PDA

View Full Version : What's up with Necrons?



ThePrecious
14-08-2009, 03:47
I have little to no experience with Necrons and all of my information on them is unreliable at best. I have heard from some sources that they are very cookie cutter and boring, from others that they are hard to play, and still some others say that they are very easy to play. I am not interested in the fact that painting/fluff-wise that they have zero options, I am interested in units and gameplay.

Are they boring to play?
Are they easy to play?
Are they easy to play against?
Are they hard to play?

Thank you for any comments because I am expecting a new necron player or two and I am interested in them because painting is not one of my "strong points"

iluvatar18
14-08-2009, 03:54
I play Necrons, have for a very long time.

They are very fun to play, you have to be strategically minded with the fact they have a weaker codex, but they can still fight with the best of them, you just can't expect to sit there and not think to play.

They are not easy to play. They are easy to play. Once you get your strategy down you'll understand how to use them, and then they will be easy. What army isn't like that? *cough*space marines*cough*

They are not easy to play against, they keep standing up, over and over and over....

Hard to play is answered above

ThePrecious
14-08-2009, 04:43
What units are considered the "good units" and what are the units that are rarely used, like chaos dreadnaughts, and what units are just plaint sucky, like spawn.

-IronWarrior-
14-08-2009, 04:57
I play Iron Warriors so I field Dreadnoughts. Gav Thorpe can wipe his a** with that book. Thank God he's gone.

Someday the sun will shine again when I can field a fluffy Chaos army that's competitive.

Double DP w/ Lash and Obliterator Zerg is honestly more boring that Necrons.

iluvatar18
14-08-2009, 04:58
Good: Lords Immortals Warriors Destroyers Monoliths

Average: Flayed Ones Wraiths Scarab Swarms Heavy Destroyers Tomb Spyders

Bad: Pariahs.

I had a really long article written out but my comp has a back button right by the up arrow. I accidentally pressed it..... So sorry for the short answer, I can give you more if you would like

BrotherMoses
14-08-2009, 05:51
Your days of nine heavy supports are gone heretic!!!

slingersam
14-08-2009, 07:41
I honestly feel that the necron army is very boring. I used to play them, yet I was bored out of my mind every game. Everything was linear with me. I honestly built a small list and would check off every thing that I need to do in each phase.
Movement Phase
Lord with orb near big units of warriors: Check
Move destroyers 12": Check
Deep Strike in Monolith: Check
Pull through heavily damaged unit through portal: Check
Shooting Phase
Warriors shoot troops or horde like units: Check
Destroyers shoot vehicles or horde units: Check
H. Destroyers shoot vehicles: Check
Shoot monolith: Check
Assualt phase
Die: CHECk CHECK CHECK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Your turn.

The game got repetitive and boring fast played them for about 4 monthes and just switched to a different army.

Lord Damocles
14-08-2009, 10:43
I honestly feel that the Chaos army is very boring. I used to play them, yet I was bored out of my mind every game. Everything was linear with me. I honestly built a small list and would check off every thing that I need to do in each phase.
Movement Phase
Sorcerer with Lash near big units of Plague Marines: Check
Move Rhinos 12": Check
Deep Strike in Terminators: Check
Disembark infantry: Check
Shooting Phase
Marines shoot troops or horde like units: Check
Vindicators shoot vehicles or horde units: Check
Obliterators shoot vehicles: Check
Shoot Lash: Check
Assualt phase
Charge: CHECk CHECK CHECK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Your turn.

The game got repetitive and boring fast played them for about 4 monthes and just switched to a different army.



See what I did there?

Coltaine
14-08-2009, 10:47
I have played Necrons & Space Marines for a very long time.

At first, I thought that they would be too similar to Marines to be as entertaining as id hoped. I couldnt have been more wrong. They have such a Unique style of play, and it is very refreshing to switch between the two armies.

For difficulty of play, at first glance they seem easy. It was a simple matter to choose the fluffy units, ie: warriors, lords, destroyers, immortals and monoliths, and do well with them. I think the first few games i won comfortably, but then my regular opponents caught on quick to the strengths and weaknesses.
The real difficulty with playing them, comes with learning to adapt to your weaknesses, like any army. For me, shooting and teleporting was the only key elements to my army. I soon learned otherwise.

I dont find Necrons boring to play. I think they have less options than alot of other armies currently, but its their first codex, and that is probably expected. I will say though, that the options available to Necrons are very good and work as you'd think. Also, my opponents have always enjoyed playing Vs the Necrons, i think its probably a nice change from Marine vs marine at my local club. :evilgrin:

Coltaine

thoughtfoxx
14-08-2009, 11:39
Necrons, like any other army, are as boring or as exciting as you choose to make them.

They have a tryly unique playing style which is palpably different from more conventional armies which in my opinion [heavily biased of course] makes them more interesting to play than the others rather than less.

From a modelling perspective they have almost endless conversion opportunities simply because there are so few models available in the range.

So in answer to your questions -

Are they boring to play? No
Are they easy to play? Yes. Although they are challenging to play well.
Are they easy to play against? Yes. Unless they are played well in which case your opponents will come to love to hate you.
Are they hard to play? Reiterative see 2.

Kelpi
14-08-2009, 12:49
As a Necron owner this is my honest answer,

When Necrons were first released they got a bit of a reputation as a "cheesy" army, whether true or not this reputation still lingers when in fact the opposite is usually the case these days. That's why you will hear some people say Necrons are overpowered and then other people say they are underpowered.

I think Necrons suffer from lack of units and options which is where they get the "cookie cutter" label from. This also translates into 'boring" for people

I think Necrons are fairly outdated when it comes to rules, certainly not as bad as some other armies but some 5th edition stuff hasn't been nice to Necrons.

At the end of the day I still think Necrons are a cool army but I think they could use some love and I eagerly await a codex update

Sorros
14-08-2009, 13:12
WBB is one of the most annoying rules in the game, and a shooty army will probably be extremely annoyed as well (fighting against the 'crons, that is).

That said, I will agree with others here--once opponents catch on to you, you will have trouble. Lack of variety=same sort of lists, and opponents get used to it after a while.

IhasAshuvel
14-08-2009, 13:19
See what I did there?

I honestly feel that the eldar army is very boring. I used to play them, yet I was bored out of my mind every game. Everything was linear with me. I honestly built a small list and would check off every thing that I need to do in each phase.
Movement Phase
Moving falcon with fire dragons in 12" at nearest, biggest tank: Check
Move harliequins 6": Check
Turboboost waveserpents: Check
Disembark infantry: Check
Shooting Phase
Fire dragons melt any tank: Check
Harliequins fleet towards biggest enemy unit: Check
Prism pie plates a unit: Check
Serpents use star engines to move some more: Check
Assualt phase
Charge: CHECk CHECK CHECK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Your turn.

The game got repetitive and boring fast played them for about 4 monthes and just switched to a different army.

Bonzai
14-08-2009, 21:39
I started playing 40k several months ago, and chose Necrons as my starting army. I enjoy them a lot.

Strengths
1: Durable infantry- Space marines that have a chance to stand back up after you kill them.
2. Mobility- An often understated aspect of the Necrons. Destroyers, Wraiths, Scarabs are all highly mobile, plus there is Necron teleportation.
3. Solid Unit Selection- We have only 13 units to choose from, but most of them are really...really... good at what they do.
4. Glancing hits- Every ranged weapon in the Necron arsenal has the chance to glance a vehicle. So if the dice gods favor you, your lowly warrior squads can take down a land raider with enough shots.

