I have some information regarding the development of a Necron codex. I do not normally come on Warseer, but thought you would appreciate this information – hence the small number of posts. You have no reason to put faith in me – and I am not prepared to prove my validity at potential detriment to my career. I do not want to specify my exact employment with Games Workshop for this reason.
Necrons have completed the initial concept phase of their line expansion. Release schedule is currently for January 2011.
This conceptual phase has been stop-start for some time – it is a product range that has massive potential, and Games Workshop have been very uncertain of the most lucrative theme by which to capitalise on its fanbase. The development is considered a high-risk investment – a commitment problem that the team is well aware of, and is exacerbated by there being multiple such high-risk line expansions currently being pursued.
3 multi-part plastic kits have been finalised as:
- Immortals
- Spyders
- The Necromancer
Immortals are on a large (35mm) base; they are redesigned as larger, bulkier and more dynamic.
Spyders have 3 different builds
The Necromancer is the central sell of the line expansion and has been the focus of much of the early design process. It has been through several incarnations (and names), but is essentially of the same principle as the Bone Giant for the Warhammer Fantasy range. It has a mechanised skeletal torso housing a suspended crystal, and will likely have a choice between two horrific weapons.
That is all the information I can disclose. I will not post any more.
I would like to add that development staff are getting very frustrated by headquarters’ increasingly tyrannical policies – within and between departments – with regards to information restriction. It’s absurd, and unnecessary.
Interesting stuff. It reads like a refugee posting 40k rumors in his last moments before the GW gestapo take him away. I like what he's talking about though - sounds like some cool ideas. 3 plastic kits isn't unheard of either.
"Immortals are on a large (35mm) base; they are redesigned as larger, bulkier and more dynamic. "
This comment makes me question the validity.
Either GW's creating a new base size, or the guy doesn't know his base sizes.
I don't find it likely that they'd create another base size.
You shouldn't be surprised if it looks a lot like the big robot in Terminator: Salvation. Afterall, GW ripped off both the 'terminator' name and the Android/Necron Warrior look from the original Terminator movie. Now shortly after the latest Terminator movie we get a Necron Giant.
I'm not complaining. I'm looking forward to this release and if the models and codex are a success I will definately start the army. It's just that sometimes watching GW use everyone else's ideas as their own and on the other hand going after small independent miniature companies and fan sites gets a little overwhelming.
Necrons eh? I'll believe it when I see them in White Dwarf and on their website. Also, why would GW put the new Immortals on a new base size? 35mm bases? If they're bulkier, great, but wouldn't they be on 40mm bases just like the newer plastic terminators are? Doesn't make sense (to me anyway) for GW to have a new base size for just one unit.
If this is true, yay. Wouldn't be the first rumor I've seen regarding 'crons, but it's probably the most detailed. I'd love to believe that it's actually true, Jan 2011 doesn't seem too too far away.
Wait, the "Necromancer" is the name of the 'cron walker-esque thing? That's a really weird name for it. I would think Necromancer would be the name of a new lord type, that uses the psyker rules or has psyker-like abilities. Obviously there can't actually be a 'cron psyker.
Edit: Crap, plastic Immortals. I guess it was coming, but the fact that they come with bigger bases probably means the model is significantly different, or maybe even comes with wargear or something.
You shouldn't be surprised if it looks a lot like the big robot in Terminator: Salvation. Afterall, GW ripped off both the 'terminator' name and the Android/Necron Warrior look from the original Terminator movie. Now shortly after the latest Terminator movie we get a Necron Giant.
I'm not complaining. I'm looking forward to this release and if the models and codex are a success I will definitely start the army. It's just that sometimes watching GW use everyone else's ideas as their own and on the other hand going after small independent miniature companies and fan sites gets a little overwhelming.
totally agree, aside from most armies in 40k are based off of their fantasy range (and that’s based off D&D races) some of newer races lack any creativity.
Necrons - Ripped from Terminators
Tyranids - Ripped from Aliens
Tau - ripped from Star Wars "Trade Federation"
Still though, I have to say this information (if true) is a positive for Necron Players.
You shouldn't be surprised if it looks a lot like the big robot in Terminator: Salvation. Afterall, GW ripped off both the 'terminator' name and the Android/Necron Warrior look from the original Terminator movie. Now shortly after the latest Terminator movie we get a Necron Giant.
I'm not complaining. I'm looking forward to this release and if the models and codex are a success I will definitely start the army. It's just that sometimes watching GW use everyone else's ideas as their own and on the other hand going after small independent miniature companies and fan sites gets a little overwhelming.
totally agree, aside from most armies in 40k are based off of their fantasy range (and that’s based off D&D races) some of newer races lack any creativity.
Necrons - Ripped from Terminators
Tyranids - Ripped from Aliens
Tau - ripped from Star Wars "Trade Federation"
Still though, I have to say this information (if true) is a positive for Necron Players.
Aesthetically, yeah, but not so much fluffwise. It is kind of wierd that they not only pretty much outright stole the terminator metallic skeleton look, the named one of their main special rules after a very famous line from T2, and got away with it.
D&D stole their material from Lord of the Rings, and Nids didn't look like Aliens for a long time, but who cares really.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for this rumor, I hope it is true! I love the crons and they are a range with huge potential because they are cheap to buy, easy to paint, easy to play, look cool and have an interesting background.
I have always wanted a Cron army and if the necromancer rumor is true that fills the gap I always wanted them to, a giant Cron robot.
WAAAGH!!!BLITZROG wrote:
Nerons - Ripped from Terminator
Tyranids - Ripped from Aliens
People often makes this assumption and yes, Alien does inform some aspect of the Tyranid design, but GW have stated in the past that dinosaurs are another influence. Not hard to wrap your head around the idea if you look closely.
WAAAGH!!!BLITZROG wrote:
Nerons - Ripped from Terminator
Tyranids - Ripped from Aliens
People often makes this assumption and yes, Alien does inform some aspect of the Tyranid design, but GW have stated in the past that dinosaurs are another influence. Not hard to wrap your head around the idea if you look closely.
That is, at best, incredibly shaky logic. I wouldn't want to admit I stole designs either.
I mean, Blizzard can say whatever they want when they drone on about how Terran Marines are modeled after Confederate soldiers and whatnot, but we all know where they stole the design from.
Izual wrote:I would like to add that development staff are getting very frustrated by headquarters’ increasingly tyrannical policies – within and between departments – with regards to information restriction. It’s absurd, and unnecessary.
Reecius wrote:D&D stole their material from Lord of the Rings, and Nids didn't look like Aliens for a long time, but who cares really.
The first Tyranids were scary ripped Aliens with elongated heads, running around a Space Ship (Space Hulk) trying to infest the crew with Alien Genes. Nothing like the movie Alien/Aliens at all!
Izual wrote:I would like to add that development staff are getting very frustrated by headquarters’ increasingly tyrannical policies – within and between departments – with regards to information restriction. It’s absurd, and unnecessary.
Reecius wrote:D&D stole their material from Lord of the Rings, and Nids didn't look like Aliens for a long time, but who cares really.
The first Tyranids were scary ripped Aliens with elongated heads, running around a Space Ship (Space Hulk) trying to infest the crew with Alien Genes. Nothing like the movie Alien/Aliens at all!
1. Genestealers didn't originally have elongated heads(and still don't).
2. Genestealers weren't originally Tyranids in RT. They were aliens from the planet Yymgarl.
3. The first Tyranids(that were actually called Tyranids, anyway) were Gaunts NOT Genestealers.
Not saying I particularly disagree with you, just that your statement isn't the best proof.
Incidentally, the best examples for your case are the 2nd ed Hormagaunts and the 3rd ed Tytrant(and the similarly designed FW Tyrants).
Yep, GW CLEARLY copied the robots from Terminator, I mean there are SO many different ways in which they could have designed their own robot skeleton...
Awesome. I just purchased a bunch of Terminator figures from Toys R Us (60% off) to use a Necron fodder in Apocalypse... t'would be cool to use them in a normal game of 40k.
So? It seems the necrons came out during a lighter time of tongue-in-cheek-iness. Notice how Orks have been getting progressively less comedic in Bad Stuff (tm) happening to them on their own account?
I didn't care so much for the revisionist fluff afterwards where suddenly everything was "the C'tan did it!", but the army was nifty all the same. I'll be interested to see how the designers can re-carve a place in the 40k universe for necrons.
Also, Tyranids have 6 limbs. The Alien xenomorph has 4. Yes, there are some similarities, but it's like saying Eldar are based on Tolkien's LotR. Sure, there's similarities. Remember, stealing one idea is plagarism. Stealing a bunch of ideas is inspiration! GW took inspiration from multiple sources.
Frankly, I think Necrons are more akin to the Tomb Kings WFB army than Terminator movie. There's not the giant tracked tanks, the flying HK's, etc.
I hope the Necron rumours are true, not just because there models look really good, but for the background. They have to have some of the best fluff in the 40k universe.
WAAAGH!!!BLITZROG wrote:totally agree, aside from most armies in 40k are based off of their fantasy range (and that’s based off D&D races) some of newer races lack any creativity.
Necrons - Ripped from Terminators
Tyranids - Ripped from Aliens
Tau - ripped from Star Wars "Trade Federation"
GW aren't the only ones lacking creativity though:
Ostrakon wrote:Aesthetically, yeah, but not so much fluffwise. It is kind of wierd that they not only pretty much outright stole the terminator metallic skeleton look, the named one of their main special rules after a very famous line from T2, and got away with it.
Agreed that it's not clear-cut. The army is part Terminator, part Lovecraftian horror, part straight horror, part '50s style evil robots (look at the Pariahs), and part space undead. The fluff is mostly horror/Lovecraft-oriented, but then the game play is mostly Terminator/robot-influenced (WBB being a bigger mechanic than any "scary" thing the army does on the tabletop.
Visually speaking, you mostly have sleek high-tech robots with a space undead edge. The sense of an ancient, dead race is pretty much non-existent. Oh, then throw in the Flayed Ones for some Freddy Kruger/straight horror feel and the Tomb Spyders for a Matrix vibe.
Said it before and I'll say it again...it's a conceptual mess. There's *nothing* wrong with borrowing from other sources and recombining those elements into something fresh and new. In this case, it's a bad blend. Personally I think they need to choose either the robot angle or the horror angle and de-emphasize (not eliminate, just pare back) the other one. Then build the fluff and (importantly) game play accordingly.
You shouldn't be surprised if it looks a lot like the big robot in Terminator: Salvation. Afterall, GW ripped off both the 'terminator' name and the Android/Necron Warrior look from the original Terminator movie. Now shortly after the latest Terminator movie we get a Necron Giant.
I'm not complaining. I'm looking forward to this release and if the models and codex are a success I will definitely start the army. It's just that sometimes watching GW use everyone else's ideas as their own and on the other hand going after small independent miniature companies and fan sites gets a little overwhelming.
totally agree, aside from most armies in 40k are based off of their fantasy range (and that’s based off D&D races) some of newer races lack any creativity.
Necrons - Ripped from Terminators
Tyranids - Ripped from Aliens
Tau - ripped from Star Wars "Trade Federation"
Apparently somebody has never heard of Robotech
But yes your point stands.
So if these new models are due to release in Jan 2011 that would imply a codex coming out prior to that yes?
The Watcher in the Dark wrote:I hope the Necron rumours are true, not just because there models look really good, but for the background. They have to have some of the best fluff in the 40k universe.
GW aren't the only ones lacking creativity though:
Cadian
Space Marine (they even call it power armour)
Ok, it's just coincidence...
Power Fist
Erm...
The first guy looks a lot more like the Colonial Marines from Aliens.
"Power armor" was coined back in atleast the 1959...
Simply put this all doesn't matter. The writers and designers of 40k have many times said that the 40k universe is an amalgamation of Sci-fi and Fantasy archetypes... that said its a bit of an "no-derrrrr" sort of thing when people point out the commonalities and similarities GW already acknowledges. Get over it. Move on.
You shouldn't be surprised if it looks a lot like the big robot in Terminator: Salvation. Afterall, GW ripped off both the 'terminator' name and the Android/Necron Warrior look from the original Terminator movie. Now shortly after the latest Terminator movie we get a Necron Giant.
I'm not complaining. I'm looking forward to this release and if the models and codex are a success I will definitely start the army. It's just that sometimes watching GW use everyone else's ideas as their own and on the other hand going after small independent miniature companies and fan sites gets a little overwhelming.
totally agree, aside from most armies in 40k are based off of their fantasy range (and that’s based off D&D races) some of newer races lack any creativity.
Necrons - Ripped from Terminators
Tyranids - Ripped from Aliens
Tau - ripped from Star Wars "Trade Federation"
Apparently somebody has never heard of Robotech
But yes your point stands.
So if these new models are due to release in Jan 2011 that would imply a codex coming out prior to that yes?
Necron Codex late 2010?
Crisis suits don't look anything like Valkyries... nor do the Tau look like the Zentraedi.
Tau's fleshy bits do look like the fishmen from Episode 1, but they also bare a resemblance to Neo-Saipens.. and the Crisis suits have a similar aesthetic to the E-Frames, both of Exo-Squad.
Tau are much more good old fashion American Mecha then Japanese Mecha
ANYWAY I think it's time for some good old fashioned wild mass guessing about these rumors.
Do we think this walker would be a vehicle, or an MC? I'm gonna guess MC so we can have some sort of WBB shenanigans: instead of WBB it comes back with D3-1 wounds, meaning it's dead on a 1-2.
Changing the design on the Immortals is probably a good sign. While there's nothing particularly bad about the current models, they really are a little to similar to just Warriors with blasters.
Same goes for tomb spyders, especially if there's going to be a multi-model kit. Maybe they'll perform a new special function or something?
Cyporiean wrote:Tau's fleshy bits do look like the fishmen from Episode 1, but they also bare a resemblance to Neo-Saipens.. and the Crisis suits have a similar aesthetic to the E-Frames, both of Exo-Squad.
Tau are much more good old fashion American Mecha then Japanese Mecha
Cyporiean wrote:Tau's fleshy bits do look like the fishmen from Episode 1, but they also bare a resemblance to Neo-Saipens.. and the Crisis suits have a similar aesthetic to the E-Frames, both of Exo-Squad.
Tau are much more good old fashion American Mecha then Japanese Mecha
Dang beaten to it
Also, wasn't the toy line retconned so that it was part of Robotech, anyway?
Oh, and Cyporiean, it's "bear a resemblance", not bare.
Cyporiean wrote:Tau's fleshy bits do look like the fishmen from Episode 1, but they also bare a resemblance to Neo-Saipens.. and the Crisis suits have a similar aesthetic to the E-Frames, both of Exo-Squad.
Tau are much more good old fashion American Mecha then Japanese Mecha
Dang beaten to it
Also, wasn't the toy line retconned so that it was part of Robotech, anyway?
Oh, and Cyporiean, it's "bear a resemblance", not bare.
Actually, parts of the 'Robotech' Toy line were brought into Exosquad.. alone with Battletech.
But continuity and Robotech don't really go together very well.
SweetLou wrote:no its BARE not BEAR BEAR is a animal
It's 'bear'
'Bare' means 'uncovered'.
'Bear' is an animal, but the word also has other meanings. To 'bear' something can mean 'to carry' (as in 'ring bearer'), to support (as in a 'load bearing structure') or to put up with (as in 'bear with me')...
Platuan4th wrote:1. Genestealers didn't originally have elongated heads(and still don't).
2. Genestealers weren't originally Tyranids in RT. They were aliens from the planet Yymgarl.
3. The first Tyranids(that were actually called Tyranids, anyway) were Gaunts NOT Genestealers.
Not saying I particularly disagree with you, just that your statement isn't the best proof.
Incidentally, the best examples for your case are the 2nd ed Hormagaunts and the 3rd ed Tytrant(and the similarly designed FW Tyrants).
1.) Look at the back head of a Genestealer, then look at the back head of a human: Which one goes farther back? If in doubt, look at the first metal hormagaunts, as you already noticed.
2.) When Genestealers were introduced, there were no other Tyranids. Then the hunter slayers, Zoats and Tyranid Warriors were introduced. When the first Tyranid Codex was released, Genestealers were part of it as Tyranid shock troopers, making them the first Tyranid models. Early art shows them acting together with Tyranid warriors.
3.) The first "Tyranids" were the Warrios from Advanced Space Hulk, who were explicitely called Tyranids. The gaunts were called Hunter Slayers, not Tyranids at first. The first Codex made the connections between all of them clear, using the word Tyranid for the race, not only the warriors.
Kroothawk wrote:
2.) When Genestealers were introduced, there were no other Tyranids. Then the hunter slayers, Zoats and Tyranid Warriors were introduced. When the first Tyranid Codex was released, Genestealers were part of it as Tyranid shock troopers, making them the first Tyranid models. Early art shows them acting together with Tyranid warriors.
3.) The first "Tyranids" were the Warrios from Advanced Space Hulk, who were explicitely called Tyranids. The gaunts were called Hunter Slayers, not Tyranids at first. The first Codex made the connections between all of them clear, using the word Tyranid for the race, not only the warriors.
So much for that.
The first tyranid model was an extremely limited release of a creature exactly resembling the picture in Rogue Trader. It predated the genestealer (first genestealer had a segmented head rather than a smooth dome) by several years. There's a picture of one in an old 'Eavy Metal, on a page with other monsters, an issue prior to the 100th issue, in the high 80s perhaps. I seem to remember the citadel troglodytes on the same page but I might be blurring, it's been a couple of decades.
It was metal, it was on a monster square base, it was considerably larger than a hunter slayer (the hunter slayers also predated the first genestealer model, being released shortly after the Zoats).
MeanGreenStompa wrote:It was metal, it was on a monster square base, it was considerably larger than a hunter slayer (the hunter slayers also predated the first genestealer model, being released shortly after the Zoats).
I have some information regarding the development of a Necron codex. I do not normally come on Warseer, but thought you would appreciate this information – hence the small number of posts. You have no reason to put faith in me – and I am not prepared to prove my validity at potential detriment to my career. I do not want to specify my exact employment with Games Workshop for this reason.
Necrons have completed the initial concept phase of their line expansion. Release schedule is currently for January 2011.
This conceptual phase has been stop-start for some time – it is a product range that has massive potential, and Games Workshop have been very uncertain of the most lucrative theme by which to capitalise on its fanbase. The development is considered a high-risk investment – a commitment problem that the team is well aware of, and is exacerbated by there being multiple such high-risk line expansions currently being pursued.
3 multi-part plastic kits have been finalised as:
- Immortals
- Spyders
- The Necromancer
Immortals are on a large (35mm) base; they are redesigned as larger, bulkier and more dynamic.
Spyders have 3 different builds
The Necromancer is the central sell of the line expansion and has been the focus of much of the early design process. It has been through several incarnations (and names), but is essentially of the same principle as the Bone Giant for the Warhammer Fantasy range. It has a mechanised skeletal torso housing a suspended crystal, and will likely have a choice between two horrific weapons.
That is all the information I can disclose. I will not post any more.
I would like to add that development staff are getting very frustrated by headquarters’ increasingly tyrannical policies – within and between departments – with regards to information restriction. It’s absurd, and unnecessary.
Necromancer?
Give me a break, why don't you and your brain trust come up with something better then that Deep Throat.
"That is all the information I can disclose. I will not post anymore."
OOH AHH!!! You told us too much already.
LOL
If you do work for GW, why don't you get your collective heads out of your fouth point of contact and come up with something serious.
Thats the best you tools can come up with? Necromancer?
Run along, your short bus is getting away.
You can't start a thread? Run along, you tool, What do you call it when you making the first post with a whole bunch of GAK in it?
Ostrakon wrote:Do we think this walker would be a vehicle, or an MC? I'm gonna guess MC so we can have some sort of WBB shenanigans: instead of WBB it comes back with D3-1 wounds, meaning it's dead on a 1-2.
