Necrons are the "undead" army. I want my undead army to have a variety of typical "undead" play styles.
Like zombie hordes.
Necron warriors allow you to have a zombie horder Necron force.
You can use Immortals if you want a more elite feel. And they are elite. They're as good, more or less, as superhuman genetically engineered warriors in power armor. Despite being naked.
Charistoph wrote: Even then Immortals shouldn't be considered the same equivalent level in the Necron Army of a Tactical Marine in the Lore, but against the Scions, Fire Warriors, Dire Avengers, and 'Ard Boys. Remember if the Imperium was all one codex, the Tactical/Intercessor would be Elites, and the Scouts MIGHT be Troops.
I really don't care about this reletavistic worming as an excuse to justfy the deflation of Xenos units.
But that is what you're complaining about, and if you're complaining, then you do care. It's not like this relativstic standard for Necrons hasn't been around for quite some time now.
And the funny thing is that this is coming about due to the inflation of an Imperium group that is indicated in your avatar, is it not?
The point is, people disagree with your fundamental premise that marines are intrinsically better than everyone in the setting.
Despite the fact that necrons have been described as superior (and had rules that reflected that) for several editions, despite that the eldar aspects were either as good or better than marines for many editions and their background made them lethal space ninjas.
I don't agree that the lore you cite means marines are superior to everyone else in 40k. They're definitely superior to other HUMAN forces, because if they weren't what would be the point?
TBH I believe you are underselling 40k humans a bit too much.
I mean. What do Necrons or Eldars had that was better than the Emperor? Even on their prime, I cannot thing on anything they both had, or an individual, more powerfull, advanced and intelligent than the Emperor.
Thats the point of the empire. They had the most powerfull being of the galaxy at their head (Ignoring literal gods). And it all went to gak and now are using his literal corpse to remain alive and still be the main force in the galaxy. They are literally living under the shadow of the Emperor.
The Great Crusade was a war of the Emperor agaisnt the Xenos on the galaxy. And they won. Agaisnt everything they faced. With space marines. Yeah, in that age they were legions commanded by primarchs, but present space marines are better than legionary space marines, for example.
Galas wrote: TBH I believe you are underselling 40k humans a bit too much.
I mean. What do Necrons or Eldars had that was better than the Emperor? Even on their prime, I cannot thing on anything they both had, or an individual, more powerfull, advanced and intelligent than the Emperor.
Thats the point of the empire. They had the most powerfull being of the galaxy at their head (Ignoring literal gods). And it all went to gak and now are using his literal corpse to remain alive and still be the main force in the galaxy. They are literally living under the shadow of the Emperor.
The Great Crusade was a war of the Emperor agaisnt the Xenos on the galaxy. And they won. Agaisnt everything they faced. With space marines. Yeah, in that age they were legions commanded by primarchs, but present space marines are better than legionary space marines, for example.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'better' than the emperor? And what that has to do with 'superiority' of individuals in a species?
The emperor is in effect a Daemon, formed from the gestalt of the souls of dead hominid psykers in a regenerating meat suit. He's basically a daemon prince. Individual eldar lived for thousands of years and reincarnated, so the concept of being super smart because you're old doesn't mean much.
The eldar forged gods from the psychic might, which took physical form and strode the galaxy. They did it again with Slannesh - creating a one quarter of the most powerful force in 40k.
The great crusade was a war against everything they could find in the galaxy, not specifically xenos. And you are forgetting that what the emperor did, was wait for the galactic nuke of slannesh to demolish the single greatest empire of the galaxy - the Eldar Dominion, and then sweep into the post apocalyptic void of the aftermath to secure his hold on the galaxy before anyone else managed to.
In that time the orks spread further than they ever had while the eldar controlled everything, so his marines were mostly created to deal with them - you can see it in their weapons as well - chainswords and bolters are brutal weapons to destroy very resilient orks.
Hellebore wrote: The point is, people disagree with your fundamental premise that marines are intrinsically better than everyone in the setting.
Despite the fact that necrons have been described as superior (and had rules that reflected that) for several editions, despite that the eldar aspects were either as good or better than marines for many editions and their background made them lethal space ninjas.
I don't agree that the lore you cite means marines are superior to everyone else in 40k. They're definitely superior to other HUMAN forces, because if they weren't what would be the point?
Please quote where I said that Marines are superior to everyone else in 40K.
Marines are supposed to be the best of humanity that isn't a Custodes or Primarch. As such they are at a higher standard of expectations. They are the most elite of the Imperium's military that actually goes out and fight on a regular basis.
What I have said is that Necron Warriors are for the Necron Army the same as the Imperial Guard's Conscripts are for the Imperuim's military. That Necron Immortals are the Imperial Guardsmen or Scions of the Necron Army. In terms of lore representation of forces, you have to go to Lychguard or Praetorians before you find the Necron equivalent of the Astartes.
What I have been trying to imply is that Lychguard and Praetorians should be as much above Astartes as the Immortal is above a Scion or the Warrior is above the Conscript.
I have also stated that these recent changes to the Loyal Astartes throw the previous consideration of that balance out of wack since the Necron units were not adjusted to match as well.
Even then Immortals shouldn't be considered the same equivalent level in the Necron Army of a Tactical Marine in the Lore, but against the Scions, Fire Warriors, Dire Avengers, and 'Ard Boys. Remember if the Imperium was all one codex, the Tactical/Intercessor would be Elites, and the Scouts MIGHT be Troops.
I really don't care about this reletavistic worming as an excuse to justfy the deflation of Xenos units.
If you're not going for to literally consider a durability rule, one that is one they don't need to pay for, why bother posting if you won't be honest?
Galas wrote: TBH I believe you are underselling 40k humans a bit too much.
I mean. What do Necrons or Eldars had that was better than the Emperor? Even on their prime, I cannot thing on anything they both had, or an individual, more powerfull, advanced and intelligent than the Emperor.
Thats the point of the empire. They had the most powerfull being of the galaxy at their head (Ignoring literal gods). And it all went to gak and now are using his literal corpse to remain alive and still be the main force in the galaxy. They are literally living under the shadow of the Emperor.
The Great Crusade was a war of the Emperor agaisnt the Xenos on the galaxy. And they won. Agaisnt everything they faced. With space marines. Yeah, in that age they were legions commanded by primarchs, but present space marines are better than legionary space marines, for example.
Have you ever considered that the “stats” and “history” are propaganda?
The myth of progress... why think that restartes are better than the people who met the rift when it opened?
Maybe they are only a “new improved” product line that differs only in the flashy marketing?
Even then Immortals shouldn't be considered the same equivalent level in the Necron Army of a Tactical Marine in the Lore, but against the Scions, Fire Warriors, Dire Avengers, and 'Ard Boys. Remember if the Imperium was all one codex, the Tactical/Intercessor would be Elites, and the Scouts MIGHT be Troops.
I really don't care about this reletavistic worming as an excuse to justfy the deflation of Xenos units.
If you're not going for to literally consider a durability rule, one that is one they don't need to pay for, why bother posting if you won't be honest?
Because Immortals were equal to or more durable than marines BEFORE their RP in prior editions.
This feeble "They're more durable in this one case accounting for RP" Stll represents a backwards slide from the Immortals pov, because previously RP was added durability on top of an MEQ/MEQ+ model.
Charistoph wrote: Even then Immortals shouldn't be considered the same equivalent level in the Necron Army of a Tactical Marine in the Lore, but against the Scions, Fire Warriors, Dire Avengers, and 'Ard Boys. Remember if the Imperium was all one codex, the Tactical/Intercessor would be Elites, and the Scouts MIGHT be Troops.
I really don't care about this reletavistic worming as an excuse to justfy the deflation of Xenos units.
But that is what you're complaining about, and if you're complaining, then you do care. It's not like this relativstic standard for Necrons hasn't been around for quite some time now.
And the funny thing is that this is coming about due to the inflation of an Imperium group that is indicated in your avatar, is it not?
There are two "relatives" here. One is the in-game Marine vs. Necron relative power.
The other is this weird idea you're pushing that it's ok for Marines to be better, or that they should be better, because Warriors are the bottom of the barrel for the Necron infantry, not their tier of "professional Soldiers".
To which I say that's a poor argument because there's no reason why an alien faction need to operate on the same scale of capability as humans, etc. at all. None.
My avatar? Yeah. I'm saying all this pro-Necron stuff as a person who's primary army has been Marines for about 25 years. In fact here's a marine take on it: I think the continued degradation of Xenos factions and the constant inflation of the marines is bad for marines too. The chadification of my primary army is pretty tiresome. I WANT my marines to be fighting against threatening villains with gravitas and capability, not curb stomping them at their leisure. The threat of a faction is greater when even the lowliest individual in a numberless horde is better than a Marine.
Necrons are the "undead" army. I want my undead army to have a variety of typical "undead" play styles.
Like zombie hordes.
Necron warriors allow you to have a zombie horder Necron force.
You can use Immortals if you want a more elite feel. And they are elite. They're as good, more or less, as superhuman genetically engineered warriors in power armor. Despite being naked.
Warriors still worked as a zombie horde when they were equal to or better than a marine. It was fine.
Instead, now Immortals are as "Elite" as the baseline Marine. Marines just keep going up in capability though with their choices though. Heavy Intercessors, Terminators, Aggressors. . . Has the gap that the Immortals used to fill gotten a replacement? Is there a next-higher shooty Necron Infantry unit I can take? Word on the street is that Destroyers have taken a hit in 9th as well, not that they're infantry.
Insectum7 wrote:The other is this weird idea you're pushing that it's ok for Marines to be better, or that they should be better, because Warriors are the bottom of the barrel for the Necron infantry, not their tier of "professional Soldiers".
As I said to Hellebore, please quote me where I said that it's okay for Marines to be better or should be better than the Necrons. In fact I have stated several times the complete opposite before these accusations have been made. You are conflating where I am saying where the Warriors lie in the Necron hierarchy and where Marines like in the Imperium's hierarchy.
Now, the Warriors may have been slightly weaker than a Tactical since their 5th Ed codex came out, and that can be fine because they are the chaff and the Immortals then take up that Troop slot of soldier, but they still have been very close to the Tactical up until very recently. The reason I find it fine is because even though they were still slightly weaker, they were still standing toe-to-toe better than any other army's chaff unit had a right to. Better than Guardians, better than Gretchin, better than Hormagaunts, better than Conscripts, and better than Cultists.
And I repeat again, the rest of the Necron army should be considered in that relative vein. The problem is that Marines already start at a higher point of rank than most of the armies that are out there. The Marines are literally an army of Elites, but they have been pretty close to equal to the Necron's chaff, with the exception of the flexibility of Marine options and slightly better armor telling in the last Edition and better Initiative in Editions before that.
These changes to Marines (and I would even toss the Primaris in to that) have thrown that out the window because the Necrons were not changed along with it in the same proportionality. How many times do I have to repeat this statement? At best, the Primaris should have been trading shots with Immortals like Tacticals did with the Warriors, not overwhelming the Lychguard, Praetorians, and Destroyers.
Hellebore wrote: And you are forgetting that what the emperor did, was wait for the galactic nuke of slannesh to demolish the single greatest empire of the galaxy - the Eldar Dominion, and then sweep into the post apocalyptic void of the aftermath to secure his hold on the galaxy before anyone else managed to.
This may have been covered in one of the Horus Heresy line of novels, but I was always under the impression that Big E was waiting for the Warp to calm the feth down before starting the Great Crusade - that this coincided with the Eldar screwing themselves into a self-inflicted mass suicide that broke realspace and birthed the fifth Chaos God would merely be a helpful happenstance, rather than part of a grand strategy.
If you can't navigate the Warp with some degree of safety, you ain't launching much of a Crusade...
Plus, humanity did go to war against a self replicating plague of machines, and actualy won it not by the opponent going to sleep, but by destroying them, durning the dawn of the golden age of humanity.
Hellebore wrote: And you are forgetting that what the emperor did, was wait for the galactic nuke of slannesh to demolish the single greatest empire of the galaxy - the Eldar Dominion, and then sweep into the post apocalyptic void of the aftermath to secure his hold on the galaxy before anyone else managed to.
This may have been covered in one of the Horus Heresy line of novels, but I was always under the impression that Big E was waiting for the Warp to calm the feth down before starting the Great Crusade - that this coincided with the Eldar screwing themselves into a self-inflicted mass suicide that broke realspace and birthed the fifth Chaos God would merely be a helpful happenstance, rather than part of a grand strategy.
If you can't navigate the Warp with some degree of safety, you ain't launching much of a Crusade...
He was waiting for the warp storms to abate and knew it would happen when the Eldar empire collapsed. He could see what was happening.
Karol wrote:Plus, humanity did go to war against a self replicating plague of machines, and actualy won it not by the opponent going to sleep, but by destroying them, durning the dawn of the golden age of humanity.
They did and effectively destroyed their society and blasted themselves into the techno stone Age as a result. They emerged from that war as victors in name only.
Karol wrote: Plus, humanity did go to war against a self replicating plague of machines, and actualy won it not by the opponent going to sleep, but by destroying them, durning the dawn of the golden age of humanity.
Ne ego si iterum eodem modo vicero, sine ullo milite Epirum revertar.
If I achieve such a victory again, I shall return to Epirus without any soldier.
— Orosius[2]
Even then Immortals shouldn't be considered the same equivalent level in the Necron Army of a Tactical Marine in the Lore, but against the Scions, Fire Warriors, Dire Avengers, and 'Ard Boys. Remember if the Imperium was all one codex, the Tactical/Intercessor would be Elites, and the Scouts MIGHT be Troops.
I really don't care about this reletavistic worming as an excuse to justfy the deflation of Xenos units.
If you're not going for to literally consider a durability rule, one that is one they don't need to pay for, why bother posting if you won't be honest?
Because Immortals were equal to or more durable than marines BEFORE their RP in prior editions.
This feeble "They're more durable in this one case accounting for RP" Stll represents a backwards slide from the Immortals pov, because previously RP was added durability on top of an MEQ/MEQ+ model.
Charistoph wrote: Even then Immortals shouldn't be considered the same equivalent level in the Necron Army of a Tactical Marine in the Lore, but against the Scions, Fire Warriors, Dire Avengers, and 'Ard Boys. Remember if the Imperium was all one codex, the Tactical/Intercessor would be Elites, and the Scouts MIGHT be Troops.
I really don't care about this reletavistic worming as an excuse to justfy the deflation of Xenos units.
But that is what you're complaining about, and if you're complaining, then you do care. It's not like this relativstic standard for Necrons hasn't been around for quite some time now.
And the funny thing is that this is coming about due to the inflation of an Imperium group that is indicated in your avatar, is it not?
There are two "relatives" here. One is the in-game Marine vs. Necron relative power.
The other is this weird idea you're pushing that it's ok for Marines to be better, or that they should be better, because Warriors are the bottom of the barrel for the Necron infantry, not their tier of "professional Soldiers".
To which I say that's a poor argument because there's no reason why an alien faction need to operate on the same scale of capability as humans, etc. at all. None.
My avatar? Yeah. I'm saying all this pro-Necron stuff as a person who's primary army has been Marines for about 25 years. In fact here's a marine take on it: I think the continued degradation of Xenos factions and the constant inflation of the marines is bad for marines too. The chadification of my primary army is pretty tiresome. I WANT my marines to be fighting against threatening villains with gravitas and capability, not curb stomping them at their leisure. The threat of a faction is greater when even the lowliest individual in a numberless horde is better than a Marine.
Necrons are the "undead" army. I want my undead army to have a variety of typical "undead" play styles.
Like zombie hordes.
Necron warriors allow you to have a zombie horder Necron force.
You can use Immortals if you want a more elite feel. And they are elite. They're as good, more or less, as superhuman genetically engineered warriors in power armor. Despite being naked.
Warriors still worked as a zombie horde when they were equal to or better than a marine. It was fine.
Instead, now Immortals are as "Elite" as the baseline Marine. Marines just keep going up in capability though with their choices though. Heavy Intercessors, Terminators, Aggressors. . . Has the gap that the Immortals used to fill gotten a replacement? Is there a next-higher shooty Necron Infantry unit I can take? Word on the street is that Destroyers have taken a hit in 9th as well, not that they're infantry.
You're referring to only one edition, which was second edition when they were introduced, and on top of that those rules weren't even around for that long. You really are the epitome of "change bad" as an argument hahahaha
You're referring to only one edition, which was second edition when they were introduced, and on top of that those rules weren't even around for that long.
Eh?
Immortals were more durable than Marines (even without RP) through 3rd and 4th also. Warriors were equally durable without RPs.
In 5th, Warriors became slightly less durable than Marines (though were still more durable with RPs), whilst Immortals without RPs became equal to Marines. It remained this way in 7th, though with RPs both were significantly more durable.
It was the same even in 8th, with the main difference being the rather unreliable nature of RPs.
It's literally only since the beginning of 9th that Marines have shot ahead of Necrons in terms of durability.
Even then Immortals shouldn't be considered the same equivalent level in the Necron Army of a Tactical Marine in the Lore, but against the Scions, Fire Warriors, Dire Avengers, and 'Ard Boys. Remember if the Imperium was all one codex, the Tactical/Intercessor would be Elites, and the Scouts MIGHT be Troops.
I really don't care about this reletavistic worming as an excuse to justfy the deflation of Xenos units.
If you're not going for to literally consider a durability rule, one that is one they don't need to pay for, why bother posting if you won't be honest?
Because Immortals were equal to or more durable than marines BEFORE their RP in prior editions.
This feeble "They're more durable in this one case accounting for RP" Stll represents a backwards slide from the Immortals pov, because previously RP was added durability on top of an MEQ/MEQ+ model.
Charistoph wrote: Even then Immortals shouldn't be considered the same equivalent level in the Necron Army of a Tactical Marine in the Lore, but against the Scions, Fire Warriors, Dire Avengers, and 'Ard Boys. Remember if the Imperium was all one codex, the Tactical/Intercessor would be Elites, and the Scouts MIGHT be Troops.
I really don't care about this reletavistic worming as an excuse to justfy the deflation of Xenos units.
But that is what you're complaining about, and if you're complaining, then you do care. It's not like this relativstic standard for Necrons hasn't been around for quite some time now.
And the funny thing is that this is coming about due to the inflation of an Imperium group that is indicated in your avatar, is it not?
There are two "relatives" here. One is the in-game Marine vs. Necron relative power.
The other is this weird idea you're pushing that it's ok for Marines to be better, or that they should be better, because Warriors are the bottom of the barrel for the Necron infantry, not their tier of "professional Soldiers".
To which I say that's a poor argument because there's no reason why an alien faction need to operate on the same scale of capability as humans, etc. at all. None.
My avatar? Yeah. I'm saying all this pro-Necron stuff as a person who's primary army has been Marines for about 25 years. In fact here's a marine take on it: I think the continued degradation of Xenos factions and the constant inflation of the marines is bad for marines too. The chadification of my primary army is pretty tiresome. I WANT my marines to be fighting against threatening villains with gravitas and capability, not curb stomping them at their leisure. The threat of a faction is greater when even the lowliest individual in a numberless horde is better than a Marine.
Necrons are the "undead" army. I want my undead army to have a variety of typical "undead" play styles.
Like zombie hordes.
Necron warriors allow you to have a zombie horder Necron force.
You can use Immortals if you want a more elite feel. And they are elite. They're as good, more or less, as superhuman genetically engineered warriors in power armor. Despite being naked.
Warriors still worked as a zombie horde when they were equal to or better than a marine. It was fine.
Instead, now Immortals are as "Elite" as the baseline Marine. Marines just keep going up in capability though with their choices though. Heavy Intercessors, Terminators, Aggressors. . . Has the gap that the Immortals used to fill gotten a replacement? Is there a next-higher shooty Necron Infantry unit I can take? Word on the street is that Destroyers have taken a hit in 9th as well, not that they're infantry.
You're referring to only one edition, which was second edition when they were introduced, and on top of that those rules weren't even around for that long. You really are the epitome of "change bad" as an argument hahahaha
Immortals didn't exist in 2nd edition, and were T5 from 3rd through most of 5th.
12 S4 hits against Tac Marines is 6 wounds and 2dmg for 1 dead Marine.
12 S4 hits against Immortals is 4 wounds and 1.34dmg for 1.34 dead Immortals. Reanimation protocol has a 1/3rd chance to bring back 1 Immortal. So .9 dead Immortals.
So yes, Immortals are every so slightly more durable vs S4 weapons. S2-3 the Marines have an edge and against S6-7. But the likelihood is they will face S4 and S5 which is where the necrons excel. Of course, if the unit is wiped out than its irrelevant
12 S4 hits against Tac Marines is 6 wounds and 2dmg for 1 dead Marine. 12 S4 hits against Immortals is 4 wounds and 1.34dmg for 1.34 dead Immortals. Reanimation protocol has a 1/3rd chance to bring back 1 Immortal. So .9 dead Immortals.
So yes, Immortals are every so slightly more durable vs S4 weapons. S2-3 the Marines have an edge and against S6-7. But the likelihood is they will face S4 and S5 which is where the necrons excel. Of course, if the unit is wiped out than its irrelevant
I've run the math, and it's pretty hard to wipe Immortals (even a 5-man) in one go. It CAN be done, but it's not the kind of thing most lists are ready for.
That being said, I do think that Immortals should be significantly tougher than Marines, and more expensive as befitting that.
Edit: This, of course, assumes no Apothecary or Iron Hands.
That would change the math to 5/6 dead MEQ from 12 shots, with 8/9 dead Immortals.
Insectum7 wrote:The other is this weird idea you're pushing that it's ok for Marines to be better, or that they should be better, because Warriors are the bottom of the barrel for the Necron infantry, not their tier of "professional Soldiers".
As I said to Hellebore, please quote me where I said that it's okay for Marines to be better or should be better than the Necrons. In fact I have stated several times the complete opposite before these accusations have been made. You are conflating where I am saying where the Warriors lie in the Necron hierarchy and where Marines like in the Imperium's hierarchy.
Now, the Warriors may have been slightly weaker than a Tactical since their 5th Ed codex came out, and that can be fine because they are the chaff and the Immortals then take up that slot, but they still have been very close to the Tactical up until very recently. The reason I find it fine is because even though they were still slightly weaker, they were still standing toe-to-toe better than any other army's chaff unit had a right to. Better than Guardians, better than Gretchin, better than Hormagaunts, better than Conscripts, and better than Cultists.
And I repeat again, the rest of the Necron army should be considered in that relative vein. The problem is that Marines already start at a higher point of rank than most of the armies that are out there. The Marines are literally an army of Elites, but they have been pretty close to equal to the Necron's chaff, with the exception of the flexibility of Marine options and slightly better armor telling in the last Edition and better Initiative in Editions before that.
These changes to Marines (and I would even toss the Primaris in to that) have thrown that out the window because the Necrons were not changed along with it in the same proportionality. How many times do I have to repeat this statement? At best, the Primaris should have been trading shots with Immortals like Tacticals did with the Warriors, not overwhelming the Lychguard, Praetorians, and Destroyers.
You seem to be saying that you're not sayin what you're saying.
You appear to claim that it's ok for Warriors to be weaker than Marines because Warriors are the "chaff" of Necrons.
They did and effectively destroyed their society and blasted themselves into the techno stone Age as a result. They emerged from that war as victors in name only.
No, what destroyed them is eldar nuking the World for everyone. Humans were on the bring of invading the web way, had planet killing fleets and eldar only survived them, because they were dieing out and too unimportant for humans to bother. But even lets look at eldar achivments. A whole craftworld destroyed by a single tyranid organism, and then rolled over by slanesh demons. A whole craft world of eldar couldn't deal with that. It marines a squad of dudes to cleanse it, and they even were nice enough to guard the soul stone, till picked up. Eldar needed an entire army made out of 4 warhosts, and ally from the harlequins to evacute a single exodite world. GK on the other hand with a single brotherhood of under 200man, destroyed a much bigger invasion, and then wiped out all the left alive imperial forced and subdued an strike force made out of 3 space marine companies, suffering minimal loses.
Necron needed an entire war fleet respawning bilions of warriors to achive anything similar.
Insectum7 wrote: You seem to be saying that you're not sayin what you're saying.
You appear to claim that it's ok for Warriors to be weaker than Marines because Warriors are the "chaff" of Necrons.
Or maybe you're translating it in to your brain to what you want to read instead of what I'm saying.
They are only slightly weaker than Tacticals used to be, if you only look at the Armor Save (and now defunct Initiative). However, WBB/RP made up for that, and their base weapons have been slightly better. In general, it has been a wash when looking at the base system. It has been this way since the end of 5th and along with that change, the Necron army has become more extensive and diverse on internal options for players to use. If you can argue otherwise, please provide evidence.
In terms of Wargear options, Marines have ALWAYS been better than Necrons, because the options for Necrons have always been minimal and the options for humanity has always been the most extensive. It's literally taken till now to break out the shotguns for the Necrons, whereas they had only Melee Gauss before and lost for two codices. If you think otherwise, please provide evidence.
Now when you think that this Human Elite Tactical Marine is on par with the what amounts to the Necron Conscript Warrior, that should be considered scary. But you don't want to think that, you want the Conscript Warrior to be better than the Elite Space Marine, period (even though that's only been the case once in an edition with a vastly different game system). If you think that a Tactical Space Marine isn't an elite unit of Humanity and the Necron Warrior isn't Conscript chaff, please provide your evidence.
Now, it doesn't help that same Space Marine got a buff recently AND the rest of the Necron Army kept going on as if that change never happened. To which I have agreed that it very much sucks. If you believe I am saying otherwise, please quote me as saying it.
Insectum7 wrote: You seem to be saying that you're not sayin what you're saying.
You appear to claim that it's ok for Warriors to be weaker than Marines because Warriors are the "chaff" of Necrons.
Or maybe you're translating it in to your brain to what you want to read instead of what I'm saying.
They are only slightly weaker than Tacticals used to be, if you only look at the Armor Save (and now defunct Initiative). However, WBB/RP made up for that, and their base weapons have been slightly better. In general, it has been a wash when looking at the base system. It has been this way since the end of 5th and along with that change, the Necron army has become more extensive and diverse on internal options for players to use. If you can argue otherwise, please provide evidence.
In terms of Wargear options, Marines have ALWAYS been better than Necrons, because the options for Necrons have always been minimal and the options for humanity has always been the most extensive. It's literally taken till now to break out the shotguns for the Necrons, whereas they had only Melee Gauss before and lost for two codices. If you think otherwise, please provide evidence.
Now when you think that this Human Elite Tactical Marine is on par with the what amounts to the Necron Conscript Warrior, that should be considered scary. But you don't want to think that, you want the Conscript Warrior to be better than the Elite Space Marine, period (even though that's only been the case once in an edition with a vastly different game system). If you think that a Tactical Space Marine isn't an elite unit of Humanity and the Necron Warrior isn't Conscript chaff, please provide your evidence.
Now, it doesn't help that same Space Marine got a buff recently AND the rest of the Necron Army kept going on as if that change never happened. To which I have agreed that it very much sucks. If you believe I am saying otherwise, please quote me as saying it.
"please quote me saying it." These are the relevant passages of your post, logically combined:
"The Necron Conscript Warrior is only slightly weaker than what Tacticals used to be, that should be considered scary." It is what you are saying.
Necrons were introduced in 1997, and the base Warrior remained a higher ppm than the bas Tactical until 2011, 14 years later. For more than half of their existence, the base Warrior was valued higher than the base Tactical. You could take the data points form each iteration and draw a graph of their slow decline in relation to the base Marine. And more to the point, in terms of durability for an army built around durability, the base stats in particular have continued to decline. I.E. one of their core traits that made them better than Marines has been eroded. If you think otherwise, please provide your evidence.
On top of that, their elite shooty unit was suffered even moreso. Immortals used to cost nearly twice as much as a Marine, at 28 ppm to the Marine 15. Since 5th ed, the Immortal sits roughly where the 3rd Ed. Necron used to.
Insectum7 wrote: "please quote me saying it." These are the relevant passages of your post, logically combined:
"The Necron Conscript Warrior is only slightly weaker than what Tacticals used to be, that should be considered scary." It is what you are saying.
How interesting that you start off with a misquote that you use to justify jambling some more misquotes. And by misquote, I mean you exclude vital information which provided context.
Insectum7 wrote: Necrons were introduced in 1997, and the base Warrior remained a higher ppm than the bas Tactical until 2011, 14 years later. For more than half of their existence, the base Warrior was valued higher than the base Tactical. You could take the data points form each iteration and draw a graph of their slow decline in relation to the base Marine. And more to the point, in terms of durability for an army built around durability, the base stats in particular have continued to decline. I.E. one of their core traits that made them better than Marines has been eroded. If you think otherwise, please provide your evidence.
What stats changed in the Warriors between the 5th, 7th, 8th, and 9th Edition codices? In order for there to be a continuous decline, then we should have some obvious changes in that. The Reanimation Protocols have been questionable, to be sure, but those are Special Rules, not stats.
Even in the 3rd Edition, Necron Warrior's statline was the same as Tacticals, save for Initiative and Leadership. At this point of consideration they are generally weaker as the lower Initiative will cause more problems than the higher Leadership. Their gun's stats are equivalent: Str: 4, AP: 5 Rapid Fire. Out of this, only the Warrior's Armor Save changed between them in 5th Edition.
Then you consider special rules, and WBB is superior to ATSKNF in most situations, and Gauss was superior to the Boltgun's lack of anything else. But then, the Astartes can have a close combat specialist with a weapon that will cause WBB to not be usable, they can also add a Special weapon (1 of which would cause WBB to be ignored) and a Heavy Weapon (3 of which can cause WBB to be ignored), as well as get Grenades. Meanwhile the Warriors had the option to outnumber the Tactical Squad and/or have Vehicle Gauss in Melee. At this point, if it wasn't for WBB and other resources like the Monolith's Gate, Warrior's would be weaker than Astartes, and in Melee (especially with an equipped Sergeant) they most definitely are. At range, the Astartes would be hard pressed to keep up unless they are dedicating AT weapons to slowly whittle away at the unit. In many respects, this is a draw, especially if one considers other support elements like a Lord and Monolith's Gate.
And this is the Necron's Conscripts that the Elite Astartes are being compared against.
Insectum7 wrote: On top of that, their elite shooty unit was suffered even moreso. Immortals used to cost nearly twice as much as a Marine, at 28 ppm to the Marine 15. Since 5th ed, the Immortal sits roughly where the 3rd Ed. Necron used to.
Where the 3rd Ed Necron "what" used to? The Warrior? Not quite. The Immortals' base guns are still superior to the Boltgun and Gauss Flayer. And unless the Battlescribe Author I'm using is in error (I don't have access to the current Necron codex at this time and game stores are stingy about attendance and having codices to peruse), the Immortals have +1 T, +1 A, and +3 Ld compared to the Tactical who have +1 W and still have all their old options that they've had since 3rd Edition (with Combi-weapons getting a boost), plus some new toys on top of that.
Even with that, Immortals are not the Elites of the Necron Army. They are the "professional trooper" of the Army, the equivalent of the Guardsman, Scion, or Dire Avenger. No, to look at what we should be comparing a Tactical against, we need to look at the Lychguard, the Praetorians, and the Pariahs (I REALLY wish they hadn't gotten rid of those guys). The Space Marine players are partly lucky in that their army is an army of Elites to begin with who barely stood toe-to-toe with Necron Conscripts (and that SM are the poster children of GW) instead of having to take Guardsmen or Conscripts as Troops to bring in the Astartes as Elites like every other specie in the galaxy.
However, the Astartes have gotten a LOT more Special Rules added on to them along with their +1 W over the years. This is the type of feaping creaturism that I think we are both against, especially when the more fearsome armies, like the Necrons, stagnate or progress slowly (Chapter Tactics have been out how long, and Necrons just get Dynasties when?).
Necron Inmortals eat both tacticals and intercessors for breakfast.
At the end of the day, this is all about that second wound space marines received. It irked a ton of people the wrong way. And I can understand why. It feels "wrong". But lets just not ignore how the actual units feel on the table.
How interesting that you start off with a misquote that you use to justify jambling some more misquotes. And by misquote, I mean you exclude vital information which provided context.
The context is just you trying to justify the point that Necron Warriors are weaker than tacticals, not disproving it.
How interesting that you start off with a misquote that you use to justify jambling some more misquotes. And by misquote, I mean you exclude vital information which provided context.
The context is just you trying to justify the point that Necron Warriors are weaker than tacticals, not disproving it.
The misquote is how I said was asking for "where I said that it's okay for Marines to be better or should be better than the Necrons", meaning the army as a whole, not one unit of the whole.
I pointed out the Necron Warriors being SLIGHTLY weaker than the Tacticals is okay considering they are the Conscript chaff of the Necron army, especially when the Astartes are NOT Humanity's Conscripts (because those are Conscripts), but their Elites.
Two very important pieces of context that were ignored.
How interesting that you start off with a misquote that you use to justify jambling some more misquotes. And by misquote, I mean you exclude vital information which provided context.
