sure they're T5, but FNP is inferior to WBB BEFORE you throw in a rez orb. And deathwing? They die just as easy as marines for twice the price.

Since when does every shot have Strength 7 and AP2? Plague Marines are infinitely more survivable than Necron Warriors in close combat due to large numbers of non-ap attacks. Not only do they have higher T, but FNP is instantaneous. Each FNP a plague marine rolls is a dead necron warrior, counting against the squad for combat resolution. Even assuming equal casualties, the Plague Marines will be taking hits on 3+ saves and 4+ FNP while Necrons will be running away, get swept at their I2, and probably heavily contribute to the army's phase out.

Deathwing? 2+ save with 5+ invul =/= 3+ save. I know math is difficult, but I would've thought that would be obvious.



And if you want special & heavy weapons in a squad, why don't you, y'know, play marines! There is no rule that says each army has to be exactly alike.

Then stop crying that Necrons have their anti-tank in the form of bolters.



Better hope cc units got a huge nerf in 5th, like giving everyone countercharge or removing consolidating into other units. Oh, yeah, if necrons could teleport out of cc that would be good, too.
Sarcasm aside...
Countercharge is a NERF for Necrons. I don't want the enemy to fight more of my Necrons, I want them to kill less. How is forcing me to fight and possibly run away from my Rez Orb a good thing? :rolleyes:

Consolidation not working is a good thing, but is offset by the fact that in a large proportion of cases, Necrons will be swept on the FIRST ROUND OF COMBAT. It doesn't matter that they can't consolidate if my army phases out.

Teleporting out of combat requires that some Necrons survive that combat.

imweasel
22-07-2008, 00:52
Better hope cc units got a huge nerf in 5th, like giving everyone countercharge or removing consolidating into other units. Oh, yeah, if necrons could teleport out of cc that would be good, too.

Necrons are horrible in close combat, even with 'counter charge' of 5th ed. Unless there is a huge swing in probability, necrons will be losing cc and will be taking the moral test. This wasn't an issue in 4th, but in 5th it's huge.

Necrons also don't get to teleport out of cc when they get sweeping advanced, or even wbb's.

Danny Internet
22-07-2008, 02:34
Better hope CC units got a huge nerf in 5th, like giving everyone countercharge or removing consolidating into other units. Oh, yeah, if necrons could teleport out of cc that would be good, too.

Consolidating into other units was never a problem for Necrons thanks to the Monolith and Veil of Darkness, as made clear a few posts ago. Try and keep up.


Necrons are horrible in close combat, even with 'counter charge' of 5th ed. Unless there is a huge swing in probability, necrons will be losing cc and will be taking the moral test. This wasn't an issue in 4th, but in 5th it's huge.

Not to mention they are I2, which means they are almost certain to be caught by the Sweeping Advance and thereby destroyed. Even Orks will catch them more often than not.

ehlijen
22-07-2008, 02:46
Necrons are hard enough to stay standing after being hit by a lot of opponents. In the end they are Meqs, so not terribly easy to kill by many things. And then they're ld 10, so out of all the races, they have some of the best odds of not being wiped out.

Compare that to guard, Tau and sisters. Even most assault units don't do that well if charged themselves. While necron warriors won't win combats, they are not predetermined to loose them excpet against dedicated assault units. And guess what, dedicated assault units are meant to be able to breach the enemy lines like that.

Danny Internet
22-07-2008, 03:07
Necrons are hard enough to stay standing after being hit by a lot of opponents. In the end they are Meqs, so not terribly easy to kill by many things. And then they're ld 10, so out of all the races, they have some of the best odds of not being wiped out.

Compare that to guard, Tau and sisters. Even most assault units don't do that well if charged themselves. While necron warriors won't win combats, they are not predetermined to loose them excpet against dedicated assault units. And guess what, dedicated assault units are meant to be able to breach the enemy lines like that.


OK, let's compare that to Sisters of Battle, who have a cheap, almost mandatory piece of wargear that lets them ignore all modifiers from combat resolution.

Or perhaps we can compare that to all of the other MEQs who either have ATSKNF, essentially making them fearless in close combat, or are Chaos, who have an entire roster full of fearless units.

And then let's compare them to Tau and IG, who also suck in close combat, but don't have to deal with Phase Out.

ehlijen
22-07-2008, 03:25
Sisters who, once stuck in combat will be ground to death protecting their enemy unit from their friends shooting? And will still loose to the things that can apparently wipe out whole necrons squads in one turn?

Space marines can't be sweeped to death yes, but they can actually break rather easily and, if they get away, be kept from regrouping. Chaos has fearless units that are expensive, but also not fearless units that are much more cost effective.

Let's not compare the necrons to Tau then, because they don't have to deal with the likes of ethereals if they want ok leadership?
Let's not compare necrons to IG then, because they don't have to deal with T3 5+ save models right?

Each army has its own strenghts and weaknesses. The Tau weakness is morale and combat. The IG weakness is a poor basic trooper in all respects. The necron weakness is that they can't specialise against target types as well as other races. The Tau compensate with awesome guns. The IG compensate with aweseome numbers. The necrons compensate with awesome resilience and everyone being mediocre against any target type.
If you don't like your race, play a different one. If you do like it, but still want to change it round lots, you don't actually really like it after all.

Danny Internet
22-07-2008, 03:59
Clearly you don't recognize the value of tarpit units. Which is better?

(1) A close combat unit taking 2+ turns to kill one unit of Sisters
(2) A close combat unit taking 1 turn to kill one unit of Sisters


Chaos has fearless units that are expensive, but also not fearless units that are much more cost effective.

You're kidding, right? The cult troops are MUCH better point-for-point than regular marines. The only time you'll see a competitive Chaos list using CSMs is when they're taking squads of 20 and playing it like a CC horde, and that is exceedingly rare.

azimaith
22-07-2008, 04:41
Sisters who, once stuck in combat will be ground to death protecting their enemy unit from their friends shooting? And will still loose to the things that can apparently wipe out whole necrons squads in one turn?

You cost much less and your army isn't dependent on having 25% of your sisters models surviving. They can wipe out necrons because they only need to kill off a hand full of necrons to put down large modifiers on their leadership then sweeping advance. That it, no saves, no WBBS, no nothing. Your dead entirely, no one gets back up, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

You ignore negative modifiers you can test on your basic ld. You get to make 3+ saves against those No Retreat wounds.
Lets see:
3+ saves vs no retreat.
Instant and total death with no recourse from sweeping advance for an entire squad in an army that requires it to keep 25% of its original necron count or it will give an automatic victory to the opponent.

Yeah, no retreat is just a teeny bit better.



Space marines can't be sweeped to death yes, but they can actually break rather easily and, if they get away, be kept from regrouping.

So they don't get swept, they get to fall back without any risk, and they regroup automatically even under 50%. Thats a pretty big weakness for SM. I agree.



Chaos has fearless units that are expensive, but also not fearless units that are much more cost effective.

Their fearless units aren't just fearless, they're either very very tough (in excess of the celebrated necrons) have great weapons (Slannesh/Tzeentch) or crazy close combat. All of those are well worth their points.



Let's not compare the necrons to Tau then, because they don't have to deal with the likes of ethereals if they want ok leadership?

Tau are better without ethereals, just use bonding knives to allow regrouping from shooting and except to get gutted in CC. Your a little more than half our cost and you don't phase out. And thats just basic firewarriors, were not even mentioning crisis suits.



Let's not compare necrons to IG then, because they don't have to deal with T3 5+ save models right?

And a cost thats a mere 3 times *less* than our basic warrior.
Gee is there a pattern appearing. All these units your complaining are weaker than necrons cost less by a large degree.



Each army has its own strenghts and weaknesses. The Tau weakness is morale and combat.
The IG weakness is a poor basic trooper in all respects.

I'd have to disagree on the poor basic trooper in all respects having played them. Their troopers are versatile, cheap, and can be tough as well if you decide to go the carapace route. Thats not mentioning special weapons or grenadier basic squads, or entire infiltrating armies.



The necron weakness is that they can't specialise against target types as well as other races.

Uh, how about, "at all".
We have one weapon thats AP2 shooting (outside of a living god). Heavy destroyers. Only available in squads of 1-3 in heavy support squads. No squad we have can have any upgrade characters, we can't carry special weapons, we have what we have and thats it.



The Tau compensate with awesome guns. The IG compensate with aweseome numbers. The necrons compensate with awesome resilience and everyone being mediocre against any target type.

Well I, silly me, thought awesome resilience meant we didn't *get run down in the first combat we get into with a halfway decent CC squad*.

I see now that if thats "resilient" then plague marines are positively god like with bog standard space marines a bare hair behind.



If you don't like your race, play a different one. If you do like it, but still want to change it round lots, you don't actually really like it after all.
And the obligatory. Lrn2ply.

We don't agree so you give us the "If you don't like it go play something else."
Perhaps if you don't like whats being said here you should go play somewhere else.

Were putting forth reasoned arguments on why we think what we think and so far you've not actually come up with anything actually *on the topic at hand*.
Instead you go around spouting about weaknesses of tau, guard, marines, and chaos which really don't have a bearing on the topic at all.
Worse, they aren't even *good* examples.

Sahansral
22-07-2008, 05:12
Sisters who, once stuck in combat will be ground to death protecting their enemy unit from their friends shooting? And will still loose to the things that can apparently wipe out whole necrons squads in one turn?

Just on a side note, Sisters have hidden Powerfists (Eviscerators). Even a basic Sorita Squad has a good chance to destroy a single IC, MC or dreadnought in CC or do heavy damage to a tooled up cc squad.
If the odds are overwhelming you can pretty much decide when to loose CC by (not) using acts of faith / Book of St. Lucius.

Every army has its weaknesses / strengths. No arguement about that.
But implementing global changes to smoothen the game flow and causing massiv shifts in balance is whole other thing. AT was Necrons strength, now it's their weakness without anything to compensate for it.

HDs are weaker than in 4th.
Surpressing Tank firing means nothing when you consider transports with CC troops in it.

Raverrn
22-07-2008, 05:33
Just the sheer fact they're fearless makes a huge difference. You don't care if a squad of ork boyz plows into you, guts 5 of your guys. The necrons get to test on a nice LD5.
Fearless has it's own downsides. Also Note that losing 5 Plague Marines is still gonna suck - you probably lost more points than the mob was worth.


Since when do normal tactical marines sport 2+ armor and 5+ invulns.
Do the math. A 3+ followed by a 4+ WBB is about equal to a 2+. The 5+ inv is nice, but if you have a res orb you effectively get a 4+ inv. Also consider Deathwing cost what? 2 or 3 times more than your Warriors.


We want the ability to be competitive in 5th edition, which we were in 4th due to the general purpose gauss ability. Now that ability is much weaker on the anti-vehicular front making the entire army weaker. Your melta gun is still a melta gun, your lascannon still a lascannon.
You still are competitive. As a matter of fact, Necrons are the MOST competitive army on the block now. NOBODY matches your troops for survivability or ability to deal damage, AND you can move them around the table faster than *******' Eldar. Necrons DOMINATE in a game based on taking objectives and not dropping KPs.


Well gee, thats great. I'll remember to teleport out *after trying to roll under a 5 on 2 dice!*
It might be a better idea to port out *before* getting charged. Or tying up the chargers with something else. Or charging them first. Or doing *anything* but waling up the field like a drooling 'tard.


Since when does every shot have Strength 7 and AP2? Plauge Marines are more expensive, get no save against plasma, have worse basic weapons than necrons, and can't even take that Lascannon you all seem to whine about. I can see how they'd be superior to 'crons.


Plague Marines are infinitely more survivable than Necron Warriors in close combat... I would hope they'd be better at something.


Deathwing? 2+ save with 5+ invul =/= 3+ save. I know math is difficult, but I would've thought that would be obvious.
Actually, 3+ followed by 4+ DOES equal 2+. Oops.


Then stop crying that Necrons have their anti-tank in the form of bolters.
I didn't do anything of the sort.


Countercharge is a NERF for Necrons. I don't want the enemy to fight more of my Necrons, I want them to kill less. How is forcing me to fight and possibly run away from my Rez Orb a good thing? :rolleyes: The more necrons you can get into combat, the more of his models you can kill, and the smaller the kill deficit will be. This is a good thing against anything but hardcore CC units.


Consolidation not working is a good thing, but is offset by the fact that in a large proportion of cases, Necrons will be swept on the FIRST ROUND OF COMBAT. It doesn't matter that they can't consolidate if my army phases out.
If you get swept in the first round of combat, it means one of two things. 1) You only had a few 'crons left, or 2) You got charged by something nasty. Either way it's beginning to sould like you're pissed that 'crons can be killed AT ALL. "Wahhhh, my troops got charged by Assault Terminators and a Chaplain, and they lost! This is a travesty and GW should fix it immediately!"

[QUOTE=Danny Internet;2799198]Consolidating into other units was never a problem for Necrons thanks to the Monolith and Veil of Darkness, as made clear a few posts ago. Try and keep up. No, but now that you can't consolidate you can position your troops for maximum Rapid-Fire rape after an enemy assault.


Necrons are hard enough to stay standing after being hit by a lot of opponents. In the end they are Meqs, so not terribly easy to kill by many things. And then they're ld 10, so out of all the races, they have some of the best odds of not being wiped out.

Compare that to guard, Tau and sisters. Even most assault units don't do that well if charged themselves. While necron warriors won't win combats, they are not predetermined to loose them excpet against dedicated assault units. And guess what, dedicated assault units are meant to be able to breach the enemy lines like that.


Clearly you don't recognize the value of tarpit units. Which is better?

(1) A close combat unit taking 2+ turns to kill one unit of Sisters
(2) A close combat unit taking 1 turn to kill one unit of Sisters

Clearly you don't recognize the value of tarpit units- the answer to this is (1). An assault that end on an opponent's turn allows you to move away from the now-free enemy unit and shoot it to death. An assault that lasts 2 turns allows the enemy to either flee or (more likely) charge another unit.

ehlijen
22-07-2008, 05:40
Necrons used to be far stronger at AT then they were ever meant to be. As were many other races, hence the many complaints that tanks were rolling coffins in 4th ed. Now tanks are meant to be harder to destroy and it's meant to be done by actual AT units. For everyone. Including necrons.

You may not like HD's and you may not want to spend a turn not teleporting squads with the monolith, but those are your ranged AT units. If you don't want them, deal with the fact that you won't have any ranged AT. Wraiths and disruption scarabs (whose sheer number of attacks are going to be effective) are your CC AT units if you don't like HDs or liths for AT work. That's 4 units to choose from. If you want none of those, please don't complain that you can't kill tanks. That's like a space marine player yelling that without las, melta or power-/chainfist he can't kill monoliths.

Necrons still at least have the ability to glance anything with any unit.

Mitheral
22-07-2008, 05:40
Better hope cc units got a huge nerf in 5th, like giving everyone countercharge or removing consolidating into other units. Oh, yeah, if necrons could teleport out of cc that would be good, too.

Sekhmet already said it, but holy hand grenade, forcing counter charge on us is not a 5e buff for Necrons.


Necrons still at least have the ability to glance anything with any unit.

I should start a "Shocking news for SM players who have taken up Necrons for their next army" list:

Glancing hits are weak tea vs. even cheap transports.
It doesn't matter how tough you are if at the end of the day cows have better CC reflexes than you.
The Monolith has no protection in numbers; guess where every shot that can hurt it goes.
Expensive units with three wounds max get wiped out early ... a lot.
A transport that only moves 6", ever, has a serious drawback. Oh, and it can't transport a full squad.
Powerfist/weapon? What's that? (OK. So our HQ can get them but still.)

Raverrn
22-07-2008, 05:55
Sekhmet already said it, but holy hand grenade, forcing counter charge on us is not a 5e buff for Necrons.
And I already said it - it isn't against big nasty CC units. But then again you're screwed if they charge you anyway. Against more moderate units (Assault or Tactical Marines, Catachans, Kroot, etc), especially since you should have at least bloodied them with shooting, it is a huge boon.