Weaknesses
1. Phase Out- People generally ignore the missions and simply try to finish you early. It also limits your choices in units.
2. Sweeping advances- With 2 initiative, our warriors are prone to being swept. Sweeping advance does not allow for WBB rolls, so it's an easy way to eliminate units. 2 squads of warriors generally counts for over 50% of our phase out total, so most players will focus on eliminating them.
3. Lack of unit selection- With only 13 units to choose from, you don't usually get a lot of variety.
4. AV14- Though most things can glance, glancing is usually not going to take down a vehicle very quickly. Our best weapons are Str 8 AP2, and are probably not going to take down a Land Raider before it gets to you.
5. Range- Their longest range attack is 36. The majority of our shots are 24 or less.
6. Lack of versatility-The only unit that is customizable gear wise is the Lord. A few other units can get a single upgrade. This makes for a very uniform army.
7. High point cost units-Our units are great, and are very durable, but we pay for it in points.

Against Ranged armies like Tau and infantry guard, Necrons have an advantage. Against assault bast horde armies, or High AV forces, Necrons will struggle. Most units in are dex are very good, but there are a couple that usually under perform.

Pariahs- They have almost everything going for them, except for one thing.... They aren't Necrons. This means that they can't teleport, don't get WBB, and don't count towards phase out. This is why they aren't usually taken. If they were Necrons, people would play them in every list, but for right now they are a bit expensive for a 1 wound model.

weirdo2590
14-08-2009, 23:17
We playing the boring army game for every army now? :p

TheEndIsHere
15-08-2009, 00:49
I honestly feel that the game 40k is very boring. I used to play it, yet I was bored out of my mind every game. Everything was linear with me. I honestly built a small list and would check off every thing that I need to do in each phase.
Movement Phase
Move units: Check
Shooting Phase
Shoot units: Check
Run: Check
Assualt phase
Charge: CHECk CHECK CHECK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Your turn.

The game got repetitive and boring fast played it for about 4 monthes and just switched to a different game.

OHH!

xD-End

CrownAxe
15-08-2009, 00:59
I honestly feel that the game 40k is very boring. I used to play it, yet I was bored out of my mind every game. Everything was linear with me. I honestly built a small list and would check off every thing that I need to do in each phase.
Movement Phase
Move units: Check
Shooting Phase
Shoot units: Check
Run: Check
Assualt phase
Charge: CHECk CHECK CHECK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Your turn.

The game got repetitive and boring fast played it for about 4 monthes and just switched to a different game.
This man speaks the truth
OHH!

xD-End

/win filler

slingersam
15-08-2009, 01:43
Ok let me explain. My necrons would win most of its games, unless someone brought a list purely to combat my list. Eventually everyone memorized it and just went down hill from their. I even mixed it up a couple times (dropping warriors adding in Destroyers or monoliths, or just dropping everything and taking 2 lords with Res orb and all warriors. In the end I still felt that the lists were similar and just couldn't get past it. I play Orks so I think in general Necrons were a bad choice from the beginning. I love the versatility of the orks over the necrons and love that every list can be different. Last thing people will say that phase out can be a bad thing but I personally think its great, and has only effected a win for me once, but other than that it was either my mistake or his ability to build an anti-meq list.

ThePrecious
15-08-2009, 02:35
Okay, so the 'boring army' thing has been disproved. I like the fact that all of their weapons can glance so a vehicle heavy army could still be taken on. I like the fact that shooting armies (Tau) will have a hard time against Necrons.

There are a few units that I do not know what their uses are. I can tell flayed ones and wraiths are assault troops, but they are very different from the assault troops in other armies. How would I use them?

I know tomb spyders allow greater WBB flexibility, but are they worth the points?

My last question is on a boxed set. I can get the Necron phalanx for about 175$ and it comes with a Necron Lord, 48 Necron Warriors, six Necron Destroyers, a Necron Monolith and 12 Scarab Swarms. Is this a solid army and worth the price?

dorian
15-08-2009, 02:44
My two cents:
I don't play Necrons, but one of my friends do, so I've played them lots.
The majority of his army lists are the same:
1 or 2 monoliths (depending on the points limit)
Lord w/ res orb & Scythe
Three units of individual destroyers (NEVER take only one unit of destroyers - if the unit gets wiped out, they can't come back)
2 or 3 units or warriors
1 or two units of scarabs.

His lists are always very solid, and he usually does very well (he's also an excellent 40k player, so that helps.) Where Necrons fall down is the lack of versatility. The majority of games will all be very similar (as iterated above), and the majority of units have major flaws:
Pariahs - not Necrons
Flayed Ones - CC units that don't have power weapons
Warriors - these days are slightly over priced (a bit of variety would also be nice)
Tomb Spider - get very expensive when you need to have 2 in the army for WBB
Destroyers & Heavy Destroyers - only one wound each, really need to be T5 W2.
Immortals - too expensive, and weapons need to be higher AP in order to take out high AV vehicles. Funnily enough they are as good as flayed ones in CC
Monolith - is filled with cheese :D

Ah no, the Warriors are a very solid, very sturdy unit. The Lord is an excellent HQ choice, and has some very useful upgrades (Scythe - no saves, period! Res Orb - always get WBB rolls within range; Light-thingy is good too!) Monolith is great, unless you play against someone with smarts. Most people will go:
"The Monolith! We take that out, and this battle's OURS!!"
People who've played against monoliths will realise that you are much better off turning all that firepower against the Necrons in the army, either reducing the number of scoring units, or aiming to phase the army out.

As I said, my friend wins a lot of games, and has very little trouble against most armies. I've seen him go against Death Wing, IG, SM, and Tau, and brush them aside like they were gnats. Eldar gives him a little bit of hassle, but funnily enough my Sisters of Battle army scares the bejeesus out of him! I think it's the 3 tanks what fire D6 S8 AP1 rockets at his destroyers (turn 1) and his warriors (rest of the game); and the abundance of melta and heavy flamers (template weapons vs scarabs = bug barbeque!).

Znail
15-08-2009, 02:46
My last question is on a boxed set. I can get the Necron phalanx for about 175$ and it comes with a Necron Lord, 48 Necron Warriors, six Necron Destroyers, a Necron Monolith and 12 Scarab Swarms. Is this a solid army and worth the price?

Its a very solid start for an army!

As for using any of the 'average' close combat units, so is it worth remebering that Necrons will most likely win any war of attrition by shooting due to WBB, so the only chance most opponents have of winning is getting into assault. So including some units that can counter that is likely to prove valuable, even if the units themselves seems uninspiring compared to other armies.

chaos0xomega
15-08-2009, 02:52
Necrons are extremely boring to play. Sure not at first, but give it 2-4 years and they will quickly lose their novelty. All viable necron army lists play basically the same way. The differences between them consists of what ratio of monoliths, destroyers, scarabs, warriors, and immortals you take, which is usually not that big a difference anyway. You won't really find a "sublist" with the necron army, unlike Orks or guard for example which have several variations (orks for example can be hordey, gretchin-based, biker based, guard can be mechanized, footslogger, armoured, airborne, etc.)

TheEndIsHere
15-08-2009, 03:06
Necrons are extremely boring to play. Sure not at first, but give it 2-4 years and they will quickly lose their novelty. All viable necron army lists play basically the same way. The differences between them consists of what ratio of monoliths, destroyers, scarabs, warriors, and immortals you take, which is usually not that big a difference anyway. You won't really find a "sublist" with the necron army, unlike Orks or guard for example which have several variations (orks for example can be hordey, gretchin-based, biker based, guard can be mechanized, footslogger, armoured, airborne, etc.)

Phalanx. (the one everyone sees)
PPP: PopUpPyramid. (lots of deepstrike, FO, monos, VOD)
WW: Wraithwing. (3 X3 wraiths and D-Lord)
ZoomDESTROY. (destroyer "horde")
NecronZilla. (10 MC 1 C'Tan and 9 tomb spyders)
CCC: CloseCombatCrons. (FO, Scarabs or wraiths, tomb spyders, lords)
ZOMBIE HORDE! (1 lord and WARRIORS, some times scarabs)

The onlything, you won't play most of thsoe unless you specialise because that IS expensive (I DO have 15 destroyers 30 scarabs, 30 immortals, 30 FOs and 60 warriors though! xD)

D-End

Bonzai
15-08-2009, 04:36
There are a few units that I do not know what their uses are. I can tell flayed ones and wraiths are assault troops, but they are very different from the assault troops in other armies. How would I use them?