The context is just you trying to justify the point that Necron Warriors are weaker than tacticals, not disproving it.
The misquote is how I said was asking for "where I said that it's okay for Marines to be better or should be better than the Necrons", meaning the army as a whole, not one unit of the whole.
I pointed out the Necron Warriors being SLIGHTLY weaker than the Tacticals is okay considering they are the Conscript chaff of the Necron army, especially when the Astartes are NOT Humanity's Conscripts (because those are Conscripts), but their Elites.
Two very important pieces of context that were ignored.
Let's grant for the moment that a necron warrior is the same as a marine...I don't know, scout, or something.
There's not really an instance that I'm able to come up with where necrons (or eldar, or dark eldar, or whatever xenos faction you please) have a unit that exists in a role that is arguably more elite, as in higher quality for the points, than the marine equivalent thing that fulfills that general role.
Compare a space marine dreadnought, not even redemptor dreadnought, to ANY of the following:
every single one of them is worse in almost every aspect than the marine dreadnought.
The whole point of this thread isn't "some factions should have some unit that is better in every way than the marine equivalent" it's "some factions should get to do SOMETHING better than the marine equivalent".
The tau thing should be shootier
the eldar thing should be more mobile
the necron thing should be tougher
the ork thing should be better at melee
but right now, theyre alllllllllllllllllllllllll worse at practically everything than the astartes equivalent, and even if they're worth it due to being less points, that sucks from a narrative standpoint, and nobody signed up to be the NPCs in marine players' masturbatory power fantasies.
12 S4 hits against Tac Marines is 6 wounds and 2dmg for 1 dead Marine.
12 S4 hits against Immortals is 4 wounds and 1.34dmg for 1.34 dead Immortals. Reanimation protocol has a 1/3rd chance to bring back 1 Immortal. So .9 dead Immortals.
So yes, Immortals are every so slightly more durable vs S4 weapons. S2-3 the Marines have an edge and against S6-7. But the likelihood is they will face S4 and S5 which is where the necrons excel. Of course, if the unit is wiped out than its irrelevant
I've run the math, and it's pretty hard to wipe Immortals (even a 5-man) in one go. It CAN be done, but it's not the kind of thing most lists are ready for.
That being said, I do think that Immortals should be significantly tougher than Marines, and more expensive as befitting that.
Edit: This, of course, assumes no Apothecary or Iron Hands.
That would change the math to 5/6 dead MEQ from 12 shots, with 8/9 dead Immortals.
You forgot Raven Guard too and Stalwart or whatever Deathwing Lite is, but keep in mind these are specific Chapters. On that comparison you can't forget that, while Immortals don't have a more defensive Code outside one or two of the custom ones (plus Nephrekh conferring an overall useless 6++), they get a more offensive punch too. This whole argument with W2 Marines being close to the durability level of Immortals, and the fact this is somehow bad, is just silly.
the_scotsman wrote: but right now, theyre alllllllllllllllllllllllll worse at practically everything than the astartes equivalent, and even if they're worth it due to being less points, that sucks from a narrative standpoint, and nobody signed up to be the NPCs in marine players' masturbatory power fantasies.
And then people tend to only take a sentence or two of what I say, and then go off on it while ignoring some of the conclusions. Should I say it again?
Charistoph wrote:These changes to Marines (and I would even toss the Primaris in to that) have thrown that out the window because the Necrons were not changed along with it in the same proportionality. How many times do I have to repeat this statement? At best, the Primaris should have been trading shots with Immortals like Tacticals did with the Warriors, not overwhelming the Lychguard, Praetorians, and Destroyers.
Charistoph wrote:Now, it doesn't help that same Space Marine got a buff recently AND the rest of the Necron Army kept going on as if that change never happened. To which I have agreed that it very much sucks.
Charistoph wrote:However, the Astartes have gotten a LOT more Special Rules added on to them along with their +1 W over the years. This is the type of feaping creaturism that I think we are both against, especially when the more fearsome armies, like the Necrons, stagnate or progress slowly (Chapter Tactics have been out how long, and Necrons just get Dynasties when?).
I pointed out the Necron Warriors being SLIGHTLY weaker than the Tacticals is okay considering they are the Conscript chaff of the Necron army, especially when the Astartes are NOT Humanity's Conscripts (because those are Conscripts), but their Elites.
It's exactly, precisely what you're saying, practically word for word.
I pointed out the Necron Warriors being SLIGHTLY weaker than the Tacticals is okay considering they are the Conscript chaff of the Necron army, especially when the Astartes are NOT Humanity's Conscripts (because those are Conscripts), but their Elites.
It's exactly, precisely what you're saying, practically word for word.
Except for a very important adverb which is emphasized by capital letters.
I've given evidence that it has largely been in place since 3rd Ed, one of your favorite version of Necrons, So, please, counter that if you can provide the evidence.
The misquote is how I said was asking for "where I said that it's okay for Marines to be better or should be better than the Necrons", meaning the army as a whole, not one unit of the whole.
I pointed out the Necron Warriors being SLIGHTLY weaker than the Tacticals is okay considering they are the Conscript chaff of the Necron army, especially when the Astartes are NOT Humanity's Conscripts (because those are Conscripts), but their Elites.
Two very important pieces of context that were ignored.
The difference is that, what some of us are saying, is that part of the point of Necrons back in the 90's is their basic "chaff" was on par with Astartes. Another way to look at it is that the Necrons' "conscripts" are Scarabs. Thematically, this made them very scary and this idea has been ground down by the years of Astartes power fantasies.
Except for a very important adverb which is emphasized by capital letters.
I've given evidence that it has largely been in place since 3rd Ed, one of your favorite version of Necrons, So, please, counter that if you can provide the evidence.
3ed Necrons had a slightly different statline than marines (higher Ld but lower I) but a better gun and WBB. What evidence do you have against that?
I pointed out the Necron Warriors being SLIGHTLY weaker than the Tacticals is okay considering they are the Conscript chaff of the Necron army, especially when the Astartes are NOT Humanity's Conscripts (because those are Conscripts), but their Elites.
It's exactly, precisely what you're saying, practically word for word.
Except for a very important adverb which is emphasized by capital letters.
I've given evidence that it has largely been in place since 3rd Ed, one of your favorite version of Necrons, So, please, counter that if you can provide the evidence.
The meat of your message remains as I've stated it.
In 3rd, Warriors were valued higher than Tacticals by ppm, regardless of your efforts to diminish the fact. In the 5th Ed codex Warriors went from 3+ to 4+ save, a huge drop in the AP paradigm at the time, and their RP went from 4+ to 5+. They went from 18 ppm to 13, about 2/3ds their former value. Immortals dropped from T5 to T4, had their gun neutered, and went from 28 ppm to 17, 1 point LOWER than Warriors were at formerly. Flayed Ones were similarly reduced from 18 to 13. Besides Pariahs, these three units were the only Infantry units in the Necron army, and they suffered a huge downgrade, while Pariahs were removed altogether.
Karol wrote: Plus, humanity did go to war against a self replicating plague of machines, and actualy won it not by the opponent going to sleep, but by destroying them, durning the dawn of the golden age of humanity.
Ne ego si iterum eodem modo vicero, sine ullo milite Epirum revertar.
If I achieve such a victory again, I shall return to Epirus without any soldier.
— Orosius[2]
Hey, a wins a win at the end of the day. Go Humanity !
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galas wrote: Necron Inmortals eat both tacticals and intercessors for breakfast.
At the end of the day, this is all about that second wound space marines received. It irked a ton of people the wrong way. And I can understand why. It feels "wrong". But lets just not ignore how the actual units feel on the table.
Wounds have always been a bit odd for the game. Not to be like " Gooo Marines ! " but I always thought that marines should have 2 wounds since I started playing. If it will mean anything great in the long run only time will tell but of course nothing is fair in this for some others it's just the nature of the beast.
Charistoph wrote: Except for a very important adverb which is emphasized by capital letters.
I've given evidence that it has largely been in place since 3rd Ed, one of your favorite version of Necrons, So, please, counter that if you can provide the evidence.
Necron Warriors had higher points costs than Tacticals, so they were considered more valuable by the designers. That's that, really.
Even after the 5th Ed change they were only slightly worse than Tacticals- RP helped compensate for worse armor and they could still go toe-to-toe with Marines.
This paradigm of Tactical Marines being far more powerful than basic Necron Warriors and beating out even Immortals is as recent as the 9th Ed wounds change. It's the historical anomaly. Fundamentally, Insectum is correct- for the rest of the history of the game, basic Necrons were better than or roughly on par with Marines.
The misquote is how I said was asking for "where I said that it's okay for Marines to be better or should be better than the Necrons", meaning the army as a whole, not one unit of the whole.
I pointed out the Necron Warriors being SLIGHTLY weaker than the Tacticals is okay considering they are the Conscript chaff of the Necron army, especially when the Astartes are NOT Humanity's Conscripts (because those are Conscripts), but their Elites.
Two very important pieces of context that were ignored.
The difference is that, what some of us are saying, is that part of the point of Necrons back in the 90's is their basic "chaff" was on par with Astartes. Another way to look at it is that the Necrons' "conscripts" are Scarabs. Thematically, this made them very scary and this idea has been ground down by the years of Astartes power fantasies.
I agree with the last sentence and have repeated that quite a few times now.
Necron Warriors being the Conscripts starts with 5th Edition lore, obviously, but it is still a consideration on what we have now. Scarabs really can't be compared to a comparable Infantry unit because they are literally a Swarm of bugs like Rippers.
Except for a very important adverb which is emphasized by capital letters.
I've given evidence that it has largely been in place since 3rd Ed, one of your favorite version of Necrons, So, please, counter that if you can provide the evidence.
3ed Necrons had a slightly different statline than marines (higher Ld but lower I) but a better gun and WBB. What evidence do you have against that?
I'll repeat myself again.
Charistoph wrote:Even in the 3rd Edition, Necron Warrior's statline was the same as Tacticals, save for Initiative and Leadership. At this point of consideration they are generally weaker as the lower Initiative will cause more problems than the higher Leadership. Their gun's stats are equivalent: Str: 4, AP: 5 Rapid Fire. Out of this, only the Warrior's Armor Save changed between them in 5th Edition.
Then you consider special rules, and WBB is superior to ATSKNF in most situations, and Gauss was superior to the Boltgun's lack of anything else. But then, the Astartes can have a close combat specialist with a weapon that will cause WBB to not be usable, they can also add a Special weapon (1 of which would cause WBB to be ignored) and a Heavy Weapon (3 of which can cause WBB to be ignored), as well as get Grenades. Meanwhile the Warriors had the option to outnumber the Tactical Squad and/or have Vehicle Gauss in Melee. At this point, if it wasn't for WBB and other resources like the Monolith's Gate, Warrior's would be weaker than Astartes, and in Melee (especially with an equipped Sergeant) they most definitely are. At range, the Astartes would be hard pressed to keep up unless they are dedicating AT weapons to slowly whittle away at the unit. In many respects, this is a draw, especially if one considers other support elements like a Lord and Monolith's Gate.
And this is the Necron's Conscripts that the Elite Astartes are being compared against.
For a little more specificity:
3rd Ed Necron Warriors were 18 ppm base, but could add the Disruption Fields for 20 ppm, and that was it aside from Squad size which was 10-20.
3rd Ed Tactical Squads started at 15 ppm, and could go from 5-10 in squad size. You could double the cost of the Sergeant (which added +1 A and +1 Ld). The squad could go close combat focused for free swapping their Bolter for pistol and CCW. All the models in the squad could get Grenades, which would equate their cost with the base Necron Warrior if both were taken (admittedly Kraks were useless against Necrons at the time, I think). One member could get a Heavy Weapon (sorry, was in error here earlier, Multimelta was not an option in 3rd for Tacticals, but was in 4th), with the Lascannon doubling the model's cost, and the Missile Launcher only adding 2/3 of the Lascannon's price. I will add another correction as the Tactical's Sergeant could not take Power Weapons in 3rd, but they could in 4th.
A full Tactical Squad could cost more than a minimal Necron Warrior Squad, depending on how you equipped it.
Insectum7 wrote:In 3rd, Warriors were valued higher than Tacticals by ppm, regardless of your efforts to diminish the fact. In the 5th Ed codex Warriors went from 3+ to 4+ save, a huge drop in the AP paradigm at the time, and their RP went from 4+ to 5+. They went from 18 ppm to 13, about 2/3ds their former value. Immortals dropped from T5 to T4, had their gun neutered, and went from 28 ppm to 17, 1 point LOWER than Warriors were at formerly. Flayed Ones were similarly reduced from 18 to 13. Besides Pariahs, these three units were the only Infantry units in the Necron army, and they suffered a huge downgrade, while Pariahs were removed altogether.
Review the above again as you seem to have ignored it in my previous response to you. Also remember that 3rd Ed Necrons were closer in design scheme to 4th Ed Marines than with 3rd as well. The only nerf that Immortals had with their gun is that it went from Assault 2 to Rapid Fire 1 (besides the changes to all Gauss weapons which only affected Wounding). While the Pariahs were lost (a poor choice in my opinion), the Lychguard and the Pariahs were brought in, and now there are the new Destroyers.
Could someone please confirm if Immortals were brought back up to T5 with the latest codex?
Astartes also have seen point reductions, so don't be so quick to bring on the one-sided judgements, gained free grenades, and received a lot more Special Rules. Part of the reason for point reductions is so GW could sell more models, and points have rarely been a good measure for the value of a model. In fact, making them much cheaper with only a small change in statistics actually provides for more of of that scariness to be employed.
Nor does that change the statement I have made to almost every response to you which you have yet to acknowledge, that the Marines have seen upgrade after upgrade over the years that the other armies have not been adapted in kind with.
catbarf wrote:Necron Warriors had higher points costs than Tacticals, so they were considered more valuable by the designers. That's that, really.
A 10 man Warrior squad was either 180 or 200 points. A 10 man Tactical Squad started at 150 points, but could reach 200 points easily, and I left out taking the Krak Grenades since they are pretty useless against Necrons at the time. With 4th Edition, I could add more because the Veteran Sergeant could start taking Power Weapons.
catbarf wrote:Even after the 5th Ed change they were only slightly worse than Tacticals- RP helped compensate for worse armor and they could still go toe-to-toe with Marines.
With the exception that they lost their upgrades and the Marines got Grenades for free now. But that is part of my point. Even with the loss of a point of Save they are only slightly weaker than a Tactical Squad, largely because of the Tactical Squad's capacity to upgrade.
catbarf wrote:This paradigm of Tactical Marines being far more powerful than basic Necron Warriors and beating out even Immortals is as recent as the 9th Ed wounds change. It's the historical anomaly. Fundamentally, Insectum is correct- for the rest of the history of the game, basic Necrons were better than or roughly on par with Marines.
Hence my use of the word, "slightly". The difference was relatively minor between bare bone units, even back in 3rd Ed. Warriors were better at the shooting game while Tacticals were better in melee. I have never stated that Tactical Marines were "far more powerful than basic Necron Warriors". That is an artifice of your construction.
Charistoph wrote: Nor does that change the statement I have made to almost every response to you which you have yet to acknowledge, that the Marines have seen upgrade after upgrade over the years that the other armies have not been adapted in kind with.
Acknowledging that proves me right and you wrong, not the other way around. It's a fact, it's not a matter of acknowledging it or not.
Charistoph wrote: With the exception that they lost their upgrades and the Marines got Grenades for free now. But that is part of my point. Even with the loss of a point of Save they are only slightly weaker than a Tactical Squad, largely because of the Tactical Squad's capacity to upgrade.
But this is part of a slow process of devaluing Necron warriors compared to Astartes. We're saying "Astartes are more powerful than Necron Warriors, rules wise" and you're saying that, for certain periods of the game's history, they were but only slightly. This just proves us right.
Charistoph wrote: Nor does that change the statement I have made to almost every response to you which you have yet to acknowledge, that the Marines have seen upgrade after upgrade over the years that the other armies have not been adapted in kind with.
Acknowledging that proves me right and you wrong, not the other way around. It's a fact, it's not a matter of acknowledging it or not
Nor was it directed at you, so you saying this is a non sequitor.
Charistoph wrote: With the exception that they lost their upgrades and the Marines got Grenades for free now. But that is part of my point. Even with the loss of a point of Save they are only slightly weaker than a Tactical Squad, largely because of the Tactical Squad's capacity to upgrade.
But this is part of a slow process of devaluing Necron warriors compared to Astartes. We're saying "Astartes are more powerful than Necron Warriors, rules wise" and you're saying that, for certain periods of the game's history, they were but only slightly. This just proves us right.
No, people were saying that Necron Warriors were vastly more powerful than Astartes. This only existed in their introduction before 3rd Edition, yet 3rd Edition is the gold standard that Insectum7 keeps referring to. The response I was giving was to when the Necron Warriors were changed in 5th Edition.
Stat-wise, Necron Warriors have only had one stat changed, Armor Save. With a reduction in points at the same time one could field more of them (180 to 140), which actually aided in their Reanimation Protocols (despite all the changes to that over the years). Their ability to have Dynasty abilities on top of that, along with the Ghost Ark, has gone a ways in keeping them at that Metal Horde capacity that has kept them close to the Tactical in relative power, but it is not as close as it used to be because the Tacticals have had so much more added on at the same time. For all intents and purposes, Necrons just got their 6th Edition upgrade, but we're now in 9th for the Astartes.
Before Space Marines 9th, Necron Warriors were slightly behind Tacticals, and compared to Guard Conscripts, they still are. Compared to their closeness in 3rd Edition, though, it may seem like a chasm to some.
Charistoph wrote: No, people were saying that Necron Warriors were vastly more powerful than Astartes.
That is incorrect, and a fabrication on your part. Stop lying. Necrons were slightly more powerful than Astartes in 3e, and that's what people have been saying.
I think it's possible you might be getting the wrong end of the stick with regard to what people are saying about Necrons vs. Marines.
I'll try and explain the argument if I may:
- Historically, Warriors were roughly equivalent to basic Marines. Their stats and basic weapons were about the same (Warriors had a slightly better gun, but this was only really noteworthy in 6th-7th, due to how effective massed Gauss Flayers were against hull points). Most notably, though, Warriors were significantly more durable - having the same toughness, wounds and save as Marines whilst also getting RPs.
- Even in subsequent editions, when their save dropped to 4+, Warriors still generally exceeded Marines in terms of durability as a result of RPs.
- Immortals were superior to basic Marines in terms of both their durability (T5 in 3rd) and their gun (in 3rd it was 24" Assault 2 S5 AP4, Gauss).
- Even in subsequent editions, when they dropped to troops and their toughness was lowered, they still boasted superior durability and firepower to basic Marines (like 3rd edition Warriors, they had the same defensive stats as Marines, but augmented them with RPs).
- However, this is not to say that Warriors and Immortals were superior to Marines in every aspect:
- Marines had better initiative.
- Marines had more of a toolkit (even in terms of basic gear, Marines still had stuff like grenades and pistols).
- Marines had better morale (Necrons had higher base Ld, but ATSKNF was vastly better in terms of keeping Marines in the fight).
- Marines could take special and heavy weapons (Immortals had better firepower than basic bolters, but would still lose to Marines boasting Plasma, for example).
- Marine Sergeants could take upgraded Melee weapons (and generally had enough attacks to make reasonable use of them).
In other words, Necron 'superiority' was entirely down to their improved durability and better basic weapons.
What people are finding frustrating is that Marines are now exceeding Warriors and even Immortals in durability, with RPs failing to sufficiently tip the scales.
Bear in mind that resilience is one of the key characteristics of Necrons as a whole, so when Marines are allowed to exceed that anyway it feels like yet another Xeno trait has been usurped by Marines.
It is no different than if Tactical Marines suddenly became more durable than Plague Marines. It just feels fundamentally wrong.
So Warriors have been worse than space marines for 10 years? That seems a pretty long time.
To me is more obvious the degradation of inmortals, because you can see that when Inmortals were introduced, they took the role that previously had Necron Warriors as the tought necron infantry.
But even then, Inmortals as you can see in point cost have been basically the same as marines for more than a decade now. And right now, an Inmortal is better than a tactical space marine and in many cases better than an Intercessor even if its slighly cheaper. That doesnt mean that marines don't have too much special rules backed into them. Thats a balance concern.
I know for people that has been in the hobby for 30 years, don't seem that much, but this is like people complaining in World of Warcraft about stuff that was there in Wrath of the Lich Kin-... wait...
Nurglitch wrote: Logically speaking my guy should be able to beat up your guy.
Fundamentally, some people want a game system where you pick your faction and you get to be the tough one, the shooty one, the fast one, the magic one, etc, and other people want a game where the one main faction is the best at all of that and the others all compete by having more dudes than the main faction.
That's going to be a fundamental conflict in how people perceive the game should be.
Galas wrote: So Warriors have been worse than space marines for 10 years? That seems a pretty long time.
Warriors have been valued less than SMs for 10 years.
However, it's only since 9th edition that Marines have exceeded Warriors when it comes to durability (as they now have not only a better save but also twice as many wounds as Warriors).
Charistoph wrote: No, people were saying that Necron Warriors were vastly more powerful than Astartes.
That is incorrect, and a fabrication on your part. Stop lying. Necrons were slightly more powerful than Astartes in 3e, and that's what people have been saying.
Except Necron Warriors weren't, that's part of why I went through the trouble to point out the differences. Sure for 3rd Ed, if starting at 24", between a single Warrior and Tactical, it would more likely go to who went first. Their weapons are the same (Gauss would not provide an impact until you got to something high in Toughness or hitting a Vehicle), and personal stats are the same. WBB required some models of the same type in order to be activated, and ATSKNF requires running away to be activated.
What throws the balance off a little is that a Necron player only needed Warriors and an HQ, and a Lord with an Orb and Veil of Darkness to move a unit across the board. They didn't need the high Str of a Heavy Destroyer's gun and a Destroyer's gun almost came out as a wash when you considered pricing for its rate of fire, and same could easily be said of Immortals. Any other model on the table (aside from Flayed Ones and Wraiths) reduced the number of models needed to cause Phase Out, which meant that Warriors had to be spammed.
Still, as I keep pointing out, Marines could bring specialists that could handle the most troublesome rule of the Necrons, We'll Be Back. Ignoring Armor Saves in Melee prevented its use. Weapons at Str 8+ would also prevent its use. Even the base Tactical was superior in melee, and could take Grenades which helped them be more effective at it.
Insectum7 wrote:This is why I have a problem:
After all this time, you know that points don't mean as much as one should think in 40K. Point cost is more a limitation of use than it is any indication of power. There are numerous imbalances in this system. Which is why one has to look at the whole package. And as I have already demonstrated, I can make a unit of 10 3rd Ed Tacticals cost more than a unit of 10 Warriors. It gets easier with 4th Ed, but harder with early 5th when Tacticals got Grenades for free.
vipoid wrote:- Historically, Warriors were roughly equivalent to basic Marines. Their stats and basic weapons were about the same (Warriors had a slightly better gun, but this was only really noteworthy in 6th-7th, due to how effective massed Gauss Flayers were against hull points). Most notably, though, Warriors were significantly more durable - having the same toughness, wounds and save as Marines whilst also getting RPs.
But being weaker in melee, where a lot of Marine players liked to be as well, especially those of certain temperaments. Also people tend to forget that it was extremely rare to see a unit of basic Marines. At the bare minimum Tacticals would be carrying a Special and Heavy Weapon, as well as Frag Grenades. And if you swept a unit, neither WBB or RP could bring them back.
One thing that is more noteworthy is that due to both WBB and Phase Out rules, Necron players were encouraged to bring a lot of Warriors in big units. They were the cheapest Necron unit as well as the only Troop, which meant that they were the model of choice to pad out the Phase Out rule. They were also the unit with the greatest capacity, which was helpful in having models nearby to assist with that WBB trigger. It wasn't until they got more models to fill out their Elites that they could bring Immortals down in to Troops and they dropped the Phase Out rule all together.
vipoid wrote:- Even in subsequent editions, when their save dropped to 4+, Warriors still generally exceeded Marines in terms of durability as a result of RPs.
That is arguable, and mostly because sometimes RP just wasn't as useful as some options Marines would have access to by the time Warriors had their Armor Save dropped, and Marines got better at sweeping Necrons with every new codex. Oh, I know the perception was there from the Marines side, but there was a lot of complaining about the limitations that RP had when compared to WBB.
vipoid wrote:- Even in subsequent editions, when they dropped to troops and their toughness was lowered, they still boasted superior durability and firepower to basic Marines (like 3rd edition Warriors, they had the same defensive stats as Marines, but augmented them with RPs).
- However, this is not to say that Warriors and Immortals were superior to Marines in every aspect:
- Marines had better initiative.
- Marines had more of a toolkit (even in terms of basic gear, Marines still had stuff like grenades and pistols).
- Marines had better morale (Necrons had higher base Ld, but ATSKNF was vastly better in terms of keeping Marines in the fight).
- Marines could take special and heavy weapons (Immortals had better firepower than basic bolters, but would still lose to Marines boasting Plasma, for example).
- Marine Sergeants could take upgraded Melee weapons (and generally had enough attacks to make reasonable use of them).
In other words, Necron 'superiority' was entirely down to their improved durability and better basic weapons.
What people are finding frustrating is that Marines are now exceeding Warriors and even Immortals in durability, with RPs failing to sufficiently tip the scales.
It also fails to consider the fact that from a lore perspective, Marines are not in the same category as Immortals and Warriors. Only in game terms is this a consideration because in the game as Marines can be taken as Troops. Might as well compare Mega Armor Nobs to Conscripts.
vipoid wrote:Bear in mind that resilience is one of the key characteristics of Necrons as a whole, so when Marines are allowed to exceed that anyway it feels like yet another Xeno trait has been usurped by Marines.
It is no different than if Tactical Marines suddenly became more durable than Plague Marines. It just feels fundamentally wrong.
I get the feelings on it, and as I have stated numerous times at this point, I agree that this Astartes change went too far without similarly seeing an equivalent upgrade across the rest of armies, especially Durable Army #1 whose codex was developed at the same time. Those statements seem to be ignored. It is like they are taking my statements about the past and placing them in consideration of the current codex.
There is another problem here that no one wants to take in to account and keep rejecting: Where Marines sit in consideration of Humanity's Army. The closest we see to another race's army being broken up in to sub factions with their own codices are Genestealer Cults and Harlequins (and possibly Ynnari, that's a weird one). Imagine a new Necron sub-codex called the Pariah Nexus where the Troop are Flightless Pariahs. There are no Warriors, Immortals, Scarabs, or Canoptek options, just the Vehicles, Destroyers, Pariahs, Lychguard, Lords, and Crypteks. That is what the Marine codices are for Humanity. Does that mean that if the Marines get a boost the Necrons should be ignored? No. As I have said, we should be seeing equivalent increases in this army as we should be in a few units in other armies, such as Nobs. No one seems to be concerned about them so far, it's only been the Necron Warriors that have people in a tizzy, the lowest infantry unit of their army.
vipoid wrote:
Galas wrote: So Warriors have been worse than space marines for 10 years? That seems a pretty long time.
Warriors have been valued less than SMs for 10 years.
Almost 10 years. Decaversary is in November. Necron 3rd Edition came out in July '02 for reference.
Charistoph wrote: Except Necron Warriors weren't, that's part of why I went through the trouble to point out the differences.
You're wrong, and moreover you've been misrepresenting other people's arguments in bad faith. WBB gives the Warrior enough durability to statistically beat the Astartes. Sure, you could spend the points to give your Sergeant a power fist, or whatever, but that's not the basic Astartes anymore.
Also, the whole point you're making about where Astartes sit in "humanity's army" fails for a number of reasons, not least of which is that things like Terminators and Custodes were always superior to Necron Warriors, and that's fine. You're working from the premise that Astartes need to be better than other factions' mass-produced infantry, and part of the thematics of the Necrons was that that *wasn't* true. It was also true for demons - Bloodletters used to rip Astartes a new one in CC when their swords counted as power weapons, and it actually made Grey Knights make sense, since it meant that basic Astartes weren't prepared to handle demons.
Charistoph wrote: No, people were saying that Necron Warriors were vastly more powerful than Astartes.
That is incorrect, and a fabrication on your part. Stop lying. Necrons were slightly more powerful than Astartes in 3e, and that's what people have been saying.
Except Necron Warriors weren't. . .
What's better, a base Tactical Marine or a Tactical Marine with a better gun that revives himself on a 4+?
And it's pretty immaterial how you decide to call it, because the fact of the matter is the Cron units were downgraded.
Bear in mind that resilience is one of the key characteristics of Necrons as a whole, so when Marines are allowed to exceed that anyway it feels like yet another Xeno trait has been usurped by Marines.
It is no different than if Tactical Marines suddenly became more durable than Plague Marines. It just feels fundamentally wrong.
I don't know what you are talking about. Orkz boyz are renowned as good CC units and Point for point will always slaughter Marines. Case and point, 80pts of boyz is 10 boyz, and 80pts of Intercessors is 4 intercessors. Those 10 boyz get 30 attacks, and those puny Marines only get 12. Orkz get 20 hits, Intercessors 8. Orkz get 10 wounds, Intercessors 4. Orkz deal 3.33 dmg Intercessors 3.33. Orkz lose 33.3% combat efficiency, Marines Lose 25% combat efficiency....well shoot....I thought Orkz were supposed to be the CC unit and those Intercessors with their 30' S4 AP-1(2) guns were supposed to be a shooty unit. Maybe my shooty orkz are better pt for pt than those Marines...that would make sense since the Marines are as good if not better than Orkz on the charge.
10 shoota boyz are out ranged by 12' to start. At 18' range they get 20 shots for 7.77 hits, 3.8ish wounds and a grand total of... 1.29 dmg. Marines lose nobody yet since they are all 2 wounds.
4 intercessors start out shooting at 30' range, get 8 shots for 5.3 hits, 2.65 wounds and 2.65 dead Ork boyz. before they even suffer dmg they get to blast away again at those pesky shootaboyz with their OP guns and kill another 2.65 boyz, so before those orkz are even in range they have lost 50% of their force. ....so yeah they are better at shooting.
But in fairness, orkz are faster and can get the charge off easier. I mean they are movement 5 compared to marines....6...well crap. But hey we can advance and charge if we have a warboss nearby! Just like the entire White Scars Chapter can do without needing a character nearby.... hmm....I'm beginning to think you have a point here. Anything a xenos faction can do, a Space Marine chapter can do better...
But being weaker in melee, where a lot of Marine players liked to be as well, especially those of certain temperaments.
I believe I already covered this?
I specifically said that Warriors (and Immortals) were not better than Marines in every aspect.
In fact, they were really only superior to Marines in two ways - they were more durable and their basic guns were better.
Charistoph wrote: Also people tend to forget that it was extremely rare to see a unit of basic Marines. At the bare minimum Tacticals would be carrying a Special and Heavy Weapon, as well as Frag Grenades.
Again, I didn't forget this. In fact I specifically drew attention to it.
That is arguable, and mostly because sometimes RP just wasn't as useful as some options Marines would have access to
Unless I'm mistaken, Marines had no options that improved their durability. So I'm afraid I'm not seeing how this is relevant when I was solely juxtaposing their respective durability.
If you want to argue that a Marine with a plasmagun or a Sergeant with a Power Fist was better than a Warrior with RPs, sure. I don't disagree. Again, I literally explained that most people here (myself included) aren't trying to argue that Warriors/Immortals were superior than Marines in every conceivable way.
In this instance, I was comparing durability and only durability. Because it is (or was) one of the defining characteristics of Necrons.
Charistoph wrote: and Marines got better at sweeping Necrons with every new codex. Oh, I know the perception was there from the Marines side, but there was a lot of complaining about the limitations that RP had when compared to WBB.
As an aside, I'm pretty sure WBB was countered by sweeping as well.
Regardless, RPs was not a flawless defence. However, I think you'd be hard-pressed to argue that a model with T4 4+ and a 5+ chance to get back up was less durable (on average) than a model with T4 3+.
Charistoph wrote: Except Necron Warriors weren't, that's part of why I went through the trouble to point out the differences.
You're wrong, and moreover you've been misrepresenting other people's arguments in bad faith. WBB gives the Warrior enough durability to statistically beat the Astartes. Sure, you could spend the points to give your Sergeant a power fist, or whatever, but that's not the basic Astartes anymore.
I haven't been misrepresenting other people's arguments, and you have misrepresented mine at least twice.
Basic Astartes were cheaper, which means you could bring more men if you kept them basic, and if you brought more in to melee, the Warriors died faster leading to a better chance at a Sweep where their famed durability meant nothing. Also consider if I bring more, they would be in two units and that would mean the Warriors would only shooting one per turn due to the rules of the time. But hey, you just want to ignore that because it counters your argument. But if you want to be bringing equal points, you're going to be bringing in to those extra tools which help counter WBB.
If you think I'm wrong, please provide a proper counter other than, "you're wrong."