I should start a "Shocking news for SM players who have taken up Necrons for their next army" list:
Glancing hits are weak tea vs. even cheap transports.
Unless they immobilize it. Or destroy a weapon.

It doesn't matter how tough you are if at the end of the day cows have better CC reflexes than you.
Termies with powerfists would seem to disagree. (Different circumstances, I admit, but still)

The Monolith has no protection in numbers; guess where every shot that can hurt it goes.
Oh come on, now you're bitching that your vehicles can be shot at?

Expensive units with three wounds max get wiped out early ... a lot.
So... you're saying your stuff dies. It's a WARgame. Emphasis on WAR. Look, it's in the title: WARhammer.

A transport that only moves 6", ever, has a serious drawback. Oh, and it can't transport a full squad.
If only it could deepstrike or something...

Powerfist/weapon? What's that? [SIZE="1"](OK. So our HQ can get them but still.)
Or Pariahs. Or Tomb Spyders.
[/QUOTE]

azimaith
22-07-2008, 07:55
Fearless has it's own downsides. Also Note that losing 5 Plague Marines is still gonna suck - you probably lost more points than the mob was worth.

Fearless has very little downside save for the rare occassion where you have the initiative jump on them and want to run, which is a rare case for I3 plague marines.



Do the math. A 3+ followed by a 4+ WBB is about equal to a 2+. The 5+ inv is nice, but if you have a res orb you effectively get a 4+ inv. Also consider Deathwing cost what? 2 or 3 times more than your Warriors.

Except your *completely wrong*.
A 3+ save is a 3+ save. Simple math. If I have 10 warriors, I get shot by a krak missile, then I get assaulted, how many warriors do I have, assuming a res orb?
9. One warrior is down and won't have any chance to get back up until its turn thus the squad is weaker for its loss, more susceptible to 25% tests and losing combat and being wiped out (which includes all necrons, down before or otherwise.)
So thats nothing like a 4+ invul. If your terminator is shot and wounded with a krak missile out of cover hes got a 84% chance to totally ignore it. I have a 0% chance out of cover. If you get shot with a plasma gun you have a 33% chance to stay standing, I don't. WBB is nothing like a better save because you still *die and suffer all the penalties for it* before you get back up.
WBB is highly conditional, your saves are not. Do the math, as you say.



You still are competitive. As a matter of fact, Necrons are the MOST competitive army on the block now. NOBODY matches your troops for survivability or ability to deal damage,

Except chaos cult marines, marines, orks by troop numbers, tyranids by troop numbers, IG by troop numbers, of course.

Survivability is partially based on not getting gutted in CC then run down. Our damage consist mostly of bolters, heavy bolters with an additional strength, and the occassional lascannon. Other armies firepower consists of plasma guns in every squad, melta guns, squads of lascannons, battle tanks with big ordnance, drop troops with demo charges that are S8 AP2 large blasts, or masses of assault 2 S4 shots. So wrong again. Our damage is as mediocre as ever.



AND you can move them around the table faster than *******' Eldar. Necrons DOMINATE in a game based on taking objectives and not dropping KPs.

Gee I hope that enemy i'm moving around doesn't actually *assault me*.
Lets see, I move faster than eldar on the turn the monolith comes in, then i'm slower, or I can move one squad in deep strike around, its also known in 5th ed as "feeding your necron warriors to an assault squad."

You were wrong on both points because you failed to factor in the changes to assault which make us from one of the most resilient, to one of the least resilient due to our leadership being modified.



It might be a better idea to port out *before* getting charged. Or tying up the chargers with something else. Or charging them first. Or doing *anything* but waling up the field like a drooling 'tard.

Oh good idea. Lets go through those then.
"Port out before getting charged."
Gee, well there goes taking objectives! Oh wait, no we'll *outrun them with our 6" move tank". I mean charging units in this game move, what? 12" max? Theres no such thing as beasts, bikes, and jetbikes, and most certainly *no one can fleet*. Good idea.

Oh we can tie them up. Yes, lets tie them up. We have a great unit for that, the scarab, lovely little things.. As long as they don't have a powerfist, of course. And they don't actually *shoot* them with any sort of blast (we all know blasts are going to be *less common in 5th*. No scarabs are a valid point, cookie cutter same list point, but a point. But thats really *all* you can tie them up with.

Oh WE CAN CHARGE THEM FIRST!
Amazing!
Yes, nothing says "Were going to kill you like 20 S4 attacks. Its not like *any enemy squad can actually pack power weapons, they're all like us, they can't use lightning claws, power fists, gobs of rending, monstrous creatures, or anything else that could possibly *cause whole sale necron death*.

Its obvious you've never actually *played* necrons or you play in a rare area where no one actually puts powerklaws into squads of orks or fists into squads of marines, much less a chaplain.



Plauge Marines are more expensive, get no save against plasma, have worse basic weapons than necrons, and can't even take that Lascannon you all seem to whine about. I can see how they'd be superior to 'crons.

They have higher toughness and they are *fearless* a huge deal in 5th ed. You could beat a plague marine squad by 5 wounds and they'd at most, probably lose 2 guys, while necrons lose anywhere from 10-20 guys almost guaranteed. They can take squad special weapons as upgrades, They have a whole rest of an army to get lascannons in which the necrons do not, so its not vital for them to carry them. If they want lascannons they can throw them on chaos marines, havocs, chosen, or use oblits. The the necrons are about 5 points cheaper and get to WBB (but still die before getting that)



I would hope they'd be better at something.

Besides toughness, weapon choices, close combat, transport options, and phase out, of course.



Actually, 3+ followed by 4+ DOES equal 2+. Oops.

Maybe if you *have no idea how wbb works.
We don't get 2+ saves. We don't get a 3+ then a 4+ save. We get a *DEAD* then a 4+ wbb on our next turn supposing all conditions necessary are met.



I didn't do anything of the sort.

Besides right here, of course.
Oh I'm sorry. I thought this thread was about necrons bitching about thier guns. Why are you bringing marines into it?

But if you insist, then yes, Marines can take Lascannons in squads. So what? Necrons aren't the only army that needs to, I don't know, use the heavy slot for tankhunting, perhaps? I know my Grey Knights do! So do 'nids and Tau!



The more necrons you can get into combat, the more of his models you can kill, and the smaller the kill deficit will be. This is a good thing against anything but hardcore CC units.

Yes but this is combined with 5th ed "remove from anywhere" overall this rule, compared to 4th *hurts* more. In 4th you just take guys out of contact and your not going to get run down. Now you counter charge, great, but you remove from everywhere, thus lose more models total.



Clearly you don't recognize the value of tarpit units- the answer to this is (1). An assault that end on an opponent's turn allows you to move away from the now-free enemy unit and shoot it to death.

If we could just shoot enemy units to death that we needed to in one turn this wouldn't be an issue. We are using *bolters*.



An assault that lasts 2 turns allows the enemy to either flee or (more likely) charge another unit.

Your mixing turns with phases. If you last one turn you last 2 phases.


And I already said it - it isn't against big nasty CC units. But then again you're screwed if they charge you anyway. Against more moderate units (Assault or Tactical Marines, Catachans, Kroot, etc), especially since you should have at least bloodied them with shooting, it is a huge boon.

Perhaps you are not quite aware of the scenario we are most worried about.

"Oh look a land raider! Stop it!
*Zap!*
I blew off one gun.
Next turn.
"Ok my land raider unloads the chaplain and his command squad and charges you."
Necron unit is wiped out entirely in one turn.
"Alright my remaining 20 nearby warriors rapid fire at your command squad.
Hah! 4 dead!"
4 regular marines die.
"My commmand squad moves and charges."
Another necron squad dies.
Next turn.
"Alright I, oh wait, i'm phased out."
Good game.




Unless they immobilize it. Or destroy a weapon.

Immobilizing it is now 16% harder than it was before.
Destroying a weapon? Really?
Is that what transport fear?
"Hah! Your rhino has no storm bolter anymore!"
"Oh no! I lost my trukks big shoota, what ever will I do with 11 boyz and a power klaw nob!"



Termies with powerfists would seem to disagree. (Different circumstances, I admit, but still)

Termis with lightning claws strike me as more likely as there isn't "overkill" anymore and rending is weaker.



Oh come on, now you're bitching that your vehicles can be shot at?

Yeah I don't get this either. Its tough enough to *be shot at*.



So... you're saying your stuff dies. It's a WARgame. Emphasis on WAR. Look, it's in the title: WARhammer.

When thats your "anti-tank" rather than everyone elses embedded anti-tank, it makes a rather big difference.



If only it could deepstrike or something...

Which really helps it on the turn after it deep strikes to move more than 6". Your going to see less deep striking monoliths now due to the (understandable) to hit rolls and grenades, specifically, eldar style grenades.



Or Pariahs.

Have you actually *used* pariahs?
Oh look at me, i've got a 3+ save and one attack at initiative 3 with a power weapon.
Maybe you'd like to bring up something thats not more expensive than a terminator with a worse armor save, initiative value, attacks value, and no invulnerable save.



Or Tomb Spyders.

Or for that matter, a 2 wound MC with Ws2.

You now, something thats actually *intimidating* to squads beyond firewarriors in CC.

borithan
22-07-2008, 08:49
I2.
Just on the fact that someone said that Necron have the lowest I in the game, surpassed by everyone. No. Tau have exactly the same **** initiative. Oh, and they are not a little over half the cost, they are 2/3 the cost of a Necron.

Frankly, it sounds like the legitimate concern Necron players have is not about the gauss rules, but from CC, which I could agree could need a look at with their next codex.


Oh WE CAN CHARGE THEM FIRST!
Amazing!
Yes, nothing says "Were going to kill you like 20 S4 attacks. Its not like *any enemy squad can actually pack power weapons, they're all like us, they can't use lightning claws, power fists, gobs of rending, monstrous creatures, or anything else that could possibly *cause whole sale necron death*.
But if you charge them they will be 1) denied bonuses for charging, and 2) you will get the benefit. 20 S4 attacks is what a Tactical squad will get if it charges, and an assault squad if it doesn't. The greater number of attacks will mean you will inflict more casualties, bringing the loss of combat to a far lower margin, making it less likely you will be defeated, or at least defeated at such a negative modifier that it will be very hard for you to pass the necessary morale test.



Termis with lightning claws strike me as more likely as there isn't "overkill" anymore and rending is weaker.
Eh? What does randing have to do with Terminators with powerfists? And powerfist terminators are more common than lightening claw ones, at least as far as I have seen. Maybe not due to effectiveness or whatnot, but because they have been the ones that have been available for longer, especially in plastic.



Immobilizing it is now 16% harder than it was before.
Still possible. And you could stun the tank, making it sit still for a turn.



Destroying a weapon? Really?
Is that what transport fear?
Well, its a bitch if the transport is a Razorback or something similar. And if it isn't a transport, then yeah, its usually what they fear.

And if you get multiple weapon destroyed results you will get to immobilise it, especially if it is a non-weapon carrying transport, as it is likely all it will have is that one storm bolter or equivalent.



"Oh no! I lost my trukks big shoota, what ever will I do with 11 boyz and a power klaw nob!"
Open topped vehicles would be easier than others to stun, immobilise, build up weapon destroyed results, and you can even destroy it... about as frequently as you could before (a 6 to penetrate, and then a 6 to destroy).

Askari
22-07-2008, 10:05
First, ignoring some of the more recent replies, answering the some who said "Why try to glance every turn to neutralise a tank, destroying a tank supresses it for the entire game".

Seriously, a single Necron squad costs what, 180pts?
Tanks cost roughly the same.
And that Necron squad will on average get 1.12 glances at 24", or 2.24 at 12".
Ergo, glance every turn.
So if you spend a Necron squad of 180pts neutralising a equal point tank for the entire game. Awesome, you got your points worth and have an objective claiming Troops squad. If you manage to do better and kill the tank through Immobilise/Weapon Destroyed. Then even better. You can be more useful shooting troops too.

Back to more recent posts:

And while it is true, every unit in a Space Marine army can destroy tanks. That isn't the point, Marines are meant to be versatile, and even then, they only get one AT weapon per squad, and they are 1-shot. If it misses, or fails to penetrate, then your average Tactical Squad is more useless than a Necron Squad vs. vehicles.

Tau have no Troops that can penetrate tanks at range. At even their Elites and HQ are mediocre at doing so, needing to be very close indeed, or hope for the best. Kind of like Necron Warriors. They cope with Railguns.... Heavy Support choices.

Ok, so close combat will hurt Necrons. Of course this is a problem with the fact Necrons have no decent counter-assault units, Phase-Out and the new LD rules, something which hopefully be fixed next time round. But the original question was on Gauss Weapons in 5th.

Stingray_tm
22-07-2008, 10:27
Seriously, a single Necron squad costs what, 180pts?
Tanks cost roughly the same.
And that Necron squad will on average get 1.12 glances at 24", or 2.24 at 12".
Ergo, glance every turn.
So if you spend a Necron squad of 180pts neutralising a equal point tank for the entire game. Awesome, you got your points worth and have an objective claiming Troops squad. If you manage to do better and kill the tank through Immobilise/Weapon Destroyed. Then even better. You can be more useful shooting troops too.

Unless you are playing KP missions, where you need to destroy this tank, or when there is a draw on missions, where you need to destroy this tank, or when you are fighting an army, that has 180 pts squad, that WILL destroy a tank in 3 or 4 turns (Space Marines... cough...), while your Necrons will continue fighting the tank instead of killing other stuff, which those Marines will do in the last couple of turns of the game.



And while it is true, every unit in a Space Marine army can destroy tanks. That isn't the point, Marines are meant to be versatile, and even then, they only get one AT weapon per squad, and they are 1-shot. If it misses, or fails to penetrate, then your average Tactical Squad is more useless than a Necron Squad vs. vehicles.

And Necrons so far have been meant to be versatile, too.



Tau have no Troops that can penetrate tanks at range. At even their Elites and HQ are mediocre at doing so, needing to be very close indeed, or hope for the best. Kind of like Necron Warriors. They cope with Railguns.... Heavy Support choices.

Deep Striking Crisis Suits, Stealth Suits, rear shots with DSing Drones, Piranhas...

d077Z
22-07-2008, 10:40
Just on the fact that someone said that Necron have the lowest I in the game, surpassed by everyone. No. Tau have exactly the same **** initiative. Oh, and they are not a little over half the cost, they are 2/3 the cost of a Necron.
Range. Smaller squad sizes. This makes each sweep ALOT less painful.



Frankly, it sounds like the legitimate concern Necron players have is not about the gauss rules, but from CC, which I could agree could need a look at with their next codex.

Another concern yes, but gauss changes are also legitimately problematic.



But if you charge them they will be 1) denied bonuses for charging, and 2) you will get the benefit. 20 S4 attacks is what a Tactical squad will get if it charges, and an assault squad if it doesn't. The greater number of attacks will mean you will inflict more casualties, bringing the loss of combat to a far lower margin, making it less likely you will be defeated, or at least defeated at such a negative modifier that it will be very hard for you to pass the necessary morale test.

Sweet so i get swept in my turn not yours bonus... Wait that means I cant even rapid fire the offending unit before they get another bite... Sign me up!




Still possible. And you could stun the tank, making it sit still for a turn.


Clearly this is highly different from 4e

the table has gone from 2(perm)/1t to 1/1 which is significant no mater which way you try to spin it.



Well, its a bitch if the transport is a Razorback or something similar. And if it isn't a transport, then yeah, its usually what they fear.

And if you get multiple weapon destroyed results you will get to immobilise it, especially if it is a non-weapon carrying transport, as it is likely all it will have is that one storm bolter or equivalent.

Really couldn't care less about results against non transports... As for transport it takes a stupid amount of shots to stop transports via gauss as we have already established.