I'd have to agree with it being an MC....in effect a REALLY big Necron foot soldier.
Ostrakon wrote:Changing the design on the Immortals is probably a good sign. While there's nothing particularly bad about the current models, they really are a little to similar to just Warriors with blasters.
Agree with this also. I have a full 2nd edition Necron army and when I saw the new Immortals they didn't look like they should be toughness 5. The 2nd ed ones are beefier than their warrior bretherin, looking like they'd be harder to take down. If the new Immortals are plastic and look cool, I will be replacing my current Immortals with the new ones.
Ostrakon wrote:Same goes for tomb spyders, especially if there's going to be a multi-model kit. Maybe they'll perform a new special function or something?.
One can hope....I hope their BS will be raised from the pathetic 2 that it is now and maybe give them access to Heavy Gauss Cannons or their equivalent in the new Codex.
Ostrakon wrote:I hope WBB doesn't get replaced, too.
Best bet is that WBB will be replaced by Feel No Pain. I'd also kinda like to see the army get Slow and Purposeful to represent the relentless advance of the robot horde.
Grot 6 wrote:Necromancer? Give me a break, why don't you and your brain trust come up with something better then that Deep Throat. (...)
Thats the best you tools can come up with? Necromancer?
Yeah, what's next? Calling a new Tyranid Tyrannofex ... or a Space Wolf character Canis Wolfborn, riding on a wolf? Ridiculous! GW would never do that!
BTW he couldn't start a thread over at Warseer because forum settings forbid it. He had to post in the Blood Angels thread and some mod then created a new thread.
Ostrakon wrote:Do we think this walker would be a vehicle, or an MC? I'm gonna guess MC so we can have some sort of WBB shenanigans: instead of WBB it comes back with D3-1 wounds, meaning it's dead on a 1-2.
I'd have to agree with it being an MC....in effect a REALLY big Necron foot soldier.
Ostrakon wrote:Changing the design on the Immortals is probably a good sign. While there's nothing particularly bad about the current models, they really are a little to similar to just Warriors with blasters.
Agree with this also. I have a full 2nd edition Necron army and when I saw the new Immortals they didn't look like they should be toughness 5. The 2nd ed ones are beefier than their warrior bretherin, looking like they'd be harder to take down. If the new Immortals are plastic and look cool, I will be replacing my current Immortals with the new ones.
Ostrakon wrote:Same goes for tomb spyders, especially if there's going to be a multi-model kit. Maybe they'll perform a new special function or something?.
One can hope....I hope their BS will be raised from the pathetic 2 that it is now and maybe give them access to Heavy Gauss Cannons or their equivalent in the new Codex.
Ostrakon wrote:I hope WBB doesn't get replaced, too.
Best bet is that WBB will be replaced by Feel No Pain. I'd also kinda like to see the army get Slow and Purposeful to represent the relentless advance of the robot horde.
I dunno about FNP replacing WBB, since we wouldn't be able to FNP from plasma and the like. Either way I feel like either Phaseout should go, or we should get some kind of point discount to compensate. I mean, 'crons (right now) have the weakness of being absolute crap in CC, and even their shooting is not particularly good, especially for our mandatory 360 points of crappy troops (bolter fire with the occasional autoglance? yech). I mean, if they're going to a MEQ with crappy CC capabilities AND get saddled with phaseout, they should logically be cheaper than marines. Factor in WBB and I honestly think they should stay at Tac marine cost, or keep about their current cost if we get rid of phaseout. If we're keeping phaseout I see no reason why they can't keep their current statline, get FNP and S+P (inherent to every Necron model in fact), for in the range of 15 points/model.
I wonder how the Tomb Spyder would interact with FNP if he still keeps his "Artificer" function. I could see TSs be upgrades to Necron units, kind of like how Nobs work or maybe how Wolf Guard leaders work. I think allowing a FNP reroll would be asking too much, but maybe one FNP reroll a turn per squad or something like that? Or maybe the TS would function as the current Res Orb does (allow the roll when you wouldn't normally get it) and the Res Orb would logically be redone to be some kind of FNP reroll ability.
I want to see Flayed Ones move to troops and either gain Fleet/Rending a la Daemonettes or built in PWs like Bloodletters, and stay around the same points costs. I want to see Pariahs count as Necrons or given a discount of some kind, maybe moved to I4 or gain an attack. I want to see C'Tan not get moved to Apoc. I want to see Immortals pretty much stay the same. I'd like to see Destroyers and Heavy Destroyers merged into the same unit, with Destroyers getting a heavy gauss cannon wargear option, and I want to see that cannon be AP1 so it can actually kill vehicles like it is supposed to.
I want a lot of things, apparently. Either way I'm incredibly excited about whatever they're going to do with it, as they can really only go up from here. If Matt Ward is really writing it, I'm sure they'll finally be as relentless and menacing as they are depicted in the fluff. I just hope they don't print something absolutely broken, because I don't want to be accused of playing a cheese army when I started playing them post 5E anyway...
Ostrakon wrote:Do we think this walker would be a vehicle, or an MC? I'm gonna guess MC so we can have some sort of WBB shenanigans: instead of WBB it comes back with D3-1 wounds, meaning it's dead on a 1-2.
I'd have to agree with it being an MC....in effect a REALLY big Necron foot soldier.
Ostrakon wrote:Changing the design on the Immortals is probably a good sign. While there's nothing particularly bad about the current models, they really are a little to similar to just Warriors with blasters.
Agree with this also. I have a full 2nd edition Necron army and when I saw the new Immortals they didn't look like they should be toughness 5. The 2nd ed ones are beefier than their warrior bretherin, looking like they'd be harder to take down. If the new Immortals are plastic and look cool, I will be replacing my current Immortals with the new ones.
Ostrakon wrote:Same goes for tomb spyders, especially if there's going to be a multi-model kit. Maybe they'll perform a new special function or something?.
One can hope....I hope their BS will be raised from the pathetic 2 that it is now and maybe give them access to Heavy Gauss Cannons or their equivalent in the new Codex.
Ostrakon wrote:I hope WBB doesn't get replaced, too.
Best bet is that WBB will be replaced by Feel No Pain. I'd also kinda like to see the army get Slow and Purposeful to represent the relentless advance of the robot horde.
I dunno about FNP replacing WBB, since we wouldn't be able to FNP from plasma and the like. Either way I feel like either Phaseout should go, or we should get some kind of point discount to compensate. I mean, 'crons (right now) have the weakness of being absolute crap in CC, and even their shooting is not particularly good, especially for our mandatory 360 points of crappy troops (bolter fire with the occasional autoglance? yech). I mean, if they're going to a MEQ with crappy CC capabilities AND get saddled with phaseout, they should logically be cheaper than marines. Factor in WBB and I honestly think they should stay at Tac marine cost, or keep about their current cost if we get rid of phaseout. If we're keeping phaseout I see no reason why they can't keep their current statline, get FNP and S+P (inherent to every Necron model in fact), for in the range of 15 points/model.
I wonder how the Tomb Spyder would interact with FNP if he still keeps his "Artificer" function. I could see TSs be upgrades to Necron units, kind of like how Nobs work or maybe how Wolf Guard leaders work. I think allowing a FNP reroll would be asking too much, but maybe one FNP reroll a turn per squad or something like that? Or maybe the TS would function as the current Res Orb does (allow the roll when you wouldn't normally get it) and the Res Orb would logically be redone to be some kind of FNP reroll ability.
I want to see Flayed Ones move to troops and either gain Fleet/Rending a la Daemonettes or built in PWs like Bloodletters, and stay around the same points costs. I want to see Pariahs count as Necrons or given a discount of some kind, maybe moved to I4 or gain an attack. I want to see C'Tan not get moved to Apoc. I want to see Immortals pretty much stay the same. I'd like to see Destroyers and Heavy Destroyers merged into the same unit, with Destroyers getting a heavy gauss cannon wargear option, and I want to see that cannon be AP1 so it can actually kill vehicles like it is supposed to.
I want a lot of things, apparently. Either way I'm incredibly excited about whatever they're going to do with it, as they can really only go up from here. If Matt Ward is really writing it, I'm sure they'll finally be as relentless and menacing as they are depicted in the fluff. I just hope they don't print something absolutely broken, because I don't want to be accused of playing a cheese army when I started playing them post 5E anyway...
Grot 6 wrote:Necromancer? Give me a break, why don't you and your brain trust come up with something better then that Deep Throat. (...)
Thats the best you tools can come up with? Necromancer?
Yeah, what's next? Calling a new Tyranid Tyrannofex ... or a Space Wolf character Canis Wolfborn, riding on a wolf? Ridiculous! GW would never do that!
Well Tyrannofex is pretty silly (Tyrant-maker? wut), and Canis Wolfborn is certainly cheesy, they at least make sense as a failed attempt at applying the Rule of Cool. (I can just picture them whining "[url=http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ptitle8px80d2wm3pd?from=Main.WhatDoYouMeanItsNotAwesome]What do you mean it's not awesome![url]")
Necromancer kind of doesn't fit for several reasons. I mean, maybe it's just me, but I picture "necromancers" as scrawny spellcasters who rarely close to melee. Maybe it's a Necromancer insofar as it's leading a vast horde of "undead", but I dunno. It seems like it'll be CC oriented from the description.
I'll wait until I hear something from a more credible source. The whole base size thing really did it for me. I highly doubt 35mm bases will be coming in for GW.
I don't think I like idea of a Necron "Bone Giant" type creature, it seems too cheesy/simplistic to give an army of robot skeletons a giant robot skeleton. I would much rather they made a Carnifex sized fig/kit for a giant plastic Tomb Spyder. I really dislike the current metal fig, and would gladly see it replaced with something better and the old one gotten rid of. And yes, I have several of my own metal ones that would become "useless" then too.
And since we're on a topic of a new Necron Codex, I'll go ahead and repeat the three main things I would love to see put into it.
1.) Change We'll Be Back into Feel No Pain. WBB is just an overly complicated rule that in the end has the same general effect as the MUCH simpler FNP. Yes, I'm sure "You" understand exactly how WBB works in all possible circumstances, but So Many people get the rule and all of it's interactions wrong So Often. Yes, FNP is a nerf to a couple unit's (mostly destroyers) durability from enemy shooting, but it's a buff to every unit's melee, as they'll get to make their attacks back after passing their saves, and melee is where we need the help.
2.) To further help Necrons in melee, without simply making them better at it, give all Necrons LD10, and an uber stubborn rule where they are Always and Forever LD10 and NOTHING can override or lower their LD to Anything other than LD10 for Any reason or purpose. OMG so Broken, right?! Keep reading...
3.) Phase Out. It's fluffy, but it really kills the army and the variety of units you can take as you constantly need to watch that Phase Out count. Instead put Phase Out on the Unit level, where if they fail a Moral Check, they Phase Out and the Unit is removed from the table, with no chance of coming back or saving, just gone. With the #2 change it'd be really hard to break `em, but when you do they suffer for it, and who wants to see robots running away in fear anyway?
Aduro--I think it all depends on how the "Bone Giant"-esque critter is made. If it's just "Okay, here's a giant Necron with bigger weapons. Enjoy!" then yeah, that'd be kinda lame.
But if it were "Okay, here's a giant robotic skeleton that renders down slaughtered enemies and functions as a massive conduit for rendered down souls to fuel the undying hordes of the Necrontyr"?
That'd actually be pretty badass.
I've hurt myself too many times hoping and praying for any kind of news now this comes along....I'll keep a glimmer of hope but for the moment I'll be patiently awaiting factual news.
2.) To further help Necrons in melee, without simply making them better at it, give all Necrons LD10, and an uber stubborn rule where they are Always and Forever LD10 and NOTHING can override or lower their LD to Anything other than LD10 for Any reason or purpose. OMG so Broken, right?! Keep reading...
3.) Phase Out. It's fluffy, but it really kills the army and the variety of units you can take as you constantly need to watch that Phase Out count. Instead put Phase Out on the Unit level, where if they fail a Moral Check, they Phase Out and the Unit is removed from the table, with no chance of coming back or saving, just gone. With the #2 change it'd be really hard to break `em, but when you do they suffer for it, and who wants to see robots running away in fear anyway?
That's... a really excellent idea. I don't quite like the execution, but the idea of a unit-by-unit phaseout working quite well.
To be honest, I'd like to keep their melee vulnerability, at least for ranged units like Destroyers, warriors, and immortals. Fluff depicts Wraiths and Flayed Ones as bloody, quick, and deadly in CC, but I think thematically it's okay for whatever unit that somehow escapes mass gauss death deserves to cut down the lumbering warriors. I say this mostly because I envision them being cheaper pointswise, so I can really field an undead "legion" if I wanted to. So I think in a properly realized Necron army, the melee units get Stubborn and the ranged infantry get S+P.
As for the unit-by-unit phaseout, I think it would work better like this, to prevent incredibly bad luck from screwing you (lose 3 warriors to plasma, fail one Ld and they're all gone? yech). I think it should be that they only phaseout when they either fail to regroup, or are put in a position where they can't try to regroup (50% strength, unit within 6, etc). This way they can't be easily phased out by shooting unless your opponent concentrates a buttload of fire on them.
What do you guys think about Destroyers becoming fast, open-topped skimmers with AV all around like Landspeeders? I think it would be interesting. They could get WBB in the form of either getting up after death (counting as shaken) or repairing weapon destroyed results or something. I dunno, maybe it's simpler as is.
Also, I think the whole autoglance thing needs to go. Just make all the gauss weaponry rending. I don't think that would be too much to ask, and it makes enemy AV matter more: Warriors couldn't touch AV14 and wouldn't touch AV13 most of the time, but a very lucky shot (we're talking 1/27) could penetrate AV12. Destroyers could reliably penetrate AV12 and have a shot at touching AV14, even though they normally wouldn't. I think it would add some reliability to our antivehicle capabilities and actually make our supposed technological superiority worth something in the shooting phase.
Of course keeping all that pretty much hinges on some kind of Phaseout drawback. Maybe gauss weapons are only rending if the unit didn't move that turn (so we'd still get 24 inch range off of S+P but it wouldn't rend unless we stood our ground.)
While it's pretty clear that GW drew "inspiration" for their 'Nids from both Aliens and Starship Troopers, other races such as the Eldar are quite literally "space elves" based on GW's fantasy line which was based on D&D/Tolkien. Similarily, necrons are simply "space tomb kings" dressed up as Terminators. The races' backstories evolved over time with each new edition and codex.
They already have been revamping the Necron fluff somewhat, if you look in the 5E rulebook, in the Necron fluff section they talk about various Lords and their functions and how some have personalities while others are automatons, about how some have their bodies remade into larger and grander forms to mirror their belief that they are gods (Nightbringer/Deciever, now super-Lords?)
Kevin Nash wrote:
So if these new models are due to release in Jan 2011 that would imply a codex coming out prior to that yes?
Necron Codex late 2010?
That would make it the big December release and if this talk of Necrons being a risk for GW they would not release them as their Xmas release would they?
After reading this topic I'm now convinced that GW is run by SkyNet.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:It was metal, it was on a monster square base, it was considerably larger than a hunter slayer (the hunter slayers also predated the first genestealer model, being released shortly after the Zoats).
No, the first tyranid warrior was a 'like for like' with the picture in Rogue Trader, except it's back arms were folded in on it's self so it was 'long' and equine shaped rather than tall with the thorn thorax . I never saw it personally, just in a White Dwarf eavy metal, painted. I seem to remember the citadel troglodytes and the citadel hydra on the same page or around that edition of WD.
I have been told from others of that age that it was produced in blisters. But GW was a random thing back then and many things weren't advertised or announced, they just showed up on shelves. The first genestealer was co-released along with the 2nd (or mebber 3rd) design for the terminator marine (they finally settled on the 4th terminator design).
1.) Change We'll Be Back into Feel No Pain. WBB is just an overly complicated rule that in the end has the same general effect as the MUCH simpler FNP. Yes, I'm sure "You" understand exactly how WBB works in all possible circumstances, but So Many people get the rule and all of it's interactions wrong So Often. Yes, FNP is a nerf to a couple unit's (mostly destroyers) durability from enemy shooting, but it's a buff to every unit's melee, as they'll get to make their attacks back after passing their saves, and melee is where we need the help.
2.) To further help Necrons in melee, without simply making them better at it, give all Necrons LD10, and an uber stubborn rule where they are Always and Forever LD10 and NOTHING can override or lower their LD to Anything other than LD10 for Any reason or purpose. OMG so Broken, right?! Keep reading...
3.) Phase Out. It's fluffy, but it really kills the army and the variety of units you can take as you constantly need to watch that Phase Out count. Instead put Phase Out on the Unit level, where if they fail a Moral Check, they Phase Out and the Unit is removed from the table, with no chance of coming back or saving, just gone. With the #2 change it'd be really hard to break `em, but when you do they suffer for it, and who wants to see robots running away in fear anyway?
Some very good ideas there.
Breotan wrote:While it's pretty clear that GW drew "inspiration" for their 'Nids from both Aliens and Starship Troopers, other races such as the Eldar are quite literally "space elves" based on GW's fantasy line which was based on D&D/Tolkien. Similarily, necrons are simply "space tomb kings" dressed up as Terminators. The races' backstories evolved over time with each new edition and codex.
Nothing wrong with taking a good idea and evolving it in a new direction. I for one would love to see what they'd do with the jumping off point of space lizardmen.
AT-43.CO.UK wrote:
Kevin Nash wrote:
So if these new models are due to release in Jan 2011 that would imply a codex coming out prior to that yes?
Necron Codex late 2010?
That would make it the big December release and if this talk of Necrons being a risk for GW they would not release them as their Xmas release would they?
After reading this topic I'm now convinced that GW is run by SkyNet.
Why would the codex be released before the models? When he says they're due Jan 2011 I would presume that to be the codex release date as well, assuming it's not all bunk of course.
Aduro wrote:
1.) Change We'll Be Back into Feel No Pain. WBB is just an overly complicated rule that in the end has the same general effect as the MUCH simpler FNP. Yes, I'm sure "You" understand exactly how WBB works in all possible circumstances, but So Many people get the rule and all of it's interactions wrong So Often. Yes, FNP is a nerf to a couple unit's (mostly destroyers) durability from enemy shooting, but it's a buff to every unit's melee, as they'll get to make their attacks back after passing their saves, and melee is where we need the help.
2.) To further help Necrons in melee, without simply making them better at it, give all Necrons LD10, and an uber stubborn rule where they are Always and Forever LD10 and NOTHING can override or lower their LD to Anything other than LD10 for Any reason or purpose. OMG so Broken, right?! Keep reading...
3.) Phase Out. It's fluffy, but it really kills the army and the variety of units you can take as you constantly need to watch that Phase Out count. Instead put Phase Out on the Unit level, where if they fail a Moral Check, they Phase Out and the Unit is removed from the table, with no chance of coming back or saving, just gone. With the #2 change it'd be really hard to break `em, but when you do they suffer for it, and who wants to see robots running away in fear anyway?
1) I agree.
2+3) Your suggested changes wouldn't make it harder to break necrons in combat. It would just make it random. Hard implies effort put into it would yield a result. If there is no difference between beating a unit by 1 or by 10 in combat res, then it's random, since most any unit can beat necrons by 1. I think the phase out as it works now is a genious idea, since it adds meaningful alternatives to the players. It both matters in listbuilding and it matters when making choices during the game. And it helps to differentiate the necrons playstyle from the other armies out there. Phase out might need to adjust its values and what models can be counted for it, but it's a sound principle.
Platuan4th wrote:
1. Genestealers didn't originally have elongated heads(and still don't).
2. Genestealers weren't originally Tyranids in RT. They were aliens from the planet Yymgarl.
3. The first Tyranids(that were actually called Tyranids, anyway) were Gaunts NOT Genestealers.
Not saying I particularly disagree with you, just that your statement isn't the best proof.