Hecaton wrote:Also, the whole point you're making about where Astartes sit in "humanity's army" fails for a number of reasons, not least of which is that things like Terminators and Custodes were always superior to Necron Warriors, and that's fine. You're working from the premise that Astartes need to be better than other factions' mass-produced infantry, and part of the thematics of the Necrons was that that *wasn't* true. It was also true for demons - Bloodletters used to rip Astartes a new one in CC when their swords counted as power weapons, and it actually made Grey Knights make sense, since it meant that basic Astartes weren't prepared to handle demons.
Now here is another misrepresentation. I am NOT working from the premise that Astartes NEED to be better than other factions' mass-produced infantry. I am pointing out that the Astartes are NOT the Imperium's mass produced infantry, but Warriors are for the Necrons. I have also stated numerous times now that having Necron Warriors and Astartes standing toe to toe (even if there is a slight edge here or there) with each other IS A GOOD THING.
Charistoph wrote: No, people were saying that Necron Warriors were vastly more powerful than Astartes.
That is incorrect, and a fabrication on your part. Stop lying. Necrons were slightly more powerful than Astartes in 3e, and that's what people have been saying.
Except Necron Warriors weren't. . .
What's better, a base Tactical Marine or a Tactical Marine with a better gun that revives himself on a 4+?
And it's pretty immaterial how you decide to call it, because the fact of the matter is the Cron units were downgraded.
A Tactical Marine that can be swept by anyone with a better gun that might be able to revive himself on a 4+ if his unit isn't swept?
Not to mention, 3rd Ed Gauss Flayers offered nothing beneficial against Tacticals. It only got better against really tough targets you couldn't Wound or Glance with a Bolter, nor could any be upgraded with something that could handle other targets better. Not everything is so cut and dry.
And considering that downgrade also came with a points reduction as well as the Ghost Ark, it's not so bad until this latest round of Marine upgrades.
But being weaker in melee, where a lot of Marine players liked to be as well, especially those of certain temperaments.
I believe I already covered this?
I specifically said that Warriors (and Immortals) were not better than Marines in every aspect.
In fact, they were really only superior to Marines in two ways - they were more durable and their basic guns were better.
Which is something I have repeatedly stated at this point, though the guns were only better against specific targets. I'm assuming Gauss was put in due to the lack of inorganic weapon support that almost every other race besides Tyranids could deploy.
That is arguable, and mostly because sometimes RP just wasn't as useful as some options Marines would have access to
Unless I'm mistaken, Marines had no options that improved their durability. So I'm afraid I'm not seeing how this is relevant when I was solely juxtaposing their respective durability.
In 3rd, not so much. In 4th we started to see some Chapter Tactics like the Apothecary Sergeant, then of course Iron Hands had several iterations over the years.
vipoid wrote:If you want to argue that a Marine with a plasmagun or a Sergeant with a Power Fist was better than a Warrior with RPs, sure. I don't disagree. Again, I literally explained that most people here (myself included) aren't trying to argue that Warriors/Immortals were superior than Marines in every conceivable way.
And I haven't been arguing with everyone, I just was arguing with the ones who were saying they were, or at least implying it. Some of my responses to you earlier was about reinforcing your statements and reminding people of what I have actually been saying.
vipoid wrote:
Charistoph wrote: and Marines got better at sweeping Necrons with every new codex. Oh, I know the perception was there from the Marines side, but there was a lot of complaining about the limitations that RP had when compared to WBB.
As an aside, I'm pretty sure WBB was countered by sweeping as well.
Regardless, RPs was not a flawless defence. However, I think you'd be hard-pressed to argue that a model with T4 4+ and a 5+ chance to get back up was less durable (on average) than a model with T4 3+.
So long as they weren't removed as a casualty in some way, WBB won't work (and I've mentioned it a couple times now). Now, as I said, I'm not familiar with 3rd Ed or 4th Ed rules, so I don't know how it would be ruled or was ruled, but I know that was a standard tactic both before Necrons got their 5th Ed codex and afterwards. Heck I remember a Necron player being happy about facing Tau players because he had a chance to Sweep them!
Nor have I argued that the Necron Warriors weren't durable (though that has fluctuated depending on how RP was written). However, there are more things to a unit's power than their durability, such as flexibility via options, offensive capability, how much you can take (Necrons must take 10 Warriors, but SM only have to take 5 Tacticals, but Necrons can take up to 20 Warriors, but 10 Tacticals is SM's unit limit), and what taking the unit makes unavailable (i.e. point cost). It is forgetting these other factors which has lead to a knee jerk reaction in believing how amazingly powerful Necron Warriors were over Tactical Marines, when it was far closer after analysis.
We could go back and forth about what constitutes a "better" model all week, but none of your words refute that:
1: 18>15, hence the designers themselves considered Necron Warriors to be individually superior to the base Marine
2: The 2011 codex considerably reduced their durability and cost.
3: The current model to model balance represents an even further downgrade.
And to leave the issue of Necrons behind, since you appear to be stuck, the bigger problem is that I could make a similar graph with Daemons, Banshees, Genestealers, Shuriken Catapults, all sorts of things.
I haven't been misrepresenting other people's arguments, and you have misrepresented mine at least twice.
Basic Astartes were cheaper, which means you could bring more men if you kept them basic, and if you brought more in to melee, the Warriors died faster leading to a better chance at a Sweep where their famed durability meant nothing. Also consider if I bring more, they would be in two units and that would mean the Warriors would only shooting one per turn due to the rules of the time. But hey, you just want to ignore that because it counters your argument. But if you want to be bringing equal points, you're going to be bringing in to those extra tools which help counter WBB.
If you think I'm wrong, please provide a proper counter other than, "you're wrong."
If you're arguing that Astartes could beat Necrons with superior numbers that's... fine, actually, and was my whole point. Let's go back to those days, where a basic conscript Necron warrior is more than a match for an elite and highly trained Astartes.
Now here is another misrepresentation. I am NOT working from the premise that Astartes NEED to be better than other factions' mass-produced infantry. I am pointing out that the Astartes are NOT the Imperium's mass produced infantry, but Warriors are for the Necrons. I have also stated numerous times now that having Necron Warriors and Astartes standing toe to toe (even if there is a slight edge here or there) with each other IS A GOOD THING.
Well than you should say I'm right, because that's the idea I've brought forth here.
A Tactical Marine that can be swept by anyone with a better gun that might be able to revive himself on a 4+ if his unit isn't swept?
Not to mention, 3rd Ed Gauss Flayers offered nothing beneficial against Tacticals. It only got better against really tough targets you couldn't Wound or Glance with a Bolter, nor could any be upgraded with something that could handle other targets better. Not everything is so cut and dry.
And considering that downgrade also came with a points reduction as well as the Ghost Ark, it's not so bad until this latest round of Marine upgrades.
You were claiming that people were saying that Necron warriors were 'vastly better" than Astartes in 3e. You failed to show that anybody had been saying that, ergo you're wrong.
Bear in mind that resilience is one of the key characteristics of Necrons as a whole, so when Marines are allowed to exceed that anyway it feels like yet another Xeno trait has been usurped by Marines.
It is no different than if Tactical Marines suddenly became more durable than Plague Marines. It just feels fundamentally wrong.
I don't know what you are talking about. Orkz boyz are renowned as good CC units and Point for point will always slaughter Marines. Case and point, 80pts of boyz is 10 boyz, and 80pts of Intercessors is 4 intercessors. Those 10 boyz get 30 attacks, and those puny Marines only get 12. Orkz get 20 hits, Intercessors 8. Orkz get 10 wounds, Intercessors 4.
We're not talking point to point, but individual to individual. You can water down units as much as you like and they'll still be effective if they're cheap enough. Case in point, Orks now kill Marines at half the rate since they're 2W now. And I'm remembering 10 Slugga Boys being able to average more than a single MEQ kill back in the day.
Let's see, from memory I get (30×.5×.333x.5= 2.49), so two and a half 1W Marines dead (with charge it'd be 40 attacks for 3.3). The Marines only had 1 Attack apiece, their guns were worse and couldn't Rapid Fire on the move. (3rd edition). I can't check the points now, but I'll be happy ro in the morning.
Nurglitch wrote: Logically speaking my guy should be able to beat up your guy.
Fundamentally, some people want a game system where you pick your faction and you get to be the tough one, the shooty one, the fast one, the magic one, etc, and other people want a game where the one main faction is the best at all of that and the others all compete by having more dudes than the main faction.
That's going to be a fundamental conflict in how people perceive the game should be.
It does seem to be one of the fundamental tensions in the game about how to balance a set of asymmetrical forces. It would be cool to be able to designate units as protagonists or mooks or npcs to change how they behave. I've harped on it at length about how it sucks for Tyranids and Orks, the mookiest of enemy mooks, to have to spend 3x the money as SM to field an army of the same size, but imagine if you could designate a unit as a horde so that it could keep coming back onto the board, or as protagonists so that they could move models away from the enemy rather than suffering wounds, or as npcs so they could Look Out, Sir your protagonists.
I see some misconceptions of what I am talking about here in regards to how things are being considered. Some are taking my statements regarding how things used to be as to being how things are. This is not the case, as I have stated several times now.
Some also seem to be confusing how I see a Marine's place in the 40K world that has been built up. There are 3 different tiers that are in this consideration.
First is the Military Tier. In this I am looking at the entry in respect to its military hierarchy and has no bearing on its effectiveness of the same tier of another army, and for the Marines that is taking in to consideration the entirety of the Imperium of Man, unlike almost every other codex out there. Keep in mind that this a LORE perspective. So with that in mind we'd be looking at:
Conscripts/Chaff: Guard Conscripts, Gretchin, Kroot, Cultists, Guardians, Necron Warriors etc.
Troopers: Imperial Guardsmen, Sororitas, Scions, Fire Warrior Breachers/Strikers, Dire Avengers, Immortals etc.
Elite Infantry: Astartes, Crisis Suits, Aspect Warriors, Praetorians, Destroyers, etc.
Super Elite Infantry: Custodes
Second is the Game Tier. I only talked about this when dealing directly with stats, gear, Special Rules, and options. And honestly, I liked how Warriors have been right around where the Tacticals were, and even when they were just a little lower baseline, the Immortals were there to be just a bit above them, too. This gets messy due to different release times, prejudices of the codex author, poor pricing models, and the fact that Marines are technically a codex of an elite force of one part of an army, while the Necron's entire army is listed in their codex, along with most other Xenos.
Third is the Galactic Tier. This is where everyone is in relation to each other across the board. Most of this is a Lore perspective, but partly a game perspective, too. From this perspective, Tactical Marines, Immortals (upper), Warriors (mid to lower), Marine Scouts (lower), Nobs (middle), and maybe some Aspect Warriors, are roughly in the same tier level with some slight variations on where they stand in it which depends on the author and specific codex.
With the addition of the Primaris and the upgrades in the latest Marine codex this has been thrown off because the Marines moved, while no one else saw any significant change. Codex Marines have basically gotten a +2 improvement while Necrons got a +0.5. This is a BAD thing.
Insectum7 wrote:1: 18>15, hence the designers themselves considered Necron Warriors to be individually superior to the base Marine
Maybe, or it could have been meant to limit how many you could take. Especially considering that one make a Tactical Squad cost the same as a Necron Warrior squad. Again, the unit as a whole must be looked at, not just what one starts with. Consider also that Phase Out would be a factor in the point cost of the Warriors (the cheapest and most potentially numerous Necron model available).
Insectum7 wrote:2: The 2011 codex considerably reduced their durability and cost.
The Warriors points were reduced and their Armor Save was reduced. WBB was changed to RP, which was successful on a higher number, so base durability was reduced, but not considerably. However, RP matched WBB when you can have Resurrection Orb in almost every squad (which can be easily provided by a Royal Court's Lord), and then there is the Ghost Ark which can be go beyond what RP or WBB could do and completely restore lost models to the unit. Sure a Monolith could do that in 3rd, but the Monolith was limited by being Heavy Support, very expensive so reduced the Phase Out limit while not adding to it, and could only do it on the turn after the unit lost the models, not every Player Turn.
Subsequent codices reduced the Orb capacity as Lords were not as spammable or directly by being one-offs, but I do believe it is an aura now instead of having to be in the unit at least.
Insectum7 wrote:3: The current model to model balance represents an even further downgrade.
To which I have not argued against and supported with almost every response to you, which you seem to have ignored every single time. What I have been arguing against is how far apart Necron Warriors and Tacticals have been. How many more times must I repeat it.
Insectum7 wrote:And to leave the issue of Necrons behind, since you appear to be stuck, the bigger problem is that I could make a similar graph with Daemons, Banshees, Genestealers, Shuriken Catapults, all sorts of things.
I brought up Ork Nobs earlier. You kept going on about Necrons, so you were the stuck one.
I haven't been misrepresenting other people's arguments, and you have misrepresented mine at least twice.
Basic Astartes were cheaper, which means you could bring more men if you kept them basic, and if you brought more in to melee, the Warriors died faster leading to a better chance at a Sweep where their famed durability meant nothing. Also consider if I bring more, they would be in two units and that would mean the Warriors would only shooting one per turn due to the rules of the time. But hey, you just want to ignore that because it counters your argument. But if you want to be bringing equal points, you're going to be bringing in to those extra tools which help counter WBB.
If you think I'm wrong, please provide a proper counter other than, "you're wrong."
If you're arguing that Astartes could beat Necrons with superior numbers that's... fine, actually, and was my whole point. Let's go back to those days, where a basic conscript Necron warrior is more than a match for an elite and highly trained Astartes.
Still misrepresenting my statements. It was just a match for the elite and highly trained Astartes, not more than a match as of 3rd Edition. The Astartes were more flexible (i.e. had more options) and superior in close combat. You forget that flexibility with your quick analysis. Nor is stating that they were being close to each other in power defines a belief or need that Astartes should be vastly more powerful.
Now here is another misrepresentation. I am NOT working from the premise that Astartes NEED to be better than other factions' mass-produced infantry. I am pointing out that the Astartes are NOT the Imperium's mass produced infantry, but Warriors are for the Necrons. I have also stated numerous times now that having Necron Warriors and Astartes standing toe to toe (even if there is a slight edge here or there) with each other IS A GOOD THING.
Well than you should say I'm right, because that's the idea I've brought forth here.
Why should I say you're right when you misrepresent what I say such that I was saying the opposite of what I actually said? I have not stated that Astartes should be or need to be more powerful than anything they face, which is something you have accused me of saying.
A Tactical Marine that can be swept by anyone with a better gun that might be able to revive himself on a 4+ if his unit isn't swept?
Not to mention, 3rd Ed Gauss Flayers offered nothing beneficial against Tacticals. It only got better against really tough targets you couldn't Wound or Glance with a Bolter, nor could any be upgraded with something that could handle other targets better. Not everything is so cut and dry.
And considering that downgrade also came with a points reduction as well as the Ghost Ark, it's not so bad until this latest round of Marine upgrades.
You were claiming that people were saying that Necron warriors were 'vastly better" than Astartes in 3e. You failed to show that anybody had been saying that, ergo you're wrong.
Nor was this statement directed at you. This was correcting a false image of what the Necron Warrior was in 3e that Insectum7 keeps pushing. By making these corrections, I am countering the "vastly better" image that Insectum7 is presenting who only focuses on a couple points while ignoring what the Tactical Marine Squad brought to the table.
Conscripts/Chaff: Guard Conscripts, Gretchin, Kroot, Cultists, Guardians, Necron Warriors etc.
Troopers: Imperial Guardsmen, Sororitas, Scions, Fire Warrior Breachers/Strikers, Dire Avengers, Immortals etc.
Elite Infantry: Astartes, Crisis Suits, Aspect Warriors, Praetorians, Destroyers, etc.
Super Elite Infantry: Custodes
Hang on, Dire Avengers are just as elite as the other Aspect Warriors are in the lore. They may be more numerous, but that's closer to the relationship between a Tacmarine/Inceptor and more specialized marines, than that between a guardsman and an Astartes.
Nor was this statement directed at you. This was correcting a false image of what the Necron Warrior was in 3e that Insectum7 keeps pushing. By making these corrections, I am countering the "vastly better" image that Insectum7 is presenting who only focuses on a couple points while ignoring what the Tactical Marine Squad brought to the table.
Again, where is Insectum7 saying "vastly? That's you misrepresenting his argument. He and I were saying they were "slightly" better.
So again, you can't tell the truth or make a counterargument without lying. If you misrepresent someone else's argument I'm going to call it out whether or not it's directed at me.
The Tac Marine "flexibility" wasn't such a big deal; there was a reason people took minimum squads of tacs with maxed special weapons back then.
All your talk about tiers is meaningless and is just circular reasoning on your part.
The Warriors points were reduced and their Armor Save was reduced. WBB was changed to RP, which was successful on a higher number, so base durability was reduced, but not considerably.
A 3+ save reduced to a 4+ Save during the 3-7th AP paradigm is considerable. Durability was in fact the only change to Warriors, and they dropped from 18 points to 13 points. So again, the designers appear to disagree with your assessment, as do I.
10 Bolter hits to Warriors in 3rd: (10x.5x.333x.5) = 0.83 (3+ save, 4+WBB)
10 Bolter hits to Warriors post 5th: (10x.5x.5x.666) = 1.665 (4+ save, 5+ RP) Warriors took DOUBLE the casualties against Bolters.
3 HB to hits Warriors in 3rd: (3x.666x.333x.5) = 0.33
3 HB to hits Warriors post 5th: (3x.666x.666) = 1.333 Warriors took FOUR TIMES the casualties against Heavy Bolters.
The quantitative evidence says "considerably".
Either way I'm done with this part of the conversation about Warriors. You're bending over backwards to try to make a point that is both not even there, and irrelevant in the face of the broader argument.
Conscripts/Chaff: Guard Conscripts, Gretchin, Kroot, Cultists, Guardians, Necron Warriors etc.
Troopers: Imperial Guardsmen, Sororitas, Scions, Fire Warrior Breachers/Strikers, Dire Avengers, Immortals etc.
Elite Infantry: Astartes, Crisis Suits, Aspect Warriors, Praetorians, Destroyers, etc.
Super Elite Infantry: Custodes
Hang on, Dire Avengers are just as elite as the other Aspect Warriors are in the lore. They may be more numerous, but that's closer to the relationship between a Tacmarine/Inceptor and more specialized marines, than that between a guardsman and an Astartes.
They are closer to Scions actually. While they are impressive for Eldar, they are more generalists and more numerous than the other Aspects tended to be. Scions are elite in the Guard, but compared to the Astartes, they were closer to Troopers.
Nor was this statement directed at you. This was correcting a false image of what the Necron Warrior was in 3e that Insectum7 keeps pushing. By making these corrections, I am countering the "vastly better" image that Insectum7 is presenting who only focuses on a couple points while ignoring what the Tactical Marine Squad brought to the table.
Again, where is Insectum7 saying "vastly? That's you misrepresenting his argument. He and I were saying they were "slightly" better.
"Vastly" was actually your addition to the conversation when you accused me of a perspective I never stated.
Hecaton wrote:The Tac Marine "flexibility" wasn't such a big deal; there was a reason people took minimum squads of tacs with maxed special weapons back then.
Actually it quite is. Flamers, Frag Missiles, and Heavy Bolters could generate more hits, Plasma Guns would ignore their armor, and Meltaguns, Krak Missiles and Lascannons would cause WBB to not trigger as well as ignore armor. These are important considerations. Meanwhile the Necron Warrios could only plink at the Tacticals like they were firing Bolters.
Not to mention, you had to kill every last Astartes to beat them. Necrons were in danger of Phase Out if they reached a 75% casualty rate (and you had to ignore units like C'tan, Pariahs, Swarms, Monoliths, and Spyders).
Hecaton wrote:All your talk about tiers is meaningless and is just circular reasoning on your part.
Either because you cannot understand it or cannot refute it, so you just demean it. It is my perspective on it.
The Warriors points were reduced and their Armor Save was reduced. WBB was changed to RP, which was successful on a higher number, so base durability was reduced, but not considerably.
A 3+ save reduced to a 4+ Save during the 3-7th AP paradigm is considerable. Durability was in fact the only change to Warriors, and they dropped from 18 points to 13 points. So again, the designers appear to disagree with your assessment, as do I.
They also lost the auto-wound on Gauss (irrelevant against Tacticals), upgrade option for Vehicle Gauss in Melee, and the Phase Out rule. They gained the only access to the Ghost Ark as a Dedicated Transport which also repaired them improving their durability. For 5th, they gained access to the Royal Court, effectively giving them access to a "sergeant" with a Resurrection Orb (sadly, this was somewhat lost in 7th, but they had the Decurion for that to compensate).
Again, the point value of a model is a limitation, especially when a factor like Phase Out is taken in to consideration.
Insectum7 wrote:10 Bolter hits to Warriors in 3rd: (10x.5x.333x.5) = 0.83 (3+ save, 4+WBB)
10 Bolter hits to Warriors post 5th: (10x.5x.5x.666) = 1.665 (4+ save, 5+ RP) Warriors took DOUBLE the casualties against Bolters.
3 HB to hits Warriors in 3rd: (3x.666x.333x.5) = 0.33
3 HB to hits Warriors post 5th: (3x.666x.666) = 1.333 Warriors took FOUR TIMES the casualties against Heavy Bolters.
The quantitative evidence says "considerably".
This quantitative evidence also ignores what they gained, too, which I listed above. Aside from Kill Teams, when was it ever so simple?
Insectum7 wrote:Either way I'm done with this part of the conversation about Warriors. You're bending over backwards to try to make a point that is both not even there, and irrelevant in the face of the broader argument.
Says the person who focused only on points for a time, ignored the flexibility of the Tactical Squad, ignored what Warriors gained at the same time they lost, as well as ignored when I agreed with them that the current paradigm has swung too far in favor of the Marines. Who is doing the most bending backwards here?
They are closer to Scions actually. While they are impressive for Eldar, they are more generalists and more numerous than the other Aspects tended to be. Scions are elite in the Guard, but compared to the Astartes, they were closer to Troopers.
Then what makes the other Aspects different? None of them are noticeably more elite than Avengers. They're equipped and trained for different things, not equipped and trained better. And of course, none of them are biologically different to the same degree as that between a human and an Astartes.
Conscripts/Chaff: Guard Conscripts, Gretchin, Kroot, Cultists, Guardians, Necron Warriors etc.
Troopers: Imperial Guardsmen, Sororitas, Scions, Fire Warrior Breachers/Strikers, Dire Avengers, Immortals etc.
Elite Infantry: Astartes, Crisis Suits, Aspect Warriors, Praetorians, Destroyers, etc.
Super Elite Infantry: Custodes
Hang on, Dire Avengers are just as elite as the other Aspect Warriors are in the lore. They may be more numerous, but that's closer to the relationship between a Tacmarine/Inceptor and more specialized marines, than that between a guardsman and an Astartes.
They are closer to Scions actually. While they are impressive for Eldar, they are more generalists and more numerous than the other Aspects tended to be. Scions are elite in the Guard, but compared to the Astartes, they were closer to Troopers.
Nor was this statement directed at you. This was correcting a false image of what the Necron Warrior was in 3e that Insectum7 keeps pushing. By making these corrections, I am countering the "vastly better" image that Insectum7 is presenting who only focuses on a couple points while ignoring what the Tactical Marine Squad brought to the table.
Again, where is Insectum7 saying "vastly? That's you misrepresenting his argument. He and I were saying they were "slightly" better.
"Vastly" was actually your addition to the conversation when you accused me of a perspective I never stated.
Hecaton wrote:The Tac Marine "flexibility" wasn't such a big deal; there was a reason people took minimum squads of tacs with maxed special weapons back then.
Actually it quite is. Flamers, Frag Missiles, and Heavy Bolters could generate more hits, Plasma Guns would ignore their armor, and Meltaguns, Krak Missiles and Lascannons would cause WBB to not trigger as well as ignore armor. These are important considerations. Meanwhile the Necron Warrios could only plink at the Tacticals like they were firing Bolters.
Not to mention, you had to kill every last Astartes to beat them. Necrons were in danger of Phase Out if they reached a 75% casualty rate (and you had to ignore units like C'tan, Pariahs, Swarms, Monoliths, and Spyders).
Hecaton wrote:All your talk about tiers is meaningless and is just circular reasoning on your part.
Either because you cannot understand it or cannot refute it, so you just demean it. It is my perspective on it.
The Warriors points were reduced and their Armor Save was reduced. WBB was changed to RP, which was successful on a higher number, so base durability was reduced, but not considerably.
A 3+ save reduced to a 4+ Save during the 3-7th AP paradigm is considerable. Durability was in fact the only change to Warriors, and they dropped from 18 points to 13 points. So again, the designers appear to disagree with your assessment, as do I.
They also lost the auto-wound on Gauss (irrelevant against Tacticals), upgrade option for Vehicle Gauss in Melee, and the Phase Out rule. They gained the only access to the Ghost Ark as a Dedicated Transport which also repaired them improving their durability. For 5th, they gained access to the Royal Court, effectively giving them access to a "sergeant" with a Resurrection Orb (sadly, this was somewhat lost in 7th, but they had the Decurion for that to compensate).
Again, the point value of a model is a limitation, especially when a factor like Phase Out is taken in to consideration.
Insectum7 wrote:10 Bolter hits to Warriors in 3rd: (10x.5x.333x.5) = 0.83 (3+ save, 4+WBB)
10 Bolter hits to Warriors post 5th: (10x.5x.5x.666) = 1.665 (4+ save, 5+ RP) Warriors took DOUBLE the casualties against Bolters.
3 HB to hits Warriors in 3rd: (3x.666x.333x.5) = 0.33
3 HB to hits Warriors post 5th: (3x.666x.666) = 1.333 Warriors took FOUR TIMES the casualties against Heavy Bolters.
The quantitative evidence says "considerably".
This quantitative evidence also ignores what they gained, too, which I listed above. Aside from Kill Teams, when was it ever so simple?
Insectum7 wrote:Either way I'm done with this part of the conversation about Warriors. You're bending over backwards to try to make a point that is both not even there, and irrelevant in the face of the broader argument.
Says the person who focused only on points for a time, ignored the flexibility of the Tactical Squad, ignored what Warriors gained at the same time they lost, as well as ignored when I agreed with them that the current paradigm has swung too far in favor of the Marines. Who is doing the most bending backwards here?
I chose to focus on points because even if they are a bit sloppy, they still function as a representation of aggregate model worth. Both the 3rd ed and 5th Ed Necron books have supporting elements that can be brought to bear on the Warriors, so Ghost Arks etc. are pretty much a wash. It's also unrelated to my point, which is about base individual models. Arguably, your point about Phase Out works in my favor, since without Phase out, the 18ppm for Warriors would be higher. Phase Out was introduced because Necrons were designed as OP. Having the capability to field a large army of models who were as resilient as a marine, who then got back up on a 4+ is really, really, powerful.
Providing quantitative evidence is not "bending over backwards", it's rather the opposite.
If you want to go ahead and attempt to make a strong quantitative argument, be my guest. Until then I just going to claim victory for this one, as I think most reasonable people will see my point.
Actually it quite is. Flamers, Frag Missiles, and Heavy Bolters could generate more hits, Plasma Guns would ignore their armor, and Meltaguns, Krak Missiles and Lascannons would cause WBB to not trigger as well as ignore armor. These are important considerations. Meanwhile the Necron Warrios could only plink at the Tacticals like they were firing Bolters.
Not to mention, you had to kill every last Astartes to beat them. Necrons were in danger of Phase Out if they reached a 75% casualty rate (and you had to ignore units like C'tan, Pariahs, Swarms, Monoliths, and Spyders).
I don't see any quantitative considerations there, and moreover, we saw plenty of "5 tacticals in a razorback" back then. You and I both know that. So this is just you stating some nebulous things that don't really support your point.
Either because you cannot understand it or cannot refute it, so you just demean it. It is my perspective on it.
There's nothing there to refute. When Necrons were originally presented, their foot soldier-level troops were more elite than Astartes. I find this thematically pleasing. If you don't, that's fine, but you're trying to act like it's an objective good for that not to be the case.
Charistoph wrote: Again, the point value of a model is a limitation, especially when a factor like Phase Out is taken in to consideration.
This is backwards logic. If GW saw them as higher points cost than tacticals, GW saw them as more valuable.
Says the person who focused only on points for a time, ignored the flexibility of the Tactical Squad, ignored what Warriors gained at the same time they lost, as well as ignored when I agreed with them that the current paradigm has swung too far in favor of the Marines. Who is doing the most bending backwards here?
It's definitely you, considering you have to lie to attempt to make your points.
First is the Military Tier. In this I am looking at the entry in respect to its military hierarchy and has no bearing on its effectiveness of the same tier of another army, and for the Marines that is taking in to consideration the entirety of the Imperium of Man, unlike almost every other codex out there. Keep in mind that this a LORE perspective. So with that in mind we'd be looking at:
Conscripts/Chaff: Guard Conscripts, Gretchin, Kroot, Cultists, Guardians, Necron Warriors etc. Troopers: Imperial Guardsmen, Sororitas, Scions, Fire Warrior Breachers/Strikers, Dire Avengers, Immortals etc. Elite Infantry: Astartes, Crisis Suits, Aspect Warriors, Praetorians, Destroyers, etc. Super Elite Infantry: Custodes
Nobody is going to point this out? really? Ok, guess I will.
Guard Conscripts: Considered over priced at....5ppm. Grotz: ARE massively over priced at 5ppm Kroot: considered over priced at 6ppm Cultists: are considered over priced at 6ppm Guardians: considered over priced at 8ppm
And now Necron Warriors: 13ppm.
One of these things is not like the others. You are comparing garbage units that are almost universally over priced and are, with the exception of the Guardians, less than 1/2 the price of a Necron Warrior.
Ironically you didn't mention Ork boyz in your Tier 2 but even they are 8ppm, Nobz are 17ppm and are probably closer to Necron Warriors at 13ppm as far as dmg potential/durability.
So I get it, you want to label Necron Warriors as "chaff" but you are attempting to rationalize a position based on your perception of the fluff as opposed to A: How they function in the game B: How they actually are written in the fluff (Not just bolter XXX books) and C: their historical place in the game.
Besides the mary sue SM books where a handful of marines can destroy an entire WAAAGH or defeat an Eldar craftworld etc, (exaggeration for effect) the necron fluff puts warriors at an even match for a SM. In the game they historically have been a match for a SM. IE they were more durable and better at ranged combat, but tended to die when you got them in CC. But come on dude, stop trying to put them in the same category as a fething Grot! who last edition was priced at 3ppm and even than was considered over priced for what little it was able to do barring the 1 bullet shield stratagem.
Bear in mind that resilience is one of the key characteristics of Necrons as a whole, so when Marines are allowed to exceed that anyway it feels like yet another Xeno trait has been usurped by Marines.
It is no different than if Tactical Marines suddenly became more durable than Plague Marines. It just feels fundamentally wrong.
I don't know what you are talking about. Orkz boyz are renowned as good CC units and Point for point will always slaughter Marines. Case and point, 80pts of boyz is 10 boyz, and 80pts of Intercessors is 4 intercessors. Those 10 boyz get 30 attacks, and those puny Marines only get 12. Orkz get 20 hits, Intercessors 8. Orkz get 10 wounds, Intercessors 4.
We're not talking point to point, but individual to individual. You can water down units as much as you like and they'll still be effective if they're cheap enough. Case in point, Orks now kill Marines at half the rate since they're 2W now. And I'm remembering 10 Slugga Boys being able to average more than a single MEQ kill back in the day.
Let's see, from memory I get (30×.5×.333x.5= 2.49), so two and a half 1W Marines dead (with charge it'd be 40 attacks for 3.3). The Marines only had 1 Attack apiece, their guns were worse and couldn't Rapid Fire on the move. (3rd edition). I can't check the points now, but I'll be happy ro in the morning.
I showed point to point to make it an even contest. You want to compare model for model?
In 7th an Ork had 4 attacks on the charge, in CC that was 2.66 hits and 1.33 wound for .443 dmg to a SM. That single SM swinging back would do 1 attack .66 hits, .33 wounds for .275 dmg.
So model for model an ork was BETTER than Tac Marine and was more likely to beat a single marine in close combat than the Marine was to beat him in close combat.
Since than the Ork has gone UP in points 33% while gaining basically 1 strength (flat 4 as opposed to 4 on the charge) and DDD while also losing movement and furious assault special rule.. Comparatively, that SM has gone up in price from 13pts to I think its 18pts now or about 27.7% increase in price. They also gained, doctrines, super doctrines, 1 wound bolter discipline, shock assault and i'm probably forgetting some other stuff. I'm not going to count chapter tactics since Orkz got that as well in the form of "Kulture".
So now the math is 1 ork on the charge gets 3 attacks for 2 hits, 1 wound and .33dmg to a Space Marine, that single space marine gets 2 attacks, 1.33 hits, .554dmg to that Ork. they both get to shoot pistols in CC now...guess who does better here? and then swing again, which ends with that 1 marine likely not losing a single wound but being able to take out 2 Orkz on average.
