Warriors or Immortals?

[Toby_Travis]

I want to know if warriors are essential for a necron (footsloging) army.
I prefer the look of immortals, I hate putting the damn kits of warriors together and I prefer more elite armies, but am I gimping myself if I have exclusivity immortals for my troops?
BTW I can get scarabs fro someone I know so that' not an issue.

[Arlins]

not really , immortals are a troop choice , theres no diff in attributes exept the save , and the weapons
BUT without warriors you dont have access to Ghost arks and they can be pretty handy but your foot slogging anyway

[scorcher5]

Warriors come first, but if you don't have any immortals I HIGHLY suggest you get a squad of ten. Basically, they're space marines with a better gun and when you give them a res orb, they're very tough to kill. I love them, I love the way they look, and I love how they play on the battlefield.

[Badarmies2]

warriors are the most cost efficient but immortals certainly have their place.

[Cryage]

I just wish immortals could be in squads of 20 so a phaeron overlord leading them could kick even more ass haha

[Arlins]

I just wish immortals could be in squads of 20 so a phaeron overlord leading them could kick even more ass haha

that would be sooo nice

[Deffgames]

Warriors, they somehow, with everybody, tend to be the core. However an all immortal army couldn't be bad either, but you must surely give them all lords with res orbs. An all warrior army is a bit silly, as they are indeed as said before, cost effective. The ghost arks are also lovely to use.

[PyroSikTh]

Both. I think Warriors and Immortals is better than Warriors or Immortals.

I personally have 2 squads of Warriors with Ghost Arks, and 2 squads of Immortals.

In my Immortals list, I just have 4 units of Immortals. I reckon it'll be fairly successful, but I don't have enough Immortals to try it out.

[Fingers]

Yup, I use bigger blocks (10ish) of warriors for home base protection, usually with an arc between them. Then I use a couple smaller squads (5-6 troops) of Immortals, to move around and place where they are needed.

[scorcher5]

Personally, I run an all foot-slogging list because the ghost arks are too expensive and I do pretty well without them. (though it would be nice to see how well the arks work) Normally, I run 2-3 squads of warriors and always bring a squad of ten immortals.

[Badarmies2]

Personally, I run an all foot-slogging list because the ghost arks are too expensive and I do pretty well without them. (though it would be nice to see how well the arks work) Normally, I run 2-3 squads of warriors and always bring a squad of ten immortals.

Right there with you, at 115 points you are better off just buying the 9 extra warriors. Or large squads with res orbs.

[scorcher5]

Right there with you, at 115 points you are better off just buying the 9 extra warriors. Or large squads with res orbs.

The only problem with large squads is sweeping advances. I fought an eldar player and assaulted two squads of 12-13 warriors w/ a lord and res orb into his banshee squad. (and some other squad I can't remember) I was actually doing pretty well (probably should have won combat) when I lost by a couple of wounds, failed both of my LD tests, and were sweep advanced. I would still rather have the 9 warriors than the G-ark, because the more necrons, the more I outnumber my opponent. Don't get me wrong, though, arks are very good, (come on armor 13?!) but I'd rather have a cheap 50-70 pt transport that gets the job done just as well as any other 10, 10, 10 armor transport.

[Badarmies2]

Sweep is always an issue when you are I2, however in 6th e rules you can spend a strat point for stubborn and save one for a single die reroll making you almost unbreakable.

[PyroSikTh]

Sweep is always an issue when you are I2, however in 6th e rules you can spend a strat point for stubborn and save one for a single die reroll making you almost unbreakable.

Providing your opponent allows you a single strat point. That part of the 6th Ed leak is something I reckon they would definitely have changed. I was thinking it through and it all depends on whether you want to go first or second (I generally find second is always better), and whether your opponent knows it or not. For example, your opponent start by betting 0 Stratagem Points. You have to raise that bet to go either first or get some Stratagem Points, so you raise it and bet 1 SP. Your opponent mulls for a moment and after a while says "Okay you can go first." Now you don't have that point you needed for Stubborn...

Basically, the ability to bet 0 Stratagem Points really puts a cork in anyone relying on Stratagems or taking second.

[Badarmies2]

Providing your opponent allows you a single strat point. That part of the 6th Ed leak is something I reckon they would definitely have changed. I was thinking it through and it all depends on whether you want to go first or second (I generally find second is always better), and whether your opponent knows it or not. For example, your opponent start by betting 0 Stratagem Points. You have to raise that bet to go either first or get some Stratagem Points, so you raise it and bet 1 SP. Your opponent mulls for a moment and after a while says "Okay you can go first." Now you don't have that point you needed for Stubborn...

Basically, the ability to bet 0 Stratagem Points really puts a cork in anyone relying on Stratagems or taking second.

Going first with a shooting army in sixth is well worth 1 SP. I would happily give it. Your scenario only happens 1/2 the time. The other half you get to bid 0 :0

[PyroSikTh]

As Necrons, I'd still rather go Second. Put up Solar Pulse on their first turn forcing them to close in, and then they're in range of your guns. However, if you go first, you can't shoot them because of limited range, and then you're waiting a turn later before you can shoot them.

[Badarmies2]

As Necrons, I'd still rather go Second. Put up Solar Pulse on their first turn forcing them to close in, and then they're in range of your guns. However, if you go first, you can't shoot them because of limited range, and then you're waiting a turn later before you can shoot them.

Do you play necrons?

[Aeviaan]

Sounds to me like he plays necrons quite well.

[Badarmies2]

Sounds to me like he plays necrons quite well.

I got quite the opposite from his statement they are out of range first turn, in six and fifth with the run and gun necron builds first turn is good. In sixth going second is not nearly as good anymore with the way scoring is done.

[Aeviaan]

What type of 30" range do Necrons have they can capitalize on 1st turn? Immortals... Crypteks (destruction), Doomsday Ark... And then what?