Open topped vehicles would be easier than others to stun, immobilise, build up weapon destroyed results, and you can even destroy it... about as frequently as you could before (a 6 to penetrate, and then a 6 to destroy).
By as easy to destroy, you mean harder right...? Open topped vehicles had +1 in 4e (eg 3(p)/1(t)) AND venerable to blasts if you got desperate.

Raverrn
22-07-2008, 10:43
Fearless has very little downside save for the rare occassion where you have the initiative jump on them and want to run, which is a rare case for I3 plague marines.
Except your *completely wrong*.
A 3+ save is a 3+ save. Simple math. If I have 10 warriors, I get shot by a krak missile, then I get assaulted, how many warriors do I have, assuming a res orb?
9. One warrior is down and won't have any chance to get back up until its turn thus the squad is weaker for its loss, more susceptible to 25% tests and losing combat and being wiped out (which includes all necrons, down before or otherwise.)
So thats nothing like a 4+ invul. If your terminator is shot and wounded with a krak missile out of cover hes got a 84% chance to totally ignore it. I have a 0% chance out of cover. If you get shot with a plasma gun you have a 33% chance to stay standing, I don't. WBB is nothing like a better save because you still *die and suffer all the penalties for it* before you get back up.
WBB is highly conditional, your saves are not. Do the math, as you say.

I wouldn't call a save that allows a model hit by an otherwise lethal shot to remain on the table "nothing like a 4+ invuln" Are you sure you're thinking straight?



Except chaos cult marines, marines, orks by troop numbers, tyranids by troop numbers, IG by troop numbers, of course.

Because all of these have access to easy and instantaneous redeployment, a very effective save, and firepower able to hurt anything on the field while on the move an independent on a single model.



Survivability is partially based on not getting gutted in CC then run down. Our damage consist mostly of bolters, heavy bolters with an additional strength, and the occassional lascannon. Other armies firepower consists of plasma guns in every squad, melta guns, squads of lascannons, battle tanks with big ordnance, drop troops with demo charges that are S8 AP2 large blasts, or masses of assault 2 S4 shots. So wrong again. Our damage is as mediocre as ever....
Gee I hope that enemy i'm moving around doesn't actually *assault me*.
Lets see, I move faster than eldar on the turn the monolith comes in, then i'm slower, or I can move one squad in deep strike around, its also known in 5th ed as "feeding your necron warriors to an assault squad."
You were wrong on both points because you failed to factor in the changes to assault which make us from one of the most resilient, to one of the least resilient due to our leadership being modified.
Oh good idea. Lets go through those then.
"Port out before getting charged."
Gee, well there goes taking objectives! Oh wait, no we'll *outrun them with our 6" move tank". I mean charging units in this game move, what? 12" max? Theres no such thing as beasts, bikes, and jetbikes, and most certainly *no one can fleet*. Good idea.
Oh we can tie them up. Yes, lets tie them up. We have a great unit for that, the scarab, lovely little things.. As long as they don't have a powerfist, of course. And they don't actually *shoot* them with any sort of blast (we all know blasts are going to be *less common in 5th*. No scarabs are a valid point, cookie cutter same list point, but a point. But thats really *all* you can tie them up with.
Oh WE CAN CHARGE THEM FIRST!
Amazing!
Yes, nothing says "Were going to kill you like 20 S4 attacks. Its not like *any enemy squad can actually pack power weapons, they're all like us, they can't use lightning claws, power fists, gobs of rending, monstrous creatures, or anything else that could possibly *cause whole sale necron death*.

I'm going to lump these together. I find your thought process amazing - apparently every single enemy model is a genetic hybrid of Jet Lee and Chuck Norris and can obliterate every necron on the field as soon as he gets within 24" of one of your squads. Clearly I was wrong.


Its obvious you've never actually *played* necrons or you play in a rare area where no one actually puts powerklaws into squads of orks or fists into squads of marines, much less a chaplain.
Not only have I played necrons for two years, I sold them to buy into Tau. I *know* what it means to get into combat and lose, and I *know* what it means to not have special weapons in squads. There are ways to stay out of combat.



They have higher toughness and they are *fearless* a huge deal in 5th ed. You could beat a plague marine squad by 5 wounds and they'd at most, probably lose 2 guys, while necrons lose anywhere from 10-20 guys almost guaranteed.
Any squad that kills 5 or more necrons in one turn of CC is one that you shouldn't have let get there in the first place, and you deserve every casualty.


They can take squad special weapons as upgrades, They have a whole rest of an army to get lascannons in which the necrons do not,
What about Heavy Destroyers? I vet Chaos players would love to mount their Lascannons on a jetbike.



Maybe if you *have no idea how wbb works.
We don't get 2+ saves. We don't get a 3+ then a 4+ save. We get a *DEAD* then a 4+ wbb on our next turn supposing all conditions necessary are met.



Besides right here, of course.
Oh I'm sorry. I thought this thread was about necrons bitching about their guns. Why are you bringing marines into it?

But if you insist, then yes, Marines can take Lascannons in squads. So what? Necrons aren't the only army that needs to, I don't know, use the heavy slot for tankhunting, perhaps? I know my Grey Knights do! So do 'nids and Tau!
...I don't follow. You win at being obtuse, I guess.



Yes but this is combined with 5th ed "remove from anywhere" overall this rule, compared to 4th *hurts* more. In 4th you just take guys out of contact and your not going to get run down. Now you counter charge, great, but you remove from everywhere, thus lose more models total.
Here's where we differ, then. You look at the change and say: "Wow, Genestealers are gonna kick my ass." I look at it and say: "Man, I am gonna put the smackdown on some poor IG Squad." The problem is this: You shouldn't be relying on sloppy CC rules to save you from Genestealer rape. You should be killing them when they are way far away.


If we could just shoot enemy units to death that we needed to in one turn this wouldn't be an issue. We are using *bolters*.
Wait, what? You think your 180 point unit should be able to kill a 514 point unit in *one* round of shooting? Overpowered much?



Perhaps you are not quite aware of the scenario we are most worried about.

"Oh look a land raider! Stop it!
*Zap!*
I blew off one gun.
Next turn.
"Ok my land raider unloads the chaplain and his command squad and charges you."
Necron unit is wiped out entirely in one turn.
"Alright my remaining 20 nearby warriors rapid fire at your command squad.
Hah! 4 dead!"
4 regular marines die.
"My commmand squad moves and charges."
Another necron squad dies.
Next turn.
"Alright I, oh wait, i'm phased out."
Good game.

"Oh look, a Land Raider! Looks like it's time to VoD!"
"Oh look, a Land Raider! Good thing I brought these Heavy Destroyers/Monolith!"
"Oh Look, a Land Raider! Better feed it a sacrificial unit to keep the troops busy while I shoot those guys!"
Playing pretend is fun.


Immobilizing it is now 16% harder than it was before.
Destroying a weapon? Really?
Is that what transport fear?
"Hah! Your rhino has no storm bolter anymore!"
"Oh no! I lost my trukks big shoota, what ever will I do with 11 boyz and a power klaw nob!"
Interestingly enough, I agree. It's not like there are any transports with big hurty guns like Falcons, Land Raiders, Wave Serpents, Raiders, and Razorbacks.



Termis with lightning claws strike me as more likely as there isn't "overkill" anymore and rending is weaker.
Look at the point I was addressing - units with low Int CAN BE good in CC.


When thats your "anti-tank" rather than everyone else's embedded anti-tank, it makes a rather big difference.
"embedded" anti-tank can die just as easily. 5th has really changed this, too - heavy weapons are very vulnerable to fire now.



Which really helps it on the turn after it deep strikes to move more than 6". Your going to see less deep striking monoliths now due to the (understandable) to hit rolls and grenades, specifically, eldar style grenades.
So your monolith is afraid of...haywire grenades? I guess if you strike it near Guardians and your opponent bothered to buy them. I really don't get what you're saying here...



Have you actually *used* pariahs?
Oh look at me, i've got a 3+ save and one attack at initiative 3 with a power weapon. Maybe you'd like to bring up something thats not more expensive than a terminator with a worse armor save, initiative value, attacks value, and no invulnerable save.
They're Fearless, T5 & S5, reduce an enemy's leadership to 7, and ignore all saves. You're telling me you can't think of *any* way to use them, even with the new cover from friendly models rules? Sure, they're fragile, but you can't think of *anything*?



Or for that matter, a 2 wound MC with Ws2.

You now, something thats actually *intimidating* to squads beyond firewarriors in CC.

It's a 55 point S6 T6 3 attack MC that can generate it's own meatshield. What more do you want?

Askari
22-07-2008, 10:56
Unless you are playing KP missions, where you need to destroy this tank, or when there is a draw on missions, where you need to destroy this tank, or when you are fighting an army, that has 180 pts squad, that WILL destroy a tank in 3 or 4 turns (Space Marines... cough...), while your Necrons will continue fighting the tank instead of killing other stuff, which those Marines will do in the last couple of turns of the game.

Space Marines, sadly, are the bane of this argument, and it's not going to change with the new Codex.
But frankly, most other armies use specialist AT units to take out tanks, and they even have to because their normal troops can't neutralise Land Raiders.



And Necrons so far have been meant to be versatile, too.

They are still tough, and can still hurt a vehicle with Troops. Something Tau, Eldar, Tyranid and Ork troops have a harder time doing.



Deep Striking Crisis Suits, Stealth Suits, rear shots with DSing Drones, Piranhas...

I did say they gotta go close didn't I?

Besides, I can just as easily say:
Turbo-boosting Destroyers to the rear, Scarabs with Disruption Fields, Veiled Warriors to the rear, Destroyer Lord w/ Warscythe.

Kreedos
22-07-2008, 11:06
This is an easy fix, Heavy destroyers suck but we aren't forced to take them, Gauss does enough to mess up a tank to make sure it doesn't eat though our ranks. Use immortals to deal with tanks, they can pen on AV 10. Run a lord with a Warsythe, Run Tomb spiders, Run 1 or 2 monoliths.

I don't like the new rules on glancing either, but I don't think it's a huge deal. Now the new close combat rules on the other hand, I think that's garbage.

Try losing 20 warriors to 1 dreadnaught sweeping advancing you. That's when you will want to cry.

Everything in the necron army can do something to armor.

Wraths, can pen armor 11
Immortals can pen armor 10
Warriors can glance anything
Destroyers can pen armor 11
Pariahs suck
Flayed ones can glance anything
Scarabs can glance anything
Tomb spiders can pen anything
Night bringer can pen armor 22

All and all, necrons are broken, I have to agree with this. Other armies get giant advantages, while Necrons don't

By the way, everytime I've run my monolith, it deep strikes and blows up the next enemy turn. I'm gussing I have horrible luck.

Don't pay so much attention to tanks, blow up a few, and just focus on mowing down troops and let them fire heavy on your scary stuff, such as a night bringer or a monolith.

Stingray_tm
22-07-2008, 11:24
Space Marines, sadly, are the bane of this argument, and it's not going to change with the new Codex.
But frankly, most other armies use specialist AT units to take out tanks, and they even have to because their normal troops can't neutralise Land Raiders.
They are still tough, and can still hurt a vehicle with Troops. Something Tau, Eldar, Tyranid and Ork troops have a harder time doing.


But the problem is, that Necrons don't have enough specialst AT units to do the job. They need Necron Warriors for different reasons. The whole army list was designed, so that Necron Warriors can destroy vehicles, because you need a lot of expensive Necron Warriors. In return you can not have as much AT firepower in other troop slots as say Eldar or Space Marines.
The problem is the army metaplane, not "troops aren't supposed to be able to kill Land Raiders".
Also Nids are now facing EXACTLY the same problem with the rending Nerf, when it comes to all around AV14 vehicles. But Nid troops still will totally kick ass, when attacking weaker tanks, unlike Necrons.

Dyrnwyn
22-07-2008, 11:27
Tau have no Troops that can penetrate tanks at range. At even their Elites and HQ are mediocre at doing so, needing to be very close indeed, or hope for the best. Kind of like Necron Warriors. They cope with Railguns.... Heavy Support choices.

Not true at all. First off, Pulse fire can penetrate AV10, so Fire Warriors can penetrate tanks, although only light transports. On top of that, if you were so inclined, Kroot can take Krootox Riders, granting them an effective Autocannon, letting them pen up to AV12 at range. Both Tau Troop choices are capable of penetrating tanks at range, not though ideally suited for doing so, especially when railguns do it so much better.

Necrons need a patch of sorts to put them on equal footing. A 'Gauss weapons get +1 on the damage table' to help counter that -2 glance penalty, or giving them rending so that the base warrior can pen up to AV12, and the heavier weapons still have a place in hurting AV13 and 14. I favor rending, or at least a penetration effect similar to rending.

ehlijen
22-07-2008, 11:40
The necrons do not need a patch. They are on equal footing with other races. Their base troops have an ok chance of hurting vehicles but it takes dedicated AT units to destroy them reliably.

The problem is that necrons have been secure in never needing actual AT units in 4th ed and now necron players refuse to acknowledge them as having a place in the list.

Gensuke626
22-07-2008, 12:02
might I suggest that everyone take a couple days Hiatus from argueing and do the following things?
1. If you're a necron player, try finding places in your list for Heavy Destroyers.
2. If you're not a necron player, play a few games with a Necron list.

oCoYoRoAoKo
22-07-2008, 12:23
The necrons do not need a patch. They are on equal footing with other races. Their base troops have an ok chance of hurting vehicles but it takes dedicated AT units to destroy them reliably.

The problem is that necrons have been secure in never needing actual AT units in 4th ed and now necron players refuse to acknowledge them as having a place in the list.

yeah, that would be true if no-one even bothered to bring Heavy destroyers in the first place. However, we already do. the problem is that the necron armylist has always depended on the synergy between units in order to win. Heavy destroyers stick out as one of the 3 units in the list that are stand-alone (the other 2 being parias and scarabs) scarabs have their use in that they can now provide cover saves to units behind them and can tie other units up in cc. parias are just aweful given their setting (yeah, lets have a unit that ISNT a necron but also as expensive as a terminator and cant be ported around the field to where they are needed most - which is almost no-where because they are mediocre at best at both CC and shooting because of their high cost).

now, most of the counter arguements to the reduced gauss are something on the lines of:

"HAHA USE MORE HEAVY DESTROYERS AND LEARN TO PLAY BETTER LIKE WOT I DO"

The problem with this is that heavies, whilst awesome, have 1 wound each and cost 65 points. therefore, you arent going to have many of them because for a unit of 3, costing 195 points that can die to a single round of firepower from just about anything in the game, and probably wont get WBB because you need more heavy destroyers around them, they just arent as good value for points then say, another monolith (and when kill points are in play, are you telling me that you wont shoot at that easy to kill, 3W unit? ).

Cy.

ehlijen
22-07-2008, 13:52
I actually play against necrons reasonably often. He usually fields both types of destroyers. I usually had trouble downing them at all, let alone in time to save my tanks.

He keeps them hidden until there is a good time to strike and then pops them out by the time his warriors are about to get into rapid fire range. Present enough targets, and they easily survive. And if not, the other targets are that more likely to survive.

If KP are in play, keep them in reserve. Turboboost them back and forth unless a target of opportunity presents itself. Protecting vulnerable units is part of the Annihilation mission.

edit: any firepower directed at a unit that only has three necrons is firepower not directed at making you phase out as well.

borithan
22-07-2008, 15:34
Range.
30"? Not sure how often that range is going to be used... though, I guess with the new TLOS it will see more use.



Smaller squad sizes. This makes each sweep ALOT less painful.
Sounds like, from the description on this thread, that people often play 10 man necron squads anyway... I always try to field about 10 man squads whenever I play. True, I am not forced to play that as a minimum.