So in prior editions 1 ork was better than 1 Marine in CC, 3 orkz would generate 1.32 dmg, 23 orkz would kill a full Tac squad of Marines in 1 turn. To guarantee 1 dead Marine in CC now though, those orkz need roughly 6 Orkz instead of overkilling with 3, and to wipe out that same tactical squad? Ohh boy. you need 45 boyz, split into 2 squads of over 20. And if either squad drops below 20 you can't do it
So the point was that Ork boyz shtick was that they were garbage at range but were deadly in CC. Now they are just as garbage at range (1 shot with DDD has a 16.6% chance to generate a 33% chance to hit with 50% chance to wound and 33% chance to do dmg. Or another way to put it 0.92% ) and are now significantly less deadly in CC vs that same target. While at the same time those Marines are now significantly more deadly at range, are literally twice as durable AND doubled their # of attacks in the 1st round of combat.
And lets not even get started on Intercessors who are 2pts more expensive, have better guns and are 2 attacks base 3 on the charge.
Bear in mind that resilience is one of the key characteristics of Necrons as a whole, so when Marines are allowed to exceed that anyway it feels like yet another Xeno trait has been usurped by Marines.
It is no different than if Tactical Marines suddenly became more durable than Plague Marines. It just feels fundamentally wrong.
I don't know what you are talking about. Orkz boyz are renowned as good CC units and Point for point will always slaughter Marines. Case and point, 80pts of boyz is 10 boyz, and 80pts of Intercessors is 4 intercessors. Those 10 boyz get 30 attacks, and those puny Marines only get 12. Orkz get 20 hits, Intercessors 8. Orkz get 10 wounds, Intercessors 4.
We're not talking point to point, but individual to individual. You can water down units as much as you like and they'll still be effective if they're cheap enough. Case in point, Orks now kill Marines at half the rate since they're 2W now. And I'm remembering 10 Slugga Boys being able to average more than a single MEQ kill back in the day.
Let's see, from memory I get (30×.5×.333x.5= 2.49), so two and a half 1W Marines dead (with charge it'd be 40 attacks for 3.3). The Marines only had 1 Attack apiece, their guns were worse and couldn't Rapid Fire on the move. (3rd edition). I can't check the points now, but I'll be happy ro in the morning.
I showed point to point to make it an even contest. You want to compare model for model?
In 7th an Ork had 4 attacks on the charge, in CC that was 2.66 hits and 1.33 wound for .443 dmg to a SM. That single SM swinging back would do 1 attack .66 hits, .33 wounds for .275 dmg.
So model for model an ork was BETTER than Tac Marine and was more likely to beat a single marine in close combat than the Marine was to beat him in close combat.
Since than the Ork has gone UP in points 33% while gaining basically 1 strength (flat 4 as opposed to 4 on the charge) and DDD while also losing movement and furious assault special rule.. Comparatively, that SM has gone up in price from 13pts to I think its 18pts now or about 27.7% increase in price. They also gained, doctrines, super doctrines, 1 wound bolter discipline, shock assault and i'm probably forgetting some other stuff. I'm not going to count chapter tactics since Orkz got that as well in the form of "Kulture".
So now the math is 1 ork on the charge gets 3 attacks for 2 hits, 1 wound and .33dmg to a Space Marine, that single space marine gets 2 attacks, 1.33 hits, .554dmg to that Ork. they both get to shoot pistols in CC now...guess who does better here? and then swing again, which ends with that 1 marine likely not losing a single wound but being able to take out 2 Orkz on average.
So in prior editions 1 ork was better than 1 Marine in CC, 3 orkz would generate 1.32 dmg, 23 orkz would kill a full Tac squad of Marines in 1 turn. To guarantee 1 dead Marine in CC now though, those orkz need roughly 6 Orkz instead of overkilling with 3, and to wipe out that same tactical squad? Ohh boy. you need 45 boyz, split into 2 squads of over 20. And if either squad drops below 20 you can't do it
So the point was that Ork boyz shtick was that they were garbage at range but were deadly in CC. Now they are just as garbage at range (1 shot with DDD has a 16.6% chance to generate a 33% chance to hit with 50% chance to wound and 33% chance to do dmg. Or another way to put it 0.92% ) and are now significantly less deadly in CC vs that same target. While at the same time those Marines are now significantly more deadly at range, are literally twice as durable AND doubled their # of attacks in the 1st round of combat.
And lets not even get started on Intercessors who are 2pts more expensive, have better guns and are 2 attacks base 3 on the charge.
What a great world we live in, eh!
I'm going to be looking at the Xenos codexes very critically as 9th progresses. Things like Genestealers better get some mean upgrades to combat the 2W Marine paradigm we've got going on. Genestealers who used to easily tear through Terminators are bouncing off Marines as it stands.
I found the points for a 3rd ed Slugga Boy btw. 9ppm. So 10 Orks bought you 6 Tactical Marines. They would fight simultaneously (They had an initiative of 4 on a successful Waagh test, which was a 2D6 roll against the number of models in the unit.) to Marines, killing 3 Marines while losing one of their own. It's downhill for the Marines from there.
So imagine that, 10 Orks killing three Marines in a round of combat, putting the Marines at a huge disadvantage for the rest of the fight. And that was in a world where if a Marine moved, he couldn't fire his Bolter twice, or even once beyond 12".
Insectum7 wrote:Either way I'm done with this part of the conversation about Warriors. You're bending over backwards to try to make a point that is both not even there, and irrelevant in the face of the broader argument.
Says the person who focused only on points for a time, ignored the flexibility of the Tactical Squad, ignored what Warriors gained at the same time they lost, as well as ignored when I agreed with them that the current paradigm has swung too far in favor of the Marines. Who is doing the most bending backwards here?
I chose to focus on points because even if they are a bit sloppy, they still function as a representation of aggregate model worth. Both the 3rd ed and 5th Ed Necron books have supporting elements that can be brought to bear on the Warriors, so Ghost Arks etc. are pretty much a wash. It's also unrelated to my point, which is about base individual models. Arguably, your point about Phase Out works in my favor, since without Phase out, the 18ppm for Warriors would be higher. Phase Out was introduced because Necrons were designed as OP. Having the capability to field a large army of models who were as resilient as a marine, who then got back up on a 4+ is really, really, powerful.
Providing quantitative evidence is not "bending over backwards", it's rather the opposite.
If you want to go ahead and attempt to make a strong quantitative argument, be my guest. Until then I just going to claim victory for this one, as I think most reasonable people will see my point.
Which when I bring in quantitative evidence, you claim it is bending over backwards". I didn't know that including a "Sergeant" and Dedicated Transport that was a standard take in normal FOCs is "bending over backwards".
The point values in an army, especially back in 3rd, was based on consideration of the army as a whole using the FOC, not just a Kill Team or a Combat Patrol, meanwhile your analysis is solely based on ignoring the rest of the army and expecting to go in to a Kill Team or Combat Patrol in that edition. We didn't see anything close to unique values for one on one until the recent Kill Team series of books was released.
Actually it quite is. Flamers, Frag Missiles, and Heavy Bolters could generate more hits, Plasma Guns would ignore their armor, and Meltaguns, Krak Missiles and Lascannons would cause WBB to not trigger as well as ignore armor. These are important considerations. Meanwhile the Necron Warrios could only plink at the Tacticals like they were firing Bolters.
Not to mention, you had to kill every last Astartes to beat them. Necrons were in danger of Phase Out if they reached a 75% casualty rate (and you had to ignore units like C'tan, Pariahs, Swarms, Monoliths, and Spyders).
I don't see any quantitative considerations there, and moreover, we saw plenty of "5 tacticals in a razorback" back then. You and I both know that. So this is just you stating some nebulous things that don't really support your point.
Hilarious that you think that we should only consider base values then ignore what considerations those base values bring, but when I bring up trying to equalize the points, you call it "nebulous".
Either because you cannot understand it or cannot refute it, so you just demean it. It is my perspective on it.
There's nothing there to refute. When Necrons were originally presented, their foot soldier-level troops were more elite than Astartes. I find this thematically pleasing. If you don't, that's fine, but you're trying to act like it's an objective good for that not to be the case.
Don't complain about others misrepresenting, and then proceed to do so yourself. They initially cost more, they weren't more elite. But that doesn't change the fact that this was the most basic trooper of the Necron army, and Marines are far from being the most basic trooper of the Imperium. Sure, on a galactic scale, and even on a game scale, they were close to even, and that's a good thing. It demonstrates the power of the Necron army that their cheapest, most throw away troops were standing toe-to-toe with the Tactical Marine instead of being absolutely dominated by them like Grots, Kroot, or Guardians. The Necorns START at the elite Marine's level instead of catching up to it like the other armies in 40K do. Or at least they used to before these latest codices.
Hecaton wrote:
Charistoph wrote: Again, the point value of a model is a limitation, especially when a factor like Phase Out is taken in to consideration.
This is backwards logic. If GW saw them as higher points cost than tacticals, GW saw them as more valuable.
It's only backwards if you don't actually take the steps to consider it.
Necron Warriors were the cheapest and most plentiful Necron model, period. Two units required with four more being able to be bought, minimum of 10 to a maximum of 20, allowing 120 Warriors maximum in an FOC. Flayed Ones were the same cost, but were limited to 10 and were Elites, so no more than 3 squads, with 30 total in an FOC. Every other model in the Necron army cost more, couldn't beat Flayed Ones in size, or weren't Necrons (Pariahs, Scarabs, C'tan, Spyders, and Monoliths didn't count).
120 3rd Ed Warriors was 2160 points. If they were priced as Tacticals, it would be 1800 points. A usual list saw at least 2 units of Warriors at 20 models each, though some reduced the size and spread them across several more units to bring more Warriors. That's 720 if they don't take Disruption Fields, at 15 points, that's 600. That's half the cost of a Monolith in difference, and almost a minimum squad of Immortals, or 8 more Warriors in difference.
The Phase out rule was a key lose condition for Necrons. The cheaper Warriors were, the harder it was to reach that Phase Out point. The pricing of Warriors had this in mind because pricing was made with taking the entire FOC in mind, not just one unit comparing them to each other. The cheaper the Warriors, the more you can take. The more Warriors you take the more your opponent has to kill to trigger Phase Out. What evidence can you provide to counter this?
This quantitative evidence also ignores what they gained, too, which I listed above/
So show us some math that backs up your point.
The "Sergeant" Lord can provide a Resurrection Orb which changed RP from a 5+ to a 4+, which changes those numbers Insectum used. The Ghost Ark can bring back d3 Warriors a turn to a unit, so what RP loses, the GA can bring back.
Says the person who focused only on points for a time, ignored the flexibility of the Tactical Squad, ignored what Warriors gained at the same time they lost, as well as ignored when I agreed with them that the current paradigm has swung too far in favor of the Marines. Who is doing the most bending backwards here?
It's definitely you, considering you have to lie to attempt to make your points.
Where was the lie in that statement before "bending backwards"?
First is the Military Tier. In this I am looking at the entry in respect to its military hierarchy and has no bearing on its effectiveness of the same tier of another army, and for the Marines that is taking in to consideration the entirety of the Imperium of Man, unlike almost every other codex out there. Keep in mind that this a LORE perspective. So with that in mind we'd be looking at:
Conscripts/Chaff: Guard Conscripts, Gretchin, Kroot, Cultists, Guardians, Necron Warriors etc.
Troopers: Imperial Guardsmen, Sororitas, Scions, Fire Warrior Breachers/Strikers, Dire Avengers, Immortals etc.
Elite Infantry: Astartes, Crisis Suits, Aspect Warriors, Praetorians, Destroyers, etc.
Super Elite Infantry: Custodes
Nobody is going to point this out? really? Ok, guess I will.
Guard Conscripts: Considered over priced at....5ppm.
Grotz: ARE massively over priced at 5ppm
Kroot: considered over priced at 6ppm
Cultists: are considered over priced at 6ppm
Guardians: considered over priced at 8ppm
And now Necron Warriors: 13ppm.
One of these things is not like the others. You are comparing garbage units that are almost universally over priced and are, with the exception of the Guardians, less than 1/2 the price of a Necron Warrior.
Ironically you didn't mention Ork boyz in your Tier 2 but even they are 8ppm, Nobz are 17ppm and are probably closer to Necron Warriors at 13ppm as far as dmg potential/durability.
And thus my point is proven about some people not understanding some of the perspectives. The list provided above was an internal list of the individual armies, not a list comparing the units to each other. In this case, points of other armies mean nothing. For this list, Immortals are only being considered where they are in relation to Necron Warriors and Praetorians, not where they are in relation to Marines or Eldar. I pretty much stated this in the introductory paragraph (now colored green).
The moment you start stating that Necron Warriors aren't the same level as Grots because Grots are cheaper, you have lost the point of this specific tier list. For comparing units of other armies to each other, that is the Galactic Scale, where points matter a little more, but not as much as stats and Special Rules.
SemperMortis wrote:So I get it, you want to label Necron Warriors as "chaff" but you are attempting to rationalize a position based on your perception of the fluff as opposed to
A: How they function in the game
B: How they actually are written in the fluff (Not just bolter XXX books)
and C: their historical place in the game.
Because that is how Necron Warriors are listed in the lore since 5th Edition. The professional soldiers of the Necrontyr were converted to Immortals. The civilians and unprofessional soldiers were converted in to Warriors. They are literally the conscripts of the Necron army by definition.
Because how they function in relation to other armies in the game or in the fluff meant nothing in this tier. It is only looking at how they function in their army alone. To which, the Warriors are the most numerous and cheapest of the Necron army, both in unit size and by being Troops. If you have a better example, please point out an Infantry Troop unit of the Necron army which can be taken for cheaper. provide the same number of bases or more in a single unit, and provide more units overall in a Patrol Detachment.
SemperMortis wrote:Besides the mary sue SM books where a handful of marines can destroy an entire WAAAGH or defeat an Eldar craftworld etc, (exaggeration for effect) the necron fluff puts warriors at an even match for a SM. In the game they historically have been a match for a SM. IE they were more durable and better at ranged combat, but tended to die when you got them in CC. But come on dude, stop trying to put them in the same category as a fething Grot! who last edition was priced at 3ppm and even than was considered over priced for what little it was able to do barring the 1 bullet shield stratagem.
Maybe you should read more instead of going off half-cocked. On a galactic scale, if Tactical Astartes were a C Tier unit (in a universe where a Greater Daemon or C'tan Shard would be S or SS tier), Necron Warriors would be in that tier (maybe on the lower end, but still there), while Grots would be on the E or F Tier.
Which when I bring in quantitative evidence, you claim it is bending over backwards". I didn't know that including a "Sergeant" and Dedicated Transport that was a standard take in normal FOCs is "bending over backwards".
The point values in an army, especially back in 3rd, was based on consideration of the army as a whole using the FOC, not just a Kill Team or a Combat Patrol, meanwhile your analysis is solely based on ignoring the rest of the army and expecting to go in to a Kill Team or Combat Patrol in that edition. We didn't see anything close to unique values for one on one until the recent Kill Team series of books was released.
And how, quantitatively, does that prove you right and us wrong? It doesn't.
Interesting that you excluded what I was quoting...
Only because I want to laser in on where you were wrong. You used the words "vastly superior" to misrepresent other people's arguments, and you can't even refute what I'm saying except to try to obfuscate the issue.
Hilarious that you think that we should only consider base values then ignore what considerations those base values bring, but when I bring up trying to equalize the points, you call it "nebulous".
Equalizing the points would imply that the Astartes are beating Necrons with strength of numbers, which would mean I was right.
Charistoph wrote: Don't complain about others misrepresenting, and then proceed to do so yourself. They initially cost more, they weren't more elite.
T5, 2+ save, and a field that gives everyone -1 to hit them? That's pretty damn elite. That's unequivocally more elite than Astartes.
Charistoph wrote: But that doesn't change the fact that this was the most basic trooper of the Necron army, and Marines are far from being the most basic trooper of the Imperium. Sure, on a galactic scale, and even on a game scale, they were close to even, and that's a good thing. It demonstrates the power of the Necron army that their cheapest, most throw away troops were standing toe-to-toe with the Tactical Marine instead of being absolutely dominated by them like Grots, Kroot, or Guardians. The Necorns START at the elite Marine's level instead of catching up to it like the other armies in 40K do. Or at least they used to before these latest codices.
The most basic trooper of the Necron army is a Scarab.
It's only backwards if you don't actually take the steps to consider it.
No, that's how it works. Again, you're using circular logic.
Charistoph wrote: Necron Warriors were the cheapest and most plentiful Necron model, period. Two units required with four more being able to be bought, minimum of 10 to a maximum of 20, allowing 120 Warriors maximum in an FOC. Flayed Ones were the same cost, but were limited to 10 and were Elites, so no more than 3 squads, with 30 total in an FOC. Every other model in the Necron army cost more, couldn't beat Flayed Ones in size, or weren't Necrons (Pariahs, Scarabs, C'tan, Spyders, and Monoliths didn't count).
No, Scarabs do count. It's insulting to think that you think I'd fall for that kind of linguistic sleight of hand.
Charistoph wrote: 120 3rd Ed Warriors was 2160 points. If they were priced as Tacticals, it would be 1800 points. A usual list saw at least 2 units of Warriors at 20 models each, though some reduced the size and spread them across several more units to bring more Warriors. That's 720 if they don't take Disruption Fields, at 15 points, that's 600. That's half the cost of a Monolith in difference, and almost a minimum squad of Immortals, or 8 more Warriors in difference.
The Phase out rule was a key lose condition for Necrons. The cheaper Warriors were, the harder it was to reach that Phase Out point. The pricing of Warriors had this in mind because pricing was made with taking the entire FOC in mind, not just one unit comparing them to each other. The cheaper the Warriors, the more you can take. The more Warriors you take the more your opponent has to kill to trigger Phase Out. What evidence can you provide to counter this?
You haven't actually provided any strong evidence here that Necron warriors were overcosted specifically because of Phase Out. Moreover, in basically all situations in 3e, a basic Necron warrior was as good or better than a marine in terms of attack power and durability, making their increased point cost justified on the level of power alone.
The "Sergeant" Lord can provide a Resurrection Orb which changed RP from a 5+ to a 4+, which changes those numbers Insectum used. The Ghost Ark can bring back d3 Warriors a turn to a unit, so what RP loses, the GA can bring back.
Where was the lie in that statement before "bending backwards"?
Like when you said that we stated that Necron Warriors were vastly superior to Astartes, or when you said that Astartes could beat Necron Warriors through strength of numbers, and therefore they're more elite.
The moment you start stating that Necron Warriors aren't the same level as Grots because Grots are cheaper, you have lost the point of this specific tier list. For comparing units of other armies to each other, that is the Galactic Scale, where points matter a little more, but not as much as stats and Special Rules.
No, he's shown that this "specific tier list" is not actually based on any meaningful criteria. Grots in an Ork army are more analogous to Scarabs in the Necron army; you don't want to admit that, because it shows you're full of gak, but it's true.
Because that is how Necron Warriors are listed in the lore since 5th Edition. The professional soldiers of the Necrontyr were converted to Immortals. The civilians and unprofessional soldiers were converted in to Warriors. They are literally the conscripts of the Necron army by definition.
And through the power of Necron science, they're a higher-tier unit than Astartes in many of their incarnations. Let's not forget that many Astartes are conscripted into their chapters, too.
Charistoph wrote: Because how they function in relation to other armies in the game or in the fluff meant nothing in this tier. It is only looking at how they function in their army alone. To which, the Warriors are the most numerous and cheapest of the Necron army, both in unit size and by being Troops. If you have a better example, please point out an Infantry Troop unit of the Necron army which can be taken for cheaper. provide the same number of bases or more in a single unit, and provide more units overall in a Patrol Detachment.
Considering Scarabs have more units per base, it's clear that you're trying to lie to prove your point.
Void__Dragon wrote: What a great world to live in, where Marines are finally as elite as they should be.
Maybe Astartes are where they should be in relation to Guardsmen, but everything else is out of wack.
Some things are, but Necron warriors? No, they're about right.
Mmmm... Nope, they aren't right either. Unless you're taking your cues from Bolter-porn.
In which case, please keep it out of this game, it doesn't belong.
Void__Dragon wrote: What a great world to live in, where Marines are finally as elite as they should be.
Maybe Astartes are where they should be in relation to Guardsmen, but everything else is out of wack.
Some things are, but Necron warriors? No, they're about right.
Mmmm... Nope, they aren't right either. Unless you're taking your cues from Bolter-porn.
In which case, please keep it out of this game, it doesn't belong.
Sorry the Necrons aren't a mary sue faction with a militia chaff troop numbering in the trillions that is individually better than a Space Marine.
Void__Dragon wrote: What a great world to live in, where Marines are finally as elite as they should be.
Maybe Astartes are where they should be in relation to Guardsmen, but everything else is out of wack.
Some things are, but Necron warriors? No, they're about right.
Mmmm... Nope, they aren't right either. Unless you're taking your cues from Bolter-porn.
In which case, please keep it out of this game, it doesn't belong.
Sorry the Necrons aren't a mary sue faction with a militia chaff troop numbering in the trillions that is individually better than a Space Marine.
Oh wait no I'm not, that's laughably stupid.
You're absolutely correct. Having Mary Sue factions is laughably stupid.
And you are supporting Marines being such because...?
That said, let's change your strawman into a slightly different statement:
Sorry the Necrons aren't a faction with a militia troop numbering in the trillions that is individually better than a Space Marine with no special equipment.
This was part of the original appeal and horror of the Necrons, subdued by the fact that those trillions were still mostly asleep. This was part of what made it grimdark. Throwing this away for your bolter-porn fantasies is, to again borrow a phrase, laughably stupid.
Which when I bring in quantitative evidence, you claim it is bending over backwards". I didn't know that including a "Sergeant" and Dedicated Transport that was a standard take in normal FOCs is "bending over backwards".
The point values in an army, especially back in 3rd, was based on consideration of the army as a whole using the FOC, not just a Kill Team or a Combat Patrol, meanwhile your analysis is solely based on ignoring the rest of the army and expecting to go in to a Kill Team or Combat Patrol in that edition. We didn't see anything close to unique values for one on one until the recent Kill Team series of books was released.
And how, quantitatively, does that prove you right and us wrong? It doesn't.
How so? Anything else other than, "Nuh Uh, YOU'RE wrong!"?
Interesting that you excluded what I was quoting...
Only because I want to laser in on where you were wrong. You used the words "vastly superior" to misrepresent other people's arguments, and you can't even refute what I'm saying except to try to obfuscate the issue.
Actually I used the phrase "vastly superior" because that is the phrase YOU used in describing what I was saying, which is why the quote is important. But apparently you didn't catch that.
Hilarious that you think that we should only consider base values then ignore what considerations those base values bring, but when I bring up trying to equalize the points, you call it "nebulous".
Equalizing the points would imply that the Astartes are beating Necrons with strength of numbers, which would mean I was right.
Not quite. By using some steps to equalize those points through the flexibility that the Tacticals have, I can negate some of those advantages. I didn't even change the difference in numbers. And even as it is, this narrow view still ignores how everything works as an army.
Charistoph wrote: But that doesn't change the fact that this was the most basic trooper of the Necron army, and Marines are far from being the most basic trooper of the Imperium. Sure, on a galactic scale, and even on a game scale, they were close to even, and that's a good thing. It demonstrates the power of the Necron army that their cheapest, most throw away troops were standing toe-to-toe with the Tactical Marine instead of being absolutely dominated by them like Grots, Kroot, or Guardians. The Necorns START at the elite Marine's level instead of catching up to it like the other armies in 40K do. Or at least they used to before these latest codices.
The most basic trooper of the Necron army is a Scarab.
Scarabs are animalistic automatons that operate in swarms. Swarms are not Troopers, and are part of the Fast Attack group of the Necron Army. Rippers are closer to being basic Trooper because at least they've been in the Troops slot, but still aren't because they aren't Infantry.
Charistoph wrote: Necron Warriors were the cheapest and most plentiful Necron model, period. Two units required with four more being able to be bought, minimum of 10 to a maximum of 20, allowing 120 Warriors maximum in an FOC. Flayed Ones were the same cost, but were limited to 10 and were Elites, so no more than 3 squads, with 30 total in an FOC. Every other model in the Necron army cost more, couldn't beat Flayed Ones in size, or weren't Necrons (Pariahs, Scarabs, C'tan, Spyders, and Monoliths didn't count).
No, Scarabs do count. It's insulting to think that you think I'd fall for that kind of linguistic sleight of hand.
No linguistic sleight of hand at all. They are specifically stated as being ignored in the rule. Here:
Necron 3rd Edition wrote:PHASE OUT
If a Necron army is reduced to 25% or less of its original number of models..., it will disappear in an eerie fashion, leaving behind nothing of its presence. This gives an automatic victory to the enemy, regardless of the victory conditions of the scenario being played....Remember that you can only count models with the Necron special ability, so C'tan, Pariahs, Scarab swarms, Monoliths and Tomb Sypders do not contribute to the total number of Necrons in the army or to the current number of casualties. However when Phase Out occurs, the whole Necron army, including models without the Necron ability, phases out.
Highlighted in cyan for those who like to skip over important details, and examples were elipsed out for brevity.
Charistoph wrote: 120 3rd Ed Warriors was 2160 points. If they were priced as Tacticals, it would be 1800 points. A usual list saw at least 2 units of Warriors at 20 models each, though some reduced the size and spread them across several more units to bring more Warriors. That's 720 if they don't take Disruption Fields, at 15 points, that's 600. That's half the cost of a Monolith in difference, and almost a minimum squad of Immortals, or 8 more Warriors in difference.
The Phase out rule was a key lose condition for Necrons. The cheaper Warriors were, the harder it was to reach that Phase Out point. The pricing of Warriors had this in mind because pricing was made with taking the entire FOC in mind, not just one unit comparing them to each other. The cheaper the Warriors, the more you can take. The more Warriors you take the more your opponent has to kill to trigger Phase Out. What evidence can you provide to counter this?
You haven't actually provided any strong evidence here that Necron warriors were overcosted specifically because of Phase Out. Moreover, in basically all situations in 3e, a basic Necron warrior was as good or better than a marine in terms of attack power and durability, making their increased point cost justified on the level of power alone.
I never said they were overcosted. That is putting words in my mouth again. I said that they were priced with Phase Out in mind.
Nor were Necron Warriors as good or better than a Marine in terms of attack power, though they were in durability. If left to basic weapons, sure, but expecting a Marine Squad to just come with just Bolters is pure folly.
Lascannons, Missile Launchers, and Meltaguns were far more capable at killing Vehicles in 3rd Edition than Flayers because they could actually Penetrate most of the Vehicles (Land Raiders and Monoliths could be a problem, though). In order to have that same hitting power, one had to look at Heavy Destroyers or the Monolith.
Flamers and Heavy Bolters were far more effective against horde units like Boyz, Gants, and Gaunts because of their greater capacity at generating hits. In 3rd Edition, Rapid Fire weapons only shot once, period. They didn't get double tap till later. For Necrons to match that firepower, you're looking at base Destroyers, a Lord, or a Monolith.
The "Sergeant" Lord can provide a Resurrection Orb which changed RP from a 5+ to a 4+, which changes those numbers Insectum used. The Ghost Ark can bring back d3 Warriors a turn to a unit, so what RP loses, the GA can bring back.
And why does that support your argument?
If you can't figure out how improving the Reanimation Protocols in every Warrior Squad as well as having their own transport bringing models back every turn improves their durability, then you really don't understand what you're talking about.
Where was the lie in that statement before "bending backwards"?
Like when you said that we stated that Necron Warriors were vastly superior to Astartes, or when you said that Astartes could beat Necron Warriors through strength of numbers, and therefore they're more elite.
Here is another case of misrepresentation helped by deleting what I was quoting. Actually try reading what that statement was quoting for context, because nothing you said actually applies.
Charistoph wrote: The moment you start stating that Necron Warriors aren't the same level as Grots because Grots are cheaper, you have lost the point of this specific tier list. For comparing units of other armies to each other, that is the Galactic Scale, where points matter a little more, but not as much as stats and Special Rules.
No, he's shown that this "specific tier list" is not actually based on any meaningful criteria. Grots in an Ork army are more analogous to Scarabs in the Necron army; you don't want to admit that, because it shows you're full of gak, but it's true.
You're still wrong on two cases.
Scarabs are not Infantry nor have ever been Troops prior to 8th Edition, while Grots have always been Infantry and always been Troops, or do you prefer the kit's name of Gretchin? Maybe you're confusing Fantasy's Snotlings (who are Swarms) with Grots (who are closer to Goblins).
If Gretchin are not the cheapest and most numerous Infantry unit available in the Orks army, what is? You haven't provided a replacement in this. Keep in mind, the Boyz would be the Troopers in this case.
Because that is how Necron Warriors are listed in the lore since 5th Edition. The professional soldiers of the Necrontyr were converted to Immortals. The civilians and unprofessional soldiers were converted in to Warriors. They are literally the conscripts of the Necron army by definition.
And through the power of Necron science, they're a higher-tier unit than Astartes in many of their incarnations. Let's not forget that many Astartes are conscripted into their chapters, too.
In regards to conscription, it really depends on the Chapter. Most are volunteers who have fought as part of the locals fighters.
No matter the source, Astartes are also professionally trained to an extremely high caliber in relation to the rest of Humanity, given the best gear Humanity has to offer (for those not guarding the Golden Throne or dedicated to hunting Daemons), while Necron Warriors are given the bare minimum for a Trooper.
Charistoph wrote: Because how they function in relation to other armies in the game or in the fluff meant nothing in this tier. It is only looking at how they function in their army alone. To which, the Warriors are the most numerous and cheapest of the Necron army, both in unit size and by being Troops. If you have a better example, please point out an Infantry Troop unit of the Necron army which can be taken for cheaper. provide the same number of bases or more in a single unit, and provide more units overall in a Patrol Detachment.
Considering Scarabs have more units per base, it's clear that you're trying to lie to prove your point.
More Wounds per base, not more units per base (that's a contradiction in terms), and even then, they are fewer max bases per unit (9-10, depending on Edition, vs Warriors' 20). Scarabs are not Infantry, are not Troops, and have always been Fast Attack. A Patrol Detachment doesn't get a lot of Fast Attack slots, nor did the standard FOC of 3rd-5th Ed.
You don't seem to be reading very well. Try rereading what I say and apply the context of what I quote to it. It might actually help you understand it better instead of going half cocked on what you think I'm saying.
Void__Dragon wrote:Sorry the Necrons aren't a mary sue faction with a militia chaff troop numbering in the trillions that is individually better than a Space Marine.
Oh wait no I'm not, that's laughably stupid.
Sadly, this statement may describe half of the thread.
Though, we really don't know how many Necrontyr were converted to Warriors, but as many as there were saw enough losses that even the Silent King decided to put his whole culture to sleep for millions of years so that they would have an easier time conquering the galaxy... Woops.
Actually I used the phrase "vastly superior" because that is the phrase YOU used in describing what I was saying, which is why the quote is important. But apparently you didn't catch that.
No. You were the first one to use that phrase, and if you could quote me saying it from earlier in the thread you would. But you can't, so you won't, you'll just lie about it.
Not quite. By using some steps to equalize those points through the flexibility that the Tacticals have, I can negate some of those advantages. I didn't even change the difference in numbers. And even as it is, this narrow view still ignores how everything works as an army.
Scarabs are animalistic automatons that operate in swarms. Swarms are not Troopers, and are part of the Fast Attack group of the Necron Army. Rippers are closer to being basic Trooper because at least they've been in the Troops slot, but still aren't because they aren't Infantry.
And Scouts are currently in the Astartes "Elites" slot, but they're the least elite troop that that faction has to offer. Sorry, you're wrong; Scarabs are the "chaff" of the Necron army.
I never said they were overcosted. That is putting words in my mouth again. I said that they were priced with Phase Out in mind.
And do you have any evidence that the extra points *aren't* because of WBB? I don't think you do. So when you say they were priced with Phase Out in mind, it's bs.
Charistoph wrote: Nor were Necron Warriors as good or better than a Marine in terms of attack power, though they were in durability. If left to basic weapons, sure, but expecting a Marine Squad to just come with just Bolters is pure folly.
Special weapons have their own points costs distinct from basic Astartes/Necron point costs, and aren't part of this discussion.
Charistoph wrote: Lascannons, Missile Launchers, and Meltaguns were far more capable at killing Vehicles in 3rd Edition than Flayers because they could actually Penetrate most of the Vehicles (Land Raiders and Monoliths could be a problem, though). In order to have that same hitting power, one had to look at Heavy Destroyers or the Monolith.
Flamers and Heavy Bolters were far more effective against horde units like Boyz, Gants, and Gaunts because of their greater capacity at generating hits. In 3rd Edition, Rapid Fire weapons only shot once, period. They didn't get double tap till later. For Necrons to match that firepower, you're looking at base Destroyers, a Lord, or a Monolith.
