PDA

View Full Version : Necron Army for Planetsrike



firechao
04-09-2009, 06:06
I don't know if anyone has already proposed this, but when talking to one of my friends, (although I don't play necrons he does), I thought of a way to avoid phase out, although its maybe not the best army:

-C'tan (either one or both)
-Tomb Spiders
-Pariahs
-Scarab swarms

As you can see there are absolutely no necron units, i'm not too sure with the technicalities of the phrasing, but i think this might be a good idea.

Anyway, if anyone sees a problem please tell me I would love to discuss it. Oh and if someone has ALREADY posted an idea similar to this, I'm sorry, i checked the recent threads and it wasn't there, and i tried using the search, and well it didn't really work.

MadHatter
04-09-2009, 06:18
i do not think it is illegal as far as game rules go. but seems unlikely to have a chance of winning any games.

Charistoph
04-09-2009, 06:29
The list would only work as the Attacker, as the Defender still requires the 2 Troops slots to be filled.

<puts on math nerd hat> :chrome:

25% of 0 models is 0 models. Technically speaking, you'd be phased out at the start of the game. Sorry. /:chrome:

CrownAxe
04-09-2009, 06:38
Ninja'ed by Charistoph

MadHatter
04-09-2009, 09:12
The list would only work as the Attacker, as the Defender still requires the 2 Troops slots to be filled.

<puts on math nerd hat> :chrome:

25% of 0 models is 0 models. Technically speaking, you'd be phased out at the start of the game. Sorry. /:chrome:



lol, I guess I should get some sleep. I should have thought of that myself. :o

thoughtfoxx
04-09-2009, 09:29
Once again the phase out rule nurfs the necrons. These days I bring 2 squads of warriors and leave them in reserve for as long as possible. Its like I always say, the only thing warriors bring to the table these days is phase out.

I recently had a game where a land raider took 64 gauss shots for the loss of 1 weapon. This is not a rare occurence these days either.

Its a great pity that the list posted cant be played as I think It'd do really well [at least on the turn it arrives that is!] Cant say it'd last too long after the defender counter attacks though.

Tycho 333
04-09-2009, 11:06
<puts on math nerd hat>

25% of 0 models is 0 models. Technically speaking, you'd be phased out at the start of the game. Sorry. /

actually i am pretty sure that the wording is when you have lost 75% you phase out not when you are down to 25% when you start with zero necrone models you can not suffer 75% casualties, I could be wrong

Lord Damocles
04-09-2009, 11:17
actually i am pretty sure that the wording is when you have lost 75% you phase out not when you are down to 25% when you start with zero necrone models you can not suffer 75% casualties, I could be wrong

If, after making all We'll Be Back! rolls, a Necron army is reduced to 25% or less of its original number of models (in other words, 75% of its models, rounding fractions up are destroyed)...
Codex: Nerons, pg.13

Crovax20
04-09-2009, 12:02
well since it can't be reduced to 25% or less, it doesn't phase out. I'd interpret the rules like that.

But I don't really care since people at my gaming club haven't really realized how to deal with a necron army... they keep pouring shots into the wrong units xD

Combat Emu
04-09-2009, 13:20
... Why is everyone so dreaded by necron warriors? :confused:
Sure we have to take 20 of them in every list but they are not a bad unit at all. Actually I need my warriors to stop(immobilize or stun) all that meqs that come towards me.
I need those additional shots to take out enemy cc units before they kill all my stuff.
Also: Why do the warrior casualties of the first two rounds trigger phase out? The first 2 turns are basically shooting and if theres one thing that every necron can endure then it's shooting. So ok, maybe there are some ordenance weapons around but against those u can still make cover saves, WBB when you have an orb around and an additional WBB when you use your monolith. Thats altogether 1/8 casualties so basically one warrior per hit.
That loughable amount of casualties doesn't trigger anything except tears on my opponents face :D
And when your reserves finally arrive in turn two or three your opponents cc units/transports will be close enough to tear them to pieces as they arrive so I just don't see the point in that tactic :wtf:

And for the topic: Why should anyone play a necron army that has no necrons, non of the advantages, but basically all the ba... difficult^^ units?
Really, if you just use a decent army list and try to avoid cc and big mistakes then you should be able to win a game without hiding till you get killed or try to play the army in way that just isn't intended ;)

Crovax20
04-09-2009, 14:15
Its because just about everything else in the book is better than necron warriors atm (current edition). Well cept failed ones xD

Tarquinn
04-09-2009, 14:21
Its because just about everything else in the book is better than necron warriors atm (current edition). Well cept failed ones xD

So you like Pariahs, huh?

