Scroll back through this thread, I'm not the only one. If no one uses them, there has got to be reason. And I don't think the answer is all players but you.

You are missing the point. I brought you up as an example only because I can verify personally that you don't play the Destroyers. I understand there are some people who don't play them. Probably for the same reason as you. But this thread is not nearly a representation of all Necron players, so using the lack of support on this particular thread to justify your position doesn't work.

When the Necrons were in Corey's hands, we had the exact opposite problem. Destroyers dominating the games, herding formations toward the larger infantry formations and laying down massive firepower. The Heavy Destroyers were changed first, but the problems continued. Then they were given a bump in price. That seemed to stop the near abusive gaming practices that took place when they were fielded.

I've simply been around the Necrons and their development, for a very long time. I also am privy to Corey's old notes and emails that he shared with me from before that. You can't possibly think that we threw the list together and forgot all about the Destroyers. "Dang it! We priced the Destroyers wrong three years ago and totally lapsed when it came to balancing them in the list." That didn't happen. They are where they are for a reason.

I'm willing to test things, but nowhere close to changing things. Show me where they are overpriced. Or show me where changing the price of the Destroyers is going to 'fix' them. Anything but a theoryhammer.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

I've used Destroyers plenty and find them extremely useful. They're expensive, but deadly.

As you point out, I've used them twice.... recently. Because when I first made them, and used them, they weren't worth the price. I don't say this to brag, but I never lost too many games with necrons till you talked me into using destroyers at the last tourny. I'm not blaming my losses on them completely, but I know the games would of been far more competitive had I taken my normal list.
And if you want play the I've been here longer card, no offense but I've seen you play necrons once. So I think my experience should carry far more weight then some ancient emails and notes you have.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

+1

CHAPTER 2: NECRONS FOR THE WIN

And now begins Chapter 2 in my quest to fully understand the Necron army - I intend to focus discussion on playing Necrons, rather than how to kill them.

We're now a couple of months away from the start of the next major Epic Campaign where I live, and I might even use the metal robots of doom instead of my Death Korps of Krieg army that performed so well for me last time. I think despite their speed and raw power disadvantages, necrons are a great army with a lot of potential to keep the opponent off balance due to the abundance of teleport and portalling units. What they lose in speed they make up for in ambush potential, and what they lose in CC/FF stats they make up for in clipping abilities.

Have a look at the Necron army Steve (Onyx) has lent me!


Some of this discussion will take the approach of trying to optimise them to make them as competitive as possible, so I hope 'Fluff' and background story orientated players will give me some lee-way. I'd like to play Necrons for fun, but where possible I'd like to win with them, and reap a mighty harvest for the C'tan.

First, does anyone know if Necrons have actually managed to win or at least hit the podium at any Epic events? If so, any idea what sort of builds people were using?

Hi Matt, I manged to squeak out wins at both the Epic Challenge at Adepticon 2011 and NEAT IV last year using Necrons. None of the games were easy and there was a bit of luck involved.

My build was:

TOMB COMPLEX

Nightbringer

2x PYLON

INFANTRY PHALANX
2x Tomb Spyders, Pariahs, 2 Immortals

2x INFANTRY PHALANX
Pariahs, 2 Immortals

VENATOR MANIPLE

3x MONOLITH MANIPLE
2 Monolith, 2 Obelisk

You can see a snapshot (thanks to EBB!) here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ebbea40kfo ... 6486060061

I noticed that the Destroyers aren't used nearly enough on the lists people publish out here. Players mistakenly see them as too expensive when they are truly an asset to the games I've played. Necron ability, can use portals, fast, and lots of firepower.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

I did test Destroyers (both types) pretty heavily in prep and they did well, but aquatic approximations were not available yet. The same goes for Wraiths.

Nice work!

I stuck your army into http://traitor-legion.appspot.com/ to get a clearer view, and it looks like a good, well balanced force.

TOMB COMPLEX [75]

C`TAN [300]
Nightbringer

PYLON [200]

PYLON [200]

INFANTRY PHALANX [465]
Necron Lord, 6 Warriors, 2 Tomb Spyders, Pariahs, 2 Immortals

INFANTRY PHALANX [365]
Necron Lord, 6 Warriors, Pariahs, 2 Immortals

INFANTRY PHALANX [365]
Necron Lord, 6 Warriors, Pariahs, 2 Immortals

VENATOR MANIPLE [200]
6 Flayed Ones

MONOLITH MANIPLE [275]
2 Monolith, 2 Obelisk

MONOLITH MANIPLE [275]
2 Monolith, 2 Obelisk

MONOLITH MANIPLE [275]
2 Monolith, 2 Obelisk

It's pretty similar to my current build, but I'll tell you in advance the things I am assessing:
[] I'm not convinced by the tomb complex; it sounds like a great idea to have a portal as objective for 75pts, but 75pts for a portal that can't actually claim an objective may be expensive. I've not played Necrons enough to be sure though. How useful have you actually found it; how many units do you usually send through it in a game?
[] I am not yet convinced by either C'tan. If I was to pick one for synergy it would be the Deceiver because BP attacks are fantastic at getting enemies to spread out, and clipping is Necron's bread and butter. How did you find the Deceiver performed?
[] The infantry I like, particularly the inclusion of a Pariah in each. The big 465pt formation is a great BTS, especially if it spends time off the table or regenerates as it goes.
[] The Flayed ones I like, in fact in an emergency they can teleport in to home objectives, possibly removing the need for the Tomb Complex.
[] The 2x2 Monolith Maniples are good, in fact because of the way the cost of Monoliths varies widely according to how they are bought (they can be 75, 92 or even 100 points each if bought as an upgrade, in a Phalanx of three or individually in a Maniple respectively! ) I'd recommend aspiring Necron players replace this sort of build:

3 Monolith Phalanx + 3 Obelisk = 425pts
3 Monolith Phalanx + 3 Obelisk = 425pts
= 850 total

With the one you used
1 Monolith Maniple + 2 Obelisks + 1 Monolith upgrade = 275
1 Monolith Maniple + 2 Obelisks + 1 Monolith upgrade = 275
1 Monolith Maniple + 2 Obelisks + 1 Monolith upgrade = 275
= 825 total

That's the same amount of Monoliths and the same amount of Obelisks. The points saving is relatively minor (it will buy you one extra Necron Lord), but it gives you an extremely important extra activation and better opportunities to control the board with portal placement.

[] I am not entirely convinced of Obelisks. If the main motivation for taking them is to use them as ablative wounds (which certainly seems to be the case), I am not sure they are good enough at the role to justify their cost. Expect some maths on this later Did you ever take them for a different reason, such as the 45cm shooting?

i won heavy bolter last year with my necrons
list was:
infantry phalanx + pariahs + immortals : 325
infantry phalanx + pariahs + immortals : 325
infantry phalanx + pariahs + immortals : 325
Monolith Maniple + extra monolith : 275
Monolith Maniple + extra monolith : 275
Monolith Maniple : 200
Monolith Maniple : 200
Monolith Phalanx + Obelisk : 325
Pylon : 200
Pylon : 200
Warbarque + Supcom : 350 (bts)

i decided going into it to ditch a few of my usual standards, trading the underperforming ctan (nightbringer due to aesthetics, though a defiler is much more use) and dropping the tomb complex (rather have an extra monolith thanks, as its a portal too, but it teleports and provides wicked FF support) and taking the monolith maniples with extra monolith in favour of monolith phalanxes. i also played much more aggressively than i had before. the result was a pretty resoundng succes (two games were pretty bloody massacres in my favour, the third was a tough matchup where both my opponent and i played well, with him getting the win in the end, but i am confident that if i hadnt had two disasterously bad assault resolution rolls in turn1 i would have had him.)

overall, i felt the obelisks were fairly mediocre (they acted less as "abative wounds" as they lack anything near the durability of monoliths and thus were often behind the monoliths in play, and more to stop the formations breaking, when in reality, i want my monoliths to break easily, so they can phase out and reteleport into useful positions next turn) so i suspect i'll be trading them back to more monolith phalanxes and perhaps another phalanx of infantry

the warbarque was good, it was tough enough that people usually didnt bother with it while i was cramming monoliths down their faces, so my BTS was safe and with guns and a portal, contributed much more to the fight than the ctan ever did. it never really shined, but it did pretty well.

i'm still unimpressed with pylons, at DC2 they're too easy to break and rebreak making them fairly useless, and given they double dip in their restrictions, i'm considering dropping them entirely. of course, i didnt have to face much air firepower in the tourney, and they utterly menaced everything that was there, so they did a fine job in their own way.

the only thing i really missed was a fourth infantry phalanx (mainly because of how i struggled once i was down to 1 n game three) but i attribute my success in a large part to the fact that my opponents didnt have a lot of experience fighting necrons. i dont imagine i'd have such an easy time of it this year

_________________
~Every Tool Is A Weapon, If You Hold It Right~

Great post JTG. Lots to think about. Your list is almost a carbon copy of my latest one, although I have a larger infantry formation so that the BTS can be off the table. Apart from that it definitely looks like the sort of assault-orientated army I am hoping to develop.



I appreciate your frankness! Probably true too, Necrons are the sort of army that can really benefit from the element of surprise if people are used to Guard/Orcs/Marines etc and don't know what's coming.

having the BTS be able to be off the table was a big part of why i chose the chose the warbarque. it is too easy on turn3 to break a formation and send it off the table, where it is ignored for BTS purposes. it's exactly the same as an aircraft BTS, if it's destroyed, you lose the objective, if it isnt, but is off the table, you jump to the next most expensive formation. having an 'abe to phase out' BTS is a bigger liability than a strength, in my experience.

_________________
~Every Tool Is A Weapon, If You Hold It Right~

Quote from the Necron Reserves rule.
A big Infantry Phalanx that phases out at the end of turn 3 gives the opponent the BTS victory goal.

It is an issue that pushed me to taking one of the big Harvester engines. I was giving the BTS away too easily as my regular opponents just put a little effort into breaking the BTS Phalanx on turn 3.

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.