I think their background in Space Hulk was more like the Alien films, you had Alien creatures that would lay their eggs in people and are totally instinctual killing machines that scuttle around space ship corridors. On the other hand Alien was ripped off from van Vogt's 'Voyage of the Space Beagle' for which the film's producers settled out of court.
Aduro wrote:
1.) Change We'll Be Back into Feel No Pain. WBB is just an overly complicated rule that in the end has the same general effect as the MUCH simpler FNP. Yes, I'm sure "You" understand exactly how WBB works in all possible circumstances, but So Many people get the rule and all of it's interactions wrong So Often. Yes, FNP is a nerf to a couple unit's (mostly destroyers) durability from enemy shooting, but it's a buff to every unit's melee, as they'll get to make their attacks back after passing their saves, and melee is where we need the help.
2.) To further help Necrons in melee, without simply making them better at it, give all Necrons LD10, and an uber stubborn rule where they are Always and Forever LD10 and NOTHING can override or lower their LD to Anything other than LD10 for Any reason or purpose. OMG so Broken, right?! Keep reading...
3.) Phase Out. It's fluffy, but it really kills the army and the variety of units you can take as you constantly need to watch that Phase Out count. Instead put Phase Out on the Unit level, where if they fail a Moral Check, they Phase Out and the Unit is removed from the table, with no chance of coming back or saving, just gone. With the #2 change it'd be really hard to break `em, but when you do they suffer for it, and who wants to see robots running away in fear anyway?
1) I agree.
2+3) Your suggested changes wouldn't make it harder to break necrons in combat. It would just make it random. Hard implies effort put into it would yield a result. If there is no difference between beating a unit by 1 or by 10 in combat res, then it's random, since most any unit can beat necrons by 1. I think the phase out as it works now is a genious idea, since it adds meaningful alternatives to the players. It both matters in listbuilding and it matters when making choices during the game. And it helps to differentiate the necrons playstyle from the other armies out there. Phase out might need to adjust its values and what models can be counted for it, but it's a sound principle.
I can't say I agree with that. Phase Out gives Necrons an alternate loss condition without giving them an alternate win condition to compensate. When taken with the effect it has to restrict an already very undiverse list, it tends to produce very boring armylists.
Anything that helps promote list diversity within a codex is good, as far as I'm concerned, and Phase Out does the opposite.
I'd rather they don't change WBB to FNP. I don't want my necrons surviving close combat with a squad of terminators long enough enough to get wiped to the man, I'd rather they all get knocked down then on my turn get back up and unload rapid fire on them.
I can't say I agree with that. Phase Out gives Necrons an alternate loss condition without giving them an alternate win condition to compensate. When taken with the effect it has to restrict an already very undiverse list, it tends to produce very boring armylists.
Anything that helps promote list diversity within a codex is good, as far as I'm concerned, and Phase Out does the opposite.
Good point. I was making the assumption that phase out could be part of a balanced codex. I was not talking about how the rule balances in todays codex considering other codexes and such. I guess I should have been clearer on that. For example I think it could be quite allright that a codex has nearly unharmable tanks, but the phaseout makes it so you don't really need to harm them to beat them. If a lot of the different unit types will be counted towards the phase out number, there will be a lot of variation available. And of course I imagine the phase out rule should be taken into account when the codex is designed, rather than being slappen on afterwards. In theory: Necrons gain one loss-condition in compensation for having a bit easier to avoid the other loss-conditions. In a good application it adds meaningful choice to the necron player, anti phase-out units or killing units. As most 40k armies have to choose between scoring units or killing units.
"Sigh" Necrons , why do I hate them so much ? hmm. All the little kids " Mummy buy me the new necrons " arghh no please dont :( . I dont mind really new minitures are always good to stare and and go " ooo" at.
Just wait, all the old Necron players from 3E will be called bandwagoners when the release comes out. The ultimate irony, people that played an army during it's shadow of glory era called cheesers when it's finally updated and damn good.
LEEQAEX wrote:"Sigh" Necrons , why do I hate them so much ? hmm. All the little kids " Mummy buy me the new necrons " arghh no please dont :( . I dont mind really new minitures are always good to stare and and go " ooo" at.
I think you must be confusing Necrons with Space Marines.
On topic, I really hope we get a release soon. IF GW keeps following this pattern with releases and what not, I would hope it is packed chock full of awesomeness, like the recent Dexs'
I hope Phil Kelly is the writer, I've loved every single one of his Codices.
What my Necron playing friend really wants is more options for the troops. Like, for example, a "Sargent" or equal for the warrior squads, or more customize-ability for the Lord.
gorgon wrote:Another important question is miniature quality. Will GW assign the A-team or the B-team (see Beastmen)?
Not seeing the point? Are the Beastmen bad? They look pretty tight to me(though I don't play Fantasy).
Regardless the Necrons simply need some sprue additions like plastic claws to convert Warrriors to Flayed Ones, re arrange Destroyer Parts/make Immortal Arms/legs for Destroyers, and use CAD to design the New heavy units(Necromancers, Spyders, etc...). The only real sculpt that needs to be done are new Lords, Plastic Pariahs(or good metal ones), and the new Essence of the C'tan models.
Well they do bounce back and forth from SM to non space marine in releases. BAngels are out april, so a non space marine release at this supposed time isn't out of question, I have doubts though.
I have yet to see any of the known "insiders" confirm or deny any of this information. We know that a writer/designer was assigned last year, and we know to not be surprised to see them in the next 12 months. So minor leaks such as these are right on par with other Codex releases.
NecronLord3 wrote:I'd like to see them T5 with a 4+ save, myself.
You know, on the spine of the current 'dex, it says "Their number is legion, their name is death."
And yet we only end up fielding about 40-50 models at 2000 points... something is wrong with that. As I understand it, however, GW doesn't like changing statlines much.
Honestly, I'd be okay with T4 or even T3 4+ if they were cheaper, especially factoring in the drawbacks of melee and phaseout, but factoring in FNP and whatever cool thing gauss weapons will end up doing. Then make the elite units much more sturdy, like Immortals could keep their current statline.
I think a T3/4, 4+ warrior with rending gauss flayer, FNP and S+P is reasonably costed at 12-3 points: a little more than a fire warrior but still at a discount thanks to phaseout. Make them WS2 as well.
After Orks, etc., I think it's pretty much a given that basic Necron Warriors will get cheaper in any redo. I don't know that they'll be 12-13 pts, but 15 pts is well within reason. Consider something like this:
Phaseout - If a Necron unit would fall back, instead place the remaining models in Reserves; Phased units must Deep Strike when they become available. Necrons in Reserves at the end of the game count as being destroyed for VP & KP purposes.
T4 Sv4++ & FNP gives good survivability while breaking from the MEQ Sv3+ - making the basic save Inv makes them hard to kill by PFs and PWs and other tricky stuff; tacking on FNP basically doubles their invulnerable saves against basic attacks
With S&P and a Rending Gauss gun, they have good firepower, and become fairly mobile
I3 A2 WS2 S4 is not quite as good as CSM, but lets them brute force a decent number of attacks against most opponents.
Ld10 is pretty reliable, without taking extra hits from being Fearless.
Phaseout replacing Fallback means Necrons are still susceptible to being swept by very fast stuff (e.g. Eldar, Stealers), but gain mobility vis DS as a side effect. Tactically, this could be interesting.
JohnHwangDD wrote:After Orks, etc., I think it's pretty much a given that basic Necron Warriors will get cheaper in any redo. I don't know that they'll be 12-13 pts, but 15 pts is well within reason. Consider something like this:
Phaseout - If a Necron unit would fall back, instead place the remaining models in Reserves; Phased units must Deep Strike when they become available. Necrons in Reserves at the end of the game count as being destroyed for VP & KP purposes.
T4 Sv4++ & FNP gives good survivability while breaking from the MEQ Sv3+ - making the basic save Inv makes them hard to kill by PFs and PWs and other tricky stuff; tacking on FNP basically doubles their invulnerable saves against basic attacks
With S&P and a Rending Gauss gun, they have good firepower, and become fairly mobile
I3 A2 WS2 S4 is not quite as good as CSM, but lets them brute force a decent number of attacks against most opponents.
Ld10 is pretty reliable, without taking extra hits from being Fearless.
Phaseout replacing Fallback means Necrons are still susceptible to being swept by very fast stuff (e.g. Eldar, Stealers), but gain mobility vis DS as a side effect. Tactically, this could be interesting.
I think that if they aren't 15 points at their current statline, something terrible happened in development. Something should not be worse than a Tacmarine but cost more than one.
At 15 points, as is, they're bolter marines with two huge drawbacks (Phase and CC), one minor benefit in the form of gauss weaponry and a major one in the form of WBB.
Replacing WBB with FNP is a no brainer and puts them more or less on the same level. We lose the ability to survive plasma, but make it a little less likely to be killed by non-PW/rending units in CC. I don't think FNP is tactically any better or worse overall than WBB.
So from here, if we keep a MEQ statline, I'd say WBB/FNP roughly cancels out Phaseout on the balance scale. In other words, if we were to remove both that drawback and that benefit of being a 'cron, we'd have a MEQ that sucks in CC but gets the occasional glance in CC. To me, this should mean that either his shooting needs to be buffed (gauss weapons rend should do) or he should be cheaper than a tacmarine. Provided you agree with the premise that WBB and FNP cancel each other out - and that is certainly is debatable, I would think Phaseout would need to be modified a bit before they would truly cancel each other out - I think these are reasonable assumptions.
Now if the overall statline got changed to either FW-level stuff (Maybe +1 BS/+1T, -1S on their weapon, back to 24 inch range), I'd expect them to cost about as much as a FW, or a little more. Unfortunately I think this would make the rending become unbalanced as you'd always be fielding a larger volume of shots.
I think, logically, a Warrior with its current statline, but reduced to WS2 and a 4+ armor save, with FNP, S+P, and a rending gauss flayer should be about 13-14 points if we're keeping Phaseout.
God people stop making them weaker, really they are boring enough already, lowering the toughness of an ancient metal being that can repair itself from grievous damage is something that already is not reflected within the game. Already in game play they play like a very slowed marine army that has a slow as hell feel no pain.
I sold my Necrons which is a decision just based on how they play, I love the fluff, I enjoy the threat of unstoppable doom, and whats not to like about fielding Automatons that contain the souls of an ancient race that even tried to and eventually succeeded against the oldest race referred to.
If anything I wouldn't mind starting them up again if they became something with a bit more interest other then having the only option on all their units except one to either be what they have or give them disruption fields, which what are they going to do in melee anyways?
@Ostrakon: Necrons aren't worth as much as before because the goalposts for 15 pts moved when Orks got redone, and all the SM Transports got dirt cheap.
Now, back when Necrons were written for a shooting game, vs Objectives, FNP was a clear benefit, and Phaseout balanced off the list synergy buffs (e.g. ResOrb).
I believe that FNP is a simple, and good replacement for WBB. And a minor boon overall. I could easily see Necrons getting a mildly tweaked FNP - for example ResOrb changes FNP to a 3+.
I believe that the current Phaseout simply doesn't work, it's too math numbers. Something at the unit level, like what I proposed is easier to deal with, and builds off of existing game mechanics in a clear way.
Not having Heavy / Special weapon options, Rending Bolters largely solves the problem in a rather simple way. I think Rending is a good swap for Gauss.
I don't think a T3 Sv4+ statline really works, based on how big the models are. I'd rather they be T4 Sv4++, as it's harder to wound, and harder to kill. Plus, with FNP, T3 vs T4 is a real penalty, as now Autocannons and Inferno cannos negate Sv4+ *and* FNP. That's not right. T4 Sv4++ doesn't have that problem.
I wasn't reading you closely enough, sorry. I thought you meant a 4+ armor save, not an invuln one.
Yeah, that makes much more sense. Not only for the fluff (an invuln save makes more sense as their more or less made of metal than they are actually armored), but crunchwise it would let them do things you would expect a Necron to do: potentially survive a hit from a missle or plasma, and more or less shrug off most small arms fire anyway.
But unfortunately, melee units wouldn't be able to tear through them anymore and force a sweep. I mean, PWs, historically, have pwned the living crap out of Warriors - not so much wraiths and Flayed Ones. It seems reasonable that Warriors should have WS2.
Now if we factor in S+P and a rending flayer, that's a model I wouldn't necessarily mind paying 15-16points for .
I quite like the idea of the necromancer.. but the name definately needs a changing IMO.
incidently, a bit of fan based concept art appeared a year or so ago that would make such an awesome addition to the 'cron arsenal. maybe a bit smaller though.
I wonder how necrons would work with an AV instead of a toughness? Something like: AV9, no facings, any glancing causes a wound. Add FNP and/or other saves to bring survivability to the intended level. an AV of 10 would probably be over the top.
Kryppers wrote:I quite like the idea of the necromancer.. but the name definately needs a changing IMO.
incidently, a bit of fan based concept art appeared a year or so ago that would make such an awesome addition to the 'cron arsenal. maybe a bit smaller though.
Awesome concept, about the size of a Valkyrie would be good. That'd make it feasible but still big enough to loom over regular troops.
Or maybe Stompa sized, a few years from now if the Cron's redo makes them popular enough to warrant it.
Be nice if every army got at least one unique model for apocalypse eventually.
Interesting news. Revlid and Spectral Dragon on Warseer hinted that most of the miniature line is staying as is, so not every metal kit is going to get a redo. Apparently we're looking at 3-4 new plastic kits but only 3-4 new metal kits. And with talk of a new HQ, a metal slot might be gone right off the bat. Eliminating the metals that are rumored to be getting new plastics (Immortals and Spyders), that leaves:
Lords
Destroyer Lord (hybrid)
C'tan
Flayed Ones
Pariahs
Wraiths
Heavy Destroyers (hybrid)
Personally, I think it'd be criminal if Pariahs don't get a major redo. They're terribly underdeveloped in fluff, rules and minis.
You'd think the hybrid kits would get replaced, but now I wonder. It seems like the new plastic slots might already be filled if we're looking at plastic Immortals, Spyders, the big walker and a new vehicle. Maybe the Heavy Ds and new vehicle are recuts of Destroyers and the Monolith that won't count against the total of "new" stuff? Still, those would be new molds requiring a bunch of machine time, so I kinda think GW would see those as "new."
Just for the record, here are some Necron rumours as I remember them:
1.) There will be special character(s) with personality, a slight move away from the soulless Necrons.
2.) HQ will get several levels of command, as featured in the background text of Apocalypse ("gold", "platinum" etc).
3.) Being Gods, C'tan will move to background only. Models may still be usable as avatars (as featured in Dawn of War Dark Crusade), transforming the Necron Lord.
4.) It is a common assumption now, that WBB will be replaced by FNP.
5.) New units (bummer ).
6.) One person even suggested a resculpt of the Monolith, but that is very uncertain ATM.
Kroothawk, per Spectral Dragon and Revlid, WBB is staying and changing, but it's not becoming FNP (although it's hinted there may be limited access to FNP through wargear or an upgrade or something). I think that underlines that we've been wishlisting and wondering so long re: Necrons that certain things that are just assumed may not turn out as expected.
@Anung -- I tend to agree that Flayed Ones should be near the bottom of the list for revision. They aren't great, but others definitely need it more.
Sounds like they're not getting a full redo/restyle ala Orks/DE but just a big expansion to their fiction and range. Cool I can dig that, I guess that emans it'll be safe to stock up on warriors now.
Ostrakon wrote:I wasn't reading you closely enough, sorry. I thought you meant a 4+ armor save, not an invuln one.
Yeah, that makes much more sense. Not only for the fluff (an invuln save makes more sense as their more or less made of metal than they are actually armored), but crunchwise it would let them do things you would expect a Necron to do: potentially survive a hit from a missle or plasma, and more or less shrug off most small arms fire anyway.
But unfortunately, melee units wouldn't be able to tear through them anymore and force a sweep. I mean, PWs, historically, have pwned the living crap out of Warriors - not so much wraiths and Flayed Ones. It seems reasonable that Warriors should have WS2.
Now if we factor in S+P and a rending flayer, that's a model I wouldn't necessarily mind paying 15-16points for .
No biggie - I had a lot of stuff in my concept statline, easy to miss.
That T4 4++ FNP lets them shrug a lot of fire. Models will still be on the attack after a hit by a Demolisher plate, or massed Plasma fire, tho the ability to negate FNP thins them faster. So it's intuitive to use the big guns to knock them down. And following the above template for T5 Immortals has similar advantages to them now gaining FNP against MLs, Battlecannon, and Lascannon - Elite level of survivability increase like a SM Termie vs SMTac.
HtH units wouldn't tear through, and that's perfectly OK - they're hitting piles of metal, after all. But again, PWs and PFs negate FNP, so it's only one 4++ save instead of 4++ & FNP. WS2 means they still get a decent number of hits, except against high-skill stuff (Eldar & Stealers). The main point is they don't auto-fold in HtH, but that they take some work to clear, regardless of the opponent. But they don't hit so hard, either.
I was designing for 15 or 16 pts, and think it's in the ballpark. Not exactly a MEQ, but a very fair match for one. Overall clearly tougher than a Marine, but not quite as lethal due to the lack of weapons upgrades. Instead they have good chances to survive enemy special / heavy weapons fire and keep coming. Mobility isn't so good, but they're not so hampered by their speed, and survive well enough to get where they need to. The only thing missing is that I'd assume all Necrons have some sort of access to Deep Strike Teleport.
gorgon wrote:Interesting news. Revlid and Spectral Dragon on Warseer hinted that most of the miniature line is staying as is, so not every metal kit is going to get a redo. Apparently we're looking at 3-4 new plastic kits but only 3-4 new metal kits. And with talk of a new HQ, a metal slot might be gone right off the bat. Eliminating the metals that are rumored to be getting new plastics (Immortals and Spyders), that leaves:
Lords
Destroyer Lord (hybrid)
C'tan
Flayed Ones
Pariahs
Wraiths
Heavy Destroyers (hybrid)
Personally, I think it'd be criminal if Pariahs don't get a major redo. They're terribly underdeveloped in fluff, rules and minis.
You'd think the hybrid kits would get replaced, but now I wonder. It seems like the new plastic slots might already be filled if we're looking at plastic Immortals, Spyders, the big walker and a new vehicle. Maybe the Heavy Ds and new vehicle are recuts of Destroyers and the Monolith that won't count against the total of "new" stuff? Still, those would be new molds requiring a bunch of machine time, so I kinda think GW would see those as "new."
As far as I'm concerned, anything that has a max squad size of 10 needs to be redone in plastic. Pariahs are definitely in need of a makeover, and while the flayed ones models are fine, it needs to be plastic. But that's a lesser need. Frankly I'm surprised TSs are getting a kit over Flayed Ones or PAriahs, so maybe they're significantly overhauling the model.
Wraiths can stay metal as far as I'm concerned, unless they get significantly revamped (like 5-wraith squads). And here's hoping those guys start coming with PWs like the fluff suggests.
I'm guessing we'll get another C'Tan, as it seems GW likes having a big new metal special character for releases (Canis, Sanguinor). If not the Outsider or Void Dragon, maybe someone previously unmentioned. New metal lords seem likely.
I wonder if they'll ever do a plastic Destroyer kit that lets you make any of a Lord, Heavy, or regular destroyers. It seems necessary to me, especially if they want to get rid of existing hybrids.
I doubt the monolith model is going anywhere.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kroothawk wrote:Just for the record, here are some Necron rumours as I remember them:
1.) There will be special character(s) with personality, a slight move away from the soulless Necrons.
2.) HQ will get several levels of command, as featured in the background text of Apocalypse ("gold", "platinum" etc).
3.) Being Gods, C'tan will move to background only. Models may still be usable as avatars (as featured in Dawn of War Dark Crusade), transforming the Necron Lord.
4.) It is a common assumption now, that WBB will be replaced by FNP.
5.) New units (bummer ).