Sweet so i get swept in my turn not yours bonus...
Who says you will get swept? You could win you know. Or draw. Or survive till the next turn. While I accept it is more likely with the new rules, you seem to presume you will always lose combat, regardless of anything you do to put the odds more in your favour, like charging first, or the fact that more people are now drawn into the fight (if they hadn't made that change any decent person charging would have been able to ensure that enough necrons are engaged to inflict enough wounds that the modifier would be high, like the -5 you mentioned earlier. Your best chance, if you end up in a combat, is not to reduce the numbers in the fight, but to increase the chances that you kill more of the enemy back, which the new rules allows you to do).



the table has gone from 2(perm)/1t to 1/1 which is significant no mater which way you try to spin it.
No one is arguing that it has not got harder to damage tanks, just whether it is unfair or not.



Really couldn't care less about results against non transports...
Why? I, for instance, don't tend to use transports much. You would care if you took one of the weapons off the main vehicle/s in my army. What about Imperial Guard? Are you really more scared of guard in Chimeras than a Leman Russ? And even with poorly armed transports, it now means you have 1/3 chance of wrecking it with the next glancing hit. Not as good as before, no, but not inconsequential.



As for transport it takes a stupid amount of shots to stop transports via gauss as we have already established.
Have we? A guass armed warrior squad can put out a stupid number of shots capable of stopping a transport. A Space Marine squad can put 3 at most (AV 10 aside), and frankly, in most situations probably 1 or 2. A Warrior squad is shorter range than a maximim of 1 of those shots (the others will be either the same or shorter range), but, casualties aside, when they are firing they can put out a minimum of 10. At the range that Space Marines can fire 3, a warrior squad (casualties aside, again) can fire a minimum of 20. The Space Marines ones are more powerful, yes, aside from those whose armour it cannot penetrate at all (the only place where they are going to get 3 is when using a rapid firing plasma gun, which cannot hurt AV 14, and is only as good as gauss weapons against AV 13... and if you look at the thing as a whole, worse, as a guass weapon has no chance of frying its user), but they have a greater chance of doing nothing, as they have fewer shots. It is really not fun to waste a unit's turn by having a heavy weapon troop fire at something the rest of the squad cannot hurt/cannot reach, just to miss.



By as easy to destroy, you mean harder right...? Open topped vehicles had +1 in 4e (eg 3(p)/1(t)) AND venerable to blasts if you got desperate.
Oh, yeah. Sorry on that point. Forgot that there was both the separate charts and +1 in 4e. even so, I think the argument here is not that it is not more difficult to destroy/damage tanks and whatever, but that it is not a totally unfair change.



And Necrons so far have been meant to be versatile, too.
No they weren't. Thats why they have one troop choice, which can take only one upgrade.

Danny Internet
22-07-2008, 16:15
The necrons do not need a patch. They are on equal footing with other races. Their base troops have an ok chance of hurting vehicles but it takes dedicated AT units to destroy them reliably.

The problem is that necrons have been secure in never needing actual AT units in 4th ed and now necron players refuse to acknowledge them as having a place in the list.

Necrons were designed not to need actual AT units. That's one of their important gimmicks. Now they do. And the only actual AT unit in the army blows chunks. This was balanced in 4th, but it is not balanced in 5th.

To ignore that this change adversely and disproportionately affects Necrons is equivalent to sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "I'm not listening, I'm not listening!" To say that Necrons are fine as a result is to acknowledge the belief that they were not fine (overpowered) in 4th edition, which is completely unsupported except by anecdotal evidence provided by inexperienced players.


I wouldn't call a save that allows a model hit by an otherwise lethal shot to remain on the table "nothing like a 4+ invuln" Are you sure you're thinking straight?

A lot of people ran larger squads in 4th, however 10-man squads are necessary in 5th in order to mitigate losses from sweeping advances in close combat, otherwise you risk a very quick Phase Out.


Who says you will get swept? You could win you know. Or draw. Or survive till the next turn.

And I might win the lottery 15 consecutive times. Anything's possible, I guess. But in reality, most people use capable assault units to lead assaults, and capable assault units will beat squads of Necron Warriors almost every time, barring terrible luck.


You would care if you took one of the weapons off the main vehicle/s in my army. What about Imperial Guard? Are you really more scared of guard in Chimeras than a Leman Russ? And even with poorly armed transports, it now means you have 1/3 chance of wrecking it with the next glancing hit.

Actually, you have a 1/3 chance of immobilizing it next glancing hit, not wrecking it. You have a 0/3 chance of wrecking it after a weapon destroyed result.


No they weren't. Thats why they have one troop choice, which can take only one upgrade.

If being both fairly decent anti-infantry and anti-tank simultaneously (in 4th edition) isn't versatile then I'm at a loss as to what exactly you think is versatile.

borithan
22-07-2008, 16:58
Necrons were designed not to need actual AT units.
Then why did they provide them? Heavy Destroyers have a high strength, and cannot get the weight of fire to be useful for anything else really. They are designed as anti-tank units, yet they didn't intend for anyone to use them?

Really what they were probably doing was removing the need for anti-tank within basic squads, not the need for specialised AT at all.



To ignore that this change adversely and disproportionately affects Necrons is equivalent to sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "I'm not listening, I'm not listening!"
Is anyone saying that it didn't adversely affect Necron, or that it affected them more than anyone else? Not as far as I can tell. What people are saying is that it doesn't 1) break the army, and 2) is not unfair.



To say that Necrons are fine as a result is to acknowledge the belief that they were not fine (overpowered) in 4th edition, which is completely unsupported except by anecdotal evidence provided by inexperienced players.
What I think people were saying was that they were overpowered against vehicles. Not really that they were overpowered in a general sense, just against vehicles.



A lot of people ran larger squads in 4th, however 10-man squads are necessary in 5th in order to mitigate losses from sweeping advances in close combat, otherwise you risk a very quick Phase Out.
Unless you are playing a large game, in which you would be able to fit several larger squads. Whats wrong with maybe taking a few more smaller squads in most normal sized games, rather than fewer larger ones? Gives you more flexibility generally.



And I might win the lottery 15 consecutive times.
Any it is anywhere near as rare as that? Necrons winning a combat, while not the probable result, but is plausible. Heck, I have won a round of combat against a Carnifex with a squad of firewarriors (on the turn it charged). Thats more unlikely than a squad of necrons winning against anything but the truly hardest assault squads.



Actually, you have a 1/3 chance of immobilizing it next glancing hit, not wrecking it.
1 weapon (storm bolter), which is destroyed. One immobilised result. Oh, its wrecked. OK, I cannot remember off the top of my head if that actually counts as wrecked, but, even if it isn't, at this point it is a box with some men in it. It cannot move and it cannot fire.



If being both fairly decent anti-infantry and anti-tank simultaneously (in 4th edition) isn't versatile then I'm at a loss as to what exactly you think is versatile.
Being able to tailor your unit with several options, which means it can be made a very good anti-infantry unit, a very good anti-tank unit, or the ability to be ok at both.
Though it looks like, from different definitions of versatile, we are both right.

azimaith
22-07-2008, 17:13
Just on the fact that someone said that Necron have the lowest I in the game, surpassed by everyone. No. Tau have exactly the same **** initiative. Oh, and they are not a little over half the cost, they are 2/3 the cost of a Necron.
No, they're a little over half. If they cost one point less a fire warrior would be exactly *half* the cost of a necron warrior. I would consider one point above half to be "slightly more than half" not 2/3 (which would be 12 or so points)



Frankly, it sounds like the legitimate concern Necron players have is not about the gauss rules, but from CC, which I could agree could need a look at with their next codex.

They could have just done it in the FAQ and given them stubborn.



But if you charge them they will be 1) denied bonuses for charging, and 2) you will get the benefit. 20 S4 attacks is what a Tactical squad will get if it charges, and an assault squad if it doesn't.

Your missing the key fact that those tactical squad pack powerfists. Most likely, you will be charged by a jump squad with a chaplain in it who will smash everyone up quite well.



The greater number of attacks will mean you will inflict more casualties, bringing the loss of combat to a far lower margin, making it less likely you will be defeated, or at least defeated at such a negative modifier that it will be very hard for you to pass the necessary morale test.

So we get the choice between charging into a full strength close combat squad (as the others probably won't charge us) and hoping to kill enough so its chaplain(or equivalent) and its sergeant don't gut us. Note that this precludes us from *firing* at all and we *still strike LAST* in nearly any combat.
So we deny them a charge bonus but we strike with a loss of several guys already.



Eh? What does randing have to do with Terminators with powerfists? And powerfist terminators are more common than lightening claw ones, at least as far as I have seen. Maybe not due to effectiveness or whatnot, but because they have been the ones that have been available for longer, especially in plastic.
You see powerfist terminators because of the preeminence of the assault cannon. With it toned down you will see assault terminators taking over the large scale assault, especially with rumored assault terminator buffs.



Still possible. And you could stun the tank, making it sit still for a turn.

Unless its any ork, imperial, or eldar vehicle, naturally.



Well, its a bitch if the transport is a Razorback or something similar. And if it isn't a transport, then yeah, its usually what they fear.

I'm not quite sure your getting the scenario here. Were worried about transports, mostly carrying assault units who don't care about shooting, they just want to get close enough to gut you. They don't care if you blow off their lascannon or their big shoota. Its *irrelevent to them*.



And if you get multiple weapon destroyed results you will get to immobilise it, especially if it is a non-weapon carrying transport, as it is likely all it will have is that one storm bolter or equivalent.

Your looking at 10 shots per glance, and then a 33% chance of that one shot to hit. Thus about 30 shots to get, statisticaly, around one 5-6 result out of the pool (it could certainly be the first shot, last shot, never show up at all, or anywhere inbetween of course).



Open topped vehicles would be easier than others to stun, immobilise, build up weapon destroyed results, and you can even destroy it... about as frequently as you could before (a 6 to penetrate, and then a 6 to destroy).
Uh, as frequently as before?
An open topped vehicle died on a 5-6 before. Now it dies on a roll of 6.

Mitheral
22-07-2008, 17:38
Oh come on, now you're bitching that your vehicles can be shot at?

Remember this was hints for new SM -> Necron converts. SM players seem to be used to cheap vehicle options. And having a lot is a good compensator for relative weakness. EG: Rhinos are what, 40points? So for the cost of a Monolith you can plunk 6 of them down. Having 6 rhinos on the field provides a great deal of protection to each because most armies aren't going to have enough AT to threaten that many tanks. Cripes, BA assault squads exchange their jump packs for a rhino for free.


So... you're saying your stuff dies. It's a WARgame. Emphasis on WAR. Look, it's in the title: WARhammer.

Point being Heavy Destroyers are fragile.


"embedded" anti-tank can die just as easily. 5th has really changed this, too - heavy weapons are very vulnerable to fire now.


Every single wound to a Heavy Destroyer squad takes out a short range lascannon. A 10 man tac squad needs to take 9 wounds from a single volley before you need to assign a wound to the lascannon. And one can't even snipe the model anymore or other tricks to bring that model forward. If you think heavy weapons in squads are vunerable you can see why Necron players fear for the health of Heavy Destroyer squads.


If only it {Monolith} could deepstrike or something..

At which point it sits there like a big ol' lump not shooting at anything for a full turn.


Not only have I played necrons for two years, I sold them to buy into Tau. I *know* what it means to get into combat and lose, and I *know* what it means to not have special weapons in squads. There are ways to stay out of combat.

Any squad that kills 5 or more necrons in one turn of CC is one that you shouldn't have let get there in the first place, and you deserve every casualty.

So no 5e experience then? And a big dose of LRN2PLY?



They're Fearless, T5 & S5, reduce an enemy's leadership to 7, and ignore all saves. You're telling me you can't think of *any* way to use them, even with the new cover from friendly models rules? Sure, they're fragile, but you can't think of *anything*?

They're 36 point elite infantry that can't be teleported or transported, don't have an invulnerable and don't contribute to PO. Ya, I'm pretty sure I can find better places to spend a minimum of 108 points.

azimaith
22-07-2008, 17:38
I wouldn't call a save that allows a model hit by an otherwise lethal shot to remain on the table "nothing like a 4+ invuln" Are you sure you're thinking straight?

Yes, because the model is *dead*. Its a casualty, it just gets a chance to come back next turn. A 4+ invul negates hits, a wbb circumvents casualties the next turn. If you shoot a squad and kill 3 necrons, you kill 3 necrons, they're dead until they get a roll (if they do get a roll) next turn. You shoot 3 armor denying shots at a 4+ invul save unit, they get 4+ invuls right then and less will probably die.



Because all of these have access to easy and instantaneous redeployment, a very effective save, and firepower able to hurt anything on the field while on the move an independent on a single model.

You mean transport vehicles or fleet?? Yep. An effective save? Some, or they have numbers. Firepower able to hurt anything on the field? Absolutely save for tyranids. Melta gun here, plasma gun there, in fact they're more than able to hurt, most are well suited to hurting them.




I'm going to lump these together. I find your thought process amazing - apparently every single enemy model is a genetic hybrid of Jet Lee and Chuck Norris and can obliterate every necron on the field as soon as he gets within 24" of one of your squads. Clearly I was wrong.
I find your thought process boggling. Why would I charge a squad that won't charge me? I'm not going to charge some 5 man tactical squad just in case they charge me, thats not what i'm worried about. I'm worried about the flyrant, the jump pack squads with characters, the massed ork boyz in trukks. Your only advice has been to charge units that will certainly kill you and strike *first*. Its like saying "Shoot people without guns first and you won't get shot!" If they don't have guns, you aren't getting shot anyhow, and if they do have one, you better *damn well have a bigger and better gun than they do!*



Not only have I played necrons for two years, I sold them to buy into Tau. I *know* what it means to get into combat and lose, and I *know* what it means to not have special weapons in squads. There are ways to stay out of combat.

Great, you played them for two years, *all prior to the entire point of this thread, 5th edition.* So what you've basically said is you have *no experience with necrons in 5th edition.



Any squad that kills 5 or more necrons in one turn of CC is one that you shouldn't have let get there in the first place, and you deserve every casualty.

Silly me, I should just *roll better*. How stupid am I. Hey everyone, you just need to roll better so that the transports die in one turn rather than 2 so they can't charge you. Obviously the key to victory, weighted dice.



What about Heavy Destroyers? I vet Chaos players would love to mount their Lascannons on a jetbike.

Not at the cost of an obliterator they wouldn't. They've got a unit that does the same thing but better already.

Having obliterators doesn't make it so you can't take a chaos marine choice with a lascannon.



...I don't follow. You win at being obtuse, I guess.

You don't follow me because you haven't actually had a clue about what you've been saying the last several posts.



Here's where we differ, then. You look at the change and say: "Wow, Genestealers are gonna kick my ass." I look at it and say: "Man, I am gonna put the smackdown on some poor IG Squad." The problem is this: You shouldn't be relying on sloppy CC rules to save you from Genestealer rape. You should be killing them when they are way far away.

And heres wher we differ. I take into account *the actual conditions in a game where units are trying to *avoid getting killed* while you seem to be under the impression they're going to march out in nice little lines at you so you can gun them down. Hell, you seem to be under the impression no one will take transport, or use fast moving assaulters to close with you at all.



Wait, what? You think your 180 point unit should be able to kill a 514 point unit in *one* round of shooting? Overpowered much?

Nice spin! For one, your not killing a 514 point squad, or did killing a land raiders cargo suddenly cause the land raider to spontanously combust, and its not a one squad, its one squad thats *dead* and the other squad thats firing and soon to be dead. Thats 360 at minimum.



"Oh look, a Land Raider! Looks like it's time to VoD!"

Yes, who needs to actually fight in a wargame, we should just run away at every opportunity with our one allowed VoD and hope we don't end up dying due to deep strike. Yes, its so clear now.



"Oh look, a Land Raider! Good thing I brought these Heavy Destroyers/Monolith!"

Oh look, the land raider shot, there goes my heavy destroyers.
Well at least i've got a cookie cutter monolist right? Oh look my monolith blew off its lascannon. Well that prevents it from moving right! Oh wait, nevermind.



