PDA

View Full Version : Necrons are boring-it's official!



Gen_eV
22-01-2006, 05:00
The core of any Necron army is all but set...few squads have weapon options and none can have squad leaders...by customising a Lord you effectively customize your entire army.

Right, so in the latest WD preview, GW point out there's little to no choice in selecting a Necron army. And then they have the cheek to put it as if it's a good thing.

"you effectively customise your entire army"
Surely that's what the unit selections are meant to do? I'd like to customise my lord for himself, and then customise my army by having some choice in the rest of the army list options!

Don't get me wrong, I like the Necron army, and think the rules are pretty solid and efficient (except Living Metal - gives an unfair disadvantage to specific enemy forces, which is a big no-no in my book). But the army is regarded by many as pretty dull. So, rather than consider how to counter this, possibly only with unofficial rules, GW instead trumpet the lack of variation inherent in the Necron army.

Thoughts?

Azazel
22-01-2006, 05:08
I stopped buying White Dwarf because dumb crap like this made it to print to often. Sure the army is straight forward. Its in the early stages of devlopment (when compared to Space Marines, Chaos, Eldar or Orks).

Its still possible to take an opponent by surprise with a Necron army (taking max Flayed ones instead of the almost mandatory Immortals and Pariahs).

What a stupid admission by Gamesworkshop. There arent even that many options in the Necron Armoury.

sulla
22-01-2006, 05:34
Right, so in the latest WD preview, GW point out there's little to no choice in selecting a Necron army. And then they have the cheek to put it as if it's a good thing.

"you effectively customise your entire army"
Surely that's what the unit selections are meant to do? I'd like to customise my lord for himself, and then customise my army by having some choice in the rest of the army list options!

Don't get me wrong, I like the Necron army, and think the rules are pretty solid and efficient (except Living Metal - gives an unfair disadvantage to specific enemy forces, which is a big no-no in my book). But the army is regarded by many as pretty dull. So, rather than consider how to counter this, possibly only with unofficial rules, GW instead trumpet the lack of variation inherent in the Necron army.

Thoughts?

A bit mean isn't it. The necrons are GW's attampt to bring the undead concept into space. It's a bit hard to make undead hordes AND make them heavily customisable, so they gave plenty of army-enhancing abilities to the lord as wargear... no other army gets as many army enhancing options in an HQ unit... Isn't that basically what he said?

Besides, isn't this really like the Tau players who want weapon upgrades for their fire warrior squads? What about just accepting that some armies are selected and play differently from others?

grizzly ruin
22-01-2006, 06:38
I stopped buying White Dwarf because dumb crap like this made it to print to often.

Maybe they put it there in the futile hope that it would prevent constant once-a-month polling about it on 40K based web forums.

Smoking Frog
22-01-2006, 06:42
Uh, OK, I honestly don't see what makes this really THAT important. I'm probably the only one.

OK, so Necrons are limited in choice. Well, frankly, isn't that the idea you'd get when faced with faceless, nameless warriors with one purpose in their being. Any units besides the Warriors would have been ranked highly amongst them, or designated special skills designed to cover any aspect that the Warrior body may struggle against.

Also, from a more real world perspective, as mentioned before, the Necrons as an idea isn't THAT old. I remember a mention and a list some time back, during second ed may be, but their codex came out some time after Tau, unless I've got my dates mixed up. They wouldn't have had much thinking done over them.

I'm gonna name my Necron lord "The Governator", and take it from there, see where this goes...

TheOneWithNoName
22-01-2006, 06:54
No matter what the spin doctors say, here or at White Dwarf, being a boring and stale army is never a plus. I just hope the Necron players are happy with this, and if not.. well too bad, because thats the way your army works.

Cadian 21st
22-01-2006, 07:04
I still don't think Necrons are necessarily "boring". Maybe "uncaring", or "emotionless", but not "boring". The only "boring" thing about Necrons is how alot of the armies are constructed. I haven't seen any as CC oriented as my, erm, ideas and tests, but I hope to eventually. I think that this is mostly because of the high cost of the Elites Minatures, etc (at 2 for $15 isn't it?) I don't see why anyone would use Flayed Ones or Pariahs...

Jonathan =I=
22-01-2006, 07:06
instead of the almost mandatory Immortals and Pariahs). For a moment there I thought you said mandatory Pariahs.

O wait you did :wtf:

The Necrons play very much like the designers intended. They work much like an undead army with no individual upgrades other then those on the lord which enhances the army as a whole. They function well as an advancing mass of metal which cant be shot down well just as the fluff dictates.

They work exactually as intended but just happen to be boring to play with and against as a result. But hell when the UK GT is dominated by 25 man seer councel 3 wraitlord armies and 4 heavy support 9 obliterator armies does anyone really have the right to complain about Necrons? :rolleyes: :p

Cadian 21st
22-01-2006, 07:10
Hehe, good on Jonathan

Orbital
22-01-2006, 07:19
Right, so in the latest WD preview, GW point out there's little to no choice in selecting a Necron army. ?


Sure the army is straight forward. Its in the early stages of devlopment (when compared to Space Marines, Chaos, Eldar or Orks).

I'd like to say that the Necrons being a newer army doesn't necessarily make them inflexible. Tau are newer than Necrons, and there's greater flexibility with their lists than with Necrons.

I am also somewhat put off by the static nature of the Necron army. At the same time, Necrons are intended to have a single, homogenous character... and that character is unavailable in any other army from the 40k universe. Now, as it happens, for me that's not enough. Even so, the fact that they are a one-trick pony does, in a strange way which appeals to a select few, makes Necrons what they are.

skyfyre
22-01-2006, 07:32
If you count the number of total different types of units a necron army can field, minus special characters, the grand total comes to:

1 HQ unit.
1 troop unit.
3 elite units.
3 fast attack units.
3 heavy support units.

Total: 11

That's a whopping eleven different unit choices, 2 of which are mandatory and only have 1 possible choice. That leaves you 9 "real" choices. Out of all of what remains, I would say they are pretty solid choices, except for perhaps wraiths which are a bit underpowered by most peoples tastes.

Compare this to a very well developed army list that has been around since RT. Let's say the current (3rd ed) eldar.

2 HQ
4 Troop
5 Elite
4 Fast Attack
6 Heavy Support
Total : 21

Necron have half the total number of units, and without the ability to upgrade a unit with heavy weapons, leaders, etc, it really hurts the ability to custom tailor them to do anything. Now granted, of all the armies in 40k I think necron need customization the least from a purely tactical standpoint, as their base weapons at least have a chance to hurt anything. However it sure does make them a very narrow army list that can't change its strategy.

It also would serve to make them less profitable imo. Without the ability to add heavy weapons or squad leaders with perhaps limited access to wargear, this makes the lifespan of the army relatively short because your options are so straight forward. The novelty of monoliths, wbb rolls, and veil of darkness get stale pretty quick.

Orbital
22-01-2006, 07:37
What's more, the Eldar have five distinct Craftworlds, allowing for the re-arranging of Force Org Charts and adding special rules for each. Also, if you *do* add special characters, the Eldar have eight, the Necrons have 2. Don't forget to compare what's available through Forgeworld for Necrons compared to Eldar... huge difference.

One last thing (though you sort of covered this, it's just a different perspective. Codex units which count as vehicles?
Eldar: 5
Necrons: 1

Cadian 21st
22-01-2006, 07:41
2 HQ
4 Troop
5 Elite
4 Fast Attack
6 Heavy Support
Total : 21

Guard:
HQ: 2 (Command Squad, Special Weapons Squad)
Troops: 2(3) (Platoon, Conscripts, Armoured Fist)
Elites: 5 (Engineseers, Ratlings, Ogryns, ST's, Vets)
Fast Attack: 3 (RR's, Sentinels, Hellhounds)
Heavy Support: 4 (LRD, LRBT, Hvy Weps, Bas)
Total: 16(17)

- Not that much more, and Guard is a very "Diverse" army...