6.) One person even suggested a resculpt of the Monolith, but that is very uncertain ATM.
Gah, why can't C'Tan stay? People complain about them all the time, but they're not really 'gods' so much as they are 'essence of god stuffed into a metal container'. They're pretty much in line with Greater Daemons.
Ostrakon wrote:As far as I'm concerned, anything that has a max squad size of 10 needs to be redone in plastic. Pariahs are definitely in need of a makeover, and while the flayed ones models are fine, it needs to be plastic. But that's a lesser need. Frankly I'm surprised TSs are getting a kit over Flayed Ones or PAriahs, so maybe they're significantly overhauling the model.
It sounds like the Spyder is going to get different rules and build options and (per Spectral Dragon) a larger model that just fits on a 60mm base. This pretty much checks off my personal Spyder wishlist. The same poster said that Flayed Ones will likely keep the existing metals.
Regarding C'tan, I think my issue with them is as much conceptual as anything. I get that they were going for an undead vibe in which the C'tan/Vampire has personality while the shambling legions of Warriors/skeletons don't. But I think there has to be a fix by which you can field a more characterful army without having to field an expensive star god in every battle. Whether that's the avatar approach or a different approach to lords, I dunno. But I do think it's a weakness of the army as presently structured.
Personally, I really balk at the idea that "Necrons are supposed to be boring." You can have a certain amount of uniformity and structure in the army without making them so dull. I don't think that means personality along the lines of "Hi, my name is Bob the Flayed One, and I'll be carving you up tonight" so much as greater unit variety, more options centered on certain units and better integrating the more colorful parts of their backstory (Lovecraftian horror, for instance) into the miniatures and ruleset.
Ostrakon wrote:Gah, why can't C'Tan stay? People complain about them all the time, but they're not really 'gods' so much as they are 'essence of god stuffed into a metal container'.
The problem with C'Tan is they're a rules nightmare. On top of being a conceptual problem. They're so far off the norm, it's just a mess to play against them. If they were just a regular Greater Daemon, there wouldn't be any problem at all.
____
gorgon wrote:It sounds like the Spyder is going to get different rules and build options and (per Spectral Dragon) a larger model that just fits on a 60mm base.
I read it this way, too. And look forward to a more imposing new, Defiler-sized design that isn't quite so goofy & bug-like.
Ostrakon wrote:Gah, why can't C'Tan stay? People complain about them all the time, but they're not really 'gods' so much as they are 'essence of god stuffed into a metal container'.
The problem with C'Tan is they're a rules nightmare. On top of being a conceptual problem. They're so far off the norm, it's just a mess to play against them. If they were just a regular Greater Daemon, there wouldn't be any problem at all.
____
gorgon wrote:It sounds like the Spyder is going to get different rules and build options and (per Spectral Dragon) a larger model that just fits on a 60mm base.
I read it this way, too. And look forward to a more imposing new, Defiler-sized design that isn't quite so goofy & bug-like.
At the very least dread sized. I see the images of them and think 'oh cool this thing is really going to cause some pain and crush gak underfoot' I buy the model and my rhinos are bigger and the thing is classed as a MONSTROUS creature. Looks more like still a hatchling....
Ostrakon wrote:Gah, why can't C'Tan stay? People complain about them all the time, but they're not really 'gods' so much as they are 'essence of god stuffed into a metal container'.
The problem with C'Tan is they're a rules nightmare. On top of being a conceptual problem. They're so far off the norm, it's just a mess to play against them. If they were just a regular Greater Daemon, there wouldn't be any problem at all.
____
gorgon wrote:It sounds like the Spyder is going to get different rules and build options and (per Spectral Dragon) a larger model that just fits on a 60mm base.
I read it this way, too. And look forward to a more imposing new, Defiler-sized design that isn't quite so goofy & bug-like.
Wait, how are C'Tan a problem ruleswise? Yeah, they have a couple of weird, corner-case special rules (like how they interact with Wraithcannons) but that's about all I can think of that are actual problems.
Also, regarding the Spyder: if they're going to revamp it that much, do you think they can somehow turn it into a troop transport? I could definitely see Warriors popping out of a giant tomb spyder.
Kanluwen wrote:Tomb Spyders as transports?
Kinda silly.
Tomb Spyders as a "gateway" for Necron Warriors to teleport in, ala the Monolith?
Could be cool.
Pretty much the same thing as far as I'm concerned, as it were. Since they're unlikely to be assaulting anyway, "disembarking" via deep striking without fear of scatter by a tomb spyders is pretty much the same thing to me as disembarking from a dedicated transport.
I really would like to see them be a bigger part of the army. Fulfilling multiple roles, either as their own unit or as an upgrade to an existing one. Maybe we'll see one setup much like the one we have now (an auxiliary one, not quite so good in combat but augments self-repair), a fast one (trades MC status for jetbike, higher initiative), and a Obiliterator-esque weapons platform spyder.
rattler25 wrote:a giant Tomb Spyders?? aleady built one for apocalypse. based the body around the Brass Scorpion build.
Nice!
If this new Necron codex ends up being true, I'm going to start working on an all-cron Apoc force. Half because I want to have an Apoc force, half because I'll be voting with my wallet when GW releases a non-xeno release. If these rumors end up true I'll probably get at least two of each kit and another battleforce.
Ostrakon wrote:Gah, why can't C'Tan stay? People complain about them all the time, but they're not really 'gods' so much as they are 'essence of god stuffed into a metal container'.
The problem with C'Tan is they're a rules nightmare. On top of being a conceptual problem. They're so far off the norm, it's just a mess to play against them. If they were just a regular Greater Daemon, there wouldn't be any problem at all.
Wait, how are C'Tan a problem ruleswise? Yeah, they have a couple of weird, corner-case special rules (like how they interact with Wraithcannons) but that's about all I can think of that are actual problems.
Like the Monolith, there's the nonsense of negating specific special rules, which is simply odious in the extreme. The point of 40k is that each army has a number of special tricks that they get to use. Denying players their tricks is simply gameplay-destructive.
Ostrakon wrote:Gah, why can't C'Tan stay? People complain about them all the time, but they're not really 'gods' so much as they are 'essence of god stuffed into a metal container'.
The problem with C'Tan is they're a rules nightmare. On top of being a conceptual problem. They're so far off the norm, it's just a mess to play against them. If they were just a regular Greater Daemon, there wouldn't be any problem at all.
Wait, how are C'Tan a problem ruleswise? Yeah, they have a couple of weird, corner-case special rules (like how they interact with Wraithcannons) but that's about all I can think of that are actual problems.
Like the Monolith, there's the nonsense of negating specific special rules, which is simply odious in the extreme. The point of 40k is that each army has a number of special tricks that they get to use. Denying players their tricks is simply gameplay-destructive.
Then take that up with the Eldar who basically stole some of their tricks from the Necrons. Wave Serpent no extra pen dice roll, including ordanace is one I can name off the top of my head.
Ostrakon wrote:Gah, why can't C'Tan stay? People complain about them all the time, but they're not really 'gods' so much as they are 'essence of god stuffed into a metal container'.
The problem with C'Tan is they're a rules nightmare. On top of being a conceptual problem. They're so far off the norm, it's just a mess to play against them. If they were just a regular Greater Daemon, there wouldn't be any problem at all.
Wait, how are C'Tan a problem ruleswise? Yeah, they have a couple of weird, corner-case special rules (like how they interact with Wraithcannons) but that's about all I can think of that are actual problems.
Like the Monolith, there's the nonsense of negating specific special rules, which is simply odious in the extreme. The point of 40k is that each army has a number of special tricks that they get to use. Denying players their tricks is simply gameplay-destructive.
I don't really see how this is necessarily a bad thing. It keeps people from completely relying on the same old tired tricks. Just like IG artillery that avoids cover: it forces me not to rely on castling my warriors in cover behind a monolith to avoid phaseout.
I mean, what do Necrons have in terms of special rule avoidance that's really that dangerous?
-Ignoring invuln saves with warscythes and C'Tan
In the case of the former, it's not usually terribly useful. Destroyer lords don't have enough attacks to make them really count, and Pariahs get eaten up since they're only I3. Really they're only useful against TH/SS termies and not much else since they're so expensive and vulnerable. In the case of the latter, they're so damn expensive it's not unreasonable to have something special in their CC attacks.
-Ignoring lances and extra pen dice on the monolith
I paid 235 points for an immortal vehicle that can usually be ignored by good players who are trying to phase me out anyway. Don't see much of a problem here. It's not like negating extra pen dice hasn't been reproduced elsewhere. The Avatar is immune to flamers and meltas, more or less falls in the same vein. Not to mention the fact that against most armies my Monolith doesn't really accomplish a whole lot but block line of sight.
-TPing units out of close combat with the Power Matrix
I see how this is ignoring, but how often do my warriors not get swept long enough for me to actually use this?
-forcing fearless units to take Pinning/Morale
I don't really see how this is so bad. Most fearless units have high LD anyway and are rather unlikely to fail. Who does this really hurt that badly anyway, especially since I paid 300 points for the guy?
-Ignoring wraithcannon instadeath on the C'Tan
Okay, this is pretty stupid. I guess the way the rule works still gives the Wraiths SOMETHING against the C'Tan, but it seems giving the damn thing Eternal Warrior would have made more sense.
It is one thing to negate generic rules like extra Melta dice, or armor / cover saves.
It is quite another to deny players their Special Rules. The fundamental point of 40k is that players get to use their armies' special rules. It'd be like giving the Eldar a Psyker power that denies Necrons the ability to WBB within a 24"radius. As it's a one-opponent trick, you can roll it into basic Farseer cost practically for free, and nobody would complain, right?
JohnHwangDD wrote:It is one thing to negate generic rules like extra Melta dice, or armor / cover saves.
It is quite another to deny players their Special Rules. The fundamental point of 40k is that players get to use their armies' special rules. It'd be like giving the Eldar a Psyker power that denies Necrons the ability to WBB within a 24"radius. As it's a one-opponent trick, you can roll it into basic Farseer cost practically for free, and nobody would complain, right?
Okay, but what do Necrons have that really does that? It's just the Wraithcannon thing, and it's not like it negates the wraithcannons entirely (as it would if it had ET), it just makes it an autowound with no save. And against T8 4++ (on a weapon that wounds on a 2+ anyway) it's not anywhere close to negating its effectiveness or denying special rules like your hypothetical example.
It's be more like if Eldar had a special 0-1 character that, for whatever reason, denied all Necrons within 6 inches WBB except on a roll of 5+ instead of 4+, and that character costs 300 points.
JohnHwangDD wrote:And Lances, or are there non-Eldar Lances out there?
Well, DE if you wanna get technical, and BA have that new lance psyker power.
But denying the lance bonus is just to make the monolith unkillable. If it JUST denied lances, you'd have a point. But it denies every possible way to increase your chances of destroying it, save ordnance. It's not like it has a rule specifically created to screw eldar players and eldar players only.
Wraithcannons on the other hand... I just don't see why they didn't give it ET. Is there anything else in the game that would otherwise be capable of causing it instadeath?
Basically it was supposed to be Eterenal Warrior....
Except that made that rule up later on.
Back then Stuff that could ID him anyway was restricted to Grey Knight Master. Since he was also S6 in CC.
IF C'Tan ever come out in a new codex, theyd be ET simple as that, and even more powerful.
Monolith and Lances, well that is not like their denying the Eldar something special, just look at orks they get even more screwed by its armor and no extra D6 special rule. Its really just a blanket no way of circumventing this AV14 with tech, only brute force works.
Well, DE if you wanna get technical, and BA have that new lance psyker power.
In Warhammer 40K we have this cool alien like race called Tyranids, and they have this cool anti-tank unit called the Zoanthropes. They all come with S10 AP1 lances that require a psychic test to use.
Ostrakon wrote:Also, regarding the Spyder: if they're going to revamp it that much, do you think they can somehow turn it into a troop transport? I could definitely see Warriors popping out of a giant tomb spyder.
Here some new rumours from Warseer, normal text by Spectral Dragon, then Revlid's comments added in italics:
With Necrons Being my top army and having heard a few smatterings I figure I should pitch in.
First, Everything I hear tells me there WILL be new units. I keep hearing a new vehicle, HQ and a new troop choice, but who knows?
I expect rather more than that in terms of new units.
The next thing I heard was that they want to change rules without changing the overall feel of the army, which IMO would be hard to do. I was told to not expect FNP unless it comes up as an upgrade of some sort however, which implies WBB is staying but changing at least slightly.
True.
The forces are going to change in the FOC a bit. \
True.
Like the previous releases, there will be 3-4 new plastic kits, but possibly only 3-4 new metal kits. They are keeping *most* of the old line.
True. In some cases, this is good. In others, it is dissappointing. Still, the more clunky elements of the old line are being replaced, at least.
The new vehicle could possibly be a more specialized version of the monolith, such as a weapon platform. I was told to not expect this model in the first wave but who knows?
A specialized version of the Monolith certainly sounds like a good call.
Other things I was told:
Expect necrons to move even further from marine statlines.
True.
Expect warriors to be one of the more all around usefull troops in the game again.
Well, that's always a matter of opinion. But certainly, they look like they'll be more useful than they have been for a while.
Expect a host of different wargear for the new HQ.
True.
I was also told of the January release
Correct, afaik.
I was also told that units would have options more in line with how the current GW dexes are. (hence the tomb spider rumor in the first post?)
If you mean what I think you do, this is true.
I am not sure what to think of the Necromancer, I wouldn't think they would have avoided outright undead names this whole time and suddenly switch gears.
All of the above to be taken with NaCl.
Of course.
And another one by Spectral Dragon:
Tomb Spider: Rules largely different, bigger model from what I hear, and yes. I heard that it is expected to oh just fit comfortably on a 60mm base.
Immortals: Expect these (in plastic that is)
wraiths: no news yet
Flayed ones: some rule changes, no new model.
With the exception of Immortals, which I have heard just about everywhere, take this with a grain of salt.
As for vehicle I have allready mentioned a possible weapons platform vehicle.
Moving away from Marine statlines, huh? I wonder which direction they'll be heading? Honestly, by the fluff, I could see it happening either way: either numerous legions of space undead, or a few indomitable juggernauts.
A weapons platform, huh? What does that even mean, really? Mini-monolith?
I'm just so incredibly excited. I don't see how any change could possibly be bad for them at this point.
Moving away from Marine statlines, huh? I wonder which direction they'll be heading? Honestly, by the fluff, I could see it happening either way: either numerous legions of space undead, or a few indomitable juggernauts.
A weapons platform, huh? What does that even mean, really? Mini-monolith?
I'm just so incredibly excited. I don't see how any change could possibly be bad for them at this point.
Half a pyramid with a really big gun on top?
Tomb Spyders being plastic, on 60mm bases and having multiple builds makes me think they could end up in a killa lanz priced box o' three.
Moving away from Marine statlines, huh? I wonder which direction they'll be heading? Honestly, by the fluff, I could see it happening either way: either numerous legions of space undead, or a few indomitable juggernauts.
A weapons platform, huh? What does that even mean, really? Mini-monolith?
I'm just so incredibly excited. I don't see how any change could possibly be bad for them at this point.
Half a pyramid with a really big gun on top?
Tomb Spyders being plastic, on 60mm bases and having multiple builds makes me think they could end up in a killa lanz priced box o' three.
Or maybe they'll be on flying 60mm bases because they're the new transport skimmers, and be devilfish priced!
In all seriousness, I would like to see 'crons get some kind of transport unless they significantly revamp the staying power of the troops.
I really do want to see what they're doing with Spyders.
Gargskull wrote:I thought Monoliths were the transports?
Not really. They're not flexible enough to really qualify as transports, especially since they're A) so damn expensive and B) so damn slow.
And needing to decide between firing a weapon and disembarking is not fun. (The gauss flux projectors aren't generally useful against armies I play against.)
A good way to keep the Monolith super durable while getting rid of the slightly clunky Living Metal rule, is to give it a 4+ save vs hits. It's a more balancing rule to make it equally unkillable for everyone.
Aduro wrote:A good way to keep the Monolith super durable while getting rid of the slightly clunky Living Metal rule, is to give it a 4+ save vs hits. It's a more balancing rule to make it equally unkillable for everyone.
As long as I get the massive points reduction for making the monolith quite mortal, fine. The whole point is that Monoliths are supposed to be ridiculously hard to kill: they're engines of destruction, created by the absolute pinnacle of science in the galaxy. Removing it makes it simple enough for some sort of meltagun or lance platform take it out without much of a problem.
Of course, if we're removing Phaseout then the monolith doesn't need to be immortal anymore, since the opponent won't be forced to just focus on our light infantry. But either way, replacing living metal with a 4+ cover save should result in a fairly significant point reduction.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Knight Luke wrote:Matt Ward would be ok, Codex SM is good. Honestly I am not too worried about things being too jumbled because they Necrons are SO simple.
Methinks they shall become unsimplified, and we will have actual choices.
Matt ward is a lover of fluff, and even more so a lover of rules reflecting fluff. Powerful fluff = powerful army to him.
However, this is causing me to brace for a near-total revamp rules-wise. I'm expecting statline changes all over the place, and I'm honestly not sure how he plans to justify wargear on crons.
I think it might be fairly easy to justify fluffwise: necrons that have emerged from tombs thus far are merely 'scouting parties' to verify the existence of sentient life in the galaxy and call upon the main Cron host sleeping deeper on certain planets. Thus we see the 'real' warriors.
Considering they'll even terminate studio staff for leaks, I don't think one-post-and-done necessarily reflects negatively on his credibility, even if it doesn't necessarily provide a positive credibility boost.
Besides, Spectral Dragon and Revlid seemed to confirm a number of his points, and they're longtime Warseers.
A 4+ save on an armor 14 all round vehicle is still pretty durable. The problem is the Living Metal rule right now does not treat all armies equal. Sisters or Eldar who rely on Lance and Melta to take down tanks are just plain hosed by it, while Tau with their Railguns just laugh and wonder what the big deal is.
The only other way to "balance" it's durability is to also make it reduce any attack's Strength to 9, and ignore the bonus for AP1. I think simply giving it a strong save is the way to go myself though.
Aduro wrote:A 4+ save on an armor 14 all round vehicle is still pretty durable. The problem is the Living Metal rule right now does not treat all armies equal. Sisters or Eldar who rely on Lance and Melta to take down tanks are just plain hosed by it, while Tau with their Railguns just laugh and wonder what the big deal is.
The only other way to "balance" it's durability is to also make it reduce any attack's Strength to 9, and ignore the bonus for AP1. I think simply giving it a strong save is the way to go myself though.
Or we could just keep living metal. It's not like Tau can necessarily just throw railguns and be done with it. 3 twinlinked railcannons still have like a 50% chance of not killing the monolith. And that's a lot of points to put into them, when those guys aren't terribly protected.
Aduro wrote:A 4+ save on an armor 14 all round vehicle is still pretty durable. The problem is the Living Metal rule right now does not treat all armies equal. Sisters or Eldar who rely on Lance and Melta to take down tanks are just plain hosed by it, while Tau with their Railguns just laugh and wonder what the big deal is.
The only other way to "balance" it's durability is to also make it reduce any attack's Strength to 9, and ignore the bonus for AP1. I think simply giving it a strong save is the way to go myself though.
Not all codexes are balanced with eachother. SWs will always be an issue for tyranids. Any army that relies on deepstrike will be hard pressed near inquisitor mystics. Lash-armies will struggle against mechanised lists. Etc etc etc. I think that's completely unavoidable with a game that is more complex and fluffdriven than a traditional boardgame where both sides have access to the exact same markers/models/units. It's a case of game design in action, as it applies to a multitude of assymetrical forces. As long as the discrepancy is not too big, and as long as it averages out over the bigger picture, I think it's quite allright. NB: I do not claim that GW is handling this unavoidable effect in a good way. I think they have a much lower treshhold for what is acceptable discrepancy than I do.
