General late '21/early '22 balance discussion

[Scribe]

How has it affected anyone's army lists? 

 

Had putting MWBD on destroyers made them more useful to you? Have you used more of them? Do you add more technomancers to use RoR on destroyer units?

 

I've taken an extreme hobby break, but seeing this makes me very happy. I will be looking into my Necrons again thanks to this. :D

[Tyriks]

I don't play competitively, but the core update has for sure made my lists more fun. Stuff feels like it works together when it didn't before. Makes it easier to bring thematic lists.

[Get Thokt]

From all of December's GTs and Majors, there were only 4 Necron lists that performed well. That is a huge decrease from previous months. November had 7, October had 11, and September with 8.

 

Also to mention, these December lists were all from small GT events, in the range of 22-32 players. Previous top lists from September-November had decent run-ins at 100+ player events.

 

What this essentially means is Necrons have gotten much worse since the dataslate. A Monday Meta post on Reddit showed all faction performances since the dataslate.. Necrons were last, at the bottom, first ever 9th Edition Codex to do so, with a 40% winrate.

 

The dataslate did improve our codex, but with other faction updates, rules, expansions, and point adjustments, has shifted the meta to a spot in which Necrons find very difficult to compete.

[Scribe]

From all of December's GTs and Majors, there were only 4 Necron lists that performed well. That is a huge decrease from previous months. November had 7, October had 11, and September with 8.

 

Also to mention, these December lists were all from small GT events, in the range of 22-32 players. Previous top lists from September-November had decent run-ins at 100+ player events.

 

What this essentially means is Necrons have gotten much worse since the dataslate. A Monday Meta post on Reddit showed all faction performances since the dataslate.. Necrons were last, at the bottom, first ever 9th Edition Codex to do so, with a 40% winrate.

 

The dataslate did improve our codex, but with other faction updates, rules, expansions, and point adjustments, has shifted the meta to a spot in which Necrons find very difficult to compete.

 

That may be, but I'm not remotely interested in meta chasing. :)

 

What is it about the current meta which is so hostile to Necrons?

[Get Thokt]

That's alright, and I don't meta chase either. It's an interest in the overall performance of the faction. I can't speak on behalf of those top tier factions, but my guess is due to the rise of using mass D1 weapons.

[Lord_Ikka]

 

What is it about the current meta which is so hostile to Necrons?

Necrons' codex reflects that it was one of the first ones published in 9th and hasn't had much changed via FAQs/updates, while the game/meta has changed a lot. 

 

Issues:

Swingy heavy weapons damage- Necron heavy weapons only have d6 damage, unlike the current favorites that have d3+3 or some variation of that (melta's d6+2 for example). Means that while other armies' anti-tank weapons are doing a minimum of 3-4 damage and a max of 8/9, Necrons have just the base d6, which means that when you need it you will roll a 1 for damage (totally unscientific).

D2 weaponry- similar to the heavy weapon damage issue, Necrons have a major lack of D2 weaponry to take out MEQ units. With armies like SM getting 2 Wounds for their base infantry, and Death Guard getting a -1 damage across the board, it is hard for Necrons to push out the damage needed to clear off a lot of units.

Protocols lacking- Great idea initially, but due to protocols requiring a unit to be within 6" of a Character, Necrons get screwed out of a good thing. While armies like AdMech and SM get detachment-wide abilities (Doctrina Imperiatives/Combat Doctrines), Necrons have to stay close to their characters to get their bonus. 

[Stupidity]

 

 

What is it about the current meta which is so hostile to Necrons?

Necrons' codex reflects that it was one of the first ones published in 9th and hasn't had much changed via FAQs/updates, while the game/meta has changed a lot. 

 

Indeed. The Necron Codex, which came first, was obviously very carefully written so that it wouldn't be overpowered but codex creep and the writers growing confidence meant every codex that came after was more ambitious and powerful. Not to mention that latter codexes are made meta relevant. 