Tyranids:
HQ: 3 (Broodlord, Tyrant, Guard)
Troops: 3 (Rippers, Gaunts, Stealers)
Elites: 2 (Warriors, Lictors)
Fast Attack: 1 (Raveners, Gargoyles are just Flying Gaunts, aren't they? Maybe I put Rippers in the wrong spot too...)
Heavy Support: 3 (Carnifex, Zoanthrope, Biovore)
Total: 12

- Definately not that much more...

- Necrons have a fair bit of *play*, IMO, but people just don't utilize it. Sure, there's no "upgrades", but that wouldn't make sense to add, now would it? I'd like to see more units added into the force, but it wont happen anytime soon.

Orcdom
22-01-2006, 07:58
adding units would be the way to go, not really much on upgrading stuff.

a different style of vehicles or something.

and make the wraith squad size about double what it is now.
Steve

Orthodox
22-01-2006, 08:09
The Necrons play very much like the designers intended. They work much like an undead army with no individual upgrades other then those on the lord which enhances the army as a whole. They function well as an advancing mass of metal which cant be shot down well just as the fluff dictates.Someone gets it, anyway.

cf: vampire counts, tomb kings.

setekhite
22-01-2006, 08:50
It has always been the case, really; people who can't tell the difference between a big list and effective one.

It seems to be the case that the lack of equipment and unit options is what gets the Necrons regarded as 'boring'. However, those options they do have allow the Necrons to play a range of games and styles - hyper-mobile destroyer armies and assault-oriented hordes of Flayed Ones being examples I've seen players use.

In summary, if you don't like the Necron model line and playing style, don't play them - leave it to those of us that do. If we enjoy playing Necrons (and there do seem to be a fair number of Necron players) how can the army be boring in any objective sense?

Gen_eV
22-01-2006, 09:26
One of the biggest factors is that the first choice for a player considering Necrons is 460pts of COMPULSORY troops. 1 Lord, 20 Warriors, almost a quarter of an 1850pt army. That's a serious limitation to the flexibility of the list.

460pts of identical models in every single necron list. You don't get that with any other army.

Plus, I like to be able to have more than one army from a codex. I like being able to come up with loads of ideas, and currently have enough for more armies than I'd ever be able to afford before 6th edition 40K. For example, I'm building a Bugzilla force at the moment. But when that's done, I can buy a bunch of Gaunts, and have an army that plays totally differently, eventually maybe having enough for a TMC-free army. With Necrons, I'll just have a bigger army, and that doesn't interest me half as much.

Whilst setekhite brings up the concept of hyper-mobile Destroyer armies and Flayed One hordes, they're still restricted to non-troops choice, so there's always the same core of Warriors that a player is forced to build their force around. Now if GW had thought to expand on "by customising a Lord you effectively customize your entire army", and added some unofficial rules to allow Destroyers as Troops for Destroyer Lords, maybe some new Lord equipment to act in a similar way for Flayed Ones, we'd see even more capacity for variation between Necron lists.

Vanger
22-01-2006, 10:23
I don't understand this rambling. :wtf: If you don't like Necrons, don't play them! Take it, or leave it.
Necrons are hell knows how many years old machines, which were created by C'tan when there were no eldar, orks, humans or whatdoiknow. And they have one purpose. The destruction of everything. They don't want to take hostages, occupy tactical important places, etc. They're a pretty single minded in what they do.
But after all, you got 11 choices of models, and aren't restricted to take immortals or pariahs, the only really compulsory units are the Lord and Warriors.

Oh, btw look at a pure SoB army, there you also have to take 2 squads of sisters, and the minimum squad size is also 10. Then according to you, SoB is also dull, and boring?

If you want diversity/many costumizing options, then play LatD or 'nids, or Eldar. Who told you to play necrons? Or if you like the look of them, but not the fluff, then tough luck. Play the army you like, leave the other "boring" armies to players, who like them, and can accept the fluff of it.

Orbital
22-01-2006, 10:27
I don't understand this rambling. :wtf: If you don't like Necrons, don't play them! Take it, or leave it.

You forget that, even though we choose our own armies, we don't always get to choose our opponents. If you end up face-to-face with Necrons too many times, you run the risk of falling asleep, snoot-down in your terrain.


Necrons are hell knows how many years old machines, which were created by C'tan when there were no eldar, orks, humans or whatdoiknow.

The Eldar were there. :)

Wez
22-01-2006, 10:44
I don't like the way they nearly have a 2+ save. It just makes games so boring imo. The only weapons that really matter are close combat weapons that ignore armour saves or low AP ranged weapons. You're essentially buying squads for the one or two models which are very good against the necrons, while the rest of the squad is fodder.:o

-Wez

Orthodox
22-01-2006, 10:53
by customising a Lord you effectively customize your entire army.
Misinterpreted what? If you kill a vampire counts hq, the army falls apart. What determines how fast or resilient tomb kings skeletons are is whether the army is led by a priest or a king, and what abilities he's using.

Those things don't effect unit selection as far as I know, they affect how their basic units behave. They have a broader selection of "required" units, but the 40k force org chart is very different from the fantasy equivalent.

Honestly, I almost entirely missed necrons, aside from their original third ed incarnation. I can't provide some kind of example as to how take a resurrection orb makes an army play differently than taking a matrix of whatever.

So far as play style; orks are assaulty or shooty-assaulty; tau are static shooty or mechanized shooty; DE are fast and nothing else or fast and nothing else. Even armies that can field radically different list like sm, chaos, eldar and ig have unique ways of offering that diversity.

NorthernMike
22-01-2006, 11:41
Well I kind of like playing them with my guard. I normally lose, but it is good fun. It is always so frustrating but freaky when those guys just don't stay down. But that doesn't make them boring. No more boring than always playing a min/maxed marine army or always playing a SAFH guard army that never moves either. They don't have a lot for army selection, but what they do have plays differently, giving them options, maybe not effective options. But still gamestyle options. They can have swarms of scarabs or troops, shooty lists, more choppy lists, tanky lists, or even mobile lists.

But just look at your average list from other armies. Many of them look very similar. Tournys seem to have the tactical cookie cutter lists that are proven winners. I mean, how many times do you seem players put ogryns/priests/techpriests/ratlings/psykers in guard lists. You see them, that is true, but normally not in competitive lists. I am glad to play an army that is so different from marines, as it is a nice change.

Truth is, many people quit playing models they like for others that are "better". In my game group, most of us have made our lists and picked the units that we like. So some would say we have weak lists, but against each other we have great games. Sure there are huge wins, but that always happens. Necrons are nowhere near as "boring" as a chess game that always has the same troops, yet that is a great game still. Remember, 40k is just chess or risk, with more complex rules. More complex rules and more expensive as well.....

Just a game, play what you enjoy.

Orbital
22-01-2006, 11:43
Just to double-check: Between the Necron Lord and the Monolith, it *is* possible to functionally give the Necrons two We'll Be Back rolls in a turn, is it not?

Lastie
22-01-2006, 12:00
Just to double-check: Between the Necron Lord and the Monolith, it *is* possible to functionally give the Necrons two We'll Be Back rolls in a turn, is it not?

Yup. Which is why the tried-and-tested Necron 'Phalanx' formation is so irritating. This only applies to one squad per turn, however.

NorthernMike
22-01-2006, 12:05
I think so, makes them a little sticky to deal with, I admit. Just think of them as guard with carapase, just costs them more to be a little tougher.

But exactly how many starcannons or much worse, assault cannons can you fit into other lists? Those are more annoying to me, but that is just my opinion.

Frankly
22-01-2006, 12:06
A bit mean isn't it. The necrons are GW's attampt to bring the undead concept into space. It's a bit hard to make undead hordes AND make them heavily customisable, so they gave plenty of army-enhancing abilities to the lord as wargear... no other army gets as many army enhancing options in an HQ unit... Isn't that basically what he said?



Hmmm, I disagree ... alittle ... I play WHFB, the V.C.armybook is really diverse, especially in the area of supporting units.

Huge debates rage endlessly over which is the better supporting unit for this or that job, which is the better bloodline, how much magic, whats better to equip skellies with etc, etc.

I've always wanted to play Necrons, but have been put off over the lack of choice within the armylist. Basically I seem to run into the same armylist every time I play them as well, I have never thought this a good thing in a codex.