Again, those have their own points costs, and aren't reflected in a basic Astartes.
If you can't figure out how improving the Reanimation Protocols in every Warrior Squad as well as having their own transport bringing models back every turn improves their durability, then you really don't understand what you're talking about.
Why would that be relevant? You're saying a bunch of things, some of which are true, and some of which are lies on your part, but you can't relate them back to any sort of coherent point (mainly because the point you're trying to argue is incorrect.)
Here is another case of misrepresentation helped by deleting what I was quoting. Actually try reading what that statement was quoting for context, because nothing you said actually applies.
Nope, I had the context right, and you know that, otherwise you'd actually be able to explain where I went wrong instead of lying more and going "nuh-uh!"
Scarabs are not Infantry nor have ever been Troops prior to 8th Edition,
Neither of those factors are relevant.
Charistoph wrote: while Grots have always been Infantry and always been Troops, or do you prefer the kit's name of Gretchin? Maybe you're confusing Fantasy's Snotlings (who are Swarms) with Grots (who are closer to Goblins).
If Gretchin are not the cheapest and most numerous Infantry unit available in the Orks army, what is? You haven't provided a replacement in this. Keep in mind, the Boyz would be the Troopers in this case.
Why would them being Infantry matter? You're moving goalposts to try to make your arguments correct, but I'm not the kind of idiot who would fall for that.
In regards to conscription, it really depends on the Chapter. Most are volunteers who have fought as part of the locals fighters.
Citation needed on that one.
Charistoph wrote: No matter the source, Astartes are also professionally trained to an extremely high caliber in relation to the rest of Humanity, given the best gear Humanity has to offer (for those not guarding the Golden Throne or dedicated to hunting Daemons), while Necron Warriors are given the bare minimum for a Trooper.
And that gear, as they were initially portrayed, is of a higher quality than what Astartes have. Moreover, their morale is high, and their accuracy and skill in melee is the equal of Astartes. So their relative position within their own faction doesn't really matter; the point is, they were better than an Astartes one for one, and should have remained so, in my estimation.
More Wounds per base, not more units per base (that's a contradiction in terms), and even then, they are fewer max bases per unit (9-10, depending on Edition, vs Warriors' 20). Scarabs are not Infantry, are not Troops, and have always been Fast Attack. A Patrol Detachment doesn't get a lot of Fast Attack slots, nor did the standard FOC of 3rd-5th Ed.
You don't seem to be reading very well. Try rereading what I say and apply the context of what I quote to it. It might actually help you understand it better instead of going half cocked on what you think I'm saying.
REMOVED - RULE #1 PLEASE. You keep bringing up intra-faction comparisons, when that's not relevant. It doesn't matter what position a Necron Warrior occupies in the Necron hierarchy- only its comparison to an Astartes. The Astartes are elite, sure, but they're the elite of a backwards anti-science society, no wonder they'd be outclassed by Necrons... Removed.
I really don't understand what the problems with powerful Space Marines are.
They are supposed to be a pre-Imperium genetically engineered elite force capable of creating the Imperium of Man in record time and then be a pillar in keeping it together for like 10 000 years.
So I don't mind if they also work like it in the rules.
Gurkhal wrote: I really don't understand what the problems with powerful Space Marines are.
They are supposed to be a pre-Imperium genetically engineered elite force capable of creating the Imperium of Man in record time and then be a pillar in keeping it together for like 10 000 years.
So I don't mind if they also work like it in the rules.
Having powerful Space Marines isn't the problem. The problem is that the Space Marines of other factions (Aspect warriors, Necron Warriors etc.) aren't as powerful on the tabletop when they should be fluffwize.
Gurkhal wrote: I really don't understand what the problems with powerful Space Marines are.
They are supposed to be a pre-Imperium genetically engineered elite force capable of creating the Imperium of Man in record time and then be a pillar in keeping it together for like 10 000 years.
So I don't mind if they also work like it in the rules.
Having powerful Space Marines isn't the problem. The problem is that the Space Marines of other factions (Aspect warriors, Necron Warriors etc.) aren't as powerful on the tabletop when they should be fluffwize.
Then allow me to extend my desire for other such powerful fighters to be modelled, relatively, accurately in the rules.
Gurkhal wrote: I really don't understand what the problems with powerful Space Marines are.
They are supposed to be a pre-Imperium genetically engineered elite force capable of creating the Imperium of Man in record time and then be a pillar in keeping it together for like 10 000 years.
So I don't mind if they also work like it in the rules.
The central question was how they match up to things like Bloodletters and Necron Warriors, not IG.
I think Necrons is a tough one as they were taken in a new direction as the faction was fleshed out. A marine should be above average at all things (when compared to a guardsman being average), but the likes of Aspect Warriors, Daemons etc should be better at some things.
Dai wrote: I think Necrons is a tough one as they were taken in a new direction as the faction was fleshed out. A marine should be above average at all things (when compared to a guardsman being average), but the likes of Aspect Warriors, Daemons etc should be better at some things.
4 4 4 4 4 1 4 1 8
4 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 7
Sure. Problems arise when a Space Marine shoots like a Firewarrior, hits like a Banshee and is as durable as Necron Warrior.
The game is written now so that Space Marines are supposed to be the best at everything and everyone else is a horde army for them to kill in large numbers to make Space Marine players feel powerful. The game is a Space Marine power fantasy now. Weird choice but you can see that a lot of people like it in this thread and in other threads on the background forum and so on. For some reason they also kinda can't admit that this is what they like though.
Dai wrote: I think Necrons is a tough one as they were taken in a new direction as the faction was fleshed out. A marine should be above average at all things (when compared to a guardsman being average), but the likes of Aspect Warriors, Daemons etc should be better at some things.
4 4 4 4 4 1 4 1 8
4 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 7
This sounds very reasonable. I like the idea that in general there are plenty of stuff that are stronger than Space Marines at their specific thing but the marines are stronger than these guys in the fields that are not their specific thing.
The way I see it the Space Marines should probably not be the best in anything, but second best in everything. Thus a Howling Banishee hits better in melee but the Marine can take more of a beating and shoots better. A Tau may shooter better but the Marine is tougher and better at melee and so on. Kind of like excellent at everything, except numbers, but masters of nothing except that they can take a ton of damage and not get swept away by a single lucky roll, for the most part.
And mind you, Marine armies should probably be fairly small. More like strike forces than entire companies. But this is very much just my opinion.
*****
I wonder if some of the problem has to do with the limited diversification of stats? It seems to me that with stats ranging from 1-10, except Wounds, then its difficult to fine tune differences between models that are kind of similar but not quite at level. You either end up with them having the same stats or one being notably better or worse than the other.
I don't have a good solution to this but it is something which I've noticed.
Dai wrote: I think Necrons is a tough one as they were taken in a new direction as the faction was fleshed out. A marine should be above average at all things (when compared to a guardsman being average), but the likes of Aspect Warriors, Daemons etc should be better at some things.
4 4 4 4 4 1 4 1 8
4 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 7
This sounds very reasonable. I like the idea that in general there are plenty of stuff that are stronger than Space Marines at their specific thing but the marines are stronger than these guys in the fields that are not their specific thing.
The way I see it the Space Marines should probably not be the best in anything, but second best in everything. Thus a Howling Banishee hits better in melee but the Marine can take more of a beating and shoots better. A Tau may shooter better but the Marine is tougher and better at melee and so on. Kind of like excellent at everything, except numbers, but masters of nothing except that they can take a ton of damage and not get swept away by a single lucky roll, for the most part.
And mind you, Marine armies should probably be fairly small. More like strike forces than entire companies. But this is very much just my opinion.
*****
I wonder if some of the problem has to do with the limited diversification of stats? It seems to me that with stats ranging from 1-10, except Wounds, then its difficult to fine tune differences between models that are kind of similar but not quite at level. You either end up with them having the same stats or one being notably better or worse than the other.
I don't have a good solution to this but it is something which I've noticed.
The lack of diversification in stats certainly is something. After all, for base troops, most of them tend to be 3 or 4 (ws, bs, s, t). Add to that that marines have a 4 for everything, and a lack of desire to move further on the scale (like giving shooting aspect warriors a bs of 5 or melee ones a ws of 5) you have a very limited scale indeed. It's not even a 1-10 scale because for most stats, 1 and 2 practically don't exist, and above 4 tends to be a territory beyond normal infantry although it still exists. So yes, stats offer very little in the way of differentiation.
Add to that that specialists of other races are basically only allowed to go up to the Marine Limit (beyond that is mostly the territory of heroes and the like) it means that marines will always be better unless their adversaries somehow have better equipment.
Charistoph wrote: But that doesn't change the fact that this was the most basic trooper of the Necron army, and Marines are far from being the most basic trooper of the Imperium. Sure, on a galactic scale, and even on a game scale, they were close to even, and that's a good thing. It demonstrates the power of the Necron army that their cheapest, most throw away troops were standing toe-to-toe with the Tactical Marine instead of being absolutely dominated by them like Grots, Kroot, or Guardians. The Necorns START at the elite Marine's level instead of catching up to it like the other armies in 40K do. Or at least they used to before these latest codices.
The most basic trooper of the Necron army is a Scarab.
Oh god you're being serious?
By that logic, the most basic trooper of the Space Marine army is either a Scout or a Servitor. But, that's clearly ridiculous, as well as the idea that the Scarab, what is essentially a worker drone, is the "basic trooper".
If you were trying to make a point, you just lost all respect I might have had for it.
Charistoph wrote: Necron Warriors were the cheapest and most plentiful Necron model, period. Two units required with four more being able to be bought, minimum of 10 to a maximum of 20, allowing 120 Warriors maximum in an FOC. Flayed Ones were the same cost, but were limited to 10 and were Elites, so no more than 3 squads, with 30 total in an FOC. Every other model in the Necron army cost more, couldn't beat Flayed Ones in size, or weren't Necrons (Pariahs, Scarabs, C'tan, Spyders, and Monoliths didn't count).
No, Scarabs do count. It's insulting to think that you think I'd fall for that kind of linguistic sleight of hand.
There's no sleight of hand. You're just crying foul because you don't have a response.
There's no shame in that, but it's kind of embarrassing seeing you call foul over reasonable logic.
The moment you start stating that Necron Warriors aren't the same level as Grots because Grots are cheaper, you have lost the point of this specific tier list. For comparing units of other armies to each other, that is the Galactic Scale, where points matter a little more, but not as much as stats and Special Rules.
No, he's shown that this "specific tier list" is not actually based on any meaningful criteria. Grots in an Ork army are more analogous to Scarabs in the Necron army; you don't want to admit that, because it shows you're full of gak, but it's true.
They're really not. Scarabs are literally used as drones and assistants. *Snotlings* might be, but snotlings aren't fielded on the battlefield. Gretchin aren't snotlings. Gretchin literally *are* chaff units.
Scarabs are the same thing that Servitors are - non-combatant forces present on the battlefield used in a combat situation. This is not the same as the chaff/conscript tier, which are poorly trained units who's primary goal is combat.
Insectum7 wrote:Either way I'm done with this part of the conversation about Warriors. You're bending over backwards to try to make a point that is both not even there, and irrelevant in the face of the broader argument.
Says the person who focused only on points for a time, ignored the flexibility of the Tactical Squad, ignored what Warriors gained at the same time they lost, as well as ignored when I agreed with them that the current paradigm has swung too far in favor of the Marines. Who is doing the most bending backwards here?
I chose to focus on points because even if they are a bit sloppy, they still function as a representation of aggregate model worth. Both the 3rd ed and 5th Ed Necron books have supporting elements that can be brought to bear on the Warriors, so Ghost Arks etc. are pretty much a wash. It's also unrelated to my point, which is about base individual models. Arguably, your point about Phase Out works in my favor, since without Phase out, the 18ppm for Warriors would be higher. Phase Out was introduced because Necrons were designed as OP. Having the capability to field a large army of models who were as resilient as a marine, who then got back up on a 4+ is really, really, powerful.
Providing quantitative evidence is not "bending over backwards", it's rather the opposite.
If you want to go ahead and attempt to make a strong quantitative argument, be my guest. Until then I just going to claim victory for this one, as I think most reasonable people will see my point.
Which when I bring in quantitative evidence, you claim it is bending over backwards". I didn't know that including a "Sergeant" and Dedicated Transport that was a standard take in normal FOCs is "bending over backwards".
The point values in an army, especially back in 3rd, was based on consideration of the army as a whole using the FOC, not just a Kill Team or a Combat Patrol, meanwhile your analysis is solely based on ignoring the rest of the army and expecting to go in to a Kill Team or Combat Patrol in that edition. We didn't see anything close to unique values for one on one until the recent Kill Team series of books was released.
I don't recall seeing any quantitative evidence.
@"Sergeant" etc. If you have to spend additional points on support units to meet a units prior capability, that means the unit has degraded.
@points: context matters for points, yes. But when a unit gets reduced in ppm by 30%, and their base durability takes a huge hit, the correspondence is pretty effin clear.
By that logic, the most basic trooper of the Space Marine army is either a Scout or a Servitor. But, that's clearly ridiculous, as well as the idea that the Scarab, what is essentially a worker drone, is the "basic trooper".
If you were trying to make a point, you just lost all respect I might have had for it.
Depends on what you mean my "most basic" - in the sense of "least elite," sure.
Removed - Rule #1 please
Sgt_Smudge wrote: There's no sleight of hand. You're just crying foul because you don't have a response.
There's no shame in that, but it's kind of embarrassing seeing you call foul over reasonable logic.
It's not reasonable logic - scarabs are just excluded because they'd prove these Charistoph's arguments wrong, for no particular reason.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: They're really not. Scarabs are literally used as drones and assistants. *Snotlings* might be, but snotlings aren't fielded on the battlefield. Gretchin aren't snotlings. Gretchin literally *are* chaff units.
Scarabs are the same thing that Servitors are - non-combatant forces present on the battlefield used in a combat situation. This is not the same as the chaff/conscript tier, which are poorly trained units who's primary goal is combat.
Given that Necron Warriors are BS and WS 4/3+, you can't really describe them as "poorly trained" so they don't fall into the chaff territory either. The closest thing Necrons have are Scarabs, which are so numerous and weak that they are represented multiples to a base like rippers or snotlings.
Insectum7 wrote:So if Scouts arent "chaff", and Scarabs aren't "chaff". . . Why do Warriors need to be "chaff" if Tacticals aren't "chaff"?
Why do armies need "chaff"? And "chaff" or not, why do they have to be worse than Space Marines?
Edit: and I still think it's arguable that Scarabs are the chaff of Necrons, but it's really beside the point.
Because I think you're misunderstanding what the point being made in that particular example was.
I believe what is being discussed is the internal status of those units within their faction (faction being IoM, in the context of this) - not at all how they related to their gameplay utility.
Necron Warriors *are* chaff conscripted troops *in regards to their own standing in the Necron army* because that's what their lore paints them as. That doesn't necessarily make them inferior. I'm personally undecided on where I stand on the matter of Warriors strength relative to Astartes, but I am seeing some dishonest arguments all the same.
Do armies need chaff? No, they don't, I'm not sure where anyone said that was the case. But in the Necrons' own lore, they *are* conscripted chaff troops. Does that make them inferior? Not necessarily, which I think is what people are getting hung up on. They can be "chaff" and also powerful.
Again, as I just said - I'm not weighing in on where I think Warriors should be on the power scale, because I'm still undecided myself, but I will attempt to clear up what I see as a misrepresentation of an argument.
By that logic, the most basic trooper of the Space Marine army is either a Scout or a Servitor. But, that's clearly ridiculous, as well as the idea that the Scarab, what is essentially a worker drone, is the "basic trooper".
If you were trying to make a point, you just lost all respect I might have had for it.
Depends on what you mean my "most basic" - in the sense of "least elite," sure.
By that logic then, Servitors are the most basic Space Marine unit. Perhaps that lens might need adjusting.
Removed - Rule #1 please
Sgt_Smudge wrote: There's no sleight of hand. You're just crying foul because you don't have a response.
There's no shame in that, but it's kind of embarrassing seeing you call foul over reasonable logic.
It's not reasonable logic - scarabs are just excluded because they'd prove these Charistoph's arguments wrong, for no particular reason.
Why are you ignoring Servitors then? Scarab aren't included because they simply aren't what's being judged.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: They're really not. Scarabs are literally used as drones and assistants. *Snotlings* might be, but snotlings aren't fielded on the battlefield. Gretchin aren't snotlings. Gretchin literally *are* chaff units.
Scarabs are the same thing that Servitors are - non-combatant forces present on the battlefield used in a combat situation. This is not the same as the chaff/conscript tier, which are poorly trained units who's primary goal is combat.
Given that Necron Warriors are BS and WS 4/3+, you can't really describe them as "poorly trained" so they don't fall into the chaff territory either. The closest thing Necrons have are Scarabs, which are so numerous and weak that they are represented multiples to a base like rippers or snotlings.
Yet again, you're missing the point. This classification isn't about relative similarity in profile. It's about *how they are described within their faction*.
A scarab is a construction tool. The warrior is a press-ganged conscript. They are, by the Necron standard, poorly trained, but that doesn't mean that's the same standard as everyone else. You're complaining about how the comparison is rubbish because you don't understand how this particular comparison is being conducted. You're getting hung up on "chaff" needing to be of the same level, when it's the case here that what different factions class their chaff as are at different tiers.
So, the chaff of one faction might be closer to the trooper tier of a different faction, for example.
Go back, read it again, and maybe you'll get somewhere.
We don't have to "whistle." The game has changed in this way, to its detriment.
In the words of The Dude, "that's just like, uh, your opinion".
Bringing out the "we've been around longer" card just reeks of falling back on false authority when you can't come up with an argument that stands on it's own merit. Just a little warning for how that comes across, aye?
Again, just to make clear - not weighing in on where I think the power swings, but just pointing out some pretty sketchy misinterpretations of a point.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Because I think you're misunderstanding what the point being made in that particular example was.
I believe what is being discussed is the internal status of those units within their faction (faction being IoM, in the context of this) - not at all how they related to their gameplay utility.
Necron Warriors *are* chaff conscripted troops *in regards to their own standing in the Necron army* because that's what their lore paints them as. That doesn't necessarily make them inferior. I'm personally undecided on where I stand on the matter of Warriors strength relative to Astartes, but I am seeing some dishonest arguments all the same.
Do armies need chaff? No, they don't, I'm not sure where anyone said that was the case. But in the Necrons' own lore, they *are* conscripted chaff troops. Does that make them inferior? Not necessarily, which I think is what people are getting hung up on. They can be "chaff" and also powerful.
Again, as I just said - I'm not weighing in on where I think Warriors should be on the power scale, because I'm still undecided myself, but I will attempt to clear up what I see as a misrepresentation of an argument.
Necron warriors are not "chaff" because the Necrons devote significant resources to repairing them and in fact historically have just up and left if they lose too many of them. They're the foot soldiers, sure, but they treat them with much more care than the Imperium does theirs.
The other thing is that argument towards how a faction, internally, treats its troops have no bearing on the overall argument of the thread, which is a cross-faction comparison. If you think that that directly relates, you're wrong, but people have been presenting that as an argument for why Astartes should be superior to everyone else's units.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: By that logic then, Servitors are the most basic Space Marine unit. Perhaps that lens might need adjusting.
In a certain sense, they are, which is exactly why the criteria created is meaningless.
There's no shame in that, but it's kind of embarrassing seeing you call foul over reasonable logic.
Nah, I'm pointing out how the meaningless bleating of "Necrons are chaff units and therefore should be less powerful than Tactical Marines" has both incorrect premises and wouldn't follow from those premises even if it was true.
But I'm guessing logic isn't your strong suit.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Why are you ignoring Servitors then? Scarab aren't included because they simply aren't what's being judged.
I'm not ignoring servitors. My argument never involved them. I agree, they are pretty much the "most expendable" thing in the Astartes list, even if, depending on the edition, they might actually be more dangerous than a scout due to having an industrial power fist.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Scarabs are the same thing that Servitors are - non-combatant forces present on the battlefield used in a combat situation. This is not the same as the chaff/conscript tier, which are poorly trained units who's primary goal is combat.
Neither of those are non-combatant. Servitors are sometimes support personnel, sometimes have weaponry of their own, and Scarabs' perform a specialized rule on the battlefield.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Yet again, you're missing the point. This classification isn't about relative similarity in profile. It's about *how they are described within their faction*.
First of all, they're not described as chaff within their faction. Find me a passage that describes Necrons as being as careless about their troopers as the Imperial Guard is about the average guardsman (spoilers: you can't). Second, the basic Necron Warrior has comparable "training" to the elite units of other factions. Third, the comparison made by the thread was comparing Necron Warriors to things outside of their faction, so even if they were "chaff" that wouldn't be relevant to the argument.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: A scarab is a construction tool. The warrior is a press-ganged conscript. They are, by the Necron standard, poorly trained, but that doesn't mean that's the same standard as everyone else. You're complaining about how the comparison is rubbish because you don't understand how this particular comparison is being conducted. You're getting hung up on "chaff" needing to be of the same level, when it's the case here that what different factions class their chaff as are at different tiers.
I understand the comparison perfectly, and I've already explained how it doesn't make a good argument.
As I mentioned above, "chaff" doesn't have to be of the same level, but Necrons aren't chaff. Fire Warriors aren't chaff, because the Tau are not as disregarding of sentient life as the Imperium.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Go back, read it again, and maybe you'll get somewhere.
Nah, again, I read it, and I understand the arguments being made better than the people making them, which is honestly kind of sad.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: In the words of The Dude, "that's just like, uh, your opinion".
Bringing out the "we've been around longer" card just reeks of falling back on false authority when you can't come up with an argument that stands on it's own merit. Just a little warning for how that comes across, aye?
Yeah, it is my opinion, but there's good narrative reasons why Astartes shouldn't be portrayed as effortlessly overcoming all threats they encounter (including spiky Astartes). I'm guessing that would ruin the power fantasy for you, though.
And it isn't false authority when it's generally understood that 40k has lost some of its spark over the years.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Again, just to make clear - not weighing in on where I think the power swings, but just pointing out some pretty sketchy misinterpretations of a point.
And you've failed at that, considering that you think that the Astartes power fantasy is more important than having a good game or a good story.
Well as a Necron player I do view Scarabs as our version of chaff, in the absence of anything better. We use them to screen and to eat smites, amongst other things
Do I wish they were cheaper or we had even crappier units to use as chaff? Yes, but you gotta work with what you have
Insectum7 wrote:So if Scouts arent "chaff", and Scarabs aren't "chaff". . . Why do Warriors need to be "chaff" if Tacticals aren't "chaff"?
Why do armies need "chaff"? And "chaff" or not, why do they have to be worse than Space Marines?
Edit: and I still think it's arguable that Scarabs are the chaff of Necrons, but it's really beside the point.
Because I think you're misunderstanding what the point being made in that particular example was.
I believe what is being discussed is the internal status of those units within their faction (faction being IoM, in the context of this) - not at all how they related to their gameplay utility.
Necron Warriors *are* chaff conscripted troops *in regards to their own standing in the Necron army* because that's what their lore paints them as. That doesn't necessarily make them inferior. I'm personally undecided on where I stand on the matter of Warriors strength relative to Astartes, but I am seeing some dishonest arguments all the same.
Do armies need chaff? No, they don't, I'm not sure where anyone said that was the case. But in the Necrons' own lore, they *are* conscripted chaff troops. Does that make them inferior? Not necessarily, which I think is what people are getting hung up on. They can be "chaff" and also powerful.
Again, as I just said - I'm not weighing in on where I think Warriors should be on the power scale, because I'm still undecided myself, but I will attempt to clear up what I see as a misrepresentation of an argument.
Well like I said, either way it's beside the point, since chaff or not there's no reason they need to be lesser troops than marines.
Not quite. By using some steps to equalize those points through the flexibility that the Tacticals have, I can negate some of those advantages. I didn't even change the difference in numbers. And even as it is, this narrow view still ignores how everything works as an army.
Talk in specifics here.
I have several times, you've ignored them. Go back and read if you really want to know.
Scarabs are animalistic automatons that operate in swarms. Swarms are not Troopers, and are part of the Fast Attack group of the Necron Army. Rippers are closer to being basic Trooper because at least they've been in the Troops slot, but still aren't because they aren't Infantry.
And Scouts are currently in the Astartes "Elites" slot, but they're the least elite troop that that faction has to offer. Sorry, you're wrong; Scarabs are the "chaff" of the Necron army.
Scouts have been Troops. Scouts are and always have been Infantry.
Scarabs have never been Infantry, nor have they ever been Troops. You have yet to counter this. For quite a time the Swarms couldn't do anything with Objectives. In 3rd Ed, it was literally a rule for the Scarab Swarms in their entry.
They can be used as chaff, since they provide Wounds on the cheap, but their Swarms still can't provide more bases than a Warrior unit, and require a specialty Detachment to provide more units.
No linguistic sleight of hand at all. They are specifically stated as being ignored in the rule
Whether or not they're affected by that rule has nothing to do with whether they're more or less elite than Necrons.
The point of the paragraphs were referencing how to provide the most models to prevent Phase Out. You have misrepresented me again here because you didn't take time to read.
I never said they were overcosted. That is putting words in my mouth again. I said that they were priced with Phase Out in mind.
And do you have any evidence that the extra points *aren't* because of WBB? I don't think you do. So when you say they were priced with Phase Out in mind, it's bs.
I never excluded WBB, either. Again, misrepresenting by trying to counter something I did not say.
It's not like they had a protocol for determining the base cost of units back then. I find it quite probable that they tested it (as "scientific" as their testing is) and found at certain point costs Warriors made it too hard to Phase Out the army, so they raised the points. I doubt they ever just took 10 Necron Warriors against 10 Barebone Tacticals and based their points on the result in those days like you insist we do here now.
Hecaton wrote:
Charistoph wrote: Nor were Necron Warriors as good or better than a Marine in terms of attack power, though they were in durability. If left to basic weapons, sure, but expecting a Marine Squad to just come with just Bolters is pure folly.
Special weapons have their own points costs distinct from basic Astartes/Necron point costs, and aren't part of this discussion.
No, YOU don't want them as part of this discussion because it counters your points, especially when it was rarer than hen's teeth for a Tactical Marine Squad to NOT have Weapon upgrades. The idea is as ridiculous as not having a 3rd Ed Necron Lord with a Reanimation Orb.
Hecaton wrote:
Charistoph wrote: Lascannons, Missile Launchers, and Meltaguns were far more capable at killing Vehicles in 3rd Edition than Flayers because they could actually Penetrate most of the Vehicles (Land Raiders and Monoliths could be a problem, though). In order to have that same hitting power, one had to look at Heavy Destroyers or the Monolith.
Flamers and Heavy Bolters were far more effective against horde units like Boyz, Gants, and Gaunts because of their greater capacity at generating hits. In 3rd Edition, Rapid Fire weapons only shot once, period. They didn't get double tap till later. For Necrons to match that firepower, you're looking at base Destroyers, a Lord, or a Monolith.
Again, those have their own points costs, and aren't reflected in a basic Astartes.
Then provide sufficient evidence that bare bones Tactical were a valid way to run them to make it a focus of the discussion. Currently the only time I see Marines doing that is in 30K/Horus Heresy where they literally don't have the option.
If you can't figure out how improving the Reanimation Protocols in every Warrior Squad as well as having their own transport bringing models back every turn improves their durability, then you really don't understand what you're talking about.
Why would that be relevant? You're saying a bunch of things, some of which are true, and some of which are lies on your part, but you can't relate them back to any sort of coherent point (mainly because the point you're trying to argue is incorrect.)
So you don't know what you're talking about.
It's a discussion about durability. How they achieved that durability changed, and aside from the Armour Save, is roughly the same, if not improved due to the ease of access to the Ghost Ark as opposed to the Monolith.
Scarabs are not Infantry nor have ever been Troops prior to 8th Edition,
Neither of those factors are relevant.
Considering those are exactly the standards I presented and have been using and you ignored, I would consider them relevant.
Hecaton wrote:
Charistoph wrote: while Grots have always been Infantry and always been Troops, or do you prefer the kit's name of Gretchin? Maybe you're confusing Fantasy's Snotlings (who are Swarms) with Grots (who are closer to Goblins).
If Gretchin are not the cheapest and most numerous Infantry unit available in the Orks army, what is? You haven't provided a replacement in this. Keep in mind, the Boyz would be the Troopers in this case.
Why would them being Infantry matter? You're moving goalposts to try to make your arguments correct, but I'm not the kind of idiot who would fall for that.
Actually I've used the same goal posts the entire time. You just didn't understand why the goal posts were there in the first place and want them moved to satisfy you.
Why would being Infantry matter? Infantry could board transports. In some Editions, only Infantry could take Objectives while Swarms were denied. Swarms are animalistic groups as opposed to individuals. There is no point in including Scarabs in this discussion because they are not Infantry like the Tactical Marine, the Guard Conscript, the Gretchin, the Boyz, the Guardians, the Dire Avengers, etc.
In regards to conscription, it really depends on the Chapter. Most are volunteers who have fought as part of the locals fighters.
Citation needed on that one.
Cite where they are all conscripts first.
Hecaton wrote:
Charistoph wrote: No matter the source, Astartes are also professionally trained to an extremely high caliber in relation to the rest of Humanity, given the best gear Humanity has to offer (for those not guarding the Golden Throne or dedicated to hunting Daemons), while Necron Warriors are given the bare minimum for a Trooper.
And that gear, as they were initially portrayed, is of a higher quality than what Astartes have. Moreover, their morale is high, and their accuracy and skill in melee is the equal of Astartes. So their relative position within their own faction doesn't really matter; the point is, they were better than an Astartes one for one, and should have remained so, in my estimation.
Their basic gun is barely higher quality than what Astartes had as a basic firearm, it really depended on targets. Astartes could equip upgrades that were better at certain jobs to compensate, though.
The morale of Necron Warriors is literally nothing. This has always been the case. Their Leadership was better, though, that's true.
Necron Warriors could hit things in melee as skillfully as an Astartes, but their low Initiative meant they were a little less skilled and more easily Swept, actually, nor do they have access to Frag Grenades to compensate for Charging in to Cover. There is a reason that trying to Sweep them was a standard tactic for a very long time.
Necron Warriors being the cheap Conscript of the Necron Army is actually part of the point that you continue to ignore, though. If they are close to the Tactical Marine (either slightly above or slightly below), but they are still the weakest Infantry unit of the Necron Army, then that should indicate how much more powerful on the Galactic Scale the units of the Necrons should be above everyone else. I've said this repeatedly at this point, but no, you assume I need the Marines to be the most powerful evah.
More Wounds per base, not more units per base (that's a contradiction in terms), and even then, they are fewer max bases per unit (9-10, depending on Edition, vs Warriors' 20). Scarabs are not Infantry, are not Troops, and have always been Fast Attack. A Patrol Detachment doesn't get a lot of Fast Attack slots, nor did the standard FOC of 3rd-5th Ed.
You don't seem to be reading very well. Try rereading what I say and apply the context of what I quote to it. It might actually help you understand it better instead of going half cocked on what you think I'm saying.
You keep bringing up intra-faction comparisons, when that's not relevant. It doesn't matter what position a Necron Warrior occupies in the Necron hierarchy- only its comparison to an Astartes. The Astartes are elite, sure, but they're the elite of a backwards anti-science society, no wonder they'd be outclassed by Necrons.
Again, misrepresenting what I have said because you want to make your point. For the second time in this response, and I don't know how many times I have said it before, the importance of recognizing that the Necron Warrior is at the same status in the Necron Army as the Conscript is to the Imperium of Man, yet be able to go toe to toe with the mighty Astartes, is to demonstrate just how powerful the Necron army as a whole should be. Even if Warriors weren't upgraded this codex in response to the upgrades the Marines got, the rest of the Necron army should have had the same appropriate upgrades in turn to compensate. As it is, Warriors should have received an upgrade as well.
Cynista wrote:Well as a Necron player I do view Scarabs as our version of chaff, in the absence of anything better. We use them to screen and to eat smites, amongst other things
Do I wish they were cheaper or we had even crappier units to use as chaff? Yes, but you gotta work with what you have
Well, yeah, you can use them as chaff, especially since their rules have went all over the place from codex to codex. It got easier after Phase Out was no longer a problem, though.
Still they couldn't provide the number of bases for Phase Out protection with the 3rd Ed Codex, have never been Troops, and couldn't touch Objectives for some time.
Insectum7 wrote:Well like I said, either way it's beside the point, since chaff or not there's no reason they need to be lesser troops than marines.
They can, so long as the difference isn't to any large degree, and so long as Immortals are at least as much better over Tacticals as Tacticals are over the Necron Warriors. Either way, in terms of both game and lore power, it should be obvious to put them in the same tier ranking when comparing all the armies together. I don't think that has really held since the Primaris were launched, and has only gotten worse with these latest codices.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Because I think you're misunderstanding what the point being made in that particular example was.