So I think it is not only fine but awesome that the necrons have a powerful vehicle that many common tankhunting teqniques does not work on. It stirrs up the meta game and forces people to think in new ways when they build their all-comers-lists. Versus todays codex the common strategy to handle monoliths seems to be bringing a lot of killing intended for MEQ-infantry, rather than vehicles. This is a thing that even eldar can do, despite their S8 lance weapons. Unfortunately necrons are so uncommonly played that this does not significantly effect gameplay. Hopefully a new codex can help with this problem. Anything that keeps the game evolving keeps me challenged and so is a good thing.
Just dont get rid of living metal. If it would get a 4+ cover save instead, id be hard pressed to pay 160 points for it....
Its a goddamn monolith, it it gets easily killable by everyone and their little brother (this rulechange would just force meltas into many lists when playing necronns).
Yes Necrons are a legion type army, faceless masses, BUT were also the goddamn highest science of the galaxy army out there, and we are not in some age of forgetting everything and shoruding it in mystery like the imperium.
Voronesh wrote:Just dont get rid of living metal. If it would get a 4+ cover save instead, id be hard pressed to pay 160 points for it....
Its a goddamn monolith, it it gets easily killable by everyone and their little brother (this rulechange would just force meltas into many lists when playing necronns).
Yes Necrons are a legion type army, faceless masses, BUT were also the goddamn highest science of the galaxy army out there, and we are not in some age of forgetting everything and shoruding it in mystery like the imperium.
Rant off :S
How in the world do you justify it only being 160 points if they drop Living Metal for a 4+ cover save? A Leman-Russ is 150 base with 14/13/10 and a Strength 8,AP 3 Ordinance blast weapon and a H.Bolter. The Monolith would still be 14 AV all the way around,have a Strength 9,AP 3 Ordinance blast weapon and the Guass Flux,have transport capability,has BS 4 vs BS 3,Deep Strike,and is a Skimmer,not to mention an auto 4+ cover save.
Truth is,the Monolith is currently UNDERCOSTED given what it does. Necrons get it at a discount,though,due to Phase Out. Presumably,when the Necron 'dex drops,they'll remove Phase Out as an extra loss condition for the Necrons,so if the Monolith remains unchanged,it should either go up in points or get nerfed.
I realize that the Necrons are a technologically advanced race,but I don't see how you can look at the Monolith's profile and say the thing isn't ridiculously powerful and versatile. However,ridiculously powerful,versatile,and virtually unkillable is going way overboard. The problem with basing the game entirely on the fluff is that sometimes the fluff doesn't make for a good,fair,or balanced game. Going by the fluff,Tyranids would be pretty much unstoppable and Space Marines would actually have the strength of 8-10 Imperial Guardsmen.
Gargskull wrote:I thought Monoliths were the transports?
Not really. They're not flexible enough to really qualify as transports, especially since they're A) so damn expensive and B) so damn slow.
And needing to decide between firing a weapon and disembarking is not fun. (The gauss flux projectors aren't generally useful against armies I play against.)
Well if that's the case then yeah they defintely need a 'proper' transport vehicle.
I think it might be fairly easy to justify fluffwise: necrons that have emerged from tombs thus far are merely 'scouting parties' to verify the existence of sentient life in the galaxy and call upon the main Cron host sleeping deeper on certain planets. Thus we see the 'real' warriors.
That's pretty mcuh what was said in white dwarf when they first appeared on the scene as I recall. I still have that issue somewhere, and the free metal necron that came with it.
GW can add whatever they want to the army, who knows what lurks in the depths of their tomb worlds...
No i was considering with phaseout still existing. its still expensive at 235 points. Plus i did indicate it was a rant, so i pulled that number out of thin air.
Currently the only things endangering monoliths are Railguns and demolisher cannons, and some ther freak occurrences of S10.
My CSM beat my Necron list by simply running around a monolith and killing Crons, forcing a phase out. Simply because phase out makes a Monolith containing force brittle on that end.
If Phase out goes, and living metal stays, sure it would have to go up in points.
In phase out stays and living metal goes, then its gonna be meh.
The development is considered a high-risk investment – a commitment problem that the team is well aware of, and is exacerbated by there being multiple such high-risk line expansions currently being pursued.
I don't know if anyone has really commented on this yet, but isn't a "high-risk investment" basically every non-Space Marine release?
The development is considered a high-risk investment – a commitment problem that the team is well aware of, and is exacerbated by there being multiple such high-risk line expansions currently being pursued.
I don't know if anyone has really commented on this yet, but isn't a "high-risk investment" basically every non-Space Marine release?
Yeah, I would go with this. However, we haven't really got any detailed figures that describe player base so us, the great unwashed, have no idea whether which armies make financial sense for GW to release. If the player base isnt there then it simply does not add up to redo moulds etc.
The development is considered a high-risk investment – a commitment problem that the team is well aware of, and is exacerbated by there being multiple such high-risk line expansions currently being pursued.
I don't know if anyone has really commented on this yet, but isn't a "high-risk investment" basically every non-Space Marine release?
Yeah, I would go with this. However, we haven't really got any detailed figures that describe player base so us, the great unwashed, have no idea whether which armies make financial sense for GW to release. If the player base isnt there then it simply does not add up to redo moulds etc.
Except for the impression that this is a self-fulfilling prophecy. The current Dark Eldar range is (for instance) really showing its age, and the Necron range is not very extensive, so for those reasons alone they would appear to be less attractive than other, more recently added-to ranges such as IG, Orks and of course SM?
As you say though we won't know. But what's the greater risk? Sink some money into developing neglected ranges, or leave them to fester and continue to watch the game diminish through lack of interest? There is no "no risk" option here, only various levels of risk. The problem is that the "downside" risk of action is quantifiable (=cash investment required), as is the upside risk of inaction (=cash investment not required). However the "upside" risk of action (=return on investment) and the downside risk of inaction (=continued falling sales volumes) remain unquantifiable for the time being.
Well, it might only be one guy, but after years of subtle work on my part I've finally gotten my dad to start playing 40k. Sure enough, he picked Necrons and is very excited about new models. On the flip side the guy has dropped like 300+ dollars in two weeks on books and models so that has to be helping someones bottom line.
The development is considered a high-risk investment – a commitment problem that the team is well aware of, and is exacerbated by there being multiple such high-risk line expansions currently being pursued.
I don't know if anyone has really commented on this yet, but isn't a "high-risk investment" basically every non-Space Marine release?
Yeah, I would go with this. However, we haven't really got any detailed figures that describe player base so us, the great unwashed, have no idea whether which armies make financial sense for GW to release. If the player base isnt there then it simply does not add up to redo moulds etc.
Except for the impression that this is a self-fulfilling prophecy. The current Dark Eldar range is (for instance) really showing its age, and the Necron range is not very extensive, so for those reasons alone they would appear to be less attractive than other, more recently added-to ranges such as IG, Orks and of course SM?
As you say though we won't know. But what's the greater risk? Sink some money into developing neglected ranges, or leave them to fester and continue to watch the game diminish through lack of interest?
I totally agree, and as far as GW are concerned, it seems to be a little from column A and a little from column B. We get so little information about upcoming releases that no-one outside of the Studio can really be sure what their priority is. I personally think they will try and keep the less popular armies hanging around, because anticipation is better than reality, right? As it stands right now, we have a bunch of DE and Necron players awaiting an update. Most of them will keep waiting, playing and more importantly, investing in the hobby, so it is not in GW's interests to come flat out and say 'we dont intend updating DE because it is uneconomical'. I personally think that is the case; DE will not see an update because it isnt viable. They then end up having to try and adapt the ageing codices to bend to new rulesets, as we have seen. The same can be said and may well end up being the case for Necrons.
Voronesh wrote:Just dont get rid of living metal. If it would get a 4+ cover save instead, id be hard pressed to pay 160 points for it....
Its a goddamn monolith, it it gets easily killable by everyone and their little brother (this rulechange would just force meltas into many lists when playing necronns).
Yes Necrons are a legion type army, faceless masses, BUT were also the goddamn highest science of the galaxy army out there, and we are not in some age of forgetting everything and shoruding it in mystery like the imperium.
Rant off :S
How in the world do you justify it only being 160 points if they drop Living Metal for a 4+ cover save? A Leman-Russ is 150 base with 14/13/10 and a Strength 8,AP 3 Ordinance blast weapon and a H.Bolter. The Monolith would still be 14 AV all the way around,have a Strength 9,AP 3 Ordinance blast weapon and the Guass Flux,have transport capability,has BS 4 vs BS 3,Deep Strike,and is a Skimmer,not to mention an auto 4+ cover save.
Truth is,the Monolith is currently UNDERCOSTED given what it does. Necrons get it at a discount,though,due to Phase Out. Presumably,when the Necron 'dex drops,they'll remove Phase Out as an extra loss condition for the Necrons,so if the Monolith remains unchanged,it should either go up in points or get nerfed.
I realize that the Necrons are a technologically advanced race,but I don't see how you can look at the Monolith's profile and say the thing isn't ridiculously powerful and versatile. However,ridiculously powerful,versatile,and virtually unkillable is going way overboard. The problem with basing the game entirely on the fluff is that sometimes the fluff doesn't make for a good,fair,or balanced game. Going by the fluff,Tyranids would be pretty much unstoppable and Space Marines would actually have the strength of 8-10 Imperial Guardsmen.
If you couldn't take squadrons of Leman Russes (in any of 6 varieties, I might add) for a total of 9 total AV14/13 tanks, they would probably be closer to vindicators in the price range. Leman Russes can also move 12 inches and still fire that big, nasty S8 AP3 ordnance (or for 15 points more, S10 AP2 at half the range, not that it really matters when you can move 12 inches anyway). Monoliths neither have that speed, nor that versatility.
Monoliths don't have transport cabability. They have the ability to teleport a single unit within 18 inches, which is obviously cool. The problem is that if they do this, they can't fire their ordnance, which against many armies is the one you need to fire. So often, teleporting a unit is what you do when you got screwed by WBB rolls after a Demolisher hit near your res orb, or because you really, really need to stay out of CC long enough to last another turn to avoid phasing out. It is, 8/10 times, a last resort to capture an objective or save a unit, and even then they're not safe within the hulls of an AV14 vehicle: other units will probably be able to shoot or, god forbid, assault them.
Obviously the flux projectors are nice against hoard armies in theory, but in practice they are ineffective except against Eldar and Tau. An average of 3-4 S5 AP 4 shots per unit in 12 inches is nice, but in reality you're only going to nab 2-3 Orks/Genestealers/Gaunts per unit. You're making points back but their remaining brothers WILL engage you the next turn, and they WILL sweep you - if not outright destroy you anyway. Against MEQ the projectors are rather useless. The only time the projectors mean anything are when you have a fully fledged monolith phalanx, but that's the sign of sever imbalance when all of your Heavy choices are the same.
Yes, they're unkillable. Which is great because you never really need to kill one but rather just move around it. If phaseout stays in some form, they had best still be unkillable (or at least my infantry should be less killable so I don't need to worry hiding them behind it for cover). Replacing living metal with a 4+ save makes it so much easier to kill that it really should go down to the 190-200 range.
Ostrakon wrote:
If you couldn't take squadrons of Leman Russes (in any of 6 varieties, I might add) for a total of 9 total AV14/13 tanks, they would probably be closer to vindicators in the price range. Leman Russes can also move 12 inches and still fire that big, nasty S8 AP3 ordnance (or for 15 points more, S10 AP2 at half the range, not that it really matters when you can move 12 inches anyway). Monoliths neither have that speed, nor that versatility.
Ummm ... no. The Leman Russ can never move 12". The rule that allows it to fire it's turret weapon restricts it to 6" + D6" I believe. I don't have the book in front of me but I'm pretty sure it can only move 6" and fire it's turret and 1 weapon and no weapons at 6 + d6".
Voronesh wrote:Just dont get rid of living metal. If it would get a 4+ cover save instead, id be hard pressed to pay 160 points for it....
Its a goddamn monolith, it it gets easily killable by everyone and their little brother (this rulechange would just force meltas into many lists when playing necronns).
Yes Necrons are a legion type army, faceless masses, BUT were also the goddamn highest science of the galaxy army out there, and we are not in some age of forgetting everything and shoruding it in mystery like the imperium.
Rant off :S
How in the world do you justify it only being 160 points if they drop Living Metal for a 4+ cover save? A Leman-Russ is 150 base with 14/13/10 and a Strength 8,AP 3 Ordinance blast weapon and a H.Bolter. The Monolith would still be 14 AV all the way around,have a Strength 9,AP 3 Ordinance blast weapon and the Guass Flux,have transport capability,has BS 4 vs BS 3,Deep Strike,and is a Skimmer,not to mention an auto 4+ cover save.
Truth is,the Monolith is currently UNDERCOSTED given what it does. Necrons get it at a discount,though,due to Phase Out. Presumably,when the Necron 'dex drops,they'll remove Phase Out as an extra loss condition for the Necrons,so if the Monolith remains unchanged,it should either go up in points or get nerfed.
I realize that the Necrons are a technologically advanced race,but I don't see how you can look at the Monolith's profile and say the thing isn't ridiculously powerful and versatile. However,ridiculously powerful,versatile,and virtually unkillable is going way overboard. The problem with basing the game entirely on the fluff is that sometimes the fluff doesn't make for a good,fair,or balanced game. Going by the fluff,Tyranids would be pretty much unstoppable and Space Marines would actually have the strength of 8-10 Imperial Guardsmen.
If you couldn't take squadrons of Leman Russes (in any of 6 varieties, I might add) for a total of 9 total AV14/13 tanks, they would probably be closer to vindicators in the price range. Leman Russes can also move 12 inches and still fire that big, nasty S8 AP3 ordnance (or for 15 points more, S10 AP2 at half the range, not that it really matters when you can move 12 inches anyway). Monoliths neither have that speed, nor that versatility.
Monoliths don't have transport cabability. They have the ability to teleport a single unit within 18 inches, which is obviously cool. The problem is that if they do this, they can't fire their ordnance, which against many armies is the one you need to fire. So often, teleporting a unit is what you do when you got screwed by WBB rolls after a Demolisher hit near your res orb, or because you really, really need to stay out of CC long enough to last another turn to avoid phasing out. It is, 8/10 times, a last resort to capture an objective or save a unit, and even then they're not safe within the hulls of an AV14 vehicle: other units will probably be able to shoot or, god forbid, assault them.
Obviously the flux projectors are nice against hoard armies in theory, but in practice they are ineffective except against Eldar and Tau. An average of 3-4 S5 AP 4 shots per unit in 12 inches is nice, but in reality you're only going to nab 2-3 Orks/Genestealers/Gaunts per unit. You're making points back but their remaining brothers WILL engage you the next turn, and they WILL sweep you - if not outright destroy you anyway. Against MEQ the projectors are rather useless. The only time the projectors mean anything are when you have a fully fledged monolith phalanx, but that's the sign of sever imbalance when all of your Heavy choices are the same.
Yes, they're unkillable. Which is great because you never really need to kill one but rather just move around it. If phaseout stays in some form, they had best still be unkillable (or at least my infantry should be less killable so I don't need to worry hiding them behind it for cover). Replacing living metal with a 4+ save makes it so much easier to kill that it really should go down to the 190-200 range.
Russ's have always run in that points cost range even before they could be bought in squadrons. For another,a Russ can't move 12" and fire it's Ordinance weapon. It can only move at Combat speed(6") and fire Ordinance,same as the Monolith. However,the Monolith being a Skimmer can ignore terrain as it moves and the Russ can't,which makes the Monolith the more mobile Ordinance platform.
While it isn't "true" transport capability,it still has the ability to move troops around the battlefield and/or act as an upfield gateway to get reserves to objectives quicker,which is all infinately better than anything the Russ can do to transport troops. While it isn't an option that you will obviously use all the time,you still have the option.
The Flux arc on the Monolith at BS 4 is infinately better than the H.Bolter on the Russ at BS 3 as a secondary weapon. No,the Flux arc isn't devastating,but it's still way better as a secondary weapon.
Whatever1 wrote:Russ's have always run in that points cost range even before they could be bought in squadrons. For another,a Russ can't move 12" and fire it's Ordinance weapon. It can only move at Combat speed(6") and fire Ordinance,same as the Monolith. However,the Monolith being a Skimmer can ignore terrain as it moves and the Russ can't,which makes the Monolith the more mobile Ordinance platform.
If the Monolith could actually get past terrain with a 6" move, it could ignore terrain. However, outside of very skinny walls, the electric brick is going to end up in terrain, and suffer from the same dangerous terrain test as the Russ.
The Flux arc on the Monolith at BS 4 is infinately better than the H.Bolter on the Russ at BS 3 as a secondary weapon. No,the Flux arc isn't devastating,but it's still way better as a secondary weapon.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means, what you think it means....
The Flux arc is a short-range anti-troop weapon. A heavy bolter is a long range anti-troop weapon. The HB works very well on the Russ (especially if you take 3 of them), as it is primarily a long-range anti-troop platform; it's weapons are complementary.
My mistake. I didn't have the IG codex on hand, but I knew they had some kind of special move+fire ordnance thing.
But what's the special rule, then? Anything can move combat and fire ordnance, right?
The HB on the LRBT doesn't even matter. You're never going to fire it unless your opponent is lucky enough to get a WD result against AV14 or 13.
Yes, we have the option to transport troops around, but it's not a terribly useful one. And any warriors in reserve HAVE to pop out of the monolith portal unless there's some sort of errata on that, so it becomes infeasible. I'd love to just have them walk out on my table edge and have the option of teleporting it, but being forced to drop them somewhere I don't want them to be makes it an extremely unattractive option. For an ability that's usually only used in an emergency and isn't terribly useful even then, it shouldn't be worth a lot of points on a vehicle that's already supposed to be at a discount.
The monolith being a skimmer doesn't help so much, really. It's huge, so terrain would have to be impossibly small for it to move 6 inches and ignore it. It's base is so big you can't even pass directly over a single tacmarine. And keep in mind it's permanently stuck at moving 6 (or less) inches.
JohnHwangDD wrote:If the game followed the Fluff, Eldar would auto-win against Necrons, because that's what the Old Ones designed them for!
Kind of defeats the point of having a "balanced" game, tho...
That's not true. The Necrontyr won the war against the Old Ones. The only reason the Eldar, Humans, Orks, etc... are still around is because the C'tan had the foresight to see that if they ate all life in the Galaxy they would starve themselves. They chose to instead go to sleep and allow the seeds of life to grow again. Then they will awaken and feed once more.
JohnHwangDD wrote:If the game followed the Fluff, Eldar would auto-win against Necrons, because that's what the Old Ones designed them for!
Kind of defeats the point of having a "balanced" game, tho...
That's not true. The Necrontyr won the war against the Old Ones. The only reason the Eldar, Humans, Orks, etc... are still around is because the C'tan had the foresight to see that if they ate all life in the Galaxy they would starve themselves. They chose to instead go to sleep and allow the seeds of life to grow again. Then they will awaken and feed once more.
Actually, enslavers were killing everything off leaving little to consume so the C'tan sacrificed what servants they had left and went into stasis to wait it out.
JohnHwangDD wrote:If the game followed the Fluff, Eldar would auto-win against Necrons, because that's what the Old Ones designed them for!
Kind of defeats the point of having a "balanced" game, tho...
That's not true. The Necrontyr won the war against the Old Ones. The only reason the Eldar, Humans, Orks, etc... are still around is because the C'tan had the foresight to see that if they ate all life in the Galaxy they would starve themselves. They chose to instead go to sleep and allow the seeds of life to grow again. Then they will awaken and feed once more.
Actually, enslavers were killing everything off leaving little to consume so the C'tan sacrificed what servants they had left and went into stasis to wait it out.