Edited December 31, 2021 by Stupidity

[Ahzek451]

 

 

 

What is it about the current meta which is so hostile to Necrons?

Necrons' codex reflects that it was one of the first ones published in 9th and hasn't had much changed via FAQs/updates, while the game/meta has changed a lot.

 

Issues:

Swingy heavy weapons damage- Necron heavy weapons only have d6 damage, unlike the current favorites that have d3+3 or some variation of that (melta's d6+2 for example). Means that while other armies' anti-tank weapons are doing a minimum of 3-4 damage and a max of 8/9, Necrons have just the base d6, which means that when you need it you will roll a 1 for damage (totally unscientific).

D2 weaponry- similar to the heavy weapon damage issue, Necrons have a major lack of D2 weaponry to take out MEQ units. With armies like SM getting 2 Wounds for their base infantry, and Death Guard getting a -1 damage across the board, it is hard for Necrons to push out the damage needed to clear off a lot of units.

Protocols lacking- Great idea initially, but due to protocols requiring a unit to be within 6" of a Character, Necrons get screwed out of a good thing. While armies like AdMech and SM get detachment-wide abilities (Doctrina Imperiatives/Combat Doctrines), Necrons have to stay close to their characters to get their bonus.

I was really betting that either the hexmark pistols, twin tesla destructors, and/or the enmitic exterminators were going to get D2 as the book was coming out. Oh well.

 

Def a nice layout of some core issues. Minor issues are varied and nitpicks even some other armies share(worthless army specific terrain). And GW has yet to make an effective resurrection rule system. It still feels like GW has a particular vision that living metal and the current RP are fairly strong. Sure, for the uninitiated. But for those that know, focusing down units systematically to deny RP is a thing. Which also means that there is still a janky incentive to take units at max strength. The same could be said for living metal. A savvy opponent can, once again, focus down models in such a way that living metal hardly makes a difference.

Edited December 31, 2021 by Ahzek451

[Bonzi]

From all of December's GTs and Majors, there were only 4 Necron lists that performed well. That is a huge decrease from previous months. November had 7, October had 11, and September with 8.

 

Also to mention, these December lists were all from small GT events, in the range of 22-32 players. Previous top lists from September-November had decent run-ins at 100+ player events.

 

What this essentially means is Necrons have gotten much worse since the dataslate. A Monday Meta post on Reddit showed all faction performances since the dataslate.. Necrons were last, at the bottom, first ever 9th Edition Codex to do so, with a 40% winrate.

 

The dataslate did improve our codex, but with other faction updates, rules, expansions, and point adjustments, has shifted the meta to a spot in which Necrons find very difficult to compete.

It is a side effect of being one of the first codexes. Blood Angels and Space Wolves suffer a lot of the same issues. Strats and units toned down. Extreme combos made impossible or limited in how much damage they can do.

 

Codex creep has been obvious for some time now and GSC, Custodes, and Tau will likely carry it on. Old 9th Ed dexes have strats capped at 3 mortal wounds max when we see the Ad Mech and Sisters have strats that can easily proc six mortal wounds and now the Tau railgun strat maxes out at 8 mortal wounds for a single CP. Almost all Necron heavy weapons are d6 or d3 rolls while Ad Mech and Drukkari were allowed to spam D3+3 (min 4) weapons. Now we see Tau given Railguns that hit for a minimum of 10? damage? Early vehicles durability and defenses were no game designed around weapons that would do flat 10 damage with no armor or invuln allowed. They were priced and designed with d6 or d6+2 weapons in mind.

 

The core update was nice, but it didn't bring us to parity and the codex creep continues on. That Tau railgun means the Monolith has gone from bad to poor and now back to trash tier. The Silent King was great for a long time in tournament skew builds but again the railgun now makes him a liability since he has zero defense against it. The sad thing is the railgun isn't even going to shift the meta because it isn't good against the meta, it's just crushing units that were mostly already marginal at best.

 

It's the price of being first. Let's hope we get a hefty points cut in January and maybe some revamped rules via a warzone eventually.