I believe what is being discussed is the internal status of those units within their faction (faction being IoM, in the context of this) - not at all how they related to their gameplay utility.
Necron Warriors *are* chaff conscripted troops *in regards to their own standing in the Necron army* because that's what their lore paints them as. That doesn't necessarily make them inferior. I'm personally undecided on where I stand on the matter of Warriors strength relative to Astartes, but I am seeing some dishonest arguments all the same.
Do armies need chaff? No, they don't, I'm not sure where anyone said that was the case. But in the Necrons' own lore, they *are* conscripted chaff troops. Does that make them inferior? Not necessarily, which I think is what people are getting hung up on. They can be "chaff" and also powerful.
Again, as I just said - I'm not weighing in on where I think Warriors should be on the power scale, because I'm still undecided myself, but I will attempt to clear up what I see as a misrepresentation of an argument.
Necron warriors are not "chaff" because the Necrons devote significant resources to repairing them and in fact historically have just up and left if they lose too many of them. They're the foot soldiers, sure, but they treat them with much more care than the Imperium does theirs.
Significant resources? I'm not sure they "devote" resources so much as "they can, so they do" when it comes to repair.
Regarding their Phase Out, that never felt like a "compassion" thing, and actually far more as just tactical decision on the behalf of the Overlord.
I wouldn't say they're treated with more care. Both Imperial and Necron commanders throw their conscripts and warriors in fairly heedlessly - it's just that Necron chaff is just much better.
The other thing is that argument towards how a faction, internally, treats its troops have no bearing on the overall argument of the thread, which is a cross-faction comparison. If you think that that directly relates, you're wrong, but people have been presenting that as an argument for why Astartes should be superior to everyone else's units.
Perhaps not, but it would be helpful if you actually were talking about what that argument *is*, instead of erecting your own misinterpretation of what it is.
As I said, I'm not decided on where I fall, but misrepresenting arguments ain't on.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: By that logic then, Servitors are the most basic Space Marine unit. Perhaps that lens might need adjusting.
In a certain sense, they are, which is exactly why the criteria created is meaningless.
Except they're not, because Servitors aren't used in a chaff function in the Space Marine army, which renders your definition of "chaff" somewhat flawed.
Chaff isn't just "weakest unit". It's "relatively untrained unit used to soak bullets". Scarabs don't fit this, as they're not sent into battle as bullet sponges - they *were* deployed as vehicle shredders and armour busters and menial labourers, in a similar way to Servitors. But Conscripts and Warriors? They do.
Chaff isn't a consistent tier. It's a tier within the faction.
There's no shame in that, but it's kind of embarrassing seeing you call foul over reasonable logic.
Nah, I'm pointing out how the meaningless bleating of "Necrons are chaff units and therefore should be less powerful than Tactical Marines" has both incorrect premises and wouldn't follow from those premises even if it was true.
I don't think anyone was claiming that just because they were chaff, they had to be less powerful. In fact, they explicitly said that they *wanted* Warriors to be powerful.
Yet again what I mean by misrepresenting arguments.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Why are you ignoring Servitors then? Scarab aren't included because they simply aren't what's being judged.
I'm not ignoring servitors.
Uh, you never mentioned them until I did. I think that's definitely ignoring.
My argument never involved them.
Exactly - you didn't even feature them in your breakdown - almost like they never crossed your mind, because your point is based on faulty logic.
I agree, they are pretty much the "most expendable" thing in the Astartes list, even if, depending on the edition, they might actually be more dangerous than a scout due to having an industrial power fist.
But, the most important thing is that they're *not* used in that manner. Just because they're the "most expendable thing" doesn't make them chaff *if they're not used as chaff*, which is the point being made. Scarabs and Servitors are combat engineer assistant units, builders in an RTS. They're not "chaff" just because they're cheap.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Scarabs are the same thing that Servitors are - non-combatant forces present on the battlefield used in a combat situation. This is not the same as the chaff/conscript tier, which are poorly trained units who's primary goal is combat.
Neither of those are non-combatant. Servitors are sometimes support personnel, sometimes have weaponry of their own, and Scarabs' perform a specialized rule on the battlefield.
Servitors are glorified automata, and a Scarab's role on the battlefield is shredding armour. Neither of which are "chaff" roles.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Yet again, you're missing the point. This classification isn't about relative similarity in profile. It's about *how they are described within their faction*.
First of all, they're not described as chaff within their faction.
They literally are. They're indentured slaves, press-ganged into service. Do you need a reminder, or are you still stuck in older lore? "The everyday citizens of Necrontyr society received the leftovers; comparatively primitive bodies that almost served as prisons: these, now the Necron Warriors, are incapable of feeling almost all emotion, and retain little sentience." "It was a given that the civilian necrontyr would not receive the same care as their betters during biotransferrence, but it is possible that this mental degradation was intentional: all the better for the nobles to command their servants and receive total, unconditional loyalty." Source, 5th ed Codex.
Gee, that sounds awfully like a chaff unit.
Find me a passage that describes Necrons as being as careless about their troopers as the Imperial Guard is about the average guardsman (spoilers: you can't).
My above quotes would suffice. Leaving your civilians trapped in mental prisons and robbed of sentience is *much* worse than human shields.
Second, the basic Necron Warrior has comparable "training" to the elite units of other factions.
Third, the comparison made by the thread was comparing Necron Warriors to things outside of their faction, so even if they were "chaff" that wouldn't be relevant to the argument.
But that's not what you were arguing about though. I'm not discussing the comparison in the thread, I'm pointing out how you were arguing in bad faith.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: A scarab is a construction tool. The warrior is a press-ganged conscript. They are, by the Necron standard, poorly trained, but that doesn't mean that's the same standard as everyone else. You're complaining about how the comparison is rubbish because you don't understand how this particular comparison is being conducted. You're getting hung up on "chaff" needing to be of the same level, when it's the case here that what different factions class their chaff as are at different tiers.
I understand the comparison perfectly
Debatable.
and I've already explained how it doesn't make a good argument.
Also debatable.
As I mentioned above, "chaff" doesn't have to be of the same level, but Necrons aren't chaff. Fire Warriors aren't chaff, because the Tau are not as disregarding of sentient life as the Imperium.
Disagree. My above quotes definitely put Necrons on chaff tier. Tau "chaff" tier would be Gun Drones, because they're *actually* built for combat and deployed as frontline troops, unlike Scarabs and Servitors. Does this mean Necrons are equal to gun drones in power? No.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: In the words of The Dude, "that's just like, uh, your opinion". Bringing out the "we've been around longer" card just reeks of falling back on false authority when you can't come up with an argument that stands on it's own merit. Just a little warning for how that comes across, aye?
Yeah, it is my opinion, but there's good narrative reasons why Astartes shouldn't be portrayed as effortlessly overcoming all threats they encounter (including spiky Astartes). I'm guessing that would ruin the power fantasy for you, though.
Ah, the tried and true method of "this person thinks differently, they must be a child with a power fantasy" - look, I know it's easy to draw on your own experience of how the world works for you, but we're not all like you, yeah?
You're welcome to your opinion, but you're all to eager to infantilise anyone who disagrees, and frankly, it just makes you like like a child.
And it isn't false authority when it's generally understood that 40k has lost some of its spark over the years.
Ah, "spark" - that famously objective thing that we can all measure! For some people, they might have felt that 40k has regained a spark of life. I'm not making claims on my standing in the matter, but, you know, I'd perhaps get your high horse.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Again, just to make clear - not weighing in on where I think the power swings, but just pointing out some pretty sketchy misinterpretations of a point.
And you've failed at that, considering that you think that the Astartes power fantasy is more important than having a good game or a good story.
Where have I mentioned anything about an Astartes power fantasy? Hell, I've explicitly said I don't have a stance in this discussion, other than to point out sheer intellectual dishonesty, which you're demonstrating for us right now.
Come on, you're clearly eager to pin some kind of "power fantasy" on me - but where have I said it? Or was that all just your lashing out to make up for a failing argument?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Charistoph wrote: Again, misrepresenting what I have said because you want to make your point. For the second time in this response, and I don't know how many times I have said it before, the importance of recognizing that the Necron Warrior is at the same status in the Necron Army as the Conscript is to the Imperium of Man, yet be able to go toe to toe with the mighty Astartes, is to demonstrate just how powerful the Necron army as a whole should be. Even if Warriors weren't upgraded this codex in response to the upgrades the Marines got, the rest of the Necron army should have had the same appropriate upgrades in turn to compensate. As it is, Warriors should have received an upgrade as well.
No, you've been pretty clear with that, it's not even slanderous to Warriors - hell, you make them sound much more powerful and threatening than "nuh uh Necwons are TOTALLY super-duper powerful how DARE you compare them with humans". It's why the Tau and Necrons were so scary, their basic rifles and chaff respectively were a match for factions of elite soldiers But, alas. It seems that there's just no getting through to intellectual dishonesty and blatant misrepresentation.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: In the words of The Dude, "that's just like, uh, your opinion".
Bringing out the "we've been around longer" card just reeks of falling back on false authority when you can't come up with an argument that stands on it's own merit. Just a little warning for how that comes across, aye?
Yeah, it is my opinion, but there's good narrative reasons why Astartes shouldn't be portrayed as effortlessly overcoming all threats they encounter (including spiky Astartes). I'm guessing that would ruin the power fantasy for you, though.
Ah, the tried and true method of "this person thinks differently, they must be a child with a power fantasy" - look, I know it's easy to draw on your own experience of how the world works for you, but we're not all like you, yeah?
You're welcome to your opinion, but you're all to eager to infantilise anyone who disagrees, and frankly, it just makes you like like a child.
You missed the meat of the argument. I've highlighted it to help you out.
Yeah, I'm not going to engage anymore with people who refuse to engage with my posts because it would prove them wrong. If the mods won't do anything about you lying and trolling, it's not worth it.
Charistoph, you continually lied about your misrepresentation of other people claiming that Necron warriors were "vastly superior" to Astartes. As Insectum pointed out, you either ignored or failed to understand my argument. You're just incapable of understanding how wrong your worldview is; both of you are firmly in Dunning-Kruger territory.
Smudge, as per previous posts you think that Astartes should effortlessly beat their enemies in the background and effortlessly beat non-Astartes armies in the game, too, so you're not a good faith actor here, just a bolter porn aficionado.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: In the words of The Dude, "that's just like, uh, your opinion". Bringing out the "we've been around longer" card just reeks of falling back on false authority when you can't come up with an argument that stands on it's own merit. Just a little warning for how that comes across, aye?
Yeah, it is my opinion, but there's good narrative reasons why Astartes shouldn't be portrayed as effortlessly overcoming all threats they encounter (including spiky Astartes). I'm guessing that would ruin the power fantasy for you, though.
Ah, the tried and true method of "this person thinks differently, they must be a child with a power fantasy" - look, I know it's easy to draw on your own experience of how the world works for you, but we're not all like you, yeah?
You're welcome to your opinion, but you're all to eager to infantilise anyone who disagrees, and frankly, it just makes you like like a child.
You missed the meat of the argument. I've highlighted it to help you out.
Thank you for the highlight, but I would like to emphasise that those good narrative reasons are still a personal preference for certain people. I'm not going to say that those are wrong, only that not everyone believes in those narrative reasons. And before you think that's me saying that, that's not my personal opinion. As I have said, I'm still undecided on where I stand regarding the power of things. I'm only saying that those reasons don't mean the same to everyone, and that's not something to sneer down on other people for.
But, more to the point, and I think this is the most important thing: I've not said at all that I disagree with that notion but I'm still being accused of having a power fantasy, despite explicitly not giving an opinion on the actual topic. Insectum, I'm sure you've seen that as well - is that something you think is being fair?
Hecaton wrote:Yeah, I'm not going to engage anymore with people who refuse to engage with my posts because it would prove them wrong. If the mods won't do anything about you lying and trolling, it's not worth it.
Where have I refused to engage? I've remarked on all your "points", and highlighted the issues with all of them, or why you seem to be mistaken.
As for lying and trolling - just because you disagree with me doesn't mean I'm lying and trolling, and frankly, you just look like a sore loser.
You're just incapable of understanding how wrong your worldview is; both of you are firmly in Dunning-Kruger territory.
You see, the fun part about Dunning-Kruger is that you would fit in it as well - and you'd be none the wiser. Are you so sure of yourself that you don't? Just food for thought.
Smudge, as per previous posts
Oooh, goody! Let's see them, shall we? After all, if you're just going to accuse me of things, bring proof, yes?
Or, maybe, and perhaps a mod can weigh in, perhaps launching directly into ad-hom attacks and disrespectful rumours starting from other threads aren't expected from users of this site.
But regardless, if you're going to make that claim, bring proof please, dear.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:No, you've been pretty clear with that, it's not even slanderous to Warriors - hell, you make them sound much more powerful and threatening than "nuh uh Necwons are TOTALLY super-duper powerful how DARE you compare them with humans". It's why the Tau and Necrons were so scary, their basic rifles and chaff respectively were a match for factions of elite soldiers But, alas. It seems that there's just no getting through to intellectual dishonesty and blatant misrepresentation.
Apparently I wasn't that clear because someone kept ignoring that point on a repeated basis, and also accused me of needing Marines to be the most powerful. I had to keep repeating that point so they would understand, which is why it was quoting them for that response.
Hecaton wrote:Yeah, I'm not going to engage anymore with people who refuse to engage with my posts because it would prove them wrong. If the mods won't do anything about you lying and trolling, it's not worth it.
Said the person who has accused something of what they didn't say, misrepresented what they DID say consistently, flat out ignored the context of an argument when it did counter their argument, and you want to accuse me of lying and trolling. That is rich.
Hecaton wrote:Charistoph, you continually lied about your misrepresentation of other people claiming that Necron warriors were "vastly superior" to Astartes. As Insectum pointed out, you either ignored or failed to understand my argument. You're just incapable of understanding how wrong your worldview is; both of you are firmly in Dunning-Kruger territory.
Hyperbole taken as fact. How wonderful. Considering how you accused me numerous times of saying something I never stated, such as a need to have Marines be more powerful than Necron Warriors.
You present no proper counter-argument, just accuse others of lying and misrepresentation. When you ignore the context of the other person's argument, you now state I am ignoring yours. Talk about about the Dunning-Kruger effect.
No, you are claiming to quit because you simply cannot keep up in the discussion. Unlike Insectum who actually would put up a proper argument.
Hecaton wrote:Smudge, as per previous posts you think that Astartes should effortlessly beat their enemies in the background and effortlessly beat non-Astartes armies in the game, too, so you're not a good faith actor here, just a bolter porn aficionado.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:No, you've been pretty clear with that, it's not even slanderous to Warriors - hell, you make them sound much more powerful and threatening than "nuh uh Necwons are TOTALLY super-duper powerful how DARE you compare them with humans". It's why the Tau and Necrons were so scary, their basic rifles and chaff respectively were a match for factions of elite soldiers But, alas. It seems that there's just no getting through to intellectual dishonesty and blatant misrepresentation.
Apparently I wasn't that clear because someone kept ignoring that point on a repeated basis, and also accused me of needing Marines to be the most powerful. I had to keep repeating that point so they would understand, which is why it was quoting them for that response.
Indeed. For someone who is so eager to accuse others of lying and trolling, they're strangely unable to read what you've actually written in favour of painting you as some kind of infantilising role.
Almost like this is normal and persistent behaviour from them.
Hecaton wrote:Smudge, as per previous posts you think that Astartes should effortlessly beat their enemies in the background and effortlessly beat non-Astartes armies in the game, too, so you're not a good faith actor here, just a bolter porn aficionado.
When did Smudge say that again?
I didn't - in fact, I've explicitly, almost painfully frequently because I've seen the kind of misrepresentation that's been peddled here, stated that I am still undecided how strong Warriors should be in comparison to Astartes. But, if quality of argument was informing my thought process, I would have to apologise to Insectum, because Hec is not doing your "side" any favours with this persistent misrepresentation and blatant falsification.
I think the representations of "Power Levels" is almost perfect in the FFG series of RPG's for w40k. In Dark Heresy 2e for example an Acolyte (Humanities best, probably) can barely stand up against a single Necron Warrior unless they get a drop on it.
An Astartes is probably a match for the Warrior, but there's always more than just oen Necron around.
Anyway, this discussion is essentially the same as bashing two toys together and making pew pew sounds. The amount of novels out there that paints things in dumb amounts of skew and plot armor is ridiculous.
Eonfuzz wrote: Anyway, this discussion is essentially the same as bashing two toys together and making pew pew sounds. The amount of novels out there that paints things in dumb amounts of skew and plot armor is ridiculous.
Agreed. It's entirely based on what sources and novels you choose to put more faith in, and none of them are inherently "better" or "worse" takes to have.
Hey all, Let's tone it down please, remember the Ignore function exists. If people cannot handle themselves going forward, warnings and possible vacations will be issued, and this thread will get closed. None of us want that. If there's something specific that comes up, please PM me or another Moderator instead of responding in anger. Thanks!
Void__Dragon wrote: What a great world to live in, where Marines are finally as elite as they should be.
Maybe Astartes are where they should be in relation to Guardsmen, but everything else is out of wack.
Some things are, but Necron warriors? No, they're about right.
Mmmm... Nope, they aren't right either. Unless you're taking your cues from Bolter-porn.
In which case, please keep it out of this game, it doesn't belong.
Sorry the Necrons aren't a mary sue faction with a militia chaff troop numbering in the trillions that is individually better than a Space Marine.
Oh wait no I'm not, that's laughably stupid.
You're absolutely correct. Having Mary Sue factions is laughably stupid.
And you are supporting Marines being such because...?
That said, let's change your strawman into a slightly different statement:
Sorry the Necrons aren't a faction with a militia troop numbering in the trillions that is individually better than a Space Marine with no special equipment.
This was part of the original appeal and horror of the Necrons, subdued by the fact that those trillions were still mostly asleep. This was part of what made it grimdark. Throwing this away for your bolter-porn fantasies is, to again borrow a phrase, laughably stupid.
Calm down my friend, unlike some people I'm not mindlessly stanning my army of choice, because my army of choice is not Space Marines. Necrons were what got me interested in 40k, and these days my favorite armies are Custodes, Daemons, and Harlequins, though I still play some Necrons. I don't think I've ever played loyalist Marines. But of these armies only the Custodes should have a basic troop unit better than a Marine individually (maybe Harlequins too).
Marines conceptually are not a mary sue faction, though they do have mary sue stories, and seeing as most stories are about them they have more mary sue stories than anyone else.
But Necrons having basic troopers superior to an astartes that number in the billions on a single tomb world would be laughable. Sorry not sorry, but your army doesn't get to have militia men which outnumber pretty much any non-horde force that are also each better than what are among the most individually elite soldiers in the entire galaxy.
And my friend, only one of us is clinging to a fantasy. The reality is Necron warriors are not portrayed as being on par with a marine and haven't even been depicted as such for a long time. I'm secure in my position because I know all the people in this thread consumed with marine envy are powerless to do anything about it and that my position will continue to be the one that is legitimized by GW.
Some things are, but Necron warriors? No, they're about right.
Well, those of us who have been playing the game for some time disagree. At a certain point, there needs to be things that are scary even to Astartes.
And necron warriors which number in the trillions or more aren't one of them, not individually anyway. They have guns that can easily kill marines and despite their slowness have the strength to swarm them and kill them in hand to hand. In mass they are a significant threat to marines in game and should be in the fluff, they just aren't as likely to win a fight one on one. And this is fine. Warriors should pretty much always outnumber marines in any particular battle.
But should some things be equal or better than most marines? Sure, and I'm sympathetic to the idea that things like immortals, lychguard, or whatever should be proportionally better than they are.
Void__Dragon wrote: And necron warriors which number in the trillions or more aren't one of them, not individually anyway.
Again, I disagree. The fact that there's an ungodly number of them isn't actually a setting-breaking issue for the Imperium - Basilisks can "kill" plenty of Necrons, just like they can kill power-armored superhumans.
Void__Dragon wrote: And necron warriors which number in the trillions or more aren't one of them, not individually anyway.
Again, I disagree. The fact that there's an ungodly number of them isn't actually a setting-breaking issue for the Imperium - Basilisks can "kill" plenty of Necrons, just like they can kill power-armored superhumans.
You might have something vaguely resembling a point if Necrons didn't have the best technology in the galaxy with force field and teleportation tech more sophisticated than anyone else, with artillery of their own that is, in the fluff at least, superior to the Imperium's and just about everyone else's.
No, there's no way to have the Necron warrior be as numerous as they are while simultaneously being more formidable than any troop save a Custodian Guard without damaging the integrity of the setting.
Void__Dragon wrote: And necron warriors which number in the trillions or more aren't one of them, not individually anyway.
Again, I disagree. The fact that there's an ungodly number of them isn't actually a setting-breaking issue for the Imperium - Basilisks can "kill" plenty of Necrons, just like they can kill power-armored superhumans.
You might have something vaguely resembling a point if Necrons didn't have the best technology in the galaxy with force field and teleportation tech more sophisticated than anyone else, with artillery of their own that is, in the fluff at least, superior to the Imperium's and just about everyone else's.
No, there's no way to have the Necron warrior be as numerous as they are while simultaneously being more formidable than any troop save a Custodian Guard without damaging the integrity of the setting.
Void__Dragon wrote: And necron warriors which number in the trillions or more aren't one of them, not individually anyway.
Again, I disagree. The fact that there's an ungodly number of them isn't actually a setting-breaking issue for the Imperium - Basilisks can "kill" plenty of Necrons, just like they can kill power-armored superhumans.
You might have something vaguely resembling a point if Necrons didn't have the best technology in the galaxy with force field and teleportation tech more sophisticated than anyone else, with artillery of their own that is, in the fluff at least, superior to the Imperium's and just about everyone else's.
No, there's no way to have the Necron warrior be as numerous as they are while simultaneously being more formidable than any troop save a Custodian Guard without damaging the integrity of the setting.
I don't think it would imbalance the setting, but it would imbalance the game. Having strong stats and decent squad size with low points is incredibly imbalancing as you can't put out enough damage to counter their numbers. The story can allude to trillions of Warriors out there, but we would still only be facing a relative few in the game because of the territory the game covers.
Charistoph wrote: [
I don't think it would imbalance the setting, but it would imbalance the game. Having strong stats and decent squad size with low points is incredibly imbalancing as you can't put out enough damage to counter their numbers.
Charistoph wrote: [
I don't think it would imbalance the setting, but it would imbalance the game. Having strong stats and decent squad size with low points is incredibly imbalancing as you can't put out enough damage to counter their numbers.
I said it before either in this thread or the other that this just seems like an old fluff VS new fluff argument.
You got the people that want the same carbon copy guy for their army and then you got the guys that want that but also some other stuff.
I see the appeal of the old stuff but it kinda wrote itself into a corner, and honestly once you have enough for an army there's no incentive to buy more which is a bad business design.
Personally I prefer the new stuff. Much more scary
I said it before either in this thread or the other that this just seems like an old fluff VS new fluff argument.
You got the people that want the same carbon copy guy for their army and then you got the guys that want that but also some other stuff.
I see the appeal of the old stuff but it kinda wrote itself into a corner, and honestly once you have enough for an army there's no incentive to buy more which is a bad business design.
Personally I prefer the new stuff. Much more scary
I'm not asking for a full return for the old army, nor do I think it's completely incompatible with the new. But Warriors really are at their worst in comparison to Astartes atm.
The other few things that really annoy me about the state of Necrons are:
1: The Monolith is not very good right now.
2: No Pariahs
3: C'tan are enslaved.
4: Destroyers and Immortals are also pretty downgraded.
If I had things my way, I'd bring Pariahs and pump up Monoliths for all Necrons. Then I'd offer the option for a Living C'tan Necron army, representing Necrons that are (volountarily or not) still under the sway of a C'tan entity. I'd use this as an excuse to pump up the traditional units when taking this option, and I'd put Phase Out back on the table. I'd also re-introduce the original "Transcendent C'tan" unit from (Apocalypse? 40K Escalation?), the really really nasty one.
That way people could have their "undead" Crons, and some of us could have their "hyper-terminator" Crons.
Void__Dragon wrote: And necron warriors which number in the trillions or more aren't one of them, not individually anyway.
Again, I disagree. The fact that there's an ungodly number of them isn't actually a setting-breaking issue for the Imperium - Basilisks can "kill" plenty of Necrons, just like they can kill power-armored superhumans.
You might have something vaguely resembling a point if Necrons didn't have the best technology in the galaxy with force field and teleportation tech more sophisticated than anyone else, with artillery of their own that is, in the fluff at least, superior to the Imperium's and just about everyone else's.
No, there's no way to have the Necron warrior be as numerous as they are while simultaneously being more formidable than any troop save a Custodian Guard without damaging the integrity of the setting.
I don't think it would imbalance the setting, but it would imbalance the game. Having strong stats and decent squad size with low points is incredibly imbalancing as you can't put out enough damage to counter their numbers. The story can allude to trillions of Warriors out there, but we would still only be facing a relative few in the game because of the territory the game covers.
Necrons do number in the trillions. But that is a drop in the ocean compared to the "hordes" of humanity they would face. A Necron warrior was a match for a space marine, but in most settings it wouldn't be 1 space marine vs 1 necron warrior. It would be 10-20 necron warriors vs 1 space marine and a few hundred guardsmen.
A prime example would be Tyranid Warriors. There are a hell of a lot more Tyranid warriors in the galaxy than there are Space Marines, and a warrior is a match for a Space Marine in most aspects. But when the Nidz are attacking, its not a single chapter of Marines vs the Nidz, its a conglomeration of all available assets and humanity usually brings in a few million expendable human troops as well. Even the special snowflake Ultramarines didn't fight off the Nidz by themselves, they used their Space Marine trained auxiliary as support. A couple thousand Marines isn't going to do much, but a couple thousand Marines backed up by a fethload of well trained guardsmen and a bunch of tanks/air support is going to do wonders.
Insectum7 wrote: So if Scouts arent "chaff", and Scarabs aren't "chaff". . . Why do Warriors need to be "chaff" if Tacticals aren't "chaff"?
Why do armies need "chaff"? And "chaff" or not, why do they have to be worse than Space Marines?
Is this a retorical question? Because it not, then chaff is needed because of how movment, terrain rules, targeting rules and other core rules work in 9th ed.
I have no anwser to why to why, other then if necron are undead in space, then undead skeletons are always weak enemies. Making them suddenly more powerful then marines seems strange.
I said it before either in this thread or the other that this just seems like an old fluff VS new fluff argument.
You got the people that want the same carbon copy guy for their army and then you got the guys that want that but also some other stuff.
I see the appeal of the old stuff but it kinda wrote itself into a corner, and honestly once you have enough for an army there's no incentive to buy more which is a bad business design.
Personally I prefer the new stuff. Much more scary
I'm not asking for a full return for the old army, nor do I think it's completely incompatible with the new. But Warriors really are at their worst in comparison to Astartes atm.
The other few things that really annoy me about the state of Necrons are:
1: The Monolith is not very good right now.
2: No Pariahs
3: C'tan are enslaved.
4: Destroyers and Immortals are also pretty downgraded.
If I had things my way, I'd bring Pariahs and pump up Monoliths for all Necrons. Then I'd offer the option for a Living C'tan Necron army, representing Necrons that are (volountarily or not) still under the sway of a C'tan entity. I'd use this as an excuse to pump up the traditional units when taking this option, and I'd put Phase Out back on the table. I'd also re-introduce the original "Transcendent C'tan" unit from (Apocalypse? 40K Escalation?), the really really nasty one.
That way people could have their "undead" Crons, and some of us could have their "hyper-terminator" Crons.
I'm just going to start off with saying Pariahs should be a thing again and arguably the Necrons could do that to other races. Big metal ork melee unit. Scary stuff. (but I see the obvious complaint about it)
Lore wise it'd be cool to see Catan loyal Necrons. If that were the case I'd say Necron warriors can be on par or slightly better than marines since there would be a 1:1 enemy out there, in similar numbers and tech. Even still with Necrons at that level I'd wager no faction could compete. Not orks, eldar, nids already struggle against them, Tau. Poor Tau they'd just surround them.
See I figured when Necrons first stated coming into being it was mostly warriors and then immortals popped up later. But no according to yourself they came out together. I think it might be more reasonable to ask for immortals to be the hyper elite star you're asking for over a warrior. I'm not saying that the warrior shouldn't be improved. But it seems like more ideal since we already know that the warrior is essentially bottom tier Necron.
So it'd almost be an army of marines (warriors), with some immortals (custodians) and then praetorians(Primaris custodians)
And then you probably do need the phase out rule if you want to field an army but then it just turns into the other player needing to do some major alpha strike or they get rofl stomped by the Necron player
Insectum7 wrote:1: The Monolith is not very good right now.
They really haven't been the same at all since the 5th Edition codex. Now it's a Lord of War (making it a large decision process to take) and still not as tough as it was back then.
Insectum7 wrote:2: No Pariahs
Yeah, another issue. Ostensibly it is because of Lychguard, but as it really that hard to keep them separate on the table? The models were more robust and had a Blaster on their Scythes. Then they had Psychic Awakening and... nothing? What do they have now to actually counter Psykers other than blasting them real good?
Insectum7 wrote:3: C'tan are enslaved.
This one actually made more sense to me. While the 3rd Ed C'tan were powerful, they never felt like they dominated reality better than the Greater Daemons. Having them be shattered actually helped explain why they were so "weak".
Insectum7 wrote:If I had things my way, I'd bring Pariahs and pump up Monoliths for all Necrons. Then I'd offer the option for a Living C'tan Necron army, representing Necrons that are (volountarily or not) still under the sway of a C'tan entity. I'd use this as an excuse to pump up the traditional units when taking this option, and I'd put Phase Out back on the table. I'd also re-introduce the original "Transcendent C'tan" unit from (Apocalypse? 40K Escalation?), the really really nasty one.
That way people could have their "undead" Crons, and some of us could have their "hyper-terminator" Crons.
That would be hard to fit in to one codex, even with a supplement. Lore wouldn't be a problem, that's just words, but the rules to support it? yeesh.
One thing I think they did in error when they introduced the Transcendent C'tan with the Obelisk is that they should have done like the Greater Daemons where you have some lesser Shards that are Elite/HQ level power and some at Lord of War power. I guess they didn't because they didn't have two scales of models and it would be hard to tell the difference, but I still think it's a missed opportunity.
SemperMortis wrote:Necrons do number in the trillions. But that is a drop in the ocean compared to the "hordes" of humanity they would face. A Necron warrior was a match for a space marine, but in most settings it wouldn't be 1 space marine vs 1 necron warrior. It would be 10-20 necron warriors vs 1 space marine and a few hundred guardsmen.
Most stories I've read they usually have a few squads of Marines and a Character involved.
But there is a difference between having something put in a story and putting it on the tabletop in a game format. If we put Warriors as they are in the current codex on the Tabletop, increased their max unit size to 30 and set their ppm to 6, we'd get a feel of that silver tide but it would be massively imbalanced. That was the point I was trying to make.
Karol wrote:I have no anwser to why to why, other then if necron are undead in space, then undead skeletons are always weak enemies. Making them suddenly more powerful then marines seems strange.
Maybe its because you're not used to them being as or more powerful than Marines in the first place. It's not like they are the Plague Zombies that Nurgle causes, nor are they just bones, but have bodies of living metal that can repair themselves. Think T-800s that can almost repair themselves as well as a T-1000.
Oddly enough, they don't even need Trillions of Warriors in total. They just need enough to gain control of a territory and the ability to recover them to repair.
Maybe its because you're not used to them being as or more powerful than Marines in the first place. It's not like they are the Plague Zombies that Nurgle causes, nor are they just bones, but have bodies of living metal that can repair themselves. Think T-800s that can almost repair themselves as well as a T-1000.
I don't know what a t800 or t1000 is. So I can't really give an anwser to this statment.
Maybe its because you're not used to them being as or more powerful than Marines in the first place. It's not like they are the Plague Zombies that Nurgle causes, nor are they just bones, but have bodies of living metal that can repair themselves. Think T-800s that can almost repair themselves as well as a T-1000.
I don't know what a t800 or t1000 is. So I can't really give an anwser to this statment.
The Terminators. From the movies of the same name.
I mean really though, if Marines can fit all those units in one book Necrons could fit a bit more.
And have two sets of rules for Warriors, Immortals, etc? No.
For GW, it would basically require doubling up the number of models as (aside from Marine flavor #32) they need a new model with a new name so groups like ChapterHouse don't try to horn in with a legal leg to stand on.
Not saying that new models would be a bad thing, just that one couldn't do such a thing with what is in print now.
JNAProductions wrote:You say that setting Warriors to 6 PPM with no stat changes would be broken.
I agree-because you’re attacking a straw man. No one, as far as I can tell, advocated for Warriors to be stronger AND cheaper than Marines.
Well this what what it was centered on:
Charistoph wrote:
Void__Dragon wrote: No, there's no way to have the Necron warrior be as numerous as they are while simultaneously being more formidable than any troop save a Custodian Guard without damaging the integrity of the setting.