I know tomb spyders allow greater WBB flexibility, but are they worth the points?

Wraiths: These things are awesome! Their only flaw is that they have a small squad size. To combat this, they need to be taken in multiple squads. A popular build is called Wraithwing, and it involves 6-9 Wraiths, with a destroyer lord following them around with res orb support. The wraiths are rock hard, and will chew through units and vehicles with ease. Excluding C-Tan, these are the best CC units in the dex.

Flayed Ones: These are closer to plain Jane assault units. They are typically used as counter assault/disruption. Their ability to deep strike allows for them to disrupt the opponents gun lines. Some even give them disruption fields and tank hunt (however I think that scarabs are better at that).

Tomb Spyders: I am luke warm on these right now. They are decent support, and are good anti-tank if they can reach them. Be sure to always go with 1 scarab. That way they both get T6. Some people advocate using them as counter assault, but I find that against any assault oriented unit they fall short. Usually I spend my points else where, but I will give them a try now and then.



My last question is on a boxed set. I can get the Necron phalanx for about 175$ and it comes with a Necron Lord, 48 Necron Warriors, six Necron Destroyers, a Necron Monolith and 12 Scarab Swarms. Is this a solid army and worth the price?

Do it! That's $25 less than you can order it for, and will net you a 1500 point army out of the box. The Phalanx is a great deal in it's self, as just the monolith and destroyers retail for $175 if bought individually.

The phalanx gives you a very solid start. From there you can decide if you want to go with more destroyers, monoliths, or what ever. The core units are mostly there, and you can get a feel for how they play. Three things I would look at getting after that are a Destroyer lord, 10 Immortals, and some Hvy Destroyers.

Destroyer Lord: most people like to give him a Warscythe and let him tank hunt. If you ever take a wraith wing, then one is pretty much required.

Immortals: T5, 24 inch assault 2 weapons. They will usually win any fire fight they get into. Heck, I have had a unit take on an entire armies fire power for 2 turns. They are that tough. Pair them up with a lord with veil of darkness to teleport them around the board and mow down their infantry.

Heavy Destroyers: These sometimes get a bad rap, mostly because they are used as anti-tank. While they can and do work beautifully for busting up transports and lighter armored vehicles, they will still struggle against AP14 like everything else. What they are best at though, is AP2 fire against heavy infantry, like Carnifexs, HQs, terminators, etc... Be sure to keep then spread out to minimize template fire, and break them down into smaller groups (but within 6 inches for WBB support) to minimize enemy fire. I have 6, and usually break them into either 2 squads of 3, or 3 squads of 2.

chaos0xomega
15-08-2009, 04:39
Half of those variations are ineffective. The other half are basically the same thing as eachother.

ThePrecious
15-08-2009, 04:56
What kind of firepower does the monolith have? Anti-infantry, anti-tank? And I have heard about one gun that is not classified as a weapon so can't be destroyed

chaos0xomega
15-08-2009, 05:04
Monolith is the ultimate vehicle in basic 40k. It is difficult to kill. Has a close-range anti-personnel weapon (Gauss Flux Arc Projector) which hits every unit within range for D6 shots (rolled on a unit by unit basic), and then a particle whip which is a mid-range S9 weapon that can be used v. infantry or tank (and is also one of the few weapons in the game capable of singling out characters as the model underneath the central hole MUST take an AP1 hit.

Starwolf
15-08-2009, 07:04
Well, the monolith can't single out individual models anymore, per the 5th edition FAQ, but yeah, it's strength 9 ap1 against vehicles is very nice.

I saw someone else recently post the three common necron army types, and it was something as follows:

dual monoliths with warriors, and immortal/destroyer support

destroyer/heavy destroyer army, with a VoD, makes a mobile force that can avoid CC

wraithwing with max wraiths and a Destroyer lord or two to go with them


But yes, there are a variety of builds contrary to popular opinion, it's just that most Cron armies are the same old thing. Or are they? They tend to be the least played army apart from DE and other specialty lists.

Spectral Dragon
15-08-2009, 09:14
Are they boring to play?
Are they easy to play?
Are they easy to play against?
Are they hard to play?

What units are considered the "good units" and what are the units that are rarely used, like chaos dreadnaughts, and what units are just plaint sucky, like spawn.

There are a few units that I do not know what their uses are. I can tell flayed ones and wraiths are assault troops, but they are very different from the assault troops in other armies. How would I use them?

I know tomb spyders allow greater WBB flexibility, but are they worth the points?

My last question is on a boxed set. I can get the Necron phalanx for about 175$ and it comes with a Necron Lord, 48 Necron Warriors, six Necron Destroyers, a Necron Monolith and 12 Scarab Swarms. Is this a solid army and worth the price?

What kind of firepower does the monolith have? Anti-infantry, anti-tank? And I have heard about one gun that is not classified as a weapon so can't be destroyed

Boring? Nope, I have found that the Necron Lord alone has a lot of different things he can do, try putting him alone, as well as with any unit with different equipment and the game changes each time you do so. What makes players say necrons get boring is they cookie-cut them and make them the same boring thing every time. There is a lot more to mix up in this army than people realize.

Easy to learn? The basics of playing necrons is very easy, you can pretty much put an army on the table and figure out the very basics in one game. Later, however, the intricacies of WBB and the equipment and what you can and can't do with it comes into play and you slowly master the army. The hard thing to learn is how to mix your equipment up to maximum effect. A lord with res orb and viel of darkness is not always the most potent choice as I have found.

Easy to play against? I knew people who could take down necrons easily in michigan, because people kept using cookie cutter armies. Like someone said before you have to strategize with necrons, however it doesn't take too much to learn some very good tricks. With this codex you have to think about how the individual units can work in unison to support each other. I've seen a very good necron player challenge someone to 50 percent more points (2000 vrs 3000) and win. Basically his Flayed ones were supported by pariahs, his warriors were supported by immortals and everything was supported by tomb spiders.

There are no useless units in this codex, you just have to learn the intricacies of what you can do with them. In lower point games it's not a good idea to bring higher point units, however.

Yes, Tomb spiders are worth the points in games of 1500 or more. I've saved entire squads because one of these guys was on the board before, and trust me when an opponnent realizes what that special rule fully entails they stop focusing on your warriors and start focusing on that spider ;) Most people I talk to get that rule wrong.

The phalanx army is a cookie cutter army, however it is well worth it. Buy some of the units not included and you will round that army out nicely.

The monolith is quite simply the most amazing tank in the regular 40k game. It is not only the most versitile vehicle out there, but it is the toughest to take down. You have a pie plate and a guass "I shoot at everything within a certain radius" gun which has done wonders against certain armies for me. You can also turn your force from a force that hardly moves accross the board to one that gets across the board in 2 turns.

Hopefully that sums that up.

Sekhmet
15-08-2009, 09:18
Good: Lords Immortals Warriors Destroyers Monoliths

Average: Flayed Ones Wraiths Scarab Swarms Heavy Destroyers Tomb Spyders

Bad: Pariahs.

I had a really long article written out but my comp has a back button right by the up arrow. I accidentally pressed it..... So sorry for the short answer, I can give you more if you would like

I would say...

May need nerfing if taken out of context (weak overall codex): Deceiver, Destroyers, Monolith

Good: Immortals, Scarabs

Average: Wraith, Lords, Tomb Spyders, Nightbringer

Bad: Flayed Ones, Heavy Destroyers (but they're still almost needed in every Necron list)

I would not take them unless required to: Warriors, Pariahs



Necrons are extremely boring to play. Sure not at first, but give it 2-4 years and they will quickly lose their novelty. All viable necron army lists play basically the same way. The differences between them consists of what ratio of monoliths, destroyers, scarabs, warriors, and immortals you take, which is usually not that big a difference anyway. You won't really find a "sublist" with the necron army, unlike Orks or guard for example which have several variations (orks for example can be hordey, gretchin-based, biker based, guard can be mechanized, footslogger, armoured, airborne, etc.)