Lord Damocles
04-09-2009, 14:30
... Why is everyone so dreaded by necron warriors? :confused:
You must have missd the memo.

Warseer repeats it ad infinitum. Therefore it must be true.



Sarcasm woz ere

Combat Emu
04-09-2009, 16:29
Its because just about everything else in the book is better than necron warriors atm (current edition). Well cept failed ones xD

Nevertheless they are imo quite a good troop choice compared to other codices. They don't die and can hurt everything.
And why are they worse than say immortals anyway:

280 points are 10 immortals or 15 warriors. Against Space Marines it is 2 26/27 dead for immortals and 3 1/3 for warriors in rapid fire range. Worse than everything else? I don't think so. :rolleyes:

Bonzai
04-09-2009, 20:34
So you like Pariahs, huh?

Actually, I think Pariah's could shine some what in planet strike. As an attacker they can deep strike, which solves some of their mobility issues, and their warscythes should be the ultimate bastion busters. On defense, you can put them in a bastion, and then have strategem that forces a moral check before it can be assaulted.

susu.exp
04-09-2009, 21:15
280 points are 10 immortals or 15 warriors. Against Space Marines it is 2 26/27 dead for immortals and 3 1/3 for warriors in rapid fire range. Worse than everything else? I don't think so. :rolleyes:

Against a unit of 5 Space marines the mean values are actually:
3.16 for the warriors, 2.87 for the immortals and between 12" and 24" (i.e. where you want your Necron units to be not to get assaulted) this drops to 1.66 for the warriors. In the distance the Immortals stand a 16% chance of wiping that combat squad out, Warriors only 2%. Add that Immortals are T5 and thus can WBB even when hit by Lascannons and Meltaweapons and their costs do pay off.

Combat Emu
05-09-2009, 10:23
It depends where I want my warriors to be. When my enemy assaults I want to maintain a big distance. But just because I want it, doesn't mean I actually can. When an enemy gets closer you can be sure that you can rapid fire at least once, with some teleportation or something maybe even twice.

But when my enemy stays where he is or has no assault units I will definetly go for the rapid fire distance.

But where is your point anyway? Do you really want to criticise that a troops choice is worse than an elites unit? Except DA there are actually very few possibilitys to use an elites unit as a troop choice. Even space marines could claim that their marines are worse than their veterans.
My point is: Warriors are troops and can take and hold objectivs. Immortals can't do that so we have to use warriors. They have quite some firepower too. Sure, they actually don't match immortals or destroyers, simply because of the range. But they are troops and our cheapest necron available so I would recommend to take three squads and use them and not just hide them for two turns in reserve ;)

susu.exp
05-09-2009, 12:54
But when my enemy stays where he is or has no assault units I will definetly go for the rapid fire distance.

Which will only happen if you face IG, Tau and other Necrons.


But where is your point anyway? Do you really want to criticise that a troops choice is worse than an elites unit?

You are moving the goalposts. Your claim was that Warriors are better than Immortals. You ignored the T5, the whole A2 vs RF issue and based your maths on the assumtion that there are actually 30 strong MEQ units (an assumtion favoring units with more shots).


My point is: Warriors are troops and can take and hold objectivs. Immortals can't do that so we have to use warriors. They have quite some firepower too. Sure, they actually don't match immortals or destroyers, simply because of the range. But they are troops and our cheapest necron available so I would recommend to take three squads and use them and not just hide them for two turns in reserve ;)

Iīm currently building a Necron army and my list will include 3 units of warriors (12,11,11) as well as Immortals. I agree that they arenīt so bad they have to be kept in reserve and of course they are the only troop choice and the cheapest unit to count against phase out. That doesnīt change that these are currently their only redeeming features, they donīt pack the punch of other Necron units, nor the defensive ability. And the defensive ability was their main selling point, but when you can generally assume that you will face opponents with Power-weapons or fists in CC, you will usually lose the combat by a large enough margin to have a good chance of running. And if you run I2 will lead to being overrun. If they were stubborn they would be good. If they were fearless they would be really good. Immortals thanks to being A2 24" can usually avoid close combat and that alone would justify their cost compared to Warriors right now.