[Ahzek451]

Just echoing what others have pointed out too in other threads, we still have not seen what else the tau codex can do. With the ominous warning that the railgun isnt even the most powerful gun previewed yet and a gutt feeling, I think the railgun will be nice for tau... but may not end up being a competative choice. We still dont know what other multi-shot, crazy, hidden combos are available that could rub salt in the wound. Frankly, at this rate it looks like necrons are back to where they were in 8th. Personally, in nervous at what the eldar will bring. Chaos marines have a shot at cheeky stuff but I'd bet my money on eldar.

 

For an army that is themed in relentless defense, anymore I feel like a paper tiger with a cardboard upgrade. The core changes helped without a doubt. Just a cheeky bandaid however. Not that I wanted anything overpowered, but with the release of the new monolith I was certain that it was going to receive more changes than it did. The monolith should arguably have been the toughest vehicle in the game(minus bigger toys of course), like the railgun is the king of AT. I geuss maybe GW felt if they went too far with it they wouldn't sell enough void dragons and silent kings. *shrugs*

 

I know I sound pessimistic but just vomiting my thoughts. I'm still going to keep trucking with my favorite bots come railgun or high water.

Edited December 31, 2021 by Ahzek451

[Daimyo-Phaeron Lenoch]

 I'm still going to keep trucking with my favorite bots come railgun or high water.

Well said, and something I'm definitely keeping in mind after a fairly crushing defeat against BT. No matter how bad the rules get, you can't make me not play Necrons.

[Lord_Ikka]

Just echoing what others have pointed out too in other threads, we still have not seen what else the tau codex can do. With the ominous warning that the railgun isnt even the most powerful gun previewed yet and a gutt feeling, I think the railgun will be nice for tau... but may not end up being a competative choice. We still dont know what other multi-shot, crazy, hidden combos are available that could rub salt in the wound. 

I'm fairly certain that the ion cannon will get a buff for number of shots, and that right there might push the railgun out of mainstream competition. 

[Get Thokt]

I find it somewhat annoying how the Submunitions strat for 1CP bypasses our reanimation protocols. So that'll be an easy 8 mortals wounds on Warrior blobs that you won't be able to reanimate. Great.

[Daimyo-Phaeron Lenoch]

Reanimation Protocols needs an update, but that horse is deader than a character who rolled a 1 on his resurrection protocols strat, so it might be best to leave that topic for another thread :wink:

[dice4thedicegod]

It would be so easy:

 

Reanimation protocols don’t work in psychic or morale phases.

 

Done.

[Mandragola]

I think necrons suffer from what's a really big problem for the game as a whole: ever increasing lethality. Guns (and melee weapons to be fair) are just so ridiculously powerful right now that many units are able to kill something equivalent to themselves in a single phase. That of course ruins abilities like RP, and makes the whole idea of a "tough" army like necrons kind of absurd.

 

This problem also can't be fixed by changing points - there's no correct price for a unit whose rules are wrong. And sometimes it's not even really the rules-writers' fault. If they get handed a model tank covered in multimeltas then it's hard for them not to make it extremely shooty - and it's also kind of impossible to fix.

 

Honestly at this point I think my best option (not necessarily everyone's) is just to sit this one out and wait for 10th, or some other major rules changes. The problem is that the game is broken by its codexes, but changing them all would require major rewrites of dataslates, right across the board. That can't be done so long as GW sticks to a paper format for its rules. Personally I think they should have switched to a digital subscription model a decade or so ago, letting them patch their rules as and when required.

[dice4thedicegod]

I think necrons suffer from what's a really big problem for the game as a whole: ever increasing lethality. Guns (and melee weapons to be fair) are just so ridiculously powerful right now that many units are able to kill something equivalent to themselves in a single phase. That of course ruins abilities like RP, and makes the whole idea of a "tough" army like necrons kind of absurd.