Orbital
22-01-2006, 12:09
Yup. Which is why the tried-and-tested Necron 'Phalanx' formation is so irritating. This only applies to one squad per turn, however.

Ok, I just wanted to make doubly-sure that this was actually something that could legally be done, and not just some cheapass cheat that was pulled out by a Necron player I know.

Now that we've established it's legal, that is the most stupid, putrid, scum-licking rule in the book (it makes me so mad that I actually used colored text for the first time).

The Necron Warrior costs only three points more than a Space Marine but, except for Initiative, it has the same stats right across the board. What's more, the basic Rapid-Fire weapon can cork *any* vehicle, and under the right conditions the little bastard can roll 4+ and get back on his feet not once, but twice. Those are three points well-spent, let me tell you.

I recall playing a mega-battle, 4000 points per side. Myself and another Eldar player (2000 each) were playing against a Chaos and a Necron player (again, 2k each). We decided to focus solely on the Necrons and ignore the Chaos completely, planning to phase them out ASAP. This took us five turns. Let me say it again: It took 4000 points of gun-heavy Eldar five turns to phase out 2000 points of Necrons. A blizzard of Starcannon fire, Rangers, Reaper Launchers, missiles... everything we had. We didn't start getting any traction until we took out the Monolith, but even then it was a seriously uphill battle.

One 50% chance of getting a MEQ back on its feet every turn is vile enough. Two? That's just downright satanic. And not in the good way. :mad:

Lastie
22-01-2006, 12:10
I've always wanted to play Necrons, but have been put off over the lack of choice within the armylist. Basically I seem to run into the same armylist every time I play them as well, I have never thought this a good thing in a codex.

While everything in the list has its uses, there does seem to be only one tournament-competitive list the Necrons can pull together (although I'm fond of the Destroyer Swarm myself).



One 50% chance of getting a MEQ back on its feet every turn is vile enough. Two? That's just downright satanic. And not in the good way.

That's why I stopped playing Necrons.

marv335
22-01-2006, 14:49
you forget that to allow the re-roll of WBB, it's not just +3pts, you also have to pay for the monolith (which isn't cheap) plus forgoe a round of shooting with the particle whip. it can be done to one squad only, and they must be in range of the monoliths teleport function.
hardly a game-breaking ability.

Orbital
22-01-2006, 15:00
That second WBB roll may not be cheap, but in my experience it makes an already hard-to-kill army just that much worse (especially considering that units can be up to 20 Warriors, so giving a single unit a second roll can greatly affect gameplay). What's more, many Necron players will take the Monolith regardless (if not more than one), and it's a real headache on its own even if it isn't teleporting Warriors around.

The second WBB roll is easy to get, uses a model that most armies use anyhow, can affect a large portion of the army, and can be very hard to neutralize. Game-breaking on its own? No. Game-breaking in combination with all the other things the Necron army has going for it? Absolutely.

Xander-K
22-01-2006, 15:05
the Necrons are not boring, I think you will find that the various units special rules make up for the lack of customisation, there is still a fair strategic variety of units compared to other armies.

Grimaldus
22-01-2006, 15:13
I agree with Xander-K. I really don't find the Necrons all that boring or overpowered.
I think they're a pretty cool army, actually. At the moment, in their current incarnation, their list is a bit small and slightly on the restrictive side. However, in no way does this make them boring or anything like that.

They do have a good few unit-specific special rules, and this adds some depth to their uses and flavour.

They aren't your typical army, and yes, they can be very, very powerful and effective. I just don't think that that alone is a good reason to all-out attack them and claim they are overpowered and, more often than not, boring.

My fellow Nova Scotian, Nurglitch, said it already..."there are no boring armies. just boring players."

Orbital
22-01-2006, 15:17
I do want to say that the Necron army is *different* from the others, and that is very valuable. With many of the 40k armies sometimes appearing to be a bit too similar, it's nice to see some effort into trying to make an army "feel" unique. I like the undead tone of the Necrons and I like the imagery around them. Even so, I have some serious issues with some rules, but that is not to say that I want them to stop trying crazy, unusual ideas with armies. I just think that the ability to score two WBB rolls in a turn is horse pucky.

And that comes to you from a purebread Cape Bretoner, Grimaldus. :)

heretic
22-01-2006, 15:28
it was brought up how Tyranids have only slightly more unit choices, however they have at least 10 ways to customize the unit into something very unique (including the actual profile!) for each unit, so in reality Tyranids actually are the most versatile.

I suggest that Necrons get something similiar. allow "upgrades" to be bought, and make it balanced.

for instance as stated before, allow destroyers to be bought as troops, and adjust the FoC accordingly.

Add in a tank or two, so we have more to choose from than the monolith (tomb spyders are more of a utility)

Grimaldus
22-01-2006, 15:40
Orbital: A Cape Bretoner!? Orbital, I had no idea.....;) Let's stop this fussin' and feudin' and be friends...like all mainlanders and islanders are, right? :)
On topic, I certainly see your points, Orbital, and I hope I didn't sound like I was preaching the glories of Necron balance and fairness earlier. No, I think they, like a few other armies, have their issues.
I don't even care anymore, I'm just glad to see another Maritimer 'round these parts!

Orbital
22-01-2006, 15:43
Yep. I was born in Sydney, my family still lives in South Bar, and my birth name is Dingwall. That should verify my authenticity as a Cape Bretoner. :)

I used to play Necrons, actually. I always did like them. Still, as you can tell, I have serious issues with certain elements of the army. I think a Necron codex reworking would really spruce things up a lot, but I don't imagine we're going to get that any time soon. :)

Grimaldus
22-01-2006, 15:55
LOL...no more proof is needed, Mr. Dingwall;) It doesn't get much more island than that does it?

Yeah, I guess I see what you mean....I'd love a reworking of the Necron codex, and I'll admit that I think such a thing is entirely necessary and would go a long way in making the Necrons more...doable, in a way that isn't sexual:)

Hey, nice to meet you anyway, Orbital. And I'll admit to having a weird name as well.
Cottenden.
Yeah, I never really got it either;)

William_De_Rule
22-01-2006, 16:26
Having more unit choices doesn't necessarily make an army more varied. The current Eldar codex may have 21 discreet units but you rarely see shining spears used and dire avengers, warp spiders, jetbikes (outside a Saim Hann list) and wraithguard (outside a spirit host list) are hardly common either. Guardian storm squads are just guardian defender squads with different weapons options, their statline is the same. A large list is good, but not if it's size is due to a plethora of ineffective units.

Lastie
22-01-2006, 17:10
Here's a little trick while we're talking about the Monoliths' Power Matrix: using the Portal, it's possible to move a Necron Warrior unit 32" further up the table in one Player Turn (unit has to be 18" away from the Monolith, the Monolith is 6" across, deploy 2" away from front door, and move forward 6". 18 + 6 + 2 + 6 = 32).

I'm not trying to add more fuell to the fire known as 'Necrons are Cheesy', just pointing out something that stunned a friend of mine while we were talking about the Monolith (but then he's never liked Necrons, not while I was playing them, not while another friend of ours plays them).

I guess Necrons are a marmite army: you either like them or your don't, or you don't eat marmite at all, never have, and frankly have no plans to eat it. However, I do agree they need a new Codex, not only to add more options but to improve on those that are simply so situational they're rarely used (Pariahs spring to mind).

Xander-K
22-01-2006, 17:18
I think putting Flayed Ones into the troop category is a good idea. Warriors as they now are fine IMO they do the job as basic troops just as good as any other race.

As for the having Necron "tanks" I just don't think it fits in with their theme, and well I never use the Monolith anyway since it looks like a pile of pants, and is a huge points drain.

I think Heavy Destroyers need to be changed, or made more different/unique to normal Destroyers, as it stands because of the Gauss rule normal Destroyers generally nerf that unit choice.

Well i'm straying from the topic somewhat, as for someone in White Dwarf saying customising the Lord is like customising the whole army, that is a somewhat short sited, and uhhh well just plain silly comment to be fair.