I don't think it would imbalance the setting, but it would imbalance the game. Having strong stats and decent squad size with low points is incredibly imbalancing as you can't put out enough damage to counter their numbers. The story can allude to trillions of Warriors out there, but we would still only be facing a relative few in the game because of the territory the game covers.
Numbers in fluff are largely irrelevant to the game setting, but how powerful the model's rules are. I was providing a correction against it being damaging to the setting for Necrons to be vastly numerous, but still be able to take on a Custodian Guard.
I mean really though, if Marines can fit all those units in one book Necrons could fit a bit more.
And have two sets of rules for Warriors, Immortals, etc? No.
For GW, it would basically require doubling up the number of models as (aside from Marine flavor #32) they need a new model with a new name so groups like ChapterHouse don't try to horn in with a legal leg to stand on.
Not saying that new models would be a bad thing, just that one couldn't do such a thing with what is in print now.
Ever notice how Space Marines can have different rules if they're painted differently? Simple as that.
I mean really though, if Marines can fit all those units in one book Necrons could fit a bit more.
And have two sets of rules for Warriors, Immortals, etc? No.
For GW, it would basically require doubling up the number of models as (aside from Marine flavor #32) they need a new model with a new name so groups like ChapterHouse don't try to horn in with a legal leg to stand on.
Not saying that new models would be a bad thing, just that one couldn't do such a thing with what is in print now.
Ever notice how Space Marines can have different rules if they're painted differently? Simple as that.
Except the stats don't change as you've suggested. If the stats change enough, there are models for it, yes, even for the Marines.
SemperMortis wrote:Necrons do number in the trillions. But that is a drop in the ocean compared to the "hordes" of humanity they would face. A Necron warrior was a match for a space marine, but in most settings it wouldn't be 1 space marine vs 1 necron warrior. It would be 10-20 necron warriors vs 1 space marine and a few hundred guardsmen.
Most stories I've read they usually have a few squads of Marines and a Character involved.
But there is a difference between having something put in a story and putting it on the tabletop in a game format. If we put Warriors as they are in the current codex on the Tabletop, increased their max unit size to 30 and set their ppm to 6, we'd get a feel of that silver tide but it would be massively imbalanced. That was the point I was trying to make.
Yes, i've read those books as well, i refer to that genre as "Bolter Porn" because its basically just that. fluff differs wildly by author, book, year, etc etc, but the general concept at the moment, as written in the necron fluff, is that their dynasty is waking up and they have trillions of members of their society and since as far as we know, basically the entire society is militarized robots of one sort or another its fair to say their are more necrons than space marines and by a large margin. And in other fluff books you have Necron warriors disintegrating space marines with apparent ease while flayed ones are gutting Space Marines in close combat. So at the moment again, points wise they are about equal, power wise they aren't which is sad but meh whatever, and fluff wise there are more necrons than Marines
Except the stats don't change as you've suggested. If the stats change enough, there are models for it, yes, even for the Marines.
Trygons and Trygon Primes share the same model, but are different unit entries with different statlines and keywords. The Carnifex model has three different datasheets, and some model-part combinations are shared between them. Chapter Tactics can modify things like saves, or add reroll modifiers, etc. A Chapter Master isn't a special model. Where there's a will there's a way.
Except the stats don't change as you've suggested. If the stats change enough, there are models for it, yes, even for the Marines.
Trygons and Trygon Primes share the same model, but are different unit entries with different statlines and keywords. The Carnifex model has three different datasheets, and some model-part combinations are shared between them. Chapter Tactics can modify things like saves, or add reroll modifiers, etc. A Chapter Master isn't a special model. Where there's a will there's a way.
fraser1191 wrote: Lore wise it'd be cool to see Catan loyal Necrons. If that were the case I'd say Necron warriors can be on par or slightly better than marines since there would be a 1:1 enemy out there, in similar numbers and tech. Even still with Necrons at that level I'd wager no faction could compete. Not orks, eldar, nids already struggle against them, Tau. Poor Tau they'd just surround them.
Necrons who were loyal to the Settlers would be... worrying, especially if they too got wood for sheep.
And, frankly, I'd be quite happy to see the Silver Tide let loose upon the blue naifs - go forth and wipe them out, tin boys!
Except the stats don't change as you've suggested. If the stats change enough, there are models for it, yes, even for the Marines.
Trygons and Trygon Primes share the same model, but are different unit entries with different statlines and keywords. The Carnifex model has three different datasheets, and some model-part combinations are shared between them. Chapter Tactics can modify things like saves, or add reroll modifiers, etc. A Chapter Master isn't a special model. Where there's a will there's a way.
HQ Character version of another type doesn't do so well in comparison. How are you going to present two different Warriors as one who are cheap and spammable and the other as expensive and powerful, both Troops, in the same codex, yet not provide another model for it, and convince GW to do it?
Except the stats don't change as you've suggested. If the stats change enough, there are models for it, yes, even for the Marines.
Trygons and Trygon Primes share the same model, but are different unit entries with different statlines and keywords. The Carnifex model has three different datasheets, and some model-part combinations are shared between them. Chapter Tactics can modify things like saves, or add reroll modifiers, etc. A Chapter Master isn't a special model. Where there's a will there's a way.
HQ Character version of another type doesn't do so well in comparison. How are you going to present two different Warriors as one who are cheap and spammable and the other as expensive and powerful, both Troops, in the same codex, yet not provide another model for it, and convince GW to do it?
I can't convince GW of anything. But if I were GW, there would be plenty of ways to do what I propose. You're just erecting barriers where there needn't be any.
Except the stats don't change as you've suggested. If the stats change enough, there are models for it, yes, even for the Marines.
Trygons and Trygon Primes share the same model, but are different unit entries with different statlines and keywords. The Carnifex model has three different datasheets, and some model-part combinations are shared between them. Chapter Tactics can modify things like saves, or add reroll modifiers, etc. A Chapter Master isn't a special model. Where there's a will there's a way.
HQ Character version of another type doesn't do so well in comparison. How are you going to present two different Warriors as one who are cheap and spammable and the other as expensive and powerful, both Troops, in the same codex, yet not provide another model for it, and convince GW to do it?
I dunno, the same way Sisters of Battle Dominion squads can be exactly the same as the SoB troop option? Or, like he said, the Trygon/Trygon Prime situation?
Charistoph wrote: HQ Character version of another type doesn't do so well in comparison. How are you going to present two different Warriors as one who are cheap and spammable and the other as expensive and powerful, both Troops, in the same codex, yet not provide another model for it, and convince GW to do it?
I can't convince GW of anything. But if I were GW, there would be plenty of ways to do what I propose. You're just erecting barriers where there needn't be any.
Gene St. Ealer wrote:
Charistoph wrote: HQ Character version of another type doesn't do so well in comparison. How are you going to present two different Warriors as one who are cheap and spammable and the other as expensive and powerful, both Troops, in the same codex, yet not provide another model for it, and convince GW to do it?
I dunno, the same way Sisters of Battle Dominion squads can be exactly the same as the SoB troop option? Or, like he said, the Trygon/Trygon Prime situation?
Those are units from different slots, not the same model providing models for the two vastly different units in the same slot. Dominions also have the same stats as the rest of the Sisters while the Prime is an HQ. The equivalent issue at hand is more like using Scout models as Intercessors.
So it's not me erecting barriers, it is recognizing the barriers that already exist and pointing them out.
Charistoph wrote: HQ Character version of another type doesn't do so well in comparison. How are you going to present two different Warriors as one who are cheap and spammable and the other as expensive and powerful, both Troops, in the same codex, yet not provide another model for it, and convince GW to do it?
I can't convince GW of anything. But if I were GW, there would be plenty of ways to do what I propose. You're just erecting barriers where there needn't be any.
Gene St. Ealer wrote:
Charistoph wrote: HQ Character version of another type doesn't do so well in comparison. How are you going to present two different Warriors as one who are cheap and spammable and the other as expensive and powerful, both Troops, in the same codex, yet not provide another model for it, and convince GW to do it?
I dunno, the same way Sisters of Battle Dominion squads can be exactly the same as the SoB troop option? Or, like he said, the Trygon/Trygon Prime situation?
Those are units from different slots, not the same model providing models for the two vastly different units in the same slot. Dominions also have the same stats as the rest of the Sisters while the Prime is an HQ. The equivalent issue at hand is more like using Scout models as Intercessors.
So it's not me erecting barriers, it is recognizing the barriers that already exist and pointing them out.
Trygon Prime is not an HQ. It's a Heavy Support sitting right next to the Trygon. DIfferent statline, different Keywords, different points cost.
Why does slot matter? We're talking about a Troops unit and you're wondering why that matters? Take a few minutes to think on that.
Insectum7 wrote: Trygon Prime is not an HQ. It's a Heavy Support sitting right next to the Trygon. DIfferent statline, different Keywords, different points cost.
Sorry had a Mandella Effect moment. As of the last codex I have access to, the stat difference is literally only 2 points in Ld, but that was with 5th and 6th. Base biomorphs were the same, with the Prime having Synapse (which is probably lead to my confusion) and more options due to "Bio-Artefacts".
So in this case, it literally is a Character version of the other, and a monster to boot. You're still proposing the equivalent of using Scouts as Intercessors and Scouts interchangeably.
Why does slot matter? We're talking about a Troops unit and you're wondering why that matters? Take a few minutes to think on that.
Insectum7 wrote: Trygon Prime is not an HQ. It's a Heavy Support sitting right next to the Trygon. DIfferent statline, different Keywords, different points cost.
Sorry had a Mandella Effect moment. As of the last codex I have access to, the stat difference is literally only 2 points in Ld, but that was with 5th and 6th. Base biomorphs were the same, with the Prime having Synapse (which is probably lead to my confusion) and more options due to "Bio-Artefacts".
So in this case, it literally is a Character version of the other, and a monster to boot. You're still proposing the equivalent of using Scouts as Intercessors and Scouts interchangeably.
Why does the slot matter for what a model represents?
I wholly agree that Troops are more valuable than an identical Elites unit.
But what on earth does that have to do with whether or not you can use the same model to represent different things?
JNAProductions wrote: I wholly agree that Troops are more valuable than an identical Elites unit.
But what on earth does that have to do with whether or not you can use the same model to represent different things?
It isn't a question of value. It is a question of having what looks like the same unit of models being used as another unit in the same FOC, and Troops are the most commonly used FOC slot.
It goes back to WYSIWYG and how important it is to have consistency in the system. Chosen can be marked out just like Sternguard can be by different equipment that the normal CSM just don't have access to (to use Insectum's reference). And in this case, it isn't just being able to use that to identify them, which can lead to problematical shenanigans. Unless we're going to use something like the new Reaper guns to tell the difference between the 1W Warriors and the 2W Warriors, it's a bad case of using the Scout models as Primaris Intercessors as well as Troop Scouts (when that was a thing).
Chosen don't have access to any equipment normal CSM don't have, they can just have more of it. It's entirely possible to have a squad of Chosen that are indistinguishable from a squad of basic CSM.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Chosen don't have access to any equipment normal CSM don't have, they can just have more of it. It's entirely possible to have a squad of Chosen that are indistinguishable from a squad of basic CSM.
^Likewise Sternguard-Command-Tactical Squads, and Command-Vanguard-Assault Squads. Devastators too, even. A painted badge is all it takes.
Insectum7 wrote:Carnifex model can be fielded as three different units in the same FOC.
Trygon/Trygon Prime, same thing.
Also you could preclude the option for the competing unit in the list.
What are the differences in stats between the Carnifex broods and the Trygon broods, exactly? Are they the same difference as between a Scout and Intercessor? Is it across 10-20 models per unit or are they just 3 different models you'd be plonking on the ttable?
Gadzilla666 wrote:Chosen don't have access to any equipment normal CSM don't have, they can just have more of it. It's entirely possible to have a squad of Chosen that are indistinguishable from a squad of basic CSM.
It is that capacity I was referencing, actually. And the stats from Chosen aren't that different from the Troops, +1A and +1L. What would the point of equipping them just like a basic squad of CSM? One of the reasons to take CSM is that capacity of options.
Would that match all the differences between the Warriors that Insectum is talking about?
For Trygon it's 2 Ld I think, Synapse keyword and some amount of points. Carnifex stats remain the same but they get some different special rules. No book with me atm, but that's what I recall.
Gadzilla666 wrote:Chosen don't have access to any equipment normal CSM don't have, they can just have more of it. It's entirely possible to have a squad of Chosen that are indistinguishable from a squad of basic CSM.
It is that capacity I was referencing, actually. And the stats from Chosen aren't that different from the Troops, +1A and +1L. What would the point of equipping them just like a basic squad of CSM? One of the reasons to take CSM is that capacity of options.
Would that match all the differences between the Warriors that Insectum is talking about?
The point would be for that +1 attack and +1 leadership. If you're making a melee unit then the extra attack is a big deal, and Night Lords will take all the leadership we can get for the maximum opportunity to use Prey On the Weak. An all chainswords and pistols Chosen squad will look just like an all chainswords and pistols CSM squad. It isn't how I run my Chosen but some might.
The most obvious example of two units in the same army that are virtually indistinguishable from each other is intercessors and Veteran intercessors. Exact same weapons, just +1 attack and +1 leadership, not even the additional options Chosen have compared to CSM. If those are allowed I don't see how Insectum's ideas for Warriors would be a problem.
Maybe its because you're not used to them being as or more powerful than Marines in the first place. It's not like they are the Plague Zombies that Nurgle causes, nor are they just bones, but have bodies of living metal that can repair themselves. Think T-800s that can almost repair themselves as well as a T-1000.
I don't know what a t800 or t1000 is. So I can't really give an anwser to this statment.
Gadzilla666 wrote: The point would be for that +1 attack and +1 leadership. If you're making a melee unit then the extra attack is a big deal, and Night Lords will take all the leadership we can get for the maximum opportunity to use Prey On the Weak. An all chainswords and pistols Chosen squad will look just like an all chainswords and pistols CSM squad. It isn't how I run my Chosen but some might.
The most obvious example of two units in the same army that are virtually indistinguishable from each other is intercessors and Veteran intercessors. Exact same weapons, just +1 attack and +1 leadership, not even the additional options Chosen have compared to CSM. If those are allowed I don't see how Insectum's ideas for Warriors would be a problem.
But we're also talking better weapons, better armor, and more Wounds as well, if not more stats, but still with the same model? Again, it is using Scout models to be Intercessors is the equivalence we're talking here.
Maybe its because you're not used to them being as or more powerful than Marines in the first place. It's not like they are the Plague Zombies that Nurgle causes, nor are they just bones, but have bodies of living metal that can repair themselves. Think T-800s that can almost repair themselves as well as a T-1000.
I don't know what a t800 or t1000 is. So I can't really give an anwser to this statment.
I still don't understand what the attachment to specifically the warrior unit is.
Necrons now have several layers of infantry unit, and warriors are just the most basic.
If you want to run a "space marine equivalent" or super elite force, just don't use warriors--use immortals. Or run all lychguard or destroyers--the game doesn't even require you to bring troops anymore aside from wanting objective secured or needing a few more CP.
I guess I'm really not seeing the problem aside from the unit named "necron warrior" is weaker than it used to be compared to a space marine. Back when they were stronger, there were far fewer options.
Quasistellar wrote: I still don't understand what the attachment to specifically the warrior unit is.
Necrons now have several layers of infantry unit, and warriors are just the most basic.
If you want to run a "space marine equivalent" or super elite force, just don't use warriors--use immortals. Or run all lychguard or destroyers--the game doesn't even require you to bring troops anymore aside from wanting objective secured or needing a few more CP.
I guess I'm really not seeing the problem aside from the unit named "necron warrior" is weaker than it used to be compared to a space marine. Back when they were stronger, there were far fewer options.
Gadzilla666 wrote: The point would be for that +1 attack and +1 leadership. If you're making a melee unit then the extra attack is a big deal, and Night Lords will take all the leadership we can get for the maximum opportunity to use Prey On the Weak. An all chainswords and pistols Chosen squad will look just like an all chainswords and pistols CSM squad. It isn't how I run my Chosen but some might.
The most obvious example of two units in the same army that are virtually indistinguishable from each other is intercessors and Veteran intercessors. Exact same weapons, just +1 attack and +1 leadership, not even the additional options Chosen have compared to CSM. If those are allowed I don't see how Insectum's ideas for Warriors would be a problem.
But we're also talking better weapons, better armor, and more Wounds as well, if not more stats, but still with the same model? Again, it is using Scout models to be Intercessors is the equivalence we're talking here.
^Sternguard are just PA armored Marines, but have a two Stat difference and a better gun that looks identical to a normal Boltgun. A Havoc model in a CSM squad becomes T4. Guard Conscripts have different stats and use the same model as Infantry Squads.
Insectum7 wrote: ^Sternguard are just PA armored Marines, but have a two Stat difference and a better gun that looks identical to a normal Boltgun. A Havoc model in a CSM squad becomes T4. Guard Conscripts have different stats and use the same model as Infantry Squads.
We're not talking about skill sets here that come from experience and veterancy. We're talking about two units which are called the same thing, have the same model, but have as vastly different stats as Scouts and Intercessors, if not more. Keep in mind this was the standard you were seeking:
Insectum7 wrote: That way people could have their "undead" Crons, and some of us could have their "hyper-terminator" Crons.
Having stats change that much on a unit hasn't happened in a supplement or a codex just by simply choosing a Dynasty or Chapter Tactic. Different units are made. They are given different boxes and options to use to differentiate them from the others. We're not talking about the difference of Conscript and a Guardsman, but a Conscript and a Scion, if not a Conscript and an Ogryn.
There could easily be "Bound Necron Warriors" and "Unbound Necron Warriors".
Moreover, what's the difference visually between an Ultramarines Assault Intercessor and a White Scars Veteran Intercessor with Chainsword and Pistol? Let's assume they're painted in a custom scheme-say, mostly gold, with some red accents.
Because one of them gets 4 attacks at S4 AP-1 D1 on the charge, cannot advance and charge or fall back and charge, but can fall back and shoot at -1. The other gets an additional attack, an additional point of damage on the charge starting T3, and can be much, MUCH faster.
I also remember someone suggesting that you cannot take the two different types of Warriors in the same list-which seems reasonable to me. At that point, it's no different from remembering what Chapter Tactic your opponent is using.
Yeah I think this part of the discussion is done at this point. Totally doable, despite Charistophs strange obstinance. I might take a stab at an oldcron C'tan Ascendent mod.
Quasistellar wrote: I still don't understand what the attachment to specifically the warrior unit is.
Mayhaps some people have an investment in the [earlier] background of the faction, and find their army's core being reduced from elite to chod, while Marines go in the opposite direction rather narratively unsatisfying.
Meh. Purely a fluff thing then. Really, warriors are pretty great basic infantry--pretty much as good or better than almost every other faction's basic troop except marines and custodes.
I think a lot of folks are just going to have to accept the (not even recent) change or quit playing and move on :/
I would love Tau to be more than just ranged shooting but I don't get all angry about it. I would love if Inquisition acolytes weren't just overpriced 10 point guardsmen but I'm not throwing a fit. My repulsor straight up blows goats right now but I'm fine because I like the model. I can't take the relic Iron Hands axe on any Primaris characters so I'm converting a captain instead of using an ugly squat Marine.
There's just so much anger over stuff that's so. . . minor. Like, warriors are actually REALLY GOOD right now. Save the righteous indignation for units that actually suck, lol.
There could easily be "Bound Necron Warriors" and "Unbound Necron Warriors".
From the presentation of it, it didn't sound like they were until the Dynasty's rules came in to affect, and those affects would provide considerable stat changes before any Special Rules were coming in to play. Again, this wasn't coming across as the difference between Ultramarines and White Scar, but Scout and Intercessor, as if you took Space Wolves your Scouts suddenly statted like Intercessors, and your Intercessors were Custodes, just because you were Space Wolves.
It's possible I misread it, but considering I kept presenting the case against such and I was not corrected on it, and in fact it kept being doubled down on, it makes it hard not to keep considering it in that vein.
Even though I hate to suggest it, what if there was a stratagem, can only be used if your Warlord is a C'tan, and it will change Warriors, akin to the Ork strats or something, this it totally off the top of my head.lll
Quasistellar wrote: Meh. Purely a fluff thing then. Really, warriors are pretty great basic infantry--pretty much as good or better than almost every other faction's basic troop except marines and custodes.
I think a lot of folks are just going to have to accept the (not even recent) change or quit playing and move on :/
I would love Tau to be more than just ranged shooting but I don't get all angry about it. I would love if Inquisition acolytes weren't just overpriced 10 point guardsmen but I'm not throwing a fit. My repulsor straight up blows goats right now but I'm fine because I like the model. I can't take the relic Iron Hands axe on any Primaris characters so I'm converting a captain instead of using an ugly squat Marine.
There's just so much anger over stuff that's so. . . minor. Like, warriors are actually REALLY GOOD right now. Save the righteous indignation for units that actually suck, lol.
Hmmm. . . Would you sing the same tune if Marines were 10 points per model and lost out to Eldar Guardians, model-to-model, but they were still a "REALLY GOOD" unit on the tabletop because they were so cheap?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blndmage wrote: Even though I hate to suggest it, what if there was a stratagem, can only be used if your Warlord is a C'tan, and it will change Warriors, akin to the Ork strats or something, this it totally off the top of my head.lll
I was looking at that too, thats how Orks get Skarboyz who are S5.
Quasistellar wrote: Meh. Purely a fluff thing then. Really, warriors are pretty great basic infantry--pretty much as good or better than almost every other faction's basic troop except marines and custodes.
I think a lot of folks are just going to have to accept the (not even recent) change or quit playing and move on :/
I would love Tau to be more than just ranged shooting but I don't get all angry about it. I would love if Inquisition acolytes weren't just overpriced 10 point guardsmen but I'm not throwing a fit. My repulsor straight up blows goats right now but I'm fine because I like the model. I can't take the relic Iron Hands axe on any Primaris characters so I'm converting a captain instead of using an ugly squat Marine.
There's just so much anger over stuff that's so. . . minor. Like, warriors are actually REALLY GOOD right now. Save the righteous indignation for units that actually suck, lol.
Hmmm. . . Would you sing the same tune if Marines were 10 points per model and lost out to Eldar Guardians, model-to-model, but they were still a "REALLY GOOD" unit on the tabletop because they were so cheap?
Um, no, but necrons aren't 10ppm, and don't lose to guardians model to model. Remember: I LIKE necrons. I own necrons. I like the way they are now more than the way you guys describe that they used to be. That old fluff sounds like a dead end in regards to model support.
Quasistellar wrote: Meh. Purely a fluff thing then. Really, warriors are pretty great basic infantry--pretty much as good or better than almost every other faction's basic troop except marines and custodes.
I think a lot of folks are just going to have to accept the (not even recent) change or quit playing and move on :/
I would love Tau to be more than just ranged shooting but I don't get all angry about it. I would love if Inquisition acolytes weren't just overpriced 10 point guardsmen but I'm not throwing a fit. My repulsor straight up blows goats right now but I'm fine because I like the model. I can't take the relic Iron Hands axe on any Primaris characters so I'm converting a captain instead of using an ugly squat Marine.
There's just so much anger over stuff that's so. . . minor. Like, warriors are actually REALLY GOOD right now. Save the righteous indignation for units that actually suck, lol.
Hmmm. . . Would you sing the same tune if Marines were 10 points per model and lost out to Eldar Guardians, model-to-model, but they were still a "REALLY GOOD" unit on the tabletop because they were so cheap?
Um, no, . . .
Suspiscions confirmed then?
So how about this, what did you think of firstborn at 1W?
Quasistellar wrote: Meh. Purely a fluff thing then. Really, warriors are pretty great basic infantry--pretty much as good or better than almost every other faction's basic troop except marines and custodes.
I think a lot of folks are just going to have to accept the (not even recent) change or quit playing and move on :/
I would love Tau to be more than just ranged shooting but I don't get all angry about it. I would love if Inquisition acolytes weren't just overpriced 10 point guardsmen but I'm not throwing a fit. My repulsor straight up blows goats right now but I'm fine because I like the model. I can't take the relic Iron Hands axe on any Primaris characters so I'm converting a captain instead of using an ugly squat Marine.
There's just so much anger over stuff that's so. . . minor. Like, warriors are actually REALLY GOOD right now. Save the righteous indignation for units that actually suck, lol.
Hmmm. . . Would you sing the same tune if Marines were 10 points per model and lost out to Eldar Guardians, model-to-model, but they were still a "REALLY GOOD" unit on the tabletop because they were so cheap?
Um, no, . . .
Suspiscions confirmed then?
So how about this, what did you think of firstborn at 1W?
They could have been fine, but they stunk for their points. I never liked old mini marines though because the standard mkvii armor models are pretty poopy looking.
Can you point me to some fluff from let's say after 2010
that indicates a standard necrons warrior should be better than a tactical Marine? I'm being serious here. I genuinely want to know if they are being grossly misrepresented on the tabletop.
I really don't get hung up on exactly where different units are statted compared to other armies, as long as they're kinda close to what I envision from reading fluff.
You mean since the great turnaround, where the IoM went from a decaying "Rome" of space, beset on all sides by superior foes, to the Tech-genius superpower?
In theory, the IoM is still behind Necrons and Eldar in tech. But the rules don't show it.
In the fluff, Necron living metal is much more advanced, and should be much more durable than, the Black Carapace or the Power Armor.
The Necron general-purpose firearm should be much more advanced than the Marine general-purpose firearm. And, as it's produced as a weapon-of-the-line, it should therefore be more powerful (note: the Shuriken should be more advanced, but powerful is questionable - it's not the same class of weapon).
There was a time where this was visible in the tech. Skimmers were readily available to the most advanced factions (Necrons, Eldar). The only other faction with a lot of them was tech-acendant and likely supported by the Eldar (Tau). The Imperium had few skimmers. It wasn't a tech they could reliably and easily produce. But now, Primaris.
Same goes for Plasma weaponry. IoM could produce Plasma weaponry, but not as well as Eldar/Tau. So it was unstable (and stronger, too). That's been retconned, and now IoM Plasma is the same as Xenos plasma, except where it's better (safe to fire at the same strength, but can overcharge to stronger).
Further, pre-Primaris, each faction's vehicles really sang to their culture and strengths.
Necron's were the most advanced but artless. Their vehicles were durable workhorses.
T'au's, the tech-ascendant race, were entry-level "tanks with skimming".
Dark Eldar's, the race of excess and usually speed, were super fast, exceptional, but frail.
Craftworlders were advanced, fit-for-purpose. Not as advanced as Necrons, not as fast as Dark Eldar's. As the only advanced race that cared about their grunts, the Wave Serpent was the only vehicle in the game with a 5+ crash raiting. Their transports were built to protect their people, and their gunboats were bulit to deliver specific guns.
Marine vehicles were mostly Metal Bawkses. Designed for getting Marine armor into place - the Marines themselves. They had heavier vehicles (Land Raiders) for when the need arises, as Marines usually have the tools to get things done. But they were tracked vehicles.
The Necrons should have the best workhorses. The Marines should have the best Metal Bawkses. The Dark Eldar should have the fastest. The Orks should have the most expendable. Should.
But Wave Serpents. No end of the complains. So Marines must have the same. So Repulsor. Basically a Wave Serpent, but better.
Since Primaris, the rule of design has been "Marines do it better". Better Dakka. Better specialization. Better durability. Better everything. Gone are the days when Marines had threats in the galaxy that could measure up to them. The game is designed to be Bolter Porn now. So fluff will be ignored until it's rewritten. Those super-advanced unkillable robot aliens are now just "slightly better guardsmen". Those advanced unknowable alien specialists are just Marine-wannabes. Those eldrich unmatchable horrors are just target practice for Marines. Because Marines.
The title of the thread starts with 'thematically'. What else was anyone talking about? If you're invested in lore that paints your army as individually powerful, it's disappointing to see them reduced to hordes that can't compete with the poster boys anymore and need overwhelming numbers to win.
Same for Tyranid players and our Genestealers.
Same for Sisters players and their formerly almost-a-Marine troops.
Same for Eldar players and their Aspect Warriors.
YMMV on how much it actually matters because, yes, it is a fluff thing. If you can understand why Marine players enjoyed their troops being buffed to better match the fluff, you should understand why players of other armies mind their troops no longer being able to stand up to Marines, despite their fluff.
If you can understand why Marine players enjoyed their troops being buffed to better match the fluff
I actually find this aspect weird, because the fluff _doesn't_ support 'Marine faceroll everything.' Marines are necessary because the setting is so bloody dangerous, and even then they aren't enough- they just help slow the Imperium's gradual, grinding loss to attrition.
The switch from 'overwhelming odds to trivial victory' should feel hollow, not good.
Orkz are the "Dakka" faction...you know, since Dakka is LITERALLY an ork word.
It was a running joke for decades that ork players would bring buckets of dice because of how many shots they got, An example, A pair of SM used to get 2 shot at 24' and 4 shots at 12, but only if they didn't move, if they moved they got 2 shot at 12. 5 Orkz for the same price on the other hand got 10 at 18.
Now that math is a bit flipped, those Marines get 4 shots at 24 and 4 at 12 for 36pts (6pt increase since 4th edition, and free grenades now(2-4pt saved)) while the 5 orkz get 10 shots still but now cost 40pts (10pt increase since 4th edition)
Of course, that doesn't even include ridiculous things like Aggressors (even after their "nerf") which put out 12 shots per model against "hordes" for 45pts. One of them is actually out gunning a similar points value of Orkz. And ALL of this is with the fact that orkz hit on 5s and Marines hit on 3s.
Orkz also used to be known for the sheer ridiculous number of close combat attacks they got in CC, in 4th a Boy on the charge had 2 attacks base, +1 for 2CCWs, +1 for charging for a grand total of 4. Now they get 2 attacks base +1 for CCW for a grand total of 3, if you purchase 20+ boyz for a squad they get +1 attacks but only when they have 20 or more models.
So our basic guys were hitting with 4 attacks are now hitting with 3. Not to mention the recent changes to CC which means that you will likely NEVER get a full boyz squad into CC thanks to the new combat range rules.
If you can understand why Marine players enjoyed their troops being buffed to better match the fluff
I actually find this aspect weird, because the fluff _doesn't_ support 'Marine faceroll everything.' Marines are necessary because the setting is so bloody dangerous, and even then they aren't enough- they just help slow the Imperium's gradual, grinding loss to attrition.
The switch from 'overwhelming odds to trivial victory' should feel hollow, not good.
Remember the fluff when Space Marines would get torn to shreds by Genestealers. Hows that fluff holding up in the game?
The title of the thread starts with 'thematically'. What else was anyone talking about? If you're invested in lore that paints your army as individually powerful, it's disappointing to see them reduced to hordes that can't compete with the poster boys anymore and need overwhelming numbers to win.
Same for Tyranid players and our Genestealers.
Same for Sisters players and their formerly almost-a-Marine troops.
Same for Eldar players and their Aspect Warriors.
YMMV on how much it actually matters because, yes, it is a fluff thing. If you can understand why Marine players enjoyed their troops being buffed to better match the fluff, you should understand why players of other armies mind their troops no longer being able to stand up to Marines, despite their fluff.
Everyone keeps saying all this stuff as if I'm all about my space marines. . . nevermind I also have Necrons. Based on any recent "theme" I can find or read about necrons, then warriors should, indeed, be a little "less impressive" than basic astartes. Yes, I understand that there's probably 30x the fluff support for space marines. If you want to change that, then start writing novels and apply to be a black library writer.
It's just weird that this is coming up *now*. As I understand it, this change was like over a decade ago, and now that after quite some time of warriors being not very good, they're finally good, but certain people are upset because suddenly marines were buffed from also being terrible to actually good.
I mean, are people still upset and making threads about space marines not being convicts anymore? At some point you just have to move on. Iron Hands have recent novel fluff that makes them seem as tough as Death Guard, and have robot/cyborg dual assault cannon wielding terminators, but that's definitely not reflected in the rules. I'm not upset about it because I understand it's a tabletop game with limited design space.
Quasistellar wrote: Everyone keeps saying all this stuff as if I'm all about my space marines. . . nevermind I also have Necrons.
My dude, I had no idea what you play. Read my post; I talk about Marines assuming you don't play them. I'm responding to your arguments, not your faction.
And you're right, basic Necrons becoming less powerful than Marines isn't a recent thing. But it's only recently that there's been a big shift to exacerbate it and further reinforce Necron Warriors as cannon fodder next to Marines. What might have been a minor grumble for the grognards is now a big ol' point of contention.
Part of the dissatisfaction could be expressed as 'My super-advanced Necron Warriors are barely any tougher than Guardsmen in carapace armor', but it isn't because Guardsmen are not the metric by which everything in this setting is judged, it's Marines. The other part is 'if Marines can have a buff to better represent their fluff, why can't I?'. It's not that Marines became good in gameplay terms that's intrinsically the issue, it's the idea that one faction gets to be as individually powerful and scary as their fluff suggests, while others don't.