 

This problem also can't be fixed by changing points - there's no correct price for a unit whose rules are wrong. And sometimes it's not even really the rules-writers' fault. If they get handed a model tank covered in multimeltas then it's hard for them not to make it extremely shooty - and it's also kind of impossible to fix.

 

Honestly at this point I think my best option (not necessarily everyone's) is just to sit this one out and wait for 10th, or some other major rules changes. The problem is that the game is broken by its codexes, but changing them all would require major rewrites of dataslates, right across the board. That can't be done so long as GW sticks to a paper format for its rules. Personally I think they should have switched to a digital subscription model a decade or so ago, letting them patch their rules as and when required.

I don’t think GW ‘gets’ the problem with increased lethality as so many buffs and improvements are offensive rather than defensive.

 

Have you tried 1000 point games? Big warrior blobs may fare much better at lower levels?

[Ahzek451]

Its definitely a scaling issue. And an overall issue of balancing out an army wide mechanic of getting models back. Hell I would hate to have the pressure of balancing that nightmare.

 

But until GW figures out the scaling issue, there is going to be problems. A chief part of it is, throughout most of necron existence, RP (or wbb) has had the odd crux of being denied completely when the unit is wiped. The bigger the game, the easier it is to accomplish this. Gw has to figure out how to grant a chance to still give RP in this instance, without being annoying to the opponent. It would also help in those instances where a player wishes to have units of varying squad sizes without feeling like they might miss out on RP if the unit is taken at min.

 

I dont think a simple fnp save instead is the solution, but it's time to knock heads together at GW HQ.

Edited January 2, 2022 by Ahzek451

[Daimyo-Phaeron Lenoch]

 

I think necrons suffer from what's a really big problem for the game as a whole: ever increasing lethality. Guns (and melee weapons to be fair) are just so ridiculously powerful right now that many units are able to kill something equivalent to themselves in a single phase. That of course ruins abilities like RP, and makes the whole idea of a "tough" army like necrons kind of absurd.

 

This problem also can't be fixed by changing points - there's no correct price for a unit whose rules are wrong. And sometimes it's not even really the rules-writers' fault. If they get handed a model tank covered in multimeltas then it's hard for them not to make it extremely shooty - and it's also kind of impossible to fix.

 

Honestly at this point I think my best option (not necessarily everyone's) is just to sit this one out and wait for 10th, or some other major rules changes. The problem is that the game is broken by its codexes, but changing them all would require major rewrites of dataslates, right across the board. That can't be done so long as GW sticks to a paper format for its rules. Personally I think they should have switched to a digital subscription model a decade or so ago, letting them patch their rules as and when required.

I don’t think GW ‘gets’ the problem with increased lethality as so many buffs and improvements are offensive rather than defensive.

 

Have you tried 1000 point games? Big warrior blobs may fare much better at lower levels?

My warrior blob got deleted Turn 1 on Friday in my 1k point game by aggressors with stupid silly mobility and the max shots strat on flamethrowers, so I don’t think would change much. I think part of it might be everyone playing on the min recommended board size. I may play my next game on another 6x4 ft board. Things feel too cramped and killy on the small sized boards (even if I do prefer a close-in style sort of play with either Mephrit or melee).

[dice4thedicegod]

 

 

I think necrons suffer from what's a really big problem for the game as a whole: ever increasing lethality. Guns (and melee weapons to be fair) are just so ridiculously powerful right now that many units are able to kill something equivalent to themselves in a single phase. That of course ruins abilities like RP, and makes the whole idea of a "tough" army like necrons kind of absurd.

 

This problem also can't be fixed by changing points - there's no correct price for a unit whose rules are wrong. And sometimes it's not even really the rules-writers' fault. If they get handed a model tank covered in multimeltas then it's hard for them not to make it extremely shooty - and it's also kind of impossible to fix.

 

Honestly at this point I think my best option (not necessarily everyone's) is just to sit this one out and wait for 10th, or some other major rules changes. The problem is that the game is broken by its codexes, but changing them all would require major rewrites of dataslates, right across the board. That can't be done so long as GW sticks to a paper format for its rules. Personally I think they should have switched to a digital subscription model a decade or so ago, letting them patch their rules as and when required.