The Lord is extremely vital (what with the no-brainer res. orb and/or veil choices) but hardly something that effects the variety of units in your army.

Lots of people take very similar Necron forces is the main problem, Monoliths all over the shop, Destroyers, Immortals and a bunch of Warriors.

I just think people are "afraid" to take the more risque choices such as Flayed Ones, Wraiths and Pariahs (yes Pariahs do have their uses) because they have to be careful about deployment and positioning with these units.

marv335
22-01-2006, 20:41
the main problem i see with necrons is one of reaction.
let me explain.
to kill necrons effectivley you need lots of high strength/low ap weaponary.
due to the use of these weapons necron players tend to use the same solutions (res orbs/phlanaxing).
there are not many things a necron player can use.
despite flayed ones/wraiths/pariahs they're not really suited to close combat due to the low i.
the lack of low ap weaponary makes them less effective against meqs (their main opponent)
there is a kind of "arms race" in 40k
we see the same units all the time in all armys. how many chaplains with jump packs do we see leading assault squads? people tend to take the more effective units and ignore the less effective units. there is just less chaff to be seperated out in the necron army.
because of the threat of phasing (a real weakness) necron players want to protect themselves from it.
no other army can be auto-massacred like this. in a hard fought game it's easy for both armies to be down to 25% by the end. however instead of a draw, the necron player automaticly loses.

Karma
22-01-2006, 21:32
The thread has drifted off topic slightly.....are Necrons boring

As a Necron player I think not, you can have assaulting necrons, walking necrons, zooming around Necrons.

As in any army it is only as limited/boring as the person playing it.

As a further comment you could move a Destoyer 48" in a turn !!!!! using the monolith !!!

Orcdom
22-01-2006, 22:23
i think that would be 44", 18" away, teleports through the monolith, deploy 2" from monlith then turbo boost 24". my math that comes to 44" (not counting the thickness of the lith front to back or side to front). but all in all kind of pointless most of the time, but yes you could.

just hope the lith hasnt been immobilized and enemy troops standing in the doorway.

Steve

Killgore
22-01-2006, 22:39
theres some really cool things in the Necron army

the whole "I'll be back thing", the various lightning guns and a huge floating tank with a massive crystal that swats anything that gets close! (not to mention its got a cool teleporter!11!)


We'r just spoilt with all these new varients in the newer codexs

Ophidicus
23-01-2006, 00:29
Undead Terminator Robot Skeletons will never be anything other than mighty cool things. If they're not your thing, they're not your thing, but I love 'em.

SAMAS
23-01-2006, 00:45
I think putting Flayed Ones into the troop category is a good idea. Warriors as they now are fine IMO they do the job as basic troops just as good as any other race.

That would be a good idea. How's this for expanding on it:

Reduce the Flayed ones to a 4+ save, and make them cheaper(thus, you can take more of them).

Give the Lord a type of option or wargear that lets him take Flayed Ones as Troops.

This gives you two "bases" to build a Necron army around: The shooty "Relentless Advance" and the Assaulty "Oh my God, They're Everywhere!".

Orcdom
23-01-2006, 00:54
why when a flayed one is just a necron warrior with CCW and skin streached over them?

leave them as they are, maybe a squad leader for them with power weapon hits then they would make a viable counter assault unit.

Steve

Steev
23-01-2006, 01:41
You can't move after getting teleported by the 'lith. It counts as disembarking from a transport, you may only shoot and not assault or move.

BitmapMan
23-01-2006, 02:44
There are two kinds of Necron army.

The phalanx of warriors supported by some fast movers and high firepower units, like Destroyers, Monoliths, Immortals, etc.

The phalanx of warriors supported by the trickier stuff in the Necron list, like Wraiths, Scarabs, Pariahs, Lord with Veil, etc.

Necrons are indeed boring. Both to play as and against. It's always a slight variation of the same concept, unlike other armies where you don't know what you're going to get like Orks, Eldar, Marines, and even IG.

Sorry, hordes of robots are just plain boring. That's all there is to it.

grizzly ruin
23-01-2006, 05:24
you forget that to allow the re-roll of WBB, it's not just +3pts, you also have to pay for the monolith (which isn't cheap)

No it's not cheap.

However what you get for 235 points makes it a hell of a bargain.

15 points cheaper than a Land Raider, except the monolith is actually worth it's points.

- 14 all around, and the joys of living metal.

- A skimmer that doesn't crash, and won't drift.

- Can deepstrike, and isn't destroyed if it comes in within 1" of the enemy...

- Gauss flux arc makes it pretty much immune to losing it's weapons.

- Can teleport Necron units.

- Has a S9 ordinance weapon.

So while it may not be "cheap", it's certainly worth everypoint.

Cadian 21st
23-01-2006, 05:31
15 points cheaper than a Land Raider, except the monolith is actually worth it's points.

- I assume you mean a tooled out LR. It also lacks in the "Assault Ramp"


- Can deepstrike, and isn't destroyed if it comes in within 1" of the enemy...

- Niether are Raiders (Destroyed that is)


- Gauss flux arc makes it pretty much immune to losing it's weapons.

- And is it's only weapon, or helping revive allies.


- Can teleport Necron units.

- Or shoot


- Has a S9 ordinance weapon.

- With crap


So while it may not be "cheap", it's certainly worth everypoint.

- Are you implying that the Land Raider isn't? Of course it's worth its points, just as a Grot is worth every one of its points, or a Space Marine is worth everyone of its points. That's why its points are the points they are.

setekhite
23-01-2006, 05:43
Necrons are indeed boring. Both to play as and against. It's always a slight variation of the same concept, unlike other armies where you don't know what you're going to get like Orks, Eldar, Marines, and even IG.


So, the main reason Necrons are boring is the (relatively) predictable army composition.

I'd actually say that, once you're playing a game, that is completely irrelevant. Really, how many players own more than 2,500 points for a single army? So how much of that hypothetical variation in a Marine / Guard / Eldar army do most people actually use. Once the game starts, you've got what you've got. Personally, I like tightly focussed lists like the Necrons. I prefer to learn to use armies with a limited range of reliable troops, rather than completely changing composition every game. The challenge, I find, is in learning to work with what you've got rather than reaching for new toys every few minutes. It also means that I've got a fighting chance of getting all the models painted to a decent standard, and then actually using them in games.

Is the standard Necron phalanx boring? Try a mission where they've got to assassinate an enemy character, or break through a line. Heck, try the 'rescue' mission from the GT where you have Necron units diving left, right and centre same as anyone else.

"Boring", in this context, is a failure of the imagination. A lot of this, I will admit, is the fault of the hyper-defensive Necron players I've seen who always huddle around their resurrection orbs. But that's no worse than the counterpart Guard / Iron Warrior defensive armies, really.

grizzly ruin
23-01-2006, 06:06
- I assume you mean a tooled out LR. It also lacks in the "Assault Ramp"

No I don't mean a tooled out LR.

SM Codex pg. 40, Chaos Codex pg. 36, Necron Codex pg. 21 - happy reading.




- Niether are Raiders (Destroyed that is)

Do you mean Land Raiders?

Land Raiders can not deepstrike.

Did you actually read my post?




- And is it's only weapon, or helping revive allies.

Really? I was convinced that the particle whip was a weapon. Maybe I'm just nutty.




- Or shoot

Do you think it should be able to do both?




- With crap

Not sure what you mean by this. If you're going to try and pick apart every single line of another persons post, perhaps have the decency to actually make well thought out comments rather than quick little snippets.




- Are you implying that the Land Raider isn't?

Yes, absolutely. I also wouldn't be the first person to do so. It's a confused vehicle that doesn't know if it wants to be a transport, a tank killer or an infantry hunter.

In concept carrying troops, bearing anit-tank weapons and anti-troop weapons is promising. In the current game mechanics of 40K, it doesn't work out so well.

Try the search function, I'm sure you'll come up with something.




Of course it's worth its points, just as a Grot is worth every one of its points, or a Space Marine is worth everyone of its points. That's why its points are the points they are.

Maybe you believe the game designers have balanced the costs of every unit in every army flawlessly.

I do not.