"Oh Look, a Land Raider! Better feed it a sacrificial unit to keep the troops busy while I shoot those guys!"
Playing pretend is fun.

This is hilarious. The appropriate answer:
"OH look *phase out*, gee, maybe its a *bad idea to use necrons with sacrificial units.



Interestingly enough, I agree. It's not like there are any transports with big hurty guns like Falcons, Land Raiders, Wave Serpents, Raiders, and Razorbacks.

And they fire them all so often when they're coming at you 12+" a turn.



Look at the point I was addressing - units with low Int CAN BE good in CC.

And you seem to be missing thats *dependent on the units weapons and stats otherwise! A unit of powerfist toting terminators are not the same as a unit of necron warriors. The terminators are low init but much better than the necrons are in CC. Its obvious. Why don't you actually *bring up something thats applicable to the situation*.



"embedded" anti-tank can die just as easily. 5th has really changed this, too - heavy weapons are very vulnerable to fire now.

Your joking right? You allocate wounds, then roll saves. Your embedded anti tank can still be the last wound you allocate if you even recieve enough wounds to allocate to them.



So your monolith is afraid of...haywire grenades? I guess if you strike it near Guardians and your opponent bothered to buy them. I really don't get what you're saying here...

Of course it is, its a fixed to hit and a fixed number to penetrate in mass quantities. Anything that can't get at a 6 to hit should be afraid of them, much less going out and deep striking *into them*.



They're Fearless, T5 & S5, reduce an enemy's leadership to 7, and ignore all saves. You're telling me you can't think of *any* way to use them, even with the new cover from friendly models rules? Sure, they're fragile, but you can't think of *anything*?

Perhaps you haven't quite noticed, playing tau, but the necron army is about give and take. The more pariahs I have, the less necrons I have, the less necrons I have, the faster I phase. The easier it is to kill the bulk necron unit, the faster I phase. Its easier to kill the bulk necron unit now and you suggest I take pariahs to somehow stop it.

The pariahs, even if they *aren't* shot at, are I3 and 1 wound with a 3+. If they get assaulted by a standard assault squad you're most likely going to lose all of them unless you spend over 400 points for 10+ (At which point you probably have 1/5 of your army gone, plus the apparently obligatory monolith, thats another 200+ points, plus the obligatory veil and orb lord, another 200 points. Bam, 13 models, over 900 points. Thats nearly half of your 2k point army.



It's a 55 point S6 T6 3 attack MC that can generate it's own meatshield. What more do you want?
One that actually hits. That would be nice.

If your looking for CC protection you grab a C'tan, pariahs are jokes, tomb spyders, slightly less so. But the change in CC battles means that the more you spend protecting warriors, the easier it is to wipe you out whole sale by just wiping out the few you even have.

borithan
22-07-2008, 17:44
No, they're a little over half. If they cost one point less a fire warrior would be exactly *half* the cost of a necron warrior. I would consider one point above half to be "slightly more than half" not 2/3 (which would be 12 or so points)
Yup, your right... for some reason I though Firewarriors cost 12 points. Think I just had 120 points for a full squad in my mind, and then thought 10 men for some reason, rather than 12.



They could have just done it in the FAQ and given them stubborn.
Quite possibly. Or they may have thought that would make them too hard. I don't know. Whatever way they do it, it does sound like they will need to look at necrons and close combat.


Yes, because the model is *dead*. Its a casualty, it just gets a chance to come back next turn. A 4+ invul negates hits, a WBB circumvents casualties the next turn. If you shoot a squad and kill 3 necrons, you kill 3 necrons, they're dead until they get a roll (if they do get a roll) next turn. You shoot 3 armor denying shots at a 4+ invul save unit, they get 4+ invuls right then and less will probably die.
This reminds me. It looks like WBB is going to change to FNP. Which occurs before resolution, solving that problem, to a degree. Not that I think that is the best way to update it, but hey, I don't write these things.



Your missing the key fact that those tactical squad pack powerfists. Most likely, you will be charged by a jump squad with a chaplain in it who will smash everyone up quite well.
Why are we predicting what is in the squads? Why will all tactical squads have a powerfist (for example, none of mine do. In fact, only place I have powerfists are on terminator suits). And why will all armies have Chaplains? True, I have one, but he is a Terminator Chaplain, and the only reason I have him is because I have him. I managed to get some stuff cheap of a friend, amongst it all being the Chaplain. And Chaplains running about with jump pack troops no less?



So we get the choice between charging into a full strength close combat squad (as the others probably won't charge us) and hoping to kill enough so its chaplain(or equivalent)
He would be nasty, yes.



and its sergeant don't gut us.
Two attacks? Maybe 3, if they do not come with the powerfist you insist is obligatory on all tactical sergeants. So scary. Yes, scarier than the other guys in the squad, but surely you can cope with loosing 2 guys in combat from the sergeant? And thats if they even hit. Oh, and if they are wearing powerfists, you are hitting before them.



Note that this precludes us from *firing* at all and we *still strike LAST* in nearly any combat.
Yes. Those are the choices you have to make. Do you fire, and possibly get fanged totally on the charge if much is left afterwards, or do you charge into combat, which they are no totally suited too. Same decision I have to make with tactical squads. True, they do not have the striking last in combat problem (... well, they might, depending on who they are facing), but that is particularly why you want more people fighting in a combat, so you can still hit back with a reasonable number of people.



So we deny them a charge bonus but we strike with a loss of several guys already.
Well, the idea is to reduce the chance of loosing the combat. Where are you less likely to loose? Where you have had more attacks, and so have killed more enemy, and have denied them the charge attack bonus, and so preventing them kill more of you, hopefully preventing yourself loosing so badly that the break test does not become unmanageable, or one where you receive the attack and the advantages are weighted very heavily to the enemy?



You see powerfist terminators because of the preeminence of the assault cannon. With it toned down you will see assault terminators taking over the large scale assault, especially with rumored assault terminator buffs.
Will you? What about the people that have bought their armies before the past month? Or even, like myself, before the new plastic termies came out, and couldn't really justify buying a new set, especially as the cost was more. Or they like the powerfist termies better?



Unless its any ork, imperial, or eldar vehicle, naturally.
Does everyone put extra-armour and what not on? I don't. I doubt everybody does.



I'm not quite sure your getting the scenario here. Were worried about transports, mostly carrying assault units who don't care about shooting, they just want to get close enough to gut you. They don't care if you blow off their lascannon or their big shoota. Its *irrelevent to them*.
Why have you put an assault unit which doesn't care about shooting in a Razorback then? Surely you would want the extra space of the Rhino, rather than the heavy weapon, if all you care about is getting an assault unit across the board? Yes, I accept they would not care if you are shooting at a rhino (or something very similar) filled with assault units, but not all transports are in this scenario.



Your looking at 10 shots per glance, and then a 33% chance of that one shot to hit.
Eh? Are we not already included hits?



Thus about 30 shots to get, statisticaly, around one 5-6 result out of the pool (it could certainly be the first shot, last shot, never show up at all, or anywhere inbetween of course).
Yes, it could. So you could get in the first shot.
And if the scariest thing on the table is really that Rhino filled with troops, whats wrong with shooting with Necron Warriors at it for one turn? Fairly similar result could easily happen with 3 Tactical squads shooting at one tank, in order to try and knock it out.



Uh, as frequently as before?
An open topped vehicle died on a 5-6 before. Now it dies on a roll of 6.
Yes, I know. I accepted I got this wrong earlier.

Znail
22-07-2008, 18:05
A problem with this thread is that alot of Necron players has a very inflated view of other armies AT combined with a deflated view of the Gauss. No, a Spacemarine tac squad doesnt kill enemy tanks reliably in 3 or 4 shots, with less then 5% chance for each shot it takes quite alot more. No, getting +1 on the table for Gauss weapons wont make them even with other armies! With over 16% chance to kill any tank with just 10 shots so is that comparable with a Devastator squad with 4 Lascannons, wich is not a Troop choise and cost alot more.

Its actualy rather well balanced in 5E as the very high disruptive power of masses of Guass weapons are balanced out by the lower chance of killing vehicles. The most proboble result of a Tac squad firing a Lascannon on a Landraider/Monolith for 3 to 4 rounds is no effect. While 10 Necron Warriors will most proboble have a one permanent effect (immobilised or weapon destroyed) and a mix of stun and dazed. I dont see any problem here.

Now, there are other things that changed in 5E, but as someone else said to me when I brought other things up, this thread is about the Gauss weapons.

Danny Internet
22-07-2008, 18:35
Then why did they provide them? Heavy Destroyers have a high strength, and cannot get the weight of fire to be useful for anything else really. They are designed as anti-tank units, yet they didn't intend for anyone to use them?

Perhaps for the same reason why the craptastic Repentia unit is included in the Witch Hunters codex. No one takes them either. Just because a unit exists doesn't mean it has a purpose, or even a use.


Is anyone saying that it didn't adversely affect Necron, or that it affected them more than anyone else? Not as far as I can tell. What people are saying is that it doesn't 1) break the army, and 2) is not unfair.

Actually, several people have argued this. Perhaps it would be a good idea to read the entire thread before partaking in the discussion. Reading the precursor to this thread might help you out too.


What I think people were saying was that they were overpowered against vehicles. Not really that they were overpowered in a general sense, just against vehicles.

Several people have stated that they think Necrons were overpowered in 4th edition, both directly and indirectly. Again, it's a good idea to read threads before posting in them.


Any it is anywhere near as rare as that? Necrons winning a combat, while not the probable result, but is plausible. Heck, I have won a round of combat against a Carnifex with a squad of firewarriors (on the turn it charged). Thats more unlikely than a squad of necrons winning against anything but the truly hardest assault squads.

The point was that discussing completely odd-ball scenarios serves little purpose. This is a game that is heavily reliant on probability. If you assume scenarios that are improbable then your theory hammer is going to be flawed. It's going to be very rare that Necron Warriors win or even draw combat against any real close combat units.


1 weapon (storm bolter), which is destroyed. One immobilised result. Oh, its wrecked. OK, I cannot remember off the top of my head if that actually counts as wrecked, but, even if it isn't, at this point it is a box with some men in it. It cannot move and it cannot fire.

No, it's not wrecked, it would be immobilized with a weapon destroyed. And it can still contest objectives. Please don't try and correct me on rules that you aren't even familiar with by your own admission.

Sekhmet
22-07-2008, 19:46
Then why did they provide them? Heavy Destroyers have a high strength, and cannot get the weight of fire to be useful for anything else really. They are designed as anti-tank units, yet they didn't intend for anyone to use them?

Killing Monstrous Creatures, killing terminators, and killing multi-wound models. Especially if it's a MC that has 2+ save or a 2+ save multi-wound. Without heavy destroyers at range or a C'tan in close combat, you're going to have a hell of a time killing any of those. Every try to kill broadsides with shield drones as a Necron player? Yeah. Monolith templates do nothing. Weight of gauss fire may down a shield drone... maybe.

Imperials can throw plasma and/or melta guns at said units. Eldar have fire dragons, bright lances, star cannons, pulse lasers, missile launchers, wraith cannons, etc. Tau have plasma rifles, fusion guns, and rail guns. Orks and Nids make up for it in close combat and fast moving units.

So what do Necrons have? The Heavy Destroyer. That's it.


A problem with this thread is that alot of Necron players has a very inflated view of other armies AT combined with a deflated view of the Gauss. No, a Spacemarine tac squad doesnt kill enemy tanks reliably in 3 or 4 shots, with less then 5% chance for each shot it takes quite alot more. No, getting +1 on the table for Gauss weapons wont make them even with other armies! With over 16% chance to kill any tank with just 10 shots so is that comparable with a Devastator squad with 4 Lascannons, wich is not a Troop choise and cost alot more.

Its actualy rather well balanced in 5E as the very high disruptive power of masses of Guass weapons are balanced out by the lower chance of killing vehicles. The most proboble result of a Tac squad firing a Lascannon on a Landraider/Monolith for 3 to 4 rounds is no effect. While 10 Necron Warriors will most proboble have a one permanent effect (immobilised or weapon destroyed) and a mix of stun and dazed. I dont see any problem here.

You're absolutely right. A single Lascannon against Av14 isn't very good compared to 10 Necron Warriors (essentially 10 short-ranged krak missiles). But what about a single Lascannon against Av10? Or Av11? Or Av12? Or Av13? In all of those situations you see the Lascannon doing better and better, while the Warriors stay the same.

If you let my Warriors take down Rhinos and Wave Serpents easier, I'll be happy. I don't care about Land Raiders. Oddly enough, if you make gauss rending, it will solve this problem.


might I suggest that everyone take a couple days Hiatus from argueing and do the following things?
1. If you're a necron player, try finding places in your list for Heavy Destroyers.
2. If you're not a necron player, play a few games with a Necron list.
Some people here, like Azimaith and I, have been using heavy destroyers in basically every Necron list for the last few years, in 4th and in 5th.

borithan
22-07-2008, 20:49
Perhaps for the same reason why the craptastic Repentia unit is included in the Witch Hunters codex. No one takes them either. Just because a unit exists doesn't mean it has a purpose, or even a use.
I would argue that if a unit is created, it has a purpose. Whether it is worthwhile, or the best (or even viable) for the job it was designed to do is another matter.



Actually, several people have argued this. Perhaps it would be a good idea to read the entire thread before partaking in the discussion.
I have taken part in this thread for quite some time, and have read the whole thing. I have not seen anyone actually argue that Necron are not worse off. Argue that it is not a problem or not unfair, yes. Say that it doesn't need to be fixed because the old way was broken, yes. Tell people to stop whining, yes. Not that it doesn't affect Necron at all.



Several people have stated that they think Necrons were overpowered in 4th edition, both directly and indirectly. Again, it's a good idea to read threads before posting in them.
As I said above, I have read the whole thread. The main complaints I saw were complaints that Necron were overpowered because they could (relatively) easily take MBTs out with their standard weapon. Which is overpowered as regards vehicles, not necessarily anything else. I have seen it stated they think necrons are not the losing armies that you argue they are/have become. I don't think I remember anyone saying they were an army that was totally overpowered. May be wrong, but it certainly wasn't the main theme of the argument.



The point was that discussing completely odd-ball scenarios serves little purpose.
I don't think it is an odd-ball scenario. The most likely result? No. Plausible? Yes, barring really hardcore assault units.



It's going to be very rare that Necron Warriors win or even draw combat against any real close combat units.
What is a "real close combat unit"? And I wasn't necessarily talking about winning (though I said you maybe should be less of a pessimist and stop just saying your going to lose) or even drawing, but reducing the amount you would lose by so that you wouldn't have such a large modifier on the leadership test, increasing the chance you would survive. Would it be better to lose by 2, or by 5 (or whatever amount you lose by, which is likely to be less if you assault rather then let them assault you)?



No, it's not wrecked, it would be immobilized with a weapon destroyed.
Yes, your right, just been able to check the rule. Still, whoa... big threat. A box.



And it can still contest objectives.
Didn't realise they had removed the whole "immobilised vehicles cannot contest objectives" rule, but yes, I have checked and your right, or at least it looks that way. But, 1) the main problem seemed to be the fast moving vehicle with assault units in it, at least from the replies I have had on the thread so far (things verging on "I don't care about the results on non-transport vehicles") and 2) Why is there a transport that you want to shoot to death within 3" of an objective anyway? If the box is contesting an objective, that means you have a unit on the objective, yet the rhino is not transporting a unit (if it was, why would it have stopped within 3 inches of you?), which would contest the objective anyway, and surely would be of more of a concern. OK... maybe last turn they have raced a Rhino onto an objective to contest it, but frankly either thing have already been going badly for you if you do not have the resources to pop one rhino, or things are going badly for the other side, as otherwise why are they using a Rhino to contest the objective, rather than anything else?