Tau are extremely boring to play. Sure not at first, but give it 2-4 years and they will quickly lose their novelty. All viable tau army lists play basically the same way. The differences between them consists of what ratio of crisis suits, hammerheads, firewarriors, sniper drones, broadsides, kroot, piranhas and pathfinders you take, which is usually not that big of a difference anyway. You won't really find a "sublist" with the tau army.

Tyranids are extremely boring to play... Genestealers, gaunts, carnifexes, hive tyrants, zoanthropes, and warriors.

Eldar are extremely boring to play... Aspect warriors, harlequins, wraithguard, pathfinders, indestructible tanks, seer councils.

IG are extremely boring to play... massed infantry vs tanks with some air support or horses.



Do you see what you've done there chaos0xomega? But you want to see semi-competitive sublists in, say, 1500 pts?

Phalanx:
Lord, Orb, Veil
10 Immortals
30 Warriors
2 Monoliths

Wraithwing + other CC:
Lord, Destroyer body, phase shifter, warscythe, rez orb
20 Warriors
6 Wraith
7 Scarabs
20 Flayed Ones
Monolith

Balanced Destroyer + Deceiver:
Deceiver
20 Warriors
10 Destroyers
9 Scarabs w/ fields
3 Heavy Destroyers

Yes, Necron lists can be considered different ratios of units... as can every other list in the game. But if you think all Necron lists are the same, you are either being facetious or are lacking experience with half decent Necron players.

Imperialis_Dominatus
15-08-2009, 09:43
I honestly feel that the Orkarmy is very boring. I used to play them, yet I was bored out of my mind every game. Everything was linear with me. I honestly built a small list and would check off every thing that I need to do in each phase.
Movement Phase
Move gobs and gobs and yes, more gobs of Boyz towards enemy: WAAAAAAGH!
Turboboost Nob Bikers anywhere that doesn't have Ordnance nearby: WAAAAAAGH!
Make sure anyone who can't get into assault has a 4+ screen for an entire mob of Orks just because some of their buddies are in the way: WAAAAAAAAGH!
Shooting Phase
The weight of fire from my Boyz compensates wholly for the fact that they have BS 2: WAAAAAAGH!
Assualt phase
Charge: WAAAAAAGH!
Your turn.

The game got repetitive and boring fast played them for about 4 monthes and just switched to a different army.[/QUOTE]

Kelpi
15-08-2009, 11:33
While I don't agree with Chaos0xomega that Necrons are extremely boring to play, I don't think you can just take his statement and paste in other armies as a counter argument.

The fact is Necrons have 1 troop choice with few options or variety, then you have the "other" units which are either a minor variation on the one troop choice, a destroyer variation, the 1 tank etc etc and most interesting units such as Wraiths/Tomb Spyders aren't terribly good.

Looking at Tau for example, you've got 2(3) troop choices each with decent variation, suits which are very customizable, all sorts of tanks and each tank has different options the list goes on.

Orks dont have to be played as a huge mob, they have even more options than Tau, in fact I cant think of an army that has less options and variety than Necrons.

I own Necrons and Orks and Tau and still play them all, but I eagerly await the new Necron codex.

ImperiusDominatus
15-08-2009, 14:43
I actually started out with Necrons a while ago since my friend played Marines. Personally, I didn't find them very interesting at all, mainly due to the fact that there's very little variety in their units; they have one troop choice, with some other units being slight variations on the usual warrior or destroyer and a single vehicle. Not to mention, with the background, it was very hard to give my army any personality or character beyond the colours that I painted them.

Keep in mind, though, that this was just me. Like thoughtfoxx said: "Necrons, like any other army, are as boring or as exciting as you choose to make them."

It's impossible to get an objective answer on whether or not an army is interesting, so it's a pretty moot point I guess. The best thing to do is play the army and find out for yourself.

Sekhmet
15-08-2009, 22:46
If you qualify "interesting" as "ability to customize units to exactly what you want them to be through the use of wargear and other options", then I'd say Necrons are not interesting.

But I consider "interesting" as "variety of ways to deal with situations and construct army lists that do different things" and so I'd consider Necrons just as interesting as any other army. The fact that they're completely different than any other army makes them interesting.

chaos0xomega
15-08-2009, 23:03
Tau are extremely boring to play. Sure not at first, but give it 2-4 years and they will quickly lose their novelty. All viable tau army lists play basically the same way. The differences between them consists of what ratio of crisis suits, hammerheads, firewarriors, sniper drones, broadsides, kroot, piranhas and pathfinders you take, which is usually not that big of a difference anyway. You won't really find a "sublist" with the tau army.



I know, why do you think I don't play my Tau much these days?


Tyranids are extremely boring to play... Genestealers, gaunts, carnifexes, hive tyrants, zoanthropes, and warriors.



Disagreed, I only use a handful of units from the codex, and none of these are kitted with ranged weaponry of any sort. Contrast this to Dakkazilla lists, dakkahorde lists, genestealer heavy lists, warrior lists, etc.


Eldar are extremely boring to play... Aspect warriors, harlequins, wraithguard, pathfinders, indestructible tanks, seer councils.

Once again disagreed. I only use aspect warriors and autarch. i own no harlequins, I have wraithguard, a seer council, and pathfinders, but I NEVER use them (actually, I used them the other day for the first time in 2 years, but that was an apoc game), and my only vehicles are wave serpents. Contrast this to Falcon-spam, fire prism-spam, war-walker-spam, guardian-spam, and wraith-spam lists.



IG are extremely boring to play... massed infantry vs tanks with some air support or horses.

Once again, disagreed. I know 3 guard players, one plays balanced, the other lacks any vehicles aside from sentinels, and one plays mechanized. Compare that to necron armies which at the very least have 20 warriors and a lord, in addition to other units that pretty much all function the same way.


Phalanx:
Lord, Orb, Veil
10 Immortals
30 Warriors
2 Monoliths

Wraithwing + other CC:
Lord, Destroyer body, phase shifter, warscythe, rez orb
20 Warriors
6 Wraith
7 Scarabs
20 Flayed Ones
Monolith

Balanced Destroyer + Deceiver:
Deceiver
20 Warriors
10 Destroyers
9 Scarabs w/ fields
3 Heavy Destroyers

None of those lists are truly viable at larger regional tournaments though, although I sold my necrons before 5th ed. was released, and I can see how some of the rules might have been advantageous to the army.



Yes, Necron lists can be considered different ratios of units... as can every other list in the game. But if you think all Necron lists are the same, you are either being facetious or are lacking experience with half decent Necron players.

In two years of use I can count the number of times I lost with my necron force on one hand, although necron players are lacking in my area yes. The point is though, ALL necron armies use the same units at their core, much like Tau. Contrast this to Eldar, IG, Orks, SMurfs(chapter dexes included), CSM, and Tyranids where I can come up with a bunch of different lists that are largely dissimilar.

enygma7
15-08-2009, 23:26
They don't *have* to be boring, the list I came up with was extremely mobile with units randomly turbo boosting or teleporting all over the board. However, because of the necrons phase out ability competetive lists tend to be based around getting as many necron models in the army as possible. This is usually done by basing the army around a mass of necron warriors, usually with a couple of monoliths thrown in. This is a boring army to play as tactics consist mainly of killing stuff with the monoliths whilst everyone else walk forwards, shoots when in range and then teleports if they get assaulted.

As an old codex necrons have more than a few units that aren't really all that good or don't have the necron rule and unfortunately these include most of your mobile and CC units, basically the interesting stuff. So necrons can be as interesting as you want, but this may come at the cost of in game competetiveness.