Vanger
23-01-2006, 06:45
Orbital:

Ok, it's boring to play again and again, against the same necron list. As much boring, as playing again and again, against the same marine list, with 6 men las/plas squads, jumpy chaplains and LSTs with asscannons, or Khorne armies, and the list could go on.
There will be always players who want to go for sure, that the money and time invested into their hobby isn't completly wasted, and nobody likes to lose every time.

Laconic:

I would be carefull with wishing for upgrades. If the basic troops are not downgraded than any upgrades will just overpower the necrons. And still even if the necrons are toned down and upgrades will be available it will not take too much time that everyone will be using the same combo.
But maybe GW can prove me wrong. Let's hope :)

Lastie
23-01-2006, 06:59
So, the main reason Necrons are boring is the (relatively) predictable army composition.


I've seen, and played against, various different compositions of Necron forces. One player at the GW store I regularly visit concentrated on squads of Scarab Swarms and Wraiths, leaving his Warriors in a secured position while the former did the brunt of the work (thanks to Turbo-Boosting on Turn 1). It worked surprisingly well, and proves that Necrons don't have to use the phalanx formation to win games (although it seems to help).



Is the standard Necron phalanx boring? Try a mission where they've got to assassinate an enemy character, or break through a line. Heck, try the 'rescue' mission from the GT where you have Necron units diving left, right and centre same as anyone else.


The solution to dull gameplay always is try something other than Cleanse. Except people usually don't deviate from the standard 'place and play' games. It's sad really.



"Boring", in this context, is a failure of the imagination. A lot of this, I will admit, is the fault of the hyper-defensive Necron players I've seen who always huddle around their resurrection orbs. But that's no worse than the counterpart Guard / Iron Warrior defensive armies, really.


Agreed. A friend of mine usually likes fielding a full squad of Pariahs when the army points limit allows it, mainly because he loves the models. He also takes risks, moving some of his squads out of Resurrection Orb range if it means getting into firing range. It's refreshing to play against.

On a side note, Iron Warrior defensive armies are irritating, and bring to mind one battle where my opponent disappeared while I was setting up, only to reappear a few seconds later with a massive building from the store's collection to hide his Basilisk behind. :mad:



No I don't mean a tooled out LR.

SM Codex pg. 40, Chaos Codex pg. 36, Necron Codex pg. 21 - happy reading.


For a basic package, the Monolith is a far better deal than either Land Raider basic packages, the latter almost forcing you to upgrade further if you want your 250pt behemoth to survive past the first turn.



Maybe you believe the game designers have balanced the costs of every unit in every army flawlessly.

I do not.


Unfortunately the designer's are Human like the rest of us, and occasionally make mistakes (not cheesing their armies enough during playtesting perhaps). Trouble is, once published, mistakes (if any) won't be fixed unless there is a huge outcry (not sure if there was any for Obliterators).

Although everyone I've met in this game do seem to have something about the Monolith that irritates them (Living Metal rule's mine).

Orcdom
23-01-2006, 07:17
IIRC the first obliterator bitch and gripe after the last codex/new model release was the toughness issue (T5) and they made it 4/5 so they could be insta killed by S8 weapons

Steve

Cadian 21st
23-01-2006, 07:34
SM Codex pg. 40, Chaos Codex pg. 36, Necron Codex pg. 21 - happy reading.

- Love to, if I had the codex. I only know what people tell me, and when I shoot down a LR and they complain that they lost 200odd points, I figure that that's how much they lost.


Do you mean Land Raiders?

- If I meant Land Raiders, I would have said Land Raiders, but I clearly said Raiders. Should I offer page numbers for you?


Really? I was convinced that the particle whip was a weapon. Maybe I'm just nutty.

- You can't fire both in the same round.


Do you think it should be able to do both?

- Obviously not, just justifying the points cost.


Not sure what you mean by this.

- I meant crap range, but I was in a rush and forgot a word. I'll go back to edit it. Nevertheless, a Ord with 24" isn't all that grand.


If you're going to try and pick apart every single line of another persons post, perhaps have the decency to actually make well thought out comments rather than quick little snippets.

- Usually I respond to every (or any that I'm interested in) line of another person's post. Quick snippets are made when time is short - I'm sorry about such short responses.


Try the search function, I'm sure you'll come up with something.

- I would if I cared.


Maybe you believe the game designers have balanced the costs of every unit in every army flawlessly...I do not.

- I don't think they've balanced flawlessly (*coughDarkEldarWarriorscough*), but they've done a helluva job at it.

Necron Warrior vs Space Marine
Points: 18 - 15
WS: 4 - 4
BS: 4 - 4
S: 4 - 4
T: 4 - 4
W: 1 - 1
I: 2 - 4
Ld: 10 - 8 (10)
Weapons: Guass vs Not
Options: None vs Special Weapons, Squad Leaders, Heavy Weapons, Traits...
Special Rules: WBB, Phase Out vs None

So really, the +3pts are spent to lower your Initiative, decrease your options, and the ability to glance tanks, come back to life, and retreat at the end of the game. Seems adequete.


it was brought up how Tyranids have only slightly more unit choices, however they have at least 10 ways to customize the unit into something very unique (including the actual profile!) for each unit, so in reality Tyranids actually are the most versatile....I suggest that Necrons get something similiar. allow "upgrades" to be bought, and make it balanced.

- They probably will...unfortunately. First, it was cool that 'Nids could Mutate over time. I'd have liked to see that with Kroot too, but nobody seems to like Kroot. Then, Guard get Doctrines. makes sense, they're numerous and plentiful, varying from Guard regiments to local militias. Now, it's SM Traits, making it seem as though SM's are so abundant throughout the galaxy that they're popping up like Orksies. I don't doubt the the Orks and Eldar codices will contain something akin to these. Nothing's special these days...take "Rending" for example.


flayed ones/wraiths/pariahs they're not really suited to close combat due to the low i.


I think putting Flayed Ones into the troop category is a good idea.

- I don't like the idea of Flayed Ones as troops at all, but that's probably 'cause I'm scared stiff of them. A better alternative could be to increase thier Initiative. The Pariahs, IMO, should have significantly reduced costs. There's no real reason to take them as it is, IMO. You're basically paying a huge amount for an Anti-HQ squad, that may or may not succeed, especially with the low I.


You can't move after getting teleported by the 'lith. It counts as disembarking from a transport, you may only shoot and not assault or move.

- Turbo Boost is in the Shooting Phase.


Personally, I like tightly focussed lists like the Necrons. I prefer to learn to use armies with a limited range of reliable troops, rather than completely changing composition every game.

- Good point. Great in fact.


The solution to dull gameplay always is try something other than Cleanse. Except people usually don't deviate from the standard 'place and play' games. It's sad really.

- Now if only we could convince all players of this...

The Lobotomist
23-01-2006, 08:15
What did you mention raiders for? I believe a comparision was being drawn between Monoliths and Landraiders, distinctly different vehicles then raiders.

And yes, the monolith is...overpowered. The living metal rule isn't cool at all against Eldar/Dark Eldar armies, or against any Marines who haven't packed 6x6man las/plas squads and want to use close range AT, like melta guns instead.

GW has said that one of the themes they went for with Necrons is that they're extremely hard to kill. Well, that's great in concept, but making an army that is just plain frustrating to play against because you can't kill them seems...dumb. It shifts focus more onto army selection (pack high str weapons) than onto actual tactics. For example. If you want to kill warriors, it makes sense to do so in assault, where they are weaker. So you assault, but then they get ported out before you kill many...by the monolith. The Monolith, which you can't kill, because it requires not just certain high strength weapons, but ones with long range, not reliant on special rules, and not CC, as if you're close it'll probably kill you, it negates special rules, and it's a skimmer, so quite a pain to kill with melta bombs and the like.

bonjordo
23-01-2006, 09:28
To me, variation on an army and the definition of 'boring' comes down to theme.
I find Plain, ultramarines boring. I find a Emperors children army thats just units of 6 etc boring. I need fluff, i need themes.
Something that annoys me is how people take favoured units for chaos (6,7,8,9)
and think there army is super fluffy. Stupid if you ask me. You should name your characters, write a back story. Of course, this is the 'line in the sand' for me between "wargamers" and "Hobbyists"

You can make an awesomely themed necron army, with a good colour scheme (Ceramic coloured necrons look very nice), thats well planned, and it might be the standard take. I also like the "counts as" ruling, Ie, Your necron lords axe counts as a staff of light (it would have the gauss blaster in there). having counts as allows you to go wild with imagination for your army. you could have spider esque destroyers, etc. It all comes down to how much time you put into your hobby.