Voss wrote: I actually find this aspect weird, because the fluff _doesn't_ support 'Marine faceroll everything.' Marines are necessary because the setting is so bloody dangerous, and even then they aren't enough- they just help slow the Imperium's gradual, grinding loss to attrition.
I agree completely and wholeheartedly, but evidently the Marines-win-everything fiction is popular enough that the #1 reason I've heard for why Marines going to W2 is good is 'because it fits their fluff better'.
Fluff wise, Necron Warriors used to be Necrontyr civilians who had their souls, personality and bodies stripped from them. That is as close as the definition of chaff as you can get, they are basically more technologically advanced conscripts.
Tyran wrote: Fluff wise, Necron Warriors used to be Necrontyr civilians who had their souls, personality and bodies stripped from them. That is as close as the definition of chaff as you can get, they are basically more technologically advanced conscripts.
That's like saying a conscripted Guardsman driving a LRBT is chaff.
Tyran wrote: Fluff wise, Necron Warriors used to be Necrontyr civilians who had their souls, personality and bodies stripped from them. That is as close as the definition of chaff as you can get, they are basically more technologically advanced conscripts.
That's like saying a conscripted Guardsman driving a LRBT is chaff.
Not quite for two reason, we never see a Conscript LRBT, and we're talking about a completely different culture and starting standard. Necron Conscripts are to start at the same rough tier as Tactical Marines, and the rest of the army progresses from there.
Tyran wrote: Fluff wise, Necron Warriors used to be Necrontyr civilians who had their souls, personality and bodies stripped from them. That is as close as the definition of chaff as you can get, they are basically more technologically advanced conscripts.
Depending on how good that technology is, they could out fight Custodes. The argument is basically irrelevant.
Tyran wrote: Fluff wise, Necron Warriors used to be Necrontyr civilians who had their souls, personality and bodies stripped from them. That is as close as the definition of chaff as you can get, they are basically more technologically advanced conscripts.
That's like saying a conscripted Guardsman driving a LRBT is chaff.
Well, there is the issue that a tank requires a crew of multiple members, at least 4 (tank commander, gunner, driver and loader), and with all the extra guns a LRBT can have, up to 7.
And the tank commander is usually a veteran officer, because they don't let any idiot commander a tank.
Tyran wrote: Fluff wise, Necron Warriors used to be Necrontyr civilians who had their souls, personality and bodies stripped from them. That is as close as the definition of chaff as you can get, they are basically more technologically advanced conscripts.
Depending on how good that technology is, they could out fight Custodes. The argument is basically irrelevant.
Imperial Guard conscripts can outfight primitives who have yet to discover fire, but their status as chaff is defined for the role they play in relation to the rest of the Imperial Guard.
Necron Warriors are chaff because that is the role they fulfill in the Necron military.
Fluff wise, Necron Warriors used to be Necrontyr civilians who had their souls, personality and bodies stripped from them. That is as close as the definition of chaff as you can get, they are basically more technologically advanced conscripts.
Depending on how good that technology is, they could out fight Custodes. The argument is basically irrelevant.
Imperial Guard conscripts can outfight primitives who have yet to discover fire, but their status as chaff is defined for the role they play in relation to the rest of the Imperial Guard.
Necron Warriors are chaff because that is the role they fulfill in the Necron military.
Understood, but that doesn't mean they have to be worse than Marines on the tabletop.
They don't have to, but the way GW has built the faction does require that (e.g. the fact that Necron Warriors can be deployed in large units of 20 models).
Moreover, there is no fluff that says that Necron Warriors have to be better than Marines, and most of the relatively recent fluff suggest the opposite, after all Marines are deployed in ridiculous low numbers, and yet are supposed to be able to fight Necrons.
But warriors are actually better on the tabletop than both tacticals and intercessors?
They fell more hordey because they are a HORDE. They are a silver tide. And Space Marines are like the second most elite army of the game after Custodes. (EDIT: I forgot Imperial Knights but those dont count for obvious reasons)
Really, this obsesion with "muh marines" feels just... childlish at this point.
The "horde" troop of the necrons is probably one of the most expensive and better troops (Speaking about quality and how they play on the table) of the game outside Tyranid Warriors, Custodes and Marines loyalist and chaotic.
Sisters of Battle, Orks, Adeptus Mechanicus, Imperial Guard, Tau, Cratworld Eldar, Harlequins, Dark Eldar all use cheaper and weaker troops (Kataprons and harlequines with full equip are more expensive but...) and have many "elite" units that are "weaker" than necron warriors.
Necrons are the space marines of the xenos. At this point, thematically, the only units that can feel wrong are the "elite" units of the necrons that compared with marine units don't seem as imposing, specially compared with primaris.
But compare something like a Lychguard with a Sanguinary Guard, the most elite unit of the blood angels. And it does not feel weaker. It isnt just by pure stats.
Tyran wrote: They don't have to, but the way GW has built the faction does require that (e.g. the fact that Necron Warriors can be deployed in large units of 20 models).
Fyi, CSM can be deployed in 20-man units. Warriors were also fieldable in 20 man units back when they cost more than Space Marines. Being able to take a big unit of something does not mean it has to be not-elite.
Tyran wrote: They don't have to, but the way GW has built the faction does require that (e.g. the fact that Necron Warriors can be deployed in large units of 20 models).
Fyi, CSM can be deployed in 20-man units. Warriors were also fieldable in 20 man units back when they cost more than Space Marines. Being able to take a big unit of something does not mean it has to be not-elite.
Plague Marines used to be fieldable in 20-man units. Used to be. I see some writing on the wall for CSM squads.
They fell more hordey because they are a HORDE. They are a silver tide. And Space Marines are like the second most elite army of the game . . .
Here's the thing, man. At one point that just wasn't the case. Tyranids could field an elite army with Warriors and Genestealers, Eldar could field an elite army with Aspect Warriors, and Necrons could field an elite army with Warriors, and Chaos could field an elite army with lesser daemons. At one point, ALL of those things were pointed closer to, and more capable at fighting, Marines on an individual level.
Really, this obsesion with "muh marines" feels just... childlish at this point.
To those of us who've been in the game for a while, it's the continued obsession and improvement of marines that seems childish. It's "Speeesh Marheeeens" codified and made manifest.
Tyran wrote: They don't have to, but the way GW has built the faction does require that (e.g. the fact that Necron Warriors can be deployed in large units of 20 models).
Fyi, CSM can be deployed in 20-man units. Warriors were also fieldable in 20 man units back when they cost more than Space Marines. Being able to take a big unit of something does not mean it has to be not-elite.
Plague Marines used to be fieldable in 20-man units. Used to be. I see some writing on the wall for CSM squads.
They fell more hordey because they are a HORDE. They are a silver tide. And Space Marines are like the second most elite army of the game . . .
Technically speaking Space Marines are not an army, they are an elite part of an army. That they have their own codex doesn't make them an army, in terms of lore/fluff. This is one of the things that throws Space Marines off in terms of gameplay. Every other species has their heaviest Elites outside of Troops, while the Imperium of Man gets to cheat at the game by not only putting Elites in to Troops, but propagating their resources beyond any other codex, and boosting them to boot without even considering how that affects the game's other forces, some of whom have been standing toe-to-toe with them for decades.
Really, this obsesion with "muh marines" feels just... childlish at this point.
To those of us who've been in the game for a while, it's the continued obsession and improvement of marines that seems childish. It's "Speeesh Marheeeens" codified and made manifest.
Tyran wrote: Imperial Guard conscripts can outfight primitives who have yet to discover fire
'Primitives who have yet to discover fire should be able to beat lasgun-equipped conscripts one-on-one, because those conscripts are the chaff of the Guard army'.
That's what the argument that Warriors are chaff boils down to.
The fact that Necron Warriors are chaff within the context of their own army says nothing about how they should stack up against other factions. Marines are just especially burly cavemen compared to them.
Tyran wrote: And that's why we have plenty of novels of Space Marines vs Necrons so we can have an idea of how they usually fare against each other.
Most of the novels are s*** in that regard. Not too many months ago someone was arguing that Marines could WALK 60mph or some such because of some passage they read in one of the novels. I'd put the novels at "quite unreliable" for source.
Tyran wrote: And that's why we have plenty of novels of Space Marines vs Necrons so we can have an idea of how they usually fare against each other.
BL's novels are notoriously unreliable when it comes to depictions of their subjects. Looking to them for solid answers regarding such questions as this thread asks is, at best, misguided. As often as not you'll quote one passage of one book only to be contradicted by another passage from a different book (or possibly even a different passage in the same book where drama or the author's wishes demanded a different answer).
So novels are unreliable, and so are the rules...
to be honest it seems you are just disregarding anything that might contradict you, and then you get angry when others disregard you in turn.
Tyran wrote: So novels are unreliable, and so are the rules...
to be honest it seems you are just disregarding anything that might contradict you, and then you get angry when others disregard you in turn.
Tyran wrote: So novels are unreliable, and so are the rules...
to be honest it seems you are just disregarding anything that might contradict you, and then you get angry when others disregard you in turn.
What am I disregarding, exactly? The Black Library fluff that's generally the story told about extreme cases for dramatic effect and the puffery of narrative focus? (Marines)
Arguably the rules are a better yardstick for who is better than who, since the rules are built around a supposedly neutral starting point.
But it's still rather beside the point. . . The point is that Necron Warriors (and many other units) have seen a degradation in comparison to Marines over the years.
Tyran wrote: So novels are unreliable, and so are the rules...
to be honest it seems you are just disregarding anything that might contradict you, and then you get angry when others disregard you in turn.
The fluff (novels and game fluff) and rules are both wildly schizophrenic. Power levels depend entirely on whose viewpoint the fluff/novel is being written from, or on what edition of the rules you're picking on as your standard. You can find evidence that a squad of Space Marines should be able to curbstomp whole armies, or that the Necrons should roll over any amount of Space Marines matched against them, or anything else, depending on whose Codex you're reading a fluff blurb from.
Technically speaking Space Marines are not an army, they are an elite part of an army. That they have their own codex doesn't make them an army, in terms of lore/fluff.
No. They are shown to operate as a force unto themselves without help from the greater Imperium quite frequently. Some Astartes chapters don't interact with the Imperium much. They're as much their own army as, say, Craftworld Elder are. Sure, sometimes Craftworld Eldar work with Harlequins, but they do their own thing a lot of the time.
I admit I was not there when necrons were first introduced.
My first exposure to necrons was Dawn of War 1 with Dark Crusade and ... in that cinematic marines are killing necron warriors like they are nothing?
Spoiler:
Of course then they get back up, are much superior in numbers, and THEN the "good stuff" of the necrons show up.
We all know marines with two wounds created a "stat gap" in the game for basicall everybody from aspect warriors to custodes that now have the same wounds as normal terminators or primaris veterans.
But is not like necron warriors are specially an egregious example compared with marines and other factions. The biggest tone change in necron warrior power level was the change from 3rd to 5th. From there on they have been consistently displayed as... pretty hard robo-skeletons that refuse to die with a good gun. And not only agaisnt marines, but the orks, the eldar and the Tau too!
I cannot remember any Necron fluff in the past 10+ years were warriors were portrayed as any kind of unstopable force individually. And I'll repeat, not talking necron vs marine but necron vs anything fluff here.
If you prefer the old fluff thats fine but... times change. And they have changed more than a decade ago.
The point of this thread was to discuss whether the change that has happened over the last 10 years is good or bad for the game thematically. So...we know the game has changed. That's what spurred the thread. To discuss whether we think it is a good or bad change thematically.
A lot of people seem to think the game being reduced to a power fantasy for Marine players makes it less interesting, and that's really all anyone is saying.
But there are a (probably) larger number of people who are happy with the marine power fantasy and prefer it to the older background where things were more desperate for humanity. I guess it depends if you prefer power fantasy super hero storytelling to the more dystopian British comic inpspired storytelling of the earlier game.
I actually feel the worst change for the game has not been the rules (Marines being marines and not dying like schumcks to a imperial guard infantry squad firing 37 shots at 12 feels great) but the deliberated portrayal of the Imperium as not only the protagonist but also as the good guys.
I know, they can't marketing their universe to the great audience with the dark stuff the Imperium does, and I know in more secondary outlets (like necromunda narrative, books, etc...) the Imperium is still presented as this horrible dystopia.
But more and more the Space Marines are shiny knights in armor saving the day for the poor innocent human soldiers and civilians.
I say both of those analysis are wrong. There is no Space Marine Power Fantasy going on here. There is a rebalancing to make the game more closely resemble the background along with some revision of that background. Space Marines have long been supposed to be powerful compared to most opponents. They have long been supposed to be able to fight and win against overwhelming odds. There was a reason GW made that tongue-in-cheek Movie Marine list so many years ago. It because the Space Marine model has long failed to live up to the Space Marine background. Now it is much closer without every Space Marine having the stats of a Custodes or Captain.
There has been weakening of some of the competition like lesser daemens, Necron Warriors, and the like over the years. This allows them to be fielded on the table in a manner GW wants visually without overwhelming they opposition. It also brings them more inline with the background and fiction, where those forces don't roll everyone with a combination of both numbers and individual strength. I suppose GW could go back to the days of Phase Out where the baddies have strong models at favorable points value that spontaneously lose the game if the opponent succeeds in some special circumstance. I don't recall that being a popular option.
What you described is exactly the Marine power fantasy. How can you say there is no Marine power fantasy and then immediately talk about rules being changed to match the fantasy that Marines are super powerful?
The background is a fantastical construct that has slowly twisted to become a Marine power fantasy. This was accelerated by the Horus Heresy series.
This has not always been the state of the background, but it has gradually become the norm.
So it is a fantasy setting where most of the fiction (and now the rules of the game) are about the power of space marines.
A space marine power fantasy.
Like, you might not like that characterisation of the setting for whatever reason, it might make you feel negative emotions and so you want to reclassify it. But it is still true that the background you are talking about is a space marine power fantasy.
Marines being over-specced super soldiers is fine, but it should absolutely be tempered by the ferocity of some of the opposition. Sure, marines can bully moderate amounts of orks or whatever, but there are some things in the galaxy that they handle with care more than they do with gusto.
Necron warriors might be a lot less flexible but they're also much more able to win a war of attrition so slugging it out in an open firefight is inadvisable. Daemons are either brutal enough that even specialised close-range marines are walking on thin ice or just plain weird enough that you need discipline and caution to not get a nasty surprise.
Marines as baseline invincible aren't very interesting. Space marines as highly competent but specialised are. They don't just waltz into overwhelming firepower as a general tactic, they're just tough enough that they potentially can do it if there are absolutely no other reasonable alternatives. Situations that are certain death for regular humans are mostly poor chances for marines.
Da Boss wrote: The background is a fantastical construct that has slowly twisted to become a Marine power fantasy. This was accelerated by the Horus Heresy series.
This has not always been the state of the background, but it has gradually become the norm.
So it is a fantasy setting where most of the fiction (and now the rules of the game) are about the power of space marines.
A space marine power fantasy.
Like, you might not like that characterisation of the setting for whatever reason, it might make you feel negative emotions and so you want to reclassify it. But it is still true that the background you are talking about is a space marine power fantasy.
If you are so convinced everything GW is a space marine power fantasy, why are you here?
Space Marines are badasses. It is the background. The rules make them better than most individuals in most armies, just like the background. They aren't invincible and all available information indicates is that they will become progressively less overpowered as more and more Codexes are released.
See you didn't like what I said and now you're telling me to leave passive aggressively.
I don't mind the space marine power fantasy, because I don't have to take it seriously. I find it interesting to talk about.
The background used to be that Space Marines were less dangerous than a necron warrior or a bloodletter or whatever. The background has changed. We are discussing the merits of the change. The change is primarily to make the game more of a marine power fantasy. That's not a negative thing inherently, lots of cool things are power fantasies. We're just discussing it with reference to 40K in particular.
Da Boss wrote: The background is a fantastical construct that has slowly twisted to become a Marine power fantasy. This was accelerated by the Horus Heresy series.
This has not always been the state of the background, but it has gradually become the norm.
So it is a fantasy setting where most of the fiction (and now the rules of the game) are about the power of space marines.
A space marine power fantasy.
Like, you might not like that characterisation of the setting for whatever reason, it might make you feel negative emotions and so you want to reclassify it. But it is still true that the background you are talking about is a space marine power fantasy.
If you are so convinced everything GW is a space marine power fantasy, why are you here?
Space Marines are badasses. It is the background. The rules make them better than most individuals in most armies, just like the background. They aren't invincible and all available information indicates is that they will become progressively less overpowered as more and more Codexes are released.
Space Marines are badasses. . . But so were a lot of other things. They were badass enough to give a Space Marine a run for his money in a 1v1 on their terms. Now? Much less so.
Howling Banshees used to slice and dice Space Marines in cc like they were nothing, for example. Genestealers defeated Terminators in 1v1 combat. Dire Avengers used to stand a good chance of winning a firefight with equal numbers as Marines. Bloodletters outright murdered Marines. Immortals cost nearly twice as much as a Marine and had vastly superior firepower. Chaos Space Marines could pump their squads up with Marks, Veteran skills, bolters AND Chainswords on a normal CSM model. Fire Warriors used to have the strongest "basic rifle" in the game, with a better range than all competition.
alextroy wrote: There was a reason GW made that tongue-in-cheek Movie Marine list so many years ago. It because the Space Marine model has long failed to live up to the Space Marine background.
The Movie Marines list opens with a quote from Eddie Murphy saying, paraphrased, 'I'm not a tough guy, but if I fight you in a movie I'm starring in, I'll kick your ass'. You could buy stunt doubles to take wounds instead of your dudes, and it explicitly mentioned that even if your opponent has the same weapons as you, yours get superpowered statlines, because you're the star of the show.
That's not meant to be 'lore-accurate' Marines. It was a fun acknowledgment of the protagonist bias in Marine-centric BL works, and that the BL books- which are inherently power fantasies, like any good action film/novel- portray Marines as far stronger than the 'ground truth' established by the game. Every faction in the game gets that treatment in their own books, but it's only Marines that now get to live up to that power fantasy on the tabletop.
Arguing that it's not a power fantasy because they're supposed to be better than everyone else at everything all the time is, like, completely missing the point of what a power fantasy is.
But if GW rules portray marines as supersoldiers... BL books portray them as super soldiers... official fluff has been portraying them as super soldiers for 20+ years, movies, videos, marketing, videogames, portrays them as super soldiers...
Does it really matter that some guy at GW takes a jab at marines?
It comes as a little bit hypocrite. GW CREATED marines as they are, and they profited from them.
I'll see this "but thats just BL!" as if like those books werent written under a serious guidance from GW.
If we can't take seriously any form of GW product that puts marines as extremely elite guys that kick assess... theres literally no source from GW in the past 20 years that we can accept as... "canon".
What I want to say is: Theres no point in 40k history outside Rogue Trader were I can see the universe and not be bombarded with "MARINES ARE SO AWESOME!" the only dissonance in all this years was the tabletop.
alextroy wrote: We have about two dozen codexes to see what the new place for all these units, except the Necrons, will be.
But I do believe that Immortals have vastly superior firepower compared to an Intercessor even though they don't cost twice as much anymore.
The gulf in firepower was quite a bit larger. S5 AP-2 Assault 2 30" would be more in line with the original Immortals. We're talking double their current firepower at max range. Oh, and D2 since Marines were 1w back then.
Otherwise "Wait and see" is a pretty tired response.
"Wait and see" being tired doesn't make it incorrect
Nothing will be a perfect analogy to what was. GW has moved on from that. They are rebalancing towards what they want it to be. So far, that doesn't seem to be a horrible level of balance.
Unfortunately, it seems some of the big threats of yesterday have been demoted to threat of the week level
alextroy wrote: There was a reason GW made that tongue-in-cheek Movie Marine list so many years ago. It because the Space Marine model has long failed to live up to the Space Marine background.
The Movie Marines list opens with a quote from Eddie Murphy saying, paraphrased, 'I'm not a tough guy, but if I fight you in a movie I'm starring in, I'll kick your ass'. You could buy stunt doubles to take wounds instead of your dudes, and it explicitly mentioned that even if your opponent has the same weapons as you, yours get superpowered statlines, because you're the star of the show.
That's not meant to be 'lore-accurate' Marines. It was a fun acknowledgment of the protagonist bias in Marine-centric BL works, and that the BL books- which are inherently power fantasies, like any good action film/novel- portray Marines as far stronger than the 'ground truth' established by the game. Every faction in the game gets that treatment in their own books, but it's only Marines that now get to live up to that power fantasy on the tabletop.
Arguing that it's not a power fantasy because they're supposed to be better than everyone else at everything all the time is, like, completely missing the point of what a power fantasy is.
That rules was even specifically called "The Script Writers Hate Us", which is appropriate for the current conversation...
Galas wrote: I actually feel the worst change for the game has not been the rules (Marines being marines and not dying like schumcks to a imperial guard infantry squad firing 37 shots at 12 feels great) but the deliberated portrayal of the Imperium as not only the protagonist but also as the good guys.
I know, they can't marketing their universe to the great audience with the dark stuff the Imperium does, and I know in more secondary outlets (like necromunda narrative, books, etc...) the Imperium is still presented as this horrible dystopia.
But more and more the Space Marines are shiny knights in armor saving the day for the poor innocent human soldiers and civilians.
The problem is, the Imperium is still genocidal, hateful, and corrupt, but now that's portrayed as a good thing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
alextroy wrote: Simple. If the background has always said Space Marines are powerful, it's not a power fantasy. It is the World of Warhammer 40K.
Marines were historically depicted as being outclassed or matched by demons 1 to 1, to the point where the Grey Knights had to exist.
The rules used to reflect this, too. I remember when Bloodletters getting a charge on a unit of Terminators was real bad for the Terminators.
Galas wrote: If we can't take seriously any form of GW product that puts marines as extremely elite guys that kick assess... theres literally no source from GW in the past 20 years that we can accept as... "canon".
Straw man. Marines as extremely elite has always been the case, even on the tabletop. Their basic troops could go one-on-one with the elites of other factions even when they were W1. They were considerably better than the Guard's Navy SEAL equivalents. They were extremely elite guys that kick ass... up against a galaxy full of horrific monsters and alien civilizations that could give them a run for their money.
Marines being so elite that their basic troops stomp the elites of other factions is a very new thing.
Galas wrote: What I want to say is: Theres no point in 40k history outside Rogue Trader were I can see the universe and not be bombarded with "MARINES ARE SO AWESOME!" the only dissonance in all this years was the tabletop.
And any of the videogames where you could go up against Marines. And any of the books where Marines weren't the protagonists. Gaunt's Ghosts shoot them dead. Fire Warriors put holes through them. A whole company of Lamenters gets eaten by 'Nids in thirty minutes. Eisenhorn kills two, one before he can even react.
In other words, it's always when Marines are the POV characters that they're given the superpowers- and only now is that extended to the tabletop, which is expected to be reasonably objective rather than a power fantasy for any particular faction.
alextroy wrote:We have about two dozen codexes to see what the new place for all these units, except the Necrons, will be.
The thing is that we have the most technologically advanced army in the game released at the same time and what changes they had were minimal in relation to changes that happened with Astartes.
Honestly, I doubt we'll see much in the way of change up for anything that doesn't say "Marines" and "Astartes", with Chaos Marines will only be having their stats adjusted and still being behind in Special Rules (gotta still pay off that 3.5 codex, right? /s)
alextroy wrote:Nothing will be a perfect analogy to what was. GW has moved on from that. They are rebalancing towards what they want it to be. So far, that doesn't seem to be a horrible level of balance.
Unfortunately, it seems some of the big threats of yesterday have been demoted to threat of the week level
Actually it is coming across as a horrible rebalance as Necrons were left behind in the upgrade.
Galas wrote: If we can't take seriously any form of GW product that puts marines as extremely elite guys that kick assess... theres literally no source from GW in the past 20 years that we can accept as... "canon".
Straw man. Marines as extremely elite has always been the case, even on the tabletop. Their basic troops could go one-on-one with the elites of other factions even when they were W1. They were considerably better than the Guard's Navy SEAL equivalents. They were extremely elite guys that kick ass... up against a galaxy full of horrific monsters and alien civilizations that could give them a run for their money.
Marines being so elite that their basic troops stomp the elites of other factions is a very new thing.
.
But this is untrue. As I said, Inmortals beat point per point Intercessors on a firefight without a sweat, and necron warriors can put a fight agaisnt tacticals. Necron Lychguard or Destroyers don't have a problem facing Marine elite units, and we have things like the new incubi eating primaris for breakfast.
Marines stomp elites of other factions... thats true. Genestealers, Aspect Warriors, etc... but those are mediocre or bad units from old codexes.
I know at the end of the day this is all about the wounds. And I know. It feels wrong. But we should accept the new GW paradigm of wounds in models just representing another form of durability. Just like in Age of Sigmar you have units with 1 wound being more resilient and elite than many 2 wound units like Phoenix Guard vs Tzaangors, etc...
Galas wrote: If we can't take seriously any form of GW product that puts marines as extremely elite guys that kick assess... theres literally no source from GW in the past 20 years that we can accept as... "canon".
Straw man. Marines as extremely elite has always been the case, even on the tabletop. Their basic troops could go one-on-one with the elites of other factions even when they were W1. They were considerably better than the Guard's Navy SEAL equivalents. They were extremely elite guys that kick ass... up against a galaxy full of horrific monsters and alien civilizations that could give them a run for their money.
Marines being so elite that their basic troops stomp the elites of other factions is a very new thing.
.
But this is untrue. As I said, Inmortals beat point per point Intercessors on a firefight without a sweat, and necron warriors can put a fight agaisnt tacticals. Necron Lychguard or Destroyers don't have a problem facing Marine elite units, and we have things like the new incubi eating primaris for breakfast.
Marines stomp elites of other factions... thats true. Genestealers, Aspect Warriors, etc... but those are mediocre or bad units from old codexes.
That's missing... pretty much all the context.
Genestealers were amazing marine killers on day 1. And that lasted for quite a while, before being summarily neutered to the version we see today.
They had two wounds, two attacks, WS 6 and S5 in Rogue Trader, when that was a big deal and not usual. After that, they went UP to WS7, S6 and doubled their attacks to 4, and Initiative went from 5 to 7, so they were striking before space marine characters. They had innate armor save modifiers and even inflicted hit penalties on units they charged.
Aspect warriors didn't have amazing statlines, but their gear was a huge deal. Banshee masks didn't allow attacks back _at all_ unless the charged unit rolled a 6 on d6. Power swords weren't dependent on the user's stats for killing power. Mandiblasters were a simple toughness test or take a wound (on a roll equal to or greater than the targets T). Exarchs were basically character models, not mere sergeants.
Marines currently stomp the neutered versions of _great_ units. And unsurprisingly that feels bad. Its also crap game design to have a 'better' faction against factions still operating under the limitations of the 'quicker and cleaner' rules revisions from more than 20 years ago. It shouldn't even feel good to marine players, unless they also like kicking puppies.
I know at the end of the day this is all about the wounds. And I know. It feels wrong. But we should accept the new GW paradigm of wounds in models just representing another form of durability. Just like in Age of Sigmar you have units with 1 wound being more resilient and elite than many 2 wound units like Phoenix Guard vs Tzaangors, etc...
Only partly, largely because they spend quite a while taking multiple wounds away from just about everything (with exceptions like tyranid warriors), and have now granted them back to only marines (who didn't even have them, outside of characters!)
And that doesn't even touch all the other things they've taken away over the years. It wasn't so bad when everyone got stuff taken away for a faster ruleset in third edition, but now that its getting added back in, and marines are getting extra special bonuses on top, the whole thing crumbles.
Galas wrote: If we can't take seriously any form of GW product that puts marines as extremely elite guys that kick assess... theres literally no source from GW in the past 20 years that we can accept as... "canon".
Straw man. Marines as extremely elite has always been the case, even on the tabletop. Their basic troops could go one-on-one with the elites of other factions even when they were W1. They were considerably better than the Guard's Navy SEAL equivalents. They were extremely elite guys that kick ass... up against a galaxy full of horrific monsters and alien civilizations that could give them a run for their money.
Marines being so elite that their basic troops stomp the elites of other factions is a very new thing.
.
But this is untrue. As I said, Inmortals beat point per point Intercessors on a firefight without a sweat, and necron warriors can put a fight agaisnt tacticals.
You are not following the conversation then. This is not about point for point.
I know at the end of the day this is all about the wounds. And I know. It feels wrong. But we should accept the new GW paradigm of wounds in models just representing another form of durability. Just like in Age of Sigmar you have units with 1 wound being more resilient and elite than many 2 wound units like Phoenix Guard vs Tzaangors, etc...
ok. . . It's all about the wounds.
So far Marines have gotten a lot more wounds. Necrons. . . Who are historically of similar toughness, have gotten fewer wound upgrades.
I want to say that I'm not disagreeng with people that want elite units of other factions to feel elite.
I have proposed or at least expresed that I would like for things like ork boyz with 2 wounds, nobz with 3, 2 wound genestealers with more rend, etc...
I was just disagreeing with the idea that what necrons need is more powerfull necron warriors. Necron warriors are fine as is. If you want to make necrons more elite in the feel, make inmortals, lychguard, etc... even more powerfull.
I also feel that for example marines have a ton of their "I'm too powerfull" feel given right now not by stats but by special rules. Remove bolter discipline, make Shock Assault only give +1 attack if you have charged or heroically intervene, and remove the extra AP of Doctrines (Because they are probably the most boring and worst from a design standpoint of the "pure army" bonuses), and without a single change in stats, both tacticals with 1 attack if charged and AP0 bolters and intercessors feel much more reasonable compared with the stuff they are being compared agaisnt.
Insectum7 wrote: So far Marines have gotten a lot more wounds. Necrons. . . Who are historically of similar toughness, have gotten fewer wound upgrades.
And ironically, Necrons having more wounds makes their resurrection protocols less effective...
Insectum7 wrote: So far Marines have gotten a lot more wounds. Necrons. . . Who are historically of similar toughness, have gotten fewer wound upgrades.
And ironically, Necrons having more wounds makes their resurrection protocols less effective...
Not really when most have Living Metal which restores Wounds.
Insectum7 wrote: So far Marines have gotten a lot more wounds. Necrons. . . Who are historically of similar toughness, have gotten fewer wound upgrades.
And ironically, Necrons having more wounds makes their resurrection protocols less effective...
Not really when most have Living Metal which restores Wounds.
Living metal makes zero difference to models that fail RP rolls because they have multiple wounds.
LM is also hilariously ineffective for units because 9th edition wound allocation rules don't allow more than one model in a unit to end a phase with damage.
The entire package is all or nothing. Best case scenario is you'll get 1 wound back on a model you didn't lose... at the start of your turn. If you went second, you might gain a whole 5 wounds back over the course of the game. But a model lost or recovered by RP isn't going to get any benefit from Living Metal at all. They will quite likely be dead, or they'll be back at full wounds.
If Howling Banshees stayed, when the new Eldar Dex comes out, at their current profile... But went down to 6 points (so that, point for point, if they get a charge against Marines, they'll kill them in one round) I don't think anyone would say they're not a competitive unit. 6 PPM for a T3 3+ wound is damn good, even ignoring they're fast and damn killy at that point value.
But, I think just about any Eldar player and most other players would agree... Would that feel like a good representation of a Howling Banshee? Would that feel good? It'd be powerful, but its power is basically that it's really, really cheap. I don't think ANYONE would be happy about that-even the people who hate Eldar with a passion wouldn't be happy, because they'd have a really strong unit.
Insectum7 wrote: So far Marines have gotten a lot more wounds. Necrons. . . Who are historically of similar toughness, have gotten fewer wound upgrades.
And ironically, Necrons having more wounds makes their resurrection protocols less effective...
Not really when most have Living Metal which restores Wounds.
Living metal makes zero difference to models that fail RP rolls because they have multiple wounds.
LM is also hilariously ineffective for units because 9th edition wound allocation rules don't allow more than one model in a unit to end a phase with damage.
The entire package is all or nothing. Best case scenario is you'll get 1 wound back on a model you didn't lose... at the start of your turn. If you went second, you might gain a whole 5 wounds back over the course of the game. But a model lost or recovered by RP isn't going to get any benefit from Living Metal at all. They will quite likely be dead, or they'll be back at full wounds.
A lot can happen over the course of the game. RP works well with multiple Wounds, and if RP isn't engaged, they can be restored back to where they were. RP may be engaged for the model at one point, they get Wounded again, but not defeated, so Living Metal engages.
So I don't see how having more Wounds makes the RP that less effective (aside from having an odd number of successes). In most of those cases they are much harder to kill in the first place.
Tyran wrote: On the other hand, multiple wound models benefit more from Rites of Reanimation, because a Destroyer is more valuable than even 3 warriors.
Which is why it doesn't work on them: Core only.
The best you can do with Rites is Lychguard or Tomb Blades, or get lucky on the d3 for warriors.