Killing Monstrous Creatures, killing terminators, and killing multi-wound models. Especially if it's a MC that has 2+ save or a 2+ save multi-wound. Without heavy destroyers at range or a C'tan in close combat, you're going to have a hell of a time killing any of those. Every try to kill broadsides with shield drones as a Necron player? Yeah. Monolith templates do nothing. Weight of gauss fire may down a shield drone... maybe.
Ok, There are other purposes to it, however, this does not mean it was not designed with taking tanks out in mind.



Imperials can throw plasma and/or melta guns at said units. Eldar have fire dragons, bright lances, star cannons, pulse lasers, missile launchers, wraith cannons, etc. Tau have plasma rifles, fusion guns, and rail guns.
Many of those weapons are also anti-tank weapons, just turned over to another use. Does this mean that the Heavy Destroyer's weapon might have also been designed with this in mind (even if poorly thought out)? The exception seems to be the plasma weapons (and the odd-ball wraith cannon). I think, if they had intended the Heavy Destroyer's weapon to do the same job as plasma weapons they would have given it lower strength. It doesn't really need Str 9 for the job of MC hunter and low save denier. Carnifexes, if upgraded, have a toughness of 7. The only units with high toughness is the Ctan themselves. In most cases the higher rate of fire of a plasma style gun would be better. True, the 9 serves a purpose against the Ctan, but I don't think they would have thought "We need this particular MC hunter to be able to hurt Ctan specifically better than anything else". Str 9 largely only makes much sense if it is designed with AT in mind. It doesn't even make sense for instant kill, as toughness 4 would only need Str 8, while toughness 5 needs Str 10. However, it makes the difference between being able to only glance AV 14, and being able to penetrate, and makes other AVs easier to penetrate.



Orks and Nids make up for it in close combat and fast moving units.
Why does this make up for it? Since when does being good in close combat and being fast make up for not finding it easy to damage MCs etc?

Sekhmet
22-07-2008, 21:09
Many of those weapons are also anti-tank weapons, just turned over to another use. Does this mean that the Heavy Destroyer's weapon might have also been designed with this in mind (even if poorly thought out)? The exception seems to be the plasma weapons (and the odd-ball wraith cannon). I think, if they had intended the Heavy Destroyer's weapon to do the same job as plasma weapons they would have given it lower strength. It doesn't really need Str 9 for the job of MC hunter and low save denier. Carnifexes, if upgraded, have a toughness of 7. The only units with high toughness is the Ctan themselves. In most cases the higher rate of fire of a plasma style gun would be better. True, the 9 serves a purpose against the Ctan, but I don't think they would have thought "We need this particular MC hunter to be able to hurt Ctan specifically better than anything else". Str 9 largely only makes much sense if it is designed with AT in mind. It doesn't even make sense for instant kill, as toughness 4 would only need Str 8, while toughness 5 needs Str 10. However, it makes the difference between being able to only glance AV 14, and being able to penetrate, and makes other AVs easier to penetrate.

You're right, HDs have a secondary role as tank-hunting. But they were never designed with that as their primary objective, or they'd be better at it. At the time, the entire Necron army could destroy tanks but not MCs, so they needed something that could be used to hurt MCs.

If you've ever played 3rd Edition Necrons before the Codex (WD rules and then CA book rules), you'd know the pain of fighting against Wraithlords. Back then, there were scarabs, immortals, destroyers, warriors and lords. 1 destroyer per squad could be upgraded to a heavy destroyer. That one upgraded model was the only weapon in the army that could wound a Wraithlord on something better than 6+ and was one of two weapons that could penetrate the 3+ armor... the other weapon was 12" range on a character.

It was quite obvious back then that the army relied on glances to destroy vehicles and the single S9 Ap2 gun to kill MCs. It's not quite as obvious in 5th, but it's still true.



Why does this make up for it? Since when does being good in close combat and being fast make up for not finding it easy to damage MCs etc?
"not finding it easy to damage MCs etc" by shooting at them. They can take down MCs like no other in close combat, which is the point of those armies.

Danny Internet
22-07-2008, 21:22
I have taken part in this thread for quite some time, and have read the whole thing. I have not seen anyone actually argue that Necron are not worse off. Argue that it is not a problem or not unfair, yes. Say that it doesn't need to be fixed because the old way was broken, yes. Tell people to stop whining, yes. Not that it doesn't affect Necron at all.

You also said no one is claiming that Necrons aren't disproportionately affected, which is false seeing as multiple people have tried to argue this.


As I said above, I have read the whole thread. The main complaints I saw were complaints that Necron were overpowered because they could (relatively) easily take MBTs out with their standard weapon. Which is overpowered as regards vehicles, not necessarily anything else. I have seen it stated they think necrons are not the losing armies that you argue they are/have become. I don't think I remember anyone saying they were an army that was totally overpowered. May be wrong, but it certainly wasn't the main theme of the argument.

Saying any one characteristic of an army is overpowered is completely nonsensical. That's like saying Orks are too good at close combat while completely ignoring the fact that they wear t-shirts for armor. The strength of an army is a composite trait. And furthermore, people have indeed argued that Necrons were/are overpowered based on things other than their anti-tank capabilities in 4th edition.


I don't think it is an odd-ball scenario. The most likely result? No. Plausible? Yes, barring really hardcore assault units.

And a squad of Necron Warriors might kill a Landraider in a single round of shooting from a huge number of glancing hits that all roll just right on the damage table. The most likely result? No. Plausible? Yes. Likely enough to be relevant to this discussion? Nope.


What is a "real close combat unit"? And I wasn't necessarily talking about winning (though I said you maybe should be less of a pessimist and stop just saying your going to lose) or even drawing, but reducing the amount you would lose by so that you wouldn't have such a large modifier on the leadership test, increasing the chance you would survive. Would it be better to lose by 2, or by 5 (or whatever amount you lose by, which is likely to be less if you assault rather then let them assault you)?

A close combat unit that doesn't suck, such as a mob of Ork Boyz, a unit of Genestealers, or a Space Marine Assault Squad with a Chaplain, etc. At this point I can't tell if you're being purposely obtuse in order to be argumentative or whether you really thought I was being vague.


OK... maybe last turn they have raced a Rhino onto an objective to contest it, but frankly either thing have already been going badly for you if you do not have the resources to pop one rhino, or things are going badly for the other side, as otherwise why are they using a Rhino to contest the objective, rather than anything else?

Welcome to one of the major problems with Necrons and 5th edition. The resources required to pop one Rhino have TRIPLED for Necrons in 5th edition. That's kind of the point of this thread. With 4th edition rules for vehicles you could dedicate 1-2 squads in order to be pretty sure that vehicle wouldn't be there next turn. In 5th edition you'll need to dedicate much more firepower for simple vehicle removal.

And by the way, using vehicles to contest objectives at the last moment is not a new tactic, nor is it a desperate one. It has always been common to secure one or two objectives and then send things like Falcons or Landspeeders out to contest the others. Now Rhinos and Waveserpents (etc) can do it too, so expect to see this often.

borithan
22-07-2008, 21:41
You're right, HDs have a secondary role as tank-hunting. But they were never designed with that as their primary objective, or they'd be better at it.
Or it could be that they have just been badly designed for what they intended them to do.



At the time, the entire Necron army could destroy tanks but not MCs, so they needed something that could be used to hurt MCs.
Ok, it certainly seems that they were designed, at least in part, as such when they first were introduced. However, does not mean that they were intended as such when they brought out the codex.



If you've ever played 3rd Edition Necrons before the Codex (WD rules and then CA book rules), you'd know the pain of fighting against Wraithlords.
Smacks forehead... durr... Forgot the Wraithlords when talking about toughness. True, there is a more sane unit to be designed to fight, but is it really sensible to have a whole unit designed with that in mind?



Back then, there were scarabs, immortals, destroyers, warriors and lords.
Yup, saw that, though I didn't actually play at the time.



It was quite obvious back then that the army relied on glances to destroy vehicles and the single S9 Ap2 gun to kill MCs. It's not quite as obvious in 5th, but it's still true.
As you said, back then. True, there are still similar reasons to take them, but I cannot think they didn't think about that when they created the codex (as the early Necrons always seemed a sort of a half released army to me, with very limited range of figures,based solely on a White Dwarf list... not surprising that there was a hole in the army selection). Having a whole unit pretty much designed largely with Wraithlords in mind, especially if you have the chance to undo the problem of having difficulties regarding them (whether they did or not is a different question), seems a bit specialised. I frankly find it more likely that they were not terribly foresighted when they designed the unit.

And could it not be argued that the Necrons were expected to "roll 6 on the wound" Wraithlords to death as well?

Mitheral
22-07-2008, 22:24
I would argue that if a unit is created, it has a purpose. Whether it is worthwhile, or the best (or even viable) for the job it was designed to do is another matter.

Let's say, strictly for the sake of argument as I don't actually agree that all units are created with a gaming purpose as it seems obvious some units are created to sell models or just because they are cool, that this was true way back seven years ago and two versions of the core rules. Could it be just possible that core rule changes since then have sidelined some units?

Artificer tomb spyders sure fell into this gap in 4e what with the scarab swarm spawned potentially costing you a wound while simultaneously lowering your toughness and AS. Along with disruption fields on anything with a gun thanks to the changes in rapid fire weapons.

Znail
22-07-2008, 23:41
You're absolutely right. A single Lascannon against Av14 isn't very good compared to 10 Necron Warriors (essentially 10 short-ranged krak missiles). But what about a single Lascannon against Av10? Or Av11? Or Av12? Or Av13? In all of those situations you see the Lascannon doing better and better, while the Warriors stay the same.

If you let my Warriors take down Rhinos and Wave Serpents easier, I'll be happy. I don't care about Land Raiders. Oddly enough, if you make gauss rending, it will solve this problem.
Rending doesnt work on Waveserpents so rending wouldnt help you there, it would actualy be worse as you wouldnt get the current glance. I think rending would be fine on Necron Warriors, but it would be too good on Destroyers!

As for other AVs so even against AV10 so would 10 4E Guass shots still be better then a Lascannon. AV 10 and 11 can also be penetrated by Immortals (for 10) or Destroyers, so for those so are there other alternatives.

The issue people seem to have with being railroaded into using specific units is understandable. But you need to realise that Necrons are a pretty new race and has alot more limited options then other races, so there is less redundance in roles. So if you feel you lack AT then you need to get the main AT unit and you have little choise other then ignoring heavy vehicles, use the less specialised units like the Monolith or close combat options.

But I disagree with that the Heavy Destoryer is poor in any way as far as AT goes. Its rather cheap for a Lascannon on a jetbike. The only issue at all would be a vulnerability to anti-MEQ weapons, but most of those are shorter range. It fills the hole in the Necron army list.

azimaith
23-07-2008, 00:17
Yup, your right... for some reason I though Firewarriors cost 12 points. Think I just had 120 points for a full squad in my mind, and then thought 10 men for some reason, rather than 12.

I had the impression they were 12 points a long time ago, probably for the same reason. When you see a squad for 120 points, you often assume its 12 per model in a man squad.



Quite possibly. Or they may have thought that would make them too hard. I don't know. Whatever way they do it, it does sound like they will need to look at necrons and close combat.

It would most likely just be an issue of giving them stubborn or they'll drastically increase their killing power/remove phase out. Either way works.



This reminds me. It looks like WBB is going to change to FNP. Which occurs before resolution, solving that problem, to a degree. Not that I think that is the best way to update it, but hey, I don't write these things.

They probably will, and this has been predicted for quite a while. It doesn't do much for the year (supposedly the codex is end of 2009) between then. A simple FAQ patch would be sufficient.



Why are we predicting what is in the squads? Why will all tactical squads have a powerfist (for example, none of mine do. In fact, only place I have powerfists are on terminator suits).

Because people who play pick up games center their army around broad based ability which includes using powerfists to beat down MCs in any squad or to fight off enemy assaulters.


And why will all armies have Chaplains? True, I have one, but he is a Terminator Chaplain, and the only reason I have him is because I have him. I managed to get some stuff cheap of a friend, amongst it all being the Chaplain. And Chaplains running about with jump pack troops no less?

Uh, chaplain with a jump pack is one of the most common hq's you'll see. Hes strong, he gives litanies of hate, and he can move with assault troops.



He would be nasty, yes.

Two attacks? Maybe 3, if they do not come with the powerfist you insist is obligatory on all tactical sergeants. So scary. Yes, scarier than the other guys in the squad, but surely you can cope with loosing 2 guys in combat from the sergeant? And thats if they even hit. Oh, and if they are wearing powerfists, you are hitting before them.
Its not a tactical sergeant, its an assault squad sergeant and its not something you can just "cope with" when you get such large modifiers.
First turn you charge (instead of shooting) you get 40 attacks (with a big old 20 man squad).
Only the "engaged" models can attack, which is determined as before. Since you're maxing out at 12" and the enemy has a 18" threat range hes going to be at the very edge of your assault range. (most likely moving into about 12-16" before assault). So they pile into you, you may get lucky, get say, 1/2 your total attacks.
First, the chaplain goes at i5.
Hits on 3s, doesn't re-roll as they are charged.
3 out of 4 hits.
1.5 wounds.
1-2 dead necrons immediately. Lets give necrons the benefit of this and say its low. 1 dead cron.
Then the assault marines swing, 18 attacks, 9 hits, 4.5 wounds. Once again, lets go low and round it to 4 wounds.
1.32 fails, low, 1 more dead necron.

Then the necrons go with 1/2s their total number assuming a great charge got off.
20 attacks, 10 hits, 5 wounds, 1 dead marine.
2 attacks, 1 hit, .84 wounds, one more dead cron.
So we get one casualty to the marines, and 3 to the necrons.
Leadership at 8 loss for necrons. Thats guard veteran sergeant leadership for a 20 man 360 point squad charging a 350 point enemy squad with statistic all leaning the necron way with them being in charge range of the enemy squad.


If we were to take a more balanced realistic look, you're going to see 1-2 wounds from a chaplain and a LD7 check for the necrons.
If the marines charged them with their 18" threat range the necrons would be devastated entirely.

Lets look at a more likely scenario. The necrons *shoot the incoming assault squad as it closes as its most likely *starting out of charge range since its minimum movement speed is the same as the entire charge for a necron warrior.
20 shots, 13.2 hits 7.5 wounds, 2 dead marines.

Marines move, shoot with bolt pistols.
1 from the chaplain, hits on a 2+(84%) wounds on a 4+(42%) and kills on a 33% failed.) Most likely nothing.
The assault marines shoot. 8 shots (7 marines, 1 sgt.) 5.28, 2.5 hits, possibly one down.

The marines charge. Chaplain strikes first, 5 attacks, 3 hits, +1 re-roll hit (4 hits), 2 wounds, 2 dead necrons flat.
The marines attack. 7 basic assault marines, 21 attacks on the charge,
10.5 hits+5 more hits from re-rolls. 15 hits, 7 wounds. 2 dead necrons.

Necrons swing, 16 attacks (because of counter charging in) 8 hits, 4 wounds, 1 dead marine.

Pfist, 3 attacks, 1.5 hits, +.75 more hits, probably one more hit.
2 hits, 1.68 wounds, probably 2.
So we have 1 kill for the crons, 6 dead necrons. Necrons test on LD*5*.

See the problem here? The squad is marginally cheaper but when we lose 20 warriors our losses are *magnified* not only in lost shooting power but in phase out. Its the combination of phase out and combat resolution (and cost for that matter) that is such a problem.





Yes. Those are the choices you have to make. Do you fire, and possibly get fanged totally on the charge if much is left afterwards, or do you charge into combat, which they are no totally suited too. Same decision I have to make with tactical squads. True, they do not have the striking last in combat problem (... well, they might, depending on who they are facing), but that is particularly why you want more people fighting in a combat, so you can still hit back with a reasonable number of people.

So what do we do when the squad we need to charge to *not die* is:
In a transport or using faster movement thus waiting out of range. Both of those are *likey* scenarios, the transport one, being the one we've talked about consistently.