Cadian 21st
23-01-2006, 12:22
What did you mention raiders for? I believe a comparision was being drawn between Monoliths and Landraiders, distinctly different vehicles then raiders.

- The comparison was drawn to discount the idea that all Deep Striking vehicles were expensive. And that other Deep-Striking vehicles moved enemies out of the way ratht hen were destroyed within 1".

Lastie
23-01-2006, 13:22
You can make an awesomely themed necron army, with a good colour scheme (Ceramic coloured necrons look very nice), thats well planned, and it might be the standard take. I also like the "counts as" ruling, Ie, Your necron lords axe counts as a staff of light (it would have the gauss blaster in there). having counts as allows you to go wild with imagination for your army. you could have spider esque destroyers, etc. It all comes down to how much time you put into your hobby.

One idea that's plagued me (as all my ideas tend to do) for a while now is making a Necrontyr army; that is an army of Necrons before they became the almost-souless killing machines we know and love/hate now. I tried green stuffing skin over the torso of a Destroyer several months ago; the result wasn't too bad. However my Thousand Sons/Lost and the Damned are occupying my attention now so I doubt I'll return to the concept any time soon.

Calindor
23-01-2006, 13:28
I think Necrons are awsome. I was at one point thinking to collect them but chose eldar. But the main thing that make necron good is there background and just that they are all similiar to each other. I think a ordinary IG soldier would be very afraid of them instead of your common ork/marine. The total alien and undesrtuctuble force make them very fearsome. The one thing that pulled them away from me was actually that eldar are also awsome ;) Sorry. But for a second army I could imagined necrons.

Vanger
23-01-2006, 14:24
Can't take a Monolith in CC? Get a meltabomb against it. Shoulda pop it.

Orbital
23-01-2006, 14:25
Can't take a Monolith in CC? Get a meltabomb against it. Shoulda pop it.

Or Witchblades.

marv335
23-01-2006, 16:04
a meltabomb has a 1 in 36 chance of glancing a monolith. and a 1 in 216 chance to blow it up

Orbital
23-01-2006, 16:11
a meltabomb has a 1 in 36 chance of glancing a monolith. and a 1 in 216 chance to blow it up

It reminds me of that scene from Dumb and Dumber where Jim Carrey asks a woman whether he'd have a chance with her. She replies.. "It'd be one in a million".

He looks at her and says "Soooooooo... there's a CHANCE, then?"

HiredSword.
23-01-2006, 17:46
The problem with giving a theme to necrons is that i've found, 'personally' that giving a theme to an army means that it needs personality. What i mean is that, although necrons have great fluff, individuality is something they may lack.

Now even tryanids, who are single minded killing machines are still have some 'personality'. I can think of more fluffy armies for nids than necrons. Some armies are just like this, and personally i think this is a disadvantage for the necron player.

BUT

With this campaign being set on the iron hands home planet (at least that's what i remember, is it just another forgeworld?) soon, there is a great oppertunity to add more fluff to the necrons. Adeptus mechanicus agents worshipping the wrong machine spirits? Iron Hands with a bit too many bionic upgrades for the liking of the inquisition? A great wave that signals a host that has no presence in the warp perhaps?


I'm just brainstorming, but please someone shoot me down when i say that necrons, fluff-wise, are lacking?

Xander-K
23-01-2006, 17:46
The Pariahs, IMO, should have significantly reduced costs. There's no real reason to take them as it is, IMO. You're basically paying a huge amount for an Anti-HQ squad
nope that is not how they are best used, they are best used for there anti-psyker abilities and deep striking with veil at the right time to lower the enemy leadership to 7... Lord with 4 pariahs deep striking around the battle to whoever is most likely to route quite good if you ask me even with ATKNF.

grizzly ruin
23-01-2006, 17:56
For a basic package, the Monolith is a far better deal than either Land Raider basic packages, the latter almost forcing you to upgrade further if you want your 250pt behemoth to survive past the first turn.

Absolutely.


Unfortunately the designer's are Human like the rest of us, and occasionally make mistakes (not cheesing their armies enough during playtesting perhaps). Trouble is, once published, mistakes (if any) won't be fixed unless there is a huge outcry

It's true, and I can accept that.

Though you'd think they'd realize they are overpowering something, when the unit entry in the codex takes up an entire page.

That might be a good clue.;)

Mostly I was responding to this assertion by Cadian 21st


- Are you implying that the Land Raider isn't? Of course it's worth its points, just as a Grot is worth every one of its points, or a Space Marine is worth everyone of its points. That's why its points are the points they are.



- Love to, if I had the codex. I only know what people tell me, and when I shoot down a LR and they complain that they lost 200odd points, I figure that that's how much they lost.

I don't mind the discussion, but you purposely attacked one of my statements without even having a codex? Why would you do this?

Just so you know, a land raider costs 250 points, and a monolith 235. Hows that for a bargain, on a nearly indestructable tank?


- If I meant Land Raiders, I would have said Land Raiders, but I clearly said Raiders. Should I offer page numbers for you?

No need to.

You brought up a DE raider in a conversation about the monolith?

Ok lets re-hash.

The monolith can deepstrike and is not destroyed if it comes within 1" of an enemy squad. You said "neither are raiders"

The problem with this comparison is, Raiders are made of paper mache. They have all around armor of 10, which means you can take one out with heavy bolters. Hell even basic troop weapons at S4 can rack up glancing hits and take one out.

The monolith, on the other hand. Has all around 14, plus living metal.

So, it can deepstrike into your opponents face. And as soon as it can fire, it can start particle whipping units out of existence with that crap range you mentioned.

And its just ever so slightly more difficult to kill than a raider.:rolleyes:


- I meant crap range, but I was in a rush and forgot a word. I'll go back to edit it. Nevertheless, a Ord with 24" isn't all that grand.

Maybe its not grand, but the monolith isn't meant to sit parked and fire ordinance.

24" for a S9 AP3 ordinance weapon is PLENTY on a deepstriking nearly invulnerable tank that can teleport its troops around the battlefield and completely ignores terrain.

The range of a weapon is relative to the tank that is wielding it.


- Usually I respond to every (or any that I'm interested in) line of another person's post. Quick snippets are made when time is short - I'm sorry about such short responses.

No problem. And I appreciate the greater detail of your second response.



Necron Warrior vs Space Marine
Points: 18 - 15

*snip*

Weapons: Guass vs Not
Options: None vs Special Weapons, Squad Leaders, Heavy Weapons, Traits...
Special Rules: WBB, Phase Out vs None

So really, the +3pts are spent to lower your Initiative, decrease your options, and the ability to glance tanks, come back to life, and retreat at the end of the game. Seems adequete.

I understand what you mean by no special weapons. But their basic weapon is effectively special. It can both glance tanks, and cause automatic wounds on a 6. It's not as good as rending, but for a basic troop weapon, it's pretty damn good.

Actually I have no problem with the cost of Necron Warriors. Their price is appropriate.

I have a problem with the monolith having an entire page of special rules and costing 15 points LESS than a Land Raider which doesn't even come remotely close to the power, survivability and usefulness of a Monolith.


And the monlith is in essence why Necrons are boring IMO.

One heavy choice - deepstrike, ordinance, skimmer, living metal, AV 14, etc. No options.

Or troops.

One Troops Choice - 3+ save, WBB, able to be assisted with extra WBB rolls by Res Orb.

And so on.



WBB: Shoot a necron, wound a necron, fails it's save.

Then it gets a 50% chance to get back up.

Unless you used a weapon in CC that ignored the armor save, or a ranged weapon with a S double the targets T.