I thought they were letting the Enslavers do this because C'Tan kind of sucked at dealing with anything involving the Empyran. By letting the Enslavers eradicate mostly everything, they knew they'd be back to consume everything once more.
JohnHwangDD wrote:If the game followed the Fluff, Eldar would auto-win against Necrons, because that's what the Old Ones designed them for!
Kind of defeats the point of having a "balanced" game, tho...
That's not true. The Necrontyr won the war against the Old Ones. The only reason the Eldar, Humans, Orks, etc... are still around is because the C'tan had the foresight to see that if they ate all life in the Galaxy they would starve themselves. They chose to instead go to sleep and allow the seeds of life to grow again. Then they will awaken and feed once more.
Actually, enslavers were killing everything off leaving little to consume so the C'tan sacrificed what servants they had left and went into stasis to wait it out.
I thought they were letting the Enslavers do this because C'Tan kind of sucked at dealing with anything involving the Empyran. By letting the Enslavers eradicate mostly everything, they knew they'd be back to consume everything once more.
Basically what I said. The enslavers were from the warp and effectively the C'tan couldn't deal too well with this threat so they abandoned their works to wait out the problems until new life sprung up again in the aftermath.
Sidstyler wrote:I don't know if anyone has really commented on this yet, but isn't a "high-risk investment" basically every non-Space Marine release?
No. IG, Orks, and Nids have pretty solid fanbase. If the codex is mid-level competitive, it'll sell as will the new models. Necrons, Dark Eldar, and Tau are all less established, and since they're all really post-3rd edition books, I don't think it is surprising. (iirc, Necrons were introduced towards the end of 2nd ed as allies, but I may be wrong).
I think Necrons had a sort of micro-codex in a white dwarf early third edition era. Only two or three entries in it (necrons warriors, scarabs and possibly a HQ choice) and they were supposed to be used as antagonists or "neutral forces" for story driven scenarios. In 3rd ed rulebook there is a drawing of a necron in the small collection of "other dangerous aliens" but it is designated "Unknown".
Whatever1 wrote:Russ's have always run in that points cost range even before they could be bought in squadrons. For another,a Russ can't move 12" and fire it's Ordinance weapon. It can only move at Combat speed(6") and fire Ordinance,same as the Monolith. However,the Monolith being a Skimmer can ignore terrain as it moves and the Russ can't,which makes the Monolith the more mobile Ordinance platform.
If the Monolith could actually get past terrain with a 6" move, it could ignore terrain. However, outside of very skinny walls, the electric brick is going to end up in terrain, and suffer from the same dangerous terrain test as the Russ.
The Flux arc on the Monolith at BS 4 is infinately better than the H.Bolter on the Russ at BS 3 as a secondary weapon. No,the Flux arc isn't devastating,but it's still way better as a secondary weapon.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means, what you think it means....
The Flux arc is a short-range anti-troop weapon. A heavy bolter is a long range anti-troop weapon. The HB works very well on the Russ (especially if you take 3 of them), as it is primarily a long-range anti-troop platform; it's weapons are complementary.
If the Monolith can make it over ANY difficult terrain features without having to check,then it has a mobility advantage. It can also move over or end it's movement phase in impassable terrain if you're willing to take a difficult terrain check. The issue with it clearing terrain is really more of an issue with the way Necron players play the Monolith than the actual size of the model. Per the rules as written,all skimmers are suppossed to be mounted on flying bases. The Monolith,being a skimmer,should be on a large flying base,which is suppossed to be provided in the Monolith kit per GW's site. I realize that a common complaint is that many Monolith kits didn't come with them,but Necron players should either buy bases or should've called up GW and said they didn't get their base with the kit. As it stands,most of them just set the Monolith on the ground,which should technically only happen if it's Immobolized or Destroyed. The way I've always seen it played with Skimmer movement is that if the base clears the terrain piece,the model is considered clear,so if people based the Monolith properly,it would clear more terrain features than it can now. However,most Necron players either don't know the RaW on Skimmers,don't care to drill out a hole for the base in the bottom of the Monolith,think the Monolith is too unbalanced on a flying base,and/or would just rather set the model on the ground so that it completely blocks LoS to any models they have behind it instead of just giving them a cover save.
The original discussion with Voronesh was that he wouldn't pay 160 points for a Monolith if they dropped Living Metal and just gave it a 4+ cover save. 3xH.Bolters is better than the Guass Flux arc in most situations,but the Guass Flux is better than 1xH.Bolter. Giving the Russ 3xH.Bolters puts it at 170 and pretty much out of the discussion.
The point is that even without Living Metal,there's simply no way to justify the Monolith at 160 points. Everything else aside,it has AV 14 all the way around,so it doesn't have to worry about Outflanking Genestealers assaulting with Str 4 Rending against AV 10 or even an Outflanking squad of Space Marine Scouts blowing it to heck with Krak Grenades. The Russ does.
Actually, Rules As Written is that you mount them on the base they come with. It's not that "many" Monoliths don't come with a base, it's that I have Never seen one that has. They've got their own built in risers on the bottom of the model, and don't use a traditional flight stand. Not to mention that even if you did put one on a traditional vehicle flight stand, it's only going to raise it up ever so slightly if any at all, due to those built in risers, and the point where the base would connect to being inset.
Ostrakon wrote:My mistake. I didn't have the IG codex on hand, but I knew they had some kind of special move+fire ordnance thing.
But what's the special rule, then? Anything can move combat and fire ordnance, right?
The HB on the LRBT doesn't even matter. You're never going to fire it unless your opponent is lucky enough to get a WD result against AV14 or 13.
Yes, we have the option to transport troops around, but it's not a terribly useful one. And any warriors in reserve HAVE to pop out of the monolith portal unless there's some sort of errata on that, so it becomes infeasible. I'd love to just have them walk out on my table edge and have the option of teleporting it, but being forced to drop them somewhere I don't want them to be makes it an extremely unattractive option. For an ability that's usually only used in an emergency and isn't terribly useful even then, it shouldn't be worth a lot of points on a vehicle that's already supposed to be at a discount.
The monolith being a skimmer doesn't help so much, really. It's huge, so terrain would have to be impossibly small for it to move 6 inches and ignore it. It's base is so big you can't even pass directly over a single tacmarine. And keep in mind it's permanently stuck at moving 6 (or less) inches.
The Russ can basically move Combat and fire it's turret weapon in addition to one other weapon. So,you will fire the H.Bolter if you're shooting at Troop units and it's in range.
The Monolith portal may be somewhat suboptimal,but it's still useful,and has to be accounted for in the Monolith's points cost.
The Monolith is suppossed to be on a large(60 mm) flying base. Basically,the base is 2",which give you 4" of wiggle room to clear that wall,trench,tree,whatever.
Monolith kits don't come with a flying base, so it's assumed not to have one. Rules also say that you're supposed to use the base it's supplied with. And it doesn't have a mobility advantage: it can't ignore terrain without taking a test, because it is impossible to move over any segment of terrain larger than an infinitesimally thin line due to its sheer size.
160 points for the monolith without living metal, but with a 4+ coversave? Probably not. 180 or 200? If we're not keeping Phaseout, meaning it would be meaningful to engage it, I really don't see why not. It becomes little more than a more heavily armored Battlecannon with a teleport ability you rarely want to use and a secondary weapon that is only ever meaningful when you take more than 2 monoliths. Hell, I wouldn't really take them now if I didn't need them to block LoS and grant a cover save for my warriors to avoid getting phased out. (Then again, the army needs more AP3 stuff.)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kurgash wrote:Best thing about the monolith? Hearing someone try to explain to you that you can't PW after deep striking.
Alright, about this whole "stealing" ideas thing. There is a difference between complete stealing and inspiration. I would like to make an example with something completely unrelated to wargaming. For all you people out there who like music: every artist out there today was inspired by someone before himself.
For example a guitar player who really like Eddie Van Halen (if in the extremely rare case you don't know who this is, look him up) spends a large chunk of his time listening to him. He starts learning some of his songs and eventually may implement some of Eddie's techniques in his own music. Eddie pretty much invented tapping (look it up) yet many artists, particularly metal artists, use tapping in their own music as well. You don't see Eddie standing there going "You stole my idea," or see people saying "You stole his idea," because that technique was made so it could used and could increase the art of music further.
Now GW, in my opinion, hasn't stolen anything. As long as they aren't exactly the same in both looks and backround, I'm totally fine with it. You don't see a whole lot of people (aside from those that complain about everything GW does for no real reason) saying that they stole the idea, because the didn't. If anything, I am inspired to lead my army of Terminators or Aliens against all who oppose me.
Sidstyler wrote:I don't know if anyone has really commented on this yet, but isn't a "high-risk investment" basically every non-Space Marine release?
No. IG, Orks, and Nids have pretty solid fanbase. If the codex is mid-level competitive, it'll sell as will the new models. Necrons, Dark Eldar, and Tau are all less established, and since they're all really post-3rd edition books, I don't think it is surprising. (iirc, Necrons were introduced towards the end of 2nd ed as allies, but I may be wrong).
Plus it is a self fulfilling high-risk investment. GW fails to support a particular army, and due to the lack of interested players(implied or otherwise) the army becomes looked at as high risk. If they had updated Necrons, Dar Eldar, and Orks even half as much as they did any of the Space Marine chapters they would have better sales and be less high-risk. The truth is that as a whole the Non-SM armies out sell the Space Marine armies 2:1. The Space Marines happen to be the Single best seller because they are a introductory army that is heavily supported by GW and is the central character in the majority of Narratives.
Aduro wrote:Actually, Rules As Written is that you mount them on the base they come with. It's not that "many" Monoliths don't come with a base, it's that I have Never seen one that has. They've got their own built in risers on the bottom of the model, and don't use a traditional flight stand. Not to mention that even if you did put one on a traditional vehicle flight stand, it's only going to raise it up ever so slightly if any at all, due to those built in risers, and the point where the base would connect to being inset.
I have seen Monoliths that have come with them,BTW. I've just never seen anybody take the time to drill the bottom so they can attach it. However,whether one got packed in with the model is immaterial. GW says it comes with one,which means that it's the proper base for the model. I don't believe that the 4th edition rulebook had the cavaet that "Unlike other vehicles,skimmers have transparent flying bases under their hull." As the rules have changed with the new edition,the model should technically have it. Even if it didn't come with one in the past,it's no different than IG players having rebase their old metal heavy weapon teams,which used to be two distinct figs on two seperate bases,onto the new HW team bases. If the RAW is indeed that you mount them on the base they come with,then that's a violation of RAW,as the HW team is no longer on it's original base. However,the biggest argument is that the clear flying base is,by rule,the representation of a Skimmer,now. If the Monolith is simply sitting on it's prongs and not on a flying base,then it's not WYSIWYG.
Aduro wrote:Actually, Rules As Written is that you mount them on the base they come with. It's not that "many" Monoliths don't come with a base, it's that I have Never seen one that has. They've got their own built in risers on the bottom of the model, and don't use a traditional flight stand. Not to mention that even if you did put one on a traditional vehicle flight stand, it's only going to raise it up ever so slightly if any at all, due to those built in risers, and the point where the base would connect to being inset.
I have seen Monoliths that have come with them,BTW. I've just never seen anybody take the time to drill the bottom so they can attach it. However,whether one got packed in with the model is immaterial. GW says it comes with one,which means that it's the proper base for the model. I don't believe that the 4th edition rulebook had the cavaet that "Unlike other vehicles,skimmers have transparent flying bases under their hull." As the rules have changed with the new edition,the model should technically have it. Even if it didn't come with one in the past,it's no different than IG players having rebase their old metal heavy weapon teams,which used to be two distinct figs on two seperate bases,onto the new HW team bases. If the RAW is indeed that you mount them on the base they come with,then that's a violation of RAW,as the HW team is no longer on it's original base. However,the biggest argument is that the clear flying base is,by rule,the representation of a Skimmer,now. If the Monolith is simply sitting on it's prongs and not on a flying base,then it's not WYSIWYG.
It was already stated though that the bottom of the monolith has the riser portion built into it. I bet if you measure it it is 60mm as well. If I was at home at the moment I'd check. They way the bottom of the model is constructed anyway wouldn't make a typical clear base have it up any higher. Considering how large it is, anyway, it wouldn't make much, if any, difference. Also FYI, the two monoliths I bought in the last year (I'm still a noob) didn't come with a clear base nor does it show one on the box as part of the contents.
Aduro wrote:Actually, Rules As Written is that you mount them on the base they come with. It's not that "many" Monoliths don't come with a base, it's that I have Never seen one that has. They've got their own built in risers on the bottom of the model, and don't use a traditional flight stand. Not to mention that even if you did put one on a traditional vehicle flight stand, it's only going to raise it up ever so slightly if any at all, due to those built in risers, and the point where the base would connect to being inset.
I have seen Monoliths that have come with them,BTW. I've just never seen anybody take the time to drill the bottom so they can attach it. However,whether one got packed in with the model is immaterial. GW says it comes with one,which means that it's the proper base for the model. I don't believe that the 4th edition rulebook had the cavaet that "Unlike other vehicles,skimmers have transparent flying bases under their hull." As the rules have changed with the new edition,the model should technically have it. Even if it didn't come with one in the past,it's no different than IG players having rebase their old metal heavy weapon teams,which used to be two distinct figs on two seperate bases,onto the new HW team bases. If the RAW is indeed that you mount them on the base they come with,then that's a violation of RAW,as the HW team is no longer on it's original base. However,the biggest argument is that the clear flying base is,by rule,the representation of a Skimmer,now. If the Monolith is simply sitting on it's prongs and not on a flying base,then it's not WYSIWYG.
I made magnetized flight stands for all my Monoliths. I have 3" clear plastic doll rods drilled into 60mm bases. It puts them a little higher off the ground than I would like but it puts it in line with a skimmer and even makes it easier to deploy a 10 man squad of Warriors out of the Portal(most Necron players will know that it is difficult to place all 10 warriors due to the 2 inch rule.
Mellon wrote:I think Necrons had a sort of micro-codex in a white dwarf early third edition era. Only two or three entries in it (necrons warriors, scarabs and possibly a HQ choice) and they were supposed to be used as antagonists or "neutral forces" for story driven scenarios. In 3rd ed rulebook there is a drawing of a necron in the small collection of "other dangerous aliens" but it is designated "Unknown".
There was a Chapter approved army list in early 3rd, as you say. It was more extensive than that though. It included Lords, Immortals, Warriors, Scarabs, Destroyers and Heavy Destroyers. I remember this because I started playing Necrons way back then.
Upgraded with disruption fields Scarabs are perfect for taking out enemy vehicles, as a 36 point unit of 3 bases should score a glancing hit, stopping a 100+ point vehicle from shooting or even destroying it.
That's just double wrong. It's 48 points, and unless that unit is opentopped or part of a squadron, they won't be killing anything. Have they not updated the description since 4E or something? (And are those the old WD Scarabs? They need to go in the frakking collectors section)
But yeah, the only time I have ever seen a monolith with a flying base is in the codex, and that one looks like it's using one of the regular Destroyer/Jetbike bases... And no way am I trying to balance my Monolith on that gak.
Necrons first showed up in a White Dwarf back in second edition with a lord warriors and scarabs. A second White Dwarf came out with immortals and destroyers. In third edition Necrons got 2 full White Dwarf army lists before the codex finally came out.
As for a monolith’s movement, the monolith is 6"x6"x9" so when it moves it can’t leap over any terrain at all because it can’t move fast enough. With it being so tall, wide, and slow it is VERRY hard to get out of line of sight if there was anything big enough to hide behind. That is why the monolith has living metal so you can get some play time out of it. Who would pay $50 for the slowest and largest tank in the game unless it is can shrug off almost any hit.
I have played Necrons from second ED on and I have 4 monoliths none of them has come with a flying base. I have only seen person put one on a flying base and needed 4 of them one in each corner to keep it balanced. One flying base is not stable enough to support a monolith that is why the monolith has little feet on the bottom to rise it up off the ground.
Aduro wrote:Actually, Rules As Written is that you mount them on the base they come with. It's not that "many" Monoliths don't come with a base, it's that I have Never seen one that has. They've got their own built in risers on the bottom of the model, and don't use a traditional flight stand. Not to mention that even if you did put one on a traditional vehicle flight stand, it's only going to raise it up ever so slightly if any at all, due to those built in risers, and the point where the base would connect to being inset.
I have seen Monoliths that have come with them,BTW. I've just never seen anybody take the time to drill the bottom so they can attach it. However,whether one got packed in with the model is immaterial. GW says it comes with one,which means that it's the proper base for the model. I don't believe that the 4th edition rulebook had the cavaet that "Unlike other vehicles,skimmers have transparent flying bases under their hull." As the rules have changed with the new edition,the model should technically have it. Even if it didn't come with one in the past,it's no different than IG players having rebase their old metal heavy weapon teams,which used to be two distinct figs on two seperate bases,onto the new HW team bases. If the RAW is indeed that you mount them on the base they come with,then that's a violation of RAW,as the HW team is no longer on it's original base. However,the biggest argument is that the clear flying base is,by rule,the representation of a Skimmer,now. If the Monolith is simply sitting on it's prongs and not on a flying base,then it's not WYSIWYG.
No It was not supplied with the base they have never included a base, so by raw i don't have have a base because it didn't come with one. And even en it doesn't matter sinceall measerments are made from the hull any way so it wouldn't help it in the least
Ostrakon wrote:Gah, why can't C'Tan stay? People complain about them all the time, but they're not really 'gods' so much as they are 'essence of god stuffed into a metal container'.
The problem with C'Tan is they're a rules nightmare. On top of being a conceptual problem. They're so far off the norm, it's just a mess to play against them. If they were just a regular Greater Daemon, there wouldn't be any problem at all.
Wait, how are C'Tan a problem ruleswise? Yeah, they have a couple of weird, corner-case special rules (like how they interact with Wraithcannons) but that's about all I can think of that are actual problems.
I agree, that "C'Tan" belong in Apoc, but I definately what the models and rules to continue into the next edition.
The C'Tan rules aren't that troublesome, but a little tweaking is easy.
Aduro wrote:Actually, Rules As Written is that you mount them on the base they come with. It's not that "many" Monoliths don't come with a base, it's that I have Never seen one that has. They've got their own built in risers on the bottom of the model, and don't use a traditional flight stand. Not to mention that even if you did put one on a traditional vehicle flight stand, it's only going to raise it up ever so slightly if any at all, due to those built in risers, and the point where the base would connect to being inset.
I have seen Monoliths that have come with them,BTW. I've just never seen anybody take the time to drill the bottom so they can attach it. However,whether one got packed in with the model is immaterial. GW says it comes with one,which means that it's the proper base for the model. I don't believe that the 4th edition rulebook had the cavaet that "Unlike other vehicles,skimmers have transparent flying bases under their hull." As the rules have changed with the new edition,the model should technically have it. Even if it didn't come with one in the past,it's no different than IG players having rebase their old metal heavy weapon teams,which used to be two distinct figs on two seperate bases,onto the new HW team bases. If the RAW is indeed that you mount them on the base they come with,then that's a violation of RAW,as the HW team is no longer on it's original base. However,the biggest argument is that the clear flying base is,by rule,the representation of a Skimmer,now. If the Monolith is simply sitting on it's prongs and not on a flying base,then it's not WYSIWYG.
No It was not supplied with the base they have never included a base, so by raw i don't have have a base because it didn't come with one. And even en it doesn't matter sinceall measerments are made from the hull any way so it wouldn't help it in the least
If you've followed this discussion any other forums,people have gotten Monoliths with flying bases(or at least claim to). I've got a flying base on an old 2nd ed Landspeeder that my buddy got in his Monolith box. Just because you haven't gotten one with a flying base doesn't mean that people haven't gotten them. Per GW,the model is suppossed to have a flying base. If GW doesn't pack the bases in with a unit of Terminators,does that mean that I can just have a unit of Termies running around without bases? No,it doesn't.