Well, the idea is to reduce the chance of loosing the combat. Where are you less likely to loose? Where you have had more attacks, and so have killed more enemy, and have denied them the charge attack bonus, and so preventing them kill more of you, hopefully preventing yourself loosing so badly that the break test does not become unmanageable, or one where you receive the attack and the advantages are weighted very heavily to the enemy?
Except it doesn't reduce the chance of losing combat, it delays it for one phase, then you lose anyhow (Actually, you lose both phases, but at least on the first phase you will probably only get run down and annihilated entirely 50% of the time or so.)



Will you?

I already use them.



What about the people that have bought their armies before the past month? Or even, like myself, before the new plastic termies came out, and couldn't really justify buying a new set, especially as the cost was more. Or they like the powerfist termies better?

Of course, its a hobby based on buying models. If you can't justify buying new models you wouldn't play.



Does everyone put extra-armour and what not on? I don't. I doubt everybody does.

Damn near everyone does. I don't think i've actually run into a vehicle thats not either open topped AV10 that didn't use extra armor. I don't know, maybe you wouldn't on a basilisk or whirlwind, but on transports, its practically universal.



Why have you put an assault unit which doesn't care about shooting in a Razorback then? Surely you would want the extra space of the Rhino, rather than the heavy weapon, if all you care about is getting an assault unit across the board? Yes, I accept they would not care if you are shooting at a rhino (or something very similar) filled with assault units, but not all transports are in this scenario.

Uh, you know land raiders have lascannons right?



Eh? Are we not already included hits?

mistype.



Yes, it could. So you could get in the first shot.

A guardsman using a heavy bolter could gun down a wraitlord in one turn too, does that mean we should say heavy bolters are great anti-wraithlord weapons? Would you even consider taking heavy bolters as an anti-wraithlord weapon over plasma, melta, and lascannons? Of course not. The chances make a rather large difference.



And if the scariest thing on the table is really that Rhino filled with troops, whats wrong with shooting with Necron Warriors at it for one turn? Fairly similar result could easily happen with 3 Tactical squads shooting at one tank, in order to try and knock it out.

You do fire at them, you only have a 1-6 chance to do anything but irritate them.

Your looking at 10 shots for a glance, then 1 out of 6 of those glances (each requiring, on average, 10 shots) actually doing anything to stop it from getting at you, all over the 2-3 turns it takes to get at you.
Want to statistically stop a rhino in its tracks, lets work it then.
10 shots, 1 glance, .16, or 16% to score an immobilized result. About 6 times the shots will give you a very good chance of scoring an immobilized, one could say that you could probably shoot a quarter less than that to get 2 weapon destroyed in there. (about 45 shots).
At 24" (because at 12 its already just dumping its troops on you and they no longer get entangled anyhow) thats about 810 points of necrons warriors immobilizing a rhino so it can't dump out an assault squad on you.

And for the most part, were not even talking rhinos, were talking av12+, including land raiders. (Which is even more than 810 points of necrons as its got more weapons)

rocdocta
23-07-2008, 02:38
might I suggest that everyone take a couple days Hiatus from argueing and do the following things?
1. If you're a necron player, try finding places in your list for Heavy Destroyers.
2. If you're not a necron player, play a few games with a Necron list.

excellent idea, i may try H destroyers.

Mitheral
23-07-2008, 04:31
At 24" (because at 12 its already just dumping its troops on you and they no longer get entangled anyhow) thats about 810 points of necrons warriors immobilizing a rhino so it can't dump out an assault squad on you.

And it's almost never _one_ rhino. Every time I've seen rhinos it's at least two and that was under 4e. Now with greater survivability and no entanglement I'd bet the number of rhinos in play tends upwards. The cost benefit is as unsubtle as a power fist.

imweasel
23-07-2008, 04:55
If you let my Warriors take down Rhinos and Wave Serpents easier, I'll be happy. I don't care about Land Raiders. Oddly enough, if you make gauss rending, it will solve this problem.

Hmmm...

QFT

Now if I could only remember who else said this...

:)

borithan
23-07-2008, 09:35
You also said no one is claiming that Necrons aren't disproportionately affected, which is false seeing as multiple people have tried to argue this.
Don't actually remember this. I remember people saying that there were other armies which were also quite badly affected (Tyranids, for example, with their only true anti-tank gun only being able to glance regardless of what you roll on penetration). I remember people pointing out that everyone was effected, but I am fairly sure they also said things on the lines of "just Necrons get hurt by it more."



Saying any one characteristic of an army is overpowered is completely nonsensical.
No it isn't, as it can make it overpowered in certain situations. If someone relied on lots of vehicles for whatever reason an army which has overpowered anti-tank ability, but is not overpowered in other ways, will be overpowered in that situation. Against more balanced armies it would not be overpowered, and against another unbalanced army, depending on how it is unbalanced, it might easily be totally underpowered.



And a squad of Necron Warriors might kill a Landraider in a single round of shooting from a huge number of glancing hits that all roll just right on the damage table. The most likely result? No. Plausible? Yes. Likely enough to be relevant to this discussion? Nope.
Inflicting 5 immobilised and weapon destroyed results from one round of shooting from one squad is far less likely.



A close combat unit that doesn't suck, such as a mob of Ork Boyz, a unit of Genestealers, or a Space Marine Assault Squad with a Chaplain, etc. At this point I can't tell if you're being purposely obtuse in order to be argumentative or whether you really thought I was being vague.
I did not know whether you meant that certain assault orientated units are not "real". And your reply suggests, as you specify assault marines with a chaplain, rather than just a vanilla assault squad.



Let's say, strictly for the sake of argument as I don't actually agree that all units are created with a gaming purpose as it seems obvious some units are created to sell models or just because they are cool, that this was true way back seven years ago and two versions of the core rules. Could it be just possible that core rule changes since then have sidelined some units?
Yes, they may have done so. Doesn't change what they were designed with something in mind. I said that the Heavy Destroyers may not be the best designed (or, as you suggest could occur, maybe have become so due to the rule changes), but it does not mean that the Necrons were designed to rely auto-glancing for tank destruction. May be that it has (or always was) the best way to do it, but doesn't mean they were intended to do so, and so necessarily mean that they will give gauss weapons themselves any buff when they redo the codex.


It would most likely just be an issue of giving them stubborn or they'll drastically increase their killing power/remove phase out. Either way works.

They probably will, and this has been predicted for quite a while. It doesn't do much for the year (supposedly the codex is end of 2009) between then. A simple FAQ patch would be sufficient.
Well, I think if they do change it to FNP I suspect there will be no stubborn, as those wounds that are saved will no longer count against combat. Getting rid of phase out? Maybe.



Because people who play pick up games center their army around broad based ability which includes using powerfists to beat down MCs in any squad or to fight off enemy assaulters.
Uh, chaplain with a jump pack is one of the most common hq's you'll see. Hes strong, he gives litanies of hate, and he can move with assault troops.
Yeesh... people must be getting really boring if you can predict exactly what most people have in their armies.



Leadership at 8 loss for necrons. Thats guard veteran sergeant leadership for a 20 man 360 point squad charging a 350 point enemy squad with statistic all leaning the necron way with them being in charge range of the enemy squad.
Still better than Leadership 5. And actually, the guard are likely to be even worse off in a similar situation(due to lower WS and also having a lower initiative than SM}, and would'nt be surprised to see them testing on leadership 3 or something similar. Of course they do have the advantage of being cheaper and there being more of them (and no phase out). I was saying reducing the chance of loosing the combat do drastically that you will be likely to be destroyed. With a test at leadership 8 you are more likely to pass than to fail. Even with leadership 7. Most non-assault orientated units are going to be even worse off than that.


So what do we do when the squad we need to charge to *not die* is:
In a transport
In this case they will have to dismount within 12" of you in order to charge the next turn, and you will have a turn to respond (though there are exceptions with certain special transports of course).



or using faster movement thus waiting out of range.
Yes, that would be problematic. Not sure I can specifically suggest anything there. But then the gauss issue ain't going to help at all in that situation.



Of course, its a hobby based on buying models. If you can't justify buying new models you wouldn't play.
Thank you for saying I don't play because I am broke and cannot justify buying a new set of figures for an army I have already got enough figures for. People can still play with an army long after they have stopped buying figures for them.



Damn near everyone does. I don't think i've actually run into a vehicle thats not either open topped AV10 that didn't use extra armor. I don't know, maybe you wouldn't on a basilisk or whirlwind, but on transports, its practically universal.
Where? Maybe in the places you play, and then I guess it can be irritating, but I cannot believe everyone uses extra armour.



Uh, you know land raiders have lascannons right?
Urm.... Yeah? So? I would find it intensely annoying to loose a lascannon off a land raider. And I have heard plenty of people saying that land raiders don't see much use... so how often do you face them? And someone earlier said they didn't care if their warriors couldn't take down land raiders, just want to be able to better take down rhinos and wave serpents and stuff.



And for the most part, were not even talking rhinos, were talking av12+, including land raiders. (Which is even more than 810 points of necrons as its got more weapons)
This sounds like it is to do with the particular state of armies in your area, as I have heard plenty on these forums say that until very recently there was not enough going for the land raider to justify its cost (though I would take one if I could afford it, though probably not as a transport), and the transports which have AV 12 are: Eldar, Tau, and the frontal armour of a chimera, though in that last case it should be relatively easy to line up a side shot... wait... AV doesn't make a blind bit of difference to Necron Warriors.

Zorz Muaddieb
23-07-2008, 17:45
Necrons pay to hurt vehicles out of the box, regardless if they actually use the ability or not.

Additionally, Necron warriors are unable to deal with Walkers in CC unless they are equiped with fields. Marines now always come with Krak grenades. Sometimes regardless of if you want to be charged or not you get charged with a walker, at least marines can deal with this even if there isn't a P-fist Sgt. in the squad.

-Z

IJW
23-07-2008, 17:49
Marines now always come with Krak grenades. Sometimes regardless of if you want to be charged or not you get charged with a walker, at least marines can deal with this even if there isn't a P-fist Sgt. in the squad
They can, but unless it's stunned/immobilised it's highly unlikely.

Plastic Parody
23-07-2008, 18:06
At 65pts the Heavy Destoyer is awesome. What about Wraiths assaulting tanks? Obviously the Monolith can blat em too. SO it isnt quite as easy as before, but there is a few other things there that can do the job. Just trying to suggest/remind about a few other options.

Obviously a new dex will sort all this out and presumably add in a few much needed units to beef out the army a bit. I wouldnt expect any kind of official GW help until that comes out so I suppose its deal with it or start a new army till the dex comes out - I doubt many would allow any house rule as the majority of NON necron players all seem to think they have had it too easy against tanks.

Danny Internet
23-07-2008, 18:30
Don't actually remember this. I remember people saying that there were other armies which were also quite badly affected (Tyranids, for example, with their only true anti-tank gun only being able to glance regardless of what you roll on penetration). I remember people pointing out that everyone was effected, but I am fairly sure they also said things on the lines of "just Necrons get hurt by it more."

Previous posts by people either disagreeing with the premise of the argument (that Necrons rely on glancing) or the conclusion (that Necrons are disproportionately and negatively affected by the glancing hit nerf):


All I'm seeing is a bunch of talk about how they rely on glancing which is not true.


My conclusion necron are basically just as effective as before.


As glancings and penetrations have become equally less likely to kill a vehicle outright, there is no difference for races using more glancings than penetratitions. There fore necrons are affected to exactly the same degree as everyone else.

And there are even more posts like these in the closed thread which this is a continuation of. I find it hard to believe you actually read these threads and managed to miss these arguments.


No it isn't, as it can make it overpowered in certain situations. If someone relied on lots of vehicles for whatever reason an army which has overpowered anti-tank ability, but is not overpowered in other ways, will be overpowered in that situation. Against more balanced armies it would not be overpowered, and against another unbalanced army, depending on how it is unbalanced, it might easily be totally underpowered.

That's like saying a heavy bolter is totally overpowered against Howling Banshees. It's completely inane. Taking these situations out of the context of availability, point costs, viability versus other targets, viability of usage by a particular unit, etc. is meaningless and completely eliminates whatever external validity the argument may have had otherwise.


Inflicting 5 immobilised and weapon destroyed results from one round of shooting from one squad is far less likely.

So exactly what arbitrary probability % is going to merit your badge of what is likely enough to be relevant to this discussion? 5%? 10%?


Yeesh... people must be getting really boring if you can predict exactly what most people have in their armies.

He never said most people use this combination, just that it is common. Space Marine Assault Squads are often used and adding a Chaplain is the most points-efficient way to enhance that unit. Of course it's common. For many of us boring has nothing to do with what people bring to the table, but how they use what they bring to the table.


Where? Maybe in the places you play, and then I guess it can be irritating, but I cannot believe everyone uses extra armour.

Every competitive and competent player will use extra armor equivalents where they are necessary (such as on transports carrying close combat units). This holds true for every single gaming group I've ever been a part of since 3rd edition.


... wait... AV doesn't make a blind bit of difference to Necron Warriors.

Most of the competitive Necron builds in 4th used lots of Destroyers. AV 10/11 versus AV 12+ makes a huge difference to them in 5th edition.

Zorz Muaddieb
23-07-2008, 19:33
They can, but unless it's stunned/immobilised it's highly unlikely.

I agree, but that ability is built into the cost of the marines (I play Dork Angels) where it isn't built into (my) necrons. You are basically still rolling a 6 after rolling to hit on both. (Unless I have misread the rules and you just need a 6 on the hit to count as a glancing.)

Monoliths are not the great thing people make them out to be. While it isn't always probable there are many things that can be fielded that would easily take down a monolith. The monolith reduces the phase out number significantly.

-Z

azimaith
23-07-2008, 20:12
Yeesh... people must be getting really boring if you can predict exactly what most people have in their armies.
Its part of playing pick up games in the current climate.



Still better than Leadership 5. And actually, the guard are likely to be even worse off in a similar situation(due to lower WS and also having a lower initiative than SM}, and would'nt be surprised to see them testing on leadership 3 or something similar. Of course they do have the advantage of being cheaper and there being more of them (and no phase out). I was saying reducing the chance of loosing the combat do drastically that you will be likely to be destroyed. With a test at leadership 8 you are more likely to pass than to fail. Even with leadership 7. Most non-assault orientated units are going to be even worse off than that.
The problem is you get to go through *another* round of combat in the next phase where you get run down. The key here is that being run down is swiftly becoming an inevitability rather than a possibility. Its not delaying for a phase then being run down, its being run down causing you to phase out.
If a horde of guardsmen hold off an assault for one phase and then break and get destroyed on their phase they can unload with their plentiful models, tanks, and *special weapons* (Most important part) and still remain competitive due to their multiple squads.

If a necron player loses a necron warrior squad hes probably lost about 25% of his total phase out number instantly if not more, depending on if he uses large squads or small ones . (Around 2k you tend to see lists of 40-50 necrons)



In this case they will have to dismount within 12" of you in order to charge the next turn, and you will have a turn to respond (though there are exceptions with certain special transports of course).
Transports do move 12" a turn. If you stop them too far out they just get out and run at you. If you stop them too close they're already in your face.



Yes, that would be problematic. Not sure I can specifically suggest anything there. But then the gauss issue ain't going to help at all in that situation.

Of course it helps, the more shots we fire at targets like transport tanks or ordnance thats blowing us apart the less we can fire at them at our maximum range and the more necrons who survive. The only thing its no change is with tyranids.



Thank you for saying I don't play because I am broke and cannot justify buying a new set of figures for an army I have already got enough figures for. People can still play with an army long after they have stopped buying figures for them.
So you didn't somehow justify buying your original figures but bought them anyhow?



Where? Maybe in the places you play, and then I guess it can be irritating, but I cannot believe everyone uses extra armour.

It strikes me, that you play mostly in a group of close friends, and avoid the pick up game environment entirely. Which is fine, but the rules tend to mean alot less amongst friends, and alot more among random people.