I don’t think GW ‘gets’ the problem with increased lethality as so many buffs and improvements are offensive rather than defensive.

 

Have you tried 1000 point games? Big warrior blobs may fare much better at lower levels?

My warrior blob got deleted Turn 1 on Friday in my 1k point game by aggressors with stupid silly mobility and the max shots strat on flamethrowers, so I don’t think would change much. I think part of it might be everyone playing on the min recommended board size. I may play my next game on another 6x4 ft board. Things feel too cramped and killy on the small sized boards (even if I do prefer a close-in style sort of play with either Mephrit or melee).

Wow. How did that happen? 6 aggressors? 6*2*6*.5*.5 = 18 on average… youch! Did you go second? I always take eternal guardian to give my warriors light cover in the event that an opponent gets to alpha strike me (would reduce it to 12 dead on average… get 4 or 5 back from reainimation and you still have 12-13.)

[Daimyo-Phaeron Lenoch]

No, I went first, but he was a tourney player and A) played the board when i agreed to make it all obscuring without fully recognizing what that mean, and therefore played me, and B ) pulled the aggressors from one end of the table to the other in one go, and I played my protocols to try and maximize AP, as I don't think cover would have mattered much against flamers.

 

Lessons learned, don't go first against BT, and play on larger boards for more maneuverability. (He was a gentlemen about it though and we mutually agreed to try an 'emergency reanimation' strat for 2cp to fish for sixes to stand models back up, which he then promptly killed in melee. Mainly because 'I know how dangerous they are and wanted to get them gone as soon as possible')

Edited January 3, 2022 by Daimyo-Phaeron Lenoch

[Mandragola]

I'm not sure whether size of game is the issue. The problem is that there are single units now able to kill 20 warriors in one phase, denying them RP. There's nothing stopping someone from taking those units in 1k games - indeed those 6 aggressors are cheaper than a blob of 20 warriors. But anyway the standard format most people play is 2k and I don't see people agreeing to change that just to give warriors a chance.

[Ahzek451]

Instead of making a new thread, just going to continue on this one since it seems related enough.

 

Thoughts on the points changes? Its welcome. To no shock, I still feel we need more than a points bandaid. But regardless...more incentive to run destroyer armies. Still not sure if it's enough to run a monolith, but overall the cost of my army has dropped. I'm excited to see what else changes. *crosses fingers for annihilation barges*

 

If the canoptek doomstalker stays the same, I do feel the drop in the doomsday ark further cements it as a better anti-tank option.

 

Obelisk? Yeah...still a no for me.

Edited January 21, 2022 by Ahzek451

[dice4thedicegod]

I would honestly try monoliths now… I just feel (given how terrain congested tables are currently) that I would have to beg concessions from my opponent about setup just to make sure that they can maneuver given the huge base size.

 

(I’m sure my opponents would be good sports about it, I’d just rather not have to ask… as would be the case if the monolith could fly over things)

Edited January 21, 2022 by dice4thedicegod

[Lord_Ikka]

I typically run two 6 man Skorpehk squads, so saving 60pts on them will help me squeeze in some other stuff. The points going down on Lokhust Heavies will help as well- every little bit means that much more chance of getting another scarab base to frustrate my opponents.

 

As far as the Monolith goes, now it is a net -10 points for me since I give mine death rays, which isn't bad but also not really that much of a discount. The only time I used the Monolith, it was against Imperial Knights and did alright- my opponent didn't know about the Monolith's melee ability and underestimated what it could do. The second game against him was not as good- the lack of an invuln really hurts the Monolith. With Quantum Shielding, or even just a 5+ invuln, the points cost for the Monolith would be justified, but right now it fits in with all other super-heavies that lack an invuln; they are too points-heavy for what they can do, the points valuing rare amount of wounds/toughness as a measure of survivability that just isn't there...