UNLESS There is a res orb nearby, which allows the necrons to negate the flaw in their already powerful special rule. :eyebrows:

This is why they are a boring, annoying army for most people to play against. Andy why I have no compunction about loading up on missle launcher havoc squads, defilers, obliterators and bloodletters when I face them.:p

Venomizer
23-01-2006, 17:57
nope that is not how they are best used, they are best used for there anti-psyker abilities and deep striking with veil at the right time to lower the enemy leadership to 7... Lord with 4 pariahs deep striking around the battle to whoever is most likely to route quite good if you ask me even with ATKNF.

you can't use the veil with Pariahs as they don't have the Necron rule hence one of the main reasons it's used alot with Immortals

boogle
23-01-2006, 18:00
but do they get to WWB when they are caught after a round of CC that they lost?

Ophidicus
23-01-2006, 18:12
No sir, they quite explicitly cannot... I think you may have hit on another genuine weakness...

boogle
23-01-2006, 18:32
even with a Res Orb in attendance?, i ask this beacause i had a game where my opponent stated that he could use the orb to ressurect them at the beginning of his turn

Ivan Stupidor
23-01-2006, 18:48
even with a Res Orb in attendance?, i ask this beacause i had a game where my opponent stated that he could use the orb to ressurect them at the beginning of his turn

From memory, the Res Orb explicitly states that it allows WBB from weapons twice the Necron's Toughness in shooting and ones that ignore their Armour Save in close combat. Being run down and being too far from an intact Necron of the same type are still ways to get rid of them without the roll.

marv335
23-01-2006, 21:47
it is stated clearly in the FAQ that necrons do not get wbb after getting cut down. res orb or not.

TruBrujah
23-01-2006, 22:07
as a former Necron player I feel that they can be boring, as a matter of fact thats why I dont play them anymore.

Althougth they are the only army you can build for 200$ USD (1850) and be effective.

which is

1 lord with rezorb sroud, WS
1 lord with rexorb, WS

3 20 man warrior squads

2 10 base scarab swarms.




The real problem with boredom for me was the phase out rule. Due to this rule most feel like they have to play safe IE rez orbs lots of wariors (phalanax)
If the rule was dropped, i think most players would come off the box formation and spread out more. I also do agree that the monolith is overpowered for its points, when compaired to the land raider. Overall I just got tired of playing to not phase out. In a tourniment your screwed, unless you phase them out. IF you dont you will get very few points in the battle section while even those who lose in other battles will get more points than you.

Vosk
23-01-2006, 22:56
Simply comparing the Monolith to the Land Raider and saying it is over powered for its points is not quite on the ball. You have to put the two of them in context.

Now, let's look at the Monolith.

- Dominates a part of the battlefield
- Hard to kill
- Enhances other Necron units (Portalling, extra WBB rolls)
- Can kill lightly armoured units or blow away heavier ones
- Can deep strike and sow chaos in the blink of an eye
- Costs a vast amount of points
- Reduces the points you can spend on other units (this is important when all of your units are expensive)
- Forces you to shape your army around it if you want to get much use out of it

These are all well and good, but if you look carefully not all of these attributes aply at once. Many even contradict each other. You cannot kill things with a Monolith and use its enhancing abilities at the same time. Taking a Monolith effectively assures that you are going to need a couple of large-ish Necron units (most likely Warriors) to counter the Phase Out vulnerability (this is what forces people to take several units of 15 Warriors rather than a few of 10). It means you cannot load up on large numbers of Heavy Destroyers and so on. The Monolith specialises your army without you even knowing it.

Now, let's have a look at the Land Raider...

- Dominates part of the battlefield
- Almost as hard to kill (can take smoke etc, and be repaired)
- Has long ranged anti-tank weapons
- Can transport a unit in relative safety
- Can be botha transport and a gun platform at the same time - doing one does not prevent the other
- Can be used to augment or create a vast number of strategies
- Does not set you back on your Phase Out count

Yes, it is more expensive. But it is arguably a lot more flexible. The Monolith has a great many uses, but these are all obvious at once and focused into some rather narrow areas. The Land Raider on the other hand can fit itself into all sorts of roles. You can do almost anything with a Land Raider (and do it pretty damn well), where as the Monolith can do just a few things (but do them damn well too). This is another case of "shines when you play things other than just cleanse" - the Land Raider can swing into all sorts of tactical roles. Gun platform, transport, road block, battering ram, distraction and so on.

Curses! I was reading through this whole thread nad was saying to myself "Don't get involved with the Land Raider discussion". Ah well... :p



I play Necrons, and have tried out many styles. Good old Phalanx of 45-60 Warriors with multiple Orbs, combat oriented and my personal favourite, the hyper mobile 20 Scarab base "chaos on the battlefield" list. They have never come across as boring, and my opponents have never complained about them being boring. Annoying because they are hard to put down, maybe. But they accept that it's one of the strengths of the Necron army. Some people apparently don't like it when "army strengths" are not the ability to upgrade the odd gun, purchase a sergeant and name every model.

Hoshi No Koe
24-01-2006, 00:53
Having played Necrons since they were released in 2nd ed, I feel like I should have a say even though I usually stay clear of these types of rant threads.

Necrons are most definitely not a boring army IMO. They can be though, as any other army. Someone mentioned already how a min maxed SM army can be boring. Or a static guard army. To me, these types of static armies are the most boring to play with and against in the game.

The main limitation of the Necrons IMO, is the price of their more unusual units $$ wise. While it is true, that Necron armies have to built around a fixed core that racks up a minimum of 460 pts, most types of armies have that limitation as well in the sense that the core of their army will be dependant upon their play style (command squad and 2 platoons for shooty guard armies for example).
While most other armies have their flavour built around their core troop choices, it can be argued Necrons get their flavour from the support units they use.
As for playing style it's true the type of tourney list you'll see is often the same (mostly warriors with a couple of support options), I've played that list as well and found it mostly boring to play, true enough.

However, I've been toying with different army selections over the years and I have to say, Necrons are as rich in different playstyles as most other armies and even more than others.
Aside from the compulsory core you have to take you have a lot of options in how to play around it, even turning that compulsory core into the supporting element.

Here are some types of armies I've experimented with over the years.

-The classic Necron phalanx. Lots of warriors, playing close to each other and advancing as a rock hard wall of bodies while laying down impressive firepower. The list can comprise mostly of basic warriors, with a couple of lords with resorbs and a lith to add to their survivability. Straightforward and competitive but very dull to play with and against. The only reliable way I can think of to take this down is by massing Ordnance, but even more with assault units that can carve them up and run them down before they get the chance to teleport out.

-The flayed one horde. Most similar to the warrior horde. The warriors are the support element here. You can take 3 units of flayed ones and have a very though assault element which can DS or infiltrate. As resilient and "cheap" as the warrior, these guys are difficult to get rid off once in combat. The FO contingent should be supported by one or two destroyer lords (that can quickly support them) with resorbs and and scythes(to take out characters). This list is the most probable to get good use out of Pariahs if the FO can infiltrate. The opponent will be busy dealing with the FO or engaged in combat so the Pariahs can march up while laying down impressive firepower of their own. Scarabs complement the list well as they can help tie up the opposition so the second wave can come in (the pariahs and perhaps even a spyder or two). A DSing Lith is very usefull here as when it comes in it can zap out the FO so they recover casualties better and regain the charge bonus. A unit of wraiths will help running down oponents once the Pariahs are in range of their Ld rule.

-The destroyer swarm. Maxing out on destroyers will provide you with a very mobile army, playing similar to Tau or eldar. This list as to concentrate its firepower on portions of the opposing army, to take out chunks of it while minimizing own losses. I have the least experience with this list.

-What I use most is a disappearing front list as I call it. It has a low phase out count and consists of at least 2 teleporters (VoD and Lith). I'll be playing hard to get with this list, and also have at least 2 scarab swarms to disrupt the opposition and a unit of wraiths to do surgical strikes or hold up dreads. When the opponent has sent his assault contingent against me suffering haevy losses hopefully, I'll zap out my main firebase to whole other location to shoot him from another angle or on his weaker rearguard units. This list plays more on objectives and on mobility and I use it mostly to show off how mobile a list can be that is usually perceived as ponderous list. Its weakness lays in its low phase out count and is another point I try to prove to show that a Necron list doesn't necessarily need to be a wall of steel to be effective.