Urm.... Yeah? So? I would find it intensely annoying to loose a lascannon off a land raider. And I have heard plenty of people saying that land raiders don't see much use... so how often do you face them?

The lascannon doesn't stop you from delivering cargo.
How often do I see them? Before 5th, 1/3 marine armies, in 5th, about 1 in 2 used as a troop deliverer exclusively. Especially the crusader variant as the assault cannon is much weaker.



And someone earlier said they didn't care if their warriors couldn't take down land raiders, just want to be able to better take down rhinos and wave serpents and stuff.

We don't need to "take them down", we need to *stop them* or we need to *not be so likely to be run down after being assaulted by a serious CC unit*, or we *need to not phase out because we lose models from the above situations*.



This sounds like it is to do with the particular state of armies in your area, as I have heard plenty on these forums say that until very recently there was not enough going for the land raider to justify its cost (though I would take one if I could afford it, though probably not as a transport), and the transports which have AV 12 are: Eldar, Tau, and the frontal armour of a chimera, though in that last case it should be relatively easy to line up a side shot... wait... AV doesn't make a blind bit of difference to Necron Warriors.
Nope it doesn't, we just kind of suck the entire way around. If getting side armor mattered for necron warriors they'd probably be better off it it resulted in penetrating hits.

Your looking at:
Battlewagons, Land Raiders, Falcons and Wave serpents almost entirely.

Malchek
23-07-2008, 22:31
Necrons were designed as a force to rely on glancing... thus our anti-tank options are lackluster at best. The Monolith is a support tank, and the heavy destroyer has a giant hit me sign on it because of the range... yes you can move and fire, but if you miss that single shot, it is toast.

Welcome to my world - but as a Guard player - I can't move and shoot and I have BS 3.....

I'd give my left testicle for some heavy destroyers......

apologies necron players I never thought I'd see myself on a thread telling players to get over something because I felt just as annoyed about kill points in the new ed and had a good old moan about that as well but it really isn't the end of the world - it isn't like you're nids or orks whom have literally NO anti AV14 firepower whatsoever!? You're still pretty well off and just need to go with the flow and figure out new configurations - adapt or die ;)

borithan
23-07-2008, 22:43
If a horde of guardsmen hold off an assault for one phase and then break and get destroyed on their phase they can unload with their plentiful models, tanks, and *special weapons* (Most important part) and still remain competitive due to their multiple squads.
I sort of meant to imply that with the whole "cost" less, and lacking phase out thing. Just was making the point that Necron are not the only ones going to find combat resolution harder with the new rules. May be reasons why it is nastier for Necrons though.



Transports do move 12" a turn. If you stop them too far out they just get out and run at you. If you stop them too close they're already in your face.
Eh? I was meaning the fact that units cannot assault the turn they disembark (certain vehicles excepted of course). If they hop out they cannot assault you this turn, giving you a turn to respond.


So you didn't somehow justify buying your original figures but bought them anyhow?
You can be in different financial positions at different times. When I collected most of by Space Marine army I was at school, and could spend most of my pocket money on things like figures. Also helped by the fact that a friend of mine's dad had a load of stuff he was willing to sell to me cheap (including the terminator squad I have). Now I am just finishing my master's dissertation I am near broke after 4 years of study, have debts I need to pay off with most of the little money I currently earn, and that little money I have left to spend on "fun" things I cannot really justify spending on Space Marines, as I have a complete army already, and I have other things I am collecting, and other totally unrelated hobbies to spend my money on.



It strikes me, that you play mostly in a group of close friends, and avoid the pick up game environment entirely.
Largely. Mainly due to the fact that the pick up games in my area are at inconvenient times, being busy generally at the moment, and the places I have been are rather hot (when the large number of people fill up the available space), and, frankly, wiffing a bit.



Which is fine, but the rules tend to mean alot less amongst friends, and alot more among random people.
True, but I haven't actually played a game of 40k where we have not used the rules as is (aside from the possibility of misunderstanding them). Though, yes, I can accept it would effect army selection, though the main focus of my army selection (whatever environment I have been playing in) has always been cost (in ), whether I like the models, and transportability, rather than than its competitiveness.



The lascannon doesn't stop you from delivering cargo.
No, it wont, but I still don't think it is nothing.



Previous posts by people either disagreeing with the premise of the argument (that Necrons rely on glancing)
Wait... I didn't say that people didn't say necrons didn't rely on glancing. I need to really think about that sentence to make sure it says what I want it to say... I think thats right. Could probably think of a better way to say that, but I am a bit tired and a bit rushed. I said people didn't say that the necrons were not adversely or disproportionately affected by it. I do not think the necrons do rely on glancing. However, it is fairly clear that they are adversely affected by the change, and disproportionately than other armies (due to all, or almost all, weapons being able to auto-glance).


All I'm seeing is a bunch of talk about how they rely on glancing which is not true.
A statement I agree with, and is not actually related to what you said people were saying (at least initially).



My conclusion necron are basically just as effective as before.
Not a statement saying that they were not adversely or disproportionately affected by it, but that they feel all in all, regardless of the nerf for gauss, that the army is just as effective as before. Not necessarily right (I cannot judge), but not really related to what you initially accused people of saying.


As glancings and penetrations have become equally less likely to kill a vehicle outright, there is no difference for races using more glancings than penetratitions. There fore necrons are affected to exactly the same degree as everyone else.
Hmm... ok, this is like what you said. The Necrons are disproportionately affected, which he denies. However, there is something in what he said (even if in the process of saying it he says things that are wrong). It has become harder generally to take out tanks, whether by glancing or penetration. Everyone has been affected by this. The obvious intention was to generally make vehicles tougher. In fact, if you do the suggested +1 on a glance, Necrons would be just as good at damaging vehicles as in the previous rules, aside from the heavier items, which have been dismissed as anti-tank units. In this case, can I ask why necrons should be the exception to this general trend?




Inflicting 5 immobilised and weapon destroyed results from one round of shooting from one squad is far less likely.
So exactly what arbitrary probability % is going to merit your badge of what is likely enough to be relevant to this discussion? 5%? 10%?
I cannot actually work out how small the chance of the land raider incident is (aside from the problems of how large the necron squad is etc), but I suspect it is nowhere near even 5%. Chance of 5 shots doing it is something in the region of 0.00001% (if I have done my maths right). My abilities at working out even rough probabilities kinda fail me past that point, but it suggests a minuscule chance.

As a rough average (and, yes I know there are massive flaws with using this as a tool, but I really am 1) not a fan of mathhammer, and so not really developed all but the most basic skills in predicting probability, and 2) I am quite tired) in the turn a unit of 10 necrons charging in on an assault squad led by a veteran sergeant with powerfist might expect to loose roughly 3 guys, while killing 1. They would loose by 2 making a roll on the perfectly respectable leadership 8. The following phase they might expect to loose 2 and kill 1 again (I was generous to the assault marine in the first round, while erring on the side of caution for the necrons, and visa versa for the second round), making a roll on a generally good leadership of 9 (8 if they don't get the kill). The unit of necrons would be expected to survive those two turns in combat, allowing them to subsequently do their thing, get out of combat, regenerate some of their lost guys, and then shoot said assault unit. Having the combat go slightly worse for the SMs or slightly better for the necrons is not too extreme a hope, especially as the expected margin of loss is not that high. True, it can just as easily go the other way, in which case the necrons could easily be slaughtered, but I cannot imagine the chances are much more slim than 30%.

And I have left out the possibility of the Chaplain, yes, for simplicities sake for one... frankly, it looks like what is more scary is the chaplain himself than the re-rolls he grants his squad, as far as I could tell they would inflict... wait, thats only on the turn they charge... Hmm... well, in that event I would have expected said necron unit to be slaughtered anyway, Chaplain or no.

Danny Internet
24-07-2008, 00:25
Hmm... ok, this is like what you said. The Necrons are disproportionately affected, which he denies. However, there is something in what he said (even if in the process of saying it he says things that are wrong). It has become harder generally to take out tanks, whether by glancing or penetration. Everyone has been affected by this. The obvious intention was to generally make vehicles tougher. In fact, if you do the suggested +1 on a glance, Necrons would be just as good at damaging vehicles as in the previous rules, aside from the heavier items, which have been dismissed as anti-tank units. In this case, can I ask why necrons should be the exception to this general trend?

He presented the numbers in an intentionally biased way to make it appear as if the change to glancing hits affects Necrons just as much as other armies. It doesn't. You can use the same numbers to show that glancing hits are 100% less effective at destroying vehicles outright while penetrating hits are only 33% less effective.

I do, however, agree with you in that making gauss damage -1 on the damage table instead of -2 would not really be a fair solution to the problem because it would be unfairly positive to Necron players, even though the current change is unfairly negative to Necrons to an even greater degree.

azimaith
24-07-2008, 00:28
I sort of meant to imply that with the whole "cost" less, and lacking phase out thing. Just was making the point that Necron are not the only ones going to find combat resolution harder with the new rules. May be reasons why it is nastier for Necrons though.

Well I just explained why its worse for necrons.



Eh? I was meaning the fact that units cannot assault the turn they disembark (certain vehicles excepted of course). If they hop out they cannot assault you this turn, giving you a turn to respond.

You can if your vehicle does not move before you disembark. Immobilization from my shooting is happening in my turn, not their turn. They can assault the turn they disembark, they just can't drive and disembark, then assault.



You can be in different financial positions at different times. When I collected most of by Space Marine army I was at school, and could spend most of my pocket money on things like figures. Also helped by the fact that a friend of mine's dad had a load of stuff he was willing to sell to me cheap (including the terminator squad I have). Now I am just finishing my master's dissertation I am near broke after 4 years of study, have debts I need to pay off with most of the little money I currently earn, and that little money I have left to spend on "fun" things I cannot really justify spending on Space Marines, as I have a complete army already, and I have other things I am collecting, and other totally unrelated hobbies to spend my money on.

Thats great, but what does that have to do with the fact that GW sells models and is currently, still in business.



Largely. Mainly due to the fact that the pick up games in my area are at inconvenient times, being busy generally at the moment, and the places I have been are rather hot (when the large number of people fill up the available space), and, frankly, wiffing a bit.
Sounds like a game store to me. Play pick up games and you'll see a whole new side of the hobby.



True, but I haven't actually played a game of 40k where we have not used the rules as is (aside from the possibility of misunderstanding them). Though, yes, I can accept it would effect army selection, though the main focus of my army selection (whatever environment I have been playing in) has always been cost (in ), whether I like the models, and transportability, rather than than its competitiveness.

Then why would you apply that attitude to a thread about competitiveness.



No, it wont, but I still don't think it is nothing.

The land raider is a transport. If you wanted lascannons you'd use dev squads of a predator. Losing a lascannon does not impinge upon your ability to deliver cargo to a fight and gut things when you get there. Ask a space marine player who uses their land raider to actually deliver troops and find out what he would rather suffer, a weapon destroyed result or an immobilized result.


Welcome to my world - but as a Guard player - I can't move and shoot and I have BS 3.....

Unless you take special weapons which are available in any squad.



I'd give my left testicle for some heavy destroyers......

Ever consider sentinels. About as tough, slightly cheaper for guard, lascannons and everything, heck add in deep strike and you've got a hell of a unit.



apologies necron players I never thought I'd see myself on a thread telling players to get over something because I felt just as annoyed about kill points in the new ed and had a good old moan about that as well but it really isn't the end of the world

No, its just a major weakness that hit necrons that will need to be addressed so they remain competitive in the future.



- it isn't like you're nids or orks whom have literally NO anti AV14 firepower whatsoever!?

They both have AV14 firepower and not much worse or better than the necrons.
Nids suffer from crappy range for penetrations (though a really good glancing weapon) and limited quantities, but benefit by being much tougher. Considering they don't exactly *need* to stop a tank from moving (but rather shooting) unlike necrons, they're adversely affected, but not tot he same degree. If someone charges into a tyranid army its probably going to die. Ditto for orks. If someone does the same to necrons you're probably going to phase them out. Its gauss glancing+combat resolution+transports thats the problem.
Orks and nids have leadership buffs, either fearless by number, or by proximity. They have better close combat ability by a large degree, and they don't phase out. (Not to mention they're much cheaper per model)

People bringing up nids and orks are failing to understand its a combination of differences that makes for the big problem, not the gauss glancing itself.



You're still pretty well off and just need to go with the flow and figure out new configurations - adapt or die ;)
Were still pretty well off? As in just below orks and nids in the chain.
Consider *all* the changes, not just gauss weapons.

borithan
24-07-2008, 00:35
Well I just explained why its worse for necrons.
Yes. Reasons which were kida implicit in what I had said.



Thats great, but what does that have to do with the fact that GW sells models and is currently, still in business.
My point was that it is not competativeness alone which determines what people choose for their armies. Just because Terminators with lightning claws may be more competitive, does not mean that is what you will face.



Sounds like a game store to me.
One of the places, yes.



Play pick up games and you'll see a whole new side of the hobby.
Ok... I must have totally misunderstood what pick up games are. I thought they were games you might have at your local games shop or wargames club with people you might no know very well, if at all, ie because you both know the rules etc you can just pick up a game, rather than have to arrange it specially. If thats not what they are, what are they?



People bringing up nids and orks are failing to understand its a combination of differences that makes for the big problem, not the gauss glancing itself.
One of the reasons why I have said that it sounds like the real problem is in close combat, not the glancing rule. If your army was not so fragile in close combat (the army as a whole, not the units themselves, which frankly are not that fragile), then finding it harder to stop transports isn't so much of a problem.

azimaith
24-07-2008, 00:48
Yes. Reasons which were kida implicit in what I had said.

Then why even try the "Well your not the only ones who suffer" maneuver.



My point was that it is not competativeness alone which determines what people choose for their armies. Just because Terminators with lightning claws may be more competitive, does not mean that is what you will face.

I don't think game balance should be based on hoping someone doesn't want to or can't afford to buy a squad of terminators with claws.



Ok... I must have totally misunderstood what pick up games are. I thought they were games you might have at your local games shop or wargames club with people you might no know very well. If thats not what they are, what are they?
That is what they are. Visitors, regulars, whoever comes in, and in my store, randomly matched by a draw.



One of the reasons why I have said that it sounds like the real problem is in close combat, not the glancing rule. If your army was not so fragile in close combat (the army as a whole, not the units themselves, which frankly are not that fragile), then finding it harder to stop transports isn't so much of a problem.And the thing is, this could all be dealt with by just giving them stubborn. Hell, just add in:
"Until a new necron codex is released, all units in the necron army benefit from the "stubborn" USR.

Bam, done, the codex can wait, the necrons are solidly competitve until fixed.

But gw has a tendency to completely miss the most basic problems them produce. Just as the response from GW about Lash Of Submission was "Well we didn't think anyone would actually take two of them!" they leave another army in the mud because they don't consider the consequences of rule changes beyond what it does to core races(Imperial, eldar, chaos, orks, usually)

borithan
24-07-2008, 00:54
That is what they are. Visitors, regulars, whoever comes in, and in my store, randomly matched by a draw.
Ok, think I must have misunderstood your intention with the reply then, as it sounded to me like "Oh, that sounds like you played in a games store, you should try and play some pick up games instead", when I guess you were just saying "That sounds like a games store" and then, as I havent played many pick up games "You should play pick up games."

azimaith
24-07-2008, 00:58
I said previously is that it sounds like you play with a close group of friends more than anything and rarely, if ever have pick up games.
Your comments on smelly people and hot game stores sounded to me "just like a game store" which in essence, was just a confirmation that game stores are like that.

I did suggest you play pick up games as it makes you aware of alot of different peoples opinions on how things work (and most of the time someone is wrong on something) and how common the power units (and thats not the same thing as net lists, people use what works, they probably didn't get it off the internet or from anywhere else) like the ubiquitous, chaplain+jump squad is.