Sekhmet
17-08-2009, 00:35
Disagreed, I only use a handful of units from the codex, and none of these are kitted with ranged weaponry of any sort. Contrast this to Dakkazilla lists, dakkahorde lists, genestealer heavy lists, warrior lists, etc.

Once again disagreed. I only use aspect warriors and autarch. i own no harlequins, I have wraithguard, a seer council, and pathfinders, but I NEVER use them (actually, I used them the other day for the first time in 2 years, but that was an apoc game), and my only vehicles are wave serpents. Contrast this to Falcon-spam, fire prism-spam, war-walker-spam, guardian-spam, and wraith-spam lists.

Once again, disagreed. I know 3 guard players, one plays balanced, the other lacks any vehicles aside from sentinels, and one plays mechanized. Compare that to necron armies which at the very least have 20 warriors and a lord, in addition to other units that pretty much all function the same way.

And you're missing the point entirely.

Necrons have a limited unit selection as a whole, but they can make "X-spam" lists almost as well as any other codices, with varying degrees of success just like other codices.



None of those lists are truly viable at larger regional tournaments though, although I sold my necrons before 5th ed. was released, and I can see how some of the rules might have been advantageous to the army.

I'd beg to differ. One of the lists I made up in 5 min, the other two are tested and proven strong lists, and at least one was overpowered in 3rd, overpowered in 4th and what I'd consider far above average in 5th.

I took one of those lists, modified it to 1750 pts, and went 4-1 at a national GT and won 2 side-games against GT players who did well overall, for a 6-1 total over the GT weekend. I'm not saying I'm an amazing player, I'm saying your view on the viability of Necron lists different than your own isn't accurate.




In two years of use I can count the number of times I lost with my necron force on one hand, although necron players are lacking in my area yes. The point is though, ALL necron armies use the same units at their core, much like Tau. Contrast this to Eldar, IG, Orks, SMurfs(chapter dexes included), CSM, and Tyranids where I can come up with a bunch of different lists that are largely dissimilar.
In 9 years of use I can count the number of times I lost with my blood angels force on one hand.

My trick? I bring out my blood angels maybe once a year.

Showing off your loss count means absolutely nothing whatsoever unless you also mention how many total games, against what players, what your meta game is, etc. If you have 50 wins and 2 losses against 10 yr old boys playing with a couple of AOBR boxes, I wouldn't consider that as any meaningful measure of skill or knowledge. If you have 10 recognized tournament wins (say, GTs, but not local tournaments) with only, say, 12 entered, you'd have respect.

And the point is, you're wrong. Not ALL necron armies use the same units at their core, except for Warriors (which are required). And while the codex itself is near the bottom in terms of power, relative to each other, major variations of the Necron list are just as competitive.

chaos0xomega
17-08-2009, 01:56
And you're missing the point entirely.

Necrons have a limited unit selection as a whole, but they can make "X-spam" lists almost as well as any other codices, with varying degrees of success just like other codices.


But thats just it they RELY on X-spam lists, while a lot of the other armies, particularly the newer ones, can get away without "x-spam" lists.


I'd beg to differ. One of the lists I made up in 5 min, the other two are tested and proven strong lists, and at least one was overpowered in 3rd, overpowered in 4th and what I'd consider far above average in 5th.

I took one of those lists, modified it to 1750 pts, and went 4-1 at a national GT and won 2 side-games against GT players who did well overall, for a 6-1 total over the GT weekend. I'm not saying I'm an amazing player, I'm saying your view on the viability of Necron lists different than your own isn't accurate.

Considering I ran 2 out of those 3 lists(or at least lists that were very similar) myself for some time, I beg to differ. Yeah, I stomped on most of my opponents with them, but they were never what I would consider "strong" lists. Most of my victories were bloody indeed, and would have been "minor" or "solid" but never "major" or "massacre".


In 9 years of use I can count the number of times I lost with my blood angels force on one hand.

My trick? I bring out my blood angels maybe once a year.

Showing off your loss count means absolutely nothing whatsoever unless you also mention how many total games, against what players, what your meta game is, etc. If you have 50 wins and 2 losses against 10 yr old boys playing with a couple of AOBR boxes, I wouldn't consider that as any meaningful measure of skill or knowledge. If you have 10 recognized tournament wins (say, GTs, but not local tournaments) with only, say, 12 entered, you'd have respect.

They were my main army for that period of time, averaging one to two games every week for I'd say about 40 weeks out of the year against a wide variety of space marine, imperial guard, eldar, and tau opponents with an age range from about 9 to 40+. I'd say that's a fairly representitive chunk of the 40k fanbase as a whole.


And the point is, you're wrong. Not ALL necron armies use the same units at their core, except for Warriors (which are required). And while the codex itself is near the bottom in terms of power, relative to each other, major variations of the Necron list are just as competitive.

And the point is, you're the kind of person that believes their own OPINION to be fact and gospel truth, when other people have a contrary OPINION to your own. I'm not the only person to post in this thread that they are boring, and as I recall, the OP asked us for our opinions on them, which I gladly gave.

All 3 lists you posted are extremely similar to one another. Half the units you listed appear in at least 2 out of 3 of the lists, when your goal was to prove that you could create a "variety" of different lists. Lets contrast this to Eldar, today four of us showed up with Eldar armies, and we all had radically different lists. One was an entirely jetbike mounted force, one was a guardian based force, one was a largely footslogging (with some armored support) aspect assault force, while mine was a mechanized aspect warrior force. Four completely different playstyles from four different players, and that doesn't even include my friends wraith force or my other pathfinder based force.

jasdc1
17-08-2009, 02:43
The one thing I get soooo tired of hearing is WBB is broken, oh my god. We get to roll once to see if they get back up. Big deal, just wait and see what happens IF they get FNP and roll every other time they get hit. The whining will grow exponentially. Seeing as WBB is basically a FNP roll made once at the beginning of the turn, how is that so damn bad?

chaos0xomega
17-08-2009, 02:55
WBB-whine is the result of noobs who have no real idea how to circumvent it. I.E. the kind of people who would waste a majority of their armies heavy firepower shooting at a monolith when there is a perfectly good unit of warriors sitting in the open that they could take out far more easily and probably cause a phaseout result.

TheEndIsHere
17-08-2009, 04:02
Regardless of what anyone else thinks, even if necrons don't have squad leaders or anything of the sort, in MY opinion, necrons are a very interesting army.

Remember guys: Don't argue with idiots, they bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.

D-End

Bonzai
17-08-2009, 05:15
Remember guys: Don't argue with idiots, they bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.

D-End

Lol, I used to belong to a group called Team Village Idiot, and that was our slogan. LOL.

S00N3R FR3AK
17-08-2009, 06:27
Okay, so the 'boring army' thing has been disproved. I like the fact that all of their weapons can glance so a vehicle heavy army could still be taken on. I like the fact that shooting armies (Tau) will have a hard time against Necrons.

There are a few units that I do not know what their uses are. I can tell flayed ones and wraiths are assault troops, but they are very different from the assault troops in other armies. How would I use them?

I know tomb spyders allow greater WBB flexibility, but are they worth the points?

My last question is on a boxed set. I can get the Necron phalanx for about 175$ and it comes with a Necron Lord, 48 Necron Warriors, six Necron Destroyers, a Necron Monolith and 12 Scarab Swarms. Is this a solid army and worth the price?

I think(and so do pretty much everyone at my store) that its the best deal that GW has right now by far. You will use everything in that box depending on points(Once lord has items comes to like 1700~) I highly recommend getting it.

Brother Alexos
17-08-2009, 06:45
@iluvatar
Space marines still present challanges, I havent gotten down a strategy yet and get whupped every game I play against Chaos, Orks, and any other high-toughness armies

Sekhmet
17-08-2009, 07:51
But thats just it they RELY on X-spam lists, while a lot of the other armies, particularly the newer ones, can get away without "x-spam" lists.

So you just changed your argument from "all necron armies are the same list without any variety" to "all necron armies are extremely different and cannot/should not be balanced." Well looks like I've accomplished what I've set out to do.