For another,the RAW does not state that if the model didn't include a base,it didn't have to be based. Per pg. 3 of the 5th ed rulebook.
"Bases. Citadel miniatures are normally supplied with a plastic base. If so,they must be glued onto their bases before they can be used in the game."
RAW does not state that if the model didn't come with a base,it doesn't have to be on a base. RAW states that if the model comes with a base,it must be glued onto that base.
Per the RAW on pg. 71 for Skimmers.
"Unlike other vehicles,skimmers have transparant flying bases under their hulls."
and
"Note that it is not permitted to remove the flying stand other than in the two cases above(Immobilized and Wrecked),as normally skimmers cannot land in battle conditions."
Tau skimmers,for example,can take Landing Gear to voluntarily land. However,the Necron codex provides no such ability for the Monolith. If it's just sitting on it's pylons,then it's illegal,by RAW,as there are no rules in the Necron codex to override the rules for skimmers in the base rules.
Now,ultimately,I'm not going to bust anybody's balls over just sticking the thing on the ground,but the RAI I've seen everyone use for skimmer movement is that if the base clears the terrain and the hull isn't making contact,then no difficult terrain test is required. However,when the discussion involves comparitive movements and points cost,the fact that it should be a flying base is a valid point. I'm not slamming my fist and saying "Grrrraaaaaahhhhhh!!!!!! All Necron players should have their Monoliths on flying bases,and I will not rest until those cheating bastards conform to the RAW!!!!!!!!" I'm saying,"You know,you could clear more terrain pieces with that thing if you'd just put it on the proper base." It doesn't matter to me either way. However,it's having it both ways if you're complaining about restrictive movement when it could be better if you'd just base the model properly,IMO. Ultimately,none of it matters to the original point about the Monolith being a more mobile Ordinance platform than a Russ,anyways,and this has gotten way OT.
Whatever1 wrote:"Bases. Citadel miniatures are normally supplied with a plastic base. If so,they must be glued onto their bases before they can be used in the game."
I highlighted the qualifiers in that sentence for you so you can see where the discrepancy comes into play.
SweetLou wrote:no its BARE not BEAR BEAR is a animal
It's 'bear'
'Bare' means 'uncovered'.
'Bear' is an animal, but the word also has other meanings. To 'bear' something can mean 'to carry' (as in 'ring bearer'), to support (as in a 'load bearing structure') or to put up with (as in 'bear with me')...
NecronLord3 wrote:Regardless the Eldar are in no way a Necron Instant killing force, Fluff nor in gameplay.
Idk why people seem to think Eldar are a anti-necron army, imo Eldar and Necrons are opposite ends of the spectrum Eldar being fast and weak, Necrons being slow and hard.
Whatever1 wrote:I'm not slamming my fist and saying "Grrrraaaaaahhhhhh!!!!!! All Necron players should have their Monoliths on flying bases,and I will not rest until those cheating bastards conform to the RAW!!!!!!!!"
"I don't really care if people base them or not. No...I've just written several large paragraphs explaining the RAW behind the monolith's base and insinuating that everyone who doesn't put their huge plastic brick on a brittle flying stand that doesn't even come with most of the kits sold is playing the game 'wrong'. But I don't care."
NecronLord3 wrote:Regardless the Eldar are in no way a Necron Instant killing force, Fluff nor in gameplay.
Idk why people seem to think Eldar are a anti-necron army, imo Eldar and Necrons are opposite ends of the spectrum Eldar being fast and weak, Necrons being slow and hard.
Retrace the thread. They were talking about Fluff.
NecronLord3 wrote:Regardless the Eldar are in no way a Necron Instant killing force, Fluff nor in gameplay.
Idk why people seem to think Eldar are a anti-necron army, imo Eldar and Necrons are opposite ends of the spectrum Eldar being fast and weak, Necrons being slow and hard.
Actually, crunchwise, like 1/3 of the units in Codex: Necrons are jetbikes of some variety.
These are the things im hoping to see in the new necrons,
1. Increased Unit size of Wraiths. 2. A Multi Plastic piece set of at least 3 Wraiths. 3. Increase the Tomb Spyders BS to at least 4 or 3 4. No Removal of C'tan but tune the rules down a bit. 5. More HQ and Troop variety. 6. More Vehicles 7. And other plastic sets (see first post)
and im sure GW will extract somthing from the Reaper boss from ME2
SweetLou wrote:i still want warriors as our ONLY troops it makes me feel like a army of the damned, but make them cheaper ffs
Nah, I'd rather have more (and more competent) options.
Being forced to take 360 points of a pretty crappy unit right now is just terrible. Even if they were 15 points each right now I'd still complain about it, they're pretty crappy.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Apparently Necrons get a mention in the BA codex. Something about Dante fighting the "Necron Legions of the Silent King" to a stalemate.
And then a Tyranid splinter fleet arrives out of nowhere, and THEY WORK TOGETHER TO BEAT THE TYRANIDS BEFORE RESUMING HOSTILITIES. Probably not in a friendly kind of way, it's not very detailed. It's on page 16 apparently.
While this is obviously an abomination of current fluff, does this confirm a significant revamp of Necron fluff coming from Mr. Ward? Giving them personalities (Silent King? Badass name!) and making them a little more than mindless killing machines is pretty welcome to me.
I'd also like to say that last week (Tuesday 18th) the local manager where I live gave us info that: Pariahs will be plastic and have 40mm bases, also Tomb Spyders and Immortals will be plastic, so this rumour is sounding very believable.
samrtk wrote:I'd also like to say that last week (Tuesday 18th) the local manager where I live gave us info that: Pariahs will be plastic and have 40mm bases, also Tomb Spyders and Immortals will be plastic, so this rumour is sounding very believable.
I seriously doubt GW managers get information that early. He probably read this thread.
Pariah's to be plastic? I didn't even think anyone used them/took them to warrant being in plastic. It's also one of the lease desirable/looking models in the whole range.
Uriels_Flame wrote:Pariah's to be plastic? I didn't even think anyone used them/took them to warrant being in plastic. It's also one of the lease desirable/looking models in the whole range.
Love the concept, but execution was 'meh'.
Wouldn't that be the precise reason to redo them in plastic? Make them cheaper, better looking, and update the rules so they don't suck.
from some pepole iveheared its the next codex to be done
so lets see GW is known to make sucky units the units you need....aka GW remakes codex changes the common roster so you have to buy new models....= bank for GW
heres to hopeing for a good codex...i mean it couldnt get any worse than now.......something has to improve
I'd like to mention that I think its kinda ironic to see Beast of War begging for the rumors to be true when they usually don't mention rumors in On the Table. How is this high risk GW?
For anyone that would like to let themselves be heard by GW there is a Necron Count website that lets you show off your support for the Necrons by registering your army.
I'm not buying the plastic Pariah's rumour just yet, sounds like the guy it came from was just repeating the rumours that kicked off this thread but added Pariah's either out of confusion, faulty memory or whatever. He also said they'd be on a bigger base, why? Immortals I can totally see getting bigger bases as per the rumour in the first post but Pariah's are slimmed down Necrons, no need for a bigger base there.
Again, I think this dude was just mixed up. Plus other more creidble sources have said that most of the range will not be changing., my own thoughts are that GW would probably rather put it's resources into new units.
Gargskull wrote:I'm not buying the plastic Pariah's rumour just yet, sounds like the guy it came from was just repeating the rumours that kicked off this thread but added Pariah's either out of confusion, faulty memory or whatever. He also said they'd be on a bigger base, why? Immortals I can totally see getting bigger bases as per the rumour in the first post but Pariah's are slimmed down Necrons, no need for a bigger base there.
Again, I think this dude was just mixed up. Plus other more creidble sources have said that most of the range will not be changing., my own thoughts are that GW would probably rather put it's resources into new units.
Actually Pariahs are upgraded Immortals. They are T5 with the same gun, just like an Immortal. However, I agree that they don't have the look to support a larger base and I don't see them realistically being a Darth Vader/Robocop-esque cyborg and be big and bulky.
Pariahs will definently be redone in the new codex. They are universally the worst selling Necron Unit and worst looking unit. But, GW may very well just produce a newer better metal sculpt especially if they remain an Elite 0-1 unit. There just won't be a demand to justify the plastic production costs.
(Thinking out loud here)An interesting option for GW would be to include the parts to produce a Pariah on each warrior sprue, possibly opening the door for Pariahs to take on a Sgt. role or allow you to collect enough to produce a Pariah squad.
Aduro wrote:Yep, GW CLEARLY copied the robots from Terminator, I mean there are SO many different ways in which they could have designed their own robot skeleton...
Way before the first metal terminators were released, back when Blood Angels were getting their first codex, my FLGS was telling about the Space Undead army that the GW sales rep was hyping.
Robotic skeletons animated with the souls of the living......
Scarabs....
Skeletons with tattered flesh clinging to their bones...
I'm sorry, but I've always seen Necrons as the 40K counterpart to undead.
However, note that the Terminator movie was released in 1984, a few years before 40K even existed. There were also most certainly 40K Terminators in 1st ed. The Angels of Death codex appeared in 2nd ed.
I'll wait-and-see on plastic Pariahs. If Necrons get the usual 3-4 plastic boxes, it seems like we already have better and more likely candidates for plastic.
Gargskull wrote:I'm not buying the plastic Pariah's rumour just yet, sounds like the guy it came from was just repeating the rumours that kicked off this thread but added Pariah's either out of confusion, faulty memory or whatever. He also said they'd be on a bigger base, why? Immortals I can totally see getting bigger bases as per the rumour in the first post but Pariah's are slimmed down Necrons, no need for a bigger base there.
Again, I think this dude was just mixed up. Plus other more creidble sources have said that most of the range will not be changing., my own thoughts are that GW would probably rather put it's resources into new units.
Well, it'd be reasonable for both Pariahs and Immortals to come on bigger bases, because it's a pain in an assault because they extend so far (and awkwardly) off of their 25mm bases. Plus, he could just be confusing pariahs with immortals. And if the models are being redone (let's face it, current pariahs are ugly as hell) then there's no way of telling.
I really hope pariahs end up as ridiculous as they are in the fluff. I'd rather have them end up more expensive, the super elite shock troops of the 'crons. Like, S5 T5 2+ 5++ I4 A2 warscythes with built in blasters, for however much that would cost per model.
Gargskull wrote:I'm not buying the plastic Pariah's rumour just yet, sounds like the guy it came from was just repeating the rumours that kicked off this thread but added Pariah's either out of confusion, faulty memory or whatever. He also said they'd be on a bigger base, why? Immortals I can totally see getting bigger bases as per the rumour in the first post but Pariah's are slimmed down Necrons, no need for a bigger base there.
Again, I think this dude was just mixed up. Plus other more creidble sources have said that most of the range will not be changing., my own thoughts are that GW would probably rather put it's resources into new units.
Well, it'd be reasonable for both Pariahs and Immortals to come on bigger bases, because it's a pain in an assault because they extend so far (and awkwardly) off of their 25mm bases. Plus, he could just be confusing pariahs with immortals. And if the models are being redone (let's face it, current pariahs are ugly as hell) then there's no way of telling.
I really hope pariahs end up as ridiculous as they are in the fluff. I'd rather have them end up more expensive, the super elite shock troops of the 'crons. Like, S5 T5 2+ 5++ I4 A2 warscythes with built in blasters, for however much that would cost per model.
Gargskull wrote:I'm not buying the plastic Pariah's rumour just yet, sounds like the guy it came from was just repeating the rumours that kicked off this thread but added Pariah's either out of confusion, faulty memory or whatever. He also said they'd be on a bigger base, why? Immortals I can totally see getting bigger bases as per the rumour in the first post but Pariah's are slimmed down Necrons, no need for a bigger base there.
Again, I think this dude was just mixed up. Plus other more creidble sources have said that most of the range will not be changing., my own thoughts are that GW would probably rather put it's resources into new units.
Well, it'd be reasonable for both Pariahs and Immortals to come on bigger bases, because it's a pain in an assault because they extend so far (and awkwardly) off of their 25mm bases. Plus, he could just be confusing pariahs with immortals. And if the models are being redone (let's face it, current pariahs are ugly as hell) then there's no way of telling.
I really hope pariahs end up as ridiculous as they are in the fluff. I'd rather have them end up more expensive, the super elite shock troops of the 'crons. Like, S5 T5 2+ 5++ I4 A2 warscythes with built in blasters, for however much that would cost per model.
At least then they would be worth the 36pts =/
Nah, they'd probably have to be a lot more. I mean, 40 point termies have the same armor, lower S and T, and worse wargear, and can't sweep. If we account for phaseout they might come at a discount of some sort, but probably not.
burad wrote:I just want them to make a decision and implement it so i can decide if I'm gonna build necrons.
Ah just start 'em anyways and hope for the best. That's what I'm doing anyways!
I'm always up for a challenge, so playing and hopefully winning with a very underpowered list should be the bees knees. Plus, if I play them for a while before the new codex, I (hopefully) won't get accused of jumping on the bandwagon.
burad wrote:I just want them to make a decision and implement it so i can decide if I'm gonna build necrons.
Ah just start 'em anyways and hope for the best. That's what I'm doing anyways!
I'm always up for a challenge, so playing and hopefully winning with a very underpowered list should be the bees knees. Plus, if I play them for a while before the new codex, I (hopefully) won't get accused of jumping on the bandwagon.
People who complain about that sort of thing would've complained anyway. I've had a space wolf player complain about the Monolith the turn after he used JOTWW to kill my Deceiver.
And they're not even that bad right now. They're not top tier or even close to it, but they have a lot of very solid units that, if built around, provide for a potent if shallow force.
The problem is that while the great units are great (and they're not even THAT great), the units that aren't great are utterly unplayable most of the time. Pariahs, Heavy Destroyers, Flayed Ones, Wraiths, and even your mandatory warriors are all pretty crappy.
Dont forget that "phase out" serves absolutely no purpose other than to screw over the necron player.. Its like if Ogre kingdoms in fantasy automatically lost if they went below 25% models..
Most likely theyre already GOING to lose being a bottom tier army, why the hell do they need another disadvantage?
Idea was to make em more powerful than points would suggest. Too bad that doesnt really work out. It just meant anything without the necron rule wasnt too good for survival. Or basically Pariah went the way of never ever good in any way ^^.
And offtopic, i complain about my bad luck with dice, and then proceed to win anyway. But thats how i roll. (Nobody likes to see more stuff survive because you fired additional flamers :S stupid new rule)
Kirasu wrote:Dont forget that "phase out" serves absolutely no purpose other than to screw over the necron player.. Its like if Ogre kingdoms in fantasy automatically lost if they went below 25% models..
Most likely theyre already GOING to lose being a bottom tier army, why the hell do they need another disadvantage?
Actually, in 3E when 'crons came out, 18 points was what R&D considered a discounted price for a Warrior. Similarly with everything else in the codex. Apparently our grossly overcosted MEQs were once considered to be on the cheap side. Also keep in mind that they each had a 1/54 chance per gauss shot to wreck a vehicle under 3E and 4E rules (statistically about 1 dead vehicle for every 70 gauss shots fired, so this meager benefit - that people often did and still complain was broken back then - doesn't really justify an 18 point model by todays standards).
The problem is that everyone who got a 4E and now a 5E codex got drastic points reductions, while crons got stuck in the same boat as DE, WH, and DH: prices per model being far overcosted compared to their updated brethren. And that's not even counting the rules problems.
I would kind of like to see wraiths as super deadly individuals rather than units. Something like S6, T5, I6, A4, W1, 3+/2++ SV, and Phase Weapons. The T5 is giving them an Immortal's body, as they've got the size for it. Only one wound, because they're somewhat "fragile", but it's hard to Hit them because of the Phasing and thus a 2++ SV. Then they'd still have whatever form of We'll Be Back ends up in the new book.
I'm with Stasis, wraiths need a bigger unit size or 1 more wound. next time my buddy and I play and I take them we were going to play test them with 2 wounds, see how it works out. Their stats are pretty fine, though power weapons wouldn't hurt.
Ostrakon wrote:Aesthetically, yeah, but not so much fluffwise. It is kind of wierd that they not only pretty much outright stole the terminator metallic skeleton look, the named one of their main special rules after a very famous line from T2, and got away with it.
Agreed that it's not clear-cut. The army is part Terminator, part Lovecraftian horror, part straight horror, part '50s style evil robots (look at the Pariahs), and part space undead. The fluff is mostly horror/Lovecraft-oriented, but then the game play is mostly Terminator/robot-influenced (WBB being a bigger mechanic than any "scary" thing the army does on the tabletop.
Visually speaking, you mostly have sleek high-tech robots with a space undead edge. The sense of an ancient, dead race is pretty much non-existent. Oh, then throw in the Flayed Ones for some Freddy Kruger/straight horror feel and the Tomb Spyders for a Matrix vibe.
Said it before and I'll say it again...it's a conceptual mess. There's *nothing* wrong with borrowing from other sources and recombining those elements into something fresh and new. In this case, it's a bad blend. Personally I think they need to choose either the robot angle or the horror angle and de-emphasize (not eliminate, just pare back) the other one. Then build the fluff and (importantly) game play accordingly.
Completely agree, this ten times over. I'd go far more down the robot and undead root than the horror root. GW has done that too much before, I think there was a time when GW thought it had to do the horror thing because that sells and I'm not sure it does. DE failed because they went that way IMO. Taking the evil/mallice/horror out of both of these forces and replacing it with something unique and thought through are what could make them.
Exactly. The necrons have been awakened and are deffending thier terratory. IMO that doesn't make them evil, they arn't out to get you they are out to protect themselves. They are souls seeking imortality this needs some protection from the plage that is the living.
ceorron wrote:Exactly. The necrons have been awakened and are deffending thier terratory. IMO that doesn't make them evil, they arn't out to get you they are out to protect themselves. They are souls seeking imortality this needs some protection from the plage that is the living.
ceorron wrote:Exactly. The necrons have been awakened and are deffending thier terratory. IMO that doesn't make them evil, they arn't out to get you they are out to protect themselves. They are souls seeking imortality this needs some protection from the plage that is the living.
Uh...
They gained that 'territory' by feasting on the death of 99% of sentient life in the galaxy. The only reason why it wasn't 100% was because the C'Tan are basically farming the galaxy for death. Wait 60 million years, let the galaxy repopulate itself, then feed. Repeat until, well, forever.
And their servants are a race of cancer patients they tricked into immortal metal bodies for the sole purpose of controlling them. They're pretty much unquestionably evil.
Anyway, Wraiths have a lot of problems. Right now they're little more than cool-looking jump bikes with invuln saves. They should really only cost like 20 points a piece right now, since they're so freaking fragile. 3+ save or not, 3 T4 wounds against 3+ saves is not a difficult thing to accomplish.
If we're keeping them in the 40 point range, I either want a squad size of 5 with power weapons built in. That or we keep it squad size of 3, make them T5 and 2 wounds each...
I dunno, the way they are described in the fluff suggests either power weapons or rending built in. I think 5 of them with the current statline but with rending for 30 points each wouldn't be terribly overpowering (certainly less so than with 4 S6 PW attacks at I6) and it would give us a great anti-armor unit.
How about instead of keeping Phase out as a penalty and giving the necrons a points break, turn it into an asset and keeping the points as they are?
Something like, whenever a Necron unit is broken (not just in close combat), instead of fleeing it is removed from play and placed into reserves.
This was already mentioned earlier in this thread, and mirrors a Epic game mechanic devised for them. Then again, the marine players might start crying when getting a single model into cc doesn't result in an automatic victory for them.
ceorron wrote:Exactly. The necrons have been awakened and are deffending thier terratory. IMO that doesn't make them evil, they arn't out to get you they are out to protect themselves. They are souls seeking imortality this needs some protection from the plage that is the living.
What background fluff have you been reading?