Aside from these there are other possible variations. You could max out on scarabs and Spyders for example. Again You'll have a low phase out but then most of the threats aren't Necron units. The scarabs can pin down the enemy lines while the spyders advance. There's also the psychology list with the deceiver at its core and lots of FO and Pariahs.

Hope this has prove a point.

Easy E
24-01-2006, 02:46
I agree that any list can be boring to play against. The Necrons are no exception to this list.

many people also feel that the Necron fluff does not allow for characterization. I disagree. Each Necron Tombworld at one point probably worshipped a C'tan. Based on this fact, you can customize theri fluff on which C'tan they served. A Necron that served the Deceiver will have different objectives then one serving the Void Dragon. Then, some of these tombworlds may have worshipped a C'tan that was consumed by the others. What would they be interested in? These options allow just as much characterization as Ork Clans or Tau Cadre/Septs.

Lastie
24-01-2006, 06:40
many people also feel that the Necron fluff does not allow for characterization. I disagree. Each Necron Tombworld at one point probably worshipped a C'tan. Based on this fact, you can customize theri fluff on which C'tan they served. A Necron that served the Deceiver will have different objectives then one serving the Void Dragon. Then, some of these tombworlds may have worshipped a C'tan that was consumed by the others. What would they be interested in? These options allow just as much characterization as Ork Clans or Tau Cadre/Septs.

Going by this logic Necrons would only have four variable customisations, although as we know little about the other two C'tan one player's Outsider Necron army could be very different to another's.

But I digress. Necrons, as an army, don't seem to support wild and excentric conversions as easily as others (Imperials, Chaos, Eldar, Orks, Tyranids, and to a certain degree Tau) while staying true to the fluff. You could build and paint an army using the old Necron models, and certainly it'll look different to the vast majority of Necron armies out there, but it's hardly a converted army is it?

I'm not entirely on the 'Necrons are boring' bandwagon, however, as I'm sure Necrons have the capability to be ever bit as unique and customisable as other armies (although maybe not Chaos or Imperial Guard), it's just the fluff keeps our ideas held within a box a lot smaller.

So I suppose it's time to think outside that box ...

AgentZero
24-01-2006, 08:25
Right, so in the latest WD preview, GW point out there's little to no choice in selecting a Necron army. And then they have the cheek to put it as if it's a good thing.

"you effectively customise your entire army"
Surely that's what the unit selections are meant to do? I'd like to customise my lord for himself, and then customise my army by having some choice in the rest of the army list options!

Don't get me wrong, I like the Necron army, and think the rules are pretty solid and efficient (except Living Metal - gives an unfair disadvantage to specific enemy forces, which is a big no-no in my book). But the army is regarded by many as pretty dull. So, rather than consider how to counter this, possibly only with unofficial rules, GW instead trumpet the lack of variation inherent in the Necron army.

Thoughts?

I like Necron, I think they're fine.
You just have to have a relentless mindset to operate them properly.
It's not about flare or flash , it's about cold hard death uninterrupted.
You want something flashy, go Elad or Tau.
You want the stark realization that you're dead and nothing will prevent that , go Necron.

I think the Necron could use another unit or two to fill out the selections, but they're solid and I dare say FUN.

Easy E
24-01-2006, 22:01
Going by this logic Necrons would only have four variable customisations

Not quite. Before the lst four there were other C'tan in the galaxy. I don't believe the Codex states that the Necrontyre only worshipped the four remaining C'tan. They only worshipped the C'tan, and there were many of them at one time.


although as we know little about the other two C'tan one player's Outsider Necron army could be very different to another's.

Exactly! Hence, there is a lot of scope for customization.

Daemon Prince Adramalech
24-01-2006, 23:27
Read XENOLOGY and then say that Necrons are Boring! A lot more in that book than anyone realises for those that read between the lines and make the right connections

DPA

Tiberius Frost
25-01-2006, 00:44
On the topic on Necrons in tournaments:

All the background I've ever read on Necrons involves them popping up out of nowhere, swarming all over the enemy, and annihilating them. I've never read anything about a Necron force tactically outmanoevering the other for a well-deserved win.

But then again, I'm biased against tournaments. I just think that if you want to play in tournament situations, you're going to have to accept that some armies are better at it than others.

Tulun
25-01-2006, 01:21
Personally, I just hope in their reincarnation, they make Lords more important. The loss of the board is a pain, but not nearly as big as it should be, if you ask me; give it wargear or other things that'll make it REALLY hurt to lose this bad boy. I think it's an interesting characteristic of Vampire Counts and Tomb Kings that their 'fellow' Necrons should also follow.

Also, I hope they make the monolith more 'army neutral'. I think Living Metal is a silly rule, as it harshly effects some armies (Dark Eldar, Eldar, Sisters (melta gun heavy), etc...), while it does NOTHING to others, basically (Marines, Tau).I also think that re-rolling WBB should go... killing 9 out of 10 immortals, a tough feet in itself, than seeing 75% of them get back is just a pain.

I think the list can promote boring styles. Heck, I used to see this all the time in 3rd edition: 2 Monoliths, Lord, 20 Warriors (little extra somewhere). It rarely lost... never see the Warriors, monoliths do the rest. But the fluff of the army is decent, and the style is interesting. Unfortunately, with the nature of the AP system, a MEQ that gets back up is really hard to balance properly. I don't think they've done a great job, but we'll see how they do next time.

Orcdom
25-01-2006, 01:28
living metal dont hurt eldar or dark eldar when they usually ignore it and use all of the ap3 and ap2 weaponry on the warriors and other necrons to flat out kill them.

might hurt sisters and some of the other armies, but eldar of either flavor arent one of them.

Steve

Azazel
25-01-2006, 01:33
Hell yes they are. Dark Eldar can have all the Dark Lances they like. They need 6s to glance at best. Even Haywire Grenades need 6s to hit (unless it gets immobolised).

I think WWB should be abolished or changed with 'Feel no Pain'. I hate having to lay my precious minitures on their sides.

Tulun
25-01-2006, 01:45
Ugh... Dark eldar are DEFINATELY hurt by it. They will rely on CC to beat these suckers, and Monoliths teleport warriors out... paper-thin armor. Out-shooting a necron player is not an easy thing. Their light armor will make Immortals and Warrios happy.
You can 'ignore it', but a good Necron Player will make this a very difficult desicion for you. In fact, even with ap 2 / 3 weapons, if you actually use COVER on your board, that re-rolled WBB is huge.
Eldar? well, they at least have more than 1 mode of tank punch, but I generally use Fire Dragons and the odd Bright Lance... which, it so happens, is effective against (basically) every other vehicle in the game... their main tank punch IS effected, unlike many other armies.


Believe me, I have had plenty of experience with Monoliths... they are not something you can just ignore, if the player uses it properly. It's use (offensively or defensively) can vary per army.


I actually like that Feel No Pain idea. Let the orb let them keep it vs power and all that, but when a Necron unit is dead, it's dead....

Lastie
25-01-2006, 10:13
Feel No Pain would be much simpler and more in line with 4th Edition than the current WBB system, but I doubt GW would walk down that road. They will most likely stick with WBB as there isn't anything about it that doesn't work, even if it's a bit awkward to use and definitely a relic of older editions. In larger battles I often found my dead Necrons cluttering up the board while my opponent tried to tip-toe around them. Then there's the amusing fact of dead Necrons on one side of the board taking their WBB rolls thanks to a Tomb Spyder and teleporting across the board to join the nearest unit of that type.

However, while FNP would be easier than WBB I don't see it happening in the next Necron Codex. On the other hand the Living Metal rule seriously needs to have better wording. Just saying 'Negates Lance, Melta, Rending and the benefits of Monstrous Creature' will suffice. Although that'll let Chainfists and Tankbusta Bombs through ... bah, this rule always gives me a headache.