Considering I ran 2 out of those 3 lists(or at least lists that were very similar) myself for some time, I beg to differ. Yeah, I stomped on most of my opponents with them, but they were never what I would consider "strong" lists. Most of my victories were bloody indeed, and would have been "minor" or "solid" but never "major" or "massacre".

Funny, I almost consistently get major or massacre victories against very seasoned players who have played against Necrons many many times, using slight variations of those lists.



And the point is, you're the kind of person that believes their own OPINION to be fact and gospel truth, when other people have a contrary OPINION to your own. I'm not the only person to post in this thread that they are boring, and as I recall, the OP asked us for our opinions on them, which I gladly gave.

Again you miss the point entirely, but as TheEndIsHere has stated, this is becoming tedious. You're grasping at straws right now.

I don't care what your opinion is, I don't care what you believe in, however misguided.

But I DO care that you base your opinions on solid facts and not just a gut feel. And the "facts" you are basing your opinion on are wrong. You can still keep your opinion that Necrons are uninteresting, but you have to recognize that at least some of your foundations are at least shaky.

Why do I care? Not because of you, but because of anyone else reading this thread (like the OP), who may base their future purchases or hobby choices in some part on the answers in this thread. Don't get all defensive that I'm attacking your right to personal feelings, but please do defend the basis for your beliefs rather than the fact that you have a belief.



All 3 lists you posted are extremely similar to one another. Half the units you listed appear in at least 2 out of 3 of the lists, when your goal was to prove that you could create a "variety" of different lists. Lets contrast this to Eldar, today four of us showed up with Eldar armies, and we all had radically different lists. One was an entirely jetbike mounted force, one was a guardian based force, one was a largely footslogging (with some armored support) aspect assault force, while mine was a mechanized aspect warrior force. Four completely different playstyles from four different players, and that doesn't even include my friends wraith force or my other pathfinder based force.
Oh look, a lot of Necron lists contain Warriors and a Lord. :rolleyes:

But I've accomplished what I've set out to do. You've basically stated that there's only one Necron play style:

Necrons are extremely boring to play. Sure not at first, but give it 2-4 years and they will quickly lose their novelty. All viable necron army lists play basically the same way. The differences between them consists of what ratio of monoliths, destroyers, scarabs, warriors, and immortals you take, which is usually not that big a difference anyway. You won't really find a "sublist" with the necron army, unlike Orks or guard for example which have several variations (orks for example can be hordey, gretchin-based, biker based, guard can be mechanized, footslogger, armoured, airborne, etc.)

And you've just refuted that statement:

But thats just it they RELY on X-spam lists, while a lot of the other armies, particularly the newer ones, can get away without "x-spam" lists.

Considering I ran 2 out of those 3 lists(or at least lists that were very similar) myself for some time, I beg to differ. Yeah, I stomped on most of my opponents with them...

Your basis for Necron uninterestingness because their lack of play style variation is pretty much disproven by yourself.

If you still believe they are uninteresting, go ahead and do so, but use better arguments like "all Necron troops are the same" or "a lack of unit upgrades to create individuality" or "severe fluff, painting and conversion limitations that stay true to the game universe."

BrotherMoses
17-08-2009, 08:13
An army of mindless, soulless robots isn't dynamic and exciting to play? Who would have guessed that!

polymphus
17-08-2009, 08:28
The only regard in which I found my old Necron army boring was to paint: it was my first ever 40K army (3rd edition pride!) and I just went with the book's "silver on silver" colour scheme. I'd recommend you take a closer look at the schemes labelled 'ceramics' or at least play around with various metallics.

Gameplay-wise I've never used them in the 5th edition, but most of the complaints seem to be the same old stuff: they're too expensive in points, they lack variety etc. etc. The lack of variety is true, but does that make the army boring? Hell no! Just for giggles I used to sometimes run a list with a lord, 30 flayed ones, 20 warriors, some wraiths and a monolith. Is there a lot of variety there? Nope, not at all. Did my opponents and I agree it was a hilarious and fun list? Hell yes.

Overall you shouldn't let other people affect your judgement though: if you're really attracted to the Necron army then go ahead, regardless of what people think.

Poly
Out

Nezmith
17-08-2009, 08:32
An army of mindless, soulless robots isn't dynamic and exciting to play? Who would have guessed that!

An Army of mindless, bloodthirsty super-humans isn't dynamic and exciting to play? Who would have guessed that!

An Army of mindless, savage green brutes isn't dynamic and exciting to play? Who would have guessed that!

An Army of mindless, corrupted super-humans isn't dynamic and exciting to play? Who would have guessed that!

An Army of mindless, chaotic monsters isn't dynamic and exciting to play? Who would have guessed that!

An Army of mindless, psychotic space elves isn't dynamic and exciting to play? Who would have guessed that!

An Army of mindless, bestial super-insects isn't dynamic and exciting to play? Who would have guessed that!

An Army of mindless, haughty space elves isn't dynamic and exciting to play? Who would have guessed that!

An Army of mindless, fanatical ill-equipped humans isn't dynamic and exciting to play? Who would have guessed that!

:rolleyes:

BrotherMoses
17-08-2009, 08:52
Thats it Nezmith! Good job boy. You've demonstrated that you know how to interchange adjectives! Looks like you've got a handle on the sarcasm thing too. I'd say you're ready for 6th grade.

Sekhmet
17-08-2009, 09:18
Thats it Nezmith! Good job boy. You've demonstrated that you know how to interchange adjectives! Looks like you've got a handle on the sarcasm thing too. I'd say you're ready for 6th grade.

His comment was just as useless as your own, although his was at least entertaining.

Inquisition coming in 5, 4, 3, 2...

CrownAxe
17-08-2009, 09:22
An army of mindless, soulless robots isn't dynamic and exciting to play? Who would have guessed that!

That's wrong, Necron's have souls. They're just mindless

BrotherMoses
17-08-2009, 09:27
Haha the evil jigglypuff knows. I could have sworn they were soulless? Have you tried to get a dark eldar to drink them recently? We need to check that.

Other than that slight discrepency I haven't lied. Just stating a fact. Not necessarily a bad thing, but a true thing nonetheless.

I think I hear the =I= approaching....

/goes to ground

Lord Damocles
17-08-2009, 10:48
Relevant soul related information:
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3813560&postcount=29


EDIT: And even if Necrons are soulless, they're not mindless...

CrownAxe
17-08-2009, 10:51
Relevant soul related information:
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3813560&postcount=29


EDIT: And even if Necrons are soulless, they're not mindless...

I only say mindless because they're enslaved to the C'tan and had their minds dulled when their souls were put into the living metal shells. They essentially are mindless

Gazak Blacktoof
17-08-2009, 11:18
"Hate-filled" would be a more appropriate description than "mindless". The more basic necron forms have little motivation or thought left other than a desire to murder and terrorise others.

Sekhmet
17-08-2009, 13:41
I only say mindless because they're enslaved to the C'tan and had their minds dulled when their souls were put into the living metal shells. They essentially are mindless

Following orders != mindless.

Actually, you'd probably have to define mindless first of all.

Do they have the ability to make decisions? Yes, but they follow their command structure like any good soldier does. We see in the Apocalypse rulebook that even Warriors can become effective leaders if there are no nearby Lords.

Do they have the ability to reason? Yes, see above.

Do they have emotions? No, but is that a requirement of having a mind?

S00N3R FR3AK
17-08-2009, 18:02
The one thing I get soooo tired of hearing is WBB is broken, oh my god. We get to roll once to see if they get back up. Big deal, just wait and see what happens IF they get FNP and roll every other time they get hit. The whining will grow exponentially. Seeing as WBB is basically a FNP roll made once at the beginning of the turn, how is that so damn bad?

meh I don't see that happening. At least with WBB we can take it after AP 1 and 2 shots, cant use FNP on that.

chaos0xomega
17-08-2009, 20:09
So you just changed your argument from "all necron armies are the same list without any variety" to "all necron armies are extremely different and cannot/should not be balanced." Well looks like I've accomplished what I've set out to do.