We are considering what thier background would be better off as rather than what it is currently
Remove Phase Out entirely. You don't get extra VP/KP's for killing eldar by stealing spirit stones, or with Space Marine gene-seed. Let army fluff hindrances be kept in fluff. The story now for it could be that Necrons have awakened in force and now commit themselves to full out battles as the latest story tidbits say as per Damnos, the Necrons fielding a massive force to take the area, not some small raiding army.
Ostrakon wrote:Anyway, Wraiths have a lot of problems. Right now they're little more than cool-looking jump bikes with invuln saves. They should really only cost like 20 points a piece right now, since they're so freaking fragile. 3+ save or not, 3 T4 wounds against 3+ saves is not a difficult thing to accomplish.
If we're keeping them in the 40 point range, I either want a squad size of 5 with power weapons built in. That or we keep it squad size of 3, make them T5 and 2 wounds each...
I dunno, the way they are described in the fluff suggests either power weapons or rending built in. I think 5 of them with the current statline but with rending for 30 points each wouldn't be terribly overpowering (certainly less so than with 4 S6 PW attacks at I6) and it would give us a great anti-armor unit.
Careful, lest you end up with something like Tyranid Shrikes - an interesting stat line that no one takes.
Wraiths should have deployment rules like the Ymgarl; they come phasing up out of the ground and rip some stuff up when they do. Or at least give them Scout, for some out-flanking shenanigans. I'm not certain you want Rending; GW charges a premium for it (see Daemonettes & Genestealers), and seems to like to "balance" it by making models with it easy to kill.
Kurgash wrote:Remove Phase Out entirely. You don't get extra VP/KP's for killing eldar by stealing spirit stones, or with Space Marine gene-seed. Let army fluff hindrances be kept in fluff. The story now for it could be that Necrons have awakened in force and now commit themselves to full out battles as the latest story tidbits say as per Damnos, the Necrons fielding a massive force to take the area, not some small raiding army.
BA Codex (written by the same guy doing the 'cron 'dex) disagrees with you.
BA led by Dante and some Necrons led by a lord known as The Silent King are fighting each other when they are interrupted by a Tyranid splinter fleet.
After working together to beat their common foe (there has to be more of a story behind this, I've only had it paraphrased), they split off, since both the BA and the 'crons are both too "battle-worn" to continue fighting. Imagine that... SM and 'crons both simultaneously deciding to not fight to the death.
And phaseout should stay. Phaseout, in theory, lets us have a bunch of powerful, cheap stuff. It was poorly implemented before, but imagine an army of warriors with T4, 4++, FNP, S+P, and Rending gauss flayers for 15 points a piece. Only phaseout could make that possible.
Kurgash wrote:Remove Phase Out entirely. You don't get extra VP/KP's for killing eldar by stealing spirit stones, or with Space Marine gene-seed. Let army fluff hindrances be kept in fluff. The story now for it could be that Necrons have awakened in force and now commit themselves to full out battles as the latest story tidbits say as per Damnos, the Necrons fielding a massive force to take the area, not some small raiding army.
BA Codex (written by the same guy doing the 'cron 'dex) disagrees with you.
BA led by Dante and some Necrons led by a lord known as The Silent King are fighting each other when they are interrupted by a Tyranid splinter fleet.
After working together to beat their common foe (there has to be more of a story behind this, I've only had it paraphrased), they split off, since both the BA and the 'crons are both too "battle-worn" to continue fighting. Imagine that... SM and 'crons both simultaneously deciding to not fight to the death.
And phaseout should stay. Phaseout, in theory, lets us have a bunch of powerful, cheap stuff. It was poorly implemented before, but imagine an army of warriors with T4, 4++, FNP, S+P, and Rending gauss flayers for 15 points a piece. Only phaseout could make that possible.
Well yes if the stats and rules are incredibly out there then yes, keep it as a balancer but otherwise if Necrons get a bland treatment *which i hope to god they don't* then by all means remove their detriment.
Leaving phase out in and instead boosting stats of necrons to compensate is a horrible idea imo.. If they are that much better than everyone else for their point cost then no one will even get to the phase out percentage..
Necrons will just table people every time..
Phase out can never be properly implemented I think.. If the units are too good for their cost, they'll just win..if they're too weak for their cost then they'll get tabled at 25% instead of 0% for everyone else. Its a bad game mechanic, instead of trying to make it work just make them play like OTHER armies.. Necrons are the only army in any popular GW game that I can think of that gets wiped out at 75% rather than 100%
In a wish-list I wrote a while ago I figured it would be neat if We'll Be Back meant that each squad had access to a Portal/Without Number effect, whereby casualties taken by the squad were put in reserve, and the whole squad could be voluntarily removed from the board and put in reserve. Once in reserve units of Necrons could enter from reserves using the Monolith Portal or a Necron Lord's Resurrection Orb as a beacon like a Teleport Homer or Icon.
But I like the idea of a squad phasing out on a failed morale check though. Presumably if they're still above 50% then they could be put in reserves, so they can 'rally', but if below then they're out of the game. It mixes Phase Out and We'll Be Back rather nicely. Plus it nixes that awful mechanic of laying models on their sides (though the smart players use downed Necron markers).
Phase Out doesn't work at the army level, but is easily implementable at the squad level:
Phase Out: If a Necron unit [ would Fall Back / fails a Morale test ] it is instead [ removed from the game / placed into Reserves ].
Any variation of the above is simple and workable from a rules standpoint, building off existing mechanics and game flow. It takes no additional time, and requires no additional math, and is easily understood by player and opponent.
Y'know, I'm going to hazard a guess. A wild out of the blue guess, mind you, but one that has some precedence.
We'll see Necrons around Christmas.
Why do I say this?
Well, I just noticed they finally put up a description for the 40k novel "Dead Men Walking".
When the Necrons rise, a mining planet descends into a cauldron of war and the remorseless foes decimate the human defenders. Salvation comes in an unlikely form – the Death Korps of Kreig, a force as unfeeling as the Necrons themselves. When the two powers go to war, casualties are high and the magnitude of the destruction is unimaginable.
Kanluwen wrote:Y'know, I'm going to hazard a guess. A wild out of the blue guess, mind you, but one that has some precedence.
We'll see Necrons around Christmas.
Why do I say this?
Well, I just noticed they finally put up a description for the 40k novel "Dead Men Walking".
When the Necrons rise, a mining planet descends into a cauldron of war and the remorseless foes decimate the human defenders. Salvation comes in an unlikely form – the Death Korps of Kreig, a force as unfeeling as the Necrons themselves. When the two powers go to war, casualties are high and the magnitude of the destruction is unimaginable.
Malika2 wrote:Necrons fighting together with anyone sounds very off...
OK then you needs to read up on the 13th black crusade.
While fighting on Cadia IG was supported from time to time my Necrons in story line & game play. The help was not asked for, but when you’re defending your home world from Chaos any help is taken when it is given. But after every fight the Necrons just Phased out, the IG was left holding the battle field unaware why they were helped but grateful to be alive.
Wraiths need a unit size of 6 or so, maybe more. 6 Wraiths are actually dangerous, the problem is that they still don't kill 3+ that well and it takes 2 precious FA slots to do this. Something like Rending or a points cost reduction would make them a 'real' melee unit instead of just something that (tries to) trash backfield units. Hit and Run won't do it, because 3 Wraiths still can't kill anything.
And Necrons need a real way to kill vehicles. Not even Heavy Gauss Cannon do so very well, since they lack that critical AP 1. Imagine a SM or IG army forced to kill vehicles with lascannons. That's pretty much what Necrons have to do now.
Shifting to FNP isn't a problem so long as the writer realizes that it is a fair survivability nerf. There is nothing that I know of that you can FNP but not WBB, while there are a number of weapon that you get the reverse.
The Grog wrote:And Necrons need a real way to kill vehicles.
Imagine a SM or IG army forced to kill vehicles with lascannons. That's pretty much what Necrons have to do now.
One may reasonably assume that the Necron Destroyers will be updated to have an anti-tank option, along with the Monoliths' "big gun".
SM and IG forced to use anti-tank Lascannons to kill vehicles? How horrible!
SM and IG also have access to S10 artillery, meltas and multi-meltas, TLACs for popping transports, etc...
That said, Necrons do have a very potent transport-popping capability in the form of destroyers. 15 BS4 S6 shots against side armor is generally pretty damn good. And the PW is AP1 under the whole, and since you need it to be under the hole to qualify as a real S9 hit, it's sadly our best option for taking out high armor from a distance when we can't force a side armor shot. C'Tan are all right against LRs in the unlikely situation that my opponent didn't move it at cruising speed to dump off it stabby cargo. And even then, I'd rather have the C'Tan get the KP off the termies.
I fully expect H. Destroyers to be moved into the same category as Destroyers, with the Heavy Gauss Cannon being a wargear upgrade to the gauss cannon for like 15 or 20 points as an S9 or 10 AP1 36 inch range profile. Presumably that H. Support slot will be filled by new TS varieties and the Necromancer walker. I also anticipate a point reduction all around on destroyers, because GW likes selling more models, so I'm gonna go ahead and guess 40/model.
Actually I'd love to see Destroyers be open-topped fast skimmers with AV10 all around like landspeeders instead of jetbikes, especially if they stay at 50 points. I hate seeing 50 point models that I can only take in groups of 5 die to freaking bolter fire.
Ostrakon wrote:I fully expect H. Destroyers to be moved into the same category as Destroyers, with the Heavy Gauss Cannon being a wargear upgrade to the gauss cannon for like 15 or 20 points as an S9 or 10 AP1 36 inch range profile. Presumably that H. Support slot will be filled by new TS varieties and the Necromancer walker. I also anticipate a point reduction all around on destroyers, because GW likes selling more models, so I'm gonna go ahead and guess 40/model.
Would they remain heavy support then or fast attack? Seems a bit off kilter to have a fast attack with a heavy weapon.
Ostrakon wrote:I fully expect H. Destroyers to be moved into the same category as Destroyers, with the Heavy Gauss Cannon being a wargear upgrade to the gauss cannon for like 15 or 20 points as an S9 or 10 AP1 36 inch range profile. Presumably that H. Support slot will be filled by new TS varieties and the Necromancer walker. I also anticipate a point reduction all around on destroyers, because GW likes selling more models, so I'm gonna go ahead and guess 40/model.
Would they remain heavy support then or fast attack? Seems a bit off kilter to have a fast attack with a heavy weapon.
Not at all, could be like, 1 H.Destroyer upgrade per 3 destroyers in the group or something akin to that.
The Grog wrote:And Necrons need a real way to kill vehicles.
Imagine a SM or IG army forced to kill vehicles with lascannons. That's pretty much what Necrons have to do now.
One may reasonably assume that the Necron Destroyers will be updated to have an anti-tank option, along with the Monoliths' "big gun".
SM and IG forced to use anti-tank Lascannons to kill vehicles? How horrible!
Because the allmighty vehicle killing Lascannon is just everywhere while melta weapons languish in obscurity.
Mixed weapons are rarely good ideas without also being able to split fire. That would be very similar to taking a Devastator squad with 3 HBs and one LC. How often do you see that?
Destroyers are good against AV 10, but struggle against 11 or higher. 1.66 glance hits and 1.66 pen hits from a full 250 points of Destroyers with no AP 1 bonus means you kill almost a full Rhino per round. You may as well not bother shooting AV 12 at all. The Whip is the best anti-tank weapon Necrons have by a substantial margin, but you still have to hit squarely with it.
The current Necron army depends so heavily on Destroyers to kill things. I'd be leery of a change that made me take Destroyers and Heavy Ds in the same slot. Same with Landspeeder-style Destroyers. Less vulnerable to bolters, much more vulnerable to HBs, ACs, Multilasers, and anything else that can muster S6 or higher but not AP 3. Plus the side effects of being a squadron, and incorporating some kind of WBB for a vehicle.
Kevin949 wrote: Seems a bit off kilter to have a fast attack with a heavy weapon.
You mean like an Eldar Vyper with a Brightlance & Shuricannon, or a SM Landspeeder with Multi-Melta & Assault Cannon, or an IG Sentinel with Lascannon? Or an IG Vendetta carrying 3 twin-linked Lascannon?
____
The Grog wrote:Because the allmighty vehicle killing Lascannon is just everywhere while melta weapons languish in obscurity.
Over the entirety of 3rd Edition, I think I can count the number of times I saw opponents field Meltas on one hand, whereas the number of Lascannon on the board rarely dropped below a half-dozen in those armies able to take them. Necrons being forced to fight differently from other armies is NOT a bad thing. It's what makes them Necrons.
BTW, how many Meltas can Nids take?
The Grog wrote:Mixed weapons are rarely good ideas without also being able to split fire. That would be very similar to taking a Devastator squad with 3 HBs and one LC. How often do you see that?
In a 10-man Devastator Squad able to Combat Squad, that loadout wouid be nearly optimal against horde.
The Grog wrote:The current Necron army depends so heavily on Destroyers to kill things. I'd be leery of a change that made me take Destroyers and Heavy Ds in the same slot.
There's nothing wrong with that, given that Necrons are likely to see very substantial changes in the structure, capability and function of practically everything in their list.
Kevin949 wrote: Seems a bit off kilter to have a fast attack with a heavy weapon.
You mean like an Eldar Vyper with a Brightlance & Shuricannon, or a SM Landspeeder with Multi-Melta & Assault Cannon, or an IG Sentinel with Lascannon? Or an IG Vendetta carrying 3 twin-linked Lascannon?
Aren't those all vehicles though? Also, you don't have to be a smartass about it, I'm sorry I don't know every nuance of every army ever played. Maybe I've only ever played necrons? Maybe I'm still new to the game.
Ostrakon wrote:I fully expect H. Destroyers to be moved into the same category as Destroyers, with the Heavy Gauss Cannon being a wargear upgrade to the gauss cannon for like 15 or 20 points as an S9 or 10 AP1 36 inch range profile. Presumably that H. Support slot will be filled by new TS varieties and the Necromancer walker. I also anticipate a point reduction all around on destroyers, because GW likes selling more models, so I'm gonna go ahead and guess 40/model.
Would they remain heavy support then or fast attack? Seems a bit off kilter to have a fast attack with a heavy weapon.
Fast attack. Can't LAndspeeders take multi-meltas and missle launchers?
Destroyers are good against AV 10, but struggle against 11 or higher. 1.66 glance hits and 1.66 pen hits from a full 250 points of Destroyers with no AP 1 bonus means you kill almost a full Rhino per round. You may as well not bother shooting AV 12 at all. The Whip is the best anti-tank weapon Necrons have by a substantial margin, but you still have to hit squarely with it.
The current Necron army depends so heavily on Destroyers to kill things. I'd be leery of a change that made me take Destroyers and Heavy Ds in the same slot. Same with Landspeeder-style Destroyers. Less vulnerable to bolters, much more vulnerable to HBs, ACs, Multilasers, and anything else that can muster S6 or higher but not AP 3. Plus the side effects of being a squadron, and incorporating some kind of WBB for a vehicle.
I seriously disagree that they struggle against AV11. Even if you don't kill that rhino and gotten its delicious KP, it's not going anywhere next turn, which means that your scarabs/ scythe lord is going to finish it off. And against anything with a Rhino I probably wasn't going to be making a ton of points back firing at infantry anyway. Hell, it's not even a waste to be shooting at AV12 or higher, since even the scant possibility scoring an immobilize or a weapon destroyed on a Demolisher squadron is often worth more than taking out another batch of stormtroopers.
It does suck that we're reduced to unconventional methods to take out vehicles (or anything for that matter, our lack of AP3 stuff is saddening), but we can blame that on 3E rules and 3E designers' lack of understanding statistics. When a 20-strong warrior squadron supposedly armed with a weapon designed to be equally effective against vehicles as it is against infantry has only about a 50% chance of killing a razorback in rapid-fire range, then there is a glaring problem with that army's anti-tank capability. Auto-glance was just a terrible idea from the start, everything should just have been rending. (I imagine it will be).
Also, making Destroyers AV10 opentopped skimmers doesn't make them significantly more vulnerable to heavier weapons.
HB hit now has a 1/6 chance of taking a destroyer now. If it was an AV10 opentopped vehicle in a squadron, it'd have the same chance.
Missle launcher hit has a 5/6 chance of taking one out, as a vehicle it'd only be about a 40% chance of taking one out.
Melta hit has a 5/6 chance now, would
Assault cannon now has a 1/3 chance per shot, whereas as an AV10 vehicle it drops to about 27%
(note: I didn't factor in to-hit, as all of these weapons come in BS3 and BS4 varieties)
Not to mention they become almost immune to small arms fire. At 50 points a piece, I feel they are far, far too vulnerable.
Kevin949 wrote: Seems a bit off kilter to have a fast attack with a heavy weapon.
You mean like an Eldar Vyper with a Brightlance & Shuricannon, or a SM Landspeeder with Multi-Melta & Assault Cannon, or an IG Sentinel with Lascannon? Or an IG Vendetta carrying 3 twin-linked Lascannon?
Aren't those all vehicles though?
Also, you don't have to be a smartass about it, I'm sorry I don't know every nuance of every army ever played.
Maybe I've only ever played necrons? Maybe I'm still new to the game.
Yes, they're Vehicles.
I'm not being a smartass any more than you're oversensitive. I'm schooling you, so you should be thankful. Given that SM, Eldar and IG are all pretty common (SM by a landslide), I think it's a very reasonable expectation for passing familiarity with those common units in common armies.
Maybe you should have paid more attention to your opponent's armies. In any case, you learned something, and now you're a little less n00b than before, so it's all good.
I'm not being a smartass any more than you're oversensitive. I'm schooling you, so you should be thankful. Given that SM, Eldar and IG are all pretty common (SM by a landslide), I think it's a very reasonable expectation for passing familiarity with those common units in common armies.
Maybe you should have paid more attention to your opponent's armies. In any case, you learned something, and now you're a little less n00b than before, so it's all good.
What the fack are you talking about, oversensitive? I asked a simple question and got a jackass response from you instead of actual conversation. And yes, I know about black templar because my friend plays them. I don't play against random nerds at the store as I have (now) invested in my own table (thus making me a bigger nerd in the process). I didn't learn anything from you, personally, other than you're a giant jackass with an e-mouth.
Now to everyone else with an actual response for this question, is there a fast attack unit (non-vehicle) that can take a heavy weapon? Doesn't that kinda defeat the purpose of "fast" attack? Dunno, guess I'm of the opinion that destroyers and H.destroyers should stay separate units.
Dude, you're the one who asked a poorly-qualified question that is easily answered by anybody with an even passing familiarity with the game.
Then, you blew up like a teenage girl being told that vampires don't glitter in the sun.
Now, you're busy calling names.
Perhaps you might want to reconsider why you need your own table at home, along with taking a good look in the mirror before you start calling names again.
Well markerlights count as heavy weapons, in a very RAW sense, other than that SM attack bikes are all armed with heavy weapons, DE an Eldar also have heavy weapon options for theyre jetbikes, so its only fair that crons get one too.
I'm not being a smartass any more than you're oversensitive. I'm schooling you, so you should be thankful. Given that SM, Eldar and IG are all pretty common (SM by a landslide), I think it's a very reasonable expectation for passing familiarity with those common units in common armies.
Maybe you should have paid more attention to your opponent's armies. In any case, you learned something, and now you're a little less n00b than before, so it's all good.
What the fack are you talking about, oversensitive? I asked a simple question and got a jackass response from you instead of actual conversation. And yes, I know about black templar because my friend plays them. I don't play against random nerds at the store as I have (now) invested in my own table (thus making me a bigger nerd in the process). I didn't learn anything from you, personally, other than you're a giant jackass with an e-mouth.
Now to everyone else with an actual response for this question, is there a fast attack unit (non-vehicle) that can take a heavy weapon? Doesn't that kinda defeat the purpose of "fast" attack? Dunno, guess I'm of the opinion that destroyers and H.destroyers should stay separate units.
.