How did you get that from this:


But thats just it they RELY on X-spam lists, while a lot of the other armies, particularly the newer ones, can get away without "x-spam" lists.
?

Please explain your logic here, because it seems to me like your agument and mine are completely unrelated. Anyone? Anyone think they can explain it? Even the "x-spam" lists are the SAME damn thing. Your destroyer spam list has HALF the same units as your wraithwing cc-spam list.


Funny, I almost consistently get major or massacre victories against very seasoned players who have played against Necrons many many times, using slight variations of those lists.

Well glad to hear it has worked so well for you. Once again, you are one person with one set of experiences. The general consensus of these boards and the other necron players I know and have spoken to is more in-line with my opinion than yours.


Again you miss the point entirely, but as TheEndIsHere has stated, this is becoming tedious. You're grasping at straws right now.

You're the one grasping at straws here, not me.


I don't care what your opinion is, I don't care what you believe in, however misguided.

Then why are you still arguing?


But I DO care that you base your opinions on solid facts and not just a gut feel. And the "facts" you are basing your opinion on are wrong. You can still keep your opinion that Necrons are uninteresting, but you have to recognize that at least some of your foundations are at least shaky.

I AM basing my opinion on solid facts. Just as solid as the facts that you are basing YOURS on. Necrons are in the lower tier on the competitiveness scale, you yourself have admitted this. The variety of units contained within the necron army is smaller than any other. You have 2 "baseline" units, warriors and destroyers. Then you have "heavy" versions, Immortals and Heavy Destroyers. Then you have "light" versions, flayed ones and Wraiths. Hell, the minis even LOOK largely the same (which isn't necessarily a bad thing).But right there I accounted for HALF the units in the codex, in 3 sentences, and thats being generous as I could easily condense that into a single coherent sentence.

If you need any more proof just LOOK at another codex (other than Tau). Every other army has options for extra weapons and/or characters (I.E. "sergeants"). Where is this in the necron army? Lords have options, IIRC warriors have ONE option that NOBODY takes, scarabs have an option that MOST people take and that should probably come standard anyway, and Tomb Spyders have an option, but people rarely take the unit. Now lets look at Space Marines, Eldar, Orks, Chaos Marines, Tyranids, and hell even Tau, where pretty much EVERY unit has AT LEAST one upgrade option, and most have a good bit more than that.


Why do I care? Not because of you, but because of anyone else reading this thread (like the OP), who may base their future purchases or hobby choices in some part on the answers in this thread. Don't get all defensive that I'm attacking your right to personal feelings, but please do defend the basis for your beliefs rather than the fact that you have a belief.


I think I have been doing that from the very start. For example, the last paragraph I typed.


Oh look, a lot of Necron lists contain Warriors and a Lord.

And most lists contain destroyers, scarabs, and a monolith. And a good portion of lists also will feature Immortals, and then MAYBE flayed ones or wraiths, but I wouldn't count on it.


And you've just refuted that statement:

Again, I fail to see how I refuted it. Once again, the "x-spam" lists are largely the same as one another, and even a balanced list. And perhaps you misunderstood what I meant when I made that statement in the first place. I was implying that a good portion of the units in the codex will perform poorly/to a subpar degree unless there are several identical units present. Contrast this to eldar where a single squad of x will perform pretty well with a singly squad of y and z supporting it.

Perhaps the reason for this is that Necrons are an extremely low model count army, but alas, I don't know, nor is that the point of the thread.



If you still believe they are uninteresting, go ahead and do so, but use better arguments like "all Necron troops are the same" or "a lack of unit upgrades to create individuality" or "severe fluff, painting and conversion limitations that stay true to the game universe."

Isn't that what I have been saying this entire time? And I would disagree with you on the last part (although I would argue that very few paint schemes will actually look good), necrons easily have the most potential of any army if GW ould just explore the fluff a bit more. But I think that their potential will REMAIN as potential if the current rumors of C.S. Goto and Mat Ward leading development of the codex is to be believed.

Lord Damocles
17-08-2009, 20:27
Well glad to hear it has worked so well for you. Once again, you are one person with one set of experiences. The general consensus of these boards and the other necron players I know and have spoken to is more in-line with my opinion than yours.
If the general consensus of Warseer is to be believed, we'd all be better off playing second edition, Necrons Tau and Chaos are completely unplayable, and anyone who voices an opinion other than the usual 'Warseer line' is automatically wrong...

chaos0xomega
17-08-2009, 20:40
Well Im also active on dakkadakka, and I pop into librarium, B&C, and as much as I hate to admit it... 40ko every now and again.

Shatter
17-08-2009, 22:44
Not to add fuel to the fire, but I remember for the brief fleeting moment when I considered Necrons, it would've been a core of a Lord, Warriors, Heavy Destroyers and Destroyers with a Monolith. Which seems to be one of the "standard" lists. I quickly strayed off of them, not ONLY for the reason that it seemed like putting an army list together was fairly limited, but the fluff as well--which, there isn't going to be a lot of individuality from Necron to Necron--they are emotionally-lacking, grimdark machines. However, I think there would be a bigger draw if there was a way to differentiate your Tomb World from say--Bob's Necrons. Heavy Support and C'Tan seem to be the main difference between two, maybe three competitive builds. Even fluff-wise, they can seem pretty uninteresting, because GW shoe-horned C'Tan into being the puppetmasters behind just about everything--railroaded fluff =/= Good fluff.

chaos0xomega
17-08-2009, 22:57
The C'tan were the source of a MASSIVE retcon when the codex was released, so if the fluff seems to not fit particularly well, thats the reason.

Gazak Blacktoof
18-08-2009, 00:50
The necron/ c'tan background material, whilst technically a retcon, didn't really disturb any existing details given.

Any addition to the established background is a retcon because 40K is a setting rather than a continuing story.

chaos0xomega
18-08-2009, 01:02
No, it kinda upset the entirety of the 40k background. The whole "war in heaven" thing basically rewrote ancient eldar history, as well as everything having to do with the Old Ones.

Captain Micha
18-08-2009, 01:03
No, it kinda upset the entirety of the 40k background. The whole "war in heaven" thing basically rewrote ancient eldar history, as well as everything having to do with the Old Ones.

You mean Rogue Trader and 2e fluff?

Sorry I don't count anything prior to 3e as ever existing fluffwise. Due to how much the game has changed.

Gazak Blacktoof
18-08-2009, 01:12
I can't find my old eldar 'dex at the moment but I remember there being precious little on the war in heaven, the ork background went as far mentioning the brain boyz and that they died.

The necron/ c'tan background didn't need to rewrite established background because there was precious little there that would have needed deletion.


If you can pull out some hard (i.e. non-indistinct-40K-mythos) information from 2nd ed that is contradicted by the current c'tan or necron material I'll happily concede the point.

chaos0xomega
18-08-2009, 01:43
I dont have access to 2nd ed/RT fluff anymore, so nothing hard, nope. The only thing I can tell you is that originally the War in Heaven was the war between the eldar gods and later on chaos became involved. The necron codex rewrote this to be a war between the eldar and the necrons.

Captain Micha
18-08-2009, 02:57
the C'tan probably have a place in the Eldar pantheon.

Kaelis Ra is the Nightbringer after all.

So it being a war between gods, in heaven still makes sense. *shrugs*

Of course, in my view of 40k all of the "gods' exist in the Eldar pantheon at this point.

Nurgle has a big spot in the Eldar pantheon... holding Isha captive and "loving her" with diseases for all eternity and all...

then of course you have Slaanesh.... need I say more?

chaos0xomega
18-08-2009, 03:10
Well, the old fluff for the war in heaven followed very specific lines with no mention of the c'tan. The version in the necron codex is radically different (and doesn't end with khaine getting his ass kicked by slaanesh)

burad
18-08-2009, 04:55
The rules do not play Necrons as mindless. If it did, the moment you lost your Lord the Necrons would go out of control. They would either attack randomly, continue attacking whatever they attacked last, attack the nearest enemy, or pick-some-other-way of rendering their behaviour as no longer in control.

chaos0xomega
18-08-2009, 05:29
that actually sounds pretty good.... better than phaseout anyway

TheEndIsHere
18-08-2009, 05:39
that actually sounds pretty good.... better than phaseout anyway

You are jsut a necron hater who won't leave us alone in our thread. We play encrons not tyranids, there is already a race with synapse, no thanks...

d-End

BrotherMoses
18-08-2009, 06:04
The rules do not play Necrons as mindless. If it did, the moment you lost your Lord the Necrons would go out of control. They would either attack randomly, continue attacking whatever they attacked last, attack the nearest enemy, or pick-some-other-way of rendering their behaviour as no longer in control.

I'm with you. I think we've found a way to get rid of phase out. Roll on a chart when the lord dies.

1. continue attacking previous target until it is destroyed. Then attack next closest. Repeat behaviour until no longer applicable. (game over, table clear)

2. fall back with or without a test maybe

3. act as normal

4. unit destroyed

5. attack randomly chosen unit. Either randomly choose one using dice. Unit crosses battlefield as fast as possible to attack unit.

6. something similar or repeat option.

I think its very reasonable. :D

chaos0xomega
18-08-2009, 06:36
You are jsut a necron hater who won't leave us alone in our thread. We play encrons not tyranids, there is already a race with synapse, no thanks...

d-End

I PLAYED Necrons you troll. I hardly hate them, in fact I hope that mat ward and cs goto give us a wonderful rewrite of the book, so I can restart my army.

And for the record, never once did I find phase-out to be unfair, although it did annoy me, thats the price we paid for being able to stand up again.


I'm with you. I think we've found a way to get rid of phase out. Roll on a chart when the lord dies.

1. continue attacking previous target until it is destroyed. Then attack next closest. Repeat behaviour until no longer applicable. (game over, table clear)

2. fall back with or without a test maybe

3. act as normal

4. unit destroyed

5. attack randomly chosen unit. Either randomly choose one using dice. Unit crosses battlefield as fast as possible to attack unit.

6. something similar or repeat option.

I think its very reasonable.

I was actually thinking a reverse system. They seem to have made necrons into a form of networked computer, I.E. the mechanical equivalent of a hive mind, in the apocalypse book. So what I was thinking was you keep the current system of bringing them to a threshold (hard-set at 25% or variable based off lords, either way) and then roll on a table similar to the one you posted, with varying level of lords providing a modifier to the result (appropriate to the tier-level of the lord). So a platinum tiered lord would be far less likely to see a unit destroyed than say a bronze.

BrotherMoses
18-08-2009, 08:05
I was actually thinking a reverse system. They seem to have made necrons into a form of networked computer, I.E. the mechanical equivalent of a hive mind, in the apocalypse book. So what I was thinking was you keep the current system of bringing them to a threshold (hard-set at 25% or variable based off lords, either way) and then roll on a table similar to the one you posted, with varying level of lords providing a modifier to the result (appropriate to the tier-level of the lord). So a platinum tiered lord would be far less likely to see a unit destroyed than say a bronze.

I'm with you. If GW does something like this we can both say we called it :D

Nezmith
18-08-2009, 08:14
CS GOTO is helping write some of the Necron fiction in their upcoming codex?


Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

Captain Micha
19-08-2009, 00:40
CS GOTO is helping write some of the Necron fiction in their upcoming codex?


Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

Someone will be firebombed if that was true.

Any idiot that thinks Falcon engines and weapons could be clogged up by rocks and garbage stuffed in by children is a *****, that should get his very own special place in Gamer Hell, right next to the guy that wrote F.A.T.A.L

To say nothing of his Fatseer Atrocity, nor his Slaanesh Craftworld.

And for something relevant to us Cron guys.

Braying Necrons.

And if Matt Ward, aka MR Smurfz are teh beztorz and evenz chaptorz taht haetz themz wantz to bez themz! has anything to do with the dex I'm going to smack someone. Those two should have nothing ever, and I mean EVER to do with Fluff, especially Codex fluff. Because both of them make Stephanie Meyer look good.

megatrons2nd
19-08-2009, 00:55
Maybe they will make Necrons phase out by squad rather than the whole army. Example: a 20 man squad fails a moral roll while below half strength phases out rather than falling back for the rest of the game.

Captain Micha
19-08-2009, 00:57
I liked the idea of Phase out, being a squad by squad basis, and then that squad returns on the board edge later through reserves (or enters via monolith portal)

if they can't do that as a rule. They shouldn't have it in there period. (especially since presently it makes no sense)

chaos0xomega
19-08-2009, 03:14
Someone will be firebombed if that was true.

Any idiot that thinks Falcon engines and weapons could be clogged up by rocks and garbage stuffed in by children is a *****, that should get his very own special place in Gamer Hell, right next to the guy that wrote F.A.T.A.L

To say nothing of his Fatseer Atrocity, nor his Slaanesh Craftworld.

And for something relevant to us Cron guys.

Braying Necrons.

And if Matt Ward, aka MR Smurfz are teh beztorz and evenz chaptorz taht haetz themz wantz to bez themz! has anything to do with the dex I'm going to smack someone. Those two should have nothing ever, and I mean EVER to do with Fluff, especially Codex fluff. Because both of them make Stephanie Meyer look good.

Then your next year or so is going to be ROUGH, because it was pretty much confirmed by JJ or someone or other at GD Germany, that C.S. Goto was leading fluff direction and that Mat(?) Ward was leading rules development.



if they can't do that as a rule. They shouldn't have it in there period. (especially since presently it makes no sense)

Yeah, there is no reason for phaseout to be there as a rule on the tabletop. 40k battles are supposed to be representative of a small section of a larger battle. Just because the necrons in one area are having a hard time doesnt mean that is the case across the entire battlefield. People like to say that its too counteract WBB... but that could easily be balanced via points.

megatrons2nd
19-08-2009, 03:35
Except of course that there is no standard by which points are assigned. Example Eldrad costing less than a similarly equipped Farseer and still having more abilities added. I have tried several different algorithms for costing units and I can only get some to work. Such things as Marines, Chaos marines and Eldar basic troopers will match in one set; Tau and Necrons in another but not all.

In the algorithm that the most units work in the Necrons would be 14 points and the Tau 8. I do need to redo the algorithm for 5th however.

chaos0xomega
19-08-2009, 03:44
Thats because GW doesn't use an algorithm/equation to calculate points. They have a basic equation that considers the statline only to get a baseline value, and then special rules and options are all calculated more or less arbitrarily and then playtested until they are about right.

megatrons2nd
19-08-2009, 03:50
which means no system except for what their personal feelings about a unit are.

Imperialis_Dominatus
19-08-2009, 05:02
Then your next year or so is going to be ROUGH, because it was pretty much confirmed by JJ or someone or other at GD Germany, that C.S. Goto was leading fluff direction and that Mat(?) Ward was leading rules development.

Matt Ward did okay with the rules in the new Codex. His fluff was atrocious.

I don't see why they'd put Goto man in for fluff direction at GW. He's not done much of anything BL-related for a while, I thought they had gotten the hint.

Ianos
19-08-2009, 05:13
Except of course that there is no standard by which points are assigned. Example Eldrad costing less than a similarly equipped Farseer and still having more abilities added. I have tried several different algorithms for costing units and I can only get some to work. Such things as Marines, Chaos marines and Eldar basic troopers will match in one set; Tau and Necrons in another but not all.

In the algorithm that the most units work in the Necrons would be 14 points and the Tau 8. I do need to redo the algorithm for 5th however.

That is a very interesting concept and i have also been thinking about it a lot, why not show us your work so we can contribute and maybe GW will take note?